PDA

View Full Version : Player Help Why do some players insist on destroying an enemy's spellbook in front of wizard?



MonkeySage
2022-07-23, 03:05 PM
Party finds a really good magic sword, they give it to the fighter. They find a nice ring, it goes to the person who needs it most... They find a spellbook on an enemy wizard, they immediately burn it right in front of the party wizard. Sometimes they will relent and let the wizard have the spellbook. Other times they'll go out of their way to refuse to give the spellbook to the party wizard. I have never understood this, and it's actually been a source of many conflicts I've had with other players in the past. When I'm playing a wizard, even one of obvious good alignment and a cooperative demeanor, and an enemy drops a spellbook, a lot of the time the rest of the party will insist on either keeping it away from me, or destroying it outright.

LibraryOgre
2022-07-23, 03:14 PM
I have absolutely never heard of this in 33 years of gaming.

The enemy spellbook is a precious resource that the party wizards must negotiate the use of between each other. You don't burn it unless you have an Unearthed Arcana barbarian in the party, and therefore no wizard.

MonkeySage
2022-07-23, 03:19 PM
It's happened to me on at least a few occasions... Most recently, after fighting a dwarven wizard, my character, a total neutral good cinnamon roll of a magus, had to negotiate with the party paladin, whom he just met, not to burn the dwarf's spellbook. The paladin fortunately relented but, i had to wonder why the paladin was so eager to burn it immediately.

meandean
2022-07-23, 03:30 PM
I've never heard of this either. Did you ask the other player to explain why they want to do this? Does your DM say anything?

This is the sort of thing where, even if it actually is "what my character would do", what that means is that you've made a character not suitable for gameplay.

icefractal
2022-07-23, 03:34 PM
That is kinda bizarre, never seen that.
I guess the closest I've seen is people wanting to burn unspecified research notes / libraries of evil foes, which didn't include any spellbooks, on the basis that the research they were doing is likely bad news. And even that not very often.

It's also, IMO, a form of PvP, so if the game is otherwise no-PvP this merits going OOC to discuss.
If they say "I'm just playing my character" then offer to switch your character ... to a pacifist who will destroy all weapons or other magic items that make people better at violence. See how they feel about that.

Tanarii
2022-07-23, 03:41 PM
The paladin fortunately relented but, i had to wonder why the paladin was so eager to burn it immediately.
Finding out the answer to that question is probably a place to start. Unless it was a book full of opposite-of-the-Paladin's-ethos (ie evil for a goody good Pally) magic, it's definitely confusing why they'd want to burn it.

I can see wanting to prevent Fistandantilus or another Black Robes spellbooks from falling into anyones hands if you're playing in Krynn. But that's a specific world where arcane magic is divided up by the moral aspect of Alignment.

TaiLiu
2022-07-23, 04:23 PM
I, uh... I think you're playing in a messed up group, MonkeySage. That's pretty upsetting. Bizarre bullying tactic?

Batcathat
2022-07-23, 04:34 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with everyone else that this seems very odd.

So is it the same regardless of who's playing a wizard?

Pauly
2022-07-23, 04:34 PM
The only explanations I can think of as reasonable are:
- if the players have previously encountered a large number of cursed spellbooks and destroy them out of an abundance of caution;
- that previous spellbooks have been much more powerful than the items the non-wizards received and are acting out of jealousy/desire to stop the wizard becoming too powerful relative to the group; or
- the group is specifically made up of mage hunters going around slaying any and all mages because in the setting mages are bad for reasons.

If it isn’t it seems a more than a bit PvP to me.

One possible solution might be to give the party a nice haul of loot including a spellbook, but have the other items all powered bu the spellbook. All the items are engraved with the name of the wizard whose name is on the spellbook. If they start to burn the spellbook the items the other players want to keep will also start to burn and degrade. The more they let the spellbook burn the more their items will burn and suffer damage until if the spellbook is destroyed all the other items are also destroyed.
This way if it is PvP you ensure that everyone loses.

Palanan
2022-07-23, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by Mark Hall
I have absolutely never heard of this in 33 years of gaming.

Me neither. Usually it’s more of a pileup to see who can get the spellbook first.

But this seems like a near-unique situation. Maybe the paladin’s player sincerely thinks that an evil wizard’s spellbook must be inherently evil by definition?

animorte
2022-07-23, 05:12 PM
Along with other notes here, I could imagine some players feeling a bit salty when everybody receives a cool new magic item, then the Wizard also gets a cool new spell book. I don’t believe that quite justifies the action of destroying it though.

Tanarii
2022-07-23, 05:17 PM
It's also, IMO, a form of PvP,


If it isn’t it seems a more than a bit PvP to me.

This is equally confusing to me. How is it PvP?

Rynjin
2022-07-23, 05:23 PM
This is equally confusing to me. How is it PvP?

I would consider it PvP if a player, for example, stole my Barbarian's new magic weapon. This is exactly the same scenario.

This at least happened while OP was at the table. I had to text back "Okay I'm going on a 13 hour drive now so I don't have time to deal with this, but I kill him I guess?"

PvP isn't just actively attacking another player. It's any hostile action taken to harm another character. Destroying all the good loot counts, probably more than most things.

Vahnavoi
2022-07-23, 05:54 PM
Do they know (or strongly suspect) what's in the spellbook before making these kind of decisions?

Ordinarily, spellbooks are loot and best given to allied wizard. Destroying them mostly comes up when a specific book is known to be too dangerous to use, or when the player characters are dedicated book burners of some sort. If that was the case, it raises the question of why you didn't already know the reason. Withholding such information would only make sense if your character in particular cannot be trusted to surrender such books for destruction or containment.

Pauly
2022-07-23, 08:51 PM
This is equally confusing to me. How is it PvP?

It’s hurting the wizard by denying them treasure. An opposite example would be if a party with a Paladin in it find a Holy Avenger then the wizard uses a spell to throw it into pool of lava. Whatever in character justification there is for the action at a player level it’s a disruptive action designed to hurt another player.

Just because the item hasn’t passed into the character’s inventory the fact that it’s an item restricted to one character in the party means that is de facto that character’s item.

Phhase
2022-07-24, 12:19 AM
....what is this, Fahrenheit 451? What the hell is that why would you burn spellbooks.

animorte
2022-07-24, 12:44 AM
The townsfolk were on a rampage, seeking to right all of the wrongs done by magic, planning to vanquish magic from their beloved homes for good. They had heard of spell books and enchanted inscription. So the first victim of the mob was the library.

They all gathered and broke in, ripping books and scrolls from the shelves, tearing maps from the walls. A bucket line proceeded to collect all of the sacred literature in a pile outside. Finally when every scrap was revoked from its home they spoke prayers of protection and lit a torch.

They threw the torch on top of the giant stack of books…

My father, being a sensible man, stepped up and looked around at all the chaos. He was utterly confused and climbed to the top of the pile, removing the torch. His powerful voice launched out among the crowd, getting everyone’s attention.

“You fools, this is lunacy! You start a fire from the bottom!”

Anonymouswizard
2022-07-24, 02:11 AM
....what is this, Fahrenheit 451? What the hell is that why would you burn spellbooks.

Because magic is of Chaos, and we burn all unsanctioned magic. Including wizards, even though many of them claim to have papers that say we shouldn't. But as none of us can read...

Outside of Warhammer and similar settings, where there's a lot of justified mistrust of magic and enemy spellbooks could easily cause a fall to Chaos, it's harder to justify. Even if you don't have a party wizard you probably want to hand it over to a mages' guild for study (for a reasonable reimbursement, of course).

Reversefigure4
2022-07-24, 03:48 AM
Put me in camp "Never Seen This" too. A spellbook is loot, either for resale or for the party wizard to copy. It'd be like melting down magic swords taken from your enemies. You might do it once to get rid of the Black Sword of Tyrant Making rather than risk weilding it, but as regular thing? Never.

Have you asked the party -why- they're burning spellbooks? It feels like there's a backstory here we're missing, or some specific setting rules around how magic works so spellbooks corrupt you, or something.

icefractal
2022-07-24, 04:18 AM
Could also be that the Paladin is a ****-stirrer type of player. Some people just want to shake things up whenever possible, either to be obnoxious or because they prefer a Fiasco-style "PCs are shooting themselves and each-other in the feet, and it's hilarious" type of game and genuinely think it'll be better that way.

As Rogues, they steal from the party and any NPCs, the more important the better. As Barbarians, they weaponize their lack of social skills. And as Paladins, they burn spellbooks I guess.

Batcathat
2022-07-24, 04:24 AM
Could also be that the Paladin is a ****-stirrer type of player. Some people just want to shake things up whenever possible, either to be obnoxious or because they prefer a Fiasco-style "PCs are shooting themselves and each-other in the feet, and it's hilarious" type of game and genuinely think it'll be better that way.

As Rogues, they steal from the party and any NPCs, the more important the better. As Barbarians, they weaponize their lack of social skills. And as Paladins, they burn spellbooks I guess.

If it's just a single player doing the book burning, this seems like a decent explanation, but it sounds like it's just a thing in general in the OP's group. In which case not only are there several of that type of player in the group, they've also decided to express it in the same exact way, which seems odd.

SimonMoon6
2022-07-24, 10:22 AM
If I were a wizard in that sort of group, I would focus on learning all the spells for destroying an enemy's weapons and armor during the fight to "help". Like, cast disintegrate on the opponent's magic sword, armor, etc, or maybe summon monsters and instruct them to try to sunder the enemy's weapon.

"I'm helping! Now he'll be easier to defeat!"

Thrudd
2022-07-24, 11:23 AM
Party finds a really good magic sword, they give it to the fighter. They find a nice ring, it goes to the person who needs it most... They find a spellbook on an enemy wizard, they immediately burn it right in front of the party wizard. Sometimes they will relent and let the wizard have the spellbook. Other times they'll go out of their way to refuse to give the spellbook to the party wizard. I have never understood this, and it's actually been a source of many conflicts I've had with other players in the past. When I'm playing a wizard, even one of obvious good alignment and a cooperative demeanor, and an enemy drops a spellbook, a lot of the time the rest of the party will insist on either keeping it away from me, or destroying it outright.

Do you play with people who have some sort of real-world belief about "magic", that makes them think all books of magic must be evil and should be destroyed or that it will turn someone evil if they read it? Have none of them ever played a wizard before, and don't know that they can learn new spells from other people's spell books?

This is incredibly strange for people playing D&D- how many people have you seen actually do this, and how many times? It sounds like something a single person might do with a single character (or someone who always chooses to play the same sort of character) - like an old-school 1e UA barbarian who is required as a class "feature" to try to destroy anything magical and always hate magic users. The entire rest of the players agree with them and participate, really? It sounds like it must be specific to only the group of players you are playing with.

KorvinStarmast
2022-07-24, 12:36 PM
I have absolutely never heard of this in 33 years of gaming. I have seen it a couple of times but that's nearly 40 years ago. Never since. And in both cases it lead to player versus player arguments and hard feelings OOC.

The townsfolk were on a rampage {snip}

“You fools, this is lunacy! You start a fire from the bottom!” Wins thread. :smallsmile:

Could also be that the Paladin is a ****-stirrer type of player.
{snip}
As Rogues, they steal from the party and any NPCs, the more important the better. As Barbarians, they weaponize their lack of social skills. And as Paladins, they burn spellbooks I guess.Yep. I make it a habit to not play with people like that anymore. Life is too short.

Alcore
2022-07-24, 01:11 PM
Eh... :smalleek:

It is almost unheard of for me.

almost


I once had a religious character who believed that the mind and soul were the most sacred things a man has. This was foreshadowed early and was clearly stated in the background. The GM didn't seem to get the memo. Cue my character, the party wizard, burning a book full of mind effecting spells that the GM thought he was missing.

