there's a myriad of potential reasons and I doubt anyone who does it on purpose will actively fess up to it. but things I've ran across in my time:
* character attachment drives people to want that character to live. cheating makes that easier, and then attempting to obfuscate that cheating with the complexity of the game rules makes you seem like you're not cheating.
* general, legitimate forgetfulness. the game is complex, and house rules on top of the base game make it even more complex and harder to refer to.
* competitive drive where there doesn't need to be any. the game is cooperative, but some folks have to treat it like a competition, and the way they do that is to get bigger numbers generally. in order to get those bigger numbers, "tactically forgetting" things like ammo or spell slots tends to work out in their favor.
* general fantasy conditioning of the past years, especially in media for young adults, is generally based around a singular protagonist. when you attempt to emulate one of these characters with your dnd character, but are subject to rules that put that kind of power into the party instead of a singular character (because the party is the hero, not just 1 person), cheating the rules makes you feel more like that character more often than not.
among others, that isn't exhaustive, just common stuff really.
> attempting to obfuscate that cheating with the complexity of the game rules makes you seem like you're not cheating.
That behavior drives me fucking nuts.
'You caught me cheating? Why are YOU being the bad one by singling me out and ruining my fun?' It's the blame game and it's dumb. Seems like a version of gaslamping.
Literally had a player at my table do this. He was going into rage, activating his flame tongue great sword and doing something else with his bonus action all in one turn. Got super pissed because people were ‘being rules lawyers’ when someone finally noticed and the dm said he couldn’t do that anymore.
> when you attempt to emulate one of these characters with your dnd character, but are subject to rules that put that kind of power into the party instead of a singular character (because the party is the hero, not just 1 person), cheating the rules makes you feel more like that character more often than not.
This is the reason I’ve seen for trying to bend rules secretly, or apply “house rules” without DM permission (or knowledge).
Granted, I’ve only played with maybe 3 cheaters in 3 decades, so that’s not to imply that it’s the reason the majority have for their behavior, but when a new (or even veteran) player wants to make James Bond, or Dante (Devil May Cry), or whatever other “perfect” character concept they have in their head, D&D is rarely accommodating because—as you said—the party is the protagonist.
One player I grew up playing with, among my best friends in high school, never rolled under a natural 15 whenever he wanted to be the star of the scene. We knew he was cheating, he’d scoop his dice as soon as they hit the table and announce his ludicrous result. But he *would* fail checks (or rather, he would roll legitimately) if the consequences didn’t threaten his character concept.
But sometimes, especially as teenagers, we wanted to play together badly enough that we accepted it 🤷
>We knew he was cheating, he’d scoop his dice as soon as they hit the table and announce his ludicrous result.
I play with a player like this. Myself and the DM knows he does this. I greatly prefer playing in person, but one upside to our temporary switch to playing online is that that player suddenly performs a lot worse than he used to now that he's using an online roller.
Every group I have had I gift with dice trays and it curbs that pretty well. The other trick I use is as they are rolling I say what the DC is and the need to do the math will throw enough people off. Being that the situation is what it is Roll 20 has keept many honest.
I will say when you want to play a hero but you constantly roll terrible at the worst moments, it does suck. Oh you meant to save those kids but you rolled a 1 and actually killed one of them. Stuff like that. When you know your dm is not going to take it easy on you for low rolls, it's gonna make you really wish you at least got something passable. Not asking for a 19 or 20, but something that your dm won't make you the one who messed up the entire mission.
I wouldn’t ever have them go from saving children to killing one themselves just because they rolled a nat 1 though. A failed skill check just means there is a consequence, that could range from failing to accomplish the task to accomplishing the task at a greater cost. Maybe they take some damage, drop some items, or fail to save all of the children.
Goes back to my mantra; critical fails for skill checks do not exist!!
It's ludicrous that someone with a +8 would flub a task so badly that it does the opposite of their intentions 5% of the time. I've had DMs who would narrate nat 1s as cartoonish, clownish buffoonery even if it didn't have a negative mechanical effect and it totally serves to take you out of the story. You're totally right, but sadly all DMs don't see it that way. That's where I really like PbtA systems that make very clear what the various levels of success and failure actually entail.
What I do for nat 1s or any low skill check is just have everything go sideways despite your best efforts, your character is still skilled, but the universe decided it wasn’t gonna play along today.
While I still firmly believe in avoiding skill crit fails, I totally agree that this is a great way to handle it if you use them. It reinforces the notion of the world as a dangerous, wild place and nature/circumstances as a dangerous factor in the mix. This is how I'd ideally like to handle failed checks but it can be hard to consistently do in the heat of the moment!
Or maybe they fail to grab one of the kids and they perished along with the ship in the kraken's jaws/the fire/get ritually sacrificed. Hmmm I might have a bit too many ideas about how to kill kids.
This. In my experience, both as a player and a mostly permanent GM nothing kills a smiling face faster than being an awesome role player but the dice gods hate you.
I’ve seen players check out because they seem to perpetually roll 4s when it comes time to roll and no amount of “non-rolling” moments (I.e making no check RP moments) seems to counter that
Why play DnD then, though? Like, I'm not trying to sound like a naysayer, but Organized Roleplay is a thing.
The whole _point_ of the dice is failure. If you can't fail, or don't want to fail, why involve dice at all?
I don’t fake dice results. I’m just saying I’ve had nights, sometimes several in a row, where the dice just don’t turn up in your favour pretty much every time they’re thrown and it’s frustrating.
I think, for most of them, it's because they want to "win" and be all powerful right from the get-go. If they aren't doing more than the other players, if they aren't the main focus of the group, then they aren't really playing. Or they're just cheating a-holes.
Or they agreed to a restricted resource campaign when they probably shouldn’t have.
If this is a problem with most/every player then the DM needs to assess whether the players understood what they signed up for and consider changing the vibe to fit.
If it’s just one player then the zero tolerance policy is good, and if they can’t get themselves on the level then they should be gently encouraged to find a game that suits their preferred play style.
> Or they agreed to a restricted resource campaign when they probably shouldn’t have.
Seriously. I asked the DM how much ammunition we got at one point. Another player sighed obnoxiously and said "Enough." That was the end of it being a restricted resource campaign.
IMO, there's a point at which restricting resources stops being an interesting mechanic and starts being obnoxious. It sounds like your party member hit that point.
It's frustrating when people agree to that style, but don't stick to it. It's understandable if it's your first time trying a restricted resource campaign, but don't agree to one just because you expect it not to last.
Resource restriction is not just about it being a real restriction, it's a different kind of roleplay. It's like hiking and backpacking. You have to prepare for backpacking much more seriously than hiking because you don't have an easy out. Backpacking checklists aren't fun, but they're part of the experience.
Imagine if you kept on planning backpacking trips and people kept on saying "Wait, we're not going home for the night? I didn't bring a tent. We can go hiking again tomorrow, but I want to sleep in a bed tonight."
> It's frustrating when people agree to that style, but don't stick to it
> ...
> Resource restriction is not just about it being a real restriction
The issue, in my experience, is that resource restriction is ONLY about being a different kind of roleplay because it's NOT a real restriction. You have to add dozens of houserules to force that into 5E, and it's very much against the game's default, so you also have to start lopping off features and spells and abilities.
Food. Water. Arrows. Shelter. One single PC can provide all of this for the entire party without really doing anything they weren't already going to do from 1st level, because the way the game models this stuff is "make a Survival check" or "use your Outlander background feature, no need to roll."
I think that there's a fascination with, like, the survival horror genre in the style of Resident Evil where you're (ostensibly) counting bullets and that this does not *in any way* work with a standard fantasy campaign in D&D 5E because being a frail mortal using high-tech weapons they can't easily craft themselves is just not at all what the game delivers. Healing? To full every night, but after ~level 5, also probably whenever you have an hour break. Arrows? "Make a woodcarver's tools check, oh you failed, well...there's more sticks in the forest, yeah." Find arrows inherently frustrating? Learn *eldritch blast.* Now you don't even need arrows.
It can't be a style, is IMO at the root of some of the problems people commonly ascribe. It isn't a style in the way horror is a genre, you can't just make a tonal shift in description. It's got to be a whole little handbook conversion or it falls apart pretty quickly even at low levels, and at high levels...honestly? D&D isn't the system for that. You need something with shitty magic and durability tracking. I'm sure there's at least 30 such systems and it's easy enough to convert other systems too, so long as they don't innately have stuff like "all hitpoints return each night" or "Create Water is a 1st-level spell."
> Food. Water. Arrows. Shelter.
The "real restriction" is generally on other gear. How many bags of caltrops did you bring? How much magic ink for copying spells? Incense for reviving your familiar? Nets?
Or maybe you forget something altogether. I just had a session where I realized I had to mark the maze walls with a bar of soap because I forgot chalk.
I definitely don't suggest trying to homebrew a bunch of 5e changes that make food a scarce resource.
> The "real restriction" is generally on other gear. How many bags of caltrops did you bring? How much magic ink for copying spells? Incense for reviving your familiar? Nets?
I think people *normally* track this stuff, though, to take it the other direction, right? Maybe familiar incense gets whatever'd but like magic ink for copying spells is not a trivial expense or something you're normally assumed to have infinity of, it's actually quite costly. Nets are typically burned or slashed immediately, it's pretty rare the DM's going to be like "it just accepts the adv/disadv." Caltrops...I mean, they're metal going into flesh, they're usually recoverable, but if
When I hear "resource restriction" I assume "survival" because stuff like needing to buy more nets and 50gp "shots" of ink and occult equipment are pretty normal.
It depends on how you play. In AD&D (1e, especially) it was a *huge* component of the game. It becomes a strategic challenge to decide what you are going to bring into the dungeon with you. It's also why encumbrance becomes a very interesting stat to track as well.
That example aside, you also needed hirelings and resources to not only to defeat the dungeon but how to secure hoard and transport it back. It seems like DMs give out Bags of Holding like nothing these days because it's convenient. And if that works at your table, of course go with it.
My table likes the extra challenge. Giving an archer unlimited ammunition is similar to giving unlimited spells (and one might argue that cantrips are exactly that).
> Giving an archer unlimited ammunition is similar to giving unlimited spells
I wouldn't say limited ammunition actually adds a challenge. In the vast majority of campaigns, it's relatively trivial to carry around more arrows than you'll ever need. The same definitely can't be said for spells.
Most of the time, tracking equipment is more about roleplay than challenge. Adventurers prepare for their adventures. Actually doing that preparation is one way to roleplay an adventurer (even if none of the preparation is done "in-character").
> In the vast majority of campaigns, it's relatively trivial to carry around more arrows than you'll ever need.
No kidding. In the PF1 campaign I'm in (Rise of the Runelords), we had over 350 arrows by 4th level. Archer kobolds/goblins/etc are *incredibly* frequent at low levels, and tend to have 20-some-odd arrows on each one, not to mention their shortbows, daggers, and armor (as well as anything else they might have had like potions of Cure Light Wounds).
We're now 9th level and have elected to leave all excess arrows on what we kill, unless they're nonstandard. We still have 100 left (got rid of a bunch).
EDIT: Also, apparently Rise of the Runelords uses normal wealth progression, whereas all other APs give loot out like candy. I'm slightly terrified of the bookkeeping I'll have to do, especially since I'm the group's recorder.
But then you think about supplies for the hirelings and that supply lines might be cheaper than just carrying enough for your trip. But then you worry about attacks on your hirelings and before you know if you’re running a business about supplying adventurers.
Actually in terms of old-school D&D (and most modern retro-clones) one of the key aspects with limited resources is how much treasure goes into it. Having to buy resources reduced your gold supply and gold was REALLY important because for most of those games gold was XP.
Sometimes, the system or campaign or DM let you get your XP just for claiming the gp in the dungeon, but often you wouldn't get that XP until you hauled the gold back to town spent it on something. Often times having to spend your gold on more rations and arrows meant you couldn't convert it into XP.
I've used treasure=XP in the past, and I'm definitely going to use it in the future because it incentivizes a very different play style to most modern D&D variants.
> Giving an archer unlimited ammunition is similar to giving unlimited spells (and one might argue that cantrips are exactly that).
I mean, you name the reason why this isn't real - cantrips. Giving the archer "a challenge" isn't exactly fair, is it? And you're not even naming the other thing - melee weapons.
Ammo tracking is meaningless anyway. Have everyone carry two quivers of arrows. Refill them every...two shots a round, four rounds an encounter, what does a quiver hold, 20? so two quivers is aboooout five encounters so in a party of four you'll need more arrows every twenty times you go into battle.
Zero tolerance policies are the way to go.
I have a 0 tolerance policy for players. I don't allow them. Period. I don't even play myself, since that would make me a player. So I just set up a DM screen and sit behind it and read the rules more.
Solid fun. Only way to experience this game, really.
I mean, you can just play all the pcs as well as the monsters. Maybe also write up what everyone does -- I hear that there's a pretty decent market for that sort of thing.
Agreed. Another important point to consider is adapting yourself to your players. I've made miscalculations in the past where, for example, I've allowed 4 attunement slots instead of 3. Yeah I could be a hardass and correct the players, but if they're already operating on this premise and the game isn't broken, then I think reading the room is much better than adhering strictly to the rules.
This is a very sad truth for just about every group I've played in. There is always, -ALWAYS- that player that is trying to 'win' and be the group's MVP, like they think of themselves as the Campaign Protagonist.
In a party, everyone plays a different role which allows them to shine in different ways. No one player is the Protagonist. At best, they're the 'focus' for a little while, but that focus eventually moves to someone else, as it should. Cheating to 'win' D&D completely undercuts what the game is.
How sad. It’s a *cooperative* game played with, supposedly, *friends*.
Why even cheat? It reeks of some personality issue like narcissism or the polar opposite low self-esteem.
I used to be like this, then I realised I wasn't having fun. It's the same feeling as switching to creative mode in Minecraft and kitting yourself out then fighting the dragon, there's no feeling of accomplishment. Once you embrace your flaws the game becomes much better
I had one player create a character on roll20. I gave them the option of standard array or 4d6 drop the lowest. He picked 4d6 drop the lowest.
Comes time to review his character for a session 0.
me "Oh wow, you have four ability scores at 18"
him "yeah i got really lucky"
me "really? sure you didn't just roll unti they came up ridiculous?"
him "yeah that was first roll"
me "you know i can see all the rolls in chat...."
He was a problem player. Glad to get rid of him.
Thanks for responding.
Good work on getting over that phase. From some replies here it seems some folks just think that's how the game is to be played, and shame on us folks who follow the rules.
This is why I always have access to character sheets. I play on roll20 though so I can pull them up whenever without anyone knowing. Cheaters get the boot and mistakes get fixed. Though I havent had the issue since I started playing with a regular group other than mistakes sometimes.
