Metagaming

[Matthew]

This is unfortunately not the case.

For those who have forgotten, D&D combat goes like this:

An "Attack" isn't an attack, it's an attack that has a chance to hit.
A "Hit" isn't a hit, it's a hit that causes damage.
"Damage" isn't damage, but a reduction in one's ability to avoid injury by skill, luck, magic, or divine favour.
One's ability to avoid injury by skill, luck, magic, or divine favour is restored by healing.
There's certainly some element of that at play. The exact result of any attack is subject to a great deal of interpretation because of the abstract nature of Hit Points and D&D; however, there is an observable difference between DR and AC, for the most part. When a huge number of Hit Points are involved, not so much, but there would still be a difference. In fact, AC and DR allow for more interpretation than AC alone.

There are instances where DR and AC may have the same observable effect in the game world, but that would be a result of interpretation of events. D&D combat goes more like this, to my mind:

An Attack is a Chance to Hit
A Hit is a Chance to Reduce Hit Points
A Reduction of Hit Points is open to interpretation (within the limits described in the PHB), but once a Character has 0 there are mechanical effects.

Counterspin: The only benefits to forcing Players to mechanically represent the knowledge of their Characters is that it defines what those Characters know and do not know. If a Character has sufficient Knowledge Ranks and Circumstance Bonuses to know something, he knows it. If not, he does not know it. It's up to the Player how to deal with that.
If you don't use Knowledge Checks, then you simply decide what they know and do not know without reference to the mechanical representation of that knowledge. That was what happened in (A)D&D without the Proficiency system. The way I see it, it's logical to use one method or another, but not to half arse things, as that just muddies the waters.

[Tormsskull]

Again, just to see if there's anyone doing anything other than sniping back and forth, what are the benefits of requiring knowledge rolls for rudimentary resistances in these situations, rather than allowing the party's equipment to restrict their options when encountering a resistant creature?

But when you say rudimentary, you have to understand that it won't always be so. If in my game world there are only 10 trolls in the country, none of which any humans are likely to encounter, then it doesn't seem too odd to restrict knowledge of a troll's weakness' to characters who have invested ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill.

Even more important than that, however, is that the players understand a clear division between player knowledge and character knowledge. In my games it is important that players realize that, because I want the player and the character to be 2 separate entities.

Just as it wouldn't be fair to say "Your character doesn't know how to fight with a greatsword because you the player don't either" it isn't fair that the character knows something automatically because the player does.

[lord_khaine]

[QUOTE]A sonic is about as easy to come across acid, and cold isn't that hard to come across, and that variant does have a +1 CR over regular trolls because... well... they don't make frost torches. Also what my party did WAS drown that troll, they lured him toward a pit that they bipassed earlier and shoved him in it cause they were having troubles. I rewarded them with 1.5 times the XP. I think that kind of ingenuity is awesome./QUOTE]

sonic really isnt half as easy to get your hands on as acid, to start with you can buy the stuff from most alchemists, and who cares about acid as long as you can just light a fire and burn the bugger?

still smart players, though if they had been really smart they had instead cut the troll down and put his head in a bucket of water :P

anyway my take on the metagaming issue, is that there should be found a line betveen common knowledge like use a magic weapon against ghosts, burn trolls and use silver against werecreatures, that any profesional adventure should know.
and more exotic knowledge like use a Holy piercing weapon against Rakasha, or a magic blunt weapon against liches, where it would proberly require some actual knowledge roll to know that.

personaly i have been forced to metagame a lot myself, simply because one of my favorite gm's had a habbit of sometimes placing encounters we wouldnt have a chance of surviving in our path.
we were lv 12-13 at that time, and had allready killed both big and magical things, so the only thing that saved us from the occational TPK was that we had a rough idea of the challenge rating of our opponents.

[Counterspin]

Anyway, I suppose I'll define metagaming, in this case, as sitting there with an open MM. What will I get out of preventing my players from metagaming in this way? I function under the presumption that all my players have read the MM, and it just doesn't bother me.

Again, what do I get out of working to prevent my players from metagaming as strictly defined above?

[Matthew]

Anyway, I suppose I'll define metagaming, in this case, as sitting there with an open MM. What will I get out of preventing my players from metagaming in this way? I function under the presumption that all my players have read the MM, and it just doesn't bother me.

Again, what do I get out of working to prevent my players from metagaming as strictly defined above?
You don't get anything out of it. I, however, get plenty out of it, since none of them are allowed access to my MM, nor do they have any reason to look inside it (or desire as far as I am aware). Any Meta Game knowledge they use has been imparted through play (and that is kept to a minimum).

To be honest, very few of them were even acquainted with the game last time I ran a long term campaign and their lack of knowledge about the game did not hinder anything at all (this was a heavily modified (A)D&D game mind). Player's don't need much knowledge of the game to play or succeed (certainly nothing outaside of the PHB).

[Counterspin]

How do you get metagaming with knowledge gained through play? Isn't information gained through play the exact opposite of metagaming? My own fault for trying to introduce a hard definition of metagaming this late in the thread, I suppose.

[Matthew]

Well, for instance, if they have learned some aspect of the rules through play that was just part of discussion. If I happened to give an example of DR because it was necessary at the time and gave an example of a Troll or if they played an Adventure where they learned Trolls were prone to certain damage types, then played another Adventure with different Characters and encountered a Troll.

For the record, the definition of Meta Gaming for the purposes of this Thread seems to be 'acting on any out of character knowledge' (which is not a definition I agree with, I hasten to add).

[Counterspin]

I'll try to rephrase my question again. One side of this discussion, including you, Matthew, seems to be advocating a strict separation of in and out of game knowledge, using knowledge checks to give the players information their characters "should" know. The other side, including me, mostly forgoes the checks, and use the player's presumed knowledge as a base, with maybe a few knowledge checks for tricky or really in depth stuff.(what are a yugoloth's spell like abilities?) I want to know what makes the "low info" technique attractive to those of you who use it.

[Skjaldbakka]

If I had been a new player fighting trolls for the first time, I would have been incredibly pissed at the experienced player who started spouting off what trolls do, and would have told him to stow it.

However, I grew up gaming, so that would have been highly unlikely anyway.

My primary gaming group consists of people that have DM'ed games before, and as such, they understand where the lines are.


I personally think that the knowledlge skills are messed up royally, although I like having them.

ex.

:roy: What is this small red lizard with wing-like protrusions?

:vaarsuvius: That is no mere lizard. This creature is a red dragon, in the wyrmling phase. It is immune to fire, can spew flames, and when it is older it will grow to be collosal in stature, resistant to spells, and require magic weapons to hurt. Indeed this creature is -

:belkar: *STAB* Oh yeah! Who's da halfling! I'm da halfling! I just killed a dragon. Oh yeah!

DM: A shadow passes overhead, blocking out the sun, and you feel a hot breath as you look up and see a collosal beast with dark red scales, huge wings, with teeth like swords, claws like spears, its scales like a 1000-

:roy:'s player: Yeah, yeah, what is it?

DM: Make a knowledge arcana check, DC 55.

:vaarsuvius: I have no idea what that is.

EDIT- :vaarsuvius: But it seems to have 40 hit dice.

[Matthew]

I'll try to rephrase my question again. One side of this discussion, including you, Matthew, seems to be advocating a strict separation of in and out of game knowledge, using knowledge checks to give the players information their characters "should" know. The other side, including me, mostly forgoes the checks, and use the player's presumed knowledge as a base, with maybe a few knowledge checks for tricky or really in depth stuff.(what are a yugoloth's spell like abilities?) I want to know what makes the "low info" technique attractive to those of you who use it.
There is no strict separation of 'in game' and 'out of game' knowledge, there's always going to be overlap. there is a distinction between 'out of game knowledge that a Player Character is expected to act upon and out of game knowledge a Player Character is not expected to act upon.

Things that Player Characters are expected to act upon are things that are covered by Knowledge Checks with the appropriate Circumstance Modifiers, but you don't necessarily have to roll [i.e. 'take 10'].

If I know that knowledge of Troll Damage Reduction is DC 15 and no Characters have Knowledge (trolls/whatever) 5 Ranks or the equivalent, they do not know about Troll damage Reduction. If, however, the characters have learnt about Troll Damage Reduction in game, then there would be a Circumstance Penalty to the DC, bringing it down to the appropriate level (i.e. 0, because they know it). This isn't RAW, but it's more or less how I do it.

There's nothing attractive about it, but consistancy within the rules set. If a Player asks me 'does Berec the Bold know X?', we can get an answer simply and consistantly.

[Counterspin]

Alright, consistency within the rules set. I think the Knowledge rules are one of the worst parts of the 3.5 rules, so I'm not hugely swayed. Consticency within a bad ruleset is consistently bad, after all :smallwink: . Anything else?

[SITB]

ex.

:roy: What is this small red lizard with wing-like protrusions?

:vaarsuvius: That is no mere lizard. This creature is a red dragon, in the wyrmling phase. It is immune to fire, can spew flames, and when it is older it will grow to be collosal in stature, resistant to spells, and require magic weapons to hurt. Indeed this creature is -

:belkar: *STAB* Oh yeah! Who's da halfling! I'm da halfling! I just killed a dragon. Oh yeah!

DM: A shadow passes overhead, blocking out the sun, and you feel a hot breath as you look up and see a collosal beast with dark red scales, huge wings, with teeth like swords, claws like spears, its scales like a 1000-

:roy:'s player: Yeah, yeah, what is it?

DM: Make a knowledge arcana check, DC 55.

:vaarsuvius: I have no idea what that is.

EDIT- :vaarsuvius: But it seems to have 40 hit dice.

Because This One Made Us Smile

One thing that's always bugged me concerns the Knowledge skill. From the SRD:

"In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."

Evidently, the tougher a monster, the more difficult it is to identify! I can just see it now, applied to the real world:

—"That? That's a species of butterfly, Anartia amathea. And that's clearly Goliathus scarabaeidae, a type of dung beetle."
—"Hmmm. And what's that large... thing, over there?"
—"I... I don't know, it's just... too big for me to identify. Could be a bear, maybe, or a whale. No way to tell. We'd better summon the head of the faculty, I hear he can identify bears, sometimes, if they're small enough."

Other amusing consequences of this rule:

—No one, no one can identify the Tarrasque. Maybe a sagely demi-god could, but certainly no mere mortal.
—Dragons start off fairly easy to identify when they're born, but they quickly start contorting themselves into weird, non-Euclidian shapes as they age.



Taken from here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060414a)

[Matthew]

Nothing I can think of; the Skill System in D&D is very weak, so it's no surprise. All the same, consistancy is very attractive. I like being having guidelines to answer questions like "What does Adriana know about Ogres?" That's all they are, though, guidelines same as everything in D&D. The benefits for Player Characters not acquainted with the game are much higher than for those who are familiar, I think.

[Tormsskull]

Alright, consistency within the rules set. I think the Knowledge rules are one of the worst parts of the 3.5 rules, so I'm not hugely swayed. Consticency within a bad ruleset is consistently bad, after all :smallwink: . Anything else?

I can tell you a reason I do it. It helps to stabilize the power level between veteran players and rookies. If a character run by a veteran is allowed to use all of the knowledge he has amassed through his RPing career he has the very real potential to outshine the rookies on a regular basis, making the new players feel unneeded.

Edit: V Sort of. By that I mean when the party walks into the forest and I describe that there is blah blah blah and a section of blue-tinged grass, and the rogue (veteran player) shouts "Watch out for that blue section of grass, its probably grab grass." And the Elven Druid (rookie player) is sitting their with his d20 in his hand about to roll his Knowledge (Nature) check.

It can completely invalidate the rookie's skills.

[Counterspin]

Matthew : I still use a skill check for that, but I don't force one if I see a player lighting a troll on fire.

Tormsskull : Do you have situations where the players don't share that information?

[Matthew]

Matthew : I still use a skill check for that, but I don't force one if I see a player lighting a troll on fire.
Neither would I, but I do expect Players to play to Character. If they have some valid excuse for doing so beyond, "...uh, my Character knows Trolls are vulnerable to fire [when that is not true]" then what problem is there? If the excuse is unreasonable, then it harms suspension of disbelief, if it is reasonable, it probably adds to it.

If you find metagaming adds fun to your game, I have no problem with it. Generally speaking, it doesn't add anything to mine (though it could if done right).

[valadil]

So why is it that PCs are these uber-competent, massively experienced, battle hardened grognards when they're trying to distinguish between two effects which are, in character, completely identical, but if you dare suggest that somebody who has spent "their entire life hacking through things" might know the weaknesses of a troll ... well perish the though.

I think its perfectly reasonably for a seasoned fighter to know the weaknesses of a troll. A level one commoner, not so much but I'd at least let them roll. Living in a world where trolls exist and occasionally attack villages is reason enough that you may have heard how to defeat them. Heck, we all know how to kill trolls and they don't even exist in this world.

Metagaming gets problematic with things that the character shouldn't know. Your seasoned fighter may not know what an Achaierai (first random MM monster I didn't recognize is) just by virtue of being a seasoned fighter. Just because some player in the group read the MM isn't reason enough for all the characters to know what one of these things is and how to fight it.

What about a player who sees a DM's notes by accident. It doesn't even matter if its by accident or not. But lets just say that the player catches a glimpse of the correct path through a dungeon and has the knowledge to avoid a few fights and still get the hidden treasure. I think we'd all agree that it would be wrong for that player to use that knowledge. I don't see how this is any different from a player using knowledge from the MM without figuring out whether or not his character would have access to said knowledge.

[barawn]

I personally think that the knowledlge skills are messed up royally, although I like having them.

I couldn't agree more. Knowledge DCs should always be DM's choice. That way he can decide the relative commonality of each monster, regardless of how strong/weak it is.

Which, I think, is important. Some worlds have trolls be very common. Others, they might only be seen every few decades. Heck, my world doesn't have cows, so the Knowledge check would be really high.

As a simple fix, though, Knowledge DCs should always use the lowest DC for any creature which advances (Dragons, normal advancement, etc.), although meeting only the lower DC means you only know the normal (or young) statistics.

[barawn]

I think its perfectly reasonably for a seasoned fighter to know the weaknesses of a troll. A level one commoner, not so much but I'd at least let them roll. Living in a world where trolls exist and occasionally attack villages is reason enough that you may have heard how to defeat them. Heck, we all know how to kill trolls and they don't even exist in this world.

What makes you think that trolls attack villages? How do you know that trolls aren't a civilized race who just have a very bad reputation?

:smallbiggrin:

Seriously, my one point is that metagaming removes the ability of the DM to control his/her world, and that is always bad. If the character has encountered trolls before, that's one thing. But to presuppose that trolls are common in the DM's setting because they're common in D&D is just wrong.

[GoblinJTHM]

maybe you should by that book about critters in the adventurers shop or at the bar and the DM can make a list of whats common and whats not.

[Counterspin]

Characters knowing about a monster's capabilities doesn't inherently make them more common, so I fail to see how a GM loses control.

[GoblinJTHM]

why doesn't the GM just decide based on the rarity of the creature how much general weakness lore about said creature the party may inherently know from being denizens of said realm all their life, and then make them knowledge check anything not included at reasonable DC

[PlatinumJester]

Because a DM can't decide anything about a PC. Anyway, how many players have memorised the weakness of every monster form every book. Just limit their access to the MM during sessions.

[Wulfram]

I get stuck watching the tennis, and naturally lots of people make similar points to what I wanted to, but I suppose that just shows how right we are.

The main cause of this is the Knowledge skills not making a lot of sense. Adventurers really should be investing in Knowledge: Practical Adventuring, or perhaps Knowledge: Things that want to eat me, which covers "Use Acid against trolls", "Use Magic Weapons against Incorporeal Undead" and "Dragons: Colour coded for your convenience", but instead this useful information is all in seperate categories. You can see why they did this, since otherwise some areas might feel a little useless, but considering how few skill points you get anyway, it makes it pretty difficult for people to know as much as they should.

Personally, I'd be inclined to give characters a bunch of "hobby" skill points (perhaps 1+int mod, though the Wizard might get a bit omniscient that way) for the less mechanically useful skills like Knowledge (or profession, craft and perform). In addition to helping your players give their characters character without compromising on capability, it means they won't have much excuse if none of them picked up some points in Knowledge:Nature

[barawn]

Characters knowing about a monster's capabilities doesn't inherently make them more common, so I fail to see how a GM loses control.

The only way you can justify a character knowing something about a monster is either having studied it (i.e. a Knowledge check, or a prewritten backstory) or having encountered it before.

If everyone recognizes a troll, and tries to justify it by saying "well, I've heard about them," that means they're common.


why doesn't the GM just decide based on the rarity of the creature how much general weakness lore about said creature the party may inherently know from being denizens of said realm all their life, and then make them knowledge check anything not included at reasonable DC

That's my opinion, as well.


Because a DM can't decide anything about a PC.

Yeah, I don't agree there at all. It's the DM's world. The PC has to fit into it, not vice versa.

[PlatinumJester]

Why don't PCs do the obvious thing and just attack randomly until something works well. Whether it's an orc or some unknown creature, if you hit it enough times it will fall eventually.

Or

The DM could just say that a PC only knows the abilities etc of a creature with the same CR as the PC's level.

[Dausuul]

For me, the problem is that there's not really any clear method to determine what a character knows or doesn't know about a particular beastie.

Case in point: In an extremely high-level campaign I'm playing in, my sorceror recently went up against several balors. Being rather fond of balors, I (as a player) happen to know their stats chapter and verse. I know their AC. I know how much DR they have, and I know that overcoming it requires cold iron and good. I know they're immune to fire, lightning, and poison. I know all their spell-like abilities.

Which leads to the question: How much of that information would a sorceror with Knowledge (Planar) in the upper 20s have available? Balors are, after all, the big boss demons of the Abyss, discounting the more exotic stuff from the Fiendish Codex. They're the sort of thing apprentice conjurers whisper about at night. On the other hand, very very few people ever fight a balor and live to tell about it. So how much does my character know? The rules give no clue.

To some extent, of course, he can guess purely based on appearance. The balors are on fire, so they're probably fire immune. My sorceror is fond of summoning demons to fight for him, so he's surely noticed their racial immunity to lightning and poison, not to mention their DR/cold iron and their teleportation at will. But what about their spell-like abilities? The fact that they explode when they die? The fact that Fortitude is their best save? Their Hit Dice? All of this is useful information, but how much of it can I use?

[Dan_Hemmens]

The only way you can justify a character knowing something about a monster is either having studied it (i.e. a Knowledge check, or a prewritten backstory) or having encountered it before.

If everyone recognizes a troll, and tries to justify it by saying "well, I've heard about them," that means they're common.

How many people in medieval europe had heard of the devil?

How many of him were there?


Yeah, I don't agree there at all. It's the DM's world. The PC has to fit into it, not vice versa.

Which neatly explains why you get so many games where the players don't care about the world, and the GM doesn't care about the PCs.

[GoblinJTHM]

For me, the problem is that there's not really any clear method to determine what a character knows or doesn't know about a particular beastie.

Case in point: In an extremely high-level campaign I'm playing in, my sorceror recently went up against several balors. Being rather fond of balors, I (as a player) happen to know their stats chapter and verse. I know their AC. I know how much DR they have, and I know that overcoming it requires cold iron and good. I know they're immune to fire, lightning, and poison. I know all their spell-like abilities.

Which leads to the question: How much of that information would a sorceror with Knowledge (Planar) in the upper 20s have available? Balors are, after all, the big boss demons of the Abyss, discounting the more exotic stuff from the Fiendish Codex. They're the sort of thing apprentice conjurers whisper about at night. On the other hand, very very few people ever fight a balor and live to tell about it. So how much does my character know? The rules give no clue.

To some extent, of course, he can guess purely based on appearance. The balors are on fire, so they're probably fire immune. My sorceror is fond of summoning demons to fight for him, so he's surely noticed their racial immunity to lightning and poison, not to mention their DR/cold iron and their teleportation at will. But what about their spell-like abilities? The fact that they explode when they die? The fact that Fortitude is their best save? Their Hit Dice? All of this is useful information, but how much of it can I use?

backstory you had a book about baelors when you we're little and consider what you could derive from that.

[PlatinumJester]

[Scrubbed]

Wraithy: next session you play with this group, get your Wizard to sit you down and explain the entire Spell Compendium to you in character. Seriously.

Only just found this but hell no I ain't doing this.

[Dan_Hemmens]

backstory you had a book about baelors when you we're little and consider what you could derive from that.

When you were little?

Like, The Velveteen Balor or something?

[barawn]

But what about their spell-like abilities? The fact that they explode when they die? The fact that Fortitude is their best save? Their Hit Dice? All of this is useful information, but how much of it can I use?

1) I doubt your character would know they explode when they die. Thing is, balors don't die often, and when they do, they probably kill whoever attacked them.

2) Fort save? Absolutely. All demons have a strong constitution. That your character would assume, given general knowledge regarding demons. In fact, you might assume that Ref and Will are lower than they are, considering the Fort save on a Balor is only 3 over Ref and Will, unlike the other demons. (Demons all have a best Fort save).

3) Hit dice? You'd know they're stronger than anything you've faced. So you can probably guess pretty close. For mechanics, I'd assume you know it.

4) SLAs: that's what you'd get from a Knowledge check, in my mind.

[GoblinJTHM]

Like uh, some bards story of eleminster in the underworld. It's not like you're adventuring at 12 years old usually.

I felt like the fact they're a main daemon of the underworld would make this occourance more likely.

Plus is hypothetical. But yes, even a childrens book about a Baelor would probably give you a fair amount of information about them, no? Cold steel/fire/DR/daemonic minions/what they look like etc (should it actually be accurate and not done in stick figures).

But the idea is, if you had read a book that had a Baelor in it in an IC sense, what would you have learned from it?

[Raum]

Yeah, I don't agree there at all. It's the DM's world. The PC has to fit into it, not vice versa.I suspect this attitude is a major source of the differences in opinion. Frankly, if it's purely the DMs world, he should write a book. Games depend on interaction.

[barawn]

I suspect this attitude is a major source of the differences in opinion. Frankly, if it's purely the DMs world, he should write a book. Games depend on interaction.

It's the DM's world.

It's the PC's story.

[Dan_Hemmens]

It's the DM's world.

It's the PC's story.

You keep throwing the word "story" around, but I honestly don't think you've given a second's thought to what it actually means.

So far you've defined a "good story" as "one in which the behaviour of the characters is consistent with the skills they wrote on their character sheets".

A good story is about real, believable characters who are at the heart of a conflict which drives a narrative.

If it's my PC's story, then I want to be able to decide whether my PC kills the troll, I want to be able to decide *how* my PC kills the troll, and I want the encounter with the troll to have some kind of function within my character's arc.

[Dausuul]

1) I doubt your character would know they explode when they die. Thing is, balors don't die often, and when they do, they probably kill whoever attacked them.

2) Fort save? Absolutely. All demons have a strong constitution. That your character would assume, given general knowledge regarding demons. In fact, you might assume that Ref and Will are lower than they are, considering the Fort save on a Balor is only 3 over Ref and Will, unlike the other demons. (Demons all have a best Fort save).

3) Hit dice? You'd know they're stronger than anything you've faced. So you can probably guess pretty close. For mechanics, I'd assume you know it.

4) SLAs: that's what you'd get from a Knowledge check, in my mind.

Again, though... what's the DC on that Knowledge check? And how many SLAs do I know about?

Moreover, the rarity of a monster does not necessarily determine how available information about it is. It only takes one person to fight a balor and live, then write a book that gets copied and read across the world. My character could do it; after battling four of the things, I've seen most of their SLAs, I've seen them explode on death, et cetera. Presumably I am not the only person in history to have done this.


backstory you had a book about baelors when you we're little and consider what you could derive from that.

But there's no such book in my backstory. No DM is going to let me say, upon meeting a balor, "Oh, uh, yeah, I read a book about balors when I was a kid, so I know all about them."

And I'm going to have the same questions about any monster I meet. Do I know that solars get wish as an SLA once per day? How about those slaying arrows of theirs, do I know about those? What about the SLAs of a great red wyrm?

[Counterspin]

Yeah, it strikes me that the the really big CR stuff is the most likely to be easy to research. When one of those great wyrm force dragons goes strolling through town, history sits up and takes notice. Presuming that the monster in question exists in your home plane at all, of course.

[Jasdoif]

I don't see how you can penalize players for using OOC-knowledge, without penalizing players for not using OOC-knowledge in the same situation.

Suppose a character decides to use fireball on a troll, despite not knowing (via Knowledge check) that trolls don't regenerate from fire damage. Is the DM supposed to deny this action? What if the character, or player for that matter, legitimately doesn't know one way or the other?

The DM denying an action because it would work is as much metagaming as a player using knowledge from a monster manual to overcome a character's poor skill ranks--except that it doesn't matter why the player choose the action. Trial-and-error becomes an impossibility in the game. Out of the game it's a different story; the DM denying the action alone proves that it would work if it were allowed.


Making your own creatures that don't appear in any monster manual is the only fair way I can think of to negate the use of OOC knowledge. But really, is it such a problem to allow characters to know basic monster weaknesses (with the exception of plot-specific creatures)? Your players shouldn't be forced to reroll characters simply because their characters "don't remember" if a frost giant is weak to fire or not.


While it'd be nice if you could positively ensure that the PCs only act on the knowledge available to them as characters, there's no way to be sure exactly what they know and don't know, short of requiring in-depth and exhaustive biographies of each and every character. And even with such excessive information (that you'd have to read in their entirety to be sure of), why wouldn't such a PC be allowed to simply make a lucky guess, or use trial-and-error to determine an effective attack? It's simply not worth the hassle (and risk of penalizing someone who's done nothing wrong) to try to enforce.

Remember, D&D is a game, not a novel. The DM should not have utterly perfect control of absolutely everything the PCs know and do; that's why there are players. If you do have such total control, then you're writing a story, and the players are really unnecessary, as is the "game" behind it all.

[Diggorian]

Again, though... what's the DC on that Knowledge check?

Moreover, the rarity of a monster does not necessarily determine how available information about it is. It only takes one person to fight a balor and live, then write a book that gets copied and read across the world. My character could do it; after battling four of the things, I've seen most of their SLAs, I've seen them explode on death, et cetera. Presumably I am not the only person in history to have done this.

Really the DC would vary because of the world you're in, therefore it's up to the DM. Not a satisfying answer but I think the most accurate.

If your sorcerer is from a world where there's one or several Hogwarts-like schools with Epic level faculty that teach Abyss 502, the Knowledge DC should slide down some. If he's the one of the very few high level characters to live during this age of the world, it maybe around the DC 30 the RAW recommends.

With Knowledge Planes modifier in the 20's it's attainable. I'd limit info known to clearly observable traits and abilities, but others may give ya more if not just let ya use full player knowledge.

[Matthew]

Don't they provide DCs for Knowledge checks now? I have a feeling they do in the later Monster Manuals... Greyhawk probably has some set DCs.

[Diggorian]

I dont see them in MM3, that's the highest I've got. They'd likely go with DC = 10 +HD in RAW if they do in later books.

[Winterwind]

I found this discussion interesting enough to break my habit of just lurking in the forums and finally registered.

So, I find many of the arguments brought forth by the pro-metagaming faction quite compelling - since the main goal for a roleplaying group is, after all, that all participants have fun some minor slips in terms of IC/OOC-knowledge might be allowed for.
On the other hand, I wondered what you would say about these cases of metagaming:

1) The adventurers are staying overnight at the house of an elderly woman who was friendly enough to invite them in. While the rest of the adventurers stays downstairs, eating and chatting with the woman, one of them goes off wandering through the house, and stumbles upon evidence that the woman is actually an evil sorceress. However, he gets attacked and is unable to warn the others. Meanwhile, the others are still talking with the old woman and have no reason to suspect anything might be awry.
Now, if metagaming were allowed, the adventurers would immediately attack the sorceress, in spite of not having any reason whatsoever to do so. One might argue that the DM should have taken the player whose character went off into another room, so the other players cannot know about his discovery. But I (as GM) chose specifically not to do so, in order to create a more suspenseful moment for the group - they now know they are in danger and start growing nervous, creating just the fear of what might come upon them any minute I desired (and, since it's the GM's job to create the appropriate atmosphere, was obliged to create).
Metagaming would have entirely ruined the moment and lead to absolutely nonsensical results.

2) Let's say there were some kind of monster with a secret true name, which was required to defeat it (or, at least, make defeating it significantly easier). This monster would be the declared arch-enemy of the group and the goal of the entire campaign would be to, somehow, find out said name and send the monster back into the abyss it came from.
If mixing OOC/IC-knowledge is desirable, doesn't that mean the players should be encouraged to try to get a look into the GM's notes, in which this name would be written, thus easily besting the monster without need for making a long and dangerous quest to find its name out?
This is also, basically, my answer to what is to be gained by the players not knowing that trolls/anyothermonster should be battled with fire/acid/whatsoever. Now, I admit D&D is not actually amongst the RPGs I usually play, but still I can't really believe a battle would be restricted to either using OOC-knowledge, or keeping hitting the monster with something utterly ineffective (and dying), or running away. In games I play quite a lot of turns are spent on non-attack-activities - trying to make the environment work against the monster (is there anything we can make fall upon the monster in order to crush or trap it?), trying to wear the beast down (maybe including jumping onto and clinging to its back), looking for any hints what a weakpoint of the monster might be, etc. Or running away, but only to gain more info about the monster and come back. Where gaining the info, of course, is an opportunity for conversation and roleplaying. Who knows what rumours and tales the old shaman in the neighbouring village might know which might prove useful?
It boils down to: finding out the monster's weakpoint or finding a way to defeat it without knowing it allows for a lot of suspenseful moments (if one does not reduce a fight to mere attack rolls), which all would be skipped by the characters using OOC-knowledge.

[GoblinJTHM]

I don't see how you can penalize players for using OOC-knowledge, without penalizing players for not using OOC-knowledge in the same situation.

Suppose a character decides to use fireball on a troll, despite not knowing (via Knowledge check) that trolls don't regenerate from fire damage. Is the DM supposed to deny this action? What if the character, or player for that matter, legitimately doesn't know one way or the other?

The DM denying an action because it would work is as much metagaming as a player using knowledge from a monster manual to overcome a character's poor skill ranks--except that it doesn't matter why the player choose the action. Trial-and-error becomes an impossibility in the game. Out of the game it's a different story; the DM denying the action alone proves that it would work if it were allowed.


Making your own creatures that don't appear in any monster manual is the only fair way I can think of to negate the use of OOC knowledge. But really, is it such a problem to allow characters to know basic monster weaknesses (with the exception of plot-specific creatures)? Your players shouldn't be forced to reroll characters simply because their characters "don't remember" if a frost giant is weak to fire or not.


While it'd be nice if you could positively ensure that the PCs only act on the knowledge available to them as characters, there's no way to be sure exactly what they know and don't know, short of requiring in-depth and exhaustive biographies of each and every character. And even with such excessive information (that you'd have to read in their entirety to be sure of), why wouldn't such a PC be allowed to simply make a lucky guess, or use trial-and-error to determine an effective attack? It's simply not worth the hassle (and risk of penalizing someone who's done nothing wrong) to try to enforce.

Remember, D&D is a game, not a novel. The DM should not have utterly perfect control of absolutely everything the PCs know and do; that's why there are players. If you do have such total control, then you're writing a story, and the players are really unnecessary, as is the "game" behind it all.

Wow, I'm not sure if I could put that any better myself.

[Raum]

It's the DM's world.

It's the PC's story.Your second statement invalidates the first. In order for it to me the PCs' story they have to act on and interact with the world. Removing that interaction means you aren't gaming anymore. You're simply inserting a PC into a static world. And, from the sound of the posts, the PC had better change to fit.

In a true game neither the world nor the PCs are static. Both act and are acted upon by the other. Without that interaction you may as well play solitaire.

[GoblinJTHM]

Don't they provide DCs for Knowledge checks now? I have a feeling they do in the later Monster Manuals... Greyhawk probably has some set DCs.

the WotC website posted some examples as a guide for how to write your own, I think it's what they're expecting of you. :smalltongue:

[He_Who_Smells]

You keep throwing the word "story" around, but I honestly don't think you've given a second's thought to what it actually means.

So far you've defined a "good story" as "one in which the behaviour of the characters is consistent with the skills they wrote on their character sheets".

A good story is about real, believable characters who are at the heart of a conflict which drives a narrative.

If it's my PC's story, then I want to be able to decide whether my PC kills the troll, I want to be able to decide *how* my PC kills the troll, and I want the encounter with the troll to have some kind of function within my character's arc.

Dan it sounds like your not actually playing D&D. It sounds like you making a story up using D&D minatures but not actually rolling for attacks and stuff.

You can't just say oh I kill the troll by slicing it's head off with my Greatsword which has just magically appeared in my bag. Now I take on an army of bandits and kill them all using my banana which I enchanted to be able to blow people up.

Thats not D&D. And D&D is a role-playing game, where the DM and how you role the dice make up the story, not you.

[Raum]

Thats not D&D. And D&D is a role-playing game, where the DM and how you role the dice make up the story, not you.You missed an important part of creating a story in D&D - the PCs' decisions and actions. It should be a combination of DM, PCs, and chance creating the story. If it's just the DM and chance, you don't really need PCs. At that point they're just a die rolling audience.

[Arbitrarity]

You remind me of the brother of one of my friends...

"D&D is a game where you kill stuff! Let's kill some stuff!"

You're limiting the genre of the roleplaying game, and the inherent supposed design flexibility of D&D. In claiming that your ability to complete actions requires dice rolling, you imply that the entire purpose of the game is to randomnly generate results.

It's not. The point, as a roleplaying GAME is to have fun. My sister and I once played freeform RP for a few days. We had a blast.

I claim that D&D is not D&D. It is actually a pale imitation of what it should be.

EDIT: Apologies for a lack of clairity. I meant the last line to be a parody on the last statement of the poster two posts up. Clearly, it was ill-concieved and misinterpreted.

[Callix]

While D&D does not have to epitomise the role-playing genre, and freeforms can be a lot of fun, that is not really what the thread is about.

Metagaming is problematic when it either cheapens the encounter too much, or breaks suspension of disbelief. If a player reciting the MM stats allows for the party to execute insta-kills, there's a problem. (Rakshasa have to be the classic example. They have a no-save-die weakness that is ridiculously unlikely to come about by chance. Or at least they used to.) When the paladin puts Bless Weapon on the rogue's ammunition, they aren't using resourdes efficiently most of the time. In this case, they are actually being spectacularly efficient, and making the encounter no challenge whatsoever. On the other hand, if the PCs have spent a week looking for ways to defeat the rakshasa posing as the King's trusted adviser, then the blessed crossbow bolt becomes a hard-earned solution to a sticky problem. If the paladin's player just remebers the MM entry, then this is problematic metagaming.

Put simply, if the only other option was all the players EXCEPT the one being stupid dying, I wouldn't stand back and let it happen. The bandits take the wizard down before he can complete his insane plan. Or at least disrupt his concentration. As a last-ditch attempt, let the players run, and hope they are really annoyed.

Just my 2c.

[barawn]

Presumably I am not the only person in history to have done this.

Nono. You pretty much are. Once you get to near-epic and epic, the number of people at that point in the world is basically zero. The fact that as players there's more than one is immaterial.

As for the DC, well, again, that's the DM's call. I hate the Knowledge checks in the DMG, but DC 35-40 isn't that bad.

The other question to ask is "how am I preparing for this?" Does a Balor pop out of nowhere, and you're forced to instantly remember, or are you actively researching about them? If so, that's a multitude of circumstance modifiers that your DM should give you.

On a personal note, I hate the fact that Knowledge doesn't allow you to take 20, which is crap. If you've got access to a library, you absolutely should be able to take 20. If it's a great library, you should be getting hefty bonuses, too.

[KoDT69]

do you have a problem with playing a fair game or something, all i said was that they had no experiance with this wizard and his spells, which was not in their backstory or their experiances over the last sessions.

Dude, regardless of how they stated their actions, there are a lot of obvious reasons for them to run like hell.
#1 - In the "Actions in Combat" section of the SRD and PHB, it clearly states talking is a FREE ACTION. Like it or not, if you took the time to detail every second in RP fashion, the Wizard in all his omnipotence would have yelled for them to move it or lose it.
#2 - A smart Wizard never jumps into the middle of melee unless he/she plans to unleash a hellish area affect centered on themselves aka "ground zero".
#3 - In their downtime in the beginning of the adventure the Wizard made it known to get the hell outta the way if he ever charges into a mob. There could be manymore but I don't know your group, or their characters. I see no point in penalizing them for not RP'ing the whole sequence. The game runs much smoother when certain metagaming just slides. Even a commoner can tell not to use a sword on a skeleton, or you gotta burn a troll to kill it. What else do commoners do in your campaigns other than live a life of work and passing along stories of heroes and their exploits? Tis how the whole "fame and glory" thing works for your higher level characters right?

[Matthew]

the WotC website posted some examples as a guide for how to write your own, I think it's what they're expecting of you. :smalltongue:
Bummer. I know I saw something similar on the Website about Warblades. It's not really that difficult to come up with an approximate system anyway, or is it?

[GoblinJTHM]

Dude, regardless of how they stated their actions, there are a lot of obvious reasons for them to run like hell.
#1 - In the "Actions in Combat" section of the SRD and PHB, it clearly states talking is a FREE ACTION. Like it or not, if you took the time to detail every second in RP fashion, the Wizard in all his omnipotence would have yelled for them to move it or lose it.
#2 - A smart Wizard never jumps into the middle of melee unless he/she plans to unleash a hellish area affect centered on themselves aka "ground zero".
#3 - In their downtime in the beginning of the adventure the Wizard made it known to get the hell outta the way if he ever charges into a mob. There could be manymore but I don't know your group, or their characters. I see no point in penalizing them for not RP'ing the whole sequence. The game runs much smoother when certain metagaming just slides. Even a commoner can tell not to use a sword on a skeleton, or you gotta burn a troll to kill it. What else do commoners do in your campaigns other than live a life of work and passing along stories of heroes and their exploits? Tis how the whole "fame and glory" thing works for your higher level characters right?

my #4 - I don't see how you can deny PCs the ability to perceive a threat and flee from it, and the existence of this threat they perceived was solidified when the mage case something that could have outright killed party members. Would they still have ran if they didn't hear the player at the table say 'Im casting polka dance of dewm j00'? I think so


Bummer. I know I saw something similar on the Website about Warblades. It's not really that difficult to come up with an approximate system anyway, or is it?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20060915a

Thats article 2 of 16. There a little link thingie on the left side at the bottom and you should be able to navigate to the other articles titled similarly without too much work by clicking the (more) button.

[Delaney Gale]

Thats not D&D. And D&D is a role-playing game, where the DM and how you role the dice make up the story, not you.

It seems that you're playing in a "roll" playing game. D+D can (should?) be playing a "role", not just "roll"ing the dice. There are some things that need to have a "roll", but it's just as important to consider the "role" you're playing. That last clause is terribly myopic and limiting, and if my DM tried making us play that way, he'd probably be hung by the ankles out the nearest window and pelted with empty soda bottles until he came to his senses. Why would you bother playing if your part in the story could be taken over by a TI-83!?

[Roog]

So, I find many of the arguments brought forth by the pro-metagaming faction quite compelling - since the main goal for a roleplaying group is, after all, that all participants have fun some minor slips in terms of IC/OOC-knowledge might be allowed for.
On the other hand, I wondered what you would say about these cases of metagaming:

1) The adventurers are staying overnight at the house of an elderly woman who was friendly enough to invite them in. While the rest of the adventurers stays downstairs, eating and chatting with the woman, one of them goes off wandering through the house, and stumbles upon evidence that the woman is actually an evil sorceress. However, he gets attacked and is unable to warn the others. Meanwhile, the others are still talking with the old woman and have no reason to suspect anything might be awry.
Now, if metagaming were allowed, the adventurers would immediately attack the sorceress, in spite of not having any reason whatsoever to do so. One might argue that the DM should have taken the player whose character went off into another room, so the other players cannot know about his discovery. But I (as GM) chose specifically not to do so, in order to create a more suspenseful moment for the group - they now know they are in danger and start growing nervous, creating just the fear of what might come upon them any minute I desired (and, since it's the GM's job to create the appropriate atmosphere, was obliged to create).
Metagaming would have entirely ruined the moment and lead to absolutely nonsensical results.

