PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Player skepticism is tiring



Kazyan
2014-05-13, 10:34 PM
I have a player, and I play with a different player in a separate game. Both of them have this curious behavior. Every time something in-game doesn't match up with the most immediately obvious way it should work, they passive-aggressively question the DM.

Skepticism is nice and all, but when something in-game doesn't match their assumptions, they seldom ever reconsider their assumptions. Sometimes they outright ask what's going on in terms of meta-knowledge, with an "I'm curious, how..." segway or similar one.

It's really frustrating to deal with this, because I can't put anything unusual or clever in my campaign without getting an exasperated sigh or asking for meta-knowledge questioning as to how something works. If the monsters act even somewhat intelligent, "But..." ensues.

Has anyone else had players with this behavior? How do you deal with them?

Rhynn
2014-05-13, 11:06 PM
"Shush. Deal with it."

Don't indulge jerks and their power plays.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-13, 11:16 PM
"That's a good question."

You can either state that and then walk away from it, or ask them "How do you go about investigating that?"

I tend to be a player with a lot of metagame knowledge... as such, I tend to play characters who know a lot, and can therefore take advantage of that knowledge (leading to me being a priest of the Traveler in our Hackmaster game). But I also have to accept that sometimes, what I *know* is wrong... either because of a specific circumstance, or because the GM approaches that differently.

jaydubs
2014-05-13, 11:25 PM
Rather than thinking of skepticism as problem behavior to be dealt with, you should ask - Why do these these players act this way? What can I do to address their concerns?

DMs are just as human as players. Just as players make mistakes and have strange quirks, so do DMs. Players may point out what they see as possible errors because they don't want events to go incorrectly against them, or as a reaction to what they see as DM fiat/railroading.

Accept that players sometimes have good reasons to question DMs. When they question you, take a moment to think about the objection. Make sure your own assumptions are reasonable, and that your rule adjudications are fair. If after those 10-20 seconds of honest consideration everything seems legit, assure them that there are good reasons events are happening as they do, and that those reasons are things their characters would not know. Then, offer to explain the situation after the event is safely over.

As long as your explanations are in fact reasonable, your players will learn to trust you, and all will be well. They will eventually get used to "I'll tell you after" as a kind of reveal, as you often see in mystery novels. You might even impress them with your cleverness.

If, however, you are often wrong, accept that personal fallibility and work to improve it. Tell your players that you're still improving as a DM, that you're willing to let them point out mistakes but that you can't always slow down a session to address them, and ask them to accept a little hand waving until you improve.

"I'm the DM, don't question me" is pretty much the worst thing you can do.

RFTD-blog
2014-05-13, 11:44 PM
I wouldn't say "Shush, deal with it," that sounds like a terrible idea, but I think Rhynn has the right idea as to WHY they are doing this behavior. They wouldn't do it unless they were rewarded for it. Perhaps you are indulging this skepticism by bending the rules in their favor when they come across a successful line of questioning. So this is the problem.

The solution is then offered by the next poster. If they want the answer to these questions, their characters should solve them within the game. Eventually, they will get the hint, and their out-of-game skepticism will be translated to inventive in-game solutions.

Two things.

Keep in mind player vs character knowledge --- I find this comes up most with spells.
Monsters are intelligent. Maybe they won't sing an amazing Sinatra ballad but they sure know how to flank. Lions flank gazelle every day on the safari. So even Int 3 is enough, I assume, to be familiar with the basics of combat.

P.S. Sometimes you will come across a rules dispute and there is seemingly multiple answers. At some point you just have to say, "okay, guys, I know this rule is murky. But I'm going to go with [xxx] so that we can keep moving the game along. I'll do some research before next session to figure out what the right rule is." If that's not cool with them, then they're immature.

The Oni
2014-05-14, 06:30 AM
"That's a good question."

This is how my DM always responds, generally with just the wright mix of smug and politeness to maintain a balance in the adversarialism. It works out pretty well. That said, he explained from the get-go that it was a homebrew setting, so we fully expected this.

ElenionAncalima
2014-05-14, 07:41 AM
I think the best thing to do is to not indulge the player with answers. If you argue with them or explain everything to them everytime they demand it, they will probably feel entitled to question every little thing you do.

As others have said, replying with "That's a good question" or "Roll me a ______ check to see if you know" is a good response, because it takes them out of the metagame and forces them back into the game.

Of course, be careful that you are not deflecting reasonable concerns and reminders. In order to get away with the "That's a good question" strategy, your players need to have some trust that you are capable of catching and admitting your own mistakes.

For example, lets say that you inform a player that he has dealt no damage to the creature he just hit.
"Did you take into account that my sword is good aligned?" > Reasonable question.
"Why wouldn't my sword hurt him?" > Should get "That's a good question/You don't know."

Hopefully with time they will break the habit.

The Oni
2014-05-14, 08:34 AM
But, it's important not to be an ass about it. This sort of thing is what Knowledge checks are for, so if your sword isn't hurting something, a suitable Knowledge Whatever check might mean that it occurs to your character that Bad Thing X has DR 10/whatever.

TriForce
2014-05-14, 09:34 AM
another option is asking the player "who are you asking that?"

force them back into character, like other people already said. being curious is nice, but metagaming is not.

DM Nate
2014-05-14, 10:20 AM
Sometimes I head off questions like this by saying, "There is a specific reason for why [x] is doing [y]. But it's up to your characters to figure out why." Just so the players know it's not a complete oversight on my part.

Jarawara
2014-05-14, 10:34 AM
Passive-aggressive is tough, but what I can't tolerate is the flat-out aggressive. What I mean by that is, instead of asking a roundabout question like "What I am curious about is....", he instead just flat out says "Oh I know what it is -- the DM screwed up and didn't think it through!"

Once you have a player who accuses you of not knowing something (insert whatever issue is at hand, rules, NPC motivation, off-plot information, anything they think they stumped you on) or making a mistake (again, on rules, monster stats, plot-holes, setting consistency), then there's no real way of walking them back into playing in character. They've "caught you in a mistake", and there's no way of convincing them it was part of the game.

