PDA

View Full Version : How much mistery is okay?



Stuebi
2013-11-12, 05:13 AM
Hey everybody! I have something on my mind that may be an interesting topic for discussion. As the title suggests, its about keeping stuff in a session secret, be it from player to player, or from DM to player.

A bit of background on how i got to this point:

After searching for quite a while i finally found a Group to make my first P&P steps with. Its been running steady for the most part, altough one player dropped out due reallife changes and thus our group has to cope without a healer for a while. To make it simpler for the noob that I am, the DM mostly relys on stuff in the Players handbook (i was informed that there is a ton of other books with more Lore, addiotonal classes etc., but i didnt have time to look them up yet, or what they're about), which would allow me to get into the game fast and learn by doing. However, altough i lack the playing experience i've been an eager reader of stories and tales from the table, and thus know how an usual session should roll out, and while the people are nice, there are certain things that i found strange:

First of all, the DM does not show his rolls. While this is certainly fine with stuff the players arent required to know, like random encounters and the like, he also does not show attack rolls and simliar things. As you might imagine, this means we have to take his word for every attack or move our Enemies make. It worked fine for the most part, but i have to admit there were certain moments where i raised an eyebrow.

- We were fighting a group of Goblins, who tried to ambush us. Luckily, my Ranger made a very nice spot-roll (I think it was an 18, counting modifiers the roll accumulated to around 25) revealing a bunch of Gobs and Orcs. After the first round of combat, on the Goblins turn, they missed us entirely, prompting me to write an oneliner in OOC-Chat "Yay, natural cover! They laughed at me in ranger academy, look at them now!". Right after that comment the DM informed me that just after i "said" this, my Elf got hit for 9 Damage by two Orcs our Group didnt see beforehand.

- A few occassions where me or one of the other players would joke about the Enemies after they failed some of their actions, and right after the comment the Mob would suddenly become overly competent and miracolously aim for the PC whose Player made the remark. It was never overly unrealistic or an obvious attempt to shut us up (Like Enemies completely abandoning their current Enemy to punish a PC for a joke his Player made) but it happens here and there.

And it changed the behavior of me and one of the Players to never talk OOC in serious encounters, just to make sure we we dont accidently provoke any OOC-motivated wrath. When I asked one of the Players what the explanation for this behavior was, he answered that "this is just the way he does it.". The DM's personal answer comes down to "It would take away the suspense."

Second, one of the Player plays an unknown class. Not unknown in the sense that the player made the class on his own, he just doesnt tell us what it is(Its appearantly from one of the addiotional books, making it extra-weird). The explanation for this is ofc that it would be a spoiler if he just told us. This is something I as a Roleplayer understand, at least IC, but what bugs me is that we have no way to confirm that what he rolls or what power he uses is legit. Its a tad extra annoying that me and the other guy are playing a Ranger and a Barbarian, so mystery-player and the DM can nitpick our rolls apart all day long while we can pretty much just sit there and _hope_ the stuff he uses is actually correct.

Its not gamebreaking, i can handle that a PCs Sword just starts burning and he gets a massive Powerboost to his attack, or that attacks are healing him and others around him if he hits something (Those two only work once a day tough, so its not like he runs around being overpowered), but it just feels awkward, especially if the modifiers miracolously change here and there (And yes, i could point that out everytime, but considering this happens multiple times a session, it would get awkward really fast).

It doesnt help that he drives full on "Look at how mysterious i am, guise!" and likes to rub it in the Barbarians face everytime he asks. It bothers the Barb a lot more than me, and he regularly makes the point that there is no harm telling us OOC, as long as we dont abuse the knowledge ic. But then the discussion starts shifting towards "You dont trust me?" "You're ruining my roleplay!" and the subject is dropped shortly after to avoid an argument.

And thats about it. The above usually gets pushed off the table swiftly by the DM, again by saying that too much information would take away the suspense(He likes to hold mystery-players back for this reason as well). The whole thing just feels...awkward. I dont really wanna start a huge drama over this, especially since it took me a while to finally find a "test-group" over Roll20. (Is it just me or is it really hard to find an actual group that even starts playing instead of just making plans and then abandoning ship? Or plays a session or two before vanishing again. q.q)

Jay R
2013-11-12, 12:47 PM
After the first round of combat, on the Goblins turn, they missed us entirely, prompting me to write an oneliner in OOC-Chat "Yay, natural cover! They laughed at me in ranger academy, look at them now!". Right after that comment the DM informed me that just after i "said" this, my Elf got hit for 9 Damage by two Orcs our Group didnt see beforehand.

That's not out of character; it's in-character. You didn't go to the ranger academy, your character did. The DM was exactly correct here.


And it changed the behavior of me and one of the Players to never talk OOC in serious encounters, just to make sure we we dont accidently provoke any OOC-motivated wrath.

Well, the only example you gave was an in-character remark. Obviously, I don't know about the others, but it's possible that this is IC-motivated wrath.

In any case, you now know that chatter during combat is actual chatter. That's a rule of the game. No problem - just play according to the rules, and don't chatter during combat.


When I asked one of the Players what the explanation for this behavior was, he answered that "this is just the way he does it.". The DM's personal answer comes down to "It would take away the suspense."

Well, it's clearly causing suspense. You're thinking about it and worried about it, aren't you?


