House Rule #2: Calling the DM out.

[Darklone]

I don't cheat. I do have two players who think I cheated once or twice...but those two players have been shown the door by the rest of the respective groups.

[ramble]One player simply didn't want to believe that his "tactic" (to run blindly away) was stupid in addition to bad luck (ran into 4 orcs and caught a confirmed greataxe critical rolled openly). Afterwards I showed the fights setup to him in the book... a week later I heard how he told someone I would have placed the orcs there to screw his ingenious tactic. The week later the other players showed him the door.

The second player... was simply stupid. He didn't understand that the whole group was sick of saving his butt all the time even after they told him for several weeks. Two weeks later they still tried to save him but failed (half-orc barbarian charged with less than 10 hp alone after the retreating BBEG and his two unhurt fighter bodyguards...). Then he complained to the other players about how the bad DM wanted to kill off his super PC. [/ramble]

I don't like that houserule cause any normal player does not need it in my group. I roll openly. And if I do something wrong and they ask about it, no problem (it's seldom enough, I'm the groups rulemonkey). If they have questions about the adventure or why they failed so horribly ... I show them the adventure and explain the tactical setup.

So the only players who would use/enforce/like such a houserule are the "doorusers".

 

[Rhun]

I "dynamically scale" constantly while I am DMing. And I don't have anywhere near the time needed to prepare things ahead of time.

 

[transcendation]

I think you missed the point...

The rule has nothing to do with cheating. It has to do with the suspension of disbelief. That's its entire purpose.

It's been my experience that players readily disbelieve if they think you are making it up as you go. But if the world exists before they get there, it tends to have more substance, psychologically speaking, and the players can get lost in it all.

Besides, a good player can usually tell when you aren't prepared. You get player queries like, "when I teleport into the city, does there happen to be a tavern right across the street from me?"

I fell for that type of thing more than once. I unwittingly designed the whole street just the way the player wanted it!

transcendation

 

[Land Outcast]

Besides, a good player can usually tell when you aren't prepared.

Being able to make it all as you go and have the players think everything was prepared beforehand is a trait of a great DM... IMHO,OC

 

[Rystil Arden]

I scared them so bad with the appearance of Baalzebul that two of them turned green. That's something I had never seen before.

Yep.

Green.

I don't believe they actually turned green. I think you just made that up to use as an example. I'm calling you out

 

[Mallus]

It's been my experience that players readily disbelieve if they think you are making it up as you go.

It's my experience that players believe things that they find entertaining.

But if the world exists before they get there, it tends to have more substance, psychologically speaking, and the players can get lost in it all.

It's a admirable goal, but I have other hobbies, like drinking gin. Besides, they are a host of other techniques that don't require as much time and authorial overdetermination.

Besides, a good player can usually tell when you aren't prepared.

A good player should be the DM's partner in the creation of world/game experience (which means they help you out if you're not prepared).

It's incumbent on everyone at the table to help maintain the fictional space the game takes place in.

You get player queries like, "when I teleport into the city, does there happen to be a tavern right across the street from me?"

Yes, yes you do.

I fell for that type of thing more than once. I unwittingly designed the whole street just the way the player wanted it!

You'll have to patiently explain to me why in the world you think that was a bad thing.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

You know, I recall hearing that World of Synnibarr has this very same rule.

Brad

 

[PieAndDragon]

Might as well just run the Return to the Temple of Cream Pies.

And thus my next one-off adventure is born! Thanks clark411

As to the House Rule. Never at my table.

 

[Storyteller01]

Can't say I like the 'calling out' rule. It would be too easy for a player to make the call in a difficult fight, then find a way to beat the now not so surprising monster through meta gaming.


I try to stay on the up and up. If they have a problem with the encounter, I explain what I can after. It's usually enough, and it forces me to keep coming up with fresh ideas.


Besides, I have to muddle through creative interpretations far too often for my players to call me out without feeling some twinge of guilt.

 

[transcendation]

Wait until the encounter is over

You could always wait until the encounter is over for the audit.

This would snip most related metagaming in the bud.

transcendation