Even if you are telling the truth by this, don't assume that everyone else is. It is not a sign of cheating if people are okay with you secretly keeping track of their die rolls, it's a sign that you don't trust them. I would be quite angry at a fellow player if they suspected that I was cheating so much that they chose to approach the DM about it with a log of all of my rolls to prove that I was rolling suspiciously high in order to get me kicked out of the campaign. I would hate that, not because I am cheating, but because it shows their lack of trust of me, and therefore them not being a friend to me or even trying to be a friend. D&D is a game that is founded on building and strengthening friendships. Someone not trusting me andgoing the extra step to try to get me kicked out because they think I'm cheating, whether or not I actually am (I don't), shows that the player doesn't know what D&D is about.
D&D is about having fun with your friends. It's harder to have fun with people who aren't your friends, so if you do a campaign with people you aren't friends with, you're supposed to become friends with them through the fun you have at the table. You're likely not having fun if your playstyles are clashing, if you're trying to prove that the other person is cheating, or if you're trying to get someone else kicked out of the table, and if you do have fun doing that, that is objectively badwrongfun.
You don't trust this player, you don't like this player, and it is currently making it so you aren't having fun at the table, and you are going about a route that will affect the fun of the rest of the table. Again, I have had similar experiences to this, where I tried to get another player kicked out of the game, and another experience with a cheating player that was resolved in a good way. This is not a good way to resolve any of those circumstances, and it's worse that you're trying to do both at once.
The good thing to do would be to leave the table and find another better suited for your tastes, with people that you can actually trust and have fun with. That will be better for you andyour table. I have been through similar experiences, and know that this would have been a better thing to do in hindsight.
A few points:
If I do not track dice rolls, I cannot present evidence of cheating. And the logic that follows from that is that even if I "have a feeling" that this guy is cheating, I simply should accept that he is.
Why on earth would I ever go to the DM and say "something is amiss" if the numbers did not spell it out? I have tabulated 51 rolls. The numbers speak for themselves. If the numbers had regressed to the mean in the last session, I would simply shut my investigation down. But the numbers skewed away from the norm MORE last session.
For the umpteenth time, I have zero illusions about this guy getting kicked from the table. If anyone gets booted, it would be me. And frankly, though I don't like this guy's playstyle one bit, I have also stated many times that the game itself is really rounding into form. I could live with his playstyle, given all the positive factors in the game. If it was just his playstyle, I would keep my mouth shut and enjoy the game as it is. But if this guy is cheating, no way Jose. That is one bridge too far.
Vince, you have no proof about that person. Why did you make this thread?
Because I did have a good deal of evidence, and the last session gave more evidence. The numbers don't lie. That is what statistics do. If these numbers had happened in a Vegas casino, there would be all kinds of electronic and human eyes on him right now. Would they have moved in and banned him from the casinos? Unlikely. But they would be one step away from it.
Even if you are telling the truth by this, don't assume that everyone else is. It is not a sign of cheating if people are okay with you secretly keeping track of their die rolls, it's a sign that you don't trust them. I would be quite angry at a fellow player if they suspected that I was cheating so much that they chose to approach the DM about it with a log of all of my rolls to prove that I was rolling suspiciously high in order to get me kicked out of the campaign. I would hate that, not because I am cheating, but because it shows their lack of trust of me, and therefore them not being a friend to me or even trying to be a friend. D&D is a game that is founded on building and strengthening friendships. Someone not trusting me andgoing the extra step to try to get me kicked out because they think I'm cheating, whether or not I actually am (I don't), shows that the player doesn't know what D&D is about.
D&D is about having fun with your friends. It's harder to have fun with people who aren't your friends, so if you do a campaign with people you aren't friends with, you're supposed to become friends with them through the fun you have at the table. You're likely not having fun if your playstyles are clashing, if you're trying to prove that the other person is cheating, or if you're trying to get someone else kicked out of the table, and if you do have fun doing that, that is objectively badwrongfun.
You don't trust this player, you don't like this player, and it is currently making it so you aren't having fun at the table, and you are going about a route that will affect the fun of the rest of the table. Again, I have had similar experiences to this, where I tried to get another player kicked out of the game, and another experience with a cheating player that was resolved in a good way. This is not a good way to resolve any of those circumstances, and it's worse that you're trying to do both at once.
The good thing to do would be to leave the table and find another better suited for your tastes, with people that you can actually trust and have fun with. That will be better for you andyour table. I have been through similar experiences, and know that this would have been a better thing to do in hindsight.
A few points:
If I do not track dice rolls, I cannot present evidence of cheating. And the logic that follows from that is that even if I "have a feeling" that this guy is cheating, I simply should accept that he is.
Why on earth would I ever go to the DM and say "something is amiss" if the numbers did not spell it out? I have tabulated 51 rolls. The numbers speak for themselves. If the numbers had regressed to the mean in the last session, I would simply shut my investigation down. But the numbers skewed away from the norm MORE last session.
For the umpteenth time, I have zero illusions about this guy getting kicked from the table. If anyone gets booted, it would be me. And frankly, though I don't like this guy's playstyle one bit, I have also stated many times that the game itself is really rounding into form. I could live with his playstyle, given all the positive factors in the game. If it was just his playstyle, I would keep my mouth shut and enjoy the game as it is. But if this guy is cheating, no way Jose. That is one bridge too far.
Vince, you have no proof about that person. Why did you make this thread?
Because I did have a good deal of evidence, and the last session gave more evidence. The numbers don't lie. That is what statistics do. If these numbers had happened in a Vegas casino, there would be all kinds of electronic and human eyes on him right now. Would they have moved in and banned him from the casinos? Unlikely. But they would be one step away from it.
In other words, why have you ignored the dozens of different ideas of everyone else?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bardof the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules.Sig.Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
If I do not track dice rolls, I cannot present evidence of cheating. And the logic that follows from that is that even if I "have a feeling" that this guy is cheating, I simply should accept that he is.
I'm really not convinced by this logic. If you don't have 'evidence', why do you have a feeling that he's cheating and need to track anything? You do have evidence - it looks like he rarely, if ever, misses a roll. That's not conclusive, but it's still evidence. The thing for me is, you can act on that inconclusive evidence. And by doing so you're not making a huge deal out of it. This leap from not doing a statistical analysis to simply having to accept something is silly. You can simply not accept what your gut feeling tells you is happening. You didn't need to escalate this into an investigation.
