PDA

View Full Version : But my character would have...



Spellbreaker26
2017-03-14, 12:48 PM
What do you guys think about when this happens?

If a player, for example, quaffs a health potion that was in the cart before battle started. "My character would have gotten it out of the cart earlier..."

To what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid? Because it seems to come up a lot with my players during my time as a GM.

Strigon
2017-03-14, 12:56 PM
In general, no. The cost of putting something in a cart is that it's not necessarily on hand when you need it; if you can claim to have taken out anything retroactively, that defeats the purpose.

If they want something, they should either specify when they remove it, or keep it on their person. There are exceptions, of course; if someone keeps their weapon in the cart and runs into a dungeon without specifically saying they take it, it can probably be assumed they took it anyway. But general items? No.

Knaight
2017-03-14, 01:03 PM
It depends on the game - if resource management is a focus, then there's a level of detail where if it's not explicitly mentioned you don't have it. In others it's totally reasonable to abstract away much of what you have into "traveling gear" or "replacement parts" or other catchalls and bring out specifics if and when they become necessary.

JNAProductions
2017-03-14, 01:09 PM
I think, in that specific circumstance, since it's not an essential piece of gear, the DM should say "You didn't take it with you."

In general, think about how likely the character would be to take it. For instance, a Wizard's focus or a Fighter's bow? It should be assumed they never leave it behind, unless they explicitly say it is. But miscellaneous others? Not so much.

An exception would be if the character is a ridiculously paranoid, well-prepared character, and has been played as such. In which case, it would be reasonable. But most people don't want to play Batman. (Seriously-being paranoid is a LOT OF WORK.)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-03-14, 01:17 PM
It really comes down to if it makes sense or not.

BarbieTheRPG
2017-03-14, 01:29 PM
Give it to them. Just because the player forgot doesn't mean the character would've. Plus it helps the characters accomplish their missions. It's kind of nasty to have a character die or the party fail because they left ____ in the cart. Let 'em be heroes despite player mistakes.

JNAProductions
2017-03-14, 01:31 PM
Give it to them. Just because the player forgot doesn't mean the character would've. Plus it helps the characters accomplish their missions. It's kind of nasty to have a character die or the party fail because they left ____ in the cart. Let 'em be heroes despite player mistakes.

I guess it depends how often this happens too. If it's every single battle, then you should probably tell your players "You gotta remember this crap."

If it's a one-time thing, and they're usually good about it, then yeah, let it slide.

Quertus
2017-03-14, 01:42 PM
What do you guys think about when this happens?

If a player, for example, quaffs a health potion that was in the cart before battle started. "My character would have gotten it out of the cart earlier..."

To what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid? Because it seems to come up a lot with my players during my time as a GM.

Old-school: where you last said it is is where it is. Learn to play better.

Bad old-school: well, you haven't said anything about breathing for the last 10 minutes, so you're dead. Roll a new character.

Me, I'm old-school. Which is why I pre-state algorithms for where things are located, how I do things, etc.

For example, in WoD Mage, I had an advantage called "Strong Will", which allowed potentially free use of willpower under certain situations. So I made the blanket statement, "whenever I an in a situation covered by Strong Will, assume I'm using the willpower, unless otherwise noted". Good thing, too, because, otherwise, I'd have died during my backstory :smalleek:


Give it to them. Just because the player forgot doesn't mean the character would've. Plus it helps the characters accomplish their missions. It's kind of nasty to have a character die or the party fail because they left ____ in the cart. Let 'em be heroes despite player mistakes.

The bolded part is wisdom. Separate player and character. Therein lies the path to role-playing.

Honest Tiefling
2017-03-14, 02:37 PM
In-between. If you have RPed your character as being suspicious of this forest and being on guard, preparing for various ambushes that might occur...Okay, sure, why not. Fits with what they were doing previously.

If you were RPing taking a nap to be rested for watch duty, no. No you do not have that potion. If you were screwing around in RP you also don't get the potion. If you didn't have much of a reaction, you also don't get the potion.

Basically, I view it as a way to reward people for RPing reactions to things. If you take the world seriously, you can have the potion.

LibraryOgre
2017-03-14, 03:19 PM
While it's availability varies by games, a neat use for metagame mechanics (like SW Bennies or Star Wars Force Points) is retconning... "I totally remembered to get that potion off the cart before the fight."

icefractal
2017-03-14, 07:26 PM
This sounds like a situation where a Wisdom check (or the equivalent) would be appropriate. Your character would have remembered / thought of it? Make a roll and see if that's true.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-14, 08:16 PM
I feel like this is one of those things where every time I've tried to be open-minded and reasonable about it, I always have at least one player who tries to abuse it by doing it multiple times per session.

Anonymouswizard
2017-03-14, 08:17 PM
My group rolls on a simple rule, if you didn't specify you took it you and any other character who reasonably might have can roll an intelligence check (DC changing slightly based on how reasonable the GM thinks your argument is). Success means you picked up the item (or looked up the information, my current character has inbuilt internet access and thinks quickly to circumvent the 'you forgot to look up information' problem), failure means we have to make do.

Although we also don't track ammo or spell components, and have other rules stating such things like 'if you're in civvies you probably have a mobile phone on you'. But for weapons and adventuring gear 'if it's not on the sheet you don't have it' (sometimes a problem as because he enforces encumbrance I can't just buy the entire equipment list).

Although this specific example wouldn't matter in our games, we operate under the assumption that once combat begins the characters drop their backpacks and operate only in basic combat gear. While you might have a healing item strapped to your belt you probably just wait until the battle is over before chugging a potion (if I haven't taken the healing spell, I sometimes do).

Note that when I use Fate Points/Bennies/Story Points I tend to let players spend one to have any item they want. It just makes the game more fun at the expense of potentially not having that benny when needed. Although I personally tend to not use these rules and try to improvise my way past such problems (usually with rope. I need to start putting actual ranks into the Use Rope skills).

Grod_The_Giant
2017-03-14, 09:36 PM
Give it to them. Just because the player forgot doesn't mean the character would've. Plus it helps the characters accomplish their missions. It's kind of nasty to have a character die or the party fail because they left ____ in the cart. Let 'em be heroes despite player mistakes.
This is usually my approach as well, though there are of course sanity limits. In general, though, I prefer to be nice to my players. If they screw up and die, I want it to be the result of WILLINGLY bad choices, not because they botched a die roll or forgot a potion because they were tired.

Strigon
2017-03-14, 09:42 PM
This is usually my approach as well, though there are of course sanity limits. In general, though, I prefer to be nice to my players. If they screw up and die, I want it to be the result of WILLINGLY bad choices, not because they botched a die roll or forgot a potion because they were tired.

It strikes me that keeping healing equipment in a not-easily-accessible location would qualify as a bad choice.

bulbaquil
2017-03-14, 10:03 PM
For retcons like this, I usually have the character roll a Wisdom check (or closest equivalent in the system).

ad_hoc
2017-03-14, 10:06 PM
How are there ogres when I had cast Mordenkainen's Faithful Watchdog?

Kelb_Panthera
2017-03-15, 02:08 AM
No dice. Track your stuff accurately or do without.

Katrina
2017-03-15, 02:27 AM
In my current game, we've been mostly abstracting Encumbrance and carrying stuff, so its' mostly a handwave.


In most games I run, I require the players to keep up with where things are. We typically accomplish this with the simple concept of "What bag is it in?" For example: Characters are generally considered to always have everything listed on their body unless unusual circumstances. A Fighter has his armor unless we were specifically in an inn or fancy party where he said he didn't. He has any weapons listed as carried on his person. The drawback, he has to account for all that weight, which can slow him down. Next we have the Backpack. Anything in the backpack is accessable as long as you have your backpack, but you might drop your backpack to get rid of the weight penalty it gives you (Especially common for Wizards and rogues with low Strength). It's why Heward's Handy Haversacks and Bags of Holding were put in the game. Also solves all of this problem.

In situations where that has not been done, I would generally err on the side of the player unless it became an abuse situation. Namely, three times in the same session is too much, and gets your "Instant Item" privilege revoked.

In general, three is the number of infractions before I punish things.

Satinavian
2017-03-15, 04:44 AM
I ask myself if i actually believe the player that he thinks, his character would... . If yes, than his character has.
Seriously cuts down on stupid micromanagement.

If i don't believe the player, then the character did not do whatever.


So it is a case by case scenario. And that somehow works very well. People are not trying to state the obvious trusting that it is obvious. People are also not trying to leave things intentionally vague to gamble for a better outcome.

It might come to problems if i and a player have very different ideas about what is sensible or even possible for charaters to to. But if that is the case, it is better to bridge that particular gap in the first place as it also leads to problems elsewhere.

Pugwampy
2017-03-15, 05:35 AM
Why is the small easy to carry magic potion in the cart and not in their pockets ?

Whats to stop em from using a full move action to get back to cart and retrieve magic potion ?


You can ask em for their character sheet and see if the potion is written in their backpack items or not . Thats should clear it up .

I think rolling a Wisdom check would make for a speedy solution too assuming player is moaning very hard about this.

Cozzer
2017-03-15, 05:57 AM
It depends on how seriously we're taking the whole encumbrance thing. If a character is usually able to carry as many potions as he wants with him, there's no reason whatsoever for him not to have available whenever needed. Forcing the players to say "I put my potions in the cart, I take my potions from the cart" each time would just be annoying busywork that adds nothing to the game. The characters might find themselves in situations where the potions aren't available, but in this case it's on me to state it from the beginning ("You've been ambushed while you were bathing, your potions are in the cart and you'll need to spend a turn running there and retrieving them if you want to use them...")

On the other hand, if a character, say, can only take 3 potions with him at a time, then he doesn't get to retroactively decide which three potions he took from the cart.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-15, 07:04 AM
Old-school: where you last said it is is where it is. Learn to play better.
.

I'm definitely old school here. I hate retcons where on like the fifth round of combat a player is like ''oh, wait, I forgot to do X and Y and Z and P, can we go back and say I did them all?" My answer is always no.

I'm more forgiving for new players, not that they get the retcon, but they will get help or hints. Like I'll say ''do you want to cast a spell before the fight starts'' or suggest then write down ''cast the spell Bless before a fight'' on a paper in front of them. But if they ''forget'' for the 27th, they are not getting a retcon.



The bolded part is wisdom. Separate player and character. Therein lies the path to role-playing.

I don't agree here.

If you do this, your saying the DM should just control the character...and that is wrong.

At least 75% of what a player has a character are things that the character would never, ever, ever do. So how does the DM randomly decide when to take control of the character from the player? It is just about an impossible line to draw of ''well if the player does this or does not do this'' then the DM steps in to take control of the character.

And at least half of ''what a character would do'' is not set in stone. You might get nine out of ten people to say they would do X, but then person number ten will say they won't do X.

It is true a lot of players don't get very simple concepts like ''when in the wild, post a guard for the night'', ''don't blindly trust strangers'' or ''don't wake up a sleeping dragon'' . And a lot of players have a hard time role playing a character, and an even harder time combining the mechanics with the role playing. But the path to true role playing is to make it a teachable moment, not take away control of the character and do it for the player.

TheTeaMustFlow
2017-03-15, 07:11 AM
your saying...and that is wrong.

Irony, cruel irony...

Grod_The_Giant
2017-03-15, 07:57 AM
It strikes me that keeping healing equipment in a not-easily-accessible location would qualify as a bad choice.
It depends on why. "I forgot because this is a game we play every two weeks*" isn't a choice, it's a natural consequence of being adults with lives.

Playing an RPG should be a fun experience, not something you have to "learn to play better" on pain of (character) death. Obviously I won't let players abuse my trust, but most people are, you know, good people and won't do that.


*Or worse. Maybe they're just coming off a social section of the game and its literally been months since they had to pay real attention to combat stuff.

Quertus
2017-03-15, 09:21 AM
Forcing the players to say "I put my potions in the cart, I take my potions from the cart" each time would just be annoying busywork that adds nothing to the game. The characters might find themselves in situations where the potions aren't available, but in this case it's on me to state it from the beginning ("You've been ambushed while you were bathing, your potions are in the cart and you'll need to spend a turn running there and retrieving them if you want to use them...")

What it adds to the game is the same thing you added to the game: the opportunity to play out a scenario where the situation is suboptimal. It's simply a matter of whether the GM is imposing this disadvantage on you, or whether you brought it on yourself.

It also allows for the utilization of player skills, especially in games that don't have corresponding character skills. For example, imagine an online game where, every time you look at your inventory, you see a list of what is in your inventory (hard to imagine, I know). How long does it take a character to realize that a thief stole their potion out of their backpack? Well, when the player notices it's missing, that's when.

Same think with "I move X to location Y" : you have the explicit opportunity to mention that it is missing. Or that it has changed. You don't have to rely on arbitrary timing to deliver the message.


I'm definitely old school here. I hate retcons where on like the fifth round of combat a player is like ''oh, wait, I forgot to do X and Y and Z and P, can we go back and say I did them all?" My answer is always no.

I'm more forgiving for new players, not that they get the retcon, but they will get help or hints. Like I'll say ''do you want to cast a spell before the fight starts'' or suggest then write down ''cast the spell Bless before a fight'' on a paper in front of them. But if they ''forget'' for the 27th, they are not getting a retcon.



I don't agree here.

If you do this, your saying the DM should just control the character...and that is wrong.

At least 75% of what a player has a character are things that the character would never, ever, ever do. So how does the DM randomly decide when to take control of the character from the player? It is just about an impossible line to draw of ''well if the player does this or does not do this'' then the DM steps in to take control of the character.

And at least half of ''what a character would do'' is not set in stone. You might get nine out of ten people to say they would do X, but then person number ten will say they won't do X.

It is true a lot of players don't get very simple concepts like ''when in the wild, post a guard for the night'', ''don't blindly trust strangers'' or ''don't wake up a sleeping dragon'' . And a lot of players have a hard time role playing a character, and an even harder time combining the mechanics with the role playing. But the path to true role playing is to make it a teachable moment, not take away control of the character and do it for the player.

Well, all I was agreeing with in the bolded part is to recognize that the player and the character are different people. What you do with that knowledge, what systems you attempt to implement can be good or bad.

For example, I try to ignore the social skills (or lack thereof) of the player when evaluating the success or failure of a social action of the character. This, I believe, is a correct implementation of a system based on that knowledge. I roleplay my NPCs based on character skills, not player skills.

For this specific example, as I said, I'm old-school. Now, as it turns out, I'm also horribly absent-minded. So I'd want to - no, need to - retcon dozens of times per session in order to correctly roleplay a character who - unlike me - wasn't absent-minded. Or, I would, if I hadn't learned, by playing in harsh old-school games, to make simple heuristics of "this is true, unless I state otherwise".

But what about people who don't have the benefit of my skills, my experience? Or people who are normally on the ball, but happen to be sleep deprived or otherwise distracted tonight? How do we not penalize the character for having a defective player? Because I'd like to get to roleplay something other than the "absentminded professor" archetype. :smalltongue:

Your answer about giving them hints is a pretty good one, actually. I'd also apply it to, say, Sleepy Joe, if I noticed that he's off his game. It's much less harsh than the environment in which I learned to roleplay.

But different groups have different things they find fun. If they don't mind the constant retcon, they can go that route. Or if someone in the party catches one character's "mistake", maybe that character catches their mistake, or gets a "save" (wisdom check?) to have done so, too. I've been in "crowdsourcing" RPGs, and they work well for letting new players play competent characters.

One trick I like to use is, never let a character make a mistake a 5-year-old would catch (which is easiest to implement when you have a supply of 5-year-olds on hand to test such a hypothesis). Unless the character is supposed to be dumber than a 5-year-old, of course.

So, point is, there are many solutions one could implement based on that grain of wisdom that the player is not the character. Pick one that works well for your group.

Cozzer
2017-03-15, 09:36 AM
What it adds to the game is the same thing you added to the game: the opportunity to play out a scenario where the situation is suboptimal. It's simply a matter of whether the GM is imposing this disadvantage on you, or whether you brought it on yourself.

Honestly, I disagree. When the "right" choice is obivious and is always the same, forcing the players to repeat it over and over doesn't add anything in my opinion. It's just an annoying "gotcha" moment whenever a player forgets repeating the same sentence for the n-th time. Both as a player and as a DM, I'd rather be able to give full attention to the actual meaningful choices the characters are facing.

(Also, there's nothing preventing me to say "while you're unloading your potions/equipment, you notice..." when they leave their cart, even if I don't make them explicitly say "we take our potions/equipment with us")

I start from the premise that player concentration and immersion is limited. The more I use on "be constantly paranoid about stating out loud every obivious thing you're doing", the less I can use on the actual things that are happening.

Quertus
2017-03-15, 09:55 AM
Honestly, I disagree. When the "right" choice is obivious and is always the same, forcing the players to repeat it over and over doesn't add anything in my opinion. It's just an annoying "gotcha" moment whenever a player forgets repeating the same sentence for the n-th time. Both as a player and as a DM, I'd rather be able to give full attention to the actual meaningful choices the characters are facing.

(Also, there's nothing preventing me to say "while you're unloading your potions/equipment, you notice..." when they leave their cart, even if I don't make them explicitly say "we take our potions/equipment with us")

I start from the premise that player concentration and immersion is limited. The more I use on "be constantly paranoid about stating out loud every obivious thing you're doing", the less I can use on the actual things that are happening.

... Are we pretty much saying the same thing here? If you don't want them to repeat the same thing over and over, and the right choice is obvious, then, duh, they did that, they always do that, any 5-year-olds would tell you they did that, so you just apply the global heuristic "they did that" (whether they themselves explicitly said it or not). Focus on the stuff that matters. Assume, even if they didn't tell you that they put on pants, that they are wearing pants when they go to talk with the king, and aren't pants-on-heads level idiots. Unless, by design, they are.

Cozzer
2017-03-15, 10:00 AM
Huh, I apologize, I somehow really misread your post. :smalleek:

Well, I propose we assume I read it right the first time, since I would definitely not have done such a mistake.

Donnadogsoth
2017-03-15, 10:12 AM
What do you guys think about when this happens?

If a player, for example, quaffs a health potion that was in the cart before battle started. "My character would have gotten it out of the cart earlier..."

To what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid? Because it seems to come up a lot with my players during my time as a GM.

Time for a Logistics roll!

Logistics is a wonderful little skill. Do they forget something in their last camp that is found by the mysterious monster and used to gain their scent? Is their crucial thingamabob on the very top of their backpack in a fight? Wait, where is my dagger? Did someone trip over the pile of firewood? Hey, I've been sleeping on his backpack all night. What have I got in my pockets? I thought you had the crowbar?!

Quertus
2017-03-15, 10:17 AM
Huh, I apologize, I somehow really misread your post. :smalleek:

Well, I propose we assume I read it right the first time, since I would definitely not have done such a mistake.

Hahaha! I'm probably the one who should apologize for being a ****, and stating my opinions so strongly all the time and using such obfuscating verbiage and sentence structure... But I lack the wit to follow it up with a matching humorous proposition. :smalltongue:

GPS
2017-03-15, 11:52 AM
In my group, we have a rule. If you didn't do something, do it later. If you didn't pick something up, just go get it later. Retroactively saying you did something makes for easy abuse, especially since most of our group could easily make an intelligence/wisdom check. When you do something retroactively, you're effectively taking the action of you doing it/not doing it out of a campaign, as well as any consequences associated.

Flickerdart
2017-03-15, 12:00 PM
Give your PCs the opportunity to do the stuff they say they would do.

Bad example
GM: The party loads up the wagon and heads out into the wilderness. Soon you enter an area known as Bandits' Hollow. Sure enough, a gang of bandits ambush you.
PC: My character would have cast a defensive spell before entering a dangerous area. Here's a list of effects I have up...

Good example
GM: The party loads up the wagon and heads out into the wilderness. Do you have a map?
PC: Yes.
GM: You see that the area you are headed towards is marked as Bandits' Hollow.
PC: That sounds fun, we will go kill some guys.
GM: You enter Bandits' Hollow. Give me some perception checks.
PC: I rolled a 23!
GM: You spot shadowy figures moving between the trees.
PC: Let's not attack them, our wagon will be left unprotected.
GM: The shadowy figures approach closer, and it turns out they are a gang of bandits.
PC: Oh, well my character would have cast a defensive spell before the fight.
GM: So why didn't he?

Winter_Wolf
2017-03-15, 01:08 PM
Give your PCs the opportunity to do the stuff they say they would do.

Bad example
GM: The party loads up the wagon and heads out into the wilderness. Soon you enter an area known as Bandits' Hollow. Sure enough, a gang of bandits ambush you.
PC: My character would have cast a defensive spell before entering a dangerous area. Here's a list of effects I have up...

Good example
GM: The party loads up the wagon and heads out into the wilderness. Do you have a map?
PC: Yes.
GM: You see that the area you are headed towards is marked as Bandits' Hollow.
PC: That sounds fun, we will go kill some guys.
GM: You enter Bandits' Hollow. Give me some perception checks.
PC: I rolled a 23!
GM: You spot shadowy figures moving between the trees.
PC: Let's not attack them, our wagon will be left unprotected.
GM: The shadowy figures approach closer, and it turns out they are a gang of bandits.
PC: Oh, well my character would have cast a defensive spell before the fight.
GM: So why didn't he?

I like that.

Being more or less retired from gaming and definitely retired from GMing, mostly I can only invoke theoretical actions. But that said, my first inclination would be to let it slide once or twice. But then it sets a precedent which will invariably come back to annoy. Having gotten to this point of reasoning, I'd have to say, "nah, didn't happen and were not playing like that." If it persisted, id do the same thing I do with my four year old, because I'm a jerk like that: "okay, did everyone remember to bring everything they think they're going to need? Now go potty before we get in the car dungeon."

It'll sort itself out, either in not happening anymore, or my getting booted/boycotted. Meh. It's just not my nature to be nice. Or mature, apparently. :tongue:

Segev
2017-03-15, 01:36 PM
For retcons like this, I usually have the character roll a Wisdom check (or closest equivalent in the system).
Yeah, this is usually the right way to handle "did I remember IC to grab [thing] I conceivably knew I'd need?"

In the Rifts game I play in, the GM will even call for IQ checks if she thinks of something she knows the PC could be aware of that would help, and it's clear the players aren't thinking of it. She never says "you do this," but she'll say, "Okay, you remember that you have XYZ in your inventory." Whether XYZ is really enough to solve the problem varies, but it's how this particular GM helps players at least know what their characters would know.


Give your PCs the opportunity to do the stuff they say they would do.