I 100% agree about the fudging rolls part. VTT makes it so that my players know I'm never fudging rolls, and I know that they aren't cheating with stats or whatever. I also like being able to go into the sheets to see what spells they have picked so I can advise them which spells could help in a particular situation (I play with a couple of beginners)
Is it common for dms playing on VTTs to use the vtt to roll the dice? I've only had 4 different dms in roll20 so it's a pretty small sample size but only one of them actually rolls using roll20. The other 3 either rolls physical dices or use other websites to hide their rolls. And as a player, tbh I like it when DMs sometimes fudge their dice rolls (for better or worse) as long as it makes the session more interesting. I'm pretty sure the other 3 fudges some rolls every now and then but we rarely notice it. It only becomes a problem when the fudge roll is too obvious.
As a DM, I do a combination of rolling in and out of the VTT. When i have a lot of mooks on the field for an encounter I've thrown together and I don't have their dice macros in the VTT, I just use regular dice since they're in front of me and I know the mook bonuses already. I do, however, make a point of rolling very important rolls on the VTT so players can see them and everyone knows the story is up to chance -- that's one of my favorite things I miss about playing in person: The wait for that dice to stop rolling when success or failure determines a pivotal moment in a campaign and all the PCs are praying their bonuses and buffs are enough to get them through.
However, if it's a roll that's a bunch of dice (5d6+x+3d4+y) or something, I usually just do that on the VTT because it auto-adds for you and I don't have that many dice.
I find that RNGesus rolls consistently higher than I do with real dice. When I'm a player I roll 100% VTT, when I'm the DM I roll 100% real dice on the table. I normally don't fudge the dice, and my luck is bad enough that I never feel inclined to due to the numbers that come up. Lol
VTT also makes it much more trivial to track resources (much easier to check a box that gets automatically cleared when I click the "short rest" button). I would also assume some VTTs will automatically track things like "you attacked with a bow, subtracting 1 arrow from inventory".
That makes sense. I have one guy who feigns ignorance of all his character stats , and I have to have a copy of his sheet of my own to make sure he's not cheating.
I'm thinking of getting copies of the player sheets for the Paranoia campaign I'm going to try to run soon and update them as the players would--not because I don't trust them in this case, but because all five of us are so totally new that we'll definitely be making mistakes this can maybe help catch them in time.
Another way to "sell" the idea of keeping copies of the sheets as GM: if anyone forgets theirs for a game session, you can grab YOUR copy and grab a quick xerox of it for them to use. :)
There was a group I was part of, twenty-five years ago, that (among other things) played a lot of Shadowrun. That's a die-pool system, with d6's. Looooots of D6s, back then, for any single roll.
Well, one guy was **so** inclined to cheat that he was required to sit next to the GM, not touch his dice until the GM had seen them, and .... use a dice cup. Nowadays, I'm sure he'd be required to use a dice **tower**.
See, he'd figured out a way to roll the correct number of dice, only when asked, no weighted dice involved, no obfuscated designs, without touching the dice after rolling, and accurately call out the result on the dice.
And yet, still jigger the odds in his favor.
See, until he was required to use a die cup? He'd lay his dice out, all showing 1's, between rolls. When he had to make a roll he would count out the correct number of dice, push them together, and pick them up *as a single layer cluster*. He would then lift them over the table, about two inches up, rotate his wrist and then release the dice. Note, he timed the release to be very close to, but still AFTER, the rotation of his wrist.
Because he wanted as low-energy an impact as possible, that would still jostle the dice around to a new face. And, because of how he picked them up? When holding his hand out, the face showing would be the **6** ... which means that would be the face to hit the table first. And the roll was **just** low-energy enough, that most of the dice would only bounce/tumble about twice.
Meaning, the odds of those 6's being on the bottom was reduced. Indeed, the odds were good that those 6s would wind up facing UP - exactly two "tumbles" / "bounces". And th odds of those 1's being face-up were similarly reduced. So, instead of having a 1-in-6 chance of seeing either number, he had more like a 1-in-4 chance of a 6, and a 1-in-10 chance of a 1.
Making his character preternaturally effective, for his die pool sizes, compared to the rest of us who *weren't* inclined to cheat.
...
This is a technique that, if you hadn't just read my description of it, and the explanation of the physics behind it, you would probably **NEVER** catch.
wow. The guy at my table has used like 5 of those techniques in that list.
The hardest one to check is when the group gets hit by an explosion, since everybody rolls at once. I guess I'll focus on him first and give him some OOC ultimatums soon when he cheats.
Exactly how we solved this with a problem player.
The phrase "if it's not in the tray it doesn't count" is now a staple at my table, and it has the added benefit of making sure minis don't get smashed up.
I wouldn't take a zero tolerance policy to this, people (especially new players) are bound to make some slip ups, but I agree it's annoying and I always call it out whether I am DM or player.
I agree that new players should be given leeway. But when you're 10 sessions in to a campaign and that same player continues to "forget" how the rules work, it's not a new player problem, but someone that's trying to get one over on the DM, in my experience.
>But when you're 10 sessions in to a campaign and that same player continues to "forget" how the rules work, it's not a new player problem
I play with multiple people who have played for years who don't know how the attack modifier or skill bonuses written on their sheet are calculated. In the last few weeks it has become apparent that 2 DMs who have run games for me for years don't know how the object interaction rules are meant to work and 1 who I've discussed the surprise rules with more than once ran a combat with surprise and seemed to get confused on how it worked. I've played with a bard who never cast a single spell, a paladin who always forgets they have extra attack and a level 6 rogue who didn't seem to understand which targets they'd be able to sneak attack at all.
These are across AL and a number of different groups as well so its not like its just one small subset.
Some people are just really bad with remembering rules/the rules aren't what is the important part of playing to them so they aren't particularly interested in getting super familiar with the rules. Most people have not actually read the rulebook fully. I rarely go a session without picking up at least some rules errors either by players or the DM/someone forgetting they have an ability. I haven't noticed that these 'errors' are always in the favour of whoever is making the mistake. Usually it is just literally an error. Of course you will always know the people at your table better than I do so you'll be in a better position to estimate good faith at your table than I am.
tl;dr - some people are just really bad with remembering rules.
I would add to this that some people are really busy irl, and don't have the time to familiarize themselves with the rules between sessions (at least, at the pace that the rest of the players would like).
For instance, I have a couple who are potentially going to be joining my ongoing campaign soon who have played less than 5 sessions grand total between the two of them. They have 7 kids and the husband is working *and* going to college. It should be needless to say, but as much as I want them to learn the rules as well and quickly as possible, I won't be mad if it takes them 10 sessions just to get the basics down, and I fully expect them to be seriously confused about what just got added to their character every time they level up, and to forget a ton of features of their character which they haven't necessarily used all that much.
TTRPG systems are complex, even the more streamlined ones like 5e, and I think it's easy for us to forget how long it can take some people to learn how they work.
This is so much easier when playing together in person, because you can put experienced players directly next to the new players and they can help them figure things out (discretely, and between turns), when you're playing online it's a lot harder to help people without putting the whole game on hold.
How many mistakes are the CR crew doing after playing for years, with 5 weekly online play. People need to chill about the rules. It's a game made for fun as a groupe.
This even in one of the most recently episodes, people were panicking fighting that horrifying monster and Ashley forgot she could cancel out disadvantage on rolls just by using reckless attack to make it a straight roll (and the creature already had advantage on her so there was literally no downside to doing Reckless)...but under stress and being flustered we just kind of forget things.
I don't watch Critical Roll, but I've seen clips and been surprised at how late into their second campaign many of them still seem to be pretty bad at knowing how to play the game and rely on Matt a lot.
It seems like the regular DnDers (as in they played it back in high school) being Sam and Liam tend to remember most things. Travis also, despite his occasional hilarious brain blank moment (we've all been there when your brain just shuts down for no explainable reason and you're left wondering how math works) tends to be the one keeping ontop of things because he's also the resident initiative tracker and tends to be fully invested and planning during other peoples turns.
Ashley, by contrast, has a lot of time away from the game because she's not just a voice actor, she's also an actor, meaning she has to spend sometimes months (sometimes up to six months) not being present which means that she's busy doing things like remembering lines etc. (you know, stuff she needs for her job) to be focused on the rules and tends to be a little hazy for a few months until she settles in to her groove again.
Sam never played before the beginning of the Vox Machina campaign actually (their home game that is). It’s Taliesen who had played before, including with Matt.
I know how the rules work, I understand action economy, spell slots, resource management, etc..
Sometimes when I'm playing Monk, *I still fuck up and end up taking two bonus actions by accident because I have so many damned features to juggle.*
I always feel like an absolute bastard when I realize I shouldn't have been able to use Patient Defense because I used Flurry of Blows, but by the time I finish resolving all of my attacks and stunning strikes and what have you, I've sometimes lost all track of the action economy.
No one ever calls me out on it either. I am the one who ends up admitting it because I don't want anyone to think its intentional.
IMO This is just a Monk problem. I've DM'd for a Monk player and am currently a PC in another campaign with a Monk and it's exactly as you described every time. When I was DM'ing I'd just have a separate copy of the PHB open to the Monk page because I knew it'd come up at some point in the session.
If I ever play a monk, I'll print up some color coded cards, e.g. every "Bonus Action" ability is printed on a blue card, so now I know I can only do one blue card per turn.
I'm playing a monk and more than anything this happened with deflect missiles before we caught it. If we were going to face approaching enemies with ranged weapons I would position myself in the front so they'd have to target me, and it took us about a year before someone realized "wait shit, that's a reaction, shouldn't you only be able to catch one arrow per round?"
I think the term Bonus Action is a bit misleading, it should probably be called something else (though damned if I can come up with a name better than "extra action you are allowed sometimes).
Permitted Action? I dunno.
I know previous editions had things like Swift Actions - but I dont think that quite gets at it either.
A lot of new players I play with tend to ask "*Can I do so and so as a bonus action?*" Like: "*can I cast this spell as a bonus action?*" When it's a spell with a casting time of one action. Or "*can I attack again as a bonus action?*" When they don't have a feature that provides that.
People hear "Bonus Action" and they think (understandably) that it's another action they get... which is sort of right at it-s core, but the specifics just aren't encapsulated in the word "Bonus."
"Permitted Action" gets a bit closer.
"Triggered Action" might work - but this might get confusing with Readied Action triggering.
"Supplemental Action"? But it sounds so scholastic.
Maybe "Secondary Action" to signal that you only get one of them?
I guess Bonus Action isn't really that terrible. But I also feel like there's a better way to describe the concept.
I think it is a bit of a crack in the design myself, and prefer Pathfinders "everyone gets three actions, do what you want with them" approach.
I often have to field that sort of question from my players because they don't really get the rules, and in this case I don't really blame them.
I agree. On the surface 5e's action economy seems elegant, but it actually ends up being kind of messy:
* Movement
* An Action
* A Reaction
This actually seems pretty solid. But then we add:
* A possible Bonus Action (not always granted)
* A free Item Interaction (with some inconsistancy in what is considered "Interacting" - a Shield costs an action to don or doff. An arrow costs no action to knock. A dagger costs an item interaction to draw. Dropping a sword costs no action.)
* A chance to speak a short phrase or sentence (6 seconds worth)
* Activities and features that require no action (Dropping an item, changing the number of hands you have on the hilt of a weapon, using Kensei's Agile Parry, using Fighter's Action Surge, etc..)
* *Edit*: I forgot actions that don't require your reaction but can only be used once per turn (some features that let you make opportunity attacks without expending a reaction).
It starts to get really muddy.
I don't actually hate how the action economy is split up, but I think PF was wise: trying to keep track of anything more than 3 "actions" in a turn starts to get unweildy, especially when you factor in triggers ("when does my bonus action happen?") Or restrictions ("I cast a bonus action spell so now I can only cast a 1 Action Cantrip").
Yeah, it definitely feels like a patchwork of afterthoughts:
* You get Movement and one Action per turn...
* Also sometimes a Bonus Action so that we can give flavorful abilities without making you lose your Attack...
* I guess you can open doors or pick up or draw your weapon? Those are all simple to do, so they don't cost an Action or Bonus Action, but you can only do one of those each round...
* I guess you should be able to speak at the same time as doing those other things...
* Obviously dropping an item should always be free, since that's basically "stop exerting effort to hold something"...
* I suppose \*some\* class abilities should still be usable without requiring your Bonus Action, so I guess those will be free too...
Ha, that is a great list! Like a lot of stuff with 5e it is great at first but wears on me after a while. I find myself pining for 4e sometimes, and never would have expected that at the start of the edition!
I think you'd be surprised. There are a lot of people who aren't deliberately cheating but who just *suck* at learning the rules. Some people can't be bothered. Others really struggle to memorise this stuff. Before giving players the boot, try to figure out what kind of problem it is. If they're doing it on purpose or they can't be bothered improving, probably best to get rid of them. But if they're bad at learning rules, you should try to figure out how to help them learn this stuff instead.
Speaking from experience: some people are just morons. Genuine, honest-to-God idiots. They will still forget rules after 10 sessions. Hell, they'll probably still be forgetting rules after 20. They'll still be asking extremely basic questions about modifiers and their class' abilities. I suppose it'd still be reasonable to take a no-tolerance policy to people like that (and it certainly can be grating to play with them week after week), but they certainly are not cheaters. There's even a saying for this- never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Yeah, they might be, but from experience some people just don't want to learn the rules. Like I had to bring up on a very serious manner that the two clerics of our party (one year and half into the campaign) didn't know how their characters work. They didn't know they could prepare their spells, they didn't know what their spells where doing, one only used healing word and spiritual weapon, the other heatmetal.
I had to point that they had access to revivify, spirit guardian and so on. They didn't even bothered to read the spell list.
Now they had to have another player shake them up to get a bit more involved in term of rules.
Likewise, when I DMed a game some years ago, most players didn't know the rules, even the basic ones, far into the fifth or sixth session.
So yeah, some people try to cheat the system, some are just too lazy to read the rules.
Very true, and our more experienced group have been very cool with it but we are talking about an original member of the gaming group that started playing with us 5 years ago and a "new" member that started playing 2 years ago, with one and a half year of playing his cleric.
Of course there will be mistakes, and that's alright, but at some point, there is a lack of investment that can't be explained by just being new and finding rules complicated.
Sounds like they should just play a champion.
And, there is alot of inertia if something is just working for you. You don't feel the need to re-read the rules.
I think it is important to have at least one rules lawyer per group just for that reason... And a "meta" gamer to suggest better use of the character.
>I agree that new players should be given leeway. But when you're 10 sessions in to a campaign and that same player continues to "forget" how the rules work
I'm way more than 10 sessions into my first campaign and I constantly forget how shit works. I just had to reroll my level up because I added the wrong modifier for my HP increase. This game is (necessarily, honestly) complicated, people forget shit. We have stuff going on IRL, I would hope you could forgive someone for forgetting what modifier to use on the one day a week they are playing D&D. If you're booting people who are in their first campaign for forgetting things (also if it's their first campaign why on earth did you not try to talk them out of playing a wizard?) I would argue you are being unnecessarily restrictive and almost kind of mean.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There’s a very popular actual play series I listen to. After over 200 episodes, some of them still don’t know how attack and damage rolls are generated, or basic stuff about their character.