Second, one of the Player plays an unknown class. <snip> Its a tad extra annoying that me and the other guy are playing a Ranger and a Barbarian, so mystery-player and the DM can nitpick our rolls apart all day long while we can pretty much just sit there and _hope_ the stuff he uses is actually correct.

The problem here isn't the specific example of the unknown class. The problem is that you don't know if you can trust the DM and one of the players. Solve that problem first. If you trust them, then this is all good, correct play. If you don't trust them, then finding out what the character's class is won't fix anything; there will be other areas to mistrust.


It doesnt help that he drives full on "Look at how mysterious i am, guise!" and likes to rub it in the Barbarians face everytime he asks. It bothers the Barb a lot more than me, and he regularly makes the point that there is no harm telling us OOC, as long as we dont abuse the knowledge ic. But then the discussion starts shifting towards "You dont trust me?" "You're ruining my roleplay!" and the subject is dropped shortly after to avoid an argument.

The argument gets dropped because he's right, and you're wrong. It would spoil his roleplay if the point of it (hiding his identity from the rest of the party) went away. And satisfying OOC player curiosity would not solve anything for the characters, since you should keep playing them as if they don't understand it and are still annoyed by it.


And thats about it. The above usually gets pushed off the table swiftly by the DM, again by saying that too much information would take away the suspense(He likes to hold mystery-players back for this reason as well).

He is correct. You want to know what the character class is specifically to end the suspense.

One idea you need to start playing with is that his character class might be related to the current scenario. He may be the prince you're trying to find, or a member of the cult you're trying to destroy. It's possible that what you see as just an OOC annoyance is the biggest clue you have about the current mission, and that solving it is in fact your real goal.


The whole thing just feels...awkward. I dont really wanna start a huge drama over this, especially since it took me a while to finally find a "test-group" over Roll20. (Is it just me or is it really hard to find an actual group that even starts playing instead of just making plans and then abandoning ship? Or plays a session or two before vanishing again. q.q)

Then start trusting the DM and the player. I would start role-playing that my character didn't trust the character with the mystery class, because he's clearly keeping secrets from me. Or I might start making fun of it - "Hey, sparkle-boy! Can you conjure up a bridge?" "Let the half-dragon-pixie-spectre-goon do it. He has all sorts of special powers." The enjoyment they are getting out of this is exactly what you're giving them - your uncertainty, confusion, and annoyance. Get him out of your head and play your own character.

But either trust them and play, or don't trust them and don't play. There are no other options because, if they are trustworthy and playing the game right, your ignorance of his class is part of the game.

Stuebi
2013-11-12, 01:30 PM
That's not out of character; it's in-character. You didn't go to the ranger academy, your character did. The DM was exactly correct here.


I might have been a little unspecific here, but as i wrote, this wasnt ic, at all. Everything written ic is written by using the /emote command from roll20, which colors it in a shade of orange (This makes sure that people cant cheat themselves out of decisions). Everything that is not is OOC. I even pointed this out to him, it being especially odd since the others regularly comment on stuff like this too. And it isnt exactly fair to _decide_ that this is IC now because it allows him to shoot me in the face.



Well, it's clearly causing suspense. You're thinking about it and worried about it, aren't you?



He is correct. You want to know what the character class is specifically to end the suspense.


Ah, come on. Dont go around accusing me of wanting to bust this storywise or not including it in Roleplay! He can be a disguised Spaceraptor-God for all i care, and what my Character thinks of this is an entirely different thing. The _only_ reason i want to know is so we can ocassionally check the rules if he does everything correctly. AS i mentioned, to me it comes over as a double-standard that our rolls get dissected here and there AND he drives a smug attitude around, this again OOC. (I have to emphasize this appearantly. We werent metagaming around, the examples of his "Im so secretive, you mad?"-attitude and the Bararian being annoyed are all outside of play. IC its pretty much a status quo of the Barb having given up on asking and my Ranger either making snippy remarks or just ignoring the guy (which upsets him greatly).

And if you talk about trust, thats exactly the thing. Isnt that something that should be applied to everyone, and not just us two who arent in on the joke? I've suggested that he at least gives us a chart with his attack rolls and bonuses, and maybe a small list with his powers, i mean, he has access to our Char Sheets, so he could pretty much read my backstory if he wanted too, and now were being picky about me wanting to know if his rolls are legit?

Again, i dont want to spoil myself out of the story. Its simply about being fair and treating everyone equally. And about his behavior outside of play, as i said, its not gamebreaking. I can ignore someone acting a bit like a prick outside of play, and IC hes pretty much on his own when he stretches his boundaries too much (after all, the Barb might decide to let that Owlbear charge trough to you next time, Bud.), it just seems injustified. Also, im generally curious if this is a standard thing with Pen & Paper, or just an exception. Im not really big on establishing rules for half the party, but not the others.

Jay R
2013-11-12, 02:45 PM
The DM decided that the remark about attending the ranger academy is in character because the character went to the ranger academy and you didn't. There is no way to process a comment about attending the academy in way other than in character. Font color cannot change the fact that only the ranger went to the ranger academy.

I didn't accuse you of wanting to break the story. I accused you of being in suspense about the character class. You want that suspense resolved. The other guy doesn't.

You claimed that "[t]he _only_ reason i want to know is so we can ocassionally check the rules if he does everything correctly." But you then gave several more reasons, including a double standard, a smug attitude, and the barbarian being annoyed. You need to stop emoting and coldly review your exact reasons. Because you have just told us that there are more than one.

