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.