Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mordane76" data-source="post: 812386" data-attributes="member: 7172">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.&nbsp; Just because players know something doesn't mean their characters know it.&nbsp; If they use obvious player knowledge in-game, then it's meta-game thinking and you should whack the XP reward accordingly (if you decide to give XP for that encounter at all after the meta-gaming).I'm working on some major rewrites to my homebrew, and I've told all my players that the changes will cause major changes to the basic functioning of some things (especially XP, treasure, magic, and magic-users).&nbsp; I haven't told them the specifics yet, because those aren't completed, but when they are, I'll tell them upfront what I've changed before we start gaming.Even as GMs, we aren't the end-all, be-all of game.&nbsp; If the players aren't happy, or feel cheated or lied to, they might not come back, and then there is no game.As for the player who kept reminding you that his weapon had an MW cast on it, obviously this player expected that things work the same way as they normally would... because these are were-rats, they have DR X/silver, which is less than X/+1 weapons.&nbsp; If he'd said it once, I might have let it slide.&nbsp; Except he kept repeating himself, expecting a different result (which, interestingly, is a definition of insanity -- committing the same action over and over and expecting different results).&nbsp; This is obviously meta-game thinking, and should be treated accordingly.&nbsp; Pull him aside, explain it to him, tell him how things aren't always what they say on Page X in the MM, and then hand him a nice little XP penalty for that encounter.&nbsp; Explain it to the party as well, but don't use the player in question as a direct example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mordane76, post: 812386, member: 7172"] 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. If they use obvious player knowledge in-game, then it's meta-game thinking and you should whack the XP reward accordingly (if you decide to give XP for that encounter at all after the meta-gaming). I'm working on some major rewrites to my homebrew, and I've told all my players that the changes will cause major changes to the basic functioning of some things (especially XP, treasure, magic, and magic-users). I haven't told them the specifics yet, because those aren't completed, but when they are, I'll tell them upfront what I've changed before we start gaming. Even as GMs, we aren't the end-all, be-all of game. If the players aren't happy, or feel cheated or lied to, they might not come back, and then there is no game. As for the player who kept reminding you that his weapon had an MW cast on it, obviously this player expected that things work the same way as they normally would... because these are were-rats, they have DR X/silver, which is less than X/+1 weapons. If he'd said it once, I might have let it slide. Except he kept repeating himself, expecting a different result (which, interestingly, is a definition of insanity -- committing the same action over and over and expecting different results). This is obviously meta-game thinking, and should be treated accordingly. Pull him aside, explain it to him, tell him how things aren't always what they say on Page X in the MM, and then hand him a nice little XP penalty for that encounter. Explain it to the party as well, but don't use the player in question as a direct example. [/QUOTE]

Verification