You have zero illusions about getting him kicked from the table (I'll pass on discussing whether that's something you should want to happen in the first place). So what's the goal of presenting your numbers? It's arguably not getting him booted if you don't believe that's possible. I assume it's not getting kicked yourself. So what is it, and couldn't that have been achieved without prosecutorial conduct? If you want him to stop cheating, just pointing out he seemingly never misses in a game built around missing about a third of the time thanks to bounded accuracy can likely get that done. If you want to conclusively prove he cheats, or at least as conclusively as possibly without catching him redhanded, then sure, you're doing a fine job - but that will have consequences for the group and the game, and I'm not sure you're willing to own that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) The numbers don't lie. That is what statistics do.
2) If these numbers had happened in a Vegas casino, there would be all kinds of electronic and human eyes on him right now. Would they have moved in and banned him from the casinos? Unlikely. But they would be one step away from it.
1) There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics.
2) Just like you're not the MLB, you're not a Vegas casino. You're a bunch of people spending some free time together and having what should be fun. Please, please, try to keep things in perspective. You're not trying to put Capone behind bars here. It's just a guy who can't handle his dice rolls in a game that has no meaningful consequences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If I do not track dice rolls, I cannot present evidence of cheating. And the logic that follows from that is that even if I "have a feeling" that this guy is cheating, I simply should accept that he is.
Why on earth would I ever go to the DM and say "something is amiss" if the numbers did not spell it out? I have tabulated 51 rolls. The numbers speak for themselves. If the numbers had regressed to the mean in the last session, I would simply shut my investigation down. But the numbers skewed away from the norm MORE last session.
For the umpteenth time, I have zero illusions about this guy getting kicked from the table. If anyone gets booted, it would be me. And frankly, though I don't like this guy's playstyle one bit, I have also stated many times that the game itself is really rounding into form. I could live with his playstyle, given all the positive factors in the game. If it was just his playstyle, I would keep my mouth shut and enjoy the game as it is. But if this guy is cheating, no way Jose. That is one bridge too far.
This is in response to the emboldened text.
That's not your job. That's the DMs job, not yours, as a player.
If you have a feeling that someone is cheating, the normal, human reaction is to talk to the DM about it. Give the issue over to the DM first and foremost, without numbers. That is what one of my players did at my table when another player had changed a few die rolls in a couple different sessions. The player that noticed this approached me, told me what they saw the other player doing, and I approached the player that had been cheating telling the player that another player thought that they had purposefully changed a few die rolls. The player immediately felt sorry about it, apologized, and we have never had an issue with cheating at my table in the two years since that incident happened.
That is the correct way to handle this. The DM is the head of the table. If there is a problem player, it is their joband only their job to deal with it. If they aren't aware of the issue, it is a player's job to alert them of their suspicion.
However, it is not the job of the player to prove another player to be cheating. The player that alerted me of the other player changing his die rolls did not give me video evidence of this, or make a note of all of the die rolls that the player had done in the past few sessions to prove that they were suspiciously high, or even tell me "X Player is cheating, I absolutely saw them doing it, they need to be punished". They simply told me what they saw (they even said that they "thought they saw it", to be less abrasive and definite in telling me about it), and then they handed over the issue to me. That was a correct way to handle this, because it gave me the freedom to do whatever I felt was necessary to deal with the issue.
Your way doesn't do this. You're trying to force the DMs hand, by giving him definite, absolute proof that another player is cheating, while also giving list of every other time that the other player has done something that you didn't like at the table. You're trying to determine the outcome before the DM even knows about the issue. My player didn't do that. He simply told me about what he thought happened, without going out of his way to try to prove it to me, so that I could peacefully approach the player and ask him whether or not he was changing his die rolls. If the player had given me proof of this happening, the situation would have been much messier.
You're trying to force the DMs hand. You're not the DM. Stop doing that. What you should have done when you first had these suspicions of their rolls being high was to just approach the DM about it. You should have said something like, "Hey, sorry, I'm not sure if this is true, and I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but I have noticed that some of X Player's rolls recently have been pretty high. It could be nothing, they could just have been really lucky, or they might have been making some mistakes with the bonuses or something like that, but I just wanted to let you know in case they were." Then, after you told them that there could be an issue, you should have let them deal with it. They're in charge of the table. They're the ones that have the final say about what does or doesn't happen.
You didn't do that. It's the DMs job to investigate and deal with problem players, not yours. You should have told the DM about the possibility of a problem, and then walked away to let the DM deal with it. Now, you didn't choose to do that. You chose to investigate in order to prove it to the DM. You put on the DM hat when you should have been wearing the player hat.
The way that I would deal with this now is first to admit that you acted incorrectly. You jumped to conclusions, and chose the path of most resistance instead of the better path to take for both you and the rest of your table. I would go to your DM, and tell them about your suspicions about the other player. Do what my player did, and turn the problem over to the DM. If the DM then wants you to keep an eye on things, they will let you know. Don't do that if it is not an assigned job given by the DM. If they don't do that, assume that the DM is doing his job and dealing with things, even if you don't see it directly. If the DM does his job, you may or may not hear about it. If you don't hear about it, you're free to nonconfrontationally approach the DM about it after waiting a respectable amount of time to hear back.
Don't present evidence, as that's not your job if the DM hasn't asked for it. That's you trying to take control of a situation that is supposed to be in the DM's hands.
The reason my player didn't go out of his way to prove the wrongdoing of another player was because he was friends with my other player. He didn't want him kicked out of the game, he just wanted the problem to be resolved. You don't want the problem to be resolved, you want the player that you perceive to be a problem to be gone. The DM choses their table. If you can't live with it, go to another table. That is both your right and your responsibility as a player. You're allowed to leave if you're not having fun, no one is holding you hostage. If you're not having fun and it is affecting the fun of the others at the table (which it almost definitely is/will), you are the one whose responsibility is to leave.
Stop trying to be the DM when you're the player. If you want to be the DM, you're free to go DM with whomever you choose, as is your DM and every other DM in the hobby. Don't start a war where there could be a peaceful walking away from the table. Trust me, it's better that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That is the correct way to handle this. The DM is the head of the table. If there is a problem player, it is their joband only their job to deal with it. If they aren't aware of the issue, it is a player's job to alert them of their suspicion.
No, it isn't. It really isn't. The DM is in charge of running a good game. The group is in charge of being a good group. If I, as a player, don't like another player's way of playing it's not up to the DM to tell them they're wrong or tell me I'm wrong. That's for me to work out with that other player and if that doesn't work, to bring up for the whole group to have a say in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That is the correct way to handle this. The DM is the head of the table. If there is a problem player, it is their joband only their job to deal with it. If they aren't aware of the issue, it is a player's job to alert them of their suspicion.
No, it isn't. It really isn't. The DM is in charge of running a good game. The group is in charge of being a good group. If I, as a player, don't like another player's way of playing it's not up to the DM to tell them they're wrong or tell me I'm wrong. That's for me to work out with that other player and if that doesn't work, to bring up for the whole group to have a say in.
