D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Oofta]

While I pretty much despise playing online, one thing that using a VTT (Roll20) which implemented line of sight limitations, is how much the PCs react based on player knowledge instead of PC knowledge. When they can only see what their PC can see, they were far less tactical and less coordinated as a group. For things like being in the dark trying to attack enemies that I had only pinged general direction they were far less effective.

It's not that they consciously did this, it's just that we can't really separate what we see on the battle map with what the PC knows.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't see what that has to do with what I said. I was talking about how a sharp distinction was drawn between "knowing that trolls are weak to fire and acid" and "knowing that there's a fire trap ahead." I listed the ways the two sounded pretty much identical to me, and thus why I don't understand how one can be perfectly a-okay hunky-dory, and the other is absolutely verboten, totally unacceptable.

I'm not seeing the difference.

The only real difference is one is in the rules, so if the players read all the rules they will know it. The second is something fairly specific to the game that the player might over hear somehow.

And an 'inexperienced DM can't do anything about the first one: They just toss up thier hands and say 'I can't stop the players from reading the gamebooks'. The second is just about always where the player is looking to outright cheat....and a DM can counter that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not seeing the difference.

The only real difference is one is in the rules, so if the players read all the rules they will know it. The second is something fairly specific to the game that the player might over hear somehow.

And an 'inexperienced DM can't do anything about the first one: They just toss up thier hands and say 'I can't stop the players from reading the gamebooks'. The second is just about always where the player is looking to outright cheat....and a DM can counter that.

Is it cheating to have run or played a module before?

 

[Lanefan]

Is it cheating to have run or played a module before?

If you don't volunteer that information if-when it becomes apparent the current DM is about to run it and thus give said DM a chance to either switch to a different module or make changes to this one, I'd say yes.

 

[pemerton]

Is it cheating to have run or played a module before?

Doesn't the answer to this depend on whether the point of the module is (or includes) to solve a puzzle, or whether the point of the module is to explore/express an idea (a character, a situation, a dilemma)?

An example of the latter is provided by some Prince Valiant "episodes" (in D&D terms, mini-scenarios), or by the introductory Burning Wheel scenario The Sword.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Doesn't the answer to this depend on whether the point of the module is (or includes) to solve a puzzle, or whether the point of the module is to explore/express an idea (a character, a situation, a dilemma)?

An example of the latter is provided by some Prince Valiant "episodes" (in D&D terms, mini-scenarios), or by the introductory Burning Wheel scenario The Sword.

That's fair. I was thinking in the context of D&D modules specifically, since the given example was the contrast between "trolls are weak to fire and acid" (100% okay for players to know regardless of context--e.g. a newly-formed group with brand-new characters can still know this from previous gameplay) and "this place has fire traps" (100% verboten, absolutely unacceptable, never under any circumstances is this okay).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you don't volunteer that information if-when it becomes apparent the current DM is about to run it and thus give said DM a chance to either switch to a different module or make changes to this one, I'd say yes.

And if they decide to still run it, it is important to hold back on decision making. And maybe the DM should work with you about what kind of knowledge to share with players is ok.

One way to handle it, is playing a character native to the place the adventure happens, while all other characters are foreigners.

 

[Lanefan]

And if they decide to still run it, it is important to hold back on decision making. And maybe the DM should work with you about what kind of knowledge to share with players is ok.

True. There's also the variable of how much is remembered and-or how accurately; there's some modules I've DMed that if a DM were to run me through them as a player without telling me what they were there's a good chance I'd be fooled until 3/4 of the way through if not further, while there's others that I'd recognize right away and remember all the key bits.

One way to handle it, is playing a character native to the place the adventure happens, while all other characters are foreigners.

That can work in some modules, sure, but it almost certainly requires the player to switch to a new character as their existing character's background and home area etc. is already known.

 

[Remathilis]

Is it cheating to have run or played a module before?

Depends on how much they remember? My play group has had players go through Castle Ravenloft three separate times (once in 2e, 3e, and 5e) and despite the fact it's the same map in each, they never remembered the traps and such.

(Though to be fair, each version [house, curse, expedition] did have different encounters, and the Tarot deck randomizer helps on replay, but the map never changes and much of the Castle is static).

 

[Oofta]

In my home game, some things are common knowledge. So trolls regen, you need silver for lycanthropes and so on.

If it's something I don't think should be common knowledge I simply ask people not act on player knowledge. It's a compromise that's always worked well for us.