The Optimizer That Discredits The Optimizers Part 1: Head Rollin

[80sSkeletor]

One of my players likes to keep secrets from everyone when it comes to their characters, even if that means not explaining a thing to the Dungeon Master. This time I need to know something: is it possible to use the Profession Executioner skill in D&D 3.5e to give a +40 to attacks made using a Headsman's Axe without a skill check. And at 11th level. Thanks to anyone that can properly explain this.

[Waker]

It's possible that someone knows more about the topic than I, but I can't think of anything relevant. Either he's using something from a 3rd party source or outright cheating. The only thing that comes close to it comes from Book of Vile Darkness, pg 40 under the description of Headsman's Axe.

When specially sharpened and held with the proper technique, a greataxe (or a greatsword) can serve the executioner as the instrument of execution. The condemned is restrained, with the neck vulnerable to the strike readied by the executioner. On a successful Profession (executioner) check, the condemned dies instantly. If the executioner fails the attempt, the headsman’s axe delivers a coup de grace against the condemned (automatic critical hit, and the condemned must succeed on a Fortitude save or die). The coup de grace simply completes the executioner’s task more messily.
All it does is let you make a skill check vs a DC of 18 (previous page) for a guaranteed kill. Nothing about combat use.

Oh right, I should comment about his refusal to show his work. You really shouldn't let your player get away with not letting you see his character sheet. When you have to go to a forum and ask people to crowdsource an explanation for what a player maybe did to accomplish something, then there is some hostility and lack of trust going on between the player and DM. Have him explain it and site his sources. If he refuses, just deny him the extra damage boosts.

[AvatarVecna]

One of my players likes to keep secrets from everyone when it comes to their characters, even if that means not explaining a thing to the Dungeon Master. This time I need to know something: is it possible to use the Profession Executioner skill in D&D 3.5e to give a +40 to attacks made using a Headsman's Axe without a skill check. And at 11th level. Thanks to anyone that can properly explain this.

Hmm...

Okay, so if your target is restrained properly (at the very least helpless, and I think it requires them to be in the typical "executionee" position), and you have a big sword or axe, you can attempt a DC 18 Profession (Executioner) check. If you succeed, they just die instantly, no save, no check, no nothing; if you fail, it's "just" a regular Coup De Grace.

Not only am I not sure how they're pulling this off, I've never even heard of a thing like this. There's a number of ways I know of to use skill checks to boost your combat performance (Iaijutsu Focus does tons of damage with a high check, Bluff lets you feint, Knowledge skills can give bonuses via Knowledge Devotion, Use Magic Device on an item that will cast Quickened True Strike on you, an easy Jump check combined with Leap Attack, Lucid Dreaming to mess with people in a dream, etc), but Profession (Executioner) is a new one.

[Hackulator]

If you're the DM, tell them they just have to tell you.

If you're not the DM, it's not really your business how their character is designed.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hmm...

Okay, so if your target is restrained properly (at the very least helpless, and I think it requires them to be in the typical "executionee" position), and you have a big sword or axe, you can attempt a DC 18 Profession (Executioner) check. If you succeed, they just die instantly, no save, no check, no nothing; if you fail, it's "just" a regular Coup De Grace.

Not only am I not sure how they're pulling this off, I've never even heard of a thing like this. There's a number of ways I know of to use skill checks to boost your combat performance (Iaijutsu Focus does tons of damage with a high check, Bluff lets you feint, Knowledge skills can give bonuses via Knowledge Devotion, Use Magic Device on an item that will cast Quickened True Strike on you, an easy Jump check combined with Leap Attack, Lucid Dreaming to mess with people in a dream, etc), but Profession (Executioner) is a new one.

It's tough to do just on your own. The skill did prompt me to want to try and play as a trio sometime w/ two friends. We'd be "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."

Judge would be a grapple-focused Justicar to quickly hog tie a foe and make him helpless.

Jury would be a summoning-focused Cleric.

Executioner would be a Factotum with the Deathblow feat (coup de grace as a standard action), Iaijutsu Focus and of course, Profession (Executioner).

Perhaps some day...

[AOKost]

It's tough to do just on your own. The skill did prompt me to want to try and play as a trio sometime w/ two friends. We'd be "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."

Judge would be a grapple-focused Justicar to quickly hog tie a foe and make him helpless.

Jury would be a summoning-focused Cleric.

Executioner would be a Factotum with the Deathblow feat (coup de grace as a standard action), Iaijutsu Focus and of course, Profession (Executioner).

Perhaps some day...

I seriously love this idea... You could also have summoned creatures or pets grapple for you and then you could still perform your attacks... But the treo sounds awesome!

[EndocrineBandit]

Why not just make a cleric of kelemvor that acts as judge, jury, and executioner? Throw a couple crusader levels on him, should work out pretty alright

[Telonius]

It's possible he's trying to get away with some custom Intelligent Magic Item/Item Familiar shenanigans. Start off with your standard "Item of continuous True Strike" cheese for a +20. Make it an Item Familiar, boost its Knowledge checks into the stratosphere, and have its dedicated purpose be "execution." Not only is this horrendously munchkinny, it's also far beyond WBL for most characters and (possibly willfully) misunderstanding how "invested ranks" works - but I wouldn't put it past somebody who refuses to allow anyone to see their sheet.

[Manyasone]

To be frank, mate, if you're the DM and he is your player he tells you how he pulls it or you pull right back at him twice over. And you get to see his sheet... I swear none of my players would even think of pulling a stunt like that

[Calthropstu]

To be frank, mate, if you're the DM and he is your player he tells you how he pulls it or you pull right back at him twice over. And you get to see his sheet... I swear none of my players would even think of pulling a stunt like that

Same. Something sounds odd, I look up every relevant rule. My PF players use a lot of 3rd party PF stuff I am unfamiliar with. There's been a couple of things I simply said no to (such as a tattoo monk getting a feat that allowed him to use craft tattoo to double the number of items a person could have) and a couple of things I was iffy on... but at every level up, I ask my players what they got so I know what they are capable of and whether or not the encounters are going to be appropriate.

[Quertus]

One of my players likes to keep secrets from everyone when it comes to their characters, even if that means not explaining a thing to the Dungeon Master. This time I need to know something: is it possible to use the Profession Executioner skill in D&D 3.5e to give a +40 to attacks made using a Headsman's Axe without a skill check. And at 11th level. Thanks to anyone that can properly explain this.


If you're the DM, tell them they just have to tell you.

If you're not the DM, it's not really your business how their character is designed.


To be frank, mate, if you're the DM and he is your player he tells you how he pulls it or you pull right back at him twice over. And you get to see his sheet... I swear none of my players would even think of pulling a stunt like that


Same. Something sounds odd, I look up every relevant rule. My PF players use a lot of 3rd party PF stuff I am unfamiliar with. There's been a couple of things I simply said no to (such as a tattoo monk getting a feat that allowed him to use craft tattoo to double the number of items a person could have) and a couple of things I was iffy on... but at every level up, I ask my players what they got so I know what they are capable of and whether or not the encounters are going to be appropriate.

Ok, I'm firmly in the camp of believing the DM shouldn't look at or want to look at the players sheets, as a general rule. I'm a firm believer in not metagaming - and that includes the DM not metagaming. And metagaming includes tailoring encounters to the party. And it's easiest to not metagame when you don't have the knowledge to begin with.

However, that's the general rule. There are exceptions. Exceptions like, "how did you do X", with the caveat that the GM needs to build trust, and, if they ever ask this question, they must never then build encounters which counter this technique.