Bad example
GM: The party loads up the wagon and heads out into the wilderness. Soon you enter an area known as Bandits' Hollow. Sure enough, a gang of bandits ambush you.
PC: My character would have cast a defensive spell before entering a dangerous area. Here's a list of effects I have up...

Good example
GM: The party loads up the wagon and heads out into the wilderness. Do you have a map?
PC: Yes.
GM: You see that the area you are headed towards is marked as Bandits' Hollow.
PC: That sounds fun, we will go kill some guys.
GM: You enter Bandits' Hollow. Give me some perception checks.
PC: I rolled a 23!
GM: You spot shadowy figures moving between the trees.
PC: Let's not attack them, our wagon will be left unprotected.
GM: The shadowy figures approach closer, and it turns out they are a gang of bandits.
PC: Oh, well my character would have cast a defensive spell before the fight.
GM: So why didn't he?

Really, if this is D&D, the DM should have called for initiatives the moment both parties were aware of each other. "The shadowy figures draw closer on their turn." "Okay, while they're doing that, I cast [first defensive spell]."

Rogan
2017-03-15, 01:39 PM
What have I got in my pockets?

The one Ring, you filthy thief! Now let me kill you :smalltongue:


Back on topic:
The player should think about those things in advance and act accordingly. But nobody is perfect and sometimes you forgett something. Especialy if you only have descriptions/notes to work with.
So if it is a rare thing and the player can give a good argument, it should be okay to let it slip

D+1
2017-03-15, 02:54 PM
What do you guys think about when this happens?

If a player, for example, quaffs a health potion that was in the cart before battle started. "My character would have gotten it out of the cart earlier..."

To what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid? Because it seems to come up a lot with my players during my time as a GM.
It is perfectly valid, but not always good enough. D&D is not Simon Says. Not literally every freakin' thing needs to be stated explicitly in order for it to occur. However, as suggested upthread, there are REASONS for keeping specific track of inventories - including what is being stored or carried where. If the potion is on the cart then I assume there is a LIST OF INVENTORY of what else is on the cart. That list is there for a reason. That reason includes the necessity of players to SPECIFICALLY STATE that something is being moved from one place to the next, from the cart to somewhere on the characters person. That can extend even as far as where things are on the cart, whether the potion is kept at the bottom of the backpack under the rope, or on top right above the winter cloak where it can be got to quickly without needing to RUMMAGE through the backpack.

Obviously not everybody wants to focus their game on inventory management. If you, as DM, want inventory management to be a thing - tell the players TOUGH NOOGIES. If you want it on your PC instead of the cart SAY SO or stop complaining. If you as DM don't want to get that fiddly with the details then don't. "My PC would have remembered," is good enough.

Talk to your players and find out if it's just the fiddlyness of it that they don't like or the fact that they simply suck at doing it; do they object because they as a player simply forget about such things and don't want to pay the price for it, or do they object because they flat out hate inventory management being a part of the game at all. Decide which such things you are going to care about as the DM and which you won't. ANNOUNCE those decisions to the players so they no longer have the option to whine about these things when they have specifically agreed to be held to X, Y, and Z as requirements. Exercise those choices consistently from then on.

Myself, I typically care more about what a PC owns than where it's carried - right up to the point where they want to carry so much that they MUST start to drag along carts, mules, or whatever. Then it's the players responsibility to expend more effort at managing their inventory and I don't want to have to quibble with them about it. They should put in the time and effort to manage their inventories because they've CHOSEN to carry enough crap with them that they need to do so. I've got enough on my DM plate that I don't need to be tracking the minutia of your PC's possessions. That's your job as a player. I don't care to nitpick at that kind of thing so players can quite likely fudge it occasionally - which would hopefully simply train them to do better at deciding what they need or don't need at any given time and announcing that they're going to get the potion from the cart before entering the dungeon, rather than to not bother with that because they think they can get away with it, because if I catch them at it I'll burn them.

"My character would have remembered," only goes so far. If I, as a DM, have actually CORNERED a player into the position of needing to state, "My character would have remembered," then the PLAYER has clearly been messing up and NEEDS to have this lesson reinforced. The correct response would instead be for the player to simply show me the altered list of what's on the cart and what their character is carrying - problem solved before it starts. DON'T BE THAT PLAYER.

Cluedrew
2017-03-15, 04:36 PM
My view: If the character would have, then they did. If they wouldn't of than they didn't. If it is in question go with whatever is more interesting. If its still tied then it doesn't matter anyways.

Segev
2017-03-15, 04:46 PM
My view: If the character would have, then they did. If they wouldn't of than they didn't. If it is in question go with whatever is more interesting. If its still tied then it doesn't matter anyways.

The issue is that "more interesting" for the GM and for the player are often quite different things.

Cluedrew
2017-03-15, 04:56 PM
While I'll admit that there isn't a perfect measure for it, everyone's playing the same game. If everyone is reasonable (OK, bold assumption there) I don't see why it is a problem.

Pauly
2017-03-15, 07:34 PM
I think it is very reasonable to treat PCs and players as separate minds, so I allow some degree of retconning depending on the situation, also I don't want to have to remember exactly what each character has and where it is stowed. A good analogy for me is modern soldiers travelling in their transport vehicle.

A) In an obviously non combat situation all their gear is packed for travel in the APC, and a few Basic items, like their personal weapon with them
B) When combat is possible they have their back pack full of the standard things they need immediately to hand.
C) when combat is expected they also carry things that they expect may be needed in that situation. Spare barrels for the MG ,extra rations, that sort of thing.
D) Going on a specific mission that requires specialized equipment.

So if it is something like a healing potion, then in situations B,C and D I will allow a retcon.
A potion of Fire Giant Strength is rare and not something you would want to waste or risk getting stolen, so I would only allow a retcon in situations C and D.
But if it is a potion of water breathing I would only allow a retcon in situation D, if the characters know they will need to do some activities under water.

In D&D terms
A: walking through town
B: going through the wilderness/exploration
C: confronting a boss
D: going on a quest where the quest giver gives them a specific warning.

Jay R
2017-03-15, 09:56 PM
Have you ever forgotten to bring something you needed?

Walked out to the car, and then remembered the car keys,
Forgotten the book you needed for class,
Forgotten to pick up the checkbook,
Ride halfway down the street and suddenly remember your bike helmet,
etc.

Of course you have. You're human; you're imperfect; you don't remember everything all the time.

Your character is also imperfect, and also doesn't remember everything all the time.

Yes, your character is doing it continuously, and you're only doing it on weekends. On the other hand, you often have a week to make plans when the character would not. And you are never distracted by the fear of death or dismemberment.

Feel free to put something on the cart, saying that when you leave the cart, your character will pick this back up. That's fair.

And as a DM, I will remind you of things that your character can see and you can't. If your character is explicitly looking at the cart, I'll remind you of everything on it.

But we aren't going to pretend that your character is inhumanly perfect, and never makes foolish mistakes. You, and you alone, will play your character.

Algeh
2017-03-15, 09:58 PM
Big picture, I think GMs need to look at how much this is happening and add structure accordingly:

Once every 6 months or so, evenly distributed among the players? Yeah, whatever, they have the item/cast the spell/fed the cat, or make a wisdom/logistics/NotBeingClueless roll to determine whether it happened, settle it, and move on. It's rare, so it's not worth spending a lot of time on, and if the character generally tends to have their stuff it's reasonable to assume they do this time too (particularly if the player is usually organized but was distracted this one time in a way that was not also true for their character).

Pretty much every session or two? Add more structure around whatever the thing is. If it's items, make explicit statements like "ok, before you leave Shopping Town to head through The Wilderness of Totally Going to Have Random Encounters to get to The Dungeon of Stuff That Probably Wants to Hurt You, I need all of you to have your inventory organized as to which things are on the cart and which things are in your backpack, because I'm going to hold you to whatever you have written down." Maybe even go to a different inventory management system (there are many - I've always kind of wanted to go to an index card and brads system the next time I run a game where possessions/inventory matter), or otherwise add supports to make it easier for everyone to keep track of what is stored where. Then, hold them to it if that's the game you're running (which, if it comes up all the time, it probably is).

In the in-between case, if it's one specific player, put it on them to fix the issue. "Bob, I've noticed that your character seems to leave everything, including his pants, on the cart, and then you end up needing to retroactively fix that during play because your character would have remembered to put on his pants in the morning. You need to figure out a system where you remember to regularly update your inventory so this isn't an issue."

You can also throw it out to the group: "I've noticed a lot of item recons lately. What should we do differently so that stops happening?" can be a good way to get players on board to fix a problem. It makes it clear that things need to change without making it totally top-down.

(I once had a game where we ended up making little signs on sticks with the names of different languages on them, and each player had signs for each of their character's languages in their character folder and would hold up whichever language they were speaking in at a given time for IC speech. This was because in that particular game, we needed more structure for the issue of which PCs and NPCs could be assumed to understand a conversation without rolling, which PCs and NPCs needed to roll to see if they understood, and which PCs and NPCs were not going to understand. I'd never drag all of those signs to a game where this wasn't an ongoing issue, but unwinding a set of actions and reactions because somebody in the conversation thought they were speaking German and the other PC thought the conversation was in French was just not a thing I was going to keep doing, so that particular group needed an added structure. This is obviously not a problem the characters would "really" have, so it needed a player-level solution. Also, it added a new step to character creation in my future games with that group of players, where all of the players should discuss whether or not they want to be no-rolls-needed fluent in a common language and then adjust their sheets accordingly before play if so, but that's another story...I actually really miss that group.)

Darth Ultron
2017-03-15, 11:10 PM
Give your PCs the opportunity to do the stuff they say they would do.

Bad example

Good example


I'd say for the good example go back even one more step to ''your character is near a possible bad encounter, do you want to prepare anything?'' Like saying ''just after noon you enter the edge of Bunglewood Forest.'' And pause for a couple seconds and let the players react or do things. Often I'll give the hint of ''Zomi the Astrologer casts mage armor on himself before he climbs down the rope into the Caves of Chaos''.

Nightcanon
2017-03-16, 07:56 AM
Have you ever forgotten to bring something you needed?

Walked out to the car, and then remembered the car keys,
Forgotten the book you needed for class,
Forgotten to pick up the checkbook,
Ride halfway down the street and suddenly remember your bike helmet,
etc.

Of course you have. You're human; you're imperfect; you don't remember everything all the time.

Your character is also imperfect, and also doesn't remember everything all the time.

Yes, your character is doing it continuously, and you're only doing it on weekends. On the other hand, you often have a week to make plans when the character would not. And you are never distracted by the fear of death or dismemberment.

Feel free to put something on the cart, saying that when you leave the cart, your character will pick this back up. That's fair.

And as a DM, I will remind you of things that your character can see and you can't. If your character is explicitly looking at the cart, I'll remind you of everything on it.

But we aren't going to pretend that your character is inhumanly perfect, and never makes foolish mistakes. You, and you alone, will play your character.

That's fair enough. I often go out and realise I haven't brought something with me, or come back from the shops having forgotten the one thing I most needed to buy. On the other hand, if I'm going off on a camping trip I'll make a kit list of everything I will need, and if I'm transferring or retreiving a sick patient by ambulance then I go through a checklist of what I might need in terms of drugs and equipment. I don't think it is unreasonable for adventurers going into hostile territory to act more like a professional in terms of contingency planning than as someone popping to the shops on their day off. With regard to the OP, I think a healing potion might be something I would expect an adventurer to have at hand pretty much all the time, even when not wearing full armour or carrying their full selection of weapons, while other gear (including more esoteric potions) might be less close. If a party are travelling in civilised lands with much of their gear on the cart, I would probably expect them to have their primary weapon and a ranged weapon close to hand, and some form of armour (especially if on horseback), but not the full golf-bag including the greathammer for use against skeletons, the holy anarchic sword for devils and the holy axiomatic axe for demons and so on. Of course , by the time a character has amassed said armoury, extraplanar storage is likely to alter this further. I could certainly see that a mid-level non-caster who owned potions of cure serious wounds, fly, and invisiblilty, might carry them on her person even in situations when she was wearing no armour and only carrying a dagger.

Jay R
2017-03-16, 10:55 AM
On the other hand, if I'm going off on a camping trip I'll make a kit list of everything I will need, and if I'm transferring or retreiving a sick patient by ambulance then I go through a checklist of what I might need in terms of drugs and equipment. I don't think it is unreasonable for adventurers going into hostile territory to act more like a professional in terms of contingency planning than as someone popping to the shops on their day off.

Absolutely right. In fact, it's exactly what I recommend. Play your adventurer like a professional in terms of contingency planning, and make the kit list of everything he will need. This is the inventory on the character sheet.

Then, if the potion is listed there, it's available to him.


With regard to the OP, I think a healing potion might be something I would expect an adventurer to have at hand pretty much all the time, even when not wearing full armour or carrying their full selection of weapons, while other gear (including more esoteric potions) might be less close.

Agreed. I'll go further - the mistake wasn't forgetting to get the potion off the cart. The mistake was putting it on the cart in the first place. A healing potion is a bottle of stored hit points. Why store the hit points away from the body? You can find "Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds" on Gustav's inventory on his character sheet for exactly that reason.

You're supposed to have an explicit written list of what's on your person. [Gustav's personalized character sheet has lists of what's on his person, what's in his bag of holding, what's in his quiver of Ehlonna, and what's on his horse. I'm playing Gustav. I make his decisions]


If a party are travelling in civilised lands with much of their gear on the cart, I would probably expect them to have their primary weapon and a ranged weapon close to hand, and some form of armour (especially if on horseback), but not the full golf-bag including the greathammer for use against skeletons, the holy anarchic sword for devils and the holy axiomatic axe for demons and so on. Of course , by the time a character has amassed said armoury, extraplanar storage is likely to alter this further. I could certainly see that a mid-level non-caster who owned potions of cure serious wounds, fly, and invisiblilty, might carry them on her person even in situations when she was wearing no armour and only carrying a dagger.

Agreed. These are good ideas. But you are playing your character. Don't have the DM guess what you're doing; go ahead and make the decisions. If you have a set of standard assumptions, they should be written down. [Since they are the standard, you write it down only once.] My DM has been told that unless I say something different, Gustav has his guisarme in his hands, his sword in its scabbard, and the spears and arrows in his quiver of Ehlonna. The bow is unstrung and in the quiver except when we're actually on the road, when it is strung and hanging off his shoulder.

I play my character.

LibraryOgre
2017-03-16, 11:54 AM
Have you ever forgotten to bring something you needed?

Walked out to the car, and then remembered the car keys,
Forgotten the book you needed for class,
Forgotten to pick up the checkbook,
Ride halfway down the street and suddenly remember your bike helmet,
etc.


Oh, sure. But I'm also usually not being fireballed when I return to get it. At worst, I'm running a bit late for where I need to be.

"It's at the cart" is all well and good when you're not busy. When it's a matter of "Can I drink this potion before I die", the time involved becomes a little more precious.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-16, 01:06 PM
I feel like this is one of those things where every time I've tried to be open-minded and reasonable about it, I always have at least one player who tries to abuse it by doing it multiple times per session.
I can name no specifics, but this is the sort of thing I am afraid of.

There is always that one player who is why we can't have nice things.

Jay R
2017-03-16, 01:53 PM
Oh, sure. But I'm also usually not being fireballed when I return to get it. At worst, I'm running a bit late for where I need to be.

"It's at the cart" is all well and good when you're not busy. When it's a matter of "Can I drink this potion before I die", the time involved becomes a little more precious.

Exactly. And if that's important to you for the sake of your character, don't put the potion on the cart; keep it with you.

I agree that having the potion with you is crucially important. That's not a reason not to say that your character picks it up. That's the reason to say it.

Don't just assume that your character would have thought about the game situation. Play your character yourself.

Knaight
2017-03-16, 03:08 PM
You're supposed to have an explicit written list of what's on your person. [Gustav's personalized character sheet has lists of what's on his person, what's in his bag of holding, what's in his quiver of Ehlonna, and what's on his horse. I'm playing Gustav. I make his decisions].

This is game specific - whether every single item is written down separately, or personal inventory is used for things that are notable with a number of things just assumed, or personal inventory isn't even used and what you have is implied by the skills of the character are all game and/or system dependent.

Cluedrew
2017-03-16, 04:07 PM
I can name no specifics, but this is the sort of thing I am afraid of.

There is always that one player who is why we can't have nice things.Are you capable of recognizing the difference between use and abuse? (At least for this one thing.) If so add it to the game, let it be used but prevent the abuse. You are there the whole time so even if you are not sure about your players not handling the temptation very well.

I also contend that "that one player" can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But that is a different topic.

Jay R
2017-03-16, 05:43 PM
This is game specific - whether every single item is written down separately, or personal inventory is used for things that are notable with a number of things just assumed, or personal inventory isn't even used and what you have is implied by the skills of the character are all game and/or system dependent.

I agree with you that in a game in which such things aren't tracked, then it would be assumed to be in the player's reach. But in that game, the DM does not set up this thread.

By contrast, in the specific game under discussion, it was stated explicitly that the item was on the cart. This isn't a case when it is just assumed, or personal inventory isn't even used and what you have is just implied.

We are dealing with a situation in which it is specifically tracked, and it's been stated to be one place, and a player wants it to be someplace else.

Winter_Wolf
2017-03-16, 08:17 PM
I might institute a wisdom check with a DC (or its equivalent) that gets harder every time "my character would have" is invoked. It never goes down, either. Eventually the character will fail a roll, or the player realizes that eventually they're going to fail the roll and it might be the "you're dead now because you relied on luck instead of preparation" result.

Potato_Priest
2017-03-16, 10:59 PM
Give it to them. Just because the player forgot doesn't mean the character would've. Plus it helps the characters accomplish their missions. It's kind of nasty to have a character die or the party fail because they left ____ in the cart. Let 'em be heroes despite player mistakes.

I've made an earlier thread about Schrodinger's cart. If the players need it, they have it. If they run into terrain that they can't get it through, they left it behind. Never fails, even when they would have no idea what terrain they'd encounter. While I do like the players to be heroes, I also like there to be heroic complications caused by not always being perfectly prepared. Heroes are born from improvisation, not by having retroactively bought everything in the last trading post.

Fri
2017-03-17, 12:00 AM
Time for a Logistics roll!

Logistics is a wonderful little skill. Do they forget something in their last camp that is found by the mysterious monster and used to gain their scent? Is their crucial thingamabob on the very top of their backpack in a fight? Wait, where is my dagger? Did someone trip over the pile of firewood? Hey, I've been sleeping on his backpack all night. What have I got in my pockets? I thought you had the crowbar?!

Yep, this is why lots of games where inventory is important have similar skills or systems for it. In star wars EOTE you could use your force point to say "I did got my thermal detonator on hand" but you use up another resource that you could've used for rerolls or whatnot. And that's why specific classes has "utility belt" talent that says once per encounter they can say that they have a specific small items on hand all the time without using that resource. But it's only relevant on games where inventories are important. In games where specific items or encumbrance doesn't matter then eh...

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-17, 06:20 PM
Are you capable of recognizing the difference between use and abuse? (At least for this one thing.) If so add it to the game, let it be used but prevent the abuse. You are there the whole time so even if you are not sure about your players not handling the temptation very well.

I also contend that "that one player" can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But that is a different topic.

I'll sum up how this goes.

Player A: "Can I do X?"

DM: "Sure, that sounds reasonable."

Player B: "Okay if we can do X, I do X in Y way."

DM: "That is not what I intended and it isn't logical."

Player B: "You never said we couldn't X in Y way, and that was part of my plan, why are you blocking me?"

DM: "Because it breaks the game/gives you way too much money for your level/allows for abilities way beyond your level."

Player B: "If I can X, what logical reason could there be that you can't X in Y way?"

DM: "Because it doesn't make sense."

Player B: "You can totally X in Y way because (Argument Z potentially using real world physics or their own argument."

Player B: *Argues about it for several minutes while players A, C, D, and E are waiting and getting increasingly mad.*

DM: That's it, X is no longer allowed?

Player A: What? WHY?

DM: END OF DISCUSSION!

*DM is irritated at Player B and the situation*
*Player B is irritated he didn't get his way*
*Player A is irritated his reasonable request can't be done because of the DM and B*
*Players C, D, and E just had a whole bunch of their game day wasted because B had to try to take advantage*

No one wins.

Cluedrew
2017-03-17, 07:36 PM
My condolences.

If that is as good as you can make things in your game... not much more I can say to that. That just doesn't seem to happen in the games I have played, even if B gets started I usually realize it is a bad idea after a minute and stop. I mean the other person stops! OK I am more often the B in our group than anyone else, but no one digs in like that.

PersonMan
2017-03-18, 05:35 AM
I'll sum up how this goes.

Sounds like you could use a sort of "mid-game rulings are unquestioned, but can be discussed later for the purposes of future sessions" rule.

Tanarii
2017-03-18, 09:04 AM
What do you guys think about when this happens?

If a player, for example, quaffs a health potion that was in the cart before battle started. "My character would have gotten it out of the cart earlier..."

To what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid? Because it seems to come up a lot with my players during my time as a GM.If the time was taken to note the potion was in the cart, why wasn't the time taken to say it was being retrieved? Retcon is fine in a loose-goosey game, but how did you know it was in the cart in the first place if it's that kind of game?


My current campaign is a logistics-tracking time-management combat-as-war dungeon & wilderness sandbox, and wow wasn't that just a mouthful of jargon ... :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, my policy is: your character sheet needs to state what container something is in, not just what you own. There is a master sheet that lists party resources (ie items in the cart), stuff left at base camp (ie that's also on the character sheet), current PC Encumbrance for what they're carrying, and current speed. Taking stuff out of containers takes appropraite actions, especially finding someone something in a backpack*.

Two interesting indicents so far:
A character tried to invent a 'potion bandolier' as is all too common way to get around action economy. One 10ft pit later, he lost 6 out of 10 potions.

A player trying to avoid encumberance stated his PC always put down his pack if he had time before combat began, at my judgement (ie not if it would take the first round of combat to do so). He forgot to say he always picks it up after combat ... so the very first time he put it down he forgot it and left it behind. He also said a few combats later he was taking a potion out to drink ... which was clearly listed as in his backpack he had put down. He rescinded the backpack rule after that.


I've both played and run plenty of logistics-ignoring combat-as-sport chop-orcs-and-munch-pizza games, and in any of those I'd have no problems with retconning obvious stuff.

*Edit: and finding someone in a backpack would take even longer. Fixed.

