Metagaming

[barawn]

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?

The word is tenet, not tenant. And why does it matter why it's important? It's not strict GM control. It's the world. If I tell you "my world has no cows," why do you care why it has no cows? It has no cows. That's what it is. It's the DM's choice to have that.


barawn : You may have noticed, but me and Dan aren't big world builders.

Exactly. And the entire point is - if you don't give a crap about the believability of the world, fine. But if you're playing in a game where the DM does, then metagaming matters, because, guess what, you're stepping on the DM's toes.

The only reason I ever DM a game is because I want to build a world, and want others to experience it. Having them randomly rewrite portions of the world's underpinnings because they think they have to kill the troll incredibly fast is really, really frustrating.

[barawn]

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.

That's a silly argument.

Bob: I want to play a nuclear munitions expert!
DM: Bob... we're set in medieval Japan.
Bob: You're needlessly limiting my ability to play a character I want to play!

All worlds limit players. It's just a question of how.

[Tormsskull]

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?


I could tell you, but it would make no difference. The point being expressed here is if the DM should be allowed to reject a character's background if they feel it doesn't mesh well with the campaign world.

If you're willing to agree to the above, then the specifics don't matter, because that campaign is done and over. Regardless if you agree or disagree with my decision to restrict the concept, it won't change the outcome of the campaign (which was pretty cool until two of the players got new jobs and then the campaign went south from there).

If you think that a DM should not be able to restrict a character's backstory then you and I simply disagree, no big deal.



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.


Right, but as barawn said, that'd mean the player is controlling the world. This is one of the reasons that a player hands a backstory to the DM and the DM reviews it before accepting it. Sometimes there a things that players don't need to know up front about the world, but that are taken into consideration by the DM for determining what is or is not appropriate for a character backstory.

[Counterspin]

The world is GM controlled. Tormsskull made a decision about something, going so far as to assign it a higher than normal DC, and decided that he wouldn't allow certain concepts based on that. In this case the world and the GM can't be separated.

Believability and world building are dramatically different things. I've never had believablity problems.

I'm thrilled you enjoy world building so much, but would it really hurt to let players participate in the way we're discussing? To let them carve our part of the world for themselves, together, rather than in opposition with you? Is a character's knowledge of trolls a pivotal part of your personal enjoyment?

Tormsskull : I agree that GMs should have a say in what character a player brings to the table. However, given that you won't share what the circumstances were, I find it unlikely that I would have agreed with your call.

I fail to see what's wrong with players exerting control over the world. I've found it, in my games, to add great richness. Again, as with any rule or control, you should consider if it's just a knee jerk reaction, or if it's actually adding value.

[Starbuck_II]

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?


Why are vampires always black clothes wearing goths?

Why can't they wear white or dark blue (hides in the dark better).

[Jayabalard]

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./shrug ... No one has advocated that GM > Game either. Nor are any of the GM's that I've seen posting here "overly restrictive because it's their world" ... they're arguing that redesigning a game world that they've worked on for weeks (or more) for the sake of fitting some specific character concept in isn't their idea of fun, and that they're not obligated to do so.

As for "million times" ... there are less posts total in this thread. I honestly don't recall reading more than a few of your posts (most of those were today). Besides, if that's your argument, you're not arguing against anyone... no one is advocating that the GM should rule with an iron fist, and that the players should be his puppets... no one is arguing that the players should never have any input on the game world, or that they should never be able to write appropriate levels of game knowledge into their character backstory. That's just a straw man.

At the end of all of the arbitration and discussion, if there's not a consensus, then the DM makes the ruling for the good of the game, preserving game balance and believability. The players go along with that for the good of the game; or, if you're the type of player that puts yourself, your character, and your fun over everyone else's, you ignore the GM's ruling and use your metagame knowledge anyway.

That's what this is about... some people have been arguing that the player should indeed have the power to make decisions about their character knowledge, and that the GM should never have any input on that, regardless of the impact of those decisions on the game. That is advocating that player > game, plain and simple.


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.As Torm has repeated stated: those aren't possible in that game world. If your back story conflicts with details about the game world, then that is something that you and the GM have to discuss; if you can't come to a consensus, he'll make a ruling.

So if you put those things into your back story, then the gm would tell you that they're not an option and that you have to change them, and you certainly won't be allowed to retcon it in after the fact.

[Diggorian]

Another point:

Player: My PC has a working knowledge of vampires. One killed his family when he was a kid.

DM: How do you know it was a vampire?

Player: He saw it myself, gave chase and it used it's powers to escape.

DM: Why would a vampire run from a child?

Player: He ... um ...

DM: He killed the last surviving witness, you. Next character concept? :smallbiggrin:

[PaladinBoy]

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."

No, those are not my thought processes. My thought processes are "how would my character react to *event*?" Through the entire campaign. And pretty much all of the previous ones I've been in.


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.

I agree. However, I would like to point out the section that I bolded. "Work together" does not mean "player bends over backward to accomadate DM" or vice versa. The DM and the players will have to trust that they're all working to get a fun game and compromise if their desires conflict. For example, in Tormsskull's situation, I'd say let the player have his vampire backstory, but remind him that that probably doesn't mean he knows every detail about vampire because he couldn't possibly have access to one of the 3 other people in the world who knows about this. He might have some idea as to what this enemy can do (like if the vampire that killed his family escaped by shifting to his gaseous form) but as Tormsskull pointed out, he might not even know that it's called a vampire.


One of the major problems I have with this is the idea that your backstory is something you can change every session to give you knowledge about the rare monster of the week. I have no problem with using a backstory to justify having information. Heck, I do it myself; my character knew about a powerful law enforcement unit in a city because he lived there for the past decade, and frequently turned in lawbreakers to the Watch. But I'm not going to change that because we run into a rakshasa or something just so I can use OOC info. If we run into a dragon, I'm not going to claim that I know everything about dragons because I studied them after my hometown was destroyed by one....... because I grew up in a major city which hasn't been destroyed recently, if ever. And it would make no sense, since if a dragon did do that, then it would mark the one time in the history of the world that a single dragon bothered with a human city. I could check, but I don't think the DM wants to make my home city that special.

And that's fine with me. I think it will be fun to roleplay the surprise when the dragon uses abilities that we didn't even know existed IC. I also don't want to ruin the sense that this is a real world by adding in elements like these that make little sense.

I can see a DM adding events like that which might make little sense, because he's the one in control of the overarching plotline, and we know that the reason will be revealed in time. More than that, we know that finding the reason will be part of the challenge - and the fun - of the whole thing. When a player does that, though....... then the DM has to fit that into his possibly already planned overarching story. Not that he can't, but why does he have to be the one to give in? Particularly since this is something that only came up now, and just so that the player could use OOC knowledge against the dragon, how does that connect to "this is critical to my character concept"?

Also, I have no problem with writing players into the story. I did it once and essentially gave one character a hitherto unknown divine parentage. In fact, I did that after the backstory he presented to me included him being some type of divine avatar. I rejected that backstory, though, and rewrote it because the player essentially picked the wrong god. This would be the compromise I mentioned....... he can have his divine origin, I connect it to the campaign in a way that makes sense. The problem I have is with a character simply declaring that he has that to gain a momentary advantage in knowledge.

[Tormsskull]

The world is GM controlled. Tormsskull a decision about something, going so far as to assign it a higher than normal DC, and decided that he wouldn't allow certain concepts based on that. In this case the world and the GM can't be separated.


Yeah, but who was to think when I was crafting this campaign that a character was going to ask to be a vampire hunter? Its not as if I was muttering "vampires, muuhaaaa" before the campaign started.



I'm thrilled you enjoy world building so much, but would it really hurt to let players participate in the way we're discussing? To let them carve our part of the world for themselves, together, rather than in opposition with you? Is a character's knowledge of trolls a pivotal part of your personal enjoyment?


I think that it definitely could. If you have 4 players, each one of them probably has a different thing that they enjoy playing D&D for. That can result in some messed up things.


Interestingly enough, this same group of players I played with at the time, I suggested to doing a round robin DM campaign. Each person makes a character, and each person also DMs. I would start the DMing for the 1st week or 2 depending on how long my particular session was planned. Then after my session or adventure was completed, the next person would take over DMing and try to expand on what I had started.

The problem was that 2 of the people there didn't want to have anything to do with that. One of them said they thought making stuff up for D&D was like doing homework, and he hated homework.

The other said he simply didn't have any interest in making up adventures for the other players.

So that left it to me and 2 others who were interested in doing it. The three of us divided up the world into threes. Each person was responsible for their section of the world. They would create whatever they wanted in those areas, and then we would work on how our areas interact with one another.

On the first meeting we had to discuss thing I showed up with several sheets of graph paper of details and 20 pages of various cities, races, religions, secrets, mysteries, etc, etc that existed in my third of the world. The other 2 world builders had virtually nothing done.

Now, if I had 4 players who were all interested in and had the time to world build, I would totally like to try that again.



DM: He killed the last surviving witness, you. Next character concept?


hahahahaha

[Counterspin]

Players enjoy having options. Giving your players options is an unmitigated good, so long as it does not significantly interfere with the existing game world. Next time you tell a player no, think about whether it is from some ingrained impulse as to "the way things should be" or whether it will actually hurt your game. Give the players space to make up towns, or factoids, or life experiences, or whatever on the fly, even after they've written their backstory. If you're worldbuilding and they're worldbuilding, the world will be that much richer.

[Jayabalard]

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 a player in that campaign, you're not going to know why it's not going to be allowed, now are you? You're just going to know that vampires are unknown in that world. That's all you really need to know.

Personally, I've never had a problem with a character once I've said "sorry, you can't do that, it doesn't fit the game world" and can't really understand the mentality that it takes to think that your character concept is more important than the rest of the game and that you're entitled demand that the GM alter his game world to suit you.


There is precisely no rule against a level one character being as old and experienced as you like.Actually, level 1 characters begin with no experience, by definition (you know, 0 xp). As they gain experience, they level. A level 1 character with lots of experience is an oxymoron.

[SpikeFightwicky]

As to the whole vampire thing, maybe it wouldn't be a problem if 'vampire' is specifically referenced in the character's background?

For example:

'My PC returned to his home town after a long autumn hunt with some friends from the village when he felt a chill suddenly come over him... 'Must be the weather' he thought, though he was dressed in warm clothing. He found it odd that Anvil, his family's old dog, wasn't outside to greet him as he approached his family's house. Stranger still that the door was ajar, yet no lights were to be seen inside. It didn't look like a forced entry. Pushing the creaking door aside, he reached for a nearby candle and was about to light it when he realized it was recently burning. 'Hello?' he asked out loud, his voice sounding a little worried, but no one replied. There was a trail of crimson leading from the door towards the stairs to the upper level, and as he knelt down to inspect it, a slight panic hit him as he realized it was blood. He ran up the stairs, following the trail of blood. As he reached the upper floor, he heard a sound coming from his brother's room. Upon entering the room, he witnessed a grotesque spectacle: crouching over his brother's form was a shadowy figure, its pale white fangs were dripping blood and its glowing red eyes seemed to stare into his very soul. It took a step towards him, moving with an unearthly grace, yet stopped at the last moment, with a look of revulsion on its face. It quickly spun around and jumped right out the window. As my PC ran to the window, he could not find the sinister being, only a huge, monstrous looking bat flying off in the moonlight. It was at this moment that [PC] realized he was, almost instinctively, clutching the holy trinket that the friar of the town's chapel gave him...."

(Sorry if this 'story' was long-winded or cliché, but I didn't have time to flesh it out)

From this 'excerpt', it's obvious that the PC encountered a vampire. Any one of his family members could have come back as a spawn (depending on if he fully drained them or not). The PC has an IC reason devote his life to tracking it. He knows that it fed off the blood of his family, it had larger than normal fangs, it didn't like his holy symbol, it might have smashed any mirrors in the house, giving more clues as to its habits, and that it's connected somehow to a dire bat. He can go from town to town, and specialist to specialist with this information to try and find out if there were ever any other similar killings. That could require multiple checks (not just knowledge religion), and eventually, maybe he'll find someone who has an obscure tome which contains a myth about the scourge known as the vampire.

The big point is: the character doesn't know what it is he's hunting, just a few of its habits. So now the character can become a vampire hunter, per the player's wishes (though IC he's just a 'hunter' of whatever killed his family), with an IC reason, but none of the overall plot is in danger. Wouldn't this scenario work out?

[Tormsskull]

Players enjoy having options. Giving your players options is an unmitigated good, so long as it does not significantly interfere with the existing game world. Next time you tell a player no, think about whether it is from some ingrained impulse as to "the way things should be" or whether it will actually hurt your game. Give the players space to make up towns, or factoids, or life experiences, or whatever on the fly, even after they've written their backstory. If you're worldbuilding and they're worldbuilding, the world will be that much richer.

hahaha.

This sounds so much like a PSA. Thanks for the advice about how to deal with players in my campaign, but I already do that. I try to allow as much stuff into the game that is player created that I can, but sometimes it just won't work.

Letting players make up towns, factoids, or life experiences is all well in good until I have to compensate for them in the world. If someone says "I'm from Grayport in the west" and then they want to travel there, well I have no clue what Grayport is, where it is located, or anything. If someone makes up a life experience that could not have happened based on the information I have, then I have to reject it.

[Jayabalard]

The big point is: the character doesn't know what it is he's hunting, just a few of its habits. So now the character can become a vampire hunter, per the player's wishes (though IC he's just a 'hunter' of whatever killed his family), with an IC reason, but none of the overall plot is in danger. Wouldn't this scenario work out?Kind of strains the suspension of disbelief that one of the handful of reclusive vampires in the world (all probably high level) would attack some random peasant's house in the middle of a town hundreds of miles from where he lives, and that he would flee from someone who could be killed by a housecat (a commoner with no class levels).

nor does it cover the fact that Dan has stated that it's ok to use any out of character knowledge that he has about vampires from reading the monster manual, because he has an in character excuse for knowing it.

besides, as diggoran so eloquently put it: "He killed the last surviving witness, you. Next character concept?"

[asqwasqw]

Players enjoy having options. Giving your players options is an unmitigated good, so long as it does not significantly interfere with the existing game world. Next time you tell a player no, think about whether it is from some ingrained impulse as to "the way things should be" or whether it will actually hurt your game. Give the players space to make up towns, or factoids, or life experiences, or whatever on the fly, even after they've written their backstory. If you're worldbuilding and they're worldbuilding, the world will be that much richer.

Um... you kinda want (don't hurt me) to limit your players options, in the same way that you limit them mechanically. "I can fly at first level and shoot 10d10 lasers out of my eyes because my father was a god." Justified, yes. Allowed, no. I think what people are having problems is the defenition of what intereferes with a game world.

Everybody agrees that doing 10d10 damage as a free action or being invincible at first level is cheap. But what about knowledge of something you shouldn't know about, because it is so obscure?

In example, you have a dungeon with a password set upon by ancients that you need to solve to enter. Bob says that his character came upon the password in his travels, (even though there is no sign of it in his backstory) and the DM should tell him it. Most people would say no. Bob meets a troll. He says that his character knows how to fight it (trolls are very rare). He says he knows their weakness (without the knowledge checks). People are arguing to say yes. However, both cases supposedly further Bob's enjoyment of the game. So why ban one and not the other?

[Tormsskull]

The big point is: the character doesn't know what it is he's hunting, just a few of its habits. So now the character can become a vampire hunter, per the player's wishes (though IC he's just a 'hunter' of whatever killed his family), with an IC reason, but none of the overall plot is in danger. Wouldn't this scenario work out?

If vampires didn't have a specific reason in the campaign that was going to be played, I'd say sure, but by the very nature that vampires were to play in the world, it required that no PCs had in-depth knowledge about them at level 1 (thus why I set the Knowledge DC so high).



In example, you have a dungeon with a password set upon by ancients that you need to solve to enter. Bob says that his character came upon the password in his travels, (even though there is no sign of it in his backstory) and the DM should tell him it.

This is almost exactly the reason that I limited the amount of knowledge of vampires to players.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Kind of strains the suspension of disbelief that one of the handful of reclusive vampires in the world (all probably high level) would attack some random peasant's house in the middle of a town hundreds of miles from where he lives, and that he would flee from someone who could be killed by a housecat (a commoner with no class levels).

nor does it cover the fact that Dan has stated that it's ok to use any out of character knowledge that he has about vampires from reading the monster manual, because he has an in character excuse for knowing it.

besides, as diggoran so eloquently put it: "He killed the last surviving witness, you. Next character concept?"

I'm sure with a bit more thought something similar could be achieved without breaking the setting, or imparting the character with too much knowledge.

As far as using OOC knowledge from reading the MM, I find that kind of silly. I can just see it now:
"My character's father was a famous hunter of magical beasts, his mother was killed by giants, his aunt judy was a half dragon with lots of juicy factoids about their habits, his sister fought in the Underdark wars against mindflayers and drow, as well as reclusive beings from below that no one else ever even heard about, my cousin thrice removed fought undead, my nephew fought in the Clone Wars, and all my relatives imparted all their combined knowledge to me, so yeah, my Int 6 barbarian knows pretty much everything there is to know about everything.... oh yeah, and my grandfather is one of the original builders of city X, so as per a law in that town, my character gets 60% off all purchases, especially magic item purposes..."

All that aside though, should the player even be playing if his character breaks the setting? If he's a 'mature, sensible individual', he'll come up with a concept that will both be fun for him to play, and not break the setting. Besides, if the player's hellbent on playing a vampire killer extraordinaire, à la Vampire Hunter D with a 1/2 vampire dog named 'Blud Sucka', and won't take no for an answer, I'm sure he can find a game elsewhere.

[PaladinBoy]

Players enjoy having options. Giving your players options is an unmitigated good, so long as it does not significantly interfere with the existing game world. Next time you tell a player no, think about whether it is from some ingrained impulse as to "the way things should be" or whether it will actually hurt your game. Give the players space to make up towns, or factoids, or life experiences, or whatever on the fly, even after they've written their backstory. If you're worldbuilding and they're worldbuilding, the world will be that much richer.

I don't think anyone is arguing that players should not be allowed to come up with these things. In the example I gave about my character knowing about law enforcement, I only came up with that after there was a possibility that we would fight them. Mainly so my character would have a reason to say, "There's no possible way we can beat them! We have to RUN!" That would be an example of good metagaming. (Yes, I know I said earlier I never did that. I was wrong. :smallfrown: )

I think what most people (including myself) are arguing against is giving the players essential veto power over parts of the GM's world and campaign/plotline concept just so they can use OOC knowledge. The GM should try to compromise, if he can. If what the player wants is just going to shatter the whole idea or would be an insane amount of work to fit into the story, then it's not going to be fun for the DM to go to all that effort, particularly if it's just so the player can use some of his OOC knowledge to make an encounter easier.

If it's a central idea of that player's character concept that he have this thing that doesn't fit, then the DM should try to fit it in. But the player needs to be upfront with the DM and be willing to accept "No, you can't have it." if it turns out to be too much trouble. Also, a character concept generally only has one central idea, and ideally this would be brought up at character creation, not halfway through the campaign. (Which does not mean it has to be brought up at the beginning, only that it's best if it is.)


As far as using OOC knowledge from reading the MM, I find that kind of silly. I can just see it now:
"My character's father was a famous hunter of magical beasts, his mother was killed by giants, his aunt judy was a half dragon with lots of juicy factoids about their habits, his sister fought in the Underdark wars against mindflayers and drow, as well as reclusive beings from below that no one else ever even heard about, my cousin thrice removed fought undead, my nephew fought in the Clone Wars, and all my relatives imparted all their combined knowledge to me, so yeah, my Int 6 barbarian knows pretty much everything there is to know about everything.... oh yeah, and my grandfather is one of the original builders of city X, so as per a law in that town, my character gets 60% off all purchases, especially magic item purposes..."

QFT. That's a big part of my problem with that idea.

[SpikeFightwicky]

If vampires didn't have a specific reason in the campaign that was going to be played, I'd say sure, but by the very nature that vampires were to play in the world, it required that no PCs had in-depth knowledge about them at level 1 (thus why I set the Knowledge DC so high).

I can't speak for other players, but if I was the one who wanted to make the vampire hunter, but found this out about the game, then I'd have absolutely no problem changing my character design. If changing my char idea would ruin my fun, I'd find another game to play in - but I'd have to be pretty anal/single minded/obssessive/immature to do so. In the end, the game is about everyone having fun, and my idea of fun extends beyond 'having to have a vampire hunter or I quite'.



QFT. That's a big part of my problem with that idea.

I know Dan, Winter and Counterspin have the luxury of playing with a group of players that has been engineered to play good D&D, but alot of us don't (myself included). I know (and have played with, I'm sorry to say) alot of people who would go ahead and make the ultra-background character I mentioned in my post if they were able to...

[Dur]

When I create a game and have some bit of information I don't want the PCs to know IC, I usually keep that bit of information a secret from them OOC as well. That way, not only are they hacking and slashing through all kinds of monsters and dungeons, they are also trying to solve a mystery.

If the PCs profile has something in it about vampire's and vampires are relatively unknown, couldn't you just ask your player to adjust his storyline to "My whole family was killed by something diabolical. I have spent my whole life trying to discover what it was so that I can kill it."

[asqwasqw]

When I create a game and have some bit of information I don't want the PCs to know IC, I usually keep that bit of information a secret from them OOC as well. That way, not only are they hacking and slashing through all kinds of monsters and dungeons, they are also trying to solve a mystery.

If the PCs profile has something in it about vampire's and vampires are relatively unknown, couldn't you just ask your player to adjust his storyline to "My whole family was killed by something diabolical. I have spent my whole life trying to discover what it was so that I can kill it."

Yes, you could, but Dan and the others are arguing that there is no harm in letting him know what vampires are. We say there is. I guess it depends on the group.


Oh, and a comment to everybody else:
Giving your players unlimited knowledge and saying they won't abuse it is like giving them flight and infinite AB at first level and saying they won't abuse it. They might not (but some groups, they will), but it makes no sense to risk it. Again, it is not a matter of bad people, it is more a matter of impulsiveness (if you see a 20$ bill on the street, would you pick it up?).

[Jayabalard]

playing with a group of players that has been engineered to play good D&D,They don't have a GM who's into world building; they (at least Dan) think that metagaming is a good and necessary part of D&D; and they don't believe in limiting the players. I'm sure it works for them... but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, so I'm not sure "good D&D" is the right term.

[SpikeFightwicky]

They don't have a GM who's into world building; they (at least Dan) think that metagaming is a good and necessary part of D&D; and they don't believe in limiting the players. I'm sure it works for them... but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, and it's certainly not what I'd call "good D&D"

By 'Good D&D', I meant 'Conflict Free' D&D (though 'good D&D' in the other sense is relative)... I wouldn't like being in a game where encyclopledic knowledge of the MM, and using the knowledge OOC to make fights go by as fast and trouble free as possible is considered par for the course. Why bother with encounters at that point when it's all 'scripted'?

[Raum]

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.So the prerequisite for GMing is being hypocritical? I certainly hope not, but that sounds like it's what you're saying.

It is however beside the point. The player should have near carte blanche to create his character's "fluff" - the personality in particular. The example you refer to was a GM arbitrarily changing the player's character concept. Comparing the character's given personality to game mechanics is the "bad comparison."


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.Obviously not. There's a significant minority stating otherwise in this thread.

[Diggorian]

Although I'm sure it's been raised, has anyone countered the point that making vague backgrounds that can give you a multitude of mechanical bonuses throws off the balance of the game? If so, what was the counter to this fact? "We dont give a fig about balance cause it limits character freedom?"

[Jayabalard]

So the prerequisite for GMing is being hypocritical? I certainly hope not, but that sounds like it's what you're saying. Hypocritical in what way?

The GM's job is to preserve the game; the rules even have a section where they discuss that using rule 0 in much the same fashion as I just described. Players, on the other hand, are playing the game, not running it, and do not have rule 0 to fall back on.


It is however beside the point. The player should have near carte blanche to create his character's "fluff" - the personality in particular. Players have the right to make any decisions they want about their character fluff as long as it gives no game mechanical advantage, and as long as it fits into the game world. Anything else needs to be run by the GM who has the right and the duty to exercise his veto power to preserve the game.


Obviously not. There's a significant minority stating otherwise in this thread.There are game mechanics for knowledge checks. Just because some people are house ruling them away does not make them "otherwise".

[Prometheus]

I really have two kinds of metagaming:

Strategical/Cooperative (Player to Player):
I take the talking is a free action to the extreme. Players are allowed to, and are encouraged to plan out and think through everything throughly, even as it occurs instantaneously. This isn't very realistic, and often does involve using extra resources (like calculations or combos), but it makes for a fun style of play.

Unrealistic/"Cheating" (Player to DM):
Recently a player bought some discount Gloves of Dexterity from a band of traveling elves. When she discovered she couldn't take off the gloves, she had played enough D&D and RPGs to know it had to be cursed Gloves of Fumbling - and she was right.
Encouraging players to get enthusiastic about role-playing a good way to address this. In the above example, while the player knew it what it was, her character didn't and she waited until she was attacked by a mob of Cloaked Apes to figure it out.
But really, the DM has to take responsibility somewhere and nothing would change the fact that the surprise was ruined. She wouldn't have been able to guess what the gloves were cursed with if I hadn't selected it on short-notice from the limited list of DMG cursed items and instead found something more obscure or invented my own item. Not all locked doors are opened with keys: some have to be Knocked, knocked down, or picked; others can be bypassed by another route; some never need to be opened (although it does take a cruel DM to really implement this :) ).
I think it is funny when players attempt metagaming to metagame. They guess at the my intentions in hopes I will react or give up on my tricks. When they are 100% the NPC is lying, and tell me so, they start to doubt themselves when I refuse to give them any more of a straight answer than my NPC will give - or more likely, they turn back to in-game sources of information to verify their ideas.
Also be descriptive/foreshadowing. This won't stop your players from guessing your intentions (in fact, it might encourage it), but it will give a realistic context to the game - your characters are observant (and why not? The players are). If I had briefly described that that the gloves made her hands feel jittery and getting ahead of themselves, the fact that they felt like Gloves of Dexterity but actually only cause Fumbling wouldn't be implausible at all for her chacter to guess, but if the player was unsure, she isn't now.

[Dan_Hemmens]

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.

So what do level one characters start off with?


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.

Why not?

Where on the D&D character sheet is the box for "contact who have encountered vampires"?


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.

Okay.

But guess what: After - like - chapter two Frodo knows about the one ring. He doesn't have to buy up his Knowledge: Arcana. He has an in-character reason to know about it, so he knows about it.


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.

All knowledge is reflected by the knowledge skill.

Does this mean that your character can't know anything about the Kingdom he lives in unless he buys Knowledge: Local? Should he be unable to remember the names of his own parents?


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.

So you have two options.

Either you let the PCs find out about vampires - information they doubtless already know OOC anyway - through a gruelling sequence of IC encounters in which they slowly learn that *gasp* vampires are vulnerable to sunlight and *gosh* they can turn into mist.

Or you let the guy start off knowing it, thereby getting all of the boring research out of the way in downtime.


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?

How did the guys with fifteen ranks in Knowledge: Religion find it?

Presumably they had to be told about it by some *other* guys with fifteen ranks in Knowledge: Religion, because in your games it seems to be literally impossible to find out any item of information which is not covered by your Knowledge skills.

Track down rumours, follow leads. Talk to people. I mean there's plenty of stories of vampires in our world, and they *don't* exist here. You can't get much rarer than that.


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?

Research. If I was an elf I could well have spent over a hundred years looking for these damned things.

Essentially what you seem to be saying is that in your setting Vampires were protected by Magical Plot Powers which prevented anybody from finding out anything about them until they were "high enough level."

It's like those doors in CRPGs that can only be opened if you have the right key.


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?

What do you mean, how? He was my brother. Perhaps he came back to me once after he turned, perhaps any number of things happened. Or does that fail the "that never happened" test.


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???

Because I've got some perspective.

It is not a core tenet of your campaign you were protecting. It was a plot element. There is a big, big difference.

If you say "there are no elves in this world" and a player wants to play an elf, they're out of luck. There's no elves, so they can't play one.

But we aren't talking about a world where there *are* no vampires. We're talking about a world where vampires are, essentially, considered too cool for level one PCs.

If I were playing your game, and you'd vetoed my vampire-hunter character, and I ran up against the Vampire plot, I would be spending the entire plot thinking "you know, if I were playing that other character, I would be having a blast right now."


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.

What if I said Vecna spoke to me in a vision. What if I wanted to be a direct mortal descendant?

You seem to run with the assumption that a level one PC cannot be interesting in any way shape or form, because they're "just starting out." They can't know anybody, have done anything, have learned anything not represented by their Knowledge skills.

I really don't get why anybody would run a game that way. Because it *isn't* to do with world-building. You can build a consistent world and still let the PCs actually have a *place* in it.

In a world with vampires in it, a guy who knows about vampires should be a viable player character. If you veto that character, you're not doing it to protect the consistency of the world (which I *can* respect, actually) but to protect your plot, and that is a very, very different thing.

[barawn]

Is a character's knowledge of trolls a pivotal part of your personal enjoyment?

The world is a pivotal part of my personal enjoyment. If I make trolls not common, I do it for a reason, not just because I want to kill the players. Maybe I want to introduce a troll hunter (maybe of only one or two in the world!) in the oh-so-repeated "players are nearly dead, in hops the new NPC" cliche. Maybe I want them to discover trolls are vulnerable to fire by a lightning strike starting a forest fire near them when one of the NPCs prays to his god for guidance.

For some reason, a while ago, Dan and others assumed that if the players didn't know things like "trolls are vulnerable to fire," they'd just die. That completely assumes that the DM doesn't already have something planned to deal with it, and just having the PCs magically "know" - when there's absolutely no reason for them to know - just completely circumvents that.

[Raum]

Hypocritical in what way?

