Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[Chacal]

The DM, as far as I know, has the right to use every monster he wants.
If he wants a monster with DR, he can. If he wants his monster to take half damage from peircing, he can do it.
Why couldn't he make a monster that can only be beaten effectively with silver ? Or mistletoe if he wants ?
Why every monster that looks like a standard D&D werewolf would have to work the same way ?
I as a player, expect my DM to surprise me with opponents. I don't want to know how the monster "works".
The player was expected the monster to use some rule mechanics, and was wrong. Even if it was his character expecting something from a monster, he also could have been wrong.
I wouldn(t want to play in an environment where I can be sure about what I'm facing the first time I'm facing it.


Chacal

 

[Wolv0rine]

The DM, as far as I know, has the right to use every monster he wants.
If he wants a monster with DR, he can. If he wants his monster to take half damage from peircing, he can do it.
Why couldn't he make a monster that can only be beaten effectively with silver ? Or mistletoe if he wants ?
Why every monster that looks like a standard D&D werewolf would have to work the same way ?
I as a player, expect my DM to surprise me with opponents. I don't want to know how the monster "works".
The player was expected the monster to use some rule mechanics, and was wrong. Even if it was his character expecting something from a monster, he also could have been wrong.
I wouldn(t want to play in an environment where I can be sure about what I'm facing the first time I'm facing it.


Chacal

The problem isn't that he threw a non-standard monster at the players. I agree fully that that is entirely a DM's prerogative (which I encourage) to do so.
The problem is that he decided to change a broad-reaching rule such as DR without at least alerting the players that he planned to make a change. If nothing else, having at least told the players that a rule was being changed, one of the players may not have gotten on the DM's bad side by asking about the situation (and getting no direct answer) multiple times.

 

[S'mon]

The simple fact is; If I walk away, there's no more game and if they walk away, there's no more game.

The DM can always find more players. The players can always look for another DM, although they might be out of luck. IMO the DM's responsibility is to try to run a fun game and give the PCs a chance to be heroes (eg by making most mandated encounters tough but winnable, or at least survivable). However the DM is still in charge of the game. It's not a competitive wargame, as you seem to think. I think the DM should aim to be neutral vis-a-vis the PCs and the world, neither ensuring the PCs always win by neutering the baddies to get the 'right' result, nor arbitraily making the baddies tougher in the middle of the game to screw with PCs who would otherwise easily win.

But none of that affects the DM's right to use monsters with different stats from what's in the Monster Manual!

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

The DM, as far as I know, has the right to use every monster he wants.
If he wants a monster with DR, he can. If he wants his monster to take half damage from peircing, he can do it.
Why couldn't he make a monster that can only be beaten effectively with silver ? Or mistletoe if he wants ?
Why every monster that looks like a standard D&D werewolf would have to work the same way ?
I as a player, expect my DM to surprise me with opponents. I don't want to know how the monster "works".
The player was expected the monster to use some rule mechanics, and was wrong. Even if it was his character expecting something from a monster, he also could have been wrong.
I wouldn(t want to play in an environment where I can be sure about what I'm facing the first time I'm facing it.

See, that's the thing. The change was not made to the monster, it was made to a rule that dictates how many different aspects of the game work. The creatures could have been vulnerable to silver, mistletoe, or pink panties with Al Gore embroidered on them, and the PC would still whip out that spell. In fact, if the vulnerability had been changed and not the rule, there wouldn't have been a problem.

As far as what the PCs would know about these creatures; I don't know about you, but I knew the classic vulnerabilities of vampires, werewolves, and all sorts of stuff before I could even read, and it certainly wasn't because I went out and got knocked around by them first. Still, that's not even the issue.
Any PC with that spell should know how it works.
What it does in relation to DR is a part of that.
Creatures with a special vulnerability usually have DR.
Taking that into account; A PC fighting a creature who is rumored to be vulnerable to a particular substance can safely bank on the fact that it will have DR (or in the PC's mind, "can't be harmed by normal weapons, because if they could, their vulnerability wouldn't be so darn special).
If you don't have that substance, then using the spell in question is probably a good idea. That doesn't sound like metagaming to me.

Of course if the fundamental rules of how DR works has been changed without warning, none of this works.

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.