If checking the die rolling is really the only reason, then stop talking about revealing in-game secrets and talk only about the fact that you do not trust the player and the DM.

In particular, you need to stop talking about double standards, applying trust to everyone, or rules for only half the party, unless you are able to show that such things exist.

You have shown that you distrust them. How have they earned that distrust? Also, in what way have they distrusted you? What in-game secrets have you tried to keep that the other player insisted on knowing?

The only possible distrust of you in anything you mentioned is in the fact that they are checking your die rolls. So let me ask you a question about that. Has it been justified? Have they discovered any mistakes that you've made? If not, then the issue you might talk to them about is "Why do you keep double-checking my rolls, when you have been given no reason to?" Of course, if you occasionally make a mistake, then there is a reason, and it must continue. But you can safely assume that a DM checking your rolls is also checking everybody else's, even if you don't see him do it. The real difference may simply be that the other player knows the rules better, and isn't making die roll mistakes.

You claimed that he’s were being picky about your wanting to know if his rolls are legit. Has he said that that is what he's being picky about, or are you guessing?

It's possible that his secret is related to the quest you're on, and the game will be destroyed unless you don't know it until your character does. It may be that figuring out the secret is the real mission, and you can't play it out if you already know the answer. I don't know, and you don't know either.

What you do know is that you will not learn his powers until and unless your character learns his powers. That's the actual situation, and you will not change it.

Either accept it and play, or don't accept it and leave the game. That's the choice in front of you.

If he chose to have a secret, and you didn't, there is nothing unequal about the only secret in the game staying secret.

How have you been mistreated? You are trying to mistreat him by taking away a secret that is important to his character's story. In what way have you been treated unequally? Please name a specific part of your character concept that they have disallowed, or recognize that there has been no unequal treatment.

You don't know what the secret is, so you have no way to know if keeping it secret is justified or not. There may be a clear, relevant reason that justifies it. You cannot determine if that is true. All you can decide is if you are willing to trust them. If you are, stop being distrustful. If you aren't, stop playing the game.

You haven't documented any rules for half the party. He chose to keep a secret, and you didn't. That is no more "establishing rules for half the party" than if you chose to carry a mace and he didn't.

The rule you object to is "The player will not be told a secret until and unless the character learns it." That's certainly how I run games. It's not a rule for only half the party unless there is some other secret that the other player knows even though his character doesn't. If not, the rules are the same for everyone.

Right now, two of the characters in my table-top game have secrets. One of them is a multi-class who's hiding one of his classes (a wizard/fighter trying to keep his magic secret). A character is suspicious, and so is trying to learn the secret. He has followed the first character in the morning, trying to catch him memorizing spells.

No problem, and I only have one set of rules. The other players don't have secrets because they didn't choose to have secrets.

I once played in a Wild West game, telling people I was going to design a character from a TV western. I showed up with a Chinese man who had a strange unarmed fighting style. Everyone assumed he was based on Kwai-Chang Caine from Kung Fu. But in the eighth session, he washed off the skin dye, dressed in western clothes, and put on a federal marshal's badge. He was actually based on Artemus Gordon, the disguise artist from The Wild, Wild West. No separate set of rules, and the other players thought it was great. Of course, they were long-term friends, and they trusted me.

The biggest difference in (many) table-top games is that they are routinely groups of people who know each other and trust each other before the game starts.

You don't have that. You must decide if you are willing to trust these people enough to game. From your description, I see nothing yet to justify distrust, but you're playing it, not me. Either trust and play, or don't trust and leave the game.

But you will not learn the secret any way other than your character finding out, so either start trying to learn the secret in game, or accept the situation.

Acatalepsy
2013-11-12, 03:30 PM
A light sprinkle at moist, otherwise you put a dampener on everyone's mood.

NichG
2013-11-12, 04:23 PM
I'll second what Jay says about trust being the most important thing.

The thing is, if you trust the DM to make the game fun for everyone, it doesn't matter if he's following the rules or not. But, if you can't trust the DM to make the game fun for everyone, calling them on breaking the rules isn't going to actually make the game fun all of a sudden - after all, the DM just has to say 'Rule 0!' and really there's nothing you can do besides what you can already do right now - walk away from the game.

It sounds like this particular DM is not someone I would trust to try to make the game fun for everyone, or at least they are doing it poorly. That would be my issue, not the degree of 'mystery' they are enforcing.

obryn
2013-11-12, 04:26 PM
Compared to some stories I read, nothing on here is particularly egregious.

Maybe I didn't read closely enough, but secret die rolls and a PC with an unknown class are hardly cause for alarm. :smallconfused: I mean, the former isn't unusual, and the latter is kind of annoying but hardly a blip on the radar for Bad DM Stories.

-O

Tanuki Tales
2013-11-12, 04:31 PM
I'm really failing to see how a comment that was clearly defined as OOC justifies IC ramifications that would occur if it had been said IC, regardless if it sounded like something the player's character may or may not be justified in being expected to say. It doesn't matter if the player went to Ranger school or not and the character did, that particular bit just sounds senselessly vindictive.