Apparently one of them was needed for the quest :smallannoyed:

Tanarii
2022-07-24, 01:13 PM
It’s hurting the wizard by denying them treasure. An opposite example would be if a party with a Paladin in it find a Holy Avenger then the wizard uses a spell to throw it into pool of lava. Whatever in character justification there is for the action at a player level it’s a disruptive action designed to hurt another player.

Just because the item hasn’t passed into the character’s inventory the fact that it’s an item restricted to one character in the party means that is de facto that character’s item.
So:
1) PvP includes destroying another PCs property, not just trying to kill them
2) the Wizard should feel entitled to the spell book, and it should be considered as if part of their property, even though it isn't actually their property yet

Do I have that right?

The first is where I'm starting the confusion, since I'm used to PvP meaning trying to kill another player. And the second is just really weird to me. For Loot a PC could use, Destroying or giving away or selling or giving to another pC that can't use it is various amounts of bad form, but it's not actually the first PCs yet.

If the party had voted to sell the spellbook and split the gold, would that also have been PvP?

Alcore
2022-07-24, 01:22 PM
Do I have that right?

The first is where I'm starting the confusion, since I'm used to PvP meaning trying to kill another player.

PvP stands for Player versus Player. Any action that is a clear negative to another character is technically pvp. A rogue pilfering coins potions and more is engaging in pvp even without an actual attack.

And yes...


The party wizard should be entitled to the spellbook if the magic sword is entitled to the melee fighters. this isn't pvp if all the loot is sold/destroyed with the resulting gold split evenly. The opening poster describes a clear moment of pvp (even if the book burners were being innocently insensitive)

icefractal
2022-07-24, 02:35 PM
That's why I find it more useful to describe PvP as a spectrum than a hard line. Is stealing from another character PvP? Yes. Is it as strongly PvP as killing them? No. But it still is a form of PvP.

But really, anything where if an NPC was doing it you'd call them a clear antagonist is PvP. Attacking another PCs family/friends is PvP. Trying to ruin their rep with a faction they're in is PvP. And IME, banning only "directly lethal" PvP is a bad way to handle things, as it ends up with characters who should no longer be in the same party forced together, and tension that often spill from IC to OOC.

Anonymouswizard
2022-07-24, 02:51 PM
PvP stands for Player versus Player. Any action that is a clear negative to another character is technically pvp. A rogue pilfering coins potions and more is engaging in pvp even without an actual attack.

The one PvP-allowed group I was in had exactly one fight, when my Warrior-Priest reacted to an unwanted Dimension Door the elf cast on me in the middle of negotiations. So I charged in with my hammer, because a) I was at the table because I actually had relevant skills (I don't think the elf even had Diplomacy) and b) you just did Chaos stuff to a Sigmarite.

But apart from that it wasn't even theft from the group or the like, we were just willing to roll social skills against each other (generally Bluff/Fast Talk and Outright Lie).

We never burnt spellbooks, but my character in another game wasn't allowed to keep the demon-summoning manuals (which he might have owned anyway? He at least actually knew the right way to do it).

Tanarii
2022-07-24, 02:58 PM
PvP stands for Player versus Player. Any action that is a clear negative to another character is technically pvp. A rogue pilfering coins potions and more is engaging in pvp even without an actual attack.Okay, good to know there are some forumites that use it differently.


And yes...

The party wizard should be entitled to the spellbook if the magic sword is entitled to the melee fighters. this isn't pvp if all the loot is sold/destroyed with the resulting gold split evenly. The opening poster describes a clear moment of pvp (even if the book burners were being innocently insensitive)
How do you destroy something evenly? Either it's they party's to decide what to do with, or it automatically goes to someone and it's considered theirs as soon as it found.

I assume things are property of the party until it's assigned to someone. If one member of the party unilaterally destroys or sells party loot without the approval of the rest of the party, that's an offense against the party as a whole, not individuals who might have used it. But if an individual wants to sell or destroy some loot and the majority of the party goes along with it, then the party as a whole has decided what to do with that loot, even if some members aren't happy with the decision.

Alcore
2022-07-24, 03:16 PM
Okay, good to know there are some forumites that use it differently.


How do you destroy something evenly? Either it's they party's to decide what to do with, or it automatically goes to someone and it's considered theirs as soon as it found. The latter is very weird assumption to me, but if that's your view, that's your view.

I use words correctly. And I can do that by actually knowing what each letter of pvp stands for.

And... if you are going to ignore context you are going to be confused.

Chauncymancer
2022-07-24, 04:06 PM
Do your other players have any experience with Call of Cthulhu by the way? What I'm thinking about is the trope from several stories about witches in which the spell book itself is an evil artifact.

MoiMagnus
2022-07-24, 04:24 PM
But if an individual wants to sell or destroy some loot and the majority of the party goes along with it, then the party as a whole has decided what to do with that loot, even if some members aren't happy with the decision.

All VS One is still PvP. If everyone suddenly attack a PC to murder him that's PvP. And generally as a Player, I fundamentally disagree on taking group decision without reaching unanimity (voting is fine, but between reasonable peoples the winning side of the vote is able to find a compromise for the losing side to reluctantly agree).

Outside of some other justifications provided (which there can be, like honest fear of being a cursed item), this is still an act which is negative toward the party with for only objective to bully a specific player.

Unless this kind of PvP (however you name it) is considered normal at the table it's probably one of the few instances where as a GM I would step in and say "NO, you don't do that".

Telok
2022-07-24, 05:02 PM
But this seems like a near-unique situation. Maybe the paladin’s player sincerely thinks that an evil wizard’s spellbook must be inherently evil by definition?


Do they know (or strongly suspect) what's in the spellbook before making these kind of decisions?

Ordinarily, spellbooks are loot and best given to allied wizard. Destroying them mostly comes up when a specific book is known to be too dangerous to use...


....what is this, Fahrenheit 451? What the hell is that why would you burn spellbooks.

I've seen it several times, although not in the ~10 years with my main curent stable group. Basically it comes from either the aforementioned *******s trying to "subtly" pvp or (and actually more common in my experience) people who don't come from the d&d murder-hoboism object utility asthetic.

Lets say there's a body of knowledge, say its super detailed info on nerve-muscle structure & interaction in human hands. Its just info right? If there's a circumstance with a tricky hand nerve surgery it would be good have. But say the source of the info was a massive & heinous torture genocide progrom. There are people who do not see the useful information as being different from the moral actions of the nasty people who produced it through terrible crimes.

Its that "the tool/object is a moral actor in the crime" perspective, combined with some RL habituation that magic=evil which causes an issue. Combined with a weird intersection of d&d murder-hoboism, where characters have an implied moral imperative to blindly slughter & destroy everything not on a strict binary good/evil side and no repercussions for things modern people consider terrible crimes, you get "burn the evil book" people. Which is a bit odd considering you have actual methods in d&d to determine if said tool (book of magic) spells is really in-game evil because d&d is firmly in the spells=swords so only special ones are aligned. But you get spill over from other stuff that gives some people a logic chain of:
We are good guys so enemies are evil >> opposing wizard = evil wizard >> evil wizards use evil magic >> evil wizard's spellbook = book of evil magic >> opposing wizard spellbooks = evil book to be smashed & done in.

Tanarii
2022-07-24, 05:44 PM
Unless this kind of PvP (however you name it) is considered normal at the table it's probably one of the few instances where as a GM I would step in and say "NO, you don't do that".
I might require the party to formally vote, as I suspect this was more of one player saying their character was going to do something and the DM either immediately accepting it as done or the other PCs standing around because meh it doesn't affect them.

But I'd certainly never step in and overrule if a party voted to take an action and one character didn't like it, unless it was violating a standing rule had. That indicates that the character is a bad fit for the party.

Which is why I questioned why it was PvP. Many tables have a standing rule against that. Now I know if I join one I need to ask if it means no attacking other characters, no messing with other characters at all, or the party not being allowed to vote an action against any individual character in the party's preferences. As opposed to assuming we all know what it means.

animorte
2022-07-24, 07:26 PM
Wins thread. :smallsmile:

Thanks! I was hoping somebody would read and appreciate it. Inspired by Golden Girls actually.

Duff
2022-07-24, 07:45 PM
I would consider it PvP if a player, for example, stole my Barbarian's new magic weapon. This is exactly the same scenario.

This.
If there's in-game character reasons, it might be OK. Assuming that's part of the agreed customs of your table

Otherwise it seems a bit like a "Find better people to play with" type issue

Pauly
2022-07-24, 08:18 PM
Okay, good to know there are some forumites that use it differently.


How do you destroy something evenly? Either it's they party's to decide what to do with, or it automatically goes to someone and it's considered theirs as soon as it found.

I assume things are property of the party until it's assigned to someone. If one member of the party unilaterally destroys or sells party loot without the approval of the rest of the party, that's an offense against the party as a whole, not individuals who might have used it. But if an individual wants to sell or destroy some loot and the majority of the party goes along with it, then the party as a whole has decided what to do with that loot, even if some members aren't happy with the decision.

The rule of thumb with the various groups I’ve gamed in is that if an item of loot is restricted to one particular character in the party for [reasons] then it belongs to that player unless they explicitly say they don’t want it. Where the party gets involved is making sure there is a fair distribution of loot.
There may be some edge cases if it is the only loot item or it is much more valuable than other loot items. Generally if that happens there is in party discussion/negotiation to come to some agreement as to what to do. Such as the item is sold for cash, the player receiving it forgoes future loot, the players buys it from the party with their own cash, or the players redistribute items to equalize value amongst party members.

Edit to add
As for PvP the tables I’ve played at include it to mean messing with a player’s stuff in a harmful way. This includes possessions, NPC contacts and things the player can reasonably expect to become theirs. For the last one for example if the bad guy has a horse and there is one player in the party who doesn’t have a horse and wants one then deliberately targeting and killing the horse when it isn’t necessary to achieve the party’s goals is a mild form of PvP. Because it is done to prevent the character from getting an item. If the horse dies or runs away as accidental collateral damage then that’s OK.

We generally accept some limited messing with players stuff when it’s obviously a joke with no real consequences. An example was a game where the bard and the paladin had a running dispute as to whether the paladin’s personal heraldic device was an eagle or a chicken. One night before going into a village the next day the bard repainted the paladin’s shield to his preferred interpretation. The DM had the party roll perception the next morning, the paladin failed his perception check and the rest of the party who passed the check kept their mouths shut. In the village there was comedy and shenanigans which was an amusing event in the campaign. Repeating the joke wouldn’t have been taken as funny though, that would be crossing into harassment/PvP territory.

Alcore
2022-07-24, 10:28 PM
I can sort of understand why it might be practical. There is a saying about linear fighters and quadratic wizards which is a real thing. Still doesn't change the fact that they burned loot that I would count against the treasure for an encounter...


Just on core alone a spellbook from a level 4 enemy with 20 int would be...

the physical book (15gp)
20 level 0 spells (100gp)
10 level 1 spells (100gp)
4 level 2 spells (160gp)

So in pathfinder 1e if the party burns the book they lose 375gp (187gp 5sp resale). Say the party wizard can copy down a level 1 and three level 2s. That's 130gp he now has "equipped" on his character. Still over 50gp to split with the party.


But it doesn't sound like they did it to keep game balance and the rant at the beginning suggests something more malicious. Which is why I called it pvp. I will again say it is Player vs Player as opposed to Player Character. This already seems like a OOC problem spilling over into IC.

Fortunately this seems to be the minority if the replies are anything to go by... have we tried finding a new table?