This of course is really frustrating to me because I like to set up deliberate inconsistancies as a clue for the players to ask why it is. If an NPC always has a peculiar accent and now suddenly does not, I want the player to wonder why the NPC changed, and not assume the DM forgot how to RP the character. Once it is revealed that the NPC was killed and replaced by a Doppleganger, the skeptical player will simply assume I did a quick retcon to "fix my mistake".

And that of course means they won't bother to look as to why a Doppleganger was sent to replace the NPC in question, because they assumed it was an ass-pull correction. They won't bother to even consider it was something larger. I've had games derail because the players refuse to believe the clues I've given them were real and not just retcon fixes.

*~*~*

I once saw a DM's campaign fail from such assumptions. The campaign dealt with a ring of horse-thieves who were controlling the local market. One player joined the group, immediately convinced the party to set out across country to go to some far city (of which he never explained why until we got there). The DM tried to get the game back on track by having the horse-thieves raid the party's camp during the night, take our own horses. We fight them off, the new player says "Nothing to see here, this was just the obligatory between-city random encounter", and we continued on our way.

DM had to give up on the plot and run the game totally off the cuff. It went sour, quickly. And only when we finally got to the city in question did the player announce he was looking for some key NPC who lived there... and was told by the DM that NPC's from published materials are not used in his campaign. Ergo, the whole trip was wasted.

I guess there's two lessons there. One, don't assume what the DM was intending. Investigate and try to find out for yourself first. And Two, tell the DM what you are intending. You might find out your assumptions are off-base, *before* marching the party across half a continent!

Oh, and Three... I gotta learn to not follow other players' leads!

DM Nate
2014-05-14, 11:11 AM
My campaigns are all home-brew, and I'll tell them when I'm retconning something as a mistake, and when something is intentional.

And thank goodness I've never had to deal with players like that. Wow.

Jay R
2014-05-14, 11:21 AM
You need to treat different situations differently.

First of all sometimes he's right. "Oops. You're right. I've been inconsistent with what happened last week. My fault. But it shouldn't make a big difference; let's move on."

If they are wondering why physics doesn't imply something in a magic world that they believe it should, I'll say some version of, "You're right. In our universe that wouldn't have happened. It was perfectly normal here. Let's move on."

If they noticed an anomaly that is in fact opposed to what the character expects, and that might tell them something important, I might say, "Very good. Your character thinks that that sword blow should have hurt the monster, and doesn't know why it didn't. You can think about that until your turn comes up again."

If they ask about a subtle but important clue for long-term consideration, I've been known to say. "Excellent. You get 100 xps. Now, how does your character try to find the answer to that question?"

In all cases, the goal is to treat the situation fairly, answer the legitimate issue honestly without giving away new information, and move on. Note that in all four cases above, I went back to playing the game, not discussing a side issue outside of game-time. This is crucial.

When you argue back, you have given them permission to continue the argument.

Also, one of the most important uses of wandering monsters is to end fruitless meta-discussion. In the rare case when the player won't let go, eventually I will have ogres attack the party. Surprise attacks focus their minds back on the game. But this is a last-ditch tool, only when I can't handle it any other way.

137beth
2014-05-14, 02:28 PM
Passive-aggressive is tough, but what I can't tolerate is the flat-out aggressive. What I mean by that is, instead of asking a roundabout question like "What I am curious about is....", he instead just flat out says "Oh I know what it is -- the DM screwed up and didn't think it through!"

Once you have a player who accuses you of not knowing something (insert whatever issue is at hand, rules, NPC motivation, off-plot information, anything they think they stumped you on) or making a mistake (again, on rules, monster stats, plot-holes, setting consistency), then there's no real way of walking them back into playing in character. They've "caught you in a mistake", and there's no way of convincing them it was part of the game.

This of course is really frustrating to me because I like to set up deliberate inconsistancies as a clue for the players to ask why it is. If an NPC always has a peculiar accent and now suddenly does not, I want the player to wonder why the NPC changed, and not assume the DM forgot how to RP the character. Once it is revealed that the NPC was killed and replaced by a Doppleganger, the skeptical player will simply assume I did a quick retcon to "fix my mistake".

And that of course means they won't bother to look as to why a Doppleganger was sent to replace the NPC in question, because they assumed it was an ass-pull correction. They won't bother to even consider it was something larger. I've had games derail because the players refuse to believe the clues I've given them were real and not just retcon fixes.

*~*~*

I once saw a DM's campaign fail from such assumptions. The campaign dealt with a ring of horse-thieves who were controlling the local market. One player joined the group, immediately convinced the party to set out across country to go to some far city (of which he never explained why until we got there). The DM tried to get the game back on track by having the horse-thieves raid the party's camp during the night, take our own horses. We fight them off, the new player says "Nothing to see here, this was just the obligatory between-city random encounter", and we continued on our way.

DM had to give up on the plot and run the game totally off the cuff. It went sour, quickly. And only when we finally got to the city in question did the player announce he was looking for some key NPC who lived there... and was told by the DM that NPC's from published materials are not used in his campaign. Ergo, the whole trip was wasted.

I guess there's two lessons there. One, don't assume what the DM was intending. Investigate and try to find out for yourself first. And Two, tell the DM what you are intending. You might find out your assumptions are off-base, *before* marching the party across half a continent!

Oh, and Three... I gotta learn to not follow other players' leads!

Wow, that's...ouch:smalleek:
Even if the DM was using published NPCs, shouldn't the other player have at least needed to make a Knowledge (Something) check to even have heard of this NPC he was looking for on another continent?

Airk
2014-05-14, 03:16 PM
Wow, that's...ouch:smalleek:
Even if the DM was using published NPCs, shouldn't the other player have at least needed to make a Knowledge (Something) check to even have heard of this NPC he was looking for on another continent?

_MY_ question is "How did he convince the rest of the party to pick up and walk to another continent a really long way without even telling them why they would want to go there?"

veti
2014-05-14, 04:50 PM
Passive-aggressive is tough, but what I can't tolerate is the flat-out aggressive. What I mean by that is, instead of asking a roundabout question like "What I am curious about is....", he instead just flat out says "Oh I know what it is -- the DM screwed up and didn't think it through!"