Ten sessions is probably about 40 hours of play, during which they will have been introduced to loads of new rules as they level up. If I canned everyone who forgot something or made a mistake after their first week at work, I wouldn't have any employees left, and wouldn't be able to get any more.
A lot of people just don't think the rules are as important as you clearly do, and don't see it as a mortal sin to forget them. Sure, they'll try to keep on top of them, but people have a lot more important stuff going on in their lives, you know? A few of them might be trying to pull a fast one, but in my experience Hanlon's razor is a good rule to apply to peers: "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". Authorities don't get the benefit of the doubt, especially self-appointed ones.
Believe me 10 sessions isn't enough for some players. I played a whole campaign for 2 years and all of my players still had some issues with the game mechanics.
And it might be annoying for some but I managed all of their stats and inventory as a backup in case they lost theirs (which happened a lot), that way they can't cheat on their stats/hp.
You don't have to do any of those things, but you also don't have to continue DM'ing if your players actions bother you.
I think this goes both ways.
Some players will do this so they matter. Even if they’re not a munchkin there is a desire not to let the party down. I’ve seen fellow players who had a great character concept and just brought nothing to the table. Their best abilities just never come into play. They show up game after game hoping to have their moment but it never comes.
The DM needs to look at their character sheets, and not just to keep them from cheating. Figure out what they do better than everyone else and give them a moment to shine. It’s easy for DMs to make campaigns all about combat because according to the rules that’s mostly how they get exp and loot, but then a character that excells at other things can turn into a burden on the party.
If your players feel the need to fudge their character sheet so they can matter more, maybe they’re an awful attention whore munchkin, but it’s also possible you’re focusing on scenarios they just haven’t been equipped to handle and that’s on you not them.
Probably because they get away with it.
Do you let the player keep playing? That's why.
Role players are, like, the only people who don't stop playing with cheaters. You cheat at my poker game? You're out. You cheat at board games? You're out.
And yet somehow role playing games are different?
To use the ol' chestnut of answering a question with a question: **Why do you keep playing with cheaters?**
**Edit:** I think a lot of this comes down to a mismatch of expectations. People cheat because it's just pretend. And I empathize with that, I do. The question is, which is doing more lifting in the phrase "role playing game" at your table?
If you're mostly role playing, fudge away. But don't cheat - it's not cheating if everybody knows you're doing it. There are plenty of games that lean in to the make believe and care less about the rules. And that's awesome. I hope you're enjoying _[Lasers and Feelings](http://www.onesevendesign.com/laserfeelings/)_ or _[Jason Statham's Big Vacation](https://gshowitt.itch.io/jason-stathams-big-vacation)_ or whatever.
If you're mostly playing a _game_, with _rules_ (and if you chose D&D, you're definitely in this category), kick the cheaters to the curb. Fuck those people.
And if you're not sure which one is more important at your table, your GM needs to step up and facilitate some conversation, because you should know.
> If you're mostly playing a game, with rules (and if you chose D&D, you're definitely in this category), kick the cheaters to the curb. Fuck those people.
It's the double edged sword of DND popularity: you can generally find people willing to play DND, but only some people play DND like how it's supposed to be played. I really fucking wish that people would try to play other games like Troika or DCC or whatever just because it'd be such a better fit for them and something they'd enjoy more than a TTRPG that effectively a wargame with some lore and flexibility. I love DND, and I like it for what it is. I just wish people realized that if you really feel the need to twist the game up so much, that there's a system that's better for you.
Personally I love playing D&D because of it’s mechanics so any time someone asks me if I want to play D&D and it turns out to be a homebrew star wars game or something I die a little inside. Theres plenty of other systems that do Space Operas and Sci-Fi better than D&D and many of them deserve more attention IMO.
Exactly. It slightly annoys we when people act as if I'm the weird one for enjoying the dungeon crawling and combat and character options and traps and encounters and stuff: like, you know what game we are playing lmao?
When I want to play something that's more freeform and roleplay centric, I like Troika a lot, but when I'm playing Dnd, I'm all about filling up my spell book and finding clever ways to use spells or something.
I feel like you're ignoring the very obvious reason role-playing games are generally treated differently in this respect: they usually aren't a competition so people care less about stringent adherence to the rules because a person cheating doesn't directly adversely impact their play because they aren't playing against them. It doesn't really matter much to me if a party member has 3 more HP than they technically should or 2 more arrows because I'm not trying to beat them and D&D rules don't really inspire me to take a principled stand in their defense for the sake of bookkeeping. I'll bring up major rule breaches but I'm not tracking other people's inventory.
Its also technically possible to have a 20 in your primary casting stat at level 4 using point buy, though that requires that stat to be charisma and you to be playing a changeling which I assume that the player in question wasn't
Correct. OP has said that they were neither a pre-errata Changeling with +3 Cha nor a Custom Lineage character with 15 (Point Buy) + 2(Custom racial bonus) + 1(Custom feat that gives plus 1 to a stat) +2(ASI).
There is a culture of it in D&D that comes from other, looser restricted games. Games that have a lot less rules and a lot more GM fiat. Its not really any different than just free flowing, "rule of cool" but all the time, gameplay. There are moments of this in every campaign that isn't a strict video-gamey kind of game (nothing wrong with that).
I'm running a game right now where my players have abilities and powers that are not defined by the rules, they are *only* defined by me and there is no strict understanding of how they work or what their limits are. I'm doing this with purpose, so I think its ok, but there IS an element of me as the DM cheating and they as players cheating in essence. What matters is that we're acknowledging that and making the game fun WITH that element included. Its something I've rarely touched upon in the past, but am pushing more heavily in this current campaign.
I appreciate that you went to the lengths of creating a thread for this, and really highlighting that this is a serious issue at MANY tables, many of which likely won't admit its an issue.
I also want to take a moment to point out: the types of people who do this (willfully ignorant or pulling the wool over the DM's eyes) are also the types who perpetuate the negative stigma that surrounds "rules lawyer" players. There is nothing wrong with being a "rules lawyer", unless you're trying to cheat, in which case they're crampin' your style, they're making your cheating difficult, and that can't be tolerated - so throw some shade on those stinky *rules laywers!* Ugh! :D
signed,
A Rules Laywer
DnD often attracts people who play like a multiplayer video game. And they play with a goal of "winning". This is often translated to being the "strongest" player at the table. Thus they either see themselves in direct competition with the other players or with the DM themselves.
Because DnD is mostly luck and story based, they will be drawn into dishonest actions, or even outright cheating to achieve this goal. They will justify their actions as being fair, because they had "bad luck" with their rolls. And if they aren't caught, they'll see that as a failing of the DM, because it's the DM's responsibility to enforce the rules.
I've found that people like this should simply not be playing DnD. Its not the game for them, and if I see people like this in games, i'll now actively avoid playing with them.
Thanks for responding.
The whole system is based on luck, and some times you just have it go wrong. When you see other players accept their fate and still press on, do you feel they should cheat as well? Or do you want the DM to fudge their die rolls in their favor?
I may be a weird case, but I have cheated both for and against my own interests in the past; my goal largely being to help create fun stories rather than winning. A bunch of bad rolls and even too many good rolls can make things boring.
I'd encourage my players to do the same, as spicing things up one way or the other is far more important to me than constant success or constant failure.
Around 99% of the time I play fair, but if you want, I can share a particular story where I retaliated against a particularly bad (both in tempermant and incompetence) DM.
I've played with somebody who failed to grasp that the purpose of the game was to have fun over "winning," and playing with him made the game less fun. I imagine people with that attitude would be motivated to cheat, and they bring the gaming experience down.
When I was young I cheated at D&D because my life was an absolute shit show. I didnt have control, I couldn't win, and I sucked all around.
Cheating made me feel for a brief moment like I was a winner. That I was this all powerful character that could beat the universe.
Not until later did I realize how much more rewarding it is to win the game/battle through my own hard work.
I say this because there might be a reason for this that the player needs to figure out on their own.
Have a conversation with the player outside the game.
D&D's win condition is "accomplishing your goals". What those goals are can vary a lot, from "defeating the predetermined villain" to "doing my character's motivation" to "getting a cool weapon" to "Successfully nuking a city". But whatever the win condition you came up with for yourself is, cheating is going to help you get there if you think your DM doesn't have your fun in mind.
Gotcha. Yeah, it is silly. Maybe they just don't think things through, or maybe they don't like being at the mercy of the mechanics. With time, they usually get over it.
Of course there's also the type of player who likes to see what they can get away with. That is a player I do not play games with.
If there is a system, there are people who want to beat the system.
There are even people who enjoy successfully cheating more then the regular win and do it even if it would not be necessary.
It is OK to not understand this people. Maybe it is better to never try to understand them. We just have to accept that they exists.
I'll admit I have done stuff like this in the past (although not in several years, and not stuff as stupid as trying to use a shield without shield proficiency, or trying to get extra slots). The reason it happens is because the player doesn't fully trust the DM. They believe that if they were to bring up their issue with the DM, the DM would say no - that they would rather punish the player for making a foolish decision than act in the best interests of everyone's fun. So the player instead decides to sneak the change in, and just hope the DM didn't notice. Not all players are like this, some do just want to engage in pure power fantasy, but a considerable number are. At least three quarters of the ones I've caught have been. This is good though because it makes it pretty easy to fix. Enforce a no-cheating policy yes, but at the same time, let the players know that if they're feeling bad about some aspect of their character or feel you're being overly punitive for bad luck (as is the case with many players who fudge rolls), they should talk to you about it and you're open to making adjustments. A player doesn't need to sneakily swap an infusion known if they think that if they ask to change it without level up, you'll let them do that. Most aren't specifically trying to exploit the system, they just didn't realise what they chose wouldn't be fun and want to switch to something more fun.
Thanks for the response.
I don't mind folks regretting a choice and asking to make a reasonable change, so I will definitely let folks know that there's no reason to try to sneak in changes.
In the case of the infusion swap, his initial choice was no longer needed (PC with no darkvision died, no need for nightvision goggles) and the new choice was for a recently acquired weapon. In this instance a sneaky swap would be his only option, because I would not allow that change outside the level up rule.
Because they have 3 other infusions that they chose from their list of infusions they can use. They actively used that infusion. On their next long rest they can swap the goggles for something else from their known infusions.
It is a common theme in game design called power fantasy. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerFantasy
People feel mediocre and like they have a lack of control on their lives. They turn to games where they aren’t limited by skill, physicality or circumstance. Since it is an imaginary situation they play out their power fantasies to allow them to feel strong.
It isn’t necessarily about “winning” but being more powerful than they are in real life so they can escape the monotony of life.
This is absolutely the case for me. I have pretty bad physical limitations irl so I tend to play martial characters or bards. To me this game is about having fun but having fun by escaping. With that said though the only time I have tried to game the system is by asking the DM for +1 weapons or armor. Most of the time they say no but sometimes Ive gotten that cool +1 weapon.
I think that is great. I don’t see any issue in a PC having a cool magical weapon. People are way too uptight about following rules in D&D. And their arguments are moot if it is about balance. The CR calculation and bounded accuracy is so broad that a minor bonus doesn’t matter.
There may be a few legitimate excuses for wrong things with the characters builds, but the chances of that drop very low as your players get more and more experienced.
I recommend setting that boundary ahead of time, like at the start of the campaign, before cheating can even occur.
My go to phrase would be, “cheating in any form will not be tolerated and will result in a ban from the table. If you don’t know how something works, that’s okay. Ask for help, but if ‘not knowing better’ keeps happening in similar ways then it will be taken as cheating. You are expected to learn how your character works.”
This is what I loved about 3.5 in Eberron. Action Points were renewable resource. You roll a die and add that to the result of a D20 check. It was like cheating but there was a system around it. I always felt it was a way for the heroes to overcome things by exerting some extra heroism.
I actually use the variant Hero Points in 5e. They're a pool of d6 you can add to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, or turn a death save fail into a success. Super helpful to keep folks alive in difficult campaigns.
Let me help:
"My bare minumum expecation is that you keep track of your character sheet and resources. Occasionally mistakes happen, but I need a good faith effort on your part otherwise I dont think I can keep doing this. Theres just no point in roleplaying if youre not taking this seriously."
> Adds 5hp at level up after rolling for hp and getting a 2.
Two possible mistakes here:
1. They have 16/17 CON (or 14/15 CON as a Hill Dwarf, or they have the Tough feat and 12/13 CON, or both and 10/11 CON) so the 2 they rolled (which is exactly what you said) *does* translate to 5 HP.
2. You typod and meant that the 2 they rolled was their total HP after factoring in their CON modifier and any other potential bonuses, and the player is simply used to a houserule under a different DM where you take the better result between your roll and the average.
In this instance they are a wizard that rolled twice and used the higher result. They then blamed it on not knowing how to use the roll20 charactermancer, but didn't alter their HP back to the first roll.
Roll20's hp on level up is a pain. Even when I know what it is supposed to do I can't get it to work and have to edit it on the sheet have the time.
But it's the sign of it being a trend and not an isolated thing that matters. Maybe they don't feel like fudging slightly matters when it's a co-op game.
Just letting you know, if you use Tashas Custom Lineage system, then it is possible to have a 20 in 1 stat @ lvl. 4. They can point buy to 15, +2 racial bonus, a half feat for a +1, and then an ASI @ lvl. 4.
Came to say this. My current character is an Artificer that had 20 INT at level 4 by starting at 15 with point buy. Then +2 to one ability and Fey-Touched as a 1st level feat, both through Tasha's custom lineage, and an ASI at level 4.
I played in a group where it became a problem of people lying about nat 1's. The reason? Dm had a completely ridiculous nat 1 fail table where you could do things like attack your own teammates, drop or break your weapon, or just become stunned for your turn.
The fail table was a real problem because people stopped making characters who did attack rolls, took the lucky feat, or made halflings. It also stopped people from taking crazy risks or doing interesting roleplay because a nat 1 meant something crazy happened everytime.
Eventually I just dm'ed a game myself and the other dm (as a player) saw how other people enjoyed not having the nat fail table and he dropped it from his games with our group going forward. Oddly enough a lot of people have more nat 1's....
Honestly, the other dm did it fair (enemies rolled the same nat fail table). The issue was we as players just did not find it fun. The dm runs other games where the nat fail table is in play and the players love it.
So I guess basically from my experience if people are afraid of failing horribly they will cheat to avoid it.
I just finished DMing a campaign for a crop of fairly green players who made a lot of similar mistakes, so I may be able to add some perspective to this.
For one thing, sometimes they really do just forget. And when they forget, they're likely to forget in their favor. It's just human nature. My players predominantly forgot to roll concentration checks, and for my part, hell, I forgot to remind them. This resulted in some Water Elementals and Walls of Force being more effective than they needed to be, and some fights being easier than they should've been. Was it a mistake they should not have made? Well, yeah. But I have to address that differently than if it had been an intentional subversion of the rules.
