PDA

View Full Version : Players reading the script!



Aedilred
2009-07-14, 06:40 AM
I'm currently running a published adventure for my (PbP) group and things are going reasonably well. However one of my players has contacted me saying that he's bought a copy of the adventure, and will be buying the next one in the series as well. As far as I know he's not planning to GM either of them, and although the books contain information irrelevant to the adventures, I suspect that's not why he's buying them.

I'm having trouble understanding why he's even done this, but I guess he's the sort of guy who doesn't like surprises. I could cope with his knowing what was going to happen- although in all honesty he doesn't tend to roleplay any better as a result- but somehow he always manages to give away to everyone else what's imminently about to happen too, not directly, but dropping subtle "hints" that pretty much give the game away.

Not to mention that he seems to have difficulty separating OOC knowledge from in-character stuff. He's the sort of guy who'll (IC) go to the library and then tell the GM and other players what he's found out, rather than asking what he learns. I can always turn round and say "no, that's not what it says" but by that point it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted rather.

I've suggested to him previously that I'd rather he didn't do this, and he's usually contritely agreed, but it hasn't stopped him doing it over and over again- it seems he can't contain himself. I don't want to kick him out of the group, because he's a decent guy generally (not to mention good friends with the forum admin) but I do want to stop all the silly business, as it's making it less fun for me and also, I suspect, for some of the other players.

I've considered ripping up the published adventure and sending them off on one I make up, as that removes the possibility of his ever knowing what's going to happen, but that seems like a waste of money, to start with, and the adventures themselves are actually quite good- I'm not sure I could write anything to match them. I could try modifying the adventure so that he's not always ahead of the game, but that would involve a lot of effort from me just to stop him doing something he shouldn't really be doing in the first place- it seems like he's won, somehow.

Anyone have any suggestions? It's doing my head in rather.

rakkoon
2009-07-14, 06:48 AM
Well, it's clearly the player that is at fault here. A hear-to-heart talk should straiten him out but apparently you've already done that, try appealing to his better nature and tell him he's spoiling the game for everyone.
If he continous being childish you could join him and make small adjustments to the story such as make a +3 dagger cursed or adding some weretigers to a normally empty tomb. Then repeat the suggestion that he should either DM or buy novels, perhaps that will appeal to his inner roleplayer

The Manly Man
2009-07-14, 06:55 AM
I used to have a player like that, although his speciality was "My character's level 12. Of course he knows all about various oozes/dragons/undead and their weaknesses. No, I haven't taken any ranks in the appropriate knowledge, nor have I encountered any in-game yet, but that's not the point."

Ask him not to buy the adventures until after you're done running them. Tell him that every time he uses OOC knowledge in-game, he'll take an xp penalty. If he thinks that's unfair, tell him it's the cost of trying to ruin the game.

Alternatively, make small changes. Suddenly that enemy is immune to sonic and cold, not acid and fire. The secret lever hidden in the bookcase is now a trap - the real one's in a panel under the desk.

greenknight
2009-07-14, 06:56 AM
It's fairly easy to fix this in a PbP game, since you usually have a day or two between posts. Just move a few things around, and put traps/particularly difficult encounters in areas where a player making use of player knowledge would make a beeline for. Do that a few times and your player should get the message.

Evilfeeds
2009-07-14, 07:02 AM
Kick him from the group?

Seriously, it sounds like he's being a [annoying person], will continue to be a [annoying person], and has no intention of "playing properly". Whats the problem?

Its pbp, its not like its hard to find new players.

kamikasei
2009-07-14, 07:11 AM
Well, he's cheating. Not fudging his die rolls or adding up his modifiers "wrong", but cheating as though he were looking through the DM's notes while you're in the bathroom. Tell him to cop on and cut it out, or boot him. If you want to give him a little more room to correct his behaviour before disinviting him, the suggestion of XP penalties is a good one.

That you've spoken to him and he's continued in his behaviour would suggest he's incorrigible, though, so don't let him damage the play experience of the rest of the group for too much longer just for the sake of punishing him.

magellan
2009-07-14, 07:18 AM
step 1: Tell him that this has been one of the biggest No-nos in gaming for 30 years, and he better stop. (you already did that)

Step 2: Kill him using his knowledge. (maybe hurting badly is enough) find a situation in the adventure where "not very obvious but the correct answer is A" and turn things around so that giving answer A results in death. you know, something like: Suprise master of the armies is a red dragon? nope. it's a white. "but thats not in the book" - "the guy who sold you cone of cold scrolls wasn't in the book either". you get the idea.

KillianHawkeye
2009-07-14, 07:47 AM
My approach to this problem has always been "Don't tell your players what adventure you're running." At least that way, they have to figure it out before they can even begin cheating like this.

pita
2009-07-14, 07:53 AM
I was a similar player to this, where I would just end up knowing more about the (DM's invented) campaign world because I knew how the DM thinks ("How can I screw this bunghole over?"). There is no real solution to this unless the player is mature enough, and from your post, he isn't. Remove him from the game is what I think you should do. Or get a different adventure book. Try Blood Bayou by Sword & Sorcery games. It adds an excellent setting to your world that you can do a lot in, even if it does work better in the campaign setting it was released as part of.
EDIT-What adventure is this? Maybe there are editable parts people in this thread can help you with.

Quietus
2009-07-14, 07:56 AM
Another alternative : don't tell them what module you're running. Grab a few sheets of paper to tape over the cover of the book, if you have to bring it to the game, or just photocopy the individual pages, or make quick notes along with photocopies of maps. If he doesn't know what you're running, he can't go out and buy it.

Also, experience penalties as noted. Say, 10% per bit of metagame information he manages to use? He'll still level, but more slowly than his friends, if he's not SO bad... but if he gets bad enough about it, he'll end up not even gaining ANY experience. The problem with changing the encounters ("That dragon is white instead of red!") is that if this guy is passing hints to the other players, they may, consciously or not, be following his lead. This means that they're preparing for the fight with the same metagame information, and ultimately, by changing that around backwards you're going to end up punishing everyone. Experience penalties? They only punish the <coughcough> that needed to go out and buy the books.

Blackjackg
2009-07-14, 08:04 AM
Well, if he's really the kind of guy who doesn't like surprises (ignoring for the moment the possibility that D&D might not be the game for him), I can't fault him too much for peeking ahead. Like all things in D&D, it's really a question of what's the most fun for everyone involved. If knowing what's about to happen is more comfortable and less anxiety-provoking for him, what the heck, let him go nuts.

The problem is clearly that he's not just using that knowledge to make himself more comfortable, he's disseminating it among the party and rather shamelessly rubbing it in your (the DM's) face. That is totally unacceptable because it's ruining the fun for everyone else.

You say you don't want to kick him out of the group, which is fine. However, since you aren't willing to alienate your friend, I would not recommend changing things up on him. If he's genuinely upset by surprises, he won't be happy about combat encounters and traps being sprung on him where he doesn't expect them to be. And if he just enjoys being a jerk about it, well, being a jerk back could cost you a friend.

My recommendation is to tell him, in no uncertain terms, that anytime he demonstrates or spreads out-of-character knowledge, his character will take an XP hit for poor roleplaying. Give him a couple of warnings so he knows what you're talking about, then start docking him. And don't let him weasel out of it, either ("I didn't know there was a fire elemental in the next room! I just cast Protection from Fire on a hunch!" or "Everyone knows you never step on the third stair! It's always trapped!"). You'll know when he's abusing player knowledge.

If that doesn't stop him, and you're still determined to let him keep playing, probably your only option is to split the group. Run it with him solo one night and with your other friends some other time. More work, but at least everyone will be having fun.

EDIT: Just re-read the OP. Didn't realize this was a PbP game. Well... most of my advice still stands.

Leon
2009-07-14, 08:18 AM
I had a player do that once, after being told not to and doing so anyway
He also revealed all that he had read to the rest of the group which they were not to happy about aswell.
Handled it by a) having the party arrested for Break and Entering church property and then b) letting them run all over the city looking for a NPC that wasn't open to them yet in the process getting hassled by a gang at the docks (only reason it didnt end in a brawl was smart gang members knowing not to tangle with a Ogrun and instead trying to bribe him to join them, almost succeed too...)

They then left that players PC to sit out the front of a Nobles house all day while they went to do other things - he was convinced that he could bail up a servant for info - i'd have let he too if he'd found one, but the Servants don't come and go via the front of the nobles houses typically.

Later on the party as a whole got back at his PC by leaving it blind in a room with a nest of Devil rats, they also locked the door.

magellan
2009-07-14, 08:29 AM
They may, consciously or not, be following his lead. This means that they're preparing for the fight with the same metagame information, and ultimately, by changing that around backwards you're going to end up punishing everyone. Experience penalties? They only punish the <coughcough> that needed to go out and buy the books.

Thats actually the thing that opens the 2nd front so to speak: Of course situations where only he is the one punished are preferrable but if he draws in others: They let themselves get drawn in because he is right, and not doing so would be stupid. Now when he starts to be wrong with his percognition they would be stupid to still follow his lead. And will start to object to him giving (wrong and because of that suddenly irrelevant) hints.

valadil
2009-07-14, 09:21 AM
He must not think there's anything wrong with this behavior if he's telling you he bought the book. Is it possible he usually plays with prewritten modules? Some players go through the same campaign books several times over. Maybe he doesn't feel comfortable in a game he hasn't seen before?

Don't rip up your book. But don't play by it either. Just make a few changes periodically. Change what spells you use or what elemental they'll be fighting. It'll keep him on his toes and show him that there's more to the game than what's in the book.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-07-14, 09:21 AM
I'd say just change a few things.

The secret item in the library? Nope, someone found it and threw it in the forest.

The Sorcerer is the villain? Nope, that's just a rumor and its really a Bard. (This is nigh-impossible if they've already encountered the villain though.)

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 09:43 AM
I'm currently running a published adventure for my (PbP) group and things are going reasonably well. However one of my players has contacted me saying that he's bought a copy of the adventure, and will be buying the next one in the series as well. As far as I know he's not planning to GM either of them, and although the books contain information irrelevant to the adventures, I suspect that's not why he's buying them.

I'm having trouble understanding why he's even done this, but I guess he's the sort of guy who doesn't like surprises. I could cope with his knowing what was going to happen- although in all honesty he doesn't tend to roleplay any better as a result- but somehow he always manages to give away to everyone else what's imminently about to happen too, not directly, but dropping subtle "hints" that pretty much give the game away.

Not to mention that he seems to have difficulty separating OOC knowledge from in-character stuff. He's the sort of guy who'll (IC) go to the library and then tell the GM and other players what he's found out, rather than asking what he learns. I can always turn round and say "no, that's not what it says" but by that point it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted rather.

I've suggested to him previously that I'd rather he didn't do this, and he's usually contritely agreed, but it hasn't stopped him doing it over and over again- it seems he can't contain himself. I don't want to kick him out of the group, because he's a decent guy generally (not to mention good friends with the forum admin) but I do want to stop all the silly business, as it's making it less fun for me and also, I suspect, for some of the other players.

I've considered ripping up the published adventure and sending them off on one I make up, as that removes the possibility of his ever knowing what's going to happen, but that seems like a waste of money, to start with, and the adventures themselves are actually quite good- I'm not sure I could write anything to match them. I could try modifying the adventure so that he's not always ahead of the game, but that would involve a lot of effort from me just to stop him doing something he shouldn't really be doing in the first place- it seems like he's won, somehow.

Anyone have any suggestions? It's doing my head in rather.

You asked him not to do this, and he agreed not to, and then continued to do it? It's time to dump him like a bag of armpit hair. Would you play Battleship with someone who looks at your side of the board before announcing his shots?

Not only is he hurting you, he is hurting the other players. Their respect for you has probably dropped, because you as the GM are allowing yourself to be controlled by one of the players, at the expense of their fun. To use another game analogy, from the perspective of the other players, would they play the lottery, knowing that one of the other players already knows the winning numbers and is going to use them?

It sounds to me like, rather than being someone who "doesn't like surprises", this is an individual who has a deep need to win at something, and has thus resorted to blatant cheating. I'd almost wager money that this person is also a powergamer, as such player types are usually driven by a need to "beat the game."

If you are feeling kinder than I and really don't want to get rid of him, then warn him one more time if you must. But if he does it again, in my opinion, it's time to get rid of him, pronto.

Fitz10019
2009-07-14, 09:45 AM
I don't want to kick him out of the group, because he's a decent guy generally (not to mention good friends with the forum admin) but I do want to stop all the silly business, as it's making it less fun for me and also, I suspect, for some of the other players.

Describe the situation to this forum admin friend of his, without naming names. It will be better to get the admin's neutral opinion before he knows who is involved. Ask the admin what he would do in your situation. Tell him you plan to dock XP for the offending player. He'll tell you what he would do, or how much XP he would dock. THEN tell him who the culprit is.

Another_Poet
2009-07-14, 09:47 AM
Don't rip up your book. But don't play by it either. Just make a few changes periodically. Change what spells you use or what elemental they'll be fighting. It'll keep him on his toes and show him that there's more to the game than what's in the book.


I'd say just change a few things.

The secret item in the library? Nope, someone found it and threw it in the forest.

The Sorcerer is the villain? Nope, that's just a rumor and its really a Bard. (This is nigh-impossible if they've already encountered the villain though.)

These. 100% these.

While I tend to agree you should just dump the player, you said you don't want to. And killing him off intentionally will just make things worse. So this kind of light-handed corrective measure is really your best bet.

aivanther
2009-07-14, 10:02 AM
Without telling him, change modules...you can probably find a bridge over to it some where. Confuse the bajesus out of him.

Then there's the ever useful "Rocks fall, everyone dies."

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-14, 10:48 AM
I agree with what the suggestion of changing the adventure a little to keep him on his toes. It's not too hard. Move encounter A from room 1 to room 2 and encounter B from room 2 to room 1. Flip some of the map around, say at point X, turning left is actually a turn to the right. Change some of the encounter stats. If encounter #12 is a CR 3 monster right from the book, just substitute another CR 3 monster right from the book. If the wizard in room #27 is going to cast fireball, make him cast stinking cloud. You can even change the plot hooks. For ex, if the PCs are supposed to rescue the princess from the dungeon and get a reward at the end, change it to the PCs are supposed to retrieve the crime lord's mcguffin from the dungeon and for a reward get the crime lord's friendship.

Aedilred
2009-07-14, 11:21 AM
OK, thanks for the advice all. So the general consensus is to maybe switch stuff around a bit to limit the impact of his, er, cheating, hit him with a XP penalty every time I catch him using OOC knowledge, and if he persists in doing it, try to find a way to ditch him.


I'd almost wager money that this person is also a powergamer, as such player types are usually driven by a need to "beat the game."
You would be correct in that.


EDIT-What adventure is this? Maybe there are editable parts people in this thread can help you with.
It's the Paths of the Damned campaign, from WFRP2. The first part, which we're on at the moment, can only be affected in a limited way with advance knowledge (although the big reveal at the end would be somewhat spoilt), so I'm not too worried about that, but it would totally ruin the second part, as it's an intrigue-based adventure which relies on the players not having access to all the information. In fact at one point it plays on their metagaming assumptions to get them to do the wrong thing. If they already know who has what they need, there's really no point in playing it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-14, 11:40 AM
In fact at one point it plays on their metagaming assumptions to get them to do the wrong thing.

