Post/Author/DateTime	Post
venomandme 05-14-04, 02:04 AM	okay i have a question agian sorry but it's important i wanted to know how much can a player hide stuff from a DM lets say that DM is using a PC not a NPC but a real PC can i hide stuff from the DM? i know i can hide stuff from the DM's PC but i'm not sure about secrets from a DM. see i wanna DM later and the DM now is a dick about keeping secrets so i wanted to now whats the limit on secrets from DM's?
flyingmoose 05-14-04, 02:28 AM	Technically, no. If the DM asks you about your character, you kinda hafta tell'im. (Actually you never have to do anything, but that includes playing D&D, get my drift?) HOWEVER!!! *ahem* You can hide things from your DM's character with the appropriate checks. The DM himself knows what you're doing since he has to adjudicate it, but his character may yet be clueless, as being otherwise would be metagaming (basing in-game desicions on out-of-character knowledge).
Nimrud 05-14-04, 02:38 AM	If you want to spring something on the DM while he's still the DM, I think the answer is obvious. You can't. He has to referee the game and he has the final word on any aspect of his game. If you don't need to "use" the secret now, but want to keep it till you become DM, then you *might* be able to do it. The thing is to make sure that your secret doesn't clash with something already in the game. For example, you can't decide to kill an NPC in secret, as your DM might decide to use the NPC later. However, you can do stuff like hide something in a location known only to you. Of course, if something happens to that location, you are out of luck. Depending on what the secret is, having somebody you can trust to verify it later is also useful, so you can't be accused of "cheating". Alternatively, if there is nobody you can trust, and it's important enough, then write it down and mail it to yourself in a sealed envelope. But that's a bit extreme. It's only a game after all.
Mister Mayhem 05-14-04, 03:06 AM	The simplest Adage for RPG games: If the DM doesn't know about it, it didn't happen.
Falstaff the Fighter 05-14-04, 03:32 AM	You cannot hide things from the DM. He is considered to know anything and everything that exists in any part of his world, including what your PCs, own, do, and think.
strenoth 05-14-04, 03:46 AM	The only thing you can hide are purely mental plans and ideas. :) items and events are moderated by the DM, sothe DM must know about them.
Palin the Wizard 05-14-04, 04:26 AM	You could always hide intentions... but actual game stats? No. The DM needs to know every aspect of the game in order to do his job properly. Don't hide stuff from him... that just makes it that much harder. On a different note, a DMPC in game... well, unless your DM is quite mature, I doubt it's a good idea.
Heron_Marked_Blade 05-14-04, 11:36 PM	Actually, I don't know that I'd agree completely that a DM has to know everything.... My DM does a good job of playing NPCs as they'd behave regardless of what he knows about us PCs, but sometimes I prefer to make his job easier. We were in a fierce battle with some Devils that were using spell-like abilities, and my character cast a spell. I told the DM he was casting a spell and showed which spell I was casting (spell turning) to another player. All the DM knew was that my character cast a spell. Later on in the encounter a Devil attempted to cast a spell on me which was reflected back on it. Not to say that the DM wouldn't have had the Devil cast the spell even if he knew my character had spell turning up, but this way he wasn't tempted to have the Devil step up to melee my character based on the knowledge that the particular spell-like ability wouldn't affect my character. So I think in certain situations it's not a bad thing to "hide" stuff from the DM. If the DM is also playing a PC, you'll just have to trust that the DM will keep his metagame knowledge separate from his character's knowledge. If he doesn't, you can always call him on it and ask him to show how the character would know to act on that information.
