Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

interesting point...using that thought process isn't it "obvious" that something slithering on the ground can't be knocked prone?

No. You can flip a snake over or twist it around so that it has to spend a moment righting itself.

For "getting better at describing animals in uncomfortable positions," I recommend watching The Crocodile Hunter.

EDIT:

To head off your next question: And you can beat in a pseudopod so that an ooze has to rethicken the connection before it can move rapidly again.

EDIT 2:

Maybe, if you really felt the need, give snakes and other such creatures a special ability:

Groundhugger This creature can stand up from prone as a free action that does not provoke an AoO. [Depending on ruleset: This requires a DC XX [Skill] check; if the check is failed the creature must instead stand up as a move action that provokes an AoO.]

 

[ThirdWizard]

it has been argued by many that players "should know the rules" and while the rules for their characters should be very well known, I think players know way too much about what the DM may have up his sleeve, and this is wrong in MY opinion. In the infamous "zombie vs hydra" scenario from a different thread, the "players" are only bent because they know what the hydra's stats are, so if the DM says, nope, sorry, this monster (the hydra) cannot be knocked prone, everyone goes bat crap. Yet if you attack a zombie with poison, and the DM says nope, sorry, poison doesn't work on this monster....the likely response is "oops, I forgot"

In the last game I ran, one of the players was a polearm fighter, pretty well optimized to do what polearm fighters do: slide and knock things prone. And lo he did that to just about every enemy he found. He could slide giants, dragons, demons, whatever. But, put a 4' tall dwarf in front of him and it was one less square of forced movement, a save to be knocked prone, and if he didn't get the full 3 squares of slide on the dwarf because of their racial then he couldn't even attempt to knock them prone.

But, the game was internally consistent. And that made all the difference. In fact, one of the times it didn't seem consistent was when he had trouble sliding a white dragon, which I still hear about to this day. Now, said dragon was a dwarf transformed by a Winter Fey deal. Kept the dwarf racials, you see. But, to the player, it just felt wrong that the dragon was still a dwarf.

So, as a roundabout answer to your question, the answer is internal consistency. Internal consistency says that, as far as the player knows, and as far as game world physics go, you can slide and knock the dragon prone if your powers say you can. This isn't to say it is wrong to give dragons themselves the ability to resist forced movement or being knocked prone, per say. However, there is a sort of physics to the world that is expected because of a shared viewpoint between the players and the DM - that being the rules. When they are broken, it can actually detract from the game, lose the immersion, and knock the players into the "game" feeling more than they would be by seeing a dragon knocked prone.

So... expectation. One person might have their immersion hurt by seeing a dragon knocked prone. Another might have their immersion hurt by expecting one outcome but the DM forcing an unexpected one. In our case, the second is apparently the more powerful determining factor. In yours it is the first.

I hope that has shed some light on the alternate viewpoint for you.

 

[Barastrondo]

here is the other sticking point to this argument
why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?

if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules. So, if the player elects NOT to use his #1 weapon, isn't he cheating (assuming of course that no kind of knowledge checks were rolled before hand) - or at least I believe the phrase is meta-gaming?

There are two different schools of thought here, and they tend to depend on what the assumptions about the character's knowledge and capabilities are. In one camp, yes, he's metagaming, his character needs to make a roll or have fought undead before. In the other camp, it can be assumed that a character whose number one weapon of choice deals poison damage probably has learned a thing or two about how that weapon works, or has access to the (actually pretty common-sense) knowledge that poison works on living things and not so much on things that aren't alive.

But to the larger point, I think most groups allow for surprises within their social contracts. For example, the troll wearing a ring of fire resistance within the Temple of Elemental Evil. The conflicts arise about whether or not any given thing should be a surprise. Finding out your power doesn't work as written is not a pleasant surprise, but it can be balanced out if you also find that your power is more effective in a specific situation. I think a GM who has a tendency to make "no, I don't see that working, try something else" calls in the name of common sense is well-served to look for opportunities to say "yes, and it's more effective than usual." Otherwise, the player could well feel that the power is less useful than it seemed when he took it, simply by virtue of playing with that given GM.

 

[billd91]

You keep arguing like these are separate things, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Like you can only have one or the other.

They aren't like that at all.

Maybe that's the problem?

I would argue that they aren't necessarily like that, though plenty of people play RPGs like they are. They limit themselves to what they know of the rules, eschewing things that would be possible to do (maybe even awesomely cinematic to do) in favor of actions better supported by written rules or given specific benefits in the rules.

