D&D General Poll: Do DMs/GMs need to trust their players?

[Cruentus]

I trust the players I'm playing with to follow game as laid out in session zero that they agreed to. I'm also trusting them to not fudge dice rolls (when not using the VTT supplied one), to not change their character sheet, or not to add gear or stuff they didn't actually have. I tell players all the time in session zero - you're only cheating yourself if you're fudging dice, saying you have gear you don't, etc. This isn't a competition, and we're not playing to "win DnD".

 

[LordEntrails]

Why would I choose to repeatedly engage in an optional leisure activity with someone I don't trust?

 

[pemerton]

I'm a bit surprised that this thread has turned into a discussion of players cheating.

When I read @EzekielRaiden's OP, which draws a direct parallel between trusting players and trusting the GM to make judgement calls, I thought the sort of trust at issue was trusting the players to be making sincere action declarations, to be leading the game in interesting places, to make worthwhile contributions to the fiction, etc.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Trust but verify*.

C'mon Players! Work with me here. Tell me what you want so I can make it happen. If you're trying to outwit me then you're going to win everytime, I am not a worthy foil. As your Dungeon Master, I'm your biggest fan. I'm trying to help you succeed. So, please don't surprise me and drop some fancy masterpiece of rules manipulation in my lap and say, "There ya' go judge, deal with that!" That is the surest way to put me on the defensive and get me to say no.

* After the session is over of course.

 

[Medic]

There are different degrees of trust. For example, I know that I can trust my players to follow the rules, but I know that I can't count on their characters behaving like moral, upstanding folk every step of the way, and adjust the game accordingly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm a bit surprised that this thread has turned into a discussion of players cheating.

When I read @EzekielRaiden's OP, which draws a direct parallel between trusting players and trusting the GM to make judgement calls, I though the sort of trust at issue was trusting the players to be making sincere action declarations, to be leading the game in interesting places, to make worthwhile contributions to the fiction, etc.

Yes, that was the intent of my question, but I suppose I didn't make it as unequivocal as I could have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I voted frequently because there wasn’t a vote for “Always, until it is obvious you shouldn’t then ask them to change or leave.”

That would be more or less the intended meaning of "frequently," or at least one of the expected interpretations thereof.

 

[Emirikol]

Should read "need to [be able] to trust their players."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Should read "need to [be able] to trust their players."

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think it has to go both ways. Or, at least, trust should be the default.

If either does something surprising (player making an action declaration, or DM describing environment or making a ruling) we should assume/trust that he/she has the bigger story in mind.

If we lose that trust it’s time to replace that person or find a new table.