How in depth do you role play + rant

[FireLance]

Just chiming in to say that I'm one of those DMs who don't like to keep track of minor details. I've even gone so far as to tell my current group that their respective organizations keep them supplied with equipment appropriate for their level, and every time they level-up, they should just turn in whatever equipment they have left and get whatever new equipment they want, up to the standard wealth value for characters of their level. See, I even skip selling loot and buying magic items.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

He hasn't set down any real house rules so we just assume he is following the books, which he does until he pulls some thing out of his a$$ such as werewolves liking grave yards and vampires dusting when they die (buffy).

These aren't really house rules. House rules are things like "you can't use cleave after an AoO". This is just campaign detail. If in his campaign, Werewolves hang around in the cemetery, that's OK. If the vampires turn to dust, it's OK, too. This is no deviation from the rules, as it's story-/campaign-related, not rules-related

The thing that really irks me though is that he won't let us role play. I'm not talking in character/ooc RP, that is pretty casual mostly ooc. I'm talking there is no point in buying food because he doesn't require that we eat (it is assumed that we do this when we rest).

Actually, that's the way I like it. I like my RPG to be about heroics (or viallainy), not about mundane things like going to the jakes or washing my teeth. In our games, we usually assume that we stock up with food and other stuff, and exercise all bodily functions, but we don't generally roleplay it. It has to do with perspective: When you sit at the table, you're not hungry all the time. You probably have eaten before you came to the session, or you just enjoyed the traditional pizza. All this covers a couple of hours. But your character will experience days or even weeks in that time. He will feel hungry, thirsty and so on, and frequently. So of course he will eat! He will remember it, but you won't.

He doesn't let us dress dead animals and take the meat and skin for food and sale (well, hes let us but no one will buy it and he never gives us the chance to cook, because eating is assumed).

Now I have a problem with that. While I don't require players to eat and so on, I won't forbid them to play it out, unless they overdo it (if 35 out of 60 minutes are wasted with the description of their dinner, and how they dispose of it, something's wrong). I'd actually roleplay the selling a couple of times, and later change to "yes, you can sell it for X gp" most of the time. But I wouldn't go as far as to forbit it altogether

He doesn't have us buy any thing on the adventuring gear page of the PhB except mount gear and lanterns.

I have a problem with that, too. While I accept a single line reading "standard gear" on the sheet (meaning soap, trail rations, wineskin, bedroll and so on), I won't keep them from getting all that stuff explicitly. But of course, I won't spend 3 hours roleplaying them buying all that, down to the casual conversation they have with the shopkeep.

How much do the DMs out there require their players RP?

Well, what you described isn't really RP, it's minutiae. They don't require us to play it out, or only seldomly (when they use our going to the shop as a plot hook)

As for roleplaying, it's a mix of actually roleplaying the conversations and describing them. Usually, trivial stuff will be glossed over, we don't have to roleplay the sale of every piece of loot.

 

[Umbran]

About the players reading the monster manual I at first assumed that DnD would more closely follow vampire lore than buffy lore.

Well, thent he problem there was inyour assumptions. The character hasn't read the Monster Manual. Nor has the character been inundated with vampire lore from TV and movies. The character has heard some vague stories perhaps. Most of those stories are probably incorrect. If the character has appropriate Knowledge skills, you can ask about a given critter and the DM can determine if you know the answers. But otherwise, the character really doesn't know a whole heck of a lot.

So far, of the three rules related problems you've thought important enough to mention, two of them really aren't issues. The DM is still "playing by the books" to change a few things about monsters. He's still playing by the books if he makes monsters up that don't exist in the manual at all.

Oh and keep in mind that our DM is really just a semi experianced player.

Yes, and by your own admission, you aren't much better yourself. Cut the DM a little slack, and allow a little time for him to learn the ropes.

Really, the Golden Rule applies here. If you were just starting out as DM, and folks nitpicked a whole lot about what you were getting wrong (and you would get stuff wrong, every starting DM does), how would you feel?

 

[Scribble]

hehe, you'd probably hate to be in a game with me.

I've been dming for something like 11 years in one game or another and never have known EVERY rule to it. Probably never will either. Usually if I forget I'll ask soemone to refresh my memory, if no on else remembers I'll spend a short time looking it up but if I can't find it I'll ad hok it. Keeps the game moving.