Actana
2013-11-12, 04:35 PM
On the OOC/IC chat thing, there's a single detail that, to me, would determine how nice a move it was: you said you're playing with Roll20. Do you use any sort of OOC-chat markers, like double brackets? I play a lot of MapTool, and sometimes people forget to use the /emote commands or forget to put the quotation marks on speech or use the /ooc command, which makes for a tougher time in figuring out what the player meant by things. But if you do use some definite markers these problems go away entirely, and the chance of being mistaken for some other "type" of chat is nonexistent. If your group does use these, and so did you at the time, and it's the commonly accepted way of doing OOC chat, that's not a cool move at all, that's actively punishing socializing with other players. Not everything has to be IC, especially in a situation where you'd normally not talk at all.

If the DM didn't know it was supposed to be OOC, then... I'd still say it's not the best (or good to begin with) move to do, but it's a bit more understandable.


As for the overall mystery, I'm not a fan of that style of DMing. I prefer to have the "visible" rolls (attack rolls, some saves, physical skill checks, visible opposed checks, etc) in front of the table. I feel that players and GMs should trust each other, and that the GM shouldn't fudge rolls without really good reason.

Character mysteries I feel are fine, though rubbing it in the face of others is always annoying. I can't really comment on this more since I don't know the exact details. There are mysteries where the group benefits from knowing, and then there are mysteries where the story benefits from the other players not knowing. Sometimes the two overlap and there's a very annoying question to be answered about priorities.

Mechanics-wise, I do not like characters not revealing the things they do mechanically to the rest of the players. This just leads to too much doubt between abilities. If something goes wrong it's up to the GM or the player to correct that if the knowledge is kept secret, and in the worst cases it's ignored because they can't correct things they have to keep secret. That, and I wouldn't trust a player to point out a mistake in their own powers they use that they're also trying to keep secret, so it's a situation that if the GM doesn't notice/know the mistake, then the player will likely try to abuse it, because nobody else knows how the powers work.


I don't especially want to make definite statements about anything having only a single viewpoint on things, but I have enough experience with VGT gaming to recognize the type of GM.

tulebast
2013-11-12, 04:52 PM
So, the question appears to be about secrets within the game, but the examples raise other issues only tangentially related to the secrecy, so I apologize if my ramblings wander a bit. To address the issues presented:


First of all, the DM does not show his rolls.

That is not unusual. I am an odd DM in that I often show my rolls to players, unless I specifically don't want them to know the result (like whether or not an NPC has resisted a spell effect that is not otherwise apparent) or I feel I want to up their paranoia level and just make a random roll for no reason at all, or in rare cases where I need to fudge a roll by fiat to preserve a vital story element (which I haven't done as often as people may believe, mostly because I can roll with unusual situations as they arise). I am in a game, however, with a DM that never shows his rolls, ever. We have no way of knowing if he's cheating (assuming a DM can do such a thing) or not, and none of us care that much to be honest. We enjoy the game and if our enjoyment comes because of the occasional (or wholesale) fiat rolls by our DM, then so be it.


Second, one of the Player plays an unknown class.

Again, not that unheard of. I recently played a game where my Race was hidden from other players. However, it wasn't done because the players couldn't role play appropriately, but to make for an interesting reveal (and it was an interesting reveal, to say the least). There a lots of instances where "secrets" are known by players but not their characters and I have a good game group where the phrase "oh, but your character doesn't know that" isn't heard too often (and while the other game group I am in uses that phrase a little too much, most of the players are quite good about adjusting their actions to accommodate).

But neither of these situations seem to really be your problem, but only marginally related (even causally). Your first major problem (and by far the worst, IMHO) is exemplified thusly:


The DM decided that the remark about attending the ranger academy is in character because the character went to the ranger academy and you didn't. There is no way to process a comment about attending the academy in way other than in character. Font color cannot change the fact that only the ranger went to the ranger academy.


And this alone would make me walk away from the game. If any comment I make, deliberately OOC, is used against me IC, in game (and, as presented here, as a pattern against others, as noted, with the result that OOC commentary is quashed during play), you have effectively drained all enjoyment and trust I would have derived from the game. I would be on my way to finding a more supportive game group.

However, the DM is not Jay R (presumably) and may not realize that this is a problem. Sometimes (and this has certainly happened to me as a DM) you get carried away with your planning and don't notice the subtler things that may be draining fun for your players. So before walking away I would open a serious discussion with said DM about the issue, using concrete examples of the problem and how it has caused a problem in game causing you, and potentially others, to not have fun, indicating that you want to improve your (and others) enjoyment of the game moving forward. If, after discussion the DM's opinion remains the same as before, then find another group that is a better fit for you where you can have fun and thank your previous DM for his time and bid that group farewell without being disrespectful of his time investment on your behalf.


... but what bugs me is that we have no way to confirm that what he rolls or what power he uses is legit. Its a tad extra annoying that me and the other guy are playing a Ranger and a Barbarian, so mystery-player and the DM can nitpick our rolls apart all day long while we can pretty much just sit there and _hope_ the stuff he uses is actually correct.

<snip>

It doesnt help that he drives full on "Look at how mysterious i am, guise!" and likes to rub it in the Barbarians face everytime he asks. It bothers the Barb a lot more than me, and he regularly makes the point that there is no harm telling us OOC, as long as we dont abuse the knowledge ic. But then the discussion starts shifting towards "You dont trust me?" "You're ruining my roleplay!" and the subject is dropped shortly after to avoid an argument.