Unless the GM has abused this trust in the past, even I feel that this player has no grounds to stand on to not answer the question asked - at least, if it's being asked by the DM.

Questions from players are a different matter entirely. Myself, I'm much more free to answer questions to fellow players, because there's generally nothing for them to metagame. It's just a learning opportunity. But I can understand those who hold a different PoV, if they express it in a friendly manner.

[legomaster00156]

Uh... knowing what your characters can do so that you can plan adventures appropriately is not meta-gaming. It's a basic GM skill. Planning an adventure that can appropriately challenge a 4 Bard party is vastly different from planning an adventure that can appropriately challenge a party containing a Wizard, a Cleric, a Sorcerer, and an Oracle.
This is to say nothing of knowing what your players are doing so that you can prevent cheating.

[ngilop]

Yeah.. other than Quertus . I have never ever seen, heard of or experienced a player refusing to let the DM see their sheet.

At the very least it is a courteous gesture to let the DM give your character a once over to see if it jives with the agreed upon style of campaign.

I would never trust a player who adamantly refuses to allow the other player's or the DM to look over his cheet. that just throws up the THIS GUY IS CHEATING flag to me.

I would also be wary of a DM who never looks over a player's sheet as then I would be like " how does this guy know to incorporate my character into the over arching story?

I call the 'anti-metagaming' argument pure and utter BULL****E!!! the DM is 100% metagaming all the time. LITERALLY. unless you are some kind of mad man that just has thousands upon millions of index cards with every imaginable possible occurance ever written on them and you shuffle them up and draw one that say 'welp look like you walked into a basilisk's den'

I mena you HAVE to metagame as a DM you know what is behind door #1 because you PUT THE DOOR THERE AND WHATEVER IS IN THE ROOM IN THAT ROOM.

HELL even with my ludicrous card shuffle example there is still metagaming because you know what the outcomes possibly are. AS YOU WROTE THEM.


Unless you have an incorrect definition of what metagaming actually is, which is possible now that I look at what you said.

[Telonius]

Thinking this over a bit more - let's say he's not using any intelligent item or iaijutsu stuff. He could be getting this just by two rules misunderstandings.


Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.


If the executioner fails the attempt, the headsman’s axe delivers a coup de grace against the condemned (automatic critical hit, and the condemned must succeed on a Fortitude save or die).

Greataxe would crit on a Natural 20 only.

Munchkin's thought process: "Well, I've got True strike active. If I make the check, I succeed and the target dies. If I fail, it sets the attack roll to 20, plus my extra 20 from True Strike, means I get a +40 to attack. I don't even need to make the skill check to get that!"

There are a couple of things wrong with that. First, the fact that he'd apparently be abusing the heck out of the custom item creation rules with the infamous Item of Continuous True Strike. (Enough pages have been written about that; you can just google it to see why it doesn't/shouldn't work, and why DMs are perfectly justified in disallowing it).

Even if he has True Strike on legitimately (by casting a spell, or whatever), he's missing two key portions of the rules (BoVD page 39):


The condemned must first be secured by being tied in place, pinned in a grapple, or successfully restrained in a stationary execution device. If restrained in an execution device, the condemned can attempt to make a Escape Artist check
every round against the DC noted in Table 3–2, unless magically held or otherwise helpless. If grappled, the condemned can attempt to break the grapple normally.

and


Execution Devices as Weapons: Some execution devices, such as headsman’s axes, make adequate melee weapons. In melee, such an item deals normal damage for an item of its kind (such as a greataxe) and cannot kill instantly. Most other devices of execution cannot be used in melee.

So basically it sounds like he's trying to get a Headsman's Axe to act like an execution device in regular melee combat (which it can't), confusing the Coup de Grace rules for a melee attack (when the attack bonus really doesn't matter since it hits and crits automatically).

If he does somehow get the target pinned or otherwise helpless, he's perfectly free to do a Coup de Grace with any weapon as a full-round action. He's even free to use the Profession (executioner) skill to deliver a death blow with a Headsman's Axe. But in either of those two cases, the attack bonus doesn't matter in the slightest. It hits automatically, as long as the target isn't immune to critical hits. The only thing that would matter is how much damage you do.

[Eldan]

It's tough to do just on your own. The skill did prompt me to want to try and play as a trio sometime w/ two friends. We'd be "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."

Judge would be a grapple-focused Justicar to quickly hog tie a foe and make him helpless.

Jury would be a summoning-focused Cleric.

Executioner would be a Factotum with the Deathblow feat (coup de grace as a standard action), Iaijutsu Focus and of course, Profession (Executioner).

Perhaps some day...

We once had a trio of Superheroes in M&M with those names. Judge was a utility character, who used the abilities of Silence in the Court (a power that caused an area of silence), Contempt of Court (a power that caused anyone who attacked him with a melee weapon to be catapulted away at high speeds) and the Gavel (a sort of steampunk mallet). Jury was a stealth character and had the power to Replicate himself and to Retire himself (fade into a ghostly shape that could not be attacked by normal means). Executioner just killed people.

[Quertus]

Uh... knowing what your characters can do so that you can plan adventures appropriately is not meta-gaming. It's a basic GM skill. Planning an adventure that can appropriately challenge a 4 Bard party is vastly different from planning an adventure that can appropriately challenge a party containing a Wizard, a Cleric, a Sorcerer, and an Oracle.
This is to say nothing of knowing what your players are doing so that you can prevent cheating.

See, I play more for the roleplay than the challenge aspect. Don't get me wrong - I'm a grognard war gamer at heart, but when I'm playing an RPG, I'm here to roleplay. Forcing a contrived scenario which happens to be a challenge to us does not for me a fun game make. No, I want the world to be what it is, independent of what characters we are playing. If you can't deliver that - if you have to metagame and custom tailor the adventure to our characters - then I fall somewhere between dubious of my likelihood of enjoying the game and suddenly remembering having a previous engagement.


Yeah.. other than Quertus . I have never ever seen, heard of or experienced a player refusing to let the DM see their sheet.

We are unique. :biggrin:

EDIT: I prefer to think of it as engaging in a discussion about play styles to determine the optimal course of action. Or, to put it your way, "I call BS on the DM needing to see anyone's character sheet".


At the very least it is a courteous gesture to let the DM give your character a once over to see if it jives with the agreed upon style of campaign.

Character sheet? Style? How are these related?

Back in my day, we had courtesy and respect. People asked for things. People didn't touch each other's dice without permission. And people talked about things.

What you're describing sounds like disrespect and distrust by comparison.


I would never trust a player who adamantly refuses to allow the other player's or the DM to look over his cheet. that just throws up the THIS GUY IS CHEATING flag to me.

Um, as I said, it's to prevent the GM from cheating. Other players wanting to check my math I'm fine with.


I would also be wary of a DM who never looks over a player's sheet as then I would be like " how does this guy know to incorporate my character into the over arching story?

That's up to the player. It's their story, not the GM's.


I call the 'anti-metagaming' argument pure and utter BULL****E!!! the DM is 100% metagaming all the time. LITERALLY. unless you are some kind of mad man that just has thousands upon millions of index cards with every imaginable possible occurance ever written on them and you shuffle them up and draw one that say 'welp look like you walked into a basilisk's den'

I mena you HAVE to metagame as a DM you know what is behind door #1 because you PUT THE DOOR THERE AND WHATEVER IS IN THE ROOM IN THAT ROOM.

HELL even with my ludicrous card shuffle example there is still metagaming because you know what the outcomes possibly are. AS YOU WROTE THEM.