SpoonR
2022-07-25, 12:32 PM
“talk to your group” is always job one, to find out what gm and other players thought was going on. That said

good reasons to burn books, D&D of various flavors:
Book pinged on paladin’s “detect evil” ability
Book is magical (so NOT a spellbook in vanilla D&D), someone has reason to think it’s cursed or trapped
DM known to give out trapped books

Non-pvp bad reasons
Wrong genre savvy; Warhammer Fantasy, Discworld, Cthulhu, various fiction, have dangerous, corrupting, books. There, burning unless you’re sure it’s safe would make sense.
Previously well-established lore reasons, like this order of paladins bans literacy.

dunno if any apply in this case

tomandtish
2022-07-25, 12:37 PM
yeah, I've been playing this game in various forms since 1977. I can only recall two times where destroying a spellbook was seriously considered. In both cases the book had 1 spell that was ritualistic and would require the unwilling sacrifice of hundreds.

Willie the Duck
2022-07-25, 02:02 PM
I'm sure I've seen this at least once, but not more than 2-3 times in 39 years of gaming. Not more or less common than throwing items to a rust monster or pushing a monster corpse off a cliff before someone else could get the trophy they wanted. Sometimes people are just dinking around and being destructive and being inconsiderate to the other gamers who might want that such-and-such. If they do so again after it's been brought up, then you have an interpersonal conflict going on. As always, 'it's what my character would do' is not an excuse to be disruptive at the table (since you chose to play this character) and the best solution is always to talk it out like the reasonable individuals we certainly hope they can be (when push comes to shove).

False God
2022-07-25, 02:33 PM
I've never actually seen a party do this.

Most of my parties have been more than happy to turn over whatever spellbook they find so they can learn all the enemy's tricks. The rest hock spellbook loot for coin.

Easy e
2022-07-25, 03:25 PM
Perhaps the other player has been playing too much Call of Cthulhu?

Lord Torath
2022-07-25, 03:50 PM
I've had it happen once in a Dark Sun game, where the uneducated druid wanted to destroy it. My preserver was able to convince her that it was the manner of the casting rather than the spells themselves that caused the defiling, and the spellbook was preserved. But Dark Sun is a world where wizards are generally mistrusted, so it make s a bit more sense in that setting.

In an earlier adventure, the BBEG was a defiler who had large stone 'wheels' in their home that served as a spell book, and those were shattered. There were no PC mages in that party, though, so none of them could tell that they were spell "books".


yeah, I've been playing this game in various forms since 1977. I can only recall two times where destroying a spellbook was seriously considered. In both cases the book had 1 spell that was ritualistic and would require the unwilling sacrifice of hundreds.In this case, I'd be more inclined to take a sharp dagger and slice off the offending pages and burn them, then hand what was left to the party wizard.

Duff
2022-07-25, 06:27 PM
If the party had voted to sell the spellbook and split the gold, would that also have been PvP?

Not usually.
But if the wizard had the gold to buy it from the party's "pooled treasure" and wasn't given 1st option on it, yes, that would be PVP.

Kriegspiel
2022-07-25, 06:41 PM
Thanks! I was hoping somebody would read and appreciate it. Inspired by Golden Girls actually.

Rose recounting a tale of her childhood in St. Olaf?

animorte
2022-07-25, 06:53 PM
Rose recounting a tale of her childhood in St. Olaf?

Blanche actually, telling a story of the townsfolk and Big Daddy, her father.

There were only 3 books in St. Olaf’s library, if I recall correctly.

Zuras
2022-07-30, 10:18 AM
I might require the party to formally vote, as I suspect this was more of one player saying their character was going to do something and the DM either immediately accepting it as done or the other PCs standing around because meh it doesn't affect them.

But I'd certainly never step in and overrule if a party voted to take an action and one character didn't like it, unless it was violating a standing rule had. That indicates that the character is a bad fit for the party.

Which is why I questioned why it was PvP. Many tables have a standing rule against that. Now I know if I join one I need to ask if it means no attacking other characters, no messing with other characters at all, or the party not being allowed to vote an action against any individual character in the party's preferences. As opposed to assuming we all know what it means.

As far as my tables are concerned, PvP is any intra-party behavior that would make a reasonable person wonder “why are these people trusting each other with their lives”. It can range from acceptable in-character drama which adds to the game as long as it stays within bounds, but it requires players to be pretty good at both respecting and noticing each other’s boundaries.

There’s also obviously problematic player behavior that’s not PvP, but the vast majority is either PvP or the stuff you address with safety tools.

DigoDragon
2022-07-30, 11:02 AM
This is weird, but not unheard of; I once had run an adventure and half the party was very paranoid that wizard spell books came with curses and wards that would corrupt readers into monsters or something.

I basically stepped in and told the paranoid folks that unless the book was bound in humsn skin and written in blood, it's usually safe to read, barring minor snake sigil traps that really just do damage.

Eventually they came around.

Rynjin
2022-07-30, 09:43 PM
Well, Sepia Snake Sigil is a lot more annoying than "do damage" since it essentially sidelines a character for days or weeks of game time lol.

Quertus
2022-07-31, 12:40 PM
Yeah, so, this behavior makes sense in certain horror settings, like Warhammer, or Call off Cthulhu, or the Moonshae Isles, where magic is corrupting / Wizards are hunted. It makes sense for certain (generally problematic) archetypes (like the AD&D Barbadian). Now, maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the OP saying that this even occurred in D&D, so… it might be perfectly reasonable.

And it’s possible that, even if it did take place in a D&D setting, that the player(s) didn’t read the setting documents or whatever, and have been influenced by some other system or popular media into believing that books are bad.

Still, in a D&D context, “destroying the loot” - regardless of whether it’s obviously intended for one player - is not just suboptimal, but PvP.


Eh... :smalleek:

It is almost unheard of for me.

almost


I once had a religious character who believed that the mind and soul were the most sacred things a man has. This was foreshadowed early and was clearly stated in the background. The GM didn't seem to get the memo. Cue my character, the party wizard, burning a book full of mind effecting spells that the GM thought he was missing.

Apparently one of them was needed for the quest :smallannoyed:

Ignoring everything else, this is why you do not construct fragile adventures with single points of failure like that.


As opposed to assuming we all know what it means.

Assuming everyone means exactly the same things by their words is, unfortunately, a slow and maddening path to failure. Which is (one of the reasons) why I advocate one-shots, so people can calibrate expectations; when the group is told to bring characters for a “political” game, and they bring a Noble, a Bard, a Knight, and a matchmaker, they can have a conversation about what those words mean to everyone.

DigoDragon
2022-07-31, 02:22 PM
Well, Sepia Snake Sigil is a lot more annoying than "do damage" since it essentially sidelines a character for days or weeks of game time lol.

The actual Sepia version does yes. There are ways around it though.

Cikomyr2
2022-07-31, 06:19 PM
The problem is that magic is not properly defined in your world. Some players will associate "black magic" (aka the Dark Side) that will corrupt your soul with any evil practitioner. And yhea, theres a difference between picking the Tome of Darkness used by a Warlock as his pact boon, and just a bad guy wizard.

But some players dont understand that nuance, and i feel its up to the DM to make sure its established that a spellbook, even of an evil wizard, is more like an evil scientist 's research book than a gateway of evil.

animorte
2022-07-31, 08:57 PM
I've heard some horror stories of parents throwing away their children's D&D equipment because of the possible evil influence. D&D books are our spell books.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-01, 07:46 AM
I've heard some horror stories of parents throwing away their children's D&D equipment because of the possible evil influence. Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. :smallwink: (I think)

I raised two kids, and there were certain TV shows that were banned by my wife and I. (I played some D&D with my kids, but my wife found that the game wasn't to her taste so after a few sessions she declined to participate any further. I think she's be just as happy if I got rid of all of my D&D stuff in an on line auction or garage sale, but that I'm not gonna do).

Batcathat
2022-08-01, 08:29 AM
Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. :smallwink: (I think)

So would parents keeping their kids from playing soccer out of fear it would transform them into pigeons also be good parenting? Parents dictating what their kids may or may not do for irrational reasons might be acceptable parenting, but I certainly wouldn't call it good parenting.

Psyren
2022-08-01, 09:49 AM
OP hasn't posted since the beginning of the thread but I'll +1 the "have a conversation with the table and prepare to leave that group entirely if it doesn't go well" advice.

Quertus
2022-08-01, 11:07 AM
So would parents keeping their kids from playing soccer out of fear it would transform them into pigeons also be good parenting? Parents dictating what their kids may or may not do for irrational reasons might be acceptable parenting, but I certainly wouldn't call it good parenting.

Yeah, I’ve seen too much bad parenting - and bad management in general - that took the form “X, so that (not) Y”, when X and Y were not logically related, done by managers who lacked the ability to have a reasonable conversation about their dictates, that I really can’t call it “good” anything, either.

MonkeySage
2022-08-01, 11:26 PM
A lot of people have told me that this is unusual, unheard of behavior... Which makes me wonder about the groups I've played with in the past!

This has happened to me at least four times in the years I've played D&D and Pathfinder, with at three different groups. Most recently, I had just met the new player. They were new to the campaign, and this was our first encounter together. After the fight, the player immediately tried to burn the book. After protests from the rest of the group, they relented and gave the book to me- the only one in the party who could actually use it.

There was no indication that this wizard we fought was practicing evil magic- their spells were neutral, mostly harmless. We didn't fight him because he was evil, but rather because he was crazed.

I think their might be something to the suggestion they came from Call of Cthulhu, honestly..

Thrudd
2022-08-02, 08:16 AM
A lot of people have told me that this is unusual, unheard of behavior... Which makes me wonder about the groups I've played with in the past!

This has happened to me at least four times in the years I've played D&D and Pathfinder, with at three different groups. Most recently, I had just met the new player. They were new to the campaign, and this was our first encounter together. After the fight, the player immediately tried to burn the book. After protests from the rest of the group, they relented and gave the book to me- the only one in the party who could actually use it.

There was no indication that this wizard we fought was practicing evil magic- their spells were neutral, mostly harmless. We didn't fight him because he was evil, but rather because he was crazed.

I think their might be something to the suggestion they came from Call of Cthulhu, honestly..

Next time, you should probably ask the person trying to burn spell books why they want to do that, OOC. I'm sure they could tell you what they were thinking, and it would be a very simple misunderstanding that is easy to clear up.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-02, 08:28 AM
Asking the same question in character is often just as effective.

Jorren
2022-08-02, 11:19 AM
I could kind of see this happening in the pre-1E/1E days where people were a bit more weird regarding alignment/paladin/evil-magic setting-related matters. Even then it was rare and I never ran into it personally.

Nowadays, it's flat out bizarro-land behavior. I would immediately stop the game and take it to an ooc discussion if it happened.

Duff
2022-08-03, 07:16 PM
Do your other players have any experience with Call of Cthulhu by the way? What I'm thinking about is the trope from several stories about witches in which the spell book itself is an evil artifact.

Oh, in COC, the decision to destroy a spell book is entirely appropriate. And, at least in early versions, someone who didn't want to destroy it should be looked at with suspicion. More so if they wouldn't let you see their "San" score!

RazorChain
2022-08-03, 11:44 PM
In my games the spellbook is valued at 25 gold per spell level so a spellbook with a total of 20 spell levels is valued at 500 gp.

So even if the wizard can't or doesn't need any of the spells then the group would rather sell the book than burn it.

When in doubt, appeal to their greed!

Cikomyr2
2022-08-04, 06:34 PM
Theres a culture of burning evil magical books outside of Chtuluh in literacy, its not like its completely foreign to the fantasy source materiel.