BWR
2017-03-18, 09:32 AM
It really depends on the character, player, game and situation.
In general I'm of the opinion that if it isn't on the character sheet you don't have it, and if you haven't told the GM you are doing something you haven't done it, and it's up to the players to keep track of this and each other. There is some wiggle room. If they think combat is imminent and forget to mention they draw weapons, I will accept that their characters did that. Some players are **** at remembering stuff their character should and I for the sake of a smooth game IC and OOC I will often accept a few minor retcons, especially if it fits in with an established character's personality and previous actions.

We once had a TPK because the players did not specifically say they were putting on their protective gear. The players felt that it went without saying considering the amount of prep and planning they were doing for the expedition. I felt it was quite important to the game that they state explicitly they were protecting themselves. What we ended up with was a dead game and the players feeling I acted unfairly. I still get grief for that from time to time.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-18, 02:04 PM
No one wins.

Odd, I would never go that route. I'd go:

Player B: "Okay if we can do X, I do X in Y way."

DM: "No."

Player B: "You never said we couldn't X in Y way, and that was part of my plan, why are you blocking me?"

DM: END OF DISCUSSION!


It really depends on the character, player, game and situation.
In general I'm of the opinion that if it isn't on the character sheet you don't have it, and if you haven't told the GM you are doing something you haven't done it, and it's up to the players to keep track of this and each other.

A lot of RPGs are complex, that is just the way they are made. It can be a lot of work to keep track of everything, but that is how the game goes. A player that thinks they can show up and not pay attention, text on their phone the whole time and just occasionally roll a d20 and say ''did I hit?'' is not going to do well.

Though the DM does need to control the game flow a bit. It is worth the time to pause and say ''what do you do?'' before an event happens. Doing things like ''your characters go out into space to fix the hull...but they all die! HA! You never said you put on your space suits first! Ha!'' is just dumb. But asking a high level wizard ''what spells do you cast before entering the Caves of Chaos'' makes sense.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-18, 02:23 PM
I'll admit I don't run logistics heavy games. It's not one of my competencies. One firm policy I have is that I presume that the characters (not the players necessarily) are competent at what they do. If they weren't they'd have died before level 1. That means that most things that would be obvious to a 5-year-old can be done without questioning. If they've been planning to go into a hazardous area, explicitly procured protective gear, and then didn't say they put it on....I'd presume (or more likely ask the player) if they had put it on.

As a related note, I hate gotcha dm'ing, where the DM acts like a jerk genie and pounces on small misstatements/omissions/anything to "get" the players. I grew up with a brother who did that to me in real life constantly and it was traumatizing (I mean that literally, not in the figurative literal sense used commonly these days). It's no good for the game and only serves to give the DM a twisted sense of power.

I can totally understand groups that want to play with heavy logistics rules--tracking encumbrance, location of gear, days of rations, etc. I'd never willing play at such a table, but I can understand that some like it. Just make sure the rules and system is clear before anything starts, and enforce it impartially--on the enemies as well, and in the players favor when it makes sense.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-18, 06:14 PM
I should make it clear that what I said doesn't happen in every game, it's the sort of thing however I see opportunistic players diving into.

I'm trying to say that a Player B isn't always in a game, but they can be, and they can ruin a DM's desire to be open and negotiable. What's more, if the DM says No to them when they are struck down during abusing a ruling, they will say that the DM is playing favorites.

It's sort of a pet peeve of mine when the DM has to police player actions, and it's usually one player in particular, to prevent utter abuse. It makes the DM feel like a game designer who has to put out patches every 3 minutes to prevent players from using exploits. I hate it when a player can't simply be told "don't be a **** about it" and doesn't understand what that means, or try to argue they are in the right to exploit what they can.

Edit: Put another way, Player B is the type of player who will play Super smash brothers and in a brawl sit in a corner and plink at people with a ranged weapon, then run away when anyone got close, and ALWAYS play stock instead of points so they don't actually have to fight, just survive the longest. They are the type of player who will kill steal, camp spawn points, exploit bugs, and then not care about how what they do ruins fun for others.

ShaneMRoth
2017-03-18, 08:14 PM
If the player bought pizza... then the character can quaff that potion.

If the player didn't bring pizza... then the potion is in the cart.

Segev
2017-03-18, 09:59 PM
If the player bought pizza... then the character can quaff that potion.

If the player didn't bring pizza... then the potion is in the cart.

Ah, the tried and true "bribe the GM/table" method of query resolution!

Darth Ultron
2017-03-18, 10:19 PM
I'm trying to say that a Player B isn't always in a game, but they can be, and they can ruin a DM's desire to be open and negotiable. What's more, if the DM says No to them when they are struck down during abusing a ruling, they will say that the DM is playing favorites.

It's sort of a pet peeve of mine when the DM has to police player actions, and it's usually one player in particular, to prevent utter abuse. It makes the DM feel like a game designer who has to put out patches every 3 minutes to prevent players from using exploits. I hate it when a player can't simply be told "don't be a **** about it" and doesn't understand what that means, or try to argue they are in the right to exploit what they can.


Well, the favorites thing would not bother me. One of my oldest house rules is the DM makes the call and the game continues. If you really feel you must make a point, you are free to do so any other time. I'm more then willing to listen to your theory on how the four forces of nature interact with the d20 dice. Though often giving the character a huge beat down or even killing the character also works.

ShaneMRoth
2017-03-18, 10:49 PM
Ah, the tried and true "bribe the GM/table" method of query resolution!

I'm holding the player's potion hostage for...

one MILLION dollars!!!

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-19, 10:05 AM
Ah yes. Good to see the return of Punitive GMing, where The Stick is rhe first line of defense, with further lines of defense being bigger sticks.

The style of GMing that not only mirrors the least successful parenting style, but also doesn't even vaguely take into account the most effective ways to change behavior in human beings. (Hint: all of the reliable research we have, and I mean all of it, indicates that inflicting bad things on a person whenever they do bad and doing nothing else is the least effective way to create lasting changes in behavior. Woops.)

Now, for those of us not living in Actual Hell were all players have the IQ of a walnut and the temper of a wasp on steroids, and respond to all attempts to correct their behavior by screeching,
The best way to manage player (and human!) behavior is, and this will be shocking, talking to them about it and praising them when they get it right. I'm not saying you need to shower them with affection. Saying "Alright, good job!" Is sufficient. And effective. Using the stick should be a last resort. When everything else has failed, you can have a chat with them and say "Hey, I feel like when we talked about the issues we were having that you weren't listening to me, based on your behavior at the table. So while I have really enjoyed playing D&D with you, I'm going to need you to not come to sessions going forward."

Or don't. Up to you.


Feel free to keep taking the Stick Escalator for your problems, of course. Just don't expect it to have very pleasant long-term effects.

Jay R
2017-03-19, 12:17 PM
There are a couple of complications that haven't been addressed.

1. Who does the potion belong to? Has the party already unambiguously agreed that it belongs to Yakko? If not, then theoretically any PC could later claim to be the one who picked it up. I won't let Yakko tell me that he "would have" picked it up unless I absolutely know that Wakko and Dot would not have. Otherwise it just happens to wind up in the possession of the first one who needs it.

2. Sometimes there is a specific reason that I, as the DM, say that you never picked up the potion, and I can't tell you what that reason is. Perhaps as soon as Yakko's player said that he put it on the cart, Dot's player passed me a note saying, "As soon as he leaves the cart, Dot picks that potion up and keeps it in her pouch." Or maybe a thief came by and stole it. If you had told me you want to pick it up, I'd have told you it wasn't there any more, but only when you looked for it. Since I sometimes can't tell you why we can't retcon its location, I should never retcon it at all.

So the only safe, consistent, reasonable way to rule it is this:

As the DM, I won't play your character. I won't say that your PC took off her armor after you said she put in on, and for the same reason, I won't say that she is carrying a potion after you said she put it on the cart.

Quertus
2017-03-19, 01:43 PM
Two interesting indicents so far:
A character tried to invent a 'potion bandolier' as is all too common way to get around action economy. One 10ft pit later, he lost 6 out of 10 potions.

I won't argue with "Simulationist" logic. However, Gamist logic will ask if you really want to further penalize something so inefficient as wasting your money on expendable items.

I will, however, ask whether that 10' pit existed before he invented his 'potion bandolier' , or whether you were penalizing creativity.


A player trying to avoid encumberance stated his PC always put down his pack if he had time before combat began, at my judgement (ie not if it would take the first round of combat to do so). He forgot to say he always picks it up after combat ... so the very first time he put it down he forgot it and left it behind. He also said a few combats later he was taking a potion out to drink ... which was clearly listed as in his backpack he had put down. He rescinded the backpack rule after that.


Not only does this fail the 5-year-old, pants-on-head stupid rule, it also fails simulationist & common sense rules that would give a party, accustomed to carefully looting the fallen, a trivial (read "auto-success") spot check to notice a bloody backpack full of loot!

Unless the entire party was blind, drugged, unconscious, idiots, or on fire, if you did not inform them of the (very familiar looking) backpack on the battlefield, you have failed as a GM.

And, yes, that player also failed at developing a proper heuristic for their combat procedures. Way to discourage their development of good player skills. :smallfrown:

Darth Ultron
2017-03-19, 04:48 PM
Feel free to keep taking the Stick Escalator for your problems, of course. Just don't expect it to have very pleasant long-term effects.

There are many ways to do things.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-19, 10:21 PM
There are many ways to do things.

This truism, while vaguely applicable, does not in any way address my point.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-19, 11:11 PM
If the time was taken to note the potion was in the cart, why wasn't the time taken to say it was being retrieved? Retcon is fine in a loose-goosey game, but how did you know it was in the cart in the first place if it's that kind of game?

I think the example was meant to be a hypothetical. The idea is this: You have are in a situation that you indicate you put something somewhere. Lets say you say "I put my longspear in the cart" because you need to help someone carry something that requires both hands and longspears aren't something you can strap to your belt or back effectively.

Then after loading up the hefty item or doing whatever needed to be done he went down a cave. Now the player, due to their own forgetfulness, forgot to actually SAY they picked up their primary weapon before going into a potentially dangerous dungeon type area. The player would argue that their character would not be dumb enough to go into a dungeon without their primary weapon. Do you allow them to retroactively pick up the spear?

Now the potion is a little bit more likely to be ruled against because there is a wide difference between ones primary weapon and a particular potion one says their character would have brought, but the sentiment is the same. Can a player logistically retroactivally have their character have done something without specifically mentioning it.

In my opinion, that's the sort of thing that is always a gray area and up to the DM. If you go too loose, you end up with players deciding they totally bought a pouch of Dust of Dryness when they are suddenly facing a water elemental. If you get too tight, then you are the jerk DM who says a grenade didn't go off because the player said he lobbed the grenade at a group and you say "You didn't say you pulled the pin." In the former's case, you take the strategy of the game out of it and make it too easy, in the latter I would actually punch the DM in the face. Even if I wasn't the player who got that.


My current campaign is a logistics-tracking time-management combat-as-war dungeon & wilderness sandbox, and wow wasn't that just a mouthful of jargon ... :smallbiggrin:

Not so much jargon as a needlessly verbose way of saying "A D&D campaign"


Anyway, my policy is: your character sheet needs to state what container something is in, not just what you own. There is a master sheet that lists party resources (ie items in the cart), stuff left at base camp (ie that's also on the character sheet), current PC Encumbrance for what they're carrying, and current speed. Taking stuff out of containers takes appropraite actions, especially finding someone something in a backpack*.

I used to play with a DM who enforced that on people. And yet it never came up or made a difference in what happens to our characters. I'm not saying the micromanagement of inventory is without merit, it can reward creativity and lead to "old adventuring tricks" where you learn to always say, put your coin purse at the bottom of your quiver. However, make it MATTER sometimes. Otherwise it's just busywork.


Two interesting indicents so far:
A character tried to invent a 'potion bandolier' as is all too common way to get around action economy. One 10ft pit later, he lost 6 out of 10 potions.

Unless he somehow botched a tumble roll of some sort that comes off as you being a jerk to your players when they tried to be creative. A potion bandolier is not excessive considering the invention and ready availability of a Hewards Handy Haversack makes most anything you have available with a move action anyway


A player trying to avoid encumberance stated his PC always put down his pack if he had time before combat began, at my judgement (ie not if it would take the first round of combat to do so). He forgot to say he always picks it up after combat ... so the very first time he put it down he forgot it and left it behind. He also said a few combats later he was taking a potion out to drink ... which was clearly listed as in his backpack he had put down. He rescinded the backpack rule after that.

This is not avoiding an encumberance penalty, it's simple logical strategy. Carrying some of your heavier gear in a sack that you can drop on a moments notice is smart for an adventurer, and I would recommend it for adventurers who have to carry a crapton of gear. The player doesn't avoid the penalty with overland travel, and anything he wants in the sack will be wherever he dropped it so he will have to dash to it if he wants it. Also if a group of cowardly bandits decide to just run, they might pluck it from the ground if they are in retreat.

But the player character forgetting their backpack just because he didnt specifically say he picked it up? I'm sorry to say, but what you are describing makes you out to be a DM I would want to avoid. If I were in your game, I would get the feeling that you dislike the idea of players getting one up on you or forgetting that you are CLEARLY smarter than them and that they are stupid infants.

Maybe some players approve of the memory game expectation which fails to take into account that players lack the tactile interactions with objects that characters do (thus a character who dropped the backpack would notice after at most a couple of minutes they didn't feel the backpack weight while a player would not), but I find such things to be bothersome. I'm not saying characters cant forget things or be caught off guard, but if it makes sense at LEAST give them a wisdom check. If they botch, at least the player has a real reason they forgot the item.

My point is, it isn't your job as a DM to try to make the players feel stupid. I assure you, a lot of them get plenty of that in real life, they don't need it in their escapism.


I've both played and run plenty of logistics-ignoring combat-as-sport chop-orcs-and-munch-pizza games, and in any of those I'd have no problems with retconning obvious stuff.

Why do I get the sense of elitism from this statement?

Pex
2017-03-19, 11:27 PM
I get the point of why it shouldn't be allowed. Even I sometimes cringe when another player does it, and if I'm honest with myself I've probably also done it if not remembering when right now but probably more in the line of forgetting to use a class ability or an item that would change the situation as opposed to preparation.

Ultimately I would side on allowing it as long as players aren't abusing the privilege. For one thing it's just a game. Even when playing boardgames with friends we allow takebacksies if it's still that player's turn and no one else was adversely affected. There's also the real world effect of not having played your character for at least a week you can forget minutiae of details. Reverse metagame is also in play where as your character knows more about himself than the player and would have of course done something because it's second nature.

Segev
2017-03-20, 08:34 AM
I still think the easiest thing to do is have an Int or Wis check if a player says "I would have remembered to..." to see if their CHARACTER really did. (And a certain amount of "of course he would have" for the really obvious stuff that the player only forgot because he's not physically in the game world receiving all the sensory input of the PC; like going into a dungeon with his trusty spear not-in-hand, or looting the battlefield and somehow failing to notice his backpack sitting there.)

It has a slight undesirable effect of making players with low Int- or Wis- characters who are, OOC, more meticulous still have PCs with all the right stuff, while the high Int- or Wis- PC with a forgetful player might still forget a lot, but it at least puts a little bit of character ability to remember into it.

Tanarii
2017-03-20, 08:45 AM
I won't argue with "Simulationist" logic. However, Gamist logic will ask if you really want to further penalize something so inefficient as wasting your money on expendable items.

I will, however, ask whether that 10' pit existed before he invented his 'potion bandolier' , or whether you were penalizing creativity.Of course. Don't be ridiculous. The player fell into the trap fair and square. AND he was warned ahead of time that his bandolier solution meant his potion bottles apwere more breakable than normal.

I've played in plenty of games where a ten ft drop results in potions breaking in belt pouches and backpacks too. I'd previously established with players that they could assume these are sufficiently padded against reasonable breakage. The bandolier was an exception to that, and this was explained to the player in advance.



And, yes, that player also failed at developing a proper heuristic for their combat procedures. Way to discourage their development of good player skills. :smallfrown:Your opinion is noted. But since this exact incident taught the player proper gygaxian 'player skills' very effectively, it's wrong.


I think the example was meant to be a hypothetical.In that case, my 'how did you know it was in the cart' question becomes supremely relevant. If the time was taken to specify it's in the cart, then you're probably playing the kind of game in which knowing exactly where something has been kept is actually important.


Not so much jargon as a needlessly verbose way of saying "A D&D campaign"Lots of people don't require those playstyles for something to be consided "A D&D Campaign".


I used to play with a DM who enforced that on people. And yet it never came up or made a difference in what happens to our characters. I'm not saying the micromanagement of inventory is without merit, it can reward creativity and lead to "old adventuring tricks" where you learn to always say, put your coin purse at the bottom of your quiver. However, make it MATTER sometimes. Otherwise it's just busywork.Yes. There is no point in logistics management if it doesn't matter in the campaign. (Edit: clarification ... no point in 'super strict' logistics management if it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to say that the level of logistics management that I'm using is the only level that counts or anything stupid like that.)

(Also snipped some stuff where I was getting snippy from the end of my post.)

Quertus
2017-03-20, 09:06 AM
Of course. Don't be ridiculous. The player fell into the trap fair and square. AND he was warned ahead of time that his bandolier solution meant his potion bottles apwere more breakable than normal.

I've played in plenty of games where a ten ft drop results in potions breaking in belt pouches and backpacks too. I'd previously established with players that they could assume these are sufficiently padded against reasonable breakage. The bandolier was an exception to that, and this was explained to the player in advance.

Ah, my only potential issue was if the 10' pit was vindictively added in order to break the potions - something I've seen a lot of bad GMs do. I don't believe this was the case here, and don't personally have any problem with the way you handled this. In fact, kudos for telling the player ahead of time that their intended configuration was more susceptible to breakage.


However the player in question accepted this was the kind of game where both logicistics management and gygaxian 'player skills' are important, so he took it like a man.

"Player skills" only work when they're mirrored by "GM skills" of providing the player with enough information to make informed choices for their character. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a skilled adventurer just randomly didn't notice his backpack lying on the battlefield. A pants-on-head idiot? Sure. But unless the entire world is populated solely by pants-on-head idiots, unless the character specified that their character is, in fact, a pants-on-head idiot, let's assume that, when they said they were wearing pants, they don't have to specify where.

Although a world populated solely by pants-on-head idiots sounds like a lot of fun, to be honest. :smalltongue:

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-20, 09:41 AM
I still think the easiest thing to do is have an Int or Wis check if a player says "I would have remembered to..." to see if their CHARACTER really did. (And a certain amount of "of course he would have" for the really obvious stuff that the player only forgot because he's not physically in the game world receiving all the sensory input of the PC; like going into a dungeon with his trusty spear not-in-hand, or looting the battlefield and somehow failing to notice his backpack sitting there.)

It has a slight undesirable effect of making players with low Int- or Wis- characters who are, OOC, more meticulous still have PCs with all the right stuff, while the high Int- or Wis- PC with a forgetful player might still forget a lot, but it at least puts a little bit of character ability to remember into it.

I agree with Segev. A sentence I don't often type...

An Int or Wis check is a way of reflecting the difference between character knowledge and perceptiveness and player memory. Remembering your backpack you put on the ground during the battle when you leave safely outside of combat should be a DC 0 Wisdom check, but remembering it when running from a battle you are losing should be a DC 10 for example. The more obscure and convenient the expectation, the higher the DC. "I totally would have bought dust of dryness" is a DC 35 Wisdom check (No natural 20 auto success.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-20, 09:43 AM
There are very few things in gaming more frustrating that the GM who holds you to details that he consistently fails to actually share and make clear in the first place.

I've had a GM who was a stickler for players making precise and accurate decisions and declarations of action -- and routinely failed to make things clear. It always felt like we were being "trapped" by things we didn't notice but that our characters should have, and by his unconscious failure to understand how other people look at the world differently than he did. And yet, whenever we tried to press for small details that we thought might be important, there was this sort of frustration on his part that we were slowing the game down with minute detail and "undue" caution.

Eventually he went off about how "a game is supposed to be a real challenge" and "you can't avoid every risk" and whatever.


Personally I think it's impossible for the player to be perfectly aware of everything their character is aware of in every instant and every situation. The player's knowledge of the world is filtered through multiple layers of distance. Sessions are a week or more apart, so details get lost or fuzzy. Etc. The point of the game is to have fun. GMs need to give the players a break, and players need to not abuse that break.


And... I am not a fan of adversarial "gotcha" gaming.

Tanarii
2017-03-20, 09:48 AM
And yet, whenever we tried to press for small details that we thought might be important, there was this sort of frustration on his part that we were slowing the game down with minute detail and "undue" caution. Eventually he went off about how "a game is supposed to be a real challenge" and "you can't avoid every risk" and whatever.
Those last two things seem like they go hand in hand to me. One way to 'real challenge' is mitigating a rather large amount of risk as much as possible, so that you have a reasonable chance of succeeding in the situation.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-20, 10:25 AM
Those last two things seem like they go hand in hand to me. One way to 'real challenge' is mitigating a rather large amount of risk as much as possible, so that you have a reasonable chance of succeeding in the situation.

What the GM in question didn't realize is that the increasing unwillingness of the players to take any risks was directly caused by his habit of not sharing important information and then acting as if the players should have either determined it from what he had said, or have asked about it... evidently because we could read his mind or something?

Segev
2017-03-20, 10:30 AM
"The room is festooned with gold and silver. Racks of glowing magical weapons and armor line the far wall."

"I go inside and check for traps."

"When you step up to the tiles on the floor to inspect for pressure plates, the evil Cloud Giant swings his +5 brilliant energy greatclub at you. You're flat-footed, since you ignored him to start on that trap search."

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-20, 11:17 AM
"The room is festooned with gold and silver. Racks of glowing magical weapons and armor line the far wall."

"I go inside and check for traps."

"When you step up to the tiles on the floor to inspect for pressure plates, the evil Cloud Giant swings his +5 brilliant energy greatclub at you. You're flat-footed, since you ignored him to start on that trap search."

That absolutely sums up the way it sometimes felt to play with that GM, even if it was never quite that crazy.

Jay R
2017-03-20, 11:26 AM
The crucial thing is to be consistent, so the players know what to expect.

I would almost never let him have the potion from the cart, simply because he made a point of telling us that it was on the cart. That's his decision, not mine, and only he can undo it.

I also have occasionally been asked for something that seemed reasonable only because the player (and his character) didn't know something that I knew, and wouldn't tell them. I don't remember the exact details, but the party had left the tavern, and he wanted to just run back and take care of one trivial thing. I said, "We'll have to play it out." He thought I was being unfair. In fact, there were enemies tracking them. If he left the party, he'd have been in a solo combat. ... Which he would have lost, by the way. But that wasn't the issue. I have no problem with a PC dying because he chose to split the party. But he wanted me to declare that the road was safe with no encounters on it so he could do something back at the inn, and I refused to do so - because there was already an encounter on the road.