I've been there, and I endorse Jay R's answer above. Assuming the player actually wants to keep playing, there is a way to get them back into the game - refuse to be sidetracked. "Yeah, you've got a point, but right here and now, this is what's happening." Or, "Huh, how about that? Anyone would think there's something going on that you don't know about."

And if they're right, admit it, correct yourself, and move on with minimal changes. Honesty in those situations will help to build trust. But don't reward the player for catching you out, that'll just encourage them to do it again.


This of course is really frustrating to me because I like to set up deliberate inconsistancies as a clue for the players to ask why it is. If an NPC always has a peculiar accent and now suddenly does not, I want the player to wonder why the NPC changed, and not assume the DM forgot how to RP the character. Once it is revealed that the NPC was killed and replaced by a Doppleganger, the skeptical player will simply assume I did a quick retcon to "fix my mistake".

And that of course means they won't bother to look as to why a Doppleganger was sent to replace the NPC in question, because they assumed it was an ass-pull correction. They won't bother to even consider it was something larger. I've had games derail because the players refuse to believe the clues I've given them were real and not just retcon fixes.

Frustrating, but it sounds like you're playing at a different level from your players. But having a game "derail" in those conditions shouldn't be too bad. If the doppelgangers succeed in their diabolical plot... then the players have a significantly worse mess to clean up, and that should be a lesson to them. Especially if they realise the campaign is now a Kobayashi Maru.

It should also be a learning experience for you, too - for this group, next time, the clues need to be a lot less subtle. Instead of them noticing the NPC's accent, have another NPC notice it and point it out to them.


I guess there's two lessons there. One, don't assume what the DM was intending. Investigate and try to find out for yourself first. And Two, tell the DM what you are intending. You might find out your assumptions are off-base, *before* marching the party across half a continent!

Oh, and Three... I gotta learn to not follow other players' leads!

And four, if you must use published settings, tell the players that you've made changes to it, so they can't rely on people and things being where the book says they are.

jedipotter
2014-05-14, 06:34 PM
Has anyone else had players with this behavior? How do you deal with them?

All-The-Time. Every game. Endlessly.

I have house rules just for this:



■1.In general, most of the game information is secret during a game. As a DM I won't say 'the guard has an AC of 12, 8 hit points, and likes apple pie'. As a player, you won't know any of the game information, and as DM I won't tell you, so don't ask.
■2.In general, most information in the game is secret during a game. As a player you can only figure out things by the description given. As a DM I won't say 'The goblin hits you with the dart of Blackfeather poison', but more 'the short, ugly humanoid throws a dart at you. The black oil on the dart causes your skin to burn.' I won't tell you things like a monsters AC.
■3.In general, most game effects are secret during a game. As a DM I won't tell you why something worked or did not work. As a player you have to figure thoes things out, in the game. For example, if you cast charm person on a black skinned guy and it does not work, I will not tell you his race and type.
■4.In general, most game information about other players is secret during a game. Players are free to share whatever they want with each other. As DM though, I won't let you read another players character sheet. You are free to learn about another player's character in the game, through use of skill, magic, or whatever.
■5.In general, most information stays secret even after a game. At least a couple weeks need to pass so the information is no longer current.

Should you have a question about the game or anything in or about the game, it should not be asked in the game itself. I'm online at least a little bit everyday, so feel free to message, text, e-mail, chat or otherwise communicate any time with questions.

Warlord476
2014-05-14, 07:27 PM
_MY_ question is "How did he convince the rest of the party to pick up and walk to another continent a really long way without even telling them why they would want to go there?"

I'd have to second this question. A new player hijacked the whole party?!? So many questions arise from this.

I'm lucky in that there is only one player in my group likely to chip in with a "player to GM:" question that interrupts the game flow and undermines the GM. We have all got better at managing this and as a result he has become less likely to do it. As contributors here generally indicate, the main thing is not to empower that kind of behavior, regardless of whether an answer could be given.

PS I liked seeing those rules written down, Jedipotter. They are taken for granted in my group so I've never thought of codifying them.

jguy
2014-05-14, 07:55 PM
See I love it when my DM played city based mystery/espionage games because I got to figure things out. When you are low enough that you cannot just divine or scry answers stuff gets fun. I usually talk things out loud to show my stream of thought but also give hints to the DM to where we are taking things. Sometimes if I come up with something clever that DM might change the game around to have that be the true thing since it was a good idea or he might change it around so the answer isn't what we thought. It is fun.

mephnick
2014-05-14, 09:03 PM
My players now know that they better take the knowledge skills or they're going to have a bad time.

I switch things up here and there because I know a few of them have memorized all the bestiaries.

So if I get the "Uhhhh that creature doesn't have evasion, why didn't it take half damage.." I can just reply with "Man you should have taken knowledge: nature eh"

I don't change everything, I mean, they should be able to use their RPG experience to their advantage sometimes.

lunar2
2014-05-14, 10:51 PM
All-The-Time. Every game. Endlessly.

I have house rules just for this:



■1.In general, most of the game information is secret during a game. As a DM I won't say 'the guard has an AC of 12, 8 hit points, and likes apple pie'. As a player, you won't know any of the game information, and as DM I won't tell you, so don't ask.
■2.In general, most information in the game is secret during a game. As a player you can only figure out things by the description given. As a DM I won't say 'The goblin hits you with the dart of Blackfeather poison', but more 'the short, ugly humanoid throws a dart at you. The black oil on the dart causes your skin to burn.' I won't tell you things like a monsters AC.
■3.In general, most game effects are secret during a game. As a DM I won't tell you why something worked or did not work. As a player you have to figure thoes things out, in the game. For example, if you cast charm person on a black skinned guy and it does not work, I will not tell you his race and type.
■4.In general, most game information about other players is secret during a game. Players are free to share whatever they want with each other. As DM though, I won't let you read another players character sheet. You are free to learn about another player's character in the game, through use of skill, magic, or whatever.
■5.In general, most information stays secret even after a game. At least a couple weeks need to pass so the information is no longer current.