Unless you have an incorrect definition of what metagaming actually is, which is possible now that I look at what you said.

Metagaming (according to Quertus): using out of character knowledge to make in character decisions. If the GM knows that my character has an ability (or weakness), but the opposition does not, that knowledge may accidentally or even intentionally factor into their tactics. I've seen it happen far too many times to not do what I can to prevent it.

[Waker]

See, I play more for the roleplay than the challenge aspect. Don't get me wrong - I'm a grognard war gamer at heart, but when I'm playing an RPG, I'm here to roleplay. Forcing a contrived scenario which happens to be a challenge to us does not for me a fun game make. No, I want the world to be what it is, independent of what characters we are playing. If you can't deliver that - if you have to metagame and custom tailor the adventure to our characters - then I fall somewhere between dubious of my likelihood of enjoying the game and suddenly remembering having a previous engagement.


Metagaming (according to Quertus): using out of character knowledge to make in character decisions. If the GM knows that my character has an ability (or weakness), but the opposition does not, that knowledge may accidentally or even intentionally factor into their tactics. I've seen it happen far too many times to not do what I can to prevent it.
When I DM, I want to see the character sheet not so I can tailor encounters to the party, but to avoid shenanigans both intentional and mistaken. I have gamed with way too many people in various groups who fudge their math or make some kind of boo-boo when it comes to understanding the rules. Even experienced players make mistakes, for instance one guy I gamed with is generally regarded as a rules lawyer so other players are hesitant to challenge his assertions. When he claimed that a large character could use a smaller 2h weapon without penalty in one hand, I contradicted him and even had to pull up the specific ruling before he begrudgingly accepted. I've been DMing a long time, so I've seen a lot. If you can't trust the DM to not design encounters against you, then you probably shouldn't game with them.


Um, as I said, it's to prevent the GM from cheating. Other players wanting to check my math I'm fine with.
Except that the OP said this player won't let anyone check their sheet. If you have a player acting suspicious like that, that doesn't exactly engender a willingness to trust.

[Hackulator]

Um, as I said, it's to prevent the GM from cheating. Other players wanting to check my math I'm fine with.



The GM can't cheat. You can't cheat when its your job to make the rules. The idea that the game is somehow the players vs the GM is a terrible way to play D&D.

The idea that as a GM you don't look at the character sheets is just inane and I've honestly never heard someone say that before, ever.

[SorenKnight]

Um, as I said, it's to prevent the GM from cheating. Other players wanting to check my math I'm fine with.


The players want to win, and on some level that's their job. The GM's job isn't to win, it's to make sure everyone has a good time. There is no incentive to cheat (I'm defining cheating as unfairly using your knowledge to win a fight, not as any use of it whatsoever).

Also, I object to your assertion that any encounter tailored to the party is automatically contrived. They can make just as much sense as any other encounter, especially if your willing to refluff some things.

And sometimes you simply need to consider the party if you want the combat to ever be remotely challenging. For example I once ran a rogue heavy campaign and one guy was rocking a plus 50-60 on his stealth checks (yes I checked his math). He could hide from most enemies even if he rolled a 1 and they rolled a 20. If I didn't adjust encounters accordingly he could snipe them all to death without ever having any risk. So I adjusted my encounters. Not all at them of course, it would be kinda stupid if every enemy had dust of appearance. But it makes perfect sense for some of them. Likewise some casters may have glitter dust, or simply throw out wide aoe spells indiscriminately when attacked by something they can't see.

So what would you have done? Would you have looked at his sheet to check his math? Even if you didn't you would know what he was capable off. Would let him trivialize all combat encounters? Tailor them? Ban his character? Try to focus on non combat encounters as the main form of engagement once it became clear any fight was a foregone conclusion? Something I haven't thought of?

I'm sincerely curious to see how someone with your perspective would solve an issue like that.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I seriously love this idea... You could also have summoned creatures or pets grapple for you and then you could still perform your attacks... But the treo sounds awesome!

Yeah, the summons would be there to help the Judge subdue foes in addition to serving as the jury for a quick battlefield trial. "The Jury" is the most nebulous piece of the trio, mostly there to hold it all together. Only reason I even have it pinned down to Cleric is b/c healing magic is usually more critical for a party than arcane magic (and a druid's summoned animals would make poor jurors). And since the party would mostly be calling in lawful and/or good outsiders, a cleric just made more sense.

[Quertus]

When I DM, I want to see the character sheet not so I can tailor encounters to the party, but to avoid shenanigans both intentional and mistaken. I have gamed with way too many people in various groups who fudge their math or make some kind of boo-boo when it comes to understanding the rules. Even experienced players make mistakes, for instance one guy I gamed with is generally regarded as a rules lawyer so other players are hesitant to challenge his assertions. When he claimed that a large character could use a smaller 2h weapon without penalty in one hand, I contradicted him and even had to pull up the specific ruling before he begrudgingly accepted. I've been DMing a long time, so I've seen a lot. If you can't trust the DM to not design encounters against you, then you probably shouldn't game with them.

Except that the OP said this player won't let anyone check their sheet. If you have a player acting suspicious like that, that doesn't exactly engender a willingness to trust.

Yeah, this player doesn't trust anyone. This makes for a much more difficult problem to solve.

But, for me, those who have demonstrated sufficient skill at not utilizing OOC information, or fellow pc's who have nothing to gain from said information are more than welcome to check my math.


The GM can't cheat. You can't cheat when its your job to make the rules. The idea that the game is somehow the players vs the GM is a terrible way to play D&D.

The idea that as a GM you don't look at the character sheets is just inane and I've honestly never heard someone say that before, ever.

Yes, they can. By holding that terrible attitude you've referenced, they are much more likely to cheat than if they just view themselves as a neural arbiter, running the world. Such a neural arbiter has no need to look at my character sheet. That action falls well within the realm of the needs of the cheaters


The players want to win, and on some level that's their job. The GM's job isn't to win, it's to make sure everyone has a good time. There is no incentive to cheat (I'm defining cheating as unfairly using your knowledge to win a fight, not as any use of it whatsoever).

Someone obviously needs to teach this lesson to a lot off the GMs I've encountered. Because they clearly didn't read the memo.


Also, I object to your assertion that any encounter tailored to the party is automatically contrived. They can make just as much sense as any other encounter, especially if your willing to refluff some things..

Please elaborate on how something can be custom tailored to the party, and not be contrived. Contrast to the world which is already written in stone before the pc's even exist.


And sometimes you simply need to consider the party if you want the combat to ever be remotely challenging. For example I once ran a rogue heavy campaign and one guy was rocking a plus 50-60 on his stealth checks (yes I checked his math). He could hide from most enemies even if he rolled a 1 and they rolled a 20. If I didn't adjust encounters accordingly he could snipe them all to death without ever having any risk. So I adjusted my encounters. Not all at them of course, it would be kinda stupid if every enemy had dust of appearance. But it makes perfect sense for some of them. Likewise some casters may have glitter dust, or simply throw out wide aoe spells indiscriminately when attacked by something they can't see.

So what would you have done? Would you have looked at his sheet to check his math? Even if you didn't you would know what he was capable off. Would let him trivialize all combat encounters? Tailor them? Ban his character? Try to focus on non combat encounters as the main form of engagement once it became clear any fight was a foregone conclusion? Something I haven't thought of?

I'm sincerely curious to see how someone with your perspective would solve an issue like that.