The GM's job is to preserve the game; the rules even have a section where they discuss that using rule 0 in much the same fashion as I just described. Players, on the other hand, are playing the game, not running it, and do not have rule 0 to fall back on.I'm not attributing good or bad intentions when I say it's hypocritical, I'm simply calling it what it is. Yes, it's enshrined in text and commonly known as "Rule 0." More importantly it's accepted, to one degree or another, by the majority of gaming groups. I'll even stipulate it can be beneficial in the groups accepting it. It's still hypocrisy.

There's a "social contract" to which members of a gaming group need to subscribe. Even a cursory reading of most gaming forums should make it obvious that the "social contracts" differ from one group to another. Problems occur when the terms of the contract are perceived differently by members of the same group. That can be corrected by good communication!

Communication, however, is a two way street. It requires an interchange of information. Which brings us back to gaming...role playing also relies on interaction. If the the GM is simply going to tell the player what his character thinks, does, and feels there's no reason for the player to be there. Just publish and let me buy the book.


Players have the right to make any decisions they want about their character fluff as long as it gives no game mechanical advantage, and as long as it fits into the game world. Anything else needs to be run by the GM who has the right and the duty to exercise his veto power to preserve the game.If the players aren't making decisions material to the game, do you need them to be present? Would the game differ as a prerecorded presentation?


There are game mechanics for knowledge checks. Just because some people are house ruling them away does not make them "otherwise".In d20 there are abstracted mechanics governing wide areas of knowledge. Apply it too specifically and you have adventurers who can't go dungeon crawling without sufficient ranks in Knowledge (Dungeoneering), farmers who can't tell you what a cow is without ranks in Knowledge (Nature), etc. The knowledge checks are abstracted extensions of what a character knows, not necessarily limits on what they can know. Used as limits you have the absurdity of a wizard describing a fireball to a barabarian - who never can figure out what a fireball is because he doesn't have ranks in Knowledge (Arcana).

[Winterwind]

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?No, probably not. Because, partially since I have yet to find an RPG which gives a character enough starting skill points to reliably allow a player to reproduce the character he has in mind, and partially (and mostly) because a skill system is never sophisticated enough to cover all the fine details of what a character should or shouldn't know (example for this would be Knowledge(Religions), which does not allow for a character who knows about vampires but not religions in general, if my understanding gained from this thread is correct - I am not a D&D player), I always assume that a character possesses highly specialized knowledge related to his background. I find it hard to give an example, due to my lack of experience with D&D, but I'll try nevertheless.
Suppose there was a Barbarian from some specific barbarian tribe X, with no skill ranks at all in, Runes, or Arcana, or whatever the appropriate skill might be called, a Rogue from the city with no ranks either, and a Wizard, who had high ranks in that area. Now, they would be travelling through the wilderness, and suddenly encountered magic runes scribbled on a nearby rock - magic runes as traditionally used by shamans of said tribe X to ensure the help of benefitial spirits for tribe X.
Now, the Barbarian might not have any skill ranks in Runes, but due to his background he would have seen those specific runes countless times. Therefore, I would outright tell him what they were, without demanding any skill check at all. If they found any other runes, unrelated to tribe X, the Barbarian would, however, be still completely unknowledgable. The Wizard has studied all sorts of runes - these specific runes might or might not be part of what he learned in his studies. To determine that, I would call for a dice roll. The Rogue finally would never have encountered these runes and also never have studied anything which could have given him that knowledge. Therefore, I would tell him so - that he had no idea what these runes meant.

Dan's philosophy - which I find very compelling - now says that if the Rogue's player decided that, for some believable reason, his character might know about these runes, contrary to my initial believe, I should tell him as well what they meant because they now became part of his background as well. And the player knows better about his character's background than me as GM.

This does not mean that every character knows about everything, or that knowledge skills become useless, though - they don't, because no player in their right mind would claim all knowledge possible for their character. That would not be believable (well, maybe safe for some obscure god setting) and not make for the character they envisioned. Some highly specific knowledge the player deemed would enhance his ability to roleplay the personality (s)he envisioned? Sure.
Here, once again, goes the assumption that the players are trying to contribute to a good story with good characters (with strengths and flaws) just as much as the GM. Which, in my general experience, is a very reasonable assumption.

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?My players would be unlikely to make such a request, because they would think they diminished their own fun in seeing the character grow in power if they did so (well, that, and not a single one of the RPGs we play having a concept such as levels, but that's beside the point). Still, if a player made such a request, and it did not break my campaign, and if the other players were ok with that (after all, such a difference in power would affect the other players as well, even though it probably would still be highly situational), I would see no reason why not to allow that as well.
Depending on the power it might be pretty unlikely though that both me and the other players would feel well with that. A specific skill or knowledge on the other hand would be rather unlikely to make such problems - if it did, we'd solve the problem by discussion or just veto it via "dude, that's really unfair towards the others" (by which I mean a really significant advantage) or "sorry, that would kill the plot". Where the last argument only works because our group has chosen a plot-driven gamestyle, which is not mandatory.

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?Actually, the exact source of his knowledge would not be that important to me. I would fully accept "has devoted his life to an obsessive research on whatever killed his brother" as explanation.
Basically, here's how that discussion might go:

P: "...and he knows about vampires."
GM: "Dude, you realise vampires are a very rare thing in this setting? Like, pretty much nobody knows anything about them?"
P: "Yeah. But he's devoted all his life since then to following the trail of this beast. While his friends were out celebrating he still remained locked in the tower, going through tome after tome of knowledge, but instantly tossing any bit of information away which did not seem to be a trail on the way to the truth. And many a trail he did find indeed - for his devotion has long turned into an obsession - he expects the shadowy figure to lurk beneath any door, to be waiting for him to find it for their final confrontation (think Roy and Xykon here), he always carries a wooden stake with him, and whenever he encounters a new person - as beautiful as they might be - he first stares grimly into their faces in search of hints for this person being, in fact, a vampire."
GM: "Hey, sounds cool. Should make for lots of interesting roleplaying situations. Just realise pretty much everybody will think your character is a complete nutjob."
P: "Well, that's the basic idea, duh."

[Winterwind]

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?I don't see the connection (and, by the way, I would consider myself a world-constructing DM). The DM sets up the world (it doesn't need to be the DM alone, of course, but let's just assume that) to give the group a place to play in. The basic assumption is the players won't work in a detail which doesn't fit into the world or, if they do, they do so in firm belief this still will enhance the overall enjoyment and roleplaying quality for the entire group. That is also why there isn't going to be a medieval knight in a tribal setting or a MechWarrior dropping from the sky annihilating the orcs with his dual PPCs, or something. The players are too sensible to do such a thing, they know themselves how much this would ruin the atmosphere, break any plot possible and destroy the game. Therefore, noone of them is going to declare such a thing.
Umm. I somehow feel I said this in quite convoluted manner, I'm not sure whether I'm making my point clear. Basically, I want to say the DM can build a world without problems, because the players will respect the rules of the world for the benefit of everyone (I would not consider a vampire hunter in the aforementioned setting disrespecting the rules, because such a person would, while extremely unlikely and quite possibly a one-of-a-kind on the entire planet, be still possible in that setting. The PCs are the story's protagonists, why shouldn't they be allowed to be something special?).
Of course, the players can screw up and work something into their background which does not benefit the group's enjoyment after all. However, the DM can just as well work something into the world's rules which is evenly unenjoyable, and on what basis should those be treated differently?

[PaladinBoy]

Okay.

But guess what: After - like - chapter two Frodo knows about the one ring. He doesn't have to buy up his Knowledge: Arcana. He has an in-character reason to know about it, so he knows about it.

I'm sure we're all aware that that was mostly a result of Gandalf telling Frodo about it.

Something like that could very well happen in downtime/backstory, but you might want to run it by your DM. After all, if I were the DM, I think I might send you on an adventure to find this person who can tell you all about vampires. And then you just declare that you've already met this guy before you even started adventuring? 4+ hours of compiling stat blocks and designing the trap-filled dungeon that he lives (or is imprisoned) in down the drain.

That's aside from the senselessness of the idea that you could get through the protections on this place, protections that can rip apart a party of 5th level adventures or pose a challenge to a party of 10th level adventurers, before you became a 1st level adventurer.

That is a bit of a hypothetical, but the point stands. What if the DM has a plan concerning the NPCs that can tell you about this information? By declaring that you've already met one or more of them, you ruin the DM's plans.


So you have two options.

Either you let the PCs find out about vampires - information they doubtless already know OOC anyway - through a gruelling sequence of IC encounters in which they slowly learn that *gasp* vampires are vulnerable to sunlight and *gosh* they can turn into mist.

Or you let the guy start off knowing it, thereby getting all of the boring research out of the way in downtime.

I personally think it would be fun to roleplay the confusion and surprise in my character as he kept learning new things about an unknown type of enemy, even if I knew about the enemy already.

And if I knew my players would find it boring, then I would have them go on a quest to find some ancient sage who could tell them. Naturally, we wouldn't roleplay the conversation. I would just say, "He tells you everything he knows about vampires."




How did the guys with fifteen ranks in Knowledge: Religion find it?

Presumably they had to be told about it by some *other* guys with fifteen ranks in Knowledge: Religion, because in your games it seems to be literally impossible to find out any item of information which is not covered by your Knowledge skills.

Track down rumours, follow leads. Talk to people. I mean there's plenty of stories of vampires in our world, and they *don't* exist here. You can't get much rarer than that.

I would guess that by piecing together hints and allusions spread across dozens of religious tomes and the like, it would be possible to compile a complete picture of the vampire. I would represent that research by the process of gaining Knowledge (religion) ranks.

Or, you could try to find the rare few people that have already done that. I would represent that with an adventure. Presumably there's a reason why they aren't sharing their knowledge or a reason why they're hard to find; finding that reason would pretty much open the door to finding someone and getting him to tell you.

Although I don't think I'd handle this by vetoing the character in general. I would let you have the background, but tell you that it doesn't really give you any more than a minor knowledge of vampires. In fact, I think that leads to some really nice motivations for becoming an adventurer in the first place such as "research ran into a stone wall, so wants to travel to see more obscure places/legends" or "looking for brother, who disappeared after family was murdered by a strange man with large fangs that dissolved into mist". Not that I would force you to accept those motivations, but I would suggest them if you asked.


What if I said Vecna spoke to me in a vision. What if I wanted to be a direct mortal descendant?

I wouldn't mind making you a direct descendant of a deity, but only if you would act IC that you didn't know. Because I think that would be the sort of devastating secret thing that you learn at exactly the right moment, and preferably in a way that makes you question whether you're good or evil. If you refused to roleplay not knowing, then I would tell you, no, you can't be descended from a deity. I might be lying, though, depending on how much I wanted that plot hook.


You seem to run with the assumption that a level one PC cannot be interesting in any way shape or form, because they're "just starting out." They can't know anybody, have done anything, have learned anything not represented by their Knowledge skills.

I really don't get why anybody would run a game that way. Because it *isn't* to do with world-building. You can build a consistent world and still let the PCs actually have a *place* in it.

In a world with vampires in it, a guy who knows about vampires should be a viable player character. If you veto that character, you're not doing it to protect the consistency of the world (which I *can* respect, actually) but to protect your plot, and that is a very, very different thing.

Is it a bad thing? Seriously, I'll do my best to fit the PCs in, give them a place in my plot......... after all, the plot and the PCs aren't supposed to be completely separate. I'll even adapt the plot to fit the PCs, but what if I think a series of plots involving vampire minions, finding the guy that can tell you about vampires, and killing the one vampire responsible for the tragic instance in your past is going to be more fun than sending the PC through vampire after vampire as he searches for the one responsible for the tragic event? What if they would be equally fun for the players but I prefer to run the former?

I don't mind convoluted plots, and I'm willing to incorporate any number of twists and turns to fit the PCs in. But I do have a central idea, and if a player wants to contradict that, then I'll work with him to adapt his backstory, and try to preserve as much of what he wants and as much of what I want as possible, but we are going to have to compromise and he might lose some parts of his backstory just like I might have to edit my plot a little.

For example, if the central idea of Tormsskull's campaign is running afoul of vampires/ vampire minions/ vampire spawn, finding out what these things are anyway, and hunting down some/ all vampires (not saying that's what it is) then a character backstory which ruins the first two will almost certainly make things less fun for the DM, and probably the players as well. Incorporating the first one into a backstory would be great. So I would work with a player who wanted a vampire hunter, and try to persuade him to take the "running afoul of a vampire" bit without the all-encompassing knowledge of vampires. This actually benefits me; I don't have to worry about railroading vampire-related adventures. I might, however, have to make vampires less reclusive or add in some special secret detail about this family that would explain why a vampire would bother to go after these commoners. And the all-encompassing knowledge will eventually be gained by the character anyway. Perhaps you could explain any metagaming slips away as that character's "instinct". Ooh! Maybe that was why the vampires bothered in the first place! See, this stuff does work out. Isn't that more interesting than "my character knows everything about vampires"?

Of course, I would want all of this covered at character creation or very soon after the campaign started. If somebody tried to spring these changes on me in the middle of a campaign, I would say, "You already have a character, his concept is developing (if not developed) and NOW you want these changes?"

Backstory knowledge is not generally bad. But if the backstory makes no sense or is being changed repeatedly, then I think it can be taken too far. And if the DM decides that the backstory is unreasonable for the world, then the player shouldn't just say, "I know my character better than you. Let me use the knowledge already." The two should talk and try to work it out.

[Winterwind]

One of the major problems I have with this is the idea that your backstory is something you can change every session to give you knowledge about the rare monster of the week. I have no problem with using a backstory to justify having information. Heck, I do it myself; my character knew about a powerful law enforcement unit in a city because he lived there for the past decade, and frequently turned in lawbreakers to the Watch. But I'm not going to change that because we run into a rakshasa or something just so I can use OOC info. If we run into a dragon, I'm not going to claim that I know everything about dragons because I studied them after my hometown was destroyed by one....... because I grew up in a major city which hasn't been destroyed recently, if ever. And it would make no sense, since if a dragon did do that, then it would mark the one time in the history of the world that a single dragon bothered with a human city. I could check, but I don't think the DM wants to make my home city that special. What you have written here is pretty much the reason why Dan's approach works. You have described why a player would not give himself believability-breaking, ill-fitting knowledge all of a sudden every time the group encountered the "rare monster of the week". Now just assume the entire group is composed of people to whom the world they are playing in matters and you should get a group where the background is enhanced only if it is reasonable and benefitial to roleplay/suspense/insert any other synonym for "fun" here.

[Winterwind]

They don't have a GM who's into world building; they (at least Dan) think that metagaming is a good and necessary part of D&D; and they don't believe in limiting the players. I'm sure it works for them... but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, so I'm not sure "good D&D" is the right term.I can't speak for the others, but in my case, none of those claims is true (well, save for our way of playing working for me).

I would think I am in world building (heck, the RPG we play most is a self-created one, and while my friends have helped me with the rules, the background is 95% my work alone).

The preferred stance on metagaming in our group is that it should be kept down to a minimum. Dan has delivered an example of metagaming I would indeed consider good, namely, that if he played an Elf-distrusting character he would still give a healing potion to a dying elven PC, as to not decrease the fun for this Elf's player. Also, one might call the eagerness of the characters to travel together (which often can seem rather untypical, though it is less apparent if the GM gives the group a good incentive to travel together) and to go on strange and dangerous missions metagaming as well (I would not necessarily agree). On the other hand, I do not recall any player ever suddenly demanding tons of unexpected knowledge in order to combat a troll (which may be because our group does derive entertainment from figuring out a monster's weaknesses, then again we have, on average, less than one combat encounter per session, and all of them significant for the plot, with widely varying circumstances), and a distinction between IC and OOC knowledge is standard for us. If, however, a character can bring up IC reasons for possessing some specific knowledge, then it can be only enriching to the roleplay if they get it. After all, otherwise the player would be forced to not roleplay the character (s)he envisioned, for (s)he wanted the character to have this knowledge.

About limiting the players, well, there is no need for me to limit my players in any way, because I always make up my plots after I know what my players want to play (therefore the "your character kills my plot, please change it"-excuse wouldn't work) and my players are too sensible to create a character that wouldn't work with the world. If, on the other hand, a player created, say, a character who liked to murder and torture innocents, I would say, "sorry, but I absolutely do not feel comfortable with this character. I find it not only not enjoyable to GM for a character that evil, I find it outright upsetting. Since it is about my entertainment as much as mine, you will have to create a new character, for I will not GM with this character in the group for sure.". Likewise, if I considered a character to be unfair towards the other players (like a character being the son of the High King of the greatest realm of mankind and heir to the throne), I would also say so (and this character would be outside the scope of power I find useful for a good story, hence it would not be enjoyable for me to GM for this character as well.), or at least ask the other players if they were ok with that.
If a character had some characteristics I had not expected, but saw no problems in, and neither did any other player in the group, I would allow it. I mean, why shouldn't I?
Altogether, I guess this paragraph could be summarized in "Whatever is most enjoyable to every member of the group works".



EDIT: Ok, I think in spite of the Forum Rules allowing multiple posts in a row if quoting (at least, that's my understanding, am I right?), that's pretty much enough, so I'm just going to edit this in.




Something like that could very well happen in downtime/backstory, but you might want to run it by your DM. After all, if I were the DM, I think I might send you on an adventure to find this person who can tell you all about vampires. And then you just declare that you've already met this guy before you even started adventuring? 4+ hours of compiling stat blocks and designing the trap-filled dungeon that he lives (or is imprisoned) in down the drain.If that happened, and I really felt that this dungeon was more worth it than the emotionally draining scenes I could devise by having the traumatised vampire hunter finally find some real clues for vampires, not to mention the heart-clenching encounters with them (which would, that's for sure, have way more roleplaying than combat), I would just tell the player that I would really prefer it if he created some different character, for secret GM reasons. Knowing my friends, they would trust my judgement that it will amount to more fun for them if they comply, and do so. However, that's just the reason why I always let the players create their characters first - so that I adjust my campaign to incorporate the players' characters, and not the other way around.

[Raum]

I personally think it would be fun to roleplay the confusion and surprise in my character as he kept learning new things about an unknown type of enemy, even if I knew about the enemy already. It certainly can be fun. Especially the first time...probably the second...maybe the third. How many different characters have you played? Sooner or later it's not fun to look "shocked" when your steel sword doesn't hurt the therianthrope.


And if I knew my players would find it boring, then I would have them go on a quest to find some ancient sage who could tell them. Naturally, we wouldn't roleplay the conversation. I would just say, "He tells you everything he knows about vampires."Ok, so it's off camera. How is that different from making it back story? Neither relies on a knowledge skill.

<snipped a bunch>


The two should talk and try to work it out.I agree! This may be the most important issue on the thread. Just remember it should be mutual negotiation, neither party should make arbitrary demands.

[PaladinBoy]

It looks like we're all drifting toward similar wavelengths here. Some metagaming can be good, backstory justifications for info need to make sense but are acceptable, and the DM and players shuld negotiate and compromise to preserve the player's concept and the DM's plot as much as possible, with the ultimate goal being fun for all.

Backstory modifications can be made, with DM approval (and the DM shouldn't be an idiot about it).

*trust your players, Luke*
/bad Star Wars reference

Personally, as a player, doing so makes me worry that I'm cheating, so I don't think I'd do it very often, but, hey, whatever makes the game fun.


It certainly can be fun. Especially the first time...probably the second...maybe the third. How many different characters have you played? Sooner or later it's not fun to look "shocked" when your steel sword doesn't hurt the therianthrope.

I've played numerous characters, but they're all pretty similar....... admittedly, I've never really had to roleplay that way. Which really is why I said "I think it would be" instead of "I think it is". :smallwink:


Ok, so it's off camera. How is that different from making it back story? Neither relies on a knowledge skill.

The point is that you're going to have to go through an adventure to find the guy that gives you the off-camera Vampires 101 lesson.


I agree! This may be the most important issue on the thread. Just remember it should be mutual negotiation, neither party should make arbitrary demands.

Glad we agree. :smallbiggrin:


If that happened, and I really felt that this dungeon was more worth it than the emotionally draining scenes I could devise by having the traumatised vampire hunter finally find some real clues for vampires, not to mention the heart-clenching encounters with them (which would, that's for sure, have way more roleplaying than combat), I would just tell the player that I would really prefer it if he created some different character, for secret GM reasons. Knowing my friends, they would trust my judgement that it will amount to more fun for them if they comply, and do so. However, that's just the reason why I always let the players create their characters first - so that I adjust my campaign to incorporate the players' characters, and not the other way around.

The dungeon was only really an example, I suppose. And not a good one at that......... if it was just a dungeon, I would find some ther way of getting the PCs there. I personally think that the vampire hunter would be a more interesting character if he was still searching for clues about vampires; I would try to bring the player around to my point of view, with the fact that vampires are so rare being another reason to give up the all-encompassing knowledge of vampires and keep the rest. I also don't think that that knowledge is really all that much to give up anyway, since you'll get it back eventually; probably even before you'll really have to kill a vampire. If I couldn't convince the player to see my side, then I'm not really sure what I would do. I suppose I'd probably just give in; I don't like that, but I've swallowed my own desires for the sake of peaceful relations before.



You know, I was going to post what I do for campaigns.......

.... then realized that it's really not that different. The only difference might be that I'll start with a generic adventure, something to bring the party together and develop them a little. Then I'll start developing the overarching plotline. The last time I ran a campaign, it involved the PCs eventually bringing the War of Light and Darkness (an ancient war between two deities, Selune and Shar, in the FR setting) to an end in Selune's favor. Interestingly enough, there was a cleric of Selune in the party. Funny how these things turn out, eh? :smallamused:

[Damionte]

Players enjoy having options. Giving your players options is an unmitigated good, so long as it does not significantly interfere with the existing game world. Next time you tell a player no, think about whether it is from some ingrained impulse as to "the way things should be" or whether it will actually hurt your game. Give the players space to make up towns, or factoids, or life experiences, or whatever on the fly, even after they've written their backstory. If you're worldbuilding and they're worldbuilding, the world will be that much richer.

hahah it does sound like a PSA.

"Now you know. And knowing is half the battle."

[Jayabalard]

I'm not attributing good or bad intentions when I say it's hypocritical, I'm simply calling it what it is. Yes, it's enshrined in text and commonly known as "Rule 0." More importantly it's accepted, to one degree or another, by the majority of gaming groups. I'll even stipulate it can be beneficial in the groups accepting it. It's still hypocrisy. Like I asked earlier... hypocritical in what way? Rule 0 specifically allows the GM (and only the GM) to ignore the rules when it's in the best interest of the game to do so. By definition, the GM cannot be hypocritical, because the rules that apply to the player do not apply to the GM.


If the the GM is simply going to tell the player what his character thinks, does, and feels there's no reason for the player to be there. Just publish and let me buy the book.This seems to be marching back toward the "Why play if the players are just the GM's puppets" straw man. Some have suggested that the GM should be able to have same effect as the existing game mechanics that dictate the characters actions, feelings and thoughts without explicitly using those mechanics. If it makes for a good story


If the players aren't making decisions material to the game, do you need them to be present? Would the game differ as a prerecorded presentation?Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.


In d20 there are abstracted mechanics governing wide areas of knowledge. Apply it too specifically and you have adventurers who can't go dungeon crawling without sufficient ranks in Knowledge (Dungeoneering), farmers who can't tell you what a cow is without ranks in Knowledge (Nature), etc. The knowledge checks are abstracted extensions of what a character knows, not necessarily limits on what they can know. Used as limits you have the absurdity of a wizard describing a fireball to a barabarian - who never can figure out what a fireball is because he doesn't have ranks in Knowledge (Arcana).Certainly, characters are assumed to have some basic knowledge based on thier field. Noone is suggesting that players cannot decide most of what they know; that would be another straw man.

Rare knowledge, on the other hand, is not that sort of general knowledge.
People have asserted that the GM is justified in telling a player "That's not appropriate game knowledge" and vetoing the player's decision when the player is moving outside of the real of what is reasonable knowledge for that character.

Other people have asserted that a GM is never justified in telling a player that certain knowledge is inappropriate and that as long as you can dream up some sort of in character reason for it, no matter how absurd, metagaming by using the details of the monster manual (either memorized or sitting in front of you) is the desirable and necessary way to play D&D.


Why not?

Where on the D&D character sheet is the box for "contact who have encountered vampires"?it's in the world creation section. it's right next to the list of "people in the world who have even heard of vampires or suspect of their existence." If your name isn't on that list, then you must have had some contact with one of those people.


But guess what: After - like - chapter two Frodo knows about the one ring. He doesn't have to buy up his Knowledge: Arcana. He has an in-character reason to know about it, so he knows about it.Bilbo on the other hand, goes a whole book and never finds out about it, and he carried it for half a book.

Frodo is kind of a bad example... you won't find many GM's that will start you off with that kind of artifact at the beginning of the game, and even if you do, the knowledge about it is going to be given out in a strictly plot related way.

Frodo doesn't know about it at the start of the story as part of his backstory, he finds out after the campaign starts. It's told to him by the "wise old man archetype", who's in this case is obviously the Author's (GM's) mouthpiece.


Research. If I was an elf I could well have spent over a hundred years looking for these damned things.Not if you're level one; it would be impossible to do so without leveling. So demanding to have that knowledge is akin to demanding to start at level 5 when everyone is supposed to be starting at level 1.


What if I said Vecna spoke to me in a vision. What if I wanted to be a direct mortal descendant? Personally, I'd ask you "Who's vecna? Never heard of him." since he doesn't exist in any of my games. I'd probably still let you have had that vision, or be his descendant... or least think that you did. It wouldn't give you any game advantage, and it might even be a bit of a disadvantage since most people would regard you as a loony.


You seem to run with the assumption that a level one PC cannot be interesting in any way shape or form, because they're "just starting out." They can't know anybody, have done anything, have learned anything not represented by their Knowledge skills.Yup, that's what level 1 means. Just starting out. No experience. Haven't done anything yet. And certainly no fluff that gives a game advantage with no cost.


I can't speak for the others, but in my case, none of those claims is true (well, save for our way of playing working for me).whoops, sorry about that, missed your name in that list. I'm honestly not even sure if I'd read many of your posts

[Dementrius]

One of the biggest sticking points here appears to be the verisimilitude between the character’s background story (what the player says they can do / have done) and the character sheet (what the player can actually do in game terms).

*Personal Perspective Only*

As someone who’s LN (i.e. Must. Follow. Rules.), in an ideal word, the two would seamlessly match. In other words – unless you can prove it mechanically, it’s doesn’t exist.

Player: “My character is resolute and unflinching in the face of his enemies”

DM: “Prove it”

Player: “:smallredface: Uhhh, well he’s got a -3 Will save from his WIS penalty”

DM: “So when affected by any fear effect he has at least an 80% chance of running away?”

Player: “Hmmm, I might re-think that.”

Or

Player: “He’s got the Iron Will feat for a total Will Save of +6 at first level”

DM: “Wow that’s really good. He’ll resist those effects easily.”

The same with

Player: “My character used to be a ship’s captain and knows all about sailing”

DM: “Prove it”

Player: *Reviewing character sheet* “I should probably put some ranks into Profession (Sailor) then. Oh well, one less rank in Move Silently and Hide”

Knowledge skills are the mechanical way in the game to show knowledge. Whether the Knowledge skill itself makes sense in redundant to me (c.f. LN alignment). If that’s the way it works, then roll with it. If all farmer have to have 4 ranks in Knowledge (nature) to recognise cows, then that’s probably what they’ll take ranks in.

In the Vampire Hunter case outlined above, if the player wanted vampire knowledge for “free” I think the DM if well within his rights to say “Prove it, otherwise the back-story is fine, but you have no idea what the creature was, or what it can conceivably do”

However, if the player can find a way of mechanically representing being able to achieve the required knowledge check (or at least makes an effort) then I would allow it, for example:

Taking skill ranks (opportunity cost with regard to other possible skills) +4
Taking Skill Focus (K[R]) (opportunity cost with regard to other feats) +3
Having a reasonable intelligence score (opportunity cost with regard to other stats) (say +2)
Purchasing a set of books that hold dark and mysterious secrets that give a +2 circumstance bonus to knowledge checks (opportunity cost on starting gold)

Now a first level character with +11 in a knowledge skill will know that the creature was undead, and may be able to identify a few of its abilities (even given the imposed DC 35 check). In four levels you will start getting a chance to get all the info - and that's only about 2 weeks of in-game time away. :smallbiggrin:

Now this guy can say that his character has devoted time to finding out what chowed down on my brother, in lieu of say standing around cutting tables in half to learn the power attack feat.

Work within the rules! (*grumbles about Chaotic role-players who think rules are stupid, goes to find a scroll of Dictum*) – If you don’t like playing the “if only my character knew I what I know game”, then make sure you’ve got someone in the party with the required maxed out knowledge skills and it soon becomes a redundant point.

Note that this is the ‘Black’ argument to Dan’s relatively ‘White’ one, which is ‘Story should drive the Rules’. I’m in the ‘Story should make sense within the Rules’ camp.

Shades of grey I think may be the best way to go.

[Tormsskull]

I wanted to say thanks to everyone in this thread, it has been interesting seeing everyone's opinions. This is going to be my last post because while it has been very interesting, I just started my vacation weekend (wooohoo) and I won't be on the forums much at all.

What I have gathered from this thread so far is that some people believe that a player should be able to completely control their background, and others disagree.

I don't think anyone has suggested that a DM should just refuse every background that a character comes forward with, and I hope nobody got that impression.

I personally believe that characters do not exist outside of a campaign world. Therefore, a character cannot even come into being until the player knows what the world is like. Therefore, once a player sits down at the table, hears from the DM what the world is going to be like, and draws up his concept, it is going to be very unlikely that the PC's concept conflicts with the world.

In the case that a character's concept does conflict it means one of two things happened:

1.) Player made a concept that doesn't fit with the campaign on purpose, just after the DM told them what was allowed and what wasn't.

