The Player Competes

I find that I make in-game things harder for players who choose to compete. I am not so much talking about players who compete against other players, as a playing style, but those players who compete against the DM. Let me be clear, I am not discussing character versus character, or player versus player, those disastrous attitudes will play themselves out. But when a player competes against the DM, then that is the wrong way to play, and vice versa. To use what you know about an actual person to gain a benefit in this game is not appropriate.
This is confusing so let me give an example. One of my failings as DM is that I do not memorize things very well. I do not have the majority of the Players Handbook memorized. So when a character uses a spell that I am not familiar with, I count on them to use the spell as it is written and/or intended. Additionally, if there is a vague or confusing aspect to a spell* the player should bring it up at the time of use. Then we can discuss it openly, and get a clearer understanding of the effects, the very details of the spell.
Sounds good right? Well, in this example, imagine a player using only the aspects of a spell that he or she likes. The spell the character casts will kill all the monsters, but the player leaves out the fact that the monsters get a saving throw. A DM would ask if there is a save, but let’s say that the player says that there is no save. A DM that trusts his player will be fine with that. They can all celebrate together that all the monsters were defeated. What a great use of that awesome spell! You can see the problem here. The player will repeatedly get the advantage of using the spell.
This problem is magnified tenfold when the missing aspect of the spell is then used by that same player. A monster uses the powerful spell against the characters, and the trusted player notifies the DM that there is a saving throw. How should a DM respond to this? Should the DM who recognizes the inconsistency say nothing? Perhaps the DM doesn’t want to upset his players or confront people about their, shall we say, convenient play. Or should the DM risk the anger and the upset and point directly at the heart of the matter?
Returning to my original point, this is a clear example of a player competing with the DM. The player may know full well the limitations of his or her DM, and may take advantage. The problems and inconsistencies always arise however, so it is better to not compete. It may not look like competition, but it sure seems to hold the same qualities. If I can better my situation because I know how a person will react, especially if that person could be seen as an adversary, then how is it not competing?
Moreover, D&D is hardly a good game for people to compete in. If D&D is being played well, then the in-game action is more than enough competition. The forces of evil coming down the mountain to slay the characters should be a desperate fight. Characters fighting each other only make the evil forces literally more victorious. The DM should not go easy on the player characters because they choose to fight each other.


* A failure of 1st Edition D&D is that aspects of many spells are detailed in both the Players Handbook and the Dungeon Masters Guide. Thus, a player could go by the understanding in the one book but not even know about the spell details in the other book. I think the original intent was to have the DM surprise the player with an unexpected result. It allows for “gotcha” moments, which are philosophically terrible. They encourage competition between the players and the DM.