I have seen this a number of times with players new to rules sets. I hear the question "What can I do?" and I try to remember to return with "What would you like to do?" and then put that into whatever mechanic fits best or makes the most sense at the time.

Asking "What can I do?" makes sense for a board game or other game in which the things you can do are built up from nothing - everything you can do is because of a rule. But in a role playing game, I've never particularly liked the question. It's impossible for the game to construct every possible thing a character can do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why is it that people tend to give credence to a rule if its written down in a book but look at a rule suspiciously if it's a quickie GM judgement call.

Part of the DM's job is to not just be fair but be seen to be fair. Despite being in full control of one side in the fight. Therefore the DM needs to be scrupulous. But if it's written in a book it's part of the gameworld and it's what people expect.

A lof of you reading this thread, would feel that way, right? If the GM just came up with that off the top of his head, using his judgement and command of the rules.

Well, those exact rules ARE in the Conan RPG game. It's a combat maneuver called Pantherish Twist. The rules are exactly what I describe above.

You've already demonstrated that the Conan rules are mechanically ... not the ones I'd care to use.

And, since it is a rule in the book, nobody questions the rule. That's simply how Pantherish Twist is done.

Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?

Because if it's in the book it's part of the physics of the gameworld. It isn't a case of favouritism. If it's different from what the players expected or pictured themselves doing, they have only themselves to blame. And if it's to be argued, it's not to be argued in the session because to do so would be stupid.

On the other hand if it's DM fiat, the first thing to check if the DM comes up with that clunky a system is whether the DM has accurately understood what you were trying to do. Possibly, possibly not. But language is ambiguous. So there's room for discussion and argument there. The second thing to check is whether the DM isn't being a little harsh in those rules. The third thing is that the DM ruling is not as you expected. Your character is a professional adventurer (especially by the time they have Improved Uncanny Dodge). They should have a pretty good feel for what they can do. If they knew in advance the mechanics then this is justified. If they should have known them they have no one to blame but themselves. But if the DM pulls a complex stunt ruling that feels wrong, this breaks immersion because they've suddenly been presented with a part of the world they should know backwards doing weird things.

 

[TheUltramark]

There are two different schools of thought here, and they tend to depend on what the assumptions about the character's knowledge and capabilities are. In one camp, yes, he's metagaming, his character needs to make a roll or have fought undead before. In the other camp, it can be assumed that a character whose number one weapon of choice deals poison damage probably has learned a thing or two about how that weapon works, or has access to the (actually pretty common-sense) knowledge that poison works on living things and not so much on things that aren't alive.

But to the larger point, I think most groups allow for surprises within their social contracts. For example, the troll wearing a ring of fire resistance within the Temple of Elemental Evil. The conflicts arise about whether or not any given thing should be a surprise. Finding out your power doesn't work as written is not a pleasant surprise, but it can be balanced out if you also find that your power is more effective in a specific situation. I think a GM who has a tendency to make "no, I don't see that working, try something else" calls in the name of common sense is well-served to look for opportunities to say "yes, and it's more effective than usual." Otherwise, the player could well feel that the power is less useful than it seemed when he took it, simply by virtue of playing with that given GM.

take the specifics out of it, don't focus on the undead vs poison (or the hydra vs prone) - your weapon of choice is "type B" damage. Your character comes across a monster you have never fought before, never seen before, or for that matter never heard of. You are going to use your weapon and its "type B" damage.

If YOU have seen the monster in the books many times, and know that it isn't immune to "type B damage" but when you attack, the dm says "sorry this monster is immune to type B damage" do you challenge the dm, or pull out a different gun?

It SEEMS - only seems, like MOST - not all, players would question the dm - and to me, thats totally meta-gaming. As a dm, I gotta think : "If you are allowed to KNOW my monsters, then i am allowed to change them"

I also wanna put on the record right now this:
I have never foiled a players actions based on some "love of the monster" or being a "sore loser" - thats absurd. In fact, there have been fights that I have planned for weeks and the players in 90 seconds, come up with a plan to defeat me so soundly that I don't even pick up a die. I think that's awesome! - and I'll even reward bonus x.p. for something like that!

 

[The Shaman]

Part of the DM's job is to not just be fair but be seen to be fair. Despite being in full control of one side in the fight. Therefore the DM needs to be scrupulous.

Agreed.

But if it's written in a book it's part of the gameworld and it's what people expect.