I wouldn't let a player declare that a PC had remembered to pick up a potion in part because it assumes something the player and PC don't inherently know - that nobody else picked up the potion in the meanwhile.

Tanarii
2017-03-20, 11:48 AM
What the GM in question didn't realize is that the increasing unwillingness of the players to take any risks was directly caused by his habit of not sharing important information and then acting as if the players should have either determined it from what he had said, or have asked about it... evidently because we could read his mind or something?
I understood that. And I agree ... if you're going to expect that players need to ask appropriate questions to get further information about the situation and act cautiously (which is basically the core of gygaxian 'player skill'). Likewise if you DM in such a way where it's necessary. If your players are acting a certain way, the two questions to ask are:
1) What have I done or not done that they are behaving like this?
2) What are they wanting out of the game that they are behaving in such a way?

But my comment was specifically that mitigating or overcoming risk IS one type of challenge. So it's weird to me to claim that acting cautiously is somehow not compatible with the game being a challenge. (That's not to say that sometimes overcoming a challenge is best done with swift and decisive action.)

Edit:

"Player skills" only work when they're mirrored by "GM skills" of providing the player with enough information to make informed choices for their character. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a skilled adventurer just randomly didn't notice his backpack lying on the battlefield. A pants-on-head idiot? Sure. But unless the entire world is populated solely by pants-on-head idiots, unless the character specified that their character is, in fact, a pants-on-head idiot, let's assume that, when they said they were wearing pants, they don't have to specify where.

Although a world populated solely by pants-on-head idiots sounds like a lot of fun, to be honest. :smalltongue:
Ah, I see where your objection is. Yeah, looking at it from the way I wrote it up, it definitely seemed like a 'gotcha for trying to set a sensible parameter for how my character acts' DM move. It made a lot more sense in the context of the pace of that game session & the way one battle was rapidly flowing into another at the time. And to be honest, looking at your & Stealth Marmot 's objections, I can see that my attitude definitely had a touch of that in it. Luckily the player did learn the right kind of 'player skill' from it I want for this campaign, which is never to assume.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-20, 12:13 PM
And... I am not a fan of adversarial "gotcha" gaming.

I'm not a fan of the sneaky ''gotcha'' gaming, but I sure like the ''obvious gotcha''. Where it is like ''the entire room is on fire with super hot magic flames and are burring everything in the room except the metal treasure chest in the middle of the room 100 feet away from where you stand at the door and there is no spot in the room that is not on fire and no safe path whatsoever''. And the player is like ''my character does nothing to protect themselves from fire and steps into the room and searches the chest for traps.''

And there are tons of DM’s that do the things like ‘’you did not say you were looking for creatures so you don’t see the 100 foot long dragon in the room!’’, but that is just a DM being a jerk. A lot more often it is where the players think that the game world is a typical Disney movie. So for example, they will ‘’sneak’’ in the back door to a building and expect there to be no guards or traps. Or they somehow think the orc bandits will ‘’all go to sleep’’ and won’t leave anyone on watch.

And way too often I get the type of player that ''does not want to listen to dumb fluff stuff''. So when I start to say ''in the room..'', they will cut me off and be like ''My character runs into the room and I roll a 32 to search for hidden treasure!''.

Segev
2017-03-20, 12:47 PM
"The floor is lava, and there is no obvious path across to the other side that doesn't go through the lava."

"I walk across!"

"You burn up. Take umpteen dice of fire damage each round you're in the lava. It will take you 10 rounds to cross, and you can turn back and redo as many rounds as you've already put in to go back."

This? This isn't a "gotcha." It's a player getting exactly what he should have expected given the clear description of the room and his stated action. Well, and a reasonable understanding of the rules. I am assuming the system does dice of fire damage for immersion in lava, rather than the more realistic "you incinerate to ash and die" if you immerse yourself in lava.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-20, 12:59 PM
"The floor is lava, and there is no obvious path across to the other side that doesn't go through the lava."

"I walk across!"

"You burn up. Take umpteen dice of fire damage each round you're in the lava. It will take you 10 rounds to cross, and you can turn back and redo as many rounds as you've already put in to go back."

This? This isn't a "gotcha." It's a player getting exactly what he should have expected given the clear description of the room and his stated action. Well, and a reasonable understanding of the rules. I am assuming the system does dice of fire damage for immersion in lava, rather than the more realistic "you incinerate to ash and die" if you immerse yourself in lava.

If you stand with 20 feet of lava you are already burning up if not choking to death on lethal fumes, which should be one hell of a tipoff.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-20, 12:59 PM
"The floor is lava, and there is no obvious path across to the other side that doesn't go through the lava."

"I walk across!"

"You burn up. Take umpteen dice of fire damage each round you're in the lava. It will take you 10 rounds to cross, and you can turn back and redo as many rounds as you've already put in to go back."

This? This isn't a "gotcha." It's a player getting exactly what he should have expected given the clear description of the room and his stated action. Well, and a reasonable understanding of the rules. I am assuming the system does dice of fire damage for immersion in lava, rather than the more realistic "you incinerate to ash and die" if you immerse yourself in lava.

(As an aside, lava is about 3 times denser than water and many many times more viscous... a human body can't actually sink into it. The intense heat is a real problem, but not of the "instantly combust from head to toe and die in an ashy cloud" sort.)

Segev
2017-03-20, 03:57 PM
If you stand with 20 feet of lava you are already burning up if not choking to death on lethal fumes, which should be one hell of a tipoff.


(As an aside, lava is about 3 times denser than water and many many times more viscous... a human body can't actually sink into it. The intense heat is a real problem, but not of the "instantly combust from head to toe and die in an ashy cloud" sort.)

Both are fair points. I did consider trying to reference them, but felt it would distract from the point I was trying to make, so I stuck with the common gaming assumption. (I know, I know, I'm a failure as a physicist for it. But not, as it turns out, as a physics instructor, since we tend to start by lying about the nature of it to get the broad concept across, then each year, we tell the decreasingly-little tykes that we lied to them last year, and THIS is how it REALLY is.)

Cluedrew
2017-03-20, 04:26 PM
One year it was electron orbits.
The next year it was electron shells.
The next year it was electron clouds.

This one has always stayed in my mind because it doesn't make things that much similar when all we are doing is counting them and it went through multiple revisions. I have half a mind that they don't actually work in clouds and I just stopped studying chemistry before they told us the truth.

Segev
2017-03-20, 04:32 PM
One year it was electron orbits.
The next year it was electron shells.
The next year it was electron clouds.

This one has always stayed in my mind because it doesn't make things that much similar when all we are doing is counting them and it went through multiple revisions. I have half a mind that they don't actually work in clouds and I just stopped studying chemistry before they told us the truth.

You are, in fact, correct. They actually operate in wave/particle energy levels. The "clouds" are revealed, when you get into quantum physics, to be the space wherein there is a probability that the particle could be / the space bounding the wave-form nature of the particle.

(And while that's technically correct, even that is a simplification, because to really get into it requires dealing with waveform notations and fancy integrals in < | > notation. Which I neither remember well enough to do off the top of my head, nor really want to in this thread.)

Tanarii
2017-03-20, 04:40 PM
You are, in fact, correct. They actually operate in wave/particle energy levels. The "clouds" are revealed, when you get into quantum physics, to be the space wherein there is a probability that the particle could be / the space bounding the wave-form nature of the particle.
And once that theory has been proven wrong there will be another model for how it works.
That's how science works. Throwing away the old for the new. And it's important to not mistake the model for the reality.
And be aware that teaching works by 'lies to children'.
And that teaching science (specifically) works by walking children through the same steps that science went through in the last 2000 or so years, from basic math through algebra & geometry / trig through calculus (with physics coming in about the same time as calculus). Including all the previous not quite correct models that were learned along the way.

Keltest
2017-03-20, 05:19 PM
As far as leaving gear in the cart goes, I tend to assume that there is a period of time where people grab everything on their inventory sheet off the cart and spend time equipping their armor, sharpening their swords and doing other basic adventuring stuff. The only reason I wouldn't let them do that is if there was some circumstance (like, say, a dragon ambush where they needed to get under cover) that prevented them from taking the time. In that case, ill let them keep a couple of emergency health potions and their weapons, but any armor that you don't have on you is unreachable.

If theres something explicitly on the cart that isn't in anybody's inventory for whatever reason, I assume it gets left on the cart unless its a plot device or something.

Jay R
2017-03-21, 01:21 PM
One year it was electron orbits.
The next year it was electron shells.
The next year it was electron clouds.

This one has always stayed in my mind because it doesn't make things that much similar when all we are doing is counting them and it went through multiple revisions. I have half a mind that they don't actually work in clouds and I just stopped studying chemistry before they told us the truth.

"The truth." They don't tell you the truth because we don't know it. All we have is a series of ever-more-complicated models that approximate what we've been able to measure so far.

Each model is true, to the limits of that level of understanding.

Similarly, my old puzzle map shows the outline of the United States shoreline. But when you buy a really good map, it's far more complex. Then if you get a state map, there are far more inlets. And when you go look at the shore, it's much more complicated than the map shows. And there are complications on the molecular level you can't see ...

But my old puzzle map shows us actual truth. That is the rough shape of the shore.

Similarly, electron shells are a very basic approximation for how atoms work. It explains how compound molecules work. You add another layer of complication with electron shells, and now the periodic table makes sense. Electron clouds are a still more complicated version, that explains more, but that is hard to understand until you have the math to understand a probability density function.

And physicists are trying to invent more complicated models to explain more phenomena. We aren't done yet, and we don't have "the truth".

That's how all learning happens. When my six-year-old brother asked me where babies come from, the answer I gave, while correct in essence, did not include all the details.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-21, 01:38 PM
But my old puzzle map shows us actual truth. That is the rough shape of the shore.


Not just the differing levels of complexity and intricacy, but also the understanding and modeling of things gets more complex. An example of this is the shape of the earth.

At first, people thought it was a disc. Then the idea became that it was a sphere. Then they realized it was slightly wider than tall, so it became an oblong spheroid. Even later it was found that the earth is slightly pear shaped.

Does this make it being a "sphere" incorrect? Technically. But it was closer to full accuracy than it being a disc, and every step gets increasingly close to an exact shape. This doesn't mean that earlier steps were worthless until you get to perfection, as every step builds on the idea of the past one. They aren't replacements, but refinements.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-21, 02:15 PM
Not just the differing levels of complexity and intricacy, but also the understanding and modeling of things gets more complex. An example of this is the shape of the earth.

At first, people thought it was a disc. Then the idea became that it was a sphere. Then they realized it was slightly wider than tall, so it became an oblong spheroid. Even later it was found that the earth is slightly pear shaped.

Does this make it being a "sphere" incorrect? Technically. But it was closer to full accuracy than it being a disc, and every step gets increasingly close to an exact shape. This doesn't mean that earlier steps were worthless until you get to perfection, as every step builds on the idea of the past one. They aren't replacements, but refinements.

Didn't "Newtonian physics" get us to the moon? IMO, it's not a matter of being plain wrong, but rather a matter of "incompleteness".

Knaight
2017-03-21, 03:00 PM
Didn't "Newtonian physics" get us to the moon? IMO, it's not a matter of being plain wrong, but rather a matter of "incompleteness".

Incompleteness is one way to put it, but it's more that there are a whole bunch of simplified models, where the ones that aren't outright wrong (e.g. spontaneous generation) generally work fairly well under certain conditions. Newtonian physics is one of these, but my preferred example is the various gas laws. The ideal gas law is simple, easy, and it works fine at low pressures and high temperatures (compared to the critical pressure and temperature of the substance). Then there's a whole bunch of distinct ways to handle different scenarios, and they aren't just all yet more refined versions of each other, but rather more specialized versions. Want to hover right at the liquid gas phase change and see what happens? You've got several options. Want to quickly correct the gas law using a fairly decent approximation that only needs critical temperatures and pressures? Residual PT models suddenly crop up.

Segev
2017-03-22, 07:16 PM
Newtonian physics is a good approximation at sufficiently slow relative velocities. It becomes increasingly bad the faster other objects seem to be moving compared to you.

Sermil
2017-03-22, 07:56 PM
Back on the original topic...

I used to insist that my player announce when they were checking for traps. At some point (about an hour later), I got tired of them announcing "I'm checking for traps on the floor and the ceiling and the walls and the door and the table and the chest and..." every 5 minutes, and I told them I'd just assumed the thief was always looking for traps when in a dangerous area and not in a fight. Made the game move along much faster.

I'd just assume they have any light, useful items from the cart with them.

Cluedrew
2017-03-22, 08:12 PM
To Sermil: Generally, if you make a ruling and the player replies with "Challenge Accepted" and optionally cracks their knuckles you may which to reconsider that ruling.

I would say more but I think I have already said my version. Would the character have? Tie break with what is more interesting, tie break that depending on the type of game (for instance, a tactical game should probably lean towards no, a comedy why not?).

Ashes
2017-03-23, 06:14 AM
When my players ask "did I bring this or that?', my response is usually "I don't know. Did you?"

IME that makes them consider the action from their character's point of view and makes them responsible for the continuation of the story.
A lot more interesting than being the bookkeeper of doom.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-23, 06:30 AM
When my players ask "did I bring this or that?', my response is usually "I don't know. Did you?"



My response is always: ''No''.

Cluedrew
2017-03-23, 06:39 AM
To Darth Ultron: You never brought this or that?

Segev
2017-03-23, 09:53 AM
My response is always: ''No''.

Even if it's a semi-rhetorical question that they're in the process of answering by checking their equipment list?

Darth Ultron
2017-03-23, 12:12 PM
To Darth Ultron: You never brought this or that?

Um, ''maybe''?


Even if it's a semi-rhetorical question that they're in the process of answering by checking their equipment list?

Well, this player would get a quick lesson in ''semi-rhetorical questions waste time'' so never, ever, ever ask them.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-23, 12:15 PM
Well, this player would get a quick lesson in ''semi-rhetorical questions waste time'' so never, ever, ever ask them.

Wow, that's a pretty harsh reaction that I can't help but think there is a history behind.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-23, 12:26 PM
Wow, that's a pretty harsh reaction that I can't help but think there is a history behind.

It is not harsh to me.

I'm not one for wasting time..ever. Even more so when we only have a couple hours to play a game. So the general rule is ''don't waste time''. And sure it is harsh if you were planning on sitting around and wasting and time...and worst of all wasting other peoples time. But more reasonable people are fine with it.

For example new players, and lots of bad players will often Waste Time asking the stupid question of ''can my character do X?'' I put a stop to that quick.

Segev
2017-03-23, 01:09 PM
Well, this player would get a quick lesson in ''semi-rhetorical questions waste time'' so never, ever, ever ask them.

How on earth does asking oneself, "Huh, DO I have that staff of life with me?" while looking at one's character sheet's equipment section waste time?

Jumping down their throats to gleefully tell them "No," with an unspoken "because you vocalized doubt over the possibility" merely invites either overconfident bluffing "Of COURSE I have it" or not communicating at all "best not say anything while I look this up; the DM will refuse to let me use it if I mention that I actually have to reference my stat page."

Keltest
2017-03-23, 01:31 PM
It is not harsh to me.

I'm not one for wasting time..ever. Even more so when we only have a couple hours to play a game. So the general rule is ''don't waste time''. And sure it is harsh if you were planning on sitting around and wasting and time...and worst of all wasting other peoples time. But more reasonable people are fine with it.

For example new players, and lots of bad players will often Waste Time asking the stupid question of ''can my character do X?'' I put a stop to that quick.

God forbid they try and learn the game system, right? "what are my options" is never, ever a stupid question. It is, in fact, exactly the question they should be asking.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-23, 08:37 PM
How on earth does asking oneself, "Huh, DO I have that staff of life with me?" while looking at one's character sheet's equipment section waste time?

Jumping down their throats to gleefully tell them "No," with an unspoken "because you vocalized doubt over the possibility" merely invites either overconfident bluffing "Of COURSE I have it" or not communicating at all "best not say anything while I look this up; the DM will refuse to let me use it if I mention that I actually have to reference my stat page."

Well, you can ask yourself silently in your head. That is fine.

And I do what players to think before they say something dumb, stupid, annoying or a waste of time. So that is good.


God forbid they try and learn the game system, right? "what are my options" is never, ever a stupid question. It is, in fact, exactly the question they should be asking.

See your confusing two things.

Cluedrew
2017-03-23, 08:42 PM
And I do [want] players to think before they say something dumb, stupid, annoying or a waste of time. So that is good.Don't do this to me Darth Ultron, don't set yourself up like that. So tempting.

mikeejimbo
2017-03-23, 09:17 PM
This sounds like a situation where a Wisdom check (or the equivalent) would be appropriate. Your character would have remembered / thought of it? Make a roll and see if that's true.

This is what I was going to say.

Interestingly, GURPS has a Disadvantage, Absent-Mindedness, that forces you to make a check that if you fail, means you explicitly forgot some detail like that. There is also a Perk, Standard Operating Procedure, that lets you define something your character will never forget. (An example given is Standard Operating Procedure: Always locks all the doors to his dwelling.)

neonchameleon
2017-03-24, 06:17 AM
Good to see that there are still advocates of zipper DMing out there. ("I go to the john, pull my zipper down, take out my junk, and urinate. I then do my zipper up and wash my hands." "You didn't actually say you were putting your junk away. Take some very painful damage.")

On the subject of encumbrance I use a variation of Matt Rundle's Anti-Hammerspace Item Tracker (http://rottenpulp.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/matt-rundles-anti-hammerspace-item.html) (in my version you get four sets of slots +1 per point of STR modifier and only ever lose one for medium or heavy armour). It's clear, it's not ambiguous, it's visual, and it lets us get back to the game.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-24, 06:32 AM
Basically, a lot of this "gotcha GMing" that a few people are advocating comes down to assuming that all PCs are not reasonable people of basic daily competence in life, but rather assuming that they are all total idiots and utterly helpless unless the player explicitly and constantly keeps them "above water".

These sorts of games end up wasting a lot of time on banal nitpickery and spelling obvious actions that should be presumed on the part of typical persons.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-24, 06:39 AM
Don't do this to me Darth Ultron, don't set yourself up like that. So tempting.

I know that at your core your a mature, understanding, good, honest, decent person who spends the whole winter bring the homeless blankets and dinner. So I know you won't take the bait.

Cluedrew
2017-03-24, 07:49 AM
Thank-you for the vote of confidence. And yes I usually managed to resist. Bait is still there though, staring me in the face. Unfortunately I only occasionally help out with homeless related projects.

I do like the traits idea, it gives more room for character expression which is almost always a good thing in my mind.

Segev
2017-03-24, 10:12 AM
Well, you can ask yourself silently in your head. That is fine.

And I do what players to think before they say something dumb, stupid, annoying or a waste of time. So that is good. Again...how is this wasting time? Thinking out loud takes no more time than thinking quietly, and gives a signal that the player is engaged and not just woolgathering.

I know you expect your players to be immature, helpless, mean-spirited, spoiled brats who at all times must be beaten with a thumb-thick rod about the head, shoulders, and backside to keep them in line, but geeze.


I know that at your core your a mature, understanding, good, honest, decent person who spends the whole winter bring the homeless blankets and dinner. So I know you won't take the bait.
I'm a necromancer. If I'm bringing the homeless blankets and dinner, it's at least in part to see if any have left corpses that nobody will mind if I animate.

...of course, I have minions to do the actual blanket-and-dinner deliveries...

ad_hoc
2017-03-24, 10:19 AM
A potion bandolier is not excessive considering the invention and ready availability of a Hewards Handy Haversack makes most anything you have available with a move action anyway

I think you are assuming editions.

Some of us play real D&D.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-24, 10:20 AM
I know you expect your players to be immature, helpless, mean-spirited, spoiled brats who at all times must be beaten with a thumb-thick rod about the head, shoulders, and backside to keep them in line, but geeze.


Not all players are like that!

Just me really.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-24, 10:41 AM
I'm a necromancer. If I'm bringing the homeless blankets and dinner, it's at least in part to see if any have left corpses that nobody will mind if I animate.

...of course, I have minions to do the actual blanket-and-dinner deliveries...


Said minions having come from earlier checks?

Segev
2017-03-24, 11:06 AM
Said minions having come from earlier checks?

Some of them, certainly.

SecretlyaFish
2017-03-24, 11:06 AM
My DM that is very good actually made one blunder when I was playing. He had downloaded a dungeon that he thought was cool and eventually we came into this room with a fountain. I was a 5th level cleric and I went up to inspect it. The dm asked me what I wanted to do with it and I said I wanted to examine it I guess, he said you notice nothing, and I said well I keep examining it. He made a roll then said "you gain 4 negative levels". I said verbally, "what the F***, why". He was assuming each time I examined it I was drinking from it. Playing a high wisdom character I would certainly NOT have just drunk from the random fountain in the evil dungeon, and certainly not without saying verbally "I'm gonna take a drink".

Perhaps my DM's only real blunder I've seen him make RP wise. I think its because he was reading off of the paper what it did and just assumed I was doing what the paper said. But sometimes the player is right in certain circumstances.

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-24, 11:21 AM
My DM that is very good actually made one blunder when I was playing. He had downloaded a dungeon that he thought was cool and eventually we came into this room with a fountain. I was a 5th level cleric and I went up to inspect it. The dm asked me what I wanted to do with it and I said I wanted to examine it I guess, he said you notice nothing, and I said well I keep examining it. He made a roll then said "you gain 4 negative levels". I said verbally, "what the F***, why". He was assuming each time I examined it I was drinking from it. Playing a high wisdom character I would certainly NOT have just drunk from the random fountain in the evil dungeon, and certainly not without saying verbally "I'm gonna take a drink".

Perhaps my DM's only real blunder I've seen him make RP wise. I think its because he was reading off of the paper what it did and just assumed I was doing what the paper said. But sometimes the player is right in certain circumstances.

Point of note, if you gain a negative level from drinking it, you would NOTICE the first time and stop. It would probably taste like a Nintendo Switch cartridge and make you feel like your sugar high just crashed.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-24, 12:13 PM
Again...how is this wasting time? Thinking out loud takes no more time than thinking quietly, and gives a signal that the player is engaged and not just woolgathering.

I know you expect your players to be immature, helpless, mean-spirited, spoiled brats who at all times must be beaten with a thumb-thick rod about the head, shoulders, and backside to keep them in line, but geeze.

