Dealing with paranoid players

[TheAuldGrump]

That makes no sense you just walk into a city you have never been in before and you can use knowledge local? That is so broken. If it is true add another nail in the I am getting sick of the way DnD is designed.

But the DM had already ruled that we had to choose where our local knowledge was for. For example my character had chosen Greyhawk so the time we spent in Diamond Lake I could not use it unless I took knowledge local Diamond Lake.

The Players handbook is not clear on it either. I am beginning to realize that DnD is not really made for role playing.

Well, I know that living in Boston means that I can never get lost in Houston.... (It is possible that I am lying. I can get lost anywhere! )

Seriously, I have always had local mean, you know, local - a city and the environs thereof, typically. So you have Knowledge (Corvis), Knowledge (Sandpoint) etc.. if it won't be useful then I let the players know. (This scenario will involve a lot of globetrotting, knowledge (Local) will be kind of limited, either spread it around or it may not be useful.)

The Auld Grump, who has Knowledge (Boston) and Knowledge (Portland)....

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Seriously, I have always had local mean, you know, local - a city and the environs thereof, typically...

I like this way of handling local. Personally I spread mine out a little bit more than individual cities though so that it's not so limited.

I would say a player can have knowledge local of some human lands over in the east that would work in all the local farm villages and towns and stuff over there, but that won't help them in the east for example, or they can have knowledge local of dwarven lands in the north, or of orc lands in the south. I generally give them a (crudely drawn) map with a dozen or so various areas sectioned off, each on of which counts as a single "local".

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I like this way of handling local. Personally I spread mine out a little bit more than individual cities though so that it's not so limited.

I would say a player can have knowledge local of some human lands over in the east that would work in all the local farm villages and towns and stuff over there, but that won't help them in the east for example, or they can have knowledge local of dwarven lands in the north, or of orc lands in the south. I generally give them a (crudely drawn) map with a dozen or so various areas sectioned off, each on of which counts as a single "local".

For me that might be Knowledge (Region) - less detail than Knowledge (Cwr Lynch), but much wider area. Still Knowledge (Local), but less detail over a much larger area. A Hackney (taxi driver) would have Knowledge (Local) for a city, a Drummer (traveling salesman) would have Knowledge (Local) for a region. He might know a decent pub in each town or city in the region, but he won't know every pub in every town.

So, it won't help you find The Sheared Sheep on Donleavey Rd. in Cwr Lynch. But it would allow you to find Cwr Lynch by the Tyg in Cockscombe Parrish, and stop at the pub by Eastgate near the River.

I'd allow the player to pick, or to put points in both.

The Auld Grump

 

[pemerton]

I might have her give them a few rolls at the table for intelligence or wisdom checks: "Hey Bob, the wizard that was just slaughtered had a spellbook that has only level 1-4 spells, and his four dead bodyguards had short swords and leather armor, and seem young and clean shaven (i.e., inexperienced/low level)." Or, "leaving the king in the lurch like that can really hurt the reputations of not just yourself, but also the rest of your party. I'm sure the paladin would not want the king to put in a bad word on his behalf down at his church saying how he bailed on his promise to him." Sometimes, the DM adding her voice to the mix adds a bit more emphasis than just fellow players saying it.

In your Spellcraft example, as DM, I would have made the two paranoid players roll Knowledge (local) with low DCs to realize that a lot of people carry magic items, but something like a gem of true seeing is beyond the means of most people (and organizations). If the DM makes this presentation based off these player's roll for information, it's stronger than another player just making the case.

Just adding to Hussar's "say yes" comment upthread - if the GM think it is worthwhile to add something into the mix, or to remind the players of something, or draw their attention to some aspect of the situation, why not just do that? Interposing a die roll for a stat or skill or luck or whatever check just seems to be running the risk of not having the desirable thing pan out.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I always assumed you would get Knowledge (local) for your home area for free. It's weird to have to pay skill ranks for that. It's like paying ranks to know how to walk.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have always given knowledge local with 5 ranks in it for free. The players pick where they want it to be. I also will allow them if its in their background to split those five ranks to include more than one local.

5 ranks gives a synergy bonus to gather information in those areas.

I know I am being really cranky right now about things in DnD. Part of it is a frustration of the limits of the game that I have started to see.

Things like characters going from 1 to 10 in four months. I know that one way to handle that is to lower the XP. But that is hard with an adventure path.

The fact that DnD campaigns have limits on how long you can play the character because of leveling. You can play at epic levels but it is a vastly different game.

For example most of the DnD games I have played in have only lasted around 18 months of regular play. My Shadowrun campaign has been going on with breaks since 1999 and I am still playing the same character.

The power escalation is a big one for me especially because with just so so role players it becomes hard to maintain a world that makes sense. The whole why should I care about the laws of the city they can't touch me mindset.

The difficulties for the DM to be able to properly challenge a party if there is different power levels going on between players.

Add that to my frustrations with the current game.

A player who plays rather paranoid when at 9 level the DM was having to up the challenges to what a 15 level would face just to deal with the one player which then would often kick the rest of us in the butt.

And when she didn't he would cake walk over it and of course he was taking out bad guys with one swing leaving the rest of us with nothing to do.

Is it wrong to want to be able to shine just once and while in the game?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Things like characters going from 1 to 10 in four months. I know that one way to handle that is to lower the XP. But that is hard with an adventure path.

Some people like that, however. I just left a campaign that fell back from almost 3rd-level back to 1st in Pathfinder.