Hey, if you change the module around, this player is actually doing you a favor! :smallbiggrin:

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-14, 11:44 AM
While I tend to agree you should just dump the player,

I do not, at all, understand this sentiment. I personally have both played and DMed countless 3.5 modules, so if everyone thought this way there'd be no way I'd get into a game centered around a module. Why advocate removing a player just because he knows what's going to happen? Wouldn't it be both fairer and smarter to wait and see if he acts upon what he knows instead?

Random832
2009-07-14, 11:47 AM
In fact at one point it plays on their metagaming assumptions to get them to do the wrong thing. If they already know who has what they need, there's really no point in playing it.

Why not just write a book?

Seriously - if it depends on the players to act in a particular way (rather than having potential for equally interesting outcomes no matter what they do)... there's a word for that - it's called a railroad plot.

Aedilred
2009-07-14, 11:54 AM
I've had another chat with him and he's admitted that he's read the module we're currently in, but has also pointed out that there isn't really any way for him to use his OOC knowledge to affect things too badly, which is to a large extent true, as I can fiddle with the encounters sufficiently that they're still a surprise (I've been doing this anyway to an extent as the group is a bit larger than the module anticipated).


Seriously - if it depends on the players to act in a particular way (rather than having potential for equally interesting outcomes no matter what they do)... there's a word for that - it's called a railroad plot.
There are three "successful" outcomes at the end of the module, of which one is great, one is rather sucky and one is utterly awful. The way to get them into the last one is to present it in such a way that it looks like the "backup" option provided in case they fail on the first two, so as not to arouse their suspicions. There's no compulsion for them to act on it, it just recognises that the players are going to be thinking in that way and uses it to draw them into an undesirable outcome.

The module works in such a way that different people have access to different resources, and things will play out differently depending on who they talk to. It's one of the least railroaded adventures I've encountered, in fact. The problem is that if one player knows the right people to talk to to get the best result, and how to persuade them to help, the interest and intrigue evaporates, and it becomes a box-checking exercise rather than a roleplaying challenge.


I do not, at all, understand this sentiment. I personally have both played and DMed countless 3.5 modules, so if everyone thought this way there'd be no way I'd get into a game centered around a module. Why advocate removing a player just because he knows what's going to happen? Wouldn't it be both fairer and smarter to wait and see if he acts upon what he knows instead?
I'd agree, but he has form for acting on OOC knowledge and I have no reason to suspect that he's not going to do it again.

kamikasei
2009-07-14, 11:54 AM
I do not, at all, understand this sentiment. I personally have both played and DMed countless 3.5 modules, so if everyone thought this way there'd be no way I'd get into a game centered around a module. Why advocate removing a player just because he knows what's going to happen?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that.


Wouldn't it be both fairer and smarter to wait and see if he acts upon what he knows instead?

Which is what the OP has done, and the player is indeed acting on what he knows.


I could cope with his knowing what was going to happen... but somehow he always manages to give away to everyone else what's imminently about to happen too... Not to mention that he seems to have difficulty separating OOC knowledge from in-character stuff.

Not to mention that it's not as if this is a module the player happens to have been through before - he's buying the adventure specifically so he can read ahead in it.

Random832
2009-07-14, 11:57 AM
There are three "successful" outcomes at the end of the module, of which one is great, one is rather sucky and one is utterly awful. The way to get them into the last one is to present it in such a way that it looks like the "backup" option provided in case they fail on the first two, so as not to arouse their suspicions. There's no compulsion for them to act on it, it just recognises that the players are going to be thinking in that way and uses it to draw them into an undesirable outcome.

So in other words you are "cheating" by using your metagame knowledge of how players can be expected to act. Since it relies on player metagame knowledge in the first place, there should absolutely be nothing against players using more metagame knowledge to avoid it. You (or, rather, the module writer), made the decision to play that game.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 12:00 PM
I do not, at all, understand this sentiment. I personally have both played and DMed countless 3.5 modules, so if everyone thought this way there'd be no way I'd get into a game centered around a module. Why advocate removing a player just because he knows what's going to happen? Wouldn't it be both fairer and smarter to wait and see if he acts upon what he knows instead?

I am not advocating removing the player because they know what is going to happen. I am advocating removing the player because they are directly disobeying the reasonable instructions of the GM, and doing so in front of the rest of the players and at their expense.

Aedilred
2009-07-14, 12:01 PM
His latest reply (after I asked him not to read the second module, and warned that if he did there would be consequences for everyone, possibly including my not running the thing at all and doing something else instead):



As for Spires of Altdorf... (the second module -ed) I have no idea what you're talking about there (a good sign, I know :smallbiggrin:) and therefore I'll just have to see. I won't say I'm not going to read it seeing as how I'm a wee bit of a data addict, but keep in mind I'm RPing a religious nut who feels it is his job to "Burn the Heretic" and a Norse Beserker who operates according to a strict code of honor that boils down to "If they're an enemy, we kill'em as fast as possible. If they're a friend, we kill their enemies as quick as possible", so I have a feeling a few of the "solutions" I come up with in the Web of Intrigue are going to cause a bit more in the way of issue to arise :smallbiggrin:


So in other words you are "cheating" by using your metagame knowledge of how players can be expected to act. Since it relies on player metagame knowledge in the first place, there should absolutely be nothing against players using more metagame knowledge to avoid it. You (or, rather, the module writer), made the decision to play that game.
I'd disagree with that. I've DMed for players before who think in such a way and it's tiresome coming up with ways to circumvent their suspicion as players as well as their PC counterparts. In this instance, the PCs have reasons to go either way, but the players are going to be suspicious depending on when the option is introduced. All this is doing is recognising that and suggesting that it's introduced at such a time as not to arouse their suspicions as players. I don't think that's reverse metagaming; I think that's common sense, personally.

Of course, in a group that does everything exactly as the characters would, using absolutely none of their knowledge and/or experience as players, this wouldn't be an issue, but groups composed entirely of such players are extremely rare.

Random832
2009-07-14, 12:04 PM
His latest reply (after I asked him not to read the second module, and warned that if he did there would be consequences for everyone, possibly including my not running the thing at all and doing something else instead):

So basically he's announced an intention to... roleplay his character properly. Normally that's a good thing, but you've taken offense because you want to play the metagame game and trick metagaming players into making the wrong decision. I'm not inclined to side with you, but more to the point, once the DM ( / module author, and you picked the module) decides to play the metagame game, there is no longer a moral high ground from which to tell the players not to.


All this is doing is recognising that and suggesting that it's introduced at such a time as not to arouse their suspicions as players.

The way you first described it, it's doing more than "not to arouse their suspicions", but trying to actually look like the better option (not just not-worse) than not doing it.

But anyway - if they have to pick the bad option for you to get enjoyment out of the module - well, "why not just write a book" is the standard response, but since you're not the one who wrote it maybe that should be modified to: maybe the actual writer should have written a novel instead of a module.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 12:04 PM
He just told you he can't promise he won't read it, after you asked him not to, and gave you a lame explanation that apparently tries to say that because his character is a zealot, he should read the adventure?

Would you like it if you were playing at an actual table and a player simply told you what his dice rolls were, and never actually rolled a dice or let you see him do so? That's just as bad as this.

kamikasei
2009-07-14, 12:05 PM
So in other words you are "cheating" by using your metagame knowledge of how players can be expected to act.

This strikes me as more than a little silly. It's part of a DM's job to mess with players' expectations and to use her knowledge of the players as people around a table to anticipate their actions within the game.

Now, a module written so that players looking to take a perfectly reasonable in-character action will be "trapped" for no good reason in a "bad end" that is put there purely to be a bad end, not because it make any particular sense in game, sounds like a rather pointless exercise. That's the impression I get from the OP's description, though I won't condemn it too harshly without knowing more.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 12:07 PM
Besides, we are not discussing the merits of the adventure or whether or not it is poorly written. We're discussing whether or not it's OK for a player to read the GM's adventure before playing it.

Aedilred
2009-07-14, 12:15 PM
So basically he's announced an intention to... roleplay his character properly. Normally that's a good thing
I would be more inclined to be sympathetic to him if he had shown any evidence of not abusing his OOC knowledge up to this point. As far as roleplaying his character properly goes, he does it when it suits him (which seems to be when he thinks it would be most disruptive, or when he's in the right mood) but he is far less committed to doing so than some of the other players.

In any case the primary problem is his giving the game away for the other players in the OOC chat threads and the like. If he were keeping the stuff to himself I could contain it a bit better.


but you've taken offense because you want to play the metagame game and trick metagaming players into making the wrong decision. I'm not inclined to side with you, but more to the point, once the DM ( / module author, and you picked the module) decides to play the metagame game, there is no longer a moral high ground from which to tell the players not to.
No. Look, this is one tiny portion of a module way off in the future, that may not even be relevant at any point. I perhaps explained it badly, but the intention is to circumvent any suspicions the players have from their experiences as players and get them to decide whether to go along with this option based on what the PCs actually know. There are still plenty of opportunities for them to find out- in character- that they've made the wrong decision, or to work out beforehand that it's the wrong decision to take.

It's not about out-metagaming the players- I've got better things to do with my time. It's about stopping the metagame intruding too far into play.

Random832
2009-07-14, 12:24 PM
I had a longer post, but it basically boils down to:

The players are not the enemy - and if they are, it's time to get a new group. The questions you need to ask are: what are you trying to get out of the game, what are they trying to get out of the game, and how can those goals be made compatible?

I know that my first reaction to "Knowledge of the rules is treason" would be "I didn't sign up to play Paranoia". But that's me - obviously, Paranoia sells well enough that it's clear there are people who that style works for.


Besides, we are not discussing the merits of the adventure or whether or not it is poorly written. We're discussing whether or not it's OK for a player to read the GM's adventure before playing it.

And, just like the related questions of whether or not it's OK for a player to read the monster manual or the campaign setting, that's something that really depends on the particular group and their play style.

Didn't earlier editions of D&D used to say that players should never read the DMG? Do any of you still follow that? (and how do you wipe knowledge of its contents from your mind when you move from one side of the screen to the other)

Kylarra
2009-07-14, 12:32 PM
I had a longer post, but it basically boils down to:

The players are not the enemy - and if they are, it's time to get a new group. The questions you need to ask are: what are you trying to get out of the game, what are they trying to get out of the game, and how can those goals be made compatible?

I know that my first reaction to "Knowledge of the rules is treason" would be "I didn't sign up to play Paranoia". But that's me - obviously, Paranoia sells well enough that it's clear there are people who that style works for.On the flipside, people that know the adventure already and what all the plothooks do etc and spoil the game for other players, generally are only having fun... with themselves. :smallconfused:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-14, 12:39 PM
I know that my first reaction to "Knowledge of the rules is treason" would be "I didn't sign up to play Paranoia". But that's me - obviously, Paranoia sells well enough that it's clear there are people who that style works for.

It would be fine if all the players have read the module, but if only one has then he's ruining the fun for everyone else. It's not "Knowledge of the rules is treason" but rather "knowledge of the rules isn't fair for your friends."

...which brings up another point. Do the other players know he's read the module, and if so, what are their opinions on the matter?

kamikasei
2009-07-14, 12:42 PM
Okay, show of hands - of the people in the thread so far who have said the player is at fault, would you be saying so if the OP had said he'd simply read the modules at some point, rather than going out to buy the modules once the OP had said he'd be using them and then abusing his OOC knowledge thus gained (as the OP says he has)?

Does anyone think that a player who has already read or played a particular module should be barred from a game using it, or any other sweeping, general rule of that sort that doesn't take in to account the specifics of personality and playstyle that Random832 is talking about?

I know I wouldn't and don't. Random, you may be reading something in to the other posters' words that isn't there.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 12:43 PM
Others already beat me to it. It is blatantly unfair because one player is operating with resources that none of the other players get to have. It's like the example I gave where one lottery player already knows the winning numbers and the other players do not. Who would want to play that lottery?

Reading the DMG (which anyone should do) is not the same as reading a module. The DMG does not contain information on the module you are playing.

Worst of all, the GM already asked the player not to do it and the player said no. This means the player is refusing the authority of the GM to run their game as they see fit, which, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to the GM (and all the hard work they do to provide an enjoyable game) and grounds for being booted.

Random832
2009-07-14, 12:50 PM
It would be fine if all the players have read the module, but if only one has then he's ruining the fun for everyone else. It's not "Knowledge of the rules is treason" but rather "knowledge of the rules isn't fair for your friends."

...which brings up another point. Do the other players know he's read the module, and if so, what are their opinions on the matter?

I thought the OP said that he was sharing information gained by reading the module with the other players and that was the main complaint


Others already beat me to it. It is blatantly unfair because one player is operating with resources that none of the other players get to have. It's like the example I gave where one lottery player already knows the winning numbers and the other players do not.(see above)
Worst of all, the GM already asked the player not to do it and the player said no. This means the player is refusing the authority of the GM to run their game as they see fit,

BULL****! What someone reads away from the table is not an aspect of the game and not subject to the GM's rulings in any way whatsoever. - if the GM wants to restrain him from acting on OOC information, actually do so. Enforce knowledge checks, run bluff checks against the players and rule that they're convinced and act as if they're convinced, but don't tell people what they can and can't do when not at the table.

LordZarth
2009-07-14, 12:51 PM
Honestly, I think two really good, simple answers have been suggested in this thread.

1. Let him know that for the more blatant infractions, he WILL take an xp penalty. This is to show him the seriousness of his actions.

2. Screw with him. Not majorly, and not cruelly: but he screws with you, you screw with him. Say there is a really powerful dragon, for instance, who happens to be weak to sonic damage. The characters don't know this, and usually would be careful or do careful ingame research. Your player would, in town, get supplies to do sonic damage, or feats, whatever. When you notice this OOC knowledge being blatantly applied, and you see an opportunity like this, don't do the XP penalty. Just make the dragon immune to sonic (as the players, if they were careful, might have found out. Make him weak to something else.

Other good example: the lever one. Say there's a lever hidden in a wall, and pressure pad on the floor. Normally, player's wouldn't know which is which. Say, though, there was a riddle earlier that they could solve to find out which is which, and also, they know that one is fiery immolation.

Your player doesn't solve the riddle, he pulls the lever.

He blows up.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 12:51 PM
Okay, show of hands - of the people in the thread so far who have said the player is at fault, would you be saying so if the OP had said he'd simply read the modules at some point, rather than going out to buy the modules once the OP had said he'd be using them and then abusing his OOC knowledge thus gained (as the OP says he has)?

I am basing my judgement on the fact stated, that the GM told a player not to read the module ahead of time, and the player did it anyway and flaunts it, even in front of the other players. If the GM tells you not to do something and you do it anyway, then you are disrespecting the GM, and, in this case, all the other players.

Random832
2009-07-14, 01:02 PM
I am basing my judgement on the fact stated, that the GM told a player not to read the module ahead of time, and the player did it anyway and flaunts it, even in front of the other players.

The GM doesn't get to tell the player what to read in his own free time - that's extending authority beyond the table. It should be treated no differently than if he happened to have read it before knowing it was going to be used. Exclude him from the session (his character stayed in town doing nothing instead of going off to the dungeon of whatever) if you would have done that if he'd read or played it before, or change things around if you would have done that. Changing things around is probably the best solution (and really it's a good rule of thumb to do whether you know if someone has read the module or not)

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 01:09 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. A GM can't tell you what to read and what not to read away from the table, yes, but they can (in my opinion) tell you that if you read the adventure I am going to run before I run it, and ruin the plot/dangers/surprises to the other players while participating, you are not welcome to my game, especially after being asked to stop doing so and refusing.