The waste of time is asking a question you already know the answer too, as the basic answer to any ''can I'' question is ''Yes, you can try''.

I run my games fast paced.....I'd guess about light speed compared to a lot of games. For example, I expect players to be ready to take an action before their initiative order. So it works out to be ''Ok, it's Sorgs turn to act'' and the player immediately says the action. Even out of combat, I only give players second to decide....when a character say opens a door and sees something, they get a couple seconds to respond.

Segev
2017-03-24, 12:32 PM
The waste of time is asking a question you already know the answer too, as the basic answer to any ''can I'' question is ''Yes, you can try''.
Right. So players not sitting quietly and waiting their turn to so much as breathe in what might be an audible fashion, and then failing to have a "Yes, Sir!" student-in-a-Japanese-classroom snap response that is 100% perfectly accurate, is grounds for having their characters auto-fail at everything and anything, and otherwise be punished for their temerity. Got it.

Are you sure your games are meant to be fun?

Darth Ultron
2017-03-24, 05:31 PM
Right. So players not sitting quietly and waiting their turn to so much as breathe in what might be an audible fashion, and then failing to have a "Yes, Sir!" student-in-a-Japanese-classroom snap response that is 100% perfectly accurate, is grounds for having their characters auto-fail at everything and anything, and otherwise be punished for their temerity. Got it.

Are you sure your games are meant to be fun?

Now just to be fair....saying ''yes, sir'' is also a waste of time. When your asked ''what action does your character take?'' you answer that question.

Keltest
2017-03-24, 08:16 PM
Now just to be fair....saying ''yes, sir'' is also a waste of time. When your asked ''what action does your character take?'' you answer that question.

Youre assuming that players are going to have 100% total understanding of the situation exactly as you envision it from your description. Sometimes probing for more information is required to make an informed decision, because the DM is, after all, only human, and not going to perfectly communicate every possible detail. For example:

GM: you exit the catacombs and appear to be in a large garden inside the manor walls. You can see the main gate of the manor house proper has a pair of guards, and there are no other obvious doors visible from where you are. What do you do?

Player: are there any trees in the garden? Are their leaves thick enough for somebody to try and hide in?

You seem to think that is bad player conduct.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-24, 09:16 PM
Youre assuming that players are going to have 100% total understanding of the situation exactly as you envision it from your description. Sometimes probing for more information is required to make an informed decision, because the DM is, after all, only human, and not going to perfectly communicate every possible detail. For example:

GM: you exit the catacombs and appear to be in a large garden inside the manor walls. You can see the main gate of the manor house proper has a pair of guards, and there are no other obvious doors visible from where you are. What do you do?

Player: are there any trees in the garden? Are their leaves thick enough for somebody to try and hide in?

You seem to think that is bad player conduct.

It is a bad DM that does not describe things in detail. Your example DM is a bad one. You can just say ''a large garden'' and have no more details. And trees are a fairly big detail.

Though I'm fine with intelligent question....it's the dumb ones, like:

Dumb Player: "I stand 100 feet away from the gate...can I open the gate?"

DM-'Sigh, maybe..a gate is made to open and close, but you ''can't'' just know if your character ''can'' do something by being lazy, standing 100 feet from the gate and looking at it.''

Keltest
2017-03-24, 09:25 PM
It is a bad DM that does not describe things in detail. Your example DM is a bad one. You can just say ''a large garden'' and have no more details. And trees are a fairly big detail.

Though I'm fine with intelligent question....it's the dumb ones, like:

Dumb Player: "I stand 100 feet away from the gate...can I open the gate?"

DM-'Sigh, maybe..a gate is made to open and close, but you ''can't'' just know if your character ''can'' do something by being lazy, standing 100 feet from the gate and looking at it.''

The whole point is that the DM opens with a scene and the players probe for more information until they know what they think they need to. the DM and players are allowed to have a back and forth to make sure the players understand things, and doing so will be far more effective than trying to detail every single aspect of a scene that does not physically exist in one go.

Its only a dumb question if you deliberately interpret it overly literally. For example, I can tell, just by looking at a door, whether its made to swing open on a hinge, slide one way or another, lift or retract into the ground, etc... A gate in a fence or wall would be readily visible whether its meant to be pushed opened or operated through a mechanism, and any sort of barrier would be visible by virtue of it being a gate.

The appropriate response to that question would be something like "no, its locked with a chain. You could try and break it" or "no, its not that kind of gate, you would need to find the mechanism to lift it" or "yes, as far as you can see there is nothing beyond a simple latch keeping the gate in place."

Velaryon
2017-03-24, 09:29 PM
I only read the first two pages. I was gonna read the rest, but I'm posting at work, we close in half an hour, and I wanted to get my thoughts in before I go home. So apologies if I echo someone else's thoughts too much.

I would allow a PC to retroactively say they had something on them that they didn't explicitly state they did, with a few caveats:

1. It has to be something I agree they would reasonably be carrying with them. Their spare longsword or a certain scroll I know they have is fine. A silver sword that they don't habitually carry when they happen to be unexpectedly attacked by werewolves is not.

2. This can't be happening too often. If the same player does it more than once or twice, I'm going to start coming down on them a bit harder with reminders and tighter expectations for them to remember what they want to bring ahead of time.

3. The party necromancer has a whole menagerie of different undead minions. Now that he's not just bringing the whole train of them along behind him everywhere he goes, he needs to specify what is along with him and what stays at the keep.


As a player, most of the characters I play will have all their relevant possessions on them at all times, because that's just the nature of D&D (and most other games we play). But there have been a couple characters with large inventories of stuff and no convenient way to have all of it at hand all the time, such as my Road Warrior-type guy in the d20 Modern game we played in the Terminator universe. He had a set of jumper cables, yes, but it isn't something he'd be carrying all the time. Also, the character was a bit of a packrat who would hold onto things all the time in case he could use them later. So in that particular case, I specified a default location for all of his gear (the jumper cables were on the floor in the backseat of his armored Subaru Outback), and it would always be assumed to be there unless I specifically took it with me. I recommend this approach for any character that has an unusually large inventory of stuff, especially if they have specialized gear for any particular situations.

Jay R
2017-03-25, 08:07 AM
My DM that is very good actually made one blunder when I was playing. He had downloaded a dungeon that he thought was cool and eventually we came into this room with a fountain. I was a 5th level cleric and I went up to inspect it. The dm asked me what I wanted to do with it and I said I wanted to examine it I guess, he said you notice nothing, and I said well I keep examining it. He made a roll then said "you gain 4 negative levels". I said verbally, "what the F***, why". He was assuming each time I examined it I was drinking from it. Playing a high wisdom character I would certainly NOT have just drunk from the random fountain in the evil dungeon, and certainly not without saying verbally "I'm gonna take a drink".

Perhaps my DM's only real blunder I've seen him make RP wise. I think its because he was reading off of the paper what it did and just assumed I was doing what the paper said. But sometimes the player is right in certain circumstances.

First, the worst mistake he made was not telling you that you got a single negative level the first time. Even if you had been drinking from it, four separate effects shouldn't have happened before you noticed the first one.

Second, while I'm not defending the DM, you also contributed to the problem by using the generic word "examine", and not giving more details when prompted.

PC: I examine the fountain.
DM: What do you want to do with it?
PC: First, I smell the room, from ten feet away. [Wait for DM's response.] Then I look at the color of the liquid. [Wait for DM's response.] I look carefully at the fountain itself. [Wait for DM's response.] Are there any words or symbols worked into its construction? [Wait for DM's response.]
etc.

The reason he assumed that you did something you didn't want to do is that, in four tries, he couldn't get you to tell him what you were doing.

Again, I'm not defending the DM. But this is the sort of DM mistake you can choose to protect yourself from.

Jay R
2017-03-25, 02:51 PM
Basically, a lot of this "gotcha GMing" that a few people are advocating comes down to assuming that all PCs are not reasonable people of basic daily competence in life, but rather assuming that they are all total idiots and utterly helpless unless the player explicitly and constantly keeps them "above water".

Quite the opposite, actually. I assume that the players are not total idiots and utterly helpless, but rather, I assume that they are all reasonable people of basic daily competence in life, perfectly capable of updating an inventory on a character sheet.


These sorts of games end up wasting a lot of time on banal nitpickery and spelling obvious actions that should be presumed on the part of typical persons.

An interesting guess, but it doesn't match what I see in my games. If you only carry things on your sheet, and it's clear that "I'm picking up the potion" is matched with writing it on the character sheet, then no time is lost on "banal nitpickery". I reject out of hand your implication that keeping up your own character sheet is wasting time, or that expecting people to do so is "gotcha GMing".

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-25, 03:02 PM
Quite the opposite, actually. I assume that the players are not total idiots and utterly helpless, but rather, I assume that they are all reasonable people of basic daily competence in life, perfectly capable of updating an inventory on a character sheet.



An interesting guess, but it doesn't match what I see in my games. If you only carry things on your sheet, and it's clear that "I'm picking up the potion" is matched with writing it on the character sheet, then no time is lost on "banal nitpickery". I reject out of hand your implication that keeping up your own character sheet is wasting time, or that expecting people to do so is "gotcha GMing".


First, note that I was talking about the PCs, you're talking about the players.

Second, I wasn't referring to your posts... so it's interesting that when I said "gotcha GMing", you self-identified your style as such and assumed I was responding to your comments.

Quertus
2017-03-25, 03:26 PM
First, the worst mistake he made was not telling you that you got a single negative level the first time. Even if you had been drinking from it, four separate effects shouldn't have happened before you noticed the first one.

Second, while I'm not defending the DM, you also contributed to the problem by using the generic word "examine", and not giving more details when prompted.

PC: I examine the fountain.
DM: What do you want to do with it?
PC: First, I smell the room, from ten feet away. [Wait for DM's response.] Then I look at the color of the liquid. [Wait for DM's response.] I look carefully at the fountain itself. [Wait for DM's response.] Are there any words or symbols worked into its construction? [Wait for DM's response.]
etc.

The reason he assumed that you did something you didn't want to do is that, in four tries, he couldn't get you to tell him what you were doing.

Again, I'm not defending the DM. But this is the sort of DM mistake you can choose to protect yourself from.


My DM ... was assuming each time I examined it I was drinking from it.

I was taught to look with my eyes, not my hands. Although "examine" could be hands-on, I doubt most doctors examine patients with their mouths. So I think this DM needs a wake-up call.

PersonMan
2017-03-25, 03:29 PM
I was taught to look with my eyes, not my hands. Although "examine" could be hands-on, I doubt most doctors examine patients with their mouths. So I think this DM needs a wake-up call.

Brief nibbling.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's appendicitis. Luckily we caught it early.

NINJA_HUNTER
2017-03-25, 04:56 PM
What do you guys think about when this happens?

If a player, for example, quaffs a health potion that was in the cart before battle started. "My character would have gotten it out of the cart earlier..."

To what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid? Because it seems to come up a lot with my players during my time as a GM.

an excuse like that can only be valid if you know the players gaming style and for some reason he neglected to mention it at the time but you KNOW they would've.
like if the player always uses poison but forgot to say my dagger is poisoned is an example

Bohandas
2017-03-25, 08:29 PM
Give it to them. Just because the player forgot doesn't mean the character would've. Plus it helps the characters accomplish their missions. It's kind of nasty to have a character die or the party fail because they left ____ in the cart. Let 'em be heroes despite player mistakes.

I agree with this. Provided it is something that the character would be likely to know they would need.

If you still don;t want to cut them slack for it I'd say to leave it to a wisdom check or skill roll to see whether the character remembered

Jay R
2017-03-25, 08:31 PM
First, note that I was talking about the PCs, you're talking about the players.

Yes, of course. That was my point. The insulting phrase "gotcha GMing" is based on the false and unfair belief that the GM is making assumptions about the PCs. In fact, it's not "gotcha GMing," it's trying to play the game straightforwardly, making assumptions that the players are quite capable of tracking what they're supposed to track.


Second, I wasn't referring to your posts... so it's interesting that when I said "gotcha GMing", you self-identified your style as such and assumed I was responding to your comments.

Don't be silly; we both know you can read better than that. I clearly and unambiguously self-identified as "Quite the opposite, actually." I'm not agreeing with you or your description. I'm disagreeing with you.

Tanarii
2017-03-26, 09:22 AM
Second, I wasn't referring to your posts... so it's interesting that when I said "gotcha GMing", you self-identified your style as such and assumed I was responding to your comments.
You didn't quote anyone. Whose posts were you responding to? Quote them so they can respond.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-26, 10:01 AM
Yes, of course. That was my point. The insulting phrase "gotcha GMing" is based on the false and unfair belief that the GM is making assumptions about the PCs. In fact, it's not "gotcha GMing," it's trying to play the game straightforwardly, making assumptions that the players are quite capable of tracking what they're supposed to track.


The entire notion that the players are the ones who need to keep track of all the little pieces to exacting detail, rather than the characters being the ones in the setting/world interacting with the stuff in the world, is core to a "this is a sophisticated boardgame" view of RPGs... treating the PCs as hollow playing pieces rather than characters in their own right.

The "gotcha" part comes in when the GM is constantly and eagerly looking to nail the players for not being able to read their minds, not having perfect memory of events that happened a week or two ago in real life, not keeping notes that would make a criminal investigator blush at his own lack of attention to detail, etc... usually while hiding behind a fig leaf of "just following the rules to the letter, man".

It's the sort of playing/GMing that's so often spoofed in comics such as Knights of the Dinner Table.

And yes, without escape, it involves assuming that the PCs are either some combination of moronic, ignorant, and incompetent, or are just hollow playing pieces for the players to move around the "board".


"Well, you didn't say you were taking your spell book, so obviously it's still at the inn, assuming the chamber maid hasn't run off with it." :smallconfused:





Don't be silly; we both know you can read better than that. I clearly and unambiguously self-identified as "Quite the opposite, actually." I'm not agreeing with you or your description. I'm disagreeing with you.


So you didn't presume that "gotcha GMing" was directed at you?

If you didn't, why did you reply?

Segev
2017-03-26, 10:42 AM
To be fair, Max, you identified a certain kind of behavior as "gotcha DMing," so if people believe that expecting you to keep your inventory up-to-date is NOT "gotcha DMing," responding to say so is not self-identifying as "gotcha DMing." It's recognizing that your post called their DMing style "gotcha DMing," and disputing the accusation that their DMing style involves "gotcha."

That said, I tend to agree more that you should not expect perfect and constant updating of where every item of inventory is. I keep equipment lists of possessions, but that doesn't mean that everything on my possessions list is always on my PC. A DM who treated it as if it were would call me out for carrying far too much stuff for my character's strength, let alone number of limbs and space in various pouches, bags, and pockets. I try to keep a general note of what I usually have on me, but at the same time, if I'm going to dive into the Fire Dragon's Cave, and I just bought a few potions of fire resistance before we left town, telling me that I never SAID I put them in my Handy Haversack must mean I left them back in town is obnoxious at best.

That would be "gotcha DMing." It's only a couple of steps removed from "You never said your character ate today, so now he's suffering starvation penalties" or "You never said your character used the restroom for the last month of in-game time, so his intestines and bladder burst, killing him" or "You never said your character kept breathing, so he suffocates!" There are obvious steps people take that aren't entertaining to belabor in description; assuming that they didn't put the potion in their Handy Haversack if they didn't say they did when they purchased it specifically for this quest is such a thing. "Oh, you said you put it in the Handy Haversack, but you never said you unclasped the Haversack's top, so it just sat on top of it. ...you DID unclasp it to put it in, but you never said you re-clasped it, so it fell out, along with all your other stuff! ...you DID re-clasp it, but when you said you pulled it out for this round's actions, you didn't say you unclasped it, so you can't get to it and wasted your action!"

Now, I hope no DMs really behave that way, but it's the same kind of behavior, logically speaking. The line depends on the DM, and how much he wants to put up with players describing in minute detail every little action to make sure that he doesn't "get" them.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-26, 10:49 AM
I was taught to look with my eyes, not my hands. Although "examine" could be hands-on, I doubt most doctors examine patients with their mouths. So I think this DM needs a wake-up call.


Exactly. The GM assumed that the PC was an idiot -- and (intentionally or not) obscured and obfuscated critical information, thereby giving the player an incomplete and inaccurate picture of what was going on.

Segev
2017-03-26, 11:47 AM
Exactly. The GM assumed that the PC was an idiot -- and (intentionally or not) obscured and obfuscated critical information, thereby giving the player an incomplete and inaccurate picture of what was going on.

This is an accurate description of the problem. (I feel the need to reiterate this because I don't want to obscure where I agree with the position by the quibble in my last post.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-26, 12:55 PM
To be fair, Max, you identified a certain kind of behavior as "gotcha DMing," so if people believe that expecting you to keep your inventory up-to-date is NOT "gotcha DMing," responding to say so is not self-identifying as "gotcha DMing." It's recognizing that your post called their DMing style "gotcha DMing," and disputing the accusation that their DMing style involves "gotcha."


My posted comment was as follows -- notice that I don't specify anything, leaving it as a matter of degree rather than particular actions:

Basically, a lot of this "gotcha GMing" that a few people are advocating comes down to assuming that all PCs are not reasonable people of basic daily competence in life, but rather assuming that they are all total idiots and utterly helpless unless the player explicitly and constantly keeps them "above water".

These sorts of games end up wasting a lot of time on banal nitpickery and spelling out obvious actions that should be presumed on the part of typical persons.


If someone reads that and thinks "that's directed at how I GM", what should we take away from that reaction?




That said, I tend to agree more that you should not expect perfect and constant updating of where every item of inventory is. I keep equipment lists of possessions, but that doesn't mean that everything on my possessions list is always on my PC. A DM who treated it as if it were would call me out for carrying far too much stuff for my character's strength, let alone number of limbs and space in various pouches, bags, and pockets. I try to keep a general note of what I usually have on me, but at the same time, if I'm going to dive into the Fire Dragon's Cave, and I just bought a few potions of fire resistance before we left town, telling me that I never SAID I put them in my Handy Haversack must mean I left them back in town is obnoxious at best.

That would be "gotcha DMing." It's only a couple of steps removed from "You never said your character ate today, so now he's suffering starvation penalties" or "You never said your character used the restroom for the last month of in-game time, so his intestines and bladder burst, killing him" or "You never said your character kept breathing, so he suffocates!" There are obvious steps people take that aren't entertaining to belabor in description; assuming that they didn't put the potion in their Handy Haversack if they didn't say they did when they purchased it specifically for this quest is such a thing. "Oh, you said you put it in the Handy Haversack, but you never said you unclasped the Haversack's top, so it just sat on top of it. ...you DID unclasp it to put it in, but you never said you re-clasped it, so it fell out, along with all your other stuff! ...you DID re-clasp it, but when you said you pulled it out for this round's actions, you didn't say you unclasped it, so you can't get to it and wasted your action!"

Now, I hope no DMs really behave that way, but it's the same kind of behavior, logically speaking. The line depends on the DM, and how much he wants to put up with players describing in minute detail every little action to make sure that he doesn't "get" them.

I tend to ere on the side of "keep the game fun, keep the game moving, assume the PCs are who they are" unless the thing they'd want to be carrying or the thing they say they'd have done or not done, just stands out as an absurd claim.

Segev
2017-03-26, 01:11 PM
My posted comment was as follows -- notice that I don't specify anything, leaving it as a matter of degree rather than particular actions:

Basically, a lot of this "gotcha GMing" that a few people are advocating comes down to assuming that all PCs are not reasonable people of basic daily competence in life, but rather assuming that they are all total idiots and utterly helpless unless the player explicitly and constantly keeps them "above water".

These sorts of games end up wasting a lot of time on banal nitpickery and spelling out obvious actions that should be presumed on the part of typical persons.


If someone reads that and thinks "that's directed at how I GM", what should we take away from that reaction? I see where you're coming from. But there's a lot of implication to be drawn from the context of the post in this thread. I know you may not have meant it; my point is to emphasize that it doesn't take self-identifying as a "gotcha GM" to see a variety of behaviors in this thread falling into the implied category even when they may not have been intended in your post. I agree with your sentiment. I just see how people who are not self-identifying as "gotcha GM"s might infer a sleight on their GMing style based on the rest of this thread's context and your post's terms.

That said, if people really do feel that players should spell out every nitpicky detail, they should identify with your label of "gotcha GMing" per your definition here. But if they're defending that, then no, I have no sympathy for it.


I tend to ere on the side of "keep the game fun, keep the game moving, assume the PCs are who they are" unless the thing they'd want to be carrying or the thing they say they'd have done or not done, just stands out as an absurd claim.That sounds reasonable to me.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-26, 01:35 PM
It seems like a lot of posters are on the side of the characters will always remember and do everything. And, ok, fine. I guess my question would be: where do you draw the line?


1.Do you go as far as to simply give the character the ability to ''wish'' for things? Like can a player just say ''Kzor reaches into his back pack and pulls out a potion of life'', with the understanding that the chatacter Kzor would have been smart enough to buy one back in town even if the ''silly'' player forgot to mention it?

2.Is this one of them ''if you can get the DM to agree'' type things. Like the characters leave town to slay a red dragon. Hours later when they get to the lair, Player Bob is all like ''Kzor drinks a potion of fire resistance'' and the DM just nods yes as it ''makes sense'' that Kzor would have bought that before leaving town, even if the player never said so.

3.Does the DM put some odd, arbitrary limit on what can be ''suddenly brought''? Something like the character can't ''buy'' anything but can ''remember'' to bring anything they own? Or can they just ''suddenly'' have any items of less then a set gold piece amount? Is there a size limit? Can a character only ''suddenly remember'' a set number of items per game?

And what about abuse? If your not keeping track of a characters inventory, how do you stop abuse? Like say a character buys 10 potions of healing and puts them in a locked chest in their home. Later, when the character is deep in the Swamp of Doom, and wounded, they can just say they pull out a healing potion that they ''remembered'' to take with them. And they can ''remember'' they took each potion once, right?

Jay R
2017-03-26, 01:50 PM
The entire notion that the players are the ones who need to keep track of all the little pieces to exacting detail, rather than the characters being the ones in the setting/world interacting with the stuff in the world, is core to a "this is a sophisticated boardgame" view of RPGs... treating the PCs as hollow playing pieces rather than characters in their own right.

Actually, it's just observing the fact that the character sheet includes an inventory. I don't have to think the PCs are hollow playing pieces to expect the players to use the inventory, any more than to expect them to record their hit points. There is no connection at all between updating the character sheet and playing fully developed characters.