Some of the encounters would have involved high spot / stealth / blindsense / life sense / Glitterdust /etc regardless of the existence of this character. The campaign module would already be written, and would include such varied encounters that this would never have been an issue.

Or, if I didn't write the module, he gets to feel like a BDH. Win / win.

[Hackulator]

Honestly Quertus, it seems like you've just only played with terrible, terrible GMs, so, I'm sorry for that.

[icefractal]

I think people are misunderstanding where Quertus is coming from. AFAICT, it's not primarily about distrusting the GM, it's about wanting an "extreme sandbox" play-style where the game world simply exists, and the PCs do things in it.

Making encounters that are suitable for the PCs isn't even a thing, because there aren't any encounters for the PCs, there are simply a bunch of NPCs and monsters in various places that the PCs might end up fighting or not depending on what they do.

And likewise, because the encounters are already independent of the party's level, they can be independent of the party's optimization level as well. If someone builds "The Stealthiest Man in the World" then they probably will sneak past just about everyone, until either:
A) They happen to run into people who have good enough countermeasures for stealth, by chance.
B) They become (in)famous, people start divining and gathering information on them, their extreme stealth is understood, and then their enemies start preparing countermeasures for extreme stealth.

It's a somewhat appealing campaign idea - for one thing, it's the only environment where optimization (and information control) truly matters. And that kind of "independent world" is great for immersion-focused gameplay.

However, in practice, I find it extremely demanding to GM in that style, and as a result most games run that way have problems. You pretty much need a GM who is as good as the players at optimization, great at planning, good (and impartial) at improvisation, and has a lot of time for prep. And of course the players need to be on board with the sandbox style, ie: you can easily lose and maybe die if you happen to pick the wrong fight, and sometimes that will happen by chance. But when it does work, it can be a lot of fun.

Although that said, even in an extreme sandbox style, there will be some point where to adjudicate something, either the player or the GM needs to know metagame info. For instance, an NPC scrying on a PC. In that case, most groups choose for the GM to be the one knowing metagame info, on the basis that then everyone but one person can act purely IC, as opposed to only one person being able to do so.

[Zanos]

I think people are misunderstanding where Quertus is coming from. AFAICT, it's not primarily about distrusting the GM, it's about wanting an "extreme sandbox" play-style where the game world simply exists, and the PCs do things in it.
This is my preferred style of play and my preferred way to run games, but...

I was one of the folks running a PF persistent world for several years and I'm a friend of a DM who has a really high player turnover rate. In both of these circumstances, I reviewed a lot of PC sheets, and in my experience they have at least one mistake that I caught(usually way more) about 95% of the time. Sometimes it's cheating, sometimes it's rules misinterpretation, sometimes it's just an honest mistake, sometimes it's forgetting a houserule or remembering one that isn't being used.

For that reason alone I would never have a player that refused to let me see their sheet. I don't build encounters specifically to counter the party, but I do need to check that your character is actually legal.

[Gildedragon]

Players need to be ok with the DM checking their sheet or getting told "sorry no. if you can't trust me enough to look at your sheet, you deffos can't trust me enough to run the game."

[StreamOfTheSky]

Players need to be ok with the DM checking their sheet or getting told "sorry no. if you can't trust me enough to look at your sheet, you deffos can't trust me enough to run the game."
Yeah, letting the DM see your sheet whenever he wants is so basic that I'd never even consider it could be a problem for a player.

I go further and make the players post their sheets online for each other to see. For one thing, it makes it way easier if someone's out for another person to play as that character. And it means they can notice errors on other sheets that I might miss...
Of course, I don't tolerate intra-party stealing or fighting at all. If you allow that stuff in your games, I can understand not letting the players see each others' sheets.

[Quertus]

Honestly Quertus, it seems like you've just only played with terrible, terrible GMs, so, I'm sorry for that.

There's certainly some truth to that. I've had a few good GMs, too, but a lot of bad GMs and just incompatable styles mixed in over the years. :smallfrown:


I think people are misunderstanding where Quertus is coming from. AFAICT, it's not primarily about distrusting the GM, it's about wanting an "extreme sandbox" play-style where the game world simply exists, and the PCs do things in it.

Making encounters that are suitable for the PCs isn't even a thing, because there aren't any encounters for the PCs, there are simply a bunch of NPCs and monsters in various places that the PCs might end up fighting or not depending on what they do.

And likewise, because the encounters are already independent of the party's level, they can be independent of the party's optimization level as well. If someone builds "The Stealthiest Man in the World" then they probably will sneak past just about everyone, until either:
A) They happen to run into people who have good enough countermeasures for stealth, by chance.
B) They become (in)famous, people start divining and gathering information on them, their extreme stealth is understood, and then their enemies start preparing countermeasures for extreme stealth.

It's a somewhat appealing campaign idea - for one thing, it's the only environment where optimization (and information control) truly matters. And that kind of "independent world" is great for immersion-focused gameplay.

However, in practice, I find it extremely demanding to GM in that style, and as a result most games run that way have problems. You pretty much need a GM who is as good as the players at optimization, great at planning, good (and impartial) at improvisation, and has a lot of time for prep. And of course the players need to be on board with the sandbox style, ie: you can easily lose and maybe die if you happen to pick the wrong fight, and sometimes that will happen by chance. But when it does work, it can be a lot of fun.

Although that said, even in an extreme sandbox style, there will be some point where to adjudicate something, either the player or the GM needs to know metagame info. For instance, an NPC scrying on a PC. In that case, most groups choose for the GM to be the one knowing metagame info, on the basis that then everyone but one person can act purely IC, as opposed to only one person being able to do so.

Bingo! You may well understand me better than I understand myself.

However, on the less taxing end, I'm also fine with a DM just running a module, so long as they run it straight out of the book, without changing anything to balance it for the party. I've seen far too many idiot DMs ruin modules that way. Where, reading over it later, I can see that it would have worked out so much better if only they hadn't changed anything.

Or, just as bad, the module seems ok (if perhaps a bit lackluster) while playing through it. But, afterwards, when you go to talk to other players who've played through it, you find that you lack a common frame of reference. Reading through it, you find that the GM has changed enough stuff that the module loses its identity, and you've lost out on a shared experience with the larger community. :smallfrown:


This is my preferred style of play and my preferred way to run games, but...

I was one of the folks running a PF persistent world for several years and I'm a friend of a DM who has a really high player turnover rate. In both of these circumstances, I reviewed a lot of PC sheets, and in my experience they have at least one mistake that I caught(usually way more) about 95% of the time. Sometimes it's cheating, sometimes it's rules misinterpretation, sometimes it's just an honest mistake, sometimes it's forgetting a houserule or remembering one that isn't being used.

For that reason alone I would never have a player that refused to let me see their sheet. I don't build encounters specifically to counter the party, but I do need to check that your character is actually legal.

But that knowledge is still there, in the back of you're head, potentially influencing encounters and tactics.

Would you be satisfied if another competent player looked over all the sheets for errors, instead?


Players need to be ok with the DM checking their sheet or getting told "sorry no. if you can't trust me enough to look at your sheet, you deffos can't trust me enough to run the game."

Trust? A DM?! Oh, that was good for a laugh. And now I'm sad.

I've had a great many DMs in my day, and very few were worthy of trust.

Not comprehending the ability of humans to metagame is only a minor, accidental infraction of the "the DM may be too stupid to run a game I'll enjoy" variety. How they respond when this is brought up determines whether they earn any additional infractions - "willfully ignorant and belligerent" being an all to common combination IME that makes it clear this GM is just another horror story waiting to happen.


