Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[JacktheRabbit]

See, I feel differently. IMHO, a player should know before he creates an item how much XP it's gonna cost him...

I know, if I created a magic sword, and the DM said "Ok... mark (way more XP than it should be) off your sheet", I would be upset... I probably wouldn't have created the item if I knew how much it cost.

Well that is different. I see nothing wrong with changing the price on any magic item. When I DM though every time a character creates an item he will know the full cost before he or she creates the item. Your DM let you assume the cost all the way to the end and then screwed you.

Of course this doesnt happen in my campaign for other reasons as well. Most magic items beyond basic spell holders (potions, scrolls) require a formula and material components. The formula can be either researched or determined by using another item as a template. If you want to make a hat of disguise and want another one its easier to make than if you didnt have one there as an example.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The bottom line:

To be "fair," you have to tell your players you're changing DR before play begins (but don't necessarily have to explain the changes, if they're cool with that), and warn them against meta-gaming.

Once you've done these things, players need to chill out, go with the flow, and enjoy the game the DM has worked so hard to create.

Maybe my problem is I just play with people who so automatically meta-game that I have to do it the way I do.

But then at the same time I like a bit of confusion. It makes things more mysterious and allows the players to more immerse in the game. The less the characters think about pure mechanics in the game the more "role" we have as opposed to "roll" and this applies even in combat.

 

[Zhure]

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

No, I'm not, I just disagree.

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...

I don't know if Doc said that or even if he agrees with it. I'm not arguing for or against anyone. I do think that monsters are the DM's perogative (save for Summoned ones). If the DM changes the rules for monsters, then bully for him. If the DM changes DR for all the monsters or just one, it's the same to me either way, since they're the DM's critters.

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.

Yup, and that's all metagaming that is on the PC's character sheets. If the character design is metagame related ("I hunt undead") and the PC has metagame related abilites ("I have KN: Undead and Undead as a Favored Enemy") then changes to common undead, even blanket, sweeping changes like DR, should be made known to the PC.

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.

Nope, I'd be curious why such a rule was implemented and ask after the session because it's the kind of thing my character should know in advance. If I find the rule illogical then I'll make my protest briefly and with dignity and then either vote with my feet or stay in the game. That's the true player-DM contract. I'd also like to point out that ranged touch attacks and Point Blank Shot are both clearly spelled out in the PHB, so this example really has nothing to do with DR, monsters, or the price of ch'a in China.

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

I don't blame you. But changing the DR to something akin to what it appears 3.5e will have isn't a dumb change. IMO.

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.

I was in a horrific game with lots of metagaming on the part of the DM. He changed specific rules about the characters abilities, training, feats (ok, it wasn't a D&D game, but I'm trying to be topical). He made those changes retroactively but wouldn't let the PCs change out their abilities or tell them in advance the changes were going into effect. He also used out of game conversations to alter in-game reactions of NPCs who would've had no way of knowing that information (and by out-of-game, I mean not even during the game session). I voted with my feet and won't let him DM for me anymore.

However, had he done the right thing and made the changes gradually and graciously and let the PCs adjust their abilites to reflect the rules changes, then it would've been fine (except the out-of-game stuff, which really torqued me off).

Greg

edit- they're their there. Dangit

 

[Tom Cashel]

Maybe my problem is I just play with people who so automatically meta-game that I have to do it the way I do.

But then at the same time I like a bit of confusion. It makes things more mysterious and allows the players to more immerse in the game. The less the characters think about pure mechanics in the game the more "role" we have as opposed to "roll" and this applies even in combat.

I totally agree with you ( ) about getting players to immerse themselves in the situation rather than relying on the numbers, Doc. Our group has been struggling with that recently. I'm aslo sorry your players feel the need the meta-game so much. That's a bummer!

I still think you'll make more progress talking it out as a group than with you making secret changes to the mechanics. I'm not getting into a "who's right and who's wrong" thing, I'm just trying to suggest a course of action that may lead to satisfaction on all sides.

For the meta-gaming...tell them straight up that every time you suspect them of meta-gaming, two things will happen:

1. the offending player's PC will be docked 250 x.p.
2. the stats of the monster they are fighting will be instantly altered
   [/list=1]
   I think the game is more fun when players are willing to pretend to be characters who don't know everything about everything. It's called role-playing, and it should be rewarded.

 

[Arnwyn]

See, I feel differently. IMHO, a player should know before he creates an item how much XP it's gonna cost him...

I know, if I created a magic sword, and the DM said "Ok... mark (way more XP than it should be) off your sheet", I would be upset... I probably wouldn't have created the item if I knew how much it cost.

