The rules keep stealing my thunder!
- Thread starter Oryan77
- Start date
Isn't it? Pbartender said:
This is an example of what I've been trying to say all along. There is nothing a rules-lawyer is going to do to turn this description into a DC for a turning check. Therefore, any player in a reasonably dangerous environment will have every reason to fear for his character's safety and be uncertain to some degree of his character's chance of success of doing anything against the monster. Naturally, a few rounds later the PCs probably have a much better idea of the monster's capabilities as it's laying dead at their feet - by which time the monster has served it's purpose, PCs have been mildly anxious about the results and the DM has done his job. Therefore, the OP's problem is addressed - and that's what I've been trying to demonstrate. It's about correctly managing the information in the game, and correctly describing things to the players in terms that their characters would understand. It does not require changing the rules. That's all I've been trying to say - the rules don't have to steal your thunder unless you let them.
Oryan77
Adventurer
That's a great example of what I was bringing up in my original post. I love when players think of stuff like that. When the ruling isn't so obvious, I try to make it up on the fly. But as you said, by following the way the rules work, a trick like that usually isn't worth the effort.NCSUCodeMonkey said:
I'll try to bend the rules within reason and make them simple so that when I do tell a player how he can perform that action, he'll still want to do it.
CruelSummerLord
First Post
Oryan77 said:I'm one of those gamers that tries to think outside of the box when playing. I like to visualize the surroundings and think of what I can do as a character to overcome a challenge taking into account the environment and anything else I can think of. I also try to make it exciting & interesting. I do this as a DM also.
Then the players rejoice. Once again my own rule book thwarts my actions rather than the players. Honestly, little things like this are pissing me offSome lame obscure rule makes me look like a dope yet again. I can't ignore the rule or all hell would break loose and I would lose my player's trust. So I suck it up, and try to think of other ways to be "original" and get the players nervous so they can reminisce about that moment later on.
I also see it happen with players. Sometimes a player wants to do something clever and he can't because he lacks some stupid feat or something. Or maybe it's because he can't take a move action then a standard action and finish it off with a reasonable partial move action just because it's against the rules. And I can't let them get away with it because they prefer to stick to the rules (well, they prefer that my NPC's stick to the rules...they wouldn't mind getting away with things if I let them...and if I can't do it, they can't do it)
See, this is what drives me crazy about the new 3E rules sometimes-it's the idea that you have to do it the way the rules say, or else you're cheating. Same thing with crafting magical items-if you want a campaign where +1 shields are cherished treasures and even liches have to be thankful for what they can get, the tables in the DMG say that characters should have X amount of treasure at X level. Even if you don't want a game like that-where +1 swords and amulets of natural armor are easy to make-that's the general assumption these days, because of the way the rules are structured.
That's why I offer this bit of advice: If you don't like what the rules, or setting canon for that matter, say, then screw it and make up your own rules. Obviously, this should not apply just to you-as you say, your players have been wanting to do certain things when they don't have the "right" feats...in that case, given that you seem to be a fair and balanced DM, you go right ahead and let them try it, subject to your own rulings and decisions, of course.
No one from WotC or this forum is going to show up and arrest you if you change some rules. You as DM have every right to put your foot down and make a ruling, and to allow players the freedom to do things they might not be able to according to the strict letter of the rules. Just make sure you balance things out so the players can have their fun too-arbitrarily changing things in a way that seems as if you're deliberately out to screw the players and makes them think you're being unfair is bad, of course, so make sure the players can pull own little shenanigans once in a while too.
If you want a 1E-style campaign, where wands can't be manufactured until 13th level and permanent magical weapons can't be made until 18th level, you have every right to do so. If someone howls in protest, tough beans. Just point out to them that this means the BBEG isn't going to have as many magical resources at his disposal as he might like either, and he might have to send his minions into battle wearing ordinary armor and wielding non-magical weapons.
The BBEG might love to have a crystal ball to spy on the players, but because he's "only" a 12th level wizard he can't manufacture one and doesn't have one on hand. As such, he might have to use more conventional means to learn about what they're up to, and the players can detect these attempts, thwart them, or even use them to send false information, so that when the BBEG tries to prepare for them, he'll be in for a very nasty surprise. If the bad guys don't have all the magical goodies they might like to have, players can work this to their advantage. Their spellbooks might not have all the exact optimum spells to fight your players, or might not have the best ones memorized.
In short, point out that these rule changes can benefit your players, too-that way, they can get up to all sorts of crazy hijinks that the rules might not allow, but that you don't have a problem with. If you're a fair DM, as you seem, then they should be able to accept it when they can turn these rule changes to their advantage. If you want to make these kinds of changes, discuss them with your players beforehand and point out this very fact-it should make it easier to swallow.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Why not? It's still down, and you get to share in whatever loot it had...takasi said:
As long as the DM has some sort of rationale for why your turn failed, all is well. (and the DM had better have said rationale handy, in case your Cleric decides to toss that question into a Commune...) But other than from an in-game information source e.g. Commune, you have no way of knowing why your turn failed, and nor should you.