It's not fair to the other players and it is highly disrespectful to the GM as well.

quick_comment
2009-07-14, 01:11 PM
Just change up your script so that if he does something based on the actual script, he is almost guaranteed to die.


Edit: Like swap an encounter with a red dragon for an encounter with a white dragon glamered to look red. They come in with cold damage and buffs against fire and are slaughtered.

Random832
2009-07-14, 01:17 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. A GM can't tell you what to read and what not to read away from the table, yes, but they can (in my opinion) tell you that if you read the adventure I am going to run before I run it, and ruin the plot/dangers/surprises to the other players while participating, you are not welcome to my game, especially after being asked to stop doing so and refusing.

It's not fair to the other players and it is highly disrespectful to the GM as well.

I just think that since it's not at the table, then being "disrespectful to the GM" isn't a sufficient reason by itself, since without another reason the original order becomes an overstep of the GM's authority, and we are discussing whether or not such an other reason exists.

And you still haven't explained how it's "not fair to the other players" - the OP isn't looking out for "the other players" when he complains about one player giving information to the other players. Obviously the one who's reading the module believes that he enjoys the game more knowing things in advance than not, so it's not clear how he would know that the other players wouldn't also want to know. You are projecting your views about what others "should" know onto what they supposedly would want to know or not.

If he shared the view that knowing about plot hooks in advance would "ruin" things for the other players, he would obviously never choose to read it and "ruin" it for himself.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 01:38 PM
The OP already said that this is making the game less fun for him, and he suspects it is making it less fun for the other players. It would be nice if he could confirm that, but I suspect it is true.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-14, 01:39 PM
I thought the OP said that he was sharing information gained by reading the module with the other players and that was the main complaint

He was sharing information, but the OP's description made it seem like he was only hinting at things--"Hey guy, why don't we take a right here? No reason, just think it's the better hallway" rather than "Guys, I read the module, we need to take a right here." If the players know full well that he's read the module, they're taking his advice because they know it's reliable (and not because it's worked out so far), and they're fine with it, then it's what the players want and it's not a problem...but that's not the impression I've gotten of the situation at all.

Random832
2009-07-14, 01:46 PM
I still think a key question he needs to ask himself is why is this making it less fun for him? Because it's possible that for this player, being surprised/tricked into bad things happening to his character would make it less fun for him. Or in other words it comes back to my earlier question - what is each player (including the DM) trying to get out of the game, and how can those be made compatible?

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 01:55 PM
Well, I have always operated under the convention that the players are not allowed to read the adventure before playing it. I suspect that many others here use that same convention. I just asked my D&D GM if she would let me read her adventures before she ran them, and she said hell no.

pita
2009-07-14, 01:56 PM
What someone reads away from the table is the DM's business if it pertains to the adventure.
My friend (not the one I mentioned before) owns Calastia: Throne of the Black Dragon, and he's about to run an adventure using characters from it. He lent it to me, because it's an interesting book to read. He's asked me specifically not to read a certain chapter, which I have not read, even though it's probably the most interesting chapter in the book, with descriptions of all of the main characters we will play. If your player doesn't respect you enough to leave the book alone, or not reference it in game or out, that player should leave. If he read it and ignored it (as some people are claiming), that would be one thing. But he isn't ignoring it. He's using it to the party's advantage.

Random832
2009-07-14, 01:58 PM
Well, I have always operated under the convention that the players are not allowed to read the adventure before playing it. I suspect that many others here use that same convention. I just asked my D&D GM if she would let me read her adventures before she ran them, and she said hell no.

Is this a published module or your GM's own notes? There is a huge difference. If it's published stuff, it's no different than if you simply read every module in existence before knowing anything about what your GM was going to run.

Kylarra
2009-07-14, 02:08 PM
Is this a published module or your GM's own notes? There is a huge difference. If it's published stuff, it's no different than if you simply read every module in existence before knowing anything about what your GM was going to run.
I'd argue that there's a difference in intent between knowing the module ahead of time, and going out and buying the module to read specifically after your DM asked you not to.

Random832
2009-07-14, 02:10 PM
I'd argue that there's a difference in intent between knowing the module ahead of time, and going out and buying the module to read specifically after your DM asked you not to.

My point was that, given the fact that the actual knowledge you would have is the same either way, the DM does not have the authority to make such a rule in the first place.

It's unreasonable to expect players to never read a published module ever, and that is what this amounts to. The only legitimate solution is to change things so that knowledge is less useful and they'll be less able to rely on it, which any DM should be doing anyway, whether they know of a player having read the module or not. The objection seems to be that that would require actual work.

@pita - If you feel better for not reading the character descriptions, good for you - but the request is about as reasonable as if you'd been asked not to read the monster manual.

Kylarra
2009-07-14, 02:18 PM
My point was that, given the fact that the actual knowledge you would have is the same either way, the DM does not have the authority to make such a rule in the first place.

It's unreasonable to expect players to never read a published module ever, and that is what this amounts to. The only legitimate solution is to change things so that knowledge is less useful and they'll be less able to rely on it, which any DM should be doing anyway, whether they know of a player having read the module or not. The objection seems to be that that would require actual work.

@pita - If you feel better for not reading the character descriptions, good for you - but the request is about as reasonable as if you'd been asked not to read the monster manual.It may be unreasonable to expect them to have never read a published module, but it isn't unreasonable to ask them to not read it if they haven't already. You seem to be jumping to the results and ignoring the process that got them there. Yes, it's plausible that a player could know the module ahead of time and that a good DM should be able to account for it.

That is different than a player actively thwarting the requests of his (or her) DM by going out and buying the module to read specifically after being requested to not do so.

While the end result may be similar, the intent is entirely different, and that's what makes this into a problem player situation, rather than a "simple" issue of metagaming.

Random832
2009-07-14, 02:23 PM
That is different than a player actively thwarting the requests of his (or her) DM by going out and buying the module to read specifically after being requested to not do so.

It's not a reasonable request to make in the first place, and it puts a player who is "an information addict" in an impossible position.

The right way to go about this, in my opinion (in addition to changing things around) would have been to not tell anyone what module it is in the first place

Kylarra
2009-07-14, 02:29 PM
It's not a reasonable request to make in the first place, and it puts a player who is "an information addict" in an impossible position.

The right way to go about this, in my opinion (in addition to changing things around) would have been to not tell anyone what module it is in the first placeIf Joe can resist doing it, anyone can. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=260)

I don't find it unreasonable at all, and have had something similar requested of me. I myself am somewhat of an "information addict" and managed to resist reading the campaign notes until after we finished that storyline (Scion campaign, the first arc is written in the back of the sourcebook).

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 02:31 PM
My GM is running a published module set. I would never even consider buying and reading it while playing in it. Why would I want to spoil the game for myself, much less intentionally (as this player has) use the information to spoil the game for the other players?

It still boils down to this: Player X is doing something that is making the game less fun for the GM and for other players in the group. The GM asked Player X to stop. Player X refused and kept doing it.

Regardless of what, exactly, Player X is doing, that is disrespectful to the GM and the other players, and should not be tolerated. My opinion is, boot the player like a sack of turds. Others have said 'change the module' or 'dock their XP' and those are also solutions. Up to the GM.

Random832
2009-07-14, 02:48 PM
I still think the question of just why he finds this makes it less fun for him is an important one, and the answer should at least be put into words.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 02:54 PM
Well, I can't answer that, the OP will have to as it was their statement. I imagine the GM is having less fun because this player is spoiling the game for others.

Random832
2009-07-14, 03:00 PM
I'm having trouble understanding why he's even done this, but I guess he's the sort of guy who doesn't like surprises.

Have you asked him why?

Melamoto
2009-07-14, 03:04 PM
There is an alternative to what some people are saying is happening. He could not be being a jerk, or doing this because he simply dislikes surprises. He could be doing it because he doesn't want you, the DM, to cheat. He could want to know what happens so that he'll know if you changed the elemental's type to go for whatever weakness the party had at the time, or if you changed a solution to a puzzle the party got very quickly into a trap and made a new one on the spot.

Of course, as the DM, you can do these things if you want anyway, and his metagame knowledge may be subconciously helping him with it. It might be best to try telling him this, just in case what I said above is the case.

only1doug
2009-07-14, 04:05 PM
I personally find it hard to comprehend how Random832 can defend an obvious breach of gaming etiquette.

As gamers we have an unwritten (and often unspoken) agreement to play fairly, by reading the adventure in advance the player is breaching this agreement.

Try playing cards in a casino and looking at the deck of cards and other peoples hands, you will soon find that your right to know what is going to happen is overriden by the casino's right to stop you cheating (while you spend a few minutes in conversation with some large security guards before falling down a flight of stairs on your way out).

magellan
2009-07-14, 04:07 PM
Random832: "Why don't you write a book" works for players as well: the version there is "Why don't you read a book or perform a stage play if reading isn't social enough for you."

The not knowing whats going to happen part is a key ingredient of these games.

And also: DMs are required to "metagame" to a certain degree. Balancing encounters, treasure, handing out XPs.... all these things are "metagaming"

The players aren't the enemy, but the DM is *NOT* a part of the equation.

Also i think the main reason for removing the warnings of the DMG was that TSR realized it hurt sales.

Zeful
2009-07-14, 04:18 PM
It's not a reasonable request to make in the first place, and it puts a player who is "an information addict" in an impossible position.

The right way to go about this, in my opinion (in addition to changing things around) would have been to not tell anyone what module it is in the first place

If a player's an information addict, and can't control himself, then it doesn't matter if you wrote the adventure yourself, or if someone else did. He'll get his fix either way. So it's a non-issue. If he can control himself, he'll be uncomfortable at worst, or figure out the plot independently (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy). Also a non-issue.

But a player revealing information his character cannot know is wrong, no matter where the information comes from. Which the DM can only remedy with telling the player his character doesn't know (getting into the argument of what exactly is IC and OOC knowledge), or changing the game so the information is useless at best, or life-threatening at worst.

And yes a DM shouldn't reveal the module, but some are well known enough that the players might recognize it anyway. Which creates the same problem.

Random832
2009-07-14, 04:31 PM
I personally find it hard to comprehend how Random832 can defend an obvious breach of gaming etiquette.

Because your idea of what is or is not allowed etiquette is not a universal truth.


Try playing cards in a casino and looking at the deck of cards and other peoples hands, you will soon find that your right to know what is going to happen is overriden by the casino's right to stop you cheating (while you spend a few minutes in conversation with some large security guards before falling down a flight of stairs on your way out).

In a casino, you play for money, not for fun, and there is no question of adapting for a particular group's play style.



And yes a DM shouldn't reveal the module, but some are well known enough that the players might recognize it anyway. Which creates the same problem.

For well-known ones you actually have the opposite problem - some players will almost certainly have already played it before / or at least have read it, and will be at an unfair advantage compared to the ones who would have to go out and buy it if they were even allowed to do so. The only "fair" solution in this case is to let everyone read the published material. That way everyone knows the same stuff - what is in the published material and not what is in the DM's notes as changes to it.

---

Anyway, to the OP: Have you asked him why?

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 04:37 PM
What GM would want to run a module that all the players have already read? That makes no sense. Not only that, but, for example, who wants to play a rogue that already knows where all the traps and keys are? What's the challenge in that?

Chineselegolas
2009-07-14, 04:47 PM
I'm a player who occasionally does go and read through modules I'm playing in, but my DM's trust me to use this knowledge to help the campaign and not break it. I create powerful characters and am good at solving puzzles, yet can keep to RPing the character and having them do what they would do, despite the downsides.
Knowing that something important is somewhere, and we can't figure out, rather then have the DM railroad us, I'll just list a few places we could look, including where it is, or if there is a big monster, I'll grab for the dungeon or think of ways my character would find clues as we go (Ranger, favoured enemy dragons. "I look around for tracks, dung, old scales, to figure out what dragon is here")

From what I've read of the thread, can't figure out whether the player will be similar to me or not, but some players help with extra knowledge, not all give negative effects.

Random832
2009-07-14, 05:10 PM
I considered more about the poker analogy.

You are allowed to know:
* The rules of the game, obviously
* As much about strategy and tactics as you can fit in your head
* If facing well-known opponents (i.e. professional poker), nothing forbids you from watching as many of their past [e.g. televised] games as you can find, and studying how they act.

I believe that reading the module is analogous to these, rather than to looking at other players' hands. It's not behind the DM's screen, it's in a bookstore.

Zeful
2009-07-14, 05:14 PM
The only "fair" solution in this case is to let everyone read the published material. That way everyone knows the same stuff - what is in the published material and not what is in the DM's notes as changes to it.

Or change the module so that the information the people who have played/DMed the material before is useless/lethal. There's never just one way to do something.

Besides, I don't believe in "fair". "Fair" does not a good story make. "Fair" does not create suspense. "Fair" does not drive creative, strategic thought. "Fair" is not immersive. "Fair" limits strategies and arbitrarily handicaps. I've yet to see a compelling reason to be fair.

PersonMan
2009-07-14, 05:25 PM
I considered more about the poker analogy.

You are allowed to know:
* The rules of the game, obviously
* As much about strategy and tactics as you can fit in your head
* If facing well-known opponents (i.e. professional poker), nothing forbids you from watching as many of their past [e.g. televised] games as you can find, and studying how they act.

I believe that reading the module is analogous to these, rather than to looking at other players' hands. It's not behind the DM's screen, it's in a bookstore.

However, in this situation the poker analogy isn't really an accurate representation of what's going on. Besides, getting to know your opponent(equivalent, I guess, to knowing your DM's favorite trap/monster/NPC class) is different from knowing what they will do in advance. The way I understood it, this player is reading the modules and then effectively using the knowledge in character and tipping off other players who don't necessarily want the information.

I think a more accurate analogy would be, say, a group of people who watch a series-let's say a mystery, for example. After each episode, they guess about what will happen next. Then one "player" goes ahead and buys the whole thing and, after each episode, uses his knowledge to always-or at least sometimes-guess correctly, and drop hints to the others that ruins the next episode.

Anyways, to your response about the casino poker being for money, not fun...Well, try playing poker with your friends an see how long they'd put up with you looking at their hands before you take your turn. Or at all.(unless, of course, you weren't playing or were otherwise rendered unable to use that information)

KBF
2009-07-14, 05:25 PM
I considered more about the poker analogy.

You are allowed to know:
* The rules of the game, obviously
* As much about strategy and tactics as you can fit in your head
* If facing well-known opponents (i.e. professional poker), nothing forbids you from watching as many of their past [e.g. televised] games as you can find, and studying how they act.

I believe that reading the module is analogous to these, rather than to looking at other players' hands. It's not behind the DM's screen, it's in a bookstore.

No, it's more analogous to looking in a gypsy woman's crystal ball to read their hands and the deck ahead of time, to ensure that you aren't surprised.

Seriously, it's a game. A game. The DM has no real authority. He does have, however, the right to play a game with his friends. When someone disrupts that game, and continues to disrupt it long after having been asked to stop (and even promising to stop) then it becomes his right to stop playing with that person. As has been stated, he likes playing with this person when he isn't disrupting his game, and would like to avoid that.

So this isn't a matter of what imaginary power the GM holds. It's a matter of playing a game, and how to stop a person from detracting from that game.