Should you have a question about the game or anything in or about the game, it should not be asked in the game itself. I'm online at least a little bit everyday, so feel free to message, text, e-mail, chat or otherwise communicate any time with questions.


1. good. although most savvy players will narrow down AC pretty quickly. especially those that rely on power attack for damage, since they need to know how much attack they can sacrifice and still hit consistently. don't punish characters for trying to fight intelligently like that. i had one DM who, if you tried to figure out stats like attack bonuses and AC, would increase the numbers just to punish you, even if it is perfectly in character to try to analyze your opponent. this same DM once killed my character in the first session just because i rolled too well on ability scores.

2. i wouldn't name poisons unless you have someone there who can appraise it, or who has craft: poison to identify it. but common monsters such as goblins? or iconic monsters such as dragons? those should be readily identifiable to even a commoner. so i'd go ahead and name those, monsters that are less common or famous in universe don't need to be named, of course, unless the PC makes a knowledge check.

3. yeah, but the black guy with pointy ears and white hair who isn't affected by spells isn't going to stay secret long. if you even give them a decent physical description, they know what they are fighting. and especially in settings like forgotten realms, everyone knows what a drow is.

4. this is just common sense, with the exception of when one player is helping another build a character.

5. no problems here.

Kazyan
2014-05-14, 11:36 PM
3. yeah, but the black guy with pointy ears and white hair who isn't affected by spells isn't going to stay secret long. if you even give them a decent physical description, they know what they are fighting. and especially in settings like forgotten realms, everyone knows what a drow is.

And that's a player assumption--the problem with my group is that they take that as gospel. Here's what would happen with my group, if they were higher-level.

Me: So the platoon of guys coming at you with greatswords have dark skin. There's a single shock of white hair on each of their heads and the rest of it is shaved.
Skeptical PC: Gee, I wonder what those could be. I cast Sunburst.
Me: Spell resistance check.
Skeptical PC: *rolls well* Drow take double damage because they have light sensitivity. *rolls 12d6*
Me: No, roll 6d6.
Skeptical PC: Um, no, drow have Light Sensitivity, and it says right there in the text. 'A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage.'
Me: I know. Roll 6d6.
Skeptical PC: So they're not drow!?
Me: No.
Skeptical PC: Wooooow...

(PCs may or may not bother making Knowledge checks to learn that they're Karsites who shaved their heads later)

Anyway, I'll be taking the advice in this thread to keep the game flowing and not indulge them.

Laserlight
2014-05-15, 12:04 AM
I have a player, and I play with a different player in a separate game. Both of them have this curious behavior. Every time something in-game doesn't match up with the most immediately obvious way it should work, they passive-aggressively question the DM.

Skepticism is nice and all, but when something in-game doesn't match their assumptions, they seldom ever reconsider their assumptions. Sometimes they outright ask what's going on in terms of meta-knowledge, with an "I'm curious, how..." segue or similar one.

It's really frustrating to deal with this, because I can't put anything unusual or clever in my campaign without getting an exasperated sigh or asking for meta-knowledge questioning as to how something works. If the monsters act even somewhat intelligent, "But..." ensues.


We're hearing on side but not the other. I've had DMs whose behavior was such that some skepticism was justified.... :smallcool:

Kazyan
2014-05-15, 12:12 AM
We're hearing on side but not the other. I've had DMs whose behavior was such that some skepticism was justified.... :smallcool:

Well, yeah, it's the nature of forum threads. I definitely screw up more than usual when I have to make things up on the fly, but it's frustrating that the default response to unusual things is "DM, it doesn't work that way!"

lunar2
2014-05-15, 12:39 AM
And that's a player assumption--the problem with my group is that they take that as gospel. Here's what would happen with my group, if they were higher-level.

Me: So the platoon of guys coming at you with greatswords have dark skin. There's a single shock of white hair on each of their heads and the rest of it is shaved.
Skeptical PC: Gee, I wonder what those could be. I cast Sunburst.
Me: Spell resistance check.
Skeptical PC: *rolls well* Drow take double damage because they have light sensitivity. *rolls 12d6*
Me: No, roll 6d6.
Skeptical PC: Um, no, drow have Light Sensitivity, and it says right there in the text. 'A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage.'
Me: I know. Roll 6d6.
Skeptical PC: So they're not drow!?
Me: No.
Skeptical PC: Wooooow...

(PCs may or may not bother making Knowledge checks to learn that they're Karsites who shaved their heads later)

Anyway, I'll be taking the advice in this thread to keep the game flowing and not indulge them.

this wouldn't be most players, but as soon as you mentioned shaved heads i thought karsite. besides, karsites have another dead giveaway to differentiate them from drow. drow have red eyes, karsites have one green eye, one blue.

that detail probably isn't visible without a spot check (to notice a diminutive or possibly fine feature, no less) at the ranges where sunburst is appropriate, though.

and karsites don't have pointy ears, or elven builds. and purplish black is a very rare skin color for humans (i've met exactly one person who had that purplish tint to their skin).

seriously, that trick only works because the players only have the information you tell them, instead of what their characters actually see. of course, it's only necessary because players know things that characters, except in the realms, don't necessarily know, so i guess it's a wash.

Kazyan
2014-05-15, 12:46 AM
this wouldn't be most players, but as soon as you mentioned shaved heads i thought karsite. besides, karsites have another dead giveaway to differentiate them from drow. drow have red eyes, karsites have one green eye, one blue.

that detail probably isn't visible without a spot check (to notice a diminutive or possibly fine feature, no less) at the ranges where sunburst is appropriate, though.

and karsites don't have pointy ears, or elven builds. and purplish black is a very rare skin color for humans (i've met exactly one person who had that purplish tint to their skin).

seriously, that trick only works because the players only have the information you tell them, instead of what their characters actually see. of course, it's only necessary because players know things that characters, except in the realms, don't necessarily know, so i guess it's a wash.

