D&D General It's not a video game.

[el-remmen]

Heck, in the early days those of us who did read modules "for fun" (usually with the thought of perhaps running it) were never too concerned about spoilers because we assumed the DM would change a lot of it. Like I suggested in my first post, I have no issue running the same adventure for people assuming they don't have too immediate of a recollection of it, and have played in an adventure I have read before (foreclosing this to the DM, of course, so they can make the final choice) under that same assumption.

Edit: To be clear, I am trying to say, running through the same adventure more than once can be a lot of fun because of how different the experience of each playthrough is from each other and from the plain reading of it.

 

[iserith]

[emphasis mine above] Well, that's the major issue, isn't it? If they can manage it without spoiling surprises for anyone else, then I don't have too much of a problem with it. But if a player isn't upfront about having experienced or read an adventure before with the DM for any reason other than a mistaken oversight or, worse, is reading it on the sly and hiding that from the DM, then I'm not that confident they'd very good at keeping their knowledge from spoiling the surprise of other players. Two separate things, I know, but if they're not playing in good faith in one area, they're probably not doing so in another.

I try not to worry about theoretical offenses and focus on what is actually going on at the table and what I can personally control. I can control whether I ask the players if anyone has read or played the module I want to run before we play. I can control whether we have a conversation about what the expected etiquette is for those who have foreknowledge and ask for their buy-in. I can control what I change in the module and how I communicate that I am changing things to the players to incentivize them to not rely on potentially bad assumptions based on foreknowledge. I can control the spotlight at the table so that I'm calling on the players to make decisions more or less equitably so that the players with foreknowledge can't dominate the decision-making.

I can't control another person's willingness to lie about their knowledge of the module or whether they will keep to the agreed upon etiquette. In the case of the former, I might not ever even know about it. Worrying about it is a waste of time in my view.

 

[Jaeger]

This thread is not about aesthetics.

This thread is based on some weird stuff I see on Facebook, Reddit and even here: new players asking for specific strategy help with published 5E adventures. Not "help me build a cool character" or "how do I optimize versus devils" but literal, "how do I get past the cultists in Baldur's Gate?" or "Which Ten Towns adventures give the best loot?"
....

Anyway, like I said, I have seen it popping up with an increasing frequency and I found it baffling.

Has anyone experienced this in real life? Have you ever had a player cheat at the table in this manner (reading the module beforehand or whatever)? Is it new or am I just noticing it now?

Add me to the baffled column as well.

WTF. Why would someone do that?

...
But I just saw this very thing with my son's group. He's 13 and running for a group of friends (currently over zoom). He decided to run a published module (Rise of Tiamat - I think he just liked the cover). One of his players. literally, had the module up AS my son was running it.

He asked me about it, I told him to not say anything about "cheating" just say that it won't be nearly as fun if he (the player) knows what will happen. I also offered to help my son change the adventure significantly (frankly the module could use it anyway!).

We'll see what happens.

Shamelessly brazen.

If they were adults there is only one thing to do: Bounce him.

For kids, I'd tell him that is an uncool thing to do. Put it away and don't read ahead. It's cheating. and nobody likes playing with a cheater.

And then:

Change things so that the next really good loot place / optimal path in the AP that the offending player will eagerly head straight to before anyone else in the party if they have not changed their ways is a super lethal situation/trap...

If the offending player goes for it: Then the warning fell on deaf ears. Kill their PC.

Then bounce him.

It's not like none of us ever bought the module the DM was running...

WTF!?

Why would you do that?

I think taking the attitude that reading ahead is cheating is likely to prevent real solutions. ...

No.

Not recognizing that it is cheating will absolutely prevent real solutions.

In my current Star Wars campaign that we are playing online we do not have a dice roller. No need for it, I have been gaming with these people for years and know them.

I ask them to roll - they roll and tell me what they got. No question or even thought that they would cheat on their rolls because I game with adults.

Not children who were never taught better.

 

[jmartkdr2]

No.

Not recognizing that it is cheating will absolutely prevent real solutions.

In my current Star Wars campaign that we are playing online we do not have a dice roller. No need for it, I have been gaming with these people for years and know them.

I ask them to roll - they roll and tell me what they got. No question or even thought that they would cheat on their rolls because I game with adults.

Not children who were never taught better.

Where did you learn that reading ahead is cheating? And why do you assume everyone else already knows this?

 

[not-so-newguy]

Ok I'm guilty. When I was around 12 or 13, I snuck into brother's room and picked the lock to his cabinet (I used my trusty butter knife) and rifled through his campaign notes; including timeline, various dungeons, and where the monsters were located on the overland map. In retrospect, I don't think it helped me win at D&D at all

There. I said it. My conscience is clean now.

