Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[Tsyr]

This isn't really directed at you, Bran, so please don't take it as a personal attack, I just felt this was a very relevant quote.

I think the problem is while it may be a sweeping rules change, from the perspective of the characters, it's only a change with regards to the lycanthropes they've faced. Since the characters in question were relatively low level and not necessarily vastly knowledgeable about DR, KN: Arcana, or KN: Lycanthropes, then there's a good chance they don't even know something is amiss.

Where I would side with the players on this particular thing is if the PC was built specifically as either a lycanthrope expert or some sort of "slayer" who would have intimate knowledge of slaying werewolves or similar creatures. In that case, the character (and thus the player) should know in advance.

Greg

The thing is, though, and this is the point some of us are trying to make...

Yes, the *characters* maybe shouldn't know about this, but the *players* are very likely feeling (And to my school of thought, correctly) that the DM changed a rule* behind their back, and might very well be feeling a bit like the DM broke the implied player-DM contract.

Yes, that might sound overly melodramatic, but that's how I look at it.

*Yes, the DM changed a rule, he didn't just change a creatures stats. Changing the creatures stats would be one thing. But the fundamental rule that an enchantment bonus overrides material-based damage reduction was changed.

Now, it's perfectly within the DM's authority to do so. But there is also the issue of trust. Players have to trust the DM for the game to work. Part of why the players trust the DM is that there is an implied contract that the DM will be playing by the rules, and that the players are informed of any changes to the rules before they take effect. Maybe not specifics, but that there are changes, as others have said.

Put it this way. The crux of Doc's arguement lies in the fact that the rule is the DMG, not the PHB. Fine, if that's the arguement he wants to make. What if I did this in my next game:

I change the way certain magic items are created (Another DMG thing), and instead of just draining XP when you create, say, a sword +1, you loose a level. But I don't tell the players that ahead of time. So a player makes a Sword +1, and I tell him to knock a level off his character sheet. I'm rather vauge when questioned exactly why he's supposed to do that.

Would people be saying I did the right thing then?

My position is that a certain amount of meta-gaming is implied by the very concept of the game. Sorcs. metagame selection of spells based on what they think will be useful in the future. Players meta-game when they assign stats numericly, instead of just saying "My strenghth is pretty good, my dex is so-so, etc...". Players meta-game when they take ranks in a skill, because they know what the different amounts of skills mean ("Ok, I'm gonna need to get my Jump up to 10 to be able to make the types of jump I wanna be able to..."), or when they cast spells ("Ok, I'm gonna use a CCW instead of a CLW, because he's taken well over what CLW would help..."), etc etc etc.

Now, obviously, the answer to "Where does this end" is a personal one, and I won't try to speak for everyone else here. But I think a certain amount of implied knowledge over what a spell does is part of that. Otherwise the game becomes "Lets bash our heads against that wall over yonder until we find the secret door", in my view.

You are, of course, free to disagree with me all you want. That's life. You're free to debate with me. I enjoy that. But insult me for my views, and that's it... I'm done with this thread.

 

[Zhure]

If the DM changes the item creation system, he's certainly obligated to tell any player of a character with an item creation feat. The others don't need to know and have no right to know.

Similarly, since the characters in question don't have any werewolf-related, DR-related, or skill-related abilities, they have no reason to even suspect.
Greg

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The thing is, though, and this is the point some of us are trying to make...

Yes, the *characters* maybe shouldn't know about this, but the *players* are very likely feeling (And to my school of thought, correctly) that the DM changed a rule* behind their back, and might very well be feeling a bit like the DM broke the implied player-DM contract.

Yes, that might sound overly melodramatic, but that's how I look at it.

*Yes, the DM changed a rule, he didn't just change a creatures stats. Changing the creatures stats would be one thing. But the fundamental rule that an enchantment bonus overrides material-based damage reduction was changed.

Now, it's perfectly within the DM's authority to do so. But there is also the issue of trust. Players have to trust the DM for the game to work. Part of why the players trust the DM is that there is an implied contract that the DM will be playing by the rules, and that the players are informed of any changes to the rules before they take effect. Maybe not specifics, but that there are changes, as others have said.

Put it this way. The crux of Doc's arguement lies in the fact that the rule is the DMG, not the PHB. Fine, if that's the arguement he wants to make. What if I did this in my next game:

I change the way certain magic items are created (Another DMG thing), and instead of just draining XP when you create, say, a sword +1, you loose a level. But I don't tell the players that ahead of time. So a player makes a Sword +1, and I tell him to knock a level off his character sheet. I'm rather vauge when questioned exactly why he's supposed to do that.