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table. If a player is cheating, the DM is the one that deals with it, because they're the one that is in charge of who plays. Other players should not take it upon themselves to punish other players for cheating.
Playstyles is a completely different thing. A player that plays with a different style does cause an issue at the table, but they're not a "problem player". A problem player is one that cheats, lies, and damages the fun of the campaign and other players on purpose. Different playstyles are a problem when they clash, but that doesn't make them a problem player, it just means that they're at the wrong table.
If someone is cheating, the DM deals with it. That was the point of my post. Not about clashing playstyles, or whatnot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Vince, I'm going to be completely serious with you. As a DM, I'd rather have a player that's cheating and fix the situation than a player that records the cheating player so they can "prove" they're a liar and a cheat. If that player came to me with "evidence", that would be they're one-way ticket out of my table, whether the other player was cheating or not. I'd rather fix the situation than let another player record the cheater. Also, I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm trying to help you fix the problem. If you follow my advice, please stop your experiment.
Clearly, I see the world differently than you. If I was DM'ing and a player came to me with hard facts that make it a virtual certainty another player is cheating, I would be "oh damn, now I have a problem with a cheater", but not "I am going to toss the player that picked up on that."
I don't know if you follow baseball. The Houston Astro's won a WS by cheating. The people that outed them were not punished. They were thanked. Cheating is bad. Period. Full-stop. It ruins the game, any game, and endeavour, for everyone involved. I have no issues exposing cheaters. And yes, see my posts above. I am fully aware that I run the risk of alienating the DM, because of his personal relationship with that guy.
D&D and baseball are different things. I meant everything I said. If your DM thanks you for recording that player's rolls without any permission and treating them like something to study to prove them as a liar and a cheat, tell me that. If you want to talk about your philosophy, would you want every roll of yours recorded so you can be proved as a liar and a cheat.
I would have zero issue with anyone tracking my dice rolls. Why would I? We all call them out in an open channel. This is not like I am hacking his computer.
You call them out in an open channel - doesn't mean they are accurate. I agree with Orange - as a DM, I would boot you from the game. What you do destroys the cohesion of the group, not only for now, but for the future. D&D is supposed to be fun, and the thought that someone is possibly scrutinizing my every roll is definitely not fun. Easier to deal with a cheater.
The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table.
Are they? When I DM for an established group, I'm not going to tell one of them they can't play because I don't like them as much as the others. And deciding the group of beer and pretzels players who can't go five minutes without telling an off-colour joke is going to play a serious, gritty, everyone stays in character type campaign is never going to end well. The DM has more impact than any one player, sure, but if they choose a playstyle a group doesn't like or either invite players others don't enjoy playing with or don't invite good friends of the people they did choose, that's probably not going to be a good game - or simply not a game at all.
If the DM is the only one at the table who thinks there's cheating going on, that's not going to go over well.
D&D is a social game involving a group of people. It's in my experience almost always better to have the whole group in charge of the group, and cheating is a group problem. It's not making mistakes or misunderstanding something, it's deliberate and affects everyone - hence, better to haveryone be part of the solution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table.
Are they? When I DM for an established group, I'm not going to tell one of them they can't play because I don't like them as much as the others. And deciding the group of beer and pretzels players who can't go five minutes without telling an off-colour joke is going to play a serious, gritty, everyone stays in character type campaign is never going to end well. The DM has more impact than any one player, sure, but if they choose a playstyle a group doesn't like or either invite players others don't enjoy playing with or don't invite good friends of the people they did choose, that's probably not going to be a good game - or simply not a game at all.
The DM absolutely chooses who plays at their table. If you're DMing at an established group, you're kind of stuck with everyone else if you don't want to offend anyone by not inviting them to play at your campaign, but you definitely have the say of who plays at your table and who doesn't. You've been playing D&D for longer than I have. I don't think I need to be telling you, or anyone, this.
Other players should not take it upon themselves to punish other players for cheating.
It's a game of D&D. Punishment shouldn't be a thing period.
. . . Now you're being purposefully dense. "Punishment", in this situation, would be not allowing a player to have something they had before (note the use of "player", not the character. Definitely do not punish anyone's character for what the person playing them does outside of the game). Like making the table have to use dice rollers online to prove that no one is cheating, or kicking someone out of the campaign because they were causing issues that couldn't be solved in any other way, or by simply telling the player that you are aware of their behavior and that they have to stop "or else". Those are all forms of punishment that a DM can and sometimes might have to use at their table.
The DM punishes a player for their behavior if they have to. The DM is the one that decides what "D&D punishment" their behavior deserves, if any. Not the other players, unless the DM decides to include them.
If the DM is the only one at the table who thinks there's cheating going on, that's not going to go over well.
D&D is a social game involving a group of people. It's in my experience almost always better to have the whole group in charge of the group, and cheating is a group problem. It's not making mistakes or misunderstanding something, it's deliberate and affects everyone - hence, better to have everyone be part of the solution.
IME, no, it's not. The other players don't need to know if another player is cheating if the problem can be resolved by the DM without them knowing. Cheating does effect the whole group, but once the problem is resolved, it doesn't effect them anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table.
Are they? When I DM for an established group, I'm not going to tell one of them they can't play because I don't like them as much as the others. And deciding the group of beer and pretzels players who can't go five minutes without telling an off-colour joke is going to play a serious, gritty, everyone stays in character type campaign is never going to end well. The DM has more impact than any one player, sure, but if they choose a playstyle a group doesn't like or either invite players others don't enjoy playing with or don't invite good friends of the people they did choose, that's probably not going to be a good game - or simply not a game at all.
If the DM is the only one at the table who thinks there's cheating going on, that's not going to go over well.
D&D is a social game involving a group of people. It's in my experience almost always better to have the whole group in charge of the group, and cheating is a group problem. It's not making mistakes or misunderstanding something, it's deliberate and affects everyone - hence, better to haveryone be part of the solution.
I must agree here: it's the DMs job to control the world, and the be the final arbiter of the rules, but it's a social game which everyone must take a hand in. If you have a problem with a player, whether that comes from their play style, their personality, or the pattern of their dice rolls, it's up to you to bring it to the table. It may be wise to discuss it with the DM beforehand, but placing all the responsibility for handling your problems on the DM is not the right way.