Remnant 05-14-04, 11:52 PM	If you have a good DM, there is no reason to hide anything from him/her. If a PC has resist energy (fire) cast on them, and is the first to charge into a room towards a half-dragon with fire breath, as a DM, I would have the dragon shoot flame at the resistant guy. If you have a bad DM, (and bad DMs are more likely to have DMPCs, but they can be done well) then you might run into issues- i.e., your character is going to play a practical joke on the DMPC by throwing a halfling stickyberry pie at him. You tell your DM this in advance. When you do it, the DMPC is somehow aware of your action, and trips you, causing the pie to land on your own head. ...er.... you get the idea. I'm tired. Leave me alone. :P
Telas 05-15-04, 02:49 AM	But if you really need to keep a secret, write it down, put it in an envelope, and giveit to the DM. That way he can open it later, so you're not just pulling a "I got it earlier, but I didn't tell you because...." And if the DM's a consistent jerk about the NPC's and monsters somehow knowing what's up, use the same technique. Write down your 'buff' spells on a card, and keep 'em face down. It really shouldn't be a competition between the players and the DM, but sometimes it is. Telas
Thorak 05-15-04, 12:01 PM	I actually really like this idea of just saying "I cast a spell" and writing it down on paper. Then, the DM can make Spellcraft checks for his monsters (assuming they have it), and if he makes the check to figure out the spell, you'd show him. Just like he'd do if it was an NPC mage casting a spell and you made a spellcraft check. It keeps the DM from even possibly changing his tactics based on what he knows that he shouldn't, and there's no desire to 'hide' things from the DM, just limit his monster's understanding to the same level the PCs are capable of. Obviously, a mature DM can get around this. But if you cast something like Spell Turning, he's going to have to think "Well, the mage would cast at him anyway, so I'll target the mage." Whether he would have or not is a moot point; the fact that the PC cast Spell Turning has now possibly changed what the DM's strategy would have been.
trapspringer 05-15-04, 09:13 PM	My personal rule as DM is that if I don't know about it before the game starts, it doesn't exist. For example: The PC's encounter a dark room. PC: I use my wand of light. DM: Where did you get that? PC: I purchased it in the last town we were in. DM:You didn't tell me. That was a low magic town. PC: oh... Often times, your action would clash with the reality of the world.
BW0222 05-16-04, 01:40 AM	Pieces of paper after the fact don't work. Maybe there is something which prevented the PC from casting the spell. For example, maybe the dragon cast a limited wish to dispell any "protection from fire spells" cast in his cave. Perhaps there was some creature scrying/spying on the party which would have seen the spell cast and inform the dragon. Handing a DM a piece of paper after the fact, forces the DM to start arbitrating backwards in time. Had the spell failed, the PCs might not have continued. If the dragon had known the spell was up, he might have started combat with a dispell magic. Players don't dictate reality of the game, only their players intent. You need a DM to arbitrate whether a PCs intent becomes reality. Thanks, Brett
Telas 05-16-04, 03:32 AM	Originally posted by BW0222 Pieces of paper after the fact don't work. Players don't dictate reality of the game, only their players intent. You need a DM to arbitrate whether a PCs intent becomes reality. I've used them pretty extensively as DM and player, and they do work in certain circumstances. If the DM is relying heavily on meta-gaming knowledge, it's a way to remind him that you aren't happy with what he's doing. They work especially well in "duel" circumstances, when a DM may be willing to allow meta-gaming knowedge to influence NPC actions. Both sides have to be aware of the technique. An ideal DM would be totally impartial, and wouldn't control the NPCs and monsters using outside knowledge, but DMs don't always live up to the ideal. This is a technique that's worked for me. Telas
BW0222 05-16-04, 11:53 AM	>If the DM is relying heavily on meta-gaming knowledge, it's a >way to remind him that you aren't happy with what he's doing. No, it just a way of saying that "I don't trust your judgement.", "I'm too immature to simply talk to you about it after the session.", and "I'm willing to cheat if I don't like your rulings." A DM who is relying on meta-gaming knowledge isn't doing his job. Try talking to him (alone or as a group) after the game. If the metagaming so bad you aren't having fun, then try helping the DM or finding another one. You'll never win a p'ing contest with a DM. After the fact notes don't help, they just get the DM p'd off or you into goofy time issues. If you hand them a piece of paper saying that you successfully did something, you can just get into perfectly valid arguements that you didn't. Perhaps you needed a concentration check to cast in the wind or on the boat, perhaps someone saw you cast, perhaps the spell failed due to some other reason. You are putting the DM in a situation where you are saying that you did not trust his judgement then, but you are expecting him to arbirtrate rulings on attempted actions which happened hours ago? Ok... what if he rules that the spell failed for some reason? Now what? Are you doing argue that it didn't fail. That you didn't need to make a check or that someone didn't counterspell it? Are