2) Let's say there were some kind of monster with a secret true name, which was required to defeat it (or, at least, make defeating it significantly easier). This monster would be the declared arch-enemy of the group and the goal of the entire campaign would be to, somehow, find out said name and send the monster back into the abyss it came from.
If mixing OOC/IC-knowledge is desirable, doesn't that mean the players should be encouraged to try to get a look into the GM's notes, in which this name would be written, thus easily besting the monster without need for making a long and dangerous quest to find its name out?
This is also, basically, my answer to what is to be gained by the players not knowing that trolls/anyothermonster should be battled with fire/acid/whatsoever. Now, I admit D&D is not actually amongst the RPGs I usually play, but still I can't really believe a battle would be restricted to either using OOC-knowledge, or keeping hitting the monster with something utterly ineffective (and dying), or running away. In games I play quite a lot of turns are spent on non-attack-activities - trying to make the environment work against the monster (is there anything we can make fall upon the monster in order to crush or trap it?), trying to wear the beast down (maybe including jumping onto and clinging to its back), looking for any hints what a weakpoint of the monster might be, etc. Or running away, but only to gain more info about the monster and come back. Where gaining the info, of course, is an opportunity for conversation and roleplaying. Who knows what rumours and tales the old shaman in the neighbouring village might know which might prove useful?
It boils down to: finding out the monster's weakpoint or finding a way to defeat it without knowing it allows for a lot of suspenseful moments (if one does not reduce a fight to mere attack rolls), which all would be skipped by the characters using OOC-knowledge.

If they can acceptably justify it in character they can do it, even if that justifiction requires adding to the character's backstory. However, they have to stick with what they have said, and as the GM I will apply that justification in the future.
In situation 1 in-character justification would be hard to find, but that just calls for more player creativity. That helps create the suspence, as the players franticly try to think of someway to justify something that will let them escape/get more infomation/get ready for what will happen/fight the sorceress. If the charcters have already established that they are not psycopaths then they can't just attack the woman. The characters can't claim to already know who the woman is because they have been happily "eating and chatting with the woman". If a character is superstitious they might try to claim they see something they consider a bad omen and want to leave, but that just adds to the characters background - they are more firmly establishing their superstition + what will trigger it + how they will react to it, all of that gives the GM more resources to use in the future, and next time they see an omen they better bug out because they just established that.

In situation 2 the players may feel tempted to look in the DM's notes, but whatever the groups stance on meta-gaming is any reasonaly mature player should know that the GM's note are private.
In terms of using OOC knowledge of the creature's name or how to find it, the player needs to find an IC justification to use that knowledge. The name is secret so a very good justification would be needed.
Compare this to using knowledge checks - what is the skill DC for knowing the monsters true name (and can I use a range of skill boosting magic and tricks to make the check and get on with killing it).

Generally I treat a good justification as the default requirment for PC knowledge/actions, and knowledge checks as a specific type of justification. I am quite happy with this meaning that players who are more skilled at justfying will gain an advantage, just as I am happy with players with more tactical skill gaining an advantage in combat.

[Kiero]

Oh man, there's so many deep assumptions about styles of play and all kinds of stuff tightly bound around what people are saying here. Such as "what is D&D" (a ridiculous argument if ever there was - every game with every group is different), the roles of the GM and players respectively (which again varies and is subject to agreement), when you roll the dice and how important they are and many other things.

[PlatinumJester]

Dude, regardless of how they stated their actions, there are a lot of obvious reasons for them to run like hell.
#1 - In the "Actions in Combat" section of the SRD and PHB, it clearly states talking is a FREE ACTION. Like it or not, if you took the time to detail every second in RP fashion, the Wizard in all his omnipotence would have yelled for them to move it or lose it.
#2 - A smart Wizard never jumps into the middle of melee unless he/she plans to unleash a hellish area affect centered on themselves aka "ground zero".
#3 - In their downtime in the beginning of the adventure the Wizard made it known to get the hell outta the way if he ever charges into a mob. There could be manymore but I don't know your group, or their characters. I see no point in penalizing them for not RP'ing the whole sequence. The game runs much smoother when certain metagaming just slides. Even a commoner can tell not to use a sword on a skeleton, or you gotta burn a troll to kill it. What else do commoners do in your campaigns other than live a life of work and passing along stories of heroes and their exploits? Tis how the whole "fame and glory" thing works for your higher level characters right?


Actually they only ran due to metagaming though you make a very good argument. Generally though if I hadn't told them to move then they would have died. I thought it would be more fun to metagame slightly and let my friend's characters live rather than kill thier characters and piss my friends off.

[asqwasqw]

Dude, regardless of how they stated their actions, there are a lot of obvious reasons for them to run like hell.
#1 - In the "Actions in Combat" section of the SRD and PHB, it clearly states talking is a FREE ACTION. Like it or not, if you took the time to detail every second in RP fashion, the Wizard in all his omnipotence would have yelled for them to move it or lose it.
#2 - A smart Wizard never jumps into the middle of melee unless he/she plans to unleash a hellish area affect centered on themselves aka "ground zero".
#3 - In their downtime in the beginning of the adventure the Wizard made it known to get the hell outta the way if he ever charges into a mob. There could be manymore but I don't know your group, or their characters. I see no point in penalizing them for not RP'ing the whole sequence. The game runs much smoother when certain metagaming just slides. Even a commoner can tell not to use a sword on a skeleton, or you gotta burn a troll to kill it. What else do commoners do in your campaigns other than live a life of work and passing along stories of heroes and their exploits? Tis how the whole "fame and glory" thing works for your higher level characters right?

Then the bandits they were fighting also should have ran like hell. It's just common sense, right? So now the wizard is rendered ineffective because of this. While this is not DM vs. PC's, I like to keep the game realistic, and if they players run for it, I would allow at least a few bandits to move out of the area of attack too.

[PlatinumJester]

It's also common sense that becoming a bandit is a bad idea because there will always be some up his own arse paladin trying to destroy evil forever. Thus the bandits don't have common sense and decide not to run away.

[asqwasqw]

It's also common sense that becoming a bandit is a bad idea because there will always be some up his own arse paladin trying to destroy evil forever. Thus the bandits don't have common sense and decide not to run away.

Or they could have became bandits after a tragic fire killed all they love, and nobody gave any support. Unable to even beg, he had to steal for his own survival and so joined a bandit band. And it is also common sense that adventures die, but people still become them. It is all about risk vs. reward, and what you are willing to lose.

[PlatinumJester]

Actually the bandits didn't even know the PC was a Wizard since he had just joined the party. Also he was wielding a lonsword which most Wizards don't do. They probbly thought he was just some nut job dancing around the battlefield.

[asqwasqw]

Did your PC's know he was a wizard? Maybe they would have thought that he was a crazy person, claiming to be a wizard, who just likes to dance with a longsword in hand. :smallsmile:

[Jayabalard]

#1 - In the "Actions in Combat" section of the SRD and PHB, it clearly states talking is a FREE ACTION. Like it or not, if you took the time to detail every second in RP fashion, the Wizard in all his omnipotence would have yelled for them to move it or lose it.The qualifier "In general" means that it's usually, but not always, a free action. "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."

And while he could have yelled to them to "move it or lose it" I'm pretty sure that the OP was saying that he didn't...

[PlatinumJester]

Did your PC's know he was a wizard? Maybe they would have thought that he was a crazy person, claiming to be a wizard, who just likes to dance with a longsword in hand. :smallsmile:

Yes they knew I was a Wizard.

[Xuincherguixe]

I don't see Metagaming as too much of a problem myself.

But, I think I regularly play with people who would throw people for a loop anyways. It's hard to Metagame when the GM is insane.


In a game that's supposed to be silly, Metagaming could be seen as a good thing. Seems it can get into existentialism too :P

"So okay wait, your character realizes he's a character? Does that mean we're only characters too that just haven't figured it out?"

"Bah, I've already figured out I'm a character. My player is named Jonas, it's actually very depressing actually. You know how we've all got boring office jobs right? Well, this is what the people turn to for their escapism. Think about that for awhile. In a way, I'm kind of glad we live in this fantasy."

"Yeah, but isn't the fantasy we're playing going to be more interesting though than that? What would our characters world be like if things follow this same formula?"

"Actually it doesn't. Turns out that our reality was concieved of by a guy with way, way too much time on his hands. He's in a mental institution actually. This game, our world was evidence of his obvious insanity. Our world doesn't have nearly that kind of detail."

"It's a good thing I know you're just making this stuff up."

"Right."

[Jayabalard]

Yep, the character knows how to kill trolls. Why? Because he's an adventurer thats what adventurers do, kill things and take their stuff. This is the most basic conceit of D&D. If you think that's what D&D is supposed to be, I feel kind of sorry for you. The most basic concept of D&D is that you play a role in a fantasy world; not tactical battle gaming, not killing things and taking their stuff, and not increasing the numbers on a character sheet.

Adventurer or not, a character should be a real person; if you don't have a single non-metagame reason for playing the character, why bother?


Why can't you do the same thing without a Knowledge check? The end result is the same, and you don't have to worry about being eaten by a troll because of a poor roll on a Knowledge check you may or may not have any ranks in. Is that a serious question? For the same reason you can't just say "I dodge the dragon's fire breath and take no damage" without making rolling saving throw, or "I hit the monster" without making an attack roll, or "I cut off the goblin's head and his dead body falls to the ground" without making a damage roll, or "I only take 1 point of damage, it's only a scratch" instead of the DM making a damage roll against you.

If you just continue to tell the GM that you still have positive hp even though you don't, you don't have to worry about being eaten by the troll either; I personally don't see a difference between that sort of cheating and cheating by using metagame knowledge.

[Winterwind]

If they can acceptably justify it in character they can do it, even if that justifiction requires adding to the character's backstory. However, they have to stick with what they have said, and as the GM I will apply that justification in the future.
In situation 1 in-character justification would be hard to find, but that just calls for more player creativity. That helps create the suspence, as the players franticly try to think of someway to justify something that will let them escape/get more infomation/get ready for what will happen/fight the sorceress. Alright - I can see how that would create suspense as well. While not the development the GM might have been going for, this still might be just as fun and make for an equally good story.
Though, unless they actually can provide such a justification, I would consider it bad roleplaying if they suddenly switched from "friendly chatter" to "we wait for the slightest hint something might not be as it seems, then we attack immediately".

If the charcters have already established that they are not psycopaths then they can't just attack the woman. The characters can't claim to already know who the woman is because they have been happily "eating and chatting with the woman". If a character is superstitious they might try to claim they see something they consider a bad omen and want to leave, but that just adds to the characters background - they are more firmly establishing their superstition + what will trigger it + how they will react to it, all of that gives the GM more resources to use in the future, and next time they see an omen they better bug out because they just established that.Wouldn't it be up to the GM to decide whether one of the characters sees some bad omen, though?
Oh, you mean the character declares he considers something the GM described before (and did not intend it to be a bad omen), right? Ok, this would, indeed, expand this character's personality, so it might be beneficial. Still, I think it would be awfully difficult for the GM to maintain his plot if the characters always justified any of their actions in a way that allows them to do totally different things than would be usually expected. Not to mention it would start being unbelievable if the characters always came up with some strange arguments why they act so very strange suddenly.
Once or twice this might be desirable, though.


In situation 2 the players may feel tempted to look in the DM's notes, but whatever the groups stance on meta-gaming is any reasonaly mature player should know that the GM's note are private.
In terms of using OOC knowledge of the creature's name or how to find it, the player needs to find an IC justification to use that knowledge. The name is secret so a very good justification would be needed.
Compare this to using knowledge checks - what is the skill DC for knowing the monsters true name (and can I use a range of skill boosting magic and tricks to make the check and get on with killing it).

Generally I treat a good justification as the default requirment for PC knowledge/actions, and knowledge checks as a specific type of justification. I am quite happy with this meaning that players who are more skilled at justfying will gain an advantage, just as I am happy with players with more tactical skill gaining an advantage in combat.I see how this might work out, but still... doesn't that mean, effectively, that the characters of players who are good at justifying are omniscient? Also, once the players have presented their backstories to the GM and played the given character for a while, so that everyone has a fairly good idea of who this character is and where he comes from, it would seem very strange to me if they suddenly started to add ill-fitting bits into their backstory, about how they battled this demon/dragon/whatever before. Which basically means I might allow such a justification, but it better be really, really good.
(as a side note, in our group we do not allow skill checks if the GM believes it is utterly impossible the character might have gained this knowledge at some point)

So, to summarize, I understand your opinion is that as long as there is a good IC-justification that ties OOC-knowledge to the character's background or behaviour, using this OOC-knowledge is OK, right?
I guess if this justification seems believable and fits nicely into the character's design I would concur, though the players being able to provide such a justification should be a rare occurence indeed (not because the players are not imaginative enough, but because it just is absolutely unlikely that, whatever the group encounters, there is always some character who had just the right experiences to act as he would if he possessed OOC-knowledge, thus it would break any suspension of disbelief).


I still would like to hear from the people who advocate metagaming what they have to say about this, the two examples I stated before specifically. Is that the kind of "bad metagaming" you mentioned sometime, Dan Hemmens, or do you see some way how metagaming would be benefitial in these situations as well? (I am asking because I found your point of view quite unique and your arguments highly convincing, so I would like to hear what you would say about these more dubious uses of metagaming)

[Dan_Hemmens]

I found this discussion interesting enough to break my habit of just lurking in the forums and finally registered.

So, I find many of the arguments brought forth by the pro-metagaming faction quite compelling - since the main goal for a roleplaying group is, after all, that all participants have fun some minor slips in terms of IC/OOC-knowledge might be allowed for.
On the other hand, I wondered what you would say about these cases of metagaming:

<examples excised>

Both of those examples would be poor form, IMO.

Crucially, however, they would be poor form because they would be playing in bad faith, not because they were "metagaming."

To take your first example: you can also imagine a situation where the other players, talking to the Sorceress and unaware in-character that she is going to betray them, decide that it would be really cool to play up the dramatic irony, and start deliberately acting *more* trusting than they might otherwise.

Then the Sorceress might be just about to cold-bloodedly murder them, when the PC who knows she's evil might show up just in the nick of time.

Which would be cool and exciting and dramatic, but would rely totally on metagaming.


If mixing OOC/IC-knowledge is desirable, doesn't that mean the players should be encouraged to try to get a look into the GM's notes, in which this name would be written, thus easily besting the monster without need for making a long and dangerous quest to find its name out?

Not at all. But the point is that "trying to look at the GM's notes" shouldn't be disallowed because "it's metagaming", it should be disallowed because it's a totally crappy thing to do.

Also, there's an important difference between "using knowledge which you have out of character to inform your in-character actions" and "deliberately attempting to acquire knowledge which you should not even have out of character."



It boils down to: finding out the monster's weakpoint or finding a way to defeat it without knowing it allows for a lot of suspenseful moments (if one does not reduce a fight to mere attack rolls), which all would be skipped by the characters using OOC-knowledge.

That's my problem though. I only find that suspenseful if I don't know OOC *either*.

I don't see the fun in trying to "work out" something that you actually already know.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Adventurer or not, a character should be a real person; if you don't have a single non-metagame reason for playing the character, why bother?


A character is not a real person. They are a fictional person.


Is that a serious question? For the same reason you can't just say "I dodge the dragon's fire breath and take no damage" without making rolling saving throw, or "I hit the monster" without making an attack roll, or "I cut off the goblin's head and his dead body falls to the ground" without making a damage roll, or "I only take 1 point of damage, it's only a scratch" instead of the DM making a damage roll against you.

If you just continue to tell the GM that you still have positive hp even though you don't, you don't have to worry about being eaten by the troll either; I personally don't see a difference between that sort of cheating and cheating by using metagame knowledge.

That's because you seem to think that the DM should have authority over my character's mind.

I personally feel that the DM saying "your character doesn't know that" is equivalent to the DM saying "your character doesn't want to do that".

[Tormsskull]

*snip*

I agree with pretty much everything that you said. I think the part about adding in things to a character's already existant backstory to justify knowledge that is now desirable would be a real pain in the neck from the World-Building DM's point of view.

Since everyone has been throwing out situations, here is one of my own:

I created a special type of magical abilities called "Spirits". The spirits appeared as floating glowing balls of energy. When touched they transport the toucher to an endless plane that resembles an arena. There the spirit meets the toucher and either 1.) battles them, 2.) Tests them in a Skill, or 3.) gives them a riddle. If they toucher succeeds at whatever is put forth to them, they have to make a Fortitude save (scaling depending on level of spirit). If they pass that they obtain the spirit's power which can vary greatly.

Now, with that information in mind, here is a situation:

Bob is a player who has played with me before. He knows about spirits because I use them across campaigns. His character however does not know about spirits. When the group of 4 PCs runs into a spirit for the first time, three of the characters are very nervous. Bob on the other hand, runs straight for the glowing orb and touches it.

Now, there are a few things to take into consideration when determining if this action is warranted:

1.) Is Bob's character afraid of magic or exotic things?
2.) Does Bob's character normally jump into unknown situations without fear?
3.) Using my own knowledge of Bob the player and Bob's character, what does my gut tell me?

Here's what I came up with:

1.) Bob's character was a barbarian, and his backstory specifically mentioned distrusting magic.
2.) Though Bob's character was sometimes a bit reckless (normally when faced with foes), when it came to things that could simply be whacked to death, he was very reserved.
3.) My gut tells me that Bob knows this is a spirit, wants the spirit, and thus is taking advantage of the fact that the other players do not know what a spirit is.

I asked Bob why his character was not afraid of the obviously magical thing when he had been afraid of similiar thing in the past. Bob laughed and said that his character likes things that glow.

I wasn't satisfied with this answer, and thus I ruled that Bob was too fearful to jump out and touch the orb, and instead talked with the rest of the group.

Sometimes a player's desires for character power violate a character's personality or views. I think that often times players do this without even realizing it, and a good DM is required to try to show them if they might be metagaming. And if the DM is certain that they are metagaming, and the player refuses to see it, then it is up to the DM as the arbiter of the game to step in and prevent a PC's action.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I still would like to hear from the people who advocate metagaming what they have to say about this, the two examples I stated before specifically. Is that the kind of "bad metagaming" you mentioned sometime, Dan Hemmens, or do you see some way how metagaming would be benefitial in these situations as well? (I am asking because I found your point of view quite unique and your arguments highly convincing, so I would like to hear what you would say about these more dubious uses of metagaming)

See my previous post for response to the specific examples.

Basically my position is that "bad metagaming" is using OOC knowledge to make your character behave in a way which makes the game less fun for other people.

I define "good metagaming" as using OOC knowledge to make your character behave in a way which makes the game more fun for other people.

I define "bad character roleplaying" as playing your character by strictly IC criteria, in such a way that it makes the game less fun for other people.

I define "good character roleplaying" as playing your character by strictly IC criteria, in such a way that it makes the game more fun for other people.

For example: My character is mistrustful of Elves for whatever reason. Halfway through a long-running campaign, a new character joins (either a new player, or replacing a dead PC). He's an Elf.

Now, my character would *never* adventure with an Elf. But I don't want to upset the new guy, so my character goes along with it for metagame reasons. That's Good Metagaming. I play my character as being mistrusting of the new Elf, and try to do so in a way that creates interesting tensions within the group. That's Good Character Roleplaying.

Now if we got into a fight, and the Elf got injured, and my character refused to give him a healing potion, that would be Bad Character Roleplaying. I'd be sacrificing somebody *else's* player character just so that I can keep playing my character a particular way. Essentially I'd be saying "screw you, new guy, I'm so much more important than you that I'm willing to let your character die just so mine can prove a point."

[Dan_Hemmens]

I asked Bob why his character was not afraid of the obviously magical thing when he had been afraid of similiar thing in the past. Bob laughed and said that his character likes things that glow.

I wasn't satisfied with this answer, and thus I ruled that Bob was too fearful to jump out and touch the orb, and instead talked with the rest of the group.

If I were Bob, I would seriously consider leaving your game after an incident like that.


Sometimes a player's desires for character power violate a character's personality or views. I think that often times players do this without even realizing it, and a good DM is required to try to show them if they might be metagaming. And if the DM is certain that they are metagaming, and the player refuses to see it, then it is up to the DM as the arbiter of the game to step in and prevent a PC's action.

This, to me, sounds unbelievably patronizing. I mean seriously, you're talking like your players are little kids who can't be trusted with sharp objects.

[puppyavenger]

For the pro metagamers

what about if the dm is running a published adventure, are you saying that the players should buy the advenuture and read the entire plot, killing all the secret cultists and making the aadventure over before it began?

[Kiero]

If I were Bob, I would seriously consider leaving your game after an incident like that.

This, to me, sounds unbelievably patronizing. I mean seriously, you're talking like your players are little kids who can't be trusted with sharp objects.

I agree with you on both counts. It's not the GM's job to be playing characters for the players, nor arbitrarily make rulings like that. Not in any game I'm playing in, anyway.


For the pro metagamers

what about if the dm is running a published adventure, are you saying that the players should buy the advenuture and read the entire plot, killing all the secret cultists and making the aadventure over before it began?

People actually still play modules? Risk you take in running it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

For the pro metagamers

what about if the dm is running a published adventure, are you saying that the players should buy the advenuture and read the entire plot, killing all the secret cultists and making the aadventure over before it began?

No, they shouldn't.

Again there's a difference between using information which you *legitimately* possess out of character to inform your in character decisions, and deliberately "spoilering" yourself.

To use a board game example: Metagaming is playing Cluedo, and drawing up an expanded grid so that you can work out what cards everybody is holding by thinking about what their responses to accusations are on other people's turns. Cheating is looking inside the little envelope.

[Roog]

Wouldn't it be up to the GM to decide whether one of the characters sees some bad omen, though?
Oh, you mean the character declares he considers something the GM described before (and did not intend it to be a bad omen), right? Ok, this would, indeed, expand this character's personality, so it might be beneficial. Still, I think it would be awfully difficult for the GM to maintain his plot if the characters always justified any of their actions in a way that allows them to do totally different things than would be usually expected. Not to mention it would start being unbelievable if the characters always came up with some strange arguments why they act so very strange suddenly.
Once or twice this might be desirable, though.


If a player does it several times, then they have created (with the added character detail) a very superstitious character, and the GM can require them to keep acting superstitiously. The player should be (made) aware of this, and will have to weigh up the possibility of gimping the character by making them overly superstitious.


I see how this might work out, but still... doesn't that mean, effectively, that the characters of players who are good at justifying are omniscient? Also, once the players have presented their backstories to the GM and played the given character for a while, so that everyone has a fairly good idea of who this character is and where he comes from, it would seem very strange to me if they suddenly started to add ill-fitting bits into their backstory, about how they battled this demon/dragon/whatever before. Which basically means I might allow such a justification, but it better be really, reallygood.

The added backstory is not allowed unless its fits well enough. The situations you gave are difficult ones ro fit justifications for, so the justifications must be damn good.

If a player is does not have much backstory this encourages them to create some. And players who already have strong backgound or personality detail have the advantage of being able to use that to justify more background.
A character with a history of hunting demons would have a big head start in claiming to have run up against a given demon before, but if this contradicts background the GM knows and the players dont the GM does not need to accept the justification.

I guess I may not have been clear earlier, but I am not suggesting that the DM is required to accept the justification if it does not fit his plans. I do, however, want to accept as many good quality justifications as possible.

For example, if the party ran into a Demon, and a player could try using "I used to be a demon hunter's apprentice, and that Demon killed my master". That justification has two parts and I would consider them separatly. Firstly, "I used to be a demon hunter's apprentice" would be fine if it fitted with the charcters already established history+background+class+etc. As the player tried to persuade me that that was reasonable more details would be established and accepted or vetoed. Secondly, for "and that Demon killed my master" would only be allowed if I thought that would work for the game. That could turn the session on its head, but it can be great as a GM to be surprised like that.


So, to summarize, I understand your opinion is that as long as there is a good IC-justification that ties OOC-knowledge to the character's background or behaviour, using this OOC-knowledge is OK, right?
Yes

I guess if this justification seems believable and fits nicely into the character's design I would concur, though the players being able to provide such a justification should be a rare occurence indeed (not because the players are not imaginative enough, but because it just is absolutely unlikely that, whatever the group encounters, there is always some character who had just the right experiences to act as he would if he possessed OOC-knowledge, thus it would break any suspension of disbelief).
Suspension of disbelief could be a good reason not to allow something, but obvoiusly justification => the players have to justfy it.
With a limited number of PCs in the party, the players could tie themselves up in knots if they tried to do this all the time, each time it gets more difficult to fit disparate elements in. But just imagine the higher-level well-travelled highly socially skilled character, who can believably know the right people for the circumstances just about anywhere.

[Dan_Hemmens]

People actually still play modules? Risk you take in running it.

I don't think that's entirely fair. You shouldn't deliberately read a module you know your DM is going to run, any more than you should try to steal his notes before the game. That's not an issue of metagaming, that's an issue of sportsmanship.

[barawn]

This, to me, sounds unbelievably patronizing. I mean seriously, you're talking like your players are little kids who can't be trusted with sharp objects.

If they can't be trusted to separate out-of-character knowledge and in-character knowledge, they are.

You mentioned that metagaming is fine if it makes the game more fun for the players. I disagree. Metagaming would be fine if it makes the game more fun for everyone - the DM included.

Tormsskull's example is a good indication of what I mentioned before. Metagaming far too often takes control away from the DM. The players weren't supposed to know about the spirits. He put them in that situation because he wanted to see the worry and discussion about "what do we do with these things?" and the player ruined that due to completely inappropriate OOC knowledge.

And incidentally, I've got a feeling that if you would leave his campaign after an incident like that, he wouldn't mind. If it were me, I wouldn't. I don't think you're the kind of player I'd want in a campaign of mine. I want the game to be fun for me, too, and metagaming far too often removes that.

[barawn]

I don't think that's entirely fair. You shouldn't deliberately read a module you know your DM is going to run, any more than you should try to steal his notes before the game. That's not an issue of metagaming, that's an issue of sportsmanship.

If the players had more than a modicum of self-control, it wouldn't be an issue. The idea that you have to hold off reading a module is just silly. For one thing, it implies that you can never re-run the same module again.

[Tyger]

If I were Bob, I would seriously consider leaving your game after an incident like that.



This, to me, sounds unbelievably patronizing. I mean seriously, you're talking like your players are little kids who can't be trusted with sharp objects.

And I would hope that anyone who played like that, seriously abusing OOC information for IC gains with no reason other than OOC reasons, would leave the game. It would save my group the agony of asking you to leave. :smallsmile:

I think this really comes down to play style preferences. Some people prefer to keep the OOC OOC and some are perfectly happy, in fact downright joyful, to bring it in when it benefits them. Either way is fine, but just remember that not everyone shares your goals/dreams/playstyle. So long as everyone in a particular game is aware of the ground rules at the onset, its not a problem.

[Counterpower]

That's because you seem to think that the DM should have authority over my character's mind.

I personally feel that the DM saying "your character doesn't know that" is equivalent to the DM saying "your character doesn't want to do that".

Why? What your character knows is represented by a given range of skills. While I can see backstories making up for some knowledge, and obvious staples of the genre (dragons, trolls, skeletons, etc.) being immediately recognizable, some creatures are just unusual. Now I'm going to back up and invalidate my previous list of creatures. In Eberron, dragons have almost no contact with the common races. At all. People know that dragons exist, but only a few people know much about them. From what standpoint does it make any sense at all that a character would know details about dragons (like the specifics of a brass dragon's nonlethal breath weapon) without ranks in Knowledge (whichever skill it is) or some other reason, like being from a tribe of Seren barbarians that actually do have common contact with dragons? Besides, there is a fundamental difference between those two DM statements. The second is DM fiat forcing you to play your character a certain way. The first is something you have control over. You can choose to put ranks in Knowledge skills, and get bonuses to your Int. The second is the DM restricting your ability to choose what you want to do, and the first is the DM applying the appropriate consequences for choosing a certain way.

[Roog]

I asked Bob why his character was not afraid of the obviously magical thing when he had been afraid of similiar thing in the past. Bob laughed and said that his character likes things that glow.

I wasn't satisfied with this answer, and thus I ruled that Bob was too fearful to jump out and touch the orb, and instead talked with the rest of the group.

I would probably not be satisfied either, if that was all he said (unless the PC's INT was 3). So I would have asked why "his character likes things that glow" was enough to overide the other factors you mentioned.

[DeathQuaker]

Based on real experiences playing and DMing:

Reasonable Balance/Compromise Between Player and Character Knowledge:



DM: As you come around the bend, you see two trolls battering in what remains to be a bunch of caravan wagons. You hear the voices of a few humanoids crying for help. You can see a few arrows in the trolls' skin, but their hide is healing around it.

Rogue: My character used to be a caravan guard [this was pre-established background which the DM approved]. Is the threat of trolls attacking caravans on the roads common in this area?

DM: *considers* Yes, it's fairly common. Even if you yourself have not fought trolls before, you would have been informed of the danger.

Rogue: So it's reasonable for me to know that fire and acid stops their regeneration?

DM: *nods* At least fire... that's commonly accessible, and even if you weren't 100% certain it would work, you'd be sure enough to try it and see if it would work.

*rogue proceeds to divvy up his alchemists' fire among the party and goes to the caravans' rescue*



I don't consider the above situation "metagaming" -- not in the sense of a player unfairly using his knowledge to give his character knowledge he would not, logically, based on the world he lives in, have.

It also made the following scene more fun, because he could roleplay his knowledge of caravan guarding with the caravanners they rescued, and great stories were told. It was all in all an awesome session.

There are situations that I've ran where the players have encountered monsters that are very common, and they knew exactly how to deal with them. There are situations where they encountered uncommon creatures or situations outside their characters' reasonable experience, where they didn't know exactly how to deal with them.

In the latter case, they approached the situation cautiously and experimented to see what worked best. They used careful tactics and backed each other up so that they could learn how best to defeat their enemy.

Yes, sometimes, they discovered they were at a disadvantage and retreated. They then used their wits to find another way around the situation using the resources they had. They also stored the knowledge they'd gained from the fight for future use.

In those cases, I rewarded the players for their intelligence and their creativity, giving them as much if not more XP for handling the situation than if they were just chopping up some run of the mill monsters they knew exactly how to handle. After all, their lack of knowledge made it a tougher encounter.

And moreover, IT WAS MORE FUN for them to deal with a situation creatively, and more fun for me to see how they solved their problem (hey, I get bored with run of the mill combat), even if their solution was completely unexpected. If they come up with something that works and surprise me, I'm delighted.

Yes, sometimes a PC not knowing something results in them getting hurt. But then they learn from the story they're involved in, not just from reading a book, which for me AS a player is more fun... and AS a GM, I would never put them up against something they didn't have the capability to handle. That's not any fun for me or them.


Unreasonable Player Metagaming, that is to say, Cheating, and Getting What Was Coming to Him



Fighter: I rolled a 24. I hit the demon.
DM: I didn't say his AC was 24. You don't hit him.
Fighter: *holds up the Monster Manual from where he was holding it under the table* But it says RIGHT HERE that the monster's AC is 24!! That's not fair!!
DM: I am not necessarily using the statblock from that book. Please pay attention to the fight, and not your book, so you can learn how to deal with this creature.

I wasn't the DM in this situation; the DM did do this purposely because the player in question was playing combats with the monster manual open all the time, saying stuff like, "Oooh, he has a 20% chance to summon lemures," which was ruining the feel of the fight for the rest of us. It totally broke immersion in the game. He was also sometimes looking up the wrong stats or failing to take into account the DM leveling up monsters or giving them class levels, so the "knowledge" he would be giving the party, based on his cheating, was faulty. He was also usurping, effectively, the party Loremaster's role. Ultimately, he was ruining the fun for everyone else.

That's the kind of "metagaming" that's bad--the kind that breaks immersion or drives GMs crazy everytime they want to challenge the party or encourage them to be innovative.

Otherwise, it's down to the GM and Players to be SENSIBLE about what party knowledge does or doesn't exist. A good gaming group will not be stuck arguing about whether someone knows Skeletons are better damaged with bludgeoning weapons; that's a matter of common sense--that doesn't even go anywhere near metagaming. A good gaming group will bash the skeletons and then pour over the arcane, locked chest in the corner, wondering if there /is/ a key, or if there is some other mystical means of opening it. Or whether they should just break it open with an axe. And no matter what they decide, it will lead them to further adventure.

And what it REALLY comes down to is if everyone is having fun.

Some people might have fun just throwing statblocks versus statblocks and not worrying about a story surround it. If that's your thing, play your game out of the Monster Manual and be done with it.

For other people, it's about the story and the roleplay... and for them, not knowing something just means the joy of finding out. If that's your thing, then jump into character and keep fighting... or run away to find new adventure around the corner.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If they can't be trusted to separate out-of-character knowledge and in-character knowledge, they are.

*bangs head against table*

Have you never stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason so many D&D players wind up focusing so intently on treasure, XP, and game mechanical advancement, is because of DMs who refuse them allow to control anything except for their XP, treasure, and game mechanical advancement?

I mean what's the point in giving my character a personality, if the GM is going to tell me how I've got to play it?


You mentioned that metagaming is fine if it makes the game more fun for the players. I disagree. Metagaming would be fine if it makes the game more fun for everyone - the DM included.

The DM is a player.


Tormsskull's example is a good indication of what I mentioned before. Metagaming far too often takes control away from the DM. The players weren't supposed to know about the spirits. He put them in that situation because he wanted to see the worry and discussion about "what do we do with these things?" and the player ruined that due to completely inappropriate OOC knowledge.

A DM who is stupid enough to try to worry his players with something that they already know about he deserves everything he gets.

If the DM can't enjoy the player's successes as well as their frustrations, he deserves everything he gets.

If the DM is so determined to make the players react in a particular way, that he just straight up tells them how their characters react, he deserves everything he gets.


And incidentally, I've got a feeling that if you would leave his campaign after an incident like that, he wouldn't mind. If it were me, I wouldn't. I don't think you're the kind of player I'd want in a campaign of mine. I want the game to be fun for me, too, and metagaming far too often removes that.

That's cool, you go play your game. I'll go play mine.

In my game, the players will be treated like grown-ups.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Unreasonable Player Metagaming, that is to say, Cheating, and Getting What Was Coming to Him


(Example excised).

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call that "cheating and getting what was coming to him", I would call that "an object lesson in why letting players have access to the Monster Manual isn't a problem".

[Roog]

Fighter: I rolled a 24. I hit the demon.
DM: I didn't say his AC was 24. You don't hit him.
Fighter: *holds up the Monster Manual from where he was holding it under the table* But it says RIGHT HERE that the monster's AC is 24!! That's not fair!!
DM: I am not necessarily using the statblock from that book. Please pay attention to the fight, and not your book, so you can learn how to deal with this creature.

Thats not Meta-gaming; thats trying to Meta-game and failing.

[Counterpower]

*bangs head against table*

Have you never stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason so many D&D players wind up focusing so intently on treasure, XP, and game mechanical advancement, is because of DMs who refuse them allow to control anything except for their XP, treasure, and game mechanical advancement?

I mean what's the point in giving my character a personality, if the GM is going to tell me how I've got to play it?

Except for the fact that there's a difference between personality and available knowledge.


A DM who is stupid enough to try to worry his players with something that they already know about he deserves everything he gets.

Well, only one player knew about it, everyone else didn't. That, and it made absolutely no sense for a barbarian that wasn't comfortable with magic (or anything he couldn't hit) to run forward and touch the glowy thing. I have no problem with people playing a personality, but can't they try to stay true to their personality and backstory?


If the DM can't enjoy the player's successes as well as their frustrations, he deserves everything he gets.

If the DM is so determined to make the players react in a particular way, that he just straight up tells them how their characters react, he deserves everything he gets.

True, on both counts. I certainly can't get frustrated when my players smash my carefully planned plots......... they, all combined, will probably be doing that a lot. :smallbiggrin:

[barawn]

I mean what's the point in giving my character a personality, if the GM is going to tell me how I've got to play it?


A character who has out-of-character knowledge doesn't have a personality. He has a god infused in him.

Using OOC knowledge IC isn't playing a character. That's by definition!


In my game, the players will be treated like grown-ups.

What is it with you and the holier-than-thou bit? If they act OOC, they're not acting like an adult - especially if the DM's made it clear that OOC knowledge IC won't be tolerated.

[Dan_Hemmens]

A character who has out-of-character knowledge doesn't have a personality. He has a god infused in him.

Using OOC knowledge IC isn't playing a character. That's by definition!

The specific example here was:

PC takes action. DM rejects IC basis of that action, because he feels that his understanding of the character trumps the player's understanding of the character.

In which case why the *hell* should I bother trying to play my character at all?


What is it with you and the holier-than-thou bit? If they act OOC, they're not acting like an adult - especially if the DM's made it clear that OOC knowledge IC won't be tolerated.

People rise or sink to your expectations.

If you go into a game saying "players are stupid little kids who need to have their bottoms smacked or they'll ruin everything" then your players will get bored, frustrated, and guess what, they'll eventually start acting like kids.

If you go into a game saying "my players are interesting, intelligent people whose opinions I value" then your players will pick up on *that* and they will start doing interesting dynamic things and driving the game forward.

Really. It works.

[barawn]

PC takes action. DM rejects IC basis of that action, because he feels that his understanding of the character trumps the player's understanding of the character.

No, it wasn't. It was "DM rejects action because he knows the person."

Maybe he was wrong, but that was the fundamental reason for why he did it - because he believed that the player brought outside knowledge in.


If you go into a game saying "players are stupid little kids who need to have their bottoms smacked or they'll ruin everything" then your players will get bored, frustrated, and guess what, they'll eventually start acting like kids.

Yes, because that's exactly what we're saying. All along, I've been saying that you should start off campaigns by saying "now look here, kiddies, no cheating or I'll have to get mean!"

Players start off with trust. They can lose it. Metagaming loses that trust.

If I've got a player who I really value, but just has a nasty tendency to lie about his roll results, or secretly reroll to get a better value, I'll start rolling for him. It's not that I distrust all of my players. It's the simple fact that a DM's trust in a player can be lost.

[Diggorian]

Had Barbarian Bob ran up on my spirit it would've been improvizationally revised into a Will O' Wisp. *ZAP* :smallbiggrin:

New players to my game may blatantly metagame once, but never twice.

[Skjaldbakka]

my players are interesting, intelligent people whose opinions I value

If this were true, than you could trust them not to break character by using information that their character wouldn''t have. In my case, I don't have players that use information they know out-of-game unless they can justify knowing it in-game. Sometimes they ask if its justified by their backstory, sometimes not- and they generally are correct in whether they are in that grey area in which they should ask.

In the case of the experienced player ruining the encounter with the trolls for the new players- he doesn't fit into your description. He was, in fact, effectively running the encounter by himself, by telling the new people what to do.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, it wasn't. It was "DM rejects action because he knows the person."

Maybe he was wrong, but that was the fundamental reason for why he did it - because he believed that the player brought outside knowledge in.

He might have believed that, that doesn't mean he was right. And that's the point. It's the starting assumption that if you disagree with a player, you are right and the player is wrong. It's patronizing and offensive.


Yes, because that's exactly what we're saying. All along, I've been saying that you should start off campaigns by saying "now look here, kiddies, no cheating or I'll have to get mean!"

Umm ... actually that's exactly what you've been saying. Players who do things you don't like should be *punished* in order to stop them doing it again.


Players start off with trust. They can lose it. Metagaming loses that trust.

We're using different definitions of "trust" here.

I'm not saying "you should trust your players not to metagame", I'm saying "you should trust your players to be as invested in making the game fun as you are."


If I've got a player who I really value, but just has a nasty tendency to lie about his roll results, or secretly reroll to get a better value, I'll start rolling for him. It's not that I distrust all of my players. It's the simple fact that a DM's trust in a player can be lost.

Why not just say "dude, why do you keep lying about your results?"

I mean really "or I'll have to do it for you"? And you say you *aren't* treating your players like children?

[Tobrian]

Have you never stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason so many D&D players wind up focusing so intently on treasure, XP, and game mechanical advancement, is because of DMs who refuse them allow to control anything except for their XP, treasure, and game mechanical advancement?

Give an example. Otherwise I call bull****. Some player's ARE only interested in XP, treasure, and game mechanical advancement.


I mean what's the point in giving my character a personality, if the GM is going to tell me how I've got to play it?

What's the point in giving your character a personality, if you then proceed to ignore it?

[Winterwind]

<examples excised>

Both of those examples would be poor form, IMO.

Crucially, however, they would be poor form because they would be playing in bad faith, not because they were "metagaming."

To take your first example: you can also imagine a situation where the other players, talking to the Sorceress and unaware in-character that she is going to betray them, decide that it would be really cool to play up the dramatic irony, and start deliberately acting *more* trusting than they might otherwise.

Then the Sorceress might be just about to cold-bloodedly murder them, when the PC who knows she's evil might show up just in the nick of time.

Which would be cool and exciting and dramatic, but would rely totally on metagaming.This is, actually, precisely what happened back then. I wouldn't call that metagaming though - rather, the players deliberately ignoring their OOC-knowledge in order to increase the dramatic irony, and the timely arrival of the PC who knew she was evil due to the DM ruling so.
But of course we're not discussing semantics here; if this is part of what you mean by metagaming, then I wholeheartedly support this form of metagaming as well.

Not at all. But the point is that "trying to look at the GM's notes" shouldn't be disallowed because "it's metagaming", it should be disallowed because it's a totally crappy thing to do.

Also, there's an important difference between "using knowledge which you have out of character to inform your in-character actions" and "deliberately attempting to acquire knowledge which you should not even have out of character."Fair enough.

That's my problem though. I only find that suspenseful if I don't know OOC *either*.

