Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[Renaissance Man]

So was I being unfair?

Doc, I humbly submit that you are not nearly as interested in the answer to that question as you are in defending your ruling. Your mind has already been made up.

That said, none of us here are qualified to say whether your ruling was fair or not: that is for your players to decide. If they feel put upon, or betrayed in some way, then you should reconsider your approach.

For what it's worth, when I am playing, I prefer full disclosure from the DM re: house rules and suchlike. This goes back to the implied contract mentioned by others.

On a related note, it is difficult to recapture the mystery of one's early days of gaming, as I know from personal experience. Once the players are familiar with the rules, there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. Rather than lament the loss of mystery in your campaign, why not look for ways to capitilize on your players' collective savvy? You might find your campaign taking off in an entirely new and interesting direction.

 

[Drakron]

No, its a change to the game rules ... not the creature stats.

The new 3.5 system makes DR being some what a diferent beast, DR appears to be altered and someone with a +1 weapon will inflict less damage that someone with a silver weapon but its possible that someone with a +2 or +3 weapon will inflict full damage.

If it was a wererat that actually had DR 10/+2 would be a diferent matter (of course that a wererat with that DR would be at a diferent CR that one with 15/silver and there sould be care that players dont face creatures that could wipe the floor with their characters) since it would covered by the rules.

DR is a 3rd ed thing, imagine that the DM decides to use the 2nd ed AD&D mechanic of creatures being immune to damage od weapons that were not of a certain enchamtement value and does not inform the players of that change.

Now imagine that the party happens to fight a werewolf and for some twist of fate they only have regular masterwork stuff (and no spells like magic weapon) and naturaly they get killed because they cannot inflict a single point of damage to it (well the spellcasters could but for argument sake lets presume they had only buff spells).

In 2nd ed we seen the Kobolts->Goblins->Orcs problem since when players reach certain levels some monsters simply vanished from combat, 3rd ed altered that by making a standerized CR system with templates and creature type progression, a great tool for making all monsters a threat to the PCs reguadless of their level without the whole "guess work" from previous editions.

DMs can change things but altering rules sould always be something to inform the players of such drastic alterations (since its not only one creature that is affected during one encounter, its all creatures during all encounters) since no player sign on to be object of DM rules experimentations without fair warning.

And worst is the DM acusing the player of "cheating" and "meta-knowledge" when the player simply pointed out that his character was using a weapon under the effects of the "Magic weapon" spell instead of saying to the player "I know, I am now using a diferent DR system that works diferently".

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Well, the difference in this is if you are the DM or a player. If you are a player in my game there are things you will know about the world. They are given to you in a short list of changes as they apply to the PC's.

Its not about the changes in particular, but rather about agreeing on how much knowlege the characters are assummed to have. As I stated, if you want to play an information rich or information poor campaign both are fine, but both players and DM need to agree that this is the way to play.

In the case we are talking about here the change is not to the PC's, it is to a monster. So in my world you wouldn't know jack about it unless it is common knowledge. Legends tend to be very fuzzy, you know...

Two points. First is an agreement needs to be reached about how much knowlege the characters should have about things. The second is that this was not just about changing a monster around but by changing the way DR works you are changing the fundemental nature of how magic works. Does magic trump materials or not. Some people think it should, some think it shouldn't, but either way it will change how characters view thier world.

So should you get upset that I've decided to put laser beams on my lycanthropes heads that is your problem, not mine. You can choose to play in my game or you can "gets a steppin."

It's very simple. The game world is the DM's to develop however they see fit. If the player's don't like the game they can leave. Most DM's create a world that is entertaining, and creating new challenges is part of that equation. If a player doesn't agree with the challenges then they don't need to play in that game anymore.

Yes its your world, but your world requires players to play in it. You can put anything you want in your world , but if no one thinks it is fun qand no-one wants to play what do you have. As a player I won't try to tell the DM how to run his world, but at the same time I expect him to try to make it fun for the players. To be fun all around both the players and DM need to agree on some fundamental aspects of the campaign such as: is it heroic or evil, is it magic rich or poor, is it historical or fantasy, and yes how much knowlege do the characters start with. If I'm not having fun, there is no need to kick me out since I won't be playing anyways.