I think that its important to establish with the other player that they dont assume villain's magic books are automatically evil. Not the character: the players

Vahnavoi
2022-08-05, 02:36 AM
Establishing that on character level is more efficient than on player level; a player who understands spellbooks aren't always evil or dangerous can still play a character who believes they are, and this usually perfectly legitimate. Yes, even in D&D.

Really, a lot of time when I see some variation of "this talk needs to happen between players, not characters", I feel compelled to ask "where do you think the players are when their characters talk?". Vast majority of time, the actual medium for character discussion is a real discussion between players and a player with two brain cells can usually take the same point home from character dialogue as from someone directly addressing them. (Not that there's anything unusual about players or a game master directly addressing each other, either. Just pointing out something that should be obvious.)

animorte
2022-08-05, 05:30 AM
(Not that there's anything unusual about players or a game master directly addressing each other, either. Just pointing out something that should be obvious.)

The issue comes when you just assume it should be obvious. Many people process information in a different way and it’s not always clear the message that is being sent. This is true in and out of game, the work force, family life, everywhere.

There’s nothing wrong with attempting to open a formal discussion, open minds trying to clarify and understand. I think that’s a necessary factor each day.

Cikomyr2
2022-08-05, 07:39 AM
Establishing that on character level is more efficient than on player level; a player who understands spellbooks aren't always evil or dangerous can still play a character who believes they are, and this usually perfectly legitimate. Yes, even in D&D.

Really, a lot of time when I see some variation of "this talk needs to happen between players, not characters", I feel compelled to ask "where do you think the players are when their characters talk?". Vast majority of time, the actual medium for character discussion is a real discussion between players and a player with two brain cells can usually take the same point home from character dialogue as from someone directly addressing them. (Not that there's anything unusual about players or a game master directly addressing each other, either. Just pointing out something that should be obvious.)

Because you first have to make sure the misconception is at the character level, not at the player level.

Ex: a player actually believes all magic book of vile wizards will spread suffering and evil. The player think therefore his character 's cold logical choice would be to destroy the book. No matter how much you argue with the character, the character will make certain decisions based on the player's preconceived notions, which are those you need to address first and foremost.

Yes, a player who knows its not the case but decides to play it like that, then argue about it in character. But we have to establish that the issue is not with the player, but with the character. And you can only establish that by talking to the ***player***.

Its like a player coming to the game with some religious notion that all magic is evil. There's a disconnect you have to reconcile out of game first.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-05, 07:58 AM
Again: where you think the players are when their characters talk?

The actual medium for character dialogue is player dialogue: any in-depth in-character argument for how spellbooks aren't always evil (or whatever other topic of the day) will involve going over the same points as an out-of-character argument about it, targeted to a real at-the-table person.

I continue to maintain that any player with two brain cells can take the relevant point home either way. In the extreme end, the only difference between the two discussions would be the names that the players use of each other.

animorte
2022-08-05, 08:19 AM
I continue to maintain that any player with two brain cells can take the relevant point home either way. In the extreme end, the only difference between the two discussions would be the names that the players use of each other.

Then you unfairly assume that everyone has the same capacity to draw all of the similar conclusions.

Even extremely brilliant folks, you know those with up to even 4 (or that rarely attainable 5) brain cells, can get very invested in their character and the adventure itself. At that point, it simply becomes a matter of respect that one might preface a conversation of that nature properly.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-05, 08:33 AM
Why do you think greater character investment means a player will be less likely to get the point from an in-character discussion?

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-05, 08:34 AM
Then you unfairly assume that everyone has the same capacity to draw all of the similar conclusions.

Even extremely brilliant folks, you know those with up to even 4 (or that rarely attainable 5) brain cells, can get very invested in their character and the adventure itself. At that point, it simply becomes a matter of respect that one might preface a conversation of that nature properly. I killed my fifth brain cell with rye whiskey, I am down to four now. :smalltongue: FWIW, I tend to agree with V on the player/character merge (Which is a PoV similar to Rich Burlew's making the hard decisions mini essay).

Cikomyr2
2022-08-05, 08:56 AM
Again: where you think the players are when their characters talk?

https://www.pixartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Inside-Out-5-Emotions.jpg



The actual medium for character dialogue is player dialogue: any in-depth in-character argument for how spellbooks aren't always evil (or whatever other topic of the day) will involve going over the same points as an out-of-character argument about it, targeted to a real at-the-table person.

I continue to maintain that any player with two brain cells can take the relevant point home either way. In the extreme end, the only difference between the two discussions would be the names that the players use of each other.

Because arguing the evilness of a magic book to Thanaros the Paladin is a ****ton other discussion than discuss the evilness of magic books in general to Gary the Religiously sheltered guy.

animorte
2022-08-05, 08:57 AM
Why do you think greater character investment means a player will be less likely to get the point from an in-character discussion?


I killed my fifth brain cell with rye whiskey, I am down to four now. :smalltongue: FWIW, I tend to agree with V on the player/character merge (Which is a PoV similar to Rich Burlew's making the hard decisions mini essay).

I don't necessarily think it makes them less likely but I've known several people who prefer to have a discussion of that nature out of character. I've spent a lot of my life as a part of various theater arts production. Sometimes myself or another person really likes to get into character. Sure you can address me in character about situations, but communicating with the PC doesn't always translate to the players having an issue.

Granted I also stray away from making intentionally disruptive PCs so that type of problem doesn't often rear its ugly noggin.

I'm not trying to say that you can't merge the two, as I have seen it and done it easily myself. I'm just trying to request that people have an open mind and realize that not everybody learns the same thing the same way. Basically, if it doesn't work one way, don't be afraid to try other methods (especially if it's a legitimate concern).




Edit: If you're unwilling to approach alternative methods, you are likely a part of the problem.

Thrudd
2022-08-05, 09:45 AM
If a player has a misunderstanding about the nature of the fictional setting, this is going to affect how their character acts. If they had a correct understanding of the setting in the first place, they would not have chosen their character to act that way. The solution is to inform the player of their misunderstanding so they can adjust how their character perceives the world around them. For instance, if the player believes the word "elf" means an evil devil creature that steals babies, their character might have beliefs and act in a way that would be literally insane in the fictional world where elves are beings of celestial light. They aren't intentionally creating an insane character, the player is just misinformed. They intended their character to be an ally of the light, and so they should be friends with elves, not be trying to destroy them.

Cikomyr2
2022-08-05, 09:48 AM
If a player has a misunderstanding about the nature of the fictional setting, this is going to affect how their character acts. If they had a correct understanding of the setting in the first place, they would not have chosen their character to act that way. The solution is to inform the player of their misunderstanding so they can adjust how their character perceives the world around them. For instance, if the player believes the word "elf" means an evil devil creature that steals babies, their character might have beliefs and act in a way that would be literally insane in the fictional world where elves are beings of celestial light. They aren't intentionally creating an insane character, the player is just misinformed. They intended their character to be an ally of the light, and so they should be friends with elves, not be trying to destroy them.

Exactly. If the character is arguing to burn spell books and kill elves, i will first check with them if they act on OOC presumptions. If they confirm its a *character* choice, then I'll roll with it.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-05, 09:48 AM
Because arguing the evilness of a magic book to Thanaros the Paladin is a ****ton other discussion than discuss the evilness of magic books in general to Gary the Religiously sheltered guy.

What are you trying to convince Gary of? If the answer is "in this game, not all spellbooks are Evil", all of the relevant arguments can be made by Hypatia the Sorceress, associate of Thanaros, in the game, without breaking character, and the only difference there needs to be between the in-character discussion and the potential out-of-character one is that Hypatia's player keeps addressing Gary as Thanaros.

Cikomyr2
2022-08-05, 09:49 AM
What are you trying to convince Gary of? If the answer is "in this game, not all spellbooks are Evil", all of the relevant arguments can be made by Hypatia the Sorceress, associate of Thanaros, in the game, without breaking character, and the only difference there needs to be between the in-character discussion and the potential out-of-character one is that Hypatia's player keeps addressing Gary as Thanaros.

Because I want to know if the problem is Thanaros or Gary. Is it that hard to understand?

I am not going to convince Gary by talking to Thanaros.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-05, 10:42 AM
I am not going to convince Gary by talking to Thanaros. This is a very simple thing to handle.
First step: talk to Thanaros (played by Gary). If you fail in your approach, talk to Gary (guy playing Thanaros) and see if you get a different response. Granted, that's having the same conversation twice with the same person, but that happens a lot in real life anyway since a lot of people have crap for listening skills.
And if you then fail, what do you intend to do about it?

I will now cast the summon @Tanarii spell and hope to get their take on the myth of player and character separation.
Or I'll invite you to see what AngryGM has to say about it. *evil grin*

Psyren
2022-08-05, 10:47 AM
I'm with Cikomyr2, just skip the BS and talk to Gary. If he's doing a purely IC thing that he expects you to RP him out of, then you talk to Thanaros. But if the player is being a jerk, then you figure that out more quickly and can skip Thanaros entirely.

The first possibility results in the same number of conversations (two), while the latter means one less.

Thrudd
2022-08-05, 10:50 AM
What are you trying to convince Gary of? If the answer is "in this game, not all spellbooks are Evil", all of the relevant arguments can be made by Hypatia the Sorceress, associate of Thanaros, in the game, without breaking character, and the only difference there needs to be between the in-character discussion and the potential out-of-character one is that Hypatia's player keeps addressing Gary as Thanaros.

I think the point is, Gary would never have made his character do or believe those things if he had understood the setting beforehand. His character's beliefs and behavior might be a mistake and not a deliberate character choice. If he creates a character that he conceives as a holy inquisitor who destroys witches and demons, but the game takes place in a world where there aren't witches or demons the way he has imagined them, you need to tell Gary.

Tanarii
2022-08-05, 01:16 PM
ThisI will now cast the summon @Tanarii spell and hope to get their take on the myth of player and character separation.
Yes, player/character separation is a myth. It's all "me the player but I'll make these choices I normally wouldn't on purpose because A, B, C". Ultimately though, all in-character decisions come back to the player making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment because of knowledge the player has or doesn't have. Which include if they're having their character do something and calling it "pretend the character doesn't have the info".

However, despite all that, I can see value in some cases of establishing if a player has a misconception about something, is lacking knowledge about it entirely, or is fully aware and making a decision anyway because they've decided a character is like A, B, C.

My views on player character separation being a myth does not require players always talking "in character", nor a general disavowing of the entire idea of OOC vs IC communication within a group. Although I am personally a fan of if you the player say it, your character says or does it. But that's mainly come up for me when it comes to things tactical discussions while trying to ambush the enemy or during combat, or side-band talking in front of an NPC. :smallamused: Not so much for a situation where a player is getting upset for something another player had their character do.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-05, 01:27 PM
Because I want to know if the problem is Thanaros or Gary. Is it that hard to understand?

I am not going to convince Gary by talking to Thanaros.

You have failed to establish how and why the in-character discussion fails to solve your problem. You are also just wrong on the second point: Gary is the person actually hearing the argument, Gary is the one making decisions for Thanaros, any situation where Thanaros changes his mind is one where Gary was convinced to change their mind. You are assuming there is no such situation, but that is empirically false: people do regularly change their in-game behaviour based on in-game information.

---

@Thrudd: you are only restating the problem, you are not in fact showing an out-of-character discussion is needed anywhere to solve it. Let me demonstrate:

Scenario one:

Game master: "You see a group of elves."
Gary: "Ah, foul hellspawn! I, Thanaros the Paladin, charge to purge the land of this evil!"
Hypatia's player: "I, Hypatia the sorceress, try to stop him. 'Please, Thanaros, don't do this!', I say, 'these elves are innocent!"
Game master: "Thanaros, based on your knowledge of elves, they are aligned with the Seven Heavens, and are not, in fact, evil. Do you wish to continue nonetheless?"