I don't see the fun in trying to "work out" something that you actually already know.I would argue the fun lies in trying to overcome the chellenge creatively, and in the dramatic moments that occur by the characters not knowing about the creature's abilities ("By the gods, it's wounds are sealing themselves! What shall we do?!"). Even though the players would know about the creature, roleplaying their characters lack of knowledge can still lead to suspense, as the characters experience helplessness, desperation and finally more satisfaction and relief, when they finally bring the beast down.

[Jayabalard]

That's because you seem to think that the DM should have authority over my character's mind.

I personally feel that the DM saying "your character doesn't know that" is equivalent to the DM saying "your character doesn't want to do that".nah, it's much more like saying "your character can't phyisically do that without rolling a dice just because you want to say that you can"; Just like you can't claim to know to use the Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart technique flawlessly with an automatic hit at will, you can't claim to know details about monsters just because you've memorized the Monster Manual.

In D&D advantage have a cost of some sort; if you want to know details about monsters, you'll have to take some skill ranks in the appropriate knowledge and give up skill ranks somewhere else. Otherwise you're just cheating.


The DM is a player.The DM is a referee, not a player.


He might have believed that, that doesn't mean he was right. And that's the point. It's the starting assumption that if you disagree with a player, you are right and the player is wrong. It's patronizing and offensive.The assumption is, if it's not in writing, the DM is the final arbiter, and makes the final ruling, even if it's not what the player wants.

When you work out a back story, and the GM agrees that it's not giving you an undue advantage (things like, "I know the super secret technique that can kill any creature", or "my uncle took me on a tour of the planes so I've seen every creature in existence"), there's an understanding of what your character knows based on your backstory and your skills (especially knowledge skills). You can't retcon that without the approval of the referee, and you just claim knowledge just because you want to so that you can get more ranks of tumble rather than sinking those ranks into knowledge:whatever.

[Winterwind]

I agree with pretty much everything that you said. I think the part about adding in things to a character's already existant backstory to justify knowledge that is now desirable would be a real pain in the neck from the World-Building DM's point of view.Thank you. :smallsmile:
I actually once had a player who did just that, and actually even went way further - he didn't spend all his skill points and ressources at character creation, but instead argued he got to know his character better while playing him, hence only after playing him he would know how to complete the character creation.
Which resulted in him taking a skill or suddenly being in possessions of items which were just perfect for the situations they got into. Extremely irritating for me as GM and extremely unfair for the other players. Never allowed such a thing again.

Sorry, I have to leave for now, I am going to answer to all the other posts directed to me later. Probably tomorrow.

[barawn]

Umm ... actually that's exactly what you've been saying. Players who do things you don't like should be *punished* in order to stop them doing it again.

No, players who do things that are cheating are dealt with. This isn't treating them like children. They start off with the presumption that they won't cheat. If they violate that, yeah, you do have to do something.

The difference between treating someone like an adult and treating them like a child is the presumption of initial trust.


I'm not saying "you should trust your players not to metagame", I'm saying "you should trust your players to be as invested in making the game fun as you are."

Metagaming frequently isn't fun for the DM. It's also frequently not fun for other players.


Why not just say "dude, why do you keep lying about your results?"

Because he'll say "I'm not lying" (and has). Some people are compulsive. It's just easier to deal with the behavior than fix it, which we've tried and can't do.

[Tobrian]

Originally Posted by Jayabalard
Adventurer or not, a character should be a real person; if you don't have a single non-metagame reason for playing the character, why bother?A character is not a real person. They are a fictional person.

Stop splitting hairs over semantics. You know exactly what he meant. A character should be like a real person WITHIN THE GAME WORLD. Effectively he should be a realistic personality within the player's mind.



That's because you seem to think that the DM should have authority over my character's mind.

I personally feel that the DM saying "your character doesn't know that" is equivalent to the DM saying "your character doesn't want to do that".

Whine whine whine. We've been over this topic before in another thread. But objecting to a DM telling you that your character does not know something really takes this to new levels of absurdity. Let's do away with knowledge skills and common sense altogether, yay!

Sometimes a gamemaster CAN tell you, the player, "Your character is awed/frightened/surprised." And then you, the player, can react accordingly. You have control over how your character reacts, but not neccessarily over what and how he FEELS. Get that through your skull!

Odd how I don't hear you complaining about spells and effects that FORCE your poor wibble character to react/feel in a certain way, spells such a Cause Fear, Confusion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc.

In a game of Vampire, if another PC or an NPC used vampiric Discipline powers like "Presence 5: Majesty "on your PC, and you didn't roll a successful willpower save, the GAME RULES dictate that your PC is awed and regards the vampire as the centre of his personal universe. A successful intimidate by an NPC DOES mean the intimidated target is, well, cowed and intimidated, or at least it should if people were playing their characters properly.

I've seen player attitudes like yours completely ruin a game of Call of Cthulhu (or any game in a Horror setting, really), by flat-out refusing to let their character be frightened at all or playing out the sanity loss. "My character isn't frightened by the monster in front of him, and you can't make me say he is!" Ruins the atmosphere. :smallmad:

Games like "Changeling: the Dreaming" feature certain fey races that have things like Intimidate (Redcaps) and high CHA, enchanting beauty and an aura of awe and/or intimidating fury when angered (noble Sidhe) built right in at the bone. It's in the damn race description. But oh how some players just love to ignore it! "My character tells the furious Sidhe knights advancing on him to stuff it. blablabla I'm not impressed and you can't make me." Which means they're not only refusing to have their character react to an outside influence, effectively making their character impervious to anything they don't like because they've just decided their character should be immune... it means they're denying another PC his racial or class abilities.



nah, it's much more like saying "your character can't phyisically do that without rolling a dice just because you want to say that you can"; Just like you can't claim to know to use the Five-Point-Palm Exploding Heart technique flawlessly with an automatic hit at will, you can't claim to know details about monsters just because you've memorized the Monster Manual.

In D&D advantage have a cost of some sort; if you want to know details about monsters, you'll have to take some skill ranks in the appropriate knowledge and give up skill ranks somewhere else. Otherwise you're just cheating.

Another version of this cheating technique is when the player does not spend any points on social skills for his character and gives him a low CHA, but then during a diplomatic encounter proceeds to substitute his own skills at fast-talk, diplomacy and persuasion, refusing to roll a die because "I want to roleplay it out" and then throws a hissy fit when the DM decides that the NPC is not entirely persuaded by a guy without any skill in Diplomacy babbling at him and heavy-handedly trying to talk him into something.


The DM is a referee, not a player.

The assumption is, if it's not in writing, the DM is the final arbiter, and makes the final ruling, even if it's not what the player wants.

Exactly. There's a world of difference between unfair abusive gamemaster arbitrariness on one hand, and a gamemaster using his authority on the other.


When you work out a back story, and the GM agrees that it's not giving you an undue advantage (things like, "I know the super secret technique that can kill any creature", or "my uncle took me on a tour of the planes so I've seen every creature in existence"), there's an understanding of what your character knows based on your backstory and your skills (especially knowledge skills). You can't retcon that without the approval of the referee,(snip)


Which resulted in him taking a skill or suddenly being in possessions of items which were just perfect for the situations they got into. Extremely irritating for me as GM and extremely unfair for the other players.

Oh yes. Over the years I've seen a number of players who conveniently retconned their character's backstory or even the character sheet depending on scenarios. Mysteriously "floating skill points" that appeared whereever it was most useful.

[Counterspin]

As for myself, I simply don't play with people who I think need policing of that type more than once. Why would you play with someone who doesn't care about whether the rest of the group is having fun?

Additionally, using the word cheating in terms of this thread is highly inflammatory, and abusive since you are inferring that people on the other side are cheaters. This is a playstyle argument. Nothing which the players and the GM agree on is cheating, so metagaming in a metagaming friendly game is not cheating. This thread is far too hostile, on both sides of the argument. Please try to dial down the hostility.

Disclaimer : I'm not a mod.

[Dan_Hemmens]

This is, actually, precisely what happened back then. I wouldn't call that metagaming though - rather, the players deliberately ignoring their OOC-knowledge in order to increase the dramatic irony, and the timely arrival of the PC who knew she was evil due to the DM ruling so.
But of course we're not discussing semantics here; if this is part of what you mean by metagaming, then I wholeheartedly support this form of metagaming as well.

This is part of my definition of "metagaming", because it's using OOC knowledge to inform your IC actions.


I would argue the fun lies in trying to overcome the chellenge creatively, and in the dramatic moments that occur by the characters not knowing about the creature's abilities ("By the gods, it's wounds are sealing themselves! What shall we do?!"). Even though the players would know about the creature, roleplaying their characters lack of knowledge can still lead to suspense, as the characters experience helplessness, desperation and finally more satisfaction and relief, when they finally bring the beast down.

The thing is, for me, if my character is experiencing "helplessness, desperation, and finally relief" and I'm experiencing frustration and boredom, I will feel frustrated and bored.

I get that it's fun to fight something and have to work out how to defeat it, but I'd rather the DM not put me in the position of having to *pretend* that I don't know how to deal with something when I do. It's awkward and easily avoidable.

[Skjaldbakka]

So you can pretend that you are in a fantasy world, fighting fantastic creatures, wielding magical spells and crawling through deep, dark dungeons- but you can't pretend that you don't know the stats of monster X?

[Tobrian]

On a personal note, I hate the fact that Knowledge doesn't allow you to take 20, which is crap. If you've got access to a library, you absolutely should be able to take 20. If it's a great library, you should be getting hefty bonuses, too.

In my own game and games I've played in, a PC using a library and with access to a loremaster NPCs could substitute that NPCs knowledge skill for checks and pay to have an NPC scribe write info down for later reference.

Heck, there's even rules in some D&D supplements (I think Cityscape?) for going to an NPC loremaster and BUYING information on certain monsters, areas, historical events in the game world etc. Provided of course the info exists in the first place, but then if the gamemaster places a big library into a wizard guild in a big city like i.e. Greyhawk or Waterdeep and specifically mentions it's run by a renowned loremaster, it's a logical step to assume you can get even obscure knowledge there.

Also, other gamesystems allow extended rolls that add up for things that take longer than a few rounds, i.e. spending weeks in a library and talking to experts, or spending weeks and months to craft/paint/build something.

Also, tomes of histoy or lore should provide their own ranks, not just add a bonus. If it isn't in there it isn't in there.

While the concept of rolling to meet a DC works in general, I think d20 should be upgraded to also take into account the total ranks someone has in a knowledge skill as a sort of benchmark for what your character can possibly know (the roll against DC only says what the character remembers at that moment). Other systems do this. Meaning a character with only 1-2 ranks in the skills can roll a 20, but he still won't know certain details which a character with 15 ranks in that same skill would be able to recall easily (perhaps without even a need to roll at all).


edited to add:

The thing is, for me, if my character is experiencing "helplessness, desperation, and finally relief" and I'm experiencing frustration and boredom, I will feel frustrated and bored.

Why do you equate "frustration and boredom" with a situation where your character might be helpless or deperate? Or even frustrated. Just because a character is frustrated doesn't mean the player must be. And if a player is frustrated and bored it's usually to do with the plot or the DMing style. Unless a character is experiencing nothing but helplessness for session after session, effectively being unable to overcome a problem and not being able to do anything about it or anything else. But usually these situations are rare. And if a character experiences "helplessness, desperation, and finally relief" that already implies that after harrowing experiences he DID overcome the obstacle or survive his ordeal.

What you're saying is, whenever your character is helpless you're automatically frustrated? Wow you would HATE to play Call of Cthulhu, eh? Sounds like you're one of those people who always need to be in control of every situation, and if your character meets the slightest bit of resistance or thing he can't figure out you get annoyed and give up.

Hero stories in literature and movies are filled with situations where the protagonist has to experience helplessness, gets beaten down or fails, only to pull through in the end. If he never fails and always succeed with the least effort, isn't that boring? If your DM has to spoon-feed your character successes just so that you don't get frustrated, you have a more basic problem.


I get that it's fun to fight something and have to work out how to defeat it, but I'd rather the DM not put me in the position of having to *pretend* that I don't know how to deal with something when I do. It's awkward and easily avoidable.

So what you're saying is the DM should be forced to make up new monsters every game just so your new level 1 PC is not coming up against monsters that you the player have known since D&D 1st edition? :smallconfused: So you're saying is your DM should pamper you so that you never have to divide player and character knowledge?

Your remark "I get that it's fun to fight something and have to work out how to defeat it" sounds so... I don't know. Like you never actually experienced what actual roleplaying is. Roleplaying is not merely about fighting and defeating stuff. You want to solve problems or puzzles, but you don't actually want to have your character go through anything scary or traumatic that can't be solved by the roll of a die? Oh well.

Edited to add:

That's my problem though. I only find that suspenseful if I don't know OOC *either*.

I don't see the fun in trying to "work out" something that you actually already know.

Ok, that explains quite a bit. So you're not able to really immerse yourself in your character, which isn't a roleplaying crime.

See, to me, the fun in playing a new character is experiencing how he reacts to the given problem, coming up with logical suitable ways how he would work out a solution. It's not ME working out the solution (because I might in fact already know all about it, i.e. if my character meets a generic D&D troll), it THE CHARACTER working out the solution. And depending on who this character is, what his personal outlook on life and his available knowledge is, this process can take totally different forms for different characters.

Just this weekend I had my players running around in Sigil, meeting races and NPCs that their characters (fresh from a prime world) knew nothing about, but some of the players did. Still, they had fun interacting with those NPCs.

Otherwise no DM would ever be allowed to play a character again, and no setting could be used twice. Which is a bit silly I'm sure you'll agree.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Stop splitting hairs over semantics. You know exactly what he meant. A character should be like a real person WITHIN THE GAME WORLD. Effectively he should be a realistic personality within the player's mind.

I'm not splitting hairs over semantics, I'm making an important distinction.

Roleplaying characters are not real people, they are fictional people. They should therefore act and react like people in a work of fiction.

People in works of fiction sometimes do things for reasons which are not made clear to the audience at the time.


Whine whine whine. We've been over this topic before in another thread. But objecting to a DM telling you that your character does not know something really takes this to new levels of absurdity. Let's do away with knowledge skills and common sense altogether, yay!

Actually, I would be very much inclined to do away with knowledge skills. Along with most skills which serve only to restrict PC access to information. But that's a different discussion.


Sometimes a gamemaster CAN tell you, the player, "Your character is awed/frightened/surprised." And then you, the player, can react accordingly. You have control over how your character reacts, but not neccessarily over what and how he FEELS. Get that through your skull!

A gamesmaster *can* tell you how your character feels. He can also tell you that rocks fall and everybody dies. It doesn't make anything other than a crappy thing to do.

Seriously. If the GM gets to decide how my character feels about something, and gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate reaction to any given situation, why don't I just go home and let the GM play my character how he wants.

I mean seriously, what function am I supposed to have in that sort of game?


Odd how I don't hear you complaining about spells and effects that FORCE your poor wibble character to react/feel in a certain way, spells such a Cause Fear, Confusion, Dominate Person, Charm Person, etc.

I wonder why that is. Could it possibly be because those are game mechanical effects, which apply to all characters equally, and not just the GM removing the last aspect of the damned game I'm allowed to have any influence over.


In a game of Vampire, if another PC or an NPC used vampiric Discipline powers like "Presence 5: Majesty "on your PC, and you didn't roll a successful willpower save, the GAME RULES dictate that your PC is awed and regards the vampire as the centre of his personal universe. A successful intimidate by an NPC DOES mean the intimidated target is, well, cowed and intimidated, or at least it should if people were playing their characters properly.

And in Dying Earth a failed Rebuff check means your character is persuaded of something.

There is a world of difference between responding to a game mechanic, and the GM just saying "your character likes this person".


I've seen player attitudes like yours completely ruin a game of Call of Cthulhu (or any game in a Horror setting, really), by flat-out refusing to let their character be frightened at all or playing out the sanity loss. "My character isn't frightened by the monster in front of him, and you can't make me say he is!" Ruins the atmosphere. :smallmad:

And I've seen GM attitudes like yours ruin games of every kind. So I guess we're even.


Games like "Changeling: the Dreaming" feature certain fey races that have things like Intimidate (Redcaps) and high CHA, enchanting beauty and an aura of awe and/or intimidating fury when angered (noble Sidhe) built right in at the bone. It's in the damn race description. But oh how some players just love to ignore it! "My character tells the furious Sidhe knights advancing on him to stuff it. blablabla I'm not impressed and you can't make me." Which means they're not only refusing to have their character react to an outside influence, effectively making their character impervious to anything they don't like because they've just decided their character should be immune... it means they're denying another PC his racial or class abilities.

The moral of this story is: telling a player to act impressed isn't impressive. Telling a player to act scared isn't scary. Any GM worth his salt should try and provoke *genuine* emotional responses from his players, instead of relying on the splat descriptions to do it for him.

I mean seriously, why is it so important to you that the players act impressed?


Exactly. There's a world of difference between unfair abusive gamemaster arbitrariness on one hand, and a gamemaster using his authority on the other.

Interestingly, in D&D, there's no difference at all.

The DM has literally unlimited authority (same in Vampire, same in Changeling). It's not possible, within the rules, for the GM to be unfair, because the rules say he gets to decide what's fair.

Which is ... umm ... sort of the attitude I'm complaining about.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Why do you equate "frustration and boredom" with a situation where your character might be helpless or deperate? Or even frustrated. Just because a character is frustrated doesn't mean the player must be. And if a player is frustrated and bored it's usually to do with the plot or the DMing style. Unless a character is experiencing nothing but helplessness for session after session, effectively being unable to overcome a problem and not being able to do anything about it or anything else. But usually these situations are rare. And if a character experiences "helplessness, desperation, and finally relief" that already implies that after harrowing experiences he DID overcome the obstacle or survive his ordeal.

I equate frustration and boredom with a situation in which my character is helpless because D&D combat is slow, drawn out, and tactically uninteresting.


What you're saying is, whenever your character is helpless you're automatically frustrated? Wow you would HATE to play Call of Cthulhu, eh?

Actually I really enjoy Call of Cthulhu when it's run right.

When it's run right, you don't feel helpless, because you're investigating the mythos off your own back.


Sounds like you're one of those people who always need to be in control of every situation, and if your character meets the slightest bit of resistance or thing he can't figure out you get annoyed and give up.

No, I'm one of those people who has spent years playing the sorts of games that assume that you have to endure boredom in order to earn the right to enjoy yourself.


Hero stories in literature and movies are filled with situations where the protagonist has to experience helplessness, gets beaten down or fails, only to pull through in the end. If he never fails and always succeed with the least effort, isn't that boring? If your DM has to spoon-feed your character successes just so that you don't get frustrated, you have a more basic problem.

Heroes in literature and movies are never presented with stupid, arbitrary challenges which serve no useful narrative purpose, which they must overcome by slow, tedious grind.

Luke Skywalker loses his hand in a climactic battle with Darth Vader, in which it is also revealed that Vader is his father. He doesn't just randomly get it shot off by a stormtrooper.


So what you're saying is the DM should be forced to make up new monsters every game just so your new level 1 PC is not coming up against monsters that you the player have known since D&D 1st edition? :smallconfused: So you're saying is your DM should pamper you so that you never have to divide player and character knowledge?

I'm saying that if the DM is too lazy to invent an original setting, he shouldn't expect us to act surprised by the worn out fantasy cliches he presents us with.


Your remark "I get that it's fun to fight something and have to work out how to defeat it" sounds so... I don't know. Like you never actually experienced what actual roleplaying is. Roleplaying is not merely about fighting and defeating stuff. You want to solve problems or puzzles, but you don't actually want to have your character go through anything scary or traumatic that can't be solved by the roll of a die? Oh well. I give up.

The fact that you can't distinguish between a meaningless random encounter and a genuinely traumatic IC experience implies much the same to me.

Fighting a troll in D&D is never going to scare me. D&D combat is just plain boring. It's all five-foot-step this and attack-of-opportunity that. It's not exactly an intense experience.

If you want me to have an IC emotional reaction to something in an RPG you actually have to make it about my character in some way. Give my character's wife a terminal illness, have his kid captured by the villain, put him up against an opponent who he's fighting for ideological reasons instead of for treasure and XP.

[Indon]

This is an interesting topic, considering the campaign I've been running for a while now.

I've been running an Exalted campaign, and the campaign's included a lot of spirits (both demonic and otherwise) and Fair Folk so far. So, something that's come up a few times is illusions. Generally, some characters resist an illusion while others penetrate it; an example is a Fair Folk who used a glamour to be in disguise as a tribal chieftain-type in my last session. Only one of my players had the requisite stats to pierce that Fae's glamour ability; so I said, right at the table, after describing the character, "You, instead of seeing that, see..." and then I described its' true appearance.

After the characters talked with the fae, the character who saw the fae's true nature commented on his appearance (as that specific fae was not pretty without the glamour), and they discussed it. The party's lore-type rolled high on his knowing-stuff check, and I noted to that person's player that Fair Folk or spirits could create such illusions.

So, the question is, was there metagaming? The group, after all, figured out awfully quickly what could have been going on, and they turned out to be right.

But, I, as the storyteller, was the only person in the campaign familiar with the Exalted universe, and it was in fact the first time they had encountered a fae. Nor was it out-of-character for the party members to be competent and to work together well, as that's kind of what they do, being a Circle.

Was it metagaming? Yes. The players knew what they had to do to have their characters work together effectively, and they did so. But it was also roleplaying that was perfectly in-keeping with a group of Exalts traveling with a Twilight caste who knows what he's talking about.

I would say that there is a marked difference between metagaming that dictates out-of-character actions, and metagaming that dictates one's character. The former is bad, pretty much universally (really, nothing's an absolute in RPG's, but it can get close), but the latter can be quite good. It can contribute to character effectiveness while still keeping interesting characters, and even when it goes against character effectiveness, it's all in the interest of the story.

[Tormsskull]

I've seen player attitudes like yours completely ruin a game of Call of Cthulhu (or any game in a Horror setting, really), by flat-out refusing to let their character be frightened at all or playing out the sanity loss. "My character isn't frightened by the monster in front of him, and you can't make me say he is!" Ruins the atmosphere. :smallmad:


I know exactly what you mean by this, as I have a particular player who always trys to 'roleplay' the "super bad I'm not afraid of anything cause I am the toughest dude on the block (insert class)."



I wonder why that is. Could it possibly be because those are game mechanical effects, which apply to all characters equally, and not just the GM removing the last aspect of the damned game I'm allowed to have any influence over.

*****

There is a world of difference between responding to a game mechanic, and the GM just saying "your character likes this person".


I have seen this attitude expressed quite a few times since I started joining online RPG discussions, and it always strikes me as overly hostile.

A DM is charged with trying to keep the game fun and interesting for all of the players, not just 1 of them. If you enjoy metagaming, but your 3 friends don't, I don't think it is asking too much for the DM to tell you not to metagame. If that's not your cup of tea you just explain that you don't like to play in campaigns where metagaming isn't allowed, you walk away, everybody lives.

On top of that, the DM is the one who spends countless hours on top of hours creating material for the players to experience and have fun in. Not only should you appreciate the DM for taking his time to do so (frankly I can think of a million other ways I could spend my time), you should be willing to defer to his judgment should a dispute arise.

I treasure the players that I have who role play, because to me that is what D&D is all about. And I think that they respect the fact that I spend so much of my time creating a game that we all can enjoy.

When it comes to a situation of a character making a choice and the DM restricting it, it is like a veto. I am usually hesitant to use it, because I try to style my games like the old slogan of "You can do whatever you want in D&D." However, if it comes down to a situation where I have to prevent a player from an action in order to maintain the stability of the game (and in such the continued campaign and enjoyment of all of the players) then I will.

[barawn]

So, the question is, was there metagaming? The group, after all, figured out awfully quickly what could have been going on, and they turned out to be right.

How was it metagaming? Where was there any information that the characters didn't have used?

The one who pierced the glamour commented about an ugly appearance. I don't see how that's metagaming at all. It's a perfectly normal thing to do.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I know exactly what you mean by this, as I have a particular player who always trys to 'roleplay' the "super bad I'm not afraid of anything cause I am the toughest dude on the block (insert class)."

But what's wrong with that? Seriously. If you're playing a game in which players are supposed to be heroic individuals, what's wrong with them acting like it?


I have seen this attitude expressed quite a few times since I started joining online RPG discussions, and it always strikes me as overly hostile.

It's not hostile, it's an honest issue of niche protection.

Look at it this way: if I want to make an NPC die (or like my character, or turn into a chicken), I can do it, but I have to use the rules. Otherwise I can't, because the NPCs are the GM's property. The GM, on the other hand, can just have the guy collapse of a heart attack without warning.

Now the only thing in an RPG I can control is my character's thoughts and actions. I don't mind the *game* providing rules which take some of that control away from me, any more than I object to the *game* providing rules that take some control of the NPCs away from the GM.

If the GM can tell me what my character thinks and feels, though, I am left with *literally* no way to contribute to the game world. Suddenly my every action takes place purely at the sufferance of the GM. My purpose in the game becomes to second-guess what he wants my character to do, and then do it.


A DM is charged with trying to keep the game fun and interesting for all of the players, not just 1 of them. If you enjoy metagaming, but your 3 friends don't, I don't think it is asking too much for the DM to tell you not to metagame. If that's not your cup of tea you just explain that you don't like to play in campaigns where metagaming isn't allowed, you walk away, everybody lives.

I won't quibble about definitions of "metagaming" here, but if I'm in a group where [Play-Style-X] is not considered appropriate, I will of course not use [Play-Style-X].

Importantly, though, I don't see it as the job of the GM to "keep me in line". If *anybody* from a group says "dude, we don't look up monster stats in the middle of a fight here", I won't look up monster stats in the middle of a fight. That's just good manners.


On top of that, the DM is the one who spends countless hours on top of hours creating material for the players to experience and have fun in. Not only should you appreciate the DM for taking his time to do so (frankly I can think of a million other ways I could spend my time), you should be willing to defer to his judgment should a dispute arise.

Speaking as a GM myself, I spend *very* little time preparing RPG sessions these days, and I think my games are better for it.

The less I work out ahead of time, the more I have to react to the players' actions, and the more control they have over the game, the better.


I treasure the players that I have who role play, because to me that is what D&D is all about. And I think that they respect the fact that I spend so much of my time creating a game that we all can enjoy.

When it comes to a situation of a character making a choice and the DM restricting it, it is like a veto. I am usually hesitant to use it, because I try to style my games like the old slogan of "You can do whatever you want in D&D." However, if it comes down to a situation where I have to prevent a player from an action in order to maintain the stability of the game (and in such the continued campaign and enjoyment of all of the players) then I will.

That's fair enough. But I think that there's an important difference between saying "actually, I'd rather you didn't do that" and saying "no, I use my GM powers to stop you."

[barawn]

Also, tomes of histoy or lore should provide their own ranks, not just add a bonus. If it isn't in there it isn't in there.


I'm not so sure. Someone who's well versed in physics can read and understand a physics text much easier than someone who can't. I think it should be a bonus - if the Knowledge check pertains to something inside it.

[Bassetking]

A gamesmaster *can* tell you how your character feels. He can also tell you that rocks fall and everybody dies. It doesn't make anything other than a crappy thing to do.

Seriously. If the GM gets to decide how my character feels about something, and gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate reaction to any given situation, why don't I just go home and let the GM play my character how he wants.

I mean seriously, what function am I supposed to have in that sort of game?

I wonder why that is. Could it possibly be because those are game mechanical effects, which apply to all characters equally, and not just the GM removing the last aspect of the damned game I'm allowed to have any influence over.



And in Dying Earth a failed Rebuff check means your character is persuaded of something.

There is a world of difference between responding to a game mechanic, and the GM just saying "your character likes this person".



And I've seen GM attitudes like yours ruin games of every kind. So I guess we're even.



The moral of this story is: telling a player to act impressed isn't impressive. Telling a player to act scared isn't scary. Any GM worth his salt should try and provoke *genuine* emotional responses from his players, instead of relying on the splat descriptions to do it for him.

I mean seriously, why is it so important to you that the players act impressed?


Interestingly, in D&D, there's no difference at all.

The DM has literally unlimited authority (same in Vampire, same in Changeling). It's not possible, within the rules, for the GM to be unfair, because the rules say he gets to decide what's fair.

Which is ... umm ... sort of the attitude I'm complaining about.

Preach on, Brother. Preach from the rooftops, and the rafters.

The basis; the raw, pure, CORE of these games is an interactive, cooperative experience.

It is a partnership. A relationship. It requires work on both sides of the table.

My question for the DM's out there; the DM's who speak of killing players to prove a point, the DM's who tell tales of denying a PC the ability to act, the DM's that claim that it's player laziness or cupidity to not act awed and excited over a ten foot by ten foot stone room, a poorly locked chest, and a green skinned, pig faced Humanoid....

Why?

I have seen page after page of "If you do this, It will come back to bite you in the ass." Comments from DM's to their players, on these forums.

I've seen case after case in which players are flat out told "If you build your character in this manner, be advised that I will treat it as both a personal insult, and an invitation to use bigger, angrier nasties."

I've seen argument after argument saying "If your character does not fit the theme or flavor of world I am endevouring to create, it will not be allowed to exist. It is my world, and my word is both the law, and the lash."

WHY?

We can't have nice things?

Why can't we work together, hand in hand, as Players and DM's, in order to build an experience we both can enjoy? Why do I so frequently see the demand for a DM's PC Puppets to dance for their puppetmaster, instead of asking your troupe of improv actors to put forth a tale of epic fantasy, assisted by a highly competent Scene-setter, Prop-master, special-effects artist, director, and producer?

With the use of Rule 0 as the be-all and end-all rule, rather than the arbitration exception, there is little purpose or point for players to engage. The world is, without question, governed whole-cloth by the whims of the DM. Regardless of my choices, actions, decisions, thoughts, or feelings, even my character is, by Rule 0, not mine to command. Every choice, roll, feat, and skill point must be met with DM approval.

Again, I ask... If this is the case... Why?

If the entire outcome of every. Single. Facet. of your gameworld rests not with a DC, or with a set of necessary interaction checkpoints, but with your whim... How do I matter?

I play these games to be something more than myself. To slay terrors, to ride the winds of fortune, to spit in the eyes of gods and to barter open-handed with lords, kings, and lynchpins of commerce. The role I play is not one of a corporate wage-slave, making just above minimum wage and worrying about whether or not his health insurance is going to expire. If I wanted to sit down, and have vast forces wildly outside my realm of influence dictate my daily actions, schedule, emotions, and decisions... I'd stay away from the table, and ask to pick up an extra shift.

I don't play these games to question my existential quantity as compared to the uncaring bredth of infinity.

I don't play these games to serve as the greek chorus to the DM's story.

My name is Bassetking. I'm a Player, and I'm taking back the Table.

[Indon]

How was it metagaming? Where was there any information that the characters didn't have used?

The one who pierced the glamour commented about an ugly appearance. I don't see how that's metagaming at all. It's a perfectly normal thing to do.

It wasn't simple information; they had no access to any.

It was, instead, a way of playing their characters. Everyone in my group would have, in-character, mentioned the strangeness (with the exception of a new player who hadn't gotten to know the group yet). That kind of attention to detail (and desire to discuss it) makes for a group that operates better.

It is equally viable to have a character that comments on details like that, as it is to have a character that doesn't. The reason the characters in my game all do that is because the players know it works. The players are using their knowledge of how RPG's work (rather than any actual knowledge about the system), to make their group work together well.

And yet they are, at the same time, in-character, because their metagaming only influences who their characters are, not what their characters do.

A similar example can be taken for the player who at a low level, wants to play in a PrC at a higher level. The metagaming element guides the player to play a character who eventually meets the prerequisites for the PrC. The player never actually acts out of character to do this.

[GoblinJTHM]

The DM has literally unlimited authority (same in Vampire, same in Changeling). It's not possible, within the rules, for the GM to be unfair, because the rules say he gets to decide what's fair.

Which is ... umm ... sort of the attitude I'm complaining about.

Well, kind of. Should said roleplaying group be more than 2 people when the DM goes fascist theres nothing stopping the players from forming their own group where they don't invite you.

[Jayabalard]

Re: Bassetking

Lets stay away from the straw man, eh? It makes for great oratory, but there's a huge difference between being a the GM's puppet with no control over your character (what you're suggesting) vs being flexible enough to go with the results of knowledge rolls and even GM rulings of what your character can and cannot know (ie, not metagaming). I don't recall anyone suggesting the former, but plenty are suggesting that people should go along with the latter.

[Tobrian]

Note: I was editing in my reply to one of your previous posts in my posting above while you were posting your reply.


Roleplaying characters are not real people, they are fictional people. They should therefore act and react like people in a work of fiction.

People in works of fiction sometimes do things for reasons which are not made clear to the audience at the time.

But the author knows, because he writes the story. Both you and the GM are the authors. If you have your PC suddenly start acting strange or claiming secret knowledge, the GM should get some explanation why and what and where it comes from.


Actually, I would be very much inclined to do away with knowledge skills. Along with most skills which serve only to restrict PC access to information. But that's a different discussion.

Riiiight. And then? Unless it's a sheetless and diceless game (which I have done on occasions, too, in fact I've started roleplaying with games/systems like GURPS, Warhammer, Shadowrun, Paranoia, World of Darkness, not with D&D) how do you intend to determine what character knows what? Removing knowledge skill leads to precisely the situation that you complaining about: players being dependant on GM ruling and possible arbitrariness.

Or do you intend to simply give every PC access to all information, letting the players not the character sheet decide if their characters know X? Smooth move. Because that WILL be abused, leading to the situation that those "good roleplayers" who did not imbue their characters with godlike knowledge will feel frustrated and will start to powergame, too, until in the end there's no sense of wonder about strange new things anymore.




A gamesmaster *can* tell you how your character feels. He can also tell you that rocks fall and everybody dies. It doesn't make anything other than a crappy thing to do.

Seriously. If the GM gets to decide how my character feels about something, and gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate reaction to any given situation, why don't I just go home and let the GM play my character how he wants.

You simply don't get it, do you? You're so desperately clinging to control that you react with aggression to even the idea of giving up a bit of it.

The DM can tell you how your character FEELS (cold, frightened, confused etc), or at least make a strong hint, and then YOU decide how he REACTS to that. Is that so damn difficult to understand?

If you absolutely disagree with the DM saying that i.e. your character should be all rights feel a little scared or frightened, you can TELL him you disagree and why. But unless your character has advantages like immunity to fear, high willpower or bought the trait "unfazable", what's your reasoning? "I don't like it"?

I've seen game sessions where the player and GM had a totally different take on a scene, perhaps the player had no paid enough attention when the GM described it, nevertheless he totally underestimated the danger as it would present itself to his character. The player decides that his character surges forward against all survival instinct. In that case wouldn't it be the fair and prudent thing for the GM to do before he lets that action go into effect to stop and to ask the player if he's really serious about that? Gently reminding him that while he the player is sitting on a table rolling dice, his character is actually facing down something horrible and is in all likelihood covered in cold sweat gritting his teeth because what the character sees is different than what the player imagines. Just sayin'. Yes, the player can go on and decide that his character has no qualms to die or wants to do the heroic thing. *shrug*

Having control over a character means you're can decide to turn over some control to the GM. If you trust him/her of course, but if you don't there's a much bigger problem.

Unless you have a GM who regularly tells you "a monster appears and your PC runs away because I say so!"? I'm curious.


I mean seriously, what function am I supposed to have in that sort of game?

Since this is a rhetorical question, I won't bother to answer it.


Could it possibly be because those are game mechanical effects, which apply to all characters equally, and not just the GM removing the last aspect of the damned game I'm allowed to have any influence over.

(...) in Dying Earth a failed Rebuff check means your character is persuaded of something.

There is a world of difference between responding to a game mechanic, and the GM just saying "your character likes this person".

So you have no problem with game mechanical effects that tell you that your character is exhausted, scared or mentally dominated, leaving you no influence over your character at all? Hm.

Heaven knows I've been victim of heavyhanded GM arbitrariness in the past, with the result of the GM in some scenes suddenly dictating my character's actions completely AGAINST my character's personality. That's the point I object to. And yes, it got me furious, especially when in one case it completely and utterly ruined the first impression a new character of mine had on the older already established characters of the others. I started rules-gaming in self-defense after that.

But I fail to see the problem with describing an NPC who is likable and has high CHA by concluding the brief intro description with a line like "...your character instinctively likes this person, feels comfortable around him/her" or similar.

"Show don't tell" is a valid tradition in literature, but in RPGs unless I want to spend half an hour introducing that new NPC with thousands of little scenes highlighting his amusing persona, (time I take away from the players and their PCs), I need something quick and snappy to tell the players because they are not seeing that NPC, they're just seeing and reacting to me.



The moral of this story is: telling a player to act impressed isn't impressive. Telling a player to act scared isn't scary. Any GM worth his salt should try and provoke *genuine* emotional responses from his players, instead of relying on the splat descriptions to do it for him.

I mean seriously, why is it so important to you that the players act impressed?

You still don't get it. I never tell the PLAYERS to act impressed or scared. It's their CHARACTERS who should feel impressed or scared. If they actually ACT impressed or not, wet their trousers or simply put on a pokerface is the players' decision, but that doesn't change the fact that I just described to them that i.e. a furious Sidhe knight is stalking towards them sword in hand, and that their characters can't simply ignore the instinctive reacting this evokes, not just because I say so, but in this case even because the damn rules support it. I don't want them telling me their characters just burp and say "What's up, buddy" and to make jokes (in-time).

Fine, let's say it's not a Sidhe with an aura of leadership, let's say it's the Victoria, Queen of England, holding court. No magical compulsion there, but if I'm not allowed to say "The great hall is grand and impressive architecture, designed to make visitors feel small and insignificant" where does it leave me? If a player decides his PC throws away all court etiquette and risks a thick lip because the player cannot stomach the idea that a mere NPC is allowed to give his character orders, should I remind him that his character stands before a powerful and charismatic queen, or should I just shrug and have his PC beheaded without giving him a chance to reconsider?



Interestingly, in D&D, there's no difference at all.

The DM has literally unlimited authority (same in Vampire, same in Changeling). It's not possible, within the rules, for the GM to be unfair, because the rules say he gets to decide what's fair.

What? :smallconfused: Seriously, WTF? That's nonsense. Where does it say that in any RPG?
(Except maybe Paranoia, but a well-run game of Paranoia is heavily satirical and works on an unwritten pact between GM and players to perpetrate as much amusing inane damage to their characters' bodies and minds as possible.)

[Dan_Hemmens]

Re: Bassetking

Lets stay away from the straw man, eh? It makes for great oratory, but there's a huge difference between having no control over your character and being a the GM's puppet (what you're suggesting) and being flexible enough to go with the resists of knowledge rolls and even GM rulings of what your character can and cannot know (ie, not metagaming).

You're quite correct, there is a difference.

There is a difference between abiding by a set of restrictions voluntarily, and having that set of restrictions enforced by absolute authority.

In D&D, you have the latter situation. The DM is allowed to do anything he likes, players only have influence over the world on sufferance.

This leads to adversarial DM-Player relationships. This leads to many of the problems people seem to be having with their groups.

[Tobrian]

I've seen argument after argument saying "If your character does not fit the theme or flavor of world I am endevouring to create, it will not be allowed to exist. It is my world, and my word is both the law, and the lash."

Precisely. If I were to run a game of Ars Magica or Castle Falkenstein, and a player absolutely insists on wanting to play a character who violates "the theme or flavor of world" and setting, then that character is crap. If the player can't even work within the setting, he's acting immature.


(snippage of long rant)
I don't play these games to question my existential quantity as compared to the uncaring bredth of infinity.

I don't play these games to serve as the greek chorus to the DM's story.

My name is Bassetking. I'm a Player, and I'm taking back the Table.

*rolls eyes*
If you can get off your high horse first.

[Tormsskull]

But what's wrong with that? Seriously. If you're playing a game in which players are supposed to be heroic individuals, what's wrong with them acting like it?


Well, what's wrong with it is that it reduces the amount of emotions a character can feel, which in turn reduces the amount of role playing situations they can be engaged in.



If the GM can tell me what my character thinks and feels, though, I am left with *literally* no way to contribute to the game world. Suddenly my every action takes place purely at the sufferance of the GM. My purpose in the game becomes to second-guess what he wants my character to do, and then do it.


Just because the GM can tell you what your character thinks or feels, in response to an issue that your actions threaten the stability of the game, doesn't mean that the GM is telling you what your character thinks and feels on a regular basis. However, the GM most certaintly must have the right to tell you what your character thinks and feels if it is going to prevent an action which threatens the campaign.



Speaking as a GM myself, I spend *very* little time preparing RPG sessions these days, and I think my games are better for it.

The less I work out ahead of time, the more I have to react to the players' actions, and the more control they have over the game, the better.


To each his own. I find that I need to spend a lot of time contemplating various possible actions that the PCs might take to events in the game so that I have at least a little bit of a clue as to what could possibly happen in response to those actions.



That's fair enough. But I think that there's an important difference between saying "actually, I'd rather you didn't do that" and saying "no, I use my GM powers to stop you."