2.) Player made a concept that they thought was fine but actually treaded on information that the DM wants to keep hidden. In this situation, the player should be willing to accept "Sorry, I can't tell you exactly why your concept doesn't work, but it doesn't" from the DM. The player acts under the assumption that the DM isn't trying to stop the player from his concept because it gives the DM some kind of satisfaction.

In my personal experience, #2 happens more often than #1, but #1 does in fact happen. Anytime a player pulls a #1, I have no qualms at all about flat out refusing their request. When a #2 happens I do the best I can to explain to the player that it won't work without giving away any imperative information.

Now, some people might say "Who determines rather it is a #1 or a #2?" The DM.

I think the DM is the final arbiter, and should resolve any and all conflicts that occur in game. A good DM will engage his players as much as possible and make sure to take their desires into account.

But, when you get down to the brass of things, the DM makes the call.

Once again, thanks to everyone for the discussion, see you all in another thread :smallsmile:

[Dan_Hemmens]

The world is a pivotal part of my personal enjoyment. If I make trolls not common, I do it for a reason, not just because I want to kill the players. Maybe I want to introduce a troll hunter (maybe of only one or two in the world!) in the oh-so-repeated "players are nearly dead, in hops the new NPC" cliche. Maybe I want them to discover trolls are vulnerable to fire by a lightning strike starting a forest fire near them when one of the NPCs prays to his god for guidance.

Okay, this is a crucial, crucial, crucial distinction.

You are *not* talking about "world" here. You are talking about *plot*. That is a very, very different thing.

If the reason you made trolls uncommon was "so you can introduce a troll-hunter" then you have actually done *exactly* what you are complaining about players asking you to do. You have changed the way your *world* works in order to accommodate a *character*.

It isn't that it "breaks the world" for a player to know how to kill a troll, but it spoils your prescripted encounter. I, personally, consider that to be railroading.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm sure we're all aware that that was mostly a result of Gandalf telling Frodo about it.

But we have established that such a thing could never happen to a level one character. A level one character isn't important enough to know somebody like Gandalf.


Something like that could very well happen in downtime/backstory, but you might want to run it by your DM. After all, if I were the DM, I think I might send you on an adventure to find this person who can tell you all about vampires. And then you just declare that you've already met this guy before you even started adventuring? 4+ hours of compiling stat blocks and designing the trap-filled dungeon that he lives (or is imprisoned) in down the drain.

I'd run it by my DM, of course, but I'd be genuinely surprised if my DM rejected it. Particularly if he rejected it on the grounds that "a level one character isn't important enough to know about this kind of thing."


That's aside from the senselessness of the idea that you could get through the protections on this place, protections that can rip apart a party of 5th level adventures or pose a challenge to a party of 10th level adventurers, before you became a 1st level adventurer.

Hey, you're the one who suggested that this information was contained inside a high-level dungeon.


That is a bit of a hypothetical, but the point stands. What if the DM has a plan concerning the NPCs that can tell you about this information? By declaring that you've already met one or more of them, you ruin the DM's plans.

This is the big that I think is causing the biggest difficulties here.

Yes, I am ruining the DM's plans. But that is not the same as ruining the DM's *world*. The DM's plans should get ruined as a matter of course, because players should do unexpected things.

This, for what its worth, is precisely why I dislike the "world-first" school of campaign design. It leads to the DM forgetting that anybody else is supposed to have any kind of input whatsoever.

I have no problem with the idea that the DM designs the world, and the players don't. I don't even object to the idea that the PCs have to fit into the world, and not the other way around.

The problem is that the situation some people seem to be describing isn't "the PCs fit into the DM's world" but rather "the PCs exist adjacent to the DM's world."

Some people seem to be advocating the idea that the GM should design a world, and detail it to such an extent that no PC can have any character concept that doesn't boil down to "just some guy."

It would be the equivalent, to my mind, of your Eberron GM saying that your character couldn't be a member of a noble house, because he'd already decided who the members of the noble houses were, and your character wasn't one of them.


I personally think it would be fun to roleplay the confusion and surprise in my character as he kept learning new things about an unknown type of enemy, even if I knew about the enemy already.

Fair enough. But I don't, and in this hypothetical example I'm the one who would be playing the character.


And if I knew my players would find it boring, then I would have them go on a quest to find some ancient sage who could tell them. Naturally, we wouldn't roleplay the conversation. I would just say, "He tells you everything he knows about vampires."

You see, that would utterly frustrate me. I'd be sitting there thinking "my character has devoted his entire life to this, and suddenly we meet some old guy who just knows all this crap? Why couldn't I have learned all this earlier?"


I would guess that by piecing together hints and allusions spread across dozens of religious tomes and the like, it would be possible to compile a complete picture of the vampire. I would represent that research by the process of gaining Knowledge (religion) ranks.

You seem to be applying a slavishly literal interpretation of the Knowledge rules.

The Knowledge rules say that the Knowledge: Religion skill allows your character to know about Vampires. It does not say that the only way to know about Vampires is to buy ranks of Knowledge: Religion.

If you want to know the name of a particular person in a particular village, you need Knowledge: Local. This does not mean that you should have to buy skill ranks in Knowledge: Local in order to know the name of your own character or his parents.


Or, you could try to find the rare few people that have already done that. I would represent that with an adventure. Presumably there's a reason why they aren't sharing their knowledge or a reason why they're hard to find; finding that reason would pretty much open the door to finding someone and getting him to tell you.

The "reason" is that the GM's plot (not world, but plot) demands that nobody know about vampires.


Although I don't think I'd handle this by vetoing the character in general. I would let you have the background, but tell you that it doesn't really give you any more than a minor knowledge of vampires. In fact, I think that leads to some really nice motivations for becoming an adventurer in the first place such as "research ran into a stone wall, so wants to travel to see more obscure places/legends" or "looking for brother, who disappeared after family was murdered by a strange man with large fangs that dissolved into mist". Not that I would force you to accept those motivations, but I would suggest them if you asked.

How much knowledge would you give me, just out of interest?


I wouldn't mind making you a direct descendant of a deity, but only if you would act IC that you didn't know. Because I think that would be the sort of devastating secret thing that you learn at exactly the right moment, and preferably in a way that makes you question whether you're good or evil. If you refused to roleplay not knowing, then I would tell you, no, you can't be descended from a deity. I might be lying, though, depending on how much I wanted that plot hook.

Okay, this, again is what I have a problem with. A player suggests a character concept, and then you say "okay, that's cool, you can do that if you turn it into this, different character concept."

"My character is a blood-descendant of Vecna" and "My character is a blood-descendant of Vecna and doesn't know it" are two *different* character concepts.

I think our miscommunication here is based on the fact that D&D places most of its emphasis on what characters are physically capable of doing, and so a character's personality, personal history, and emotional makeup are considered to be secondary to what powers he might or might not have.

Why do *you* get to decide that it is somehow "better" for my character to discover, in play, that he is a descendant of Vecna, instead of knowing from the start?

I'm completely okay with the GM having final say over what is and is not possible in his game world. I am not okay with the GM having final say of what is and is not a good character concept that I would enjoy roleplaying.


Is it a bad thing? Seriously, I'll do my best to fit the PCs in, give them a place in my plot......... after all, the plot and the PCs aren't supposed to be completely separate. I'll even adapt the plot to fit the PCs, but what if I think a series of plots involving vampire minions, finding the guy that can tell you about vampires, and killing the one vampire responsible for the tragic instance in your past is going to be more fun than sending the PC through vampire after vampire as he searches for the one responsible for the tragic event? What if they would be equally fun for the players but I prefer to run the former?

Why do you get to tell me how I will have more fun?

Besides, I'm not asking to "go through vampire after vampire", I'm just asking to skip the "find an NPC who knows about vampires" step. This, to me, is like setting up a plotline where a crucial step is "find an NPC who knows how to pick this really difficult lock". Why not let the party Rogue do it instead, since that's kind of their job?


I don't mind convoluted plots, and I'm willing to incorporate any number of twists and turns to fit the PCs in. But I do have a central idea, and if a player wants to contradict that, then I'll work with him to adapt his backstory, and try to preserve as much of what he wants and as much of what I want as possible, but we are going to have to compromise and he might lose some parts of his backstory just like I might have to edit my plot a little.

Having to edit your plot is a necessary requirement of giving the players meaningful decisions.


For example, if the central idea of Tormsskull's campaign is running afoul of vampires/ vampire minions/ vampire spawn, finding out what these things are anyway, and hunting down some/ all vampires (not saying that's what it is) then a character backstory which ruins the first two will almost certainly make things less fun for the DM, and probably the players as well. Incorporating the first one into a backstory would be great. So I would work with a player who wanted a vampire hunter, and try to persuade him to take the "running afoul of a vampire" bit without the all-encompassing knowledge of vampires. This actually benefits me; I don't have to worry about railroading vampire-related adventures. I might, however, have to make vampires less reclusive or add in some special secret detail about this family that would explain why a vampire would bother to go after these commoners. And the all-encompassing knowledge will eventually be gained by the character anyway. Perhaps you could explain any metagaming slips away as that character's "instinct". Ooh! Maybe that was why the vampires bothered in the first place! See, this stuff does work out. Isn't that more interesting than "my character knows everything about vampires"?

I never said "everything" but Tormsskull's original pitch was that you could know literally *nothing* about vampires because you were "too low level."

And I really don't see how anybody benefits from the DM vetoing a character concept just to preserve a single preplanned encounter. That's the equivalent of banning somebody from playing a Rogue because your plot involved the players meeting a skilled thief in session five.

[Zel]

{Scrubbed}

[Dan_Hemmens]

I wanted to say thanks to everyone in this thread, it has been interesting seeing everyone's opinions. This is going to be my last post because while it has been very interesting, I just started my vacation weekend (wooohoo) and I won't be on the forums much at all.

Seeya, nice talking to you.


What I have gathered from this thread so far is that some people believe that a player should be able to completely control their background, and others disagree.

That's not entirely true. I don't think a player has the right to come up with a character concept which is *completely* outside the realm of the setting.

But what we're talking about here isn't a character concept that doesn't fit the world, we're talking about a character concept that doesn't fit an arbitrary skill DC you set at campaign start to protect a plotline.


I don't think anyone has suggested that a DM should just refuse every background that a character comes forward with, and I hope nobody got that impression.

I certainly never did, but it's not your *right* to veto PC concepts I'm questioning, so much as your reasons for doing so.


I personally believe that characters do not exist outside of a campaign world. Therefore, a character cannot even come into being until the player knows what the world is like. Therefore, once a player sits down at the table, hears from the DM what the world is going to be like, and draws up his concept, it is going to be very unlikely that the PC's concept conflicts with the world.

Absolutely. I'm totally happy with that.

What bothers me is the idea that a character concept which is completely viable within the game-world should be vetoed because of your desire to restrict access to an area of the plot.


In the case that a character's concept does conflict it means one of two things happened:

1.) Player made a concept that doesn't fit with the campaign on purpose, just after the DM told them what was allowed and what wasn't.

2.) Player made a concept that they thought was fine but actually treaded on information that the DM wants to keep hidden. In this situation, the player should be willing to accept "Sorry, I can't tell you exactly why your concept doesn't work, but it doesn't" from the DM. The player acts under the assumption that the DM isn't trying to stop the player from his concept because it gives the DM some kind of satisfaction.

Except, in this particular example, isn't that sort of what you're doing?

I, personally, don't believe that it is plausible to interpret the Knowledge rules in such a way that only high-level characters can have access to a specific piece of information. I do not believe it is possible to interpret the Level rules as meaning that a first level character has literally never done anything.

So you're not really vetoing the character concept because it breaks the game world, you're vetoing it because you don't want players to start out knowing about vampires. This, to my mind, is exactly the same as vetoing somebody from playing a Rogue because you don't want players to start out being able to pick locks.

[Dan_Hemmens]

{Scrubbed}

Gosh, now that you've explained that to me, I realize that you're absolutely right. My opinions and experiences are completely invalidated by your insightful and cuttingly accurate synopsis of my life, personality, and motivations.

[SpikeFightwicky]

{Scrubbed}

Now now, it plays nice, or the thread gets the mod....

Regardless of how everyone games, the reason we play D&D is to enjoy ourselves. On that note, as long as a group is having fun doing what they're doing, there's nothing wrong with that (my main group is a different story, but I have to slug it out with them regardless.....). There's no 'wrong' way to play the game, unless you're miserable/bored with the game or are making a nuissance of yourself and the other players are suffering for it (which may be a problem with the DM or the player).

I've mostly been a DM (until very recently), but in my time as a player, half the fun of combat is seeing how the fight'll turn out and 'forgetting' the stat blocks of the monsters (most of the time I draw a blank anyways, despite knowing most of the monsters), and everyone in my (secondary) group is like that. No one uses monster stat block info during a fight, unless they make an appropriate knowledge roll (though only 1 or 2 would likely know anything about the monster).

Back to the OP's problem, maybe the answer to this kind of problem lies with how you and your group play: Do you normally allow OOC info during combat, and in depth background knowledge on the fly as stated by the character, or are monster stats played as unknown, and most knowledges found out using the skills?

*For the record, I'm all for a low level character knowing about some obscure DC 50 knowledge information, as long as he has an IC reason for it (went to a wizard's study and asked wizard, asked his god and interperated an answer, found a historian, uncle bob fought in the Clone Wars and told him war stories, etc...) but I won't let him emulate the knowledge skills without taking ranks in it (Just 'cuz he has info about his uncle's exploits during the Clone Wars, doesn't mean he can act as if he has 50 ranks in Knowledge History - he just knows whatever his uncle told him, but not of other historical happenings at the time... unless he trained Knowledge History).

[banjo1985]

I would veto a character concept thatis completely incompatible with the setting, and I don't see any problem with doing so. Here's an example that a player actually inflicted upon me a few years ago:

Me: In this world there are no elves.
player (interupting) - Can I have an elf then?

However if a player wants a concept that could impact on the story, or a character that would know mor ethan you want to let on, the situation becomes more fuzzy. I tend to let the character go with it, they get some extra information but it's up to them whether the chracater divulges it to his companions. But it can make GMing harder so it's all subjective.

[barawn]

You are *not* talking about "world" here. You are talking about *plot*. That is a very, very different thing.

No, it's not. The world exists to support and color the plot.


If the reason you made trolls uncommon was "so you can introduce a troll-hunter" then you have actually done *exactly* what you are complaining about players asking you to do. You have changed the way your *world* works in order to accommodate a *character*.

Yes. A "non-player" character. One that the DM controls. Which means I came up with his concept before the other players came up with theirs. You're not understanding the timing here. Once a call-for-players goes out, the world's done, set, already established.


It isn't that it "breaks the world" for a player to know how to kill a troll, but it spoils your prescripted encounter. I, personally, consider that to be railroading.

How, at all, is that situation functionally different than this?

DM: As you enter the city, you see people lying on the side of the road, clearly in agony as their skin is covered with small pimples. The inflicted reach out to you...
Bob: I'm heading for the cattle fields. Got to make a smallpox vaccine!
DM: Bob, what the...
Bob: Hey, I mean, my character's a healer, so he's encountered smallpox before. He knows the vaccine.
DM: Bob, no, he hasn't, and no, he doesn't.
Bob: Stop restricting my backstory!

Is that situation fine, in your mind? It's exactly the same thing. I've just substituted "smallpox" for "troll".

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, it's not. The world exists to support and color the plot.

In which case you are no longer talking about a consistent world. You are talking about a world which exists to serve a plot which you have already written.


Yes. A "non-player" character. One that the DM controls. Which means I came up with his concept before the other players came up with theirs. You're not understanding the timing here. Once a call-for-players goes out, the world's done, set, already established.

So ... what you're saying is that because you've already got a troll-hunter NPC, there can't be troll-hunter PCs?

So are you saying that part of the job of the DM is to take all the cool character concepts first?


How, at all, is that situation functionally different than this?

DM: As you enter the city, you see people lying on the side of the road, clearly in agony as their skin is covered with small pimples. The inflicted reach out to you...
Bob: I'm heading for the cattle fields. Got to make a smallpox vaccine!
DM: Bob, what the...
Bob: Hey, I mean, my character's a healer, so he's encountered smallpox before. He knows the vaccine.
DM: Bob, no, he hasn't, and no, he doesn't.
Bob: Stop restricting my backstory!

Functionally, it's different because the troll is physically attacking you.

I'd also point out that a vaccine wouldn't actually help people who've got the disease.


Is that situation fine, in your mind? It's exactly the same thing. I've just substituted "smallpox" for "troll".

Let me extend your example.

Bob: Hey, I mean my character's a healer, so he's encountered smallpox before. He should be able to cure it.
DM: No, he can't. There's no cure for smallpox.
Bob: Can I try and invent one?
DM: No, you can't.
Bob: Okay, I'll do something else then.

...then two weeks later...

Bob: Hey, where's all the people with smallpox.
DM: They all got cured.
Bob: What? You said there wasn't a cure.
DM: Yeah, well an NPC cured them. You see I knew *your* character couldn't invent a cure, because *mine* already had, and what are the chances of two characters curing the same disease at the same time?

[Tyger]

Let me extend your example.

Bob: Hey, I mean my character's a healer, so he's encountered smallpox before. He should be able to cure it.
DM: No, he can't. There's no cure for smallpox.
Bob: Can I try and invent one?
DM: No, you can't.
Bob: Okay, I'll do something else then.

...then two weeks later...

Bob: Hey, where's all the people with smallpox.
DM: They all got cured.
Bob: What? You said there wasn't a cure.
DM: Yeah, well an NPC cured them. You see I knew *your* character couldn't invent a cure, because *mine* already had, and what are the chances of two characters curing the same disease at the same time?

Except Dan, its more like this:

Bob: But I'm a healer, I've encountered smallpox before.
DM: No, you haven't. Its never been seen on this world before. Now back to the game.

The player has clearly used OOC knowledge, which there is no reason for him to ever have encountered. I'm sure you'd have no problem with ths one, right? In the alternative:

Bob: But I'm a healer, I've encountered smallpox before.
DM: OK, smallpox is rare, but not unheard of. But didn't you say that you're entire childhood prior to this adventure was you, on a mountaintop, meditiating with a monastic order who had taken a vow of silence, and you have just now come down from the mountain because you believe your god has a special purpose for you?
Bob: Ummm... yeah. But I am a healer and a cleric! I should be able to know what this is!
DM: OK, fair enough. How many ranks of Heal or Knowledge Nature do you have?
Bob: Ummm... none.
DM: Sorry Bob. No. Now, back to the game.
Bob: But the reason I was on the mountaintop was because my whole village was wiped out by the disease.
DM: And you decided this just now? Why?
Bob: Ummmm... because it makes my character richer and more fulfilling to play?
DM: Gonna go with no Bob. Just last week you wanted to have your parents die to the hobgoblin attack. Let it go. Please? The rest of us want to play the game.

That's the problem. And something tells me you'd have a problem with that, right? Now, I know that none of the people you game with have ever even considered doing something like this. But many, many other games have, and will continue to do so.

[Fax Celestis]

Except Dan, its more like this:

Bob: But I'm a healer, I've encountered smallpox before.
DM: No, you haven't. Its never been seen on this world before. Now back to the game.

The player has clearly used OOC knowledge, which there is no reason for him to ever have encountered. I'm sure you'd have no problem with ths one, right? In the alternative:

Bob: But I'm a healer, I've encountered smallpox before.
DM: OK, smallpox is rare, but not unheard of. But didn't you say that you're entire childhood prior to this adventure was you, on a mountaintop, meditiating with a monastic order who had taken a vow of silence, and you have just now come down from the mountain because you believe your god has a special purpose for you?
Bob: Ummm... yeah. But I am a healer and a cleric! I should be able to know what this is!
DM: OK, fair enough. How many ranks of Heal or Knowledge Nature do you have?
Bob: Ummm... none.
DM: Sorry Bob. No. Now, back to the game.
Bob: But the reason I was on the mountaintop was because my whole village was wiped out by the disease.
DM: And you decided this just now? Why?
Bob: Ummmm... because it makes my character richer and more fulfilling to play?
DM: Gonna go with no Bob. Just last week you wanted to have your parents die to the hobgoblin attack. Let it go. Please? The rest of us want to play the game.

That's the problem. And something tells me you'd have a problem with that, right? Now, I know that none of the people you game with have ever even considered doing something like this. But many, many other games have, and will continue to do so.

That is metagaming--metagaming determining knowledge based on background. Determining knowledge on background is fine, but if you allow people to alter it on the fly, it's like allowing people to alter feats as they go: a very very bad idea.

[Fax Celestis]

No, it's not. The world exists to support and color the plot.

The plot doesn't exist without the world. You can't have a plot without a world; you can have a world without a plot.


Yes. A "non-player" character. One that the DM controls. Which means I came up with his concept before the other players came up with theirs. You're not understanding the timing here. Once a call-for-players goes out, the world's done, set, already established.
Um. Why, exactly, can't a PC and an NPC share a common job?


How, at all, is that situation functionally different than this?

DM: As you enter the city, you see people lying on the side of the road, clearly in agony as their skin is covered with small pimples. The inflicted reach out to you...
Bob: I'm heading for the cattle fields. Got to make a smallpox vaccine!
DM: Bob, what the...
Bob: Hey, I mean, my character's a healer, so he's encountered smallpox before. He knows the vaccine.
DM: Bob, no, he hasn't, and no, he doesn't.
Bob: Stop restricting my backstory!

Is that situation fine, in your mind? It's exactly the same thing. I've just substituted "smallpox" for "troll".

Except also no. "Altering backstory on the fly to fit" is not the same as "using preexisting backstory to determine knowledge". The former is metagaming; the latter is character definition.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That's the problem. And something tells me you'd have a problem with that, right? Now, I know that none of the people you game with have ever even considered doing something like this. But many, many other games have, and will continue to do so.

Here we come to what it was once fashionable to call "the assumption of awesome" versus "the assumption of suck."

You, once again, are making the assumption that your players suck, that they are deliberately trying to screw you over and trash your campaign.

Mine don't, because they aren't jerks.

So the way that would go in my game would be something like this:

DM: yadda yadda smallpox, terrible death, doom, doom, death.
Player: Smallpox, say, does the cow-thing work in this world?
DM: No. It's a fantasy world where medicine is caused by evil spirits.
Player: So, does my character know about a cure?
DM: That's your call. It'd be a hefty piece of information if you did.
Player: Then I'll go with no. Can I find one?
DM: You can certainly try. We can either do it in downtime, or we can work out a quest of some sort.
Player: Let's go with the quest.
DM: Okay, great, in that case you'll go back to your books, and after a while you'll hit on a lead which will require you to travel to the top of Mount Horribledeath in order to retrieve a particular rare herb...

[Winterwind]

It looks like we're all drifting toward similar wavelengths here. Some metagaming can be good, backstory justifications for info need to make sense but are acceptable, and the DM and players shuld negotiate and compromise to preserve the player's concept and the DM's plot as much as possible, with the ultimate goal being fun for all.

Backstory modifications can be made, with DM approval (and the DM shouldn't be an idiot about it).

*trust your players, Luke*
/bad Star Wars reference

Personally, as a player, doing so makes me worry that I'm cheating, so I don't think I'd do it very often, but, hey, whatever makes the game fun. Yeah, that's pretty much my as I see it, as well. :)

Glad we agree. :smallbiggrin: And three makes a charm... erm, I mean, I agree too. :smallsmile:

The dungeon was only really an example, I suppose. And not a good one at that......... if it was just a dungeon, I would find some ther way of getting the PCs there. I personally think that the vampire hunter would be a more interesting character if he was still searching for clues about vampires; I would try to bring the player around to my point of view, with the fact that vampires are so rare being another reason to give up the all-encompassing knowledge of vampires and keep the rest. I also don't think that that knowledge is really all that much to give up anyway, since you'll get it back eventually; probably even before you'll really have to kill a vampire. If I couldn't convince the player to see my side, then I'm not really sure what I would do. I suppose I'd probably just give in; I don't like that, but I've swallowed my own desires for the sake of peaceful relations before.That's how I would handle it as well. Except, maybe, that instead of trying to convince the player I would just remind him how rare information on vampires was, remark, that it might be more interesting if he was still searching for clues about vampires, and leave the judgement whether he finds these arguments convincing up to him.

You know, I was going to post what I do for campaigns.......

.... then realized that it's really not that different. The only difference might be that I'll start with a generic adventure, something to bring the party together and develop them a little. Then I'll start developing the overarching plotline. The last time I ran a campaign, it involved the PCs eventually bringing the War of Light and Darkness (an ancient war between two deities, Selune and Shar, in the FR setting) to an end in Selune's favor. Interestingly enough, there was a cleric of Selune in the party. Funny how these things turn out, eh? :smallamused:Here's how that works in our group (pretty much the same way you handle it, it appears to me):
Step 1: The world is created (by whomever).
Step 2: The players create the characters.
Step 3: We play some introductory adventure to bring the characters together, usually right after character creation. That adventure may be plot-related (if the GM already got, within the short time he knew who the characters are, some basic idea into which direction the plot should go), often it is not.
Step 4: Between this session and the next the GM thinks up the plot for the campaign, trying to work character background into it (not necessarily for all characters at once though, there will, after all, be future campaigns after that).




whoops, sorry about that, missed your name in that list. I'm honestly not even sure if I'd read many of your postsNo harm done. :smallwink:
I just wanted to clarify my stance on all the points you brought up. After all, I probably am closer to Dan's side of the argument than the other by now, so I can understand how I got into that list; still, if the situation in my group was as you described I probably would not want to play in it either (by which I do not mean to imply it would be inferior - just not my thing). Therefore, I want to describe the way things work in my group as precisely as possible, in order to avoid misunderstanding, and also, because I frankly do not believe our positions lie that far apart. This thread would be significantly shorter if not for people misunderstanding the other party's basic ideas.




I wanted to say thanks to everyone in this thread, it has been interesting seeing everyone's opinions. This is going to be my last post because while it has been very interesting, I just started my vacation weekend (wooohoo) and I won't be on the forums much at all.Yeah, this thread is great. Rarely have I had so many insights into how a roleplaying group can work.
Thank you for participating, and have fun on your weekend!

I am still going to comment on this, though:

I personally believe that characters do not exist outside of a campaign world. Therefore, a character cannot even come into being until the player knows what the world is like. Therefore, once a player sits down at the table, hears from the DM what the world is going to be like, and draws up his concept, it is going to be very unlikely that the PC's concept conflicts with the world.That's true. However, it is my impression that the main difference in opinions here stems rather from differing perceptions of what constitutes a conflict with the world. The old "vampire hunter"-example, for instance, does not strike me as being in conflict with the world, because there are, in fact, vampires. It might be in conflict with the plot, if the plot relies on the PCs not knowing about the vampires, but then that would be the GM's fault for creating the plot before knowing about the characters. Unless this was a world created specifically to tell one distinct story, described by that plot, and the players agreed beforehand to this condition (summarized by "plot>>characters"). I did a thing somewhat akin to that once, and most of my players were not really happy about it. They were right about it, anyway - it resulted in heavy railroading and limited character options. I apologised afterwards.
The "elf in world without elves"-example is something entirely different. This is very much a conflict with the world, and therefore would be vetoed (if it happened in my group I would assume the player was joking and ask him what he really wanted to play).




*For the record, I'm all for a low level character knowing about some obscure DC 50 knowledge information, as long as he has an IC reason for it (went to a wizard's study and asked wizard, asked his god and interperated an answer, found a historian, uncle bob fought in the Clone Wars and told him war stories, etc...) but I won't let him emulate the knowledge skills without taking ranks in it (Just 'cuz he has info about his uncle's exploits during the Clone Wars, doesn't mean he can act as if he has 50 ranks in Knowledge History - he just knows whatever his uncle told him, but not of other historical happenings at the time... unless he trained Knowledge History).Agreed. That's precisely what I would do as well.

[Tyger]

That is metagaming--metagaming determining knowledge based on background. Determining knowledge on background is fine, but if you allow people to alter it on the fly, it's like allowing people to alter feats as they go: a very very bad idea.

Exactly. And while I know that there are some players out there (Dan plays with them apparently :) ) that don't do this, for those players who do this, even once, where do you draw the line? If the DM doesn't get to be the arbiter of what your character does and does not know, and you have a player who is less than 100% honest, who gets to tell him/her "no"?

And how do I, as a non-psychic chap, determine if the player had always intended their character to have this, or if they are just doing it to gain an advantage? Easy. Skills. Knowledge skills to be preceise. Failing that, a well written background.

Its that or develop telepathy. Granted, I'd rather have the telepathy, but so far, no luck. :smallbiggrin:

[Dan_Hemmens]

Except also no. "Altering backstory on the fly to fit" is not the same as "using preexisting backstory to determine knowledge". The former is metagaming; the latter is character definition.

Just so's you don't judge the other posters on this thread too harshly, I *have* actually advocated allowing players to "alter" their backstory on the fly to fit new information. It isn't a problem as long as they don't abuse it.

Of course in my case I take "alter" to mean "invent details which are compatible with what is already known of the character" and not "completely rewrite your personal history every five minutes."

It's the difference between "I fought one of these when I served with the militia as part of my Fighter Training" and "I fought one of these when I served with the militia ... did I mention I'd served with a militia? Yeah, I know I'm a Cloistered Cleric, but I still served with a militia."

[Fax Celestis]

Just so's you don't judge the other posters on this thread too harshly, I *have* actually advocated allowing players to "alter" their backstory on the fly to fit new information. It isn't a problem as long as they don't abuse it.

Of course in my case I take "alter" to mean "invent details which are compatible with what is already known of the character" and not "completely rewrite your personal history every five minutes."

It's the difference between "I fought one of these when I served with the militia as part of my Fighter Training" and "I fought one of these when I served with the militia ... did I mention I'd served with a militia? Yeah, I know I'm a Cloistered Cleric, but I still served with a militia."

See, I kinda have a problem with that. If it fits with an existing framework, then it's cool. Otherwise, no.

[Winterwind]

No, it's not. The world exists to support and color the plot.

