Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[Mallus]

When I play a game I like to know what the rules are, if I don't I don't enjoy it, but that is just me.

I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of the players not knowing the rules...

They're arguing about how the players learn those rules.

I still think, by and large, that the learning should come from the specific game experience, not from reading the books {any of them, take your pick}.

 

[Arnwyn]

Now following this idea, it is natural that when a Player reads the description of Magic weapon and he gets to the term Enhancement Bonus, he want to understand the benefits and drawbacks from using it (ie whether or not it stacks with other bonuses of the same type, what it will actually do). This is where he would scour the PHB looking for references to enhancement bonuses and see that from the Ki Strike ability, a +1 weapon will bypass DR or n/+1 or less. The next step in this process is finding out what DR means and what is less than n/+1 DR. This would point the player to the Glossary and read up on Damage Reduction and finding out that a +1 weapon will indeed bypass 10/Silver.

Now *this* is a good argument.

It's in the glossary of the *PHB*, so that certainly throws a wrench into the situation. The player, though, should have pointed this particular section out in the PHB, and asked "why?". At that point, it becomes a campaign matter that DocM would *have* to handle.

In no way does this invalidate what DocM did, though, for his personal campaign. He wants mystery and the players not know everything, which is fine. However, some good communication would be required, here, to ensure that it's part of the campaign and not a screw up or "cheating" by the DM. An appropriate response might be "yes, how 'bout that. However, it seems like your magic weapon didn't work. Perhaps you should research that with a sage at the earliest opportunity". This helps maintain the mystery and increase the "role" playing that DocM values.

Good argument, Baron. IMO, a discussion/reminder of what type of campaign is being run would be in order.

 

[Forrester]

If I want to be the best damn Teleporter in the Realm, and you nerf Teleport in such a way that it affects my "character concept" negatively, then it would...

I feel for you. You must have had some REALLY bad experiences with some REALLY bad players.

Yes, I suppose if you wanted to be the Best Damn Teleporter in the realm, you'd be out of luck . But that's a pretty silly example.

I mean, obviously, if there's something that's completely Core to a concept, I'm going to let them know any changes ahead of time. Case in point: a player in my campaign has been aiming at Shadowdancer since 2nd level. And she's roleplayed her advancement towards Shadowdancer exceptionally well. I told her right off the bat that I had heard Hide in Plain Sight was cheaty, but that I probably wouldn't nerf it, and I told her a couple levels ago (she JUST hit dancer this level) that I would keep it a move-equivalent.

I've also said that I expect that except for a possible detour for one level, she'd *stay* shadowdancer, and not just grab Hide in Plain Sight and move on to something else in a munchkin-like fashion. She agreed, though she pointed out the abilities of a Shadowdancer are a little lame after that first level of Prc . After which I said I agreed, and we'll nerf those when we come to them . . .

So there you go. Lots of room for nerfing at the last second, BUT no surprises that invalidate a character concept that a player has had for awhile. I think that's the perfect balance -- you can help a player create an interesting character without giving them official spell and ability lists seven levels ahead of time.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of the players not knowing the rules...

They're arguing about how the players learn those rules.

I still think, by and large, that the learning should come from the specific game experience, not from reading the books {any of them, take your pick}.

And here's where we differ, since my point was I want to know the rules before playing and not learn them as I go. Others may enjoy that, but I don't.

 

[Mallus]

I want to know the rules before playing and not learn them as I go. Others may enjoy that, but I don't.

Sure. And its all about playing an enjoyable game... not neccessarily the same implementation.

But let me ask you a question. Are you entirely unpersuaded by the arguments from the other side? Exploration and discovery are intregal parts of the games I've played in. And this sometimes applies to the game mechanics.

Doesn't the game become static if most of the useful strategies/tactics are known before the start of play?

I don't alter the rules to 'punish' players. I do it to create challenges, and fresh ones if at all possible. I want to provide players the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning how to overcome obstacles, rather than just dialing in a combo {ah, videogame slang}...

I'm not trying to suggest your preferences are wrong. I'd just like to discuss what I see as the advantages of thinking like me {umm, I mean playing the game more in my prefered fashion}.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Tsyr:

They know the counterspelling works differently. They know that certain creatures have to be defeated both on the material plane and then again on the astral plane to be defeated. They know that their astral soul can be damaged by attacks they aren't even aware of. They know that magic items can easily allow their creator to scry on whoever caries them. They know that magic leaves a residual signature which can be identified as to who cast the spell. Etc etc.