Not really. Its just flowering up the language a bit. Saying "Actually, I'd rather you didn't do that" tells the player "You can't do that but I am going to word it in such a way that hopefully you will not be offended." Saying "No, I use my GM powers to stop you" tells the player "You can't do that and I am dramatically emphasizing my ability as GM to prevent you from doing such."

I don't think a DM should go out of his way to either protect a players feelings nor trounce his authority. He should simply state his ruling based on an action, offer some explanation as to why, and move on.

"Bob, you're full of ****. You're just trying to touch the orb to get a shot at the spirit. Try to play in character."



I've seen argument after argument saying "If your character does not fit the theme or flavor of world I am endevouring to create, it will not be allowed to exist. It is my world, and my word is both the law, and the lash."


I'm only going to respond to this point, because to respond to the rest of your post would be trying to extract too much out of what I believe your intent is with out any clear-cut statements of such from you.

When it comes to DMing campaigns, there are 2 main ways that I know of them coming to be.

The first is that the DM calls up some players, tells them he is running a campaign at X time with X rules and asks them if they want to join in. If the player agrees, he is agreeing to follow X rules. Very frequently one of those rules will be "Approved races". If a player agrees to play in the campaign after agreeing to the rules, and then wants to be of a race that is not one of the Approved races, sorry, too bad for that player.

If the player says "I have this awesome idea for a PC (fill in the blank with name of race of not-approved race) that I really want to run", and the DM already knows that it is not going to work, he should be able to say "Sorry, but no."

The second method of a campaign coming to a start is a group of friends sitting around a table, possibly drinking, and someone says "We should start a campaign" to which the others respond "Woohooo". Then the friends around the table discuss which rules to use, which campaign to run, who's going to DM, etc. In this situation, the players as a group decide on the rules, and then they should all follow them.

Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. In the first, I would say the DM has every right to restrict the players choices to what he has already predetermined exists in the world (like the authors of a campaign setting restrict the player's choices to only what exists in that world).

In the second, the DM has more freedom to custom-tailor his world to specifically what the players want, but there won't be any consistency if he runs that campaign setting again with a different group of players (unless he converts it to a method 1 campaign starting type).

I personally prefer method 1 when I am DMing and also when I am playing because it means that the DM is more invested in the world and will spend a lot of time developing it.

Method 2 campaigns can be fun for short campaigns that don't require a lot of substance or backstory.

To each their own.

[Indon]

I have seen page after page of "If you do this, It will come back to bite you in the ass." Comments from DM's to their players, on these forums.

Well, yeah. If I'm playing a largely-RAW game of D&D and someone decides to start Maximized Ray of Shivering Touch my dragons, ruining the balance between the players and NPC's, they better imagine that the next BBEG is going to Feeblemind the Wizard, with a huge save DC, in round 1, to keep him from doing that.

And that's if I allow it at all, which to be honest, I shouldn't.



I've seen case after case in which players are flat out told "If you build your character in this manner, be advised that I will treat it as both a personal insult, and an invitation to use bigger, angrier nasties."

This goes hand in hand with biting a player in the ass. If a player creates a character outside of the intended power level of the campaign, he will either be prevented from doing so in the first place, ruin the campaign, or change the campaign's power level so that all the other players (and probably shortly thereafter himself) are screwed.



I've seen argument after argument saying "If your character does not fit the theme or flavor of world I am endevouring to create, it will not be allowed to exist. It is my world, and my word is both the law, and the lash."


This one's a given. I run a game of Exalted. I ain't letting my players play a Vampire, Mage, Hunter, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Elf, Mechwarrior, Shadowrunner, or any combination of the above. Deal with it.

[Bassetking]

What? :smallconfused: Seriously, WTF? That's nonsense. Where does it say that in any RPG?

Wizards of the Coast DMG, Page 18.

"You are the arbiter of everything that happens in game. Period."

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't attack each other because of perceived play-style preferences, perceived mental inadequacies, or for any other reason that you might otherwised be inclined to take a shot at your fellow poster. Also, please review the Rules of Posting, conveniently located at the top of every forum. We tend to define flaming broadly here at least in part to avoid just the sort of "you're an idiot because you play X way" discussion that this is becoming. Also, we include passive-aggressive flaming or other attacks that might be (supposedly) cleverly phrased to try to avoid the rule.

Please be nice.

Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=29&a=1):


Flaming
Any poster that openly attacks, insults, belittles, or abuses another poster will have their offending post modified and an Infraction issued to them. You can be critical of another poster's viewpoint in a debate, even going as far as to explain why you believe them to be mistaken and backing your points up with rules quotes as appropriate, but the moment your criticism extends to the person who posted that viewpoint, it has crossed the line.

Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere:

Tell a poster to shut up or to stop posting on the current thread.
Name calling, including terms obviously meant in a pejorative sense such as "troll" or "fanboy"
Use passive-aggressive insults, such as "Anyone who believes that is an idiot," or "I'd call you an idiot, but it's against the rules." Yeah, we know that technically, you didn't call him or her an idiot, but guess what? It's still not allowed.
Harassment of other posters, such as repeatedly following them from thread to thread to dispute them, personally.
Tell a poster that they clearly didn't read what you wrote. Alternately, any statement that implies that the only way someone could disagree with you is because they don't understand you/can't read properly is likewise not allowed.
Responding in kind to a poster who has flamed you. Please inform a Moderator via PM and wait for the offending post to be scrubbed or deleted. Remember, the more they flame, the deeper a hole they dig for themselves, but don’t spur them on.
Belittling people who care more about roleplaying than mechanics.
Belittling people who care more about mechanics than roleplaying.
Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently.
Belittling or putting down anyone or their opinions based on post count, member rank, or how long they have been a member.
Posting insults or slurs based on anyone's race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, or sexual orientation is a Permanent Infraction (see below).

We run a much tighter ship when it comes to flaming than many other places you might post. We have tried to create a place where people can have discussions about gaming and other topics without the rampant personal attacks prevalent at other RPG boards. If you find you are incapable of participating in a debate without resorting to attacking your opponent instead of his position, our suggestion is that you find another board to post at.

This is my last warning to this thread. If you can discuss this calmly with respect for each other, please do so. If not, it'll be locked with appropriate warnings and infractions given.

[Tobrian]

In D&D, you have the latter situation. The DM is allowed to do anything he likes, players only have influence over the world on sufferance.

*sigh* For the last time, has your GM actually being doing that for ages, or are you just acting out a free-range paranoia? This is getting tiresome.

Nowhere in any RPG book does it say that GM is "allowed to do anything he likes". (Well it does in Paranoia, but there it's tongue-in-cheek.)


This leads to adversarial DM-Player relationships. This leads to many of the problems people seem to be having with their groups.

Yes, I do get the feeling that your group has a problem with adverseness between players and GM making gaming unpleasant, and a lot of that adverseness comes from you.

I've suffered under a GM who really abused her power and played favorites with certain players in the group while mobbing others, but do you hear me carry that over into a general dislike of all gamemasters?

If your GM pisses you off and doesnt respond to attempts to talk about it, leave.


Edited to add: Just when I had hit the button and posted this reply, I saw the Sheriff's warning (it wasn't there earlier).
Well ok, I'll leave this thread alone from now on.

[Jayabalard]

There is a difference between abiding by a set of restrictions voluntarily, and having that set of restrictions enforced by absolute authority.

In D&D, you have the latter situation. The DM is allowed to do anything he likes, players only have influence over the world on sufferance.Not in the slightest. You agreed to play the game with Dungeon Master X, and you have agreed voluntarily to play by his/her set of restrictions. If you metagame and the rest of the group and/or DM take exception to that, then you are no longer voluntarily abiding by that set of restrictions, are you?

back to the point:
Straw man Argument: an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Noone is suggesting that players should be puppets, and that the GM should control everything. Arguing against a position that noone is taking is a straw man argument, and it just makes you look silly.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But the author knows, because he writes the story. Both you and the GM are the authors. If you have your PC suddenly start acting strange or claiming secret knowledge, the GM should get some explanation why and what and where it comes from.


The GM is not the author of my character, though, I am. Which is sort of the point.


Riiiight. And then? Unless it's a sheetless and diceless game (which I have done on occasions, too, in fact I've started roleplaying with games/systems like GURPS, Warhammer, Shadowrun, Paranoia, World of Darkness, not with D&D) how do you intend to determine what character knows what? Removing knowledge skill leads to precisely the situation that you complaining about: players being dependant on GM ruling and possible arbitrariness.

You rule that a player can decide what they think it is reasonable for their character to know. Simple as that.


Or do you intend to simply give every PC access to all information, letting the players not the character sheet decide if their characters know X? Smooth move. Because that WILL be abused, leading to the situation that those "good roleplayers" who did not imbue their characters with godlike knowledge will feel frustrated and will start to powergame, too, until in the end there's no sense of wonder about strange new things anymore.

Why will it be abused? And what constitutes "abuse"?

If a player decides that his character would know how to kill a troll, that strongly implies to me that said player is not interested in wasting time "working out" how to kill trolls. Which suits me because, as a GM, I don't want to waste time on that either.


You simply don't get it, do you? You're so desperately clinging to control that you react with aggression to even the idea of giving up a bit of it.

That's because it's the only bit I've got left.


The DM can tell you how your character FEELS (cold, frightened, confused etc), or at least make a strong hint, and then YOU decide how he REACTS to that. Is that so damn difficult to understand?

Not at all. I just disagree.


If you absolutely disagree with the DM saying that i.e. your character should be all rights feel a little scared or frightened, you can TELL him you disagree and why. But unless your character has advantages like immunity to fear, high willpower or bought the trait "unfazable", what's your reasoning? "I don't like it"?

How about "I think that trying to tell me how my character is feeling is deeply, deeply lazy of you, and if you want to get an emotional reaction, you'll have to actually work to evoke one."


I've seen game sessions where the player and GM had a totally different take on a scene, perhaps the player had no paid enough attention when the GM described it, nevertheless he totally underestimated the danger as it would present itself to his character. The player decides that his character surges forward against all survival instinct. In that case wouldn't it be the fair and prudent thing for the GM to do before he lets that action go into effect to stop and to ask the player if he's really serious about that? Gently reminding him that while he the player is sitting on a table rolling dice, his character is actually facing down something horrible and is in all likelihood covered in cold sweat gritting his teeth because what the character sees is different than what the player imagines. Just sayin'. Yes, the player can go on and decide that his character has no qualms to die or wants to do the heroic thing. *shrug*

Remind your player of the physical reality, by all means. But that isn't the same as saying "don't forget, your character is scared."


Having control over a character means you're can decide to turn over some control to the GM. If you trust him/her of course, but if you don't there's a much bigger problem.

I really wish people wouldn't try and make this about trust. I prefer to walk to work than take the bus, that doesn't mean I don't "trust" bus drivers.


Unless you have a GM who regularly tells you "a monster appears and your PC runs away because I say so!"? I'm curious.

Actually, my GMs (when I've had them) have studiously avoided dictating my character's emotional responses, because everybody I know hates it when GMs do that.


Since this is a rhetorical question, I won't bother to answer it.

Fair enough.


So you have no problem with game mechanical effects that tell you that your character is exhausted, scared or mentally dominated, leaving you no influence over your character at all? Hm.

Yup, I'm all for giving up control over my character. I'm just not in favour of giving that control to the GM, who already controls everything else.


Heaven knows I've been victim of heavyhanded GM arbitrariness in the past, with the result of the GM in some scenes suddenly dictating my character's actions completely AGAINST my character's personality. That's the point I object to. And yes, it got me furious, especially when in one case it completely and utterly ruined the first impression a new character of mine had on the older already established characters of the others. I started rules-gaming in self-defense after that.

But interestingly, that GM almost certainly didn't see it that way.

And that's the problem. If you assume, as so many people do, that the DM is always right, that DM of yours was right about your character, and you were wrong.


But I fail to see the problem with describing an NPC who is likable and has high CHA by concluding the brief intro description with a line like "...your character instinctively likes this person, feels comfortable around him/her" or similar.

The problem is that it's lazy and doesn't leave me any room to make my own mind up.

Suppose, once you've said that, that I decide my character is going to be rude to this person? Would you then tell me I can't, because I like her?


"Show don't tell" is a valid tradition in literature, but in RPGs unless I want to spend half an hour introducing that new NPC with thousands of little scenes highlighting his amusing persona, (time I take away from the players and their PCs), I need something quick and snappy to tell the players because they are not seeing that NPC, they're just seeing and reacting to me.

Show don't tell is just as important in an RPG as in a book. It doesn't take a thousand little scenes, it takes a couple of well placed adjectives. If you just tell me "you like this person" I'll be poorly disposed towards them from the start.


You still don't get it. I never tell the PLAYERS to act impressed or scared. It's their CHARACTERS who should feel impressed or scared. If they actually ACT impressed or not, wet their trousers or simply put on a pokerface is the players' decision, but that doesn't change the fact that I just described to them that i.e. a furious Sidhe knight is stalking towards them sword in hand, and that their characters can't simply ignore the instinctive reacting this evokes, not just because I say so, but in this case even because the damn rules support it. I don't want them telling me their characters just burp and say "What's up, buddy" and to make jokes (in-time).

If your players are doing that, you have failed to engage your players' interest.


Fine, let's say it's not a Sidhe with an aura of leadership, let's say it's the Victoria, Queen of England, holding court. No magical compulsion there, but if I'm not allowed to say "The great hall is grand and impressive architecture, designed to make visitors feel small and insignificant" where does it leave me? If a player decides his PC throws away all court etiquette and risks a thick lip because the player cannot stomach the idea that a mere NPC is allowed to give his character orders, should I remind him that his character stands before a powerful and charismatic queen, or should I just shrug and have his PC beheaded without giving him a chance to reconsider?

Powerful, yes. Queen, yes. Charismatic, no.

But if they need reminding, again something has gone wrong.


What? :smallconfused: Seriously, WTF? That's nonsense. Where does it say that in any RPG?


It's implicit in the "Golden Rule" or "Rule Zero" that so many games have. The DM is above the rules, he is absolute arbiter of his game-world. You don't have to look far to find people who defend the *absolute* authority of the GM.

It's also present in the culture which assumes that problems with players are always the players' fault and never the GM's. It's always "my players are metagaming/powergaming/whatever, how do I stop them" never "my players are reacting poorly to my style of GMing, how do I adapt my style to suit them better."

[Deepblue706]

A DM should state restrictions of the game in the beginning. The DM should be free to do so within reason, as they are creating the setting, and what can be found there. "We're playing in Medieval France. There are NO laser guns, time machines, or spaceships. I don't care if you say I can't prove there were no time-machines, because this isn't that kind of game."

This might shy away the few people who had a cool thing thought up about how they are some alien and found there way to Earth and...

But, this establishment of setting creates anticipation. People who like the idea of playing as a Knight or Bishop or whatever in Medieval France will join. They'll expect thematically appropriate concepts. Maybe some things will be a little "off", and more farfetched, cinematic ideas will be introduced (gasp! the King is actually a demon worshipper!), but the feel should be what is introduced in the beginning.

If a player cannot make ANY compromise with the DM, how is the DM expected to handle the situation? If someone said they refused to play under my guidelines, I would politely show them the door, inviting them when ideas such as theirs would be appropriate for play. But, I'm not going to bend because a single individual wants to disrupt the setting to which everyone else already adheres to. If nobody likes my campaign world, that's fine, maybe a time-travelling game is what everyone really wants. I am willing to compromise with the majority.

However, I don't say "you feel afraid" unless you're under effects of a spell.

I'm not going to say "His tone and expression make him seem sincere in his claims" when a liar is trying to persuade you, unless you failed your sense motive check.

I'm not going to say "The Big Ogre is very scary." I'll say it's a massive, balding grey-skinned behemoth with his fists wrangled around a mighty club. As his eyes settle upon you, he gives a maniacal grin, showing his sharp, if slightly rotting teeth. With an earthshaking roar, he bats his club into the ground, and rushes forward to meet you.

I'd never say to a player that this ogre scares them - however, I will give more detail about "ickyness" if it's supposed to be unpleasant, I'll make it seem powerful if it's supposed to be scary, etc.

I always try to present an idea, but at the end of the day, players decide for themselves how their characters feel, in my games.

[Jayabalard]

The DM has literally unlimited authority (same in Vampire, same in Changeling). It's not possible, within the rules, for the GM to be unfair, because the rules say he gets to decide what's fair.vs
You are the arbiter of everything that happens in game. Period.

An arbiter arbitrates... there's nothing inherently fair, or not fair about arbitration. So it's certainly possible, within the rules, for a DM to be unfair. Nor does this mean that the DM have unlimited authority; if nothing else, his limits are always what the players will tolerate.

[barawn]

A similar example can be taken for the player who at a low level, wants to play in a PrC at a higher level. The metagaming element guides the player to play a character who eventually meets the prerequisites for the PrC. The player never actually acts out of character to do this.

I guess I see what you're saying - the difference, in my mind, is that the player is changing the character so that his actions aren't out of character. Therefore he's not really metagaming - the 'flow' of a character from a concept to a fully fleshed out person is what the PC does, and so long as the flow remains believable, the fourth wall stays intact.

[asqwasqw]

Wait, Dan, you have no problem being told what your character feels if it is an ingame effect, but if you are told what to feel in order to advance the roleplaying experience, you are pissed? Why is that? Particuarly because your actions are more based on roleplaying, and not ingame mechanics. They should work together, and not be seperated...

[Tobrian]

Wizards of the Coast DMG, Page 18.

"You are the arbiter of everything that happens in game. Period."

Yes. "In game". The character exists in-game. A player doesn't.

Meaning that yes the GM can overrule the player at times with regard to what happens to his character within the game world, but he has no bizarre legal authority over the player. So yes the player can decide how the character acts. But the GM can decide what happens to the characters. No-one forces a player to join a group, or prevents him from leaving.

That said of course there are some GMs who are jerks and some players who are jerks, but what's new?


Wait, Dan, you have no problem being told what your character feels if it is an ingame effect, but if you are told what to feel in order to advance the roleplaying experience, you are pissed? ((snip))

*shrugs helplessly*

[Deepblue706]

Wait, Dan, you have no problem being told what your character feels if it is an ingame effect, but if you are told what to feel in order to advance the roleplaying experience, you are pissed? Why is that? Particuarly because your actions are more based on roleplaying, and not ingame mechanics. They should work together, and not be seperated...

I know you're addressing Dan, but I feel the need to offer my take. I think Dan agrees with this sentiment.

If you ignore in-game mechanics, there's no point to playing with the game mechanics.

DMs are narrators of their own creations and the game mechanics. They decide the damage a player receives, no the thoughts that run through their heads. Let the PCs be afraid of something that just killed their 12 hirelings in less than 6 seconds, not the monster the DM explicitly describes as "scary".

[Jayabalard]

A similar example can be taken for the player who at a low level, wants to play in a PrC at a higher level. The metagaming element guides the player to play a character who eventually meets the prerequisites for the PrC. The player never actually acts out of character to do this.I guess I see what you're saying - the difference, in my mind, is that the player is changing the character so that his actions aren't out of character. Therefore he's not really metagaming - the 'flow' of a character from a concept to a fully fleshed out person is what the PC does, and so long as the flow remains believable, the fourth wall stays intact.Choosing feats and classes is part of the mechanics of the game; wouldn't that generally make this gaming rather than metagaming? I'm sure you could metagame to get the same sort of effect... that's how some of the absurd char optimization stuff is born (the pun pun at level 1, for example).

[Deepblue706]

Choosing feats and classes is part of the mechanics of the game; wouldn't that make this gaming rather than metagaming?

I call choosing feats and classes metagaming, because it's what happens between gaming sessions.

[Bassetking]

Precisely. If I were to run a game of Ars Magica or Castle Falkenstein, and a player absolutely insists on wanting to play a character who violates "the theme or flavor of world" and setting, then that character is crap. If the player can't even work within the setting, he's acting immature.



When it comes to DMing campaigns, there are 2 main ways that I know of them coming to be.

The first is that the DM calls up some players, tells them he is running a campaign at X time with X rules and asks them if they want to join in. If the player agrees, he is agreeing to follow X rules. Very frequently one of those rules will be "Approved races". If a player agrees to play in the campaign after agreeing to the rules, and then wants to be of a race that is not one of the Approved races, sorry, too bad for that player.

If the player says "I have this awesome idea for a PC (fill in the blank with name of race of not-approved race) that I really want to run", and the DM already knows that it is not going to work, he should be able to say "Sorry, but no."


This one's a given. I run a game of Exalted. I ain't letting my players play a Vampire, Mage, Hunter, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Elf, Mechwarrior, Shadowrunner, or any combination of the above. Deal with it.

All of which is fine... this time. What about next campaign? When does my desire to play (Not approved race/not approved class) pan out? Next game? Next year?

If, as was argued by Tormskull, that

(a method 1 style campaign)...means that the DM is more invested in the world and will spend a lot of time developing it. Would the inverse be accepted? As I am not being allowed full creative expression within my own sphere of influence and investiture, would it be acceptable to half-ass my characters and their RP? Could I just phone it in, and play the most generic cardboard character I could imagine, because "I'm less invested in the character"?

I'm not arguing that "DM's should not be able to say 'No, there are no rogues in my world' or 'There is no such thing as Divine Metamagic in my world, Deal.'"

What I am asking is this.

At what point in the DM/Player relationship is it acceptable to ask for input into the type of game you'll be playing?

I've cited three examples of people saying that a DM is free to say "This is how the world is, if you don't like that fact, feel free to leave"

When can a gaming group's players ask "We'd like to play this, which has these elements. Since we ran in the world you created last time, can we run in one with these X elements that were excluded last time" And have it mean something?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, what's wrong with it is that it reduces the amount of emotions a character can feel, which in turn reduces the amount of role playing situations they can be engaged in.

That's fair.

Have you talked to this guy about why he plays like this?


Just because the GM can tell you what your character thinks or feels, in response to an issue that your actions threaten the stability of the game, doesn't mean that the GM is telling you what your character thinks and feels on a regular basis. However, the GM most certaintly must have the right to tell you what your character thinks and feels if it is going to prevent an action which threatens the campaign.

Why must he have the right to tell me what my character thinks and feels in order to do that? Why not just say to me, out of character "I'd rather you didn't do that.


To each his own. I find that I need to spend a lot of time contemplating various possible actions that the PCs might take to events in the game so that I have at least a little bit of a clue as to what could possibly happen in response to those actions.

That's fair. Different styles work for different groups after all.


Not really. Its just flowering up the language a bit. Saying "Actually, I'd rather you didn't do that" tells the player "You can't do that but I am going to word it in such a way that hopefully you will not be offended." Saying "No, I use my GM powers to stop you" tells the player "You can't do that and I am dramatically emphasizing my ability as GM to prevent you from doing such."

Actually, the first one is saying "you can do that, but it will upset me if you do." That's the big difference.

One treats the player as your peer, the other treats him as a subordinate. It highlights the power-disparity in your relationship.


I don't think a DM should go out of his way to either protect a players feelings nor trounce his authority. He should simply state his ruling based on an action, offer some explanation as to why, and move on.

"Bob, you're full of ****. You're just trying to touch the orb to get a shot at the spirit. Try to play in character."

Ah, you see that I would actually have no problem with, and were I Bob in this situation I'd probably accept that as fair. But there's a big difference between that and saying "your character wouldn't do that".


When it comes to DMing campaigns, there are 2 main ways that I know of them coming to be.

<examples excised>

I think you're basically right, but I think you characterize the "type two" campaign unfairly.

Essentially what you've just described are often referred to, amongst gamers, as "Design At Start" and "Develop In Play."

I am a strong proponent of "type two" campaign design. The fewer preconceptions I bring to the table as GM, the more I can actually build a game which allows me to interact with my players and their ideas.


I personally prefer method 1 when I am DMing and also when I am playing because it means that the DM is more invested in the world and will spend a lot of time developing it.

I've played and enjoyed a lot of type 1 games, and I think they still have their uses (like our ongoing LARP Setting (www.flrp.anang.com/whitecity)), but for tabletop games I much prefer method two.


Method 2 campaigns can be fun for short campaigns that don't require a lot of substance or backstory.

To each their own.

I don't think it's entirely fair to equate "backstory" and "substance."

Hamlet has very little backstory, it isn't lacking in substance.

The reason I like type-two games is because they are very much about the PCs, and not about anything else.

Nowadays I don't really care about the details of fictional worlds. I care about the choices and decisions of characters.

[Jayabalard]

I call choosing feats and classes metagaming, because it's what happens between gaming sessions.Thanks for clarifying, it's kind of hard to make sure we're communicating when we're not using the same terms to mean the same thing.


At what point in the DM/Player relationship is it acceptable to ask for input into the type of game you'll be playing? Before the DM creates the world/campaign;l if you do it afterwards, you're asking him to throw away hours (or days, or even months) of work away.


When can a gaming group's players ask "We'd like to play this, which has these elements. Since we ran in the world you created last time, can we run in one with these X elements that were excluded last time" And have it mean something?If it's not something the GM is interested in, why don't YOU run a game with those elements? Personally, I'm not going to waste several weeks of my time creating a campaign that I'm not interested in.

I'm kind of at a loss as to what exactly this has to do with metagaming though... Did I miss some sort of tie in to the topic?

[Tormsskull]

When can a gaming group's players ask "We'd like to play this, which has these elements. Since we ran in the world you created last time, can we run in one with these X elements that were excluded last time" And have it mean something?

When what they want to play coincides with what the DM is willing to run. If the DM says "No elves in this world." And the players say "In the next world can their be elves?" That doesn't sound like an unreasonable request. The DM probably just had no elves for a specific flavor reason.

However, a particular DM might be only interested in running games in the campaign setting that he created, in which case, he may never allow elves.

If my players said to me "We'd like you to DM a campaign for us that has x, y, z" I'd more than likely be willing to try it out assuming x, y, and z are things I understand/are comfortable with.

I myself do not like to run games inside Eberron. I have a strong dislike for the campaign setting, and it would take a lot for someone to convince me to run a game in it. So if my players said "We want you to run Eberron" I'd very likely decline and tell them to find a different DM.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Wait, Dan, you have no problem being told what your character feels if it is an ingame effect, but if you are told what to feel in order to advance the roleplaying experience, you are pissed? Why is that?

Because I feel that being told what my character feels is detrimental to the roleplaying experience.

Nothing is less inclined to scare me than the GM saying "your character feels scared."

Game mechanics are a different thing, because they provide you with purely abstract information. If you like, they give you options, rather than taking them away.

If my Call of Cthulhu character loses 10 points of Sanity, I get to decide exactly what that means for my character. It might mean that he runs screaming, or that he collapses in hysterical laughter. It might mean that he stares in utter fascination, or that he walks slowly towards the monster with a look of rapture on his face.

If the GM tells me my character feels scared, though, I don't get the same range of options. Furthermore, if the GM is *also* reserving the right to declare that my actions are not in keeping with my character's emotional state (which he has just dictated), he has effectively removed all my ability to have input into the game.

[Jasdoif]

I really wish people wouldn't try and make this about trust. I prefer to walk to work than take the bus, that doesn't mean I don't "trust" bus drivers.It's because rule zero is entirely about trust. Trust that the DM will use their ultimate authority in a way that is conducive to the game as a whole.

If you find the idea that the DM has authority over your character abhorrent, you would really be better expressing your character in a medium that doesn't involve a DM. I would suggest taking up writing.


I believe that the player resentful of the possibility of the DM to take action against character should seriously consider taking up writing instead of gaming, just as the DM resentful of the possibility of the players to take action against plot should.

I will admit to being horribly amused that both extremes in the situation may do very well with the same alternative. They both want the same thing, really: autonomy, for their character or their world.

[Jayabalard]

Furthermore, if the GM is *also* reserving the right to declare that my actions are not in keeping with my character's emotional state (which he has just dictated), he has effectively removed all my ability to have input into the game.I've never played in a group where this has happened... sounds like you've been burned by some bad GMs

[Neek]

Dan_Hemmens, Tobrian (if you do come back to read this, I know you did shy from the Sheriff's warning), it seems you both play two entirely different games. Either of which, I think, would be fun to be play, as you both expect two entirely different things out of your players.

A few notes I'd like to draw up from this conversation so far:
* The DM has a responsibility to all his players to narrate the world around them, to be the characters the players interact with, and to translate the crunch and dice rolls into visible descriptions. Rule 0 is important here, because any result, any difficulty, any interaction, and any dispute of physics is automatically disputed by the DM.

Players who use metagame knowledge (such as from reading a Monster Manual, or gage interactions from previous games) are perverting plausible interactions to implausible ones.

* The DM also has a story to tell and uses a world--whether out of a module, a paperback novel, or from his own creation--to tell this story. Rule 0 justifies alterations from the core material, from existing material, and also gives a "no excuse" policy for scaling encounters up or down.

Players who attempt to argue core rules over an established precedent are holding the game back. Players who use an impressive amount of out-of-character knowledge, or make actions that are entirely opposite of their characters threaten verisimilitude, and threaten the story the DM is telling.

To the case of the Barbarian who touched the glowing sphere, because that player reminded it from a previous campaign, used a fact that created an implausible encounter. The mystery of it to the other players might have been ruined. His justification borderlines the second part, where he's threatening verisimilitude. If it says in his character biography that he's distrustful of magic, but has never played it so, then there's little RP precedent his distrust. If he was extremely distrustful of magic, even so much as nearly alienating other party members because of it, then I would have resolved the situation by forcing the character to make a Will save and not tell him the DC in mind.

Players don't like to be told without justification why their characters have to react by certain stimuli. It removes control from the character, the same way a deus ex machinae removes control. I've found that players are better at responding at dice rolls, because the random chance brings control back o their favor. If he fails the Will save, then he shrinks from the orb, not wanting to trust it; just the same that he can't argue a miss on an attack roll (though not always true. I'm not naive enough to believe that a player would accept a dice roll through and through, and they would argue it because they want to have a control over their character).

Ultimately, though, the level of acceptable metagaming boils down to the type of game your players want to play, and that you want to play. Do you want your players to be in a game where they are playing realistic characters that respond to stimuli from a non-player point of view? Or would you rather build adventures with knowledge that the players will use extraneous knowledge to complete?

But that's probably already a given. And by the time I get this posted, there'll be ten posts that's drifted the conversation elsewhere making this post irrelevant. :)

[Tobrian]

[@ Neek: Yeah well, I made the mistake of reading through the rest of the postings below mine after the Sheriff had made his warning, and then I just had to reply, had I? I should've logged out right away.

And as for my playing style, I've always considered myself mainly a storyteller kind of gamemaster and player, I only got into "rules-gaming" after bad experiences with an arbitrary GM, and well, through d20 overloads in the ast few years. d20 really isn't a good system for more the more drama-based or cinematic sort of games.]


DMs are narrators of their own creations and the game mechanics. They decide the damage a player receives, no the thoughts that run through their heads. Let the PCs be afraid of something that just killed their 12 hirelings in less than 6 seconds, not the monster the DM explicitly describes as "scary".

So, I'm not allowed to use certain adjectives now when I describe a monster or situation? Because otherwise players might whine how I am trying to "dictate" their characters' feelings?

Sorry, but I disagree. Please understand, to me the instinctive feelings that a monster or NPC evokes are just as vital a part of the description and immersive experience as any description of size, colours, sounds, smells. It enhances roleplaying, not takes away from it.


a) I am limited to words (and sometimes maybe a drawing in a Monster Manual) trying to evoke reactings. Unfortunately I am not running a movie with CGI visuals, but a pen-and-paper game. Players are limited to their own imagination, and f I have players who are not very good at visual imagining, they honestly do not "see" in their mind's eye what their character is seeing. I have a very visual (actually multi-sensory) imagination but I know that others don't have, they prefer battlemaps and stuff. Which is ok, but it can lead to this:

Me: "The monster is 15 feet tall, with long razorsharp fangs and [inserts more details]. Here's a picture. It growls as it runs towards you. What do you do?"
Player: "Yes yes ok. Another big monster. I roll for initiative."

vs.

Me: "[Describes ancient master vampire rising from the nightly canals of Venice]... and as his aura of sheer power envelops you, you feel as if your bones are turning into ice, and your mind fogs with panic."
Player #1: "My character thinks, Oh holy sh*t! and runs."
Player #2: My character grits her teeth and tries to look brave."

b) Simply having a monster do damage does not work in D&D to make most players realize that maybe their characters should feel some trepidation. Some players hear "the monster killed the hirelings" and just shrug. "They were just hirelings", they say, "I bet I can kill that monster in 2 rounds when I use feat XYZ", they say. "It only has CR 5, tops". Monsters are so commonplace in D&D, people often have their characters react to one appearing like it's just a day's work. The monster in itself really does not evoke anything in D&D.


If you find the idea that the DM has authority over your character abhorrent, you would really be better expressing your character in a medium that doesn't involve a DM. I would suggest taking up writing.

I believe that the player resentful of the possibility of the DM to take action against character should seriously consider taking up writing instead of gaming, just as the DM resentful of the possibility of the players to take action against plot should.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Deepblue706]

So, I'm not allowed to use certain adjectives now when I describe a monster or situation? Because otherwise players might whine how I am trying to "dictate" their characters' feelings?

Sorry, but I disagree. Please understand, to me the instinctive feelings that a monster or NPC evokes are just as vital a part of the description and immersive experience as any description of size, colours, sounds, smells. It enhances roleplaying, not takes away from it.

a) I am limited to words (and sometimes maybe a drawing in a Monster Manual) trying to evoke reactings. Unfortunately I am not running a movie with CGI visuals, but a pen-and-paper game. Players are limited to their own imagination, and f I have players who are not very good at visual imagining, they honestly do not "see" in their mind's eye what their character is seeing. I have a very visual (actually multi-sensory) imagination but I know that others don't have, they prefer battlemaps and stuff. Which is ok, but it can lead to this:

Me: "The monster is 15 feet tall, with long razorsharp fangs and [inserts more details]. Here's a picture. It growls as it runs towards you. What do you do?"
Player: "Yes yes ok. Another big monster. I roll for initiative."

vs.

Me: "[Describes ancient master vampire rising from the nightly canals of Venice]... and as his aura of sheer power envelops you, you feel as if your bones are turning into ice, and your mind fogs with panic."
Player #1: "My character thinks, Oh holy sh*t! and runs."
Player #2: My character grits her teeth and tries to look brave."

b) Simply having a monster do damage does not work in D&D to make most players realize that maybe their characters should feel some trepidation. Some players hear "the monster killed the hirelings" and just shrug. "They were just hirelings", they say, "I bet I can kill that monster in 2 rounds when I use feat XYZ", they say. "It only has CR 5, tops". Monsters are so commonplace in D&D, people often have their characters react to one appearing like it's just a day's work. The monster in itself really does not evoke anything.

Well, you're allowed to use whatever words you want. But, I'm saying, as a DM, my players ALWAYS respond better to an actual description, rather than a dictation of feelings. Also, I find simply calling something "scary" to be ineloquent and a product of lazy writing. It's just not my preference, because I know I can do more than that.

My description is still vague, however, and open to interpretation. A big grey-skinned monster with sharp teeth could still have been done by Jim Henson. Or, it could actually look good. The players decide for themselves the minute details. But, my description tells them what they need to know: It's big, strong, confident it'll kick your ass, and it's coming your way. Are you scared by that? Is the entire party? I'll let them decide.

Damage in D&D doesn't really invoke trepidation, no. But seeing it gruesomely slaughter 12 people should still bring about a response. The manner in which it does so, is also important.

[Bassetking]

If it's not something the GM is interested in, why don't YOU run a game with those elements? Personally, I'm not going to waste several weeks of my time creating a campaign that I'm not interested in.

At the same time, though, I, as a player, am being told to "Waste your time creating a character you're not interested in." or "Find yourself a new group". Both of which seem to be less than optimal solutions to the issue at hand.

The entire crux, again, falls onto DM Fiat. I may play the character I'm not interested in to the HILT in his current campaign. Situationally appropriate, in depth, devoted, and a scintillating character. When it comes time for the next campaign? My interest holds the exact same quantity of value for the DM as it did for the first one. "If I feel like it, maybe."

[Tobrian]

Game mechanics are a different thing, because they provide you with purely abstract information. If you like, they give you options, rather than taking them away.

I usually feel strict game mechanics rather limiting.


If my Call of Cthulhu character loses 10 points of Sanity, I get to decide exactly what that means for my character. It might mean that he runs screaming, or that he collapses in hysterical laughter. It might mean that he stares in utter fascination, or that he walks slowly towards the monster with a look of rapture on his face.

If the GM tells me my character feels scared, though, I don't get the same range of options. Furthermore, if the GM is *also* reserving the right to declare that my actions are not in keeping with my character's emotional state (which he has just dictated), he has effectively removed all my ability to have input into the game.

Yeah well you can always pick a different action. A shy coward, a cool wizard and a hotheaded barbarian will react to fear differently. The barbarian might grab his axe and attack everything in front of him, trying to kill the monster, the wizard might back away, the coward... might either run right there and then, or flip out completely and suddenly grab a weapon and run towards the monster to kill it. So maybe you picked an action that to the GM just looked totally wrong and unlikely given the situation and character personality?

Just last weekend we had a character do something in-game, and right after the player announced what his character intended to do, three other players became annoyed and asked him what he was thinking and why his character would do that, they claimed it was totally out of character and also in their minds it was unneccessary and complicated the situation... I as the gamemaster merely told the player "Well I can't stop you, do you really want to do that?" I thought it was odd too, but the most flak he took was from he other players.

Your example pro-game mechanic and contra-DM is a bit slanted. It could just as well be constructed the other way around:

The GM informs you that your character feels scared (perhaps because of an underlying game mechanic like an aura of fear?) and leaves everything else to you. Fine?

Let's assume someone is running a horror game using Rolemaster/Spacemaster rules. The game dictates that your PC loses 10 SAN in one go, which means that the character should roll on Table x-33 to determine some permanent mental problem, and then roll on Table x-26 to determine how the character reacts - does he run away, does he laugh hysterically, etc - and for how many rounds.

I dunno, to me a die roll merely gives the illusion of free choice when in effect you don't have one. It merely removes the obligation to make a ruling from the GM's shoulders and puts it on an inanimate object. The only difference is that players like to assume the GM is acting out of malice to mess with their characters (well ok sometimes he is, but give it the benefit of the doubt), while the die holds no malice.

What gives me power over my own character is his character sheet and background history. Now if the GM totally ignores my character sheet and just jerks the character around, that's annoying. But that isn't an argument against having GMs having input in the character.

In fact in one of our GURPS Mage: the Ascension games, a GM and good friend of mine "retconned" my character's background history at least twice, and even added a new disadvantage, making it the central point of one scenario. At that point we'd been running those characters for some years and they were pretty high-powered, especially mine (he was the oldest in game-years). But hey, it fitted the character, it added tragic dimensions to him, and while that new diaadvantage was bloody annoying during that scenario (the GM had lifted the idea from some obscure bit of Celtic mythology) afterwards it added to the character's uniqueness.

[Neek]

[@ Neek: Yeah well, I made the mistake of reading through the rest of the postings below mine after the Sheriff had made his warning, and then I just had to reply, had I? I should've logged out right away.

And as for my playing style, I've always considered myself mainly a storyteller kind of gamemaster and player, I only got into "rules-gaming" after bad experiences with an arbitrary GM, and well, through d20 overloads in the ast few years. d20 really isn't a good system for more the more drama-based or cinematic sort of games.]

I just thought you might have shied from this thread altogether, is all. I'm glad you responded, though. d20 can be quite impassible as an RP-heavy game, seeing that it's designed to be the cinematic fantasy game--doubly for d20 Modern. You can still pull it off if you're flexible with judging the rules or hardly make use of them. I prefer the Storyteller systems for heavy drama and RP, seeing as those premises build the system.

It can be hard to describe situations to players if they're not the same kind of thinker as you are. Some players just need the word "scary" to think something is. Some players need full on description, others will need examples. Not every DM can account for every type of thinker, and a capable roleplayer can deduce what he needs to with the information given.

[Jayabalard]

At the same time, though, I, as a player, am being told to "Waste your time creating a character you're not interested in." or "Find yourself a new group". Both of which seem to be less than optimal solutions to the issue at hand.Nope... you're being told, "if you're enjoy this campaign, play a character; if not, run your own campaign and tell me when it is, or don't play, whichever suits you best."

Noone has a right to demand that you play ia game that you don't want to play; if you're not interested in someone's campaign don't play it; if someone wants you to run a campaign you're not interested in, don't run it. It works the same whether you're the GM or the player.

[Bassetking]

Nope... you're being told, "if you're enjoy this campaign, play a character; if not, run your own campaign and tell me when it is, or don't play, whichever suits you best."

Noone has a right to demand that you play ia game that you don't want to play; if you're not interested in someone's campaign don't play it; if someone wants you to run a campaign you're not interested in, don't run it. It works the same whether you're the GM or the player.