Yes. A "non-player" character. One that the DM controls. Which means I came up with his concept before the other players came up with theirs. You're not understanding the timing here. Once a call-for-players goes out, the world's done, set, already established.There being such a NPC on this continent is world.
This NPC coming for the PCs' rescue is plot.
Nobody, as far as I see it, has demanded that the GM rewrites the world.
The plot, on the other hand, may well be adjusted to accommodate the PCs, especially since, in my honest opinion, the plot should not be established until after the characters were created.

As for the smallpox-example, Dan's already said it:


You, once again, are making the assumption that your players suck, that they are deliberately trying to screw you over and trash your campaign.

Mine don't, because they aren't jerks.

So the way that would go in my game would be something like this:

DM: yadda yadda smallpox, terrible death, doom, doom, death.
Player: Smallpox, say, does the cow-thing work in this world?
DM: No. It's a fantasy world where medicine is caused by evil spirits.
Player: So, does my character know about a cure?
DM: That's your call. It'd be a hefty piece of information if you did.
Player: Then I'll go with no. Can I find one?
DM: You can certainly try. We can either do it in downtime, or we can work out a quest of some sort.
Player: Let's go with the quest.
DM: Okay, great, in that case you'll go back to your books, and after a while you'll hit on a lead which will require you to travel to the top of Mount Horribledeath in order to retrieve a particular rare herb...That's how it would work in my group as well. I know people who would abuse this kind of freedom in a way detrimental to the fun of the rest of the group and my own, which is why we don't ask them to join our group.

[Dan_Hemmens]

See, I kinda have a problem with that. If it fits with an existing framework, then it's cool. Otherwise, no.

That's fair, it's not for everybody.

Essentially (and this is something I'm exploring on the "Exploration versus Portrayal" thread) I like my character to evolve in play, and that frequently works in both directions.

A lot of people see roleplaying as a process of "create a character, then play the character you created". I like to create a character as I play them.

[Dan_Hemmens]

There being such a NPC on this continent is world.
This NPC coming for the PCs' rescue is plot.
Nobody, as far as I see it, has demanded that the GM rewrites the world.
The plot, on the other hand, may well be adjusted to accommodate the PCs, especially since, in my honest opinion, the plot should not be established until after the characters were created.


This is very much the position I'm working from as well.

Vetoing character concepts or PC access to information on the grounds that it would wreck your world is one thing. Vetoing on the grounds that it would spoil an encounter you want the PCs to have is quite another.

[PaladinBoy]

This is very much the position I'm working from as well.

Vetoing character concepts or PC access to information on the grounds that it would wreck your world is one thing. Vetoing on the grounds that it would spoil an encounter you want the PCs to have is quite another.

See, for me part of the fun of the game is springing my clever plots on the PCs. Of course, I have to engage in some editing........ having your plots ruined by enterprising adventurers is and operational hazard of DMing. But having them ruined before the game's even started seems to me to be asking a bit much, particularly when you could have the character with slight modifications. It might be a slightly different concept, but why not give it a try? I think you'd find that you can have just as much fun roleplaying. And you can be sure that I'm not sitting on my butt watching you change your concept. I'll be editing my plot as much as I feel comfortable, and it usually works, too. The one time I've had to change a player's concept, it worked with a relatively minor change.

The point is, I don't force a player to change just to preserve my plot. By the time I would ask, I'm having trouble fitting my plot around the player's character concept, and want him to make minor changes to make this a little easier on me. By the time I ask, I've usually worked out a solution to suggest to the player that keeps as many elements of his concept as possible.

[Winterwind]

The point is, I don't force a player to change just to preserve my plot. By the time I would ask, I'm having trouble fitting my plot around the player's character concept, and want him to make minor changes to make this a little easier on me. By the time I ask, I've usually worked out a solution to suggest to the player that keeps as many elements of his concept as possible.Sounds like a fair, compromise-finding approach to me. While the problem can hardly arise when the plot is written only after the characters were created, and there being little ways the players could whack a plot with a character concept with the GM not being able to still make it work somehow anyway, if it would become an issue I'd proceed just that way myself.

[barawn]

You, once again, are making the assumption that your players suck, that they are deliberately trying to screw you over and trash your campaign.

Um.

If they randomly decide out of the blue, without even asking the DM that their character knows that a troll is vulnerable to fire... that's what they're doing. It's the exact same thing.

Yes. I'm assuming jerk players. Because metagaming is only a problem with jerk players. I'm not assuming this because I have jerk players. I'm not assuming this because I think everyone is a jerk player. I'm assuming it because they exist, and if you simply say "metagaming is fine," jerk players will cause a problem.

If you've never encountered jerk players, you're lucky. But don't presume they don't exist.

[barawn]

There being such a NPC on this continent is world.
This NPC coming for the PCs' rescue is plot.

You're assuming that thwarting the NPC's rescue was the problem. That wouldn't be the problem. The problem is that the PCs have just completely eliminated this NPC's entire backstory - because now, knowing how to beat trolls is commonplace, and so a famed troll hunter, who keeps the knowledge of how to beat trolls carefully guarded so that he can make money off of passersby is completely ridiculous.

The problem with metagaming is that the players don't know what effect their contamination of the world will have. And that's what the players are doing - contaminating the world. The DM does know.

Which is why asking is important.


As for the smallpox-example, Dan's already said it:

Except Dan's example doesn't have a fourth wall violation, and that's the entire thing we're talking about here - information leaking from player to character. In Dan's example, the fourth wall stays entirely intact. The existence of a solution, and the sudden change of the party's goals to find it isn't a problem - that's just plot. Viewed from outside of the two people who contrived the plot (the DM and the player) it doesn't seem unbelievable at all.

Honestly, I found Dan's example a little bizarre. It's exactly the example I gave before regarding trolls. So long as the player asks the DM if his character knows something, there's no problem. But that's not what we're talking about.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You're assuming that thwarting the NPC's rescue was the problem. That wouldn't be the problem. The problem is that the PCs have just completely eliminated this NPC's entire backstory - because now, knowing how to beat trolls is commonplace, and so a famed troll hunter, who keeps the knowledge of how to beat trolls carefully guarded so that he can make money off of passersby is completely ridiculous.

And, were I a player in your game, I would not care. Because PCs are more important than NPCs. NPCs should not get "dibs" on things just because the DM made them up.


The problem with metagaming is that the players don't know what effect their contamination of the world will have. And that's what the players are doing - contaminating the world. The DM does know.

If you view "removing the necessity for an NPC to come in and save their butts" as "contaminating the world" you really need to take a step backwards.



Except Dan's example doesn't have a fourth wall violation, and that's the entire thing we're talking about here - information leaking from player to character. In Dan's example, the fourth wall stays entirely intact. The existence of a solution, and the sudden change of the party's goals to find it isn't a problem - that's just plot. Viewed from outside of the two people who contrived the plot (the DM and the player) it doesn't seem unbelievable at all.

Honestly, I found Dan's example a little bizarre. It's exactly the example I gave before regarding trolls. So long as the player asks the DM if his character knows something, there's no problem. But that's not what we're talking about.

Except it isn't.

Let's do it with trolls instead, for clarity.

My way:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Can we assume our characters know about fire and acid?
DM: Sure, if you think it makes sense.
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.

Your way:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Can we assume our characters know about fire and acid?
DM: No.
Player: Fine, I guess I draw my sword then.
DM: Suddenly out of nowhere, Joe the Trollslayer appears, wielding fire and acid, and slays the troll!

Do you not see the difference?

[Dan_Hemmens]

If they randomly decide out of the blue, without even asking the DM that their character knows that a troll is vulnerable to fire... that's what they're doing. It's the exact same thing.

Yes. I'm assuming jerk players. Because metagaming is only a problem with jerk players. I'm not assuming this because I have jerk players. I'm not assuming this because I think everyone is a jerk player. I'm assuming it because they exist, and if you simply say "metagaming is fine," jerk players will cause a problem.

How can they cause a problem if you don't have them in your game?

Jerk players aren't like criminals. It's not like they can come and get you whether you want them to or not. There is absolutely no point in treating your players like jerks just because some other people might act like jerks.


If you've never encountered jerk players, you're lucky. But don't presume they don't exist.

I'm not presuming they don't exist, I'm presuming that (a) nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you play with them and (b) that no amount of heavy-handed DMing will ever stop a jerk from being a jerk.

[asqwasqw]

Except it isn't.

Let's do it with trolls instead, for clarity.

My way:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Can we assume our characters know about fire and acid?
DM: Sure, if you think it makes sense.
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.

Your way:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Can we assume our characters know about fire and acid?
DM: No.
Player: Fine, I guess I draw my sword then.
DM: Suddenly out of nowhere, Joe the Trollslayer appears, wielding fire and acid, and slays the troll!

Do you not see the difference?

Except Joe the Trollslayer spent his entire life, as well as 5 levels, finding out the hidden weaknesses of trolls, which only a few people know. Granted, Joe the Trollslayer isn't really a good example, but it is like saying your character knows physics in D&D. Possible, yes, but it strains the credibility of the world.


How can they cause a problem if you don't have them in your game?

Jerk players aren't like criminals. It's not like they can come and get you whether you want them to or not. There is absolutely no point in treating your players like jerks just because some other people might act like jerks.



I'm not presuming they don't exist, I'm presuming that (a) nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you play with them and (b) that no amount of heavy-handed DMing will ever stop a jerk from being a jerk.

I, and I think other people, are working on the assumption that there can be jerks. Not the jerks Dan described, who are purposely out to ruin a game, but one who innocently changes a part of your game world without your consent. Would you reject him and ask him to change his concept? I would. Back to the 20$ analogy, there are people, perfectly good, kind nice people, who see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, they will pocket it. Is it immoral? Some say yes. Will they do it impulsively? Also yes.

[Tyger]

Do you not see the difference?

Yup. The second one advances a story that the DM has spent hours, if not weeks, developing, so the players can have some fun. It allows the introduction of an NPC that the DM has been looking forward to playing for as long as they've been planning the encounter, maybe even the entire campaign. When I DM, its not to tell people how long the corridor is, or how many coins are in the pile. Its the chance to play ALL the supporting characters, to interject some mystery, suspense, drama and horror into an afternoon of fun with my friends. The first description you provided could conceiviably tank that completely. It derails the chapter of the encounter, and might just mess up the DMs entire planned out evening of gaming.

Sure, its a occupational hazard of being a DM to have your players mess with your carefully crafted ideas. And being able to roll with the punches and still come up with a great story for the players to enjoy is your role as a DM. But is it too much to ask to allow the DM to let the story roll out? I don't think so. You're asking that the DM bend to the players whim. That's fair, its a shared experience. All we're saying is that the DM (who's very likely invested a lot more time into planning the session/campaign than the players) be afforded the same respect. Its a two way street.

EDIT: Not at all suggesting that it would be as blatant as that example though. Only when the trolls were on teh verge of destroying the party (assuming they didn't come up with something on their own), and the tension was high would the Joe Trollslayer appear, and even he would be hard pressed to defeat the beasts. Its all about cinematics.

[barawn]

And, were I a player in your game, I would not care. Because PCs are more important than NPCs. NPCs should not get "dibs" on things just because the DM made them up.

Did you even read what I said? You wouldn't've screwed up an NPC. You could've screwed up the entire local political situation. Quite possibly thirty years of history, as well. With one small "oh, we know how to beat trolls," the DM suddenly goes "well, looks like I have to cross off this entire portion of the map..."


If you view "removing the necessity for an NPC to come in and save their butts" as "contaminating the world" you really need to take a step backwards.

You need to actually read the situation. The point's simple - the PCs do not know how their contamination affects the world. The DM does.



DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Can we assume our characters know about fire and acid?
DM: Sure, if you think it makes sense.
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.


1: You had the characters ask the DM. That's not the problem. If they ask, it's not metagaming - at least, not bad metagaming. In that case, the DM is stating that the leaked knowledge won't pollute the world.

2: You never actually had the character explain why it makes sense. Presumedly this could be added in later, which would be fine. But the real problem is when the conversation goes:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.



DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Can we assume our characters know about fire and acid?
DM: No.
Player: Fine, I guess I draw my sword then.
DM: Suddenly out of nowhere, Joe the Trollslayer appears, wielding fire and acid, and slays the troll!

Let's see. You cleverly write yours, using words like "cool", and "sure" to indicate players being happy and having fun. And then you write mine, using harsh words, short answers to indicate aggravation. Gee, you're not trying to bias the situation, are you?

I'm not even going to bother to rewrite it well, which I clearly could do. This is seriously devolving into "let's see how I can make your ideas sound stupid."

[barawn]

I'm not presuming they don't exist, I'm presuming that (a) nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you play with them and (b) that no amount of heavy-handed DMing will ever stop a jerk from being a jerk.

(b) is wrong. That, I can categorically state as true.

[Fax Celestis]

Yup. The second one advances a story that the DM has spent hours, if not weeks, developing, so the players can have some fun. It allows the introduction of an NPC that the DM has been looking forward to playing for as long as they've been planning the encounter, maybe even the entire campaign.

Conversely, method one lets the PCs feel important and capable, instead of having the DM essentially play with himself and let the players watch.

Primary Rule of DMing: The PCs should always be the center of the story, not an NPC or a DMPC. After all, the DM is running the game for the players, not for himself, and should let the players play too. Plots are malleable; players are not.

[asqwasqw]

Conversely, method one lets the PCs feel important and capable, instead of having the DM essentially play with himself and let the players watch.

Primary Rule of DMing: The PCs should always be the center of the story, not an NPC or a DMPC. After all, the DM is running the game for the players, not for himself, and should let the players play too. Plots are malleable; players are not.

But what happens if the NPC advances the Plot the PC's are in? If we are playing a police campaign, and we have terrorists taking over the white house, you can't really say: "They don't take over the white house, I already know their weakness and stop them before the do anything." And why are players not malleable? Can you not change whether or not a player knows something, and if he shouldn't (as in low probability) know something, wouldn't it be logical for him not to?

[barawn]

EDIT: Not at all suggesting that it would be as blatant as that example though. Only when the trolls were on teh verge of destroying the party (assuming they didn't come up with something on their own), and the tension was high would the Joe Trollslayer appear, and even he would be hard pressed to defeat the beasts. Its all about cinematics.

Could be even more dramatic, too.

Before entering the woods, the PCs could've encountered a mangy-looking man, who warns them of a "great beast, invincible and capable of felling even the greatest warriors," but for a mere five hundred gold, he can guide them through unharmed. And he can say he's the only one who can do so (which could be true).

The PCs could've ignored his warning, thinking he's a crazy old man, and not willing to spend five hundred gold on a wacko. When in truth, he was Joe Trollslayer, warning them.

Later, when the party encounters the troll, and it starts to cut its toll on them, Joe again appears (having followed the party covertly, but they didn't notice) and says "Are you sure you won't reconsider that five hundred gold?"

When they consent, he causes the area to go dark, and silent, and when the darkness and silence lifts, the trolls' remains are blowing away on the wind. He smiles, and says "on you go, now. Thanks for shopping."

Going to the nearby seaside village, they find out that the local population is struggling heavily. Joe Trollslayer's family has owned the forest and shipping lanes for generations, and the entire area is under his boot, because they've been able to hide the weakness of trolls for generations.

It's all about the fact that the PCs don't know what the consequences of world contamination are. Hence the danger of metagaming without asking a DM first.

[Tyger]

Conversely, method one lets the PCs feel important and capable, instead of having the DM essentially play with himself and let the players watch.

Primary Rule of DMing: The PCs should always be the center of the story, not an NPC or a DMPC. After all, the DM is running the game for the players, not for himself, and should let the players play too. Plots are malleable; players are not.

OK, how about we try that again, except this time without the assumptions? Where in what I posted (and you quoted) was the part about the DM not letting players play? Of course they play, and assuming otherwise is baseless, pointless and quite honestly offensive. ITS A SHARED GAME. No DM, no game. No players, no game. And its important that EVERYONE have fun. Not just the players. Not just the DM. Everyone.

Any DM that doesn't have the player characters as the focus of the game, should not be DMing. However, unless the players want to sit and play a game of tic tac toe, there are going to be NPCs who challenge them, help them, give them clues, send them on quests, fall in love with them, have vendettas against them... No NPC, no game. Except maybe an arena game.

And maybe I am nuts, but I think every DM wants to play with the characters. To interact. That's your job. Otherwise, why play with a human DM? Just play a computer game if you don't want an interactive DM. Simple answer.

[barawn]

Conversely, method one lets the PCs feel important and capable, instead of having the DM essentially play with himself and let the players watch.

Primary Rule of DMing: The PCs should always be the center of the story, not an NPC or a DMPC. After all, the DM is running the game for the players, not for himself, and should let the players play too. Plots are malleable; players are not.

Sure, but Dan's example was intended to feel that way. It could easily be redone otherwise, while still keeping the same dilemma. See above.

Restricting a PC's options doesn't imply that they aren't the center of the story. It just forces them to rethink their actions.

edit: As an example - the PCs still had options there. They could've paid Joe Trollslayer. They could've tried to find ways to pierce that Darkness and Silence. They could've refused him again, and continued trying to fight the troll - and maybe they would've found a way to beat it on their own.

The only thing they couldn't do is use information that their characters did not have, but they did.

The exact same plot could be accomplished using a homebrewed beast resistant to something other than fire. But what's the point? Why force a DM to expend a significant amount of effort when a modicum of self-restraint accomplishes the same thing?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yup. The second one advances a story that the DM has spent hours, if not weeks, developing, so the players can have some fun.

Okay, this is where I have problems.

Far, far too many DMs fall into the following way of thinking.

"Clearly," they say, "my job as DM is to make sure everybody has fun."
"Furthermore," they add, "I put in many hours of work designing the game to make sure everybody has as much fun as possible."
"Clearly," they continue, "this work must be necessary, or else I would not do it. So it follows that anything I plan to put into the game must, by definition, make the game more fun."
"So," they conclude, "the best way for everybody to have fun is for things to go exactly like I planned them."

I don't care how much time and effort the DM put into the "the players get attacked by trolls, and then get rescued by joe the trollslayer, and then discover that he's been keeping the secret of fighting trolls with fire and acid to himself for some spurious reason" plotline. I, as a player, would be absolutely *livid* if a GM pulled that kind of thing on me. Because it would imply that he cared more about his NPC than my PC, which should never, ever, ever be the case.

[barawn]

"So," they conclude, "the best way for everybody to have fun is for things to go exactly like I planned them."

Bull. There's absolutely no reason that the players had to stand by and watch Joe Trollslayer help. They could've run. Heck, they could've killed him, too. Or they could've pinned him afterwards, and said "what the heck was that, you conniving bastard, what did you do."

It's not about going exactly the way its planned. It's about not having the players cheat. That's all.

[Tyger]

Okay, this is where I have problems.

Far, far too many DMs fall into the following way of thinking.

"Clearly," they say, "my job as DM is to make sure everybody has fun."
"Furthermore," they add, "I put in many hours of work designing the game to make sure everybody has as much fun as possible."
"Clearly," they continue, "this work must be necessary, or else I would not do it. So it follows that anything I plan to put into the game must, by definition, make the game more fun."
"So," they conclude, "the best way for everybody to have fun is for things to go exactly like I planned them."

I don't care how much time and effort the DM put into the "the players get attacked by trolls, and then get rescued by joe the trollslayer, and then discover that he's been keeping the secret of fighting trolls with fire and acid to himself for some spurious reason" plotline. I, as a player, would be absolutely *livid* if a GM pulled that kind of thing on me. Because it would imply that he cared more about his NPC than my PC, which should never, ever, ever be the case.


Again with the assumptions. Since when does "I want the discovery of a certain piece of knowledge, which the PCs have no way of curently knowing, to be a quest" equate to "They must do things exactly like I planned them."???????

You demand that the DM be flexible to accommodate the players, but seem to be completely unwilling to even consider that the PCs should be flexible to accommodate the DM. Can't have it both ways. Its unfair and unrealistic.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Could be even more dramatic, too.

Before entering the woods, the PCs could've encountered a mangy-looking man, who warns them of a "great beast, invincible and capable of felling even the greatest warriors," but for a mere five hundred gold, he can guide them through unharmed. And he can say he's the only one who can do so (which could be true).

And I wouldn't care. I'd be completely uninterested.


The PCs could've ignored his warning, thinking he's a crazy old man, and not willing to spend five hundred gold on a wacko. When in truth, he was Joe Trollslayer, warning them.

Later, when the party encounters the troll, and it starts to cut its toll on them, Joe again appears (having followed the party covertly, but they didn't notice) and says "Are you sure you won't reconsider that five hundred gold?"

And at this point I'd be seriously into "what the hell?" territory.


When they consent, he causes the area to go dark, and silent, and when the darkness and silence lifts, the trolls' remains are blowing away on the wind. He smiles, and says "on you go, now. Thanks for shopping."

Okay, and *this* is the point where I would stand up, in silence, walk out the door and never come back.

Because really, are you honestly telling me that you think having an NPC that nobody cares about extort 500 GP from the players, and act smug qualifies as "dramatic?"

Dramatic is when you sacrifice your life for your friends. It's not getting shaken down by some old git in a forest.


Going to the nearby seaside village, they find out that the local population is struggling heavily. Joe Trollslayer's family has owned the forest and shipping lanes for generations, and the entire area is under his boot, because they've been able to hide the weakness of trolls for generations.

I would never get to this bit, because I would have left the game already.


It's all about the fact that the PCs don't know what the consequences of world contamination are. Hence the danger of metagaming without asking a DM first.

Since in this case the consequences of the world contamination would, in fact, be to spare the players a deeply annoying encounter, I'm not sure it makes the point that well.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Again with the assumptions. Since when does "I want the discovery of a certain piece of knowledge, which the PCs have no way of curently knowing, to be a quest" equate to "They must do things exactly like I planned them."???????

You demand that the DM be flexible to accommodate the players, but seem to be completely unwilling to even consider that the PCs should be flexible to accommodate the DM. Can't have it both ways. Its unfair and unrealistic.

It's not unfair or unrealistic at all.

The DM has literally infinite power. He is in no danger whatsoever of the players doing anything he doesn't want them to. He can rain thunderbolts on them from heaven if he wants to. He can declare that rocks fall and everybody dies.

The DM is trivially capable of forcing his will on the whole group. Players are not capable of forcing their will on the DM.

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, this is where I have problems.

Far, far too many DMs fall into the following way of thinking.

"Clearly," they say, "my job as DM is to make sure everybody has fun."
"Furthermore," they add, "I put in many hours of work designing the game to make sure everybody has as much fun as possible."
"Clearly," they continue, "this work must be necessary, or else I would not do it. So it follows that anything I plan to put into the game must, by definition, make the game more fun."
"So," they conclude, "the best way for everybody to have fun is for things to go exactly like I planned them."

I don't care how much time and effort the DM put into the "the players get attacked by trolls, and then get rescued by joe the trollslayer, and then discover that he's been keeping the secret of fighting trolls with fire and acid to himself for some spurious reason" plotline. I, as a player, would be absolutely *livid* if a GM pulled that kind of thing on me. Because it would imply that he cared more about his NPC than my PC, which should never, ever, ever be the case.
That's exactly my point. The PCs are more important than anything that exists in the DM's world.

For the terrorist example, in that case, you put the PCs in a situation where they cannot win. Make it clear--both in character and out--that they're not going to get their way in this instance because it's important to your plot. But that doesn't make anything more important than the PCs. They're still the focus of the story, particularly if they're the only ones who still have a chance of saving the day.

A good DM should prepare a variety of material and should expect to never use up to half of it because the PCs don't go down the path that was intended for them. There should never be a situation that the PCs are forced into; after all, they're portraying people, and people make choices. Sometimes not the best or smartest choices, but choices nonetheless. The DM in this instance should make the PCs choices work with what he wants to have happen, not force the PCs to make choices that cause what he wants. It's a subtle but important difference.

[Tyger]

Dan, in all honesty, tell us. Have you never, in your entire gaming career, had fun when you were following a plot hook? If that's the case, how exactly do your DMing buddies involve you and your party in the world? If its a perfectly free-form world, why do you even bother with a DM?

[Counterpower]

Conversely, method one lets the PCs feel important and capable, instead of having the DM essentially play with himself and let the players watch.

Primary Rule of DMing: The PCs should always be the center of the story, not an NPC or a DMPC. After all, the DM is running the game for the players, not for himself, and should let the players play too. Plots are malleable; players are not.

So, the DM should allow his players to do whatever they want, and completely ignore all of the time he's spent on making an interesting game?

I mean, if my players ever said "No, we're not going to do that, because none of our characters are at all interested in the plot hook you gave them," to me, I would not be happy. If they told me that, I would first attempt to improvise a much better reason for them to pay attention to my plot. If I couldn't get them to pay attention to the plot, I'd be forced to say, "Well, I can do some improvising, but not to the point of creating what you want to do on the spot. We're going to have to cut this meeting short and come back next week, unfortunately."

[Fax Celestis]

Again with the assumptions. Since when does "I want the discovery of a certain piece of knowledge, which the PCs have no way of curently knowing, to be a quest" equate to "They must do things exactly like I planned them."???????

Because it does. By saying, "You have no way of knowing about this," you are inadvertently saying, "This is how your character is." The character is the PC's responsibility, not the DM's. The DM's responsibility is the world and the NPCs, not the PCs.

[Fax Celestis]

So, the DM should allow his players to do whatever they want, and completely ignore all of the time he's spent on making an interesting game?

Yes, he should! Absolutely. The game is for the players, and if they don't want to do what the DM has planned, then the DM should run something else!

[Tyger]

It's not unfair or unrealistic at all.

The DM has literally infinite power. He is in no danger whatsoever of the players doing anything he doesn't want them to. He can rain thunderbolts on them from heaven if he wants to. He can declare that rocks fall and everybody dies.

The DM is trivially capable of forcing his will on the whole group. Players are not capable of forcing their will on the DM.

No, apparently in your gaming group he's not. He's not even permitted to suggest that they characters don't have certain pieces of knowledge. The DM in your game is not only not omnipotent and omnipresent, he's actually reduced to less than the players, because they are allowed to force their views, wants and desires on him, but he can't ask for basic respect.

Its all about equality, respect and partnership. Yes, I hope and expect players in my game to stretch the boundaries, to force me to take the campaign in directions that I never anticipated that they would go. I pray that they will develop interesting backgrounds and have thier characters grow far beyond the boundaries of the character sheet, and evolve into beings that they were never imagined to be when we first sat down to develop them. And in return, my players count on me to provide a sustainable, believable world filled with intrigue, suspence, joy, sorrow, love and defeat. OOC knowledge used IC destroys all of that. It ruins the fun for everyone in my group.

I'm glad (though honestly amazed) that your group prefers to use that same OOC knowledge that not doing so for us provides the suspense and enjoyment. Its difficult for me to understand how you work it, and how exalted and jaded yoru later characters must be. Each game for my group has the potential for freshness and vitality because we don't let OOC in. I have difficulty understanding how your group accomplishes this. Then again, there are many things about your group that I don't understand, and maybe that's my shame.

Either way, I'm not going to post here (this thread that is) again. Its very obvious that we're talking about two completely and utterly different gaming styles. I can't understand yours, and you obviously don't understand mine. Fortunately, that's OK. I have a boat load of fun with mine (as do my players) and it sounds like you guys are having a good time too. Which is the point.

[asqwasqw]

Yes, he should! Absolutely. The game is for the players, and if they don't want to do what the DM has planned, then the DM should run something else!

See, this is what I disagree with. Maybe it is because I play PbP instead of tabletop, but most of my games are : This is X game, with constraints Y. If you don't like it, play a different game. Maybe it is different for tabletop, but you should talk things out with your players to find what they want. No sense in coming up with a campaign that the players don't agree to, on both the behalf of the time spend by the DM and the enjoyment of the players.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Did you even read what I said? You wouldn't've screwed up an NPC. You could've screwed up the entire local political situation. Quite possibly thirty years of history, as well. With one small "oh, we know how to beat trolls," the DM suddenly goes "well, looks like I have to cross off this entire portion of the map..."

How precisely does it lead to that effect?


You need to actually read the situation. The point's simple - the PCs do not know how their contamination affects the world. The DM does.

It's not a "contamination effect." Hell, the party Wizard would be totally justified in fireballing the damned things *anyway*. How does it "contaminate the world" for a single party of adventurers to use acid against a couple of trolls?


1: You had the characters ask the DM. That's not the problem. If they ask, it's not metagaming - at least, not bad metagaming. In that case, the DM is stating that the leaked knowledge won't pollute the world.

2: You never actually had the character explain why it makes sense. Presumedly this could be added in later, which would be fine. But the real problem is when the conversation goes:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.

No, the problem is when the conversation goes:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.
DM: Sorry, your character doesn't know about acid working on trolls.
Player: Oh, is that not how it works in this setting then?
DM: No, it works like that, but your character wouldn't know about it.
Player: So why is my character carrying these acid flasks?
DM: Search me, you bought them not me.
Player: Can I make a Knowledge: Nature check.
DM: Sure, but it'll be at DC thirty five.
Player: DC what?
DM: Thirty-five. Trolls are rare.
Player: And yet we have just stumbled across one?
DM: Yeah, funny that.
Player: If this has anything to do with that guy we just met...


Let's see. You cleverly write yours, using words like "cool", and "sure" to indicate players being happy and having fun. And then you write mine, using harsh words, short answers to indicate aggravation. Gee, you're not trying to bias the situation, are you?

I'm trying to express to you how I would feel in that situation.

I don't object to the DM telling me that something is not true, or cannot be assumed in his world. I don't even object to a DM informing me, politely, that he doesn't think my character would know something.

But I *do* object to the DM arbitrarily restricting my character's knowledge to preserve the integrity of a subplot.

[Fax Celestis]

See, this is what I disagree with. Maybe it is because I play PbP instead of tabletop, but most of my games are : This is X game, with constraints Y. If you don't like it, play a different game. Maybe it is different for tabletop, but you should talk things out with your players to find what they want. No sense in coming up with a campaign that the players don't agree to, on both the behalf of the time spend by the DM and the enjoyment of the players.