As always, different tastes. No company can make a product to satisfy everyone, and even with "dials" (eg slow down XP growth), that's not helpful if some members of the group don't like that.

The power escalation is a big one for me especially because with just so so role players it becomes hard to maintain a world that makes sense. The whole why should I care about the laws of the city they can't touch me mindset.

I haven't found that to be a big problem. Mainly due to a problem player who is no longer part of my group, I learned how to use cops. And pass raven messages (they fly faster than horses run) and magical messages for when PCs can teleport. If they're committing big crimes, the Flaming Fist-style organization packed with high-level paladins are after them... while the city watch can do nothing but report on them, as they can't challenge the PCs.

And as you know, in real life, powerful people can break small laws all the time, and can even try to hide bigger crimes. At that point, the DM should let the players know if s/he's willing to run a spiraling-toward-evil campaign.

The difficulties for the DM to be able to properly challenge a party if there is different power levels going on between players.

YES. As a DM I try to control that. But you're a player, and don't have that option.

A player who plays rather paranoid when at 9 level the DM was having to up the challenges to what a 15 level would face just to deal with the one player which then would often kick the rest of us in the butt.

And when she didn't he would cake walk over it and of course he was taking out bad guys with one swing leaving the rest of us with nothing to do.

Is it wrong to want to be able to shine just once and while in the game?

It seems to me said powerful PC is not being challenged properly. It's not level-appropriate challenges the DM needs to use, but spellcasters who can target his wimpy Will save. How much experience does your DM have? Maybe you need to test-run a session.

 

[pming]

Hiya

*snip*
I know I am being really cranky right now about things in DnD. Part of it is a frustration of the limits of the game that I have started to see.

*snip dissapointments about D&D*

I'm thinking you need to either move away from D&D for a while...or try a different, "older" flavour. Something like BECMI or 1e AD&D (for 'clones' of these, try Dark Dungeons ( Dark Dungeons ) and for 1e AD&D maybe try Labyrinth Lord ( Goblinoid Games - Labyrinth Lord ) ).

Barring those, give some other "olde skool" rpg a shot. Maybe Runequest, or, my favorite, Powers & Perils (free at Powers and Perils - Index ).

Anyway, just a little "hang in there!...it'll get better!" pep talk from an old grognard.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Elf Witch]

Some people like that, however. I just left a campaign that fell back from almost 3rd-level back to 1st in Pathfinder.

As always, different tastes. No company can make a product to satisfy everyone, and even with "dials" (eg slow down XP growth), that's not helpful if some members of the group don't like that.



I haven't found that to be a big problem. Mainly due to a problem player who is no longer part of my group, I learned how to use cops. And pass raven messages (they fly faster than horses run) and magical messages for when PCs can teleport. If they're committing big crimes, the Flaming Fist-style organization packed with high-level paladins are after them... while the city watch can do nothing but report on them, as they can't challenge the PCs.

And as you know, in real life, powerful people can break small laws all the time, and can even try to hide bigger crimes. At that point, the DM should let the players know if s/he's willing to run a spiraling-toward-evil campaign.



YES. As a DM I try to control that. But you're a player, and don't have that option.



It seems to me said powerful PC is not being challenged properly. It's not level-appropriate challenges the DM needs to use, but spellcasters who can target his wimpy Will save. How much experience does your DM have? Maybe you need to test-run a session.

I am not saying that it is wrong to want some of the things I have complained about. And there have been times I have had a really good time playing in campaigns that are more high powered.

I think a lot of my frustrations that are bubbling to the surface is that we have been playing the same style of game since around 2006. It doesn't matter who DMs.

It has gotten stale. I look back at our first 3.0 game we started the week the books went on sale. And of all the games I have played that 19 month campaign was pure gold. The players still talk about it today.

Comparing it to later games I can see how different that DM ran it. First of all we played weekly for 19 months and only got to ninth level. And nobody cared, I played a sorcerer and because it took so long between levels I got very creative with my spells. And I really got to understand how they work. Something I have noticed about leveling faster is that you are always on to big and better things.

The game was low magic. There were not a lot of clerics running around so we had to depend on our party cleric and the druid. Goodberries were important. We never had a wand of healing. We often depended on sleep to help restore hit points and we didn't feel the need to be 100% for every encounter. It was very different from the fill me up I am down way we play most games now.

There was also not a lot of mages so magic items were not common and since they were rare that +1 magical sword was awesome.

The DM also used a different system for ac. Basically the higher your ac from armor the more you got hit but the less damage you took. If you a +8 plate the first 8 points of damage was negated. The higher your dex the better your defense for avoiding hits. So you got hit less but when you did it hurt more.

The game had a gritty realistic feel to it and yet we still felt like powerful heroes.

Now I understand that you might nor want every campaign to be this way. Because after awhile that would get stale too.

DnD on the whole does not support that playstyle easily.

The DM for our Age of Worms is a newbie DM and yes that has caused part of the issue. She does throw spellcasters at him but with his awesome will save and improved evasion it rarely slows him down.

I need to research some spells for her and suggest ones that might slow him down.

 

[GSHamster]

LOL - and he dares to call your behavior reckless? Well at least you can return the favor and call his reckless and stupid.

To be fair, I'm almost certain I recall reading a sourcebook--maybe back in 2nd Ed days--that describes very similar behavior. That a thief could contact and get reasonable aid from the local underground (for a price, of course).

I'm pretty sure that there have been several fantasy novels that have worked similarly, where a thief main character gets help from the local thieves and smugglers, who often oppose the evil autocratic ruler.

In my opinion, it was not an unreasonable assumption.