Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tsyr" data-source="post: 816733" data-attributes="member: 354">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.</blockquote>

Verification