Steward
2009-07-14, 05:48 PM
To be honest, I don't get why someone would cheat in a game like this anyway. I'm someone who plays games for fun, not just to win, and I wouldn't read the entire module and metagame my way to victory any more than I would beat a video game using a cheat code that plays through the whole game for you.

AslanCross
2009-07-14, 06:06 PM
Talk to him first and ask him why he bought it. Of course, now that he has a copy there's no reason to believe him saying "I just bought it for kicks."

Now IMO it's possible to play fine even while knowing what's going to happen. I bought Eyes of the Lich Queen, read it thoroughly, but had someone else run it due to me needing a break from DMing. We played through the first chapter fine. Of course I knew what was coming, but I didn't metagame anyway.

Still, communication is the best way to deal with most DMing problems, so I still suggest talking to him.

ericgrau
2009-07-14, 06:19 PM
IMO the OP is in denial. He's making this situation and the player seem as nice as possible and ignoring that the player is openly cheating, no doubt about it.

Normally I'm all for mediation, but you seriously need to kick this player from the group or do something. Even kicking him would be a lot better than letting him ruin the game like this. Or, better yet, give an xp penalty as suggested or some penalty whether it's a "mistake" or not. If there's no consequence then he'll keep doing it. I dunno if he's lying about it being an honest mistake, or if he honestly believes something so stupid is really just a mistake on his part. But either way he'll be a lot more careful about not doing it if there's a penalty.

magellan
2009-07-14, 07:43 PM
No, it's more analogous to looking in a gypsy woman's crystal ball to read their hands and the deck ahead of time, to ensure that you aren't surprised.

Seriously, it's a game. A game. The DM has no real authority.

So this isn't a matter of what imaginary power the GM holds. It's a matter of playing a game, and how to stop a person from detracting from that game.

Yes, he does. By social contract. Wich is actually the only other legitimation for authority besides physical force mankind knows. Thats as real as authority can get.

Umael
2009-07-14, 08:15 PM
Because your idea of what is or is not allowed etiquette is not a universal truth.

Perhaps it is not, but it seems to be a consentual truth.

However, respect is a universal truth.

If, dear Random832, I was to run The Greatest Leather Hero campaign, which was published in the bookstore, and I invited you to take part in my game*, I would do so with the implicit and unspoken request that you, and indeed any of the other players, not read the module (assuming they had not yet done so). To me, not reading ahead is a matter of respect and trust, one so ingrained in me that I would have, until now, assumed that every good gamer knows this piece of etiquette.

Apparently, I am incorrect in this matter.

However, since I have the need to tell you, in our little hypothetic situation, that I do not want you (or anyone else involved in my game) to read The Greatest Leather Hero, then if I tell you not to do so, as well as the sequel, The Villainess With Duct Tape, then I would hope and trust that you would respect my wishes in this matter.

Now why would I want that?

Because I am trying to run a game in which there are certain elements to it that I would prefer that everyone discover gradually and naturally throughout the course of the game. Yes, there is the element of risk and failure for your PCs, but since we are playing a game, where the purpose is to have fun, not to "win", knowing that you and everyone else are discovering the adventure together, at the pace that anyone else who plays this module would be, that is where the enjoyment will lie. At least, in my opinion, it is.

Could you read the material and not disclose any information? Yes.

Is it possible that you know your character and possess such excellent role-playing skills that you will continously act "in-character" and make the same choices, including the ones with negative consequences? Perhaps.

But if I found out that you had gone against my wishes in this matter and denied me respect, especially if I had explicitly** told you not to do so, then I could not trust you in turn. You have already shown a lack of character to me, marking yourself as one who is more interested in the concept of "winning" than in "having fun". Perhaps this is how you have fun, but it is not mine. Mine is more akin to a shared interactive storytelling experience, with the risk for failure heightening the sweetness of reward.

Having found myself now with a disrespectful player whose idea of fun promises to diminish my own enjoyment, and likely that of the other players, I would see it necessary to remove you from my game.

You see, dear Random832, at this point, published module or not, you will have forgotten that you are in my game much like someone is invited into my house - as a guest. And if you do not respect my wishes as the host of the game, like the owner of the house, I can and will declare that you are no longer welcome and that you are to depart, immediately.

And then, you can go home, and read The Greatest Leather Hero and The Villainess With Duct Tape as much as you want. But without me.

* - Which, no offense, I would never do, seeing as how your opinion on the matter is so counter to my own that I would never use a printed module, if I indeed were to ever run a game with you involved.

** - It is to be assumed that if it was implicit, then I would give an explicit warning to cease and desist. Of course, I might well have made such a request explicit, given my reading of this thread.

Raum
2009-07-14, 08:21 PM
Anyone have any suggestions? It's doing my head in rather.First, a question - is his play adversely affecting anyone's fun (including yours)? It is a scripted adventure after all - one person knowing what to expect probably helps everyone stay on script.

If his OOC knowledge is making the game less fun pick a couple key attributes and change them so he'll screw himself if he relies on metagame knowledge. Change an opponent's vulnerability, replace a hidden treasure with a humiliating trap (or cursed item), swap a creature type (undead instead of golems, elementals instead of spirits, or something entirely different), etc. It doesn't take many changes to completely throw someone off.

Fitz10019
2009-07-14, 08:45 PM
The OP has the advice he needed.

Stop feeding the troll.

arguskos
2009-07-14, 08:50 PM
The OP has the advice he needed.

Stop feeding the troll.
Just because someone is disagreeing in a reasonable fashion to the listed points doesn't make them a troll. Random832 is making salient, relevant points about the larger issue at hand, namely "should the players be permitted to read the source material without consequences?" While I may not agree with his perspective on the issue, I think it's interesting to read and consider. Differing opinions and the discussion thereof are what make us better people.

Let's not jump too fast to the "lawltroll" perspective. :smallsmile:

Random832
2009-07-14, 10:06 PM
No, it's more analogous to looking in a gypsy woman's crystal ball to read their hands and the deck ahead of time, to ensure that you aren't surprised.

Except it's not a video game - the DM is free to surprise you; he doesn't need you to not know the material to do that.

What if we introduce a Player C who already knew the module? Maybe they ran it before in a previous group, maybe they just like buying and reading RPG books for fun. Then the idea of who does or does not have an unfair advantage becomes a very different question - the only 'fair' solution in that case is to let everyone refer to the books, and only the DM's surprises are unknown - equally unknown to everyone... and hope that they're good enough at the game to be able to stay in character regardless.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 10:08 PM
Umael nailed it.

It really comes down to, a GM is entitled, as a perk of being a GM (and all the work that takes) to make whatever rules and requests they like. The players can follow or not follow them as they see fit, with the understanding that they might be asked not to play with that GM any more, if they cannot follow the rules of that GM, especially if they are also harming the enjoyment of the group as a whole.

If the GM makes irrational rules, the players will refuse to play with that GM any more. This means the GM has no game to run, and thus cannot have any fun.

These check and balance each other, and create a fun game for all.

Random832
2009-07-14, 10:19 PM
But we're all getting sidetracked - my questions to the OP, which are still not answered, was have you asked him why and why is this making the game less fun for you?

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 10:26 PM
Might be a while before, and if, there is any answer for your questions. The OP lives in Bristol, UK, where it is currently 5:30 AM. Not that gamers sleep, mind you! :smallsmile:

Raum
2009-07-14, 10:26 PM
It really comes down to, a GM is entitled, as a perk of being a GM (and all the work that takes) to make whatever rules and requests they like. Err, last I checked it was a group activity. A GM is only 'entitled' to what the group consensus allows him. After all, he's just a player in a different role.

-----------------------------------
Having players read the script is one perceived disadvantage of using published adventures. Or, perhaps, it may be an advantage - if the DM doesn't react well to players going off the script. Either way a minor amount of work can make the script unrecognizable to most players.

Trying to say a position as DM somehow gives an individual the authority to limit another individual's reading list is simply silly. It's a game. Play and have fun! Don't let some sense of entitlement cause unnecessary conflict.

Alejandro
2009-07-14, 10:35 PM
Err, last I checked it was a group activity. A GM is only 'entitled' to what the group consensus allows him. After all, he's just a player in a different role.

That is why I said, "If the GM makes irrational rules, the players will refuse to play with that GM any more. This means the GM has no game to run, and thus cannot have any fun.

These check and balance each other, and create a fun game for all."

I have never once yet played with a group that did not agree that the GM is the final authority for the game they are running. That's why they're called the Game Master.

Raum
2009-07-14, 10:47 PM
I have never once yet played with a group that did not agree that the GM is the final authority for the game they are running. That's why they're called the Game Master.That approach is also why many systems use other designations for that role. I'm not trying to change the way you play either, I hope your games are fun for all involved. But please don't be surprised when other groups have methods of reaching consensus which differ from "It's my way or the highway."

Random832
2009-07-14, 10:52 PM
I have never once yet played with a group that did not agree that the GM is the final authority for the game they are running. That's why they're called the Game Master.

That's exactly it. They are the final authority for the game they are running - not for the players' entire lives.

arguskos
2009-07-14, 11:24 PM
That's exactly it. They are the final authority for the game they are running - not for the players' entire lives.
I believe the point (which someone above made) is that, within the GM's game, he has the right to ask that players not read material that gives spoilers for his plot. This is akin to asking that players not read his private notes when he leaves the room. Of course, he can't stop them, but he has the right to ASK. If they are nice and do so is another matter, of course.

tgva8889
2009-07-14, 11:32 PM
That's exactly it. They are the final authority for the game they are running - not for the players' entire lives.

I'm not getting the whole "The DM says you can't do this, so you can't do it period, and if you do you will be horribly punished" vibe, I'm getting a "The DM asked you nicely not to do this, but you did it anyways." Technically, all you've done is break the trust of the DM if he or she has asked you not to do something please and you did it anyways. If you're fine with doing that then you can.

If a DM is the final authority for the game they are playing, then it's perfectly within his or her rights to rule that you cannot use OoC knowledge, and to dock you EXP for breaking such a game rule. It is also within their rights, as a player, to decide they do not with to play the game with you and to play with others.

valadil
2009-07-14, 11:42 PM
I believe that reading the module is analogous to these, rather than to looking at other players' hands. It's not behind the DM's screen, it's in a bookstore.

Do you think it is fair/reasonable/acceptable for a GM to request that the players don't read the material even if it is available in a bookstore?

I don't have much of a problem with a player spoiling the adventure for himself. Giving that knowledge to his character and using it in game or even just to show off to the other PCs is something that crosses the line though. It's analogous to someone reading movie spoilers and blurting them out in a theater. Yes the information is freely available on the internet, but that doesn't mean you should push it on other people.

Random832
2009-07-14, 11:46 PM
Do you think it is fair/reasonable/acceptable for a GM to request that the players don't read the material even if it is available in a bookstore?

I think it depends on the material (most DMs wouldn't do this for the monster manual or a campaign setting, but some would), it depends on the players (this player does seem to be a problem, but there may be something deeper - there needs to be a real discussion, thats why I keep saying he should ask the player why he does this), it depends on how closely you plan to stick to the material - there's a whole variety of things.

But, then, I usually play with a house rule that a player can ask the DM to set a DC for a knowledge check to know a specific fact that they know OOC - which says something both about the playstyle I'm used to and the trust level that I'm used to players getting.

Aedilred
2009-07-15, 06:40 AM
Sorry it took me a while to reply; I've been away from the computer for a while. To answer some of the specific points:


...which brings up another point. Do the other players know he's read the module, and if so, what are their opinions on the matter?
I'm not sure exactly how much they know and what they make of it. The hints he has been dropping have made it obvious to me that he's read the module but to someone with no knowledge of it could just look like a crazy assumption that turns out to be correct. One of the other players does know, and at least one other suspects, but I haven't had any word from them specifically on whether or not they approve. I get the impression that they'd rather he didn't but can't be bothered to argue with him, but I might have got the wrong end of the stick.


the OP isn't looking out for "the other players" when he complains about one player giving information to the other players. Obviously the one who's reading the module believes that he enjoys the game more knowing things in advance than not, so it's not clear how he would know that the other players wouldn't also want to know. You are projecting your views about what others "should" know onto what they supposedly would want to know or not.[quote]
I admit that my primary problem with him is that he's making it less fun for me, because if he's going to act on knowledge he's gained from reading the modules there's not much point in my being there- he might as well just write a story about what happens to his character, and it's not worth the (considerable) time I'm putting into running the game if that's the case. However, I know that if I were a player and someone was doing this, I'd be annoyed, so I'm also concerned that the other players are going to lose interest.

[quote=Random832]Anyway, to the OP: Have you asked him why?
Not in as many words. However, as his response to my asking him not to read a future module said "I'm a bit of a data addict" I would imagine that it's because (or at least that he would say it was because) he likes to know everything.

I don't have a problem with players reading the pre-scripted adventures per se. I have a problem with them reading it and then acting, in-character, on knowledge they got from reading it.


I think a more accurate analogy would be, say, a group of people who watch a series-let's say a mystery, for example. After each episode, they guess about what will happen next. Then one "player" goes ahead and buys the whole thing and, after each episode, uses his knowledge to always-or at least sometimes-guess correctly, and drop hints to the others that ruins the next episode.
This.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-15, 08:09 AM
I'm not sure exactly how much they know and what they make of it. The hints he has been dropping have made it obvious to me that he's read the module but to someone with no knowledge of it could just look like a crazy assumption that turns out to be correct. One of the other players does know, and at least one other suspects, but I haven't had any word from them specifically on whether or not they approve. I get the impression that they'd rather he didn't but can't be bothered to argue with him, but I might have got the wrong end of the stick.

That's about what I expected, some suspicions but no proof or desire to confirm them. Really, the only way to know what they think is to ask them directly; in this situation, I might want to take those two players aside and say something to the effect of "Yes, he's read the module, and regardless of my own opinions on the matter I want to know if you are okay with this, because I want you to have fun and enjoy the plot without any spoilers." Let them know that if they're not having fun that you'll do something about it (and solicit suggestions for that) and that if they like it you'll let it go on; if they're ambivalent, it's up to you.

Random832
2009-07-15, 08:48 AM
Not in as many words. However, as his response to my asking him not to read a future module said "I'm a bit of a data addict" I would imagine that it's because (or at least that he would say it was because) he likes to know everything.

So what about "Why not wait three weeks [however long you expect it to take] before reading it?"


I don't have a problem with players reading the pre-scripted adventures per se. I have a problem with them reading it and then acting, in-character, on knowledge they got from reading it.

This.

Yeah, well - you can stop them from acting on it - make him roll the dice for whether his character knows/guesses something he knew OOC. Front-loading the entire problem in him reading it, and only attempting to solve it by getting him to not read it, is a recipe for disaster... since it does go outside the table, even if there is some legitimacy it's going to cause resentment. Maybe this is why he's acting out - put yourself in his shoes "what a jerk, telling me what I can and can't read on my own time"

Have you even asked him not to act on it, as opposed to not to read it?

Aedilred
2009-07-15, 09:03 AM
This is the first time I've openly spoken with him about reading the script. On previous occasions he's been using OOC knowledge gleaned by reading the rulebook (most egregiously, diagnosing a disease IC contracted by one of the PCs, despite his character having no medical background). I've always told him that he shouldn't be using OOC knowledge in character- even if it's obvious to him it might not be obvious to the PCs, and he's always agreed and said he'll be good... until the next time it happens.