Yeah, I have to basically agree with that. At the end of the day, what matters is if everyone is having fun. If it's causing that much friction maybe the players are right. If the players all feel they are being screwed because of this rules-change ambush, then it probably wasn't such a cool thing to do. It's not as if they are complaining because they "lost the game". Giving in to petty player demands is one thing, but respecting their feelings is something else. I doubt those were-creatures are major NPCs. The DM can make more any time, but a PC is an investment that a player puts his/her time into for the long haul. If that PC gets killed because the DM pulled the rug out from under them, that just doesn't seem like good sportsmanship.
I change creature's abilities, descriptions and vulnerabilities all the time. I have repeatedly told my group that they should NEVER assume that the monsters are the same as they are in the books. They have no problem with that. But I don't change the way basic game concepts like magic, AC, or DR work without a heads up. In my honest opinion that would be disrespectful, dishonest, and a slipshod way of running the game. They paid for the books, they spent the time making characters that worked in accordance with MY character creation rules, the least I can do is run a fair game and give them every opportunity to enjoy their hard-earned free-time.
The power trip isn't worth the lost leisure time.

If you don't want to hear dissenting opinions, if you won't accept any suggestion that you might be wrong, why did you start this thread? If you are absolutely certain that you were correct in your actions, why bother.
You could have just gone the more direct route and said, "I think my players are whining about something they shouldn't be.", without any explanation and then simply request that everyone reply in the affirmative.

If, like your original post indicated, you actually want everyone's opinions, why not just wait until the opinion-posting slows and then simply say whether or not you stand by what you did. This constant rebuttle just doesn't look good on you.

The short of it is that not everyone thinks what you did was right. Is this honestly a surprise? No one can TELL you what to do in your game. That is completely your business. Whether your group decides to put up with it or not is theirs. They have my sympathy, if they desire it.

 

[S'mon]

The problem isn't that he threw a non-standard monster at the players. I agree fully that that is entirely a DM's prerogative (which I encourage) to do so.
The problem is that he decided to change a broad-reaching rule such as DR without at least alerting the players that he planned to make a change. If nothing else, having at least told the players that a rule was being changed, one of the players may not have gotten on the DM's bad side by asking about the situation (and getting no direct answer) multiple times.

Well, the only thing he (obviously) changed was that lycanthrope DR wasn't amenable to a +1 magic weapon. Whether the PCs would have known this in advance would IMO depend on a Knowledge Arcana check, the DC determined by the rarity of lycanthropes in the setting. Since none of the PCs apparently even had this skill he very generously gave them a Wilderness Lore skill check instead.

IMC 2nd-level PCs who met wererats probably wouldn't even know they were wererats, never mind their precise vulnerabilities. They might think they were humanoid chaos ratmen, and after melee started they might get a Knowledge Arcana check to have heard of wererats & (maybe) their silver vulnerability. IMC, substances often trump magic - you can hurt devils with silver, demons with cold-forged iron, incorporeals with mundane fire, etc - not that the PCs necessarily know that, and they're 9th level+!

 

[S'mon]

BTW the idea that lyncathropes need silver to hurt them seems to be a Hollywood neologism derived from legends about shapeshifters - 'wolfweres' as they were called in 1e, rather than werewolves. Even the movie cannon has mixed views on this, eg the werewolves in An American Werewolf in London were slain by regular bullets.

Wererats in particular seem to have originated with the Swords Of Lankhmar novel by Leiber, where there was no indication that they had an immunity to normal weapons - and in my 1e Lankhmar book they don't.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

The DM can always find more players. The players can always look for another DM, although they might be out of luck.

Yes, and you need both sets of people to play. I think that the way some DMs lord it over their players that they're supposedly disposable is utterly repugnant. I don't know about you, but I play with friends, and I simply don't treat my friends that way.

IMO the DM's responsibility is to try to run a fun game and give the PCs a chance to be heroes (eg by making most mandated encounters tough but winnable, or at least survivable). However the DM is still in charge of the game.

I agree. But are anyone's best interests being served by such power struggles? Just because the DM is in charge, that does not mean the DM is infallible and answers to no one.

It's not a competitive wargame, as you seem to think.

Where did I say that it's a competitive wargame? For future reference, don't tell people what they are thinking. They will almost always take offence, and then correct you.

I think the DM should aim to be neutral vis-a-vis the PCs and the world, neither ensuring the PCs always win by neutering the baddies to get the 'right' result, nor arbitraily making the baddies tougher in the middle of the game to screw with PCs who would otherwise easily win.