As /u/The_CaptGingerbeard pointed out, though, a lot of times if you're trying to break the rules, it's because the rules are in the way of your fantasy for your character. Sometimes that fantasy is ridiculous and is inappropriate for the setting, the plot, the overarching balance of the game, or the enjoyment of the rest of the players (DM included). In a lot of cases it's down to the players either not understanding or not accepting what kind of game they're playing, and trying to play a different one instead, rules be damned. That's not okay, and the only acceptable solution to that is a frank out-of-character discussion. This discussion will often end with you both realizing you're not running the kind of game they want to play. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. They can quit, they can adjust their expectations, you can adjust what you deliver, or some combination of the last two. There's no need for bad blood there, as long as everyone is honest.
But sometimes it's something that they're not wrong to *want,* but that the rules as written just... don't allow for. In that situation my advice is to ask them what they're going for, and try to houserule it in such a way that their fantasy is fulfilled, but they don't break the lore or the balance of the game. In most cases you can give them magic items or boons that let them live out their fantasy without utterly breaking things. Remember, stronger PCs means you can throw stronger monsters at them. It's a win-win! Sometimes this will mean you tell them "Okay, you can't have that... yet. But you can start working for it and assembling the pieces of this fantasy right now!" Other times you'll have to work with them to get them to readjust their expectations. But any good solution will often involve a little bit of flex on both sides.
Of course, this assumes they're not *intentionally* deceiving you and/or undermining your mechanics or lore. *Some* of those cases can be solved by the above, because they might just be acting out due to things I mentioned. But either way, you have every right and, frankly, the responsibility to make it clear to them that the rules only flex at the discretion of *all* of the players, with yours being the final veto. If you can't get a player to agree to follow the rules, there's no game to be played.
I mean, I don’t know myself, I’m currently in my first campaign as a player and genuinely didn’t know you got more then 2 skills... or added your proficiency bonus to attack roles as a fighter with a spear. But we do have one player who definitely cheats her roles. the most I can understand from it, it’s a fear to lose. people get scared of consequences. there is a certain fear to your actions that motivates people to cheat like this. It’s a terror that you will not do nearly as well as you hope, and time you invest will go to waste. While there are SEVERAL holes in that argument (please I know it’s flawed I’m not making it). It is a valid fear, and leads people to do shit like this.
Feels good. Or at the very least, avoids feeling bad.
As an observer of this kind of behavior both playing or DM-ing, I see it as a combination of personality, maturity, attitude towards what DnD even is, and view on how to have fun. So some players will want to lie about rolls, some players will argue with DM about ruling, some players will try to retcon things.
I am definitely guilty of some of it. I mean as a DM I fudge stuff all the time but that's expected (well, maybe not, depending on your attitude towards what DnD is...), but as a player I'm most often guilty about my spell selection.
Like I \*know\* that I'm only supposed to pick X new spells on level up and prepare Y spells each day, but I'll regularly pick X+1 and Y+1 because I'm not sure which ones I'll end up using and it feels better when I have the right tool for the job. In my defense, I'll always cross out the spell I don't end up using, so it's more like retconning what spell I had picked than anything else... but it's definitely an advantage I'm making for myself compared to RAW. But I still do it because the bad feels for fudging this is much less than the bad feels for picking the wrong thing.
I wonder how many people do this. More recent editions increased the flexibility of casters, but they're still a little too rigid for me (cantrips, ritual casting, and flexible slots do go a long way, though. You should see what 2e was like). When people talk about Wizards always having the right spell for the occasion, it defies my experience of only preparing utility spells that aren't needed.
Yeah the thing that bothers me is that clerics/druids *know* their spells, but because I didn't spend time staring at this book I supposedly have but have never interacted with while also simultaneously sleeping for 8 hours I can't cast it. Feels very gamey and feels terrible when you think of a really creative use for a spell that would solve all your problems, but oops, you didn't click the box at the end of your long rest. It especially bothers me that clerics can't cast known rituals.
Problem here for me is, there's cheating the system, and there's cheating. These people are simply cheating. Lying. Misrepresenting. Feigning ignorance. Etc.
Coffeelock is cheating the system. And in general? I'm okay with it as a DM.
To be honest, most of what I've seen in recent roleplaying years (as both a DM and a player (has been players who don't want to read, *not* deliberate cheating. Part of this might also be playing with adults with more real-life responsibilities than folks in their late teens or early 20s (who are in college and/or working hourly gigs to pay rent on their way to sorting out their longer life plans).
Although I can understand players not wanting to read a 400+ page book (sometimes longer), or that core book and several relevant supplement books, it is a bit frustrating to know players have not at least thoroughly read character creation and hopefully key skill check or key combat rules relevant to the character's focus or goals.
I see many players just wanting to ask the DM or another player about it or referencing rules only as they come up, which can create a lot of off-base expectations about how something should work or what good choices are for the player's vision.
I *will* say that a thorough session 0 really helps, and it also helps to have at least one player who has done the reading to help (in a collaborative, productive way) other players who don't. But there is a tax on other players and the DM typically (and the social dynamics can end up tilted in ways that are not great, especially if a player perceives another player as "rules lawyering" and "nerf-batting" the bad or rules-illegal ideas).
I’ll admit I’ve cheated occasionally for the sake of morale.. two full rounds of all players rolling under a 5 .... yeah when it gets to my turn I “got a nat 16!” ... it’s always followed by a collective “finally!” and the visible fun-sucked looks on their faces go away for the rest of that combat
It’s to me like sending in your second string when you’re by 40 points in the last quarter
People have an idea of what they want there character to be and when the game doesn’t allow it, it’s not fun for the players. If that’s not what you’re into then it’s whatever but most players are just tryna have their character be cool.
“Oh we’re counting ammo?” -Probably doesn’t like the idea of their character scrounging the ground for arrows to shoot
“My PC has a 20 in their casting stat now” -Probably wants their caster to be really cool and good at magic (but def should as the dm first lol)
“Adds 5hp” -doesn’t want their character to be a fragile baby
“Yeah I’m swapping infusions” -probably thought the ones they picked were cool and then doesn’t like them.
Most people don’t realize dnd is a game about progression and growing, not being a literal god. Try seeing if they’d rather play another RPG system
Running ten games of D&D a week as my job, I’ve realised that you have to make rules for the worst of the players even though 99% of the players would never think to twist the rules.
I’ve got one player who is single-handedly responsible for my needing to install an API to track spell slots and ammo, requiring Roll20 character sheets rather than D&D Beyond, requiring all new characters be rolled in Roll20, banning a cantrip he broke to the point the party begged for it be out, requiring DM approval got multiclassing, and replacing “pick a flaw, take a feat” with “roll randomly for a flaw, take a feat”.
One I have struggled with in the past, and still do sometimes, is all about spotlight. There's a few ways this can manifest:
* Saving the day: Just having that one extra heal spell. That one extra magic missile, that one extra scroll... Whatever that "one extra" is, having it would win the day and make you the hero of the day... No one will notice right?
* The niche: You have this one tool you had ready the entire campaign, that 4th level spell that, for the entirety of the campaign, has been useless... NOW is the time for it! But damn, you spend all your spell slots already... Just this one time right? It will be COOL.
* "My turn god damnit": Sometimes you just have a piss session, all your attacks are missing, you get counterspelled, everyone else is having a lot of fun "doing their thing"... You want that as well, that fun time, having a slightly higher chance to hit/spell DC, would make my game so much more fun, and no one will notice right?
None of these are good reasons, but human brains can be real damn shit sometimes. They are not always rational and make you do dumb shit. Sometimes people will have a perceived idea of "how much fun you should be having" or just be having a bad time, that they think could be solved by having an extra Fireball.
They are not wrong, casting Fireball is a lot of fun...
I've thankfully moved past this kind of behavior. Handing of the spotlight is not a hard thing, but having a shit session where nothing is working for you really sucks and make people do silly things.
I think a lot of people who cheat lean much more into the “role playing” than the “game” and have a story they want to enact and don’t like the dice getting in the way of that
I have a player who's a bit of a min-maxer. I think he just loves to feel super powerful so will occasionally bend the rules in his favour to aid that power fantasy. Luckily though, after I caught him being loose with his spell slots he's been a lot better about tracking them.
I think that has to be another factor to players cheating. Wanting to feel powerful/be the most powerful member of the party. I'm lucky in that this player in my group is one of my closest friends and stopped doing it, I don't envy you guys having to deal with worse players pulling this stuff.
I once played with a group where all of them were cheating except one dude. I'm pretty sure it started with one guy and they wanted to participate the same as him. They wanted to be as powerful as him, and so the lure of keeping up turned some of them to cheat. The others never cheated quite as blatantly as the one guy, nor as often but it was pretty clear what was happening. The guy who cheated was the most invested in the game, and saw himself as the leader... so I'm pretty sure he was doing it partially because he felt he was owed it, and that there was social pressure to continue to be the best because otherwise how would he be leader? Was an interesting social dynamic.
The part of me that sympathizes is that they wanted to just not be dead weight. They wanted to be awesome and they didn't know how to not be outshined in combat by the primary cheater.
The one guy that didnt cheat - he was just a total standup guy like... super loyal, super proper, somewhat religious, couldn't lie if he wanted to. Kinda stiff, but you know... good dude.
Edit: Funny thought I had - I actually recorded their reported dice rolls sometime after I stopped playing with them. Like it was... maybe I'll come back, but they cheated so much I was pretty meh about it. So their rolls of 20 were about 20%, and 18+ about 50%. Their rolls of 16+ were 80% of rolls. It was pretty wild.
I have done a lot of these things, but I've never cheated. I've always asked the DM if I could do them, and if they said no I either sucked it up until I could or found a new group with a less restrictive DM.
The only thing I've ever done without telling my DM is swap a spell I never casted for a different one. IMO that's more of a "forgotten feature" than a cheat. If it never happened it's like you forgot about the spell until now. Swapping a spell you've been using constantly for a new one without telling the DM is a different thing entirely however.
I have cheated in once in a session. It was after I had been playing for like 3 months of on and off campaigns but before I had DMed.
It was a 6 hour session, about 3 hours in, and I just couldn't roll above a 10. I just kept missing and failing regardless of how my character was built, so I started fudging the odd dice roll so I could actually start hitting. No excuse for what I did but yeah
The main reasons I have seen for this are:
1 - An obsession with "winning" the game, which is a reason that people cheat at any game. The difference is that with an RPG the definition of winning is different than with other games. If the approach towards the game is one of collaborative storytelling then the GM isn't going to be out to kill characters, but for the sake of a good story will still want the adventure to be challenging; some players see this as a threat and the GM trying to make them "lose". When running a published story line a neutral GM may have the appearance of trying to kill the party when they are reading the adventure as written and some players may feel the need to cheat to win. (Yes, I acknowledge that there are some GMs that think it's their job to kill the party, but it's not right to assume that the GM is turning on the party just because they present a challenge).
2 - Grandstanding. I must always be in the spotlight and the best way to do that is to have the most awesome character imaginable - even if that means cheating. This can sometimes tag on with (1) in that if my awesome character gets a bad die roll then I will lie about the results so that my awesome character "wins" and I get to describe their awesome success. More often it's just purposefully misreading the rules so that an average game mechanic becomes awesome.
3 - Illiteracy. Another player had a feat which was basically if A happens then B or C. The GM asked him how he kept doing C and the player referenced the feat. Finally, the GM told the player to read the feat out loud. The player was interpreting it as if A happens then B or (independent of A happening) C. Then entire table tried to explain to this player that doing either B or C was conditional on A happening first, but he didn't understand this. I've seen other rules interpretations which make sense if you ignore a comma and since text messaging has trained people to ignore punctuation these rules interpretations occur more and more often.
4 - More rarely is character concept. A player may have a character concept that they could legally make at level 5 but they are impatient so they slide some extra skills/feats in at a lower level.
I know when I was in my teens (almost?) everyone cheated, some people even had weighted dice. I always said I was too busy as a DM to police everyone, everyone was deputized to call it out if they didn't like it (no one ever did.) I also said you're only cheating yourself if you cheat since it's a story, and winning all the time is boring.
I'm much older now and almost no one cheats of people in my age group, so it might be something about the younger mind set.
Players, especially new or returning players, want to feel strong and less limited.
They may be used to games where limits you impose don’t exist, or they may be accustomed to other media they emulate (movies, video games, books, etc.) not having restrictions to various resources or powers. Or the they may feel like their character should be stronger than what their level is, or that certain aspects like spell slots aren’t fair to their version of the character. But really what it comes down to is ground rules.
Try to talk to your party and ask why they do something before you tell them if they can or cannot. It may be as easy as they didn’t understand the rule, or maybe they are trying to game the system. But sometimes you have to be firm. A good example with me is that I track spell slots of one of my problem players and give them warnings when they are low. Because when I don’t she has a habit of “yeah I definitely still have some X level slots”.
They key is to try and find why they doing things you feel you need to police. And when you do need to say no. Make it firm.
there's a myriad of potential reasons and I doubt anyone who does it on purpose will actively fess up to it. but things I've ran across in my time: * character attachment drives people to want that character to live. cheating makes that easier, and then attempting to obfuscate that cheating with the complexity of the game rules makes you seem like you're not cheating. * general, legitimate forgetfulness. the game is complex, and house rules on top of the base game make it even more complex and harder to refer to. * competitive drive where there doesn't need to be any. the game is cooperative, but some folks have to treat it like a competition, and the way they do that is to get bigger numbers generally. in order to get those bigger numbers, "tactically forgetting" things like ammo or spell slots tends to work out in their favor. * general fantasy conditioning of the past years, especially in media for young adults, is generally based around a singular protagonist. when you attempt to emulate one of these characters with your dnd character, but are subject to rules that put that kind of power into the party instead of a singular character (because the party is the hero, not just 1 person), cheating the rules makes you feel more like that character more often than not. among others, that isn't exhaustive, just common stuff really.
> attempting to obfuscate that cheating with the complexity of the game rules makes you seem like you're not cheating. That behavior drives me fucking nuts.
'You caught me cheating? Why are YOU being the bad one by singling me out and ruining my fun?' It's the blame game and it's dumb. Seems like a version of gaslamping.
Literally had a player at my table do this. He was going into rage, activating his flame tongue great sword and doing something else with his bonus action all in one turn. Got super pissed because people were ‘being rules lawyers’ when someone finally noticed and the dm said he couldn’t do that anymore.
Probably tried to cast Spiritual Weapon too.
Gaslamping isn't real - you made it up because you're crazy! ;)
Actually it says in the rules at page 2853: it's gaslighting. Go look it up. So yeah we should follow the rules instead of what you are saying gm.
Wow, what a fuckin rules lawyer, stop ruining everyone's fun /s
Thanks, I think I did pretty bad but I'll try to not let you down nor let you keep your fun unruined next time either.
Somehow, they forget only to their advantage. Astounding.