you going to argue that you would have played the last two hours of gaming differently or maybe you'd have discovered the invisible opponent? So the DM is supposed to roll back time because you don't wish to play the game by the rules? The rules say, that you tell the DM what your PC is trying to do. The DM rules on the success of any action. If you wish to take over the DMs job whenever it suits you, then I'd recommend playing with yourself. It also makes the DM (and other players) not trust you. You hand him a piece of paper saying that you have some spell up. Who says you don't have ten pieces of paper -- protection from fire, protection from acid, protection from cold, etc. When questions about the details of the casting come up, how says you are being honest. "Did you cast the spell prior to the dispell magic being cast in the previous encounter or after?" Gee.. after? "When? weren't you in the caves for several hours." Gee...about 20 minutes ago. "Well that is convienient. How did you know there was a dragon coming?" No matter how obvious it is that you aren't meta-gaming, the entire thing will look fishy. >They work especially well in "duel" circumstances No they don't. They just make the game more silly. Maybe your opponent has a friend with true seeing up and can see your invisible familiar trick. Maybe he had someone spying on your prior to entering the arena, etc., etc. You don't know. If you don't trust him not to meta-game, then find another DM. Her bad DMing isn't a license for you to cheat. >This is a technique that's worked for me. Cheating isn't a technique. After the fact knowledge given to the DM creates bad situation. Just accidentally forgetting basic stuff can be a problem, such as someone remembering that a spell effect was up during combat which might have affected something several rounds ago. Well, if the summoned monster couldn't him me because of the protection from evil, then I would have cast bless rather than heal myself and the other PC would have hit the monster rather than rushing to my aid. Well after a couple of initiatives, it's easier just to give the PC a few HP back than try rolling time back. Sorry, mistake, move on. It's common enough to make mistakes as a DM even when you have all the knowledge. When DMing, I never put down a player who reminds me of something during combat and I even give out tiny XP bonuses for when they remind me about things not in their favour -- like the monster having DR and another player's attack not. Trying to intentionally hide information from the DM just makes everyone's job more difficult. trapspringer's rule is a good one for DMs. If someone doesn't inform you of something, then it didn't happen. Asking a DM to rule on things out of order just makes his life more difficult and takes away enjoyment of the game for everyone else. Thanks, Brett
FreeTheSlaves 05-16-04, 03:10 PM	Wanting to hide information from your DM indicates an adversarial relationship between player and DM. If that is so it needs to be talked about and stopped: D&D is twice as fun when it is not adversarial. (And that doesn't need to rule out Rat-Bastardly DM tactics ;))
Telas 05-17-04, 01:35 AM	Brett, you completely and totally missed the point. :( If a DM is having a problem with separating metagaming knowledge with NPC/monster knowledge, then it can work. Write down your actions, let the DM know it, and use it later. All parties have to agree on this technique; it's not something you just spring on your DM. This is an extreme reaction to an extreme situation. If you want, call it "helping the DM with his metagaming issues". :D And watch how you throw around words like "cheating" and "immature". Web boards don't carry inflection or emotion, other than the emoticons. :D Telas
Nimrud 05-17-04, 03:02 AM	I disagree with Brett that it is cheating or immature to create a solution to resolve meta-gaming problems by a DM. In fact, it would take a mature gaming group and DM to handle this problem using this kind of gaming mechanic. (Yes, even mature DMs are tempted to metagame. :) ) If it is a game where players take turns DMing, and each have a DMPC (which is the situation the original poster seems to be describing), it does make sense to have a system where DM/players are not tempted to metagame based on out-of-character information. But even in normal games, it can sometimes be useful to use techniques that Telas describes. It may not about a p'ing contest like Brett put it. It may be the other way around. The 'duel' situation is a good example. If I had to DM a duel using one of my NPCs, I wouldn't want to pull any punches. It just wouldn't be fun for me or the player. It would be better that I don't always know what the player is pulling, than to have to err on the side of being fair and risk "under-playing" the NPC. In fact, in extreme circumstances, I would appoint a neutral party (even another player) to referee.
venomandme 05-17-04, 03:06 AM	hey thanks again you guys and gals cleared alot of stuff up with me and gave me some good ideas thank you all i will try my hardest to be more coperative with the DM yet i will hold inner mental plans to help myself out thank you
edgelett 05-17-04, 08:54 PM	no no no no no no no. You can't just start writing stuff on your character sheet & spring it out later...otherwise you could write ANYTHING down!!! A good DM will not use your items against you (i.e will not make you fight a character which only +5 weapons can affect, when he knows you only have +3 weapons) hiding stuff from your DM is cheating.