People may also expect verisimilitude and consistency, and when the rules in the book and that understanding of the nature of the game-world conflict with one another, it's up to the gamers at the table to decide which one is more important.

Per the rules of the game or per the spoken or unspoken social contract at the table, often that decision is the referee's to make.

Because if it's in the book it's part of the physics of the gameworld. It isn't a case of favouritism.

"Favouritism" is not the opposite of "in the book," nor are all referee decisions not covered by the rules driven by favoritism.

On the other hand if it's DM fiat, the first thing to check if the DM comes up with that clunky a system is whether the DM has accurately understood what you were trying to do. Possibly, possibly not. But language is ambiguous. So there's room for discussion and argument there.

I make sure a player and I share complete understanding about exactly what the player's character is trying to do.

This is an argument in favor of communication but not an argument against the referee as final arbiter.

The second thing to check is whether the DM isn't being a little harsh in those rules. The third thing is that the DM ruling is not as you expected. Your character is a professional adventurer (especially by the time they have Improved Uncanny Dodge). They should have a pretty good feel for what they can do. . . . But if the DM pulls a complex stunt ruling that feels wrong, this breaks immersion because they've suddenly been presented with a part of the world they should know backwards doing weird things.

Your argument here appears to be that, absent definitive rules in the rulebook, the player's subjective understanding of the game-world should trump the referee's subjective understanding of the game-world in matter's pertaining to the player's character.

No matter how this gets gussied up, it's just continuation of the WHO DECIDES? argument.

I sympathize, to a point, with gamers who want the rules to the game to give them the tools to make informed decisions about their characters' actions. As a player it improves my agency and as a referee it makes my life easier.

But there are many tradeoffs which go into making a system robust enough to handle this burden, and some of those tradeoffs mean giving up things I would rather have more.

And I don't sympathize at all with gamers who turn, "I had a lousy referee," into, "Referees are lousy."

 

[Rel]

take the specifics out of it, don't focus on the undead vs poison (or the hydra vs prone) - your weapon of choice is "type B" damage. Your character comes across a monster you have never fought before, never seen before, or for that matter never heard of. You are going to use your weapon and its "type B" damage.

If YOU have seen the monster in the books many times, and know that it isn't immune to "type B damage" but when you attack, the dm says "sorry this monster is immune to type B damage" do you challenge the dm, or pull out a different gun?

It SEEMS - only seems, like MOST - not all, players would question the dm - and to me, thats totally meta-gaming. As a dm, I gotta think : "If you are allowed to KNOW my monsters, then i am allowed to change them"

As a player I would not do that unless my PC had a reason to know what sorts of things a monster might be vulnerable to (nor would the players who play in my game do such a thing). And I'd certainly never call the GM on it. That's just poor manners.

I don't know why I compartmentalize things this way, but I think that changing monster stats or making up new monsters entirely is a very different thing than changing the core rules for things like combat or skill resolution, or making up new rules entirely*. I think it is probably because I view those rules as a shared set of rules that the GM and players all abide by vs. the monsters, which are strictly the province of the GM to do with as he desires to make the game as fun as possible.



*Though I'm perfectly fine with house ruling stuff at the outset of the campaign with the input and agreement of the players.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yep, too many variables - there are variant monsters, and always have been. And it could even be as simple as using a magic item.

And most players that I have gamed with WOULDN'T (to borrow Ultramark's capitals) question the GM. I have been running games for thirty five years, this very month, and except for one (1) player it has never come up. (He was the worst metagamer that I have ever had.... The same player who got verbed in my campaigns.)

The Auld Grump, thirty five years... dear gods, how did that sneak up on me?

 

[pemerton]

In many ways, player immersion can increase with a proper understanding of cause and effect. Player buy-in can also increase with more understanding of what they can do to influence the world around them. Both of these things are represented as game rules. When the game rules are consistent with what the player expects (if I do X, then Y happens... if I do A then B happens... I'm going to do A!) they they are more invested in the game, and thus have a stronger tie to the narrative being expressed at the table.

I wanted to add something to this post. As written, the post seems to be mostly thinking about mechanics which are (at least loosely) the "physics" of the gameworld.

But I think that the point made is equally true when mechanics become less about the "physics" of the world and more about distributing narrative authority among the participants at the table (which is how I see quite a few of 4e's mechanics). In my experience it has equally been the case that when players know how these mechanics work, and what narrative privileges (and hence responsibilities) they are going to have conferred on them, they will become invested in the game and the gameworld, and therefore strengthen their tie to the fiction being shared and developed at the table.