Of course you talk with the players before hand to figure out what they want and what they don't want. A good DM will make the game enjoyable for the players through whatever means he has to--even if that means altering the path of the game mid-plot.

But the DM should talk with the players before even starting the game to figure out what they want from the game and build his campaign to fit.

[Mr the Geoff]

3) Deliberately break the Law of Conservation of Detail, or "Too much information." (metagaming type: Instantly knowing what's important)
Your players enter a room. Roll a die and describe three things in detail, even if none of them are important to the plot. If one thing is important to the plot, roll a d3 and describe the important thing in that location on the list. So the ink spilled on the letter that's the actual clue to the murder might be the first, second, or third thing in the room you describe - and you don't know in advance which order you'll use. So if you roll a 2, you might describe the fallen bookcase with scattered books, then the inkwell on an unfinished letter, then the torn tapestry of an ancient battle. If you only describe one thing in the room, that's usually what they'll go after first. If you describe one thing over the others, that's usually what they'll go after first. You need to keep things roughly even to keep the players exploring the game world, rather than just zipping to the "important bits".

Hehe this was actually one I have had one of my gaming group use when it was his turn to DM. We walksed into a room and he spent a good 5 minutes describing the tapestry on the wall in exquisite detail. Then while we spent the next hour doing every sort of check and divination we could think of on this tapestry, he used the time to make up for lack of preparation and design how the rest of the session would go!

Good rule of thumb, to screw with a metagaming party, just describe a mundane object in great detail and sit back and watch them take 20 on search and appriase,and cast detect magic/evil/poison, gicing you plenty of time to set up the ambush in the next room.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Dan, in all honesty, tell us. Have you never, in your entire gaming career, had fun when you were following a plot hook? If that's the case, how exactly do your DMing buddies involve you and your party in the world? If its a perfectly free-form world, why do you even bother with a DM?

I've had plenty of fun following plot hooks. I've had plenty of fun mindlessly slaughtering goblins. Heck a mate of mine is running a Tunnels and Trolls one-shot on Sunday, which will almost certainly involve going down a dungeon for no clear reason and killing stuff.

I expect it to be a lot of fun.

And do you know *how* I enjoy following plot hooks?

Judicious use of metagaming.

I say to myself: would my character do this, probably not, but I don't care. It's a plot hook. It'll probably lead to a couple of fights, which will be fun too in a brainless sort of way. So I go with it.

What I am objecting to is not the basic concept of the GM, it is the assumption, which arises from the logic I outlined above, that the only proper way a group can have fun is to do what the DM wants them to do.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, apparently in your gaming group he's not. He's not even permitted to suggest that they characters don't have certain pieces of knowledge. The DM in your game is not only not omnipotent and omnipresent, he's actually reduced to less than the players, because they are allowed to force their views, wants and desires on him, but he can't ask for basic respect.

He's not "reduced to less than the players", he's just no longer the one who decides what happens.

Look at it this way: a big part of the fun for the players in a traditional game is following the DM's plot and saying "wow, I wasn't expecting that!"

A big part of the fun for the DM in my style of game is responding to player actions and saying "wow! I wasn't expecting that."

You don't view "the players doing something unexpected" as an occupational hazard, you view it as the very lifeblood of your campaign.


Its all about equality, respect and partnership. Yes, I hope and expect players in my game to stretch the boundaries, to force me to take the campaign in directions that I never anticipated that they would go. I pray that they will develop interesting backgrounds and have thier characters grow far beyond the boundaries of the character sheet, and evolve into beings that they were never imagined to be when we first sat down to develop them. And in return, my players count on me to provide a sustainable, believable world filled with intrigue, suspence, joy, sorrow, love and defeat. OOC knowledge used IC destroys all of that. It ruins the fun for everyone in my group.

You see, for us it works the other way around. I expect the players to provide me with sustainable, believable characters filled with intrigue, suspense, joy, sorrow, love and defeat. My world is just a backdrop for that.

My enjoyment, as a GM, does not come from presenting the players with a fiendish puzzle or shocking plot twist, it comes from watching the players play their characters.


I'm glad (though honestly amazed) that your group prefers to use that same OOC knowledge that not doing so for us provides the suspense and enjoyment. Its difficult for me to understand how you work it, and how exalted and jaded yoru later characters must be. Each game for my group has the potential for freshness and vitality because we don't let OOC in. I have difficulty understanding how your group accomplishes this. Then again, there are many things about your group that I don't understand, and maybe that's my shame.

We never play in the same setting twice, for a start. We also don't play D&D, so the "monster stats" issue never comes up. There's little in the game which revolves around solving problems, so you never have to worry about people looking for "unfair advantages."

It works for us.

[asqwasqw]

How precisely does it lead to that effect?

It's not a "contamination effect." Hell, the party Wizard would be totally justified in fireballing the damned things *anyway*. How does it "contaminate the world" for a single party of adventurers to use acid against a couple of trolls?


The contamination effect is when you know the Troll's weakness, when others do not. if you know it, why don't others know it? If others know it, then why is Bob the troll hunter so powerful? He has no control over the forest otherwise.



No, the problem is when the conversation goes:

DM: And then, a monstrous troll attacks!
Player: Cool, I get out my acid flasks.
DM: Sorry, your character doesn't know about acid working on trolls.
Player: Oh, is that not how it works in this setting then?
DM: No, it works like that, but your character wouldn't know about it.
Player: So why is my character carrying these acid flasks?
DM: Search me, you bought them not me.
Player: Can I make a Knowledge: Nature check.
DM: Sure, but it'll be at DC thirty five.
Player: DC what?
DM: Thirty-five. Trolls are rare.
Player: And yet we have just stumbled across one?
DM: Yeah, funny that.
Player: If this has anything to do with that guy we just met...


Let me change that for you:

No, the problem is when the conversation goes:

DM: And then, a monstrous creature, teeth the size of daggers, arms bulging with muscle, etc. etc. attacks!
Player:Oh, a troll. Cool, I get out my acid flasks.
DM: Sorry, your character doesn't know about acid working on trolls, nor does he even know what this creature is.
Player: Oh, is that not how it works in this setting then?
DM: No, it works like that, but your character wouldn't know about it because he as never seen or encountered anybody who knows about trolls, because they only exist in this forest and your character was the son of a farmer teloported here from another continent by a god.
Player: So why is my character carrying these acid flasks?
DM: Search me, you bought them not me. *Cough* metagamer *Cough*
Player: Can I make a Knowledge: Nature check?
DM: Sure, but it'll be at DC thirty five.
Player: DC what?
DM: Thirty-five. Trolls only exist in this forest.
Player: If this has anything to do with that guy we just met and it furthers the plot in order to extend my enjoyment, okay.



I'm trying to express to you how I would feel in that situation.

I don't object to the DM telling me that something is not true, or cannot be assumed in his world. I don't even object to a DM informing me, politely, that he doesn't think my character would know something.

But I *do* object to the DM arbitrarily restricting my character's knowledge to preserve the integrity of a subplot.

What if the subplot preserves the world (see above)? What if it is a main plot, not a subplot? Plot and world are intricately related, and you have no idea on the outcome unless you are the DM (and even then, you might be unsure).


He's not "reduced to less than the players", he's just no longer the one who decides what happens.

Look at it this way: a big part of the fun for the players in a traditional game is following the DM's plot and saying "wow, I wasn't expecting that!"

A big part of the fun for the DM in my style of game is responding to player actions and saying "wow! I wasn't expecting that."

You don't view "the players doing something unexpected" as an occupational hazard, you view it as the very lifeblood of your campaign.



You see, for us it works the other way around. I expect the players to provide me with sustainable, believable characters filled with intrigue, suspense, joy, sorrow, love and defeat. My world is just a backdrop for that.

My enjoyment, as a GM, does not come from presenting the players with a fiendish puzzle or shocking plot twist, it comes from watching the players play their characters.



We never play in the same setting twice, for a start. We also don't play D&D, so the "monster stats" issue never comes up. There's little in the game which revolves around solving problems, so you never have to worry about people looking for "unfair advantages."

It works for us.


You don't play D&D... ... This explains much... but other people DO have to worry about these problems, and so they fix it the best way they can.

Players also have to cope with the refusal of the DM of concepts they worked hard at, just as the DM has to cope with players screwing around with concepts they worked hard at. Like someone said, it's a two way street. And some DM (me included) do enjoy watching players work together to figure out a challenge. If all you want is to watch characters develop, you don't need to play with other people. You can just read a book or watch a movie.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The contamination effect is when you know the Troll's weakness, when others do not. if you know it, why don't others know it. If others know it, then why is Bob the troll hunter so powerful? He has no control over the forest otherwise.

And again, we're getting to "Irreconcilable differences" territory.

The point is that I do not care about Bob the Troll Hunter. Why is he so powerful? I don't care. Does he control the forest? Great, what does that have to do with my *character*?


Let me change that for you:

No, the problem is when the conversation goes:

DM: And then, a monstrous creature, teeth the size of daggers, arms bulging with muscle, etc. etc. attacks!
Player:Oh, a troll. Cool, I get out my acid flasks.
DM: Sorry, your character doesn't know about acid working on trolls, nor does he even know what this creature is.
Player: Oh, is that not how it works in this setting then?
DM: No, it works like that, but your character wouldn't know about it because he as never seen or encountered anybody who knows about trolls, because they only exist in this forest and your character was the son of a farmer teloported here from another continent by a god.
Player: So why is my character carrying these acid flasks?
DM: Search me, you bought them not me. *Cough* metagamer *Cough*
Player: Can I make a Knowledge: Nature check?
DM: Sure, but it'll be at DC thirty five.
Player: DC what?
DM: Thirty-five. Trolls only exist in this forest.
Player: If this has anything to do with that guy we just met and it furthers the plot...

Let's try that one more time, partially because I like doing these discussions and partially because it might highlight some stuff.

DM: And then, a monstrous creature, teeth the size of daggers, arms bulging with muscle, etc. etc. attacks!
Player:Oh, a troll. Cool, I get out my acid flasks.
DM: Sorry, your character doesn't know about acid working on trolls, nor does he even know what this creature is.
Player: Oh, is that not how it works in this setting then?
DM: No, it works like that, but your character wouldn't know about it because he as never seen or encountered anybody who knows about trolls, because they only exist in this forest and your character was the son of a farmer teloported here from another continent by a god.
Player: You know, I've been meaning to talk to you about that whole "teleported here by a god" thing actually...
DM: What about it?
Player: Well it's just that pretty much my entire character concept was intimately tied to the continent we just left.
DM: And?
Player: Well I've got a dead brother to avenge, a sister married to a man I hate, a widowed mother who is desperately in need of money, and I was supposed to be initiated into the Order of Saint Celia last month, game time.
DM: And doesn't all of that give you a strong, in character motivation to get home?
Player: Well, yes. But before we can get home we need to find a ship. And apparently there's only one man who can take us back to that other continent, and he's in prison. And the only way to get him out of prison is to find ... what was it again, oh yes the Amulet of Rul for the corrupt governor of the port we arrived at. Only the Amulet's been split into two halves and when we found the first half we awakened a demon, and now the church over here are blaming us and saying we should find a way to defeat it, so we're looking for a sage of some sort who is apparently the only man on this continent who knows how to defeat whatever demon it was, only he's on the other side of this forest which is apparently full of trolls.
DM: Epic, isn't it.
Player: Well ... yes I suppose it is...
DM: You see. So anyway, as I was saying, this is the only place in the world where trolls exist...


What if the subplot preserves the world (see above)? What if it is a main plot, not a subplot? Plot and world are intricately related, and you have no idea on the outcome unless you are the DM (and even then, you might be unsure).

Frankly, at that point I don't give a *damn* about the world or the plot.

We're not talking about a central tenet of the campaign here. We're not talking about somebody wanting to play an elf in a world where elves don't exist or a wizard in a world with no magic.

We're talking about somebody wanting to use fire and acid against trolls in a world where the DM has arbitrarily decided that only one person knows how.

That's not preserving the world, that's preserving the DM's ego.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Players also have to cope with the refusal of the DM of concepts they worked hard at, just as the DM has to cope with players screwing around with concepts they worked hard at. Like someone said, it's a two way street. And some DM (me included) do enjoy watching players work together to figure out a challenge. If all you want is to watch characters develop, you don't need to play with other people. You can just read a book or watch a movie.

And if all you want to do is watch people solve problems, you can watch somebody doing a crossword.

[Counterspin]

Perfect. You hide information from the player(Trolls are rare, but you don't tell the players specifically that trolls are rare, so it's a "surprise"), player makes reasonable assumptions (we're playing D&D, might be trolls or other things where acid would be useful, I buy some acid flasks), you spring hidden information on him(Trolls only exist in this forest), and then you're mean to him for not knowing the information you hid from him. "You're carrying acid flasks, that's ridiculous, don't you know that trolls only exist in this one forest? Acid is useless!" "Of course I didn't know they were this rare, or that my flasks are mostly useless. You just told me. I made this equipment list four weeks ago."

[asqwasqw]

And again, we're getting to "Irreconcilable differences" territory.

The point is that I do not care about Bob the Troll Hunter. Why is he so powerful? I don't care. Does he control the forest? Great, what does that have to do with my *character*?



Let's try that one more time, partially because I like doing these discussions and partially because it might highlight some stuff.

DM: And then, a monstrous creature, teeth the size of daggers, arms bulging with muscle, etc. etc. attacks!
Player:Oh, a troll. Cool, I get out my acid flasks.
DM: Sorry, your character doesn't know about acid working on trolls, nor does he even know what this creature is.
Player: Oh, is that not how it works in this setting then?
DM: No, it works like that, but your character wouldn't know about it because he as never seen or encountered anybody who knows about trolls, because they only exist in this forest and your character was the son of a farmer teloported here from another continent by a god.
Player: You know, I've been meaning to talk to you about that whole "teleported here by a god" thing actually...
DM: What about it?
Player: Well it's just that pretty much my entire character concept was intimately tied to the continent we just left.
DM: And?
Player: Well I've got a dead brother to avenge, a sister married to a man I hate, a widowed mother who is desperately in need of money, and I was supposed to be initiated into the Order of Saint Celia last month, game time.
DM: And doesn't all of that give you a strong, in character motivation to get home?
Player: Well, yes. But before we can get home we need to find a ship. And apparently there's only one man who can take us back to that other continent, and he's in prison. And the only way to get him out of prison is to find ... what was it again, oh yes the Amulet of Rul for the corrupt governor of the port we arrived at. Only the Amulet's been split into two halves and when we found the first half we awakened a demon, and now the church over here are blaming us and saying we should find a way to defeat it, so we're looking for a sage of some sort who is apparently the only man on this continent who knows how to defeat whatever demon it was, only he's on the other side of this forest which is apparently full of trolls.
DM: Epic, isn't it.
Player: Well ... yes I suppose it is...
DM: You see. So anyway, as I was saying, this is the only place in the world where trolls exist...



Frankly, at that point I don't give a *damn* about the world or the plot.

We're not talking about a central tenet of the campaign here. We're not talking about somebody wanting to play an elf in a world where elves don't exist or a wizard in a world with no magic.

We're talking about somebody wanting to use fire and acid against trolls in a world where the DM has arbitrarily decided that only one person knows how.

That's not preserving the world, that's preserving the DM's ego.


You may not care about Bob the troll hunter, but the rest of the world does.

And yes, I am talking about somebody wanting to use fire and acid against trolls in a world that the DM created that has decided that only one person knows how, in order to further the plot.



Perfect. You hide information from the player(Trolls are rare, but you don't tell the players specifically that trolls are rare, so it's a "surprise"), player makes reasonable assumptions (we're playing D&D, might be trolls or other things where acid would be useful, I buy some acid flasks), you spring hidden information on him(Trolls only exist in this forest), and then you're mean to him for not knowing the information you hid from him. "You're carrying acid flasks, that's ridiculous, don't you know that trolls only exist in this one forest? Acid is useless!" "Of course I didn't know they were this rare, or that my flasks are mostly useless. You just told me. I made this equipment list four weeks ago."

How is this different than the player going:
P: Oh, yeah, by the way, I added some stuff to my backstory so I know how to kill this "great evil".
DM: But, the whole point is that you this great evil is supposedly invincible, and you have to find a way to kill him.
P: But yeah, now I do.

It is just witholding information from the Player, instead of the DM.

Edit: Any why is he carrying the acid flask? He doesn't even know that trolls exist...

[Counterspin]

The GM could just replace all his troll hunters with "monster x who I slapped fast healing on" hunters and let the character play a troll hunter. Bang! No need to make any plot changes. There's still a monster with a secret weakness for the plot to use, and the player gets his wish. Now everyone can be happy!

And for the record, I think a lot of supposedly "plot vital" collisions between players and GMs could be solved just as easily.

[asqwasqw]

The GM could just replace all his troll hunters with "monster x who I slapped fast healing on" hunters and let the character play a troll hunter. Bang! No need to make any plot changes. There's still a monster with a secret weakness for the plot to use, and the player gets his wish. Now everyone can be happy!

And for the record, I think a lot of supposedly "plot vital" collisions between players and GMs could be solved just as easily.

But if the plot hinges on meeting this Monster X hunter, then it really doesn't make sense for your player to know how to kill it. It is like killing the BBEG before the last encounter. It works, and you need to find a way to adjust for that, but I don't think anybody wants this to happen.

[Counterspin]

But the players will not know about how to defeat monster x's damage resistance because, bum bum bum, it's not printed in a book that they all probably own, or recounted in legends with which they are familiar.

[Counterpower]

Yes, he should! Absolutely. The game is for the players, and if they don't want to do what the DM has planned, then the DM should run something else!

To me, that implies that the players, and their level of enjoyment, is more important than the DM, and his/her level of enjoyment.


Of course you talk with the players before hand to figure out what they want and what they don't want. A good DM will make the game enjoyable for the players through whatever means he has to--even if that means altering the path of the game mid-plot.

But the DM should talk with the players before even starting the game to figure out what they want from the game and build his campaign to fit.

Absolutely. Likewise, good players aren't going to force the DM to change the plot every ten seconds just so they can have what they want.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You may not care about Bob the troll hunter, but the rest of the world does.

You misunderstand me. I don't mean that my *character* doesn't care about Bob the Troll Hunter, I mean *I* do not care about Bob the Troll Hunter.


And yes, I am talking about somebody wanting to use fire and acid against trolls in a world that the DM created that has decided that only one person knows how, in order to further the plot.

You keep using the phrase "in order to further the plot" as if it makes everything okay.

Again, we're coming from very different angles here, because I view "in order to further the plot" as meaning essentially the same as "because he wants to".


How is this different than the player going:
P: Oh, yeah, by the way, I added some stuff to my backstory so I know how to kill this "great evil".
DM: But, the whole point is that you this great evil is supposedly invincible, and you have to find a way to kill him.
P: But yeah, now I do.

It is just witholding information from the Player, instead of the DM.

If it is within the social contract of your game that a player can do that, then a player can do that, and the correct response is "cool, what did you add?"

It that is outside the social contract of your game then that is outside the social contract of your game.


Edit: Any why is he carrying the acid flask? He doesn't even know that trolls exist...

But you've only just *told* him that he doesn't know trolls exist.

[Dan_Hemmens]

To me, that implies that the players, and their level of enjoyment, is more important than the DM, and his/her level of enjoyment.

No, it implies that the GM should derive his enjoyment from running a game that the players enjoy, and not from watching the players slog through his prewritten plot.

If I'm cooking dinner for a friend, I'll cook their favourite food, not my favourite food. That's just being a good host.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But if the plot hinges on meeting this Monster X hunter, then it really doesn't make sense for your player to know how to kill it. It is like killing the BBEG before the last encounter. It works, and you need to find a way to adjust for that, but I don't think anybody wants this to happen.

A game in which the plot hinges on a meeting with an NPC is not a game I would wish to play, or a game as I would run it.

[barawn]

Because really, are you honestly telling me that you think having an NPC that nobody cares about extort 500 GP from the players, and act smug qualifies as "dramatic?"

1) No. The subsequent plotline where the players come back, sneak around, manage to find out the secret behind the troll raids by one of the characters posing as a troll, and being killed in the process, telling his friends "he... used fire on me." That would be dramatic.

2) What makes you think no one cares about him?

3) The players chose to not get information from him. What if it wasn't a troll? What if it was a homebrewed creature, and the players couldn't figure out what it was vulnerable to?

I really, really don't understand any of the arguments you make, because they basically all boil down to "I think this is stupid" even when there's an absolutely analogous situation that you don't think is stupid, and specifically gave a response to which totally avoided metagamed knowledge (the smallpox example).

As far as I can tell, the basic disagreement is that you can't separate out-of-character knowledge from in-character knowledge at all, and therefore, the DM must construct the world to accomodate your limitation. Hence the reason that you don't run multiple campaigns in the same setting.

I'm not being critical at all - whatever makes you happy. But this is getting entirely pointless, because it is perfectly possible to separate in-character and out of character knowledge, and thus all of the issues that you're complaining about go completely away. For some reason, you just aren't acknowledging that it's even possible to have fun while maintaining the fourth wall.


By saying, "You have no way of knowing about this," you are inadvertently saying, "This is how your character is."

I don't understand this at all. Saying "you have no way of knowing about this" is saying this is how the world is, not this is how your character is.

Or, at least, it could. If the DM is indiscriminately applying that rule to one PC alone, that's crap. But if virtually no one knows about trolls and their weaknesses, that's just the way the world is.

[asqwasqw]

You misunderstand me. I don't mean that my *character* doesn't care about Bob the Troll Hunter, I mean *I* do not care about Bob the Troll Hunter.



You keep using the phrase "in order to further the plot" as if it makes everything okay.

Again, we're coming from very different angles here, because I view "in order to further the plot" as meaning essentially the same as "because he wants to".



If it is within the social contract of your game that a player can do that, then a player can do that, and the correct response is "cool, what did you add?"

It that is outside the social contract of your game then that is outside the social contract of your game.



But you've only just *told* him that he doesn't know trolls exist.


Isn't not caring about Bob the Troll hunter the same as not caring about the distant continent that you will never visit but is still part of the world? It maintains realism.

And I view further the plot as further the enjoyment of both the DM and the players. Just because he wants to do it doesn't make it wrong.

Likewise, if it is in the social contract of my game that the DM can say no, you don't know that, and the player has to say fine, it doesn't change the fact that we are arguing about it.

But you only *just* told the DM that you changed your backstory and so he has to rewrite the plot. If a player changes something and the DM has to react to is, and a DM changes something and the player has to react to it, how is that different?

Edit:

A game in which the plot hinges on a meeting with an NPC is not a game I would wish to play, or a game as I would run it.

So, no encounters with the King? No seeing the BBEG assasinate the Grand Duke. NO meeting the helpless farmer? Why bother to create a world at all? The way you play, as I see it, is too freeform for even me. But that's okay. :smallbiggrin:

[Counterspin]

You're missing the point Barawn. It's not about whether or not we can separate ic/oc knowledge. It's whether that is a positive or a negative convention.

[barawn]

Absolutely. Likewise, good players aren't going to force the DM to change the plot every ten seconds just so they can have what they want.

Exactly.

But this thread isn't about good players. It's about what bad players (and DMs) do.

Getting back to the entire original post, I completely agree with the DM that he should've been cheesed off that the melee combatants magically knew to avoid a close spell which would've killed them.

I don't agree with the way he handled it (getting upset at the players).

The way you deal with metagaming is by talking with the players to get rid of it. If it sticks around, it's bad. Every single example Dan's given, for instance, of a "this is good" situation involved getting rid of the broken fourth wall. So I really, really don't understand the disagreement.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Isn't not caring about Bob the Troll hunter the same as not caring about the distant continent that you will never visit but is still part of the world? It maintains realism.

Over on the WotC boards, we wound up with a similar sort of discussion in which somebody posted this analogy (paraphrased):

"Suppose you have a game set in Germany in 1941. Your characters are all jews, living in Germany. How is the plight of the women of Nanking remotely relevant to your game?"


And I view further the plot as further the enjoyment of both the DM and the players. Just because he wants to do it doesn't make it wrong.

And this, again, is the problem I outlined above. The plot furthers everybody's enjoyment by definition, so anything I do to further the plot must be justified.


Likewise, if it is in the social contract of my game that the DM can say no, you don't know that, and the player has to say fine, it doesn't change the fact that we are arguing about it.

But you only *just* told the DM that you changed your backstory and so he has to rewrite the plot. If a player changes something and the DM has to react to is, and a DM changes something and the player has to react to it, how is that different?

It's not. They're both crappy things to do. You shouldn't spring information on people as an absolute.

This includes both "surprise! my character is a trained-from-birth troll-hunter" *and* "surprise! your characters don't know what trolls are."

[Edited to add]


So, no encounters with the King? No seeing the BBEG assasinate the Grand Duke. NO meeting the helpless farmer? Why bother to create a world at all? The way you play, as I see it, is too freeform for even me. But that's okay.

No "if the PCs don't encounter the king, the game will go nowhere." No "if the PCs don't see the BBEG assassinate the Grand Duke, the game will go nowhere. No "if the players don't meet the helpless farmer, the game will go nowhere."

If the players decide to seek audience with the king, they might get an audience with the king, but the "plot" will not hinge on that encounter.

[barawn]

You're missing the point Barawn. It's not about whether or not we can separate ic/oc knowledge. It's whether that is a positive or a negative convention.

I haven't seen anyone give any example, anywhere, of where metagamed information is a good thing.

Every single example does not have it.

Dan's "smallpox" example: no metagamed information. DM and player discuss how to deal with it, and do. Nothing changes (the contrived 'the player and DM come up with a plot' could easily have been prearranged by the DM, hoping the player would take that route).

Dan's "troll" example (the first one): no metagamed information. Player asks DM, DM implies that it's reasonable knowledge for the character to have.

Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head. So long as a player asks the DM (thus, presumedly, accepting the possibility that they could say no), there's no breaking of the fourth wall.

You (and Dan) might be implying tht you don't like games where the DM ever says no. Which is fine, although I doubt it's true in the least. But merely asking the question is enough.

[barawn]

This includes both "surprise! my character is a trained-from-birth troll-hunter" *and* "surprise! your characters don't know what trolls are."

Why is it a surprise that your character doesn't know what trolls are?

What knowledge is supposed to be common?

Isn't that the DM's call? Does the DM in the beginning of the game have to lay out every single creature which you're supposed to know or not know of?

I mean, if the DM homebrews a monster, is the character supposed to be familiar with that? What if it's a single enemy, a single BBEG? How is that any different than an ultra-rare troll?

[Dan_Hemmens]

I haven't seen anyone give any example, anywhere, of where metagamed information is a good thing.

Every single example does not have it.

I gave an example further up this thread: Your character hates elves, but you agree to adventure with an Elf, because you know that your friend wants to play an elf.


Dan's "smallpox" example: no metagamed information. DM and player discuss how to deal with it, and do. Nothing changes (the contrived 'the player and DM come up with a plot' could easily have been prearranged by the DM, hoping the player would take that route).

There'd be nothing wrong with the DM making up a plot in advance and only using it if the players went for it.


Dan's "troll" example (the first one): no metagamed information. Player asks DM, DM implies that it's reasonable knowledge for the character to have.

It's still metagame information. The players only get it because they bring it up out of character.


Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head. So long as a player asks the DM (thus, presumedly, accepting the possibility that they could say no), there's no breaking of the fourth wall.

You (and Dan) might be implying tht you don't like games where the DM ever says no. Which is fine, although I doubt it's true in the least. But merely asking the question is enough.

That's still metagaming. It's just metagaming with permission.

[asqwasqw]

Over on the WotC boards, we wound up with a similar sort of discussion in which somebody posted this analogy (paraphrased):

"Suppose you have a game set in Germany in 1941. Your characters are all jews, living in Germany. How is the plight of the women of Nanking remotely relevant to your game?"



And this, again, is the problem I outlined above. The plot furthers everybody's enjoyment by definition, so anything I do to further the plot must be justified.



It's not. They're both crappy things to do. You shouldn't spring information on people as an absolute.

This includes both "surprise! my character is a trained-from-birth troll-hunter" *and* "surprise! your characters don't know what trolls are."

[Edited to add]



No "if the PCs don't encounter the king, the game will go nowhere." No "if the PCs don't see the BBEG assassinate the Grand Duke, the game will go nowhere. No "if the players don't meet the helpless farmer, the game will go nowhere."

If the players decide to seek audience with the king, they might get an audience with the king, but the "plot" will not hinge on that encounter.


You may not care about Nanking, but the DM does. If you see a hundred Chinese woman suddenly run into Germany, doesn't that kind of ruin the game for you? "Oh, I'm not concerned with the plight of Nanking." What happens if you encounter a situation where you are? Another example: You are playing in a Middle Ages style campaign. In a cave which you do not encounter, there are astronauts and guns, etc. etc. Wouldn't that kind of ruin the setting, if not for you, then for the DM?

What's wrong with furthering the plot. Is it so important to have to be able to kill that creature instead of letting Bob do it?

I know its crappy. Everybody I know does neither. But we aren't arguing best case scenereo here, but the worst.

What is your definition of plot, Dan? Mine is: If A, then B, but if C, then D. You still need to do either A or C, or nothing will happen to extend the plot. You can choose not to do it, but you have to do it sooner or later.

[Dan_Hemmens]

1) No. The subsequent plotline where the players come back, sneak around, manage to find out the secret behind the troll raids by one of the characters posing as a troll, and being killed in the process, telling his friends "he... used fire on me." That would be dramatic.

No, dramatic is when your characters have a personal stake in something. This is still just a quest.


2) What makes you think no one cares about him?

Because I don't, and I'm taking the role of "player" in this exchange.


3) The players chose to not get information from him. What if it wasn't a troll? What if it was a homebrewed creature, and the players couldn't figure out what it was vulnerable to?