Moreover, once something's been outed it's never quite the same again, because even if I tell him he doesn't know the plot spoiler he's just spouted, everyone else has already heard it and it's necessarily going to affect the way they approach the campaign.

I'll copy across the conversation I had with him prior to the message I pasted above, one sec:


Giving you a heads-up, I'm buying at least Ashes of Middenheim, possibly Spires of Altdorf. I'll be waiting a bit till I find something decently priced to get Forges of Nuln. [the first, second and third modules, respectively]


All that said, we'll explain it with [his PC's] dream seer ability. Besides, as I pointed out to everybody: It's hard to explain to authorities that we know the [bad guy] is corrupt because the voices in my head say so :smalltongue:.


OK... in all honesty, I have to say that I'd rather you didn't read the adventures but obviously I can't stop you. Just try not to give the game(s) away for everyone else!

Oh, and it goes without saying that I reserve the right to modify the script of said adventures in any way I see fit.



Since we're being honest, I have been well aware of what's going on in this entire adventure for quite a bit of time. The problem, as I mentioned in the Out of Character discussion, is that even though I have that knowledge I can do absolutely nothing with it.

<snipped justification of why he can't put his OOC knowledge to good use, since it contains plot spoilers>


So don't worry about modifying the adventure. I'd say despite it's advantageous there are some *HUGE* disadvantages in it for me seeing as how, unlike the 40k world, this world generally decides anyone whose a witch needs to die... very quickly!


Yeah, I guessed that you had at least some advance knowledge of AoM, given some of your OOC comments. That's not too much of a problem, as it's pretty linear and there's not much scope, as you say, for OOC knowledge to come into play.

With SoA, however, which is more intrigue-based, it's a rather different kettle of fish- most pertinently there are a few possible outcomes, of which several are complete no-nos if the players realise that there's a better option still available. Moreover it's as much dependent on player ingenuity, working out who can help and how they can be persuaded, etc., as it is on what the PCs themselves can do, so if you already know all of this there's not much point in playing it. So I'd rather you didn't read that one, since if you do, I'll have to modify it a fair bit just to make it interesting (or take things in a different direction altogether).

His response to that was the one given above.

Perhaps the most irksome aspect is that he's trying to justify why his OOC knowledge is useless, rather than promising he's not going to use it. It doesn't really fill me with confidence that he's not going to use it whenever he gets the chance.

Oh, and this bit:


The problem, as I mentioned in the Out of Character discussion, is that even though I have that knowledge I can do absolutely nothing with it.
Yeah, he's already basically given away who the bad guy is to the other players OOC, though not IC.

Lost Demiurge
2009-07-15, 09:28 AM
Yeah, I'd kick this guy to the curb.

Failing that, change things in the module around to suit yourself.

Kylarra
2009-07-15, 09:59 AM
So what about "Why not wait three weeks [however long you expect it to take] before reading it?"

In light of this suggestion, I'd just like to point out that no one has suggested that he can't ever read the module, just not while his group is running through it.

I'm not sure if this point is a crucial part of our disagreement, but it seems to be at least common ground on our assumptions of what is "ok".

Random832
2009-07-15, 10:06 AM
In light of this suggestion, I'd just like to point out that no one has suggested that he can't ever read the module, just not while his group is running through it.

Well, duh - I didn't think anyone was saying that. What I was asking is if this has been directly suggested to the player. Sometimes people don't think, and what seems like an obvious option to us may not have occured to the player. Sometimes it takes putting it into words.

----

Also... I don't think you're being forceful enough about the _using_ of knowledge

"All that said, we'll explain it with [his PC's] dream seer ability." should have been met immediately with "Why does there have to be anything to explain? Why does he have to know it in the first place? Even if _you_ know it, that doesn't mean your character does."

Kylarra
2009-07-15, 10:08 AM
Well, duh - I didn't think anyone was saying that. What I was asking is if this has been directly suggested to the player. Sometimes people don't think, and what seems like an obvious option to us may not have occured to the player. Sometimes it takes putting it into words.
Well then obviously my question is to why you were so vehemently against a DM suggesting a player not read the module, with the implicit understanding that said request lasted only for the duration of the game, yesterday, when today you're suggesting the same thing?

Random832
2009-07-15, 10:23 AM
Well then obviously my question is to why you were so vehemently against a DM suggesting a player not read the module, with the implicit understanding that said request lasted only for the duration of the game, yesterday, when today you're suggesting the same thing?

A lot of my reaction yesterday was based on the fact that people were saying that the player deserves to be kicked out of the group for "disrespecting the DM" regardless of whether or not the request had a good reason. Have you noticed that I'm still saying that he should talk to the player and try to come to a mutual understanding/agreement instead of handing out punishments?
____

To the OP - The other thing that's still bothering me here:

With SoA, however, which is more intrigue-based, it's a rather different kettle of fish- most pertinently there are a few possible outcomes, of which several are complete no-nos if the players realise that there's a better option still available.

Um... yeah - I don't think I actually came out and said it before, but... why does your enjoyment of the game depend on there even being a remote possibility of the players choosing the worst of a set of options of which "one is great, one is rather sucky and one is utterly awful"? I mean, sure, that's one way to play the game, but it's not the only way.

aivanther
2009-07-15, 10:25 AM
Kill his character. Make it some divinely appointed assassin for trying to meddle with with the gods (i.e. he knows to much, and the DM gods are POed).

Seriously, he's acting like a child. You are providing a service, as part of that service you have asked that someone allow you to have some pleasure in doing that. He has decided he knows better and justifies it. That, to me, is an immature person. He wants his fun, and doesn't care that it ruins yours. If you don't have fun as a GM, why would you want to GM? Players who don't get this ruin games worse in a more exruciating manner than even players who do stupid derailings (I stab the king!) or break the campaign (My character is a Kobolod named pun-pun, and he's...).

Honestly, I would tell him that if he doesn't stop, you will not DM a game with him anymore as he is ruining the game for you, and if everybody can't have fun, there's no point in playing together.

Kylarra
2009-07-15, 10:32 AM
A lot of my reaction yesterday was based on the fact that people were saying that the player deserves to be kicked out of the group for "disrespecting the DM" regardless of whether or not the request had a good reason. Have you noticed that I'm still saying that he should talk to the player and try to come to a mutual understanding/agreement instead of handing out punishments?I'm just pointing out that it doesn't jive with


It's not a reasonable request to make in the first place, and it puts a player who is "an information addict" in an impossible position.


My point was that, given the fact that the actual knowledge you would have is the same either way, the DM does not have the authority to make such a rule in the first place.


In this case, I will probably agree with you that the DM needs to come down a bit stronger, however the player doesn't seem to be caring much about the DM's requests either, so I'll withhold judgment until we see any new correspondence.

Alejandro
2009-07-15, 10:47 AM
Aedilred, this player is manipulating you in order to satisfy his own desires to "win the game" and demonstrate that he is in control, not you. You may not have wanted to hear that, but that is my opinion. You made a reasonable request (don't read the module notes while I am running that module) and he is basically trying to spin it into you being the bad guy.

If he won't change his behavior, you should not GM for him.

Random832
2009-07-15, 10:55 AM
You made a reasonable request (don't read the module notes while I am running that module)

I still think that front-loading the entire problem as "reading the module" is inappropriate - he doesn't seem to have actually told him not to use the information he got by reading it, which is certainly a much more reasonable request than trying to control someone's reading list, even if the request not to read it was just barely reasonable.

Aedilred
2009-07-15, 11:00 AM
Aedilred, this player is manipulating you in order to satisfy his own desires to "win the game" and demonstrate that he is in control, not you. You may not have wanted to hear that, but that is my opinion. You made a reasonable request (don't read the module notes while I am running that module) and he is basically trying to spin it into you being the bad guy.

Yeah, this is pretty much the conclusion I'm coming to :smallfrown:

Artanis
2009-07-15, 11:03 AM
Reading the module isn't his problem. His problem was blatantly clear with this:


All that said, we'll explain it with [his PC's] dream seer ability.

He refuses to keep out-of-character knowledge out-of-character. Not "can't", but won't. Not using OOC knowledge is the entire POINT of making a distinction between it and IC. If he mixes the two deliberately, then he does not belong in your game, period.

Tell him that OOC is called OOC for a reason, and if he refuses to acknowlege that, get rid of him.

magellan
2009-07-15, 11:14 AM
'Information addict' is an excuse? don't think so. If its really that bad go see someone about it and in the meantime get your fix with *something else* There are plenty of other modules out there to read.

"Its my own free time. you can't tell me what to do with my own free time" is an excuse? Don't think so. If what you do with your own free time interferes with what i do with my own free time i *do* have a right to tell you what to do. (and vice versa)

"But i won't act on it" is an excuse? No, don't think so. Because even if you were able to ignore what you know completely (and *nobody* can do that), why did you want to read the adventure again?

only1doug
2009-07-15, 01:10 PM
Because your idea of what is or is not allowed etiquette is not a universal truth.
not universal but so widely accepted that you seem to be the only holdout.



In a casino, you play for money, not for fun, and there is no question of adapting for a particular group's play style.
as others have said, Players in a "friendly game" wouldn't tolerate it either.


I considered more about the poker analogy.

You are allowed to know:
* The rules of the game, obviously
* As much about strategy and tactics as you can fit in your head
* If facing well-known opponents (i.e. professional poker), nothing forbids you from watching as many of their past [e.g. televised] games as you can find, and studying how they act.

I believe that reading the module is analogous to these, rather than to looking at other players' hands. It's not behind the DM's screen, it's in a bookstore.

and yet still the majority disagree with you. most of us view reading the module as looking at the DMs hand.
Expecting the GM to change the module to account for the player reading it is like expecting a player to discard his hand and redraw a new hand because another player was caught looking at it. Its a solution and it works but you still have a cheat in the game. Telling the cheat not to look again is the initial solution, when he then comments on your new hand to the other players its time to take further measures.

Random832
2009-07-15, 01:31 PM
not universal but so widely accepted that you seem to be the only holdout.

I'm not even the only one in this thread saying reading the module isn't necessarily wrong.

Alejandro
2009-07-15, 01:37 PM
The problem is that the player is reading the module AND using the knowledge gained from doing so to exploit the game. And for that, he at a minimum should be severely chastised and at maximum, ejected from the game.

Fortunately, the OP seems to agree.

Random832
2009-07-15, 01:40 PM
The problem is that the player is reading the module AND using the knowledge gained from doing so to exploit the game. And for that, he at a minimum should be severely chastised and at maximum, ejected from the game.

But it should be for using the knowledge in the game, not for reading the module. And the OP hasn't actually, at any point, told him not to use it.


Fortunately, the OP seems to agree.

That's unfortunate if it means he's not willing to talk to him about this, but I didn't get that impression

Alejandro
2009-07-15, 01:48 PM
Not to mention that he seems to have difficulty separating OOC knowledge from in-character stuff. He's the sort of guy who'll (IC) go to the library and then tell the GM and other players what he's found out, rather than asking what he learns. I can always turn round and say "no, that's not what it says" but by that point it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted rather.

I've suggested to him previously that I'd rather he didn't do this, and he's usually contritely agreed, but it hasn't stopped him doing it over and over again- it seems he can't contain himself. I don't want to kick him out of the group, because he's a decent guy generally (not to mention good friends with the forum admin) but I do want to stop all the silly business, as it's making it less fun for me and also, I suspect, for some of the other players.

I'm considering the OP's question answered, as far as I'm concerned. The clear majority agrees the player is out of line and the GM needs to either punish his character for his actions, or just not game with this "challenged" player any more.

aivanther
2009-07-15, 02:49 PM
But it should be for using the knowledge in the game, not for reading the module. And the OP hasn't actually, at any point, told him not to use it.



That's unfortunate if it means he's not willing to talk to him about this, but I didn't get that impression

Wow, you don't read very well, do you? He's posted repeatedly that he has talked to him about it, that he wants him to keep IC clean, and that it doesn't happen. Add to that the justifications and you have a terrible player, if not a liar and manipulator.

The reality is, it is almost impossible NOT to let OOC knowledge effect IC behavior, hence why it is widely accepted that reading a module while playing is poor behavior. You just can't keep yourself from avoiding that trap you shouldn't know was there, or to walk mindlessly into a fatal ambush. It just doesn't happen in ANY games i've EVER been in.

woodenbandman
2009-07-15, 02:57 PM
How about ask him to write down stuff when he's doing that? Then you can read it, say "make a knowledge check" or simply "you don't know that, do you?" and nobody gets any spoilers.

Yakk
2009-07-15, 02:59 PM
The player can read any module they want.

A DM can refuse to play with any player they want.

If I was playing in a game with a DM where I had read the module, I would tell the DM, and would understand if the DM would rather I not play. And if I had a hankering to read the module while playing, I would ask the DM, and respect the DM if reading it meant I had to leave the game.

I would consider a player who violates the above standards to be not someone I would want to DM. They could be a great person, and I have no right to say they cannot be that person -- but I don't have to DM them.

If you want to continue to DM this player even if the player insists on reading any module you are running, determine if you find the use of OOC knowledge IC acceptable. Explicitly say that any OOC knowledge used IC is not acceptable. Make clear that the consequence of using OOC knowledge IC is, and stick by it. (This would require a fair amount of maturity in the player in question... good luck with that)

Alternatively, don't run modules that the player can read. Don't use standard diseases, monsters, etc from any book the player can purchase and read. I'd expect, given what you have described of this player, that this will not be acceptable to the player. Lacking the ability to use OOC knowledge because you aren't using what the player can read will upset the player.

Random832
2009-07-15, 05:10 PM
Wow, you don't read very well, do you? He's posted repeatedly that he has talked to him about it, that he wants him to keep IC clean, and that it doesn't happen. Add to that the justifications and you have a terrible player, if not a liar and manipulator.

He hasn't even said "no" to the "i'll justify it with my characters seer dream thingy" idea - at best, any "punishment" would be passive-aggressive


The reality is, it is almost impossible NOT to let OOC knowledge effect IC behavior, hence why it is widely accepted that reading a module while playing is poor behavior.

I see about half the people on this thread _claiming_ it's "widely" accepted. The other half, not so much.


You just can't keep yourself from avoiding that trap you shouldn't know was there, or to walk mindlessly into a fatal ambush. It just doesn't happen in ANY games i've EVER been in.

Well then your friends suck at D&D.

Swordguy
2009-07-15, 05:53 PM
I see about half the people on this thread _claiming_ it's "widely" accepted. The other half, not so much.

Here's the people in this thread who have stated that they disagree with the player in question. These posts are negative in tone toward the subject, or include words and phrases such as "cheater", "unacceptable" and "breaking of trust", or state in some manner they find the behavior as bad.

Aedilred
rakkoon
The Manly Man
greenknight
Evilfeeds
kamikasei
magellan
pita
Quietus
Blackjackg
Alejandro
Fitz10019
Another_Poet
aivanther
Kylarra
PairO'Dice Lost
LordZarth
quick_comment
only1doug
Zeful
PersonMan
KBF
Steward
ericgrau
Umael
arguskos
tgva8889
valadil
Lost Demiurge
aivanther
Artanis
only1doug
Yakk
Swordguy


A list of people who are neutral about it, unclear about their reaction, or don't advocate penalties so much as simply changing the circumstances of the adventure so his behavior is no longer rewarded.