I suppose this isn't a well-thought-out example, but it's just that, an example. You do bring up good points--there's always the possibility that my skeptical player is being so because I'm not a very good DM.

jedipotter
2014-05-15, 12:54 AM
1. good. although most savvy players will narrow down AC pretty quickly. especially those that rely on power attack for damage, since they need to know how much attack they can sacrifice and still hit consistently. don't punish characters for trying to fight intelligently like that. i had one DM who, if you tried to figure out stats like attack bonuses and AC, would increase the numbers just to punish you, even if it is perfectly in character to try to analyze your opponent. this same DM once killed my character in the first session just because i rolled too well on ability scores.

2. i wouldn't name poisons unless you have someone there who can appraise it, or who has craft: poison to identify it. but common monsters such as goblins? or iconic monsters such as dragons? those should be readily identifiable to even a commoner. so i'd go ahead and name those, monsters that are less common or famous in universe don't need to be named, of course, unless the PC makes a knowledge check.

3. yeah, but the black guy with pointy ears and white hair who isn't affected by spells isn't going to stay secret long. if you even give them a decent physical description, they know what they are fighting. and especially in settings like forgotten realms, everyone knows what a drow is.

4. this is just common sense, with the exception of when one player is helping another build a character.

5. no problems here.

1. Well, not so much. Most numbers are fluid. AC for example can change round to round. Players that attempt to figure out AC's are just setting themselves up to be confused. And I consider ''playing by the numbers'' cheating. The player that wants to know the DC of anything before they try it does not last long in my game. I give a description of what it looks like, never the DC. Players that ''do this or that'' to hit the target DC are cheaters in my way of thinking.

2.I keep it vague. After all, you don't always run into ''by the book'' monsters(or you should not). And a template or class can change a monster ''just enough''. Players that fall into the comfort zone of ''it is just a goblin'', will be shocked when it is a half troll goblin....

3.Maybe, maybe not. I don't go for the idea that every player character is a super expert on everything just as they are alive. I find the game much more fun if the players don't just auto win......I can't stand that.

4.Not so common. Lots of games do the Group Community Communist Thing, where the pushy, controling players forces the others to play the way they want too ("No, no, Zaro does not stab with his dagger, he casts his twin scorching rays'')

5.Ok


I have found the vague game much more fun. The more role-playing and less roll-playing. The roll players don't last too long in my groups.

Player Rosco makes Rollo the Enchanter, a wizard with a enchantment/charm focus. He has lots of gleeful fun controlling commoners. For a while. Then goes to the Imperial Capital city. And get the idea to rob some banks with magical charms. His first couple of times are failures as he thought banks where ''like one old guy with a 'charm me' sign on them''. He gets so confused when he does stuff like walks into a bank full of like half a dozen people and casts charm on a banker, then tells them to give him all the money, and the other people in the room (like the guard) react negatively. Frustrated, he moved on to the 'rich private banks', where he could be one-on-one with a banker. But, banker after banker, his spells failed. Saves were made, or spells just did not effect them. Time after time after time. After the fifth or sixth one he just screams and leaves the game.

PersonMan
2014-05-15, 04:36 AM
1. Well, not so much. Most numbers are fluid. AC for example can change round to round. Players that attempt to figure out AC's are just setting themselves up to be confused. And I consider ''playing by the numbers'' cheating. [...] Players that ''do this or that'' to hit the target DC are cheaters in my way of thinking.

So, in your games, nobody ever knows how hard they need to swing to hit something? If they swing at something a half-dozen times, they have no idea how much they can afford to sacrifice, accuracy-wise, to hit harder? I'm referring to in-game stuff here - apart from obvious factors like terrain, stance, etc., there will be a degree to which a character can figure out if they can get good hits in on what they're fighting. This is what AC represents - getting an idea of a monster's AC, and acting accordingly, is in most situations going to be good roleplaying, as it's unlikely that someone just blindly swings away at something when their life depends on it.


2.I keep it vague. After all, you don't always run into ''by the book'' monsters(or you should not). And a template or class can change a monster ''just enough''. Players that fall into the comfort zone of ''it is just a goblin'', will be shocked when it is a half troll goblin....

Which does look different from a normal goblin, no? At least, unless your players like to play 70 year old half-blind 'adventurers' there should be enough detail to notice 'this goblin is weird'.


3.Maybe, maybe not. I don't go for the idea that every player character is a super expert on everything just as they are alive. I find the game much more fun if the players don't just auto win......I can't stand that.

Seeing as most games lack 'knowledge = auto win' stuff (a la older DnD's Rakshasas), the characters knowing what they're fighting shouldn't be an auto-win. There's still the process of actually fighting it.

nedz
2014-05-15, 05:03 AM
And that's a player assumption--the problem with my group is that they take that as gospel. Here's what would happen with my group, if they were higher-level.

Me: So the platoon of guys coming at you with greatswords have dark skin. There's a single shock of white hair on each of their heads and the rest of it is shaved.
Skeptical PC: Gee, I wonder what those could be. I cast Sunburst.
Me: Spell resistance check.
Skeptical PC: *rolls well* Drow take double damage because they have light sensitivity. *rolls 12d6*
Me: No, roll 6d6.
Skeptical PC: Um, no, drow have Light Sensitivity, and it says right there in the text. 'A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage.'
Me: I know. Roll 6d6.
Skeptical PC: So they're not drow!?
Me: No.
Skeptical PC: Wooooow...

(PCs may or may not bother making Knowledge checks to learn that they're Karsites who shaved their heads later)

Anyway, I'll be taking the advice in this thread to keep the game flowing and not indulge them.

In this situation I'd let the player roll 12d6, and then halve the number he told me without him knowing. This would halve the number of metagaming interactions and deny the player metagame knowledge. Ideally there would be some reveal type situation later when they discover that they weren't Drow to which you can respond to the inevitable questions with something like "Who told you that they were Drow ?". This should lower the credibility of the sceptical player and maybe make them self-sceptical, though the latter might be wishful thinking.

Never reward metagaming, and always try to challenge their assumptions. Actually you should play cat and mouse with them on the last point perhaps ?