Hesparex 05-17-04, 09:16 PM	Lol as long as the DM is allowed to arbitrarily decide you are always caught flat footed.... sorry it was a secret you had no clue they were going to attack so there wont even be a surprise roll...Or just can ask you to roll dice and then not tell you whether or not you make a saving throw or a skill check or in any way divulge what DC you need. After all such knowledge could allow you to metagame
jaxpur 05-17-04, 10:17 PM	BTW, writing down a "secret" action on a piece of paper is also a good way to help the DM not metagame during readied actions.
ZappoHisbane 05-18-04, 02:48 PM	I don't see how this could count as cheating, as long as you're up front about the fact that you're keeping a secret. :) Tell the DM that you're casting a spell. If he requires concentration checks or whatnot, he can apply them and he doesn't need to know the exact spell. Write the spell down, and hand it over to the DM, with prior agreement that he doesn't get to look at it unless an NPC makes a spellcraft check or the spell itself comes into effect. I see nothing unfair about this at all.
Telas 05-18-04, 03:45 PM	Originally posted by edgelett no no no no no no no. You can't just start writing stuff on your character sheet & spring it out later...otherwise you could write ANYTHING down!!! <-------- The point. People who post without reading the comments. --------> Get it? Probably not. :D Telas
Hesparex 05-18-04, 09:26 PM	The Dm will also be allowed then to write something down on a sheet of paper.... forget skills forget divinatory magics .... the piece of paper says you die.....but? I am sorry I wrote it down so it is legal.
Falstaff the Fighter 05-18-04, 09:49 PM	This is just really pahtetic and sickening to think how far off track RPGs have gone. To think there are players out there who think they can hide things from the DM, and even worse, DM's who might actually let them think they have this sort of authority without booting them out. The DM knows all. He know everything. He know what your chracter thinks, what it plans to do, what it is doing, and in some cases, what it will be doing. You cannot hide anything from the DM. Attempting to do so is cheating and insuloting towards the DM. Definately a booting offense.
was_fired 05-18-04, 09:50 PM	I think I will start using paper more as a DM. Say you have a ring of spell turning if the DM knows what spell you cast in this ring they couldn't help but use out of character knowledge when fighting you. If you wrote what spell you cast on a sheet of paper, folded it up, and handed it to the DM he can't know and thus can't cheat even if by mistake. I will be using this in the future for all non-visable feats (like dodge but not expertise), spell turning, readied actions, and the like.
Nimrud 05-18-04, 10:17 PM	Telas, From reading some of the comments on this page, I think it is more of a gut reaction than anything else. Like WHAT???!!! HIDING STUFF FROM THE DM!!!??? BLASPHEMY!!! DIE YOU INFIDEL!!! That kind of stops anybody from getting the point. :D Anyway, back to the discussion, what do you think of having players double up as assistant DMs to handle NPCs sometimes or refereeing certain PC "secrets"? I think notes are useful for combat, but for longer term stuff, you risk losing them. Having an assistant DM (who is disinterested) may also be useful where the "secret" needs to be roleplayed.
Falstaff the Fighter 05-19-04, 12:07 AM	the DM he can't know and thus can't cheat even if by mistake. The DM can't cheat to begin with. He is the source of all the rules in the first place.