Scenario two:

Game master: "You come to a fork in the tunnel. You can continue east, west or return back south."
Gary: "I continue north."
Hypatia's player: "But Thanaros, the tunnel only continues east or west."
Game master: "Thanaros indeed finds no way north. So, which way does he go?"

Scenario three:

Game master: "You find a spellbook."
Gary: "I, Thanaros the paladin, destroy this tome of foul magic!"
Game master: "Okay. The spellbook is swiftly destroyed."
Player of Hypatia: "I, Hypatia the sorceress, howl in anger and pull my hair. 'Thanaros, you fool! Why did you do this?' "
Gary: "I look at Hypatia in confusion. 'It was grimoire of an evil sorcerer, was it not?' "
Player of Hypatia: "Yes, but that does not mean the magic was itself evil! You could've given it for me to read first."
Gary: "But what if it was trapped? I don't want you falling under any dark enchantment."
Player of Hypatia: "You could've cast Detect Evil on it, and I could've used Dispel Magic and Find Traps for good measure. Now, your rash actions have robbed us of potentially valuable treasure."
Gary: "So you are saying not all magic is evil and that I made a mistake?"
Player of Hypatia: "Yes."
Game master: "As Hypatia's a master of magic herself, Thanaros can be sure she knows what she's talking about. Does he disagree with her nonetheless?"

The ill-established, implicit part of Cikomyr2's argument is that nothing about Gary's subsequent reactions reveals if Gary's the problem. My opinion, based on years of convention game mastering, is that player-character-separation does not carry that far. Here's my predictions of what happens:

1) suppose Gary has actual issue with the gaming material - it isn't just that they believe elves or spellbooks are evil in real life, they object to portrayal of them as non-evil. This is the point where they will typically leave the table, or act in a way that necessitates removing them by a game master. This, too can be prefaced by in-character action - a classic in-game way for a player to excuse themselves from a game for whatever reason is for their character to commit suicide. A classic way for a game master to remove a problem player is likewise kill their character and then send the player on their way; so on and so forth.

2) suppose Gary is fine with the gaming material, they just assumed too much. Typically, you can see the confusion, shock of revelation and subsequent regret on their face. If the player truly wishes a do-over, they will ask the game master for one. (Whether the game master actually needs to give one is a separate discussion.) If no do-overs are allowed, they will likely agree to not do whatever they did again.

3) a Gary who understands the argument and wishes to continue whatever they're doing will themselves ask if other players are fine with them continuing. (In scenario 3, the game master is implicitly fine with it, as they accepted the action without question. It is easy to assume otherwise, but if you do, you are also assuming they have less than two brain cells, because a game master can reject any course of action they are not fine with.)

4) meanwhile, the Gary who is actually a problem will shout, pout, get angry, be unresponsive,have a panic attack etc. or in some demonstrate that they did not in fact understand or even listen to the argument.

Talking about Gary creating a character that is badly mismatched with a setting moves the goalpost to a different place entirely; at point of character creation (or other phase of game set-up) no-one is in character yet, and of course a game master should explain what sort of a game they're running. Scenarios like above are not that. Once the game is running, mistaken beliefs about in-game objects can be corrected by additional in-game information and doing so is often trivial part of the main gameplay loop.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-05, 01:35 PM
Scenario two: I've been at any number of tables where scenario 2 plays out like this.

Game master: "You come to a fork in the tunnel. You can continue east, west or return back south."
Gary: "I continue north."
Hypatia's player: "But Thanaros, the tunnel only continues east or west."
Gary: "Thanos unlimbers his military pick, and begins to attack the wall in order to make a passage north."
Game master: "Thanaros, it will take you two or three weeks of digging to get about twenty feet north. Are you sure you don't want to just go east or west?"
And at one table the next statement would be:
Wizard's player: "I cast sleep on Thanaros"

As for Scenario three: OK, plausible. :smallsmile:

My opinion, based on years of convention game mastering, is that player-character-separation does not carry that far. My own experiences at table are close to that, with a few exceptions.

Quertus
2022-08-05, 01:44 PM
Establishing that on character level is more efficient than on player level; a player who understands spellbooks aren't always evil or dangerous can still play a character who believes they are, and this usually perfectly legitimate. Yes, even in D&D.

Really, a lot of time when I see some variation of "this talk needs to happen between players, not characters", I feel compelled to ask "where do you think the players are when their characters talk?". Vast majority of time, the actual medium for character discussion is a real discussion between players and a player with two brain cells can usually take the same point home from character dialogue as from someone directly addressing them. (Not that there's anything unusual about players or a game master directly addressing each other, either. Just pointing out something that should be obvious.)


https://www.pixartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Inside-Out-5-Emotions.jpg



Because arguing the evilness of a magic book to Thanaros the Paladin is a ****ton other discussion than discuss the evilness of magic books in general to Gary the Religiously sheltered guy.

Ok, so, yeah, it’s even more complex than I initially perceived.

One of the core tenets of communication theory is “know your audience”. I know this, in no small part because I **** at it. :smallredface:

And, as someone with very limited reading comprehension skills (especially in comparison to what one might otherwise expect), I can attest that communication is hard.

Arguments made at one layer do not automatically transfer to another layer - at least, not for everyone. Or, put another way, dumb analogies are dumb. Not everyone will accept the “actual” layer just because they accept the analogy layer; less so when there’s an actual failure of the lesson / agreement to map to the other layer.

Also, personally, I just hate it when authors make works that make sense if you look at the analogy, but are utter nonsense if taken at face value (what? I said “dumb analogy is dumb”).

I’ll not deny that it’s possible to sometimes solve player disconnect by addressing the character. But not only is “two functional brain cells” kinda a high bar to expect from people IME, I can also imagine this exchange between fully intelligent beings:


P1: “I burn the book.”

P2: <well-reasoned arguments why not all books are evil>

P1: “Gotcha. I guess I don’t burn the book.”

P1: (note to GM: I kill P2’s character in their sleep / Sleight of Hand pull the pins on their grenades as I walk away / whatever, as they’ve obviously been influenced by the evil book)

So, yes, it’s nice (and efficient!) when you can hit both sides at once. But it’s simply not a given, even when dealing with those rare souls that aren’t desperately in need of the percussive maintenance tough love that is a clue-by-four, if you do not make explicit at which layer you are intending to communicate.

Cikomyr2
2022-08-05, 02:48 PM
Its just that when i am sitting at the table *playing* i find important to feel out the other player and make sure if the quirky behavior is deliberate (and thus is a roleplaying hook for conflict or character arc) or if the player just acts like that (and thus need some negociation and catering).

I dont have time to play 20 question with your character only to realize its you who is simply off base in your assumptions. We are all here to have fun right? Lets clear the air guy and make sure nobody is rowing in the wrong direction.

Quertus
2022-08-05, 03:30 PM
: Gary is the person actually hearing the argument, Gary is the one making decisions for Thanaros, any situation where Thanaros changes his mind is one where Gary was convinced to change their mind..

That is… horribly false. I mean, maybe roleplaying is such a lost art as to make this true at some tables, but… one can convince one of my characters of something without convincing *all* of my characters, let alone convincing me. Similarly, one can present an argument that convinces *me* without me finding it to have convinced my character.

Maybe roleplaying is a dead art. Maybe nobody else cares about human psychology, about how different personality types react to different techniques. Maybe elsewhere, people just roleplay as themselves. But at least at my tables, there’s always at least me - and, IME, usually more than just myself - caring about developing characters that are actually, truly distinct, both from one another, and from their creator.

Rater202
2022-08-05, 04:01 PM
Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. :smallwink: (I think)

I raised two kids, and there were certain TV shows that were banned by my wife and I. (I played some D&D with my kids, but my wife found that the game wasn't to her taste so after a few sessions she declined to participate any further. I think she's be just as happy if I got rid of all of my D&D stuff in an on line auction or garage sale, but that I'm not gonna do).
You are aware that neither a child nor their property are the property of the parent, yes?

A parent has no right to dispose of a child's property, especially if the parent's reasons for doing so are irrational

Throwing out a book that a child either paid for with their own money or received as a gift is in fact a form of emotional abuse. It is something harmful done with the intent of controlling the child's behavior. If the child paid for it with their own money, it is also a form of financial abuse, the restriction of access to wealth or resources or confiscation there off in a way that brings physical or emotional harm.

It cannot be compared to "I do not believe that this program is appropriate for someone your age."

halfeye
2022-08-05, 04:17 PM
You are aware that neither a child nor their property are the property of the parent, yes?

This is incorrect in the UK at least, children do not legally own property, it's all the property of their parents. Good parents treat the property as if it belongs/belonged to the child, but legally, until the child comes of age, it's a fiction.

Rater202
2022-08-05, 04:39 PM
This is incorrect in the UK at least, children do not legally own property, it's all the property of their parents. Good parents treat the property as if it belongs/belonged to the child, but legally, until the child comes of age, it's a fiction.

I think it should be pretty clear that in matters of "good parents" that we are referring to a moral/ethical context, not a legal one.

If "good parenting" is treating the child's possessions as the child's property and "bad parenting" is not respecting the child's property rights, then the child's property is the child's property regardless of what the law says.

Having the legal right to do something abusive to a child is not the same as it not being abusive.

animorte
2022-08-05, 05:42 PM
A parent has no right to dispose of a child's property, especially if the parent's reasons for doing so are irrational

Throwing out a book that a child either paid for with their own money or received as a gift is in fact a form of emotional abuse. It is something harmful done with the intent of controlling the child's behavior. If the child paid for it with their own money, it is also a form of financial abuse, the restriction of access to wealth or resources or confiscation there off in a way that brings physical or emotional harm.

That’s is correct. A friend (13-14 at the time) who, quite honestly was severely testing her limits and “asked for it,” had bought her own phone but her father ran over it with his truck to teach her a lesson* blah blah, no more details necessary… A police officer got involved and, once he was given all the information, straight up told her father that it was not within his right to do so and was fully expected to pay her for it or outright buy her a new one.



*still an irrational response whatever the circumstance.

Tanarii
2022-08-06, 09:31 PM
Gary is the person actually hearing the argument, Gary is the one making decisions for Thanaros, any situation where Thanaros changes his mind is one where Gary was convinced to change their mind.


That is… horribly false. I mean, maybe roleplaying is such a lost art as to make this true at some tables, but… one can convince one of my characters of something without convincing *all* of my characters, let alone convincing me. Similarly, one can present an argument that convinces *me* without me finding it to have convinced my character.
It's 100% accurate, as long as you understand the unwritten "about what Thanaros thinks" at the end of the sentence. Which is how I read it.

Thanaros cannot change their mind without Gary changing Thanaros's mind for them. Because Thanaros doesn't exist independently from Gary. Thanaros is whatever Gary decides for Thanaros, because A, B, C.

This doesn't matter if Gary plays both Thanaros and Tantus and Querarii. Gary can make different decisions for each of them, based on each ones's A, B, C. But Gary is still the one that has to make those decisions for them.

(Not to be taken as an endorsement that this particular discussion should or needs to take place in-world between characters. Also I'm assuming no mind control magic or other game rule impacting the situation.)

Devils_Advocate
2022-08-06, 10:21 PM
In-game lore isn't necessarily the only thing that a player wants to communicate.

Character A taking issue with Character B's actions doesn't ipso facto mean that Player A takes issue with Player B's actions. Maybe Player A is fine with Player B's roleplaying and the conflict between their characters. And maybe they're not! It seems to me like it just might be helpful to clarify that one way or another?