The "gotcha" part comes in when the GM is constantly and eagerly looking to nail the players for not being able to read their minds, not having perfect memory of events that happened a week or two ago in real life, not keeping notes that would make a criminal investigator blush at his own lack of attention to detail, etc... usually while hiding behind a fig leaf of "just following the rules to the letter, man".

This is all stuff that you made up and introduced to the thread. The topic under discussion is a DM who wanted advice about a player who wanted to use something left on the cart "before battle started".


He wasn't "constantly and eagerly looking to nail the players" or he wouldn't have needed advice.
There is no reason to assume that it was left in the cart "a week or two ago in real life".
It doesn't take a "perfect memory" to write it down. In fact, the inventory sheet exists to prevent needing a "perfect memory".
Listing possessions on an inventory is by no means "keeping notes that would make a criminal investigator blush at his own lack of attention to detail".
And he isn't "hiding behind a fig leaf of 'just following the rules to the letter, man'." He's asking for advice about "[t]o what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid".


So the "gotcha" part, as you have defined it, is not germane to the original topic, nor is it what most people have been talking about.

You made it up, and then claimed other people espoused your made-up approach.

Perhaps you would do better in this discussion if you quoted people's exact words, and accused them of what they actually write. An absurd description you wrote that doesn't match what they say won't convince anyone. Note that what I'm ascribing to you in quotation marks are actual quotations.


So you didn't presume that "gotcha GMing" was directed at you?

If you didn't, why did you reply?

For the reasons I gave when I replied. That it was a false and unfair description, and that it doesn't match what I see in my games.

In fact, I thought that it wasn't directed at me (since I had not been involved in the thread recently), but that it was a false, unfair, and grossly exaggerated description aimed at reasonable behavior from other people that is similar to my own reasonable behavior.


If someone reads that and thinks "that's directed at how I GM", what should we take away from that reaction?

First of all, I neither thought nor wrote that "that's directed at how I GM". You put that phrase in quotes, but it is not a quotation.

Now, to answer the question:
That depends. Did I also clearly and unambiguously state that I am "quite the opposite, actually"?
Did I clearly and unambiguously state that your description is an interesting guess, but that it does not match what I've seen?

If so, and if you wish to interpret my words accurately, you should assume that your accusation does not match what I've seen, and that I consider my DMing to be quite the opposite of that description.

But if you wish to ignore my clear intent and misinterpret my words for the purpose of accusing me of claiming it was directed at how I DM, when you, I, and everybody else all know I made no such claim, then you should react as you have done.

Keltest
2017-03-26, 01:55 PM
It seems like a lot of posters are on the side of the characters will always remember and do everything. And, ok, fine. I guess my question would be: where do you draw the line?


1.Do you go as far as to simply give the character the ability to ''wish'' for things? Like can a player just say ''Kzor reaches into his back pack and pulls out a potion of life'', with the understanding that the chatacter Kzor would have been smart enough to buy one back in town even if the ''silly'' player forgot to mention it?

2.Is this one of them ''if you can get the DM to agree'' type things. Like the characters leave town to slay a red dragon. Hours later when they get to the lair, Player Bob is all like ''Kzor drinks a potion of fire resistance'' and the DM just nods yes as it ''makes sense'' that Kzor would have bought that before leaving town, even if the player never said so.

3.Does the DM put some odd, arbitrary limit on what can be ''suddenly brought''? Something like the character can't ''buy'' anything but can ''remember'' to bring anything they own? Or can they just ''suddenly'' have any items of less then a set gold piece amount? Is there a size limit? Can a character only ''suddenly remember'' a set number of items per game?

And what about abuse? If your not keeping track of a characters inventory, how do you stop abuse? Like say a character buys 10 potions of healing and puts them in a locked chest in their home. Later, when the character is deep in the Swamp of Doom, and wounded, they can just say they pull out a healing potion that they ''remembered'' to take with them. And they can ''remember'' they took each potion once, right?

The basic question to ask is "is it reasonable for them to have brought this with them?"

If they don't have an item, they cant have "remembered" it, period. Ever. You cant bring items you don't have. If they specifically say "i leave it in such and such unusual place" then they need to specifically retrieve it. If its "I leave it on the cart for the purposes of traveling on the road" and they went into the forest, they can have it as long as their character could reasonably be carrying it (no giant chests of gold, for example).

Players should keep track of their inventories, but in cases where its muddled (like the cart example. Whats on their inventory isn't necessarily whats on their person), or not the player's fault (they missed the shopping spree session, for example) err on the side of the player.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-26, 02:04 PM
The basic question to ask is "is it reasonable for them to have brought this with them?"



You seem to have a huge amount of house rules for suddenly bringing an item. I hope you inform your players in detail about them before the game starts. After all it is reasonable that a character went to a store and bought all sorts of things, so you might want to make it clear to your players that their character can't ''remember to buy things''. And if a player missing a game, they can assume they bought tons of stuff of whatever they wanted at the store.

Like I said, that is a lot of house rules to keep track of.

Segev
2017-03-26, 02:08 PM
It seems like a lot of posters are on the side of the characters will always remember and do everything. And, ok, fine. I guess my question would be: where do you draw the line?It is a bit fuzzy, but we can examine some cases to see if they fall in definite zones or in the fuzzy region.


1.Do you go as far as to simply give the character the ability to ''wish'' for things? Like can a player just say ''Kzor reaches into his back pack and pulls out a potion of life'', with the understanding that the chatacter Kzor would have been smart enough to buy one back in town even if the ''silly'' player forgot to mention it?Depends; did Kzor have a habit of buying such potions? Did he have a particular reason why he'd have done so this time even if he didn't usually do it? Does he have enough money on hand that he could have?

If "no" to any of these, definitely not. It's a pretty specific item, hopefully used rarely.

If he typically carries one around, and had finally expended it last adventure, then sure, I'd let him say he bought a new one to replace it, even if his player had forgotten. If he doesn't, though, and he only "remembers" he "totally would have bought one this time" when it turns out that THIS time it's needed? No.


2.Is this one of them ''if you can get the DM to agree'' type things. Like the characters leave town to slay a red dragon. Hours later when they get to the lair, Player Bob is all like ''Kzor drinks a potion of fire resistance'' and the DM just nods yes as it ''makes sense'' that Kzor would have bought that before leaving town, even if the player never said so.Again, it depends on the situation. Did they know they were going to slay the red dragon? Did the party take specific effort to prepare for it? Did the DM forget to offer them an Int roll or Wis roll to suggest, "you know, something to resist fire might be a good idea?" considering how obvious it is? If so, sure, I'd probably let him retroactively buy one.

Though most likely, for something that is a) quest-specific like this, and b) that they had potential reason to know they'd be going on a quest like this to achieve, I'd probably assign a DC 10 to 20 Int check to see if they thought of it. For the fire potion, I'd go low. DC 10. Pass, and sure, Kzor retroactively purchases it, having been smarter than his player about remembering these things.


3.Does the DM put some odd, arbitrary limit on what can be ''suddenly brought''? Something like the character can't ''buy'' anything but can ''remember'' to bring anything they own? Or can they just ''suddenly'' have any items of less then a set gold piece amount? Is there a size limit? Can a character only ''suddenly remember'' a set number of items per game?The first example isn't arbitrary. "You can't buy something, but you can see if you remembered something you already had" is quite reasonable, particularly because the question of whether something they want to retroactively buy is even available for purchase at the locale where they were preparing for this quest is hard to answer.

The others sound like perfectly reasonable arbitrary house rules if the DM wants to set them up, but are not required.


And what about abuse? If your not keeping track of a characters inventory, how do you stop abuse? Like say a character buys 10 potions of healing and puts them in a locked chest in their home. Later, when the character is deep in the Swamp of Doom, and wounded, they can just say they pull out a healing potion that they ''remembered'' to take with them. And they can ''remember'' they took each potion once, right?I don't follow. Why do they lock it in their chest and not take it with them? If they specifically told me they locked it in their chest and left it behind, then no, they couldn't "remember" to have retroactively brought any of them. If they told me they locked it in their chest overnight before they left, I'd be fine with assuming they got them out with their other adventuring gear.

If, for some reason, there was a legitimate question over whether they would have left it at home or brought it with them, and I did decide to let them say "yeah, I brought them," I'd ask them right then and there, "How many of them did you bring, and how many did you leave?" They'd then have to stick with that.



The problem with most of these examples is that they're ignoring the primary way this tends to happen: "We're going shopping for anti-red-dragon gear to prepare for this mission to slay the red dragon. Here is the list of stuff we're buying." Hours later in play, a couple days later in game, "Kzor drinks a fire-resistance potion." Unless Kzor specifically said he left the fire resistance potions at home, there's no reason to assume that it isn't with him.

If he left it off the list, I'd feel it remiss as a DM not to at LEAST offer his player an Int check. If he succeeds, "Kzor remembers that red dragons do a lot of fire damage. Would he purchase fire protection gear? I don't see it on this list."

If I, as DM, forgot and didn't notice its lack back then, I'd let him make the Int check retroactively, because clearly it's something that I can't expect the player to remember to do if I don't even notice.

Keltest
2017-03-26, 02:11 PM
You seem to have a huge amount of house rules for suddenly bringing an item. I hope you inform your players in detail about them before the game starts. After all it is reasonable that a character went to a store and bought all sorts of things, so you might want to make it clear to your players that their character can't ''remember to buy things''. And if a player missing a game, they can assume they bought tons of stuff of whatever they wanted at the store.

Like I said, that is a lot of house rules to keep track of.

Its not a rule, its a ruling. A reaction to a scenario where the rules do not provide a clear answer one way or the other. A rule would be "players are allowed to retroactively purchase items if they missed a session". The ruling is "in this specific case, I am letting you purchase items retroactively because you missed a session."

See the difference?

Segev
2017-03-26, 02:16 PM
You seem to have a huge amount of house rules for suddenly bringing an item. I hope you inform your players in detail about them before the game starts. After all it is reasonable that a character went to a store and bought all sorts of things, so you might want to make it clear to your players that their character can't ''remember to buy things''. And if a player missing a game, they can assume they bought tons of stuff of whatever they wanted at the store.

Like I said, that is a lot of house rules to keep track of.

Now, you're deliberately misconstruing what the other poster said, given that he provided specific examples.

The specific examples he provided included "I keep this on the cart while we're traveling" followed by an allowance that, if he steps away from the cart while they're stopped for some reason, and he could reasonably be carrying the item, he can say he grabbed it even if the player didn't expressly state so. This is to avoid having, any time they separate from the cart, players saying, "I take the X from the cart, and put it in the 7th pocket of my Belt of Many Pouches. I take Y from the cart, and sling it over my shoulder, but under my cloak. I take W from the cart, and hide it in my left shoe, three inches to the left of my heel." etc. ad nauseum.

You also are assuming that all stores have all items. Thus they "could" have bought anything! There's a reason to require that they have reasonable access to the item, and that one might only allow retroactive purchase of things that they typically carry and could have had but forgot to mention replenishing. Or highly quest-specific items that seem obvious in retrospect they would have wanted.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-26, 02:23 PM
Its not a rule, its a ruling. A reaction to a scenario where the rules do not provide a clear answer one way or the other. A rule would be "players are allowed to retroactively purchase items if they missed a session". The ruling is "in this specific case, I am letting you purchase items retroactively because you missed a session."

See the difference?

No, sounds like a house rule to me...a lot of house rules. And they all sounds like house rules the players should know before the game starts.

After all, if your going to do the ''reaction ruling'' and change it every time on a whim, then that is the definition of Jerk Dming. When your going to say ''Amy you missed the last game, your character went to All-Mart and can buy whatever you want'', but later you say ''Jim, you missed the last game and get nothing'' that is a huge difference.

And that is just one of your houserules, counting them up I'm sure you will have like at least twenty.



Now, you're deliberately misconstruing what the other poster said, given that he provided specific examples.


This is exactly why a DM must provide, in writing and great detail, all such Houserules.

Keltest
2017-03-26, 02:28 PM
No, sounds like a house rule to me...a lot of house rules. And they all sounds like house rules the players should know before the game starts.

After all, if your going to do the ''reaction ruling'' and change it every time on a whim, then that is the definition of Jerk Dming. When your going to say ''Amy you missed the last game, your character went to All-Mart and can buy whatever you want'', but later you say ''Jim, you missed the last game and get nothing'' that is a huge difference.

And that is just one of your houserules, counting them up I'm sure you will have like at least twenty.

Yes, I suppose if you deliberately craft a situation in which the GM abuses their power, it will come off as abusive. But as it is in my own best interest not to antagonize my players overly much (being friends with them and enjoying playing with them) I don't intend to do that.

jayem
2017-03-26, 02:34 PM
You seem to have a huge amount of house rules for suddenly bringing an item. I hope you inform your players in detail about them before the game starts. After all it is reasonable that a character went to a store and bought all sorts of things, so you might want to make it clear to your players that their character can't ''remember to buy things''. And if a player missing a game, they can assume they bought tons of stuff of whatever they wanted at the store.

Like I said, that is a lot of house rules to keep track of.

But then that cuts the other way too, you may have mentioned you character breathing, but you forgot the heartbeat that's a stroke happening in 3-2-1, for that matter how long between breaths do you decide to punish them. I trust you've been specific about both (so that's two houserules) and while we're at it...

FWIW I'd start at where things are explicitly listed (inventory lists) then it's almost certain that they do or don't have it at that level.
At the other extreme, there's certain things that would be almost certain to have (e.g. a handy knife in their house).

In between, come to some agreement, where a compromise is reached. If binary, agree on chances, then, use die to decide. Otherwise perhaps say day pack contained one healing potion. Or a complication (but at that point update the Player of what the Character knows and give a chance to reassess a little).

Segev
2017-03-26, 02:35 PM
No, sounds like a house rule to me...a lot of house rules. And they all sounds like house rules the players should know before the game starts.

After all, if your going to do the ''reaction ruling'' and change it every time on a whim, then that is the definition of Jerk Dming. When your going to say ''Amy you missed the last game, your character went to All-Mart and can buy whatever you want'', but later you say ''Jim, you missed the last game and get nothing'' that is a huge difference.

And that is just one of your houserules, counting them up I'm sure you will have like at least twenty.




This is exactly why a DM must provide, in writing and great detail, all such Houserules.

That's all the detail needed. There technically aren't rules detailing how you must record what equipment is where. Merely accounting for how much you can carry and where. It is a ruling either way as to whether you can assume a "reasonable" load-out based on the context, or whether you must engage in strict spreadsheet management keeping all of your equipment lists exact as to precisely where all items are at all times.

Pretending there's a false dichotomy and that everybody except you is a horrible DM with too many house rules to count is laughable, given your posting history and the extremely antagonistic DMing style you've repeatedly held up as the ideal (and the one in which you engage).

JNAProductions
2017-03-26, 02:41 PM
Anyone find it funny that Darth Ultron, who keeps his houserules hidden from his players, is arguing that all houserules need to be on the table immediately?

Segev
2017-03-26, 02:50 PM
Anyone find it funny that Darth Ultron, who keeps his houserules hidden from his players, is arguing that all houserules need to be on the table immediately?

I'm assuming he's being sarcastic to try to paint people who ask him to do so as either ridiculous or hypocritical. Which is why he's insisting on a false dichotomy to allow him to define anything other than the most antagonistic assumptions that players who don't slavishly track every minute detail have ineptly programmed robots for PCs as "house rules." Or, rather, extensive house rules.





And using that "robot" analogy here helped me come up with a new way of framing this. There is a board game called Robo Rally, wherein each player is trying to navigate his robot across the board to achieve an objective. Each turn, players use a hand of cards with "commands" to set up a sequence of commands the robots will all execute as close to simultaneously as possible. The command lists are established without the players knowing what the other robots will do, and without allowing the player to move his 'bot to make sure the commands will do what he expects.

The challenge and humor in the game comes from how often the expected behavior doesn't line up with what the commands issued actually result in.


Any RPG rules regarding equipment availability which make the PCs look like ineptly-programmed robo rally robots probably should be reconsidered. If we assume that the PCs are not blind, stupid robots that do only exactly what they're programmed to do and nothing more, with no regard for environmental cues, then we have a good benchmark for how reasonable certain assumptions about what the PCs "would have done" are.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-26, 03:25 PM
Yes, I suppose if you deliberately craft a situation in which the GM abuses their power, it will come off as abusive. But as it is in my own best interest not to antagonize my players overly much (being friends with them and enjoying playing with them) I don't intend to do that.

Right, but as most posters on this board will say ''the game must have rules to limit a Dm's power''. The DM can not do ''whatever they want'', they must follow the book rules and any houserules, correct?

So really how does ''I'm the DM and i can just make a ruling anytime '' fit into that?


That's all the detail needed. There technically aren't rules detailing how you must record what equipment is where. Merely accounting for how much you can carry and where. It is a ruling either way as to whether you can assume a "reasonable" load-out based on the context, or whether you must engage in strict spreadsheet management keeping all of your equipment lists exact as to precisely where all items are at all times.

Pretending there's a false dichotomy and that everybody except you is a horrible DM with too many house rules to count is laughable, given your posting history and the extremely antagonistic DMing style you've repeatedly held up as the ideal (and the one in which you engage).

I agree that what a character has or ''suddenly remembered'' is a Houserule.

Well, this is what I'm asking: For the DM's that allow characters to ''suddenly remember'' having items, how do they do it? The choices are really only: Dm whim rulings or the DM has homebrewed rules.

Now, everyone that has responded has said the ''no rules, I the DM, will make a ruling on a whim if it comes up.'' And that is great, though open to favoritism and abuse and worse, but the DM says they won't do that and all is good, right?


Anyone find it funny that Darth Ultron, who keeps his houserules hidden from his players, is arguing that all houserules need to be on the table immediately?

That is my way. But just look at everyone else, all the people that would say ''all houserules must be on the table and known to the players before the game'' oddly not doing that.....

JNAProductions
2017-03-26, 03:28 PM
Except this is a ruling. If it happens often, then make it a houserule, but as a one-off situation? It's a ruling.

And yes, the DM can make a ruling at any time, when a situation not already covered by the rules comes up. The DM should not, for instance, make a ruling that your summon spell summons a Glabrezu instead of a celestial tiger randomly, because that is clearly covered by the rules.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-26, 03:29 PM
Actually, it's just observing the fact that the character sheet includes an inventory. I don't have to think the PCs are hollow playing pieces to expect the players to use the inventory, any more than to expect them to record their hit points. There is no connection at all between updating the character sheet and playing fully developed characters.



This is all stuff that you made up and introduced to the thread. The topic under discussion is a DM who wanted advice about a player who wanted to use something left on the cart "before battle started".


He wasn't "constantly and eagerly looking to nail the players" or he wouldn't have needed advice.
There is no reason to assume that it was left in the cart "a week or two ago in real life".
It doesn't take a "perfect memory" to write it down. In fact, the inventory sheet exists to prevent needing a "perfect memory".
Listing possessions on an inventory is by no means "keeping notes that would make a criminal investigator blush at his own lack of attention to detail".
And he isn't "hiding behind a fig leaf of 'just following the rules to the letter, man'." He's asking for advice about "[t]o what extent, if any, is this sort of excuse valid".


So the "gotcha" part, as you have defined it, is not germane to the original topic, nor is it what most people have been talking about.

You made it up, and then claimed other people espoused your made-up approach.

Perhaps you would do better in this discussion if you quoted people's exact words, and accused them of what they actually write. An absurd description you wrote that doesn't match what they say won't convince anyone. Note that what I'm ascribing to you in quotation marks are actual quotations.



For the reasons I gave when I replied. That it was a false and unfair description, and that it doesn't match what I see in my games.

In fact, I thought that it wasn't directed at me (since I had not been involved in the thread recently), but that it was a false, unfair, and grossly exaggerated description aimed at reasonable behavior from other people that is similar to my own reasonable behavior.



First of all, I neither thought nor wrote that "that's directed at how I GM". You put that phrase in quotes, but it is not a quotation.

Now, to answer the question:
That depends. Did I also clearly and unambiguously state that I am "quite the opposite, actually"?
Did I clearly and unambiguously state that your description is an interesting guess, but that it does not match what I've seen?

If so, and if you wish to interpret my words accurately, you should assume that your accusation does not match what I've seen, and that I consider my DMing to be quite the opposite of that description.

But if you wish to ignore my clear intent and misinterpret my words for the purpose of accusing me of claiming it was directed at how I DM, when you, I, and everybody else all know I made no such claim, then you should react as you have done.


:smallconfused:

What's the line from Shakespeare, about protesting too much? If the bad behavior under discussion is not behavior that you engage in, then don't worry yourself with all this effort of trying to defend it.

But as for my description of the behavior, it's absolutely accurate and utterly fair. There are "gotcha GMs" -- we have the classic example on these forums and in this very thread -- and they engage in exactly the sort of behavior that both I and Segev have detailed. You can falsely accuse me of "making things up" all you want, it won't change the facts.

But then, if it's just "made up", then a lot of us seem to have the same "imagination"...



That said, I tend to agree more that you should not expect perfect and constant updating of where every item of inventory is. I keep equipment lists of possessions, but that doesn't mean that everything on my possessions list is always on my PC. A DM who treated it as if it were would call me out for carrying far too much stuff for my character's strength, let alone number of limbs and space in various pouches, bags, and pockets. I try to keep a general note of what I usually have on me, but at the same time, if I'm going to dive into the Fire Dragon's Cave, and I just bought a few potions of fire resistance before we left town, telling me that I never SAID I put them in my Handy Haversack must mean I left them back in town is obnoxious at best.


... or maybe we've seen the same sort of thing in our actual gaming experience, totally independently.






And using that "robot" analogy here helped me come up with a new way of framing this. There is a board game called Robo Rally, wherein each player is trying to navigate his robot across the board to achieve an objective. Each turn, players use a hand of cards with "commands" to set up a sequence of commands the robots will all execute as close to simultaneously as possible. The command lists are established without the players knowing what the other robots will do, and without allowing the player to move his 'bot to make sure the commands will do what he expects.

The challenge and humor in the game comes from how often the expected behavior doesn't line up with what the commands issued actually result in.


Any RPG rules regarding equipment availability which make the PCs look like ineptly-programmed robo rally robots probably should be reconsidered. If we assume that the PCs are not blind, stupid robots that do only exactly what they're programmed to do and nothing more, with no regard for environmental cues, then we have a good benchmark for how reasonable certain assumptions about what the PCs "would have done" are.