Would people be saying I did the right thing then?

My position is that a certain amount of meta-gaming is implied by the very concept of the game. Sorcs. metagame selection of spells based on what they think will be useful in the future. Players meta-game when they assign stats numericly, instead of just saying "My strenghth is pretty good, my dex is so-so, etc...". Players meta-game when they take ranks in a skill, because they know what the different amounts of skills mean ("Ok, I'm gonna need to get my Jump up to 10 to be able to make the types of jump I wanna be able to..."), or when they cast spells ("Ok, I'm gonna use a CCW instead of a CLW, because he's taken well over what CLW would help..."), etc etc etc.

Now, obviously, the answer to "Where does this end" is a personal one, and I won't try to speak for everyone else here. But I think a certain amount of implied knowledge over what a spell does is part of that. Otherwise the game becomes "Lets bash our heads against that wall over yonder until we find the secret door", in my view.

You are, of course, free to disagree with me all you want. That's life. You're free to debate with me. I enjoy that. But insult me for my views, and that's it... I'm done with this thread.

Your arguement does not hold water at all.

I changed a rule that a character does not know and that the Players do not need to know to play the game. DR is not a rule that players need to know explicity. Trial and error as well as Knowledge skills or other information sources will fill in the gaps perfectly well in the situations created by DR.

You on the other hand are talkign about a rule that is fully stated out in the PHB. Every bit of information needed to use an Item Creation feat is listed in the PHB. That is like me changing the rules on how long one can hold their breath underwater and not telling the PC's until the they go swimming when I suddenly tell them they drown. I have several times specifically written that I do not change anything like that without telling the players in advance.

If you are going to make a comparison then make one that is valid.

 

[Tsyr]

If the DM changes the item creation system, he's certainly obligated to tell any player of a character with an item creation feat. The others don't need to know and have no right to know.

Similarly, since the characters in question don't have any werewolf-related, DR-related, or skill-related abilities, they have no reason to even suspect.
Greg

You're missing the point of my post, though I'm going to respond (In a semi-sarcastic fashion) to that first point anyhow...

Remember, according to Doc, if the rule is in the DMG, that's all that matters... the player doesn't have any right to know it. At least, that's the impression I've got from his numerous comments of "All players have a need to know is in the PHB" and similar. Forgive me if I've mis-read those...

But on a deeper level, my point is, a certain amount of what one does with his or her character is almost by default meta-gamed... What skills they take at a new level, what feats the take, etc. And what spells they take and memorize.

Lemme give an example why I disaprove of this on a deeper level:

Say you made a wizard. You're playing, and you're in your first combat... so you cast a ranged damage spell other than magic missle. The DM tells you to make an INT check (????). You do so. You fail the check. The DM rules that your attack spell hit one of your allies instead. Would you be upset? Mind you... I'd like to point out, once again, that this is not a rule in the PHB, so *technicly*, by Doc's arguement, the player doesn't need to know it.

I ask because that happened to me about a year ago. Didn't play with that DM again.

I'd also like to clarify something: The change itself I don't mind. And in the big scheme of things, even though I don't like it, what Doc did here isn't the end of the world or anything. What I don't like, and where my position stems from, is that the same basic logic can be used to do a lot of things in game. That same way of thinking can lead down a dark path.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

My position is that a certain amount of meta-gaming is implied by the very concept of the game. Sorcs. metagame selection of spells based on what they think will be useful in the future. Players meta-game when they assign stats numericly, instead of just saying "My strenghth is pretty good, my dex is so-so, etc...". Players meta-game when they take ranks in a skill, because they know what the different amounts of skills mean ("Ok, I'm gonna need to get my Jump up to 10 to be able to make the types of jump I wanna be able to..."), or when they cast spells ("Ok, I'm gonna use a CCW instead of a CLW, because he's taken well over what CLW would help..."), etc etc etc.

You are carrying this way too far to make your point and its getting off-track.

None of the things mentioned here are meta-gaming.

Ability scores are just a numerical value.

How far you can jump is just a numerical value your character can judge by looking at the distance before he jumped it.

Using a certain strength cure spell is a cleric looking at a wounded foe and knowing from experience that a large slash from an axe takes a stronger cure spell than a small poke from a dagger.

