D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Chaosmancer]

Cheating, by definition, is acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.

The DM certainly has not gained any kind of advantage by engaging in the ridiculous, extreme examples proffered by you @Chaosmancer.

Instead, they've blatantly ruined the game by failing even to try to make good faith progress towards the goal of play: everyone at the table having a good time and creating a memorable story together. In short, such a DM has lost.

I agree. I also call it cheating.

My only point is that it is possible that the person with the title of DM is capable of engaging in cheating. I am not saying anyone here has, anyone here will, or anything else. But I find it a dangerous idea to declare unilaterally that the DM is incapable of cheating no matter the situation or extreme examples. Because, while you may say those are extreme. I'll also guarantee that they have happened.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The DM cannot cheat, because he can make and/or change the rules as he sees fit, and cheating is breaking the rules. However, he CAN abuse his authority, which is just as bad. That short step you are describing is a DM probably abusing his authority.

Again, if you want to call it "abusing their authority" and dress it up nice and pretty, go ahead. I call it cheating.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree. I also call it cheating.

My only point is that it is possible that the person with the title of DM is capable of engaging in cheating. I am not saying anyone here has, anyone here will, or anything else. But I find it a dangerous idea to declare unilaterally that the DM is incapable of cheating no matter the situation or extreme examples. Because, while you may say those are extreme. I'll also guarantee that they have happened.

Can you tell us what "advantage" a DM gains by carrying out those extreme examples in the game?

 

[Chaosmancer]

A DM has infinite dragons and can always stomp on a group if they want. It's called "being a bad DM", not cheating. If I come up with a custom monster that does 50 points of damage with an AOE, no save. Am I cheating? Is it cheating if I created the AOE a month ago, a week ago, the day of the game or during the game?

I've had really bad DMs. One had a giant hand come out of the wall and smash a random PC into goo. Then proceeded to kill all the other PCs in other "inventive" ways, including throwing things that were not in the book. They were not cheating, they were just a bad DM that never ran a second game.

The DM runs the game and can change the rules as they see fit. Some DMs will use that to run a fun and engaging games, others will use it to be piss poor DMs that will have problems retaining players.

I'd say they were cheating. They were also a bad DM, but that was because they were cheating.

I'd say if you came up with the AOE in the moment, to win the fight, you were cheating. If you planned for it, then no, you weren't.

And, again, I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of anything. All I am saying is that it is possible for a DM to cheat. Because I find the combination of "I deserve respect." "I make all the rules." and "Nothing I do is cheating" to be very dangerous. I find it tends to more easily lead to bad DMs.

 

[turnip_farmer]

I don't have any players like that. For me it's...

Me: <rolls an 18 after bonuses> "Markon(we use character names instead of player names), what's your armor class?(If I can't remember)"

Player of Markon: "It's 17."

Me: "The Wreckuhard swings his claw and you barely get out of the way, one claw scratching you down the length of your arm.(Is going to take him under half hit points) <rolls some dice> You take 17 points of damage."

Player: "Markon grunts in pain and comes back at the Wreckuhard with his greatsword in hand, intent on cleaving him in two."

I have all my player's ACs written down on a piece of paper in front of me, but still think it's good practice to tell them the to hit roll rather than just assuming I hit if I beat the AC. It can be easy to forget that Markon can use his reaction to increase his AC by his proficiency bonus.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but the OP is talking about a person asking questions about what the enemy did. And that question was answered in this exchange. Because the paladin said they were spending a 3rd level spell slot on Divine Smite. That is the technical information that was being asked about in the OP. Same as the player saying they are using colossus slayer, or hunter's mark or sneak attack. The DM also never needs to ask "is he a rogue" because you should know if one of your players is playing a rogue.

Let's look back at the questions the OP gives us.

Exchange #1: "Wait, how is that 6 points? Why did you roll another die? Is he a rogue? <PC-1> isn't flanked, so there shouldn't be sneak attack damage."