Exactly -- and the question of equipment lists is just a subset of the broader question of whether the GM should treat the PCs as blind, stupid robots that do exactly and only and precisely what the players state, nothing more, nothing less, and have no more awareness of the fictional world than the players themselves, regardless of the inherent limits of players interacting with the setting through multiple filters.

jayem
2017-03-26, 03:38 PM
Right, but as most posters on this board will say ''the game must have rules to limit a Dm's power''. The DM can not do ''whatever they want'', they must follow the book rules and any houserules, correct?

So really how does ''I'm the DM and i can just make a ruling anytime '' fit into that?

Well, not really because it's the players giving the DM the opportunity to rule on an appeal, when that appear is made. Whereas the alternative your proposing, is not giving them the appeal in the first place. In a sense the bad occurrences your allegedly concerned about are the default that will happen anyway.

And knowing when the DM is going to be capricious occurs in either case (and will be a matter of the DM being consistent). Even in the nominally rigid DM the players aren't going to force the DM to remember when it's in their favour, and there will be a slippery slope that end also. And can just as easily be biased.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-26, 03:45 PM
Except this is a ruling. If it happens often, then make it a houserule, but as a one-off situation? It's a ruling.

And yes, the DM can make a ruling at any time, when a situation not already covered by the rules comes up. The DM should not, for instance, make a ruling that your summon spell summons a Glabrezu instead of a celestial tiger randomly, because that is clearly covered by the rules.

Well, your just doing the ''I'm right and You are wrong''.

To have a player simply say ''I reach into my bag and pull out anything I want'' is just beyond stupid and silly.

And the silly DM whim ruling is not a houserule. So what if the DM ''on a whim'' decides Larry's character was ''not smart enough to pack the needed item'', but Joe's character was? How do you stop the favoritism, abuse and worse?

The horror of a game where every couple minutes a player can just say ''Oh, I remember to bring that item'' and solve or do anything in the game with the DM just sitting back and say ''Yup, sounds reasonable to me your character has that item".

JNAProductions
2017-03-26, 04:04 PM
Okay, let's take two players-Joe, and Sally, playing Brom and Allessa.

Brom is a forgetful old man, who's been at peace in a small village for several years. He's absentminded, but he's a damn sharp tool in a fight.

Allessa, however, was recently lifted from slave pits, where she had to use her every wit to survive, and is paranoid as can be. She's always on the look out, and never forgets ANYTHING that might help her survive.

Now, situation one. Brom had some healing potions on a cart. They get into a fight, and Joe says "Ah, crap. I never took the potions off the cart. Would Brom have remembered?" The DM says "No, sorry. Good thing the cleric is still up, at least."

Situation two. Allessa had some healing potions on the cart. They get into a fight, and Sally says "Ah, crap. I never took the potions off the cart. Would Allessa have remembered?" The DM says "Probably. Roll me a quick Intelligence check-DC 10, it's not hard to remember for someone like her."

Is that DM favoritism?

In addition to that, it's generally assumed you're playing with friends, or at least friendly acquaintances. They can be trusted to not abuse generosity, and to generally be fair and not play favorites. Now, no one is going to be perfect about it, but if someone gets real bad about it, you stop the game for a few moments, say "Hey, can you cut that out? It's not fair to the rest of the players," and get back to playing and having a fun time.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-26, 04:27 PM
Okay, let's take two players-Joe, and Sally, playing Brom and Allessa.

Brom is a forgetful old man, who's been at peace in a small village for several years. He's absentminded, but he's a damn sharp tool in a fight.

Allessa, however, was recently lifted from slave pits, where she had to use her every wit to survive, and is paranoid as can be. She's always on the look out, and never forgets ANYTHING that might help her survive.

Now, situation one. Brom had some healing potions on a cart. They get into a fight, and Joe says "Ah, crap. I never took the potions off the cart. Would Brom have remembered?" The DM says "No, sorry. Good thing the cleric is still up, at least."

Situation two. Allessa had some healing potions on the cart. They get into a fight, and Sally says "Ah, crap. I never took the potions off the cart. Would Allessa have remembered?" The DM says "Probably. Roll me a quick Intelligence check-DC 10, it's not hard to remember for someone like her."

Is that DM favoritism?

In addition to that, it's generally assumed you're playing with friends, or at least friendly acquaintances. They can be trusted to not abuse generosity, and to generally be fair and not play favorites. Now, no one is going to be perfect about it, but if someone gets real bad about it, you stop the game for a few moments, say "Hey, can you cut that out? It's not fair to the rest of the players," and get back to playing and having a fun time.

Sounds fairly reasonable.

The last paragraph in particular is important -- it stands counter to the presumption some seem to have of an adversarial relationship between participants.

JNAProductions
2017-03-26, 04:28 PM
Sounds fairly reasonable.

The last paragraph in particular is important -- it stands counter to the presumption some seem to have of an adversarial relationship between participants.

It's also a relatively extreme example. More likely, in a table of ordinary characters, none of whom are especially forgetful OR paranoid, I'd call for a somewhat difficult Int or Wis check. Say, DC 17 or 18.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-26, 04:35 PM
Is that DM favoritism?


Yes. Very much so.

Even if Joe says ''my character is a Brom is a forgetful old man'', Joe should still control such things as ''what his character forgets''. The DM should never, ever take control of a players character and say something like ''your character does not remember as I on a whim say so."

Allessa's little ''exploit'' of ''my character never forgets'' is very bad. But it is even worse that the DM agrees and is like ''ok, your character never forgets anything''.

And to top it all off, the DM gives Allessa's character a chance to ''roll to remember''. But for Joe it's just like ''nope, sucks to be you." Why not give Joe a chance to roll a check, even at ''-4 because your character forgets stuff''?

So....favoritism.

And, what is to stop every single player from just saying ''my character never forgets ANYTHING that might help them survive" ? It is an obvious exploit to use.

Segev
2017-03-26, 04:38 PM
I agree that what a character has or ''suddenly remembered'' is a Houserule.Except nobody said that. What I said, in particular, is that there are generally not explicit rules about how you know if a PC has a particular item in their inventory on them at any given point in time. It requires a ruling, if there is ever a question, as to whether he has a specific item with him at any given point.

If it comes up so often that you've developed a go-to procedure, sure, that's a house rule. But as a general statement, "did I happen to remember...?" isn't something that it takes a house rule to answer with anything other than "no." Claiming otherwise is, itself, a house rule, unless you have rules in your game book that state that a character only has exactly what his player said "I have this on my character" about. And never, ever puts things down unless the player explicitly says he does.

So the character who says he is getting ready for bed doesn't actually remove his armor, put down his weapons, or anything else normal people would, unless he spells out item-by-item what he takes off and where, specifically, he puts it.

Except the rules don't require that. It's a house rule to declare it so.

JNAProductions
2017-03-26, 04:39 PM
Sure, if you play D&D to win. The rest of us play D&D to have fun-sometimes, you play a forgetful old man, sometimes you play Batman.

In addition to that, there are limits. The healing potion in the cart? Sure, Batman remembered that. The cold-iron longsword? That'd be a hard check even for Batman, unless they explicitly knew they were fighting Fey, in which case it'd be a bit easier. An item they never bought nor had any reason to pick up that would now be handy? Hell no.

The exact mechanics might vary from table to table, but the general idea is "If it'd be reasonable for your character to have remembered, you can make a check (with the DC determined by the DM) to have remembered it."

As for what EXACTLY is reasonable, that's up to the table. Not just the DM, but they are the final arbiter.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-03-26, 05:01 PM
This seems like a time to mention the "Adventuring Gear" item in Dungeon World. A five use item, five times a PC can reach into the pack and pull out any one useful piece of mundane adventuring gear they want. :smallsmile:

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-26, 06:50 PM
This seems like a time to mention the "Adventuring Gear" item in Dungeon World. A five use item, five times a PC can reach into the pack and pull out any one useful piece of mundane adventuring gear they want. :smallsmile:

I think I'll have to steal that (fluffed a bit differently). I DM 5e, and once the characters are past level 4-5, mundane stuff is barely worth tracking.

Right now, I require that the player tells me if they acquire anything and if they leave anything behind. By "left behind," I mean at camp, at their lodgings, at home base or some other way inaccessible at the current destination. Otherwise, they have it on them in some fashion. That means that if a player says "oh, I drink this healing potion," one of three things has happened:

They bought it earlier (explicitly) and didn't leave it behind--thus they drink it.
They bought it earlier and left it behind--in this case no dice.
They didn't buy it earlier (and want to retroactively buy it)--not a chance.


In general, for other non-costly items (or non-consumables), they have it with them if its a general "adventuring item" (things like bedrolls, blankets, bags, etc). I don't track encumbrance or track exact storage locations. I keep an eye on their total load so that if they try to lift that golden statue I can tell them "You get a hernia." Then again, my players don't try to abuse the system, so I don't need to do much.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-26, 07:36 PM
This seems like a time to mention the "Adventuring Gear" item in Dungeon World. A five use item, five times a PC can reach into the pack and pull out any one useful piece of mundane adventuring gear they want. :smallsmile:


Hmmm...

That's a very "narrative" rules element... strikes me a bit like a mundane version of what one gamer called the "Schrodinger utility belt". That is, an item or ability that allows the character to "always be prepared", but once you open the "compartments" and tell the GM what's inside, then until you get down-time and access to your "stash" or "lab" or whatever to reset it, you're stuck with what's inside. Think of the old campy Batman utility belt that always seemed to be loaded with what Batman just happened to need.




I think I'll have to steal that (fluffed a bit differently). I DM 5e, and once the characters are past level 4-5, mundane stuff is barely worth tracking.

Right now, I require that the player tells me if they acquire anything and if they leave anything behind. By "left behind," I mean at camp, at their lodgings, at home base or some other way inaccessible at the current destination. Otherwise, they have it on them in some fashion. That means that if a player says "oh, I drink this healing potion," one of three things has happened:

They bought it earlier (explicitly) and didn't leave it behind--thus they drink it.
They bought it earlier and left it behind--in this case no dice.
They didn't buy it earlier (and want to retroactively buy it)--not a chance.


In general, for other non-costly items (or non-consumables), they have it with them if its a general "adventuring item" (things like bedrolls, blankets, bags, etc). I don't track encumbrance or track exact storage locations. I keep an eye on their total load so that if they try to lift that golden statue I can tell them "You get a hernia." Then again, my players don't try to abuse the system, so I don't need to do much.



If someone suggested simply allowing retroactive acquisition of significant items ( "oh I totally would have bought disease-curing potions and silver arrowheads back in that last town" ), I missed it.

neonchameleon
2017-03-26, 07:51 PM
The horror of a game where every couple minutes a player can just say ''Oh, I remember to bring that item'' and solve or do anything in the game with the DM just sitting back and say ''Yup, sounds reasonable to me your character has that item".

There are two ways to deal with jackasses in games. The first is to have an extensive set of rules to deal with them. The second is not to play with them. I recommend the second - and I find that if I treat my players like adults they very seldom abuse my trust but the tighter I close my grip the more they push back.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-26, 08:02 PM
If someone suggested simply allowing retroactive acquisition of significant items ( "oh I totally would have bought disease-curing potions and silver arrowheads back in that last town" ), I missed it.

I was responding mostly to these (but more generally explaining my stance on the whole thread topic).




1.Do you go as far as to simply give the character the ability to ''wish'' for things? Like can a player just say ''Kzor reaches into his back pack and pulls out a potion of life'', with the understanding that the chatacter Kzor would have been smart enough to buy one back in town even if the ''silly'' player forgot to mention it?

2.Is this one of them ''if you can get the DM to agree'' type things. Like the characters leave town to slay a red dragon. Hours later when they get to the lair, Player Bob is all like ''Kzor drinks a potion of fire resistance'' and the DM just nods yes as it ''makes sense'' that Kzor would have bought that before leaving town, even if the player never said so.




It is a bit fuzzy, but we can examine some cases to see if they fall in definite zones or in the fuzzy region.

Depends; did Kzor have a habit of buying such potions? Did he have a particular reason why he'd have done so this time even if he didn't usually do it? Does he have enough money on hand that he could have?

If "no" to any of these, definitely not. It's a pretty specific item, hopefully used rarely.

If he typically carries one around, and had finally expended it last adventure, then sure, I'd let him say he bought a new one to replace it, even if his player had forgotten. If he doesn't, though, and he only "remembers" he "totally would have bought one this time" when it turns out that THIS time it's needed? No.

Again, it depends on the situation. Did they know they were going to slay the red dragon? Did the party take specific effort to prepare for it? Did the DM forget to offer them an Int roll or Wis roll to suggest, "you know, something to resist fire might be a good idea?" considering how obvious it is? If so, sure, I'd probably let him retroactively buy one.

Though most likely, for something that is a) quest-specific like this, and b) that they had potential reason to know they'd be going on a quest like this to achieve, I'd probably assign a DC 10 to 20 Int check to see if they thought of it. For the fire potion, I'd go low. DC 10. Pass, and sure, Kzor retroactively purchases it, having been smarter than his player about remembering these things.





There are two ways to deal with jackasses in games. The first is to have an extensive set of rules to deal with them. The second is not to play with them. I recommend the second - and I find that if I treat my players like adults they very seldom abuse my trust but the tighter I close my grip the more they push back.

I very much agree with this. I've even had success treating my teenage players as adults and getting good results from it.

Keltest
2017-03-26, 08:32 PM
Yes. Very much so.

Even if Joe says ''my character is a Brom is a forgetful old man'', Joe should still control such things as ''what his character forgets''. The DM should never, ever take control of a players character and say something like ''your character does not remember as I on a whim say so."

Allessa's little ''exploit'' of ''my character never forgets'' is very bad. But it is even worse that the DM agrees and is like ''ok, your character never forgets anything''.

And to top it all off, the DM gives Allessa's character a chance to ''roll to remember''. But for Joe it's just like ''nope, sucks to be you." Why not give Joe a chance to roll a check, even at ''-4 because your character forgets stuff''?

So....favoritism.

And, what is to stop every single player from just saying ''my character never forgets ANYTHING that might help them survive" ? It is an obvious exploit to use.

That's what the inventory is for. Anything that Joe doesn't want Brom to forget is on the inventory.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-27, 06:28 AM
[QUOTE=Segev;21851370]Except nobody said that. What I said, in particular, is that there are generally not explicit rules about how you know if a PC has a particular item in their inventory on them at any given point in time. It requires a ruling, if there is ever a question, as to whether he has a specific item with him at any given point.

QUOTE]

Your way just leads to madness though. A character will have a heavy shield and a two handed weapon in their hands at all times, as they will just say they ''switched'' when no one was looking. And characters will have anything in their hand that they want, because why not?

It makes more sense to do Common Sense: Your character is carrying explicitly what to write down on your sheet and notify the DM about. The player is free to change things around any time, before an even happens, but it must be explicit and the DM must know about it.

Really, that is the only way to stop jerks and cheaters.

Ashes
2017-03-27, 07:33 AM
My response is always: ''No''.

How's that working out for you? Get a lot of good roleplaying out of pissing off your players over minor details?

Keltest
2017-03-27, 08:05 AM
Except nobody said that. What I said, in particular, is that there are generally not explicit rules about how you know if a PC has a particular item in their inventory on them at any given point in time. It requires a ruling, if there is ever a question, as to whether he has a specific item with him at any given point.



Your way just leads to madness though. A character will have a heavy shield and a two handed weapon in their hands at all times, as they will just say they ''switched'' when no one was looking. And characters will have anything in their hand that they want, because why not?

It makes more sense to do Common Sense: Your character is carrying explicitly what to write down on your sheet and notify the DM about. The player is free to change things around any time, before an even happens, but it must be explicit and the DM must know about it.

Really, that is the only way to stop jerks and cheaters.

If its on their inventory sheet, there is no question, and thus no ruling.

Segev
2017-03-27, 08:13 AM
Except nobody said that. What I said, in particular, is that there are generally not explicit rules about how you know if a PC has a particular item in their inventory on them at any given point in time. It requires a ruling, if there is ever a question, as to whether he has a specific item with him at any given point.



Your way just leads to madness though. A character will have a heavy shield and a two handed weapon in their hands at all times, as they will just say they ''switched'' when no one was looking. And characters will have anything in their hand that they want, because why not?

It makes more sense to do Common Sense: Your character is carrying explicitly what to write down on your sheet and notify the DM about. The player is free to change things around any time, before an even happens, but it must be explicit and the DM must know about it.

Really, that is the only way to stop jerks and cheaters."My way" doesn't lead to madness at all. Your "common sense" way leads to either players having to take 20 minutes before they tell the DM they do ANYTHING to make sure they erase the stuff they're putting down and picking up the stuff they're grabbing. Since you insist that you run fast-paced games and don't tolerate such lollygagging from your players, it must perforce lead to the alternative: Idiot robot-PCs running on badly-framed commands independent of any PC-based observation and with tremendous simulated lag dropping commands the players would LIKE to send based on their limited (but still better than the PCs') keyhole view of the world.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 08:15 AM
I was responding mostly to these (but more generally explaining my stance on the whole thread topic).









I very much agree with this. I've even had success treating my teenage players as adults and getting good results from it.


OK, it's kinda in there. I probably missed it when I took forever replying to a post on the last page and it jumped ahead a page in the intervening time.

Personally, I'd be pretty negative on players trying to retroactively have their characters acquire things because they realize it would be nice to have them right now, in encounter, days after they last "went shopping".

sakuuya
2017-03-27, 08:27 AM
Your way just leads to madness though. A character will have a heavy shield and a two handed weapon in their hands at all times, as they will just say they ''switched'' when no one was looking. And characters will have anything in their hand that they want, because why not?

These situations don't map to each other the way you want them to. Games like D&D have explicit rules for how much stuff a character can be using simultaneously during combat and how long it takes to switch between that stuff--it takes a move action to take off a shield in D&D 3.5, for instance. Whereas, as others have pointed out, there are no explicit rules for whether a PC remembered to grab a particular item off of the cart. Making a ruling or houserule to cover a situation that the written rules don't (as everyone in this thread, including you, is doing) is not the same thing as ignoring the written rules, and doing one does not imply the other.

Segev
2017-03-27, 08:47 AM
Personally, I'd be pretty negative on players trying to retroactively have their characters acquire things because they realize it would be nice to have them right now, in encounter, days after they last "went shopping".

I generally agree. The only exceptions might be things like, "Okay, we've arrived at the fire dragon's cave. ... Did nobody seriously write down fire resistance potions? We spent 2 days IC planning for this! Surely we would have remembered those; I know we mentioned needing something to protect ourselves from it several times OOC."

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 08:51 AM
I generally agree. The only exceptions might be things like, "Okay, we've arrived at the fire dragon's cave. ... Did nobody seriously write down fire resistance potions? We spent 2 days IC planning for this! Surely we would have remembered those; I know we mentioned needing something to protect ourselves from it several times OOC."

Isn't there a difference between "forgot to buy them" and "forgot to write them down" ?

For me, it would come down to whether the players had clearly stated their intent for their characters to purchase said potions at some point before the players forgot or otherwise skipped over the actual action of their characters doing so.

If they did clearly state their intent, it would be very unlikely that the characters would have "left town" without the items they clearly intended to buy as part of their plan... and unless there had been some major in-character distraction or complication, insisting that their characters must have left town without because the players forgot, would take us back to the mistake of viewing the characters as incompetent idiots, or "dumb" robots, or plastic playing pieces.


Hmmm... I have a couple of hypotheses, not sure which holds more water... is this "the PCs are just plastic playing pieces" thing more the result of Ye Olde Gygaxian Adversarial/Gamist approach to RPGs, or is it more the result of video game RPGs in which the character really is just an avatar for the player's actions?

Segev
2017-03-27, 09:31 AM
Isn't there a difference between "forgot to buy them" and "forgot to write them down" ?

For me, it would come down to whether the players had clearly stated their intent for their characters to purchase said potions at some point before the players forgot or otherwise skipped over the actual action of their characters doing so.

If they did clearly state their intent, it would be very unlikely that the characters would have "left town" without the items they clearly intended to buy as part of their plan... and unless there had been some major in-character distraction or complication, insisting that their characters must have left town without because the players forgot, would take us back to the mistake of viewing the characters as incompetent idiots, or "dumb" robots, or plastic playing pieces.Yep, this is pretty much what I'm saying.


Hmmm... I have a couple of hypotheses, not sure which holds more water... is this "the PCs are just plastic playing pieces" thing more the result of Ye Olde Gygaxian Adversarial/Gamist approach to RPGs, or is it more the result of video game RPGs in which the character really is just an avatar for the player's actions?A little of the former, more of the latter, and I will generously suggest that it might just be mostly the first-order gameplay assumption that you have to declare everything. It's a poor assumption, but it's an easy one to make blindly.

The "Gygaxian Adversarial" paradigm rears its head mostly in the fear that players would abuse such allowances to "cheat." As Darth Ultron keeps trying to throw out there as the "obvious" result being that they "forgot" to get the Adam West Batman-specific item that would solve this encounter perfectly, but "definitely would have" so should have it on them anyway.

This, of course, ignores that "reasonable man" standards are something that is good enough for real-world law, so should be good enough for game mechanics for a game run by real people who hopefully know and like each other IRL.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-27, 09:35 AM
Isn't there a difference between "forgot to buy them" and "forgot to write them down" ?

For me, it would come down to whether the players had clearly stated their intent for their characters to purchase said potions at some point before the players forgot or otherwise skipped over the actual action of their characters doing so.

If they did clearly state their intent, it would be very unlikely that the characters would have "left town" without the items they clearly intended to buy as part of their plan... and unless there had been some major in-character distraction or complication, insisting that their characters must have left town without because the players forgot, would take us back to the mistake of viewing the characters as incompetent idiots, or "dumb" robots, or plastic playing pieces.


Hmmm... I have a couple of hypotheses, not sure which holds more water... is this "the PCs are just plastic playing pieces" thing more the result of Ye Olde Gygaxian Adversarial/Gamist approach to RPGs, or is it more the result of video game RPGs in which the character really is just an avatar for the player's actions?

If they had stated the intent to buy them, but forgot to write things down, I'd be willing to forgive that. Once. For things they explicitly said they'd buy.

As for the source of this idea that PCs are plastic playing pieces, I've seen it more among the old-school "gritty" players who grew up with AD&D, 2E and the like. I don't see it much from my brand-new players (who generally have at least some familiarity with video-game RPGs). In fact, my new players are on net better role-players (more into their characters) than most of the grognards I used to run with. Not as good with mechanics though, but that's mostly just inexperience. YMMV, of course.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 09:52 AM
Yep, this is pretty much what I'm saying.