I'm almost certain I've misunderstood this, but it seems that the two primary recourses presented to our unsatisfied player are to "Play something else." or "Leave." Neither of which seems to be an optimum solution to the issue, or to the long-term continued health of the campaign, or the players involved. I'm uncertain as to the relationships between the individuals playing around your table, Jaya, but in the circle of friends with which I game, neither "Don't Play" nor "Run your own game" would sit well. The first denies the excluded the opportunity to spend time with the group, makes meaningless their schedules, their invested time in the group, and their invested time in a group of friends to whom they would suddenly lose access. The second does not work, for my group specifically, because Our DM does not like to play, as a player. He is only interested in DMing. Saying "I'm taking the group, and running my own campaign" once again defeats the group dynamic, by explicitly excising our DM.

With those two facts presented, Either of the given responses you've provided... place the player in the position to say "Screw my friends, I'll find a new group of friends, and spend time with them."

Again... a non optimum solution.

[Jayabalard]

The gm isn't obligated to run any campaign that he's not interested in; the players are not obligated to play in any campaign that they aren't interested in. If the players are only interested in campaign ideas that the GM is not comfortable playing and the GM is only interested in campaigns that the players are not interested in, this is not a compatible gaming group. Be friends, just don't play RPGs with each other.

The scenario:

For the GM, running a campaign that the player is demanding is "wast[ing] several weeks of my time creating a campaign that [the gm is] not interested in." - my statement; the GM is not willing to run a campaign with certain elements.
For the player, playing in the campaign that the GM is willing to run is "Wast[ing] your time creating a character you're not interested in." - your counter to my statement; the players are not interested in playing without those elements.


If the GM doesn't have any interest want to run the campaign that some particular player wants to play, and (as you stated) the player is totally uninterested in what the campaign that the DM does want to play, then they shouldn't play together; that's the optimal solution.

No Gaming > Bad Gaming

As for the individuals around my table... If they like playing the campaigns that I run, they're welcome to play in them; if not, they don't have to. I simply won't run some types of campaigns, period. It won't affect our friendship; they understand that running a game is not an obligation. If I am interested in playing their campaigns, I will; if I don't I won't.

For example
-I'm not a fan of steam punk/Wild west, so I'm not playing in my friend Deadlands campaign,
-I'm not comfortable running a discworld campaign, so I'm not going to run it; if someone else wants to run it, I may or may not play in it.

It doesn't affect our friendship in the slightest. We don't base our friendship off of something as petty as a roleplaying game.

PM me if something is still unclear and I'll try and explain it more thoroughly; since this really has nothing to do with the topic, we should probably not derail the thread any further.

[Tobrian]

Originally Posted by Dan_Hemmens
Because the *last* thing you want players to do is to actually follow the plot. I mean, if they don't waste time looking at completely pointless bits of scenery, how are they ever going to appreciate the *effort* you put into your worldbuilding.
The pointless bits of scenery are *part* of worldbuilding. Only describing things plot-related is a passive form of railroading.

Thank you. You elegantly summed up in two sentences what I was trying to say.

I think I have figured out why Dan_Hemmens and I will never be on the same wavelength even though I agreed with his postings on the first page of this thread. He is a plot-player. I unfortunately have one like him in my own group (unfortunately because this runs counter to my DMing style). He plays the group's paladin and regards everything that happens which isn't clearly related to advancing the plot(s), such as character interactions or side-trips, as superfluous, and reacts increasingly frustrated on a subconscious level when he cannot bring the other players or me "back on plot track". Even talking to NPCs is only done when he needs to find someone out and then he expects them to cough up the info quickly, which means all the little bits of texture (world history, background of recurring NPCs) are regarded as an obstacle to "solving" the plot. Incidentally he never supplied me with any background for his character or motivations. He is a good tactical planner, but he tends to boss other players around a bit.


-------------
@ Bassetking: Reading your postings, I get the impression that both the player you mention and the DM have become so obsessed with their own position that they cannot move an inch and have painted themselves into a corner.

Also, I'd say your group suffers from at least one, probably more, problems from the Geek Social Fallacies (http://sean.chittenden.org/humor/www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) list.

more below...


I'm almost certain I've misunderstood this, but it seems that the two primary recourses presented to our unsatisfied player are to "Play something else." or "Leave." Neither of which seems to be an optimum solution to the issue, or to the long-term continued health of the campaign, or the players involved.

The world doesn't always offer you only optimum solutions.

As for the "long-term continued health of the campaign", would you rather have
a) a player sitting there who is either sulking because he couldn't play his favorite character, or a DM who gets annoyed at a PC that doesn't fit into the setting but that he has to shoehorn in,
OR
b) the problem player who is unwilling to come to a compromise to opt out of this one campaign, with the option that he is welcome to rejoin the group for the next campaign?

If the player wants to play but is absolutely unable to compromise and create a character that fits the DM's setting and guidelines, then this is the player's problem. Seriously. :smallannoyed: A DM is not obligated to rewrite his campaign just to please one player's taste of character creation.

Otherwise what this player is doing is demanding that everything has to revolve around his wants and needs, like a toddler; the DM is supposed to accomodate the player's unsuitable character, just so that the player can play. He is putting emotional pressure on you and then you are putting emotional pressure on the DM, raising the evil spectre of "if I can't play, we stop being friends".


I'm uncertain as to the relationships between the individuals playing around your table, Jaya, but in the circle of friends with which I game, neither "Don't Play" nor "Run your own game" would sit well. The first denies the excluded the opportunity to spend time with the group, makes meaningless their schedules, their invested time in the group, and their invested time in a group of friends to whom they would suddenly lose access.

Why, do you only have access to this circle of friends when you're around a gaming table? Does you life become "meaningless" when you're taking a time-out from the group? This doesnt sound healthy. (And this coming from an avid roleplayer.)


The second does not work, for my group specifically, because Our DM does not like to play, as a player. He is only interested in DMing. Saying "I'm taking the group, and running my own campaign" once again defeats the group dynamic, by explicitly excising our DM.

Which is entirely HIS problem. He is an adult, right, he can make decisions and take the consequences. No-one is "excising" that guy, he is excluding himself with that attitude.

It's like he's holding the game ransom... no-one but him is allowed to DM and he doesn't want to play, so if someone else starts a parallel group they will all feel bad because they feel like traitors to the guy who refuses to be a player once in a while. Did I get that right?


With those two facts presented, Either of the given responses you've provided... place the player in the position to say "Screw my friends, I'll find a new group of friends, and spend time with them."

Again... a non optimum solution.

Again... does your life and your friends' lives revolve solely around roleplaying? Is "leaving the group" equated to "breaking off all relations"? :smallconfused:

I've had people from my circle of friends and roleplaying acquaintances opt out of a group because they couldn't make it to the sessions, or because they didn't like the setting. One guy was part of our Vampire group and a Millenium's End group, but when we started a Changeling game, he simply said he didn't like the setting. No harm done. I don't like to play Midgard, so I don't, and I opted out of a Spacemaster game right at character creation once, because there simply wasn't anything I particularly wanted to play in that specific character group constellation.

I'm a lot more sad when I see a group and/or setting that I want to play in and can't because I'm told they're already at capacity and have no free player spot.

[Bassetking]

1Why, do you only have access to this circle of friends when you're around a gaming table?2 Does you life become "meaningless" when you're taking a time-out from the group? This doesnt sound healthy. (And this coming from an avid roleplayer.)



3Which is entirely HIS problem. He is an adult, right, he can make decisions and take the consequences. No-one is "excising" that guy, he is excluding himself with that attitude.

It's like he's holding the game ransom... no-one but him is allowed to DM and he doesn't want to play, so if someone else starts a parallel group they will all feel bad because they feel like traitors to the guy who refuses to be a player once in a while. Did I get that right?



4Again... does your life and your friends' lives revolve solely around roleplaying? 5Is "leaving the group" equated to "breaking off all relations"? :smallconfused:

I've had people from my circle of friends and roleplaying acquaintances opt out of a group because they couldn't make it to the sessions, or because they didn't like the setting. One guy was part of our Vampire group and a Millenium's End group, but when we started a Changeling game, he simply said he didn't like the setting. No harm done. I don't like to play Midgard, so I don't, and I opted out of a Spacemaster game right at character creation once, because there simply wasn't anything I particularly wanted to play in that specific character group constellation.

I'm a lot more sad when I see a group and/or setting that I want to play in and can't because I'm told they're already at capacity and have no free player spot.

1. Yes. I get to see this group of friends once every month. Once every two weeks if we're lucky. We live, all told, ranging from Cincinnati to Dayton, to Columbus, and we, for whatever reason, do not meet centrally, and make the two hour + trips to our DM's location.

2. No, certainly not. However, since my DM's campaigns tend to run on Year+ long scales, to sit out on "one campaign" is to sit out on interaction with this group for six months to a year.

3. Yup.

4. No, our lives do not revolve solely around roleplaying.

5. For a small group of people, all of whom are working near-minimum wage jobs, all of whom live >an hour apart from one another... Yeah. Opting out of the small scheduled window in which we're all available to hang out? Tantamount to breaking off all relations. Sure, there's the internet. But that doesn't do a lot, when you can only see single members of the group, at different given times.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I usually feel strict game mechanics rather limiting.

That's fair enough, different strokes for different folks and all that.


Your example pro-game mechanic and contra-DM is a bit slanted. It could just as well be constructed the other way around:

The GM informs you that your character feels scared (perhaps because of an underlying game mechanic like an aura of fear?) and leaves everything else to you. Fine?

Not fine, because he's still dictated to me what my character feels, which is a no-no in my opinion.


Let's assume someone is running a horror game using Rolemaster/Spacemaster rules. The game dictates that your PC loses 10 SAN in one go, which means that the character should roll on Table x-33 to determine some permanent mental problem, and then roll on Table x-26 to determine how the character reacts - does he run away, does he laugh hysterically, etc - and for how many rounds.

That I'd be perfectly happy with but, crucially, I'd be expecting a very, very different form of game. If I was playing rolemaster I'd be *expecting* to have to roll on a bunch of tables that provide a bunch of silly effects.


I dunno, to me a die roll merely gives the illusion of free choice when in effect you don't have one. It merely removes the obligation to make a ruling from the GM's shoulders and puts it on an inanimate object. The only difference is that players like to assume the GM is acting out of malice to mess with their characters (well ok sometimes he is, but give it the benefit of the doubt), while the die holds no malice.

That's pretty much it actually: except it isn't a question of *malice*, it's a question of *neutrality*.

Let me put it this way.

Suppose your character was being attacked by an Orc, and instead of rolling for an attack, the GM just said "the Orc cuts your head off, you're dead." Or for that matter, "the Orc's blade bites deeply into your arm, crippling it beyond the point of use."

Now I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure you'd be upset. But presumably you *wouldn't* be upset if the Orc killed or crippled your character as a direct result of the combat system.

How is your character's mind any different to his body?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Thank you. You elegantly summed up in two sentences what I was trying to say.

I think I have figured out why Dan_Hemmens and I will never be on the same wavelength even though I agreed with his postings on the first page of this thread. He is a plot-player. I unfortunately have one like him in my own group (unfortunately because this runs counter to my DMing style). He plays the group's paladin and regards everything that happens which isn't clearly related to advancing the plot(s), such as character interactions or side-trips, as superfluous, and reacts increasingly frustrated on a subconscious level when he cannot bring the other players or me "back on plot track". Even talking to NPCs is only done when he needs to find someone out and then he expects them to cough up the info quickly, which means all the little bits of texture (world history, background of recurring NPCs) are regarded as an obstacle to "solving" the plot. Incidentally he never supplied me with any background for his character or motivations. He is a good tactical planner, but he tends to boss other players around a bit.


Actually you're *almost* right.

I'm not a plot player, I'm a character player. Which means I view any part of the game which does not involve my character, or another player's character, making a meaningful decision to be superfluous.

Or, more precisely, to be superfluous from the point of view of character, but potentially interesting from a tactical or resource allocation standpoint.

Take the hoary old Troll example.

If we're wandering along, and we get attacked by a troll, that isn't provoking any kind of meaningful decision from the characters. Either we run away from it, in which case it might as well never have shown up in the first place, or else we fight it, in which case we're basically engaging in a minigame for its own sake.

Now if the troll was attacking a third party, that might constitute a meaningful character decision, but in that case I wouldn't care that much how the actual *fight* went. I'd be happy to basically roll a D20, add my level, and have my character lose Hit Points based on how well I rolled.

In neither case would "does my character know about fire and acid" strike me as a meaningful question, from a character perspective.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I've never played in a group where this has happened... sounds like you've been burned by some bad GMs

Ah, whereas I would say the exact opposite. A lot of people here sound like they've been burned by bad players.

This isn't unusual, it's more or less the way RPGs have worked for the past thirty years. It is assumed that GMs can handle absolute power, but player's can't handle any.

Take, for example, the suggestion upthread that if I allowed my players to decide what their characters knew they would "all grant themselves god-like levels of knowledge."

This might be true if your players are more interested in getting a game mechanical advantage than in playing their characters, but in that case no amount of rules or mechanics will make the game anything other than a struggle.

Once you start from the *assumption* that players are every bit as dedicated to the game as you are, and that their characters represent just as much of a creative investment as your world, all the problems people have with "metagaming" and "powergaming" and all the other symptoms of tension in a group just melt away.

[Jayabalard]

Take, for example, the suggestion upthread that if I allowed my players to decide what their characters knew they would "all grant themselves god-like levels of knowledge."I'm not sure who you're quoting... perhaps they've been burned by a bad player.

Besides, it's not like people are pulling that idea out of thin air when they argue against it... as I recall, you were the one who initially suggested that the players should have unreasonable levels of knowledge without paying the cost for having that knowledge; advocating that players should use out of character knowledge if it gives them a mechanical advantage.

Certainly, I've run into a few players like that but I've been pretty lucky in general; I haven't had to deal with more than a handful of player like that in 20+ years of gaming.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm not sure who you're quoting... perhaps they've been burned by a bad player.

Besides, it's not like people are pulling that idea out of thin air when they argue against it... as I recall, you were the one who initially suggested that the players should have unreasonable levels of knowledge without paying the cost for having that knowledge.

No, I suggested that players should have whatever knowledge they deem it appropriate for their character to have.

That, by definition, is not unreasonable. If it was unreasonable, they wouldn't deem it appropriate.

[Jayabalard]

ahh, it must have been the other dan hemmens...

[Dan_Hemmens]

ahh, it must have been the other dan hemmens...

I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.

[Tormsskull]

No, I suggested that players should have whatever knowledge they deem it appropriate for their character to have.

That, by definition, is not unreasonable. If it was unreasonable, they wouldn't deem it appropriate.

But if a player deems that they should have knowledge that the DM deems inappropriate, then the player is requesting that his character has unreasonable knowledge, thus making it unreasonable.

Regardless of how you want to dice it up, what it comes down to is that there has to be someone who determines what is reasonable, unreasonable, appropriate, inappropriate. That person, by the core books explanation, is the DM.

That's why I would suggest that a player's character can have whatever knowledge they deem appropriate that is also approved by the DM.

When I read between the lines in your posts it seems like what you are saying is that you want something, anything, that as a player you have complete control over and that the DM cannot affect. This is where the trust issue would come in, in my mind.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But if a player deems that they should have knowledge that the DM deems inappropriate, then the player is requesting that his character has unreasonable knowledge, thus making it unreasonable.

Regardless of how you want to dice it up, what it comes down to is that there has to be someone who determines what is reasonable, unreasonable, appropriate, inappropriate. That person, by the core books explanation, is the DM.

Since I was advocating a change to the current rules, that is neither here nor there.


That's why I would suggest that a player's character can have whatever knowledge they deem appropriate that is also approved by the DM.

When I read between the lines in your posts it seems like what you are saying is that you want something, anything, that as a player you have complete control over and that the DM cannot affect. This is where the trust issue would come in, in my mind.

Yes, and the trust issue is "does the DM trust me to actually make a creative contribution to this game."

To which the default answer, in D&D and in most other traditional RPGs is "no."

Which is why people focus on treasure and XP instead.

[Tormsskull]

Since I was advocating a change to the current rules, that is neither here nor there.


Sometimes it is difficult to discern exactly what you are saying. Summarizing your overall point for this thread would be "Altering D&D so that some of the control that by default rests in the position of DM instead goes to the players makes for a better overall system"?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Sometimes it is difficult to discern exactly what you are saying. Summarizing your overall point for this thread would be "Altering D&D so that some of the control that by default rests in the position of DM instead goes to the players makes for a better overall system"?

Pretty much.

[Dan_Hemmens]

At the same time, though, I, as a player, am being told to "Waste your time creating a character you're not interested in." or "Find yourself a new group". Both of which seem to be less than optimal solutions to the issue at hand.

The entire crux, again, falls onto DM Fiat. I may play the character I'm not interested in to the HILT in his current campaign. Situationally appropriate, in depth, devoted, and a scintillating character. When it comes time for the next campaign? My interest holds the exact same quantity of value for the DM as it did for the first one. "If I feel like it, maybe."

To be fair, you're actually in pretty much the same position as the DM here. You can't force him to run a game he doesn't want to run, he can't force you to play a character you don't want to play.

The disparity only arises because a GM can more easily run a game in spite of his players than a player can play a character in spite of his GM, if you see what I mean.

For what it's worth, I'm designing a game system at the moment which has a "Campaign Creation" system, which gives everybody a much more equal say in this kind of thing.

[PaladinBoy]

No, I suggested that players should have whatever knowledge they deem it appropriate for their character to have.

That, by definition, is not unreasonable. If it was unreasonable, they wouldn't deem it appropriate.

And what happens if the player and DM disagree on what constitutes "appropriate"? After all, if the rules aren't used, it's possible to have an Int 8 barbarian knowing more about a rare monster than a Int 28 loremaster does, which only seems reasonable in certain rare situations.


Suppose your character was being attacked by an Orc, and instead of rolling for an attack, the GM just said "the Orc cuts your head off, you're dead." Or for that matter, "the Orc's blade bites deeply into your arm, crippling it beyond the point of use."

Now I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure you'd be upset. But presumably you *wouldn't* be upset if the Orc killed or crippled your character as a direct result of the combat system.

How is your character's mind any different to his body?

What's the problem with using/redesigning the rules for your character's mind (Knowledge skills and mental ability scores)? They allow you to determine what your character knows just like weapon proficiencies and BAB determine how good your character is in a fight.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And what happens if the player and DM disagree on what constitutes "appropriate"? After all, if the rules aren't used, it's possible to have an Int 8 barbarian knowing more about a rare monster than a Int 28 loremaster does, which only seems reasonable in certain rare situations.

If the player and the DM disagree about what constitutes appropriate, the player's call takes precedence.

This is absolutely no different to the DM's call taking precedence. The DM is not inherently more sensible, more mature, or more fair-minded than the player.


What's the problem with using/redesigning the rules for your character's mind (Knowledge skills and mental ability scores)? They allow you to determine what your character knows just like weapon proficiencies and BAB determine how good your character is in a fight.

Strict adherence to the Knowledge rules is obviously silly, though. By strict reading, your character should have to make a DC 10 check every time they wanted to recall a piece of common knowledge. They should have to make a check with DC 10 + HD every time they wanted to identify a monster.

By strict reading of the rules, a character with no ranks in Knowledge: Local shouldn't be able to recognize a human. They'd need to make a DC 11 skill check, and they can't make checks above DC 10 without ranks.

So somebody has to make a judgment call, and players are just as qualified to make that as DMs.

[Counterpower]

I agree that DM's need to trust their players, and I generally try to do so. However, isn't it true that there will be times when the DM has no choice?

I provided this example back on page 12, but no one responded.


In Eberron, dragons have almost no contact with the common races. At all. People know that dragons exist, but only a few people know much about them. From what standpoint does it make any sense at all that a character would know details about dragons (like the specifics of a brass dragon's nonlethal breath weapon) without ranks in Knowledge (whichever skill it is) or some other reason, like being from a tribe of Seren barbarians that actually do have common contact with dragons?

What happens if one of my players in an Eberron game tries to play a character that would have had absolutely no reason to know anything about dragons, and yet tries to claim lots of knowledge about them? Basically, I fully agree that the players need to be free to develop their characters, and the DM needs to trust them to do that in a way that will improve the game. What happens if the players don't hold to that? If they blatantly diverge from the personality they've been playing to gain some kind of mechanical advantage? What should I as a DM do when I trust my players to play their characters in a reasonable, sensible manner, and they don't? What should I do when the only options left are to let them play in a completely nonsensical manner to gain advantages, or force a change with the power I have as a DM?

[Dan_Hemmens]

I agree that DM's need to trust their players, and I generally try to do so. However, isn't it true that there will be times when the DM has no choice?

Yes and no.

Obviously, if you're playing with people who *aren't* interested in making the game better for everybody, you can't trust them to act like they are.

But why would you want to play with those sorts of people?


I provided this example back on page 12, but no one responded.

What happens if one of my players in an Eberron game tries to play a character that would have had absolutely no reason to know anything about dragons, and yet tries to claim lots of knowledge about them? Basically, I fully agree that the players need to be free to develop their characters, and the DM needs to trust them to do that in a way that will improve the game. What happens if the players don't hold to that? If they blatantly diverge from the personality they've been playing to gain some kind of mechanical advantage? What should I as a DM do when I trust my players to play their characters in a reasonable, sensible manner, and they don't? What should I do when the only options left are to let them play in a completely nonsensical manner to gain advantages, or force a change with the power I have as a DM?

Now there's two possibilities here.

a) The player is just trying to get a mechanical advantage.

b) The player feels that it is important that his character know a lot about dragons.

Now assuming you trust your players, you should never assume (a) if there is any chance that (b) is in fact the case.

Now there has to be a compromise. Either your player's desire to play a character who knows a lot about dragons or Eberron's assumption that nobody knows very much about dragons has to give way.

Personally, I would always choose to prioritize the wishes of a player over the assumptions of a published setting.

[Counterpower]

Yes and no.

Obviously, if you're playing with people who *aren't* interested in making the game better for everybody, you can't trust them to act like they are.

But why would you want to play with those sorts of people?

Well, the most likely possibility is that I'd rather force them toward more constructive play styles rather than disinvite them entirely. If it was a habitual problem, then yes, I wouldn't want to play with them. If I can inform them that their actions aren't helping, and they change what they're doing without causing problems, then I'd prefer that. Admittedly not very likely, but I'd rather try using DM fiat before "forgetting" to call them next time.


Now there's two possibilities here.

a) The player is just trying to get a mechanical advantage.

b) The player feels that it is important that his character know a lot about dragons.

Now assuming you trust your players, you should never assume (a) if there is any chance that (b) is in fact the case.

Now there has to be a compromise. Either your player's desire to play a character who knows a lot about dragons or Eberron's assumption that nobody knows very much about dragons has to give way.

Personally, I would always choose to prioritize the wishes of a player over the assumptions of a published setting.

What if the player feels it's important for his character to know a lot about dragons when it makes no sense for his character to know that information? Should I allow the wishes of that player to break the sense of immersion that the group is trying to cultivate? Should I ignore the wishes of the loremaster PC who actually did get ranks in Knowledge skills, who is now becoming more and more pointless as people gain the benefits of his skill ranks while having actually spent ranks in other skills? What happens when the wishes of groups of players collide, and the DM has to pick?

[Tormsskull]

What if the player feels it's important for his character to know a lot about dragons when it makes no sense for his character to know that information? Should I allow the wishes of that player to break the sense of immersion that the group is trying to cultivate? Should I ignore the wishes of the loremaster PC who actually did get ranks in Knowledge skills, who is now becoming more and more pointless as people gain the benefits of his skill ranks while having actually spent ranks in other skills? What happens when the wishes of groups of players collide, and the DM has to pick?

(my assumptions):

Dan's arguing under the premise that all of the players are completely reasonable, mature, understanding people who are going to take their fellow players enjoyment of the game into consideration, and as such won't engage in such activities.

In addition, he is saying if it comes down to an issue of the book/DM saying one thing about a PC, and the PC saying another about his/her PC, the PC should have the final say in the result.

As far as who gets to decide when its two non-DM players in a dispute over their respective characters, I believe he is ducking the question and referring you back to the fact that the players are assumed to be reasonable, mature, understanding people who will be able to work those issues out amongst themselves.

[PaladinBoy]

Yes and no.

Obviously, if you're playing with people who *aren't* interested in making the game better for everybody, you can't trust them to act like they are.

But why would you want to play with those sorts of people?

It's possible for perfectly sensible and mature people to have disagreements about the rules. The rules debates on this forum show that if nothing else does. Everyone can be interested in having a fun game, yet disagree on how to have a fun game or what rules or rules changes to use. Having everyone make a rules judgement then will result in more debate and disagreement as often as it will result in agreement.

If only one person has the authority to be rules arbiter, then you'll have fewer problems, so long as said person is fair and everyone agrees to accept his decision.

While this person might not have to be the DM, the rules assume that the DM is the one who has spent his time learning the rules and the one who is most familiar with them. While this will not always be true, I think it's a useful starting point.

Also, the players are not as good choices as the DM because they have a possible conflict of interest - their players. There's always a chance that a player acting as rules arbiter will favor his character. It's just human nature. While it is possible for a mature player to decide impartially, it seems to me that the DM, whose only goal should be to give his players a fun game, might be a better choice.

Not all of the points there about the players and the DM will always be true. It's just as possible to have a DM who is biased toward his BBEG as it is to have a player who can impartially decide rules debates. But given a choice between using a fair, unbiased player or a fair, unbiased DM for a rules arbiter, I would pick the DM, because I think his chance of having/developing a conflict of interest is much lower. Heck, I sometimes imagine that I'm mature, and my goals include my player's well-being and advancement as well as having a fun game.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, the most likely possibility is that I'd rather force them toward more constructive play styles rather than disinvite them entirely. If it was a habitual problem, then yes, I wouldn't want to play with them. If I can inform them that their actions aren't helping, and they change what they're doing without causing problems, then I'd prefer that. Admittedly not very likely, but I'd rather try using DM fiat before "forgetting" to call them next time.

Fair enough. I'm of the opinion that you can't force constructive play. Lead a horse to water and all that.


What if the player feels it's important for his character to know a lot about dragons when it makes no sense for his character to know that information? Should I allow the wishes of that player to break the sense of immersion that the group is trying to cultivate? Should I ignore the wishes of the loremaster PC who actually did get ranks in Knowledge skills, who is now becoming more and more pointless as people gain the benefits of his skill ranks while having actually spent ranks in other skills? What happens when the wishes of groups of players collide, and the DM has to pick?

Tormsskull actually sums up my response to this pretty well.

The situation you describe is essentially impossible if you have sensible, mature players.

If a player feels it is important for his character to know about dragons then it cannot "make no sense" for him to know about them.

Similarly, within this model, players can never disagree, because they aren't allowed to dictate what other players know.

I want my Dragon Disciple to know about dragons. Somebody else wants his Loremaster to know about Dragons. We both get to know about dragons.

If the guy playing the Loremaster wants my character to *not* know about dragons, that's tough. That's not his call to make.

The Loremaster isn't "useless" because if I'm running a game under this set of assumptions it's going to be character focused and player-driven. There will be no puzzles to solve, no monsters with weaknesses to find out, just meaningful character decisions.

[Tyger]

Ahhhh... now I see it all more clearly. Dan_Hemmens is assuming, perhaps advocating and maybe believing that the players in all games are:

a) Sensible
b) Responsible
c) Mature
d) Concerned as much with the enjoyment of others at the table (including the DM) as with their own enjoyment, and,
e) Would never 'fudge' things in their character's favor for purely selfish reasons.

Given those players, I would 100% agree with Dan. No question at all. That takes a lot of the burden off the DM, who can then focus his/her energies on making the game the best it can be.

Unfortunately, the last time I got a group together, Ghandi, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama and Lao'tzu weren't available to play, so I got stuck with my friends. All of whom are mortal humans, and thus fallible and occassionally selfish.

Sorry to be so tongue in cheek Dan_Hemmens, but that's the reality of my gaming friends. I like them all, we're friends in and out of game time, and I trust them all with my money, my wife and my son, but when there's glory, adventure, gold pieces and XP at stake... some of us forget that we're in it for the whole team. Were that not the case, I'd agree with you completely. I like the picture you paint. But lacking that canvas to work with, I'm going to stick with the Knowledge skills. It ain't perfect, but it works for us. :smallsmile: I am glad that what you do works for you though. We should all be so lucky.

[Counterpower]

Tormsskull actually sums up my response to this pretty well.

The situation you describe is essentially impossible if you have sensible, mature players.

I'm not so sure about that. Just because people are sensible and mature doesn't mean they'll all agree on what constitutes sensible.


If a player feels it is important for his character to know about dragons then it cannot "make no sense" for him to know about them.

What if the player just wants his character to know about dragons but can't provide any IC justification?


Similarly, within this model, players can never disagree, because they aren't allowed to dictate what other players know.

See, while I agree that a player shouldn't be able to tell another player how to play the game, I still think that what one player wants can get in the way of another player in the first place.


I want my Dragon Disciple to know about dragons. Somebody else wants his Loremaster to know about Dragons. We both get to know about dragons.

If the guy playing the Loremaster wants my character to *not* know about dragons, that's tough. That's not his call to make.

That's perfectly reasonable. It makes no sense to me, and probably to most people, that a Dragon Disciple wouldn't be fairly knowledgeable in that area. What if the player of a city character, who's spent their entire life in a city's high society, wants her character to have extensive knowledge about dragons? Should I as a DM just accept that "it's her character, she gets to make the call"? Or should I ask for and expect some reasonable IC justification, so as to help preserve my and the other players' suspension of disbelief?

And, with the second point, I can see the Loremaster's side of it. He's spent probably a great deal of his skill points on Knowledge skills so as to help represent a knowledgeable character. And yet, here's a Dragon Disciple who spent his skill points in completely different areas getting all the benefits of the Loremaster's skill ranks. Does that seem particularly fair to you?


The Loremaster isn't "useless" because if I'm running a game under this set of assumptions it's going to be character focused and player-driven. There will be no puzzles to solve, no monsters with weaknesses to find out, just meaningful character decisions.

I try to make my games fairly player-driven. However, if I wanted to play a know-it-all character, I would want there to be some distinction between my abundance of Knowledge skills and the other players' lack of the same. What's the point of getting the skills if other players know as much as I do about the topics of discussion without spending so much as a point on them? Why should I be penalized for taking ranks in Knowledge (the planes) when all of the other players get to recognize and know everything about demons without any of my skill ranks?

[Neek]

Tormsskull actually sums up my response to this pretty well.

The situation you describe is essentially impossible if you have sensible, mature players.

If a player feels it is important for his character to know about dragons then it cannot "make no sense" for him to know about them.

Similarly, within this model, players can never disagree, because they aren't allowed to dictate what other players know.

I want my Dragon Disciple to know about dragons. Somebody else wants his Loremaster to know about Dragons. We both get to know about dragons.

If the guy playing the Loremaster wants my character to *not* know about dragons, that's tough. That's not his call to make.

The Loremaster isn't "useless" because if I'm running a game under this set of assumptions it's going to be character focused and player-driven. There will be no puzzles to solve, no monsters with weaknesses to find out, just meaningful character decisions.

You didn't do much to answer his predicament. Rather, you went the idea that we must all be aspiring to your set of ideals, and answered it that PaladinBoy is playing with a). players are sensible, mature people and b). is running a character-focused and player-driven game. When in fact, the situation he's describing includes players who may not be entirely sensible nor mature, and that the game is puzzle-and-encounter focused, plot-driven exploration of a magipunk universe.

In his game, where a player (who is not stated to be a Dragon Disciple, or any other class or background) is using extraneous knowledge to supplant actual knowledge that threatens the abilities and roles of another character, thusly depriving another player of power over his character; this also makes for implausible encounters, especially when dragons do get involved. Why is the Loremaster, who is the group's intelligence department, not handing out the information without there being a good precedent?

Tyger said it much more succinctly, however, being that we aren't playing with the ideal players, some of us are best set playing by the rules.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Ahhhh... now I see it all more clearly. Dan_Hemmens is assuming, perhaps advocating and maybe believing that the players in all games are:

a) Sensible
b) Responsible
c) Mature
d) Concerned as much with the enjoyment of others at the table (including the DM) as with their own enjoyment, and,
e) Would never 'fudge' things in their character's favor for purely selfish reasons.

Given those players, I would 100% agree with Dan. No question at all. That takes a lot of the burden off the DM, who can then focus his/her energies on making the game the best it can be.

Pretty much. I have the advantage of being (comparatively) recently out of university, where we have a large and active roleplaying society, many of whom I'm still in contact with. It makes finding players easy.


Unfortunately, the last time I got a group together, Ghandi, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama and Lao'tzu weren't available to play, so I got stuck with my friends. All of whom are mortal humans, and thus fallible and occassionally selfish.

Yeah, people are fallible. Players are fallible, and so are GMs.

The DM should absolutely have the right to say "dude, would your character really do that?" and a player should absolutely have the right to say "dude, would that NPC really do that?".


Sorry to be so tongue in cheek Dan_Hemmens, but that's the reality of my gaming friends. I like them all, we're friends in and out of game time, and I trust them all with my money, my wife and my son, but when there's glory, adventure, gold pieces and XP at stake... some of us forget that we're in it for the whole team. Were that not the case, I'd agree with you completely. I like the picture you paint. But lacking that canvas to work with, I'm going to stick with the Knowledge skills. It ain't perfect, but it works for us. :smallsmile: I am glad that what you do works for you though. We should all be so lucky.

That's fair, but can I ask a serious question:

Have you tried playing a game which *doesn't* revolve so heavily around gold pieces and XP? The big issue with D&D (in my opinion) is that it frequently forces you to choose between effectiveness and character.

Most of my players would *probably* take the in-character option over the mechanically effective option every time, but fortunately it doesn't come up much, because we tend to play games which don't force you to make the choice.

[Tyger]

Have you tried playing a game which *doesn't* revolve so heavily around gold pieces and XP? The big issue with D&D (in my opinion) is that it frequently forces you to choose between effectiveness and character.

Most of my players would *probably* take the in-character option over the mechanically effective option every time, but fortunately it doesn't come up much, because we tend to play games which don't force you to make the choice.

Yup, our main game. The gold and XP are great, but its the saving of the world from the demon that we unwittingly unleashed that's the fun. Note that "glory and adventure" appear in the list before gold and XP?

Not to say that "stuff" isn't fun to find, but the RP and the thrill of adventuring are why we play. If I wanted to count money and other stats, I'd play Accountants and Administrators. :smallsmile:

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm not so sure about that. Just because people are sensible and mature doesn't mean they'll all agree on what constitutes sensible.

But it does mean that they'll reach a consensus without having a third party take sides.


What if the player just wants his character to know about dragons but can't provide any IC justification?

What do you mean by "IC justification"? To my mind, wanting your character to know something pretty much constitutes IC justification by definition. If you want your character to be a certain way, you must want being that way to be part of your character, so there must be an IC justification.


See, while I agree that a player shouldn't be able to tell another player how to play the game, I still think that what one player wants can get in the way of another player in the first place.

That's perfectly reasonable. It makes no sense to me, and probably to most people, that a Dragon Disciple wouldn't be fairly knowledgeable in that area. What if the player of a city character, who's spent their entire life in a city's high society, wants her character to have extensive knowledge about dragons? Should I as a DM just accept that "it's her character, she gets to make the call"? Or should I ask for and expect some reasonable IC justification, so as to help preserve my and the other players' suspension of disbelief?

It depends on what you define as "reasonable IC justification."

As far as I'm concerned "my character is interested in this, and has picked up a lot of information about it" is perfectly legitimate.


And, with the second point, I can see the Loremaster's side of it. He's spent probably a great deal of his skill points on Knowledge skills so as to help represent a knowledgeable character. And yet, here's a Dragon Disciple who spent his skill points in completely different areas getting all the benefits of the Loremaster's skill ranks. Does that seem particularly fair to you?

It seems perfectly fair. Both players get to play the characters they want, what could be fairer?


I try to make my games fairly player-driven. However, if I wanted to play a know-it-all character, I would want there to be some distinction between my abundance of Knowledge skills and the other players' lack of the same. What's the point of getting the skills if other players know as much as I do about the topics of discussion without spending so much as a point on them? Why should I be penalized for taking ranks in Knowledge (the planes) when all of the other players get to recognize and know everything about demons without any of my skill ranks?

Remember that we're assuming the players are all sensible, mature individuals.

The other players only get to know everything about demons if it makes sense for their character (as defined by their player, who we presume to be acting in good faith).

Look at it this way.

Suppose you are playing a Human Wizard/Loremaster, and somebody else is playing a Half-Elf Sorcerer.

You buy up Int, the Sorcerer buys up Charisma.

You wind up getting seven skill points per level, the sorcerer gets two. As spellcasters, you are equal. The Sorcerer gets a slight edge in social situations, but not much of one, because +4 Charisma doesn't go very far when you don't have any ranks in Diplomacy.

You buy up all the Knowledge skills you can, as well as Spellcraft and Concentration. The Sorcerer can only afford Spellcraft and Concentration.

The Sorcerer is very much planar-themed: he takes mostly summoning spells, he conjures demons, he dabbles in some seriously dubious occult practices.

Does it really hurt *you* for him to know as much about demons as you do? He conjures the things on a daily basis, you just read about them. They're his entire schtick, they're a small part of your whole "knowledge" deal. You've still got more skill points than him, as well as a bigger spell list. He's getting some knowledge without "paying for it", but you're getting to be a better spellcaster than him without paying for it either.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yup, our main game. The gold and XP are great, but its the saving of the world from the demon that we unwittingly unleashed that's the fun. Note that "glory and adventure" appear in the list before gold and XP?

Not to say that "stuff" isn't fun to find, but the RP and the thrill of adventuring are why we play. If I wanted to count money and other stats, I'd play Accountants and Administrators. :smallsmile:

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to make guesses about how you play D&D, I'm just wondering if you've tried any non-D&D games, which wouldn't require as much compromise (which must exist, or the "lure of glory and adventure, treasure and XP" wouldn't be an issue).

[Dan_Hemmens]

You didn't do much to answer his predicament. Rather, you went the idea that we must all be aspiring to your set of ideals, and answered it that PaladinBoy is playing with a). players are sensible, mature people and b). is running a character-focused and player-driven game. When in fact, the situation he's describing includes players who may not be entirely sensible nor mature, and that the game is puzzle-and-encounter focused, plot-driven exploration of a magipunk universe.

I was responding to a hypothetical rather than actual example.

If you're running a puzzle-and-encouter focused, plot-driven exploration of a magipunk universe, then you should just let people use OOC knowledge to solve the encounters and puzzles, because they're OOC challenges anyway really. And exploring the universe *has* to happen IC, because otherwise it isn't exploring.


In his game, where a player (who is not stated to be a Dragon Disciple, or any other class or background) is using extraneous knowledge to supplant actual knowledge that threatens the abilities and roles of another character, thusly depriving another player of power over his character; this also makes for implausible encounters, especially when dragons do get involved. Why is the Loremaster, who is the group's intelligence department, not handing out the information without there being a good precedent?

Because the Loremaster, as a full spellcaster, should have plenty of other ways to assist the party, other than Knowledge checks?

Using OOC information in this case doesn't affect the encouters and puzzles (which assume you'll use it anyway), or the plot (which you shouldn't know about OOC) or exploration (ditto). So I don't see much of a problem here.

[Rakin]

I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."
Make a door where there is no key.:smallbiggrin:

Don't you hate when you start reading a thred forever pages long and you see something in the beginning that you want to reply to? I do too.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Make a door where there is no key.:smallbiggrin:

Don't you hate when you start reading a thred forever pages long and you see something in the beginning that you want to reply to? I do too.

I still don't get why people find the "there must be a key here somewhere" thing so objectionable.

Surely all adventures are predicated on the players accepting that they're ... well ... supposed to go on the adventure.

[Counterpower]

But it does mean that they'll reach a consensus without having a third party take sides.

It's certainly more possible, but I don't believe it's assured.


What do you mean by "IC justification"? To my mind, wanting your character to know something pretty much constitutes IC justification by definition. If you want your character to be a certain way, you must want being that way to be part of your character, so there must be an IC justification.

I mean some information about your character's statistics, backstory, or personality by which it makes sense for your character to know this information. If it doesn't make sense, then that interferes with my and the rest of the party's ability to accept this as a world.


It depends on what you define as "reasonable IC justification."

As far as I'm concerned "my character is interested in this, and has picked up a lot of information about it" is perfectly legitimate.

Going back to the city character I proposed earlier, my next question when given that justification would be "When? Your backstory indicated that you spent most of your time going to parties and social events in the city. In fact, nothing in your character's backstory or personality suggests any interest in dragons at all. Why is this coming up now?" I have no problem with a little allowance in backstories or personality (or, indeed, a lot of allowance). But the situation I've been assuming is dealing with the addition of details in the midst of a game. Isn't a little mistrust to be expected when I pit my players against an obscure planar dragon that I thought none of them knew anything about, and suddenly one of my players wants to be a dragon expert?


It seems perfectly fair. Both players get to play the characters they want, what could be fairer?

So the loremaster has wasted all of those skill points, then?


Remember that we're assuming the players are all sensible, mature individuals.