This seems to be of particular concern to you and I have a few suggestions. First, the bad news: You need to get over yourself. It's not your problem if his rolls are correct or not, that's what the DM is for. You admit to being a "noob", so while it might be appropriate for the other player to educate you when you inquire how his roll could be so high or how he figured this modifiers, that sort of thing tends to be distracting to newer players. Focus on your own rolls and if he wants to cheat then quietly reap the benefits and let the DM deal with it.

However, it seems you have a problem with him policing your rolls. [You may also have a problem with the DM policing your rolls, but you need to suck that up, too, for the same reason as above.] And while I don't know enough about the situation, I can only assume that he's being insensitive about his policing efforts. That's a common problem and the good news is that you have a couple solutions that don't involve walking away from the table.


Stop sharing your rolls (and character sheet) with him. If you are sitting down to a table, just position yourself so only you and the DM can see your rolls/sheet. If you are using an online medium, just private your rolls to the DM. Problem solved. If he doesn't like it, tough. He can suck it up just like you can.
Alternately (and probably a better solution), you can privately discuss with him that his policing efforts appear to be more harassing rather than educational and express a desire to communicate better going forward.

Bottom line is, Jay R is quite correct in that trust is a key element of games, however you haven't presented trust issues here so much as what I see as communication related problems (barring answers to his questions that prove otherwise).

Stuebi
2013-11-13, 01:48 AM
-snip-

Im getting the feeling there is a fundamental misunderstanding on what the problem is, and what isnt. Im gonna point that out yet again, im very well aware of the line one has to draw between OOC and IC.

Firstsly:


I'm really failing to see how a comment that was clearly defined as OOC justifies IC ramifications that would occur if it had been said IC, regardless if it sounded like something the player's character may or may not be justified in being expected to say. It doesn't matter if the player went to Ranger school or not and the character did, that particular bit just sounds senselessly vindictive.

Thats exactly it. It was established at the start of the game, that everything IC had to be marked as such by using the /e command.


On the OOC/IC chat thing, there's a single detail that, to me, would determine how nice a move it was: you said you're playing with Roll20. Do you use any sort of OOC-chat markers, like double brackets? I play a lot of MapTool, and sometimes people forget to use the /emote commands or forget to put the quotation marks on speech or use the /ooc command, which makes for a tougher time in figuring out what the player meant by things. But if you do use some definite markers these problems go away entirely, and the chance of being mistaken for some other "type" of chat is nonexistent. If your group does use these, and so did you at the time, and it's the commonly accepted way of doing OOC chat, that's not a cool move at all, that's actively punishing socializing with other players. Not everything has to be IC, especially in a situation where you'd normally not talk at all.

I wrote it without the /emote marker, and after the DM pulled his move i even pointed out that this wasnt IC, just a joke outside of play. My Character was never part of some ranger academy (I have no idea if that even exists), i was just joking around with the Barbarian like we usually do. And i think, chatmarkers aside, it was written in a tone that would suggest that I was only joking.


The DM decided that the remark about attending the ranger academy is in character because the character went to the ranger academy and you didn't. There is no way to process a comment about attending the academy in way other than in character. Font color cannot change the fact that only the ranger went to the ranger academy.

I hope this is clear now. It was a joke i did outside of the game, and I DID point out it was a joke afterwards, but the DM arbitarly decided "Nope, this is IC now, despite what we agreed upon at the start of the game.". It was ME sitting before the PC talking to the other Players sitting at their PCs, and not my Character yelling that around IC. I dont really know how I can try to make that clearer. :smallbiggrin:



You claimed that "[t]he _only_ reason i want to know is so we can ocassionally check the rules if he does everything correctly." But you then gave several more reasons, including a double standard, a smug attitude, and the barbarian being annoyed. You need to stop emoting and coldly review your exact reasons. Because you have just told us that there are more than one.

If checking the die rolling is really the only reason, then stop talking about revealing in-game secrets and talk only about the fact that you do not trust the player and the DM.

In particular, you need to stop talking about double standards, applying trust to everyone, or rules for only half the party, unless you are able to show that such things exist.

You have shown that you distrust them. How have they earned that distrust? Also, in what way have they distrusted you? What in-game secrets have you tried to keep that the other player insisted on knowing?

The only possible distrust of you in anything you mentioned is in the fact that they are checking your die rolls. So let me ask you a question about that. Has it been justified? Have they discovered any mistakes that you've made? If not, then the issue you might talk to them about is "Why do you keep double-checking my rolls, when you have been given no reason to?" Of course, if you occasionally make a mistake, then there is a reason, and it must continue. But you can safely assume that a DM checking your rolls is also checking everybody else's, even if you don't see him do it. The real difference may simply be that the other player knows the rules better, and isn't making die roll mistakes.

You claimed that he’s were being picky about your wanting to know if his rolls are legit. Has he said that that is what he's being picky about, or are you guessing?


Okay, we have to establish this by example it seems. About "revealing ingame-secrets", again, we didnt ask that he starts listing his Backstory or his intentions. The very first question we asked was literally once before the game started: "So what're you playing?", and he didnt want to answer that. Thats fine and dandy, i've played with mysterious people before.

OFC, the stuff came up IC, and logically the Character didnt reveal anything either. This caused some eyebrow-raising across the board, but nothing more. The general opinion was and still is "As long as he uses his stuff to our benefit, who cares?", my Ranger is in the comfortable position of shooting from behind the lines, so even if he was a traitor, a spy or whatever, he can nail him with two shots flat. So there isnt any massive hate or distrust going on.