BW0222 05-19-04, 12:46 AM	The DM meta-games all the time. It's her job. She looks at your character sheets, classes, and abilities and designs modules and encounters appropriate to your party. If you don't wish the DM to meta-game, then your 1st-level PCs can run into ten trolls. Why should the DMs world consist of goblins at 1st-level, ogres at 4th, and then trolls at 6th? Isn't that meta-gaming? How many times do you wish to run into creatures you can't damage, doors you can't open, or creatures which aren't a challenge? The trick is to meta-game without making it obvious. Make rulings yourself is against the rules. Saying that you successfully did anything without your DMs ruling is cheating. You can no more rule that your player successfully cast a spell without telling the DM, than writing down that you purchased a +5 sword in a market. Try either at an RPGA game and you'd be out in the hall in minutes. Presumably the DM is supposed to be your friend. Most players don't like DMing, so if someone is DMing for you, then she deserves your support. Not snotty attempts to avoid her rulings while telling her you don't trust her. If you disagree with the way a DM is playing, talk to them about it. Offer tips. DM a few sessions for them to give them a chance to learn and improved their skills/play. If you honestly can't stand them DMing, switch DMs. Thanks, Brett
Telas 05-19-04, 01:03 AM	Originally posted by Nimrud Anyway, back to the discussion, what do you think of having players double up as assistant DMs to handle NPCs sometimes or refereeing certain PC "secrets"? I think notes are useful for combat, but for longer term stuff, you risk losing them. Having an assistant DM (who is disinterested) may also be useful where the "secret" needs to be roleplayed. I've used 'em both (notes and temp DMs), and they work fine. What people should realize, before they spazz out, is that these are all fairly exceptional circumstances. When your DM is incapable of "playing fair", the notes work. Obviously, he's got to be aware of them, and approve of the process. You can't just write stuff down and pull it out later. As a DM, I always had trouble walking the fine line between playing an intelligent opponent for the players, and using meta-gaming knowledge. This all got started when I had an enemy magic-user (this was in AD&D 1.0 days) use "Shield", when just about the only thing it did was protect against Magic Missle, one of the players' favorite spells. Arguments ensued, as nobody had used "Shield" before, as a player-character or as an NPC, and it smelled pretty fishy. So we agreed that the players could write down their spells, and I didn't need to know what they had. I'd occasionally spot-check to see if they weren't cheating, and once I requested the lists in writing, in an envelope (long adventure, tempting to cheat on). If the party came up with crazy-arsed tactics, they'd pass notes to each other so I couldn't see 'em. It works just like when you (as a DM) pass a note to a player telling them they're "charmed". Anyway, I have used "temporary DM's" when it didn't expose too much DM stuff (like the magic goodies and spells that the BBEG has). Works great, if the "temp" is a good DM. Anyway, these are solutions to what is rarely a problem. Personally, the party I DM'd had a LOT of encounters with other character races. Lots of evil wizards, clerics, etc. And these are the tough ones to avoid meta-gaming. Telas PS If you think the DM can't cheat, you probably also think that judges and cops are impartial. T
Nimrud 05-19-04, 02:59 AM	Originally posted by BW0222 The DM meta-games all the time. It's her job. She looks at your character sheets, classes, and abilities and designs modules and encounters appropriate to your party. If you don't wish the DM to meta-game, then your 1st-level PCs can run into ten trolls. Why should the DMs world consist of goblins at 1st-level, ogres at 4th, and then trolls at 6th? Isn't that meta-gaming? How many times do you wish to run into creatures you can't damage, doors you can't open, or creatures which aren't a challenge? The trick is to meta-game without making it obvious. There is a difference between the DM acting on out-of-game information when designing a game or encounter, and using out-of-game information in combat or when running the game itself. In some situations, DMs need to realise that metagaming is bad. Wise DMs may decide that in those situations, it may be better not to know some stuff, for example, the better to roleplay an NPCs reaction. By the way, there is no reason why 1st level PCs cannot run into ten trolls, if trolls were common in that area or if they were just plain unlucky. Nobody says you have to fight them. Make rulings yourself is against the rules. Saying that you successfully did anything without your DMs ruling is cheating. You can no more rule that your player successfully cast a spell without telling the DM, than writing down that you purchased a +5 sword in a market. Try either at an RPGA game and you'd be out in the hall in minutes. Nobody is talking about players making rulings. We are talking about players describing their actions on paper which the DM can adjudicate later. It is still the DM who decides at the end whether the spell was cast successfully (e.g. requiring the player to make a concentration check) or whether the player can buy a +5 sword. Presumably the DM is supposed to be your friend. Most players don't like DMing, so if someone is DMing for you, then she deserves your support. Not snotty attempts to avoid her rulings while telling her you don't trust her. If you disagree with the way a DM is playing, talk to them about it. Offer tips. DM a few sessions for them to give them a chance to learn and improved their skills/play. If you honestly can't stand them DMing, switch DMs. Presumably before notes are used the DM has to OK them. If she has a problem with them, then they won't be used. Offer tips? Sure, how about using notes? They are just a tool which can help DMs improve their roleplaying in some situations. If you don't like them, you don't have to use them. By no means should players be "snotty" with their DM by passing notes between themselves.