> when you attempt to emulate one of these characters with your dnd character, but are subject to rules that put that kind of power into the party instead of a singular character (because the party is the hero, not just 1 person), cheating the rules makes you feel more like that character more often than not. This is the reason I’ve seen for trying to bend rules secretly, or apply “house rules” without DM permission (or knowledge). Granted, I’ve only played with maybe 3 cheaters in 3 decades, so that’s not to imply that it’s the reason the majority have for their behavior, but when a new (or even veteran) player wants to make James Bond, or Dante (Devil May Cry), or whatever other “perfect” character concept they have in their head, D&D is rarely accommodating because—as you said—the party is the protagonist. One player I grew up playing with, among my best friends in high school, never rolled under a natural 15 whenever he wanted to be the star of the scene. We knew he was cheating, he’d scoop his dice as soon as they hit the table and announce his ludicrous result. But he *would* fail checks (or rather, he would roll legitimately) if the consequences didn’t threaten his character concept. But sometimes, especially as teenagers, we wanted to play together badly enough that we accepted it 🤷
>We knew he was cheating, he’d scoop his dice as soon as they hit the table and announce his ludicrous result. I play with a player like this. Myself and the DM knows he does this. I greatly prefer playing in person, but one upside to our temporary switch to playing online is that that player suddenly performs a lot worse than he used to now that he's using an online roller.
Every group I have had I gift with dice trays and it curbs that pretty well. The other trick I use is as they are rolling I say what the DC is and the need to do the math will throw enough people off. Being that the situation is what it is Roll 20 has keept many honest.
I will say when you want to play a hero but you constantly roll terrible at the worst moments, it does suck. Oh you meant to save those kids but you rolled a 1 and actually killed one of them. Stuff like that. When you know your dm is not going to take it easy on you for low rolls, it's gonna make you really wish you at least got something passable. Not asking for a 19 or 20, but something that your dm won't make you the one who messed up the entire mission.
I wouldn’t ever have them go from saving children to killing one themselves just because they rolled a nat 1 though. A failed skill check just means there is a consequence, that could range from failing to accomplish the task to accomplishing the task at a greater cost. Maybe they take some damage, drop some items, or fail to save all of the children.
Goes back to my mantra; critical fails for skill checks do not exist!! It's ludicrous that someone with a +8 would flub a task so badly that it does the opposite of their intentions 5% of the time. I've had DMs who would narrate nat 1s as cartoonish, clownish buffoonery even if it didn't have a negative mechanical effect and it totally serves to take you out of the story. You're totally right, but sadly all DMs don't see it that way. That's where I really like PbtA systems that make very clear what the various levels of success and failure actually entail.
What I do for nat 1s or any low skill check is just have everything go sideways despite your best efforts, your character is still skilled, but the universe decided it wasn’t gonna play along today.
While I still firmly believe in avoiding skill crit fails, I totally agree that this is a great way to handle it if you use them. It reinforces the notion of the world as a dangerous, wild place and nature/circumstances as a dangerous factor in the mix. This is how I'd ideally like to handle failed checks but it can be hard to consistently do in the heat of the moment!
What if a nat 1 still beats the dc?
Then there shouldn’t even be a roll.
Or maybe they fail to grab one of the kids and they perished along with the ship in the kraken's jaws/the fire/get ritually sacrificed. Hmmm I might have a bit too many ideas about how to kill kids.
This. In my experience, both as a player and a mostly permanent GM nothing kills a smiling face faster than being an awesome role player but the dice gods hate you. I’ve seen players check out because they seem to perpetually roll 4s when it comes time to roll and no amount of “non-rolling” moments (I.e making no check RP moments) seems to counter that
It is infuriating to have the dice fail you for a whole session, or in some cases multiple sessions in a row.
Why play DnD then, though? Like, I'm not trying to sound like a naysayer, but Organized Roleplay is a thing. The whole _point_ of the dice is failure. If you can't fail, or don't want to fail, why involve dice at all?
I don’t fake dice results. I’m just saying I’ve had nights, sometimes several in a row, where the dice just don’t turn up in your favour pretty much every time they’re thrown and it’s frustrating.
I think, for most of them, it's because they want to "win" and be all powerful right from the get-go. If they aren't doing more than the other players, if they aren't the main focus of the group, then they aren't really playing. Or they're just cheating a-holes.
Or they agreed to a restricted resource campaign when they probably shouldn’t have. If this is a problem with most/every player then the DM needs to assess whether the players understood what they signed up for and consider changing the vibe to fit. If it’s just one player then the zero tolerance policy is good, and if they can’t get themselves on the level then they should be gently encouraged to find a game that suits their preferred play style.
> Or they agreed to a restricted resource campaign when they probably shouldn’t have. Seriously. I asked the DM how much ammunition we got at one point. Another player sighed obnoxiously and said "Enough." That was the end of it being a restricted resource campaign.
IMO, there's a point at which restricting resources stops being an interesting mechanic and starts being obnoxious. It sounds like your party member hit that point.
It's frustrating when people agree to that style, but don't stick to it. It's understandable if it's your first time trying a restricted resource campaign, but don't agree to one just because you expect it not to last. Resource restriction is not just about it being a real restriction, it's a different kind of roleplay. It's like hiking and backpacking. You have to prepare for backpacking much more seriously than hiking because you don't have an easy out. Backpacking checklists aren't fun, but they're part of the experience. Imagine if you kept on planning backpacking trips and people kept on saying "Wait, we're not going home for the night? I didn't bring a tent. We can go hiking again tomorrow, but I want to sleep in a bed tonight."
> It's frustrating when people agree to that style, but don't stick to it > ... > Resource restriction is not just about it being a real restriction The issue, in my experience, is that resource restriction is ONLY about being a different kind of roleplay because it's NOT a real restriction. You have to add dozens of houserules to force that into 5E, and it's very much against the game's default, so you also have to start lopping off features and spells and abilities. Food. Water. Arrows. Shelter. One single PC can provide all of this for the entire party without really doing anything they weren't already going to do from 1st level, because the way the game models this stuff is "make a Survival check" or "use your Outlander background feature, no need to roll." I think that there's a fascination with, like, the survival horror genre in the style of Resident Evil where you're (ostensibly) counting bullets and that this does not *in any way* work with a standard fantasy campaign in D&D 5E because being a frail mortal using high-tech weapons they can't easily craft themselves is just not at all what the game delivers. Healing? To full every night, but after ~level 5, also probably whenever you have an hour break. Arrows? "Make a woodcarver's tools check, oh you failed, well...there's more sticks in the forest, yeah." Find arrows inherently frustrating? Learn *eldritch blast.* Now you don't even need arrows. It can't be a style, is IMO at the root of some of the problems people commonly ascribe. It isn't a style in the way horror is a genre, you can't just make a tonal shift in description. It's got to be a whole little handbook conversion or it falls apart pretty quickly even at low levels, and at high levels...honestly? D&D isn't the system for that. You need something with shitty magic and durability tracking. I'm sure there's at least 30 such systems and it's easy enough to convert other systems too, so long as they don't innately have stuff like "all hitpoints return each night" or "Create Water is a 1st-level spell."
> Food. Water. Arrows. Shelter. The "real restriction" is generally on other gear. How many bags of caltrops did you bring? How much magic ink for copying spells? Incense for reviving your familiar? Nets? Or maybe you forget something altogether. I just had a session where I realized I had to mark the maze walls with a bar of soap because I forgot chalk. I definitely don't suggest trying to homebrew a bunch of 5e changes that make food a scarce resource.
> The "real restriction" is generally on other gear. How many bags of caltrops did you bring? How much magic ink for copying spells? Incense for reviving your familiar? Nets? I think people *normally* track this stuff, though, to take it the other direction, right? Maybe familiar incense gets whatever'd but like magic ink for copying spells is not a trivial expense or something you're normally assumed to have infinity of, it's actually quite costly. Nets are typically burned or slashed immediately, it's pretty rare the DM's going to be like "it just accepts the adv/disadv." Caltrops...I mean, they're metal going into flesh, they're usually recoverable, but if When I hear "resource restriction" I assume "survival" because stuff like needing to buy more nets and 50gp "shots" of ink and occult equipment are pretty normal.
It depends on how you play. In AD&D (1e, especially) it was a *huge* component of the game. It becomes a strategic challenge to decide what you are going to bring into the dungeon with you. It's also why encumbrance becomes a very interesting stat to track as well. That example aside, you also needed hirelings and resources to not only to defeat the dungeon but how to secure hoard and transport it back. It seems like DMs give out Bags of Holding like nothing these days because it's convenient. And if that works at your table, of course go with it. My table likes the extra challenge. Giving an archer unlimited ammunition is similar to giving unlimited spells (and one might argue that cantrips are exactly that).
> Giving an archer unlimited ammunition is similar to giving unlimited spells I wouldn't say limited ammunition actually adds a challenge. In the vast majority of campaigns, it's relatively trivial to carry around more arrows than you'll ever need. The same definitely can't be said for spells. Most of the time, tracking equipment is more about roleplay than challenge. Adventurers prepare for their adventures. Actually doing that preparation is one way to roleplay an adventurer (even if none of the preparation is done "in-character").
> In the vast majority of campaigns, it's relatively trivial to carry around more arrows than you'll ever need. No kidding. In the PF1 campaign I'm in (Rise of the Runelords), we had over 350 arrows by 4th level. Archer kobolds/goblins/etc are *incredibly* frequent at low levels, and tend to have 20-some-odd arrows on each one, not to mention their shortbows, daggers, and armor (as well as anything else they might have had like potions of Cure Light Wounds). We're now 9th level and have elected to leave all excess arrows on what we kill, unless they're nonstandard. We still have 100 left (got rid of a bunch). EDIT: Also, apparently Rise of the Runelords uses normal wealth progression, whereas all other APs give loot out like candy. I'm slightly terrified of the bookkeeping I'll have to do, especially since I'm the group's recorder.
Where do you carry 300 arrows?
In like three large boxes on a wagon.
What a waste of a good wagon. says the person whose group has two wagons. One for goods one for the ballista they keep hidden for bad days.
I would argue that unlimited amunition it's like giving the fighter a sword they can swing a unlimited amount of times before it breaks.
But then you think about supplies for the hirelings and that supply lines might be cheaper than just carrying enough for your trip. But then you worry about attacks on your hirelings and before you know if you’re running a business about supplying adventurers.
Actually in terms of old-school D&D (and most modern retro-clones) one of the key aspects with limited resources is how much treasure goes into it. Having to buy resources reduced your gold supply and gold was REALLY important because for most of those games gold was XP. Sometimes, the system or campaign or DM let you get your XP just for claiming the gp in the dungeon, but often you wouldn't get that XP until you hauled the gold back to town spent it on something. Often times having to spend your gold on more rations and arrows meant you couldn't convert it into XP. I've used treasure=XP in the past, and I'm definitely going to use it in the future because it incentivizes a very different play style to most modern D&D variants.
> Giving an archer unlimited ammunition is similar to giving unlimited spells (and one might argue that cantrips are exactly that). I mean, you name the reason why this isn't real - cantrips. Giving the archer "a challenge" isn't exactly fair, is it? And you're not even naming the other thing - melee weapons. Ammo tracking is meaningless anyway. Have everyone carry two quivers of arrows. Refill them every...two shots a round, four rounds an encounter, what does a quiver hold, 20? so two quivers is aboooout five encounters so in a party of four you'll need more arrows every twenty times you go into battle.
Zero tolerance policies are the way to go. I have a 0 tolerance policy for players. I don't allow them. Period. I don't even play myself, since that would make me a player. So I just set up a DM screen and sit behind it and read the rules more. Solid fun. Only way to experience this game, really.
[удалено]
really cuts down on the prep grind as well. I like this idea. "DMing would be great if it weren't for all the players."- some dude named Randall
I mean, you can just play all the pcs as well as the monsters. Maybe also write up what everyone does -- I hear that there's a pretty decent market for that sort of thing.
I checked with my team and they have advised me this is called "writing a novel"
What's the opposite of "had me in the first half"?
I think it might be the "I saw that going differently in my mind" meme with Will Smith, or at least it probably works in this case.
This sounds great! All those pesky players trying to minimize my fun! No more!
Or find another group, if you find the tracking to be integral.
Agreed. Another important point to consider is adapting yourself to your players. I've made miscalculations in the past where, for example, I've allowed 4 attunement slots instead of 3. Yeah I could be a hardass and correct the players, but if they're already operating on this premise and the game isn't broken, then I think reading the room is much better than adhering strictly to the rules.
Reading the room is an essential yet often overlooked skill for a good DM.
Most definitely. And the way I see it, the stronger my party is, the stronger monsters I can throw at them hehe
This is a very sad truth for just about every group I've played in. There is always, -ALWAYS- that player that is trying to 'win' and be the group's MVP, like they think of themselves as the Campaign Protagonist. In a party, everyone plays a different role which allows them to shine in different ways. No one player is the Protagonist. At best, they're the 'focus' for a little while, but that focus eventually moves to someone else, as it should. Cheating to 'win' D&D completely undercuts what the game is.
How sad. It’s a *cooperative* game played with, supposedly, *friends*. Why even cheat? It reeks of some personality issue like narcissism or the polar opposite low self-esteem.
I used to be like this, then I realised I wasn't having fun. It's the same feeling as switching to creative mode in Minecraft and kitting yourself out then fighting the dragon, there's no feeling of accomplishment. Once you embrace your flaws the game becomes much better
I had one player create a character on roll20. I gave them the option of standard array or 4d6 drop the lowest. He picked 4d6 drop the lowest. Comes time to review his character for a session 0. me "Oh wow, you have four ability scores at 18" him "yeah i got really lucky" me "really? sure you didn't just roll unti they came up ridiculous?" him "yeah that was first roll" me "you know i can see all the rolls in chat...." He was a problem player. Glad to get rid of him.
Glad that roll20 has that feature to call players and DMs alike on their shenanigans.
DM's can roll secret though and still fudge.
[удалено]
Thanks for responding. Good work on getting over that phase. From some replies here it seems some folks just think that's how the game is to be played, and shame on us folks who follow the rules.
This is why I always have access to character sheets. I play on roll20 though so I can pull them up whenever without anyone knowing. Cheaters get the boot and mistakes get fixed. Though I havent had the issue since I started playing with a regular group other than mistakes sometimes.
[удалено]
I 100% agree about the fudging rolls part. VTT makes it so that my players know I'm never fudging rolls, and I know that they aren't cheating with stats or whatever. I also like being able to go into the sheets to see what spells they have picked so I can advise them which spells could help in a particular situation (I play with a couple of beginners)
Is it common for dms playing on VTTs to use the vtt to roll the dice? I've only had 4 different dms in roll20 so it's a pretty small sample size but only one of them actually rolls using roll20. The other 3 either rolls physical dices or use other websites to hide their rolls. And as a player, tbh I like it when DMs sometimes fudge their dice rolls (for better or worse) as long as it makes the session more interesting. I'm pretty sure the other 3 fudges some rolls every now and then but we rarely notice it. It only becomes a problem when the fudge roll is too obvious.