A little of the former, more of the latter, and I will generously suggest that it might just be mostly the first-order gameplay assumption that you have to declare everything. It's a poor assumption, but it's an easy one to make blindly.

The "Gygaxian Adversarial" paradigm rears its head mostly in the fear that players would abuse such allowances to "cheat." As Darth Ultron keeps trying to throw out there as the "obvious" result being that they "forgot" to get the Adam West Batman-specific item that would solve this encounter perfectly, but "definitely would have" so should have it on them anyway.

This, of course, ignores that "reasonable man" standards are something that is good enough for real-world law, so should be good enough for game mechanics for a game run by real people who hopefully know and like each other IRL.



I've had to resort to "you must declare everything" with a few certain players because it was the only way to get them to focus on the game, stop making bad "I was just joking" comments that were vague on IC/OOC intent, and pay attention to in-character / in-setting details... and then relax that standard once they were better about it. One even had to hold up a card with "I'm in character" printed on it for a session to get the point across.

And I've had that one player who repeatedly tried the "Could I have _____ on me?" with ______ being the perfect thing to solve the matter at hand.


So I get where the worry comes from -- but extreme cases make bad law.

Segev
2017-03-27, 09:57 AM
Indeed, forcing players to be that specific can be useful for either a) capturing a particular feel (perhaps of intensity) or b) combatting a tendency to be too far to the other side of the spectrum. But as you noted, they were specific circumstances.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 10:27 AM
Indeed, forcing players to be that specific can be useful for either a) capturing a particular feel (perhaps of intensity) or b) combatting a tendency to be too far to the other side of the spectrum. But as you noted, they were specific circumstances.


You know, looking at the history of game design "moments", one sees a lot of things that look like extreme cases inspiring "bad law".

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-27, 10:43 AM
You know, looking at the history of game design "moments", one sees a lot of things that look like extreme cases inspiring "bad law".

I think you could safely say that about the history of *a lot of things*, game design included. I teach at a school, and most of the "stupid" rules are in place because someone, sometime, wasn't bright enough to follow the intent of the previous rules and pushed the boundaries too far. As they say--this is why we can't have nice things.

A presumption of good faith (until that faith is broken) goes a long way at the tabletop as in life in general.

Segev
2017-03-27, 10:50 AM
I think you could safely say that about the history of *a lot of things*, game design included. I teach at a school, and most of the "stupid" rules are in place because someone, sometime, wasn't bright enough to follow the intent of the previous rules and pushed the boundaries too far. As they say--this is why we can't have nice things.

A presumption of good faith (until that faith is broken) goes a long way at the tabletop as in life in general.

A solution I've found works well is making part of the punishment for getting undesirable results be that the perpetrator wind up with stricter rules he has to follow.

This does have some potential for abuse in the other direction, of course, in the form of favoritism, but it usually works.

The best way to go about this is to have the looser rules with the explanation of the "reasonable" standard, coupled with an explanation of desired results.

Alternatively, a "two warnings" rule (functionally identical to a three strikes rule): if the authority figure feels you've been doing this too much, you get a warning. After two warnings, if you do it again, you get the stricter rules imposed.

But again, risks of favoritism are present. "He did the same thing I did, but he didn't get a warning!" "He's been doing this over and over again, and I get a warning on my first time?!"

It takes good faith on all parties' parts.

Tanarii
2017-03-27, 11:25 AM
Sure, if you play D&D to win. The rest of us play D&D to have fun-sometimes, you play a forgetful old man, sometimes you play Batman.If you're not playing D&D to win, ie there is no conflict at any point for your PCs, how do you have fun? (Edit: note conflict does not mean "fight")

JNAProductions
2017-03-27, 11:41 AM
If you're not playing D&D to win, ie there is no conflict at any point for your PCs, how do you have fun? (Edit: note conflict does not mean "fight")

"Win" in this case means "be the most powerful and succeed at everything". Obviously your CHARACTERS will want to win, and if you define win as "succeed at your character's goals" then yes, you should play to win.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-27, 11:41 AM
If you're not playing D&D to win, ie there is no conflict at any point for your PCs, how do you have fun? (Edit: note conflict does not mean "fight")

I think it depends on who the sides are. I always play for the characters to "win" against the world, but not the players against the DM. Conflict brings out new potential in people and brings interesting scenes to light.

I oppose adversarial conduct between real people, but am fine with adversarial conduct between PCs and NPCs (and very occasionally between PCs, since that often spills over to IRL conflict).

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 11:56 AM
If you're not playing D&D to win, ie there is no conflict at any point for your PCs, how do you have fun? (Edit: note conflict does not mean "fight")

Two different meanings of "win".

Are the PCs trying to win against their adversaries and obstacles in the setting? Of course.

Are the players and the GM trying to win against each other in an adversarial game? That's what many of us have no interest in.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-27, 12:13 PM
These situations don't map to each other the way you want them to. Games like D&D have explicit rules for how much stuff a character can be using simultaneously during combat and how long it takes to switch between that stuff--it takes a move action to take off a shield in D&D 3.5, for instance. Whereas, as others have pointed out, there are no explicit rules for whether a PC remembered to grab a particular item off of the cart. Making a ruling or houserule to cover a situation that the written rules don't (as everyone in this thread, including you, is doing) is not the same thing as ignoring the written rules, and doing one does not imply the other.

Well, your only talking in combat. D&D has no explicit rules for holding, carrying or switching items outside of combat. So the jerk exploit player can just say ''oh, my character remembered to pull out the shield the round before combat started''. Or they can have their bow or sword ready, all the time, as they will just say their character pulled out the exact weapon needed before combat.


Well, everyone seems to like the idea that a player can just not pay attention during the game and then just whine and cry and say ''oh, my character would have remember and brought that item'' and all the DM's have said ''yup, sounds good''. So this is not so much a ruling as a houserule as note: all of the DM's have stated what they would do, as it ''allowing anything reasonable'' that the DM thinks is reasonable on a whim. Though some too have said they will take a table vote, but that is just pointless and silly as they players will always vote for things that are positive to them and ignore anything else.

so if your houserule is ''when you suddenly need something your character can suddenly remember they took it and it will be there, if you ask me, the DM, nicely, and then on a whim, if I think whatever you are asking is reasonable, then the item will be on your character. Now see this is important to know...before the game starts. Then a player can goof off and not pay attention and just say ''oh my character brought that needed item''. But they need to be careful and not upset the DM, for on a whim the DM can suddenly change what they think reasonable is or is not.

JNAProductions
2017-03-27, 12:22 PM
I've said it's up to the table, with the DM as the final arbiter. So it'd be the other players (all of them, including the DM) making the decision.

More than that, if you have a good DM, it's not an issue. They'll rule fairly, as best they can. They're not perfect, but no one is, nor does anyone need to be.

This may surprise you, Darth Ultron, but most of us play with people we like.

Keltest
2017-03-27, 12:31 PM
Well, your only talking in combat. D&D has no explicit rules for holding, carrying or switching items outside of combat. So the jerk exploit player can just say ''oh, my character remembered to pull out the shield the round before combat started''. Or they can have their bow or sword ready, all the time, as they will just say their character pulled out the exact weapon needed before combat.


Well, everyone seems to like the idea that a player can just not pay attention during the game and then just whine and cry and say ''oh, my character would have remember and brought that item'' and all the DM's have said ''yup, sounds good''. So this is not so much a ruling as a houserule as note: all of the DM's have stated what they would do, as it ''allowing anything reasonable'' that the DM thinks is reasonable on a whim. Though some too have said they will take a table vote, but that is just pointless and silly as they players will always vote for things that are positive to them and ignore anything else.

so if your houserule is ''when you suddenly need something your character can suddenly remember they took it and it will be there, if you ask me, the DM, nicely, and then on a whim, if I think whatever you are asking is reasonable, then the item will be on your character. Now see this is important to know...before the game starts. Then a player can goof off and not pay attention and just say ''oh my character brought that needed item''. But they need to be careful and not upset the DM, for on a whim the DM can suddenly change what they think reasonable is or is not.

If a player is being a jerk and trying to pull a fast one over on the DM by breaking the rules, the appropriate response is to throw a book at the player, and boot them from the table if they keep abusing your trust. Players who cant behave themselves have no place at a gaming table.

Jimmah
2017-03-27, 01:00 PM
This may surprise you, Darth Ultron, but most of us play with people we like.

I think this is an important distinction.

If you are playing with a group of friends then the rules, enforcement of rules and the general mood of the table is likely to be very different from a bunch of random players in the local hobby store.

If friends are being jerks or gaming the system we call them out. Much harder to do with people you don't know, in a public setting hence the reliance on strict adherence to the rules.

In regards to the idea of changing equipment *just* prior to a fight etc, I agree that it should not be allowed. Knowledge of an encounter should not be used to rewrite history to gain an advantage in that encounter.

However, I would be quite happy with a PC 'forgetting' to take a healing potion from the cart. To me as a GM the PCs are real beings who aren't necessarily limited by the faults of the people who play them. A hardened Fighter isn't going to forget to grab a healing potion (or a dozen) before heading off into a dungeon. The PC is smart/wise enough not to make those mistakes unless they have some very low stats/background. Obviously there are limits to this - constant inattention being a good example.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 01:07 PM
I think this is an important distinction.

If you are playing with a group of friends then the rules, enforcement of rules and the general mood of the table is likely to be very different from a bunch of random players in the local hobby store.

If friends are being jerks or gaming the system we call them out. Much harder to do with people you don't know, in a public setting hence the reliance on strict adherence to the rules.

In regards to the idea of changing equipment *just* prior to a fight etc, I agree that it should not be allowed. Knowledge of an encounter should not be used to rewrite history to gain an advantage in that encounter.

However, I would be quite happy with a PC 'forgetting' to take a healing potion from the cart. To me as a GM the PCs are real beings who aren't necessarily limited by the faults of the people who play them. A hardened Fighter isn't going to forget to grab a healing potion (or a dozen) before heading off into a dungeon. The PC is smart/wise enough not to make those mistakes unless they have some very low stats/background. Obviously there are limits to this - constant inattention being a good example.


Using present-moment knowledge to rewrite the past, I agree, is bad for the game. It's deleterious to immersion and verisimilitude.

On the "however", I think you hit the nail here in noting that it's a matter of degrees, not absolutes. If you're giving the character some credit and keeping the game fun, that's good -- but the players shouldn't ever come to use that as a crutch to avoid due attention to detail on their part.

Knaight
2017-03-27, 01:40 PM
Your way just leads to madness though. A character will have a heavy shield and a two handed weapon in their hands at all times, as they will just say they ''switched'' when no one was looking. And characters will have anything in their hand that they want, because why not?

It makes more sense to do Common Sense: Your character is carrying explicitly what to write down on your sheet and notify the DM about. The player is free to change things around any time, before an even happens, but it must be explicit and the DM must know about it.

Really, that is the only way to stop jerks and cheaters.
Putting aside how there's all sorts of situations where just having stuff doesn't even get you that far, the whole question of whether a character did something during time glossed over has no bearing whatsoever to what's going on when time is being modeled in the moment. This doesn't get around action restrictions, and it definitely doesn't get around limitations like the number of hands a character has.


Well, your only talking in combat. D&D has no explicit rules for holding, carrying or switching items outside of combat. So the jerk exploit player can just say ''oh, my character remembered to pull out the shield the round before combat started''. Or they can have their bow or sword ready, all the time, as they will just say their character pulled out the exact weapon needed before combat.

Characters still generally have two hands. The absence of detailed rules regarding that doesn't mean it isn't a limitation. On top of that, being able to have weapons ready ahead of time doesn't trivialize any combat situation capable of threatening the characters while they're armed.

Quertus
2017-03-27, 02:24 PM
I am one again thankful to Darth Ultron for getting me to more carefully evaluate something that I'd just taken for granted.

What to do when a player misses a session is, afaik, not covered in the rules for most systems. As it is not covered by the rules, this, by definition, puts it in the category of a "ruling".

If the missed session(s) included the opportunity for making purchases, then one might reasonably make the ruling that the character spent time shopping.

But, once that ruling is made, other players will expect the same treatment. If they miss a shopping trip session, and their character is not allowed to purchase gear, it would be unfair. Thus, while it was a ruling, there is the expectation that it is permanently added to the way the game is played. Even if not explicitly described as such, there is the expectation that it has weight... as a House Rule.

In fact, on further reflection, many groups tend to treat all rulings as house rules.

This seems to run contrary to the desire to have all house rules stated up front. How can one have rulings, and consistency, and up-front house rules, all in the same game? How can one resolve this paradox?

The answer, it would appear, is one of vocabulary. There are two types of house rules: those that supplement the rules, and those which change the rules.

I suspect those who want up-front house rules want all rules changes stated up front, (and wouldn't mind any known rulings carrying over from previous experience stated up front, too). But on the spot rulings which fill in gaps in rules coverage are still allowed, and become house rules, without violating the spirit of this mindset.


This seems like a time to mention the "Adventuring Gear" item in Dungeon World. A five use item, five times a PC can reach into the pack and pull out any one useful piece of mundane adventuring gear they want. :smallsmile:

I think I need to steal this idea, too :smallwink:

jayem
2017-03-27, 05:28 PM
Using present-moment knowledge to rewrite the past, I agree, is bad for the game. It's deleterious to immersion and verisimilitude.

On the "however", I think you hit the nail here in noting that it's a matter of degrees, not absolutes. If you're giving the character some credit and keeping the game fun, that's good -- but the players shouldn't ever come to use that as a crutch to avoid due attention to detail on their part.

Without the degrees, it would be really boring (personally I think it's where dice can allow what really happened to be decided more fairly, given vaguely amicable players)

And then there's a whole range of activities where you thought the level of detail was adequate but it turns out not to be
(perhaps Hayley going shopping while the airship getting mended). And the DM only asking if it's going to be relevant is even worse than agreeing post event as what was reasonable.

Or some really minor detail suddenly becomes vitally important, what's in my sandwiches, is it something that might distract a dog.

Max_Killjoy
2017-03-27, 05:39 PM
Without the degrees, it would be really boring (personally I think it's where dice can allow what really happened to be decided more fairly, given vaguely amicable players)

And then there's a whole range of activities where you thought the level of detail was adequate but it turns out not to be
(perhaps Hayley going shopping while the airship getting mended). And the DM only asking if it's going to be relevant is even worse than agreeing post event as what was reasonable.

Or some really minor detail suddenly becomes vitally important, what's in my sandwiches, is it something that might distract a dog.


To me, there's a difference between "I bet a sandwich would distract that dog, so my character bought one at the last stand he went by half an hour ago" and "so I still have half the sandwich I already actually bought, does it have something on it that the dog will like enough to be distracted by?"


(And please, can the thread not go down the rabbit hole of debating what's on the damn sandwich, it's just a general example.)

jayem
2017-03-27, 05:54 PM
To me, there's a difference between "I bet a sandwich would distract that dog, so my character bought one at the last stand he went by half an hour ago" and "so I still have half the sandwich I already actually bought, does it have something on it that the dog will like enough to be distracted by?"


(And please, can the thread not go down the rabbit hole of debating what's on the damn sandwich, it's just a general example.)

Absolutely. and the balance is going to depend slightly on if you're on a decent (day) hike or a 5 minute trip to the shops ...
(and for other examples there would be different altering things would be different)

TheTeaMustFlow
2017-03-27, 07:11 PM
When your asked ''what action does your character take?'' you answer that question.


If your not keeping track of a characters inventory, how do you stop abuse?


Well, your only talking in combat.

For the sake of my sanity, please let the apostrophe and the fifth letter of the alphabet enter your life.

(And please, can the thread not go down the rabbit hole of debating what's on the damn sandwich, it's just a general example.)


(And please, can the thread not go down the rabbit hole of debating what's on the damn sandwich, it's just a general example.)
Don't be silly, that'd never happen.

...Obviously, we'd be debating what's in the damn sandwich. Also the bread, I hear your basic Alsatian won't touch wholemeal.

...Come to think of it, we need to know what kind of dog you're trying to distract.

ArcanaGuy
2017-03-27, 08:22 PM
One thing my current group likes to keep in mind is: our players have different mental stats than we do, and they have the benefit of being *right there.* Every so often we just failsafe to "Look, I can't get the words to work, today. Can I just roll Charisma? My character has 24 Charisma but mine is obviously, like, 10 at most." Several times in the past we just have set aside '200 gold for ... appropriate gear." Then that gold gets used up as we pull out things we 'bought just in case." as long as it's not too ridiculous. In one recent game that I had, I had this three-page listing of inventory ... the GM didn't care nor want to know exactly what was in there. She assumed I had whatever I needed.

Now, I never did have to fudge it, but she would have been fine if I had, cause my character was that sort of character.

Our characters are smarter or more prepared than we can ever remember to be. We have mental stats for our characters, let's use them. We don't require the player to be able to deadlift 250 pounds for their character to be able to swing a two-handed sword properly. Why should we require the player to plan everything so that their character does?

Wisdom checks for "I would have thought of that." Intelligence checks for contingency plans you didn't think of beforehand, but your character would have. It allows for you to play smart characters that you can't keep up with, but still come up with the plans yourself.

So in this case, when someone says, "I would have gotten the potion from the cart," ask them, "Would your character have, though?"

If their character is Grundy the Barbarian who charges into every battle without planning or waiting for everyone else ... no, he probably wouldn't have.

If their character is Altheas the Cleric, who Xanatos Gambits everything, then yes, he probably would have.

Pauly
2017-03-28, 12:17 AM
...Come to think of it, we need to know what kind of dog you're trying to distract.[/COLOR]

Inspector Rex, then obviously it is a ham sandwich.

Segev
2017-03-28, 08:34 AM
But is it...an evil sandwich?

https://68.media.tumblr.com/170725b05b901ce1ca39a853c34cf8d1/tumblr_inline_o3x5q5lUSO1sjmxzr_1280.png

Tanarii
2017-03-28, 09:10 AM
Wisdom checks for "I would have thought of that." Intelligence checks for contingency plans you didn't think of beforehand, but your character would have. It allows for you to play smart characters that you can't keep up with, but still come up with the plans yourself.Generally, I consider an Int check more appropriate for remembering stuff in D&D. In D&D 5e, Intelligence checks are explicitly for try to recall things, so it would definitely be an Int check.

For example, after being called out on it and reflecting on it, the player backpack forgetting incident I described way up thread was clearly a "DM gotcha" move on my part. At the very minimum, I should have set a (probably low) DC for an Intelligence check on the part of the character. More reasonable probably would have been just pointing out to the player his standing 'I drop my backpack for combat' rule was flawed. Edit: And given how often characters have to retreat in this campaign eventually he would have lost it anyway just due to not being able to pick it up during a hasty retreat, which made my 'gotcha' even more unnecessary.

Quertus
2017-03-28, 09:15 AM
Int is for remembering where you left your backpack; Wis is for it being on your back in the first place. EDIT: in D&D. Darn playgrounder fallacy. :smalltongue:

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-28, 11:35 AM
Int is for remembering where you left your backpack; Wis is for it being on your back in the first place. EDIT: in D&D. Darn playgrounder fallacy. :smalltongue:

Cha is convincing your DM to let you roll.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-28, 12:09 PM
For the sake of my sanity, please let the apostrophe and the fifth letter of the alphabet enter your life.

(And please, can the thread not go down the rabbit hole of debating what's on the damn sandwich, it's just a general example.)


Sorry, second language and all...you know 2nd world problems.

I do like sandwiches.....or do we call them subs?

Cluedrew
2017-03-28, 04:25 PM
To Darth Ultron: Live and learn. Speaking of which it is usually a sandwich if it is more square/rectangular, and a sub if it is made from a roughly cylindrical bread. At least where I come from. I have no idea how far that extends.

Velaryon
2017-03-28, 04:48 PM
1.Do you go as far as to simply give the character the ability to ''wish'' for things? Like can a player just say ''Kzor reaches into his back pack and pulls out a potion of life'', with the understanding that the chatacter Kzor would have been smart enough to buy one back in town even if the ''silly'' player forgot to mention it?

I usually don't, although exceptions could be made under certain circumstances. If they're in a dungeon or in combat, then no, what they have is what they have. If they're at home (my PC's have a castle that they inhabit), and have recently been somewhere with a shop, then I'm okay with saying "sure, you were able to buy ________ while you were in town."


2.Is this one of them ''if you can get the DM to agree'' type things. Like the characters leave town to slay a red dragon. Hours later when they get to the lair, Player Bob is all like ''Kzor drinks a potion of fire resistance'' and the DM just nods yes as it ''makes sense'' that Kzor would have bought that before leaving town, even if the player never said so.

The party Warlock has great knowledge checks and makes good use of them, so if they are preparing against a specific monster, I generally don't find myself in the situation of "would the characters have known to buy potions of fire resistance even though they didn't specifically ask?" If it came up, I would likely allow it once, along with an admonishment to be more thorough in their planning next time.


3.Does the DM put some odd, arbitrary limit on what can be ''suddenly brought''? Something like the character can't ''buy'' anything but can ''remember'' to bring anything they own? Or can they just ''suddenly'' have any items of less then a set gold piece amount? Is there a size limit? Can a character only ''suddenly remember'' a set number of items per game?

The way I play it, what's written on their sheet is what they own. They are presumed to have their possessions on their person unless they tell me otherwise, or if it's clearly impossible for them to have it on them (like the siege weaponry they bought for the aforementioned castle). As for items that are being "retroactively bought," I give them more leeway if it's remembered before the moment they actually need it, and if it's a minor or consumable item.


And what about abuse? If your not keeping track of a characters inventory, how do you stop abuse? Like say a character buys 10 potions of healing and puts them in a locked chest in their home. Later, when the character is deep in the Swamp of Doom, and wounded, they can just say they pull out a healing potion that they ''remembered'' to take with them. And they can ''remember'' they took each potion once, right?

In this case, if they specified they put the potions in the locked chest, that's where they are (although my players are unlikely to do this because they have handy haversacks and portable holes).



A presumption of good faith (until that faith is broken) goes a long way at the tabletop as in life in general.

Words to live by. And possibly put in one's signature. May I?

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-28, 05:57 PM
Words to live by. And possibly put in one's signature. May I?

Absolutely. Spread the word.

Kalashak
2017-04-10, 05:50 AM
For me, the biggest factor in how I would handle this is how often the player pulls the "but my character would have..." card. I have a few players who get kind of adversarial and play RPGs the way a particularly aggressive player would play a competitive board game. They're very bad about trying to bully me into retroactively give them things because it's totally what their character would have done, and can be sure to do this several times each session. For these players I usually tell them they should have mentioned it sooner.