As to Vince, I cannot believe that he had any intention of listening to any opinion but his own. We are 14 pages in, 90%+ of posts and posters have told him this is a really bad idea, but he has ignored every one. He started this thread to whine about a player he dislikes, and is going to do whatever he wants regardless. Sadly, the only thing left to do is what HeironymusZot suggested a couple of pages back: get out the popcorn and watch Vince completely alienate himself from the whole group. If they are lucky, his... unwise actions won't ruin the game for the entire table, only for him. If he is lucky, people here will take the high road rather than telling him "I told you so" when everything they've predicted comes to pass. Then the table can continue playing how they want, and Vince can go find a table to play at where they all follow his One True Way of playing...
The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table.
Are they? When I DM for an established group, I'm not going to tell one of them they can't play because I don't like them as much as the others. And deciding the group of beer and pretzels players who can't go five minutes without telling an off-colour joke is going to play a serious, gritty, everyone stays in character type campaign is never going to end well. The DM has more impact than any one player, sure, but if they choose a playstyle a group doesn't like or either invite players others don't enjoy playing with or don't invite good friends of the people they did choose, that's probably not going to be a good game - or simply not a game at all.
The DM absolutely chooses who plays at their table. If you're DMing at an established group, you're kind of stuck with everyone else if you don't want to offend anyone by not inviting them to play at your campaign, but you definitely have the say of who plays at your table and who doesn't. You've been playing D&D for longer than I have. I don't think I need to be telling you, or anyone, this.
Other players should not take it upon themselves to punish other players for cheating.
It's a game of D&D. Punishment shouldn't be a thing period.
. . . Now you're being purposefully dense. "Punishment", in this situation, would be not allowing a player to have something they had before (note the use of "player", not the character. Definitely do not punish anyone's character for what the person playing them does outside of the game). Like making the table have to use dice rollers online to prove that no one is cheating, or kicking someone out of the campaign because they were causing issues that couldn't be solved in any other way, or by simply telling the player that you are aware of their behavior and that they have to stop "or else". Those are all forms of punishment that a DM can and sometimes might have to use at their table.
The DM punishes a player for their behavior if they have to. The DM is the one that decides what "D&D punishment" their behavior deserves, if any. Not the other players, unless the DM decides to include them.
If the DM is the only one at the table who thinks there's cheating going on, that's not going to go over well.
D&D is a social game involving a group of people. It's in my experience almost always better to have the whole group in charge of the group, and cheating is a group problem. It's not making mistakes or misunderstanding something, it's deliberate and affects everyone - hence, better to have everyone be part of the solution.
IME, no, it's not. The other players don't need to know if another player is cheating if the problem can be resolved by the DM without them knowing. Cheating does effect the whole group, but once the problem is resolved, it doesn't effect them anymore.
Respectfully, I disagree.
There may be times when having the DM, or one of the other players, handle a disagreement in private is the best way forward. However, while the DM is there to tell the story and control the game, they are not responsible for handling petty squabbles between players. They should certainly not be handing out punishments. They already have a lot to do, adding another responsibility for something which the whole group can handle is unfair, to me.
D&D, for myself, is a very social activity. If someone organised a regular meal at a restaurant for a group, would it be up to them to tell someone off who started annoying everyone? Or would it be the responsibility of the entire group?
OK, so a +7 to Navigation, while not typically standard, is well with reason. I can live with that.
It appears to be standard, although Ghosts of Saltmarsh only implies it. There's no explicit primary ability for Navigator's Tools mentioned anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. Xanathar's has the most detailed info about tool use but doesn't go into this.
Speaking from experience as a tall ship sailor, Navigator's tools should be Int (but I can understand the connection to survival and wisdom). A check for "Vehicles (water)" could, depending on what you're doing be either strength, dex, con or int. Rowing a small boat against a current doesn't take a lot of intelligence but does require some strength. Working the rigging is often dex-based whereas keeping the helm at a steady course in hard winds would probably be constitution.
I don't understand why this thread is still going. Several people offered good solutions to this on page 1, and a couple more popped up over the next few pages. The OP has ignored them all and pursued his "I will prove they are cheating" model, which has very little chance of ending well. He now has enough data to prove, to a reasonable level of confidence, what he wanted to prove from the start, and still does nothing about it 10 pages later.
Given the amount of notice the OP has taken to what others have said on here (i.e. none), I have a pretty high degree of confidence that it was never intended to be a request for help or anything similar. It is just a thread for the OP to complain about a player he dislikes. Whether it is proved that he was cheating or not is irrelevant at this point.
I don't think there actually is a good solution to this problem. There is a certain player type that just has to cheat, or has to be able to have, do, or get, more than the character should reasonably have. I have seen this before. It is quite literally impossible to stop players like this from doing it. If you stop them cheating on rolls, they'll cheat another way. They'll track spell slots incorrectly, so that they have spells available when they shouldn't. They'll track hit points inaccurately, so that their character never goes to 0 h.p. They'll state their AC incorrectly so that they don't get hit as often. They'll misread spell effects to be more powerful than the RAW text says ("accidentally on purpose" as my mom would say). Any solution you find for preventing one of these, they will find another that bypasses this solution. If you could, somehow, via VTT or some other means, find a way to effectively stop each, and every, possible method of dishonest play from this player, he will quit the group (possibly throwing a series of grown-up tantrums on the way out). There is no possible way to get a player like this to actually play the game properly, by the rules, while honestly recording everything about his character. I've seen it before -- it cannot be done. None of the solutions presented here, including mine, are capable of doing the one thing you'd need to do to fix the problem, and that is, change the player. Nothing's going to make the player change.
My solution (in-app die rolling) would ultimately get the player kicked from the group, if the cheating became publicly known and the DM got mad enough about it. In a less extreme possibility, app die-rolling might force the player to quit the group, or cheat another way. But it's not going to get the player to change. That is impossible because the player has a personality flaw that makes him need to do this. I can't really explain it any more than this because I have never had this need, but I've seen it, twice before, when I was younger, and it is literally an unstoppable force. You cannot change players like this. It is a waste of time to even try. That's why the thread is still going on, to some degree -- because there isn't a solution to this. None of the suggestions up the thread will actually work to do what you might want to do: get the player to just stop cheating and "play the game correctly." You can't. He won't. Because he can't, for some reason. Again, I've seen this before.
Let's look at the solutions proposed:
App-die-rolling to prevent die cheating? Stops the incorrect reporting of numbers rolled on dice, yes. Won't stop him from saying he gets a +10 when he's supposed to get a +7. Won't stop him from incorrectly reporting his h.p., skill proficiencies, skill bonuses, etc.
Confront the player? That's even easier for him to solve: he'll just lie. And now that he knows you're onto him, he'll find slyer, harder-to-detect ways of cheating. This only makes it worse. At least right now, he doesn't know anyone's onto him, so the cheating is obvious and maybe the DM can deal with it.