Yeah, letting the DM see your sheet whenever he wants is so basic that I'd never even consider it could be a problem for a player.

I go further and make the players post their sheets online for each other to see. For one thing, it makes it way easier if someone's out for another person to play as that character. And it means they can notice errors on other sheets that I might miss...
Of course, I don't tolerate intra-party stealing or fighting at all. If you allow that stuff in your games, I can understand not letting the players see each others' sheets.

Yeah, I've played in groups that allow PvP, so that does limit my readiness to divulge information to my fellow players in such groups. Of course, usually such groups don't ask.

Personally, I prefer the no PvP, team spirit type of environment, and argue for and work towards it whenever possible.

However, there's one more consideration here, that I'd like you to take away as food for thought: would you rather the players see Quertus as a pile of stats and skills and loot, or as a tactically inept academia mage and worlds-famous author? Because having everyone look at character sheets seems like the former, whereas I prefer the focus to be on the latter.

[Telonius]

I think a lot of this might be down to personal experience. I've seen far more modules ruined by players knowing how to optimize than by DMs being terrible; Quertus has had the opposite experience.

For me, Shackled City is probably the biggest case in point. I started running it "by the book." By about chapter 2, the players were stomping so hard on all the encounters that it stopped being fun for them or for me. We had an after-session talk where everybody said as much. That was really unfortunate, since the plot (distinct from the mechanics) of the adventure path and the characters the players had built had a whole lot of potential. Anyway, I had to dial up the difficulty on everything - multiplying enemies, rebuilding the NPCs to last more than a round or two - to make them feel challenged at all. It was a ton of work on my end. But the result was that everybody had much more fun, and I got a lot better at game mechanics by rebuilding dozens of bad guys.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Regardless of all questions of metagaming, if a player refuses point-blank to explain a trick to the DM, I think it's safe to assume that they know they're doing something wrong.


Please elaborate on how something can be custom tailored to the party, and not be contrived. Contrast to the world which is already written in stone before the pc's even exist.
My policy is "don't think about the players, and then do." Plan the challenge such that it makes sense in the world and plot being presented... then double-check to make sure it's not going to excessively screw over the party. Pull out a list of your party's big weaknesses and strengths to see if the encounter is going to be easier or harder than you expected-- if it's likely to be too hard, make sure there's an exit strategy, and if it's going to be too easy, make sure you've got more material and drama prepared. If one or two guys depend on precision damage, make sure this isn't the third big fight in a row against undead. If the party can get airborne, remember that those cliffs-o'-doom will just be flavor. That sort of thing-- you don't need to calibrate each encounter with a fine-toothed comb, but it's good to be aware of when party abilities will significantly affect things.

[Fouredged Sword]

See, I feel the need to look at player sheets. I even ask players to walk me though the type of character they are building and the way they intend for the character to function. There is a reason for this. I am not a DND reference computer. I got to actually do research so I am not caught off guard and put in a situation I don't know the rules for and the primary source for situations I have not researched is players doing things I am not aware they can do.

You are in the exact situation I am avoiding. If a player builds to do X I would like to know so I can understand the limitations of X. If there is information the DM is not aware of and information the player is not aware of you WILL have situations where the rules are not correctly applied EVEN IF EVERYONE IS PLAYING FAIR, simply due to X being known only by the player, Y being known only by the DM, and X and Y interacting.

It is the DM's role to be the keeper of information. His role is to know both X and Y and know the party knows X but not Y, and to apply the rules fairly and correctly to keep the game moving with as little fuss as possible.

[Zanos]

But that knowledge is still there, in the back of you're head, potentially influencing encounters and tactics.
No more than the players who know what the stats of a lesser fire elemental are by heart but who's PCs have never encountered one before.


Would you be satisfied if another competent player looked over all the sheets for errors, instead?
Nah, because 1. I have more experience with it than pretty much anyone and 2. I am a narcissist.


If one or two guys depend on precision damage, make sure this isn't the third big fight in a row against undead.
They probably shouldn't have decided to take up the guard captain on his request to clear the nearby tomb of undead, then.

[Grod_The_Giant]

They probably shouldn't have decided to take up the guard captain on his request to clear the nearby tomb of undead, then.
Ehh, depends on how self-directed the game is, and how much of a "combat-as-war, if you don't research you'll probably die" contract you have going on. Obviously a group of rogues should turn down a mission to clear a tomb of undead, but you might not know what you'll find on the Mysterious Island of DoomTM, and the DM should be aware that the repeated, unexpected undead encounters might get frustrating. (And compensate by, say, including broken traps that can be re-activated to damage the zombie hordes, or throwing in the odd carrion crawler, or dropping a corpse with a partially-charged wand of Gravestrike)

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I haven't had the luxury of playing with players that know their stuff. Plus, as a GM I like to think of myself as pretty lenient, with 'run it by me and I'll probably okay it'. Some may think that's too much micromanaging, but if I'm running, I usually know my stuff.

[Jan Mattys]

Ok, I'm firmly in the camp of believing the DM shouldn't look at or want to look at the players sheets, as a general rule. I'm a firm believer in not metagaming - and that includes the DM not metagaming. And metagaming includes tailoring encounters to the party. And it's easiest to not metagame when you don't have the knowledge to begin with.

However, that's the general rule. There are exceptions. Exceptions like, "how did you do X", with the caveat that the GM needs to build trust, and, if they ever ask this question, they must never then build encounters which counter this technique.

Unless the GM has abused this trust in the past, even I feel that this player has no grounds to stand on to not answer the question asked - at least, if it's being asked by the DM.

Questions from players are a different matter entirely. Myself, I'm much more free to answer questions to fellow players, because there's generally nothing for them to metagame. It's just a learning opportunity. But I can understand those who hold a different PoV, if they express it in a friendly manner.

The DM is not your adversary. The DM is your best friend.
You group around him and trust him to create an interesting story and a challenging experience. He loves telling stories, you love living them.

If you ever enter the mindset of being in any kind of match against him, you have already lost. Why? Because:
1) he will always (always) be able to deploy far bigger guns than your mind could conceive.
2) there's literally no point in trying to make things difficult for the source of your fun. You might as well go play some videogame singleplayer and feel smart when you beat it at the highter difficulty setting.

[Rynjin]

Same. Something sounds odd, I look up every relevant rule. My PF players use a lot of 3rd party PF stuff I am unfamiliar with. There's been a couple of things I simply said no to (such as a tattoo monk getting a feat that allowed him to use craft tattoo to double the number of items a person could have) and a couple of things I was iffy on... but at every level up, I ask my players what they got so I know what they are capable of and whether or not the encounters are going to be appropriate.

Did you give the player something else in exchange? That's kinda what Inscribe Magical Tattoo DOES, at double the cost of a normal magic item (item creation rules are to double the cost of an item for it being slotless). It's a first party Feat.

[Gildedragon]

Trust? A DM?! Oh, that was good for a laugh. And now I'm sad.

I've had a great many DMs in my day, and very few were worthy of trust.

Not comprehending the ability of humans to metagame is only a minor, accidental infraction of the "the DM may be too stupid to run a game I'll enjoy" variety. How they respond when this is brought up determines whether they earn any additional infractions - "willfully ignorant and belligerent" being an all to common combination IME that makes it clear this GM is just another horror story waiting to happen.


Crystal-mighty Q who hurt you?
If one cannot trust the person running the game with the sheet one ought not be playing at that table. After all the DM's job is to run the world, establish the rules, etc... they are supposed to have total knowledge of the world and characters.
I mean it'd be like refusing to provide backstory because then the GM will use that to affect the character.

