Do you trust the people you game with?

Do you trust the people you game with?

  • Yes, 100%. They can come to the table playing a chair and I know we will all have fun.

    Votes: 88 37.9%
  • Most of the them. However, there are a few I need to keep an eye on. So, I have to restict them in

    Votes: 107 46.1%
  • About half the time or half of them I can trust. So, there has to be a clear set of what's allowed

    Votes: 27 11.6%
  • I really can't trust many of them, so the restrictions are many and firm. But we are better for the

    Votes: 4 1.7%
  • I cannot trust a single one of them.

    Votes: 6 2.6%


First Post
As a DM can you say "Well, I'm allowing everything because I know that you all will not choose things based on power, but based on fun?"

But power is fun !
Some of my players create rather blands or "number only" PCs (no or little background, no explanations of weird combo...). It's not my problem, it's their problem, because :
*when the PC is dull, the story (and thus the DM) is the star
*when the PC is dull, the player have sometimes some surprises. ("You didn't made a background, not a problem, let me see your sheet... I will make this background, and Iwill explain how your wood elf became a monk...")

log in or register to remove this ad

John Smallberries

First Post
I trust them to do the following:

1. Min/Max like mad.
2. Twist every rule, push every limit.
3. Blow holes in my stories and derail my plots.
4. Have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

Therefore, they can trust me to:
1. Let them.

No heavy-handed DM control issues. Just fun.


First Post
John Smallberries said:
I trust them to do the following:

1. Min/Max like mad.
2. Twist every rule, push every limit.
3. Blow holes in my stories and derail my plots.
4. Have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

Therefore, they can trust me to:
1. Let them.

No heavy-handed DM control issues. Just fun.

That's more or less my philosophy.

Guilt Puppy

First Post
I have only two concerns which create restrictions for the players:

1 -- That they remain more-or-less balanced amongst each other... Partly because I do uneven XP, and I want to make sure there is a reward for that. (At least in my table-top game, there is a slight competitive element between the players)

2 -- That I can accurately assess their power level, and that it is even enough that I can craft encounters for them which will be challenging, but not lethal for the less-powerful players.

Other restrictions may come up from campaign to campaign (such as "no evil characters" or "no such-and-such races") but those are usually created and resolved with the players when we start a new campaign and try to decide on a suitable flavor.

Outside of that, I'm pretty open. I don't look over anyone's shoulder when they roll, I typically don't audit their character sheets. See my sig thread for an example of this in action on the boards.

And, as always, there are exceptions to how open I am. But generally, nine games out of ten let's say, those two main rules are all I impose.

Bendris Noulg

First Post
My only restrictions are in regards to (1) setting flavor and theme and (2) keeping logical with regards to in-game events (Skills, Feats, Multiclassing, etc.). Beyond this, I trust my Players 100%. I wouldn't play with them if I didn't.


First Post
I trust 'em. The question is, Do they trust me? They just know I'm hiding something from 'em by now. And that's true... I've done all sorts of unfair things to them, but strangely they seem to like it...


First Post
trusting players

I voted #1.

They are honest with me in every aspect of the game. They may disagree or bring up a differing viewpoint, but they don't argue with me as a DM. Nobody cries or complains about character death or loss of an item. I sit ten feet away from them and don't see any of their rolls, but I've never had a reason to mistrust them.


First Post
Make it hard on me why don't you?

I think I'm going to have to puzzle out what my vote should be as I write this.

My gut reaction was to say that I trust my group 100%. After all, I wouldn't play with someone I don't trust. I don't need to check their rolls, I don't need to double check their inventory, or the results of a turning check. They're not cheaters. They're honest about this stuff even when it hurts.

But, on the other hand, "Do you trust them to create characters that will be fun for them and for everyone?" And while I want to say yes, that's blatantly false. The characters that this group played in my last session made me swear off DMing for 4 months.

We could probablly go by stat selection, and this group would work out ok. No one would play ridiculous games with it.

I trust them to be honest, but I don't trust them to play the game. They've got this issue where I have to get out and motivate their characters. The house rules have started coming in allready, no PH at the table, and each rule helps alot.

I trust them to be honest. I could give them a guideline for character creation, never see thier sheets and be fine. They could use online suppliments, and prestige classes, and it'd be ok they wouldn't choose anything too crazy. They could make their own spells and items without me involved, and it'd be ok. But I don't trust them to play a character, I have to have a whole series of "you're out of the campaign if you do..." threats lined up. I don't trust them to think on their own, I need guys around to give them orders to have them do anything. I don't trust about half of them to get any better, because the mere suggestion that they might have room for improvement ends up in an hour long argument.

Hm. Then theres the campaign I play in. I trust all but one of the other players. Again, he's fine on dice rolls, but he purposely designed a worthless character. He plays the character as worthless, and every time we get into a decent IC discussion he drops out of character, or makes a dumb joke.

The DM, I trust him to try his best, and not fudge any rolls to kill us. But I also trust that I'm going to get ripped off on what my skills can do. I trust that 40% of our sessions will be us wandering around in the desert walking back to civilization. And I trust that despite my best efforts to the contrary, the role-playing opertunities will stay few and shallow, and most of the decisions we're able to make (aside from purchases) will be moot.