That strikes me as the primary reason to talk about in-character conflict out of character.


Yes, player/character separation is a myth. It's all "me the player but I'll make these choices I normally wouldn't on purpose because A, B, C". Ultimately though, all in-character decisions come back to the player making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment because of knowledge the player has or doesn't have. Which include if they're having their character do something and calling it "pretend the character doesn't have the info".
So, you acknowledge that players aren't their characters and that players can make their characters' decisions based on the characters' perspectives, but... what, you take issue with the phrase "player/character separation" because it should be "player/character distinction"? Well, I can understand advocating for clearer terminology, but that hardly seems like something to make a big deal out of. Like, that's a really pedantic hill to die on even by my standards.


Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. :smallwink: (I think)
Most people don't think that having the authority to do something makes it not wrong to do it. It's... not clear that you're even aware of that, which seems like a bad sign. Eh, let's go with "'OK' is a very relative term."

Quertus
2022-08-06, 11:03 PM
It's 100% accurate, as long as you understand the unwritten "about what Thanaros thinks" at the end of the sentence. Which is how I read it.

Thanaros cannot change their mind without Gary changing Thanaros's mind for them. Because Thanaros doesn't exist independently from Gary. Thanaros is whatever Gary decides for Thanaros, because A, B, C.

This doesn't matter if Gary plays both Thanaros and Tantus and Querarii. Gary can make different decisions for each of them, based on each ones's A, B, C. But Gary is still the one that has to make those decisions for them.

(Not to be taken as an endorsement that this particular discussion should or needs to take place in-world between characters. Also I'm assuming no mind control magic or other game rule impacting the situation.)

I’m not seeing how that affects “convincing Thanaros <> convincing Gary” (more “convincing Thanaros does not imply convincing / having convinced Gary”), or “convincing Thanaros does not imply that Gary even realized that there was an attempt to convince Gary, to evaluate such arguments OOC in the first place”.

It may affect which arguments are necessary to support / counter that stance?

Tanarii
2022-08-06, 11:04 PM
So, you acknowledge that players aren't their characters and that players can make their characters' decisions based on the characters' perspectives, but... what, you take issue with the phrase "player/character separation" because it should be "player/character distinction"? Well, I can understand advocating for clearer terminology, but that hardly seems like something to make a big deal out of. Like, that's a really pedantic hill to die on even by my standards.

A character (and their decisions) is always a subset of a player (who makes the decisions for them). There's nothing separate about it.

Thrudd
2022-08-06, 11:09 PM
I would say, having a character displaying such a gross deviation from the setting and the rules (wizards relying on found spells) implies that the issue lies most likely with the player. Whether they are intentionally making a disruptive character that will conflict and hamper the party, or are misinformed about the attitude towards magic in the setting, it's the player I'd go to first. If they reveal that their actions are not, in fact, out of ignorance, but are intentionally choosing a misguided character, then we can talk about whether the other players at the table are OK with that.

Devils_Advocate
2022-08-06, 11:20 PM
A character (and their decisions) is always a subset of a player (who makes the decisions for them). There's nothing separate about it.
Right, a subset is distinct but not separate from the set that it's part of. So "separate" isn't the technically accurate word to use. I don't disagree with that, but I also don't think that something ceases to exist when called by the wrong term. Like, "is a myth" seems like a misleading way of saying "is misnamed" at best.

So... I think that player/character separation being a myth is poorly phrased, but I don't think that that means you're wrong. ;) I think, at most, that your choice of words is wrong. That hardly seems worth making a big fuss over.

Tanarii
2022-08-07, 10:57 AM
So... I think that player/character separation being a myth is poorly phrased, but I don't think that that means you're wrong. ;) I think, at most, that your choice of words is wrong. That hardly seems worth making a big fuss over.
The myth is primarily the idea that you can somehow firewall off information the player knows in the player's brain, and then have a character act as if they did not know it. The only way for a player to have a character act as if they don't know something is for the player not to know it. Otherwise how they would act is anyones best guess, and plenty of spilt internet ink about metagaming attests that the guesses vary wildly. :smallamused:

In this case, the myth would be that somehow the character can change their mind without the player getting informational input that the character gets and the player changing the characters mind. If the character changes their mind, it must be because the player changes it for them.

I can see why someone might think this means the player hasn't "changed their mind". Should they ever find themselves in a situation where the player has to decide if they are going to destroy a spellbook. But they have. The player changed their mind in the context of this one game, one situation, and one character.

icefractal
2022-08-07, 04:56 PM
But the fact that it's the player making the decision doesn't mean that player would make the same decision regardless of whether there was an OOC or IC objection to the action. For anything the character says, there could be multiple reasons:

Tordek: "A spellbook? I'll burn it!"
1) I'll burn it because I know spellbooks are evil in this game, and so Tordek would sensibly burn it.
2) I'll burn it because Tordek believes spellbooks are evil, although I know they really aren't.
3) I'll burn it because Tordek is kind of a jerk and hates Wizards.
4) I'll burn it because I'm a jerk and want to annoy the person playing a Wizard.

Mialee: "No! Don't burn it, it's useful and not dangerous."
1) It's true, spellbooks aren't evil.
2) I know they're evil, but Mialee wouldn't because Elven society is thoroughly corrupted already, so that's what she'd say.
3) Mialee knows they're evil, but she'd lie and say they're not because she's also evil.

Tordek: "You're a fool or a liar, now get out of my way."
1) Nice try but I know they're evil, and that's not the direction I want the game going.
2) My character's not backing down, but if you want to PvP for it I'm fine with that.
3) I just want to emphasize how unreasonable Tordek is, I'm expecting the rest of the party to overrule him.

Mialee: "I won't let you do that!"
1) Ok sure, let's fight, could be interesting.
2) I'm upset at this OOC, I'm not going to want to continue playing if this is how things go.
3) I just want to emphasize how magic-addicted Mialee is, I'm expecting the rest of the party to overrule her.

So that's somewhere between a dozen and a hundred possible situations, which would be handled in a variety of different ways. Talking OOC it's clear which one you're in, staying entirely IC you're just guessing.

Tanarii
2022-08-07, 05:26 PM
Indeed, different input to the player could result in different decision making by the player for the character. That's why I'm not endorsing that it must be an "in character" discussion in this case.

Even specifying it's something the other player thinks before modifying for their character's A, B, C vs it's something the other player thinks after modifying for their character's A, B, C could make a difference. Or maybe not. Many players aren't that good at actually separating "out of character" and "in character" in a dispute, despite claiming that they're thinking/doing one or the other. Which isn't surprising, since one is part of the other, intermingled at multiple levels.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-08, 07:40 AM
A character (and their decisions) is always a subset of a player (who makes the decisions for them). There's nothing separate about it. This is a lot less difficult to manage unless the entire table is all about immersion, immersion, and more immersion.

The myth is primarily the idea that you can somehow firewall off information the player knows in the player's brain, and then have a character act as if they did not know it. The only way for a player to have a character act as if they don't know something is for the player not to know it. Or choose on their own to firewall it.

animorte
2022-08-08, 07:44 AM
This is a lot less difficult to manage unless the entire table is all about immersion, immersion, and more immersion.

This is a good point to note, as this can often be the case with my tables. Just remember, addressing these issues is no different from the primary DM rule, know your table (players).

Tanarii
2022-08-08, 10:16 AM
Or choose on their own to firewall it.
No, that doesn't work. There is no way to know that the player will have the character act the same if the player doesn't know something vs the player pretending they don't know something. The player can hope, but there's a chance they'll behave differently and never know it.

Unless you can play in two parallel universes and compare. ;)

halfeye
2022-08-08, 12:06 PM
No, that doesn't work. There is no way to know that the player will have the character act the same if the player doesn't know something vs the player pretending they don't know something. The player can hope, but there's a chance they'll behave differently and never know it.

Unless you can play in two parallel universes and compare. ;)

Or they might play the same and never know it.

Human psychology is horendously complex, we just can't know it all.

Jervis
2022-08-08, 12:09 PM
Probably a association between evil casters and dark knowledge repositories like the necronomicon or BoVD. Both in character (and out if they’re players who don’t play wizards) they might assume taking a enemy spellbook could make you go crazy with the dm forcing will saves to not murder puppies or something.

Batcathat
2022-08-08, 12:21 PM
Or they might play the same and never know it.

It seems extremely unlikely though. If my character is looking for buried treasure and I as a player knows where it is, I can avoid exploiting that fact but my knowledge of where it is will still colour every decision I make for my character in looking for it.

halfeye
2022-08-08, 01:05 PM
It seems extremely unlikely though. If my character is looking for buried treasure and I as a player knows where it is, I can avoid exploiting that fact but my knowledge of where it is will still colour every decision I make for my character in looking for it.

Yeah, but in which direction? if you are really stubborn about not exploiting it, it will go one way, if you are permissive it may go the other.

Batcathat
2022-08-08, 01:36 PM
Yeah, but in which direction? if you are really stubborn about not exploiting it, it will go one way, if you are permissive it may go the other.

Absolutely. My point was just that my actions would very likely be different than if I didn't have the information at all (Personally, I suspect I would have my character act dumber than I would've otherwise, just as overcompensation).

Devils_Advocate
2022-08-09, 07:51 PM
The only way for a player to have a character act as if they don't know something is for the player not to know it. Otherwise how they would act is anyones best guess, and plenty of spilt internet ink about metagaming attests that the guesses vary wildly. :smallamused:
It's entirely possible to reliably predict how someone will act based on beliefs different from one's own. One classic scenario is:

Sally puts her ball in her basket, and then leaves and goes for a walk. While Sally is gone, Anne takes the ball out of Sally's basket and places it in a box. When Sally gets back from her walk, she wants to play with her ball. Where does Sally look for her ball first?

Well gosh golly gee, who can say?! Um, we can, and quite easily. If we were to look for the ball, we'd check in the box first. So does that mean that Sally will also look in the box? Well, no. We'd look in the box first because that's the most recent location of the ball that we know of. But her basket is the most recent location of the ball that Sally knows of, so she'll check the basket first for the same reason that we'd check the box. It's not hard at all understand how the information we have determines our understanding of the situation and how that understanding results in our behavior, and thus how different information would lead to a different understanding that would result in different behavior. Most human beings have a pretty solid grasp of this stuff well before reaching adulthood.

Is every scenario that straightforward? Well, no, of course not. But some scenarios are straightforward, and what that even means is that sometimes it is clear how different information would change someone's behavior.


In this case, the myth would be that somehow the character can change their mind without the player getting informational input that the character gets and the player changing the characters mind.
Calling that a "myth" implies that someone actually believes it. I feel pretty skeptical of that.


If the character changes their mind, it must be because the player changes it for them.

I can see why someone might think this means the player hasn't "changed their mind". Should they ever find themselves in a situation where the player has to decide if they are going to destroy a spellbook. But they have. The player changed their mind in the context of this one game, one situation, and one character.
If Thanaros diegetically changes his mind, how does that even qualify as Gary changing his mind about Thanaros's opinion? Gary doesn't change what he believes Thanaros believed before the conversation. Like, yeah, various statements about what Thanaros "believes" change from being true to false and from false to true, but that's because what the use of the present tense means changes over time. It's like how I didn't change my opinion about whether the year 2020 is in the future, but instead the meaning of the phrase "the future" changed over time. In various languages, the meanings of a bunch of phrases change depending on when they're said. This is another thing that people are expected to have a fairly good handle on before they're adults.

