Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[Rackhir]

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.

You know DocM, I've tried being polite. I've tried to offer counter points in reasonable and non-hostile manner, but your post have gotten steadly more insulting and abusive towards anyone who has disagreed with you, without your acknowledging that anyone who does disagree might have half a point.

Has this simply been a troll?

Unless, you start behaving with a bit more in the way of manners I'm just going to have to add you to the ignore list.

 

[Ravellion]

(Disclaimer: I only read the first two pages ie. 80 messages of this thread)

First: people who say "people should know that wererats are vulnerable to silver". Perhaps you are right (how common is Lycantrophy in his campaign), but in any case it is a non-argument in this case, as the PCs did know.

Second: people who say "but this is how 'magic weapon' works, and the PCs would know how DR works because of it!". Yes. But that still doesn't give them wrong information in this case. As some people said before: the wererats might have had 10/+2, and it wouldn't matter for the description given by the DM at all. So if a player complains he IS metagaming... he is comparing the lack of results directly to a MM entry from which he knows this specific creature has XX/silver.

The only problem here might than be that other players were using silver to better effect than the Magic Weapon caster. Still, a DM could easily create a spell like you had in Baldur's Gate 2: Protection from Magical Weapons, and had the creature drink potion of it 15 hours ago.

So whichever way you twist and turn it, the player was a metagaming git. The player expectations of his character's results don't match player expectations of what those results might be.

Now if Doc made the decisions specifically to screw him, or if he is inconsistent, that is an entirely diferrent matter.

D&D is more than getting the powerup and winning the game, is soething that you might have heard on these boards on a daily basis once.

Rav

 

[Gothmog]

This has gotten to be a more heated debate than I thought it would be, but IMO Doc, you are perfectly within your rights as a DM to do what you did. You let them hear legends that silver would hurt the creatures they would be fighting. If they decided to not use silver and try Magic Weapon instead, thats too bad for them. If their characters would logically have not had any reason to have encounted a creature with DR before (and at 2nd level, I doubt they would), then relying on meta-game knowledge is that might not apply in this DMs game is faulty logic. For example, in my games, I present elves as a fey race who are generally antagonistic to humans, and who have the ability to use magic to camoflague themselves, and are virtually silent. Does this mean I need to inform the players of what elves are like in my game before they encounter them? Heck no.

What does bother me, and what seems to have become more prevalent in the last few years is that some players think they they should have unrestricted access to all books, and should be able to get away with using meta-knowledge in game without consequence. Now, I won't stop a player from buying the DMG or MM (especially if that player DMs as well), but I make it very plain that I WILL NOT allow them to reference anything but the PHB or books with relevant info to their character during play. One poster earlier called DMs who do this tyrannical or on a power trip, but that just isn't the case. I have run and played in games where the game was ruined by players constantly trying to challenge the DMs decisions, find out opponent's weaknesses or stats, look up spells cast on them, and generally making themselves annoying twinks. Thus, the easiest method to insure this does not happen to to not allow players to look up such information during the game. Does it work- yes. I have been running a game for 11 years with these restrictions, as well as where the players don't even have their stats in front of them (I keep track of them), and they trust me not to screw them over (which I haven't). IME, players who do use meta knowledge routinely are usually very insecure people who MUST show that they have some degree of power in all situations, and cannot stand it when they fail. It basically boils down to an issue of trust between the players and DM- if one side cannot trust the other, then restrictions must be placed on conditions in order to insure that everyone can have fun.

 

[Rackhir]

My complaint is not that Doc changed the monsters. He has every right to do so and in fact OUGHT to change the monsters. What I object to is changing a basic rule of the game, without even informing the players that there has been a change.

That's all I thought he should have done. Doesn't have to tell them what he changed it to, doesn't have to explain everything about every monster.

Why is it so unreasonable to ask that he simply notify the players that things are not going to be standard D&D?

I understand his complaints about meta-knowledge and it is a problem, but changing basic rules of the game without even notifying the players that there are changes, is simply unreasonable.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Unless, you start behaving with a bit more in the way of manners I'm just going to have to add you to the ignore list.

I am just crushed by the mere thought of that.

How horrible that I am not as polite as you think I should be while being called a power gamer, arrogant God-DM, and practically a cheat by players who seem to know more about my campaign and what the characters know in it than I do.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

My complaint is not that Doc changed the monsters. He has every right to do so and in fact OUGHT to change the monsters. What I object to is changing a basic rule of the game, without even informing the players that there has been a change.

That's all I thought he should have done. Doesn't have to tell them what he changed it to, doesn't have to explain everything about every monster.