There seem to be three questions here, but the OP lists them all together. P5 in this instance isn't waiting for answers, he's thinking out loud. Q: how is that 6 points. A: Oh wait, I see another die. Q: Why did you roll another die? Observation: Must be some sort of ability. Q: (Possible answer) Is he a rogue? Complication: P1 isn't flanked, so that doesn't work.

The player, to my mind, is clearly thinking out loud, and following the logic. He isn't disputing that the character took 6 damage, and he knows it must be some sort of ability of the bandit, but the ability he can think of doesn't make sense in the context. And, this might be important. Was the bandit using magical arrows? Do you take more damage if you are standing in the light? Is it poison? These all matter, and some of them could be the DM hinting at something else. Then the OP confirms that is wasn't sneak attack, and there are more questions.

Exchange #2: "It's all piercing damage? So it's not an elemental buff. Is he a Ranger? Oh, <PC-1> was already wounded, is it extra damage from Colossus Slayer? Isn't that a d8? Wait, did you roll a d6 or a d8?"

Again, this is mostly thinking out loud to my eye. Q1: It's all piercing damage? Conclusion: So it's not an elemental buff (this eliminates many cantrips and spells like elemental weapon.) Q2: Is he a Ranger? (one of the only other classes that reliably adds non-elemental damage to their attacks without a save) Observations: Oh, P1 was already wounded Addendum, assuming enemy is Ranger: is it extra damage from Colossus Slayer? Complication: Isn't that a d8? Q for Clarity: Wait, did you roll a d6 or a d8?"

I'd say it is important to note that in both strings, the last part is the only real question.

My group doesn't play that way and we aren't going to change how we play for a new player who has issues with trying to figure out why everything happens. The best I would do is tell him that he can come to me after the game and if my reason no longer matters, I will explain it to him. If my reason is ongoing, though, he's going to have to wait until it no longer matters before I will tell him. If he's able to accept and have fun under those conditions, we can continue to play with him. If he isn't, he will need to go find a game like yours where he will be a better fit and be happier.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can you tell us what "advantage" a DM gains by carrying out those extreme examples in the game?

I don't know. Did they want to win the fight because they don't understand the game? Do they want to punish players for taking the last slice of pizza? Do they want to preserve their bad guy for the big dramatic finish they have planned where their DMPC can heroically sacrifice himself so the party has a chance to win?

I don't necessarily agree that "getting an advantage" is the line in the sand. Plenty of people cheat just to grief others. And yes, that makes them a Bad DM. I can't imagine anyone saying that Good DMs or Good Players cheat, so I don't see why everyone is scrambling to say "only bad DMs would do this". Yeah. That's sort of the point.

 

[Maxperson]

I have all my player's ACs written down on a piece of paper in front of me, but still think it's good practice to tell them the to hit roll rather than just assuming I hit if I beat the AC. It can be easy to forget that Markon can use his reaction to increase his AC by his proficiency bonus.

I sometimes forget things like that. If I jump the gun that's my bad and he can still use his ability. I'm not going to hamper a player over something I did wrong. Hits can be turned into misses in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, if you want to call it "abusing their authority" and dress it up nice and pretty, go ahead. I call it cheating.

And you'd be wrong. It's impossible to cheat at a game when you literally cannot break a rule. It's simply abuse of authority(if it's an abuse, rather than a valid use of power like getting rid of arrays), which as I said is just as bad.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't know. Did they want to win the fight because they don't understand the game? Do they want to punish players for taking the last slice of pizza? Do they want to preserve their bad guy for the big dramatic finish they have planned where their DMPC can heroically sacrifice himself so the party has a chance to win?

Yes - it's the bolded part b/c if they are engaging in those behaviors, they haven't grasped the basic premise of the game.

I don't necessarily agree that "getting an advantage" is the line in the sand. Plenty of people cheat just to grief others. And yes, that makes them a Bad DM. I can't imagine anyone saying that Good DMs or Good Players cheat, so I don't see why everyone is scrambling to say "only bad DMs would do this". Yeah. That's sort of the point.

Literally, getting an advantage is an integral part of the definition of cheating. If you want to change the definition to make your point, I'm not sure we have anywhere to go from here.