Meta-knowledge would be knowing that a disease inflicted by this particular monster requires a remove curse spell instead of a remove disease spell Isay a mummy) even though the cleric has never tried to remove that disease before and the party has never encountered that creature before. Even then if the cleric has enough ranks in heal or another appropriate skill he may have learned somewhere how to deal with this disease.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Lemme give an example why I disaprove of this on a deeper level:

Say you made a wizard. You're playing, and you're in your first combat... so you cast a ranged damage spell other than magic missle. The DM tells you to make an INT check (????). You do so. You fail the check. The DM rules that your attack spell hit one of your allies instead. Would you be upset? Mind you... I'd like to point out, once again, that this is not a rule in the PHB, so *technicly*, by Doc's arguement, the player doesn't need to know it.

I ask because that happened to me about a year ago. Didn't play with that DM again.

I'd also like to clarify something: The change itself I don't mind. And in the big scheme of things, even though I don't like it, what Doc did here isn't the end of the world or anything. What I don't like, and where my position stems from, is that the same basic logic can be used to do a lot of things in game. That same way of thinking can lead down a dark path.

Wrong again.

The magic missle spell is clearly defined in the PHB as hitting the intended target without fail. It has a zero miss chance unless blocked by certain magical effects.

So what your DM did is NOTHING AT ALL like what I did. Nowhere does the Magic Weapon spell say that it trumps all material based DR. This can be implied by reading the spell and the reading the DMG and MM rules on DR. That though is outside the pervue of the character.

 

[Tsyr]

Your arguement does not hold water at all.

I changed a rule that a character does not know and that the Players do not need to know to play the game. DR is not a rule that players need to know explicity. Trial and error as well as Knowledge skills or other information sources will fill in the gaps perfectly well in the situations created by DR.

We have, as you have no doubt noticed, different views on what is knowledge that is OK for a player to have. I've explained why I think the way I do. I don't think we need to go down this road anymore, ne?

You on the other hand are talkign about a rule that is fully stated out in the PHB. Every bit of information needed to use an Item Creation feat is listed in the PHB. That is like me changing the rules on how long one can hold their breath underwater and not telling the PC's until the they go swimming when I suddenly tell them they drown. I have several times specifically written that I do not change anything like that without telling the players in advance.

If you are going to make a comparison then make one that is valid.

I didn't say I changed the way item creation works... I said I changed the cost for creating one magic item. But lets re-do the arguement, since you do have a point, to an extent.

How about if I quintuppled (Spelling?) the cost for creating random magic items. And didn't tell the players this until they made them. That is DMG knowledge, remember.

If your arguement is that since Item Creation is mentioned at all in the PHB, it's player knowledge, I'd like to point out that damage reduction, including the fact that enchanted weapons can bypass it, is mentioned in the PHB. Not all the specifics, but then, neither are all the specifics of magic item creation detailed in the PHB... so I'd say the comparisions are valid.

 

[Tsyr]

Wrong again.

The magic missle spell is clearly defined in the PHB as hitting the intended target without fail. It has a zero miss chance unless blocked by certain magical effects.

So what your DM did is NOTHING AT ALL like what I did. Nowhere does the Magic Weapon spell say that it trumps all material based DR. This can be implied by reading the spell and the reading the DMG and MM rules on DR. That though is outside the pervue of the character.

Note: I specificly said any ranged magic spell OTHER than magic missle.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Tsyr,

How would you deal with this?

You put a rust monster in a room in your dungeon. The party enters the room and the party barbarian who always charges forward to hack to pieces every foe suddenly hangs back and asks the party archer and mage to deal with the monster.

Seeing this and having expected it you altered the rust monster in advance to give it longer feelers for a 10' or 15' reach.

Boom the barbarian loses his armor and shield before the party can kill it.

So when the barbarians player starts to whine that a rust monster doesnt have reach is it you being unfair or the player usign meta-knowledge and whining?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Note: I specificly said any ranged magic spell OTHER than magic missle.

Your right I read wrong.

It doesnt really matter. Every spell in the PHB tells you very clearly what you must do to connect with it. Either its an auto-hit, touch attack, or ranged touch attack.

How to make all three are clearly explained in the PHB. You do not need the DMG to make a touch attack, or a ranged touch attack.

So again what that DM did was completely different from what I did. He changed rules that are part of a players given knowledge and did not tell you before hand.