The problem is purely outside of play, and its not that he tries to play a mysterius character, its how he interacts with the group. Like I said, its absolutely okay to doublecheck the rolls of your group. Heck, its probably even okay to be as nitpicky as he tends to be, we want to play fair after all. But IF you insist on doublechecking every roll and starting huge discussions over it, it would be only fair if you then reveal your modifiers and bonsues as well. A Typical situation usually plays out like this:

Barbarianplayer BP: *announces attack and rolls*
Misteryman MM: "You sure that modifier is correct?"
BP: "Yeah, why?"
MM: "Just asking, im pretty sure your base attack modifier is +1 not +2. And where does that Bonus come from?"
*whole bunch of explaining, proving by Char-Sheet*
MM: "Allright, seems legit, carry on."

This happens multiple times per session mind you. On the other hand, when MM suddenly rolls two damage rolls instead of one, and a d10 instead of a d8 like before:

BP: "How come you get to roll twice?"
MM: "Class."
BP: "Fair enough, but you're sure its d10 and not d8?"
MM: "Aye, its a modifier."
BP: "And where does that come from?"
MM: "Not telling you."
BP: "You just nitpicked my roll apart 5 minutes ago."
MM: "Well, thats YOUR problem. Im not telling, deal with it."

I dont know about you, but that seems awfully like that one kid on the playground back in Kindergarden that used the "everything-proof shield" when we played space invaders. And i kinda sympathise with the BP when he gets annoyed with this attitude.

We had a session just yesterday, and i actually pointed out that the DM is the guy checking the rolls. The DM's response was that every Player is and should be allowed to check the others rolls, and MM not revealing his modifiers, rolls or whatnot wasnt reason enough to deny him that. I really dont get this attitude. Is a combat modifier such a big thing that it spoils your entire background if you tell what it is?



However, it seems you have a problem with him policing your rolls. [You may also have a problem with the DM policing your rolls, but you need to suck that up, too, for the same reason as above.] And while I don't know enough about the situation, I can only assume that he's being insensitive about his policing efforts. That's a common problem and the good news is that you have a couple solutions that don't involve walking away from the table.


Stop sharing your rolls (and character sheet) with him. If you are sitting down to a table, just position yourself so only you and the DM can see your rolls/sheet. If you are using an online medium, just private your rolls to the DM. Problem solved. If he doesn't like it, tough. He can suck it up just like you can.
Alternately (and probably a better solution), you can privately discuss with him that his policing efforts appear to be more harassing rather than educational and express a desire to communicate better going forward.

Bottom line is, Jay R is quite correct in that trust is a key element of games, however you haven't presented trust issues here so much as what I see as communication related problems (barring answers to his questions that prove otherwise).

I have no problem with the DM checking and confirming my rolls, thats his job. I even ask for his opinion and correction in cases where im not sure. Its the fact that MM seems to feel the need to play Sheriff on his own on top of that, that gets to me. Also, you nailed it by saying that hes "insensetive", ironically enough he tends to drive an arrogant tone here and there that tends to provoke sneering comments from our side, whereafter he acts a bit offended. I think hes trying to get us more invested into him and his character, but is using the wrong approach. It would be much easier if he took a friendlier approach than just patronizing rollchecks and constantly riding around on the fact that he knows everything and we dont (extremely speaking).

I thought about doing the same and hiding everything but my very emotes from him, like you suggest. But that seems...unhelpful. I mean, im annoyed by him doing it and now i should just do it myself? But it seems like the only viable approach, since talking either ends in Drama or arguments.

The whole point of the thread is mainly to see if this is common. I thought that the idea was to play together, and not each player sitting at a different end of the table and loudly announcing "My Character does X, and it works! Not gonna tell you why skippy!", that just seems awful. I was hoping for a friendly atmosphere, and not a weekly round of "dont ask, dont tell." :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-13, 06:55 AM
Your DM has his head up his butt, in my not so humble opinion. Not just using OOC talk against the character, but supporting such unsporting behaviour in another player (who's running a swordsage from ToB by the way) is ridiculously unacceptable.

If you insist on sticking it out (I wouldn't) then tell MM that if he doesn't want to show his numbers then he can stuff it went he wants to see yours.

Seriously though, I recognize all the effects you said he played off as his class abilities. Fire from the sword is a desert wind strike, the two attack rolls is a shadow hand strike, the increased damage die is a stone dragon stance; and for a kicker, swordsage's default fluff fits the mysterious wanderer thing to a T.

Edit: the devoted spirit strike (healing himself or someone else when he hits an enemy) could be something he picked up via the martial study feat or a dip in crusader.

nedz
2013-11-13, 08:51 AM
I have to agree with Kelb's spoilers, though I'm not sure I would have revealed the relevant classes because it's metagaming — though the classes are obvious to people who've come across ToB before.

MM does sound like he is jumping in when he shouldn't, and I can see why that is annoying. He is trying to do the DM's job. It is possible that he sees himself as a more experienced player and is just trying to help the newbies — however he doesn't seem to be very politic about it.

I normally run games where the players do not reveal their builds because it's fun for others to figure it out if they want to, or not. It is metagaming after all, though fairly harmless — in fact it can be a fun side game.