 

[overgeeked]

Where did you learn that reading ahead is cheating? And why do you assume everyone else already knows this?

How is it possible to think it’s not cheating? Where did you learn that reading the module isn’t cheating? And why do you assume everyone else already knows this?

 

[tetrasodium]

I think taking the attitude that reading ahead is cheating is likely to prevent real solutions - outside of ttrpgs, it's not only not cheating, it's often the correct way to play. You just need to teach players that this game works best when you go for a different kind of fun (that is, have fun along the way rather than focus on the achievement of winning.) Or find another game that does provide that kind of fun.

And this is true because 5e DnD isn't hard. It's just not a very challenging game, and really can't be. The only way to make it truly dangerous is to make it swingy, and that doesn't increase challenge because it doesn't care about skill. Slot machines aren't challenging.

I think it comes down to the there are two (relevant) types of gms thay change how reading ahead or at all should be viewed.

The first rinse NPCs ministers and the world in a way fitting with player actions and is likely to make some attempt at making sure treasure is sufficiently evenly available for everyone's needs. Reading the module for these gms is a jerk move

The second gm runs the module pretty much exactly as it's written. If PCs make mice with some npc but .ideal in after shaking on the agreement the gm notices it says the npc is hostile it will suddenly go from friendly chatter to attacking the players. If the treasure in the module is a bad fit for the party or the party misses whatever crazy book like explicitly
Saying they want to go about removing the apolstry on a chair is required to find it... too bad that's what the module says.

With the second type of hm tge players are almost forced to read the module so they can act exactly as the module expects them to. Unfortunately the GM advice in the dmg is sorely lacking in areas that would help these (often newer low experience) gms really grow or feel confident in making specific choices in reaction to player activity.

As an extreme example I recently saw of that second type... players came across a dragon's cave, scouted stealthily and saw the sleeping dragon hatching pair inside before deciding to make nice by offering gold plus spellcasying teaching. Everything is going great.. their board went from like 200cp to 500gp, wizard is literally teaching them to ritually cast comprehend languages. Gm starts trading and days "oops it says they immediately aytack* everyone roll initiative"... soon after I noticed more than one player openly say things they could only know by reading the hardcover without even trying to be subtle and I'm not sure anyone could blame them given how obvious it had been for so long before it was effectively confirmed that it really didn't matter what players did of that action wasn't in the hardcover. They might as well make what little effort they can to do what ot assumes they will do is likely at worst a srmi-reasonable justification for them at that point


*when the players openly walked in the front of the cave with weapons sheathed the hatchlings opened with a friendly "hello!" And the party had been chatting with what they thought was a new friendly set of npc contacts for a good ten minutes of table time at this point

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People primarily discuss character concept ideas with their friends, fellow players, or (to a lesser extent) more "neighborly" communities like this very forum or Discord groups. Google+ was kind of in that last group as well, back when it existed. Reddit threads, Facebook threads, Twitter, that sort of thing? You're only going to find people looking for information, pretty much.

A character's story is personal. A character's loot and efficiency is merely instrumental--and thus perfectly normal to ask total strangers about.

Honestly, this is a bit like complaining that folk don't chat up random strangers about their favorite camping spots online, but do ask about how to address mechanical faults with their vehicles. The former is something you do with people whose interests you understand and value; the latter is something you do with people whose expertise you seek out. Your friends may or may not have expertise, but you know some of what they like and they know some of what you like. Random strangers may or may not know anything about what you appreciate, but asking for information in the right places of the right people is a good way to get some expertise not found in your friend group.

As for cheating....eh. It's always been possible to go and read the whole adventure in advance, and I'd call that a hell of a lot more "cheating" than asking if some adventures give better loot for Wizards than others.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I recently had a player cheat himself out of the encounter he badly wanted because he had read the adventure. Read it fairly, mind you, he DM'd it earlier.

Situation:
Tyranny of Dragons, early 1 on 1 duel, another PC accepts first and gets themselves killed against a BBEG. Player gets upset being denied the deadly fight (!!!), but won't demand their own duel because they think it's all scripted to have just the one fight...

This was the most egregious but negatively affected how they played the game on numerous occasions. It didn't matter that I changed heaps and that he knew his assumptions were wrong 50% of the time.

Don't know where the mindset comes from. On the one hand I see being risk-averse being a motivator, but then the built up frustration by other players at such slow careful play resulted in the party taking stupid amounts of damage on a couple of the encounters.

If I had to put a finger on it, it comes from simply not being in character. I have played an adventure twice and had completely different experiences by playing characters with different class/level/outlooks.

 

[iserith]

This was the most egregious but negatively affected how they played the game on numerous occasions. It didn't matter that I changed heaps and that he knew his assumptions were wrong 50% of the time.

Not very smart play on his part.