Why is it so unreasonable to ask that he simply notify the players that things are not going to be standard D&D?

I understand his complaints about meta-knowledge and it is a problem, but changing basic rules of the game without even notifying the players that there are changes, is simply unreasonable.

I have 3 or so pages of house rules. It should be rather obvious that this is not a standard game.

Would it make you happy if I added another House Rule to this effect:

"I reserve the right to change rules that a character would not know about without telling the players. If it directly impacts simple knowldge anyone would have, ie how long you can hold your breath underwater, I will let you know. If not then do not expect any notice.

 

[Tsyr]

I am just crushed by the mere thought of that.

How horrible that I am not as polite as you think I should be while being called a power gamer, arrogant God-DM, and practically a cheat by players who seem to know more about my campaign and what the characters know in it than I do.

And I did which of those to you, again?

I might have implied that this post is little better than a troll, a thought that is getting firmer in my mind as I type this, but I don't recall doing any of the above to you.

Actualy, what the hey, I'll dance.

I respectfully suggest that if you don't want people giving you their opinion (With, mind you, you giving almost *no* information on your campaign to judge by), you don't ask this:

So was I being unfair?

 

[Mallus]

A few more comments...

1) The crux of this issue is settling the kind of game the group is playing before the start of play re: tolerance of metagaming, whats common knowledge, is it information rich/poor? I think everyone can agree on that.

2) The problem of metagame knowledge is going to crop up with experienced players. The key is not letting the game experience become adeversarial --between the players and DM. Metagaming isn't neccessarily cheating per se, its just bad roleplaying. But it can be very hard to avoid. And it certainly isn't always a case of a player seeking advantage. A DM looking to punish players is asking for the campaign to collapse. As is a player who had no regard for idea that each characters knowledge base is limited, and playing those limits constitutes good roleplaying. Just talk things out...

3) I really can't see what the fuss is all about since the rule change didn't result in the characters death. From what I gather, all that really happened is that one PC's choice of tactics didn't work. I think that the best course of action is just for him/her to chalk it up as a learning experience. If the rules keep changing, during the course of play, and the DM frequently contradicts him/herself, then you've got a real problem, one worth considering leaving the group.

Not knowing all the rules from the get go just isn't a big deal for me. Not being able to learn the rules throughout the course of the game because they keep changing is.

4) Which leads to... every game I've played in used a slightly different interpretation of the rule set. I've always thought that was par for course. There was always a period where my assumptions --even backed by the books-- turned out to wrong in that given campaign. These things just got worked out. Actions got taken back, lethal blows were fudged away, it just took a bit of co-operation between DM and player.

5) Is that because I did the bulk of my gaming prior to 3E? Used to more haphazard systems that were house-ruled to kingdom come?

6) Lastly, Does anyone need to point out that running a game involves a lot of work, and that fact is not obviatied by the DM enjoying doing it. Someone is making a world for you to play in, and you're playing under someone's else's rules. Cut them some slack. Conversely, as DM you can't treat the players as your opponents. You're part of the bargain is to provide an enjoyable experience to your players, even if that means altering some of the fundementals of your prefered play style to theirs {God I hope none of my players read this...}

 

[DanMcS]

Why is it so unreasonable to ask that he simply notify the players that things are not going to be standard D&D?

Because there's no such thing as standard D&D. Especially with the plethora of books available now under d20, there are no two groups who run everything with the same rules. Even of people running out of only the 3 'core' books, I doubt there are too many groups who use exactly the same subset of rules.

If there /are/ rules, and the rules are /consistent/, then that's sufficient, even if the players don't know all of them exactly. Next time Doc's characters fight these critters, they'll know what to do, because the PCs learned in the course of the game.

 

[Soldarin]

*I* would tell my players about such a rules change beforehand. As a player I would also appreciate it very much to be told beforehand. A great deal of metagame planning (character building) revolves around rules knowledge. The distinction between DMG and PHB is IMHO arbitrary.
As for fighting lycanthropes, where such creatures are REAL, I find it very hard to believe my experienced slayer of monsters and protector of the innocent (2nd level fighter) wouldn't know about the fact that certain monsters, like shapechangers and powerful undead, require enchanted weapons to kill. Magic Weapon is about more than just the +1 to attack and damage (which are hardly worth squandering a spell on, IMO).
Yes, silver weapons aren't hard to come by, but in a world where every experienced adventurer tells you to go with magical blades instead, NO ONE with sufficient resources is going to cary any.

Your change of rules actually causes those old dudes to say: "never forget to carry a silver blade, just in case. In fact, a cold iron mace to fight off undead never hurts either."