Maybe it's harder online than IRL for a DM to figure out if he has a trust issue, but is the DM aware of this ? This is the important point, I think.

Stuebi
2013-11-13, 09:52 AM
Your DM has his head up his butt, in my not so humble opinion. Not just using OOC talk against the character, but supporting such unsporting behaviour in another player (who's running a swordsage from ToB by the way) is ridiculously unacceptable.

If you insist on sticking it out (I wouldn't) then tell MM that if he doesn't want to show his numbers then he can stuff it went he wants to see yours.

Seriously though, I recognize all the effects you said he played off as his class abilities. Fire from the sword is a desert wind strike, the two attack rolls is a shadow hand strike, the increased damage die is a stone dragon stance; and for a kicker, swordsage's default fluff fits the mysterious wanderer thing to a T.

Edit: the devoted spirit strike (healing himself or someone else when he hits an enemy) could be something he picked up via the martial study feat or a dip in crusader.

Heh, funny enough the DM introduced a new guy who just flat out told me per skype its probably a swordsage (he appearantly played some DnD before), and he too had difficulty understanding why it was so deadimportant to keep that a secret. My character doenst know it, it doesnt put him into a default position (apart maybe from the secrecy, its common for this class you say?) and im not gonna make a fuss about it. But maybe im gonna check some of his rolls just for kicks.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I think theres just a fundamental difference between what I wanted to have and what I got. I think i'd prefer a group that takes itself a bit less seriously and is interested in a friendly atmosphere, instead of something that resembles Game of Thrones. (Altough i have doubts that i can find another group, but i will try at least.)

Scow2
2013-11-13, 10:34 AM
The DM decided that the remark about attending the ranger academy is in character because the character went to the ranger academy and you didn't. There is no way to process a comment about attending the academy in way other than in character. Font color cannot change the fact that only the ranger went to the ranger academy.Actually, the character probably DIDN'T go to ranger academy. Are you new to tabletop games or something, or do you merely play with the most stick-up-the-ass "Strict IC" group I've ever heard of?

The comment/joke wasn't in-character - it was meta-character, as a comment from the player about his character.

TheWombatOfDoom
2013-11-13, 10:36 AM
Well, if you are in the market for such a game, I certainly can help you find a group that fits your playing type.

Jay R
2013-11-13, 11:56 AM
Actually, the character probably DIDN'T go to ranger academy. Are you new to tabletop games or something, ...

No, I started awhile ago. I remember when the Ranger class was first introduced in The Strategic Review #2, in 1975. No, I've never heard of a ranger academy; I just didn't challenge the assumption in Stuebi's statement.


... or do you merely play with the most stick-up-the-ass "Strict IC" group I've ever heard of?

Insult received. I will try not to respond in kind.


The comment/joke wasn't in-character - it was meta-character, as a comment from the player about his character.

This is simply untrue. The comment contained the word "me". By definition, the person referred to as "me" is the speaker. This person, is a ranger. Therefore, this person is the character, not the player.

In any event, the solution, now that Stuebi knows that this is how the game is played, is to play that way. It's not hard, once he knows to do it.

Henceforth, I recommend that all such jokes be written like this:
The Ranger thinks to himself, "Yay, natural cover! They laughed at me in ranger academy, look at them now!"

It's a silly requirement, but it solves the immediate problem. I once sent a joke email to my group that started with the following:
"None of this happens. This is just a joke."
It ended with:
"One more time - no, he does not say, do, or think any of this. But once I thought of it, I had to share."

If he wants to learn the secret of the other character's class, then he shouldn't ask for it to be given away for free; he should try to earn it. Have the ranger start trying to learn the secret in the game.

Now the only question left is this: is this game fun to play? If so, modify your play style to fit, and have fun. If not, drop out.

Sith_Happens
2013-11-13, 12:42 PM
Henceforth, I recommend that all such jokes be written like this:
The Ranger thinks to himself, "Yay, natural cover! They laughed at me in ranger academy, look at them now!"

This should make an interesting experiment, if anything. Namely, does the DM punish IC remarks that are explicitly not being said aloud?

Tanuki Tales
2013-11-13, 12:49 PM
Jay, no offense, but I think you're being simply unreasonable on the OOC issue. I don't see why you're attempting to justify this senselessly vindictive behavior on the DM/GM's part as being something that is not only alright, not only justified, but should be the default assumption of how things are handled at a table (either virtual or otherwise).

I mean, if you want to play your games that way that's your prerogative, but I doubt you'll find too many other individuals on this forum alone who'd agree with you. Especially when the parameters of OOC and IC chat had been clearly defined and the player had his comments clearly marked as OOC.

Adam...?
2013-11-13, 01:25 PM
That's not out of character; it's in-character. You didn't go to the ranger academy, your character did. The DM was exactly correct here.
I don't know as if I agree with this. I understand some groups like to have stark contrast between IC and OOC conversations, even going so far as using rules like "all conversation during combats will count as in character chatter," and that's cool. As a player, you learn how the group plays, and adapt to that style. On the other hand, if a player is obviously making a joke, and clearly labels it as OOC talk, it strikes me as petty for a DM to decide (without any precedent), that he's going to treat is as IC just because of how the joke is worded.

Besides that, I pretty much agree with you. Now that it's clear that this is how things are run, the best option is for Stuebi to fall in line with how the group runs. The whole "secretive PC" thing strikes me more as a personal problem with a player than a real issue with the rules of the game.