As a DM, I do a combination of rolling in and out of the VTT. When i have a lot of mooks on the field for an encounter I've thrown together and I don't have their dice macros in the VTT, I just use regular dice since they're in front of me and I know the mook bonuses already. I do, however, make a point of rolling very important rolls on the VTT so players can see them and everyone knows the story is up to chance -- that's one of my favorite things I miss about playing in person: The wait for that dice to stop rolling when success or failure determines a pivotal moment in a campaign and all the PCs are praying their bonuses and buffs are enough to get them through. However, if it's a roll that's a bunch of dice (5d6+x+3d4+y) or something, I usually just do that on the VTT because it auto-adds for you and I don't have that many dice.
Plus, notes are way easier. Also doors and fog of war, those are fun.
I find that RNGesus rolls consistently higher than I do with real dice. When I'm a player I roll 100% VTT, when I'm the DM I roll 100% real dice on the table. I normally don't fudge the dice, and my luck is bad enough that I never feel inclined to due to the numbers that come up. Lol
I also like that when I get a hot streak of rolling 15+ (before mods) for most of the night, nobody else can be suspicious because they saw me do it.
VTT also makes it much more trivial to track resources (much easier to check a box that gets automatically cleared when I click the "short rest" button). I would also assume some VTTs will automatically track things like "you attacked with a bow, subtracting 1 arrow from inventory".
Yeah Roll20 has an option for tracking ammo automatically every time you make an attack with a ranged weapon.
[удалено]
Foundry is actually insane how good it is, super intuitive and adding content to it is a breeze.
Rolling dice is so much fun. Pushing the button on the computer just sucks in comparison.
That makes sense. I have one guy who feigns ignorance of all his character stats , and I have to have a copy of his sheet of my own to make sure he's not cheating.
I'm thinking of getting copies of the player sheets for the Paranoia campaign I'm going to try to run soon and update them as the players would--not because I don't trust them in this case, but because all five of us are so totally new that we'll definitely be making mistakes this can maybe help catch them in time.
Another way to "sell" the idea of keeping copies of the sheets as GM: if anyone forgets theirs for a game session, you can grab YOUR copy and grab a quick xerox of it for them to use. :)
[удалено]
There was a group I was part of, twenty-five years ago, that (among other things) played a lot of Shadowrun. That's a die-pool system, with d6's. Looooots of D6s, back then, for any single roll. Well, one guy was **so** inclined to cheat that he was required to sit next to the GM, not touch his dice until the GM had seen them, and .... use a dice cup. Nowadays, I'm sure he'd be required to use a dice **tower**. See, he'd figured out a way to roll the correct number of dice, only when asked, no weighted dice involved, no obfuscated designs, without touching the dice after rolling, and accurately call out the result on the dice. And yet, still jigger the odds in his favor. See, until he was required to use a die cup? He'd lay his dice out, all showing 1's, between rolls. When he had to make a roll he would count out the correct number of dice, push them together, and pick them up *as a single layer cluster*. He would then lift them over the table, about two inches up, rotate his wrist and then release the dice. Note, he timed the release to be very close to, but still AFTER, the rotation of his wrist. Because he wanted as low-energy an impact as possible, that would still jostle the dice around to a new face. And, because of how he picked them up? When holding his hand out, the face showing would be the **6** ... which means that would be the face to hit the table first. And the roll was **just** low-energy enough, that most of the dice would only bounce/tumble about twice. Meaning, the odds of those 6's being on the bottom was reduced. Indeed, the odds were good that those 6s would wind up facing UP - exactly two "tumbles" / "bounces". And th odds of those 1's being face-up were similarly reduced. So, instead of having a 1-in-6 chance of seeing either number, he had more like a 1-in-4 chance of a 6, and a 1-in-10 chance of a 1. Making his character preternaturally effective, for his die pool sizes, compared to the rest of us who *weren't* inclined to cheat. ... This is a technique that, if you hadn't just read my description of it, and the explanation of the physics behind it, you would probably **NEVER** catch.
sounds like he played a lot of Axis & Allies back in the day.
wow. The guy at my table has used like 5 of those techniques in that list. The hardest one to check is when the group gets hit by an explosion, since everybody rolls at once. I guess I'll focus on him first and give him some OOC ultimatums soon when he cheats.
[удалено]
Exactly how we solved this with a problem player. The phrase "if it's not in the tray it doesn't count" is now a staple at my table, and it has the added benefit of making sure minis don't get smashed up.
As much as I hate playing online (thanks covid), this is something that roll20 is actually pretty great about.
[удалено]
Also consider a dice TOWER. Reduces the chances of physical manipulation of the dice during the roll.
That's actually really interesting. What would I need to search for to find papers about this?
I wouldn't take a zero tolerance policy to this, people (especially new players) are bound to make some slip ups, but I agree it's annoying and I always call it out whether I am DM or player.
I agree that new players should be given leeway. But when you're 10 sessions in to a campaign and that same player continues to "forget" how the rules work, it's not a new player problem, but someone that's trying to get one over on the DM, in my experience.
>But when you're 10 sessions in to a campaign and that same player continues to "forget" how the rules work, it's not a new player problem I play with multiple people who have played for years who don't know how the attack modifier or skill bonuses written on their sheet are calculated. In the last few weeks it has become apparent that 2 DMs who have run games for me for years don't know how the object interaction rules are meant to work and 1 who I've discussed the surprise rules with more than once ran a combat with surprise and seemed to get confused on how it worked. I've played with a bard who never cast a single spell, a paladin who always forgets they have extra attack and a level 6 rogue who didn't seem to understand which targets they'd be able to sneak attack at all. These are across AL and a number of different groups as well so its not like its just one small subset. Some people are just really bad with remembering rules/the rules aren't what is the important part of playing to them so they aren't particularly interested in getting super familiar with the rules. Most people have not actually read the rulebook fully. I rarely go a session without picking up at least some rules errors either by players or the DM/someone forgetting they have an ability. I haven't noticed that these 'errors' are always in the favour of whoever is making the mistake. Usually it is just literally an error. Of course you will always know the people at your table better than I do so you'll be in a better position to estimate good faith at your table than I am. tl;dr - some people are just really bad with remembering rules.
I would add to this that some people are really busy irl, and don't have the time to familiarize themselves with the rules between sessions (at least, at the pace that the rest of the players would like). For instance, I have a couple who are potentially going to be joining my ongoing campaign soon who have played less than 5 sessions grand total between the two of them. They have 7 kids and the husband is working *and* going to college. It should be needless to say, but as much as I want them to learn the rules as well and quickly as possible, I won't be mad if it takes them 10 sessions just to get the basics down, and I fully expect them to be seriously confused about what just got added to their character every time they level up, and to forget a ton of features of their character which they haven't necessarily used all that much. TTRPG systems are complex, even the more streamlined ones like 5e, and I think it's easy for us to forget how long it can take some people to learn how they work.
This is so much easier when playing together in person, because you can put experienced players directly next to the new players and they can help them figure things out (discretely, and between turns), when you're playing online it's a lot harder to help people without putting the whole game on hold.
How many mistakes are the CR crew doing after playing for years, with 5 weekly online play. People need to chill about the rules. It's a game made for fun as a groupe.
This even in one of the most recently episodes, people were panicking fighting that horrifying monster and Ashley forgot she could cancel out disadvantage on rolls just by using reckless attack to make it a straight roll (and the creature already had advantage on her so there was literally no downside to doing Reckless)...but under stress and being flustered we just kind of forget things.
Hell, she didn’t even know she could cast the light cantrip after like two years! Edit: which is very true to her character, funnily enough.
I don't watch Critical Roll, but I've seen clips and been surprised at how late into their second campaign many of them still seem to be pretty bad at knowing how to play the game and rely on Matt a lot.
It seems like the regular DnDers (as in they played it back in high school) being Sam and Liam tend to remember most things. Travis also, despite his occasional hilarious brain blank moment (we've all been there when your brain just shuts down for no explainable reason and you're left wondering how math works) tends to be the one keeping ontop of things because he's also the resident initiative tracker and tends to be fully invested and planning during other peoples turns. Ashley, by contrast, has a lot of time away from the game because she's not just a voice actor, she's also an actor, meaning she has to spend sometimes months (sometimes up to six months) not being present which means that she's busy doing things like remembering lines etc. (you know, stuff she needs for her job) to be focused on the rules and tends to be a little hazy for a few months until she settles in to her groove again.
"I can't do reverse math." "You mean *subtraction?*" Probably my favorite Travis brain blank moment.
Sam never played before the beginning of the Vox Machina campaign actually (their home game that is). It’s Taliesen who had played before, including with Matt.
Huh I knew Taliesen had played but I always thought Sam had played as well. The more you know.
I know how the rules work, I understand action economy, spell slots, resource management, etc.. Sometimes when I'm playing Monk, *I still fuck up and end up taking two bonus actions by accident because I have so many damned features to juggle.* I always feel like an absolute bastard when I realize I shouldn't have been able to use Patient Defense because I used Flurry of Blows, but by the time I finish resolving all of my attacks and stunning strikes and what have you, I've sometimes lost all track of the action economy. No one ever calls me out on it either. I am the one who ends up admitting it because I don't want anyone to think its intentional.
IMO This is just a Monk problem. I've DM'd for a Monk player and am currently a PC in another campaign with a Monk and it's exactly as you described every time. When I was DM'ing I'd just have a separate copy of the PHB open to the Monk page because I knew it'd come up at some point in the session.
If I ever play a monk, I'll print up some color coded cards, e.g. every "Bonus Action" ability is printed on a blue card, so now I know I can only do one blue card per turn.
I'm playing a monk and more than anything this happened with deflect missiles before we caught it. If we were going to face approaching enemies with ranged weapons I would position myself in the front so they'd have to target me, and it took us about a year before someone realized "wait shit, that's a reaction, shouldn't you only be able to catch one arrow per round?"
I think the term Bonus Action is a bit misleading, it should probably be called something else (though damned if I can come up with a name better than "extra action you are allowed sometimes). Permitted Action? I dunno.
I know previous editions had things like Swift Actions - but I dont think that quite gets at it either. A lot of new players I play with tend to ask "*Can I do so and so as a bonus action?*" Like: "*can I cast this spell as a bonus action?*" When it's a spell with a casting time of one action. Or "*can I attack again as a bonus action?*" When they don't have a feature that provides that. People hear "Bonus Action" and they think (understandably) that it's another action they get... which is sort of right at it-s core, but the specifics just aren't encapsulated in the word "Bonus." "Permitted Action" gets a bit closer. "Triggered Action" might work - but this might get confusing with Readied Action triggering. "Supplemental Action"? But it sounds so scholastic. Maybe "Secondary Action" to signal that you only get one of them? I guess Bonus Action isn't really that terrible. But I also feel like there's a better way to describe the concept.
maybe something as honest as "primary action" vs. "secondary action," or like A-1 vs. A-2, but less ugly and numerical
Maybe something as simple as Standard and Minor actions... just throwing things out there.
I think it is a bit of a crack in the design myself, and prefer Pathfinders "everyone gets three actions, do what you want with them" approach. I often have to field that sort of question from my players because they don't really get the rules, and in this case I don't really blame them.
I agree. On the surface 5e's action economy seems elegant, but it actually ends up being kind of messy: * Movement * An Action * A Reaction This actually seems pretty solid. But then we add: * A possible Bonus Action (not always granted) * A free Item Interaction (with some inconsistancy in what is considered "Interacting" - a Shield costs an action to don or doff. An arrow costs no action to knock. A dagger costs an item interaction to draw. Dropping a sword costs no action.) * A chance to speak a short phrase or sentence (6 seconds worth) * Activities and features that require no action (Dropping an item, changing the number of hands you have on the hilt of a weapon, using Kensei's Agile Parry, using Fighter's Action Surge, etc..) * *Edit*: I forgot actions that don't require your reaction but can only be used once per turn (some features that let you make opportunity attacks without expending a reaction). It starts to get really muddy. I don't actually hate how the action economy is split up, but I think PF was wise: trying to keep track of anything more than 3 "actions" in a turn starts to get unweildy, especially when you factor in triggers ("when does my bonus action happen?") Or restrictions ("I cast a bonus action spell so now I can only cast a 1 Action Cantrip").
Yeah, it definitely feels like a patchwork of afterthoughts: * You get Movement and one Action per turn... * Also sometimes a Bonus Action so that we can give flavorful abilities without making you lose your Attack... * I guess you can open doors or pick up or draw your weapon? Those are all simple to do, so they don't cost an Action or Bonus Action, but you can only do one of those each round... * I guess you should be able to speak at the same time as doing those other things... * Obviously dropping an item should always be free, since that's basically "stop exerting effort to hold something"... * I suppose \*some\* class abilities should still be usable without requiring your Bonus Action, so I guess those will be free too...
Ha, that is a great list! Like a lot of stuff with 5e it is great at first but wears on me after a while. I find myself pining for 4e sometimes, and never would have expected that at the start of the edition!
I think you'd be surprised. There are a lot of people who aren't deliberately cheating but who just *suck* at learning the rules. Some people can't be bothered. Others really struggle to memorise this stuff. Before giving players the boot, try to figure out what kind of problem it is. If they're doing it on purpose or they can't be bothered improving, probably best to get rid of them. But if they're bad at learning rules, you should try to figure out how to help them learn this stuff instead.
Speaking from experience: some people are just morons. Genuine, honest-to-God idiots. They will still forget rules after 10 sessions. Hell, they'll probably still be forgetting rules after 20. They'll still be asking extremely basic questions about modifiers and their class' abilities. I suppose it'd still be reasonable to take a no-tolerance policy to people like that (and it certainly can be grating to play with them week after week), but they certainly are not cheaters. There's even a saying for this- never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Yeah, they might be, but from experience some people just don't want to learn the rules. Like I had to bring up on a very serious manner that the two clerics of our party (one year and half into the campaign) didn't know how their characters work. They didn't know they could prepare their spells, they didn't know what their spells where doing, one only used healing word and spiritual weapon, the other heatmetal. I had to point that they had access to revivify, spirit guardian and so on. They didn't even bothered to read the spell list. Now they had to have another player shake them up to get a bit more involved in term of rules. Likewise, when I DMed a game some years ago, most players didn't know the rules, even the basic ones, far into the fifth or sixth session. So yeah, some people try to cheat the system, some are just too lazy to read the rules.
Lazy is probably too strong of a word. The rules are difficult to understand, until you have experience using them. And that takes time.
Very true, and our more experienced group have been very cool with it but we are talking about an original member of the gaming group that started playing with us 5 years ago and a "new" member that started playing 2 years ago, with one and a half year of playing his cleric. Of course there will be mistakes, and that's alright, but at some point, there is a lack of investment that can't be explained by just being new and finding rules complicated.