You don't *know* it's 8 HD (or 6, or 4, whatever). For all you know it's a 1 HD undead creature with Special Power: Unturnable. Or, it's a 12 HD undead creature with Special Defense: Instantly Slain If Hit By Any Magic Missile.
And the more things like this the DM throws into the game, the better for all concerned. Why? Because it preserves the mystery. You can't just say "it's a Wight" and rattle off a bunch of statistics to yourself, because it might not be a "standard" Wight at all. You're kept guessing, and the game is better for it.
Lanefan
Slife
First Post
Lanefan said:Why not? It's still down, and you get to share in whatever loot it had...
As long as the DM has some sort of rationale for why your turn failed, all is well. (and the DM had better have said rationale handy, in case your Cleric decides to toss that question into a Commune...) But other than from an in-game information source e.g. Commune, you have no way of knowing why your turn failed, and nor should you.
You don't *know* it's 8 HD (or 6, or 4, whatever). For all you know it's a 1 HD undead creature with Special Power: Unturnable. Or, it's a 12 HD undead creature with Special Defense: Instantly Slain If Hit By Any Magic Missile.
And the more things like this the DM throws into the game, the better for all concerned. Why? Because it preserves the mystery. You can't just say "it's a Wight" and rattle off a bunch of statistics to yourself, because it might not be a "standard" Wight at all. You're kept guessing, and the game is better for it.
Lanefan
Fine. I make a knowledge(nature) and knowledge(religion) check. *rollrollroll*. I get a 32 and a 27. What is it?
Slife said:
You get a timeout in the penalty box for two reasons:
1. you rolled three times when you should have only rolled twice.
2. you asked the DM what it was before it was even decided that you made the roll. The proper question, respecting the DMs role as the judge of the game is, "did I make my roll"?
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
gizmo33 said:
Heh. Semantics.
Actually, what he said is perfectly valid. The DM tells him what he knows based on the roll, and Knowledge checks are some of those where there can be partial success.
(Edit) Also note that, realistically, the answer the player gets from a failed Knowledge roll should be viewed as correct from the character's view, until other information comes in that calls the answer into question. Of course, sometimes you'll know that you don't know. That would be a nice addition to the ruleset for Knowledge skills. After all, people don't typically knowingly write in incorrect answers on a test, but sometimes they just don't know at all. (/Edit)
If he made the roll, the DM tells him what it is.
If he *didn't*, then the DM tells him...something plausible. Not "it's a candy golem!", in this case, likely a similar type of undead. Again, he could just not know, but come on, it's undead, and zombies show a great variability in terms of how they appear.
"32, eh? Yep, definitely a zombie."
"Okay, I run by it"
"And the Lavawight takes his attack of opportunity..."
(player shrieks in fear...mostly at the gross violation of mechanics that the lavawight represents, but that's neither here nor there)
Meanwhile, the cleric with his result of 52 knew what the guy was doing, and didn't bother saying anything, because it's more fun that way. This, BTW, describes how my gaming group acts sometimes.
Brad
Last edited:
cignus_pfaccari said:
What he said was "what is it?" - which is an unanswerable question. It could be construed as aggressive (coupled with the "fine" that started it off) and leading. It's like saying "how much of rules lawyer are you!?" - which is aggressive and misleading in the same way.
So by the DM saying "you don't know", he's not answering the question. He's ignoring the question and responding with some information.
And IMO this is very relevant to the theme of the thread. I think that the OP would have been helped by a more cooperative environment, rather than an adversarial one.
The question "what happens" is valid. "What does my character know." is valid. "What is it." is not, it implicitly makes an assumption that is entirely not the business of the player to make - forcing the DM to correct the perception in his response. While I assume it wasn't the intention of the poster in this case, this sort of thing is done by aggressive rules-lawyers all of the time.
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
gizmo33 said:
Really?
"What is it?" is an unanswerable question when it refers to a player making a knowledge check to find out what an undead is?
Seriously...that's answered either with:
1) The truth (if Knowledge check result > DC)
2) "You don't know" or incorrect information (if Knowledge check result < DC)
3) "Huh?"
Both 1 and 2 answer the question in a valid fashion. The question does rely on context, but that's easily determined by the DM and player. If they disagree on context (i.e. # 3), which does happen from time to time, that's then resolved with further clarification.
Certainly, "did I make my roll?" is not nearly as good a question in this case. That's easily interpretable as "Did I roll my dice?", which is either a very bad question or a very funny question, depending on the asker's intent.
And as far as the character knows, he succeeded on his Knowledge check, whether or not he did or not.
Or do you tell your players that they failed their Spot and Listen checks?
Brad
Similar Threads