Confront the DM? That will (1) make Vince the bad guy for accusing the DM's friend of something bad, (2) be disbelieved by the DM and the status quo remains, (3) get the DM to confront the player, see above for the result, or (4) in the most extreme case, get the player kicked.
None of these solutions will get the player to stay in the group but actually stop, because it's something he, the player, cannot do.
Bio has nailed pretty much all of it.
And to be explicitly clear, I am very much aware that the if anyone gets booted from the group, it will be me. I have told Bio that I really think the group is rounding into form, with the DM doing a fantastic job of telling a story, and every week, he is playing closer and closer to the rules. Much of that is NOT my doing, as the newest player is also an encyclopedia when it comes to the rules and he constantly applies gentle pressure to make sure they are adhered to. Most of the time I just sit back with my mic muted.
So it comes down to this:
Do I risk alienating the DM to the extent that he boots me, because his real life friend of 30 plus years, the rule of cool guy and cheater, will most certainly not be going anywhere. I have to weigh the risk of me getting booted versus whether I can handle playing with THAT GUY, if I don't say anything. That is a tough choice.
I plan on asking the DM to install a dice bot. But I know this guy. He is a very logical man, numbers based. He will ask why. I can dance and say "I wanted to try it out". That will unlikely cut it. So I want hard analysis in my back pocket, that I might use if he presses me harder on my reasons.
The best case scenario, for me personally, would be me explaining to the DM what I see, with hard evidence (yeah, this guys grasps stats), and he agreeing with me. He then finds a way to gently suggest to his buddy that his rolls seem REALLY good, and then the rolls suddenly fall in line. But that scenario is unlikely. But before anyone says "this is just your problem", remember, a player cheating affects the game for everyone, as the DM has to alter the encounter difficulty levels as this one guy cuts through everything.
Well, Bio is wrong. Using the proper dice roller (like the one in roll20) would make sure the player wouldn't be able to say that they have +10 instead of a +7. Even with just a basic dice roller the DM should have access to the player's character sheet and can check the stats to make sure they are rolling correctly and help out if neccesary.
No, I have not asked the DM about him installing a dice bot on the server, but I will.
THAT GUY was up to his tricks last night, but I think the DM is catching on, when THAT GUY saiI d he rolled a 30 on a Survival check, at now 5th level. The DM and I both called him out on it. It turned out to be "player error", and he had "only" rolled a 26 (19 + 7, due to Prof in Survival). The DM also commented that a Nat 20 THAT GUY had rolled using Guiding Bolt was likely the 3rd time he had done that in about 4 sessions.
I now have 50 data points (of d20's), which is more than enough to do a statistical analysis. That allows me to brush up on my skills (yeah, I find that kind of thing fun), and if the DM asks me why I am wanting a dice roller, and I feel ornery, maybe I will pull out the results.
Oh, and a question, in general: If a char has the Sailor background, what is the appropriate bonus to rolls, when operating a boat?
I believe they get proficiency with sea vehicles, the skill isn't affected by any ability score, so a +3 for a level 5 character.
Apologies, but this is blatantly incorrect.
All 'skill' checks in D&D are actually ability checks. Every check in D&D is and must be associated with an ability score, unless the DM enjoys arbitrarily ruining their players' chances for success. The check for 'operating a boat' would be dependent on what operating the boat actually means. If the check is for the physical act of helming the ship, keeping it on course during difficult maneuvers? That would be a Dexterity (Water Vehicles) check. Is the check more concerning knowledge and the correct application of one's learning to correctly operate the ship? Then it's an Intelligence (Water Vehicles) check.
This is why so many tables have no idea what to do with tools, or any proficiency that isn't one of the eighteen prebaked skills - as well as why so many tables have severe issues with doing 'off' skill checks, such as Strength (Intimidation) or Intelligence (Persuasion). The default roll in 5e is not a skill check, it's an ability check to which a skill may or may not apply. It's honestly one of the worst mistakes on the 5e character sheet - the entire list of rigid, eternally unchangeable skills sitting there on the sheet artificially limits both character capabilities and player imaginations so much.
Well, while I would like to agree with you in principle, I don't believe I have ever read any documentation that proves that every skill check is associated with any particular ability. And in the specific, sorry, but maneuvering a 100 x 20 foot boat (posted those stats earlier) away from a dock has nothing to do with Dexterity. Maybe Int, maybe Str, but not Dex. In any case, the fact that all seven checks related to the Sailor background ranged from 20 to 25 is, shall we say, eyebrow raising.
We have been through this, Any individual roll is never questionable. But a growing body of numbers, that is a whole different matter.
Can you give even a single example of a "skill" (not tool or ability) check in any published material? I thought you were big in the whole RAW issue?
*munching vociferously on various snack foods in between heavy, bated breaths*
This show is so good but what the heck is with these boat episodes?
Sometimes a show will introduce a new character or storyline if they think the ratings are falling. A lot of people started to tune out due to the repetitive nature of Vince's whining, so I think the producers tried to shoehorn in some interesting material about boats. I've found it a nice diversion from waiting for Vince to stop moaning and destroy himself. I'm still hoping he does so without breaking up the whole group which he has so little respect for, but to find out we will have to wait for the nail biting conclusion.
I could see a constitution argument for enduring a storm, but still think that the helm itself is mostly strength. "Hold 'er steady" is a stock (arguably cliche) phrase, after all and references literally holding the wheel steady while bracing against wind on deck and against currents pushing against the rudder below.
You can think that but you'd be wrong. It's the same reason why the PHB suggests a Con (Athletics) check for a very long swim.
And I repeat that it might have been one wheel and one man but that one wheel is nevertheless not the weight of the wheel but rather the weight of the rudder it is attached to and the weight of the water you are pushing against. The worst sorts of inclement weather is a red herring, in that the weather has little to nothing to do with steering. Furthermore, the 'worst sorts of inclement weather' literally sinks ships and short of someone the power of Heracles, no sailor has the strength to keep the ship from capsizing if the waves are too strong.
Not true. If the weather is bad it will affect how the ship handles and that will affect how difficult it is to stear.
Clearly, I see the world differently than you. If I was DM'ing and a player came to me with hard facts that make it a virtual certainty another player is cheating, I would be "oh damn, now I have a problem with a cheater", but not "I am going to toss the player that picked up on that."
But you aren't, are you? Which is the whole point. Well, one of the many very good points having been made in this thread.