DM Nate
2014-05-15, 06:09 AM
One thing I do to stop metagaming is reskinning all my creatures. Sure, they may be in actuality fighting a Dire Rat, but it looks and acts in-game just like a Giant Isopod (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ri6hobnxsrzjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg).

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-15, 06:37 AM
In this situation I'd let the player roll 12d6, and then halve the number he told me without him knowing. This would halve the number of metagaming interactions and deny the player metagame knowledge. Ideally there would be some reveal type situation later when they discover that they weren't Drow to which you can respond to the inevitable questions with something like "Who told you that they were Drow ?". This should lower the credibility of the sceptical player and maybe make them self-sceptical, though the latter might be wishful thinking.

Never reward metagaming, and always try to challenge their assumptions. Actually you should play cat and mouse with them on the last point perhaps ?
I read the spell description for that as to double whatever the 6D6 rolled, not roll double the number of dice. So they should only have rolled 6D6 anyway, and the DM would have ignored any doubling they try and put on.

Jay R
2014-05-15, 10:06 AM
I change a couple of details on a few monsters. Not many, but they should run into one or two early on. For instance, a sword gets stuck in dead flesh, so after hitting a zombie, the next round is spent jerking the sword back out. My goblins are (like most underground creatures) white-skinned, and the -1 to combat in daylight comes from the light, so if they are facing the sun, it's -2.

If only 10% of the monsters they face aren't exactly from the books, then they stop trusting their meta-knowledge. That also cuts down on the player skepticism when something doesn't go the way they like. (That's the topic of this thread, remember?)

I also specifically let them slowly learn the AC of the enemy, since hitting something repeatedly is how to find out how tough it is. After a couple of hits on a nail with a hammer, I know if it's softwood or hardwood.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-15, 10:18 AM
3. yeah, but the black guy with pointy ears and white hair who isn't affected by spells isn't going to stay secret long. if you even give them a decent physical description, they know what they are fighting. and especially in settings like forgotten realms, everyone knows what a drow is.


And I am reminded for Full Frontal Nerdity...

http://ffn.nodwick.com/?p=8

jedipotter
2014-05-15, 01:06 PM
So, in your games, nobody ever knows how hard they need to swing to hit something? If they swing at something a half-dozen times, they have no idea how much they can afford to sacrifice, accuracy-wise, to hit harder? I'm referring to in-game stuff here - apart from obvious factors like terrain, stance, etc., there will be a degree to which a character can figure out if they can get good hits in on what they're fighting. This is what AC represents - getting an idea of a monster's AC, and acting accordingly, is in most situations going to be good roleplaying, as it's unlikely that someone just blindly swings away at something when their life depends on it.

No player ever knows the AC or DC of anything. They will know how good they are if they hit or not. At no time can they play the numbers and add exactly what they need to make a roll. They will only have a vague idea on how much resources to use. They might ''waste'' a +7, when they only need to roll higher then a 15 or load all up on a +10 when they need a 35.




Which does look different from a normal goblin, no? At least, unless your players like to play 70 year old half-blind 'adventurers' there should be enough detail to notice 'this goblin is weird'.

They might notice the goblin is weird, but I'm not going to say ''it is a half-troll goblin''.




Seeing as most games lack 'knowledge = auto win' stuff (a la older DnD's Rakshasas), the characters knowing what they're fighting shouldn't be an auto-win. There's still the process of actually fighting it.

I'm talking about auto-winning the encounter, not the game (but when you auto win each encounter, you do auto win the game). I find it boring and annoying to play like this:

DM: You see a monster.
Player: I roll my DM tell me everything check and get 25, so tell me everything.
DM: The monster is a Flarmor, it is vulnerable to cold.
Player: Woot Woot! I attack with cold
DM: One round latter the Flamor is dead. You loot the body.

Fiery Diamond
2014-05-15, 02:15 PM
No player ever knows the AC or DC of anything. They will know how good they are if they hit or not. At no time can they play the numbers and add exactly what they need to make a roll. They will only have a vague idea on how much resources to use. They might ''waste'' a +7, when they only need to roll higher then a 15 or load all up on a +10 when they need a 35.

So what happens when they're fighting a guy, roll a 14 (after modifiers) and miss, followed by rolling a 15 (after modifiers) and hit? Are you going to arbitrarily change "circumstances" to modify the enemy's AC so that they can't make their power attack judgments based on the fact that the AC is 15? Because to me, if you do that, you are the one who is cheating, period, no arguments.

VanIsleKnight
2014-05-15, 02:51 PM
A bad GM can ruin a good player for the rest of their gaming career. Same goes for the opposite.

I've been skeptical of many GMs in the past because of two reasons:

They make major house rule changes without informing the PCs, even when the house rule situation occurs and only the DM knows about it. Fine in fringe cases, but when you end up having people playing different versions of a game and 90% of the group don't understand why things aren't working correctly and aren't receiving any explanation as to why (think of it like your game controls for Skyrim or whatever just not working properly anymore without explanation or clue that it should be happening) it kills the immersion and the level of trust between GM and player.

They are transitioning from one similar d20 system to another and don't fully understand the mechanics because of subtle but important changes. This is less of a problem and the party (including myself) make this mistake just as often as the GM, so we often help each other out in this regard.

Pex
2014-05-15, 03:22 PM
1. Well, not so much. Most numbers are fluid. AC for example can change round to round. Players that attempt to figure out AC's are just setting themselves up to be confused. And I consider ''playing by the numbers'' cheating. The player that wants to know the DC of anything before they try it does not last long in my game. I give a description of what it looks like, never the DC. Players that ''do this or that'' to hit the target DC are cheaters in my way of thinking.

2.I keep it vague. After all, you don't always run into ''by the book'' monsters(or you should not). And a template or class can change a monster ''just enough''. Players that fall into the comfort zone of ''it is just a goblin'', will be shocked when it is a half troll goblin....

3.Maybe, maybe not. I don't go for the idea that every player character is a super expert on everything just as they are alive. I find the game much more fun if the players don't just auto win......I can't stand that.