Not to make this sound personal Tsyr, but if I was a player in your game, I don't think I'd want to know these things ahead of time. A big part of the fun of D&D and any RPG for me is exploration and discovery. Granted, the counterspell thing should be told to spellcasters, but the other ideas (which I personally think are really cool mods) aren't something the players really need to know before they encounter it in game. If you let the players have this knowledge, it becomes MUCH harder for them to resist the temptation to meta-game. Heck, with what you said above, even the best role-player would be leery of taking a magic item from a spellcaster who was still known to be alive. None of the things you are proposing above are rules mods- they are simply flavor for your world, and flavor details don't have to be disseminated to players before hand.

On the other hand, in my game, I use a WP/VP system, defense bonuses, and altered spellcasting classes based on culture- these things I do tell the players since it does affect how the character would be played and how he would interact with the world. As another example, I don't tell the players that the faerie realms are actually a deep isolated portion of the spirit world, but that it can be entered during certain nights of the year undetected- it simply isn't something that should be common knowledge.

 

[Tsyr]

Originally posted by Tsyr:


Not to make this sound personal Tsyr, but if I was a player in your game, I don't think I'd want to know these things ahead of time. A big part of the fun of D&D and any RPG for me is exploration and discovery. Granted, the counterspell thing should be told to spellcasters, but the other ideas (which I personally think are really cool mods) aren't something the players really need to know before they encounter it in game. If you let the players have this knowledge, it becomes MUCH harder for them to resist the temptation to meta-game. Heck, with what you said above, even the best role-player would be leery of taking a magic item from a spellcaster who was still known to be alive. None of the things you are proposing above are rules mods- they are simply flavor for your world, and flavor details don't have to be disseminated to players before hand.

Oh, I don't tell them specifics, no. But I told them right up front that:

A) How counterspelling works
B) That the astral soul of a person was seperate, and that for different beings, they were connected at different levels... Elves are almost pure astral soul, for example, and thus re-incarnate automaticly after a period of time. I didn't tell them all this would entail, just that it was.
C) That magic was a very personalized thing, and that your magic is very personal to you.

The rest of it they have worked out for themselves.

So don't think I told them all the specifics or anything... But I told them the general gist of it, if you will.

 

[Ravellion]

The question I would ask to Tsyr is the following:

What if, instead of changing the DR rules to the 3.5 variant, he would go through his monster manual with a refillable pencil and change all Lycantrophe's DR to 10/+5, with a special explantion below that silver weapons harm them normally. The precedent for such creatures exist right there in the same MM.

What would you think then? No change of rules at all... except that one rule has now become completely useless, but hey, it's still there for the players to read up on and the DM to affirm!

 

[Wolv0rine]

The question I would ask to Tsyr is the following:

What if, instead of changing the DR rules to the 3.5 variant, he would go through his monster manual with a refillable pencil and change all Lycantrophe's DR to 10/+5, with a special explantion below that silver weapons harm them normally. The precedent for such creatures exist right there in the same MM.

What would you think then? No change of rules at all... except that one rule has now become completely useless, but hey, it's still there for the players to read up on and the DM to affirm!

Because, that would be so much easier than just telling the players you're going to make a rules change, and faster to boot. Really, I don't understand the need to be snippy about any of it.

 

[RigaMortus]

Yes, I suppose if you wanted to be the Best Damn Teleporter in the realm, you'd be out of luck . But that's a pretty silly example.

Silly how?. There are a lot of PrCs that center on specific spells/abilities. There is a Shifter PrC for example, and even a master of Counterspelling. If you "nerfed" the rules on Shapeshifting or Counterspelling, it might affect a player's choice in character if they wanted to go for one of these classes or not.

As for your Shadowdancer example... As a player, I wouldn't feel right if the DM forced me to stick with a class if I didn't want to. By going into SD you are saying to your player that she can't leave that class (except for a possible 1 level in something else). Well gee, why not just write up a character sheet for her to play? Luckily it works out because it seems like she intended on sticking with SD anyway. What if the concept of SD was a silly one, but she REALLY wanted the HiPS ability because it fit HER character concept, while the SD PrC as a whole did not? It is a lot easier to take a level or two in a PrC (or any class for that matter) to get what you want from it w/o having to come up with a new PrC with similiar abilities and hope it is "balanced". But I guess this is more of a WotC thing than anything else, since their rules allow a Wizard to take a level of Fighter and get proficiency in all Martial Weapons, and a bonus feat =) Or for that Rogue to get free dual-wield by taking a level of Ranger (well, until 3.5 anyway).