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
This much is true. As I have mentioned, it may be that the DM in question would prefer to be presented with a thesis on why "THAT GUY" is cheating than have oddities brought to his or the table's attention early. I doubt that this is the case, though, and Vince has never said that the DM would prefer that, only that he would himself. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much myself, either (although I would vastly prefer someone to have raised their suspicions with me privately before launching into a full blown investigation and mathematical analysis). I have learned the hard way, however, that the vast majority of people do not want this, even those who understand and like maths themselves. It would raise suspicions between members of the group in almost any situation to find that one of the group had been collecting data for a while to prove that another had done something wrong. Most would consider it underhanded, sly and deceitful to do this behind the backs of the group.
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
This much is true. As I have mentioned, it may be that the DM in question would prefer to be presented with a thesis on why "THAT GUY" is cheating than have oddities brought to his or the table's attention early. I doubt that this is the case, though, and Vince has never said that the DM would prefer that, only that he would himself. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much myself, either (although I would vastly prefer someone to have raised their suspicions with me privately before launching into a full blown investigation and mathematical analysis). I have learned the hard way, however, that the vast majority of people do not want this, even those who understand and like maths themselves. It would raise suspicions between members of the group in almost any situation to find that one of the group had been collecting data for a while to prove that another had done something wrong. Most would consider it underhanded, sly and deceitful to do this behind the backs of the group.
At the risk of being off topic, it is an aspect of most players that I still have real trouble understanding. What you say in public is public. What you say to others or do around them in private may be private but is nevertheless they are there. Paying attention to what people directly interacting with you do or say is not 'spying.'
It simply isn't.
And while your character is your character, the effects they have on the rest of the world are not strictly 'yours.' Actually more than once have seen players tell the DM that they are going to quit playing and will take everything associated with their character away with them. It does not work like that. It is not that kind of IP.
Paying attention to what is happening is not spying, no. Nor is making notes about what is going in for the purposes of playing the game.
Keeping detailed records of one specific player's actions for the express purpose of proving that they are cheating, however, is very much akin to spying. If I found out that, say, a colleague had been keeping track of my activities to prove I was doing something wrong, I would be unhappy with them whether I had been doing something wrong or not. If I found out they had been keeping track of another colleague, I would find it difficult to trust them in future. It's why so many law abiding people have trouble being around the police: even if they are doing nothing wrong, the feeling of being watched and judged is highly unpleasant.
I could see a constitution argument for enduring a storm, but still think that the helm itself is mostly strength. "Hold 'er steady" is a stock (arguably cliche) phrase, after all and references literally holding the wheel steady while bracing against wind on deck and against currents pushing against the rudder below.
You can think that but you'd be wrong. It's the same reason why the PHB suggests a Con (Athletics) check for a very long swim.
And I repeat that it might have been one wheel and one man but that one wheel is nevertheless not the weight of the wheel but rather the weight of the rudder it is attached to and the weight of the water you are pushing against. The worst sorts of inclement weather is a red herring, in that the weather has little to nothing to do with steering. Furthermore, the 'worst sorts of inclement weather' literally sinks ships and short of someone the power of Heracles, no sailor has the strength to keep the ship from capsizing if the waves are too strong.
Not true. If the weather is bad it will affect how the ship handles and that will affect how difficult it is to stear.
Clearly, I see the world differently than you. If I was DM'ing and a player came to me with hard facts that make it a virtual certainty another player is cheating, I would be "oh damn, now I have a problem with a cheater", but not "I am going to toss the player that picked up on that."
But you aren't, are you? Which is the whole point. Well, one of the many very good points having been made in this thread.
*munching vociferously on various snack foods in between heavy, bated breaths*
This show is so good but what the heck is with these boat episodes?
Everyone enjoys a cruise to get their mind of things, don't they? :P Care to share some snacks?
I repeat: Con to endure the storm, to stay at the helm. But it is still strength to actually keep the ship steady.
And I, having actual experience, repeat, you are wrong.
Whether one refers to it as an ability score check or a skill check is out of character and RAW covers in character actions not OOC actions. Nothing in RAW speaks to how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to when discussing it in an open forum. Discussing things in forums is not part of RAW.
Except that wasn't what was discussed, which should be obvious from the context. Which i quite clear if you read the text. It had nothing to do with "how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to". Please stay on topic.
Con (or possibly wisdom) can help you focus out the elements but cannot help you actually resist them. It is a strength (or sometimes dex) based defence against shoves and various involuntary movement effects, not normally a Con save.
Really? Constitution, your "stamina" and "life force" and the ability used for resisting multiple damage spells and fatigue is of no use to help resist the elements? A kitten with a con of 1 can brave freezing cold winds for the same amount of time as a hardened barbarian?
And you aren't the DM in this particular situation either. No one here is the DM in this particular situation. Every one of us here speaking about what the DM should do or what should be left to the DM is just as much second guessing the DM as Vince. Vince actually knows the DM, though. Do you?
Again, please read the context. And no, you are quite right in that none of us is the DM. That's not the point though, is it? This thread isn't about "how would you deal with this sitation if you were the DM?" (even though many people have motivated their answers by telling us how they would deal with this situation were that the case) but rather is vince asking us how he should deal with it. Which, due to the nature of the issue many would argue, means referring back to the DM. Who is not vince.
So when people point out that vince isn't the DM it's a perfectly valid point since vince keeps on telling us what he would do "if he were the DM". That's great, in vince's games, but it isn't vince's game to DM and unless he can convince the DM to go along with vince's wishes (which has been suggested in the thread), what vince would do in the games vince would DM is of no consequence in this matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because I did have a good deal of evidence, and the last session gave more evidence. The numbers don't lie. That is what statistics do. If these numbers had happened in a Vegas casino, there would be all kinds of electronic and human eyes on him right now. Would they have moved in and banned him from the casinos? Unlikely. But they would be one step away from it.
In other words, why have you ignored the dozens of different ideas of everyone else?
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bard of the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules. Sig. Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
I'm really not convinced by this logic. If you don't have 'evidence', why do you have a feeling that he's cheating and need to track anything? You do have evidence - it looks like he rarely, if ever, misses a roll. That's not conclusive, but it's still evidence. The thing for me is, you can act on that inconclusive evidence. And by doing so you're not making a huge deal out of it. This leap from not doing a statistical analysis to simply having to accept something is silly. You can simply not accept what your gut feeling tells you is happening. You didn't need to escalate this into an investigation.
You have zero illusions about getting him kicked from the table (I'll pass on discussing whether that's something you should want to happen in the first place). So what's the goal of presenting your numbers? It's arguably not getting him booted if you don't believe that's possible. I assume it's not getting kicked yourself. So what is it, and couldn't that have been achieved without prosecutorial conduct? If you want him to stop cheating, just pointing out he seemingly never misses in a game built around missing about a third of the time thanks to bounded accuracy can likely get that done. If you want to conclusively prove he cheats, or at least as conclusively as possibly without catching him redhanded, then sure, you're doing a fine job - but that will have consequences for the group and the game, and I'm not sure you're willing to own that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics.