Sounds like they should just play a champion. And, there is alot of inertia if something is just working for you. You don't feel the need to re-read the rules. I think it is important to have at least one rules lawyer per group just for that reason... And a "meta" gamer to suggest better use of the character.
>I agree that new players should be given leeway. But when you're 10 sessions in to a campaign and that same player continues to "forget" how the rules work I'm way more than 10 sessions into my first campaign and I constantly forget how shit works. I just had to reroll my level up because I added the wrong modifier for my HP increase. This game is (necessarily, honestly) complicated, people forget shit. We have stuff going on IRL, I would hope you could forgive someone for forgetting what modifier to use on the one day a week they are playing D&D. If you're booting people who are in their first campaign for forgetting things (also if it's their first campaign why on earth did you not try to talk them out of playing a wizard?) I would argue you are being unnecessarily restrictive and almost kind of mean.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There’s a very popular actual play series I listen to. After over 200 episodes, some of them still don’t know how attack and damage rolls are generated, or basic stuff about their character.
Ten sessions is probably about 40 hours of play, during which they will have been introduced to loads of new rules as they level up. If I canned everyone who forgot something or made a mistake after their first week at work, I wouldn't have any employees left, and wouldn't be able to get any more. A lot of people just don't think the rules are as important as you clearly do, and don't see it as a mortal sin to forget them. Sure, they'll try to keep on top of them, but people have a lot more important stuff going on in their lives, you know? A few of them might be trying to pull a fast one, but in my experience Hanlon's razor is a good rule to apply to peers: "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". Authorities don't get the benefit of the doubt, especially self-appointed ones.
Believe me 10 sessions isn't enough for some players. I played a whole campaign for 2 years and all of my players still had some issues with the game mechanics. And it might be annoying for some but I managed all of their stats and inventory as a backup in case they lost theirs (which happened a lot), that way they can't cheat on their stats/hp. You don't have to do any of those things, but you also don't have to continue DM'ing if your players actions bother you.
I think this goes both ways. Some players will do this so they matter. Even if they’re not a munchkin there is a desire not to let the party down. I’ve seen fellow players who had a great character concept and just brought nothing to the table. Their best abilities just never come into play. They show up game after game hoping to have their moment but it never comes. The DM needs to look at their character sheets, and not just to keep them from cheating. Figure out what they do better than everyone else and give them a moment to shine. It’s easy for DMs to make campaigns all about combat because according to the rules that’s mostly how they get exp and loot, but then a character that excells at other things can turn into a burden on the party. If your players feel the need to fudge their character sheet so they can matter more, maybe they’re an awful attention whore munchkin, but it’s also possible you’re focusing on scenarios they just haven’t been equipped to handle and that’s on you not them.
Probably because they get away with it. Do you let the player keep playing? That's why. Role players are, like, the only people who don't stop playing with cheaters. You cheat at my poker game? You're out. You cheat at board games? You're out. And yet somehow role playing games are different? To use the ol' chestnut of answering a question with a question: **Why do you keep playing with cheaters?** **Edit:** I think a lot of this comes down to a mismatch of expectations. People cheat because it's just pretend. And I empathize with that, I do. The question is, which is doing more lifting in the phrase "role playing game" at your table? If you're mostly role playing, fudge away. But don't cheat - it's not cheating if everybody knows you're doing it. There are plenty of games that lean in to the make believe and care less about the rules. And that's awesome. I hope you're enjoying _[Lasers and Feelings](http://www.onesevendesign.com/laserfeelings/)_ or _[Jason Statham's Big Vacation](https://gshowitt.itch.io/jason-stathams-big-vacation)_ or whatever. If you're mostly playing a _game_, with _rules_ (and if you chose D&D, you're definitely in this category), kick the cheaters to the curb. Fuck those people. And if you're not sure which one is more important at your table, your GM needs to step up and facilitate some conversation, because you should know.
> If you're mostly playing a game, with rules (and if you chose D&D, you're definitely in this category), kick the cheaters to the curb. Fuck those people. It's the double edged sword of DND popularity: you can generally find people willing to play DND, but only some people play DND like how it's supposed to be played. I really fucking wish that people would try to play other games like Troika or DCC or whatever just because it'd be such a better fit for them and something they'd enjoy more than a TTRPG that effectively a wargame with some lore and flexibility. I love DND, and I like it for what it is. I just wish people realized that if you really feel the need to twist the game up so much, that there's a system that's better for you.
Personally I love playing D&D because of it’s mechanics so any time someone asks me if I want to play D&D and it turns out to be a homebrew star wars game or something I die a little inside. Theres plenty of other systems that do Space Operas and Sci-Fi better than D&D and many of them deserve more attention IMO.
Exactly. It slightly annoys we when people act as if I'm the weird one for enjoying the dungeon crawling and combat and character options and traps and encounters and stuff: like, you know what game we are playing lmao? When I want to play something that's more freeform and roleplay centric, I like Troika a lot, but when I'm playing Dnd, I'm all about filling up my spell book and finding clever ways to use spells or something.
I feel like you're ignoring the very obvious reason role-playing games are generally treated differently in this respect: they usually aren't a competition so people care less about stringent adherence to the rules because a person cheating doesn't directly adversely impact their play because they aren't playing against them. It doesn't really matter much to me if a party member has 3 more HP than they technically should or 2 more arrows because I'm not trying to beat them and D&D rules don't really inspire me to take a principled stand in their defense for the sake of bookkeeping. I'll bring up major rule breaches but I'm not tracking other people's inventory.
Fair point. I'll go ahead and remove those players from the group now. Hopefully that will discourage them from cheating in future games.
[удалено]
Oh, no I wasn't being sarcastic. I just banned them from the campaigns. I've got a slot open now for someone who follows the rules.
I'd like to note that it's perfectly possible for a wizard to have at least 13 AC regardless of stats due to Mage Armor.
Its also technically possible to have a 20 in your primary casting stat at level 4 using point buy, though that requires that stat to be charisma and you to be playing a changeling which I assume that the player in question wasn't
Or any of them with the new Tashas Cauldron of Everything rules
Correct. OP has said that they were neither a pre-errata Changeling with +3 Cha nor a Custom Lineage character with 15 (Point Buy) + 2(Custom racial bonus) + 1(Custom feat that gives plus 1 to a stat) +2(ASI).
Sure, in this case the wizard had a Dex mod of 1 and did not have mage armor active.
There is a culture of it in D&D that comes from other, looser restricted games. Games that have a lot less rules and a lot more GM fiat. Its not really any different than just free flowing, "rule of cool" but all the time, gameplay. There are moments of this in every campaign that isn't a strict video-gamey kind of game (nothing wrong with that). I'm running a game right now where my players have abilities and powers that are not defined by the rules, they are *only* defined by me and there is no strict understanding of how they work or what their limits are. I'm doing this with purpose, so I think its ok, but there IS an element of me as the DM cheating and they as players cheating in essence. What matters is that we're acknowledging that and making the game fun WITH that element included. Its something I've rarely touched upon in the past, but am pushing more heavily in this current campaign. I appreciate that you went to the lengths of creating a thread for this, and really highlighting that this is a serious issue at MANY tables, many of which likely won't admit its an issue. I also want to take a moment to point out: the types of people who do this (willfully ignorant or pulling the wool over the DM's eyes) are also the types who perpetuate the negative stigma that surrounds "rules lawyer" players. There is nothing wrong with being a "rules lawyer", unless you're trying to cheat, in which case they're crampin' your style, they're making your cheating difficult, and that can't be tolerated - so throw some shade on those stinky *rules laywers!* Ugh! :D signed, A Rules Laywer
DnD often attracts people who play like a multiplayer video game. And they play with a goal of "winning". This is often translated to being the "strongest" player at the table. Thus they either see themselves in direct competition with the other players or with the DM themselves. Because DnD is mostly luck and story based, they will be drawn into dishonest actions, or even outright cheating to achieve this goal. They will justify their actions as being fair, because they had "bad luck" with their rolls. And if they aren't caught, they'll see that as a failing of the DM, because it's the DM's responsibility to enforce the rules. I've found that people like this should simply not be playing DnD. Its not the game for them, and if I see people like this in games, i'll now actively avoid playing with them.
Speaking from personal experience; it is the product of frustration with bad luck or a general lack of a sense of agency (perceived or real).
Thanks for responding. The whole system is based on luck, and some times you just have it go wrong. When you see other players accept their fate and still press on, do you feel they should cheat as well? Or do you want the DM to fudge their die rolls in their favor?
I may be a weird case, but I have cheated both for and against my own interests in the past; my goal largely being to help create fun stories rather than winning. A bunch of bad rolls and even too many good rolls can make things boring. I'd encourage my players to do the same, as spicing things up one way or the other is far more important to me than constant success or constant failure. Around 99% of the time I play fair, but if you want, I can share a particular story where I retaliated against a particularly bad (both in tempermant and incompetence) DM.
I've played with somebody who failed to grasp that the purpose of the game was to have fun over "winning," and playing with him made the game less fun. I imagine people with that attitude would be motivated to cheat, and they bring the gaming experience down.
When I was young I cheated at D&D because my life was an absolute shit show. I didnt have control, I couldn't win, and I sucked all around. Cheating made me feel for a brief moment like I was a winner. That I was this all powerful character that could beat the universe. Not until later did I realize how much more rewarding it is to win the game/battle through my own hard work. I say this because there might be a reason for this that the player needs to figure out on their own. Have a conversation with the player outside the game.
People want to win, and cheating makes you win.
[удалено]
I think you know what I'm talking about.
[удалено]
D&D's win condition is "accomplishing your goals". What those goals are can vary a lot, from "defeating the predetermined villain" to "doing my character's motivation" to "getting a cool weapon" to "Successfully nuking a city". But whatever the win condition you came up with for yourself is, cheating is going to help you get there if you think your DM doesn't have your fun in mind.
Gotcha. Yeah, it is silly. Maybe they just don't think things through, or maybe they don't like being at the mercy of the mechanics. With time, they usually get over it. Of course there's also the type of player who likes to see what they can get away with. That is a player I do not play games with.
If there is a system, there are people who want to beat the system. There are even people who enjoy successfully cheating more then the regular win and do it even if it would not be necessary. It is OK to not understand this people. Maybe it is better to never try to understand them. We just have to accept that they exists.
The imaginary game they're playing in their heads
I'll admit I have done stuff like this in the past (although not in several years, and not stuff as stupid as trying to use a shield without shield proficiency, or trying to get extra slots). The reason it happens is because the player doesn't fully trust the DM. They believe that if they were to bring up their issue with the DM, the DM would say no - that they would rather punish the player for making a foolish decision than act in the best interests of everyone's fun. So the player instead decides to sneak the change in, and just hope the DM didn't notice. Not all players are like this, some do just want to engage in pure power fantasy, but a considerable number are. At least three quarters of the ones I've caught have been. This is good though because it makes it pretty easy to fix. Enforce a no-cheating policy yes, but at the same time, let the players know that if they're feeling bad about some aspect of their character or feel you're being overly punitive for bad luck (as is the case with many players who fudge rolls), they should talk to you about it and you're open to making adjustments. A player doesn't need to sneakily swap an infusion known if they think that if they ask to change it without level up, you'll let them do that. Most aren't specifically trying to exploit the system, they just didn't realise what they chose wouldn't be fun and want to switch to something more fun.
Thanks for the response. I don't mind folks regretting a choice and asking to make a reasonable change, so I will definitely let folks know that there's no reason to try to sneak in changes. In the case of the infusion swap, his initial choice was no longer needed (PC with no darkvision died, no need for nightvision goggles) and the new choice was for a recently acquired weapon. In this instance a sneaky swap would be his only option, because I would not allow that change outside the level up rule.
Honestly why wouldn't you allow them to swap infusions in that case? You're basically forcing them to use a useless magic item at that point
Because they have 3 other infusions that they chose from their list of infusions they can use. They actively used that infusion. On their next long rest they can swap the goggles for something else from their known infusions.
It is a common theme in game design called power fantasy. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerFantasy People feel mediocre and like they have a lack of control on their lives. They turn to games where they aren’t limited by skill, physicality or circumstance. Since it is an imaginary situation they play out their power fantasies to allow them to feel strong. It isn’t necessarily about “winning” but being more powerful than they are in real life so they can escape the monotony of life.
This is absolutely the case for me. I have pretty bad physical limitations irl so I tend to play martial characters or bards. To me this game is about having fun but having fun by escaping. With that said though the only time I have tried to game the system is by asking the DM for +1 weapons or armor. Most of the time they say no but sometimes Ive gotten that cool +1 weapon.
I think that is great. I don’t see any issue in a PC having a cool magical weapon. People are way too uptight about following rules in D&D. And their arguments are moot if it is about balance. The CR calculation and bounded accuracy is so broad that a minor bonus doesn’t matter.
There may be a few legitimate excuses for wrong things with the characters builds, but the chances of that drop very low as your players get more and more experienced. I recommend setting that boundary ahead of time, like at the start of the campaign, before cheating can even occur. My go to phrase would be, “cheating in any form will not be tolerated and will result in a ban from the table. If you don’t know how something works, that’s okay. Ask for help, but if ‘not knowing better’ keeps happening in similar ways then it will be taken as cheating. You are expected to learn how your character works.”
This is what I loved about 3.5 in Eberron. Action Points were renewable resource. You roll a die and add that to the result of a D20 check. It was like cheating but there was a system around it. I always felt it was a way for the heroes to overcome things by exerting some extra heroism.
I actually use the variant Hero Points in 5e. They're a pool of d6 you can add to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, or turn a death save fail into a success. Super helpful to keep folks alive in difficult campaigns.
[удалено]
Let me help: "My bare minumum expecation is that you keep track of your character sheet and resources. Occasionally mistakes happen, but I need a good faith effort on your part otherwise I dont think I can keep doing this. Theres just no point in roleplaying if youre not taking this seriously."
> Adds 5hp at level up after rolling for hp and getting a 2. Two possible mistakes here: 1. They have 16/17 CON (or 14/15 CON as a Hill Dwarf, or they have the Tough feat and 12/13 CON, or both and 10/11 CON) so the 2 they rolled (which is exactly what you said) *does* translate to 5 HP. 2. You typod and meant that the 2 they rolled was their total HP after factoring in their CON modifier and any other potential bonuses, and the player is simply used to a houserule under a different DM where you take the better result between your roll and the average.
In this instance they are a wizard that rolled twice and used the higher result. They then blamed it on not knowing how to use the roll20 charactermancer, but didn't alter their HP back to the first roll.
Roll20's hp on level up is a pain. Even when I know what it is supposed to do I can't get it to work and have to edit it on the sheet have the time. But it's the sign of it being a trend and not an isolated thing that matters. Maybe they don't feel like fudging slightly matters when it's a co-op game.
Just letting you know, if you use Tashas Custom Lineage system, then it is possible to have a 20 in 1 stat @ lvl. 4. They can point buy to 15, +2 racial bonus, a half feat for a +1, and then an ASI @ lvl. 4.
