D&D General Poll: As a player, I am always justified in pursuing every advantage I find, no matter what.

[DND_Reborn]

That is: Does this mean you don't consider the social contract for such concerns? Because, as I said upthread, the reason I'm asking is that someone (with others agreeing or lamenting that their own players agree) essentially said that they would absolutely do something like this, even while knowing that the DM politely asked them not to and that the DM would be frustrated and upset if they chose to. That's not cheating, not by any means; ruining another player's fun is rarely cheating. But several people in the thread have said that's a red line they wouldn't cross, no matter what delicious goodies lie beyond it (which is the answer I expected most people to give.)

The DM has sole discretion as far as I am concerned in the game they run. If they feel an advantage (combo, synergy, etc.) is unbalanced or whatever and have excluded it from their game, I am happy to abide by that decision. IMO, the DM does not "ask", they "tell".

Now, if it comes up and after the fact they feel it is out-of-bounds, I will still abide by the decision and I do not consider it ruining my fun.

After all, if the DM decides such a thing does not exist in their game and house-rules it accordingly, I don't consider that a red line because at that point the advantage no longer exists.

But, if the advantages exist (and the DM hasn't chosen to remove them), I will pursue them as long as doing so is within my character's persona.

As an aside, "the bounds of what my character would do" is a rather weak limit, don't you think? You, the player, decide what your character would do. Perhaps taking whatever advantage this is is your character showing their change of heart--and even if it isn't, it's not like it's that hard to find excuses for a kindhearted character to be cruel, or a hothead to be calm, or whatever else.

Not at all! I PLAY my character and its concept according to how I believe it should be played!

If the PC will "do anything" then I play them that way, if the PC has limits, I play them that way.

You might not see the distinction the same way I do, however. My characters are like characters on the stage, they have a set of rules about them, and I keep within character as much as possible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The DM has sole discretion as far as I am concerned in the game they run. If they feel an advantage (combo, synergy, etc.) is unbalanced or whatever and have excluded it from their game, I am happy to abide by that decision. IMO, the DM does not "ask", they "tell".

Now, if it comes up and after the fact they feel it is out-of-bounds, I will still abide by the decision and I do not consider it ruining my fun.

After all, if the DM decides such a thing does not exist in their game and house-rules it accordingly, I don't consider that a red line because at that point the advantage no longer exists.

But, if the advantages exist (and the DM hasn't chosen to remove them), I will pursue them as long as doing so is within my character's persona.

Well, to be specific, this was motivated by someone saying they would ruthlessly exploit a game where the DM told players they wouldn't permanently and irrevocably kill their characters, but specifically asked players not to abuse that offer. Another poster followed that by saying they personally wouldn't do so, but their players not only could but would do so without a moment's hesitation, no matter what social contract might exist between the people at the table. I found the very idea shocking--that someone would intentionally exploit something despite the DM clearly and politely asking them not to--so I was curious how common this sentiment is.

Not at all! I PLAY my character and its concept according to how I believe it should be played!

If the PC will "do anything" then I play them that way, if the PC has limits, I play them that way.

You might not see the distinction the same way I do, however. My characters are like characters on the stage, they have a set of rules about them, and I keep within character as much as possible.

Okay. But your characters do undergo character growth, right? They aren't rigidly static, unchanging entities that never re-evaluate, never make split-second decisions that aren't what they would do if they'd had time to think more carefully, etc. That's why I'm saying this isn't much of a restriction. If the character is flexible enough to change and grow and think differently over time, then choosing different behavior compared to their usual is literally what you have to do in order to start a character's change of heart on something. By definition, if your characters can grow, they can change what they value and how they behave, they can grow new limits they didn't have before or lose limits they currently possess.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I found the very idea shocking--that someone would intentionally exploit something despite the DM clearly and politely asking them not to--so I was curious how common this sentiment is.

See, and as I said, in my games the DM does not need to "politely ask", they simple tell you how it is. Of course, a DM should be reasonable and discuss things, etc. but ultimately the DM has the final say. If there is something the DM doesn't want players to exploit, don't allow it.

But your characters do undergo character growth, right?

Honestly, it depends on how long I play them. But, such growth is always organic.

However, since most characters are not played for extended periods, they won't change much. I mean, personally, I know I haven't changed much in the past decades, so why would my characters?

IME people do not change often, and if they do it is often slowly. Radical change brought about because of story-reasons could happen, but then that is part of the story.

Finally, I am in the game for the adventure, not for my PC. Call it an old habit from AD&D, lol! One of the things that bothers me about games nowadays is that players see the game as more about their PCs, but for me it is always about the adventure--PCs are interchangeable.

That's why I'm saying this isn't much of a restriction.

Again, maybe not to you, but to me it is a very real restriction to how I play my character.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I once had a player offer me 100 dollars in an attempt to gain a significant advantage. I don't mind occasional DM bribes (the GM's job is oft a thankless one), but I felt that was definitely over the limit and denied him outright.

Sounds like the grounds for a lucrative social experiment (but a pretty weird game, as a best case scenario).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

As far as I'm concerned, your rationale given there is clearly and unequivocally "no," because there are several reasons you would pass up an advantage--even a fully-legitimate one that the rules themselves intentionally offered.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Due to your good humor I will pick “no” without qualifier and take my first step toward the dark side

 

[GSHamster]

Is the player justified in using every feat, class, spell and logical combination thereof in the PHB? I think 99% of this board would say Yes.

Is the player justified in threatening the DM's dog to get an advantage? I think 99% of this board would say No.

 

[Jagga Spikes]

as long as the price is paid, yes.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

My group actually works on a bit of gentleman's agreement that we only use major exploits once... So if I find a way to use a 1st level spell to heal 60hp by RAW manipulation the other DMs will most likely pat me on the back, be amazed and let it slide... once as 'rule of cool' then not only will it not work I and the other player agree not to even try... and if THAT trick requires 5 different things to go right and all 5 are ALSO exploits we wont use 2 or 3 of those exploits later or in another campaign either... this was the dust of dryness bombs of 3.5 that we promised not to do again... or the magic nukes that was find city... locate city... something like that.

5e isn't as full of those things so it isn't as much an issue

This is the way.

There is a certain sense of accomplishment at finding and exploiting a loophole once to see it in action, and then never touch it again because it would ruin the game for everyone.

Warlocks always fighting in magical darkness, but being immune to the dark ess themselves is a great example. That would be an absolute nightmare if it happened each and every combat.

 

[delericho]

False. One of the responsibilities of the players is to make the game more fun for everyone at the table (including the DM). If the advantage that the player perceives would detract from that fun, they should almost certainly pass it up.

(Very often, of course, there's no such conflict. But if the premise is "no matter what" would include those cases where there is.)