Scow2
2013-11-13, 04:24 PM
This is simply untrue. The comment contained the word "me". By definition, the person referred to as "me" is the speaker. This person, is a ranger. Therefore, this person is the character, not the player.The 'speaker' is the player-as-his-avatar, not the 'in-world
character, a type of out-of-character banter common at a lot of tables because gaming's a social thing.

It's sort of like the musical interludes in musicals, kinda.

Jay R
2013-11-14, 10:27 AM
Jay, no offense, but I think you're being simply unreasonable on the OOC issue. I don't see why you're attempting to justify this senselessly vindictive behavior on the DM/GM's part as being something that is not only alright, not only justified, but should be the default assumption of how things are handled at a table (either virtual or otherwise).

I have made no comment about what default assumptions should be. Stuebi is in a situation. I point out that the DM had internal clues to justify his action, and these are the conditions of the game. I have said, several times, that he should decide whether the game is worth playing, and I've given specific advice. I've been trying to be fair and deal practically with the actual situation, rather than dealing theoretically with what an assumption of what it ought to be.

But I will not call somebody's action "senselessly vindictive behavior" when I haven't heard his side. I will try to be generous and assume he may see things differently.


I mean, if you want to play your games that way that's your prerogative, but I doubt you'll find too many other individuals on this forum alone who'd agree with you. Especially when the parameters of OOC and IC chat had been clearly defined and the player had his comments clearly marked as OOC.

I've made no comment about how I play my games, except the one time I mentioned telling a joke, and making clear that it was a joke. This is a purely defensive maneuver, just as I recommended to Stuebi.

Gnomes2169
2013-11-15, 03:35 AM
@JR, the comment was made in the agreed upon OOC manner and was used as punishment against a player, with the DM claiming it was IC knowledge. It is unreasonable to need to preface your OOC comments with a "Hey, this is completely OOC" preface as long as the agreed upon method is used... and according to the story, multiple cases of this have happened. So the DM, who has not suggested any other form of communicating IC and OOC knowledge as far as we are aware, is acting out of line by using this against them. If a different form of communicating IC and OOC comments had been given, then you would have a point... But not unless that contingency is fulfilled.

As for the mystery class, I was going to say that it's the Sword Sage, and that he has a few Crusader maneuvers, but you already had that spoiled for you, so nevermind. :smalltongue: If you pull up the Tome of Battle and see him using other Crusader maneuvers (from the Devoted Spirit list), ask the guy OOC if he has spent the required feat to learn it, since Sword Sages cannot learn maneuvers from that school normally. Otherwise, keep it a secret that you know and sort of chuckle whenever he tries to do the "NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT I AM" thing. Because I hate it when players do that. :smallannoyed:

Stuebi
2013-11-15, 05:15 AM
As for the mystery class, I was going to say that it's the Sword Sage, and that he has a few Crusader maneuvers, but you already had that spoiled for you, so nevermind. :smalltongue: If you pull up the Tome of Battle and see him using other Crusader maneuvers (from the Devoted Spirit list), ask the guy OOC if he has spent the required feat to learn it, since Sword Sages cannot learn maneuvers from that school normally. Otherwise, keep it a secret that you know and sort of chuckle whenever he tries to do the "NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT I AM" thing. Because I hate it when players do that. :smallannoyed:

Since the new guy joined, its a lot better. We opened up a seperate Chatroom in Skype and keep our OOC-Talk there, so we can joke around etc. without having to worry about IC/OOC arguments. New Guy also knows the Swordsage class, which he informed MM right after joining (He has no idea that we know tough, and we do not plan to use tha knowledge beyond maybe checking a roll or two here and there), and suddenly all those "modifiers" started to vanish. I have to admit, i was sorta tempted to make a snarky comment about that, but the games really enjoyable now, so why ruin the mood?

Also, as an added cookie. MM seems to be sorta butthurt that none of our characters care about any of his backstory, because his PC acts about as bad as he does, so nobody really likes him. Maybe he improves his behavior a tad now (and tries to be interesting without being obnoxious), and even if he does not, theres still the thing you suggest. Just chuckle with my mates and let it slide. Dont feed the troll and all that. :smalltongue:

Jay R
2013-11-15, 10:35 AM
Since the new guy joined, its a lot better. We opened up a seperate Chatroom in Skype and keep our OOC-Talk there, so we can joke around etc. without having to worry about IC/OOC arguments. New Guy also knows the Swordsage class, which he informed MM right after joining (He has no idea that we know tough, and we do not plan to use tha knowledge beyond maybe checking a roll or two here and there), and suddenly all those "modifiers" started to vanish. I have to admit, i was sorta tempted to make a snarky comment about that, but the games really enjoyable now, so why ruin the mood?

Also, as an added cookie. MM seems to be sorta butthurt that none of our characters care about any of his backstory, because his PC acts about as bad as he does, so nobody really likes him. Maybe he improves his behavior a tad now (and tries to be interesting without being obnoxious), and even if he does not, theres still the thing you suggest. Just chuckle with my mates and let it slide. Dont feed the troll and all that. :smalltongue:

Great! Sounds like the problems are getting fixed. Have fun in your game!

Sith_Happens
2013-11-15, 11:09 AM
I assume he's been telling the DM via PM which maneuvers he's using?