Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[S'mon]

I disagree that players can or should be expected to separate metagame and in-character knowledge to this extent. Much better to genuinely surprise the players with something they didn'tr expect.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I disagree that players can or should be expected to separate metagame and in-character knowledge to this extent. Much better to genuinely surprise the players with something they didn'tr expect.

I agree completely. Unfortunately most of the complainers in this thread appear to be players who probably cannot separate the two while playing to save their life.

The problem here is simply the use of meta-knowledge at MANY levels.

1. The players automatically categorized these foes at were-rats. Immediatly most of them knew the creatures stats, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses.

2. The players automatically understood the full limitations of DR and how to avoid the only silver vulnerability of the were-rats.



Now consider this. I never called them were-rats. I described them as feral looking men and women who when challenged in combat quickly morphed into marge rat shaped humanoids.

For all the players really knew they could have been Ratwere's a creature similar to a Wolfwere. These creatures might have DR 10/- with a special vulnerability to silver. This would be completely within the rules of 3.0

I didnt do this though. Instead I changed the DR rules at the beginning of the campaign before any of their characters had ever encountered a DR creature and would have any experience in fighting them.

 

[Chacal]

Posted by Bran BlackByrd
Creatures with a special vulnerability usually have DR

This, IMO, is meta gaming. The existence of a game mechanics is unknown to the characters.
He specified that it was a new campaign and newbie PCs with no previous experience with lycanthropes (or creatures with DR ?).
They had no reason to react on a game mechanics basis.
As for MW (or GMW) loosing value, it might only bother me if a sorcerer planned to select it as a known spell.
it's still useful for/against sundering attempts, and gives some bonuses.
I disagree about " a PC should know every implications of its spell use", and I'd never consider that every time a 1st lvl cleric learns "bless" he's given a notice with "- Usefull against rakshasa" for instance. The sames goes for not having the knowledge "MW helps beating any DR that can be beaten with special materials".
Chacal
BTW, I didn't post the second quote in your post.

 

[Tsyr]

I agree completely. Unfortunately most of the complainers in this thread appear to be players who probably cannot separate the two while playing to save their life.

Nice. You just have to throw in an insult, don't you? We can't possibly have a different view on what characters should know without being people who (paraphrasing) "can't stop metagaming to save our life". Thanks. I always wondered what my problem was.



I agree with a post about a page back... You didn't come here with the intent to see if this was fair or not. You came here to be validated. Those are two different things.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Nice. You just have to throw in an insult, don't you? We can't possibly have a different view on what characters should know without being people who (paraphrasing) "can't stop metagaming to save our life". Thanks. I always wondered what my problem was.



I agree with a post about a page back... You didn't come here with the intent to see if this was fair or not. You came here to be validated. Those are two different things.

Whats wrong Tsyr? Truth hurt?

If you noticed I edited my post because I was saying much more than that. I saved the message sooner than intended.

 

[Tsyr]

Whats wrong Tsyr? Truth hurt?

If you noticed I edited my post because I was saying much more than that. I saved the message sooner than intended.

Actualy, I could say the same. You came here with your mind made up. There was no real asking of opinions here... You came here to hear that you did the right thing.

Answer me this:

Why, exactly, did you start this thread?

 

[S'mon]

Now consider this. I never called them were-rats. I described them as feral looking men and women who when challenged in combat quickly morphed into marge rat shaped humanoids.

For all the players really knew they could have been Ratwere's a creature similar to a Wolfwere. These creatures might have DR 10/- with a special vulnerability to silver. This would be completely within the rules of 3.0

I didnt do this though. Instead I changed the DR rules at the beginning of the campaign before any of their characters had ever encountered a DR creature and would have any experience in fighting them.

Yep, seems fine to me.

Re Sorcerer PCs choosing spells, if the effects listed in the PHB are to be changed, the Sorcerer player should be informed. If they've already taken the spell they should be allowed to choose another (I did this when I altered Haste IMC).

A change in effects outside the PHB description does not require the player to be informed, unless it's ret-conning an existing 'campaign truth' or something the Sorcerer *PC* would know about.

I am a bit surprised at the widespread view that players should (or can) be omniscient rules-wise and that they can (or should) separate their encyclopedic rules knowledge from their PCs' in-game knowledge. The DR/vulnerability rules aren't really in the PHB and I see no reason why a player ought to have more than the vaguest knowledge of them.

Of course in a world where lycanthropes are ten a penny, logically the PCs would know how to fight them. But it's the GM's decision whether that's the case in his world, NOT the player's!

 

[Tsyr]

I am a bit surprised at the widespread view that players should (or can) be omniscient rules-wise and that they can (or should) separate their encyclopedic rules knowledge from their PCs' in-game knowledge. The DR/vulnerability rules aren't really in the PHB and I see no reason why a player ought to have more than the vaguest knowledge of them.

Because I don't care to, or feel I have any right to, enforce what a player does outside of my dining room. Some players are gonna have the DMG. Some aren't. Some players might very well be DMs in other games (I play in games other than the one I DM in, as well). They can go online and access the SRD all they want. I can't control this, and it's, IMHO, wrong of me to try. It's not my buisness. It only becomes my buisness when they use that knowledge at my table. So I enforcer player/character knowledge seperation with XP penalties, changing a monsters stats, etc, if I must.

But I *never* change a basic ground rule of how things work without telling my players.

 

[Tom Cashel]

I failed my Will save to resist replying to this thread.

I'm conflicted on this issue.

On the one hand, whining players annoy me; most of the time they'd be better off constructing a real plan of action, rather than relying on quoted/memorized DMG/MM rules to get the upper hand over a foe. And this situation is no different: if they'd listened to the legends their characters heard, instead of relying on their encyclopedic (player-) knowledge of things their characters have no notion of, they would be better off.

On the other hand, players also need to know the ground rules. I'm not saying Doc should have sat down and explained every little detail about how DR will work, just that the players should understand that Doc is running a game in which unfair character knowledge will not be tolerated. I think that sort of frank discussion would end up causing less problems in the end.

Y'know, in the last game session I ran, the PCs encountered a Roper. They were about the get their clocks cleaned, but the party wizard shouted, "Spells are no use! Fire! We need fire!" Soon the roper had surrendered, and the parleying/interrogation began. Unfair knowledge? In most cases, yes...but when this player first got Polymorph Self (PC was created as a back-up 10th lvl character), I made him write up a list of creatures his character had encountered in the past. He wrote it up as a journal, and included was the encounter he'd had with a roper in the Underdark years ago. The player felt bad for using unfair knowledge, but as DM I remembered the journal. It was all good. We talked things out, and came to an agreement about how player/PC knowledge would work.

I think the Doc has a right to do whatever he wants, but "fooling" the players in order to "fool" the characters will not only lead to RL conflict, it also smacks of an inability to draw a line between the two knowledge bases that fueled this whole situation!

Use of meta-knowledge is the "rule" Doc and his players should be discussing...not DR.

 

[Drakron]

I must be a terror, I own pretty much all the books being use at the game table (and several more) ...

Still I separate quite well what I know and what my character knows and mind you, I play in Ravenloft were most creatures are belived to be legends by the locals and my character is a local.

First time we fought undead I made my character still use his greatsword since he sould have no knowledge about then besides then being walking dead but I, the player, still could see that damage was following the current rules (half damage) and not 3.5 DR rules.

If that happened I would ask what was going on since damage calculations were off since I do know the rules, not my character and I doubt any DM would confuse my question with a in character question.