Then it would be *fractionally* less annoying.


I really, really don't understand any of the arguments you make, because they basically all boil down to "I think this is stupid" even when there's an absolutely analogous situation that you don't think is stupid, and specifically gave a response to which totally avoided metagamed knowledge (the smallpox example).

Actually, I did think the smallpox example was stupid, if it involved the players being able to do *nothing* about it, and then having an NPC come along and cure the disease. Which is roughly the same idea.


As far as I can tell, the basic disagreement is that you can't separate out-of-character knowledge from in-character knowledge at all, and therefore, the DM must construct the world to accomodate your limitation. Hence the reason that you don't run multiple campaigns in the same setting.

No, it's that I don't enjoy "roleplaying" not knowing stuff I in fact know. Because for me "roleplaying" doesn't mean "pretending" it means "making significant decisions in character."

I can separate in and out of character knowledge just fine, but if you put me in a situation where I have to choose between (a) using out of character knowledge and (b) being bored or getting my character killed, I would rather choose (a).


I'm not being critical at all - whatever makes you happy. But this is getting entirely pointless, because it is perfectly possible to separate in-character and out of character knowledge, and thus all of the issues that you're complaining about go completely away. For some reason, you just aren't acknowledging that it's even possible to have fun while maintaining the fourth wall.

I'm saying that I wouldn't have fun in the sorts of games you describe. That is all.


I don't understand this at all. Saying "you have no way of knowing about this" is saying this is how the world is, not this is how your character is.

No it isn't.

If your world has even the *slightest* degree of complexity to it, there should be more than one possible source for any given datum of information. So saying "your character could not possibly know this" *is* making a statement about your character, and the statement is is making is "I really don't care about him."

Or, at least, it could. If the DM is indiscriminately applying that rule to one PC alone, that's crap. But if virtually no one knows about trolls and their weaknesses, that's just the way the world is.[/QUOTE]

[Dan_Hemmens]

You may not care about Nanking, but the DM does.

Then the DM cares more about his world than about my character, which is not what I want from a DM.


If you see a hundred Chinese woman suddenly run into Germany, doesn't that kind of ruin the game for you? "Oh, I'm not concerned with the plight of Nanking." What happens if you encounter a situation where you are?

Where I am what? Concerned? But I'm not, and that's the point.


Another example: You are playing in a Middle Ages style campaign. In a cave which you do not encounter, there are astronauts and guns, etc. etc. Wouldn't that kind of ruin the setting, if not for you, then for the DM?

It would confuse the hell out of me, but would it ruin the setting for the DM? Of course not, he put it there.

And what would *really* piss me off would be if I got to the end of the middle-ages style campaign and the GM said, casually "you know, actually the game was *really* about astronauts and guns"


What's wrong with furthering the plot. Is it so important to have to be able to kill that creature instead of letting Bob do it?

It's about making a statement. It's about saying "Bob, I really don't care about you or your subplot or your farcical ability to control the trolls. My character just wants to get back to the continent he came from."


I know its crappy. Everybody I know does neither. But we aren't arguing best case scenereo here, but the worst.

A worst case scenario always sucks, why discuss it?


What is your definition of plot, Dan? Mine is: If A, then B, but if C, then D. You still need to do either A or C, or nothing will happen to extend the plot. You can choose not to do it, but you have to do it sooner or later.

My definition of plot is: whatever happens, it matters.

[barawn]

I gave an example further up this thread: Your character hates elves, but you agree to adventure with an Elf, because you know that your friend wants to play an elf.

But there are a billion different ways to resolve that, easily. The important point is resolving it at all. It doesn't matter what the reason is for the resolution. Just that there is one.


No, dramatic is when your characters have a personal stake in something.

Hey look! The town that Joe Trollslayer is tormenting is the ancestral home of one of the PCs, which he just found out after killing the man who orphaned him at a young age.

Poof, instant personal stake. Still has the same problem as before. The basic problem there is that you're assuming the players know about trolls. There's no reason for that to be true.


If your world has even the *slightest* degree of complexity to it, there should be more than one possible source for any given datum of information.

That's not true in the least. I guarantee there are things that I know that no one else on the planet knows, and we have seven billion people, whereas any medieval world will have far, far fewer.

In fact, medieval worlds are significantly less complex than our current one. It's far easier for information to stay disparate, because there's just not as much information flow.

It's entirely possible that the entire argument is boiling down to "I don't like dealing with many disparate worlds. I prefer to live in a bog-standard world and run different characters." Which is fine. But in that case, you're not metagaming - you're just restricting your options so that metagaming doesn't exist.


That's still metagaming. It's just metagaming with permission.

That's the entire point - metagaming with permission doesn't break the fourth wall, whereas doing it without does. Because the DM can always adjust the world to accomodate it such that there's no flow.

[Counterspin]

Example of good metagaming : My GM set up a situation where there was personal wealth on one side of the balance, and being unmolested on the other, on the presumption that the players would be more interested in the money. He invited someone in to play the BBEG, did a fair amount of setup, was really engaged. My character wanted nothing to do with it. I towed the line as far as I could, but eventually I broke down. Now we were only half an hour into this subplot, the guy playing the BBEG had come across town, and we were at a dead end. The whole thing was supposed to end in a pit fight, which my character also wasn't hugely interested in, but I decided to sign on to that portion of the plot because I thought everyone would have more fun. So we had the pit fight, people enjoyed themselves, and the session was better for it.

Barawn quote :It's entirely possible that the entire argument is boiling down to "I don't like dealing with many disparate worlds. I prefer to live in a bog-standard world and run different characters."

You're wrong. No one has said or even suggested that. There has been hostility to GMs restricting information about the world, but no one has said anything about disliking disparate worlds. A world that is a collaboration between player and DM is not generic.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But there are a billion different ways to resolve that, easily. The important point is resolving it at all. It doesn't matter what the reason is for the resolution. Just that there is one.

And every single one of them involves metagaming.


Hey look! The town that Joe Trollslayer is tormenting is the ancestral home of one of the PCs, which he just found out after killing the man who orphaned him at a young age.

Poof, instant personal stake. Still has the same problem as before. The basic problem there is that you're assuming the players know about trolls. There's no reason for that to be true.

No personal stake whatsoever.

Just saying "your character now has a personal stake in this" doesn't make it true.


That's not true in the least. I guarantee there are things that I know that no one else on the planet knows, and we have seven billion people, whereas any medieval world will have far, far fewer.

How many of them are information so important it can hold an entire town ransom for three generations?


In fact, medieval worlds are significantly less complex than our current one. It's far easier for information to stay disparate, because there's just not as much information flow.

It's entirely possible that the entire argument is boiling down to "I don't like dealing with many disparate worlds. I prefer to live in a bog-standard world and run different characters." Which is fine. But in that case, you're not metagaming - you're just restricting your options so that metagaming doesn't exist.

Umm ... how does that follow.

What I'm saying is that I don't like games where the DM cares more about his plot than my character. Which is exactly the situation you are describing.

[Fax Celestis]

In fact, medieval worlds are significantly less complex than our current one. It's far easier for information to stay disparate, because there's just not as much information flow.

Except D&D--and indeed, any world with magic--is not a medieval world. Information travels quicker when people can teleport (teleport, plane shift), send messages across miles without issue (sending, message, whispering wind), set up a permanent teleportation service from one place to another (teleportation circle + permanency), or even make a permanent gate to another plane (gate). Yes, it costs money. Everything costs money. But it's worth it for most kingdoms to remain interconnected, since it increases the opportunity for trade--and increases the profits of the kingdom via tariffs. It's certainly a worthwhile investment.

And as such, communications is much much easier than medieval times, and people are about as well-informed as they are today.

[Winterwind]

I think the reason why you have so much trouble to come to agreement is that you both have completely different styles in RPGs.

I'll try to intermediate, because I believe I have at least some understanding of both styles, having encountered and played with both of them in the past. If I am misrepresenting anyone, I apologise.

From your posts, barawn, I got the impression that you place emphasis on the plot, as devised by the DM, and possibly also challenges, as in overcoming battles, traps, riddles and whatsoever. You have some great story you want to tell, wherein the characters play the main roles. The outcome of the story is in the characters' hands - they could defeat the villain or side with him, or whatever the situation will allow. Still, you derive major enjoyment from the scenes the characters go through - you could be compared with a movie director or script writer, who tries to work in a thrilling action scene (the combat encounter, which the characters struggle to - and barely overcome), a jaw-dropping background (in form of encounters with powerful NPCs, for example), and scenes filled with drama or tragedy, in which the characters may grow and change. Fair enough; that's how our group works as well (by free choice), and from reading in this and other forums I guess this form is generally more often used.

Now, as for Dan - here it is the characters who matter most, by far more than in your approach. NPCs and world play a role, sure - but only as a backdrop for the characters developing new sides and edges of their personality. The Troll-Hunter NPC tells nothing about the characters themselves. Who are they (possibly - other people capable of taking down a troll?)? How will they react and what will they do, when given complete freedom? If the troll is not somehow related to the characters, why did it appear at all? Dan has already stated he finds combat situations to be usually tedious, and disconnected from roleplay at any rate, and since having OOC-knowledge can speed up defeating the encounter and returning back to real roleplaying, that's what should be used to increase fun for the participants. Of course, a DM who played Dan's style would not have placed a troll there to begin with - rather some situation which either directly addressed the characters background, or demanded for a moral decision which allowed the characters to show personality.
Short: if anything does not open up direct possibilities for a character to further elaborate on who she or he is, then it has no justification whatsoever to even appear!
The DM's job in this approach is to give the characters plenty of possibilities to show who they are and the DM, of course, should be interested in finding just that out. Just as in your approach, the players should be interested in being presented the story/plot. And, finally, it's not like Dan's style does not allow for a plot as well. It's just that the plot is intrinsically related to the characters, and always has to take second place as compared to the importance of characterisation.

I've played both approaches (Dan's approach only in diceless games - I find they suit this style far better. Besides combat in diceless games being, in my opinion, at least ten times more interesting than combat in reglemented games. At least.) and they are both very fun. But also very, very different.

And, once more, if I misrepresented anybody, sorry again. ;)

[asqwasqw]

Then the DM cares more about his world than about my character, which is not what I want from a DM.



Where I am what? Concerned? But I'm not, and that's the point.



It would confuse the hell out of me, but would it ruin the setting for the DM? Of course not, he put it there.

And what would *really* piss me off would be if I got to the end of the middle-ages style campaign and the GM said, casually "you know, actually the game was *really* about astronauts and guns"



It's about making a statement. It's about saying "Bob, I really don't care about you or your subplot or your farcical ability to control the trolls. My character just wants to get back to the continent he came from."



A worst case scenario always sucks, why discuss it?



My definition of plot is: whatever happens, it matters.

The world influences the plot, which influences the character. If the world is screwy, the plot is screwy, which messes up the character.

You know what would piss me off as a DM? A guy bring a D20 modern character into my setting.

Okay, you get eaten by a giant. No control now, huh? The point is, having no control is no fun for either the player or the DM. If your a player, why not say, okay, I let Bob rescue me. I don't see what you have against that.

Fires are worst-case sceneros. Are you saying we shouldn't have a fire department. Every example I put (I think) was a worst case scenereo. I never play like that, and neither do the people I play with. But I still argue.

I play Final Fantasy or Fallout style, not sandbox style in which you influence everything. There's a main quest, sidequests, and random stuff. If you ignore the main quest, it is gonna come back to you. Do you have any BBEG's dan?

[Counterspin]

But the GM still has control over every single thing in the world except for the character. For instance, you have the poor modern character eaten by a T-rex. How can you conceivable construe this as "Having no control?"

We're not saying you shouldn't have a fire department. We're saying that you shouldn't act like you're always on fire. There should be a way to deal with problem players. It's called talking things out. That's your fire department.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The world influences the plot, which influences the character. If the world is screwy, the plot is screwy, which messes up the character.

There is a difference between "screwy" and "different in some small detail from how the DM imagined it."


You know what would piss me off as a DM? A guy bring a D20 modern character into my setting.

Good thing nobody would do that then, isn't it.


Okay, you get eaten by a giant. No control now, huh? The point is, having no control is no fun for either the player or the DM. If your a player, why not say, okay, I let Bob rescue me. I don't see what you have against that.

Because it carries with it the strong implication that the whole *point* of that encounter was for us to get rescued by Bob.

Even leaving my hip-indie-DM-lite play preferences, that's going to piss a lot of people off.

Essentially what you have just done is risked killing the PCs by putting them into a fight with a troll which just got a serious effective CR increase (because they aren't allowed to circumvent its regeneration). Solely for the purpose of introducing an NPC.


Fires are worst-case sceneros. Are you saying we shouldn't have a fire department.

I think we should have a fire department, but when I'm deciding which game to run next with my group, I don't think "Hmm, well Unknown Armies is really cool, but it wouldn't work if the house was on fire, so I won't play it."


Every example I put (I think) was a worst case scenereo. I never play like that, and neither do the people I play with. But I still argue.

Again, this is a gap in our attitudes.

I play games with the assumption that the people I'm playing with aren't jerks. If somebody is a jerk, I do not play games with them.

Therefore, I do not need systems in place to handle jerks.

To follow the fire analogy: in my world, fires simply do not happen, so the fire department is a huge waste of public money.


I play Final Fantasy or Fallout style, not sandbox style in which you influence everything. There's a main quest, sidequests, and random stuff. If you ignore the main quest, it is gonna come back to you. Do you have any BBEG's dan?

Depends what you mean by BBEGs. I have guys, who are big, bad, and evil, but crucially I don't view any of them as "the BBEG."

In my current Weapons of the Gods game there's an insane martial artist who kills randomly and is romantically obsessed with one of the PCs. They really want to take the guy down, but he's not "the BBEG". Neither is the corrupt musician who is not-so-secretly controlling him, or the Unrighteous Emperor, or his sorcerous eunuch adviser.

[Jayabalard]

Yes, he should! Absolutely. The game is for the players, and if they don't want to do what the DM has planned, then the DM should run something else!The game is for the players and the DM ... not one or the other. If the players don't want to do what the DM has planned, they aren't obligated to do so... if the players don't want to play the DM's game, they are free to wander around and only have the DM react to their actions. If the players consistently don't want to do what the GM has planned then someone else should probably GM, At least that way you don't waste everyone's time.

And just because the PC's pass up on the GM's storyline doesn't mean that the storyline stops... the world has many storylines and only some of the involve the PCs, either through the PC's choice or the GM's choice. They just aren't the heroes (or villains) of those stories.


Then the DM cares more about his world than about my character, which is not what I want from a DM.I GM in rpgs because I enjoy world building; the world is more important to me than any single character, since it's why I'm there.

I don't make major alterations to my world just to suit a player's unreasonable demands; it doesn't matter if they asking for laser beams, invincibility and godmode at level 1, or are trying to use inappropriate knowledge; or just demanding to play a character that doesn't fit in the world just because they want to be different.


Again, this is a gap in our attitudes.

I play games with the assumption that the people I'm playing with aren't jerks. If somebody is a jerk, I do not play games with them.

Therefore, I do not need systems in place to handle jerks.

To follow the fire analogy: in my world, fires simply do not happen, so the fire department is a huge waste of public money.Since we're stating out assumptions:

I play games with the assumption that the people I'm playing with are human beings, and they're not perfect, nor are they always going to agree on what is and isn't appropriate for the game world. As the final authority on the game world, the GM is going to have to make rulings when there isn't a consensus, and the players are going to have to be unselfish enough to give accept limits to make the game as a whole better.

Therefore, I have use for systems to deal with the flaws of being human and "the fire department is not a waste of public money".

[asqwasqw]

There is a difference between "screwy" and "different in some small detail from how the DM imagined it."



Good thing nobody would do that then, isn't it.



Because it carries with it the strong implication that the whole *point* of that encounter was for us to get rescued by Bob.

Even leaving my hip-indie-DM-lite play preferences, that's going to piss a lot of people off.

Essentially what you have just done is risked killing the PCs by putting them into a fight with a troll which just got a serious effective CR increase (because they aren't allowed to circumvent its regeneration). Solely for the purpose of introducing an NPC.



I think we should have a fire department, but when I'm deciding which game to run next with my group, I don't think "Hmm, well Unknown Armies is really cool, but it wouldn't work if the house was on fire, so I won't play it."



Again, this is a gap in our attitudes.

I play games with the assumption that the people I'm playing with aren't jerks. If somebody is a jerk, I do not play games with them.

Therefore, I do not need systems in place to handle jerks.

To follow the fire analogy: in my world, fires simply do not happen, so the fire department is a huge waste of public money.



Depends what you mean by BBEGs. I have guys, who are big, bad, and evil, but crucially I don't view any of them as "the BBEG."

In my current Weapons of the Gods game there's an insane martial artist who kills randomly and is romantically obsessed with one of the PCs. They really want to take the guy down, but he's not "the BBEG". Neither is the corrupt musician who is not-so-secretly controlling him, or the Unrighteous Emperor, or his sorcerous eunuch adviser.

How do you know what the DM imagined? For all you know, Bob the Troll Hunter is your main nemisis, and this is your first chance to meet him.

Good thing nobody would pull the *guns in a D&D campaign* thing huh?

Picture another encounter. The whole point of that was to gain XP and treasure. The whole point of that one was to rescue the farmer. I don't know about anybody else, but I do use encounters to further the story (as well as everything else). If that risks my players, so be it. You may view combat as unnescesary, but I don't.

I play with the assumption that my players aren't jerks. What I argue with is another matter.

So how do your campaigns end? Do you just get bored and stop?

[Fax Celestis]

The game is for the players and the DM ... not one or the other. If the players don't want to do what the DM has planned, they aren't obligated to do so... if the players don't want to play the DM's game, they are free to wander around and only have the DM react to their actions. If the players consistently don't want to do what the GM has planned then someone else should probably GM, At least that way you don't waste everyone's time.

And just because the PC's pass up on the GM's storyline doesn't mean that the storyline stops... the world has many storylines and only some of the involve the PCs, either through the PC's choice or the GM's choice. They just aren't the heroes (or villains) of those stories.

I don't see how our statements are mutually exclusive. Yes, the DM should have some say in what happens in the game, but fundamentally, the game is about having fun. That's why it's a game and not a chore.

If the DM is running a game that no one is having fun in, that's bad and should stop. Similarly, if the players are making the game not fun for the DM, things need to change. In essence, the game is a construct created by the will of many, designed for the entertainment of all involved.


I GM in rpgs because I enjoy world building; the world is more important to me than any single character, since it's why I'm there.

I don't make major alterations to my world just to suit a player's unreasonable demands; it doesn't matter if they asking for laser beams, invincibility and godmode at level 1, or are trying to use inappropriate knowledge; or just demanding to play a character that doesn't fit in the world just because they want to be different.

And you shouldn't! There's no reason you should. What's being said, though, is that the players should have equal say in what happens in that world as the DM does, even if their scope of influence is limited merely to their character. If this leads to the character's untimely demise, so be it. But the DM shouldn't make the game impossible/not fun/ludicrous for the sole purpose of "But that's what I think." Because, guess what? That may be what you think, but the rest of the players may not think so. And--as the game is a construct of all involved (as I stated above)--that means that things may not go as intended, or may change, or may not even work.

In essence, what you deem as "inappropriate" may well be exactly what a character was trying to build around, and in that case that character does not belong in that world. But if that character's already in that world? Well, you can either metagame by allowing them the inappropriate bit, or metagame by denying them the inappropriate bit.


I play games with the assumption that the people I'm playing with are human beings, and they're not perfect, nor are they always going to agree on what is and isn't appropriate for the game world. As the final authority on the game world, the GM is going to have to make rulings when there isn't a consensus, and the players are going to have to be unselfish enough to give accept limits to make the game as a whole better.

And that's the purpose of the DM. However, there are instances where the players can--and should--overrule the DM, both in-character and out, because, while the DM is the authority on the world, the PCs are the authority on their characters.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I don't make major alterations to my world just to suit a player's unreasonable demands; it doesn't matter if they asking for laser beams, invincibility and godmode at level 1, or are trying to use inappropriate knowledge; or just demanding to play a character that doesn't fit in the world just because they want to be different.

What do you define a "unreasonable."

If somebody wants to play a nobleman, is that unreasonable ("I've already defined all the noblemen!")

What about if somebody wants to play the illegitimate son of one of your NPCs ("That NPC does *not* have an illegitimate son").

The problem is, when a world is first designed, the PCs don't exist, so by the sheer fact of existing the PCs will change the world on some level.

If you refuse to let the existence of a PC alter your world, your PCs are stuck being "just guys."

[Fax Celestis]

How do you know what the DM imagined? For all you know, Bob the Troll Hunter is your main nemisis, and this is your first chance to meet him.

Good thing nobody would pull the *guns in a D&D campaign* thing huh?

Picture another encounter. The whole point of that was to gain XP and treasure. The whole point of that one was to rescue the farmer. I don't know about anybody else, but I do use encounters to further the story (as well as everything else). If that risks my players, so be it. You may view combat as unnescesary, but I don't.

That's entirely feasible and reasonable. However, denying the PCs the lack of a tool simply to further your own ends as a DM is tantamount to saying, "Screw you, this is my game and this is how it's going to go." So what if the PCs figure out a way to kill the BBEG four levels before they're supposed to and cut out a bunch of the plot? Reward them for being inventive instead of punishing them for stepping out of line.

[Wardog]

With the troll-hunter example, wouldn't the easiest solution to be to use home-brew trolls that have a different weakness?

After all, you are in a sense using "non-standard" rules already when you decide that trolls are incredably rare, only exist in this forest, and noone apart from Joe Trollhunter - not even the locals who are preyed on by the trolls - know about their weakness.

Heck, perhaps "everybody" does know about trolls.

Perhaps "everybody" knows trolls trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid.

Except for the people who live near tham, and have found out the hard way that "everybody" is wrong.

And of course Joe Trollhunter, who knows their true weakness. (Or else knows what magic/herb/widget is overruling the trolls' natural vulnerabilities).


So there we have an easy way to ensure that neither the characters nor the players know from the off how to defeat your "special monster", but without requiring the players to ignore their own knowledge of the game rules.

With the added advantage of the plot not getting broken if someone takes loads of alchemists' fire or memorizes nothing but fireballs for no reason other than that they're pyromaniacs and would fireball anything anyway.

[Jayabalard]

We're not saying you shouldn't have a fire department. We're saying that you shouldn't act like you're always on fire. There should be a way to deal with problem players. It's called talking things out. That's your fire department.Why do you keep arguing this? Do you really think that someone is saying that a GM shouldn't talk to the players first? Do you still not understand that people are talking about the worst case, where a consensus cannot be reached and that no amount of "talking things out" leads to an agreement?

if you need an example of an argument where no amount of talking things out is going to lead to a consensus you should check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48663)... it has some great examples of people who are set in their beliefs who won't change their mind.

[Dan_Hemmens]

How do you know what the DM imagined? For all you know, Bob the Troll Hunter is your main nemisis, and this is your first chance to meet him.

Again, this is an expectation clash. The DM doesn't decide who my nemesis is. I do.


Good thing nobody would pull the *guns in a D&D campaign* thing huh?

I don't follow you.


Picture another encounter. The whole point of that was to gain XP and treasure. The whole point of that one was to rescue the farmer. I don't know about anybody else, but I do use encounters to further the story (as well as everything else). If that risks my players, so be it. You may view combat as unnescesary, but I don't.

Again, I'm coming at this from a completely different angle. I don't have a "story" to be furthered. I have a situation in progress.


I play with the assumption that my players aren't jerks. What I argue with is another matter.

Fair enough. I argue from the perspective that players are reasonable people who are to be trusted.


So how do your campaigns end? Do you just get bored and stop?

They go on until we reach a satisfying conclusion, usually one involving the PCs achieving some kind of goal which they themselves have defined.

[Fax Celestis]

They go on until we reach a satisfying conclusion, usually one involving the PCs achieving some kind of goal which they themselves have defined.

An example: I ran a murder-mystery campaign where I dropped the PCs in a city and gave them some starting evidence. They were left to draw their own conclusions about the whole mess, and eventually chose who they decided was guilty.

They were wrong, but the game was over, because they'd concluded the adventure. It wasn't until afterwards that I informed them they had it wrong and pointed out the missed bits of evidence that made it more apparent.

[asqwasqw]

That's entirely feasible and reasonable. However, denying the PCs the lack of a tool simply to further your own ends as a DM is tantamount to saying, "Screw you, this is my game and this is how it's going to go." So what if the PCs figure out a way to kill the BBEG four levels before they're supposed to and cut out a bunch of the plot? Reward them for being inventive instead of punishing them for stepping out of line.

No, what I am saying is that if the players kill the BBEG beforehand, it kills the enjoyment for everybody. And I see no problem denying the PC's the lack of a tool because a) it is unrealistic, b)to further his own ends.

I don't think you understand my idea of a DM. When a DM furthers his own end, he does it for the PC's. They give up an encounter now in order to further the plot, allowing them to have more enjoyable experiences later on.

I just don't see what is wrong about a DM furthering his own ends, because what he is trying to accomplish is making the game more fun for everybody.

[Fax Celestis]

No, what I am saying is that if the players kill the BBEG beforehand, it kills the enjoyment for everybody. And I see no problem denying the PC's the lack of a tool because a) it is unrealistic, b)to further his own ends.

I don't think you understand my idea of a DM. When a DM furthers his own end, he does it for the PC's. They give up an encounter now in order to further the plot, allowing them to have more enjoyable experiences later on.

I just don't see what is wrong about a DM furthering his own ends, because what he is trying to accomplish is making the game more fun for everybody.

How does success equate lack of fun? I would personally feel terrific about killing The Bad Guy early. It doesn't matter if you're fudging die rolls or HP to save the BBEG; you're denying the players their fun by denying their ability to succeed, regardless of whether it furthers the plot or not.

The game is about the PCs succeeding at their task--it doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do. And if they somehow think of something brilliant enough to finish things before the whole plot has unfolded, so what? That's how it fell. Let it lie, move on, and go to your next adventure.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I just don't see what is wrong about a DM furthering his own ends, because what he is trying to accomplish is making the game more fun for everybody.

Nine times out of ten, there's nothing wrong with it.

But.

This leads to the problem I identified about three pages back.

Essentially what you're saying is that because the DM is *trying* to make the game more fun for everybody, anything the DM wants to do must by definition make the game more fun for everybody, and that's where it all falls down.

You're relying on the assumption that the DM is the only possible source of fun in the game. Now sometimes that's true. Sometimes player show up, sit down, and wait for the DM to entertain them. In that case yes, the DM can do whatever he likes, because that's the position he's been put in.

But if your players are *active* people who have their *own* ideas about what would be fun, the DM has to step back, because he's no longer an entertainer, he's a host.

[asqwasqw]

Again, this is an expectation clash. The DM doesn't decide who my nemesis is. I do.



I don't follow you.



Again, I'm coming at this from a completely different angle. I don't have a "story" to be furthered. I have a situation in progress.



Fair enough. I argue from the perspective that players are reasonable people who are to be trusted.



They go on until we reach a satisfying conclusion, usually one involving the PCs achieving some kind of goal which they themselves have defined.

I was taking about this: "And what would *really* piss me off would be if I got to the end of the middle-ages style campaign and the GM said, casually "you know, actually the game was *really* about astronauts and guns""
I agree that that would never happen ingame, but that doesn't stop me from arguing about it.

My story is the situation, and the way the players react to it is my enjoyment. I think for you, the player's actions is the situation, and the way the players act is the DM's enjoyment. Either way is valid.



An example: I ran a murder-mystery campaign where I dropped the PCs in a city and gave them some starting evidence. They were left to draw their own conclusions about the whole mess, and eventually chose who they decided was guilty.

They were wrong, but the game was over, because they'd concluded the adventure. It wasn't until afterwards that I informed them they had it wrong and pointed out the missed bits of evidence that made it more apparent.

But by Dan's way of playing (sorry if I get this wrong), if you drop the PCs into a city to investigate a murder, they could leave the city, go to the coast, and go sailing. I say that you shouldn't let them do this (again, worst case scenereo (how the #$&* do you spell this?).

[Fax Celestis]

But by Dan's way of playing (sorry if I get this wrong), if you drop the PCs into a city to investigate a murder, they could leave the city, go to the coast, and go sailing. I say that you shouldn't let them do this (again, worst case scenereo (how the #$&* do you spell this?).

So what if they do? They're playing people, people who can be flighty and make the wrong decision. At that point, you have to either invent a way to draw them back to your plot at hand (perhaps changing the plot itself) or create a new plot path. Obviously they're not interested in the mystery, so why not allow them to enjoy a scenario they obviously desired to do?

[Dan_Hemmens]

But by Dan's way of playing (sorry if I get this wrong), if you drop the PCs into a city to investigate a murder, they could leave the city, go to the coast, and go sailing. I say that you shouldn't let them do this (again, worst case scenereo (how the #$&* do you spell this?).

Scenario.

And yes, by my way of playing, they could.

But since I would probably have pitched the game to them by saying "hey, I'm thinking of running a murder mystery for our next game, what do you say?" it is very unlikely that they would do this.

There's a big difference between "core assumptions of the game, to which the players have explicitly agreed" and "core assumptions of the game which exist only in the DM's head".

[asqwasqw]

How does success equate lack of fun? I would personally feel terrific about killing The Bad Guy early. It doesn't matter if you're fudging die rolls or HP to save the BBEG; you're denying the players their fun by denying their ability to succeed, regardless of whether it furthers the plot or not.

The game is about the PCs succeeding at their task--it doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do. And if they somehow think of something brilliant enough to finish things before the whole plot has unfolded, so what? That's how it fell. Let it lie, move on, and go to your next adventure.


The same way looking at the back of the book before you finish it isn't fun. Hey, you know how everything turns out, right? But you miss all the good stuff left in the middle. I, and I think my players do too, think it is a shame.


Nine times out of ten, there's nothing wrong with it.

But.

This leads to the problem I identified about three pages back.

