Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[JacktheRabbit]

I don't think what you did was unfair, but the general way you went about it is wrong.


If you're changing the rules, the players have a right to know before they go in. Just because players know something doesn't mean their characters know it.

I diasgree here for one simple reason. What I changed is items from the Monster Manual and from the DMG. The only book a player should operate from is the PHB. If I change a rule in the PHB then obviously I tell them because those are rules they have access to 24/7.

The rules though in the DMG and MM are not their rules for lack of a better term. They are behind the scene rules and technically a player should only know about them if he is a DM as well.

So why should I tell them I changed a rule that as players they should not know anyways and their characters have no experience with at all?

What would telling them have accomplished? I tell the players something their characters dont know. They say they won't use this information but are you sure?

I am pretty sure the cleric in the party memorized magic weapon because he knew the DR rules and figured it would get past the were-rats DR to his credit the cleric never complained or said a thing. I know for certain that the complaining player thought the Magic Weapon should work. Yet neither of them had an in character reason for knowing that and acting on that.

So basically the party went into the fight more gung-ho than they should have been because of meta-knowledge. Basically they figured that they could grant the main melee guy full ability to hurt the foes.

If I had told them that I changed the rule then it suddenly becomes pointless for me to have bothered.

Now instead they get all cautious. Even though the main melee guy kicked ass in the last battle they now know he got lucky with high damage rolls. So now the party doesnt charge out gung-ho for meta reasons and refuses to act until everyone in the party has a silver weapon.

Which one is the better situation for me? I chose the first one because it slightly punishes them for using meta-knowledge and keeps an air of mystery and confusion going in the game.

 

[Murrdox]

Doc, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the Magic Weapon and Greater Magic weapon. Both spells grant an enhancement bonus to the weapon, which by definition defeats magical DR. By the rules for DR currently, if a creature has 5/+1 DR, and you cast magic weapon on a normal shortsword, that shortsword becomes a +1 weapon for the purposes of bypassing DR. Same thing goes for Greater Magic Weapon.

I still stand by your decision... and I think the fact that the PLAYERS are now uncertain of what to expect will make them meta-game a little bit less.

However, you still might have simply told them "I'm going to be changing some of the DR rules" ahead of time. That way if a Cleric wanted to study up on how to defeat Lycanthropes ahead of time, he would have been able to find out that "Magic Weapon" wouldn't help him.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Doc, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the Magic Weapon and Greater Magic weapon. Both spells grant an enhancement bonus to the weapon, which by definition defeats magical DR. By the rules for DR currently, if a creature has 5/+1 DR, and you cast magic weapon on a normal shortsword, that shortsword becomes a +1 weapon for the purposes of bypassing DR. Same thing goes for Greater Magic Weapon.

I still stand by your decision... and I think the fact that the PLAYERS are now uncertain of what to expect will make them meta-game a little bit less.

However, you still might have simply told them "I'm going to be changing some of the DR rules" ahead of time. That way if a Cleric wanted to study up on how to defeat Lycanthropes ahead of time, he would have been able to find out that "Magic Weapon" wouldn't help him.

I checked the spells neither of them mentions at all that they defeat DR.

Furthermore DR is explained in the MM and the DMG. It is only mentioned in two places in the PHB. Those would be under the Barbarian and under the spell Stone Skin. Under stone skin it merely says that it blocks the first 10 points of damage for anyone using less than a +5 weapon.

So while you are right that doesnt matter. You are right due to rules the players should never know. So as long as I do not change the rules mid campaign there are no problems at all.

 

[Mordane76]

I understand your reasoning, and I think you got the effect you wanted. I just don't necessarily feel comfortable not telling my players I'm changing a rule.


Most of the people I'm gaming with are DMs in this edition as well, so we all have a pretty good working knowledge of the whole system. If changes occur (like a wide-spread change to how DR works), I would tell them before I made the change, so we could discuss the ramifications and my expectations of player versus character knowledge.

Obviously, you can't necessarily control everyone's use of player knowledge all the time. If your players don't abide by that rule, hit'em where it hurts... in the XP numbers; it won't take too many times before they make the separation, and realize how much fun it is to make the effort to separate the knowledge bases...


I hope I didn't offend you, Doc -- I didn't mean to come off high-and-mighty if that's how it came across.

 

[Rackhir]

I would dissagree. DR and methods to overcome it should be common knowledge among adventuring types and you probably should at least have told them "We will not be using the standard DR rules". You don't necessarily have to tell them what those rules are, but you should at least have told them you were not using the standard rules.

I do have problems with complaining about "meta-knowledge" like the Magic Weapons/DR situation in any case. Essentially, you the DM are assuming that the characters know nothing about the creatures they are likely to encounter or the world they live in. That might be a valid approach if they were encountering something that was entirely new to their area/history, but isn't necessarily fair if it is something that has been around for a long time or is well known.