KillianHawkeye
Leon
HamsterOfTheGod
The Dark Fiddler
ZeroNumerous
Melamoto
Chineselegolas
AslanCross
Raum
woodenbandman

A list of people who are actively and unbelievably defending somebody's excuse to cheat at the table by both READING the module specifically for the purpose of spoilering the game, AND being unable to keep themselves from using that information in-game to screw up everyone ELSE'S experience.

You, Random832.

35 find it actively bad, 10 are neutral, and only you are defending the practice. After this thread, I sure hope you don't plan on participating in any of the forum pBp games - I think you'll find that the vast majority of DMs aren't going to be OK with your opinions. It's all right though - I'm sure that you're perfectly correct, and everybody else is wrong. You're just the lone voice in the crowd crying that the emperor is naked. There - that feels better, doesn't it?

Of course, you're still going to have a hard time finding a game, even if you might be right. I guess those "social contracts" you dismiss have some power after all.

Perhaps you need to find a new hobby, where social constructs don't exist and blatant cheating is considered widely acceptable. Maybe you should try professional baseball?

arguskos
2009-07-15, 06:12 PM
Swordguy, two notes.

First, in the essence of correctness, I did not say that I would treat said player as a cheater, merely that I disagreed with Random832's point of view. I'm more correctly in the neutral category, and would likely simply find ways to not reward such behavior.

Second, your post, though a good and salient point, is rather... uh... flamey and unkind as to the person of Random, and was unneeded. Maybe you should rethink your harshness?

As I've said before, I think his point is that there is a delineation between DM authority at the table and away from the table, not that cheating is acceptable. It seems that many people are saying that an away from the table act should be punished AT the table, which to me is a bit extreme. It is wiser perhaps to let that action go, and then simply change things at the table so the act is not relevant any longer, thus not punishing the player and still not permitting an away from the table act to ruin the enjoyment of players/DM in the game.

Note that my purpose here is to smooth feathers and ensure that we all get along. No need for flames and hate. :smallsmile:

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-15, 06:32 PM
I don't know, Random does seem to be rather enjoying provoking this kind of reaction. *shrug*

Personally, I'm not sure how I'd handle the use of OOC knowledge. I'm lucky enough that the only player in the campaign I'm running who DOES have knowledge of the campaign both has inexact knowledge (Running shadowfell, he's heard the Penny Arcade run-through, which I understand is roughly approximate anyway) and a wee bit 'special' in his play-style, too.

He tends to intentionally spring traps with his fragile body, bite-npc's, abuse wildlife, and generally not look out for his own safety and well-being too actively, so the idea of him using ooc knowledge to protect himself? Not an issue. He just likes to make things happen.

Plus I've bent the module as much out of shape as I can be bothered to, because it basically lacks any plot worth noting.

If I'd asked someone not to read through the module, and they ignored my request, however, there would be consequences. Because that's just rude. Probably minor ones, of course, unless they started using what they read too obviously, or spoiled anything for the others. Then, i'd probably be forced to set Traps for them, like with switching things up, but only because I'd be loathe to ask anyone to leave the game unless it was really a case of it being no-fun at all. (We are a semi-stable, nebulous group. We tend to run various other campaigns on different days, with most people taking a turn dming. It really wouldn't be worth the trouble making it too personal.)

Swordguy
2009-07-15, 06:34 PM
Swordguy, two notes.

First, in the essence of correctness, I did not say that I would treat said player as a cheater, merely that I disagreed with Random832's point of view. I'm more correctly in the neutral category, and would likely simply find ways to not reward such behavior.

"While I may not agree with his [Random's] perspective on the issue..." (this thread, page 3, post 80, you). His perspective is that this is a good, solid, defensible action. If you disagree, then by definition you DON'T think it's a good action. Which is a negative viewpoint on the matter.




Second, your post, though a good and salient point, is rather... uh... flamey and unkind as to the person of Random, and was unneeded. Maybe you should rethink your harshness?

It's harsh because it needs to be. A player in question is cheating. Flat-out. Random is defending this, at length. Which calls into question his own ethical character. He should be reminded, bluntly, that there can be social penalties for perceived ethical lapses.

In short, he's defending cheating. Full-stop. I'm not calling him names, I'm calling him on the impact of his own statements. That's not a flame - that's truth.

(I've actually always wondered, secondarily, if somebody really was medically an idiot - a person with a mental age of three years or less - and you called them that, would it be a flame? )

Or, here's another way to look at things. I'm a very blunt and to-the-point person. I deal with guns and explosives on essentially a daily basis, and I don't have the time to deal with people who do stupid things around said guns and explosives. It's just the way I am. I have a "bluntness addiction". Why is it unreasonable that everyone else has to work around MY issue, rather than me simply not be so damn blunt to people? :smallamused:




As I've said before, I think his point is that there is a delineation between DM authority at the table and away from the table, not that cheating is acceptable.

Cheating should be punished. This player hurts everyone else's experience by doing what he does (including the GM, for that matter). If the player is cheating away from the table, it doesn't change the fact that he's cheating to gain an advantage at the table. The location isn't the important part - it's the act itself. It's is absolutely within the DM's mandate to ensure an enjoyable experience for everyone at the table. If one person's fun is inherently dissonant with everyone else's fun, it is unreasonable to expect everyone else to change to fit the needs of the one guy.

If you can't keep the information away from the table, then you need to be mature enough not to read the information in the first place ("data addiction" my left nut!). If you can't, then the DM is perfectly within his rights to discipline you AT the table, since you couldn't control yourself away from the table or even when you're actually at it.

dragoonsgone
2009-07-15, 06:38 PM
Second, your post, though a good and salient point, is rather... uh... flamey and unkind as to the person of Random, and was unneeded. Maybe you should rethink your harshness?


It was probably a bit flamey but Random telling another person his friends suck right before it was actually flaming.

There's a difference between reading and playing the module. There's a difference between reading the module when it came out and keeping a copy on hand when your playing a PBP game. Period.

I think the closest analogy is your Christmas presents are hidden in your mom's closet. You know they are there because its only place in the house you don't normally go. Some people are gonna go peak and other people are gonna wait cause they like the surprise. Peaking hurts the fun of your mom cause she doesn't get to see your face when you are surprised. Telling your siblings what they got even though they want a surprise or even dropping a hints is the part that makes it fun for nobody.

arguskos
2009-07-15, 07:02 PM
"While I may not agree with his [Random's] perspective on the issue..." (this thread, page 3, post 80, you). His perspective is that this is a good, solid, defensible action. If you disagree, then by definition you DON'T think it's a good action. Which is a negative viewpoint on the matter.
Yes, I did say that, HOWEVER, I do not fall into the defined category you set out of negative, using the words "cheater", "game breaking", "disruptive", and whatnot. I think I know my own intent, no? :smalltongue: Am I allowed to explain myself, and be classified correctly? The issue is not so black-and-white after all. Just a note. Of course, classification doesn't really matter, but I like to be fairly represented.


It's harsh because it needs to be. A player in question is cheating. Flat-out. Random is defending this, at length. Which calls into question his own ethical character. He should be reminded, bluntly, that there can be social penalties for perceived ethical lapses.

In short, he's defending cheating. Full-stop. I'm not calling him names, I'm calling him on the impact of his own statements. That's not a flame - that's truth.
No, he isn't. He has not said "I think this isn't cheating". He's saying that there are better ways to solve the issue than punishing someone at the table for an away from the table act. That is IT. That's all he's saying, near as I can see. If he is actually saying this isn't cheating and that it's all fine, ok then, have at him. However, I do not parse that out, and think it's an unfair accusation.


(I've actually always wondered, secondarily, if somebody really was medically an idiot - a person with a mental age of three years or less - and you called them that, would it be a flame? )
I have no idea. That's a good question, actually.


Or, here's another way to look at things. I'm a very blunt and to-the-point person. I deal with guns and explosives on essentially a daily basis, and I don't have the time to deal with people who do stupid things around said guns and explosives. It's just the way I am. I have a "bluntness addiction". Why is it unreasonable that everyone else has to work around MY issue, rather than me simply not be so damn blunt to people? :smallamused:
Well, that's fair enough. I'll not ask you to be less than blunt, since it's against your nature. It does seem a bit harsh though, perhaps if you softened your tone so you didn't sound accusatory? (I feel very much as though you are VERY angry with me, though I am betting you aren't. Tone on the internet and all that. :smallsigh:)


Cheating should be punished. This player hurts everyone else's experience by doing what he does (including the GM, for that matter). If the player is cheating away from the table, it doesn't change the fact that he's cheating to gain an advantage at the table. The location isn't the important part - it's the act itself. It's is absolutely within the DM's mandate to ensure an enjoyable experience for everyone at the table. If one person's fun is inherently dissonant with everyone else's fun, it is unreasonable to expect everyone else to change to fit the needs of the one guy.

If you can't keep the information away from the table, then you need to be mature enough not to read the information in the first place ("data addiction" my left nut!). If you can't, then the DM is perfectly within his rights to discipline you AT the table, since you couldn't control yourself away from the table or even when you're actually at it.
Not going to disagree with this. Cheating at the table is INEXCUSABLE. Last time I caught a player cheating at my table, I threw him out of my house on the spot, since he violated the trust we had.

However, I feel that my right to punish someone stops when they aren't doing anything at the table. I can alter things so their cheating is useless and nullified, but I won't punish someone for reading something at home.

An analogy for my point of view goes thusly: if a friend of mine looks up the statistical data for a game we play together, and uses that data to undermine my fun, I'll be annoyed. I can't stop him though, so I'll either not play with him or I'll change the game we play, so his cheating doesn't matter anymore. See the difference? Others seem to be advocating that I take in-game resources away from him, which doesn't solve much, and just makes people angry.

I have a feeling though, that we'll need to agree to disagree and walk away from this topic before one of us gets heated and earns ourselves an infraction.

Please know though, Swordguy, that I do not intend to seem dismissive, unkind, or unfair towards you at any point. I'm just saying that such language escalates rapidly into true flaming and hatreds, and that's not something we need here. Like I said, I just want to keep the peace. :smallsmile:


It was probably a bit flamey but Random telling another person his friends suck right before it was actually flaming.
Ah. I did not see that, and yes, that was very unkind and rude of Random. I'm not defending his actions in that regard, merely his right to present an opinion.

----------------------------------
Frankly, I'm happy to walk away from this, having said my piece and done what I came here to do. Should you wish to discuss this further, please PM me about it. I don't want to take more space and time. :smallsmile:

Swordguy
2009-07-15, 07:09 PM
(I feel very much as though you are VERY angry with me, though I am betting you aren't. Tone on the internet and all that. :smallsigh:)



Not at all - just blunt. :smallwink:

I DO wish there was a better way to convey context on text discussion.

EDIT: Whoops - looks like we crossed post/edits. I'll PM this to you. No hard feelings. And I'll bow out of this as well; I've said my piece, and I don't want to accidentally get drawn into a conversation with him where I get frustrated and actually flame him. :smallsigh:

dragoonsgone
2009-07-15, 07:13 PM
Frankly, I'm happy to walk away from this, having said my piece and done what I came here to do. Should you wish to discuss this further, please PM me about it. I don't want to take more space and time. :smallsmile:
Probably the best thing to do. Honestly I just wanted to point out that Swordguy hadn't started the hostilities and post my analogy since most of the other ones i read didn't make that much sense.

Aedilred
2009-07-15, 07:54 PM
This seems to have got rather more heated than I intended, sorry guys :smalleek:

In any case, the latest word on the matter: I've had a reply from one of the other players, who basically agrees that he's being a pain in the backside and suggested various novel ways for me to kill off his characters, also that I should start screwing with the campaign to minimise the effects of his foreknowledge. Which isn't necessarily the most helpful advice in the world, but at least I know where he stands on the subject.

I've also sent the guy another message:


<snipped reasons why I knew he was reading the adventure, and refutations to his attempted justifications of how he might have known anyway>

I don't have a problem with people reading the adventures per se, although I'd prefer it if they didn't, but any knowledge gleaned from that is totally OOC, and therefore isn't available to the PCs. If it's a bit of general knowledge that it's possible they might have, then we'll make a knowledge check, but all they have to work with is what appears in the scenario thread and in-character PMs. The same goes for [his character's] dreaming- at the moment all he has to go on is one vague dream that doesn't go into any specifics, which happened on the same night that another member of the party dreamt they were assaulted by frogs. The Morrian Dreams talent (which he doesn't have in any case) isn't Common Knowledge (Plot).

Obviously I can't tell you what your own character (or rather, your borrowed character) thinks, but I can tell you what he knows, and more pertinently, what he doesn't know, and really, the two should be related. I've had a player (a long time ago now) who basically memorised all the rulebooks and used that knowledge at the tabletop and it made my life a misery because there was no suspense, surprise or even credible threat unless I threw everything out of the window and started again from scratch, which was a hell of a lot of effort... I don't want that to happen again.

In particular, please don't tell any of the others any details or spoilers about the plot (or for that matter hint at them in an obvious fashion in the way you do with everything else) - they know that you know, and if they want to know I'm sure they'll ask, but if I were playing I wouldn't want to, and frankly if everyone knows what's going to happen and acts based on that knowledge there's not a lot of point in our playing at all.
I consider that pretty much my final word on the subject where he's concerned. If he continues using and disseminating OOC information I'll hit him with a xp penalty (and any other PCs doing the same for that matter) and if he does it after that I'll look into kicking him- which realistically will mean winding the group up and starting again on a different forum with some of the same players.

The previous incident mentioned, for the record, was one that happened about three years ago playing D&D with a good friend who metagamed to an unbelievable degree. The circumstances were slightly different, as it was a homebrew campaign so he physically couldn't read the script, and in a way it was actually good fun, but it was still frustrating and only got solved when the group broke up, which is something I'd rather avoid here if possible.

Fitz10019
2009-07-15, 07:54 PM
I think the closest analogy is your Christmas presents are hidden in your mom's closet.

Rather, the best analogy for this is the type of person who reads a walk-through of a video game before playing the game, so he can 'play it perfectly.' Maybe these people thrive on speed or perfect execution instead of discovery. This personality type does not fit in well with the cooperative storytelling of RPGs, or other players who are 'discoverer' types.

The ruining-it-for-others aspect is simply immaturity. While I don't understand Random, I note that he never defends ruining the fun. He seems to dispute that the fun is ruined. It still seems like an 'is the sky blue?' argument to me.

Raum
2009-07-15, 08:16 PM
It's harsh because it needs to be. A player in question is cheating. Flat-out. Random is defending this, at length. Which calls into question his own ethical character. He should be reminded, bluntly, that there can be social penalties for perceived ethical lapses.

In short, he's defending cheating. Full-stop. I'm not calling him names, I'm calling him on the impact of his own statements. That's not a flame - that's truth.Characterizing the player's actions as 'cheating' or even unethical is a bit much. He hasn't defrauded or even deceived anyone. In fact, he's been completely above board and honest with the GM even when they disagree.

Perhaps he's too honest. Silence would have avoided most of the issues. Frankly, I suspect there are several times more players who read but don't admit it.

What it really comes down to is whether a GM can fit this player's play style into his game or not. Since you, and many others, characterize it so negatively I'd guess you couldn't successfully mesh play styles. Perhaps it's a good thing for the player in question that the OP is the only one who really needs to decide.