Essentially what you're saying is that because the DM is *trying* to make the game more fun for everybody, anything the DM wants to do must by definition make the game more fun for everybody, and that's where it all falls down.

You're relying on the assumption that the DM is the only possible source of fun in the game. Now sometimes that's true. Sometimes player show up, sit down, and wait for the DM to entertain them. In that case yes, the DM can do whatever he likes, because that's the position he's been put in.

But if your players are *active* people who have their *own* ideas about what would be fun, the DM has to step back, because he's no longer an entertainer, he's a host.

I see your viewpoint, but I have to say that's not how I play. If the players are *active* people (who isn't?) who have their own ideas about what would be fun, they talk to me, and I try and incorporate that the best way I can. I dislike players going on a whim and saying: "Oh, this plot. We're already halfway through it. Lets go to the jungle!" I would rather have them talk to me, and I would try and incorporate the jungle into the plot so far.

[barawn]

And every single one of them involves metagaming.

You and I have different definitions of metagaming, in that case. So long as the fourth wall stays intact - heck, even if it gets retroactively repaired - it's not metagaming.


No personal stake whatsoever.

Just saying "your character now has a personal stake in this" doesn't make it true.

Yes, it does. This is a gedankenexperiment, a hypothetical situation. I can define it however I want.


How many of them are information so important it can hold an entire town ransom for three generations?

I'd say that any information important enough to hold a town ransom for three generations is probably not well known.


What I'm saying is that I don't like games where the DM cares more about his plot than my character. Which is exactly the situation you are describing.

That's because there are no characters here. There are no players, no backstory, no nothing. It's a hypothetical situation, with Generic Bob, the PC. Generic Bob and generic Bob's player are extremely upset about this mystery Joe Trollhunter tormenting his town, that he promised his friend, who died fighting the evil villain, that he would restore his family in the town.

You're turning this into some sort of very weird "DM vs Character" debate. The entire point is "should knowledge of trolls' weaknesses be common?" And the answer to that is "That depends if the DM wants them to be common or not." If the PCs just declare "screw it, I know what a trolls' weaknesses are," that's crap.


With the troll-hunter example, wouldn't the easiest solution to be to use home-brew trolls that have a different weakness?

Yes. But there's no reason the DM has to do that. Players are fully capable of keeping out-of-character information separate.

[asqwasqw]

So what if they do? They're playing people, people who can be flighty and make the wrong decision. At that point, you have to either invent a way to draw them back to your plot at hand (perhaps changing the plot itself) or create a new plot path. Obviously they're not interested in the mystery, so why not allow them to enjoy a scenario they obviously desired to do?


See, this is where I have a problem arguing, because I always talk to my players beforehand, so this isn't really a problem. I see no real reason, besides the fact that the DM spend his time doing a mystery, to make them go back to the plot at hand.


Scenario.

And yes, by my way of playing, they could.

But since I would probably have pitched the game to them by saying "hey, I'm thinking of running a murder mystery for our next game, what do you say?" it is very unlikely that they would do this.

There's a big difference between "core assumptions of the game, to which the players have explicitly agreed" and "core assumptions of the game which exist only in the DM's head".


Worst case, remember?

[Fax Celestis]

The same way looking at the back of the book before you finish it isn't fun. Hey, you know how everything turns out, right? But you miss all the good stuff left in the middle. I, and I think my players do too, think it is a shame.

It's not like finishing a book early, because you can't change a book. There isn't really a good example to compare to, but think of it like this, if you'll continue the "book" example:

It's the DM's job to make sure there's a general outline for the story, not to read the book out loud to the PCs. The PCs write the book as they go, perhaps even altering the general outline as they adventure.

[Jayabalard]

What do you define a "unreasonable."American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
un·rea·son·a·ble (ŭn-rē'zə-nə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Not governed by reason: an unreasonable attitude.
2. Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate: unreasonable demands. See Synonyms at excessive

the only further definition I can give you is "it depends on the situation". A couple of examples:

demanding retcon is always unreasonable.
demanding to change key elements in the game world is always unreasonable. Key elements include major people places and things. political bodies, geographical locations, available races, racial distrubution and history, regional economics, etc..
character fluff that gives game advantages, including character knowledge is always unreasonable.


If somebody wants to play a nobleman, is that unreasonable ("I've already defined all the noblemen!")What exact game advantages is that going to give them (none is probably not a valid answer)? What limitations does it impose upon them? do the advantages outweigh the limitations? Does the fluff contradict any major, or even minor part of the history, geographical or political situation?


What about if somebody wants to play the illegitimate son of one of your NPCs ("That NPC does *not* have an illegitimate son").They've free to think or claim that they are the illegitimate son of whoever they want. Whether they actually depends on the story, and many other factors. The player will not have any real proof either way at character creation.


The problem is, when a world is first designed, the PCs don't exist, so by the sheer fact of existing the PCs will change the world on some level.

If you refuse to let the existence of a PC alter your world, your PCs are stuck being "just guys."Straw man argument. I've never said that the PCs, the characters, can't alter the world. Characters influence or even control the game world... the players on the other hand, absolutely cannot alter the game world without my approval.

[Fax Celestis]

Straw man argument. I've never said that the PCs, the characters, can't influence or even control the game world... The players on the other hand, absolutely cannot alter the game world without my approval.

Then, in my opinion, you're not a very good DM.

[Jayabalard]

Then, in my opinion, you're not a very good DM.hmm, that may not have been clear, so I've clarified a little bit. If it doesn't not make any difference on your opinion.... /shrug.

Players make characters that fit into the game world; fit into means that they don't change or contradict major elements of the game world.

Players use their characters to alter the game world.

Players do not directly alter the game world otherwise unless they talk it over with the GM and get him to agree.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You and I have different definitions of metagaming, in that case. So long as the fourth wall stays intact - heck, even if it gets retroactively repaired - it's not metagaming.

Let's stick with "we have different definitions".


Yes, it does. This is a gedankenexperiment, a hypothetical situation. I can define it however I want.

You can, but the way you define it implies strongly to me that you don't understand what I mean by a "personal stake."


I'd say that any information important enough to hold a town ransom for three generations is probably not well known.

But it is also probably known to more than one person. Information leaks. Certainly it is not inconceivable that somebody else could know how to kill trolls.


That's because there are no characters here. There are no players, no backstory, no nothing. It's a hypothetical situation, with Generic Bob, the PC. Generic Bob and generic Bob's player are extremely upset about this mystery Joe Trollhunter tormenting his town, that he promised his friend, who died fighting the evil villain, that he would restore his family in the town.

Okay. First of all, you've just shifted the goalposts, because now Joe Trollhunter is an established NPC, not just this "weird old guy they met in the woods".

But okay, let's assume that this is a proper, player-driven plot. Let's assume that a player decided right off his own back to take out Joe Trollhunter and his Spurious Troll Armies.

Now why is:

"The PC, who does not know how to kill trolls, must find out how to kill trolls, then kill all the trolls."

Better than

"The PC, who knows how to kill trolls, must kill all the trolls."

Bearing in mind that what the *player* cares about is restoring the family of his dead friend to prominence?


You're turning this into some sort of very weird "DM vs Character" debate. The entire point is "should knowledge of trolls' weaknesses be common?" And the answer to that is "That depends if the DM wants them to be common or not." If the PCs just declare "screw it, I know what a trolls' weaknesses are," that's crap.

No, the entire point is "does it serve any purpose for the DM to rule that the PCs cannot know about the weaknesses of trolls?"

Which is a very different question.

[asqwasqw]

It's not like finishing a book early, because you can't change a book. There isn't really a good example to compare to, but think of it like this, if you'll continue the "book" example:

It's the DM's job to make sure there's a general outline for the story, not to read the book out loud to the PCs. The PCs write the book as they go, perhaps even altering the general outline as they adventure.

If you run a D&D module, do you want to kill the BBEG in the first 5 minutes, or go through the entire module? And the PC's, for me at least, don't write the book, the same way the characters in a novel don't write the book. They just react to it. My game is a choose your own adventure book, not a "blank pages to write on" book.

[Jasdoif]

But by Dan's way of playing (sorry if I get this wrong), if you drop the PCs into a city to investigate a murder, they could leave the city, go to the coast, and go sailing. I say that you shouldn't let them do this (again, worst case scenereo (how the #$&* do you spell this?).Well, ideally you'd work out the character's roles with the players, and they already have a reason to go along with your investigation plan, and do so.


But, what's going to happen if they don't?

Is someone else going to solve the murders, and decide that the PCs were accomplices bribed to delay the investigation, and then put out a warrant or bounty hunters after the PCs? Are the murders going to continue, and eventually a secret cult makes itself known, emboldened by the amount of ritual sacrifices they've made, and start a crusade that will eventually or inevitably put a damper on sailing?

This is where verisimilitude comes in. The world will go on even without the PCs involvement, and your story should be no exception. Of course, this being a game about the PCs, eventually the PCs inactions will have an effect on their world, just like their actions would have. Ideally the characters have or get as much (or more) of an incentive to address your plot as their players do; and even if they ignore the story, the story doesn't ignore them.

This can work well for the players, because the decisions of their PCs did have a noticable effect on the world around them. They're more likely to get drawn into your story (and the PCs more amenable to following it) when they realize you're making their decisions relevant to the story.

[asqwasqw]

*snip because it doesn't apply to me*
Okay. First of all, you've just shifted the goalposts, because now Joe Trollhunter is an established NPC, not just this "weird old guy they met in the woods".

But okay, let's assume that this is a proper, player-driven plot. Let's assume that a player decided right off his own back to take out Joe Trollhunter and his Spurious Troll Armies.

Now why is:

"The PC, who does not know how to kill trolls, must find out how to kill trolls, then kill all the trolls."

Better than

"The PC, who knows how to kill trolls, must kill all the trolls."

Bearing in mind that what the *player* cares about is restoring the family of his dead friend to prominence?



No, the entire point is "does it serve any purpose for the DM to rule that the PCs cannot know about the weaknesses of trolls?"

Which is a very different question.

I just have one comment.

By your remarks, this would be true (correct me if I'm wrong):
Why is finding out the weakness of the BBEG, exploiting the weakness, killing the BBEG; different then the DM telling you to kill the BBEG? All the PC's care about that is to kill the BBEG.

If this true, then all you care about is the end, not the journey. And I can not accept that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dan_Hemmens]

the only further definition I can give you is "it depends on the situation". A couple of examples:

demanding retcon is always unreasonable.
demanding to change key elements in the game world is always unreasonable. Key elements include major people places and things. political bodies, geographical locations, available races, racial distrubution and history, regional economics, etc..
character fluff that gives game advantages, including character knowledge is always unreasonable.


Most of those sound reasonable. As I say, I wouldn't let somebody play an elf in a world with no elves.

I wouldn't define "character knowledge" as an in-game advantage, because you get it for free every moment you're actually playing the game.0


What exact game advantages is that going to give them (none is probably not a valid answer)? What limitations does it impose upon them? do the advantages outweigh the limitations? Does the fluff contradict any major, or even minor part of the history, geographical or political situation?

Okay, hypothetically speaking, I'd expect higher social status, which I'd be willing to represent with a suitable feat. I wouldn't necessarily want any money (we can easily assume that I'm a second son, or that I haven't inherited yet). Limitations are to be worked out with the GM.

Allowed, or not allowed?


They've free to think or claim that they are the illegitimate son of whoever they want. Whether they actually depends on the story, and many other factors. The player will not have any real proof either way at character creation.

So the answer in this case is essentially "no, it is unreasonable to ask for your character to be the illegitimate son of an NPC".


Straw man argument. I've never said that the PCs, the characters, CAN influence or even control the game world... The players on the other hand, absolutely cannot alter the game world without my approval.

I really wish you'd stop calling everything a straw man.

The point is that if I, as a player, am obliged to create a PC who fits seamlessly into your world, such that one could not even tell that they existed, that character will essentially be "just some guy." They're not allowed to have any connection to anything significant, because that would give them an "in game advantage" so they're stuck being "adventurer #49"

[barawn]

But it is also probably known to more than one person. Information leaks. Certainly it is not inconceivable that somebody else could know how to kill trolls.

Except, it hasn't. This is, in fact, the DM's prerogative.


Okay. First of all, you've just shifted the goalposts, because now Joe Trollhunter is an established NPC, not just this "weird old guy they met in the woods".

No, he's a weird old guy they met in the woods. That's how he presents himselves to passersby. He's a sick man. He enjoys seeing people run from trolls, and take money in desperation. Maybe he charges 1000 gp if they're being pursued by trolls.


Now why is:

"The PC, who does not know how to kill trolls, must find out how to kill trolls, then kill all the trolls."

Better than

"The PC, who knows how to kill trolls, must kill all the trolls."

Bearing in mind that what the *player* cares about is restoring the family of his dead friend to prominence?

Because it's not about killing the trolls. It's about removing Joe Trollslayer's lock on the town, and removing him from power. Killing him could do that, but then there'd be the problem of the trolls, which they don't know how to kill. Ooh! Dilemma!

It's better because it requires more than just combat, and D&D needs more than just combat to involve everyone.

[Kioran]

Then, in my opinion, you're not a very good DM.

Oh, and why would that be? The Character´s actions shape the world the DM built for them. A Plaxer might have good ideas or inconsequential alterations, which might even improve flavor. No DM would deny them any influence.
But telling them they have no OOC influence on the world without consent by the DM is just common sense. He never said he´s constantly denying them that approval, he just said, without elaborationg because he assumed it was obvious, that the DM has final say in anything that significantly influences balance or flavor of his campaign world.
I wouldn´t bitch if they wanted to introduce a gardener´s guild or a mionr sect in a city or wanted to be the children of Dea Delburne, milk peddler in a backwards town. But no player should be able to introduce allies, useful tools or powers out of Character to benefit said character. Making allies or finding wealth and weapons in the sense of the characters actions availing them these is the basis for adventuring.
Simply creating them for use by shaping the world as a player is what would be called and a**pull in any show script.

A DM wanting to have some control over this isn´t tyrannical and evil.

[Jasdoif]

Why is finding out the weakness of the BBEG, exploiting the weakness, killing the BBEG; different then the DM telling you to kill the BBEG? All the PC's care about that is to kill the BBEG.

If this true, then all you care about is the end, not the journey. And I can not accept that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.It's different because the players are the ones doing it. They're the ones making the effort decision to kill the BBEG. It gives them the feeling of being in control of their characters.

It IS the journey that matters. The reason they're taking the journey and all its steps is as much a part of it as the journeying itself.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I just have one comment.

By your remarks, this would be true (correct me if I'm wrong):
Why is finding out the weakness of the BBEG, exploiting the weakness, killing the BBEG; different then the DM telling you to kill the BBEG? All the PC's care about that is to kill the BBEG.

If this true, then all you care about is the end, not the journey. And I can not accept that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. I don't care about killing the BBEG at all, I *only* care about the journey.

Star Wars isn't about Luke Skywalker defeating Darth Vader, it's about Luke Skywalker becoming a Jedi.

[Fax Celestis]

I just have one comment.

By your remarks, this would be true (correct me if I'm wrong):
Why is finding out the weakness of the BBEG, exploiting the weakness, killing the BBEG; different then the DM telling you to kill the BBEG? All the PC's care about that is to kill the BBEG.

If this true, then all you care about is the end, not the journey. And I can not accept that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

That is indeed incorrect. The point is to not plan the journey, because the PCs may want to do and see different things than the DM originally has in mind.

[asqwasqw]

To all others, I address the fact that I am wrong.



That is indeed incorrect. The point is to not plan the journey, because the PCs may want to do and see different things than the DM originally has in mind.


But it is okay to plan the weaknesses? I just don't see why planning is bad if you can switch to something else if needed.

Oh, Dan? I don't se why for scenario A, you want X and not Y but for scenario B, you want Y but not X, but they are the same thing. You want to get to a goal, you need to do something to reach the goal. But you want to take shortcuts sometimes, but not other times. Huh?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Because it's not about killing the trolls. It's about removing Joe Trollslayer's lock on the town, and removing him from power. Killing him could do that, but then there'd be the problem of the trolls, which they don't know how to kill. Ooh! Dilemma!

It's not about either. It's about my dead friend's family.

Except it's not, because they're just an excuse for the DM to send me on an arbitrary quest.


It's better because it requires more than just combat, and D&D needs more than just combat to involve everyone.

Where's the "more than just combat" in this quest? Fight Joe Trollslayer, make him tell you how to kill trolls. Fight trolls. Profit.

[Fax Celestis]

A DM wanting to have some control over this isn´t tyrannical and evil.

I never said it was. I said it didn't make a good DM in my opinion. What I believe should be is that the DM runs the world the PCs play in, and works with the PCs to create a world that entices, excites, and draws the players in, not creating a static construct that does or does not allow for the players to enjoy themselves.

[Fax Celestis]

But it is okay to plan the weaknesses? I just don't see why planning is bad if you can switch to something else if needed.

Planning isn't bad. Saying, "This is how things are going to happen, regardless of your choices," is.

[asqwasqw]

Planning isn't bad. Saying, "This is how things are going to happen, regardless of your choices," is.

Why is this bad? The duke is about to assasinate the king in country X. You are not in country X. You can not stop it, no matter what you do. How is that bad, esspecially if it furthers the story?"

[Fax Celestis]

Why is this bad? The duke is about to assasinate the king in country X. You are not in country X. You can not stop it, no matter what you do. How is that bad, esspecially if it furthers the story?"

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is this: "Your attempts to foil the villain fails strictly because that's not how the story goes" is not acceptable, because that is how the story goes. The PCs wrote it that way.

[asqwasqw]

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is this: "Your attempts to foil the villain fails strictly because that's not how the story goes" is not acceptable, because that is how the story goes. The PCs wrote it that way.

I wouldn't do that, but I would "your attempts to foil the villain fail because of all the villains contigency plans." It makes more sense, but has the same result. And I don't think the PC's write the story, they follow it. The DM writes the characters and the story. Free will is an illusion!

[Winterwind]

@Jayabalard, asqwasqw, barawn:
Dan's point is, roleplaying in his group does not evolve around overcoming challenges. That is incidental. It's always, solely, about the characters. The DM can't suddenly declare something to be personally important to the character, because that's the player's call. The primary job of the DM is to provide opportunities to excersise characterisation. A plot not connected to the characters is not justified. It is a very different point of view.

At least, that's my understanding. I tried to explain it better in my *last post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2809375&postcount=621)*.

[barawn]

It's not about either. It's about my dead friend's family.

Who is being kept out of power by Joe Trollslayer's lock on the town!


Except it's not, because they're just an excuse for the DM to send me on an arbitrary quest.

How is it arbitrary? Your friend died while fighting a villain who murdered your parents. He said "your family... my family... we're from Town-By-The-Sea... you have to go there and..." and then he died.


Where's the "more than just combat" in this quest? Fight Joe Trollslayer, make him tell you how to kill trolls. Fight trolls. Profit.

PCs: beat up Joe Trollslayer
Joe: I still won't tell you. I hate that town. I'd rather them suffer under a constant rage of trolls than tell you how.
PCs: Well, damn.

Where's the combat involved? I don't get it. The important part here would be removing Trollslayer from power and allowing the dead friend's family to be restored, and have a normal life. This is getting way too convoluted, and you're requiring way too much exposition from me in order to make it suit your whims. It's a thought experiment. Use your imagination.

Your point might be "why do we have to not know how to kill the trolls?" The answer is "because the DM doesn't want to freaking homebrew a bloody monster, and he shouldn't have to homebrew a monster every single time because the players can't keep their own knowledge and their character's knowledge separate."

[Dan_Hemmens]

I wouldn't do that, but I would "your attempts to foil the villain fail because of all the villains contigency plans." It makes more sense, but has the same result. And I don't think the PC's write the story, they follow it. The DM writes the characters and the story. Free will is an illusion!

As a good friend of mine would say:

"For them as like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing that they like."

Some people, I am given to understand, like to play this sort of game.

It would bore me rigid.

[Fax Celestis]

I wouldn't do that, but I would "your attempts to foil the villain fail because of all the villains contigency plans." It makes more sense, but has the same result. And I don't think the PC's write the story, they follow it. The DM writes the characters and the story. Free will is an illusion!

And, see, therein lies the problem: disallowing free will is tantamount to making the PCs Sims and the DM the person playing Sims. I don't want to be a Sim. I like making my own decisions, thank you, and sometimes those decisions result in effects that the DM didn't have a contingency for. There's nothing wrong with surprise or improvisation.

[Counterspin]

Homebrewing monsters is a trivially easy task. There's an entire system for it in D&D, and it hardly seems like a sufficient reason to deny players otherwise reasonable options.

[Jayabalard]

Most of those sound reasonable. As I say, I wouldn't let somebody play an elf in a world with no elves.

I wouldn't define "character knowledge" as an in-game advantage, because you get it for free every moment you're actually playing the game.0you suggested elsewhere that not knowing that a troll's regeneration is countered by fire effectivly raises the CR of the encounter. If you're giving that knowledge to yourself at character creation and trolls are really as rare as suggested in that example, that sounds like an in game advantage at character creation to me.


Okay, hypothetically speaking, I'd expect higher social status, which I'd be willing to represent with a suitable feat. I wouldn't necessarily want any money (we can easily assume that I'm a second son, or that I haven't inherited yet). Limitations are to be worked out with the GM.

Allowed, or not allowed?If you're paying for it with a feat, so it's left the realm of being strictly "fluff". We'd have to work out the details of the crunch, and then the fluff would just be fluff (which means it still has to be consistent with the game world.

Discounting the feat, we'd work out the precise details of your noble lineage, and as long you can work it out so that it doesn't affect key NPCs major NPCs with background stories of their own, that sounds reasonable.
Possible advantages

Social status
Contacts with other nobles: you may be able to expect hospitality from other nobles who aren't your enemies
Legal Enforcement Powers: even a second son can mete out the low justice in most feudal societies, and if you have enough rank you can mete out high justice (that's death), just based on your rank with no repercussions.
Allies and other retainers


Possible disadvantages:

Feuds with other families, or other family enemies.
Family Debts... maybe your family owes money or something else.
duty to your people, your family, and your liege.


I could give a more thorough list if you want; approval for something like this would depend on the details.


So the answer in this case is essentially "no, it is unreasonable to ask for your character to be the illegitimate son of an NPC".I'm pretty sure that I said something to the effect of "it depends on the story and many other factors", which isn't a no. Nor is it a yes. It's a "there's too many factors to give an answers to a general question beyond what I've said"


I really wish you'd stop calling everything a straw man.

The point is that if I, as a player, am obliged to create a PC who fits seamlessly into your world, such that one could not even tell that they existed, that character will essentially be "just some guy." They're not allowed to have any connection to anything significant, because that would give them an "in game advantage" so they're stuck being "adventurer #49"And I wish you'd stop using them. Presenting other people's arguments as if they are arguing an extreme point of view so that you can easily refute them (like you did in the piece I quoted before and are doing here) is a straw man fallacy.

You don't have to be "just some guy" to fit into an existing game world without disturbing the major elements. You can be connected to significant things, and be something other than a number.

If it's a fantasy workd: You can't be the king of a major country at character creation; you can't be the son of the emperor, especially if the fact that he doesn't have an heir is a major part of the politics of that part of the world. You can't be an anthropomorphic piece of cheese with 25th century technology and jedi force powers, nor can you be his half dragon illegitimate son. You can't be "the one" who can see the matrix and knows that this is all a fake world built by computers (but you are free to think that is the case). You can't claim ultra powerful relatives who have been giving you artifact level magic items since your 5th birthday. You can't claim knowledge that less than a handful of people in the world know, unless you change your story so that you're someone they would associate with and teach.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Who is being kept out of power by Joe Trollslayer's lock on the town!

But you know and I know that Joe Trollslayer was there long before you even bothered to bring up this "hook".

So *really* it's about Joe Trollslayer, but there's this convoluted sequence of events which allows you to pretend that it's about my character background.


How is it arbitrary? Your friend died while fighting a villain who murdered your parents. He said "your family... my family... we're from Town-By-The-Sea... you have to go there and..." and then he died.

So I go to Town-By-The-Sea, and I say "right, we're getting you out of this dive, come with us." Or better still "You're by the goddamned sea, why aren't you prospering due to sea-trade."


PCs: beat up Joe Trollslayer
Joe: I still won't tell you. I hate that town. I'd rather them suffer under a constant rage of trolls than tell you how.
PCs: Well, damn.

Where's the combat involved? I don't get it. The important part here would be removing Trollslayer from power and allowing the dead friend's family to be restored, and have a normal life. This is getting way too convoluted, and you're requiring way too much exposition from me in order to make it suit your whims. It's a thought experiment. Use your imagination.

The point is that "defeat Joe Trollslayer" is a completely arbitrary quest, which could be removed from the game with absolutely no loss to anybody.


Your point might be "why do we have to not know how to kill the trolls?" The answer is "because the DM doesn't want to freaking homebrew a bloody monster, and he shouldn't have to homebrew a monster every single time because the players can't keep their own knowledge and their character's knowledge separate."

Actually my point is "your players may well not be interested in a quest to work out the weaknesses of a bunch of regenerating monsters which some guy has somehow managed to keep secret for thirty years due to the power of plot."

[Raum]

I just have one comment.

By your remarks, this would be true (correct me if I'm wrong):
Why is finding out the weakness of the BBEG, exploiting the weakness, killing the BBEG; different then the DM telling you to kill the BBEG? All the PC's care about that is to kill the BBEG.

If this true, then all you care about is the end, not the journey. And I can not accept that. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.As others mentioned, it's the journey which matters more than the end. There are many potential journeys - even when the end remains the same.

A GM requiring PCs to find the weakness, exploit it, and then kill the BBEG as you describe is potentially worse than one who simply says "go kill the BBEG" and leaves the method to the players. He cares too much about the journey to allow player creativity which might result in a different journey or story. But my favorite GMs have been those who simply dangle bait or clues in front of the PCs and let the PCs figure out what to do and how to accomplish it.

Often it comes down to a sense of "ownership." If it's the GM's game (I see that statement far too often) then the players probably will flog every advantage they can out of their characters. It's the only input they have. On the other hand, when it's the group's game, you're far less likely to see abuses. You're also more likely to end up with a surprisingly creative story no single person had thought of before play started.

[Counterspin]

Jayabalard : Why do you keep pushing it toward worst case? Discussing worst case is pretty much pointless in this setting. If you and someone can't both conclude your differences to the point where you're both enjoying yourselves you... shouldn't game together, since the point of gaming is to have fun.(Exception for people like Bassetking who have a lot more riding on game than game goes here) Tadah! I've solved the worst case!

Now can we get back to discussing metagame playstyles and what each side thinks their method adds to the game, and why the other side doesn't find it fun?

[Douglas]

I think the core argument here is an irreconcilable difference of opinion. There are two ways to run games being discussed:

1) The characters have absolute priority. If the game world must change to fit the players, then the game world changes to fit the players no matter how big the necessary change is.
2) The characters must fit the world. Minor changes and filling in unspecified details can be done to help the characters fit, but no more than that and ultimately only the DM knows what changes are minor and what details are unspecified.

Neither of these play styles is inherently superior to the other. The second is easier to DM because the DM doesn't have to worry about improvising major changes to his world, and I generally am quite happy to go along with that, at least in part because it takes a lot more effort for the DM to make a major change to the world (especially when you have to accommodate half a dozen characters all requiring world changes) than it does for the player to change his character and character changes required are usually fairly minor. Dan, on the other hand, seems to feel that the first is the ONLY way he will EVER play and that even the slightest shift towards option 2 is intolerable. I doubt either side is ever going to convince the other, so we might as well just agree to disagree and move on.

[Raum]

1) The characters have absolute priority. If the game world must change to fit the players, then the game world changes to fit the players no matter how big the necessary change is.
2) The characters must fit the world. Minor changes and filling in unspecified details can be done to help the characters fit, but no more than that and ultimately only the DM knows what changes are minor and what details are unspecified.
But those aren't the only options. Nor are either the type of game I prefer to play. I'll let Dan speak for himself, but I prefer the middle ground between those two options. Specifically, both world and character are equally important. Not only will both change but each may cause changes in either themselves or the other. The result is an amalgamated story created by the group as a whole.

[Jayabalard]

@Jayabalard, asqwasqw, barawn:
Dan's point is, roleplaying in his group does not evolve around overcoming challenges. That is incidental. It's always, solely, about the characters. The DM can't suddenly declare something to be personally important to the character, because that's the player's call. The primary job of the DM is to provide opportunities to excersise characterisation. A plot not connected to the characters is not justified. It is a very different point of view.I don't think I've ever claimed that the DM should declare something to be personally important to the character... I have on the other hand, stated that if the player insists on declaring something about their character that is inconsistent with the game world (world conflicts, often based on information about the world that isn't available to the character at the time), or inconsistent with their past backstory (retcon), the GM can and should veto it.


Homebrewing monsters is a trivially easy task. There's an entire system for it in D&D, and it hardly seems like a sufficient reason to deny players otherwise reasonable options.Isn't making trolls rare and unknown a form of homebrewing? Is telling the player "Sorry, there are no trolls in this world, so you can't be a troll hunter" really better than saying "As far as your character is aware, there are no trolls in this world, so you can't be a troll hunter"?

Besides, if you play more than one campaign in the same game world, you still run into the same problem of ooc vs ic knowledge, even if you are using 100% home brewed monsters


Jayabalard : Why do you keep pushing it toward worst case? Discussing worst case is pretty much pointless in this setting. If you and someone can't both conclude your differences to the point where you're both enjoying yourselves you... shouldn't game together, since the point of gaming is to have fun.Firstly, You and dan have asserted that a GM should never limit the players in any way. Cases where the player and GM cannot come to a consensus is an example where I believe that to be false.

Secondly: I don't always agree with even my closest friends; I can disagree with someone without being angry with them. I can game with people that I don't agree with. I can have a game master rule against me without being angry at them, and I certainly don't have any problem with the GM making rulings to keep the game world consistent. None of those limit our fun in any way.