[Jan Mattys]

Also, Quertus, you might want to consider the extreme examples:
1) A DM who tailors the story on his players, making them feel unique snowflakes and giving them the weird feeling that everything always revolves around them. There's nothing behind that door UNTIL they open it. There are no interesting NPCs except those the players talk to. There's no interesting plot moving at its own pace, only things that happen because of them being an active force of change.

2) A DM who just builds a world. It is pretty irrelevant that either the PCs even exist or not. The world has its geography, culture, economy, politics, history, and people have goals and lives that go on entirely out of the players reach.

I can understand both extremes to have their own merits. But also their own flaws. The first one feels extremey railroady, the second one just feels... pointless?
I mean, I've been a GM for decades (oh god, decades!! :smalleek:) and trust me: there may well be bad GMs, but there are also extremely lazy and inactive players. They need hints, hooks, and a genera sense of purpose. And it's up to the GM to bring that, and help them get involved in the story.

More to the point:
The idea that a GM builds a world and nothing more, otherwise he's cheating, is frankly absurd. I create a world AND I set events in motion. I create a setting AND a story. And in order to make the events important for you, and the story compelling and flowing, I need to be God. Do you really think GMs are always prepared for everything? No, we just improvise and make up situations on the spot. Because of you.
In order to do that consistently and efficiently, I literally need to be God. Taking that privilege off my hands, and playing cat and mouse with my creativeness can only end worse than bad for all those involved.
You take my omniscience off me, you only end up with a void(er) world you are very likely to find dull in a couple sessions.

Last but not least: it's a matter of trust indeed, like others already pointed out. If a player tells me to my face that he doesn't trust my judgement, my fairness or my willingness to try and make things fun for him, then - entitled by the countless hours of obscure work I spent in order to give him a good campaign - I'd simply ask him what's the point in sitting at my table.

And before you get the wrong idea: I do not make things easy or difficult on a whim. It's the overall playing experience that counts. I play my NPCs like people. But I'll have them do mistakes if I think that makes for a good story, and I'll have them do intelligent things if that makes for a good story. I will NOT roll wisdom or intelligence checks for everything (except when interactions with PCs are involved), because pseudo-random behaviour would not make for a good story most of the times, and I don't gamble with my players' (or my) free time, so I'd rather take the road where I have control. I'll just decide their actions based on what a good story makes. If I smell a player sitting there and doubleguessing everything that happens in light of my "cheating uberknowledge", I feel like I have every right to be pretty offended. And also sad.

Control and tyranny are two different things. One is a healthy goal, the second is not. You are mixing the two and, fearing the second, you seek to break free from the first.

[Fouredged Sword]

This actually brings up an interesting idea for a game where you have a DM and a ST as separate individuals. Basically you would have one DM who acts as arbeter of the rules and keeps copies of all player characters and monsters and the ST actually runs the story. The ST builds NPC's and selects their actions but does not have any knowledge about the PCs. If he casts a mind effecting spell on a character without ranks in spellcraft the exchange goes like this.

ST - "Monster X casts a spell, everyone roll spellcraft to ID it" (shows DM the DC of the check.)
Players roll dice behind a shield and show DM the results. DM shows players who pass their check the spell description, name, and effect per the Spellcraft rules without telling the ST who he told.
Player X has immunity to mind effecting but failed his spellcraft check. The DM tells him nothing about the spell but reviews his character sheet briefly and simply tells both the DM and ST "The spell has no effect". The player is not told the spell or why outside a IC description. The ST is not told the player has blanket mind effecting immunity or though what means.

It would take a special kind of roleplayer to enjoy running a game as an impartial DM outside of the roll of also playing ST, but it would make for an interesting game.

[Jan Mattys]

GMs who capture the players, and have all characters tied with rope except for the rogue, who's tied with magical shackles in order to de-fang his player, exist. And they are bad.
But hiding from the GM how many ranks in Escape Artist each player has is most certainly NOT the solution.

[Hackulator]

GMs who capture the players, and have all characters tied with rope except for the rogue, who's tied with magical shackles in order to de-fang his player, exist. And they are bad.
But hiding from the GM how many ranks in Escape Artist each player has is most certainly NOT the solution.

Unless the party has been fighting the same enemy for a long time and he has learned their skill set in-game, in which case this would be fine.

[RoboEmperor]

This is actually a very serious situation. Talk to your DM and your players to kick him from the group.

I personally will never play with a player that refuses to show their character sheet to their DM.

I understand where Quertus is coming from, and in a perfect world or where the DM and Player are long time friends/gamers there isn't a problem with what he's doing, but at the start, where you're playing a game for the first time together, the answer is **** no.

The reasons why this player merits a kick are:
1. This player is a munchkin. Now this alone isn't kick worthy as long as he munchkins within your optimization level, but this clearly is not the case.
2. Player is distrusting. It's like he has a secret patent on his imba character build and doesn't want anyone to know it. He alone will be able to enjoy it.
3. Player is railroading. He saying, I don't need to show my work, show any proof, show any sources, you have to do as I say. He is literally taking control of the game.
4. Not fun to play with and ruining the fun for everyone.

[Kesnit]

This is actually a very serious situation. Talk to your DM and your players to kick him from the group.

I agree with this.

About a year ago, I was running a game with a certain person. (I had a total of 4 players, but only one is applicable here.) I started the game at LVL 4, and he brought in a third-party book with a class he wanted to use. I OK-ed the class - and that was the last time I saw anything of his sheet. The game progressed, and the player got worse and worse at his desired role, but refused to make the changes necessary to make him effective. Eventually, I also realized he was cheating (by using abilities from magic items too many times per day and using skill tricks more than once per encounter). When the party hit level 9, I did a sheet audit on the two PCs that I had not personally built. (The players were my wife and mother-in-law.) Or rather, I tried. One player turned over her sheet. The last player (the cheater) told me he would e-mail me the class description (even though we had a scanner available). I tried for 2 weeks to get the class description and the character sheet, before finally kicking him from the game. I did manage to learn that he had been double-dipping gear and gold, so had far more wealth than the other PCs. (By double-dipping, I mean he kept items and the full gold amount of sold items. If the party was going to sell stuff, but there was an item he wanted to keep, he would not include that item in the total treasure value. Instead, he would just keep the item on his sheet, but still take the full 1/4 of the sold treasure.)

Game was a lot better once he was gone. To this day I am not sure what class he was using, as I've not been able to find the book - or anyone who knows what book it was in. (It was in a book, since he showed me the book.)

[Vaz]

Class with Profession as a Class Skill =+14 (Human Able Learner allows multiple classes)
Wis based Class, e.g Cleric, with 24 Wis (18 Base, +2 From levels, +4 Item = +7
Masterwork Executioners Axe = +1
Guidance of the Avatar = 2nd level spell, +20 to skill checks
= +42, no stupid homebrew magic items giving +30 to Skill Checks.

It actually requires someone to be restraining them per RAW. Even helpless won't do, but that's neither here nor there. But a +40 to Prof Executioner Checks is a thing.

However, no idea why, unless they are taking Exemplar for using it to influence people to become Fanatic followers after he executes people in front of a crowd. You only need DC18

[Quertus]

Regardless of all questions of metagaming, if a player refuses point-blank to explain a trick to the DM, I think it's safe to assume that they know they're doing something wrong.

Probably. Although there's still the possibility of not wanting the GM to to metagame about the specifics, or to unrealistically counter their shtick, even I find that shaky ground, unless the player has already had problems with this GM.