Conversely, if Gary does change his mind about what Thanaros believed already, then that's a retcon by which Thanaros didn't change his beliefs. So, like... either way, it looks like Thanaros changing his mind is not equal to Gary changing his mind.

But let's very tentatively assume, purely for the sake of argument, that a player having their character change an opinion constitutes a change of opinion by the player. Even given that dubious assumption, the player hasn't changed their mind about the same thing as the character! Gary changing his mind about how dangerous Thanaros believes spellbooks are isn't the same thing as Gary changing his mind about how dangerous spellbooks are. So saying that Gary didn't change his mind is 100% accurate as long as you understand the unwritten end of the sentence. ;)


There is no way to know that the player will have the character act the same if the player doesn't know something vs the player pretending they don't know something. The player can hope, but there's a chance they'll behave differently and never know it.

Unless you can play in two parallel universes and compare. ;)
I can't directly observe an alternate timeline in which I flicked a rarely-used light switch in my apartment yesterday. Do you contend that we can't know that the sun would still have risen had I not done that?

If you want to get philosophical, we can't know it an absolute sense, but we can't know that the did rise in an absolute sense, either. Nevertheless, under normal, colloquial standards for the use of the word "know", we know that the sun rose, and that it would have risen.

Regardless, there's a clear distinction between deliberately acting on out-of-character knowledge, and out-of-character knowledge influencing in-character choices in any way whatsoever. Outside of a strawman argument, does anyone take "metagaming" to mean the latter?

Imbalance
2022-08-10, 06:55 AM
Y'all understand that Tharanos doesn't exist, right? Further, since this is a meta analogy, neither does Gary nor Sally or her ball. To the point, Tharanos doesn't exist without Gary, does not know nor understand anything that Gary is not privy to, cannot make decisions nor take actions without the throughput of Gary deliberately doing so as he imagines his character doing. Gary may not necessarily be Tharanos, but Tharanos cannot be but Gary.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-10, 07:27 AM
No, that doesn't work. There is no way to know that the player will have the character act the same if the player doesn't know something vs the player pretending they don't know something. The player can hope, but there's a chance they'll behave differently and never know it. It actually depends on the player and the trust relationships at the table. I know some people who can and will compartmentalize like that, but a lot of players can't or won't. So your mostly right, but there are exceptions to that.

@Imbalance: yes. :smallsmile:

Lord Torath
2022-08-10, 07:54 AM
It's entirely possible to reliably predict how someone will act based on beliefs different from one's own. One classic scenario is:

Sally puts her ball in her basket, and then leaves and goes for a walk. While Sally is gone, Anne takes the ball out of Sally's basket and places it in a box. When Sally gets back from her walk, she wants to play with her ball. Where does Sally look for her ball first?

Well gosh golly gee, who can say?! Um, we can, and quite easily. If we were to look for the ball, we'd check in the box first. So does that mean that Sally will also look in the box? Well, no. We'd look in the box first because that's the most recent location of the ball that we know of. But her basket is the most recent location of the ball that Sally knows of, so she'll check the basket first for the same reason that we'd check the box. It's not hard at all understand how the information we have determines our understanding of the situation and how that understanding results in our behavior, and thus how different information would lead to a different understanding that would result in different behavior. Most human beings have a pretty solid grasp of this stuff well before reaching adulthood.

Is every scenario that straightforward? Well, no, of course not. But some scenarios are straightforward, and what that even means is that sometimes it is clear how different information would change someone's behavior.Where will Sally look first is the easy, and frankly, uninteresting question. The real question is, "How long will it be before Sally looks in the box?" Or maybe, "How long should Sally avoid looking in the box so her player won't be called out for metagaming?"

And no, don't bother trying to answer that question; we don't know enough about Sally's relationship with Anne. But if a player knows where something is, he can 'finagle' ways to find out that the box is the place he should look. Or he can deliberately avoid any hints he should look in the box. Both are metagaming. Once the player knows where the ball is, he can't avoid metagaming. The only way to avoid it is to not know.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't try to convince the player of the general rules of the game first. Metagaming is not necessarily a bad thing. It can make the game more fun if done right, or destroy the game if done wrong.

I think Vahnavoi outlines the issues with trying to resolve it entirely in-character here:

*snip*

Scenario one:

Game master: "You see a group of elves."
Gary: "Ah, foul hellspawn! I, Thanaros the Paladin, charge to purge the land of this evil!"
Hypatia's player: "I, Hypatia the sorceress, try to stop him. 'Please, Thanaros, don't do this!', I say, 'these elves are innocent!"
Game master: "Thanaros, based on your knowledge of elves, they are aligned with the Seven Heavens, and are not, in fact, evil. Do you wish to continue nonetheless?"

Scenario two:

Game master: "You come to a fork in the tunnel. You can continue east, west or return back south."
Gary: "I continue north."
Hypatia's player: "But Thanaros, the tunnel only continues east or west."
Game master: "Thanaros indeed finds no way north. So, which way does he go?"

Scenario three:

Game master: "You find a spellbook."
Gary: "I, Thanaros the paladin, destroy this tome of foul magic!"
Game master: "Okay. The spellbook is swiftly destroyed."
Player of Hypatia: "I, Hypatia the sorceress, howl in anger and pull my hair. 'Thanaros, you fool! Why did you do this?' "
Gary: "I look at Hypatia in confusion. 'It was grimoire of an evil sorcerer, was it not?' "
Player of Hypatia: "Yes, but that does not mean the magic was itself evil! You could've given it for me to read first."
Gary: "But what if it was trapped? I don't want you falling under any dark enchantment."
Player of Hypatia: "You could've cast Detect Evil on it, and I could've used Dispel Magic and Find Traps for good measure. Now, your rash actions have robbed us of potentially valuable treasure."
Gary: "So you are saying not all magic is evil and that I made a mistake?"
Player of Hypatia: "Yes."
Game master: "As Hypatia's a master of magic herself, Thanaros can be sure she knows what she's talking about. Does he disagree with her nonetheless?"

The ill-established, implicit part of Cikomyr2's argument is that nothing about Gary's subsequent reactions reveals if Gary's the problem. My opinion, based on years of convention game mastering, is that player-character-separation does not carry that far. Here's my predictions of what happens:

1) suppose Gary has actual issue with the gaming material - it isn't just that they believe elves or spellbooks are evil in real life, they object to portrayal of them as non-evil. This is the point where they will typically leave the table, or act in a way that necessitates removing them by a game master. This, too can be prefaced by in-character action - a classic in-game way for a player to excuse themselves from a game for whatever reason is for their character to commit suicide. A classic way for a game master to remove a problem player is likewise kill their character and then send the player on their way; so on and so forth.

2) suppose Gary is fine with the gaming material, they just assumed too much. Typically, you can see the confusion, shock of revelation and subsequent regret on their face. If the player truly wishes a do-over, they will ask the game master for one. (Whether the game master actually needs to give one is a separate discussion.) If no do-overs are allowed, they will likely agree to not do whatever they did again.

3) a Gary who understands the argument and wishes to continue whatever they're doing will themselves ask if other players are fine with them continuing. (In scenario 3, the game master is implicitly fine with it, as they accepted the action without question. It is easy to assume otherwise, but if you do, you are also assuming they have less than two brain cells, because a game master can reject any course of action they are not fine with.)

4) meanwhile, the Gary who is actually a problem will shout, pout, get angry, be unresponsive,have a panic attack etc. or in some demonstrate that they did not in fact understand or even listen to the argument.

Talking about Gary creating a character that is badly mismatched with a setting moves the goalpost to a different place entirely; at point of character creation (or other phase of game set-up) no-one is in character yet, and of course a game master should explain what sort of a game they're running. Scenarios like above are not that. Once the game is running, mistaken beliefs about in-game objects can be corrected by additional in-game information and doing so is often trivial part of the main gameplay loop.

Tanarii
2022-08-10, 09:39 AM
It actually depends on the player and the trust relationships at the table. I know some people who can and will compartmentalize like that, but a lot of players can't or won't. So your mostly right, but there are exceptions to that.There are no exceptions. Not knowing isn't the same as compartmentalize, nor does it have anything to do with trust at the table.

It would require selectively forgetting something for a moment while making a decision then remembering it again afterwards. That isn't something humans can actually consciously do. (Possibly mental health / disease issues might make it happen involuntarily, but that's not the same thing.)

Edit: or as I said, it would require parallel universes, the one in which you know the info and are making a decision, and another in which you don't know, and then comparing your decision to the don't know universe after the fact.

Bohandas
2022-08-10, 09:43 AM
I think your players have probably seen too many Evil Dead movies

Cikomyr2
2022-08-10, 09:50 AM
Ultimately, its also all for fun guys. we game for fun.

Like.. its like.. i know some players who love when another player has a hidden agenda or turns out to be the traitor, as long as everyone agreed beforehand that "pvp is fair game". I personally add restriction that "pvp is fair game as long as you dont ruin the story"

However, some other players cant handle the duplicity. They sit at the table to have fun, and some people just dont like playing Resistance in their RPG. Thats when id propose "open traitor" where you treat the personal adventure and drama of other players like you would a TV show. Meaning all players are aware of who is the traitor, and you deliberately prevent your characters from connecting the dots, unless the DM explicitly gives you permission. It helps build trust between the players since everyone is "in" on the open secret and you wont have a disasteous Reveal that will utterly ruin everyone's fun.

But the point being, it all depends on the table you sit at. If a secret has to be known to avoid tension, let it be known. If you cant trust your players to roleplay "naturally" as they dont know, give little incentives to have them help cover the secret.

You gotta find the compromise where everyone will be comfortable yet entertained. Not everyone is suited to a bona fide cloak and dagger table, but not everyone wants to go for a "we should all be on the same level all the time" knowledge structure either.

Thrudd
2022-08-10, 11:01 AM
RPG players with metagame knowledge aren't really "compartmentalizing" so much as they are acting. They pretend not to know the things their character isn't supposed to know. Unlike an actor with a script, however, they don't know how everything will turn out. An actor might know their character is talking to the bad guy in disguise, but they also know that the story for their character won't end in this scene, despite the danger, in addition to having all their reactions planned out. An RPG player is in the opposite position- they know many things could kill their character, and their acting choices can't help but be influenced by the awareness of real danger. How long do you pretend not to know that there's a trap in the hallway, how far do you go to act like your character suspects nothing? Is it plausible that it happened to be just in this exact place that they decided to stop walking and look around carefully? Or do you eat the trap and hope your saving throw saves you, just to prove that you aren't a metagamer?

This is a different issue from people bringing beliefs and knowledge from outside the game (which are not related to the game at all) into the fictional world. I suppose you could say that what players ought to do, in this case, is some type of "compartmentalizing". You are being asked to pretend that you are in this fictional world that has different rules, is a completely different reality from our own (much of the time). A religious player, for example, should not assume their character shares their real-world theology, because the fictional world has completely different religions and beliefs, and likely a completely different cosmology. A player can "compartmentalize" a real-world preference for non-violence when they are playing an action game about fighting supernatural monsters and wizards. Every character you make doesn't need to be a pacifist just because you are one in the real world. That's not to say you should compartmentalize everything always - there are some things, which might be extremely offensive or disturbing, that people understandably just don't want to have in their fantasy worlds, and that's fine. Everyone needs to communicate what those lines are for each other.

halfeye
2022-08-10, 12:30 PM
It would require selectively forgetting something for a moment while making a decision then remembering it again afterwards.

The remembering it again afterwards, without being reminded, is improbable. Selectively forgetting is definitely something that happens, if not very often.

Quertus
2022-08-10, 01:45 PM
It actually depends on the player and the trust relationships at the table. I know some people who can and will compartmentalize like that, but a lot of players can't or won't. So your mostly right, but there are exceptions to that.

