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

[jgsugden]

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.)

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...

Hence why I asked about groups you have actually participated in, whether as DM or as player. I am not talking about whether you think the entire abstract collection of "all players of all TTRPGs ever" would do any given thing. I'm asking about where the ones you have actually done TTRPGing with would fall, in your estimation.

You're asking people to gather all their perspectives on players and apply characteristics to that hypothetical synthesized player. This is like gathering all of their perceptions of people of a specific ethnicity and then asking them what they think about that type of person. I don't think that was the intent, but that is what I am seeing.

A better approach (from my persepctive) would be to ask what percentage of players you've played with might have been caught cheating. That focuses on direct experiences rather than than speculating about what players in general would do - which is what you're doing regardless of asking people to amalgamate their experinces as a basis for generalizing players.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Cheating: Lying about die rolls, deliberately miscounting resources.
Exploits: Discovering a loophole or emergent property of the rules.
Being a PITA: Arguing about a ruling until you expect to get your way.

With adults I find cheating to be actually rather rare, but everyone looks for interesting synergies in the rules. For me, discovering emergent properties in a ruleset is a design goal. If I discover someone is cheating we have "the talk". It's usually a misunderstanding or bookkeeping issue. If not, a second instance and the invitation to game is withdrawn.

With teens I'm much more tolerant as they're practicing how to be adult humans, and I try to correct behaviors. I find cheating more common than truly exploiting the rules. They look up the killer combos to do a lot of damage, but that's about it. I've been even more tolerant when I ran a group of teens over Zoom during the height of the pandemic. I just designed encounters assuming that the characters would succeed their rolls 85% of the time. Peer pressure also handled a significant amount of the heavy lifting. Having your peers call you out works better than the authority figure.

Being a PITA is the most aggravating, and what I have the least tolerance for. After I explain myself twice and listened to you twice, you will accept my ruling. I only do it twice so I make sure there has been as clear communication as possible. After that, say "okay" and move on. Afterwards we can talk more about it, maybe even change a rule if you think it's that important. But not right now while other people are waiting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To ENworld in general - stop doing this.

Everyone should have learned to stop posting polls her long ago. People suddenly turn into expert statistician professors with a directive to judge your polls as a master thesis when you post a poll here.

 

[Lanefan]

Being a PITA is the most aggravating, and what I have the least tolerance for. After I explain myself twice and listened to you twice, you will accept my ruling. I only do it twice so I make sure there has been as clear communication as possible. After that, say "okay" and move on. Afterwards we can talk more about it, maybe even change a rule if you think it's that important. But not right now while other people are waiting.

Depends on the situation, I think. If it's something minor then sure, rule now and move on.

But if it's something big enough that further play would potentially become invalidated by a later change in the ruling (i.e. things would have to be re-done), or the life-death of a character hangs in the balance, then stop now and take however long is needed - no matter how long that is or how much arguing it takes - to get it right; if for no other reason that if it's this important now it'll be just as important when (not if) it comes up again, and what happens now sets the precedent.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't argue about rulings. I listen, consider whether I think I made the right decision, explain my answer clearly and then move on. I'm clear from Day 1 that the story comes first and I absolutely overrule RAW if doing so is what makes story sense. This seldom comes up, however. I know the rules and most game situations are obvious. The only recent time I can think of was when I ruled that a player's spiritual hammer vanished when he went to 0 hit points because I think the RAW that it is not a concentration spell is dumb.

If I'm a player, I don't argue with the DM. If I think they have made an error or misunderstood what I was trying to do, I will clarify. But once they've ruled, that's it. I just let it go. I'll argue all day long on the forums, but not during game time. It's too precious. Though after the game, for sure, if folks want to talk about stuff while we have a drink.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't argue about rulings. I listen, consider whether I think I made the right decision, explain my answer clearly and then move on. I'm clear from Day 1 that the story comes first and I absolutely overrule RAW if doing so is what makes story sense. This seldom comes up, however. I know the rules and most game situations are obvious. The only recent time I can think of was when I ruled that a player's spiritual hammer vanished when he went to 0 hit points because I think the RAW that it is not a concentration spell is dumb.