To the OP: It is up to your group of players. On the positive side, he's been honest with you. Terming it 'cheating' is simply disparaging an honest admission of a disliked activity. If it were me, I'd have fun with it / him. Pick a couple spots you know he'll be counting on and tweak them to come out differently...then seed the lead up with clues to see if he'll pick up on them. If he's too caught up in his 'knowledge' to pay attention to the clues, I'd have a good laugh when he stumbles over my tweaks. Mind, I've been called an evil sob and worse. :smallamused:

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 08:32 PM
To the OP: I think you've handled it well. But I would still suggest changing up the adventures a little bit. It may not be your cup of tea to do that but if you try it, you may actually like it. And it's actually not that hard to do once you get started. But most of all, it will be worth it just to see the reaction the player will have...even if he's behaving nice and not using his OOC knowledge.

Random832
2009-07-15, 08:46 PM
It's harsh because it needs to be. A player in question is cheating. Flat-out. Random is defending this, at length.

I am saying the cheating does not come from having read the module, and that penalizing people for reading modules alone is not an appropriate way to prevent it. Even if I accept your count as accurate, I don't see how my reaction is significantly different from those in your "neutral" column.

My reaction's also been somewhat colored by the OP's insistence (even in his latest response, he's going for the easy way out with XP penalties instead of taking one of his other players' advice to change things around) on avoiding doing the work involved in being a DM. Alejandro said "as a perk of being a GM (and all the work that takes)" - well, part of "the work that takes" is designing encounters, situations, etc - and even when some of that work is offloaded to a published module there's still a need to tweak things to have a unique game each time, adapt it to the group's style, etc.


It was probably a bit flamey but Random telling another person his friends suck right before it was actually flaming.

He's the one who said that no-one in his experience was able to restrain themselves from avoiding an ambush or trap that they knew about. His experience does not parallel mine, plain and simple, and the presence of such restraint is a direct measurement of the quality of a group of players. Secrecy is a crutch, not a goal unto itself.

____


OP: I did ask, and was not answered, why your fun depends on the possibility of the players picking an "utterly awful" (your words) option. Some people play that way; that's why options like that exist; but you should make sure you're certain everyone in your group is ok with that play style before insisting on it - at least if these are characters that are expected to continue being used beyond the end of the module.

Evilfeeds
2009-07-15, 09:05 PM
I have a problem as well: one of my players, whenever he comes round, steals my stuff and kicks my dog .

Clearly, its not his fault, since he's just doing what he likes to do. Ive asked him NOT to do it, but he does it anyway.

Does anyone have any suggestions?
Perhaps for every $100 worth of stuff he steals, I should dock him 100 gold.
Every time he kicks my dog, I could dock him 100 xp.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 09:09 PM
I am saying the cheating does not come from having read the module, and that penalizing people for reading modules alone is not an appropriate way to prevent it. Even if I accept your count as accurate, I don't see how my reaction is significantly different from those in your "neutral" column.

Just to clarify since I was in put into the neutral column...I do think the player is "cheating" or rather engaging in negative behavior which is affecting the enjoyment of the game by the DM and other players.

The OP said that he did not want to throw the player out which is one choice.

Another choice is the direct approach, of telling the player directly what is bothering him as the DM, and the OP has done that.

And a complimentary choice that I advocate is to change the adventure slightly (both mechanically and storywise). I advocate this because:

1. It establishes what the OP wants to re-establishes, that is the element of the unknown in his storytelling.

2. It will have an effect on the player that talking will not have. The player will then either have to deal with the fact that he cannot have complete OCC knowledge of upcoming events or he will choose to leave the group himself.

Does that still put me in the "neutral" column?


Secrecy is a crutch, not a goal unto itself.
No. That's a lame and insulting comment especially since it implies that the OP, who seems like a concientous and competent DM, needs a crutch

However, you are right in a sense, that this is about control, as some other posters have alluded to as well. This is not to say that I advocate or promote the idea that the DM completely controls the shared fantasy world. But clearly this DM wants to have some control as to what the characters know about the world and what they do not and wants the players to act as if this is the case even if they have OCC knowledge. I would even go as far as saying that it seems that this DM would prefer to keep some elements of the story hidden from the players and that most of the players, except one, would prefer this as well. This is a completely reasonable expectation from the DM. It is the most common way the game is played. It is an enjoybale way to play the game.

It is the "cheating" player that is being unreasonable. And you are being unreasonable in defending the player in question even if you do so because you want to uphold some abstract notion of cheating, ie "cheating does not come from having read the module, and that penalizing people for reading modules alone". Because that is clearly not what is going on here.

Random832
2009-07-15, 09:20 PM
No. That's a lame and insulting comment especially since it implies that the OP, who seems like a concientous and competent DM, needs a crutch

It hasn't been established that he (or more specifically, his group), needs it at all. And none of the "discussions" he's had with the player has been aimed at figuring out a way for the player to play well despite OOC knowledge.

Not putting a stop to the player's bid to have his knowledge imported wholesale into IC via his "seer dreams" is a huge problem - as far as the player's concerned, the DM has signed off on him having it as IC knowledge, and punishing him for that would be hugely unfair at this point.

aivanther
2009-07-15, 09:36 PM
It's an INTRIGUE PLOT, if you don't have secrecy, it is a useless game. Secrecy in this case is not a crutch. Don't even throw this back on the DM. Basic etiquitte demands consultation before engaging in potentially game ruining behavior (i.e. behavior that ruins the game for any of the other players, and the DM is a player). The OP has given his say that he doesn't want it, that he can't stop it, but doesn't want to see IC stuff, and the whining and justifications have ensued. You don't like it random, or maybe you're trolling, but you are pretty clearly in error.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 10:32 PM
It hasn't been established that he (or more specifically, his group), needs it at all.

But you know what the OP should want and need? I'm not sure what you are specifically suggesting the OP do.



And none of the "discussions" he's had with the player has been aimed at figuring out a way for the player to play well despite OOC knowledge.

Despite? Here and elsewhere you clearly establish that you know that this particular player is not playing well because he is using OOC IC. And you clearly establish that this is a bad thing in your opinion.

Yet you continually argue against others who more or less feel the same way about what this player is doing to support your contention that OOC knowledge is not strictly, in the general sense, "cheating."

I mean, I think many posters would agree with you on that point. I would. And other posters who are well know and respected forum members and players have already posted to that effect.

Now the OP has already stated that he is fine with the player playing with OOC knowledege as long as his character does not act on it. But I gather you are proposing that the DM should go further and coach the player on role playing or self control in some way. The implication is that you are saying that think the OP, although having failed so far, could make the player understand how to play well with OCC. How do you think this discussion should go? What exactly should the OP be communicating the his player?



Not putting a stop to the player's bid to have his knowledge imported wholesale into IC via his "seer dreams" is a huge problem - as far as the player's concerned, the DM has signed off on him having it as IC knowledge, and punishing him for that would be hugely unfair at this point.

See now I understood the events differently. I repost the OP's conversation below for convenience



Originally Posted by him
Giving you a heads-up, I'm buying at least Ashes of Middenheim, possibly Spires of Altdorf. I'll be waiting a bit till I find something decently priced to get Forges of Nuln. [the first, second and third modules, respectively]


All that said, we'll explain it with [his PC's] dream seer ability. Besides, as I pointed out to everybody: It's hard to explain to authorities that we know the [bad guy] is corrupt because the voices in my head say so .



Originally Posted by me
OK... in all honesty, I have to say that I'd rather you didn't read the adventures but obviously I can't stop you. Just try not to give the game(s) away for everyone else!


The way I understood it, the player in the game session introduced OCC knowledge IC. The DM continued play and then allowed the player's retcon after the game in the email. At the same time, he asked the player not to do it again.

Now I think you said at one point


Exclude him from the session (his character stayed in town doing nothing instead of going off to the dungeon of whatever) if you would have done that if he'd read or played it before, or change things around if you would have done that. Changing things around is probably the best solution (and really it's a good rule of thumb to do whether you know if someone has read the module or not)


So now I am confused as to how you would have handled this.

We agree on the suggestion that the OP should change his adventures around a bit. That's good.

But are you saying you would have simply stopped the game session when the OOC knowledge was introduced and "punished" the player then and there by removing his PC from that point on in the session? Or are you saying that you would have retconned the OOC knowledge incident in a different way?

And now, given the situation now, how would you handle it? Please be specific about the situation of the OP. Because if you can't be than you are just being argumentative and not helpful.

Random832
2009-07-15, 10:40 PM
Despite? Here and elsewhere you clearly establish that you know that this particular player is not playing well because he is using OOC IC.

Um, yeah. It's because he is using OOC IC, not because he has the OOC knowledge in the first place. Other people posting in this thread are not making that distinction at all.

I'm going to have to take some time to think about the rest of your post. Some of the things you're quoting me on are from a time when I had an inadequate understanding of the OP's situation.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 10:53 PM
Um, yeah. It's because he is using OOC IC, not because he has the OOC knowledge in the first place. Other people posting in this thread are not making that distinction at all.

Well two things. First, as I said, I agree with you that having OOC knowledge in the first place is not necessarily a bad thing and is distinct from using OOC IC. Not everyone will agree with this but I think its something on which one can agree to disagree.

Second, I think some posters and the OP were objecting the player having the OOC knowledge despite the DM asking him not to do so. This is not so much an issue of OOC knowledge as it is an interpersonal issue. That is, that if the DM asks a player not to read a particular module (which the player does not yet own) and the player goes ahead and does it anyway, that there is a breach of trust. I would agree with this sentiment. And this involves the DM and player outside of the gaming context, that is how the DM and player treat each other as people (as opposed to just gamers). So this a very complex interaction.

I gather that you think the DM does not have a right to tell players what to do outside the immediate gaming context. I understand where you are coming from. I think this different perspective may have fueled some of the fire in the previous discussions. But I think this also is something that I think we can agree to disagree on.



I'm going to have to take some time to think about the rest of your post. Some of the things you're quoting me on are from a time when I had an inadequate understanding of the OP's situation.

Thanks. I think that's a good response and maybe we can, all together, help the OP resolve his issue in a positive manner.

Forbiddenwar
2009-07-15, 11:02 PM
My take:

Player does X (doesn't matter what) repeatedly

GM knows it is ruining the game for him and believes it is ruining the game with others

GM repeatedly speaks with Player, asking Player not to do X.

Player states either he will not do X again, or argues with GM why X is a good thing. End result is the same: Player continues to do X.

what should GM do?
If X is completely ruining the game for GM (remember the GM is a player too) then refuse to be a GM for him anymore. Player has already stated he won't do X, and has violated this trust. This means kicking him out, or refusing to GM for the whole group.

If X is weakening the game, but GM is unsure of its affect (as this case seems to be), Speak with the other players, be clear about Player's actions and the effects, and ask if they are okay with the player doing X. It's their game too.
ASK YOUR PLAYERS if they are okay with Player doing X.

If they are, then realize that you are running a different kind of game then you originally thought.

If they want player to be removed, then remove him.

If they want to compromise (in this case meaning altering the adventure or imposing XP penalties) then do so.

This applies no matter what X is, from using OOC info as IC or using non core material for character generation

I just thought of his dream ability excuse. House Rule that the ability has a 1500 xp per use cost.Same dif.

Raum
2009-07-15, 11:03 PM
I think the OP has decided on a next step so perhaps we can back off of the specific acrimonious argument and look at it from a purely philosophical point of view. The following is not targeted at anyone, it's simply put up for discussion.
-----

Does GM transparency* help or hurt gaming?

Or does secrecy create a better game? Personally I lean towards transparency. Perhaps it's because I've seldom used published adventures and almost always had to work to ensure players knew enough about the situation, their opponents, and the world for them to decide on a course of action. Helping them find information, both in and out of character, has been more of a challenge than hiding something from them.

But there's more to it than that. Secrets - game information retained only for my use as GM - don't add anything to the game. Seriously. I have to let at least one other player in on the secret before any gaming can begin. The game is built around interaction between players (including the GM) after all. Something only one person knows doesn't allow interaction...and without interaction there's no game.

Thoughts?

*For discussion purposes I'll define 'transparency' as "...full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information."

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 11:20 PM
I think the OP has decided on a next step so perhaps we can back off of the specific acrimonious argument and look at it from a purely philosophical point of view. The following is not targeted at anyone, it's simply put up for discussion.
-----

Does GM transparency* help or hurt gaming?

Or does secrecy create a better game? Personally I lean towards transparency. Perhaps it's because I've seldom used published adventures and almost always had to work to ensure players knew enough about the situation, their opponents, and the world for them to decide on a course of action. Helping them find information, both in and out of character, has been more of a challenge than hiding something from them.

But there's more to it than that. Secrets - game information retained only for my use as GM - don't add anything to the game. Seriously. I have to let at least one other player in on the secret before any gaming can begin. The game is built around interaction between players (including the GM) after all. Something only one person knows doesn't allow interaction...and without interaction there's no game.

Thoughts?

*For discussion purposes I'll define 'transparency' as "...full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information."

Well, as a general discussion, I would say there is a "spectrum" if you will from completely transparent to completely "opaque" (to use a neutral word) game play.

Old school, some DMs are so opaque that they did not even give you a character sheet. They determined the success of all the rolls for you, kept track of your hp, etc. All you did as a player was determine your actions. Similarly, there were completely transparent games. The module was open as was the map and the players just played it through and this could be done "in character" or "to win". The latter reminds me of the only way we made it through Tomb of Horrors...until we got to the demilich.

Obviously most people play somewhere in the middle and this will vary with the DM and with the game.

So IMHO the question is not does transparancy make for a better game but simply what level of transparnacy is your preference?

Having said that, for me, one of the things I enjoy about DM'ing is challenging players in different ways. So I prefer keeping some story elements secret until the time is right to reveal them. Similarly, I prefer encounters in which the players don't know exactly what is going to happen. But I don't want the paranoid players taking every step with a 10 foot pole...I had enough of Tomb of Horrors...

Aedilred
2009-07-16, 05:17 AM
His latest reply:


<opening irrelevance snipped>

Anyway, with the heart of the matter... I'll be honest with you, it's a part of my personality to research things to the point where I know every conceivable thing about them. It's why I've got 5 degrees and two minors attached to my major. It's also why I plan on getting my Ph.D. I presume you've seen what's happened with me on [another RP we're both involved with] where things aren't as straightforwards as your scenarios and I don't know much? I've been bugging the hell out of [that GM] by wanting to make a Perception, Common Knowledge, Gossip, Academic Knowledge, etc. test on everyone and everything (if you noticed I always ask to make a Common Knowledge test to determine weak points to our enemy and determine what they are and pretty much gather any random facts I can about them).

Think of me having the books as making your job easier by forcing you to make less rolls and, honestly, allowing things to progress far faster seeing as how I'd spend a day or two Gossiping about people, going to experts and asking them, trying to track down people who can give us answers (and, when need be, "persuading" them to give us answers), and then when I have as much data as humanly possible I'd make an action.

Yes, I know, that isn't a good answer and doesn't quite satisfy you. I'll do my best not to ruin the surprise with the people around me. I can't guarantee I won't let things slip at times (I've already given you a part of [his thesis], which I *REALLY* wasn't supposed to be sharing with anybody), but I'll do my best.

All that said, I guess that will be our resolution: I may know, but I can't let others know that I know, even if they want to know what I know, seeing as how I know that if I let them know, then you'll know and you'll take everything known and throw it out the window. Know what I'm saying?

