D&D General If they thought they could get away with it...

[Thomas Shey]

Its going to be hard to define an objective version of "exploit" but I'm pretty comfortable saying that uses and interactions of abilities that appear notably beyond what seems to have been intended, that make other abilities superfluous, or render some classes or operating procedures unattractive without being apparently intended for such are exploits. In a few cases this may something as simple as "using the ability at all without bringing it to the attention of the GM and group the implications." (Of course, sometimes this can be done by accident; I remember my wife starting to casually take a particular Feat in a Mutants and Masterminds 2e game where the implication of what it would mean for her Duplicating Super-Charisma character did not jump out at her).

 

[Blue]

Rate the accuracy of the following statement for games you have participated in (whether as player or DM/GM/etc.):

"If the players thought they could get away with it, they would cheat and/or exploit the rules."

Should you have participated in many games, consider it a sort of average across all the games you've played/run: in general, which rating would describe the groups you'd been in?

If you simply cannot choose just one answer, I've allowed up to 3, for example if you find that the answer is totally game and/or group dependent (e.g. players are more willing to do these things in D&D but less willing to do them in 13th Age, or whatever.)

Sorry, I had to pick the "I'm too Extra" option.

Right now, I play and run private games. We've all known each other for 5-30+ years regardless of the group. No one is going to cheat. And the only exploiting I've seen is knowing the style of the various DMs and playing towards is. For example, one DM will have a bundle of action for the day with no options for short rests - it feels it doesn't fit the pacing most of the time. So people don't often player Warlocks or other short-rest focused characters. But really, is that even an exploit?

We had one person who pushed harder, but was also a great roleplayer and a good guy. Some other issue came up and he no longer plays with us, but I could see him getting into exploit territory just to see how far he could push it.

I've played in both paid D&D clubs and at FLGS. There I would often see the style of gamer who wants to push as far as they can go. I prefer a certain level of system mastery, but things like coffeelocks were exploitative. And yes, some people who cheated.

I've played and run at conventions. Never AL or anything you brought your own character. Exploits are harder to pull off but cheating happened. I would avoid those players if I could.

Going further back, in ye olde times of AD&D 2nd I played with a good friend who would regularly cheat, would read the module to see what's coming up and where treasure was hidden, and the like. We talked to him, but kept playing with him. He was a friend, and he was very entertaining as well as one of the best roleplayers I've met. So there's times we'd put up with it.

 

[pemerton]

the only exploiting I've seen is knowing the style of the various DMs and playing towards is. For example, one DM will have a bundle of action for the day with no options for short rests - it feels it doesn't fit the pacing most of the time. So people don't often player Warlocks or other short-rest focused characters. But really, is that even an exploit?

Doesn't seem like it to me - it's just everyone getting on the same page in terms of what sort of game to play together.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I think every group I've ever been a part of has had at least one player who would definitely exploit things, some of them because the concept of sportsmanship was completely foreign to them and some of them because they enjoyed pulling something over on the DM. There have been a couple players who cheated, although most of the time it's been because they didn't actually care to learn the rules so they just made things up to get their desired result.

 

[CleverNickName]

most of the time it's been because they didn't actually care to learn the rules so they just made things up to get their desired result.

I prefer this type of player to the ones who memorize the rules and then start citing them like scripture. In a perfect world, players would just describe what their characters are doing, and then I'd tell them what to roll (if a roll is even necessary).

 

[Pedantic]

I'm not really sold on the concept of "exploiting" the rules. That points to a design problem, not a play problem. I like rules, if anything, I would prefer my players knew them better and used them more regularly.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've played with players who would bold facedly cheat unless constantly monitored (generally this would be the player sitting next to them).

I've played with players who would happily exploit the rules, but who (to the best of my knowledge) would never cheat.

And I've played with plenty of players who (again, to the best of my knowledge) had no desire to do either.

It really depends upon the player, and even sometimes the player's circumstances. I've known players who (from my pov) exploited the rules when they were younger, but gave it up as they matured.

This is exactly my experience. There is no "general" case for me - because there's all kinds.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I prefer this type of player to the ones who memorize the rules and then start citing them like scripture. In a perfect world, players would just describe what their characters are doing, and then I'd tell them what to roll (if a roll is even necessary).

I should note that only works for some of us if we and the GM are very, very much on the same page. Far more than is routinely the case.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not really sold on the concept of "exploiting" the rules. That points to a design problem, not a play problem. I like rules, if anything, I would prefer my players knew them better and used them more regularly.

I'd say they're both. Yes, under ideal circumstances there should be no exploits present, but that can be not the case for any number of reasons (including in some cases because its functionally impossible for multiple-pieces-snap-together systems such as are used in many superhero games), but that's not an excuse for someone to harm other people's enjoyment when he spots it (as I noted, its a different story when they simply don't realize it).