My policy is "don't think about the players, and then do." Plan the challenge such that it makes sense in the world and plot being presented... then double-check to make sure it's not going to excessively screw over the party. Pull out a list of your party's big weaknesses and strengths to see if the encounter is going to be easier or harder than you expected-- if it's likely to be too hard, make sure there's an exit strategy, and if it's going to be too easy, make sure you've got more material and drama prepared. If one or two guys depend on precision damage, make sure this isn't the third big fight in a row against undead. If the party can get airborne, remember that those cliffs-o'-doom will just be flavor. That sort of thing-- you don't need to calibrate each encounter with a fine-toothed comb, but it's good to be aware of when party abilities will significantly affect things.

To be a ****, if you build up your DMing skills, you should automatically vary your encounters, and things like this should never be a problem. You don't put back to back to back undead, regardless of knowledge of there being precision damage in the party, unless that's what's realistic and you're playing in a style that prioritizes realism over, well, just about anything else.


See, I feel the need to look at player sheets. I even ask players to walk me though the type of character they are building and the way they intend for the character to function. There is a reason for this. I am not a DND reference computer. I got to actually do research so I am not caught off guard and put in a situation I don't know the rules for and the primary source for situations I have not researched is players doing things I am not aware they can do.

You are in the exact situation I am avoiding. If a player builds to do X I would like to know so I can understand the limitations of X. If there is information the DM is not aware of and information the player is not aware of you WILL have situations where the rules are not correctly applied EVEN IF EVERYONE IS PLAYING FAIR, simply due to X being known only by the player, Y being known only by the DM, and X and Y interacting.

It is the DM's role to be the keeper of information. His role is to know both X and Y and know the party knows X but not Y, and to apply the rules fairly and correctly to keep the game moving with as little fuss as possible.

I've played in plenty of groups where the players were more knowledgeable than the DM, and the GM often turned to the players for rules reference.

That having been said, wanting to brush up on all the rules that are relevant to the characters is a good reason for wanting to review the characters. I'd approve, were I in one of your games, and you expressed this sentiment.

Although rules knowledge can easily be outsourced to the players, the interaction of X and Y is much harder to outsource. However, unlike in some systems, I'm not really aware of much in 3e where that might actually come up. Still, a completely valid reason.


I haven't had the luxury of playing with players that know their stuff. Plus, as a GM I like to think of myself as pretty lenient, with 'run it by me and I'll probably okay it'. Some may think that's too much micromanaging, but if I'm running, I usually know my stuff.

That was my stance in 2e. :smallwink:


The DM is not your adversary. The DM is your best friend.
You group around him and trust him to create an interesting story and a challenging experience. He loves telling stories, you love living them.

If you ever enter the mindset of being in any kind of match against him, you have already lost. Why? Because:
1) he will always (always) be able to deploy far bigger guns than your mind could conceive.
2) there's literally no point in trying to make things difficult for the source of your fun. You might as well go play some videogame singleplayer and feel smart when you beat it at the highter difficulty setting.

I prefer the GM to create the setting / the scene, and the players, the characters, and the dice to be more responsible for what story comes out of it.

And I'd like to think that avoiding the potential conflict of abusing information should help to avoid an adversarial mindset.


Crystal-mighty Q who hurt you?

The list is far too long. :smallfrown:

Oh, you mean just in gaming. The list is still far too long. :smallfrown:


If one cannot trust the person running the game with the sheet one ought not be playing at that table. After all the DM's job is to run the world, establish the rules, etc... they are supposed to have total knowledge of the world and characters.
I mean it'd be like refusing to provide backstory because then the GM will use that to affect the character.

Yeah, well, taken to its logical conclusion, that advice says someone with my trust issues should just stop living. So let's not go there.

As to the rest,


This actually brings up an interesting idea for a game where you have a DM and a ST as separate individuals. Basically you would have one DM who acts as arbeter of the rules and keeps copies of all player characters and monsters and the ST actually runs the story. The ST builds NPC's and selects their actions but does not have any knowledge about the PCs. If he casts a mind effecting spell on a character without ranks in spellcraft the exchange goes like this.

ST - "Monster X casts a spell, everyone roll spellcraft to ID it" (shows DM the DC of the check.)
Players roll dice behind a shield and show DM the results. DM shows players who pass their check the spell description, name, and effect per the Spellcraft rules without telling the ST who he told.
Player X has immunity to mind effecting but failed his spellcraft check. The DM tells him nothing about the spell but reviews his character sheet briefly and simply tells both the DM and ST "The spell has no effect". The player is not told the spell or why outside a IC description. The ST is not told the player has blanket mind effecting immunity or though what means.

It would take a special kind of roleplayer to enjoy running a game as an impartial DM outside of the roll of also playing ST, but it would make for an interesting game.

I've played in games like this. The only role actually exclusive to the GM is the high level running of the world. I've been in plenty of games where a co-DM actually handled the minutia of the rules, monster stats, combat, etc. Heck, I've had players run characters where one of the other players handled some of the rules for that character, because they knew those rules better.

Still, I don't think I've ever played in a game with the level of information hiding you are describing. I'd love to, mind, but I don't think I ever have. Usually, the idea was to take pressure off the GM, or to maximize the function of the game by having each person do what they were best at.


Also, Quertus, you might want to consider the extreme examples:
1) A DM who tailors the story on his players, making them feel unique snowflakes and giving them the weird feeling that everything always revolves around them. There's nothing behind that door UNTIL they open it. There are no interesting NPCs except those the players talk to. There's no interesting plot moving at its own pace, only things that happen because of them being an active force of change.

2) A DM who just builds a world. It is pretty irrelevant that either the PCs even exist or not. The world has its geography, culture, economy, politics, history, and people have goals and lives that go on entirely out of the players reach.

I can understand both extremes to have their own merits. But also their own flaws. The first one feels extremey railroady, the second one just feels... pointless?
I mean, I've been a GM for decades (oh god, decades!! :smalleek:) and trust me: there may well be bad GMs, but there are also extremely lazy and inactive players. They need hints, hooks, and a genera sense of purpose. And it's up to the GM to bring that, and help them get involved in the story.

More to the point:
The idea that a GM builds a world and nothing more, otherwise he's cheating, is frankly absurd. I create a world AND I set events in motion. I create a setting AND a story. And in order to make the events important for you, and the story compelling and flowing, I need to be God. Do you really think GMs are always prepared for everything? No, we just improvise and make up situations on the spot. Because of you.
In order to do that consistently and efficiently, I literally need to be God. Taking that privilege off my hands, and playing cat and mouse with my creativeness can only end worse than bad for all those involved.
You take my omniscience off me, you only end up with a void(er) world you are very likely to find dull in a couple sessions.

Last but not least: it's a matter of trust indeed, like others already pointed out. If a player tells me to my face that he doesn't trust my judgement, my fairness or my willingness to try and make things fun for him, then - entitled by the countless hours of obscure work I spent in order to give him a good campaign - I'd simply ask him what's the point in sitting at my table.

And before you get the wrong idea: I do not make things easy or difficult on a whim. It's the overall playing experience that counts. I play my NPCs like people. But I'll have them do mistakes if I think that makes for a good story, and I'll have them do intelligent things if that makes for a good story. I will NOT roll wisdom or intelligence checks for everything (except when interactions with PCs are involved), because pseudo-random behaviour would not make for a good story most of the times, and I don't gamble with my players' (or my) free time, so I'd rather take the road where I have control. I'll just decide their actions based on what a good story makes. If I smell a player sitting there and doubleguessing everything that happens in light of my "cheating uberknowledge", I feel like I have every right to be pretty offended. And also sad.