[PaladinBoy]

Now can we get back to discussing metagame playstyles and what each side thinks their method adds to the game, and why the other side doesn't find it fun?

Well, let's see. I prefer to run a slightly more plot-driven game, it seems. I'm willing to change, sometimes quite a lot, to accomadate my characters, but ultimately the fun for me centers around watching the PCs react to challenges and slice through my convoluted plots. I think it allows for the fun of overcoming challenges....... AND character development since we get to watch these people work together and overcome not just physical but mental and social challenges as well. And if I've done my job right, there is no "we're going to ignore the challenge and go sailing"....... I pride myself on presenting exactly the right plot hook to be irresistable for my players. For example, once I had NPC bandits capture a PC's sister. Between that and a Good-aligned PC, I was pretty sure they weren't going to ignore that. I also do take care to give them decisions to make, usually important ones. RPing and character development is always mixed in, and I try to focus on it every so often at least.

This character-driven game idea is something I've never tried, but I'm not sure that I'd like it........ I know my players well, and not all of them go out for hard-core RPing....... it's usually pretty obvious what their characters are going to do. There's no mystery involved in their choices, really. Even when I give them chances to do immersive RPing, it doesn't seem to work too well. Not that they're bad players or anything, just that that's not their style. Also, this seems like the DM is more of a supporting role, watching the characters develop and giving them the backdrop for what is ultimately mostly their show.

As a player, in any game, not just D+D, no challenge = no fun IMHO. Part of the enjoyment of the game is burning, freezing, shocking, stabbing, or blowing up the enemy. Usually when there's at least some risk of dying. Even more of the fun is figuring out new and inventive ways to finish off the enemy. That said, I really do like character development and RPing. When I play, I prefer to foil the BBEG's plot and have opportunities to make character decisions. Also, I have DMs who are as smart as I am....... usually it's a matter of "We've established that my character would do this, let's see how!". And they give me opportunities for character development as well.

[Stephen_E]

I've only recently looked at this thread and have skipped through reading a 1/2 dozen pages, so I may be repeating things others have raised but.....

DnD is a cooperative activity. The DM doesn't "own" the game and neither do the players. The DM gets to control the "world" and the players get to control their PC's. Where the two interact there is a area where both get imput. This varies from group to group, day by day. There is no "right" way, it's simply a matter of what makes both DM and Players reasonably happy.

Gaming groups vary. Not everyone gets to play with people who have very similiar views or that are all "good" players. Sometime people play because that's how they socalise with their friends, or they may play with a group because that's the only group in town, and mediocre gaming is better than no gaming in their humble opinion. If you're lucky enough to play with only "good" gamers who share your views on how to play, well bully for you. Those of us who aren't so lucky, or not that good a players themselves would appreciate it if you don't rub our noses in it, or suggest we don't count because we don't have such a perfect gaming existance.

My personal perspective on character knowledge metagaming vs reasonable knowledge:

Common knowledge is a reasonable assumption of all PCs, even the stupid, albeit low Int does imply a smaller pool of common knowledge (and Int 8 isn't a particuly low Int. Probably about 90+IQ). Anything involving PCs knowing stuff about other PCs should be considered "common knowledge" without having to be RPed, unless a PC specifically say "no, I'd never have told you that". If you don't think so let me ask you this. If you get together with a group of friends to fight as Insurgents against an occupying army would you make some effort to find out what your friends skills are, and work out some signals, and after a few months of insurgent activity don't you think you'd have a damned good idea of what your respetive abilities and tactics were, or you'd be dead! Now you make think players should spend 100's of hours working out all this stuff for their PCs, but I've got better things to do with my time.

Uncommon knowledge is stuff that isn't freely available. Here it is reasonable for a DM to have some imput. The higher someones Int the more likely they are to have uncommon knowledge, and most people have some uncommon knowledge. Note that I stressed the "some". Unless their is something particuly relevant to the campaign plot (if the campaign is all about learning of Dragons you don't want anyone starting with lots of Dragon knowledge) then people should be allowed to have uncommon knowledges of their choice upto a reasonable level. If the player is trying to claim so much knowledge that they ready to apply for the job of God of Knowledge then the GM is quite within his rights to say "hold it". Uncommon knowledge all doesn't mean a detailed breakdown of the MM stats. For example Trolls and regen have been raised at various times. I knew Troll regen was stopped by fire before I ever played DnD, despite never having met Trolls, or talking to someone who'd met a troll. I also knew they had NAC and were normally pretty large. Indeed I'm suspect that quite a few people in RL "know" that fire is particuly effective against Troll regen.

The situation of Undead was mentioned. A Barbarian Warrior in a world with undead is likely to have some generic knowledge about fighting undead. There will be stories about them even if he's never seen any, or even if his teachers never saw any. There is also some common sense involved. The damage reduction that low level undead gets is based on common sense. Pokey/cutting weapons don't work well on a bone creature, and bludegeoning doesn't work well on creature that have lotts of cushioning that doesn't care if it squishes (please note that just because some of this "common sense" doesn't make sense in RL terms is irrelevant. It works in DnD because the game designers say it does).

Stephen

[barawn]

Homebrewing monsters is a trivially easy task. There's an entire system for it in D&D, and it hardly seems like a sufficient reason to deny players otherwise reasonable options.

You're not denying players reasonable options at all! "My character magically know of the troll's weakness because I do too!" is about as reasonable as "My character magically knows where to find all of the gold in the house because I peeked at the DM's notes." Where's the difference??

Separating IC/OOC knowledge is trivially easier than homebrewing monsters, as the latter takes time, and the former does not.


But you know and I know that Joe Trollslayer was there long before you even bothered to bring up this "hook".

So *really* it's about Joe Trollslayer, but there's this convoluted sequence of events which allows you to pretend that it's about my character background.

No. The only reason it sounds like a "hook" is because I'm making the freaking plot up on the bloody fly. Jeez. I've never seen someone berate someone so much regarding minor details in a thought experiment before.


So I go to Town-By-The-Sea, and I say "right, we're getting you out of this dive, come with us." Or better still "You're by the goddamned sea, why aren't you prospering due to sea-trade."

1) Joe Trollslayer's family (who is the real problem, not just Joe Trollslayer) also has a lock on the sea trade due to the ridiculous money he's making due to the land-trade. He's got a fleet of ships which patrol the coast, keeping things "safe" (also known as blowing up other ships coming in).

2) Dead Friend's family does not want to move. First, they're quite large, and second, they've been there for years. While you could attempt to change their minds, the little children cry when they hear the suggestion of moving. Won't someone think of the children?


The point is that "defeat Joe Trollslayer" is a completely arbitrary quest, which could be removed from the game with absolutely no loss to anybody.

What? Did you miss the part about one of the PC's in the party having his ancestral home be this town, he's distraught about it being under the thumb of a cruel dictator, and he was also asked to depose the dictator by his friend who died defeating a villain who killed his family?

Okay, let's add yet another hook, in that his friend left this town because of Joe Trollslayer, to try to find help. He left because he, like everyone else on the planet except Trollslayer's family, doesn't know how to kill trolls.


Actually my point is "your players may well not be interested in a quest to work out the weaknesses of a bunch of regenerating monsters which some guy has somehow managed to keep secret for thirty years due to the power of plot."

"Power of plot"? Please. There are far, far stupider claims in almost every D&D module than a family discovered a valuable piece of information, and has been using their considerable wealth ever since to keep that information quiet.

They don't have to do it, then. They can try to find some other way to remove Joe Trollslayer from power. Feel freaking free. Players of mine have almost always taken the harder road than the simpler road. You're assuming that I'm going to railroad them into solving that problem. I'm not. It's just a problem there to be solved, if they want to.

[Winterwind]

I don't think I've ever claimed that the DM should declare something to be personally important to the character... I have on the other hand, stated that if the player insists on declaring something about their character that is inconsistent with the game world (world conflicts, often based on information about the world that isn't available to the character at the time), or inconsistent with their past backstory (retcon), the GM can and should veto it.Sorry, should have made myself clearer there. That part was referring specifically to barawn's "...and the town is the ancestral town of one of the PCs". Which, I think, is the DM going deeply into player-only domain.

Other than that, I agree with you. A group can have widely diverging opinions on how to play, and if no consensus can be found there has to be some way to quickly solve disputes, before they can disrupt gameplay. Making one person the arbiter, who has the final word, is maybe not exactly the fairest, but quickest way, which is an advantage in itself, and is absolutely ok if the group agrees upon doing it that way (ours has, for example).

[Dan_Hemmens]

You're not denying players reasonable options at all! "My character magically know of the troll's weakness because I do too!" is about as reasonable as "My character magically knows where to find all of the gold in the house because I peeked at the DM's notes." Where's the difference??

The difference is that "peeking at the DM's notes" involves you deliberately violating another person's privacy, whereas "knowing that trolls are vulnerable to fire" involves having had any kind of tangential contact with D&D in the past thirty years.

Let me put it another way: suppose the players were to say "these things regenerate, but if we use fire or acid to cauterise the wounds, they won't be able to grow back their flesh, and so they'll stay down."

Is that a suitable option?


Separating IC/OOC knowledge is trivially easier than homebrewing monsters, as the latter takes time, and the former does not.

For some people, it's trivial. For other people, it's immersion-breaking and annoying.

Let me put it this way. If you went into a game, and the DM said, from the outset "the guy that hires you is going to turn out to be evil and betray you, but you guys won't know about it" would you be cool with that, or would you say "dude, why did you tell us that."

Way upthread, Bassetking described a problem with his DM in which he felt that he was "being punished for not using OOC information", and this situation is very similar.

I feel that it is extremely bad form to put a player in a situation where the easiest way to solve a problem is to use out of character information. It wrecks the immersion.

If I am fighting a troll, and the DM won't let me use acid and fire, I will not be thinking "damn, how do we kill this thing" I will be thinking "this would be so much easier if we could just use fire and acid."


No. The only reason it sounds like a "hook" is because I'm making the freaking plot up on the bloody fly. Jeez. I've never seen someone berate someone so much regarding minor details in a thought experiment before.

I'm not berating you, I'm trying to highlight the fundamental incompatibility between your playstyle and mine, and to explain why I, as a player, would be frustrated by the scenario you present.


1) Joe Trollslayer's family (who is the real problem, not just Joe Trollslayer) also has a lock on the sea trade due to the ridiculous money he's making due to the land-trade. He's got a fleet of ships which patrol the coast, keeping things "safe" (also known as blowing up other ships coming in).

In which case the whole "Troll" plot is completely irrelevant.

And that's the point. This whole thing started as an example of how PCs using "metagame" knowledge would somehow destroy your world, and what it has become is an example of how a DM could construct a world in order to restrict the players from having access to a particular piece of IC information.

What about this "Joe Trollslayer" plotline actually hinges on Joe being "the keeper of the secret of how to kill trolls"?

This plotline hinges on there being a man who has a way of controlling trade into a town. Nothing about that plotline is actually broken by the players knowing how to kill trolls.


2) Dead Friend's family does not want to move. First, they're quite large, and second, they've been there for years. While you could attempt to change their minds, the little children cry when they hear the suggestion of moving. Won't someone think of the children?

What? Did you miss the part about one of the PC's in the party having his ancestral home be this town, he's distraught about it being under the thumb of a cruel dictator, and he was also asked to depose the dictator by his friend who died defeating a villain who killed his family?

I missed the part where "depose a dictator in order to rescue the family of a dear friend" is contingent on "don't know how to kill trolls."


Okay, let's add yet another hook, in that his friend left this town because of Joe Trollslayer, to try to find help. He left because he, like everyone else on the planet except Trollslayer's family, doesn't know how to kill trolls.

How to kill trolls, or how to defeat the enormous army which Joe Trollslayer has suddenly acquired.


"Power of plot"? Please. There are far, far stupider claims in almost every D&D module than a family discovered a valuable piece of information, and has been using their considerable wealth ever since to keep that information quiet.

Except that they acquired their wealth using that information, apparently.

But now Joe Trollslayer has a private army. Why does he need to protect the secret of Trollslaying.

Also: even if regular people *did* know how to bypass trollish regeneration, it wouldn't make any difference because they're still just plain hard to kill. It's not like the average merchant party is going to have an APL5 adventuring party in tow.

So your plot doesn't remotely rely on people not knowing how to kill trolls, your world doesn't rely on people not knowing how to kill trolls. The only thing that *does* depend on the PCs not knowing how to kill trolls is your out of character desire not to let them know how to kill trolls.


They don't have to do it, then. They can try to find some other way to remove Joe Trollslayer from power. Feel freaking free. Players of mine have almost always taken the harder road than the simpler road. You're assuming that I'm going to railroad them into solving that problem. I'm not. It's just a problem there to be solved, if they want to.

Except that you *are* railroading them into solving that problem. You've just said that the PC desperately wants to take this guy down, that the family don't want to leave the town, and that the key to taking him down is to "find out" how to kill trolls. Which will apparently also magically remove his army of corsairs.

In what sense is this *not* railroading?

[Winterwind]

This character-driven game idea is something I've never tried, but I'm not sure that I'd like it........ I know my players well, and not all of them go out for hard-core RPing....... it's usually pretty obvious what their characters are going to do. There's no mystery involved in their choices, really. Even when I give them chances to do immersive RPing, it doesn't seem to work too well. Not that they're bad players or anything, just that that's not their style. Also, this seems like the DM is more of a supporting role, watching the characters develop and giving them the backdrop for what is ultimately mostly their show.

As a player, in any game, not just D+D, no challenge = no fun IMHO. Part of the enjoyment of the game is burning, freezing, shocking, stabbing, or blowing up the enemy. Usually when there's at least some risk of dying. Even more of the fun is figuring out new and inventive ways to finish off the enemy. That said, I really do like character development and RPing. When I play, I prefer to foil the BBEG's plot and have opportunities to make character decisions. Also, I have DMs who are as smart as I am....... usually it's a matter of "We've established that my character would do this, let's see how!". And they give me opportunities for character development as well.In my experience, there is a plot in character-driven roleplaying as well. The main differences are, that
a) the plot is much more strictly related to the PCs themselves,
b) the plot needs to be more flexible to give the characters more freedom, and
c) there is much more stuff related to the characters, and not (initially) to the plot. The DM can, however, connect it with the plot, if it seems right.
For example, in our ShadowRun group - which has a much better DM than I am, and who goes for this kind of character-driven roleplaying - the - what do you call them in English, Street Samurais? - uh, warrior went home after the meeting with the Johnson and started to play Matrix games. Which the DM completely roleplayed with him, discribing the game and asking for his decisions. Because, obviously, the player deemed being a gamer was a notable part of his character, so it was worth spending playing time on that (besides, the rest of the group had a blast listening to that, it was really funny). Ultimately, he encountered an opponent who beat him, uttering some cryptic lines - only later did we discover that other player was in fact connected to the AI (yeah, yeah, I know - our DM's ShadowRun universe is not exactly canon) which was in the centre of the campaign.
We spend a lot of time on personal stuff like that, which does not mean there is no underlying storyline we are following. It's just that this storyline involves a lot of decisive decisions on our part, and if a character feels more like doing something completely different than the DM anticipated, then so be it. This has gone as far as single characters never joining to the group, instead developping their very own storyline, which was still benefitial - that way, they had more chances to develop a unique personality and it was very interesting to see what became out of them.

However, I think this style of playing requires a much better DM. I know I am not up to the task (at least not the way my DM does it - still, I'll ask my group whether they think more player freedom would be benefitial to our play).
And it's also a great matter of personal preference. When I told the people I usually DM for about this gamestyle, they were rather not interested. As it happens, I like both. :)

[Winterwind]

Gaming groups vary. Not everyone gets to play with people who have very similiar views or that are all "good" players. Sometime people play because that's how they socalise with their friends, or they may play with a group because that's the only group in town, and mediocre gaming is better than no gaming in their humble opinion. If you're lucky enough to play with only "good" gamers who share your views on how to play, well bully for you. Those of us who aren't so lucky, or not that good a players themselves would appreciate it if you don't rub our noses in it, or suggest we don't count because we don't have such a perfect gaming existance.I hope I didn't come across like doing that. If so, I apologise, that was not my intent at all. Rather, I was just trying to point out that the other approach can, indeed, work, and tried to explain how and what its advantages are. I am only interested in learning about various playing styles, so that, maybe, I can incorporate some new ideas into my own group (or, more precisely, present my group with the possibility of incorporating new ideas). This thread has been, so far, very fertile in this respect.

Other than that, I agree what you describe is a good way of playing, and the way one of the groups I'm in has been playing so far. The other goes, rather, for the "you know what you want to know" approach. Which can work just as well and, circumstances and preferences given, even better.

[barawn]

For some people, it's trivial. For other people, it's immersion-breaking and annoying.

Funny you use the phrase immersion-breaking, considering you have to separate those pools of knowledge to be immersed in any case - otherwise you'll spend the entire time saying "wait a second, fire isn't an element!" You have to have suspension of disbelief and substitution of behavior, considering your normal pool of information doesn't include "magic is real."

The only difference whatsoever is that you aren't willing to restrict the knowledge that trolls regenerate versus fire/acid. That's all. You're already willing to restrict the knowledge that smallpox can be prevented by innoculation with cowpox. You're already willing to restrict the knowledge on how to make easy explosives. You're already willing to restrict the knowledge on how to make a nuclear bomb.

I find it hilarious that you keep trying to paint this as the DM being inflexible, whereas it's really you that's being inflexible in not adapting your expectations of a "model D&D world" to the campaign that's actually being played.


What about this "Joe Trollslayer" plotline actually hinges on Joe being "the keeper of the secret of how to kill trolls"?

This plotline hinges on there being a man who has a way of controlling trade into a town. Nothing about that plotline is actually broken by the players knowing how to kill trolls.

That's how he controls the overland trade routes. Did you miss that part?

Are there other ways for him to do that? Yes? But the players are then forcing the DM to be more creative simply because they don't want to do something they can clearly do.


But now Joe Trollslayer has a private army. Why does he need to protect the secret of Trollslaying.

Private navy. It's easy to hide illegal actions at sea. Actions on land, that's not as easy to hide.


Except that you *are* railroading them into solving that problem. You've just said that the PC desperately wants to take this guy down, that the family don't want to leave the town, and that the key to taking him down is to "find out" how to kill trolls. Which will apparently also magically remove his army of corsairs.

How is that railroading? It's one possible way to take him down. There are a myriad of other ways. If they wanted, they could sneak onboard one of his vessels and prove that he's sinking the ships that he's claiming to protect if they don't pay him fees. Or, hell, I dunno, they could convince one of his captains to betray him. Or convince one of the other family members that what they're doing is wrong. Or, f'crying out loud, raise an army from an adjacent city and invade or something. I don't care. It doesn't matter.

Knowing my party, they would try to find one of the trolls, subdue it, learn its language, and have it rebel against their Joe Trollslayer masters.

[Fax Celestis]

Can we forget the Joe Trollslayer thing? It's spiraled out of proportion and has stopped being relevant.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Funny you use the phrase immersion-breaking, considering you have to separate those pools of knowledge to be immersed in any case - otherwise you'll spend the entire time saying "wait a second, fire isn't an element!" You have to have suspension of disbelief and substitution of behavior, considering your normal pool of information doesn't include "magic is real."

I really don't get what you're saying here. For a start, fire *is* an element.


The only difference whatsoever is that you aren't willing to restrict the knowledge that trolls regenerate versus fire/acid. That's all. You're already willing to restrict the knowledge that smallpox can be prevented by innoculation with cowpox. You're already willing to restrict the knowledge on how to make easy explosives. You're already willing to restrict the knowledge on how to make a nuclear bomb.

Except that I *don't* know that smallpox can be prevented by inoculation with cowpox, or how to make easy explosives or a nuclear bomb. In fact, I would expect none of those things to be true in a fantasy setting.

It all comes down to what Bassetking mentioned earlier. I get annoyed if I am punished for not using OOC information. If I am fighting trolls, and I know that I could make the fight easier by using fire and acid, the DM is effectively punishing me for playing my character. I am given the choice of using OOC knowledge, or making things harder on myself than they have to be.

I don't mind "roleplaying" not knowing something that I actually know out of character for flavour purposes. I do mind "roleplaying" not knowing something that I actually know out of character and then being forced to jump through hoops to "find it out."

I enjoy the thrill of discovery in a game, but only when it's a genuine discovery. Investing time and effort to "find out" something you already know out of character is, to me, completely pointless. It's like reading a book with a really predictable plot. Sure the character don't know what's coming, but you do, so you lose all sense of suspense.


I find it hilarious that you keep trying to paint this as the DM being inflexible, whereas it's really you that's being inflexible in not adapting your expectations of a "model D&D world" to the campaign that's actually being played.

There is no campaign that's "actually being played": this is a thought experiment, remember?


That's how he controls the overland trade routes. Did you miss that part?

And it is completely implausible for him to control overland trade routes in this manner. It's a completely stupid plot device.

I mean seriously, how is it supposed to work? Every single caravan that goes through the woods has to have this guy on it, personally overseeing things? And every time a troll attacks he casts Darkness and Silence to stop people seeing how he does it? And nobody ever feels the heat, or notices that the Troll corpses look kind of charred around the edges.

It's stupid. It exists only to justify your wish to deny the players an option in combat.


Are there other ways for him to do that? Yes? But the players are then forcing the DM to be more creative simply because they don't want to do something they can clearly do.

And perish the thought that a DM should be required to be creative.


Private navy. It's easy to hide illegal actions at sea. Actions on land, that's not as easy to hide.

If you've got a private army, you don't need to hide. You've got an army.

The point is that the scenario you present is stupid, arbitrary, and entirely lame. And it will appear stupid, arbitrary, and entirely lame to your players.


How is that railroading? It's one possible way to take him down. There are a myriad of other ways. If they wanted, they could sneak onboard one of his vessels and prove that he's sinking the ships that he's claiming to protect if they don't pay him fees. Or, hell, I dunno, they could convince one of his captains to betray him. Or convince one of the other family members that what they're doing is wrong. Or, f'crying out loud, raise an army from an adjacent city and invade or something. I don't care. It doesn't matter.

No, the only thing that matters is that the players should under no circumstances be allowed to use fire against a troll until they've jumped through enough hoops.


Knowing my party, they would try to find one of the trolls, subdue it, learn its language, and have it rebel against their Joe Trollslayer masters.

Knowing my party, they'd look at me like I was taking the piss.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Can we forget the Joe Trollslayer thing? It's spiraled out of proportion and has stopped being relevant.

I feel that it's relevant insofar as it highlights the absurdity of designing plotlines purely to keep players from "metagaming."

[Jayabalard]

Sorry, should have made myself clearer there. That part was referring specifically to barawn's "...and the town is the ancestral town of one of the PCs". Which, I think, is the DM going deeply into player-only domain.THe GM has access to the player's background story; it sounds like, to me, barawn is just making the plot hooks related to the player's backstory.


I hope I didn't come across like doing that. I don't think that you did; there are a couple of other people who've made claims like that though.

[Foeofthelance]

Ack, I'm joining this a bit late in the game, and for that I apologize. Now, to me metagaming is best defined as a player of a game using outside knowledge of the game to influence in game decisions. A fair definition, I hope?

Now, now that is said, I think I agree with both sides, and disagree with both sides just as much. Personally, I think metagaming is alright with in certain limits. As someone mentioned with trolls, some creatures become more difficult when the players are told to "forget" certain things, or have those weaknesses changed to thwart them. On the other hand, if the DM has a conversation with a player about what the DM thinks s/he'll make the BBEG's weakness be, and the player then sets themselves up to solely exploit that, then they are abusing the privilege that is metagaming.

I propose the following guidelines, to be edited as agreed upon by both sides.


For the DMs:

1) Common out of game knowledge should be considered common in game knowledge, unless stated otherwise. There has not been an out break of the plague in over three hundred years, but children still play Ring around the Rosie. Is it too difficult to imagine that there might be similiar rhymes concerning the weaknesses of trolls and dragons? If these beasties are to be extrememly rare creatures, then make this known at the outset of the campaign, and give the players a chance to do research to find out what they need.

2) If you wish to create a plot centered around a player's backstory, ask the player first. This is just common courtesy.

3) Do not be afraid to guide the players through the plot, but do not railroad. If the players are meant to face Bad Guy X at the top of Mt. Doomspire, then they'll probably be just as satisfied to face him in the heart of the Dark Valley. Railroading is bad, so instead bring the plot to the players. I've done this myself, its not that hard. Who knows, they just might catch on!

For the players:

1) Do not deliberately attempt to thwart the DM, unless they are being objectively unfair. Remember, its a game, and they want to have fun too.

2) We all know that trolls are crippled by fire and acid, and that red dragons are vulnerable to cold damage. But if you go look up the stats on Ximy, Half dragon Half fey Kobold Cleric of Meklor, then you are cheating, and denying yourself a fair challenge as well.

3) Play the game as a group. if you can't, go find another group to play with. (Note: This does not mean you necessarily have to cooperate in game. If everyone wants to play a dark game where every one is suspect, then go ahead and do so. But play what the group of gamers wants to play. This includes the DM.) If necessary, compromise.

These are just a basic framework, and rough one at that. Surely we can add and tweak them as neccessary, to determine where the fine line of acceptable metagaming is?

[Winterwind]

THe GM has access to the player's background story; it sounds like, to me, barawn is just making the plot hooks related to the player's backstory.Ah. I thought he meant the DM suddenly told the player, "hey, that town ahead? Yeah, I declare that's the town your ancestors came from", but what you are saying makes much more sense. Sorry, must have rolled a '1' on an Intelligence check there, or something.


These are just a basic framework, and rough one at that. Surely we can add and tweak them as neccessary, to determine where the fine line of acceptable metagaming is?

I am not sure whether this is possible. To me, this seems like a matter of personal preference mostly. Consider, the only objective criterion for good roleplaying is where everybody has maximum fun. And that can be different for every group (for every member of a given group, actually, but the group has to determine what works best for them alltogether). For example, regarding your for-the-players-point no. 2 - group A might derive pleasure from having to figure out, desperately and at high personal cost, the weaknesses of the troll, and would therefore consider knowing the troll's weaknesses bad play already (I would place myself here, probably). Group B might share your point of view. And group C might believe they would increase their fun if they looked up the stats of Ximy the Nutty Hybrid as well (I would not want to play with these guys, but see no reason why they should not exist nevertheless). What is the "fine line of acceptable metagaming" here? I'd say it is "no metagaming allowed, at all" for group A, "remember the troll's weakness, but leave Ximy alone" for B, and "look up whatever pleases you most" for C. And all is equally good.

By this I don't want to, by any means, say I consider it senseless to discuss this. However, the goal should be to exchange points of view, so that we can gain insight about how the game can also be played, besides our own gamestyle, and not to find any Universal Roleplaying Standard on Metagaming, or something.

As for metagaming in our group, so far we all prefer to keep the flow of OOC/IC-knowledge to a minimum. The only instances of OOC-knowledge dictating the inplay behaviour that are encouraged are (as far as I'm aware):
* it is understood that if there are NPC-members in the adventuring group (a very common thing in my campaigns - since I usually play with few players at once I like to introduce a lot of various characters into the group as to allow for dynamics within the group) these characters will be (often untypically) silent if encountering other NPCs, so that it are the PCs who lead all important conversations. Likewise, the PCs are always the leaders of the party (possibly inofficially), so they still take all important decisions. This is for the reason that the NPCs are introduced mainly to provide roleplaying opportunities, but should not interfer with this being the PCs' story.
* the characters are somewhat eager to go for adventure (of course, I try to provide them with good reasons to do so, and I sure hope those are believable and the players do not have to deviate from their characters' concepts to accept these reasons)
* the characters are somewhat willing to form a group (often with tensions, and always with reasons; still, there may be some chunk of metagaming in there as well)

Other than that, if for example the knowledge about trolls was not part of a character's background and also not given to a character by dice roll, we would actually prefer to play our characters as not knowing it. (I should note that combat in our plays, especially against non-human opponents, is rather light on rules and depends a lot on special actions, like hiding behind trees, making the surroundings work against the beast, and so on; it is also rarer than what I got the impression is D&D standard, decidedly less than one combat per session at any rate). Other than that, I guess I pretty much agree with your guidelines.

Safe for this one:

2) If you wish to create a plot centered around a player's backstory, ask the player first. This is just common courtesy.Actually, in my group the players want the DM to bring up their backstory at any random time, quite possibly when they least expect it. The backstory coming up at some time is not optional, it is highly mandatory. However, not every plot has to be connected to it.
If the DM had to ask the player for permission, surprises would not be possible. One of the moments one of my players later told me he liked best was, when a NPC his character (and the player himself too) expected to be connected to a demon he was chasing (large story arc that was in progress back then) suddenly turned out to be in fact a close friend of his long lost father, not connected to the demon at all, but instead being the start of a solo-campaign which is very closely related to the character's backstory.

Alltogether I would say we are pretty much a story-telling group, though not to the point where we toss dice and mechanics aside. Hence, though we enjoy characterisation, character desisions and character development greatly, the major emphasis lies on the plot, which we unfold together, DM and players. Of course, this gives a much more DM-centred game than what I would expect in one of Dan's games, and have in fact experienced in a different group I also play in; still, I think the players retain plenty of influence. Which is also due to our plot being rather flexible and me being ready to change the plot significantly (once, I expected a character to be captured (sort of) by a hostile sect, and being forced to escape through a dangerous system of tunnels. Instead, the character managed to convince the sect to start an invasion on an equally hostile city, and out of the escape suddenly became a large-scale battle. Of course, it had consequences - an adventure after the campaign was finished was to clear up the mess (namely, the sect occupying and converting the city)...). The reason why I am ready to change the plot on the run is, because I rarely invest more than ten minutes in developing it, and improvise pretty much everything. I don't find I DM worse that way than if I put in hours of work (have done that too, as well), on the contrary, even. Otherwise, I imagine it would hurt much more to rewrite everything...