 

[R_J_K75]

I chose "Definitely would not cheat, but might exploit".

I dont play in game stores anymore, and even then there was only one person I remember cheating. I only play with friends now so theres no cheating. Theres some attempted exploitation of unclear, incomplete, or missing rules, sometimes its works, sometimes it doesnt.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is exactly my experience. There is no "general" case for me - because there's all kinds.

Doesn't that imply that, if you were to take all the different games you have played in, you would have to say that the players might cheat and might exploit, but would not be guaranteed to do either? Sure, this is averaging things out, and one needs to think carefully about the results that come from such averages--the average human has approximately 1 ovary and 1 testis, for instance. But if some of your games no one would ever cheat no matter what, and others someone definitely did cheat, it would seem to be the case that, for any future game, you recognize the possibility that some participants might cheat.

Does that help make a cognizable answer? I know that the internet is almost literally built out of asking for greater specificity but this honestly feels like someone ignoring a perfectly valid and functional answer simply because that answer cannot be applied to literally every individual instance they've ever experienced.

 

[MarkB]

Doesn't that imply that, if you were to take all the different games you have played in, you would have to say that the players might cheat and might exploit, but would not be guaranteed to do either? Sure, this is averaging things out, and one needs to think carefully about the results that come from such averages--the average human has approximately 1 ovary and 1 testis, for instance. But if some of your games no one would ever cheat no matter what, and others someone definitely did cheat, it would seem to be the case that, for any future game, you recognize the possibility that some participants might cheat.

Does that help make a cognizable answer? I know that the internet is almost literally built out of asking for greater specificity but this honestly feels like someone ignoring a perfectly valid and functional answer simply because that answer cannot be applied to literally every individual instance they've ever experienced.

Kinda meaningless, though, isn't it? Since we can't predict what anyone's going to do, that basically makes "might cheat and might exploit" the only valid answer to the poll.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Kinda meaningless, though, isn't it? Since we can't predict what anyone's going to do, that basically makes "might cheat and might exploit" the only valid answer to the poll.

If you're of the mind that you cannot infer anything at all from your past experience, sure.

I think most people on here don't hold that opinion.

 

[Seramus]

My players don't cheat, but even if they did cheat a little I know they are good people who might be having a bad day.

I have had repeat cheaters in the past, talked to them about their behavior, and then either cleared it up or let them go if they continued to do it.

As for exploits, a little? Exploits are FUN and the players' faces can light up when they discover and pull off some neat combo. I always let them have their crowning moment of awesome the first time around, then analyze the situation afterwards to see if it needs patching.

Sometimes it doesn't. Often the player knows it's a Voltron Sword, and only brings it out in dire straights. Only the really egregious exploits require bonking after a single game.

 

[aco175]

Nobody has any of those effects available but a caster does have Rope Trick. So, she casts Rope Trick and everyone climbs in. Rope is pulled up and then (and here's the creative bit) because there's nothing saying the rope always has to be lowered out of the middle of the "floor" of the little demi-plane it's instead lowered out of a corner, outside the cell wall! Everyone climbs down, and then they just have to worry about getting back to where they came from.

Exploit, or creative play?

It's a nice play that I might allow- once. I do not think a 1st level spell should allow a group to bypass the castle gate or pit trap or ravine in the way. At some point it becomes too much.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The lack of a bit more guidance on what you mean by "exploit" is really hampering this poll. Even if you don't want a firm definition, because you're trying to figure out how people perceive their players more than the reality, for instance, it just isn't an easy word to work with.

I'd say what you were going for by changing the term to either:

"Optimize"

or

"Interpret contrary to perceived design intent" (that's a mouthful, but I can't think of a short way of saying it)

I'm going to assume you are going for the latter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The lack of a bit more guidance on what you mean by "exploit" is really hampering this poll. Even if you don't want a firm definition, because you're trying to figure out how people perceive their players more than the reality, for instance, it just isn't an easy word to work with.

I'd say what you were going for by changing the term to either:

"Optimize"

or

"Interpret contrary to perceived design intent" (that's a mouthful, but I can't think of a short way of saying it)

I'm going to assume you are going for the latter.

Part of the problem is, "exploit" is inherently in an ethically/morally/etc. ambiguous position. Many use it pejoratively. Many others use it positively. As far as I can tell, however, most people believe that "exploit," whatever it might mean, is a distinctly lesser transgression than "cheating," whatever that might mean. Given I wanted to capture that ethical ambiguity, I used the term intentionally. If that ambiguity leads to people feeling they simply cannot answer, there are two poll options just for them, specifically the last two.