When you have 10 playuers you NEED to keep the game moving.

Which brings me to the fact that I normally don't spend much time on the whole hunting/eating/sleeping/pooping thing either.

If the characters are in a particularly nasty setting usually a survival check from someone with a certain dc is all I require to get them by...

As far as monsters, sometimes I use the stats in the monster manual simply as a base. The monster has these powers and these weaknesses... What it looks like and such who cares.

But then again we don't use encumbance either...

 

[Arnwyn]

The DM changeing the monsters a little bit wouldn't be so bad except that he said that he would follow the books. He never said anything about special house rules let alone that he would change monsters.

As others (notably KaeYoss) have mentioned, those aren't "house rules" - they're campaign details. The DM isn't under any obligation to fully disclose such campaign details to you before the campaign begins.

Just be fully responsible for knowing the PHB, and you'll generally do fine. Once there is deviation from the PHB, then you should query the DM as to what related changes he has made, and if you could get it in writing so you can insert it in your PHB for future reference.

About the players reading the monster manual I at first assumed that DnD would more closely follow vampire lore than buffy lore.

Whoops! Your mistake, not his.

So no, I don't have the same problems you do. However, you might want to discuss with the DM the problems you are having, and specifically why those issues irk you. The DM isn't a mind-reader.

 

[yoippari]

So maybe I am being too hard on him. Perhaps its his moody demeaner or my being anal about things but either way we don't get along as DM/player very well.

I do, however, think that it's only fair that he doesn't assume that we (the players) know that werewolves, in general, hang around graveyards or that vampires disintegrate into a pile of dust. He counts on our knowledge as players to put 2 and 2 together, which is completely fair, but when he changes things to not fit with what we know he shouldn't expect us to put what is now 2 and (2+x) (where x is tv steriotypes) together.

Once again sorry for this rant especially since I'm new here but our DM is not the kind of person that you can just say "I'm having a problem with the way you DM." The fact that he doesn't want to talk about DnD at school because he is ashamed to play it doesn't help. As well as his PMS. PMS being a running joke about his short fuse and general moodyness.

 

[billd91]

<snip>
I do, however, think that it's only fair that he doesn't assume that we (the players) know that werewolves, in general, hang around graveyards or that vampires disintegrate into a pile of dust. He counts on our knowledge as players to put 2 and 2 together, which is completely fair, but when he changes things to not fit with what we know he shouldn't expect us to put what is now 2 and (2+x) (where x is tv steriotypes) together.

Making assumptions, in either camp, is generally not a good idea. If there were something about hanging around graveyards, I'd expect ghouls. But then, I also read Lovecraft.
If you're playing and you're getting stumped, then go start asking questions in character. Find a sage. Find a local font of knowledge and pump him for info. Ask a priest. That may enable the DM to have a mouthpiece to feed you that information.
It sounds like you guys are pretty young. It might be that his only conception of vampires and werewolves comes from stuff like Buffy and he's surprised that you guys don't know the same stuff or that you might have other sources of information.

By the way, vampires have been turning to dust in pop culture decades before Buffy.

 

[Nathan Wolf]

DM Assuming player knowledge

There's one thing that I want to comment on, that I haven't seen others here address. I think you have a point regarding your DM relying upon -player- knowledge in order that the -characters- behave in a certain way. I'm seeing it like this:

DM: You see a thin layer of dust on the ground, it vaguely forms the shape of a human body.

Players (lacking the Knowledge(Buffy) skill): Um... okay. *whistle* Now what?

What the DM wants is this:

DM: yada yada

Players: Aha, it must be the remains of a fallen vampire! What a significant and motivating clue, to the batmobile!

The problem here, as I see it, is twofold, though closely related.

First, the DM is relying on an understanding of the campaign world, but the players are not aware of the same set of details. If he explicitly tells the players "Hey, my vampires are straight outta Buffy, make sure you've seen at least a few episodes," then at least they have a shot at 'getting' clues like the one above.