As kind of a side note, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. That said, I can't add anything to that that Tyger hasn't said better.


The other players only get to know everything about demons if it makes sense for their character (as defined by their player, who we presume to be acting in good faith).

Look at it this way.

Suppose you are playing a Human Wizard/Loremaster, and somebody else is playing a Half-Elf Sorcerer.

You buy up Int, the Sorcerer buys up Charisma.

You wind up getting seven skill points per level, the sorcerer gets two. As spellcasters, you are equal. The Sorcerer gets a slight edge in social situations, but not much of one, because +4 Charisma doesn't go very far when you don't have any ranks in Diplomacy.

You buy up all the Knowledge skills you can, as well as Spellcraft and Concentration. The Sorcerer can only afford Spellcraft and Concentration.

The Sorcerer is very much planar-themed: he takes mostly summoning spells, he conjures demons, he dabbles in some seriously dubious occult practices.

Does it really hurt *you* for him to know as much about demons as you do? He conjures the things on a daily basis, you just read about them. They're his entire schtick, they're a small part of your whole "knowledge" deal. You've still got more skill points than him, as well as a bigger spell list. He's getting some knowledge without "paying for it", but you're getting to be a better spellcaster than him without paying for it either.

In that case, it doesn't really hurt me much at all. Really, though, we're on different planes with the assumptions we're using. I have no problem with a player like that knowing as much as I do, but my set of assumptions deals with a player who doesn't have as much cause to know about these things. If you want to go with a "demon" schtick, that's fine, but I don't want to hear about that plan just as I confront you with a demon that's going to be a challenge without the proper tactics.

And that example also applies to my fairness point above. Why should I not buy anything other than Knowledge skills, and then say "My wizard spent his entire life in libraries and universities, he knows a lot." Why should a character get the benefit of a skill without having spent some of his skill points on that skill?

[Tyger]

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to make guesses about how you play D&D, I'm just wondering if you've tried any non-D&D games, which wouldn't require as much compromise (which must exist, or the "lure of glory and adventure, treasure and XP" wouldn't be an issue).

Heck yes. I'm an old school gamer from way back. D&D, Palladium (TMNT, Heroes Unlimited, Rifts), Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Vampire the Masquerade, Werewolf, Paranoia, Call of Chuthulu, Twilight 2000... you name it, I've played it. And in every game I play (except maybe the Paranoia game :) ) we play that your character can't know things, just because you want them to. You want to know that trolls regenerate, take the knowledge skills. YOu want to know how to recognize gang colours? Take points in streetwise. Otherwise, the DM has no secrets, there's no backstory, no suspense, no drama.

Its a simple fact that for most of the people I play games with (and most of the posters in this thread), player knowledge and character knowledge are kept seperate for a number of reasons, chiefly amoung them: game enjoyment, balance, character interaction, rules, drama, history and suspense.

If anyone can decide at any point that they know anything... why bother playing characters? Play yourself in the mythical setting with a sword / magic staff / photon cannon in hand. I play to not be myself. I think most people here are saying the same thing.

There are two "people" in consideration here. Sure Tyger knows that trolls regenerate, that dragons in Shadowrun can shapeshift, and that opening that oddly covered book in Chuthulu is a bad idea... but Gronk, barbarian of the northern Harpathia steppes has never seen a troll before, and Tyger likes that. Its great fun for me to scream out "Why won't green man stay dead!!! How much harder can Gronk hit it!?!?" Tyger gets a huge kick out of Maris, the dwarven rigger in Shadowrun, freaking out when he learns that the Johnson who hired them is not only corrupt (which he expected) but is also the same friggin dragon that screwed them over three months ago. And who hasn't shivered with anticipation when Scott, a mild-mannered student of ancient philosophy, reaches out with one hand, dusting away the debris from the recently collapsed wall... "Hmmm... Necronomicon? What's that, some kind of joke? Wonder what it says?"

All of that results from me not metagaming. And that's fun for me. I'm glad your way works for you.

[Counterpower]

I was responding to a hypothetical rather than actual example.

If you're running a puzzle-and-encouter focused, plot-driven exploration of a magipunk universe, then you should just let people use OOC knowledge to solve the encounters and puzzles, because they're OOC challenges anyway really. And exploring the universe *has* to happen IC, because otherwise it isn't exploring.



Because the Loremaster, as a full spellcaster, should have plenty of other ways to assist the party, other than Knowledge checks?

Using OOC information in this case doesn't affect the encouters and puzzles (which assume you'll use it anyway), or the plot (which you shouldn't know about OOC) or exploration (ditto). So I don't see much of a problem here.

Why do encounters assume you use OOC knowledge? Why can't you respond to the battle as your character would respond, just as you would to a plot-critical NPC that you were talking to?


I still don't get why people find the "there must be a key here somewhere" thing so objectionable.

Surely all adventures are predicated on the players accepting that they're ... well ... supposed to go on the adventure.

We call them plot hooks. I predicate my adventures on the players paying attention to my plot hook. If the players can't find some reason why their players would want to go on the adventure, I'm not doing my job right. My group goes on its adventures because the characters in the game have some justification for what they're doing. Would you be interested in a book or movie where the main character said, "I should go do this because I need to make this book/movie interesting for the readers/viewers"? Why should "I'll go on this adventure because we need to make this a fun gaming session" be any better of an idea?

[Dan_Hemmens]

It's certainly more possible, but I don't believe it's assured.

It is if you assume it is, if you see what I mean.

Again, I'm working from the assumption that your players are reasonable people and your peers.


I mean some information about your character's statistics, backstory, or personality by which it makes sense for your character to know this information. If it doesn't make sense, then that interferes with my and the rest of the party's ability to accept this as a world.

Okay, first of all your character's "statistics" aren't IC, they're OOC.

Secondly, I probably haven't asked you for a character background, because I'll have expected you to reveal that in play.

Thirdly, what would you expect the personality of somebody who is interested in dragons to be like?


Going back to the city character I proposed earlier, my next question when given that justification would be "When? Your backstory indicated that you spent most of your time going to parties and social events in the city. In fact, nothing in your character's backstory or personality suggests any interest in dragons at all. Why is this coming up now?" I have no problem with a little allowance in backstories or personality (or, indeed, a lot of allowance). But the situation I've been assuming is dealing with the addition of details in the midst of a game. Isn't a little mistrust to be expected when I pit my players against an obscure planar dragon that I thought none of them knew anything about, and suddenly one of my players wants to be a dragon expert?

Again, this is a conflict of expectations.

I don't ask for backgrounds in advance, other than salient points. The rest of your background comes out in play.

So I'd view that situation as extremely cool. What I thought was going to be a difficult encounter which would make no sense suddenly becomes an encounter that is intimately connected to a PC's interests. That's brilliant.


So the loremaster has wasted all of those skill points, then?

No, those skill points served their purpose when they flagged to me, the DM, that the guy playing the Loremaster was interested in being placed in situations where his character could demonstrate his knowledge.


As kind of a side note, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. That said, I can't add anything to that that Tyger hasn't said better.

I only play with people for whom it *is* a reasonable assumption.


In that case, it doesn't really hurt me much at all. Really, though, we're on different planes with the assumptions we're using. I have no problem with a player like that knowing as much as I do, but my set of assumptions deals with a player who doesn't have as much cause to know about these things. If you want to go with a "demon" schtick, that's fine, but I don't want to hear about that plan just as I confront you with a demon that's going to be a challenge without the proper tactics.

So as a DM, what would you do if there was no way to give the players that information?

Basically I don't see how it's advantageous to make a fight harder than it has to be.


And that example also applies to my fairness point above. Why should I not buy anything other than Knowledge skills, and then say "My wizard spent his entire life in libraries and universities, he knows a lot." Why should a character get the benefit of a skill without having spent some of his skill points on that skill?

He won't get the benefits of the skill. He'll get information if he feels he should have it, but I won't go out of my way to put him in a situation where he can *use* his knowledge.

That's what Knowledge skills buy you, they buy you GM time devoted to making your character look smart.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If anyone can decide at any point that they know anything... why bother playing characters? Play yourself in the mythical setting with a sword / magic staff / photon cannon in hand. I play to not be myself. I think most people here are saying the same thing.


If you enjoy playing characters who don't know what you know, then you don't have to.

How does "you get to decide whether your character knows something or not" become "all characters know everything"?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Why do encounters assume you use OOC knowledge? Why can't you respond to the battle as your character would respond, just as you would to a plot-critical NPC that you were talking to?

Because my character doesn't know about hit points, or attacks of opportunity, or five-foot-steps, or the fact that against all reason people in D&D face in all directions at all times.

And because I don't want my character to die, so I use my out of character knowledge that, for example, I can't take a critical hit from a Greataxe at this level, to inform my actions.


We call them plot hooks. I predicate my adventures on the players paying attention to my plot hook. If the players can't find some reason why their players would want to go on the adventure, I'm not doing my job right. My group goes on its adventures because the characters in the game have some justification for what they're doing. Would you be interested in a book or movie where the main character said, "I should go do this because I need to make this book/movie interesting for the readers/viewers"? Why should "I'll go on this adventure because we need to make this a fun gaming session" be any better of an idea?

Emphasis mine.

Thats sort of my point. It's down to the players *finding* a reason.

Can you put your hand on your heart and tell me that not one of your players has *ever* gone along on an adventure for *anything* other than a totally iron-clad in character reason?

[Rakin]

I still don't get why people find the "there must be a key here somewhere" thing so objectionable.

Surely all adventures are predicated on the players accepting that they're ... well ... supposed to go on the adventure.
METAGaming, at least to me, is using outside knowledge of the game to advance, or giving your characters the knowledge that it is a game.

Picture you're a cop in a real life adventure. There's a mad man in a building about to blow himself up as well as 20 hostages. You find out that they are in room 223 on the second floor, you're party reaches the room to dispatch the mad man. You all get there and the door's locked. I think it would be silly if you went "There's no way my adventure can end here there must be a key on the first floor to this room" then race downstairs to go search for it.

Now, I like planting clever hiding places/puzzles for keys and whatnot as much as the next GM but sometimes the best puzzle is that there is no key.:smalltongue:

[Dan_Hemmens]

METAGaming, at least to me, is using outside knowledge of the game to advance, or giving your characters the knowledge that it is a game.

It's not a question of giving the character that knowledge, though, it's a question of having your character act according *to* that knowledge.


Picture you're a cop in a real life adventure. There's a mad man in a building about to blow himself up as well as 20 hostages. You find out that they are in room 223 on the second floor, you're party reaches the room to dispatch the mad man. You all get there and the door's locked. I think it would be silly if you went "There's no way my adventure can end here there must be a key on the first floor to this room" then race downstairs to go search for it.

Would you rather I just gave up?

In that situation I'd probably just kick the door in, of course.


Now, I like planting clever hiding places/puzzles for keys and whatnot as much as the next GM but sometimes the best puzzle is that there is no key.:smalltongue:

Isn't that metagaming as well?

It's like the "lever attached to death trap" trick that some DMs seem so in love with.

[Rakin]

It's not a question of giving the character that knowledge, though, it's a question of having your character act according *to* that knowledge.
Is there a difference? Characters aren't real people.


Would you rather I just gave up?

In that situation I'd probably just kick the door in, of course.
Cool, me too:smallbiggrin: . Only by kicking in the door, you're thinking more in the game and not metagaming.


Isn't that metagaming as well?

It's like the "lever attached to death trap" trick that some DMs seem so in love with.
Sometimes doors just don't have keys? They are lost forever, desrtoyed? Or the evil lich hovering inside was smart enough to keep the only copy on him? I catch a hint that you've had some vindictive GMs maybe that would chenge things on the spot just to piss off players?

[Counterpower]

It is if you assume it is, if you see what I mean.

Again, I'm working from the assumption that your players are reasonable people and your peers.

Yet, I know a lot of reasonable people that would still try to gain an advantage with OOC information or (to address your point below) make up part of their background on the spot to gain some kind of advantage.


Okay, first of all your character's "statistics" aren't IC, they're OOC.

Secondly, I probably haven't asked you for a character background, because I'll have expected you to reveal that in play.

Thirdly, what would you expect the personality of somebody who is interested in dragons to be like?

I said "statistics" to open up the "I took ranks in Knowledge (the planes)" justification. I said "personality" to be thorough and ensure I wouldn't miss anything in my definition. I would expect that person to reflect an interest in dragons all the time, not just when I gave them an encounter with a dragon.


Again, this is a conflict of expectations.

I don't ask for backgrounds in advance, other than salient points. The rest of your background comes out in play.

So I'd view that situation as extremely cool. What I thought was going to be a difficult encounter which would make no sense suddenly becomes an encounter that is intimately connected to a PC's interests. That's brilliant.

First, that assumes that there was no other point to the encounter. Which is by no means true. Second, that gives them a major combat advantage when I intended part of the point of the encounter to be figuring out how to kill this thing. Third, the way the character had been played (as a socialite and/or high society noble) and the suddenness with which the dragon interest came out implies to me that the player came up with this aspect of his character so as to gain an advantage.


No, those skill points served their purpose when they flagged to me, the DM, that the guy playing the Loremaster was interested in being placed in situations where his character could demonstrate his knowledge.

But when I'm actually playing the game, those ranks are doing nothing for me in situations where Diplomacy might have been more useful.


I only play with people for whom it *is* a reasonable assumption.

You have the ability to only play with those people? Now I am really anticipating going off to college!


So as a DM, what would you do if there was no way to give the players that information?

Basically I don't see how it's advantageous to make a fight harder than it has to be.

I have nothing to worry about. There are several different ways for that information to come out, and it very well could be more interesting for all involved if it never does, and that fight is harder than it has to be. Again, Tyger put that really well in my opinion.


Because my character doesn't know about hit points, or attacks of opportunity, or five-foot-steps, or the fact that against all reason people in D&D face in all directions at all times.

And because I don't want my character to die, so I use my out of character knowledge that, for example, I can't take a critical hit from a Greataxe at this level, to inform my actions.

Your character does know that if he takes enough hits from that sword, he'll die. He knows that if a nearby person makes himself vulnerable, he can attack while the enemy's vulnerable. He knows that he can take a quick stride in any direction to move and have plenty of time to do other things. Besides, why does your character need to know that in order to react to a dragon attack?


Emphasis mine.

Thats sort of my point. It's down to the players *finding* a reason.

Can you put your hand on your heart and tell me that not one of your players has *ever* gone along on an adventure for *anything* other than a totally iron-clad in character reason?

I would relate the story of my players' current campaign, but that would take far too long and obscure the point that: actually, with the knowledge I have available, I can say that I believe that they have had a solid IC reason to do everything they've done to this date.

[PaladinBoy]

What do you mean by "IC justification"? To my mind, wanting your character to know something pretty much constitutes IC justification by definition. If you want your character to be a certain way, you must want being that way to be part of your character, so there must be an IC justification.

So...... simply by wanting it, you as the player can decide that your barbarian character which has never had access to a library (because he can't read) knows everything about balors up to the DCs of their spell-like abilities because some tragic event in his past made him interested in balors?

That, to me, makes about as much sense as claiming that your wizard wants to be good in a fight, so you give him extra weapon proficiencies and full BAB.

Also, it seems to me that between an encyclopedic knowledge of the MM and other books, that an 8 Int barbarian run by an experienced player will always know more about what the party is fighting than an 28 Int loremaster played by a newbie will. That makes no sense whatsoever, really.


How does "you get to decide whether your character knows something or not" become "all characters know everything"?

Well, IIRC, you have said that players whould use any OOC knowledge they have to help in encounters, and it's concievable for someone to memorize details of some of the more iconic monsters in the MM, which could conceivably become that person using the knowledge he remembers in every encounter. Which might as well be knowing everything for the purposes of that campaign.


Can you put your hand on your heart and tell me that not one of your players has *ever* gone along on an adventure for *anything* other than a totally iron-clad in character reason?

Let's see, my current character...... got started on his first adventure by recieving an invitation to a party. At the party (held to honor the maiden voyage of a brand-new airship) the captain of said airship asked for help guarding the airship. My character is Good and this was a relative asking for a favor. He agreed to help. That was the first adventure, and it set the stage for the next one, which was the party running from the law because of some people we killed on the first adventure. Now my character's mother is asking for a favor, and my mother is an important superior in the organization I belong to. Naturally I'm gonna agree to her request.

That good enough, or do I need to supply information on the other half-dozen or so other characters?


Because my character doesn't know about hit points, or attacks of opportunity, or five-foot-steps, or the fact that against all reason people in D&D face in all directions at all times.

And because I don't want my character to die, so I use my out of character knowledge that, for example, I can't take a critical hit from a Greataxe at this level, to inform my actions.

Your character can realize that the enemy is weakening and taking hits, or that if the enemy moves past him he'll get a chance to strike under his guard, or that he can move a short distance and still have time to unleash a flurry of strikes, or that the opponent's rapid movements and glancing around make it impossible to sneak up on him. Or he could realize that the greataxe-wielding enemy could concievably finish him if he gets lucky, although that's more hazy. It's just a matter of finding the proper way to justify it.

[asqwasqw]

A quick question Dan, what makes the game fun for you? If you know how to solve all the puzzles, how to beat every monster, you know everything about everybody, what is the point of your game. And it isn't character development, unless you are developing an omniprescent god that knows everything about the monsters he is fighting. "I was a poor farmer, but I know how to kill balors..." How does that help character development? Isn't what your talking about akin to playing a video game with the game guide in front of you? Where do you get your satisfaction? Just curious.

[Bassetking]

METAGaming, at least to me, is using outside knowledge of the game to advance, or giving your characters the knowledge that it is a game.

Picture you're a cop in a real life adventure. There's a mad man in a building about to blow himself up as well as 20 hostages. You find out that they are in room 223 on the second floor, you're party reaches the room to dispatch the mad man. You all get there and the door's locked. I think it would be silly if you went "There's no way my adventure can end here there must be a key on the first floor to this room" then race downstairs to go search for it.

Now, I like planting clever hiding places/puzzles for keys and whatnot as much as the next GM but sometimes the best puzzle is that there is no key.:smalltongue:

You mean... much like the key that would be on a building's master keyring, or Building Supervisor's Back-ups, or on a Maintenance foreman's pegboard, or...:smallbiggrin:

Now, I work hard on my stonewalling. I work, per session, towards acting as my character, and not as a super-powered avatar of myself, as I both enjoy the deeper experience, and know that it makes the game more enjoyable for both my DM, and my fellow players.

That being said, the singly most frustrating moments, the least enjoyable moments I have experienced have revolved around puzzles that, with a tiny fraction of OOC knowledge, could be solved in moments, and yet, must be stewed over and fretted with because I have to fight from using that knowledge. That schism does more to remove me from the experience than any OOC knowledge or any blurted stats.

Examples:

We're faced with a sealed door, with a series of twelve raised stones, and twelve slots, with a grooved grid covering the door, allowing the stones to be positioned.

OOC: I recognize this as a regular, reoccurring theme in my DM's writing style. The stones are organized into four tiers of three rows, displaying the relationship of elemental forces and magics. He's used this layout in previous campaigns, and I, as a player, have nearly memorized it.

IC: As a new campaign, my character has no reason to have any clue of this layout. The layout is always "Guarded Arcane Knowledge" that is revealed to the characters at some point, and, this is that point in this campaign. My character sees pretty blocks, and receives 4d4 sonic damage if he arranges the blocks incorrectly, and tries to open the door.

I, as a player, am not intrigued by the puzzle. I am not interested in re-discovering this plot point, again. I know how to solve the puzzle, how to solve it rapidly, and how to solve it without attrition of my party's resources.

And I have to spend an hour, painstakingly working out each facet of the encounter... because my character doesn't know....

At which point, my CHARACTER doesn't care about the damn door. He doesn't care about the repeated series of Knowledge(Arcana) and Knowledge (Relgion) checks that have been rolled over each stone. He has, for the last quarter of an hour, been attempting to work out how to collapse the ceiling-beams and climb over the door; or shatter the masonry, and go through the wall the door seals shut.

I'm not immersed. I'm not exploring. I'm using every fibre of my being to resist shouting out the answer, and I'm keeping my character acting "Like my character" only as a superficial pastiche.

Having to waste, yes, waste my time fighting not the puzzle, nor the encounter, but my own knowledge is not enjoyable, nor is it conducive to good roleplaying.

Example 2:

A giant, crystiline chamber. Raised diases and pedestals of hewn quartz jut from the floor... In... a... manner that is highly reminiscent of a control panel, or operations board.

Further inspection reveals raised, cut, quarts upon each of the "panels" that changed color, and glowed when touched.

Touching certain crystals caused long, dark, slender, triangular prisms to rise, and to fall out of a large, violet, glowing pool of liquid.

In short, it was set up, openly, directly, and specifically, to resemble the primary core controls of a nuclear reactor.

Three hours of game-time were invested in attempting to make this room work. There had been extensive references throughout the previous length of the dungeon to "Dimmed crystals, placed where torches should have been" and "Doors, safe-fastened, unopenable. One of two crystals above the door glows a vivid red." The group, unable to progress further in the dungeon with the information we possessed, were frantically attempting to ascertain how to proceed through the dungeon.

Three players, at the table, were fighting the urge to step up and spell out the activation sequence to "solve" the puzzle. Growing ever more aggravated as their in-character efforts continued to prove fruitless and frustrating.

Three hours of a session, we spent trying to make some form of sense of that puzzle...

And it was a red herring.

Yes, the DM had intentionally stuck a full-sized model of a nuclear reactor inside the dungeon for, in his own words "No purpose, other than to see what you would do with it. It doesn't actually have any effect on anything, they're just rocks that light up and move."

We "invested" three hours into this room, convinced from the in-character hints and representations that this room, this last and only significant room we could access, would prove the key to progression. We were proven wrong. The DM's intent was to convince the characters that there was absolutely no way they could progress through the dungeon, and they would need to go and find assistance in the nearby town.

Nothing helps me stonewall, and dismiss OOC knowledge better, than to be punished by not using it. :smallamused:

[Counterspin]

Dan has never said that his characters know everything. That's a gigantic straw man. What he said is that he should be the one to determine what his character knows, rather than the GM or the knowledge system. Now you may disagree, but at least address the claim.

[asqwasqw]

Dan has never said that his characters know everything. That's a gigantic straw man. What he said is that he should be the one to determine what his character knows, rather than the GM or the knowledge system. Now you may disagree, but at least address the claim.

Oh, I understand now why Dan put an emphasis on respectable players. The problem with that is that you (not Dan, but anybody) can say that your character knows everything, making ingame mechanics useless. But what if you look at it from a combat prospective? You can just say that "I win the battle." You know that you won the battle, not the combat system. Why bother with rolling? It doesn't further your roleplaying in any way. The DM should decide, within reason, what you know and feel, and you react to that. Similarly, the DM decides your opponent in combat. But thanks for clearing that up for me, by the way.

[Arbitrarity]

The sun hardened man of grass stabs you back.

Nice job hitting the air.

Displacement *****!

Clean miss.

Off-target!

In soviet russia, scarecrow bites YOU!

[Bassetking]

The DM should decide, within reason, what you know and feel, and you react to that.

Which, I think, asqwasqw, is the point against which Dan is trying to argue. If the DM decides what I know, and the DM decides how I feel about any given situation, then my reactions are pre-ordained by the information the DM has presented me.

To return to the hoary Troll argument; if the DM decides "You don't know that Trolls are weak against fire and acid. You DO know that they eat people, and you DO know that they are rumored to be incredibly difficult to slay." And decides "Your character is blood-chillingly, bone-shakingly, bowel-clenchingly terrified of the gangly monster approaching you." I've been given a tremendously narrow range of potential responses or reactions. Yes, yes, "Your reactions aren't limited! You can do whatever you want! As long as it's within the scope of the actions your character would take."

The emphasized section is the key, here. The DM has, in this scenario, complete, utter, and total control over what it means to BE my character.

I can't say "Bob stands resolute, his unshakable bravado and trademarked curled lip firm and unquavering as he stares shaggy, fetid death in its unblinking eye!" Bob has been told by his DM that he is, without question or qualifier, mortally frightened. I have to react Frightened. Now, I just as easily could say "Cowering and sniveling, pants soiled, and tears streaming down his face, Bob desperately clutches at his sword, in the vain hope that its meager steel could provide him a moment's further breath. With the Hideous, towering , lumbering representation of the hunger for man-flesh given form hulking towards him, Bob flinches, and lets out a Blubbering quail for his mother."

Awesome, My job is to provide flavor text for the miniature that the DM is moving from scene to scene.

[Rakin]

You mean... much like the key that would be on a building's master keyring, or Building Supervisor's Back-ups, or on a Maintenance foreman's pegboard, or...:smallbiggrin:


Touche, but you get what I was getting at. :smalltongue:

I guess it would of been better put "There's no way God has decided I should die here, therefore he must of left me a key somewhere in the building":smallcool:

[Callix]

Basseetking: How is that different to failing a will save against a dragon's Frightful Prescence? The dice, rather than the DM, have told you that your character is terrified, and so your actions are extremely limited. Trolls do not have a fear effect normally. As such, fear by DM fiat has an actual game effect, as well as flavour. Saying your character is nervous does not restrict your actions. Describing the monster as horrific (my preferred approach) does not restrict your actions. Saying your character is terrified with no recourse to you *is* disempowering, and is really quite bad DMing.

[Raum]

How is that different to failing a will save against a dragon's Frightful Prescence? The distinction has been noted in previous posts but, to reiterate, failing a save is a mechanical function of the game you're playing. Being told what you're doing by a GM is an arbitrary and authoritarian abrogation of choice. At that point, the GM is playing the character.

[Tyger]

Bassetking, I have to say that you have had some bad DMs, and you use very bad DMing as examples... I really hope that's the minority of the time you play and not the majority.

Any DM that repeatedly uses the same puzzles, quests, etc. is not immersing the players as they should be doing. They are boring them. And to put up something in a dungeon, and allow the players to spend what, for my group, would be half a session on, only to have it turn out to be nothing??? That's not even bad DMing, that's just inconsiderate and offensive.

Finally though, where in "Your character is blood-chillingly, bone-shakingly, bowel-clenchingly terrified of the gangly monster approaching you." does it say that you can't fight back? Where does it say that you can't rally your morale, look about you at your comrades and know that you are the last hope for the village at your back? Personally, I consider the description heavy handed, but its not limiting your choices. The DM that says that isn't saying "Oh, and by the way, you all defecate in your drawers and do nothing. NO! Put the dice down!! Why are you looking at your character sheet you worm??? I said you do nothing!!!!?" He's setting a tone. He's reminding you, the jaded player who has saved the planet a hundred times in a million different guises, that a level 4 character who sees a troll lumbering toward him, would be frigging scared. Unless a character is insane, they are cognizant of the threat of death. Adventurers aren't immune to fear (well, OK, Paladins are) but they are able to rise above it. Even if they are adrenaline junkies, the part that gets their blood pumping is the threat of imminent death and the fear that is instilled.

I have yet to see an example in this thread of a DM saying, "NO. You do as I say, all the time, or you don't play." I don't think any experienced player would play under such a petty tyrant. There have been examples of DMs reigning in players who have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, story consistency and the character personality that the player built. The only time I ever condone the "I really don't think you're character would do that" is when its so blatantly obvious that everyone at the table is wondering what the heck is going on. And I think that most of the people here are saying that as well. Its not about taking away control of the character's actions, its about maintaining a consistent storyline.

Again though, whatever works for you and your game.

[Tormsskull]

Which, I think, asqwasqw, is the point against which Dan is trying to argue. If the DM decides what I know, and the DM decides how I feel about any given situation, then my reactions are pre-ordained by the information the DM has presented me.


Here's the thing.

Let's assume I as the DM create a world, and I determine the way that each of the races interact, and what their histories are, and what has happened in the past, possibly down to the very last iota of this fictional world that I have created.

Now, in the world that I have created, vampires are incredibly reclusive, so much so that only the most knowledgable of people know about them (Knowledge DC 35).

You, as a player, come in and say that you are a vampire hunter and you were attacked by vampires and your brother was a vampire and your dog is 1/2 vampire, blah, blah, blah.

I know this is going to significantly impact my campaign because it is based around no one knowing about vampires. Since your character is going to negatively affect the campaign, I as a DM would restrict your character concept.


I completely understand a player wanting to be able to craft his character to his desires. I completely understand a player wanting to have control over his character. But:

Characters are NOT created in a void. They are created as part of a world. If I create World A, your character is apart of World A, and as such he has to adhere to the rules of World A.

To create a character in a void and then put him into a very detailed world is like trying to put a square peg into a circle hole, it ain't gonna fit.

So now we get to the next level. Should the DM change his world to accomodate the player, or should the player change his character to accomodate the world?

If the world is a Method 1 campaign (pre-created by DM, DM then invites players to play) I think that the World takes more precedence over a character's specific attributes or qualities.

If the world is a Method 2 campaign (everyone sits down and generates the world as a group, assigns the role of DM to someone, etc) then I think that this wouldn't come up because the players would have discussed what was allowed and wasn't allowed when they set it up.


As I said in the past, I enjoy Method 1 campaigns far more than Method 2, but that's just my preference. In a Method 1 campaign I think it would be rude, arrogant, and presumptious for a player to think that the DM should have to recreate portions of the world to conform to a player's desires.

[Dan_Hemmens]

A quick question Dan, what makes the game fun for you? If you know how to solve all the puzzles, how to beat every monster, you know everything about everybody, what is the point of your game. And it isn't character development, unless you are developing an omniprescent god that knows everything about the monsters he is fighting. "I was a poor farmer, but I know how to kill balors..." How does that help character development? Isn't what your talking about akin to playing a video game with the game guide in front of you? Where do you get your satisfaction? Just curious.

This point has been addressed somewhat, but I thought I'd come at it myself anyway, beause there's a couple of really big points here which I hope will clear up where I'm coming from.

For me, the fun in roleplaying ... well it can come from a variety of sources depending on the game, but within the context of this discussion the fun in roleplaying for me comes from contributing creatively to the game by playing my character, and responding creatively to the contributions of the other players.

(I also kind of like killing things and taking their stuff, but that's why I own a copy of Descent)

Essentially, a lot of the assumptions people make about "how players will act" is therefore alien to my mindset.

If I, as a player, feel my character should know something, then that is going to be a legitimate expression of my understanding of the character. If I make something up in response to a presented challenge, that will be a good-faith attempt to engage *creatively* with that challenge.

To me, "trying to beat monsters in fights with a limited set of resources" is not what makes the game fun. Or rather it is, but that's a different game. As I say, I own a copy of Descent.

To go back to your computer game analogy: often, when I am playing a computer game, I will get stuck on some particular level, and I will get bored and frustrated, because the key to solving it will be something annoying and arbitrary, or because a particular section of the game will be bugged or overpowered.

So I might well go to a walkthrough to find out if there's something I'm missing, and in order to save myself the frustration of working something out by pure trial and error.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Here's the thing.

Let's assume I as the DM create a world, and I determine the way that each of the races interact, and what their histories are, and what has happened in the past, possibly down to the very last iota of this fictional world that I have created.

Now, in the world that I have created, vampires are incredibly reclusive, so much so that only the most knowledgable of people know about them (Knowledge DC 35).

You, as a player, come in and say that you are a vampire hunter and you were attacked by vampires and your brother was a vampire and your dog is 1/2 vampire, blah, blah, blah.

I know this is going to significantly impact my campaign because it is based around no one knowing about vampires. Since your character is going to negatively affect the campaign, I as a DM would restrict your character concept.

The thing is, you can frame this question the other way around as well. We assume that I, as a player, create a character, I define what drives him, what motivates him, his very reason for being an adventurer.

Now, the character I have created is a vampire hunter. His family was killed by vampires, and they turned his brother into one of them. This fact drives his every action and underlies his entire purpose.

Then the DM comes along and says "sorry, but you character can only know about vampires if you make a DC 35 Knowledge check."


I completely understand a player wanting to be able to craft his character to his desires. I completely understand a player wanting to have control over his character. But:

Characters are NOT created in a void. They are created as part of a world. If I create World A, your character is apart of World A, and as such he has to adhere to the rules of World A.

To create a character in a void and then put him into a very detailed world is like trying to put a square peg into a circle hole, it ain't gonna fit.

I think you're absolutely right here. But "not created in a void" implies some kind of interaction. If it gets to a situation where a player has a fully realised character concept which doesn't fit into the world you're running, there has been a serious breakdown of communication.


So now we get to the next level. Should the DM change his world to accomodate the player, or should the player change his character to accomodate the world?

In this case, though, neither has to happen.

Your world contains vampires. Presuming that they are remotely similar to any vampire that has ever existed in any fictional medium whatsoever they will presumably kill people, and turn people into creatures like themselves.

It is therefore totally possible within your world that this could have happened to a PC.

So it isn't "the GM changes his world, or the player changes his character", it's "the GM makes a modicum of effort to accommodate a character, or the entire character goes in the bin."


If the world is a Method 1 campaign (pre-created by DM, DM then invites players to play) I think that the World takes more precedence over a character's specific attributes or qualities.

If the world is a Method 2 campaign (everyone sits down and generates the world as a group, assigns the role of DM to someone, etc) then I think that this wouldn't come up because the players would have discussed what was allowed and wasn't allowed when they set it up.


As I said in the past, I enjoy Method 1 campaigns far more than Method 2, but that's just my preference. In a Method 1 campaign I think it would be rude, arrogant, and presumptious for a player to think that the DM should have to recreate portions of the world to conform to a player's desires.

I think it very much depends on what you consider to be "a portion of the world."

If a player says "I want to play a vampire hunter" and you say "there are no vampires in my world", that should be that. The character concept requires the world to be changed.

But in the world you describe there is absolutely *nothing* stopping you from saying "sure, you can play a vampire hunter, but in this world vampires are extremely rare, and most people don't believe they exist, is that cool with you or would you rather play something else."

On the one hand, you say "PCs should not be created in a vacuum" but on the other hand, you seem to be saying that the DM should not make any effort to help a player make a character that actually fits the world beyond saying "sorry, you can't do that."

[Dan_Hemmens]

Finally though, where in "Your character is blood-chillingly, bone-shakingly, bowel-clenchingly terrified of the gangly monster approaching you." does it say that you can't fight back? Where does it say that you can't rally your morale, look about you at your comrades and know that you are the last hope for the village at your back?

I think this again, highlights a major difference in attitude.

Your argument, if I characterize it correctly, is that it's okay for the DM to dictate your character's *motivations* because what's important is your character's *actions*. It doesn't matter if the DM tells you your character is terrified, because what matters is how you react to that terror.

That is only true if you assume that the player views his character as nothing more than a playing piece (which, ironically, is the attitude most GMs on this thread seem to want to *break* their players of).

If all I care about is killing the troll and taking its stuff, then you can tell me that my character is scared, or bored, or craps in his pants and I won't care unless it makes me less capable of unleashing power-attacking death on the beastie.

If, on the other hand, I care about this thing that people call "roleplaying" the way my character reacts emotionally is as important, if not more so, than the way my character reacts physically.

For example: the last D&D character I played was a bitter, grizzled mercenary. Straight fighter, really nasty. The sort of guy who'd steal a dying man's boots and not think twice about it.

He wasn't scared of violence, he wasn't scared of death, but magic scared the crap out of him. He knew where he was with swords and blood and screaming, and giant monsters with claws didn't faze him in the slightest, but magic could do things which just shouldn't be possible and that gave him the screaming willies.

Now the description above, of the troll, completely negates my character's personality. Screws it up royally. I know exactly what my character is afraid of, and that isn't it.

"What does your character fear" is a serious question which any halfway decent roleplayer should answer for all of their characters. And the answer should never be "whatever the GM tells us is scary."

[Tyger]

I think this again, highlights a major difference in attitude.

Your argument, if I characterize it correctly, is that it's okay for the DM to dictate your character's *motivations* because what's important is your character's *actions*. It doesn't matter if the DM tells you your character is terrified, because what matters is how you react to that terror.

That is only true if you assume that the player views his character as nothing more than a playing piece (which, ironically, is the attitude most GMs on this thread seem to want to *break* their players of).

If all I care about is killing the troll and taking its stuff, then you can tell me that my character is scared, or bored, or craps in his pants and I won't care unless it makes me less capable of unleashing power-attacking death on the beastie.

If, on the other hand, I care about this thing that people call "roleplaying" the way my character reacts emotionally is as important, if not more so, than the way my character reacts physically.

For example: the last D&D character I played was a bitter, grizzled mercenary. Straight fighter, really nasty. The sort of guy who'd steal a dying man's boots and not think twice about it.

He wasn't scared of violence, he wasn't scared of death, but magic scared the crap out of him. He knew where he was with swords and blood and screaming, and giant monsters with claws didn't faze him in the slightest, but magic could do things which just shouldn't be possible and that gave him the screaming willies.

Now the description above, of the troll, completely negates my character's personality. Screws it up royally. I know exactly what my character is afraid of, and that isn't it.

"What does your character fear" is a serious question which any halfway decent roleplayer should answer for all of their characters. And the answer should never be "whatever the GM tells us is scary."

All great points, but I would reiterate, that unless you are playing some sort of mentally disabled person, EVERYONE is afraid of dying. Some hide it very well, some ignore the fear, some run like 12 year olds at the first sign of danger. But every sentient living creature on this planet is afraid to die.

Secondly, A tough grizzled mercenary who's been there and seen it all at level 1 doesn't exist. If he's seen enough battle and death to make it so blase to him that it no longer fazes him (i.e. he has lerned to master his fear of death) then he's probably relatively high level and not going to be that fazed bya troll, sure. But the Balor that crawls over the pile of his dead companions, roars and bursts into flame... that's going to cause some spine tightening. Unless he's crazy that is. But the DM shouldn't be providing that sort of descritption for something that doesn't have a darned good chance of destroying the party.

[Dan_Hemmens]

So...... simply by wanting it, you as the player can decide that your barbarian character which has never had access to a library (because he can't read) knows everything about balors up to the DCs of their spell-like abilities because some tragic event in his past made him interested in balors?

Yes. Simply by wanting it.


That, to me, makes about as much sense as claiming that your wizard wants to be good in a fight, so you give him extra weapon proficiencies and full BAB.

And just to make the obligatory "wizards are overpowered" joke: that would make him *less* good in a fight.

The difference is that there are detailed rules for fights. There are no detailed rules for Knowledge. The Knowledge skills allow you to roll to "see if your character knows something" but that clearly can't be intended for every single possible thing your character could possibly know. Otherwise you'd have to make a Knowledge check to know that you had to (say) use blunt weapons against skeletons even if you had already encountered them in character.


Also, it seems to me that between an encyclopedic knowledge of the MM and other books, that an 8 Int barbarian run by an experienced player will always know more about what the party is fighting than an 28 Int loremaster played by a newbie will. That makes no sense whatsoever, really.

Only if you assume that the guy playing the Barbarian decides that his character knows all that stuff in-character.


Well, IIRC, you have said that players whould use any OOC knowledge they have to help in encounters, and it's concievable for someone to memorize details of some of the more iconic monsters in the MM, which could conceivably become that person using the knowledge he remembers in every encounter. Which might as well be knowing everything for the purposes of that campaign.

That is only true if the only things that can be known in your campaign are the stats of the monsters.

Also: there is a difference between a player using his OOC knowledge of the monsters to help him pick a better strategy (which is, in my opinion, a legitimate thing to do in the strategic minigame that is D&D combat) and that player's character knowing all of that stuff IC.


Let's see, my current character...... got started on his first adventure by recieving an invitation to a party. At the party (held to honor the maiden voyage of a brand-new airship) the captain of said airship asked for help guarding the airship. My character is Good and this was a relative asking for a favor. He agreed to help. That was the first adventure, and it set the stage for the next one, which was the party running from the law because of some people we killed on the first adventure. Now my character's mother is asking for a favor, and my mother is an important superior in the organization I belong to. Naturally I'm gonna agree to her request.

All of those are convenient rationales, not IC reasons. Did your character have nothing in the whole world that they would rather do than go to a party? Did guarding the airship not strike them as a weird request for somebody to make of a party guest? Does your character always do whatever his mother tells him to?


That good enough, or do I need to supply information on the other half-dozen or so other characters?

That's good enough for me to get a good impression. There was nothing there I'd call a "compelling in-character reason." None of those decisions give me any impression of your character's actual personality.


Your character can realize that the enemy is weakening and taking hits, or that if the enemy moves past him he'll get a chance to strike under his guard, or that he can move a short distance and still have time to unleash a flurry of strikes, or that the opponent's rapid movements and glancing around make it impossible to sneak up on him. Or he could realize that the greataxe-wielding enemy could concievably finish him if he gets lucky, although that's more hazy. It's just a matter of finding the proper way to justify it.

The key phrase here is "justify".

Your character should also know that a single stab wound could kill him instantly, that the only way to defeat an opponent in full plate is to grapple them to the ground and stick a dagger through their helmet, that charging a man with a crossbow is a suicidal maneuver. He should know a bunch of other things which are *not* supported by the game mechanics.

