D&D 5E Do you DM?

[Stoutstien]

I think it's interesting that the voting community trends so heavily towards being the Dungeon Master. I wonder what that means or why that is?

I believe it due to GMs having a higher tendency to be more active in discussing the game as a whole.

If I read a module so I know where the treasure was hidden, the answer to the puzzle, and the immunities and vulnerabilities of the end boss' pet that we were supposed to find out (or not) from dealing with a set of NPCs, then it's the game element that's wrong?

Uh huh.

The absolute statement that any game element that is broken by players bringing in outside knowledge is the fault of the element is trivially shown as false.

It's just a spectrum from there. Characters having information about monsters not because that character has ever encountered them or heard of them, but because the player has in another campaign. Knowing an item is cursed from recognizing the description from the DMG even though the character would have no way of knowing. Some groups have a tolerance for that sort of thing, others don't.

Most Published adventures are inherently flawed because anyone can pick it up and up and read it or if they run it again it loses it's replay value. It like the joke that idiots get twice a much value watching sports on TV because there may be different results in the instance replays.
It's also why I don't understand AL play.

Not really a good example of how player knowledge ruined the game but of how published campaigns should all have multiple angles of change to prevent static results.

Key takeaway: don't run published campaigns as printed.

 

[Blue]

Most Published adventures are inherently flawed because anyone can pick it up and up and read it or if they run it again it loses it's replay value. It like the joke that idiots get twice a much value watching sports on TV because there may be different results in the instance replays.
It's also why I don't understand AL play.

Not really a good example of how player knowledge ruined the game but of how published campaigns should all have multiple angles of change to prevent static results.

Key takeaway: don't run published campaigns as printed.

You see, when I started, players picking up the modules and reading them was considered cheating. Now dismissing a module as "flawed" because the designer hasn't spent extra time in development and balance to have multiple aspects for everything so that even a cheating player is entertained (though they still will know the multiple parts, so they can still cheat).

Sorry, I do not accept your assertion that it is the module that is flawed because cheating players exist.

 

[prabe]

You see, when I started, players picking up the modules and reading them was considered cheating. Now dismissing a module as "flawed" because the designer hasn't spent extra time in development and balance to have multiple aspects for everything so that even a cheating player is entertained (though they still will know the multiple parts, so they can still cheat).

Sorry, I do not accept your assertion that it is the module that is flawed because cheating players exist.

Amusingly, I despise published adventures (as a DM and as a player) and I agree with this.

 

[Helldritch]

I change any published adventure I run. Not by much. But just enough that I will easily see if a player has read the adventure. Once I was running the Temple of Elemental Evil. There was a secret passage on the 2nd level that was leading to a treasure room. The "cheating" player wasted so much time trying to find the secret passage (that I had moved in an other corridor). That I asked him if he had read the adventure. Of course he said no. He said that he really thought that there should've been a room there. (there was, indeed, a tendency to fill out graph paper sheets with rooms in adventures back then). But when he tried to find the sword he wanted on level 3 and it was not there (I had replaced it with something more in line with the group) I knew he was cheating. So I started to target him much more that the other players. He complained, I told him that is what is happening to those who reads and acts on their knowledge of the adventure. He took a back seat and did his best not to interfere in the party's decisions and directions. Fortunately, the nodes were not fleshed out in the adventure so he got to take a more active role in this part of the adventure. If he ever read an other adventure I DM, he has been very cautious not to show it.

 

[The Green Hermit]

You see, when I started, players picking up the modules and reading them was considered cheating. Now dismissing a module as "flawed" because the designer hasn't spent extra time in development and balance to have multiple aspects for everything so that even a cheating player is entertained (though they still will know the multiple parts, so they can still cheat).

Sorry, I do not accept your assertion that it is the module that is flawed because cheating players exist.

However, if people pick up a module and read it, because they like reading this sort of thing, and it is before the campaign has been publicly announced, or before they join the group, how is that cheating? Just play as if you were the DM and had to run a character: Let the others make most of the decisions and only base your reactions off of what the characters know.

 

[Helldritch]

When you play a game as a player you should refrain from reading material related to adventures. Source book are there for that. If you go into a game where you have read the adventure, you should warn your DM so that you can discuss how to avoid using "unfair" knowledge to your advantage. Such knowledge might come as divine insight if it comes up at all, but you should really tell your DM. It might even mean taking a back seat or simply retiring from that adventure.

 

[The Green Hermit]

When you play a game as a player you should refrain from reading material related to adventures. Source book are there for that. If you go into a game where you have read the adventure, you should warn your DM so that you can discuss how to avoid using "unfair" knowledge to your advantage. Such knowledge might come as divine insight if it comes up at all, but you should really tell your DM. It might even mean taking a back seat or simply retiring from that adventure.

But what if you are a DM that gets a chance to play for once? Chances are, you've read quite a bit of adventures, or at least parts of them.

 

[Monayuris]

I almost exclusively DM. I prefer it, although I wouldn't mind playing once and a while.

My problem with playing, is that I am not really a fan of the style of play promoted by the WoTC adventure paths and that is most often what is being run. So I end up getting bored or losing interest. I know a group that runs closer to my preferences, but I'm usually so busy I can't get into a game anyway.

As a DM with a massive library of modules, I have played in games that feature a module that I have read or even ran myself. I don't think it is all that hard to get in character and ignore my meta-knowledge, or at the very least just take a back seat.

I'm not here to mess up other's fun by playing the know-it-all. As a player I am one person among the rest sitting at the table.

 

[Helldritch]

But what if you are a DM that gets a chance to play for once? Chances are, you've read quite a bit of adventures, or at least parts of them.

It has happened a few times. I just play a support character and I try hard not to act on my knowledge of the adventure.

 

[billd91]

But what if you are a DM that gets a chance to play for once? Chances are, you've read quite a bit of adventures, or at least parts of them.

Basically the same thing - full disclosure to the DM and work on not taking unfair advantage of knowing the adventure, generally by playing more of a support and less of a decision-making leader type.

Of course, you could also cooperate with the DM and help encourage the other players to react positively to the plot hooks and keep them focused on the main thrust of the adventure.