Nearly everyone who's grown up in America in the past century or so "knows" that vampires are afraid of crosses, holy water and stakes through the heart and that werewolves are killed with silver. So complaining that an american is "metagaming" if they know to use a silver weapon against a werewolf is kind of silly IMHO.

If this were a creature that was previously unknown, such as an asian vampire/evil spirit from the other side of the world, which aren't detered by crosses, but cannot cross a raised barrier of any size and the players metagamed that you'd have more of a point.

I would suggest that if you want to change things like that on the players, that you sit down and decide what the DO know or can know from common knowledge or experience. Something along the lines of what I mentioned above.

If you really want to spring suprises on characters, I'd suggest taking a page from piratecat's book (iirc) and simply change the descriptions somewhat. A bit of miss-direction or changes in the description can work wonders for confusing players and making them uncertain as to what they are facing. Have the werewolf have porcupine spikes instead of fur or extremely long fur that obscures much of its features like a sheep dog. Give it cat's paws instead of a wolf's. If they don't know what it is then they will be far less able to metagame things any way.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

While is was wrong for their characters to whine about it, i think that the players have the right to know of rule zeros and house rules. YMMV
ken

 

[Dash Dannigan]

It sounds like you did fine Doc, DMs who constantly pander to their players pamper them a bit too much. We're DMs not freakin' babysitters.

Now, one point I'd like to make though. As long as the results of the damage rolled were described in game terms then the players should be able to take the cues from their PC knowledge to figure out what must be going on. Such as:

"Your magically enchanted blade slices into the creature, but it's gash seals harmlessly leaving a thin line and a trickle of blood across its midsection. The were-rat looks up and grins wickedly."

In general, a good DM should never expect his players to behave consistently in-character (i.e. no meta-gaming) if the DM themselves are always referring to results in-game in meta-game "language" (i.e. take 23 points of dmg, etc.).

Of course, if a player is particularly thick it saves time and angst to just flat out display the discrepency in the players meta-game assumption:
---------------------------------------------
Thick Player: "I have magic weapon cast on my sword remember? The damage this thing is taking should have taken it down by now."

DM: "As I described, its wounds seem hardly affected by your blade."

TP: "What? Hey I don't get it? I have a +1 enchantment on this puppy and were-rats don't have that kind of DR do they?"

DM: "Your character wouldn't know any of that. Everyone rolled earlier to see if they knew about lycanthropes. Brad and Kev both rolled high and so they remembered from legends that silver harms lycanthropes. Apparently magically enchanted blades (+1) do not. As far as your character has so far seen."

TP: "But..."

DM: "Moving on..."
--------------------------------


IMO you're doing just great Doc! Your players need to be schooled and you are teaching them well. Just save yourself angst from time to time and point out the error of their ways. Describe things first in game descriptions and if they annoyingly persist, make a point of reminding them of the difference between meta and PC knowledge (I'm of the opinion of reminding non-novice players that if I repeatedly have to do so I will cut a % of their XP, or instead give a bonus to those players who remain in character, acting only on PC knowledge, etc.)

Best of luck, and don't get discouraged by your player's meta-gaming. It happens, just continue with the hints and occasional reminder (with consequences/rewards for incentives) and if they are agreeable folk, they will learn.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I would dissagree. DR and methods to overcome it should be common knowledge among adventuring types




and you probably should at least have told them "We will not be using the standard DR rules". You don't necessarily have to tell them what those rules are, but you should at least have told them you were not using the standard rules.

You have two separate points here.

1. I had already decided that none of the party had encountered were-rats before and they were not common to the area.

2. I could have done that but part of my reasoning for doing this is I don't want them to know all the rules. Once they know all the rules it becomes a math game. By not knowing the rules in this area (an area their characters shouldnt know anyways) you return some of the mystery we all had when playing DnD for that first time years ago and every foe was a new unknown.

 

[Nifft]

My philosophy as a DM is: players are free to read the monster books, and I'm free to change the monsters. The 3.5e DR changes are very cool, and I've started to spring them on my players -- like the skeleton's DR 5/blunt.

---Josh

 

[JacktheRabbit]

It sounds like you did fine Doc, DMs who constantly pander to their players pamper them a bit too much. We're DMs not freakin' babysitters.

Now, one point I'd like to make though. As long as the results of the damage rolled were described in game terms then the players should be able to take the cues from their PC knowledge to figure out what must be going on. Such as:

"Your magically enchanted blade slices into the creature, but it's gash seals harmlessly leaving a thin line and a trickle of blood across its midsection. The were-rat looks up and grins wickedly."

I did this several times. It was made obvious that normal weapon and magic weapon wounds were either completely healing instantly or leaving much smaller wounds after the weapon was withdrawn.

I was then contrasting this with the grevious wounds being inflicted by the few silver weapons they had purchased from a silversmith before leaving town.