Yes, I agree. I change the monsters all the time, the players know this. Even if they didn't, that's tough. Their characters can't expect to know every creature out there. But I would never change a fundamental rule of the game and not warn them. What if a character approached a creature with the intention of grappling it, but I had changed the rules for grappling so that a PC attempting a grapple loses half their current HP for failing, and then didn't notify anyone of the change?
Doesn't seem quite fair.

But none of that affects the DM's right to use monsters with different stats from what's in the Monster Manual!

Changing the monsters' stats is not the issue. Altering the way DR works across the board without warning and whether the PC who has learned to cast Magic Weapon knows how it even works are the questions.
Was the DM in the wrong?
Was the PC metagaming either way?

My other posts already speak to this, so I won't repeat it here. I babble to much already.

Edit: Ah Lankhmar, you just don't hear enough about it these days. I never had a chance to read the books, but I read about some of the characters in Legends & Lore, and I bought the Lankhmar, City of Adventure rules for a friend. It was an interesting rulebook.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, and you need both sets of people to play. I think that the way some DMs lord it over their players that they're supposedly disposable is utterly repugnant. I don't know about you, but I play with friends, and I simply don't treat my friends that way.

I got mine off the Internet. They're a nice bunch though.
Actually, even my longterm friends (16-17 years or so) were made through our mutual interest in RPing. Off course we all grew up with the 1e DMG, there was none of this 'player's rights' cr*p back then...

 

[S'mon]

I agree. But are anyone's best interests being served by such power struggles? Just because the DM is in charge, that does not mean the DM is infallible and answers to no one.

I don't believe in power struggles - what the GM says, goes. Sometimes if I'm the player I don't like a GM's rulings. If it ruins the game for me, I can always leave, as has been said.
I agree that DMs are not infallible - if I as DM misremember a rule or such, I don't mind a player correcting me. Eg in this instance it was perfectly reasonable IMO for the player to make sure the DM knew he had 'magic weapon' cast on his blade. The DM might have forgotten. That's quite different from saying that the DM isn't entitled to knowingly change the rules, though. In this instance the rule change was a specific one re lycanthropes, something the PCs reasonably might not have known about.
If I changed the rules for Magic Weapon & GMW spells so they no longer overcame DR, I would tell the players. If I changed lycanthropes (only) so that their DR was only overcomable by silver or (say) +3 weapons, I wouldn't tell the players unless their PCs would logically know this.
Of course I'd boost the lycanthropes' CR a reasonable amount, for wererats +1 would probably be enough since silver weapons are usually easy enough to get.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Well, the only thing he (obviously) changed was that lycanthrope DR wasn't amenable to a +1 magic weapon. Whether the PCs would have known this in advance would IMO depend on a Knowledge Arcana check, the DC determined by the rarity of lycanthropes in the setting. Since none of the PCs apparently even had this skill he very generously gave them a Wilderness Lore skill check instead.

What he changed was the way that DR works in general. And that extends much farther than 1 encounter with some wererats. It does affect that encounter, yes, but the encounter isn't what would tick me off if I were his player. It's a basic rule alteration that I wasn't told would be used. It'll affect my character in some way, so I should have a say in, or at least the knowledge of, the change.

IMC 2nd-level PCs who met wererats probably wouldn't even know they were wererats, never mind their precise vulnerabilities. They might think they were humanoid chaos ratmen, and after melee started they might get a Knowledge Arcana check to have heard of wererats & (maybe) their silver vulnerability. IMC, substances often trump magic - you can hurt devils with silver, demons with cold-forged iron, incorporeals with mundane fire, etc - not that the PCs necessarily know that, and they're 9th level+!

I never said anything at all about what the characters know, I'm talking about the players - those folk who sit at the table, roll dice, and try to have a good time. The characters know what they know - he gave 'em a check and they didn't heed the warning. Tough nuggies on them. But the players, they should have known that there was a change, and what area of the game they are playing it affects. Otherwise you're just blindsiding your players, stonewalling them and making them belittled and ignored (when they ask a direct question and get no direct response, which doesn't mean you reveal all, just that you address the question in some way), and in the end can cause insult and friction (which is what started this thread in the first place).

If my DM came out of nowhere and decided that all evil creatures could emit an aura of negative energy (thus level draining in an area affect radius centered upon himself), that could be very interesting as a player to run up against. On the other hand if I hadn't been given any indication that any such draqstic changes were going into effect in this game, I'd be d@mned upset to have it sprung on me. And more than doubly so if I asked about it, and was ignored, then the DM got upset at me about it. That's just rude on a general scale, which goes beyond how you run your game.