4.Not so common. Lots of games do the Group Community Communist Thing, where the pushy, controling players forces the others to play the way they want too ("No, no, Zaro does not stab with his dagger, he casts his twin scorching rays'')

5.Ok



The character is right there. He's attacking the monster. He knows whether he hits or misses. The math part of the game is part of the game. If he misses on a roll of 13 but next turn hits on a roll of 14, he knows what the monster's AC is. That's not cheating. Now certainly the monster or some other opponent does some buffing to increase the AC, but that ability should actually be there. To suddenly change the monster's AC just because the player figured it out, that's the DM cheating. A warrior with Power Attack feat knows how to use it. He knows how much effort to apply. That translates to the math.

Also, characters know stuff players do not. Characters grew up in the game world. They do know the common lore and creatures who live there. Certainly goblins could be rare in the world. Maybe they've never appeared before until just as the campaign started as part of the Plot Point. Otherwise, characters know what they are. At the very least the more intelligent or world-traveled characters would.

It's not specifically about the goblins. PCs are not unintelligent morons who know nothing about everything. Players, yes players, are not incompetent buffoons who aren't allowed make associations or else be accused of cheating. They can certainly be incorrect in what they think is happening. It's appropriate to utilize knowledge checks to allow for PCs to know in character what the players know out of character. It is the DM's job to tell the players what their characters do actually know the player couldn't possibly know and wouldn't know to even ask about it.

Edit: The ability and fun a player has with the math of the game has no bearing on the ability and fun a player has on the story of the game. "Roll-playing" is not incompatible with "Role-playing".

Gamgee
2014-05-15, 04:01 PM
In that instance?

You don't ask the questions here Mr. Player, I ask the questions. Now did you roll the dice like I asked? *evil smile and laughter*

I do realize players have legitimate questions, but just for that kind I would use a line like that. In a joking way of course.

Gildedragon
2014-05-15, 04:40 PM
I'm talking about auto-winning the encounter, not the game (but when you auto win each encounter, you do auto win the game). I find it boring and annoying to play like this:

DM: You see a monster.
Player: I roll my DM tell me everything check and get 25, so tell me everything.
DM: The monster is a Flarmor, it is vulnerable to cold.
Player: Woot Woot! I attack with cold
DM: One round latter the Flamor is dead. You loot the body.

But if the player spent their resources in building a well-learned character, why are you penalizing them. It's like springing on the wizard that magic has died in the world after the campaign has started. "Yeah no, everything is a dead magic zone". That is BS.
If the player makes the check, then they make it and reward them suitably.

On that note: if a player asks what they should roll to identify, the DM should be honest in telling them; heck they should venture what the roll to identify is. Same as if a physical obstacle is found and they say it is an escape artist, or tumble, or jump, or whatever check to get past it

jaydubs
2014-05-15, 05:54 PM
No player ever knows the AC or DC of anything. They will know how good they are if they hit or not. At no time can they play the numbers and add exactly what they need to make a roll. They will only have a vague idea on how much resources to use. They might ''waste'' a +7, when they only need to roll higher then a 15 or load all up on a +10 when they need a 35.

There are lots of situations where players should have a reasonable estimation of the DC though.

Say, there are a series of wet stones across a river. In real life, a person would be able to look at the size and shape of the stones, and make a reasonable guess on how difficult the balancing act will be. Since we can't perceive those details in games, or because the DM's opinion on what is difficult could be very different from his players, having a rough idea of the DC approximates the characters knowing the limits of their own skills.

The conversation could go like:

DM: Those rocks look exceptionally smooth, and seem to be covered in moss that would probably make them slippery. It doesn't help that they're wet from the spray of water.
Player (OOC): Hm... what would be the DC for walking across?
DM: You're not sure exactly, but it's probably something from 15-20.
Player looks at character sheet, notices he has a -2 acrobatics modifier.
Player (IC): Chaps, I'm not the most sure-footed of fellows, and I don't think I can make it across those stones without some help. Can we send someone ahead first to tie a line between these trees? In the meantime, I'll stow my armor into my bag.

This type of information allows players (and their characters) to make informed decisions, and seems more fair than "no player ever knows the AC or DC of anything."

Warlord476
2014-05-15, 07:16 PM
I'm with JediPotter. Fiery Diamond and VanIsleKnight, you are tending to argue against the general with the specific. JediPotter's making good general sense. I'm puzzled as to why, instead of saying, hey, that's a good way of playing in the general sense, you are trying to argue that you can't play that way because of exceptions 1 through n.

I do play that way, and all the other GMs in my group (we have four at present and had five not that long ago) are at least as obscure. And we all enjoy gaming that way. So it is demonstrably an acceptable and successful way to play the game.

Yes, after a few swings an expeienced character will be pretty sure of the defenses of their opponent. Moving from 'they are lightly armored' to 'you are looking at AC13 tops' is pretty quick, as long as they hit or got close.

Yes, a character with a specific knowledge skill set _does_ get to figure things out. Likewise a character that hails from a particular region knows more about critters, flora and people from that region. But sometimes they don't have leisure to think about it. And it's not mandated that a GM force-feed them anything other than the obvious.

Calm down.

lunar2
2014-05-15, 08:06 PM
I'm with JediPotter. Fiery Diamond and VanIsleKnight, you are tending to argue against the general with the specific. JediPotter's making good general sense. I'm puzzled as to why, instead of saying, hey, that's a good way of playing in the general sense, you are trying to argue that you can't play that way because of exceptions 1 through n.

I do play that way, and all the other GMs in my group (we have four at present and had five not that long ago) are at least as obscure. And we all enjoy gaming that way. So it is demonstrably an acceptable and successful way to play the game.

Yes, after a few swings an expeienced character will be pretty sure of the defenses of their opponent. Moving from 'they are lightly armored' to 'you are looking at AC13 tops' is pretty quick, as long as they hit or got close.

Yes, a character with a specific knowledge skill set _does_ get to figure things out. Likewise a character that hails from a particular region knows more about critters, flora and people from that region. But sometimes they don't have leisure to think about it. And it's not mandated that a GM force-feed them anything other than the obvious.