 

[Black Omega]

If you decide that all goblins are 3 HD monsters and now they all have 12 HP instead of 4 it doesn't matter if the player's "know" that goblins only have 4 HP. It's irrelevant. In your world goblin's are sturdier. The PC's might or might not know this. It is up to the DM to adjudicate that. Once the PC's learn this fact then keep it consistent. From that point on all goblins should be sturdier and all lycanthropes should shoot laser beams.

Actually, one thing to comes to mind with this. It's no big deal to triple the HP of goblins or even more. But the PC's should know goblins are pretty tough in this world. Unless goblins are vastly less common than in a normal world, then how tough goblins are will be common knowledge.

Similarly, the GM can decide if Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon effect DR or not, but as a player I'd like to know what the ruling is, not have to figure it out from what happens in the game. It really cuts down on unnecessary misunderstandings if both the players and the GM are using the same set of rules.

 

[tonym]

I try to not remind my DM of rules in mid-encounter. But if I slipped and said what your player said in that situation, my DM would have probably replied a little differently.

I think he would've somehow interpreted my bafflement about the magic weapon not working properly into my character's 'thinking' about what's happening...and then he might've said something like, "You have a feeling your magic weapon is not the BEST weapon to use against this creature," or something along those lines.

If I continued to be concerned about the apparent 'mistake' my DM was making, I think my DM would remind me in a friendly way that he has the option of changing the rules.


TonyM

 

[Olive]

perfectly fair. you're entitled to change the way monsters work, and the way DR works. If you're changing the way a spell that a player casts works, then the player should know before hand, but IMC characters don't know what DR a monster is, and the town guard certainly doesn't train against warewolves... you gave them a generous knowledge roll, and they made it... you did fine.

 

[Umbran]

Fair? Cheating. Hm. Well, here's my thoughts...

First off, I think that some basic knowledge of lycanthropes is going to be pretty common in most game worlds. Perhaps this one is different, of course. But in most worlds, to say that a 2nd level fighter would know nothing is incorrect. Heck, most of us real people, who live in a world without the beasts, know that normal weapons don't hurt werewolves even when we are children. Even folks who don't play RPGs know that you need silver to hurt a werewolf, and a vampire needs a stake through the heart. It's no secret.

Now, imagine a world in which the critters actually existed, and where stories would be told constantly, not just because they are stories, but because people need to know this stuff to live. It would still be no secret, unless lycanthropes were extremely rare beasts.

Given that, it's not cheating or unreasonable for a cleric to cast Magic Weapon upon seeing a critter that matches the basic lycanthrope description. Nor is it then cheating to say to the DM, "Hey, are you sure we aren't hurting them?" DMs are human, and sometimes slip up.

What may not have been fair is failing to make sure that the players and DM were in the same boat as to what constitutes "common knowledge". It's the DM's job to set that up, and he ought to do it beforehand. It would not be fair to allow them to set out with an incorrect assumption of what they should know.

Perhaps, even more importantly - it's poor adventure design to toss the PCs into a trap from which you don't provide a reasonable escape or chance at victory. It's okay to provide challenges the PCs cannot overcome, but you're supposed to give them a clue. Throwing things at them that they cannot deal with, and can't reasonably avoid is roughly equivalent to randomly droppng 16 ton weights on party members.

 

[Olive]

Fair? Cheating. Hm. Well, here's my thoughts...

First off, I think that some basic knowledge of lycanthropes is going to be pretty common in most game worlds. Perhaps this one is different, of course. But in most worlds, to say that a 2nd level fighter would know nothing is incorrect. Heck, most of us real people, who live in a world without the beasts, know that normal weapons don't hurt werewolves even when we are children. Even folks who don't play RPGs know that you need silver to hurt a werewolf, and a vampire needs a stake through the heart. It's no secret.

sure, and he told them that silver hurt them. without a metagame knowledge of mechanics, they aren't going to know that being hurt by silver = being hurt by silver or +1 or better weapons.

 

[tburdett]

You do not really seem interested in what we have to say, or whether or not we agree with you. You have merely stated your inflexible position for others to see. Regardless of that, here is my supporting evidence and opinion.