Telas 05-19-04, 03:53 AM	You handled that better than I would have. (Puts Wand of Flamewar back into storage.) Telas
BW0222 05-19-04, 10:36 PM	Nimrud, >There is a difference between the DM acting on out-of-game >information when designing a game or encounter, and using out- >of-game information in combat or when running the game itself. Not really. IMO, a good DM will meta-game in combat situations to keep the encounter balanced. Sometimes the DM needs to realize that they blew it in designing the encounter, and that an encounter is overpowered (or underpowered) and watch it. Hopefully, this is rare. Again, the trick is doing so without making it obvious. >Nobody is talking about players making rulings. We are talking >about players describing their actions on paper which the DM >can adjudicate later. How can the DM adjudicate them later? What if the spell fails because some invisible NPC casts a fireball at the party when he sees the PC casting? Oppss... is the DM supposed to roll back time? Undo the last several hours of gaming? (Even a few rounds of combat can take an hour?) >It is still the DM who decides at the end whether the spell was >cast successfully (e.g. requiring the player to make a >concentration check) or whether the player can buy a +5 sword. And when the DM rules that the protection from fire spell failed because it was dispelled by something and the PC is now standing in front of a red dragon, of course the player is going to scream murder and insist that they would never have gone into the cave if the spell had failed. Then some other player (who found a +1 sword in the caves) is going to say that he would have scouted into the caves even through his friend didn't go in, but left when he heard the dragon coming, etc., etc.,... At best, the DM could roll back time to the point of the spell casting. Everyone losses XP, the surprise of the module is ruined, and you just wasted hours of everyone's time -- plus several hours (or days) of the DMs time in making the module/encounters. >Presumably before notes are used the DM has to OK them. Why? Just send the note at the instant you wish to take the action. Let the DM adjudicate it then. Otherwise, you are just making the DMs job harder by trying to adjudicate things out of order and making her rulings create time warp effects. >If she has a problem with them, then they won't be used. Offer >tips? Sure, how about using notes? They are just a tool which >can help DMs improve their roleplaying in some situations. I doubt the DM is going to see it make their job any easier if the only point of the note is some sort of insurance against one of her future rulings. This isn't support. Note passing doesn't help a DM in not meta-gaming. It doesn't encourage her to try harder to improve her gaming. It just creates a DM vs. the players confrontation where the players obviously don't trust the judgement of their DM. Again, the players won't win and no one will have fun. If things are that desparate, switch DMs. >By no means should players be "snotty" with their DM by >passing notes between themselves. The original post was passing an previously action (a spell) to the DM after the fact. All my comments were based on this scenerio. However, player to player notes are obvious meta-gaming. Exactly how to the players communicate without speaking? Maybe there is someone there overhearing their conversation? Scry? Someone outside their inn room? Classic meta-gaming. I don't mind players passing notes to me during the game to hide their actions from other PCs. Personally, I find it slows the game down, especially when they then want me to repeat the same information to the party a second time. I don't mind folks passing notes with meaningless chatter during a long combat -- rather than interupting myself or another player. Thanks, Brett
ArchmageOmega 05-20-04, 01:28 AM	Geez... No one reads anymore do they? The point isn't to hide stuff from the DM, and this stuff only applies to combat and a very few other situations. Never to something like purchasing equipment. I'm DMing a game now, and I know that when the player does something that one of the NPC's can't see, I have a lot of trouble fairly deciding what that NPC would do. If I just got, the player casts a spell on themselves, then I'd have to think, would the monster pay more attention to that character, or maybe cast a spell on them? On the other hand, if I heard, the player is casting spell turning, I start thinking, would the monster cast a spell on that person? Even if you are a really good DM, I'd think it'd be almost impossible to completely ignore information you are given. As long as the players and the DM agrees that it acceptable to write down things that, realistically, no one else could see, such as casting a spell on yourself when you are not in melee combat, and they all know that what's written down must still follow the rules, then I can't see how there would be a problem. Saying "I cast a spell on myself" is enough to determine if there is a concentration check or anything else usually. Or "I cast a spell on the ogre" is enough to determine what checks should be made in that case. Of course, I'd use the same thing against the players too. Also, all rules should be known from the beginning. No rule should every change part way through a session. Also, nothing, except possibly rules, should change except during the game. But since no one will read this, I'll stop talking now.