2) Just like you're not the MLB, you're not a Vegas casino. You're a bunch of people spending some free time together and having what should be fun. Please, please, try to keep things in perspective. You're not trying to put Capone behind bars here. It's just a guy who can't handle his dice rolls in a game that has no meaningful consequences.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is in response to the emboldened text.
That's not your job. That's the DMs job, not yours, as a player.
If you have a feeling that someone is cheating, the normal, human reaction is to talk to the DM about it. Give the issue over to the DM first and foremost, without numbers. That is what one of my players did at my table when another player had changed a few die rolls in a couple different sessions. The player that noticed this approached me, told me what they saw the other player doing, and I approached the player that had been cheating telling the player that another player thought that they had purposefully changed a few die rolls. The player immediately felt sorry about it, apologized, and we have never had an issue with cheating at my table in the two years since that incident happened.
That is the correct way to handle this. The DM is the head of the table. If there is a problem player, it is their job and only their job to deal with it. If they aren't aware of the issue, it is a player's job to alert them of their suspicion.
However, it is not the job of the player to prove another player to be cheating. The player that alerted me of the other player changing his die rolls did not give me video evidence of this, or make a note of all of the die rolls that the player had done in the past few sessions to prove that they were suspiciously high, or even tell me "X Player is cheating, I absolutely saw them doing it, they need to be punished". They simply told me what they saw (they even said that they "thought they saw it", to be less abrasive and definite in telling me about it), and then they handed over the issue to me. That was a correct way to handle this, because it gave me the freedom to do whatever I felt was necessary to deal with the issue.
Your way doesn't do this. You're trying to force the DMs hand, by giving him definite, absolute proof that another player is cheating, while also giving list of every other time that the other player has done something that you didn't like at the table. You're trying to determine the outcome before the DM even knows about the issue. My player didn't do that. He simply told me about what he thought happened, without going out of his way to try to prove it to me, so that I could peacefully approach the player and ask him whether or not he was changing his die rolls. If the player had given me proof of this happening, the situation would have been much messier.
You're trying to force the DMs hand. You're not the DM. Stop doing that. What you should have done when you first had these suspicions of their rolls being high was to just approach the DM about it. You should have said something like, "Hey, sorry, I'm not sure if this is true, and I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but I have noticed that some of X Player's rolls recently have been pretty high. It could be nothing, they could just have been really lucky, or they might have been making some mistakes with the bonuses or something like that, but I just wanted to let you know in case they were." Then, after you told them that there could be an issue, you should have let them deal with it. They're in charge of the table. They're the ones that have the final say about what does or doesn't happen.
You didn't do that. It's the DMs job to investigate and deal with problem players, not yours. You should have told the DM about the possibility of a problem, and then walked away to let the DM deal with it. Now, you didn't choose to do that. You chose to investigate in order to prove it to the DM. You put on the DM hat when you should have been wearing the player hat.
The way that I would deal with this now is first to admit that you acted incorrectly. You jumped to conclusions, and chose the path of most resistance instead of the better path to take for both you and the rest of your table. I would go to your DM, and tell them about your suspicions about the other player. Do what my player did, and turn the problem over to the DM. If the DM then wants you to keep an eye on things, they will let you know. Don't do that if it is not an assigned job given by the DM. If they don't do that, assume that the DM is doing his job and dealing with things, even if you don't see it directly. If the DM does his job, you may or may not hear about it. If you don't hear about it, you're free to nonconfrontationally approach the DM about it after waiting a respectable amount of time to hear back.
Don't present evidence, as that's not your job if the DM hasn't asked for it. That's you trying to take control of a situation that is supposed to be in the DM's hands.
The reason my player didn't go out of his way to prove the wrongdoing of another player was because he was friends with my other player. He didn't want him kicked out of the game, he just wanted the problem to be resolved. You don't want the problem to be resolved, you want the player that you perceive to be a problem to be gone. The DM choses their table. If you can't live with it, go to another table. That is both your right and your responsibility as a player. You're allowed to leave if you're not having fun, no one is holding you hostage. If you're not having fun and it is affecting the fun of the others at the table (which it almost definitely is/will), you are the one whose responsibility is to leave.
Stop trying to be the DM when you're the player. If you want to be the DM, you're free to go DM with whomever you choose, as is your DM and every other DM in the hobby. Don't start a war where there could be a peaceful walking away from the table. Trust me, it's better that way.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, it isn't. It really isn't. The DM is in charge of running a good game. The group is in charge of being a good group. If I, as a player, don't like another player's way of playing it's not up to the DM to tell them they're wrong or tell me I'm wrong. That's for me to work out with that other player and if that doesn't work, to bring up for the whole group to have a say in.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. The DM is the one that chooses the campaign's playstyle and who plays at the table. If a player is cheating, the DM is the one that deals with it, because they're the one that is in charge of who plays. Other players should not take it upon themselves to punish other players for cheating.
Playstyles is a completely different thing. A player that plays with a different style does cause an issue at the table, but they're not a "problem player". A problem player is one that cheats, lies, and damages the fun of the campaign and other players on purpose. Different playstyles are a problem when they clash, but that doesn't make them a problem player, it just means that they're at the wrong table.
If someone is cheating, the DM deals with it. That was the point of my post. Not about clashing playstyles, or whatnot.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You call them out in an open channel - doesn't mean they are accurate. I agree with Orange - as a DM, I would boot you from the game. What you do destroys the cohesion of the group, not only for now, but for the future. D&D is supposed to be fun, and the thought that someone is possibly scrutinizing my every roll is definitely not fun. Easier to deal with a cheater.
Are they? When I DM for an established group, I'm not going to tell one of them they can't play because I don't like them as much as the others. And deciding the group of beer and pretzels players who can't go five minutes without telling an off-colour joke is going to play a serious, gritty, everyone stays in character type campaign is never going to end well. The DM has more impact than any one player, sure, but if they choose a playstyle a group doesn't like or either invite players others don't enjoy playing with or don't invite good friends of the people they did choose, that's probably not going to be a good game - or simply not a game at all.
It's a game of D&D. Punishment shouldn't be a thing period.
If the DM is the only one at the table who thinks there's cheating going on, that's not going to go over well.
D&D is a social game involving a group of people. It's in my experience almost always better to have the whole group in charge of the group, and cheating is a group problem. It's not making mistakes or misunderstanding something, it's deliberate and affects everyone - hence, better to haveryone be part of the solution.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The DM absolutely chooses who plays at their table. If you're DMing at an established group, you're kind of stuck with everyone else if you don't want to offend anyone by not inviting them to play at your campaign, but you definitely have the say of who plays at your table and who doesn't. You've been playing D&D for longer than I have. I don't think I need to be telling you, or anyone, this.
