HELP! DM/Player Issues

[JacktheRabbit]

Each combat round is 6 seconds. There is a difference between your character yelling "look out!" as a truck heads at your buddy and saying "the pit fiend is going to get an AOO if you decide to run along that particular route, you should tumbe to his left instead since it will also grant the thief a flanking bonus."

One can easily fit into a 6 second combat round. The other is sad meta-gaming and does not.

My 2cp.

As stated here, in the PHB, and DMG...speaking is a free action.

Therefore it should most definitely be allowed, and really...do expect your players to sit idley by and watch Gorak run full speed into the clutches of a waiting (for example) Pit Fiend? I wouldn't do that as a fellow player and common sense dictates I'd want to keep my friend alive (at least long enough for me to escape the Pit Fiend).

I suppose you'd do nothing if you saw your friend walking across the street as a truck was barrelling down at him/her.

"Well, since I'm not can't say anything, I guess Bob/Jill will get hit by the truck. Oh well, that's the rule."

That's illogical and flat out stupid.

Simple commands or suggestions that are in reasonable earshot (i.e. no silence spells, grinding noises, howls, etc.) are and should be fair game. The game is meant to be party oriented and not "every person for themselves". Teamwork should be encourage and never penalized.

As for the players being responsible for reminding the DM of rules, well...that's the DM's job not the players. Personally, I would never argue in my favor or give the DM assistance in my death...that's also illogical.


Again, this is my 2cp. It's your game and if everyone is agreeable on a house rule, so be it.

 

[Henry]

In my games, I rely on the players to remind me on things like that. In the middle of combat, I can't remember half the AoO rules, so I have the players remind me when/if such can occur.

You were right however, not to say anything about the spell-like abilities. That sort of thing, he should know. I have to ask why he's your DM if he doesn't know the rules/abilities.

In defense of this DM, I do have to say that not everyone can know every esoteric rule - that is taking your own personal experience and applying it to someone else's case. Every DM has different levels of rules experience, and not every DM has read the DMG and PHB multiple times. Majority rules competence is required, but knowledge of every rule is not.

However, it seems that it is the table-talk rule that seems to be causing problems. I don't want to sound like some Piratecat Story Hour worshipper, but think about this - In a recent PC Story hour, Raevynn's and Sir Malachite's players were conferring on the amount of damage and area of effect on Raevynn's Fire Storm spell, converted to acid damage. From the example given, they were working together to calculate damage and range. It's in my opinion perfectly fine to cooperate, because the character's themselves would likely know better than their players how their spells and powers would work. By the same token, the Pit Fiend would very likely know what powers were still available to him while immobile - since the DM doesn't have the advantage of multiple brains, a little helpful player rules expertise goes a long way to improving the DM's play experience, as well.

Now, for the future, if your group still chooses to stick with the current rule, then no one should be getting mad if OOC-knowledge is withheld - it is the agreed-to rules, after all.

 

[Dieter]

Each combat round is 6 seconds. There is a difference between your character yelling "look out!" as a truck heads at your buddy and saying "the pit fiend is going to get an AOO if you decide to run along that particular route, you should tumbe to his left instead since it will also grant the thief a flanking bonus."

One can easily fit into a 6 second combat round. The other is sad meta-gaming and does not.

However, the suggestion you posited is far from "simple"...the word I used in qualifying my comment.

If the player in this instance asked me (as a DM) if I would allow this particularly long diatribe. I'd say:

"Sure, but just an FYI...By the time Gorak hears all of your suggestions the Pit Fiend will have already have pummeled Gorak's bloody corpse and be making his way towards you."

 

[Dagger75]

I still wondering why you didn't cast Dimensional Anchor on the Pit Fiend if you KNEW it was going to teleport away.

Anywho being a DM, if I forget something that a monster can do to bad for me. I should have read the description better.

Have fun gaming

 

[Brown Jenkin]

"the pit fiend is going to get an AOO if you decide to run along that particular route, you should tumbe to his left instead since it will also grant the thief a flanking bonus."