Telas 05-20-04, 01:32 AM	Brett, You keep criticizing the "notes as a way to help a mediocre DM" issue by telling us what a good DM should do. But if we had a good DM in the original post, we wouldn't be talking about this issue, now would we? Sure, it'd be great if everyone had a DM as good as you at finding the perfect balance of metagaming, so your players manage to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat on a daily basis, but this is reality, even if it is a fantasy game. And in reality, it can be tough to determine what an intelligent foe will do while ignoring what you do know about the characters. Okay, maybe not for someone as spiffy and on-the-ball as you, but for mere mortals just learning the game, it can be tough. Passing notes is one way of managing the issue. You keep coming up with more and more obscure reasons not to use this technique. (Scry? When was the last time that was used on PCs?). Frankly, if you don't like it, then don't use it. If and when we game together, I'm sure we'll find other ways to manage the delicate issue of metagaming, but this is one that I've used, and it worked for me. Telas, DM back when Reagan was a governor.
Nimrud 05-20-04, 03:31 AM	Originally posted by BW0222 Nimrud, >There is a difference between the DM acting on out-of-game >information when designing a game or encounter, and using out- >of-game information in combat or when running the game itself. Not really. IMO, a good DM will meta-game in combat situations to keep the encounter balanced. Sometimes the DM needs to realize that they blew it in designing the encounter, and that an encounter is overpowered (or underpowered) and watch it. Hopefully, this is rare. Again, the trick is doing so without making it obvious. Sure. DMs do that all the time, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are not talking about whether DMs can metagame, but whether notes can help in some situations where DMs shouldn't. >Nobody is talking about players making rulings. We are talking >about players describing their actions on paper which the DM >can adjudicate later. How can the DM adjudicate them later? What if the spell fails because some invisible NPC casts a fireball at the party when he sees the PC casting? Oppss... is the DM supposed to roll back time? Undo the last several hours of gaming? (Even a few rounds of combat can take an hour?) Easy. You don't have to know what spell is in the note to know the player is casting, right? Player: I cast a spell (hands DM note) DM: A fireball erupts in the midst of your party. Make a reflex save. DC ___ Player: (rolls dice) I made my reflex! DM: Take half damage. Make your concentration check. DC __ Player: (rolls dice) Woohoo! DM: Ok you managed to cast your spell. (rolls spot check - succeeds) (rolls spellcraft - fails) OK you get to keep your spell secret. My turn now. Make another reflex save. DC__ Player: (rolls dice) Damn! Failed. DM: A lightning bolt zaps you for (rolls dice) ___ damage. Player: OK you can open the note now. I cast protection from electricity. I should take ___ less damage. The note contributed very little extra time to referee. It took away the temptation of the DM to metagame, e.g. cast another fireball instead of a lightning bolt. And for that reason, it made the combat a little more interesting IMO. A mature DM should be able to recognise that he didn't "lose". The use of notes must be approved by the DM, and he does so because he doesn't want out-of-game knowledge to influence his NPC's actions. >It is still the DM who decides at the end whether the spell was >cast successfully (e.g. requiring the player to make a >concentration check) or whether the player can buy a +5 sword. And when the DM rules that the protection from fire spell failed because it was dispelled by something and the PC is now standing in front of a red dragon, of course the player is going to scream murder and insist that they would never have gone into the cave if the spell had failed. Then some other player (who found a +1 sword in the caves) is going to say that he would have scouted into the caves even through his friend didn't go in, but left when he heard the dragon coming, etc., etc.,... At best, the DM could roll back time to the point of the spell casting. Everyone losses XP, the surprise of the module is ruined, and you just wasted hours of everyone's time -- plus several hours (or days) of the DMs time in making the