[Tyger]

Dan, again it all comes back to the apparently saintly folks that you game with. I think I speak for most of us here when I say that our experiences are not the same as yours. You appear to be in the almost unique position of playing with folks who never cheat, never fudge the rules, and never seek to gain some sort of advantage with OOC knowledge. And that's great. I wish I knew people like that. Heck, I wish I was a person like that. But the simple fact remains is that most people (I would originally have said all people, but your gaming group is the exception) are not angels. They are people who want to succeed. And sometimes, the lure of OOC is just too much for them to say no to.

[Tormsskull]

The thing is, you can frame this question the other way around as well. We assume that I, as a player, create a character, I define what drives him, what motivates him, his very reason for being an adventurer.


Woops, gotta stop you there.

When you sit down to make a character, what world does he exist in? If you have no idea what the world is like, you are creating him in a void. You are doing what I mentioned, trying to put a square peg into a circle hole.

When a player does what you are suggesting, they are ASSUMING that the world is whatever world they consider to be typical for a D&D campaign. But that may not be the case. Maybe I have created an Egyptian or primitive civilization themed campaign. If you show up to the campaign with the concept of a plate armor wearing great sword wielding soldier, sorry, but that simply cannot exist in the world.


Perhaps you are coming from a different angle than I am. I think you are assuming that I'm talking about a Method 2 campaign. But as I have said repeatedly, I prefer and almost always run method 1 campaigns. The world is created before the players even know that they are going to be invited to play.

When the players show up on day 1 to make their characters, I explain all of the rules and information to them. Then they draw up a concept. Now that they know what the world is like, they create a character that could have grown up in that world.

In a Method 2 campaign, 4 players could bring pre-created characters to the table and say "Let's make a world where these 4 characters could all exist." Then the focus becomes creating a world that suits each of their concepts. That's a fine and dandy way of running a campaign (again, not my preference), but it doesn't always work for Method 1 campaigns.



On the one hand, you say "PCs should not be created in a vacuum" but on the other hand, you seem to be saying that the DM should not make any effort to help a player make a character that actually fits the world beyond saying "sorry, you can't do that."


Not at all. I am more than willing to help a player adapt his character concept/backstory to fit the world. The only problem would be when a player refuses to change something that I as the DM don't feel works.

If a situation like that were to pop up, then I have to choose to either change the world to suit the player's concept, or flat out tell the player that they cannot play unless they change their concept.

When it comes down to that choice, I'll refuse to let the PC into the campaign.

[Dan_Hemmens]

All great points, but I would reiterate, that unless you are playing some sort of mentally disabled person, EVERYONE is afraid of dying. Some hide it very well, some ignore the fear, some run like 12 year olds at the first sign of danger. But every sentient living creature on this planet is afraid to die.

By that logic, every time an opponent draws a knife you should add the line "which sends a shiver of fear down your back as you are confronted with your own mortality."

Accepting, for a moment, that everybody is afraid of death (which some people genuinely are not), there is a world of difference between "being afraid of death" and "being afraid of a specific dangerous thing". If everybody was always terrified of everything that might kill them, very little would get done. Nobody would drive anywhere, for a start.

(Ironically enough, I got in an argument not last week with somebody who was insisting that *nobody* fears death).


Secondly, A tough grizzled mercenary who's been there and seen it all at level 1 doesn't exist. If he's seen enough battle and death to make it so blase to him that it no longer fazes him (i.e. he has lerned to master his fear of death) then he's probably relatively high level and not going to be that fazed bya troll, sure.

Actually that's manifestly untrue. The vast majority of soldiers on a D&D battlefield will be Level One Warriors. The best and most experienced amongst them will be Fighters, some of whom might be level 2-3.


But the Balor that crawls over the pile of his dead companions, roars and bursts into flame... that's going to cause some spine tightening. Unless he's crazy that is. But the DM shouldn't be providing that sort of descritption for something that doesn't have a darned good chance of destroying the party.

And this is exactly the point I'm making.

You (as the "DM" in this little exchange) are trying to enforce your opinion of the very nature of fear on my character.

You think everybody fears death, and will automatically feel fear when confronted with a situation that is potentially fatal. I, out of character, speaking as a person genuinely do not believe that to be true. If you insist, therefore, that my character must be afraid every time he enters a "challenging" encounter, you are not only ignoring the personality I have given my character, you are actually insulting my opinions.

And this is the problem I have with absolute GM power. It means that the entire world has to conform to the GM's prejudices and preconceptions.

You believe that everybody fears death, I don't. But because you're GM, your opinion trumps mine, and my character has to be afraid of a troll, even though I don't believe that he would be.

You have blocked my creative input and ignored the information I have given you about my character. I am *very* likely to respond by creating a new character with no discernible personality who just wants to kill things and take their stuff.

[Roog]

Your character should also know that a single stab wound could kill him instantly, that the only way to defeat an opponent in full plate is to grapple them to the ground and stick a dagger through their helmet, that charging a man with a crossbow is a suicidal maneuver. He should know a bunch of other things which are *not* supported by the game mechanics.

I'm curious about this, some of those things are true for a low level charcter, but are you saying that he should know things which are contradicted by game mechanics (as opposed to things that are simply not supported and should be true).

In my experience getting everyone on the same page for general assumptions (i.e. those not explicitly supported by game mechanics) takes a bit of work, and even then different group menbers are still likely to hold some contradictory assumptions.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Woops, gotta stop you there.

When you sit down to make a character, what world does he exist in? If you have no idea what the world is like, you are creating him in a void. You are doing what I mentioned, trying to put a square peg into a circle hole.

But that's the position which you, presumably, have placed this hypothetical player in. How is it his fault if you haven't told him enough details about the world to create his character?


When a player does what you are suggesting, they are ASSUMING that the world is whatever world they consider to be typical for a D&D campaign. But that may not be the case. Maybe I have created an Egyptian or primitive civilization themed campaign. If you show up to the campaign with the concept of a plate armor wearing great sword wielding soldier, sorry, but that simply cannot exist in the world.

Then shouldn't you ... y'know ... tell me about that *first*?

This is what I don't get. You're complaining about players "creating their characters in a void", but you don't seem to be letting them do anything else.


Perhaps you are coming from a different angle than I am. I think you are assuming that I'm talking about a Method 2 campaign. But as I have said repeatedly, I prefer and almost always run method 1 campaigns. The world is created before the players even know that they are going to be invited to play.

No, I get that. But you still seem to be expecting your players to be psychic, to create their characters so that they fit in with details of your world that you haven't told them about.


When the players show up on day 1 to make their characters, I explain all of the rules and information to them. Then they draw up a concept. Now that they know what the world is like, they create a character that could have grown up in that world.

Okay, so what about vampire-hunter guy?


In a Method 2 campaign, 4 players could bring pre-created characters to the table and say "Let's make a world where these 4 characters could all exist." Then the focus becomes creating a world that suits each of their concepts. That's a fine and dandy way of running a campaign (again, not my preference), but it doesn't always work for Method 1 campaigns.

Actually, speaking as a Method 2 GM, that wouldn't work either. What we'd actually say is "let's create a game (not a world, a game), and let's talk about the focus we want it to have."


Not at all. I am more than willing to help a player adapt his character concept/backstory to fit the world. The only problem would be when a player refuses to change something that I as the DM don't feel works.

Okay, so with Mr Vampire Hunter, what did you not feel worked? The half-vampire dog?


If a situation like that were to pop up, then I have to choose to either change the world to suit the player's concept, or flat out tell the player that they cannot play unless they change their concept.

But the situation you described was one in which the world and the character concept were one hundred percent compatible.

World with vampires in: vampire hunter. What doesn't fit there?


When it comes down to that choice, I'll refuse to let the PC into the campaign.

But that wasn't the choice. The choice was "let this guy play a vampire hunter, or don't let this guy play a vampire hunter." Nothing about your world had to change at all. Yet you chose, in your hypothetical campaign, to veto the character concept.

[Artemician]

In this thread, we've been debating about DMs trusting their players. However, we have never talked about the player's trust in their DM. In my opinion, this is equally valid to the argument.

Let's bring up an example.

DM: A shadowy figure springs out of the alleyway.

Player widda Trust: Damn, must have failed my spot check. If the DM doesn't want us to even have a chance of spotting a monster, he must have a reason.

Untrusting Player: Hey! How come we didn't get a spotcheck!? You're railroading!

DM: [Long scary description of monster] The figure reaches into its tattered and bloodstained jacket and draws out a knife. In the dim moonlight, you can see bloodstains on it. Suddenly, you are seized by an uncontrollable fear, as you contemplate your own mortality.

Now, we have two distinct situations.

1)

Player widda Trust: Hey, stop there mate. I'm a necromancer. I'm not scared of death, not at all.

DM: Oh. Right. Umm.. Uh.. Well.. let's change that description, shall we?
[changed description]

2)

Untrusting Player: You have blocked my creative input and ignored the information I have given you about my character! You see me as nothing but a playing piece! Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Next game, I'm just creating Joe McBob, smashy barbarian guy, since you obviously don't care about me at all!

DM: ... ...

[Tormsskull]

But that's the position which you, presumably, have placed this hypothetical player in. How is it his fault if you haven't told him enough details about the world to create his character?

Then shouldn't you ... y'know ... tell me about that *first*?

This is what I don't get. You're complaining about players "creating their characters in a void", but you don't seem to be letting them do anything else.

No, I get that. But you still seem to be expecting your players to be psychic, to create their characters so that they fit in with details of your world that you haven't told them about.


Players don't hear the details of the campaign until day 1 of the campaign. This day is set aside specifically for making characters, creating a concept, etc. So once a character has all of the details, they then make a world-appropriate character.



Okay, so what about vampire-hunter guy?

Okay, so with Mr Vampire Hunter, what did you not feel worked? The half-vampire dog?

But the situation you described was one in which the world and the character concept were one hundred percent compatible.

World with vampires in: vampire hunter. What doesn't fit there?


The vampire-hunter didn't work because as I stated, vampires are incredibly reclusive. It requires a Knowledge DC 35 check to even know about vampires. Since you are very fond of mechanics (though not Knowledge checks as you have stated), it should be easy to guess how difficult such a check would be to make.

So NPCs in the world who are great historians, know everything about magic, know a lot about creatures in the world, still know nothing about vampires because they are that reclusive. How would it make any sense at all if a level 1 character knows about vampires?

If the player wanted me to tweak his concept to fit I would change it so that someone he knew was attacked and killed by a vampire, though he had no idea what it was, and then it fled. Now he is hunting down this creature, that he doesn't know, and trying to destroy it. He might try to find information about the creatures, but it is going to be very difficult due to the high Knowledge check required.

Sounds like a pretty decent concept to me.



But that wasn't the choice. The choice was "let this guy play a vampire hunter, or don't let this guy play a vampire hunter." Nothing about your world had to change at all. Yet you chose, in your hypothetical campaign, to veto the character concept.

That's your opinion on the issue, I really don't agree with you. If I allowed a level 1 PC to have knowledge equivalent to a DC 35 check for free simply because he wants it, then I would think it would be unfairly empowering that character at a detriment to the campaign world and to the other PCs.

Such a character would have such information that makes absolutely no sense. The logical side of my brain would say "Ok, let's assume for just a moment that this character has this information, where did he get it?" Then I'd have to make up some outlandish reason to justify his concept. Something like "An incredibly knowledgable scholar on the subject of vampires happened to be strolling through town one day and the PC and him became great friends and thus he divulged a lot of details to him."


Here's another situation for you Dan. If I as a player know almost all of the Wizard spells in the PHB, but my character is a Barbarian, would it make any sense for my Barbarian to know more about arcane spells than the rookie player who's character is a Wizard?

Sure, I could write up a reason in my backstory to justify the knowledge "I was once a great and powerful wizard, and then an archrival of mine cursed me, draining me of all of my spells and turning me into an illiterate Barbarian. While I can't cast spells any more, I know all about them."

[Dan_Hemmens]

In this thread, we've been debating about DMs trusting their players. However, we have never talked about the player's trust in their DM. In my opinion, this is equally valid to the argument.


On the contrary, people bring it up all the time. To the point of tedium, in fact.

You can scarcely breathe the phrase "I do not think the concentration of all narrative control in the hands of a single person is the only way to play an RPG" that people will respond with "why do you hate the GM!" and "you've just been burned by bad experiences!" and "show me on the doll where the GM touched you".


Let's bring up an example.

DM: A shadowy figure springs out of the alleyway.

Player widda Trust: Damn, must have failed my spot check. If the DM doesn't want us to even have a chance of spotting a monster, he must have a reason.

Untrusting Player: Hey! How come we didn't get a spotcheck!? You're railroading!

From my perspective, it's more like.

DM: A shadowy figure springs out of the alleyway.

"Trusting" Player: Damn, must have failed my spot check. If the DM doesn't want us to even have a chance of spotting a monster, he must have a reason.

"Untrusting" Player: Bored, bored, bored, I am so damn bored. Oh, what, another ambush. Great I'll roll initiative then, shall I? What, oh of course, a surprise round. Do you want me to make some tea while you're attacking me?


DM: [Long scary description of monster] The figure reaches into its tattered and bloodstained jacket and draws out a knife. In the dim moonlight, you can see bloodstains on it. Suddenly, you are seized by an uncontrollable fear, as you contemplate your own mortality.

Now, we have two distinct situations.

1)

Player widda Trust: Hey, stop there mate. I'm a necromancer. I'm not scared of death, not at all.

DM: Oh. Right. Umm.. Uh.. Well.. let's change that description, shall we?
[changed description]


Or, more likely:

"Trusting" player: Hmm, well even though my character is a necromancer, and has no fear of death whatsoever, I shall trust my GM and assume that if he *says* my character is afraid, then he must *be* afraid.


2)

Untrusting Player: You have blocked my creative input and ignored the information I have given you about my character! You see me as nothing but a playing piece! Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Next game, I'm just creating Joe McBob, smashy barbarian guy, since you obviously don't care about me at all!

DM: ... ...

Or, more likely:

"Untrusting" Player: Bored, bored, bored, bored, I am so bored. Oh, what, scary is it? Great. Did you realise I was playing a necromancer? No, never mind. It was mentioned in that character background that you insisted I write for you and which you then totally failed to pay any attention to. Ring any bells? Never mind then.

The point is not that I don't trust the DM, but that I don't want to *have* to trust the DM and that I don't want to play in the kind of game that "trusting the DM" leads to, which is a game that's all about the DM.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Players don't hear the details of the campaign until day 1 of the campaign. This day is set aside specifically for making characters, creating a concept, etc. So once a character has all of the details, they then make a world-appropriate character.

Okay, that's a perfectly good way of doing it.


The vampire-hunter didn't work because as I stated, vampires are incredibly reclusive. It requires a Knowledge DC 35 check to even know about vampires. Since you are very fond of mechanics (though not Knowledge checks as you have stated), it should be easy to guess how difficult such a check would be to make.

So NPCs in the world who are great historians, know everything about magic, know a lot about creatures in the world, still know nothing about vampires because they are that reclusive. How would it make any sense at all if a level 1 character knows about vampires?

Because he's met one and they haven't? Because logically Knowledge must *come* from somewhere.

Are you suggesting that a character must be capable of making a DC 35 Knowledge check before they can even *encounter* a vampire? That if you ever did meet somebody who knew about vampires, they would be unable to communicate their information to you unless you could pass a DC 35 Knowledge check?


If the player wanted me to tweak his concept to fit I would change it so that someone he knew was attacked and killed by a vampire, though he had no idea what it was, and then it fled. Now he is hunting down this creature, that he doesn't know, and trying to destroy it. He might try to find information about the creatures, but it is going to be very difficult due to the high Knowledge check required.

So you've gone from "my entire family was killed, and my brother became one of them" to "some guy I knew got killed by something I know nothing about"? Do you not see that the emotional quality of that character has changed completely.


Sounds like a pretty decent concept to me.

It sounds to me like a concept that gives the player very little to work with. They knew somebody who died, but they can't find out how, or anything else really.

Wouldn't a far better compromise be: "you can keep your concept entirely intact, but be aware that this is extremely rare information in-character, a lot of people will think you made it up. Also: don't assume that vampires in this setting are like vampires in the MM or in mythology. You know more about them than most people, but that still isn't a hell of a lot."

Although speaking personally, I might be more inclined to drop the vampire angle altogether, and go with some other sinister evil thing that a member of my family could have become an active member of.


That's your opinion on the issue, I really don't agree with you. If I allowed a level 1 PC to have knowledge equivalent to a DC 35 check for free simply because he wants it, then I would think it would be unfairly empowering that character at a detriment to the campaign world and to the other PCs.

Ah, you see I see things the other way around. As far as I'm concerned it's the DC 35 Knowledge check that gives you information "for free". Making it part of your background I view as a price.


Such a character would have such information that makes absolutely no sense. The logical side of my brain would say "Ok, let's assume for just a moment that this character has this information, where did he get it?" Then I'd have to make up some outlandish reason to justify his concept. Something like "An incredibly knowledgable scholar on the subject of vampires happened to be strolling through town one day and the PC and him became great friends and thus he divulged a lot of details to him."

Where did the *scholar* get his information from? Or was it just beamed into his brain by magic once his Knowledge: Religion got high enough?

I still don't understand why you don't consider "my character has experienced this, directly and personally" to be a good justification for knowing about something.


Here's another situation for you Dan. If I as a player know almost all of the Wizard spells in the PHB, but my character is a Barbarian, would it make any sense for my Barbarian to know more about arcane spells than the rookie player who's character is a Wizard?

That isn't the question, though. The question is: if you (you personally, not some hypothetical player) were a player in my game, and I said to you "I believe that you know your character better than I do, so I am not going to tell you what your character does and does not know," would you make the decision to give your Barbarian vast arcane knowledge, exceeding that of the party wizard, or would you use your out of character knowledge of the spell list to help the guy playing the Wizard get to grips with his character?


Sure, I could write up a reason in my backstory to justify the knowledge "I was once a great and powerful wizard, and then an archrival of mine cursed me, draining me of all of my spells and turning me into an illiterate Barbarian. While I can't cast spells any more, I know all about them."

If that was your character concept, and the DM accepted it, then that's the character you should get to play.

[Counterpower]

Yes. Simply by wanting it.

I have a very hard time believing in a barbarian that can't read and yet knows a great deal about demons. That severely strains the suspension of disbelief that I try so hard to cultivate, and interferes with my and the other players' enjoyment of the game.


And just to make the obligatory "wizards are overpowered" joke: that would make him *less* good in a fight.

The difference is that there are detailed rules for fights. There are no detailed rules for Knowledge. The Knowledge skills allow you to roll to "see if your character knows something" but that clearly can't be intended for every single possible thing your character could possibly know. Otherwise you'd have to make a Knowledge check to know that you had to (say) use blunt weapons against skeletons even if you had already encountered them in character.

Well, I would have to say that there are detailed rules for Knowledge. It's got it's own skill after all. It DOES need to be revised, and it can't encompass everything a person knows. It probably should encompass detailed knowledge of a balor's spell-like abilities, but knowing that he's got a flaming aura can't be that hard.


Only if you assume that the guy playing the Barbarian decides that his character knows all that stuff in-character.

Which, I believe, was the operative assumption all along. But should that be allowed if they just encountered a demon, and now the guy's player comes out with this desire? On a slightly lighter note, what happens when the barbarian's player runs out of family members to have lost to the monster of the week just so he can know their statistics?


That is only true if the only things that can be known in your campaign are the stats of the monsters.

Also: there is a difference between a player using his OOC knowledge of the monsters to help him pick a better strategy (which is, in my opinion, a legitimate thing to do in the strategic minigame that is D&D combat) and that player's character knowing all of that stuff IC.

With the vast majority of monsters used, players know so much about them that it would be impossible for them not to use OOC knowledge, and those are iconic to the point where people know about them IC too. But I can see myself putting in a challenge to the party where part of the point of the encounter (or even adventure) was to figure out how to kill the monster. I'm pretty sure my (tactically minded) group would enjoy that challenge, and I think they would get some decent character development in too. Namely, how do they react to a monster that they can't seem to hurt and/or kill?


All of those are convenient rationales, not IC reasons. Did your character have nothing in the whole world that they would rather do than go to a party?

With the backstory I have for him, yeah, he probably would just go to that party. Then again, he's also a member of House Lyrandar, which is a group of people (yes, they are related by blood) that runs all of the naval and aerial shipping. So he recieved an invitation to this party because of his status, and he vastly enjoyed the idea because he does like a party, and throwing the airship in on top of that.........


Did guarding the airship not strike them as a weird request for somebody to make of a party guest?

Understandable mistake to make. After all, PaladinBoy did leave out the part where they saved all the party guests from a painful death.


Does your character always do whatever his mother tells him to?

I can't say, since I'm his DM and not in charge of how he reacts. That said, I suspect he will do what his mother asks. Not only is she his mother, she's also the Baroness of House Lyrandar. I did say they were all related by blood. That means that Auran (his character) has two good reasons to pay attention to what his mother's saying and zero good reasons to ignore her.


That's good enough for me to get a good impression. There was nothing there I'd call a "compelling in-character reason." None of those decisions give me any impression of your character's actual personality.

Considering that that tiny little paragraph does the multiple hours we've devoted to this campaign no justice, I'm not suprised. Auran d'Lyrandar has emerged as devoted to his House, arrogant, fascinated with the dragonmark of Storm, extremely interested with airships and their workings....... really, I'm suprised PaladinBoy even asked if that was enough. It most assuredly was not.


The key phrase here is "justify".

While I can't speak for PaladinBoy, I use that phrase (or "find a good reason" earlier) because sometimes it isn't all that easy. Then again, it's not impossible either, and sometimes it can be good character development figuring out why your character would want to do this. If you can't, then the DM isn't doing something right.


Your character should also know that a single stab wound could kill him instantly, that the only way to defeat an opponent in full plate is to grapple them to the ground and stick a dagger through their helmet, that charging a man with a crossbow is a suicidal maneuver. He should know a bunch of other things which are *not* supported by the game mechanics.

This is a fantasy world. Real life realizations don't have to be true. A character can full well realize that no one stab from a dagger is going to kill him, unless he's helpless. Or that the crossbowman won't be able to attack before he gets to him.

[Artemician]

The point is not that I don't trust the DM, but that I don't want to *have* to trust the DM and that I don't want to play in the kind of game that "trusting the DM" leads to, which is a game that's all about the DM.

"Trust", in this case, does not mean "blind following". In this case, it means the belief that the DM knows what he is doing, and that he would not do something stupid willingly.

You have brought the examples that I have given to two complete extremes, neither of which actually occur in real life. If a player trusts a DM to such an extent, it will, as you have said, result in a game that revolves around the DM alone. Running a game without any player input is very boring for a DM.

If a players distrusts his DM that much, he wouldn't be playing in that DM's game.

I think that this case is much like arguing Morals using Moral Axioms. It is of my opinion that you should not set any hard and fast rule regarding anything. If something gets in the way of fun, it should be pointed out and changed. If a character wants to play a Vampire Hunter in a setting where Vampires are incredibly reclusive and not-known-about, then that breaks the Immersion of the other players, and should be changed. If a DM tells a player that he is scared of his own mortality, even though he is a necromancer, a Player may feel that his backstory is being ignored., and should be rectified.

(!)However if you weren't so anal about it and actually give some trust to your DM, you could turn it into an interesting Roleplay.

Like so:

DM: <Situation given above>
Player: Dude, you realize that I'm a necromancer, right?
DM: Yes. You're scared anyway. You're supposed to be scared. The whole point of this encounter is that you are scared. If you're not scared, then it's not very fun for the other players.
Player: Riiight. *coughs* Vortis stares fixedly at the monster. He dealt with corpses all day (and night), and death, after all, was but a temporary process. But not so. Staring at that bloodstained knife, Vortis experienced an emotion he'd never thought he'd feel. Fear. That good enough for you?
DM: Yes.
Player: Of course, this is under distress. I'm not going to like it if this keeps happening.
DM: Oh. Bugger. Gimme a sec *goes over to Encounter Plans and starts making changes*
Player: Thanks mate. But you don't actually have to change it, I can continue this RP, it might get interesting. Just don't keep up this trend in future encounters.
DM: Oh, okay. I apologize for that.
Player: No prob.

[/end]

There, wasn't that a happy ending?

[Dan_Hemmens]

"Trust", in this case, does not mean "blind following". In this case, it means the belief that the DM knows what he is doing, and that he would not do something stupid willingly.

Over on RPG.net, I used the following analogy (in defence of the traditional GM-player divide, ironically enough).

For some people, GMing a game is like cooking a meal. Your friends come around, and you create something for them that you hope they will enjoy. If you mess something up, or make something somebody doesn't like, everybody understands that you were still doing your best, and they're still grateful for the effort you've put in.

I think that's how most people here (and perhaps most people in the hobby) view the GM. It's not where I'm coming from, though. I don't play, and don't enjoy, the "GM-down" school of roleplaying.


You have brought the examples that I have given to two complete extremes, neither of which actually occur in real life. If a player trusts a DM to such an extent, it will, as you have said, result in a game that revolves around the DM alone. Running a game without any player input is very boring for a DM.

Not half as boring as it is for the player.

And a lot of GMs *do* run without any player input, and worse they often do it without even realising.


If a players distrusts his DM that much, he wouldn't be playing in that DM's game.

Again, you miss my point. It isn't that I "distrust" any specific DM, it's that I do not enjoy the style of roleplaying which requires absolute trust in an all-powerful DM.


I think that this case is much like arguing Morals using Moral Axioms. It is of my opinion that you should not set any hard and fast rule regarding anything. If something gets in the way of fun, it should be pointed out and changed. If a character wants to play a Vampire Hunter in a setting where Vampires are incredibly reclusive and not-known-about, then that breaks the Immersion of the other players, and should be changed. If a DM tells a player that he is scared of his own mortality, even though he is a necromancer, a Player may feel that his backstory is being ignored., and should be rectified.

(!)However if you weren't so anal about it and actually give some trust to your DM, you could turn it into an interesting Roleplay.

Like so:

DM: <Situation given above>
Player: Dude, you realize that I'm a necromancer, right?
DM: Yes. You're scared anyway. You're supposed to be scared. The whole point of this encounter is that you are scared. If you're not scared, then it's not very fun for the other players.
Player: Riiight. *coughs* Vortis stares fixedly at the monster. He dealt with corpses all day (and night), and death, after all, was but a temporary process. But not so. Staring at that bloodstained knife, Vortis experienced an emotion he'd never thought he'd feel. Fear.

But you see, that sequence leaves me completely nonplussed.

What does it demonstrate? Nothing. What communication was there? None. Was anything revealed about "Vortis" or any of the other PCs? No.


That good enough for you?.

DM: Yes.
Player: Of course, this is under distress. I'm not going to like it if this keeps happening.
DM: Oh. Bugger. *goes over to Encounter Plans and starts making changes*
Player: Thanks for listening to my input.

[/end]

There, wasn't that a happy ending?

No, not really. Everything still came from the GM. The GM still completely failed to demonstrate that he actually gave a crap about the character of Vortis. Sure, he might have removed the phrase "which scares you" from his Encounter descriptions in order to keep the player happy, but he's still not engaging with him creatively.

For what it's worth, the way I, as a GM, would run that encounter would be something like:

DM: <Situation given above>
Player: Dude, you realize that I'm a necromancer, right?
DM: Good point. The creature turns towards you, fascinated. "You," it hisses, "you do not fear me. What manner of creature are you that can look upon your own death as if it is nothing?"
Player: I reply: "I am a necromancer, death is my art and my calling, and the veil beyond no barrier to my power..."

The point here is that "the PCs are all scared" should *not* be the point of the encounter, the point of the encounter should be "are the PCs scared?"

The second worst thing a DM can do, in my opinion, is take choices away from the players.

The worst thing he can do is give them choices which are meaningless.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I have a very hard time believing in a barbarian that can't read and yet knows a great deal about demons. That severely strains the suspension of disbelief that I try so hard to cultivate, and interferes with my and the other players' enjoyment of the game.

Oral tradition? Illiterate doesn't mean ignorant. Barbarians get a buttload of skill points after all.


Well, I would have to say that there are detailed rules for Knowledge. It's got it's own skill after all. It DOES need to be revised, and it can't encompass everything a person knows. It probably should encompass detailed knowledge of a balor's spell-like abilities, but knowing that he's got a flaming aura can't be that hard.

The "monster weaknesses" rules are highly ambiguous on this point. Technically, it should require a Knowledge: Arcana check to know that Golems are immune to Sneak Attack, but one would think that the fact that they have no internal organs would be a giveaway.


Which, I believe, was the operative assumption all along. But should that be allowed if they just encountered a demon, and now the guy's player comes out with this desire? On a slightly lighter note, what happens when the barbarian's player runs out of family members to have lost to the monster of the week just so he can know their statistics?

Barbarians have very large families.


With the vast majority of monsters used, players know so much about them that it would be impossible for them not to use OOC knowledge, and those are iconic to the point where people know about them IC too. But I can see myself putting in a challenge to the party where part of the point of the encounter (or even adventure) was to figure out how to kill the monster. I'm pretty sure my (tactically minded) group would enjoy that challenge, and I think they would get some decent character development in too. Namely, how do they react to a monster that they can't seem to hurt and/or kill?

So for those situations use something that isn't in the main rulebooks. Or better still, make the creature vulnerable only to a specific weapon. That way they can't "just decide" to use fire, or sonic damage, or whatever against it.


With the backstory I have for him, yeah, he probably would just go to that party. Then again, he's also a member of House Lyrandar, which is a group of people (yes, they are related by blood) that runs all of the naval and aerial shipping. So he recieved an invitation to this party because of his status, and he vastly enjoyed the idea because he does like a party, and throwing the airship in on top of that.........


<examples excised>

I'm not going to go too much further into the specifics on this one, because ultimately I can't say anything meaningful about your games without having been in them.


While I can't speak for PaladinBoy, I use that phrase (or "find a good reason" earlier) because sometimes it isn't all that easy. Then again, it's not impossible either, and sometimes it can be good character development figuring out why your character would want to do this. If you can't, then the DM isn't doing something right.

But the point is that your thought processes are strictly "what do I, out of character, want my character to do, how do I make them do it"?

Which is metagaming of exactly the same kind as "there must be a key around here somewhere."


This is a fantasy world. Real life realizations don't have to be true. A character can full well realize that no one stab from a dagger is going to kill him, unless he's helpless. Or that the crossbowman won't be able to attack before he gets to him.

Which comes dangerously close to saying that your character knows that he lives in a world with a turn-based abstract combat system.

[Winterwind]

I apologise for not having posted anymore in this discussion, contrary to my promise, but when I came back to my computer yesterday the thread was already four pages farther, so it seemed rather pointless. I believe I was pretty much in agreement with all people I was discussing with anyway.

Dan, thank you for your post on Good/Bad Roleplaying/Metagaming, it was quite enlightening. While, so far, we have been playing under the convention of the GM telling the players what they knew (though not what they felt, thought or how they acted - that's strictly player domain, and the players always asking the GM whenever they wondered whether their character might have some information about something), I think I am going to ask my group whether they want to change to your stance about this, because frankly I believe it makes much more sense character-wise.
(Though I expect them to decline - my group seems to be quite content with our game-style so far)

However, I wondered what you (as GM) would do in following hypothetical situation (yeah, yeah, I know :smallwink: ):
Suppose the group encountered some powerful being, a wizard, demon or whatever, and one of the characters suddenly claimed he had encountered this being before, as it slaughtered his village or something, and had significant knowledge about it, its motivations, weakpoints and whatsoever. You, however, knew the background story of this being was that it had spent the last thousand years trapped in a magical prison and therefore there was no way whatsoever that the player's claim could be true plotwise (assuming, of course, the being was not just some random encounter but relevant for the plot - personally I do not use other encounters anyway).
Would you
a) change the story of this being to accomodate the players version (even though it might make a complete rewrite of your campaign's plot necessary),
b) tell the guy that this was rather unlikely for secret GM reasons, but go with a) if he doesn't accept that,
c) tell the guy that this was rather unlikely for secret GM reasons, and forbid him having that knowledge,
d) do something entirely else?

[Roog]

Which comes dangerously close to saying that your character knows that he lives in a world with a turn-based abstract combat system.

We have a choice with those game mechanic related assumptions - (1) we can make our assumptions based on the real world, (2) we can base them on the mechanics, or (3) we can base them on some other agreed basis.

If (1) we can run into situations where the charcter makes assumptions that do not play out or are easily proved wrong, and we find ourselves forced not to let the charcter learn from them. Furthermore, what happens if we don't have the same real-world assumptions.

If (2), we need to at least drop a lot of real world assumptions and assume that at a very basic level the character's world does not act like ours, and could potentially have trouble as you sugested (your character knows that he lives in a world with a turn-based abstract combat system)

If (3), we have to agree on the assumptions, then run into the problems of (1) and (2).

The only way can totally avoid these problems is to have a roll playing system where the assumptions come before the rules, and that is definitely not D&D.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I apologise for not having posted anymore in this discussion, contrary to my promise, but when I came back to my computer yesterday the thread was already four pages farther, so it seemed rather pointless. I believe I was pretty much in agreement with all people I was discussing with anyway.

No problem. I have the luxury of being on holiday at the moment, not everybody does.


Dan, thank you for your post on Good/Bad Roleplaying/Metagaming, it was quite enlightening. While, so far, we have been playing under the convention of the GM telling the players what they knew (though not what they felt, thought or how they acted - that's strictly player domain, and the players always asking the GM whenever they wondered whether their character might have some information about something), I think I am going to ask my group whether they want to change to your stance about this, because frankly I believe it makes much more sense character-wise.
(Though I expect them to decline - my group seems to be quite content with our game-style so far)

You don't necessarily have to make a policy of it. Just try asking them "do you think your character would know about this?"


However, I wondered what you (as GM) would do in following hypothetical situation (yeah, yeah, I know :smallwink: ):
Suppose the group encountered some powerful being, a wizard, demon or whatever, and one of the characters suddenly claimed he had encountered this being before, as it slaughtered his village or something, and had significant knowledge about it, its motivations, weakpoints and whatsoever. You, however, knew the background story of this being was that it had spent the last thousand years trapped in a magical prison and therefore there was no way whatsoever that the player's claim could be true plotwise (assuming, of course, the being was not just some random encounter but relevant for the plot - personally I do not use other encounters anyway).
Would you
a) change the story of this being to accomodate the players version (even though it might make a complete rewrite of your campaign's plot necessary),
b) tell the guy that this was rather unlikely for secret GM reasons, but go with a) if he doesn't accept that,
c) tell the guy that this was rather unlikely for secret GM reasons, and forbid him having that knowledge,
d) do something entirely else?

It depends very much on the sort of game, and the agreements I had with the players beforehand.

If the game was still mostly GM-driven and plot-led, I'd probably say "if it's all the same to you, I'd rather that wasn't the case"

If the game was being run with the assumption that the players had this kind of authorial control over the gameworld as standard, I'd go with (a). After all, it doesn't compromise the plot that much anyway, it just means they got let out of their prison a couple of decades earlier than I thought.

[Winterwind]

No problem. I have the luxury of being on holiday at the moment, not everybody does.Thanks. :)

You don't necessarily have to make a policy of it. Just try asking them "do you think your character would know about this?"Basically, I'm going to ask them whether they want me to ask them that question; after all, it is quite a change from our policy so far, which went more along the lines of the player asking me: "I am a knight, and have taken part in quite a lot tournaments. Therefore, I should know quite a lot of famous knights and champions. Am I familiar with that knight over there?" and me replying either "Uhmm... yeah, I think you would be." or "He's not all that well-known. Still, given your background, you might have heard about him - make a Knowledge check" or "Well, no. He's way to unknown for you to ever have possibly heard about him.".
Actually, that specific situation I probably would still handle the old way - unless the player suddenly wanted to make it a quirk of his character to know about absolutely every knight in the realm - but I am going to ask them about the group's preferred stance on knowledge I deemed rather unlikely for them to have.


It depends very much on the sort of game, and the agreements I had with the players beforehand.

If the game was still mostly GM-driven and plot-led, I'd probably say "if it's all the same to you, I'd rather that wasn't the case"

If the game was being run with the assumption that the players had this kind of authorial control over the gameworld as standard, I'd go with (a). After all, it doesn't compromise the plot that much anyway, it just means they got let out of their prison a couple of decades earlier than I thought.I see. Probably should have expected as much, too.
Since in my group we go for telling a story, where the characters are the protagonists (basically, trying to emphasise both plot and character), it would be choice 1 in our case.
And if the player declined then, and still wanted to have this knowledge, in spite of you rather not wanting him to (and chosing some example where the result is not quite as unimportant for the plot as the situation I gave above)? In my group, it wouldn't really become an issue, for I am pretty much sure the player would comply if I made a request like that (because, so far, my players are trusting me as GM that if I make such a request it is for the greater enjoyment (uh, is "enjoyment" a word?) of everyone. It sounds like it is the same for your group as well. Still, what would you do in the theoretical case he did not?

[Dan_Hemmens]

I see. Probably should have expected as much, too.
Since in my group we go for telling a story, where the characters are the protagonists (basically, trying to emphasise both plot and character), it would be choice 1 in our case.
And if the player declined then, and still wanted to have this knowledge, in spite of you rather not wanting him to (and chosing some example where the result is not quite as unimportant for the plot as the situation I gave above)? In my group, it wouldn't really become an issue, for I am pretty much sure the player would comply if I made a request like that (because, so far, my players are trusting me as GM that if I make such a request it is for the greater enjoyment (uh, is "enjoyment" a word?) of everyone. It sounds like it is the same for your group as well. Still, what would you do in the theoretical case he did not?

Again, it depends very much on the game.

F'rinstance (shameless plug coming) I put together a game a little while ago called The Sun Never Sets (http://www.modus-operandi.co.uk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=83&Itemid=26), which has a specific game mechanic allowing players to do *exactly* this sort of thing, so I'd be obliged to allow it.

Similarly, if I'd been making a big song and dance about player input on a web forum, I'd feel kind of silly if I didn't accept.

On the other hand, if everybody had signed up for a "we find out about the plot, about which we do not have prior knowledge" game, I'd just say "sorry, this is plot, and you signed up for a game where your ability to retcon the plot was limited."

[Winterwind]

I see.
Well, that would pretty much answer my questions, I believe I understand your point of view fairly well now, and I am going to ask my group what their preference would be.
Thank you for your answers.

[Tormsskull]

Are you suggesting that a character must be capable of making a DC 35 Knowledge check before they can even *encounter* a vampire? That if you ever did meet somebody who knew about vampires, they would be unable to communicate their information to you unless you could pass a DC 35 Knowledge check?


In the particular campaign I am discussing, the word "vampire" its self was virtually unknown. If you mentioned to someone that you had encountered a vampire they'd likely ask you what a vampire was. You could run into someone who said he saw a demon in the shape of a man, or a man in the midst of darkness run up a building or some other such extraordinary feat.



So you've gone from "my entire family was killed, and my brother became one of them" to "some guy I knew got killed by something I know nothing about"? Do you not see that the emotional quality of that character has changed completely.

It sounds to me like a concept that gives the player very little to work with. They knew somebody who died, but they can't find out how, or anything else really.


It has changed quite a bit yes, but that's what occurs in the adaptation process. If he wants the emotional connection of losing a family member, a vampire could have killed his brother and that's why he is hunting him. Or his entire family. The underlying theme is that the character doesn't really have much of a clue as to what the creature is.

I'd even go so far as to say that the monster left behind a clue, or left him a scar or anything else if he wants more attachment to it, maybe even a metaphorical trail of bread crumbs that leads to the vampire (after a very long search). But once again, since the information about vampires, their nature, etc, is so rare, giving the character specific information on them would have been breaking with the campaign.



Wouldn't a far better compromise be: "you can keep your concept entirely intact, but be aware that this is extremely rare information in-character, a lot of people will think you made it up. Also: don't assume that vampires in this setting are like vampires in the MM or in mythology. You know more about them than most people, but that still isn't a hell of a lot."


I don't think so. I think that if the level 1 character has more information on vampires than is wordly feasible, then it isn't a matter of compromise.



Although speaking personally, I might be more inclined to drop the vampire angle altogether, and go with some other sinister evil thing that a member of my family could have become an active member of.


Which I would have been fine with. Vampires were a major part of that campaign, but not until further in. If the player wanted to change it to a wight or just some generic undead being, I'd have worked it in.



Ah, you see I see things the other way around. As far as I'm concerned it's the DC 35 Knowledge check that gives you information "for free". Making it part of your background I view as a price.


Ok, using that analogy though, you have unlimited dollars to spend on your background.



Where did the *scholar* get his information from? Or was it just beamed into his brain by magic once his Knowledge: Religion got high enough?


No, the scholar would have gotten his information from some kind of a fluff reason, which was represented by his 15+ ranks in the Knowledge Skill.



I still don't understand why you don't consider "my character has experienced this, directly and personally" to be a good justification for knowing about something.


Because as the creator of the campaign world, I know what major events have and have not happened. Your character cannot experience something that did not happen.