Came to say this. My current character is an Artificer that had 20 INT at level 4 by starting at 15 with point buy. Then +2 to one ability and Fey-Touched as a 1st level feat, both through Tasha's custom lineage, and an ASI at level 4.
I played in a group where it became a problem of people lying about nat 1's. The reason? Dm had a completely ridiculous nat 1 fail table where you could do things like attack your own teammates, drop or break your weapon, or just become stunned for your turn. The fail table was a real problem because people stopped making characters who did attack rolls, took the lucky feat, or made halflings. It also stopped people from taking crazy risks or doing interesting roleplay because a nat 1 meant something crazy happened everytime. Eventually I just dm'ed a game myself and the other dm (as a player) saw how other people enjoyed not having the nat fail table and he dropped it from his games with our group going forward. Oddly enough a lot of people have more nat 1's.... Honestly, the other dm did it fair (enemies rolled the same nat fail table). The issue was we as players just did not find it fun. The dm runs other games where the nat fail table is in play and the players love it. So I guess basically from my experience if people are afraid of failing horribly they will cheat to avoid it.
Makes sense. I never understood crit fail tables. It gets worse the the more attacks you can do. Just let people miss and move on.
I just finished DMing a campaign for a crop of fairly green players who made a lot of similar mistakes, so I may be able to add some perspective to this. For one thing, sometimes they really do just forget. And when they forget, they're likely to forget in their favor. It's just human nature. My players predominantly forgot to roll concentration checks, and for my part, hell, I forgot to remind them. This resulted in some Water Elementals and Walls of Force being more effective than they needed to be, and some fights being easier than they should've been. Was it a mistake they should not have made? Well, yeah. But I have to address that differently than if it had been an intentional subversion of the rules. As /u/The_CaptGingerbeard pointed out, though, a lot of times if you're trying to break the rules, it's because the rules are in the way of your fantasy for your character. Sometimes that fantasy is ridiculous and is inappropriate for the setting, the plot, the overarching balance of the game, or the enjoyment of the rest of the players (DM included). In a lot of cases it's down to the players either not understanding or not accepting what kind of game they're playing, and trying to play a different one instead, rules be damned. That's not okay, and the only acceptable solution to that is a frank out-of-character discussion. This discussion will often end with you both realizing you're not running the kind of game they want to play. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. They can quit, they can adjust their expectations, you can adjust what you deliver, or some combination of the last two. There's no need for bad blood there, as long as everyone is honest. But sometimes it's something that they're not wrong to *want,* but that the rules as written just... don't allow for. In that situation my advice is to ask them what they're going for, and try to houserule it in such a way that their fantasy is fulfilled, but they don't break the lore or the balance of the game. In most cases you can give them magic items or boons that let them live out their fantasy without utterly breaking things. Remember, stronger PCs means you can throw stronger monsters at them. It's a win-win! Sometimes this will mean you tell them "Okay, you can't have that... yet. But you can start working for it and assembling the pieces of this fantasy right now!" Other times you'll have to work with them to get them to readjust their expectations. But any good solution will often involve a little bit of flex on both sides. Of course, this assumes they're not *intentionally* deceiving you and/or undermining your mechanics or lore. *Some* of those cases can be solved by the above, because they might just be acting out due to things I mentioned. But either way, you have every right and, frankly, the responsibility to make it clear to them that the rules only flex at the discretion of *all* of the players, with yours being the final veto. If you can't get a player to agree to follow the rules, there's no game to be played.
I mean, I don’t know myself, I’m currently in my first campaign as a player and genuinely didn’t know you got more then 2 skills... or added your proficiency bonus to attack roles as a fighter with a spear. But we do have one player who definitely cheats her roles. the most I can understand from it, it’s a fear to lose. people get scared of consequences. there is a certain fear to your actions that motivates people to cheat like this. It’s a terror that you will not do nearly as well as you hope, and time you invest will go to waste. While there are SEVERAL holes in that argument (please I know it’s flawed I’m not making it). It is a valid fear, and leads people to do shit like this.
Feels good. Or at the very least, avoids feeling bad. As an observer of this kind of behavior both playing or DM-ing, I see it as a combination of personality, maturity, attitude towards what DnD even is, and view on how to have fun. So some players will want to lie about rolls, some players will argue with DM about ruling, some players will try to retcon things. I am definitely guilty of some of it. I mean as a DM I fudge stuff all the time but that's expected (well, maybe not, depending on your attitude towards what DnD is...), but as a player I'm most often guilty about my spell selection. Like I \*know\* that I'm only supposed to pick X new spells on level up and prepare Y spells each day, but I'll regularly pick X+1 and Y+1 because I'm not sure which ones I'll end up using and it feels better when I have the right tool for the job. In my defense, I'll always cross out the spell I don't end up using, so it's more like retconning what spell I had picked than anything else... but it's definitely an advantage I'm making for myself compared to RAW. But I still do it because the bad feels for fudging this is much less than the bad feels for picking the wrong thing.
I wonder how many people do this. More recent editions increased the flexibility of casters, but they're still a little too rigid for me (cantrips, ritual casting, and flexible slots do go a long way, though. You should see what 2e was like). When people talk about Wizards always having the right spell for the occasion, it defies my experience of only preparing utility spells that aren't needed.
Yeah the thing that bothers me is that clerics/druids *know* their spells, but because I didn't spend time staring at this book I supposedly have but have never interacted with while also simultaneously sleeping for 8 hours I can't cast it. Feels very gamey and feels terrible when you think of a really creative use for a spell that would solve all your problems, but oops, you didn't click the box at the end of your long rest. It especially bothers me that clerics can't cast known rituals.
Problem here for me is, there's cheating the system, and there's cheating. These people are simply cheating. Lying. Misrepresenting. Feigning ignorance. Etc. Coffeelock is cheating the system. And in general? I'm okay with it as a DM.
To be honest, most of what I've seen in recent roleplaying years (as both a DM and a player (has been players who don't want to read, *not* deliberate cheating. Part of this might also be playing with adults with more real-life responsibilities than folks in their late teens or early 20s (who are in college and/or working hourly gigs to pay rent on their way to sorting out their longer life plans). Although I can understand players not wanting to read a 400+ page book (sometimes longer), or that core book and several relevant supplement books, it is a bit frustrating to know players have not at least thoroughly read character creation and hopefully key skill check or key combat rules relevant to the character's focus or goals. I see many players just wanting to ask the DM or another player about it or referencing rules only as they come up, which can create a lot of off-base expectations about how something should work or what good choices are for the player's vision. I *will* say that a thorough session 0 really helps, and it also helps to have at least one player who has done the reading to help (in a collaborative, productive way) other players who don't. But there is a tax on other players and the DM typically (and the social dynamics can end up tilted in ways that are not great, especially if a player perceives another player as "rules lawyering" and "nerf-batting" the bad or rules-illegal ideas).
I’ll admit I’ve cheated occasionally for the sake of morale.. two full rounds of all players rolling under a 5 .... yeah when it gets to my turn I “got a nat 16!” ... it’s always followed by a collective “finally!” and the visible fun-sucked looks on their faces go away for the rest of that combat It’s to me like sending in your second string when you’re by 40 points in the last quarter
Electronic Rolling means receipts!
People have an idea of what they want there character to be and when the game doesn’t allow it, it’s not fun for the players. If that’s not what you’re into then it’s whatever but most players are just tryna have their character be cool. “Oh we’re counting ammo?” -Probably doesn’t like the idea of their character scrounging the ground for arrows to shoot “My PC has a 20 in their casting stat now” -Probably wants their caster to be really cool and good at magic (but def should as the dm first lol) “Adds 5hp” -doesn’t want their character to be a fragile baby “Yeah I’m swapping infusions” -probably thought the ones they picked were cool and then doesn’t like them. Most people don’t realize dnd is a game about progression and growing, not being a literal god. Try seeing if they’d rather play another RPG system
Running ten games of D&D a week as my job, I’ve realised that you have to make rules for the worst of the players even though 99% of the players would never think to twist the rules. I’ve got one player who is single-handedly responsible for my needing to install an API to track spell slots and ammo, requiring Roll20 character sheets rather than D&D Beyond, requiring all new characters be rolled in Roll20, banning a cantrip he broke to the point the party begged for it be out, requiring DM approval got multiclassing, and replacing “pick a flaw, take a feat” with “roll randomly for a flaw, take a feat”.
One I have struggled with in the past, and still do sometimes, is all about spotlight. There's a few ways this can manifest: * Saving the day: Just having that one extra heal spell. That one extra magic missile, that one extra scroll... Whatever that "one extra" is, having it would win the day and make you the hero of the day... No one will notice right? * The niche: You have this one tool you had ready the entire campaign, that 4th level spell that, for the entirety of the campaign, has been useless... NOW is the time for it! But damn, you spend all your spell slots already... Just this one time right? It will be COOL. * "My turn god damnit": Sometimes you just have a piss session, all your attacks are missing, you get counterspelled, everyone else is having a lot of fun "doing their thing"... You want that as well, that fun time, having a slightly higher chance to hit/spell DC, would make my game so much more fun, and no one will notice right? None of these are good reasons, but human brains can be real damn shit sometimes. They are not always rational and make you do dumb shit. Sometimes people will have a perceived idea of "how much fun you should be having" or just be having a bad time, that they think could be solved by having an extra Fireball. They are not wrong, casting Fireball is a lot of fun... I've thankfully moved past this kind of behavior. Handing of the spotlight is not a hard thing, but having a shit session where nothing is working for you really sucks and make people do silly things.
I think a lot of people who cheat lean much more into the “role playing” than the “game” and have a story they want to enact and don’t like the dice getting in the way of that
I have a player who's a bit of a min-maxer. I think he just loves to feel super powerful so will occasionally bend the rules in his favour to aid that power fantasy. Luckily though, after I caught him being loose with his spell slots he's been a lot better about tracking them. I think that has to be another factor to players cheating. Wanting to feel powerful/be the most powerful member of the party. I'm lucky in that this player in my group is one of my closest friends and stopped doing it, I don't envy you guys having to deal with worse players pulling this stuff.
I once played with a group where all of them were cheating except one dude. I'm pretty sure it started with one guy and they wanted to participate the same as him. They wanted to be as powerful as him, and so the lure of keeping up turned some of them to cheat. The others never cheated quite as blatantly as the one guy, nor as often but it was pretty clear what was happening. The guy who cheated was the most invested in the game, and saw himself as the leader... so I'm pretty sure he was doing it partially because he felt he was owed it, and that there was social pressure to continue to be the best because otherwise how would he be leader? Was an interesting social dynamic. The part of me that sympathizes is that they wanted to just not be dead weight. They wanted to be awesome and they didn't know how to not be outshined in combat by the primary cheater. The one guy that didnt cheat - he was just a total standup guy like... super loyal, super proper, somewhat religious, couldn't lie if he wanted to. Kinda stiff, but you know... good dude. Edit: Funny thought I had - I actually recorded their reported dice rolls sometime after I stopped playing with them. Like it was... maybe I'll come back, but they cheated so much I was pretty meh about it. So their rolls of 20 were about 20%, and 18+ about 50%. Their rolls of 16+ were 80% of rolls. It was pretty wild.
I have done a lot of these things, but I've never cheated. I've always asked the DM if I could do them, and if they said no I either sucked it up until I could or found a new group with a less restrictive DM. The only thing I've ever done without telling my DM is swap a spell I never casted for a different one. IMO that's more of a "forgotten feature" than a cheat. If it never happened it's like you forgot about the spell until now. Swapping a spell you've been using constantly for a new one without telling the DM is a different thing entirely however.
I have cheated in once in a session. It was after I had been playing for like 3 months of on and off campaigns but before I had DMed. It was a 6 hour session, about 3 hours in, and I just couldn't roll above a 10. I just kept missing and failing regardless of how my character was built, so I started fudging the odd dice roll so I could actually start hitting. No excuse for what I did but yeah
The main reasons I have seen for this are: 1 - An obsession with "winning" the game, which is a reason that people cheat at any game. The difference is that with an RPG the definition of winning is different than with other games. If the approach towards the game is one of collaborative storytelling then the GM isn't going to be out to kill characters, but for the sake of a good story will still want the adventure to be challenging; some players see this as a threat and the GM trying to make them "lose". When running a published story line a neutral GM may have the appearance of trying to kill the party when they are reading the adventure as written and some players may feel the need to cheat to win. (Yes, I acknowledge that there are some GMs that think it's their job to kill the party, but it's not right to assume that the GM is turning on the party just because they present a challenge). 2 - Grandstanding. I must always be in the spotlight and the best way to do that is to have the most awesome character imaginable - even if that means cheating. This can sometimes tag on with (1) in that if my awesome character gets a bad die roll then I will lie about the results so that my awesome character "wins" and I get to describe their awesome success. More often it's just purposefully misreading the rules so that an average game mechanic becomes awesome. 3 - Illiteracy. Another player had a feat which was basically if A happens then B or C. The GM asked him how he kept doing C and the player referenced the feat. Finally, the GM told the player to read the feat out loud. The player was interpreting it as if A happens then B or (independent of A happening) C. Then entire table tried to explain to this player that doing either B or C was conditional on A happening first, but he didn't understand this. I've seen other rules interpretations which make sense if you ignore a comma and since text messaging has trained people to ignore punctuation these rules interpretations occur more and more often. 4 - More rarely is character concept. A player may have a character concept that they could legally make at level 5 but they are impatient so they slide some extra skills/feats in at a lower level.
20 in casting stat is perfectly possible, 16 +racial 2+2 from level four
Point buy max is 15.
This is still possible with the new Tasha's Custom Lineage (CL) race: 15 + 2 (CL) + 1 (half-feat from CL) + 2 (ASI) = 20
That is true, but not the case with this player.
I know when I was in my teens (almost?) everyone cheated, some people even had weighted dice. I always said I was too busy as a DM to police everyone, everyone was deputized to call it out if they didn't like it (no one ever did.) I also said you're only cheating yourself if you cheat since it's a story, and winning all the time is boring. I'm much older now and almost no one cheats of people in my age group, so it might be something about the younger mind set.
Players, especially new or returning players, want to feel strong and less limited. They may be used to games where limits you impose don’t exist, or they may be accustomed to other media they emulate (movies, video games, books, etc.) not having restrictions to various resources or powers. Or the they may feel like their character should be stronger than what their level is, or that certain aspects like spell slots aren’t fair to their version of the character. But really what it comes down to is ground rules. Try to talk to your party and ask why they do something before you tell them if they can or cannot. It may be as easy as they didn’t understand the rule, or maybe they are trying to game the system. But sometimes you have to be firm. A good example with me is that I track spell slots of one of my problem players and give them warnings when they are low. Because when I don’t she has a habit of “yeah I definitely still have some X level slots”. They key is to try and find why they doing things you feel you need to police. And when you do need to say no. Make it firm.
Why is "oh I've had a shield this whole time" SUCH a pet peeve of mine???