module/encounters. DM: You walk through the door and you feel a strange tingling sensation. Does anybody have any buff spells on? Player: Me. DM: Your note right? OK what's the spell level? Player: Level 3 DM: OK (rolls dice behind screen - dispelling screen effect cancels level 3 buff) (doesn't tell player results) Later... DM: The red dragon rears up and bathes you in a furnace of his fiery breath. Make your reflex saves DC___ Player: (rolls) Woohoo! Made it! Half damage! And you can open the note now. I had protection from fire casted. DM: Sorry man, the spell was dispelled. Player: Aww man! The door! I knew something was wrong with the door! DM: Suck it up. Take ___ damage. Did this take extra time? Nope. Was it difficult to adjudicate? Nope. Did the player scream bloody murder? He had no reason to. Did the game have to be reversed. Nope. Was it more fun? I think so, IMO. Of course, there will be situations where a note may cause problems. But if both DM and players are mature about it, notes can contribute to the game, as I have illustrated. I am not saying they are useful in all situations, just some. YMMV. >Presumably before notes are used the DM has to OK them. Why? Just send the note at the instant you wish to take the action. Let the DM adjudicate it then. Otherwise, you are just making the DMs job harder by trying to adjudicate things out of order and making her rulings create time warp effects. I meant that before any notes are used at all, the concept of using notes, and when you can use them, should be discussed between DM and players. And yes, the player should send the note the instant he wishes to take the action. He should also declare what the action is, e.g. casting a spell, palming an item from his pouch, etc, but not the exact spell he's casting or item he's retrieving of course. >If she has a problem with them, then they won't be used. Offer >tips? Sure, how about using notes? They are just a tool which >can help DMs improve their roleplaying in some situations. I doubt the DM is going to see it make their job any easier if the only point of the note is some sort of insurance against one of her future rulings. This isn't support. Note passing doesn't help a DM in not meta-gaming. It doesn't encourage her to try harder to improve her gaming. It just creates a DM vs. the players confrontation where the players obviously don't trust the judgement of their DM. Again, the players won't win and no one will have fun. If things are that desparate, switch DMs. That's your opinion, you are entitled to it. I have my views, and I have illustrated how notes can work. It's just a tool, you can use it, or not, at your discretion. >By no means should players be "snotty" with their DM by >passing notes between themselves. The original post was passing an previously action (a spell) to the DM after the fact. All my comments were based on this scenerio. And I have given you some scenarios of what I was talking about. Hope that clarifies my views too. However, player to player notes are obvious meta-gaming. Exactly how to the players communicate without speaking? Maybe there is someone there overhearing their conversation? Scry? Someone outside their inn room? Classic meta-gaming. I don't see how note passing is "classic metagaming". You will have to enlighten me on that. I'm not sure why we are talking about note passing between players, but anyway, notes between players aren't communicating without speaking. (Well, not necessarily. There could be a Rary's telepathic bond between them, for example.) It could be a private conversation between them, which they don't want another player or an NPC to overhear. If somebody was in the same room, he can make a listen or read lips check to overhear of course, but he must make a check. If somebody was outside the door, well, there must be a reason for that person to be there, and he must make a listen check. Not difficult to do. By the way, there is nothing to stop the DM from using notes himself. For example, a DM might pass a note to a player regarding something which an NPC says to that player alone. There is nothing to stop another player whose character is present from wanting to make a spot check to notice the conversation, and wanting to attempt to read lips. But whether that happens, depends on the DM.
klyre 05-20-04, 10:28 AM	The only thing I don't share with the DM is what spells my character has prepared for that day.