. . . Now you're being purposefully dense. "Punishment", in this situation, would be not allowing a player to have something they had before (note the use of "player", not the character. Definitely do not punish anyone's character for what the person playing them does outside of the game). Like making the table have to use dice rollers online to prove that no one is cheating, or kicking someone out of the campaign because they were causing issues that couldn't be solved in any other way, or by simply telling the player that you are aware of their behavior and that they have to stop "or else". Those are all forms of punishment that a DM can and sometimes might have to use at their table.
The DM punishes a player for their behavior if they have to. The DM is the one that decides what "D&D punishment" their behavior deserves, if any. Not the other players, unless the DM decides to include them.
IME, no, it's not. The other players don't need to know if another player is cheating if the problem can be resolved by the DM without them knowing. Cheating does effect the whole group, but once the problem is resolved, it doesn't effect them anymore.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I must agree here: it's the DMs job to control the world, and the be the final arbiter of the rules, but it's a social game which everyone must take a hand in. If you have a problem with a player, whether that comes from their play style, their personality, or the pattern of their dice rolls, it's up to you to bring it to the table. It may be wise to discuss it with the DM beforehand, but placing all the responsibility for handling your problems on the DM is not the right way.
As to Vince, I cannot believe that he had any intention of listening to any opinion but his own. We are 14 pages in, 90%+ of posts and posters have told him this is a really bad idea, but he has ignored every one. He started this thread to whine about a player he dislikes, and is going to do whatever he wants regardless. Sadly, the only thing left to do is what HeironymusZot suggested a couple of pages back: get out the popcorn and watch Vince completely alienate himself from the whole group. If they are lucky, his... unwise actions won't ruin the game for the entire table, only for him. If he is lucky, people here will take the high road rather than telling him "I told you so" when everything they've predicted comes to pass. Then the table can continue playing how they want, and Vince can go find a table to play at where they all follow his One True Way of playing...
Respectfully, I disagree.
There may be times when having the DM, or one of the other players, handle a disagreement in private is the best way forward. However, while the DM is there to tell the story and control the game, they are not responsible for handling petty squabbles between players. They should certainly not be handing out punishments. They already have a lot to do, adding another responsibility for something which the whole group can handle is unfair, to me.
D&D, for myself, is a very social activity. If someone organised a regular meal at a restaurant for a group, would it be up to them to tell someone off who started annoying everyone? Or would it be the responsibility of the entire group?
Speaking from experience as a tall ship sailor, Navigator's tools should be Int (but I can understand the connection to survival and wisdom). A check for "Vehicles (water)" could, depending on what you're doing be either strength, dex, con or int. Rowing a small boat against a current doesn't take a lot of intelligence but does require some strength. Working the rigging is often dex-based whereas keeping the helm at a steady course in hard winds would probably be constitution.
Well, Bio is wrong. Using the proper dice roller (like the one in roll20) would make sure the player wouldn't be able to say that they have +10 instead of a +7. Even with just a basic dice roller the DM should have access to the player's character sheet and can check the stats to make sure they are rolling correctly and help out if neccesary.
Can you give even a single example of a "skill" (not tool or ability) check in any published material? I thought you were big in the whole RAW issue?
*munching vociferously on various snack foods in between heavy, bated breaths*
This show is so good but what the heck is with these boat episodes?
Sometimes a show will introduce a new character or storyline if they think the ratings are falling. A lot of people started to tune out due to the repetitive nature of Vince's whining, so I think the producers tried to shoehorn in some interesting material about boats. I've found it a nice diversion from waiting for Vince to stop moaning and destroy himself. I'm still hoping he does so without breaking up the whole group which he has so little respect for, but to find out we will have to wait for the nail biting conclusion.
You can think that but you'd be wrong. It's the same reason why the PHB suggests a Con (Athletics) check for a very long swim.
What are you on about? Vince made a comment about the rules. [REDACTED]
Not true. If the weather is bad it will affect how the ship handles and that will affect how difficult it is to stear.
But you aren't, are you? Which is the whole point. Well, one of the many very good points having been made in this thread.
Everyone enjoys a cruise to get their mind of things, don't they? :P Care to share some snacks?
This much is true. As I have mentioned, it may be that the DM in question would prefer to be presented with a thesis on why "THAT GUY" is cheating than have oddities brought to his or the table's attention early. I doubt that this is the case, though, and Vince has never said that the DM would prefer that, only that he would himself. Personally, I wouldn't mind it too much myself, either (although I would vastly prefer someone to have raised their suspicions with me privately before launching into a full blown investigation and mathematical analysis). I have learned the hard way, however, that the vast majority of people do not want this, even those who understand and like maths themselves. It would raise suspicions between members of the group in almost any situation to find that one of the group had been collecting data for a while to prove that another had done something wrong. Most would consider it underhanded, sly and deceitful to do this behind the backs of the group.
Paying attention to what is happening is not spying, no. Nor is making notes about what is going in for the purposes of playing the game.
Keeping detailed records of one specific player's actions for the express purpose of proving that they are cheating, however, is very much akin to spying. If I found out that, say, a colleague had been keeping track of my activities to prove I was doing something wrong, I would be unhappy with them whether I had been doing something wrong or not. If I found out they had been keeping track of another colleague, I would find it difficult to trust them in future. It's why so many law abiding people have trouble being around the police: even if they are doing nothing wrong, the feeling of being watched and judged is highly unpleasant.
And I, having actual experience, repeat, you are wrong.
Except that wasn't what was discussed, which should be obvious from the context. Which i quite clear if you read the text. It had nothing to do with "how any given aspect of RAW must be referred to". Please stay on topic.
Really? Constitution, your "stamina" and "life force" and the ability used for resisting multiple damage spells and fatigue is of no use to help resist the elements? A kitten with a con of 1 can brave freezing cold winds for the same amount of time as a hardened barbarian?
Again, please read the context. And no, you are quite right in that none of us is the DM. That's not the point though, is it? This thread isn't about "how would you deal with this sitation if you were the DM?" (even though many people have motivated their answers by telling us how they would deal with this situation were that the case) but rather is vince asking us how he should deal with it. Which, due to the nature of the issue many would argue, means referring back to the DM. Who is not vince.
So when people point out that vince isn't the DM it's a perfectly valid point since vince keeps on telling us what he would do "if he were the DM". That's great, in vince's games, but it isn't vince's game to DM and unless he can convince the DM to go along with vince's wishes (which has been suggested in the thread), what vince would do in the games vince would DM is of no consequence in this matter.