@Imbalance: yes. :smallsmile:


There are no exceptions. Not knowing isn't the same as compartmentalize, nor does it have anything to do with trust at the table.

Yeah, uh, show me a being capable of doing what’s necessary to pass the actual test, and I’ll show you a being that isn’t human. If you game with beings who can do what’s necessary, you game with beings that aren’t human (and I’m jealous, because gaming (to my standards) despite standard human failings is arduous).

Bohandas
2022-08-11, 11:15 AM
Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era

I don't see the connection to good parenting. I see a connection to being stupid and ignorant rather than malicious or cruel, but I don't see any connection to good parenting.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-11, 11:58 AM
I don't see the connection to good parenting. I see a connection to being stupid and ignorant rather than malicious or cruel, but I don't see any connection to good parenting. That suggests to me that your bias is showing. (It's an understandable bias, if you are a passionate RPG hobbyist-not everybody is)

Batcathat
2022-08-11, 12:08 PM
That suggests to me that your bias is showing. (It's an understandable bias, if you are a passionate RPG hobbyist-not everybody is)

Not sharing someone's hobby is one thing, keeping it from them for an irrational reason is quite another.

Imbalance
2022-08-11, 12:24 PM
Not sharing someone's hobby is one thing, keeping it from them for an irrational reason is quite another.

If your knee-jerk reaction is to interpret it as irrational, that's also irrationally judgemental. Parental guidance is a real thing and must be balanced, but a lot of responses to this side-topic jump straight into calling it bad parenting without any context that it is. There are plenty of aspects about D&D that many young children are factually not mature enough for, and parents should have the first right to make that determination without being called irrational.

Batcathat
2022-08-11, 12:34 PM
If your knee-jerk reaction is to interpret it as irrational, that's also irrationally judgemental. Parental guidance is a real thing and must be balanced, but a lot of responses to this side-topic jump straight into calling it bad parenting without any context that it is. There are plenty of aspects about D&D that many young children are factually not mature enough for, and parents should have the first right to make that determination without being called irrational.

The discussion about parenting was specifically in regards to "parents throwing away their children's D&D equipment because of the possible evil influence." So unless you have any sort of evidence linking D&D to "evil influence", I'm quite confident about calling it irrational.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-11, 01:31 PM
I am sorry to have given this derailment additional fuel, and would rather we got back to the topic at hand. (If there is any more mileage to be had on that).

Imbalance
2022-08-11, 01:36 PM
The discussion about parenting was specifically in regards to "parents throwing away their children's D&D equipment because of the possible evil influence." So unless you have any sort of evidence linking D&D to "evil influence", I'm quite confident about calling it irrational.

You're certain that it is impossible that a young mind could be negatively influenced by material which discusses slavery, killing, and torture? Are you asserting that parents have no right to rationally define what is evil toward their offspring?

My evidence is anecdotal, in that as children my peers and I routinely put ourselves (and sometimes other children) in dangerous situations while attempting to reenact exciting events from the media we consumed. I would not be as confident in judgement, and, with respect to Korvin, throughout this thread we see how alternate game systems may have been very influential in the events that prompted the original topic and that rational "parenting" by the DM may be in order.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-08-11, 01:43 PM
Skipping the whole parenting discussion,

I prefer to not think of metagaming (in the bad sense) as using out of character knowledge because that's inevitably going to happen.

Instead, I prefer to define it (following the 4e and 5e D&D DMGs descriptions) as using the knowledge that it is a game in-character.



Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like when a character in a movie knows it’s a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, “The DM wouldn’t throw such a powerful monster at us!” or you might hear, “The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door — let’s search it again!”


And this is only an issue (for me, personally) when it starts distorting the character. Characters should, IMO, plausibly appear to be making decisions based on the world in which they live. They're not, at least completely. But players should strive to draw that veil more firmly and avoid, if possible, gross violations. What counts as "if possible" and "gross violations"? Up to the table itself.

Batcathat
2022-08-11, 01:48 PM
You're certain that it is impossible that a young mind could be negatively influenced by material which discusses slavery, killing, and torture? Are you asserting that parents have no right to rationally define what is evil toward their offspring?

Parents are very welcome to rationally define that. However, in my experience the parental panic of the hour (whether it's about D&D, video games, rock music, women wearing pants or whatever) rarely have much to do with any sort of rational argument or actual proof.

Note that I'm not saying that parents that ban things for irrational reasons are bad parents (mine did, on occasion, and I quite like them), but I'm very much against labeling it "good parenting".

Bohandas
2022-08-11, 01:49 PM
That suggests to me that your bias is showing. (It's an understandable bias, if you are a passionate RPG hobbyist-not everybody is)

It's not about gaming being good, it's about basing decisions on deranged conspiracy theories being bad, and about being drawn into mass hysteria being bad, and about following trends being neutral at best.

LibraryOgre
2022-08-11, 03:03 PM
And this is only an issue (for me, personally) when it starts distorting the character. Characters should, IMO, plausibly appear to be making decisions based on the world in which they live. They're not, at least completely. But players should strive to draw that veil more firmly and avoid, if possible, gross violations. What counts as "if possible" and "gross violations"? Up to the table itself.

This is why you always play a bard. "I understand stories and I know a lot of random information" makes metagaming proper gaming!

If Elan were smarter, he'd be nigh-invincible.

icefractal
2022-08-11, 03:24 PM
And this is only an issue (for me, personally) when it starts distorting the character. Characters should, IMO, plausibly appear to be making decisions based on the world in which they live. They're not, at least completely. But players should strive to draw that veil more firmly and avoid, if possible, gross violations. What counts as "if possible" and "gross violations"? Up to the table itself.Agreed; IMO, the main problem with metagaming is an aesthetic one - if you're trying to get a feeling of immersion or emotional engagement with what's going on IC, then 4th wall breaking impedes that. For which reason I wouldn't care about metagaming in a game that was already comedy with OOC jokes.

It's sometimes mentioned as a power problem, like the metagamer is getting an unfair advantage, but IME -
1) Most campaigns aren't competitive that way.
2) It's possible for the GM to counter if they are trying to run a competitive game.
3) Mechanical tricks that produce actually broken results are a problem whether they're arrived at by IC or OOC routes. Pun-Pun should be banned in virtually all campaigns regardless of whether it's a Paladin who randomly starts the bootstrap process for no IC reason, or a Kobold who has a whole backstory about venerating the Sarruhks.

Devils_Advocate
2022-08-11, 07:45 PM
Y'all understand that Tharanos doesn't exist, right? Further, since this is a meta analogy, neither does Gary nor Sally or her ball. To the point, Tharanos doesn't exist without Gary, does not know nor understand anything that Gary is not privy to, cannot make decisions nor take actions without the throughput of Gary deliberately doing so as he imagines his character doing. Gary may not necessarily be Tharanos, but Tharanos cannot be but Gary..
Huh? Player characters, as you allude to, don't actually exist at all. Because they're fictional. They only fictionally exist, and fictionally have thoughts, feelings, personal histories, and so on. And the fiction is that they're aware of a bunch of stuff that their players aren't. E.g., Hypatia the Sorceress knows the verbal and somatic components for her spells. Her player doesn't know them, in no small part because they don't actually exist. Because those internal details aren't what the game is about. Hell, the extremely basic, fundamental, implicit default assumption that a fictional setting is "like reality unless noted" means that characters' sensory experiences are no less rich and detailed than the players', and thus would require some sort of virtual reality setup to fully convey! There's a heavy layer of abstraction between the players and the fiction layer. One can pretend that there isn't for the sake of a disingenuous "gotcha" ludicrous in the overall context of the exercise, but I don't see how that proves anything beyond that it's easy to be a jackass.


It would require selectively forgetting something for a moment while making a decision then remembering it again afterwards. That isn't something humans can actually consciously do.
What do you base that assertion on? I do hope we're all aware that a sample size of one is not statistically significant, and so being personally unable to do something is very weak evidence about the capabilities of humans in general.


Yeah, uh, show me a being capable of doing what’s necessary to pass the actual test,
What actual test? I'm intrigued by, but skeptical of, the implication that you're talking about a falsifiable theory.


and I’ll show you a being that isn’t human. If you game with beings who can do what’s necessary, you game with beings that aren’t human (and I’m jealous, because gaming (to my standards) despite standard human failings is arduous).
I'm curious what motivates your particular definition of "human". I'm also curious what that definition is, but that's probably not the more important question.


It's not about gaming being good, it's about basing decisions on deranged conspiracy theories being bad, and about being drawn into mass hysteria being bad, and about following trends being neutral at best.
My own far more basic point was that exercising authority isn't inherently virtuous. I would have hoped that that would go without saying, but it's unclear how "it's their call" was meant to function if not as a supporting argument. As it is, Korvin's post would make a lot more sense if "good parenting" were replaced with just "parenting". It would still be minimizing authoritarianism, but it wouldn't imply that it's somehow intrinsically good.


I am sorry to have given this derailment additional fuel, and would rather we got back to the topic at hand.
Why not both?

Alcore
2022-08-11, 07:45 PM
I am sorry to have given this derailment additional fuel, and would rather we got back to the topic at hand. (If there is any more mileage to be had on that).

On a happy note the original poster did post back and thanked us for providing insight. We helped him. :smallsmile:


...its somewhere back in page... 3? I think it is the halfway point.

Quertus
2022-08-11, 10:24 PM
“The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door — let’s search it again!”

Um, I might feel stupid for asking, but… what do people think is the “correct” answer here? I’ve seen GMs claim that PCs should pay attention for and be aware of and act upon such obvious signaling, whereas I endeavor to describe things more equally (give or take what the party has shown interest in).


You're certain that it is impossible that a young mind could be negatively influenced by material which discusses slavery, killing, and torture?

So… history?

Tanarii
2022-08-11, 10:33 PM
Yeah, uh, show me a being capable of doing what’s necessary to pass the actual test, and I’ll show you a being that isn’t human. If you game with beings who can do what’s necessary, you game with beings that aren’t human (and I’m jealous, because gaming (to my standards) despite standard human failings is arduous).
Yes. Humans can't "pass the test" when the claim is being able to pretend not to know something and make decisions for the (fictional) character as if they actually didn't know it and get the same result. The knowledge will impact the decision making to some degree. The decision made when pretending not to know may or may not be the same as one made while actually not knowing, but there's no way to know that and any claim it's the same is therefore unsupportable.

There's a large number of ways to work with knowing something your character doesn't and still play a character. But if someone wants them to hold water in a discussion on approaches to roleplaying (decision making for a character in the fantasy environment) as a coherent approach, acknowledging that when humans know something their character doesn't they can't actually make decisions for them as if they don't know it is a required starting point.

Although this is certainly far afield from the comments which led to me being summoned, IC vs OoC conversations.

Bohandas
2022-08-12, 10:24 AM
Or it's good parenting, not a horror story. If they don't want their kids playing D&D it's their call. I lived through the "D&D is a satanic cult" era (thankfully, I was a young adult at that point, not a kid). I had been raised by two parents who were super strict in what they let us watch on TV, what movies we went to, etc. Somehow, I turned out OK. (I think
So would parents keeping their kids from playing soccer out of fear it would transform them into pigeons also be good parenting? Parents dictating what their kids may or may not do for irrational reasons might be acceptable parenting, but I certainly wouldn't call it good parenting.

I can show that it's not even acceptable parenting with another example of this kind of parenting ripped straight from the headlines.

What about parents who don't vaccinate their kids because they think it will make them autistic or something? Those are bad parents. Really really bad parents. I don't think any reasonable person would or could dispute that.