That isn't the question, though. The question is: if you (you personally, not some hypothetical player) were a player in my game, and I said to you "I believe that you know your character better than I do, so I am not going to tell you what your character does and does not know," would you make the decision to give your Barbarian vast arcane knowledge, exceeding that of the party wizard, or would you use your out of character knowledge of the spell list to help the guy playing the Wizard get to grips with his character?


I personally would not, because I can't possibly rationalize to myself a way that a Barbarian would have all of this arcane knowledge. Sure, I could make an excuse for it, or a lame reason why, but that would leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.



If that was your character concept, and the DM accepted it, then that's the character you should get to play.

Exactly, if the DM accepts it, which most DMs wouldn't, because that concept is lame. A player can propose any concept that they would like, but it is still up to the DM to accept it.

[barawn]

Now, the character I have created is a vampire hunter. His family was killed by vampires, and they turned his brother into one of them. This fact drives his every action and underlies his entire purpose.

Did you miss the part where in this world, vampires are rare? A vampire hunter, therefore, is going to be severely restricted. Just naturally. If you choose to play a cattle herder on a world with no cattle, hey, it's not going to work.

These aren't normal examples. These are examples where the DM has a world, describes it to the players, and one of the players is coming out and saying "Hey, look, I know you put all this work into this world, but I really want to play this character which violates a core concept of the world. Would you mind shifting everything around to fit him into it?"

Would anyone really suggest that the player isn't the one being the idiot there?


Then the DM comes along and says "sorry, but you character can only know about vampires if you make a DC 35 Knowledge check."

Duh. Regardless of how driven he is to find out about vampires, the knowledge in the world just isn't there. He can't go down to Ye Olde Book Shoppe and buy Vampires for Dummies because it doesn't exist. There might be one guy on a far-off island who's encountered a vampire ten years ago who accidentally struck one with an arrow in the heart, and poof, the vampire died. In that case, yes, maybe a DC 35 Knowledge check would be needed, because the amount of research required in your backstory to accomodate that knowledge is huge. If you're only a first-level adventurer, there's no way you got out to see that guy.

If you're a tenth-level adventurer, yeah, maybe you have, but it will have taken up a significant amount of your resources over the years, and that's represented by expending skill points.

If you've got a problem with the ancillary knowledge that comes with taking ranks in Knowledge, you should also realize that through specific study comes the ability to research general things, as well. Vampires, for instance, would fall under Knowledge (religion), and in trying to find out about vampires, he's naturally going to pick up information regarding gods, goddesses, religious history (after all, maybe he only found the guy when he read a reference about a war hundreds of years ago on that far-off island where strange beings who sucked the blood from the fallen roamed the battlefields).


It is therefore totally possible within your world that this could have happened to a PC.

Yes. But that doesn't give the PC unilateral authority to dictate what his character knows about vampires. If the knowledge is common, then yeah, there's no need for a Knowledge check. But the DM decides what's common in the world, not the player. The player is free to ask if said knowledge is common, but it doesn't have to be.


So it isn't "the GM changes his world, or the player changes his character", it's "the GM makes a modicum of effort to accommodate a character, or the entire character goes in the bin."

The onus is on the PC to fit the character in the DM's world, not the other way around. Changing the DM's world means it affects the other characters, players, and the DM. Changing the PC doesn't affect anyone else other than the single player.

That's not to say the DM shouldn't every flex at all. But the player has to be more flexible than the DM. It's much harder to build a world than it is to build a character.

[Counterspin]

I don't understand where this presumption that the GM is putting vastly more time into the game is coming from. As a GM, I'd say my investment is about twenty percent more time than my players, on down to fifteen depending on the style.

I'm in a 20th level game right now which the GM runs entirely off of modules he's found on the internet. I'd be surprised if, after three sessions, he's spent more time working on game than we have (equal game time, then his prep time vs. our lengthy lvl 20 character creation time).

Of course, there are some things that a GM should disallow, but I don't think that's an authority drawn from some massive slave like labor. It's because the GM is generally in charge of the main plot thread and balance(if you're of a tactical bent), and some things don't fit. Now, I'd like to note that the vampire example is pretty extreme. It sounds like the rarity of vampires is a plot point rather than a factoid. But for every time the GM looks across the table and says "no" to a player about something important, there's tons of times when they've said "no" to something minor that they could have made a small adjustment and met the player's request, increasing the player's enjoyment.

For example, ye olde venerable Monte Cook talks about how when he started running the test group through Ptolus, his gigantic city campaign, his wife wanted to play a half giant. Now normally there aren't any half-giants in the setting, but he carved her out some space, and even made her coming of age and discovering who her real parents were into a major plot point. I would say that is an excellent example of the sort of positive interaction between a GM and a player invested with a fair amount of power that those of us who are advocating for more player power at the table are talking about.

[Dan_Hemmens]

In the particular campaign I am discussing, the word "vampire" its self was virtually unknown. If you mentioned to someone that you had encountered a vampire they'd likely ask you what a vampire was. You could run into someone who said he saw a demon in the shape of a man, or a man in the midst of darkness run up a building or some other such extraordinary feat.

So is it just the word "vampire" you're getting hung up on here?


It has changed quite a bit yes, but that's what occurs in the adaptation process. If he wants the emotional connection of losing a family member, a vampire could have killed his brother and that's why he is hunting him. Or his entire family. The underlying theme is that the character doesn't really have much of a clue as to what the creature is.

This is the bit I don't get though.

Why is it so important to you that he "not have a clue what the creature is"?


I'd even go so far as to say that the monster left behind a clue, or left him a scar or anything else if he wants more attachment to it, maybe even a metaphorical trail of bread crumbs that leads to the vampire (after a very long search). But once again, since the information about vampires, their nature, etc, is so rare, giving the character specific information on them would have been breaking with the campaign.

But *why* would it have been breaking? Why is it impossible for a person to know something that is not widely known? Your entire problem with this character concept seems to be predicated on the assumption that it is impossible to find out something which requires a DC 35 knowledge check to know off the top of your head.

And again, I am mystified by the idea that you would include a powerful, mysterious race of beings in your game, about which you wish your players to remain entirely ignorant and unaware, and choose to use one of the most well known, most archetypal races in the entire game.


I don't think so. I think that if the level 1 character has more information on vampires than is wordly feasible, then it isn't a matter of compromise.

Knowledge isn't like money. It doesn't pool in one place. If one person knows about vampires, other people can know about vampires. I really don't see the issue here.


Which I would have been fine with. Vampires were a major part of that campaign, but not until further in. If the player wanted to change it to a wight or just some generic undead being, I'd have worked it in.

If vampires were a major part of the campaign, wouldn't it have been an absolute boon to have a PC with an ironclad IC reason to go after them?


Ok, using that analogy though, you have unlimited dollars to spend on your background.

Sounds reasonable to me. It won't affect your starting equipment any.


No, the scholar would have gotten his information from some kind of a fluff reason, which was represented by his 15+ ranks in the Knowledge Skill.

So why can't the PC have got his information from "some kind of fluff reason" as represented by his 4 ranks in the Knowledge skill?

Are you suggesting that there are some facts so obscure that it is somehow impossible for the human mind to contain them unless they are already massively knowledgeable?


Because as the creator of the campaign world, I know what major events have and have not happened. Your character cannot experience something that did not happen.

So my character cannot have encountered a vampire, because you know as the DM that "my character encoutering a vampire" did not happen?

This is the thing I'm really objecting to, and it has nothing to do with "type one versus type two". It has nothing to do with "change the world versus change the character." You seem to be saying that a PC cannot be in any way connected to an important aspect of your game world, because if they were you would "already know about it."


I personally would not, because I can't possibly rationalize to myself a way that a Barbarian would have all of this arcane knowledge. Sure, I could make an excuse for it, or a lame reason why, but that would leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Then were is the problem?

[Tormsskull]

I don't understand where this presumption that the GM is putting vastly more time into the game is coming from. As a GM, I'd say my investment is about twenty percent more time than my players, on down to fifteen depending on the style.


Every group is different. If your GM doesn't spend anytime developing his world then I would say it would be a lot easier for him to put stuff in that you want. I personally spend months on a campaign before I start it.



Of course, there are some things that a GM should disallow, but I don't think that's an authority drawn from some massive slave like labor. It's because the GM is generally in charge of the main plot thread and balance(if you're of a tactical bent), and some things don't fit. Now, I'd like to note that the vampire example is pretty extreme. It sounds like the rarity of vampires is a plot point rather than a factoid. But for every time the GM looks across the table and says "no" to a player about something important, there's tons of times when they've said "no" to something minor that they could have made a small adjustment and met the player's request, increasing the player's enjoyment.


Its not drawn from slave like labor, its drawn from the fact that the World-building DM knows more about the world than the players do, and some things just don't fit. But this just shows your viewpoint. See, you are coming in under the assumption that GMs frequently tell their players no to important requests made by the players. I know that I don't. If one of my players makes a request I will do the best I can to help them out, but I don't break the preestablished campaign rules to do that.



For example, ye olde venerable Monte Cook talks about how when he started running the test group through Ptolus, his gigantic city campaign, his wife wanted to play a half giant. Now normally there aren't any half-giants in the setting, but he carved her out some space, and even made her coming of age and discovering who her real parents were into a major plot point. I would say that is an excellent example of the sort of positive interaction between a GM and a player invested with a fair amount of power that those of us who are advocating for more player power at the table are talking about.

But are there not any half-giants for a specific reason, or had he just not included them? That's the main difference.

If the campaign is set in primitive times (humans at the tribal level of civilization), and a player wants to be a middle ages knight, that's a pretty big disconnect. I think most everyone is going to agree that the DM has every right to disallow the player's concept. But, some people are saying that the player gets to control everything about his own character, and thus we'd end up with some strange occurance where a middle ages knight got transported back in time. Lame to me, but maybe some groups would enjoy that.

The vampire example is one where some people are saying "If it is important to the player, you should just allow it." I still say no, because it requires a significant change to the campaign world to satisfy 1 player.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Did you miss the part where in this world, vampires are rare? A vampire hunter, therefore, is going to be severely restricted. Just naturally. If you choose to play a cattle herder on a world with no cattle, hey, it's not going to work.

By "severely restricted" we of course mean "directly involved in a major plotline."


These aren't normal examples. These are examples where the DM has a world, describes it to the players, and one of the players is coming out and saying "Hey, look, I know you put all this work into this world, but I really want to play this character which violates a core concept of the world. Would you mind shifting everything around to fit him into it?"

Would anyone really suggest that the player isn't the one being the idiot there?

I would. I did. I am.


Duh. Regardless of how driven he is to find out about vampires, the knowledge in the world just isn't there. He can't go down to Ye Olde Book Shoppe and buy Vampires for Dummies because it doesn't exist. There might be one guy on a far-off island who's encountered a vampire ten years ago who accidentally struck one with an arrow in the heart, and poof, the vampire died. In that case, yes, maybe a DC 35 Knowledge check would be needed, because the amount of research required in your backstory to accomodate that knowledge is huge. If you're only a first-level adventurer, there's no way you got out to see that guy.

Why not?

Why can my character, who has devoted his entire life to finding out about these things, whatever they are, not know about them, but - say - the High Priestess of Umberlee, who has no interest in them whatsoever but has Knowledge Religion out the wazoo gets all the info she likes.

Saying that a low-level character can't have information which would require a DC 35 Knowledge check to know is like suggesting that a character can't walk a distance greater than thirty feet, because you would need to make a DC 30 Jump check to cover the same distance.


If you're a tenth-level adventurer, yeah, maybe you have, but it will have taken up a significant amount of your resources over the years, and that's represented by expending skill points.

Represented by expending skill points on a skill which is *massively* broader than the information you are actually after.


If you've got a problem with the ancillary knowledge that comes with taking ranks in Knowledge, you should also realize that through specific study comes the ability to research general things, as well. Vampires, for instance, would fall under Knowledge (religion), and in trying to find out about vampires, he's naturally going to pick up information regarding gods, goddesses, religious history (after all, maybe he only found the guy when he read a reference about a war hundreds of years ago on that far-off island where strange beings who sucked the blood from the fallen roamed the battlefields).

Why? Why the hell are you going to have to learn all that? I mean seriously do you really think it is impossible to know about vampires without also learning about the Temple Rites of Oldimarra?


Yes. But that doesn't give the PC unilateral authority to dictate what his character knows about vampires. If the knowledge is common, then yeah, there's no need for a Knowledge check. But the DM decides what's common in the world, not the player. The player is free to ask if said knowledge is common, but it doesn't have to be.

I never said it did. I said that it was unreasonable, bordering on ludicrous, to veto a character concept because it would require them to have "passed a DC 35 skill check".


The onus is on the PC to fit the character in the DM's world, not the other way around. Changing the DM's world means it affects the other characters, players, and the DM. Changing the PC doesn't affect anyone else other than the single player.

And changing the world doesn't affect anybody other than the DM.


That's not to say the DM shouldn't every flex at all. But the player has to be more flexible than the DM. It's much harder to build a world than it is to build a character.

That is a common attitude amongst DMs. One might almost consider them biased.

[Jayabalard]

busy busy busy... maybe I'll catch up tommorow.


The distinction has been noted in previous posts but, to reiterate, failing a save is a mechanical function of the game you're playing. Being told what you're doing by a GM is an arbitrary and authoritarian abrogation of choice. At that point, the GM is playing the character. Bad comparison.

Making or failing a save by rolling the dice (saving throw) is a mechanical function of the game that you're playing. Sometimes the GM will fudge that in order to preserve/advance the story (how often depends alot on the style game that you play). A player claiming that they automatically make the save just because they feel it fits in better with their character concept is only allowable in a freeform style game, otherwise it's breaking the rules.

Character knowledge works the same way; knowing something or not by rolling the dice (knowledge check) is a mechanical function of the game. Sometimes the GM will fudge that in order to preserve/advance the story (how often depends alot on the style game that you play). A player claiming that they automatically know something because they feel it fits in better with their character concept is only allowable in a freeform style game.


Why not?

Why can my character, who has devoted his entire life to finding out about these things, whatever they are, not know about them, but - say - the High Priestess of Umberlee, who has no interest in them whatsoever but has Knowledge Religion out the wazoo gets all the info she likes.If vampires are that rare, she wouldn't know it either; if noone the game world has ever killed a vampire, then that knowledge isn't available to anyone. If the information isn't available, then you there is no in character way to justify it. It doesn't matter how much of your time you've devoted to it (which if you don't have the appropriate knowledge checks isn't really that much).

Besides, at level one you have not devoted your entire life to finding those things out... If you had, you wouldn't be level one.

Claiming that you have devoted your entire life to finding rare knowledge and deserve to know rare knowledge at level 1 just because it fits with your character concept.

exactly the same as:

Claiming that you have devoted your entire life to studying swordplay and deserve to have an extra +10 to hit and damage with a sword at level 1 just because it fits with your character concept.

[Counterspin]

Tormsskull : Can you tell us why the vampire hunter thing is so pivotal to your campaign world, under a spoiler tag if neccessary. It just makes it very hard to side with you on that example without an explanation beyond "vampires are rare." As I said, if it's a plot point that the characters be ignorant of vampires(Though I share with Dan confusion over why the great mysterious race in your campaign is vampires) then I would say it's okay. If the it's just a factoid jotted down in a notebook that is unlikely to ever effect the game, I'd be all for changing it.

No one in this thread has advocated for players to be able to play whatever character that they like. Simply hasn't been done. We've discussed control of character knowledge, we've discussed control over character response, but no one has come to near to what you're saying.

I can't speak for Dan, but disallowing a middle ages knight in a tribal setting is perfectly reasonable. No one is arguing that you should be able to play a d20 Modern character in D&D. Just hasn't happened.

Jayabalard : If you choose to run knowledges in a freeform way it does not automatically transform your entire game into a freeform one.

[Tormsskull]

So is it just the word "vampire" you're getting hung up on here?


No. It was an example to show how extremely rare vampires are.



This is the bit I don't get though.

Why is it so important to you that he "not have a clue what the creature is"?


If the cost of knowing about vampires requires 15 ranks in the Knowledge Skill, I think that anyone has has 0 (or even 4) ranks in the skill isn't significantly knowledgeable to know about vampires.



But *why* would it have been breaking? Why is it impossible for a person to know something that is not widely known? Your entire problem with this character concept seems to be predicated on the assumption that it is impossible to find out something which requires a DC 35 knowledge check to know off the top of your head.


Because a level 1 person is nobody important. They are fresh off the farm, fresh out of the academy, fresh of the streets, not the discoverers of arcahic knowledge known by only a few people in the world.



And again, I am mystified by the idea that you would include a powerful, mysterious race of beings in your game, about which you wish your players to remain entirely ignorant and unaware, and choose to use one of the most well known, most archetypal races in the entire game.


In planning some of the events of the campaign, it occured to me that vampires had the skills/abilities/feel that worked perfect for what I had planned.



Knowledge isn't like money. It doesn't pool in one place. If one person knows about vampires, other people can know about vampires. I really don't see the issue here.


Knowledge (not the skill) is incredibly powerful in my games. Knowing something puts a character at a significant advantage versus a character who does not know. Just because a very few people may know about vampires doesn't mean that any old level 1 person should be able to.



If vampires were a major part of the campaign, wouldn't it have been an absolute boon to have a PC with an ironclad IC reason to go after them?


No. The reason is that vampires weren't going to make an appearance for quite a while down the road (these are level 1 PCs after all).



Sounds reasonable to me. It won't affect your starting equipment any.


I would argue that in my games Knowledge is worth way more than a particular piece of equipment.



So why can't the PC have got his information from "some kind of fluff reason" as represented by his 4 ranks in the Knowledge skill?


Because I have determined that do the the extreme reclusiveness of vampires, it requires 15 ranks in the Knowledge Skill to discover.



Are you suggesting that there are some facts so obscure that it is somehow impossible for the human mind to contain them unless they are already massively knowledgeable?


Nope. I'm suggesting that the knowledge of vampires is so rare that someone barely knowledgable in their element (religion in this case) would have never come across them in their studies.



So my character cannot have encountered a vampire, because you know as the DM that "my character encoutering a vampire" did not happen?


You can have encountered a vampire, if you like, but you can't have knowledge about them because that knowledable is so obscure.



This is the thing I'm really objecting to, and it has nothing to do with "type one versus type two". It has nothing to do with "change the world versus change the character." You seem to be saying that a PC cannot be in any way connected to an important aspect of your game world, because if they were you would "already know about it."


I know this is what you are objecting to, it comes back down to who gets the final say in things, the DM or the player. Your stance is that the player owns everything about their character and should be able to have whichever background concept that they like. I disagree. I think (i'm probably repeating myself here) that if a PCs concept infringes on a core tenet of the campaign world, then the PC's concept is not appropriate for that campaign.



Then were is the problem?

The problem is that while I am a rational and logical person, not everyone is, at least in what appears to be everyones group except yours. So if I know it is in bad form to make my Barbarian more knowledgable in arcane spells than the wizard, that doesn't stop Bob from making his fighter more knowledgable in arcane magic than the wizard.

If Bob is allowed to endow his fighter with that kind of knowledge, then it destroys my sense of immersion into the game world.

[Counterspin]

Tormsskull : But isn't that you failing to give to your players the trust which they have given you, i.e. that you'll act for the good of the game as a whole. If someone doesn't care whether anyone else is having fun, they're going to wreck the game one way or the other. Strict knowledge rules that restrict player concepts aren't going to help.

And sign me up along with Dan on the list of people whose group is made up entirely of logical, trustworty folk.

[barawn]

Why not?

Why can my character, who has devoted his entire life to finding out about these things, whatever they are, not know about them, but - say - the High Priestess of Umberlee, who has no interest in them whatsoever but has Knowledge Religion out the wazoo gets all the info she likes.

If your character's devoted his entire life to finding out about these things, he's got the freaking ranks in Knowledge (religion). You just said that your character spent a significant amount of time doing this. It doesn't make any sense that he could do this, oh, and at the same time, he's going to have ranks out the wazoo in Spellcraft, or Tumble, or whatever.


Why? Why the hell are you going to have to learn all that? I mean seriously do you really think it is impossible to know about vampires without also learning about the Temple Rites of Oldimarra?

Yes. They don't have Google.


And changing the world doesn't affect anybody other than the DM.

You are incredibly, incredibly wrong there. Changing the world affects the other players, who created their characters to fit in the world. Only the complaining player didn't.

Minor changes might not. But I did say that DMs should be flexible. Major changes would.

You have this bizarre idea that I'm a DM, and not a player. I play more than I DM. I know which is harder - changing the world, or changing the player. It's changing the world. Absolutely, without a doubt. To have to rearrange cultures, NPCs, plots, not to mention history and backstory for the other characters simply because a player whines is crazy.

[barawn]

And sign me up along with Dan on the list of people whose group is made up entirely of logical, trustworty folk.

Which might be the problem. We're not talking about those people. We're talking about the problem kinds. You're lucky that you haven't come across one, although if they're bad enough, you just ask them not to play. The bad ones are the borderline ones.

[Counterspin]

But wouldn't it be better to talk to the single problem player than to use these really harsh rules for everyone? There is a cost being paid here in player enjoyment. The knowledge rules are bad. Tormsskull's flat number of knowledge ranks is an okay work around. But why make everyone labor under bad rules when the solution to me seems to be just talk to that person?

[Winterwind]

Sounds reasonable to me. It won't affect your starting equipment any.I don't think anybody around here has ever heard of a RPG called "Endland" (it was a German postapocalyptic RPG, which has been discontinued already years ago). There, your starting equipment depended on what the player and the GM agreed upon as fitting for the character to possess - which could range from tribal weapons made of bone and stone up to machine guns and motorized vehicles (Mad Max style).
I personally found this a quite sensible system for determining start equipment, for it made it possible to create just the character the player envisioned. Basic premise is, of course, that all are interested in creating a realistic being in the given world, not abusing this freedom for personal benefit.

Because a level 1 person is nobody important. They are fresh off the farm, fresh out of the academy, fresh of the streets, not the discoverers of arcahic knowledge known by only a few people in the world.Actually, I believe Dan was asking for a reason why it would hurt if this specific character possessed this knowledge, in terms of why it would destroy the plot, rather why it might seem unlikely for this character to possess the knowledge (for there can always be a creative reason why this particular person does have the knowledge no matter how rare it is, especially if the person devoted their life for seeking out that knowledge. A compulsive fixation on a particular subject can work miracles...). Because, unless it would really unhinge the plot, there is little reason to disallow the character to be just that one exemption amongst all the people who know nothing about vampires, and might even make for a lot of funny/interesting roleplaying situations (like when the vampire hunter tries to share his knowledge with somebody, who draws the conclusion that the vampire hunter is utterly nuts).

And sign me up along with Dan on the list of people whose group is made up entirely of logical, trustworty folk.Me too.
Honestly, I have played with other people on a few occassions, who did not care about world, character, or plot, instead only about "slay monsters, get treasure", and found it quite a nightmare. Still, a few words with the given player to clarify one's stance about what constitutes a fun roleplaying session and what doesn't usually works wonders...

EDIT: What Counterspin just said.

[Tormsskull]

Tormsskull : But isn't that you failing to give to your players the trust which they have given you, i.e. that you'll act for the good of the game as a whole. If someone doesn't care whether anyone else is having fun, they're going to wreck the game one way or the other. Strict knowledge rules that restrict player concepts aren't going to help.


...

What happens if what I think is "for the good of the game" and what 1 of the 4 (or 5 or 6) players thinks is "for the good of the game" is completely different?

Someone has to make a decision on it. I believe that decision falls in the hands of the DM.

When you say that 1 player can ruin the game for everyone, I have to disagree. If 1 player is ruining the game for everyone I would step in and try to put and end to it. If all players had the ability to effect the game world to the degree that you are suggesting, then yes they technically could mess up the entire game, up until the point the group kicked the player out by committee and tried to salvage whatever they could.



But wouldn't it be better to talk to the single problem player than to use these really harsh rules for everyone? There is a cost being paid here in player enjoyment. The knowledge rules are bad. Tormsskull's flat number of knowledge ranks is an okay work around. But why make everyone labor under bad rules when the solution to me seems to be just talk to that person?


Since you aren't quoting specific passages I might be getting this confused, but who is a problem player? Are you talking about the player who requests for his character to be a vampire hunter? He wouldn't be a problem player. See, if I disallow his concept, then he changes it, and everything is good to go. No problems. If he refuses to change it, then he isn't a player in that campaign. No problems.

I think you are getting too caught up on the DM's authority to enforce the rules of the campaign versus a player's right to play the character that they want.

This all depends on how the campaign is formed. If you went over to the "Looking for Game" sections of this board (or whatever they are called), and made a new post saying "I have this level 15 wizard as my character and I am looking for a game to join."

Now, if I am a DM and I want a player and I agree to accept you as a player, it would be in really poor form of me to say "Yeah you can play, but you can't be a wizard, and we're level 5 right now."

On the flip side, if you go into those same boards and look for a DM's posting that is looking for players, you follow the rules that the DM has specified in his post. Level: 3, Books allowed: Core, etc. If the DM provides you a bunch of campaign background, then you might want to go a step farther and think of a character background that can intertwine with elements of the campaign, i.e. make your character apart of the campaign world.

If you went to that post and said "Yeah I'll play but I want to be a Frenzied Berserker and level 12" then the DM has every right to completely ignore you or tell you to buzz off or whatever.

[Jayabalard]

But wouldn't it be better to talk to the single problem player than to use these really harsh rules for everyone? There is a cost being paid here in player enjoyment. The knowledge rules are bad. Tormsskull's flat number of knowledge ranks is an okay work around. But why make everyone labor under bad rules when the solution to me seems to be just talk to that person?The knowledge rules are no better or worse than any of the other rules in D&D. Personally I use them about as often as I do the rest of the rules (ie, when it is convenient and doesn't break the story). The rest of the time I'll just make rulings. Noone has objected so far; I guess that's an advantage of playing with people who think that the game is more important than any particular character.

[Tormsskull]

Because, unless it would really unhinge the plot, there is little reason to disallow the character to be just that one exemption amongst all the people who know nothing about vampires, and might even make for a lot of funny/interesting roleplaying situations (like when the vampire hunter tries to share his knowledge with somebody, who draws the conclusion that the vampire hunter is utterly nuts).


But if I was to allow a character to have a special mechanical ability that only a dozen people in the world have, you'd probably call that unbalancing, because it is mechanical in nature and allows absolute numerical benefits, right?

In my games Knowledge has an absolute benefit. So to me saying why not allow this character to be the one exception is like saying why not allow a level 1 character to have a level 12 character ability?

Add on top of that what I have already mentioned in the past (if this level 1 anomaly has the knowledge that 99.9% of the population doesn't, where did he get it from?

[Counterspin]

If people disagree about what's best for game, you should have a conversation about it, regardless of which side of this discussion you fall on. Failing to discuss problems only lets them fester and get worse.

Whether the GM contacted the player or visa versa is immaterial. My point is that GM restrictions limit player enjoyment, and that should be taken into account. This is as opposed to the viewpoint one often sees on these boards which is "I'm the DM, my way or the highway." The GM and the player should work together so that everyone is having fun.

Jayabalard : Have the million times I've said that everyone having fun should be a primary concern missed you? I'm arguing for more player control tempered by respect for the other players and the GM. I've repeatedly said that game should trump player. I just think that a lot of people are overly restrictive as GM because it's "their world" without considering the negative effects in terms of player enjoyment.

Tormsskull : As we've repeatedly suggested, he would have the knowledge from a personal or learned of encounter where certain information about vampires was revealed, i.e. from experiencing it first hand or hearing about it second hand from some who experienced it first hand.

[Wardog]

I read the first 9 pages of this thread, and then the last two, so I appologise if this has already been said...

But I really think some of you guys need to chill out a bit.

This is a game.

The sole purpose of the game is to be enjoyable for those taking part.

The only correct way to play the game is the way that brings the most enjoyment to the most players.


And seeing that different people seem to enjoy different things, I think the real answer to the question of how to "solve" the "problem" of metagamng is to make sure you all discuss beforehand what sort of game you want to play.

If everyone wants to play a really hard-core role-playing session, and enjoy making your characters do things that you as a player know to be foolish, then do so, and you will all enjoy it.

And if everyone wants to play a game where everyone knows all the rules, uses them to work out the most effective solutions, and has their characters carry them out (essentially, OOTS The Game), then you can do that too, and everyone will be happy, because that is what you want.

And if you all want to play something intermediate, then you can do that too.

And if you don't all want the same thing, then you should talk it out, discuss why something does or does not appeal to you, and try to find a compromise. And if you can't agree on a compromise, then you (whether you're the DM or a player), should think to yourself "What's most important for me - playing this way, or playing with these people?" And if you think "Playing with these people", then play it their way. And if you think "playing my way", then just leave them to do their own thing and find someone else to play with.




As for the specific examples that have been given, my view is that most of them (up to page 9) are not really a problem.


Example: the wizard that runs into melee range and starts to cast a spell that will kill the mobs and his party members.

If the wizard is not intending to harm his comrades, then I'd just assume he had previously discussed his spell selection and what to do if he ran into melee range and started dancing. A sport fencer may be entierly focused on his opponent, but an adventurer or warrior in a real melee, brawl, etc will be (and will be trained to be) aware of his surroundings, notice the wizard, and respond accordingly.

If he was intending to harm the other characters, well, this really depends on whether the players and DM had agreed beforehand that player-killing was acceptible. If not, then the wizard's player is being a jerk (i.e. spoiling the game for both the DM and the other players), and if I was DM, I'd bend over backwards to let the other players survive, and probably punish the wiard at the same time. You want to run out of the danger zone? No problem.

And even if playerkilling had been agreed on beforehand, then it would still probably be an acceptable response. As said above, the other fighters will be aware of their surroundings. They will know that a wizard is unlikely to run into melee unless he is going to cast a combat-spell, they will suspect that is what he was doing from the weird dance moves, and - especially if the wizard has being acting like a dangerous jerk previously - will be cautious to say the least.

If the wizard's player really wanted to do that, then IMO he should have passed a secret message to the DM explaining his intentions. If he simply declared "I run up to them and cast ...", then I could easily interpret that as meaning he did so unsubtly and gave the game away.


Example 2: switching to a blunt weapon to fight a skeleton.
8 int does not mean drooling imbecile. It just means a bit slower on the uptake than average. And a barbarian warrior (8 int or otherwise) should know that blunt weapons break bones, daggers make people bleed to death, and big axes break bones, case bleeding, and chop big lumps off.

And guess what? A skeleton is made of bone, and has no blood. So it should be common sense that a dagger would be useless, an big axe could work but less effectively than against a human, and that a mace sould smash the skeleton to pieces.

Heck, 8int is average int for an orc or half-orc. Do you really think an orc or half-orc would not be able to figure out "Chop da humans! Smash da skellies!"?


Example 3: There must be a key round here somewhere!
IRL, some people do hide keys near their doors (stupid, I know, but they do). Plently of stories feature locked doors with either a key or some other opening mechanism hidden near by. So regardless of whether that is true in this case, if the players can think of the idea, then so should the characters.

IMO, this is certainly not a game-breaking bit of metagaming, and only moderately immersion breaking (and then only if they actually actually say "the DM wouldn't put it here otherwise!").

IMO, the solution should be to simply give them a few red-herrings every now and then (a door that's there for no in-game purpose), and a few puzzles that don't fit their immediate assumptions (yes the door is important, but the key isn't here). Eventually they should learn that just because something is there doesn't mean the DM put a use or solution there as well.

And if you do keep hiding the key near the door, you only have yourself to blame.


Example 4: Experienced player with inexperienced char, giving mechanical info to newbies.

IMO, this is the only example that looks like a serious problem. The DM clearly wants to have a game/story about inexperienced adventurers encountering problems that they (as characters) will not necessarily know how to defeat, and so will have to use clues, improvisation, or alternatively flee and look for the answer. The experienced player giving all the answers is clearly breaking the game, and needs to be dealt with.

Preferably by discussing why he is doing it, explaining what sort of game/story you are trying to run, and seeing you can agree on limits to what he will know IC. (IMO, "everyone knows trolls are vulnerable to fire" would be acceptible, as was "my brother/father/drinking buddy was an adventurer" for the same info. But if he wants to say his brother/father/drinking buddy taught him about all sorts of monsters, then that would require ranks in Knowledge: Monsters).

If that fails, kick him out the game.

If you can't do that for some reason, use some home-brew monsters that he won't know about.

Or a cunning trap designed to capture experienced adventurers. "Answer these questions to open the treasure chest!" (Actually, to teleport the answerer to the lair of the dragon who reasoned that anyone who knew the answers would have a lot of treasure).

Etc

[Dan_Hemmens]

No. It was an example to show how extremely rare vampires are.

If the cost of knowing about vampires requires 15 ranks in the Knowledge Skill, I think that anyone has has 0 (or even 4) ranks in the skill isn't significantly knowledgeable to know about vampires.

But that isn't the cost of knowing about vampires, that's just the cost of the simplest, most direct way of knowing about a huge number of things which may or may not include vampires.


Because a level 1 person is nobody important. They are fresh off the farm, fresh out of the academy, fresh of the streets, not the discoverers of arcahic knowledge known by only a few people in the world.

There is precisely no rule against a level one character being as old and experienced as you like.

Hell, a level one elf is *assumed* to be over a hundred years old.

Also: so what you're saying now is that a player character isn't *important* enough to know about vampires?

Just out of interest, if you were running The Lord of the Rings, where would you put the DC of the Knowledge check required to know about the Ring?


In planning some of the events of the campaign, it occured to me that vampires had the skills/abilities/feel that worked perfect for what I had planned.

Fair enough.


Knowledge (not the skill) is incredibly powerful in my games. Knowing something puts a character at a significant advantage versus a character who does not know. Just because a very few people may know about vampires doesn't mean that any old level 1 person should be able to.

But it doesn't mean they shouldn't either.

Again you're basically following the philosophy that "level one characters can't have nice thing" or possibly even the philosophy that "PCs aren't important."


No. The reason is that vampires weren't going to make an appearance for quite a while down the road (these are level 1 PCs after all).

So it's not useful for somebody to have their backstory linked to a major plotline, because that plotline won't come up for a while?


I would argue that in my games Knowledge is worth way more than a particular piece of equipment.

You can argue that if you wish.


Because I have determined that do the the extreme reclusiveness of vampires, it requires 15 ranks in the Knowledge Skill to discover.

Which is *nonsense*.


Nope. I'm suggesting that the knowledge of vampires is so rare that someone barely knowledgable in their element (religion in this case) would have never come across them in their studies.

I'm not talking about having "come across them in your studies", I'm talking about having come across them in your *life*.


You can have encountered a vampire, if you like, but you can't have knowledge about them because that knowledable is so obscure.

Okay, so you can have met a vampire, but you can't know that they exist, because that would require a DC 35 skill check?

Can you have a brother who was turned into one? Or would that be "unrealistic" for some reason.


I know this is what you are objecting to, it comes back down to who gets the final say in things, the DM or the player. Your stance is that the player owns everything about their character and should be able to have whichever background concept that they like. I disagree. I think (i'm probably repeating myself here) that if a PCs concept infringes on a core tenet of the campaign world, then the PC's concept is not appropriate for that campaign.

That's not the issue at all. The issue is that the character doesn't infringe on a core tenet of the campaign world, it infringes on your frankly bizarre belief that no PC should have a background that ties them into a major plotline.

If there are vampires in your world, and people sometimes interact with them, and it is possible for a PC to have interacted with them, what is the problem with his having, y'know, interacted with them?

Or do vampires scrupulously reveal themselves only to people with enough Knowledge: Religion?

[Tormsskull]

There is precisely no rule against a level one character being as old and experienced as you like.


In my campaigns there is. Generally speaking, level 1 characters are inexperienced. They don't start off with specialized knowledge regardless of what they write in their background story.



Also: so what you're saying now is that a player character isn't *important* enough to know about vampires?


No. I'm saying a level 1 PC isn't important enough to have made the contacts, or studied the tomes, or whatnot, information that is so rare and reclusive.



Just out of interest, if you were running The Lord of the Rings, where would you put the DC of the Knowledge check required to know about the Ring?


Probably pretty high, as I think if when Gandalf looked at it, Frodo said "Yeah, that's the One Ring. If you put it on it makes you invisible, but you gotta be careful because it is also connected to.." would have been really anticlimatic.



Again you're basically following the philosophy that "level one characters can't have nice thing" or possibly even the philosophy that "PCs aren't important."


See above. I'm saying that you can't have the level of knowledge that is reflected by the Knowledge skill without having actual ranks in the actual Knowledge skill. I'm also stating that just because Vampires happen to be one small subset of Knowledge (Religion) dosen't mean that you can know everything about them because you are limiting the Knowledge (Religion) skill to only a very small portion of it's uses.



So it's not useful for somebody to have their backstory linked to a major plotline, because that plotline won't come up for a while?


No. That was in response to your previous statement that it won't be an absolute boon in by having them have a connection at level 1. By the time the PCs would be ready to interact with vampires they would have had a lot of time to make the connection/discovery.



I'm not talking about having "come across them in your studies", I'm talking about having come across them in your *life*.


But having come across them in your life wouldn't grant you knowledge about vampires. You wouldn't even know what they are/what abilities they have/what their habits are, etc. As I said, I would have made the compromise with the player to say his family was killed or whatever, but by having his family killed wouldn't some how "magically send the information into his brain." I think you are under the assumption that after this tragic event occurs he tracks down information regarding vampires. But if the information regarding them is so incredibly sparse, where would he find it?



Okay, so you can have met a vampire, but you can't know that they exist, because that would require a DC 35 skill check?


If you came home and saw your family completely butchered, and then a guy in black ran out the door, you chased him, and he ran up a building and our of site, you'd know what exactly? That some weird guy dressed in black with some sort of obvious magical powers killed your family. How would you make the connection that he is part of a group of beings, or that there is more than just him?



Can you have a brother who was turned into one? Or would that be "unrealistic" for some reason.


Well, how would you know that your brother was turned into one? Is it possible that he was, but that your character has no idea about it, sure. But for you to know that your brother was turned into one would mean that you had to witness it in some way. How?



That's not the issue at all. The issue is that the character doesn't infringe on a core tenet of the campaign world, it infringes on your frankly bizarre belief that no PC should have a background that ties them into a major plotline.


That's your opinion. You feel that by my description of events that allowing the character with that background into my groups campaign would not have been infringing on a core tenet of the campaign. I, as the creator of the campaign world, feel that it would have. I'm not really sure how you think your opinion of the world that my group played in would be more authentic or informed than mine???



If there are vampires in your world, and people sometimes interact with them, and it is possible for a PC to have interacted with them, what is the problem with his having, y'know, interacted with them?


There are gods in a typical D&D world, and they somtimes interact with people, but if a PC said that his character was buddies with Vecna I'd reject that too.



Or do vampires scrupulously reveal themselves only to people with enough Knowledge: Religion?

No, but that is hilarious to imagine. Of course those vampires would have to use metagaming to figure out that the PC had enough ranks...

[barawn]

I'm not talking about having "come across them in your studies", I'm talking about having come across them in your *life*.

I'm pretty sure you've come across Koreans in your life. That doesn't mean you can give me a rundown on Korean culture. It also doesn't mean you could reliably identify Koreans as well.


Okay, so you can have met a vampire, but you can't know that they exist, because that would require a DC 35 skill check?

No reason the PC has to know what it was, or what it was called.


If there are vampires in your world, and people sometimes interact with them, and it is possible for a PC to have interacted with them, what is the problem with his having, y'know, interacted with them?

The problem is allowing the player decide what was learned and how the vampire interacted. It's fine for a player to decide what they would have done. You're allowing the player to decide what the world would've done.

The entire problem with metagaming - the entire problem - is that it could be solved by the player simply asking a question to the DM, and abiding by the DM's response.

Bob: Are trolls common enough that their vulnerability to fire is well known?
DM: Yeah, there've probably been a few troll raids on your village.

or

Bob: Are trolls common enough that their vulnerability to fire is well known?
DM: No, actually - they never really go into towns, and are reclusive enough that almost no one comes across them. The only common knowledge regarding trolls is linked to children's fairy tales, where the trolls end up eating the children.

I really, really don't get this. If you insist that the player can decree anything about their backstory - even after the game has already started - what's the point of the DM building the world at all?

[Counterspin]

Tormsskull : The reason people keep saying that knowledge of vampires is unlikely to be a key tenant in your game is that you continue not to tell us why it is so. What is the player disrupting, exactly. So far you've only said that "vampires come into the plot later." Given that we are unlikely to have the same idea of what a "Key tenant" is, could you tell us why strict GM control over vampire knowledge is so important?

As for what you could learn from a vampire killing your family, the only limitation to that is what powers and qualities the vampire displays in your presence, or which can be puzzled out. If you give the player the capacity to define their history, there's really no limit to what portion of the MM entry for vampires they could discover, though of course such decisions, as any decision, would have to be made with respect for the game.

barawn : You may have noticed, but me and Dan aren't big world builders. I don't find it conducive to the way I play or run because it needlessly limits the players, for instance, not being able to play a vampire hunter in the ongoing discussion. My question for you is why build the world in such detail that the players are restricted by something that isn't going to impact them for many levels?