Question, RE: DM's wanting players "in the dark"

[SableWyvern]

As far as being able to keep information from the players in order to preserve their sense of amazement, I think a good DM can do that even if the players know all the material in the rulebooks. That's where the DM's creativity and inspiration come in. The characters go in search of mysteries and secrets, and every one of them that the players uncover will offer the same sense of excitement that was being discussed earlier when the players gained Prestige Classes.

I agree. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with adding a little bit more enjoyment if the opportunity to do so presents itself.

Now, here's another issue to be broached in the player knowledge vs. character knowledge debate: maturity. All of the players in our game range from about 30 to about 45 years old, and most of us have been gaming for 2 decades or more. We are perfectly capable of saying "I know that that thing is going to probably destroy my favorite sword, but he's standing on top of the unconscious Princess Cilia, so My character would attack!"

I can't help thinking that that is directed at my earlier comment re the favourite sword.

In your example, you added the Princess, which makes it a very clear cut decision. But there are a lot of circumstances where it is not so clear cut, and no amount of maturity will enable a person to be absolutely sure what he would have done, had the information at his disposal been different. It is quite possible for a good player to err on the side of safety and do something detrimental to his character, just to make sure that he isn't using his player knowledge. There may arise times when someone simply isn't sure when player knowledge is having an affect. I'll try a better example than the sword one I used previously.

The answer to the following riddle is Silence.



As soon as you speak my name I am gone.

Now, tell me whether or not you would have guessed the answer, and how long it would have taken you, if you had not known the answer first? What do you do if your PC comes across this riddle, and you already know the answer? (For the purposes of the argument, assume that your Int is roughly equal to your PC's.) Yes, you do your best to roleplay it. But wouldn't it be a damn sight easier if you didn't have to factor in your player knowledge?

Player knowledge does not preclude good roleplaying. But, it can make it harder - so why give out that information if it is relatively easy to keep it from a player?

 

[Hammerhead]

Knowing what monsters can do is a hobby for us. On the other hand, it's the life of a character. In most cases, adventuring types would probably know about as much as an experienced player, and would probably be better able to make educated guesses upon encountering something new.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

First, call me Grumpy.

He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

This behavior is all part-and-parcel of the same behavior.

You cannot have it both ways.

Either one endorses "Rule 0" and this behavior or one does not endorse this behavior and "Rule 0." DM – protective of their power – always hate it when a player questions anything they do for any reason.

Protests otherwise are like a paper bell – they ring hollow.

Oh, yeah, I'll definately call you grumpy.

I'll also say that you are being overly dramatic and deliberately painting every DM that doesn't play exactly the way you want as some sort of control freak/jerk.

The examples you gave aren't damning evidence of the hypocrisy of all DMs who "endorse" Rule 0, they're simply examples of a TERRIBLE DM.

Let me repeat that.... A TERRIBLE DUNGEON MASTER.

You'd be alot less grumpy if you didn't see the game as an exercise in DM-vs-Player.

Patrick Y.

 

[Harlock]

This whole Rule Zero debate has gone a bit off track? We keep seeing very extreme examples of it. Rule Zero is meant for the DM to make changes to his game to make things fit in his world. It is not to be used as some blanket excuse in infantile player vs. DM games. Grumpy, if my DM was pulling crap like that, I'd leave the game, as you suggest. But, what about the times where I as a DM have made on the fly changes during combat? I'm not calling it rule zero because this was simply making the game better and not making anything fit my campaign or style of play. The example I'll give is this: My players are fighting something that should be a normal combat. Not the big bad guy, not too risky, just something for a little XP and some treasure. But for some reason (bad rolls, me rolling too high every time, maybe even a poor decision or two by the players, not because I have tweaked the monster in any way) the players are getting their asses handed to them. Know what I do? That X4 crit I just rolled that's gonna drop the only healer in the party to -11 just turned into a miss. Yeah, you heard me, I fudged a roll. Why? Because this is not an imortant encounter. This was filler to get them closer to their goal of getting a new level. Obviously I cannot do this everytime because the game becomes a cake walk and you might as well give them the DMG and tell them to take some major artifacts and all the gold and build a big freakin' volcano castle with lasers on it.

My point is that Players and DMs HAVE to work together in this game. The common goal should be to have fun. If fun for you is killing lots of stuff, or roleplaynig with NPCs all night or both or neither, the group should have the common goal to have fun. Rule Zero is not what you described. You described someone being an . Don't confuse the two and by all means, find a new DM. Maybe you can try it yourself and see if it suits you? Best of luck.