By the way, don't take anything I said as me being defensive. I'm sorry if you take offense with me making the comments about it making your life easier in a way, but [the other GM] at this point is ignoring my wanting to roll on everyone/thing with knowledge, which I have a feeling you wouldn't do. This meaning that you'd be making a lot of Impossible rolls for me, which I have a bit of a feeling you'd be moaning/groaning about. And, as mentioned before, you don't log on nearly enough for us to play that way (seeing as how I know you're too good of a GM to let things like that go unanswered, it would mean there would be a large line of people waiting on me to just finish asking questions and the like) and your time is already in *VERY* high demand for all of us (blame your unsurpassed skill with Roleplaying on that one).
I don't really know what to say to that, although I am getting increasingly infuriated with him. I rather resent the implication that his express refusal to do as I ask and not read the modules is for my own good, and in particular the "you're not online nearly enough" given that I spend an inordinate amount of time running this game and am staying up till 2am pretty much every night so that I'm online at a time which is convenient for some of the players.

Particularly annoying since the sort of play he's trying to avoid:

Think of me having the books as making your job easier by forcing you to make less rolls and, honestly, allowing things to progress far faster seeing as how I'd spend a day or two Gossiping about people, going to experts and asking them, trying to track down people who can give us answers (and, when need be, "persuading" them to give us answers), and then when I have as much data as humanly possible I'd make an action.
is exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to encourage them to do. The second module is in fact entirely this sort of thing, so if he doesn't want to play that way, and is going to circumvent it, there really is no point in our playing it. There's also no point in several of the other PCs, who are social, rather than combat, specialists, being around at all.

The flattery just tops it off, really.




OP: I did ask, and was not answered, why your fun depends on the possibility of the players picking an "utterly awful" (your words) option. Some people play that way; that's why options like that exist; but you should make sure you're certain everyone in your group is ok with that play style before insisting on it - at least if these are characters that are expected to continue being used beyond the end of the module.
It doesn't, exactly. However, firstly, this is WFRP after all, where the characters (as distinct from the players, of course) having a totally miserable time is pretty much expected. Secondly, the point in the multiple endings in that adventure is to reward ingenuity and persistence. If the players are guaranteed a happy ending whatever happens, because they know the shortcuts... well, basically, it's the same as if they go into a dungeon where there are no monsters, and they know where all the traps are. There's no point in even playing it; I might as well give them the reward and the xp upfront and save everyone's time.


My reaction's also been somewhat colored by the OP's insistence (even in his latest response, he's going for the easy way out with XP penalties instead of taking one of his other players' advice to change things around) on avoiding doing the work involved in being a DM. Alejandro said "as a perk of being a GM (and all the work that takes)" - well, part of "the work that takes" is designing encounters, situations, etc - and even when some of that work is offloaded to a published module there's still a need to tweak things to have a unique game each time, adapt it to the group's style, etc.
I have actually been modifying the adventure anyway, but there's a limit to what I can reasonably change halfway through it to account for one of the players having read the ending. If I'd known this to start with then I could have altered things accordingly, but the plot hooks, NPCs and so on that have already been introduced limit my options at this point... I can't even really abandon the adventure at this point and send them off on something of my own devising; I'm going to have to plough through to some sort of resolution no matter how unsatisfying I (and the players) find it. As regards the second module, I was hoping I could have run that one virtually unaltered, but with the modifications I'd have to make it would actually be less effort to chuck it and start again with something of my own (which is, if this player stays in the group) what I'll end up doing.

The other thing I don't want to be doing is playing to his ego by making him think I'm modifying the adventure to take account of him. In fact, any of the future tweaks that I'd already decided to make will look to him now as if I'm doing them to spite/foil him.

Random832
2009-07-16, 07:14 AM
Based on this I think he's not a very good player - "...when I have as much data as humanly possible I'd make an action." sure, that's _his_ personality, but from the earlier description it doesn't sound like it's really [supposed to be] his character's personality.

hewhosaysfish
2009-07-16, 07:51 AM
is exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to encourage them to do. The second module is in fact entirely this sort of thing,

Does he know this?


so if he doesn't want to play that way,

He didn't say that he didn't want to play that way. In fact, he implied that his natural tendency was to play that way.
What he said was, previous GMs have gotten frustrated about him playing this way.
Maybe you could let him know that, in this game, it's OK to roll Knowledge checks and Gossip checks in the direction of every commoner and cobblestone? Then he would do that instead of reading the modules and you can both be happy?

Raum
2009-07-16, 08:12 AM
The other thing I don't want to be doing is playing to his ego by making him think I'm modifying the adventure to take account of him. In fact, any of the future tweaks that I'd already decided to make will look to him now as if I'm doing them to spite/foil him.I'm certain none of us observers know all of the story but it sounds as if he's unwilling to compromise in order to accommodate your play preferences and you don't want to / may not have the time to change your plans to accommodate his play style. If so, all that's left is deciding whether or not the two of you can continue gaming and both enjoy the experience.

Bad gaming is not better than no gaming. Does this constitute 'bad gaming' for you?
-----


Well, as a general discussion, I would say there is a "spectrum" if you will from completely transparent to completely "opaque" (to use a neutral word) game play.I understand what you're saying but it seems to me a certain minimal amount of transparency is necessary in order to play at all. However I also think there's a difference between knowledge of the 'environment' and knowledge of 'choices'. I often enjoy play where the environment nears complete transparency. Choices are where you may need to make a judgment call...do you really know enough about NPC villain X to predict his next moves? You may...I definitely want the villain to have goals and logical reasons for what he does in attempting to resolve them.

I suppose I see the game as a series of choices and not a series of potentially arbitrary challenges resolved by chance.

Saph
2009-07-16, 08:32 AM
I think if I was running the game my jaw would drop at that email. First he breaks one of the basic rules of a module (don't read what's supposed to be secret info) then he ignores you when you tell him not to do it, then he has the nerve to tell you that he's "making your job easier"?

He's really not apologising at all. He's basically telling you "yeah, I'm going to do whatever I want. Hope you're okay with this, but I'm not going to do anything different if you're not." If I was DMing, this would irritate me in a major way. I think by this point I'd quit trying to reason with him and either give him a verbal boot to the head, or a literal boot from the game.

Talking things out doesn't always work, and it looks like you've reached a dead end as far as negotiations go.

- Saph

magellan
2009-07-16, 08:47 AM
Ok, OP:
To that last mail of "him" there is an easy answer: scan the module/get a pdf of it. Mail it to him.
write something like this:
"You read this, that's is much more effective than spreading the information out in a game. Congratulations for solving the adventure!"

Generally the whole not at the table argument is absolutely nonesense. Some more examples:
I weigh all my dice so they only roll 20s. Does it matter where &when i do that?
I beat up (IRL) another player for an ingame offence. Does it matter where & when i do that?
I come to the game 5 hours late. (I wasn't at the table, you have no right to complain about it since i was not at the table)
I come to the game drunk to the point of barely not passing out. First thing i do when i enter your house is vomit on your carpet.
...

Random832
2009-07-16, 09:15 AM
Ok, OP:
To that last mail of "him" there is an easy answer: scan the module/get a pdf of it. Mail it to him.
write something like this:
"You read this, that's is much more effective than spreading the information out in a game. Congratulations for solving the adventure!"

Generally the whole not at the table argument is absolutely nonesense. Some more examples:
:smallmad: "at the table" was meant metaphorically. Your examples are full of fail in that context.


I weigh all my dice so they only roll 20s. Does it matter where &when i do that?

If I catch you weighting a die I've got no basis to kick you out for that, not until I see you pull out a similar-looking die in my game (and I may well be suspicious of your other dice, too - I'm within my rights to require everyone to use my dice in my game regardless - that's "at the table".). it doesn't become cheating until you roll it in a game context - until then it could simply be a physics experiment.


I beat up (IRL) another player for an ingame offence. Does it matter where & when i do that?
I come to the game 5 hours late. (I wasn't at the table, you have no right to complain about it since i was not at the table)


The difference is that it's impossible for any of those to be unrelated to the game. Whereas - well, the OP said it: "As far as I know he's not planning to GM either of them" - he has no way of knowing nor any business caring what one of his players may or may not be planning to GM for another group. The only part that's related to his game is the use of the knowledge - not the reading itself.


I come to the game drunk to the point of barely not passing out. First thing i do when i enter your house is vomit on your carpet.

It's not my house - your house, your call; if you let him stay all I can do is choose to leave. If you kick him out I'm within my rights as DM to decide whether to either start without him (say, his character's hung over at the inn) or put the game on hold until next week. Even if the DM is the same person whose house it is, their right to kick someone out does not come from their role as DM, it comes from their role as the person providing space.

But then, the core assumption that the DM is also the person whose house the game takes place at is part of what I think is a problematic view among some in this thread where "DM = Group leader = unquestioned emperor"

Lost Demiurge
2009-07-16, 09:21 AM
Well. Keeping things simple is the key here.

You've asked him to stop doing that thing that really annoys you.

He's said that he's not going to stop doing that thing that really annoys you.

That annoying thing? Draining the fun from your game. The game that you're running out of the goodness of your heart. That game you do to relax, and help your friends have a little freakin' fun.

He won't stop. He's told you so. Wait for the next time he annoys you, and boot his ass. Even if this means moving, or taking a little effort to stop him playing.

F*** this guy with a crowbar, he's acting like a jerk and you owe him nothing. And he's a random internet person, right? You have no stake in the well-being of faceless jerks. You will NOT be a bad person for ditching him. He'll find some other group to annoy.

That's my 2 cents. Good luck, man.

misterk
2009-07-16, 09:33 AM
That last message beggars belief. He is simply refusing to respond to your points, and lamely justifying his arguments. I'd kick him from the game, to be honest, but I guess you could experience dock instead.

As to those who talk about changing the adventure... thats tricky. Having played those modules, the second especially involves a lot of talking to npc's and socialising. It was brilliant fun to play, and the reason for that is it is very non-linear, and feels like it gives the players lots of choices. Knowing whats going to happen would enable the players not to make exactly the hilarious mistake my group did, and would indeed make it last only a few sessions- with prior knowledge it would be close to impossible for a player not to take close to the optimal path of action, especially from the description of that player.

Yeah, the op could change things, but changing things other than the encounters (which aren't the important part here) would involve rewriting the entire campaign.. I suppose he could mix things up, but it'd be a shame, as as it is written it works pretty well. (Also, please note this is WFRP, not D and D...)

magellan
2009-07-16, 10:19 AM
How can me coming 5 hours late be in any way related to the game? I was busy labeling my easter eggs and sorting them alphabetically! no connection to the game what so ever!

Ok, i don't vomit on your carpet. and it's not your house and you are the DM. So you suggest me skipping the session? you punish me in game for out of game behaviour? Aha...

Now: reading the adventure being played:
Possible reasons:
Wants to GM it at a later time. Solution: Wait till we are finished.
Ok, that is one, the reason the OPs player gives though is "to save the DM work"
If you don't want to use the knowledge from reading the module, why do you want to read it? Can you come up with anything like the physics experiment?

Random832
2009-07-16, 10:21 AM
Ok, i don't vomit on your carpet. and it's not your house and you are the DM. So you suggest me skipping the session? you punish me in game for out of game behaviour? Aha...

Um, no, what I suggested was "the show must go on" if the guy whose house it is kicked you out. Easier than playing you as an NPC, you know.

The Glyphstone
2009-07-16, 10:43 AM
Note how he's also not-so-subtly showing off how incredibly smart he is (the whole 5 degrees and PHD thing) and thus how much smarter he is than you and justified in what he's doing? The condescending way he decides he's going to 'make your life easier' by effectively rolling natural 20's/the WHFRP equivalent on every single Gather Info/Diplomacy/Gossip check he makes?

Drop him like a bad habit, this can only end in pain.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-16, 12:40 PM
To the OP, you have 4 clear and distinct choices at this point:

1) Give in and play the way he wants to play. Obviously, you do not want to do this. So this choice is a non-starter.

2) Continue to try and find a comprimise and convince the player to play in a way that is acceptable to both you and him. I think you know that this is bound to failure. But who knows? Maybe you could go to couples counseling together.

3) Exert your control directly and kick him out of the group. I imagine this choice is becoming more and more likely in your mind.

4) Exert your control subtlely and change the adventures just enough to throw off his tracks.

Think of it like judo or aikido. Instead of surrendering to his attack, or defending yourself from it or karate kicking him out the door, use his own force against him. With a minimal movement on your part, you can move asidem redirecting his own negative energy against him and leaving him flat on the floor. This will force him to see the futility of his position while at the same time, leave you in a calm position fully in control of the situation.

But enough of this metaphorical language, let me explain this in detail.

When you run the pre-published adventure, you are already interpreting it, making it yours. You decide the npcs and monsters react, given the boundaries set forth in the story and the encounters.

To change something is simply an extension of that. Think of the various elements as free standing. So for example, if an encounter is with a ghast, change it to shadow. Same CR. More or less, it's the same. Or if a map has an intersection such as West-side -+- East-side, then switch the West-side and East-side.

This can also be done for the story. If the PCs are supposed to get info from friendly NPC bartender Fred and fight unfriendly NPC cleric Uri, you can often simply switch them. Yes, switch them.

Played straight, the PCs have to bribe, bluff or use diplomacy on friendly Fred to find out unfriendly Uri is the villian. Then they have to fight unfriendly Uri who is an evil cleric.

One possible way to switch it is that the PCs get info (all too easily) from friendly Fred that unfriendly Uri is the villian. When they go fight unfriendly Uri they find he is not the actual villian. He puts up no fight. His lair is not the dungeon. He is not hiding the McGuffin.

Then the PCs have to bribe, bluff, use diplomacy or intimidate unfriendly Uri, or figure out for themselves, that friendly Fred is the real villian. When they go fight friendly Fred, use Uri's module stats. Yes, friendly Fred is secretly an evil cleric. Yes, friendly Freds establishment has a secret door that leads to the dungeon which in the module is unfriendly Uri's module. Yes, friendly Fred was hiding the object the PCs were looking for.

Lots of work? No. All you really did as switch 2 NPCs in your mind. Wait, but the PC Paladin used detect evil on friendly Fred? No problem. Friendly Fred has a ring that changes his alignment aura.

The same changes can be done with even larger story elements. There's a reason their called plot hooks. You can take a series of encounters and often simply peg them on to other hooks.

As for his characters "dream" ability. Let him have. Continue to give him "dreams" straight from the module. Then twist them ever so slightly.

And after all this, what is the end result?

First, the player might come to realize that he has to accomodate himself to your style of play. This is the desired outcome.

Second, the player might find that he does not like this turn of events and leaves on his own. That's an OK outcome.

And third, you might actually enjoy the experience of changing the adventures around a bit. Yes, it's a bit more challenging and it calls for a little improvisation and fast thinking on your part sometimes. But you may find that that is actually fun.

So to summarize, either kick him out or out maneuver him but don't give in and stop trying to compromise.

Alejandro
2009-07-16, 12:45 PM
Wow, this thread is still going.

Some others already commented on it, but in reference to your latest exchange with the player: He is, like I told the OP earlier, trying to control you and the game, and being abusive in the process. As already said, he is not so subtly "showing off" how smart he is by talking about his degrees, and implying that he knows what is best for you.

Also, he is still refusing to stop doing something the GM asked him to stop doing, in the game.

Do yourself a favor now and dump this guy like a sword -4.