I have it that the "hammer" just sits there and does nothing.

If I'm a player, I don't argue with the DM. If I think they have made an error or misunderstood what I was trying to do, I will clarify. But once they've ruled, that's it. I just let it go. I'll argue all day long on the forums, but not during game time. It's too precious. Though after the game, for sure, if folks want to talk about stuff while we have a drink.

Thing is, by then it's too late. It's the same as a ref making a bad call in a hockey game - sure he might apologize for it later but that doesn't solve the problem in the moment, which would be by far the preferable outcome.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Depends on the situation, I think. If it's something minor then sure, rule now and move on.

But if it's something big enough that further play would potentially become invalidated by a later change in the ruling (i.e. things would have to be re-done), or the life-death of a character hangs in the balance, then stop now and take however long is needed - no matter how long that is or how much arguing it takes - to get it right; if for no other reason that if it's this important now it'll be just as important when (not if) it comes up again, and what happens now sets the precedent.

That's why I listen twice. And, if there is a rule or effect that wasn't understood, I don't have a problem with the player making a different decision or using a resource differently. Not understanding that levitate does not offer horizontal movement when that is key is one thing. Arguing about because you're stubborn is another.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only recent time I can think of was when I ruled that a player's spiritual hammer vanished when he went to 0 hit points because I think the RAW that it is not a concentration spell is dumb.

Was this something the player was expected to know in advance, even though the text doesn't say it?

 

[Clint_L]

I have it that the "hammer" just sits there and does nothing.

Thing is, by then it's too late. It's the same as a ref making a bad call in a hockey game - sure he might apologize for it later but that doesn't solve the problem in the moment, which would be by far the preferable outcome.

There’s no right or wrong answer here. Just preferences. I see it as once the DM has ruled and is ready to move, it no longer matters. That’s what happened in the story.

That’s how I feel about sports penalties too. Insofar as I care about sports. Which is seldom. I have no problem letting bad calls go, especially as I age. My best buddy and I very much disagree about this but he is a big sports fan so it matters more to him. I’m definitely not a cry over spilt milk kinda guy.

 

[Clint_L]

Was this something the player was expected to know in advance, even though the text doesn't say it?

Nope. The situation came up and I made my ruling. He agreed that the RAW seemed problematic.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I answered that I would respond below, because I can’t take the players as a monolith. Of my 15 regular players (across 3 campaigns), I am confident that 13 would neither cheat nor exploit. Of the remaining 2, they wouldn’t cheat, but would probably exploit (for a given value of exploit).

I take exploit to mean “argue for an interpretation of the rules even if the interpretation did not make sense in context”.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Was this something the player was expected to know in advance, even though the text doesn't say it?

I would say that 5e has a sufficient number of complicated rules interactions that it is unreasonable to expect a DM to know about all of them ahead of time, or even, necessarily address all of them in a Session Zero in advance, particularly interactions that seem to defy common sense.

That said, if a player was relying on a particular rules interaction and did not expect an adverse ruling, it is only fair to allow the character to modify their action, and even re-spec their character.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would say that 5e has a sufficient number of complicated rules interactions that it is unreasonable to expect a DM to know about all of them ahead of time, or even, necessarily address all of them in a Session Zero in advance, particularly interactions that seem to defy common sense.

That said, if a player was relying on a particular rules interaction and did not expect an adverse ruling, it is only fair to allow the character to modify their action, and even re-spec their character.

More my concern is, the spell as written does not have the Concentration mechanic. That isn't some weird interpretive thing. It literally does not have that property written on it, and if it was meant to have that property, they've had eight and a half years to add it as errata and haven't. Hence, if I were the player casting this spell, I'd feel (I think pretty justifiably) frustrated that the DM decided, for "realism," that the spell now has a property it doesn't actually have as written in the text. It would require a relatively unusual situation for this to come up, I do recognize that, but like...adding concentration to spells because it "doesn't make sense" that they weren't written with it would be a major red flag for me.

 

[nevin]

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.)

Depends on the players. no one size fits all amswer

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Depends on the players. no one size fits all amswer

I mean, you literally don't have to pick one size fits all. You can pick three sizes this day.