However, the suggestion you posited is far from "simple"...the word I used in qualifying my comment.

If the player in this instance asked me (as a DM) if I would allow this particularly long diatribe. I'd say:

"Sure, but just an FYI...By the time Gorak hears all of your suggestions the Pit Fiend will have already have pummeled Gorak's bloody corpse and be making his way towards you."

The long diatribe could be shortened rather easily though in a way that would fit the 6 seconds. "Gorak, tumble left to help 'insert name here' out"

In our group we are not that strict either and often help each other out with rule clarifications. Since not everyone in our group fully understands things like AoO. What might happen and that I would find aceptable would be a conversation like this.

Player 2, "Gorak, tumble left to help 'insert name here' out"

Gorak's player, "Why cant I go over here instead"

Player 2 "Because if you go there the Pit fiend will get an attack of opportunity" explains relevant rule such as moving through 2 threatend squares.

Gorak's player "Thanks, I had forgotten about that"

As others have pointed out and I agree, characters would know this stuff so pointing it out to a player or DM is not unreasonable. What we do try to avoid though are more complex stratagies such as Gorak, you go there; Orin, you go there; Ash, sneak around the pit and spiderclimb to attack from above; while I prepare to cast a cone of cold. Statagy comments should be limited to less than 6 seconds, with rule clarifications taking as long as needed.

 

[Sodalis]

mmm- i dont see what's the big deal...

so you killed a monster because the Dm did not know some of its abilities and did nto playit best he could- lower the xp and move on.

As a lvl 14 party, you should kill monsters day in and day out- some easier than others. If you DM is upset at your killing this one too easily, then he will be a lot more upset when you dispatch of the next one....

Tell him that things like this happen, and he could always use the pit fiend again- this time a lot harder...and more effectively.

 

[Kichwas]

THose of you who think you couldn't say much in the time frame should take a stop watch and time out six seconds.

It's quite a long time actually.

Of course... try that same manuver in a street brawl... chances are the other guy will have gotten in over ten to thirty hits on you in six seconds.

 

[Dracolich]

Everyone seems to be saying "well the DM forgot the fiend had the power to teleport, so too bad." Read the original post again that's not what happened. The DM had just told the player that the fiend had the teleport spell-like ability. What the DM didn't know was that the fiend could still use the teleport ability even though it was held. The DM could not recall that rule at that specific time. It had nothing to do with the DM not knowing about the power. It should be up to everyone, the players and DM, to enforce the rules. If you're a DM and you think you know every rule by heart. You're either full of sh*t or you don't have a life.

There are players out there who will only argue rules if they are in their or their party's favor. Even if it is a rule that they know is fair and in the book but would hurt them or their party, they won't even speak up. Those players aren't playing in the spirit of the game. I think there is a name for those type of players: Munchkins.

 

[Dieter]

There are players out there who will only argue rules if they are in their or their party's favor. Even if it is a rule that they know is fair and in the book but would hurt them or their party, they won't even speak up. Those players aren't playing in the spirit of the game. I think there is a name for those type of players: Munchkins.

I disagree. If you were playing competitive poker, where stakes are wagered (money rather than life or death)...would you tip your hand or suggest that your opponent should draw 3 cards instead of just one because the odds are more favorable? I wouldn't and I bet the vast majority of people here wouldn't either.

 

[Dracolich]

I disagree. If you were playing competitive poker, where stakes are wagered (money rather than life or death)...would you tip your hand or suggest that your opponent should draw 3 cards instead of just one because the odds are more favorable? I wouldn't and I bet the vast majority of people here wouldn't either.

This analogy doesn't work. As a player the DM is not your opponent, D&D is not a competitive game. You're supposed to be playing a game and having fun with your friends. The rules are there for a reason, they are the rules your group agreed to play by, and should be enforced by everyone. If you want to only play by the rules that favor you, you're a munchkin.