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

[Savage Wombat]

Everyone knows that knowledge of the adventure is Ultraviolet Clearance, and well above the level of any player. Just activate his clone as a warning.

 

[Flamestrike]

I loathe characters being called 'Builds'.

Like; I dont mind a mechanically effective PC, but I hate it when zero thought has been put into the theme or story of the character, and its all just mechanics.

I dont just want to see 'Shadow Sorc/ Hexblade.' I also want to see 'Shadowvar price from Thulanthar City of Shade, bastard son of Telamont, Lord of Shadows, seeking to restore the Netherese empire to glory'.

 

[overgeeked]

That would be a clearer case, for two reasons:

1. You'd get instant feedback of the dm asking you what you're doing,

I submit to you that getting instant feedback, i.e. getting caught, isn't the problem. The act of reading the notes/module is. If the player read your notes but you didn't know about it, it would still be a problem. You'd just be unaware of it. If the player read your notes away from the table, between adventures, it would still be a problem. It's not the act of getting caught that makes it bad. It's the act itself that's bad.

2. There's no context where reading the other guy's notes isn't at least weird if not known to be against etiquette.

Again, I submit to you that there's no context where a player reading the module isn't at least weird if not known to be against etiquette. The only reason to do so is to spoil the surprise and to exploit that knowledge to "win" the situation. Anyone who doesn't recognize that as cheating, as a fundamental violation of gaming etiquette, is not someone I'd ever want at my table.

I don't have to explain to (most) players that cheating on their dice rolls is verboten. I also don't have to explain to (most) players that dropping a steaming deuce on the gaming table is verboten. I don't have time to explain basic behavior to adults. If a gamer honestly expects me to hold an ethics lecture before playing a game just in case, I'll pass, thanks. They can play with someone else. Someone that obsessed with being a rules lawyer ("Well, you didn't say I couldn't use loaded dice...") isn't someone that'd I'd want to play with.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think reading the adventures beforehand has always been a problem.

Bingo.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Again, I submit to you that there's no context where a player reading the module isn't at least weird if not known to be against etiquette.

MMORPGs. It's normal, even expected, that you will research a dungeon thoroughly before playing, to ensure that you bring an optimal character who can maximally contribute. To do anything less is a major breach of the etiquette there.

Since MMORPGs are significantly more popular than ttrpgs, it shouldn't surprise you that many first-time ttrpg players have played MMOs before. Ad I submit that there is not any explicit declaration in the PHB that the etiquette in this instance will be markedly different from an MMO, thus there's no reason such a player would bother even checking.

You might (and probably should) address this in session zero, but that's a fix to a problem - and that means the problem (not everyone already knows the standard etiquette of ttrpgs) exists.

 

[overgeeked]

Interesting dodge. It's not lost on me that you're now selectively quoting and didn't bother responding to anything but the bit that you could keep arguing about.

MMORPGs...

Again, as the title of the thread clearly states: D&D is not a video game. And as anyone with literally any experience playing the game: D&D is not a video game. We're not talking about MMOs. We're talking about D&D.

Since MMORPGs are significantly more popular than ttrpgs...

Blizzard stopped releasing sub data in 2015 but they did an API update for Battlenet in 2018 that leaked sub data. WeakAuras posted about it. According to that data WoW had 1.7m subscribers. That was three years ago, even with the new content cycling through, subs are declining steadily over time...which is why they stopped releasing that data.

Critical Role has ~725,000 Twitch followers and 1.2m subscribers on YouTube.

It's a good bet that at this point Critical Role has more viewers than WoW has subscribers.

You might (and probably should) address this in session zero, but that's a fix to a problem - and that means the problem (not everyone already knows the standard etiquette of ttrpgs) exists.

Only in the hypothetical you've built so you can continue to argue. You recognize that if a player read your DM notes it would be wrong of them and you'd be mad about it. Modules are nothing more than pre-packaged DM's notes. And yet you refuse to admit reading the module is a problem. All I have left is that you're arguing just to argue rather than engaging with anything remotely akin to good faith.

If I have a player who needs to be told not to spoil the adventure (either through reading the module or my notes), I don't need that player at my table.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think reading ahead is spoiling your own fun. Then I am often the DM and enjoy reading adventures to look for Ideas. So if my fellow DMs play such a module, chances are that I already read some parts of it...
So even if reading ahead to gain an advantage is like cheating, there are situations where a DM (and a player) naturally has to deal with it.
The only exceptions is when a group is strictly divided in DM and rest.
This was the situation in my ADnD group, where a player was not even allowed to glimpse into the DMG and the MM etc.

I think this is something which modern players would reject.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Scenario 3: Player has read or even played/DMed the AP/module before this current campaign was even a thing.

Is it fair to exclude this person from the campaign just because they have prior knowledge?
Is it cheating if the player didn't reveal said knowledge prior to joining the campaign?
Even if it wasn't discussed at all at session zero?
Is it cheating if they use said prior knowledge in the new campaign?
Is it ok if they use it all the time? Some of the time? Once or twice?
As long as they don't tell anyone?
As long as they pretend for a few rounds that their character doesn't know to use fire against trolls?

I am principally a DM, so I have exposure to a large number of modules. I honestly can’t fathom starting a campaign (or even an adventure) and not volunteering to the DM that I have played the adventure before. I would also expect any player to do the same.

That’s where I feel this whole “is this really cheating argument breaks down”. If the people who read the module ahead don’t think they are doing anything wrong, why hide it?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I loathe characters being called 'Builds'.

Like; I dont mind a mechanically effective PC, but I hate it when zero thought has been put into the theme or story of the character, and its all just mechanics.

This is slightly off-topic, but it is a cool topic. My issue with pre-canned builds is that the players who use them don’t really understand them and so get frustrated when a build that is supposed to be powerful doesn’t perform as intended against a DM that like to use a variety of enemy types and combat situations.

Like the Hexblade Pallock that gets stuck in a web and sits out the battle because an 8 str mesns they can’t free themselves.

 

[Oofta]

I think a lot of this comes down to the social contract with the group and should be discussed. Is it okay for someone to use knowledge that they have but the player would not? This goes for both modules and monsters.

Some examples have gone way too far overboard - memorizing location layouts to know where to search for secret doors is a good example. It's no different than a PC "inventing" gunpowder because the player knows the formula. If someone did that to me, I would ask that they not use knowledge gained outside of the game. If they persist, they don't get invited back.

It's not a perfect system because some player knowledge is always going to leak in, especially for monsters. But I simply explain how I run my games, gently remind people now and then. Now my players ask things like "Does my PC know you have to have silver or magic to harm werewolves?"

Maybe as a DM and group you don't care. Different things will work for different people. But once you discuss it and come to agreement, I expect people to abide by it if they want to be part of the group.