Second, the DM is encouraging/relying upon player knowledge to influence character actions. This (IMHO wrongly) encourages metagaming and fails to recognize that the characters may never have seen a vampire (or watched an episode of Buffy at the local theatre) in their lives, even if the players have. As a DM, I attempt to either place clues within the story (a room full of coffins containing nothing but stakes and dust silhouettes, perhaps) that would teach the players what they need to know in order to interpret later clues, or perhaps more conveniently, urge them to utilize skills like Knowledge(history) or Knowledge(local) to 'recall' that vampires go 'poof' when they die (which I then tell them straight out). I prefer the first method, as the players truly get to discover something, but it requires effort and can fail. The second method (skills use) is also good, at least you can make it -character- knowledge that is being represented, even if it's the DM telling the character what they know.

-- nathan

 

[Umbran]

He counts on our knowledge as players to put 2 and 2 together, which is completely fair, but when he changes things to not fit with what we know he shouldn't expect us to put what is now 2 and (2+x) (where x is tv steriotypes) together.

Have you actually asked him if he's expecting you to put 2 and 2 together?

If he is, that's a mistake. It is encouraging what we call "metagame" thinking - using knowledge of the game and from outside the game to guide characters even though the characters don't have the knowledge. It frequently is bad to encourge this.

However, if he hasn't clearly said he expected you to understand, perhaps he isn't. If the characters don't have high enough ranks in the appropriate knowledge skills, they simply don't know much about the critters. If you don't know, he's not supposed to put the label on for you - he isn't supposed to tell you "this is a vampire" unless the character could do that in his own head fro the evidence provided. If the character doesn't know that werewolves in this world hang around graveyards, then he's not supposed to tell the player, either.

 

[DragonLancer]

[snip]
which he does until he pulls some thing out of his a$$ such as werewolves liking grave yards and vampires dusting when they die (buffy).

Well, has been said, thats up to the DM. I don't see what difference it makes to you as a player or as a character whether that is the case or not? Hoping not to sound harsh, but does it make any difference that werewolves haunt graveyards?

The thing that really irks me though is that he won't let us role play. I'm not talking in character/ooc RP, that is pretty casual mostly ooc. I'm talking there is no point in buying food because he doesn't require that we eat (it is assumed that we do this when we rest). He doesn't let us dress dead animals and take the meat and skin for food and sale (well, hes let us but no one will buy it and he never gives us the chance to cook, because eating is assumed). He doesn't have us buy any thing on the adventuring gear page of the PhB except mount gear and lanterns.

You shouldn't drag on about grooming your horse, or skinning a rabbit...etc. Thats background. Its assumed you do these things unless you say otherwise. Surely your group doesn't want to RP how they do this?

As for the equipment, whats his reasoning? He can't be bothered or he doesn't think you need it? If he won't talk about it at school, catching afterwards when theres no one else around.

There's one thing that I want to comment on, that I haven't seen others here address. I think you have a point regarding your DM relying upon -player- knowledge in order that the -characters- behave in a certain way. I'm seeing it like this:

DM: You see a thin layer of dust on the ground, it vaguely forms the shape of a human body.

Players (lacking the Knowledge(Buffy) skill): Um... okay. *whistle* Now what?

What the DM wants is this:

DM: yada yada

Players: Aha, it must be the remains of a fallen vampire! What a significant and motivating clue, to the batmobile!

The problem here, as I see it, is twofold, though closely related.

First, the DM is relying on an understanding of the campaign world, but the players are not aware of the same set of details. If he explicitly tells the players "Hey, my vampires are straight outta Buffy, make sure you've seen at least a few episodes," then at least they have a shot at 'getting' clues like the one above.

Second, the DM is encouraging/relying upon player knowledge to influence character actions. This (IMHO wrongly) encourages metagaming and fails to recognize that the characters may never have seen a vampire (or watched an episode of Buffy at the local theatre) in their lives, even if the players have. As a DM, I attempt to either place clues within the story (a room full of coffins containing nothing but stakes and dust silhouettes, perhaps) that would teach the players what they need to know in order to interpret later clues, or perhaps more conveniently, urge them to utilize skills like Knowledge(history) or Knowledge(local) to 'recall' that vampires go 'poof' when they die (which I then tell them straight out). I prefer the first method, as the players truly get to discover something, but it requires effort and can fail. The second method (skills use) is also good, at least you can make it -character- knowledge that is being represented, even if it's the DM telling the character what they know.

-- nathan

I don't think the DM is doing that, not really. Finding the ash pile in the shape of a humanoid should be enough to get the characters interested in the mystery whether they think it vampires or something else?