 

[Clint_L]

More my concern is, the spell as written does not have the Concentration mechanic. That isn't some weird interpretive thing. It literally does not have that property written on it, and if it was meant to have that property, they've had eight and a half years to add it as errata and haven't. Hence, if I were the player casting this spell, I'd feel (I think pretty justifiably) frustrated that the DM decided, for "realism," that the spell now has a property it doesn't actually have as written in the text. It would require a relatively unusual situation for this to come up, I do recognize that, but like...adding concentration to spells because it "doesn't make sense" that they weren't written with it would be a major red flag for me.

I make all kinds of changes to RAW. My players have never complained. Is there an experienced DM who hasn’t modded the game?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I make all kinds of changes to RAW. My players have never complained. Is there an experienced DM who hadn’t modded the game?

There is a difference between, "these are my house rules which we will be playing under," and "every time something works a way I don't think makes sense, I'm going to rewrite it and you must abide by the rewritten rules." The former is exactly equivalent to agreeing to play a ruleset RAW, it just happens to be "5e with Clint_L characteristics" as the ruleset. The latter, there isn't even a ruleset one can agree to play. Very, very big difference. Much as there is a difference between interpreting law (which, often, is very literally called "making rulings"), and (re)writing law.

 

[Clint_L]

There is a difference between, "these are my house rules which we will be playing under," and "every time something works a way I don't think makes sense, I'm going to rewrite it and you must abide by the rewritten rules." The former is exactly equivalent to agreeing to play a ruleset RAW, it just happens to be "5e with Clint_L characteristics" as the ruleset. The latter, there isn't even a ruleset one can agree to play. Very, very big difference. Much as there is a difference between interpreting law (which, often, is very literally called "making rulings"), and (re)writing law.

I don’t know what to tell you. The player concerned is literally a lawyer and he had no issues. We strongly prioritize story logic. This works out in the player’s favour more often than not.

Edit: my usual rulings are “rules as written, no, but it seems awesome so I’ll allow it,” or “rules as written yes but it’s dumb in this situation so nah.” The former happens far, far more frequently, the latter in situations that are generally obvious. Never been an issue.

 

[nevin]

There is a difference between, "these are my house rules which we will be playing under," and "every time something works a way I don't think makes sense, I'm going to rewrite it and you must abide by the rewritten rules." The former is exactly equivalent to agreeing to play a ruleset RAW, it just happens to be "5e with Clint_L characteristics" as the ruleset. The latter, there isn't even a ruleset one can agree to play. Very, very big difference. Much as there is a difference between interpreting law (which, often, is very literally called "making rulings"), and (re)writing law.

that come's back down to a discussion of is the DM running a game or playing against the players. the first is fun the second probably requires psychiatric help to fix.

 

[DMZ2112]

My attitude about cheating in RPGs has always been that the cheater is really only hurting themself.

That being said, every cheater I've ever known has had a moderately strong defense in their ignorance of the rules. Players in my acquaintance just don't seem to cheat, at least not beyond the occasional failure to speak up when the dungeon master forgets about that ongoing acid damage.

Exploiters, on the other hand, I've been dealing with at a distressingly regular interval since the '90s. In my experience, many -- possibly even most -- players have a bit of the exploiter in them, just waiting to find the right unintentional synergy in the rules. The primary difference, as I see it, is that a cheater is embarrassed or apologetic when caught, while an exploiter can't wait to show off their "accomplishment." I take great pleasure in letting them finish their explanation before declaring that it doesn't work the way they think at my table.

It's gotten way worse since Reddit got it into its collective head that it could mandate to individual dungeon masters how to run their tables by sheer weight of idiocy.

So for me, my responses encompass the range between might and wouldn't cheat, and would and might exploit, which I didn't have quite enough choices to represent. Poll would have been much better if it were two polls, asking the questions independently, followed by an analysis comparing the results.

Everyone should have learned to stop posting polls her long ago. People suddenly turn into expert statistician professors with a directive to judge your polls as a master thesis when you post a poll here.

It doesn't take an expert statistician to identify a bad poll. It may take one to write a truly good poll, particularly a complex opinion poll, but that just reinforces @Ruin Explorer 's point.