Control and tyranny are two different things. One is a healthy goal, the second is not. You are mixing the two and, fearing the second, you seek to break free from the first.

Well, being a ****, and the most chaotic Lawful being I know, it just comes naturally for me to question control, and put in safeguards against tyranny.

It's your good for making NPCs people. Ignoring modules and existing settings and such, creating worlds and setting events in motion and creating stories is absolutely the GMs purview. If course, setting events in motion and creating stories is also the players' purview.


GMs who capture the players, and have all characters tied with rope except for the rogue, who's tied with magical shackles in order to de-fang his player, exist. And they are bad.
But hiding from the GM how many ranks in Escape Artist each player has is most certainly NOT the solution.

Why not? Sounds like it would solve that problem to me.

But, honestly, I don't think I've ever actually had a GM who wanted to look at my sheet before the game started. I have had a few ask for stats that they had no need to know. But my objection to them asking for such things, or to them looking at my sheet if any ever asks, well, the biggest reason is to have the conversation about gaming styles, about how I don't want them to have or use metagame information, etc. I'm quite a ****, and quite good at being a ****. Happily, I rarely have a GM who doesn't either agree with my idea, or present a darn good reason why they want additional information.

I'm not quite as hard-nosed as I come across - almost, but not quite - but the point of my original post was, even I can't fathom the player the OP was describing.


Unless the party has been fighting the same enemy for a long time and he has learned their skill set in-game, in which case this would be fine.

Yup.


I understand where Quertus is coming from, and in a perfect world or where the DM and Player are long time friends/gamers there isn't a problem with what he's doing, but at the start, where you're playing a game for the first time together, the answer is **** no.

That's an odd position to take.

For me, it's about play style and establishing trust.

If the GM lacks the skills to hear and respond to my position, they likely will lack such skills throughout the campaign.

If the GM lacks the skills to explain their position, they probably lack the skills to describe the rest of their world.

If the GM lacks the skills to deal with me being a ****, that probably isn't going to bode well for the rest of the game.

And, of course, I prefer the GM not to metagame.

So, to me, it seems far more important a conversation to have with an unfamiliar GM, than one I've played with for forever.

[RoboEmperor]

That's an odd position to take.

For me, it's about play style and establishing trust.

If the GM lacks the skills to hear and respond to my position, they likely will lack such skills throughout the campaign.

If the GM lacks the skills to explain their position, they probably lack the skills to describe the rest of their world.

If the GM lacks the skills to deal with me being a ****, that probably isn't going to bode well for the rest of the game.

And, of course, I prefer the GM not to metagame.

So, to me, it seems far more important a conversation to have with an unfamiliar GM, than one I've played with for forever.

How do you establish trust with strangers? If I was a DM, I would not trust a stranger or his skills in d&d at face value. If I did not properly get to audit the stranger's sheet, I will be suspicious every single time he does something. I will think he's either cheating or misunderstood the rules and cheating accidentally, because there are soooooooo many rules in 3.5 that is ambiguous and requires a DM to make a final decision.

Once the trust is established though (long time together), then I can fully trust this person to not cheat, not make mistakes, and play fairly, in which case I would not mind not looking at his sheet, because I trust him.

edit:I'd like to point out in the few games I did DM, I never tailored the encounters to the party unless the creatures in question have intel on the party. I honestly don't care if the party steamrolls my encounters. My response to such a scenario is to increase number of creatures and surround the PCs or ambush them, not suddenly give every one of them special magic gear that gives DR sonic or the like. If the PCs kill creatures way above their CR due to their optimization, so be it! XP galore, I don't care, let the PCs gain 3 levels in a single session. I just have fun seeing how the PCs interact with my world. So it is totally possible for a DM to not metagame even if he sees the PC's character sheets.

[Godskook]

One of my players likes to keep secrets from everyone when it comes to their characters, even if that means not explaining a thing to the Dungeon Master. This time I need to know something: is it possible to use the Profession Executioner skill in D&D 3.5e to give a +40 to attacks made using a Headsman's Axe without a skill check. And at 11th level. Thanks to anyone that can properly explain this.

DMG p6, 1st column, final header. You are *REQUIRED* to adjudicate the rules. You simply cannot do this if you are unaware if the rules being invoked by the player. So play it straight. Any claim he makes without evidence(sources from books given to you) is invalid.

[Jan Mattys]

But, honestly, I don't think I've ever actually had a GM who wanted to look at my sheet before the game started. I have had a few ask for stats that they had no need to know.

All other things aside, how do you know they had no need to know? 99% of the time my players have no idea of what I'm thinking/planning while they play. And sure as hell I do my best not to show my cards too much in advance.

Example given:

In one campaign, the final battle involved an eldritch abomination - dead god trying to get back to reality. In order to awake, it needed a complicated ritual and a huge amount of blood spilled.
The players had risen through ranks and had become heroes, and Generals of the good guys army. They thought they were pushing the evil army into a final confrontation and felt just one little step away from victory.
What they didn't know is that the Warlord and sorcerer commanding the evil army had planned it all for the last part of the ritual. The blood shed between his troops and the good guys was meant to be syphoned and used to fuel the Ultimate Evil ascension.
Being high fantasy with a high focus on great lords and heroes, I had a rule where every character above a certain level contributed to the ritual in a much bigger way, their soul and talents being extremely energetic and valuable, forged through difficulties and hardships. As such, I had a double meter: the first had to be fueled by mooks of both armies (I was keeping score of the general flow of the large battle), and the second had to be fueled by "great heroes" of both sides.
Each attribute bonus, casting level, skill rank and what-have-you counted towards this meter. When a PC fell (and being the final confrontation I had no qualms about going all-in against my players) I gathered all his bonues and added them to the ritual's "Armageddon clock". As such, I NEEDED to know the full range of their sheet., as a mechanic I had every right to conceive, I had every intent of pursuing, and I had every reason to keep secret. All while having no ill-intent towards my players or will to "control them".


That's basically my point. The GM is not a referee and is not an atlas/table of content. He is literally your reality while you game. Everything you imagine around you is there because he wants it to be there, and everything that happens happens due to him.
The king liking or disliking you? Even before rolling a single diplomacy check, that's the GM deciding a priori the King's attitude towards strangers. The lady approaching you in the woods at night? That's the GM deciding a priori if she's a malicious ghost trying to kill you or a bona fide lost and confused peasant seeking help.

Assuming that not allowing him a portion of information about your character is going to make any difference in the world is just absurd, and being absurd, it is very likely to be perceived as petty.

I don't want to sound too confrontational, though. I get your point. It's just that:
1) in my experience no player ever refused to let me see the sheet.
2) in my experience no player ever even saw me as anything else than an accomplice
3) in my opinion, refusing collaboration with your GM is probably the single worst first step you can do towards a healthy gaming.

[Jan Mattys]

Why not? Sounds like it would solve that problem to me.
No it would not. Such a GM would screw you over no matter if you show him the sheet or not, because he is just bad at his job.
That's not a knowledge problem.That's a GM problem.

If you hadn't a GM problem, showing your ranks in escape artist would make no differente at all (most of the times, it would actually make the campaign BETTER in the long run).

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Isn't this a standard rule, that by having one point in profession (barmaid) you get +40 damage on any attack with a beer mug without a skill roll? I thought it was one of those things they did to rebalance martials and casters, right?