PC's do not spend the 16 - 100 years prior to starting their adventuring career in a vacuum. One can only assume that during this time they learn a bit about the world around them.

Most primitive cultures, and I think that the large majority of D&D cultures could be classified as primitive, develop and cultivate a vast amount of information about the world around them.

They know what plants and animals are dangerous, and they learn how to deal with, and limit, those dangers. Their continued survival depends upon this.

They learn which plants and animals are edible, and what methods are most effective in hunting or gathering those foods. Again, their continued survival depends upon this.

To propose that a population lives in ignorance of those dangers that exist within their proximity is absurd. Any such population would be decimated in a very short period of time. If that is one of the planned occurances for your campaign, great, otherwise, your reasoning is flawed.

Your position, that because the PC's are low level they know next to nothing about the world in which they live in is ridiculous. Any being that could not learn to recognize the dangers around itself would die early in life and not make it to adulthood.

The behaviors, habits, and physical description of every creature listed as 'common' in the MM, that lived within the geographic region where the PC's grew up, would be generally known. This information would pass from generation to generation as a survival mechanism.

You could argue that the general populous of the more civilized areas would have less knowledge of these creatures, but much as children in our generally civilized and urban world generally know about lions, elephants, snakes, tigers, bears, and other dangerous creatures, these people would have more 'second hand' knowledge of those 'common' creatures in the MM due to the availability of books and other sources of information.

In the same vein, just as we would know not to hunt an elephant or rhinocerous with a slingshot or wooden club, low level PC's would know not to hunt creatures 'common' to them with weapons that were ineffective. If were-creatures were 'common' to the area where the PC's grew up, or 'common' in general, they would know that silver weapons were required to harm them. Any position to the contrary would be unsupportable.

As a player, I would not trust a DM who changed the game rules without letting me know in advance. I expect to play D&D using the D&D rules, unless the DM tells me differently. It is common courtesy to let people know that you are changing the rules to a game, whether that game is D&D or Monopoly.

As a DM, I would respect my players enough to let them know, in advance, about any game rules that I was going to change. I would also trust them to keep this knowledge seperate from the actions that their characters take. If there was obvious overlap I would discuss it with the player. It's really that simple.

Obviously I am not going to tell them about changes to creatures, as that would serve no good purpose, but the game rules are there to set the playing field, and that playing field should be visible to everyone.

I'm don't know you and am not accusing you of this, but I've seen DM's act in a manner similar to yours in the past, and it has always ended up being an ego or power trip issue. They were serving some need for control that they had, at the players expense, and it always ended the game prematurely. Stuff like this isn't 'fun' or 'cool' for the players, it is frustrating at best, and downright infuriating at worst.

Reading your replies really reinforces, in my mind, the idea that you do not have any respect or trust for you players. If your game has really reached such an abysmal level, why do you continue?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

sure, and he told them that silver hurt them. without a metagame knowledge of mechanics, they aren't going to know that being hurt by silver = being hurt by silver or +1 or better weapons.

I would disagree with this. In this world it would be entirerly resonable to know whether magic trumps materials or not. In the world of 3.0 learned people would know that magic always trumps material vulnerabilities and the stronger the magic the better. Casting Magic Weapon would be taught as the best stratagy for dealing with creatures who have an unknown damage reduction. In the world of 3.5 this is no longer the case and the characters would be taught that you need whatever the creature is vulnerable to since magic isn't always the answer. As a player trying to stay in character in a 3.0 world if I made a knowlege check that said I need silver casting Magic Weapon would make sense for my character, whereas in a 3.5 world if my knowledge check said I need silver I would look for silver. Knowing whether magic trumps materials as a player helps me play my character better since I will take actions that make sense for the world I am in. Again though it goes back to the question of how much knowledge the character has of the world around him with different individuals and groups having equally valid playing styles that suit them.

It seems that whether Doc made the right call depends on how much knowlege you feel the characters should have of the world around them. We can keep arguing around in circles on this point but neither side seems likely to convince the other that they are right and the other side is wrong. Like the high magic/low magic debate there is no right or wrong answer just personal preferences. As with other personal preferences it helps keep down problems if everyone knows what type of game you are playing.