I agree with what you're saying here. However, this isn't the same thing as DocM's situation, I'm afraid.

You wouldn't create the item if the DM told you how much to spend and how much XP to mark off if it was too high, correct? You would change your mind and come up with something else to make or do, ie. change your tactics based on the situation. (Now, there would certainly be reaon to get upset if the DM said - no, you can't roll Knowledge (arcana) to research the cost of the items you're going to make, and you are stuck with it. But DocM let the players roll to discover what was going on. And, IIRC from one of his much earlier posts, some characters *did* have silver weapons...]

That seems to be what DocM is allowing. He let them see the results of their actions, and then give them checks to change their minds and come up with something else to deal with the situation, ie. change their tactics.

I still fail to see the problem, other than different play styles. Simply put, some players would not tolerate things being changed on them, in any way, shape, or form. Others are fine with changes in DM books, while others accept wholesale changes to the rules, even the PHB.

Whether you're changing DR or just modifying lycanthropes, the results are the same. A player (with only a 2nd level character, remember) can only get mad if he/she is metagaming the situation. He can't possibly know that the lycanthropes have been "modified" or that DR has changed, therefore he metagamed. For DocM's group - metagaming is bad. Problem is with the player, not DocM.

The entire "changing of DR" issue can be solved in-game, and an announcement is hardly necessary. After this encounter, the PCs can go and research with a sage about creatures that have some form of weapon immunities, and what different substances there are that hurt creatures, and be suitably prepared in the future. That is all, IMO, players need to know about DR, or even the existance of DR. Not in PHB = players don't need to know to run their characters effectively. [This is a individual group thing, of course, but is a *perfectly* valid way of playing. Some players may not like it, and they'll have to decide whether they can play in such an environment.]

Theoretically, though, what DocM did was absolutely fine. Now the players (or in this case, *one* player in his group) must decide whether he can live with that. Welcome to gaming in a group environment, folks.

 

[Forrester]

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.

Baloney. I can see mentioning grand, overarching changes, but twiddling with DR? No freaking way.

Looks like you added a little mystery to your campaign, if you ask me, Doc. And that's a good thing . Next time they come upon Monster X, they'll be asking themselves whether they can rely on their memorization of the Monster Manual to see them through! Woohoo!

Not only did you not make a mistake . . . you made your campaign *better*. (And as a side note, there's nothing more amusing than a munchkin dealing with an unexpected rules change, especially when it has to do with monsters. "But . . but . . you KNOW this is a magic weapon, right? Right? RIGHT??!!"

*SLAP*

In my opinion, rules changes re monsters are the easiest to justify not telling the party about. If you're going to nerf teleport or haste or whatnot, well, sure, MAYBE the 1st level wizard should know about it. Probably not, but maybe.

But monsters . . . well, they come in all shapes and sizes, and most importantly, variants. Who is to say that a particular brand of lycanthrope has 3.5E DR instead of 3E DR?

I just threw a True Doppelganger at my party -- just like a regular doppel, except it can change into *any* form, and had regeneration . They didn't complain. They just had to kill it twice instead of once.

 

[Zhure]

In my opinion, rules changes re monsters are the easiest to justify not telling the party about. If you're going to nerf teleport or haste or whatnot, well, sure, MAYBE the 1st level wizard should know about it. Probably not, but maybe.

I basically agree with your sentiment here, except it's critical for a Sorcerer to know of any future spell-nerfing, and thus it's only fair for a Wizard to know as well.

Greg

 

[Forrester]

I basically agree with your sentiment here, except it's critical for a Sorcerer to know of any future spell-nerfing, and thus it's only fair for a Wizard to know as well.
Greg

Ehhh I disagree. I don't cotton to the whole "I shall plan out the advancement of my character 19 levels in advance" school of character creation. I think it's fair to warn them two or three spell levels in advance, but I certainly don't feel obligated to warn the 1st level sorcerer about changes I'll be making to 5th level spells.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Okay I guess I'll chime in on this subject, but I need a clarification on the situation. The crux of Doc's arguement is that if a rule isn't explained in the PHB, then a player shouldn't know about the mechanic of it? Or the reverse being if it is a rule described in the MM or DMG a player shouldn't know about how a specific mechanic works.
Obviously certain information in the DMG is required by a player, Spell creation, point buy info, item creation etc. But generally that is the statement correct?

 

[Zhure]

Ehhh I disagree. I don't cotton to the whole "I shall plan out the advancement of my character 19 levels in advance" school of character creation. I think it's fair to warn them two or three spell levels in advance, but I certainly don't feel obligated to warn the 1st level sorcerer about changes I'll be making to 5th level spells.

It can still make a difference. It's only courtesy to the player.

Greg