Overall, though, I feel the response to the poll has been solid. I'm surprised at a few of the results and not surprised by others, as it should be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Rate the accuracy of the following statement for games you have participated in (whether as player or DM/GM/etc.):

"If the players thought they could get away with it, they would cheat and/or exploit the rules."

Should you have participated in many games, consider it a sort of average across all the games you've played/run: in general, which rating would describe the groups you'd been in?

If you simply cannot choose just one answer, I've allowed up to 3, for example if you find that the answer is totally game and/or group dependent (e.g. players are more willing to do these things in D&D but less willing to do them in 13th Age, or whatever.)

This is bad question and a classic ENworld terrible mismatch between title question, poll question, and what's actually being asked. Try to do better, frankly.

The title is completely general.

The poll is completely general.

We only learn your actual intent, actual question in the text, but which time like 50-80% of the people voting, will already have voted, and many will have moved on. So you've carefully ensured any results you gather will be worthless.

To ENworld in general - stop doing this. Never post a poll where you can't ask the question in a title, or if you do, make sure to post something about "carefully reading the post before voting". To the people who do do that - good, you're doing it right. But more than any other forum I've ever participated in, ENworld posters love to totally make a pig's ear of this.

Generally speaking, when you take a large group of people and give them a label, like "players", and then assume a negative characteristic about them, like cheating, you need to rethink your approach. Even if you just ask whether the group is something negative.

Definitely.

Talking about my own groups, I've never really come across players who would cheat in any meaningful sense of the word, in TTRPGs. Boardgames, wargames, videogames? I've met plenty of cheaters in those, including IRL (notably the worst cheaters I've ever encountered were all adults when I was a child with boardgames - oh and one kid in chess club at school who was just constantly and incompetently trying to cheat in ways that didn't even help him, I have no idea what his deal was). The closest I've seen to intentional cheating in a TTRPG, and it's obviously not because we all see it and laugh, is if a die goes off the table and under a dresser or something, and someone pulls it out and the result is bad, and they're like "Don't count", or it goes into a crack between planks on the table and yeah it's mostly a 1 but you re-roll it because it went into a crack. I've seen DMs so bad or pushy/tyrannical that I'd suggest that any fair hearing would say they were cheats, but their own minds, they definitely weren't cheating, they just had a conception of the game where their words were law, no matter how bad they misunderstood the rules, no matter how dumb or selfish the ruling (none of them lasted long as DMs).

Exploiting is similarly questionable, because what is the definition of an exploit? Is it legal-but-annoying min-maxining? Is it using a rule in a questionable way (in which case a lot of DMs are exploiters)? Is it using a rule in a way that it explicitly wasn't intended? If so why is the DM allowing it? It's a meaningless term without a ton more context.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Part of the problem is, "exploit" is inherently in an ethically/morally/etc. ambiguous position. Many use it pejoratively. Many others use it positively. As far as I can tell, however, most people believe that "exploit," whatever it might mean, is a distinctly lesser transgression than "cheating," whatever that might mean. Given I wanted to capture that ethical ambiguity, I used the term intentionally. If that ambiguity leads to people feeling they simply cannot answer, there are two poll options just for them, specifically the last two.

Overall, though, I feel the response to the poll has been solid. I'm surprised at a few of the results and not surprised by others, as it should be.

All you've succeeding in doing is create a truly meaningless poll because of the contradictions between the title, poll question, and post, and the use (apparently intentional!) of ultra-vague and meaningless language. And saying "as it should be" is just really a strange thing to say about a poll. The idea that a poll necessarily should be surprising is indicative of a rather bizarre attitude towards polls.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Doesn't that imply that, if you were to take all the different games you have played in, you would have to say that the players might cheat and might exploit, but would not be guaranteed to do either? Sure, this is averaging things out, and one needs to think carefully about the results that come from such averages--the average human has approximately 1 ovary and 1 testis, for instance. But if some of your games no one would ever cheat no matter what, and others someone definitely did cheat, it would seem to be the case that, for any future game, you recognize the possibility that some participants might cheat.

Does that help make a cognizable answer? I know that the internet is almost literally built out of asking for greater specificity but this honestly feels like someone ignoring a perfectly valid and functional answer simply because that answer cannot be applied to literally every individual instance they've ever experienced.

I guess? I've got to agree with the other posters that it becomes somewhat meaningless at that point. I've played with many hundreds of players, so 'maybe' would be inevitable.

My point is that if anyone plays with enough people, rather than just an insular group, they're going to get an 'all of the above'. Everyone is going to wind up with "maybe" if they're starting with a totally new group and trying to predict which it would be.