So, where does that fall in?

Ds Da Man

First Post
I may not trust them at the game table 100% of the time, but my group is a collection of about my best friends. They understand when I'm tired and cranky (3rd shift syndrome), and they know all about me. They are great friends who have never let me down, (except for one who dropped out of Purdue, though not a let down, I was dissappointed. I had high hopes!)


With my group, I'd trust most of 'em with my life.

But, I wouldn't trust a single one to roll up character stats or HP unless I'm watching them do it. So I don't know where that falls.

Viktyr Gehrig

First Post
I play point-buy and average results for all hit die rolls. That's because everyone in my group has truly spectacular luck or some weaker variant of my own abysmal dice luck. In-game, the dice fall where they may.

I have one player who plays very goofy character concepts and can be counted on to cheat at dice. He's not too disruptive, though, as the other players generally keep him in line. The only time his trifling with the dice has seriously harmed a game is when he killed a clone of Palatine with the very first attack roll of what was supposed to be a roleplaying encounter.

With a lightsaber. A thrown lightsaber.

Someone else's lightsaber.

He wasn't playing a Jedi.

I answered 100%, though. I let them give me any character concept they want, and their powergaming more or less fits within that concept and they play their characters. We have fun. And, the more they combat-optimize their characters, the more social encounters I give them, and vice-versa, so we generally end up with a decent balance of abilities.


Registered User
Uhm... This poll can be easily misunderstood. I trusted all my players till now in respect of the game...

Problems with the players outside of the game are more common here.

Edit: Cheating with dice... Well some did. I knew it and let them roll again (most of them did the stupid rolling a dice all the time, if it's a good number wait till the DM asks for a roll and try to tell him you just rolled it...)
Last edited:


I voted 100% - I trust all my current group not to cheat (this would change if I ever caught them, of course!), and to create reasonable PCs in consultation with me. I don't allow chair PCs in my current game, though.
Generally speaking, I've become more trusting of my players as I and they have got older. Cheating seems more prevalent among younger players - although hopefully cheaters are a minority at all levels.
As for min-maxing, as I don't railroad my group or expect them to win fight X at Level Y for the campaign to survive, this has not been a problem. When Tallarn (Matt) joined the current campaign, with all his powergaming knowledge gained from EN World, his cleric PC proceeded to trash NPCs that were easily defeating the previous, older, higher level but less-min-maxed PCs. The power level of the group went up, they became able to handle threats they previously couldn't have - a young adult red dragon, most notably. Maybe their rate of xp gain increased for a level or two - 3e advancement rules balance this out pretty well though, you rise to your level of incompetence! There's still plenty of stuff in the world they can't handle, and the game has only benefitted - maybe I do have to play my NPCs a bit meaner, but that's plausible also

"Uh oh - it's THEM. Get the scrolls & potions out!" :)


First Post
I trust most of them.

My problem is that I cant trust my players to know the basic rules enough, that I have to pay less attention to them (rules).

Actually, that is my major peeve. So much that it got me in trouble when I spoke about that in a long email. (maybe using the "babysitting"players through a game" comment, was not that smart)


ps trust might not be the right word>


One I can trust. One I'm not so sure of, because he just joined the group a few months ago. One will create a character so bizarre in either habits or appearance or both that it's clear he's either never read the background material or doesn't give a &^$%%^&% about it. One will, no matter what he plays, continue with his utter fascination for characters that are so 'practical' as to be completely evil, even though he will swear up and down he's playing a Good character. And he really does beleive this, which scares me. If we ever crash in the Andes, I'm getting to the flare gun first.

It's almost to the point of being depressing, but I'm not GM'ing right now, so it's a little better.
Last edited:


First Post
Airwolf said:
I had to vote for #2.
I would have voted 100% trust but there is one player who always wants to play an evil character. He usually sets about trying to kill everything, both monsters and townsfolk.

Same story here.... that we have this one guy who plays a neutral angst-riddening elf like no tomorrow.

After a couple of games though (we are on our 3rd? 4th? campaign now) the guys realised that powering up, though fun, does not mean it will increase the overall fun of the group. This was after the DM had to yell a couple of times, "We could be playing bunnies and burrows and be having fun. It's not the flaming bastard sword." and similar things on that vein.



First Post
I play in two groups at the moment.

In the Planescape campaign, run by Simmo on these boards, I trust all the other players, because we've hardly played as a group so far and it's better to start trusting than to start by distrusting them.

In S'mons game, I trust all except one player. I don't think he posts on these boards, but he's a bit of a difficult player to play with, he seems to have very different ideas about the game to the rest of us.


First Post
My answer was not well represented in the poll, so I went with #1.

My true answer, however is:
A) I trust them 100%
B) I restrict characters heavily, not because I think they can't handle it, but because I usually have a narrative VISION that I want their help in achieving. Within that VISION, I trust them 100% to achieve it beyond my wildest expectations.
C) Where there is no restriction required by the narrative, I don't use restrictions. I don't even bother with poncy ideas of game balance, like points, stat rolls, levels, ECLs, etc.

My story hour is different - the narrative VISION is to take what the system gives us and make it into something special, a kind of random confluence. But most of my campaigns have minimal system restrictions and heavy narrative restrictions.

An Advertisement