Calm down.

the thing about jedipotter is that he won't let you have that information under any circumstances. if you roll, a 5, miss, and then roll a 6, and hit, so you take a -4 to hit for power attack, knowing you'll still hit on a 10, he just said in this thread he would change the AC because he thinks you're cheating by figuring out the numbers on your own.

he's said in various threads that successful knowledge checks give half remembered rumors that are, at best, incomplete, and at worst, flat out wrong. yes, he has said he actively gives his players wrong information for successful knowledge checks.

this isn't just about being vague about things the characters couldn't know, or wouldn't have time to recognize in the heat of battle. this is about actively preventing his players from having any information, and therefore any agency, about the world in which their characters live. it's railroading by keeping everything except the rails invisible.

Pex
2014-05-15, 08:58 PM
the thing about jedipotter is that he won't let you have that information under any circumstances. if you roll, a 5, miss, and then roll a 6, and hit, so you take a -4 to hit for power attack, knowing you'll still hit on a 10, he just said in this thread he would change the AC because he thinks you're cheating by figuring out the numbers on your own.

he's said in various threads that successful knowledge checks give half remembered rumors that are, at best, incomplete, and at worst, flat out wrong. yes, he has said he actively gives his players wrong information for successful knowledge checks.

this isn't just about being vague about things the characters couldn't know, or wouldn't have time to recognize in the heat of battle. this is about actively preventing his players from having any information, and therefore any agency, about the world in which their characters live. it's railroading by keeping everything except the rails invisible.

I facetiously call it a DM who hates his players. In this case it is a DM who just can't stand a player knowing something in character and acting on that information. (The other case is a DM who can't stand player characters being "powerful", which is not happening here.) It's his world and he'll be Hoovered if a mere player knows even 1% of what he knows.

TuggyNE
2014-05-15, 09:10 PM
No player ever knows the AC or DC of anything. They will know how good they are if they hit or not. At no time can they play the numbers and add exactly what they need to make a roll. They will only have a vague idea on how much resources to use. They might ''waste'' a +7, when they only need to roll higher then a 15 or load all up on a +10 when they need a 35.

I have no idea how your numbers add up here. :smallconfused:


They might notice the goblin is weird, but I'm not going to say ''it is a half-troll goblin''.

Even if, say, the character has studied trolls, half-trolls, goblins, and magical interbreeding. (No, there is no question mark here. It's not even a rhetorical question, just a resigned observation.)


I'm talking about auto-winning the encounter, not the game (but when you auto win each encounter, you do auto win the game). I find it boring and annoying to play like this:

DM: You see a monster.
Player: I roll my DM tell me everything check and get 25, so tell me everything.
DM: The monster is a Flarmor, it is vulnerable to cold.
Player: Woot Woot! I attack with cold
DM: One round latter the Flamor is dead. You loot the body.

OK, does "vulnerable to cold" mean "it automatically dies if you hit it with cold, Rakshasa-blessed-bolt style"? Because if so, that's a stupid monster and 3.x rightly removed almost all such ridiculous entries. Put another way, how long would it take them to kill it normally? Two rounds? Three? Still just one? How reliable is the normal killing method? How reliable is this specialized killing method? If there's a massive difference between the smart way to kill something and the normal way, players will notice this and try any reasonable (and some unreasonable) means of figuring out the smart way; this is perfectly normal and their characters would do the same thing, so that is, as far as it goes, decent roleplaying if not stellar. However, normally there should be no such massive difference; tactics should be influenced by knowledge of the monster's identity (which is just good sense for anyone in combat), but rarely completely dominated by it.

And, of course, how obvious is it to the characters that this is some sort of fire-based creature that would naturally be hurt a lot by cold damage? Is it a) blindingly obvious that the Flarmor's flaming armor skin would be put out by cone of cold; b) kind of obvious that the brilliant red flame-patterned skin of this creature and its love for fire-based attacks show a strong affinity for fire; or c) completely non-obvious that this green-and-blue creature with long rubbery white tentacles is immune to fire and vulnerable to cold, such that most characters would never find this out even by long trial and error. (Obviously, those are just examples along the spectrum, and others are possible.)



Here's something I dislike, which is totally based on real events I experienced:

DM: Your second-level characters see a couple of vaguely humanoid creatures with green skin, carrying battleaxes.
Player: OK, I call out, "Hail, warriors! Are your axes for us or against us?" in Orcish.
DM: Why Orcish? Are you metagaming? :smallmad:
Player: Um.... OK, what does my character know about these creatures? I got a 17.
DM: You think these are kobolds, which might speak either Elvish or Draconic, and get offended when anyone speaks to them in Orcish.
This is, of course, a completely made-up, rather exaggerated, and quite possibly unfair example. No one in the history of ever has actually said those exact words. (Or have they?) But it is pretty lame when this sort of thing happens. Even if it never does and no one in this thread would do that.

Kazyan
2014-05-16, 08:38 AM
Can we stop dogpiling jedipotter now? He has applicable ideas for this problem. Thanks.

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 09:06 AM
Can we stop dogpiling jedipotter now? He has applicable ideas for this problem. Thanks.

But can't you see how important it is to argue about the semantics of his specific examples rather than understand the obvious principles behind them!?! :smallmad:


Seriously though, I agree with and already use all five of his points. (Including the "in general" caveat for every one.) They are completely solid advice.

lunar2
2014-05-16, 12:39 PM
Can we stop dogpiling jedipotter now? He has applicable ideas for this problem. Thanks.

except he doesn't. you solve the problem of skeptical players by building trust with them. deliberately misleading your players, undermining their capabilities, and changing the numbers on the fly are not behaviors that will build trust with your players. it will, in fact, make them even more skeptical, if it doesn't drive them away completely. JP is of the "DMs roll dice because they like the sound" variety of DM, which is the worst thing you can be with a player who already has trust issues.

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 12:53 PM
JP is of the "DMs roll dice because they like the sound" variety of DM, which is the worst thing you can be with a player who already has trust issues.

You appear to be reading an alternate reality version of this thread.

Jay R
2014-05-16, 01:03 PM
I facetiously call it a DM who hates his players.

Once disagreeing with you is called hate, even "facetiously", the discussion is over.