 

[Berk]

Hey Grumpy, seems like either you need to find a new dm or a new group. Maybe you should try dm'ing a bit and try your luck at it. Both you and your dm seem like disgruntled postal workers for crying out loud. Chill out, it's just a game. =op Play and enjoy. And that would go for both you and your dm.

 

[toberane]

. . .

He changed the alignment of a player character without consulting the player of the character.

He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

This behavior is all part-and-parcel of the same behavior.

You cannot have it both ways.

Either one endorses "Rule 0" and this behavior or one does not endorse this behavior and "Rule 0." DM – protective of their power – always hate it when a player questions anything they do for any reason.

Protests otherwise are like a paper bell – they ring hollow.

One endorses complete DM power and unaccountability and that DMs’ are not to be hampered by players calling them on rule violations for any reason ever. Or one does not endorse this and suggests that players can question a DM without being penalized. It cannot go both ways anymore than a person can walk in opposite directions at the same time.

Their is only one thing a player can do when a DM changes a rule to suit themselves, lies, alter player characters, demands players do not buy books or some similar action.

That is to tell the DM what they did wrong and leave the game.

Ummmm..... no.

I don't call what your DM did "Rule 0" I call it being a complete and utter jerk, and have to pause for a moment to wonder how you could keep gaming with a moron like that.

And saying that to endorse Rule 0 is to endorse tyrannical behavior is similar to saying that every world leader is a complete despot. The DM can go on a power trip if he wants to, but the players decide to allow those power trips by staying with the jerk.

Again, I wil point to the issue of maturity. Your DM sounds like a very immature person who cannot handle the responsibility of DMing, and you are letting him continue in that way by aloowing him to be your DM.

As DM, he makes the rules. But, like any oppressed people, it is your right as players to create a revolution and dethrone him.

OK, maybe I'm being a little dramatic, but I think you get the idea. The DM has the right to change things as he sees fit. It says so in the rule books, the same rules you are fond of calling your DM on. But if you don't like the way he DMs, then you have to either tell him you don't like it, or stop inviting him over to game. That is how you have your say in how the DM does his job.

 

[toberane]

The answer to the following riddle is Silence.



As soon as you speak my name I am gone.

Now, tell me whether or not you would have guessed the answer, and how long it would have taken you, if you had not known the answer first? What do you do if your PC comes across this riddle, and you already know the answer? (For the purposes of the argument, assume that your Int is roughly equal to your PC's.) Yes, you do your best to roleplay it. But wouldn't it be a damn sight easier if you didn't have to factor in your player knowledge?

If I thought the PC knew the answer, I'd change the riddle to something else. If they knew that one too, then I'd let them have it. When it comes to riddles, the only way to determine what the PC knows is with an intelligence check. Otherwise,m you are relying on the players kno\wledge and intelect to figure out the riddle in the first place...

I wouldn't let it ruin the enjoyment of the game.

(And yes I was referring to your earlier exampler of the guy with the favorite sword, and I realized adding the princess made it more clear cut. No one can say how they will react in a situation until they are actually in that situation. But I feel confident that in our gamer, the playrs would make the right choice.)

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

You'd be alot less grumpy if you didn't see the game as an exercise in DM-vs-Player.

Over the years, of the six or so different DMs I have gamed with, four approached in it as solidly "exercise in DM-vs-Player." I have more faith than experience that it is not all like that.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

And saying that to endorse Rule 0 is to endorse tyrannical behavior is similar to saying that every world leader is a complete despot.

Again, I wil point to the issue of maturity. Your DM sounds like a very immature person who cannot handle the responsibility of DMing, and you are letting him continue in that way by aloowing him to be your DM.

We no longer game with this DM for these reasons. However, he was and remains, with-in the letter of the DMG in everything he did. Controlling which books a player may buy is a right of a DM as per the DMG. That is not to say the DM *should* be ordering players never to read the MM or DMG.

Also, all world leaders are despots - some are just in the closet, so to speak.

 

[DSC-EricPrice]

Asking my players not to buy the DM and MM is an exercise in futility. Every one of them has been a DM at some time or another and has had a legimitate use for the books. That said, there are two players in my group who have gamed on a regular basis for the last 20 years. Even without the DMG and MM they are walking fountains of player knowledge. It frustrated me to no end to try and use monsters, give out items, or anything else because they knew what every item was. Then came 3E. Then came my savior Orcus, who in short order gave me plenty of new monsters, spells, and magic items (Creature Collection 2 and Relics and Rituals, among others) to keep these encyclopedia guessing. Now, as the PCs approach 5th level, they've nearly given up on trying to guess what a monster might be, what the grey cloak I just gave them might be, or anything else. The world is fresh and new for them, and I think they love it.

Thanks go out to all who've reinvigorated DnD with the OGL.