The subject was brought up in another thread.
When I started playing, it was a standard assumption in our games that player knowledge and character knowledge are supposed to be seperate. Likewise, a DM would always know things that the monsters should not automatically know.
For example-
The player might be aware that a monster is a gargoyle and requires a magic weapon to damage, while the character doesn't know this, at least until he tries to harm it and fails.
The player might have been through this dungeon before, in a prior party that suffered a TPK, but the new character would be unaware of what exactly killed the previous party.
The player might be aware that a Fireball spell can only be cast by at least a 5th level Magic-User, while the character might not have any idea of the power of the magic-user, or even know that the caster is a magic-user.
The player might be the former DM, and might be aware of the layout of the dungeon in question, but the character shouldn't use that knowledge to avoid traps, dangers, etc while collecting easily obtained treasure.
The player might be capable of going to the bookstore and purchasing the module being played by the DM, so as to read it and learn all the encounters and come up with the best possible strategy to beat it, but such behavior is frowned upon, and the character couldn't rightfully know any of it.
Likewise, from the other side of the table-
The DM might know there is a stealthing rogue sneaking around, but the monster shouldn't know to immediatly cast Continual Light to reveal all corners of the room and detect the rogue.
The DM might know a character is invisible at the start of the encounter, but baring noise or smell or other detection, the monster shouldn't know to cast Detect Invisible.
The DM might know which character has the lowest hp and AC, but the monsters don't neccessarily share such knowledge.
The DM might know that a given player has chosen to parry, or dodge, or cast a shield spell, or is protected by a sanctuary spell, or other defensive function, but the monsters don't neccessarily have such knowledge, at least prior to attempting to harm the subject and failing.
I bring these examples up, because iserith thinks it's all perfectly fine and fair.
iserith wrote:
Role-playing is about playing a role, and if you're using out-of-character information, then you're not playing the role - you're subverting the role, and hurting the play experience for everyone else.
If a player tries to use out-of-character knowledge in a game that I'm running, he or she will find that it doesn't work. The fact that a troll is weak to fire or acid is no more true than the fact that your character doesn't know what a troll is weak to.
This post is going to be unpopular with a few people.
By definition, metagaming is not roleplaying. Using out of character knowledge may or may not be cheating; that's up to the rules of the specific game being played. But it is not roleplaying. It is the antithesis of roleplaying and the two cannot coexist.
Roleplaying is making decisions and taking actions based on who your character is and what your character knows. Metagaming is making decisions and taking actions based on what the player knows. Claiming that they can coexist is like claiming that it is possible to breathe and drink at the same time. You are either doing one or the other. Attacking an enemy because they have the painted mini or because you heard the DM talking about the adventure earlier is in no way roleplaying, and if not cheating in the particular game being played, is bad form nonetheless. In a board game, sure. I don't usually roleplay when playing Monopoly or Clue.
As I said, in Next, it might not be cheating. It depends what the book says. It has been cheating in past editions, and it is certainly no fun for the players when the DM does it. As the DM, I know everything the players are planning and all of their tricks and subterfuge; it's no fun for the players when the monsters have all of that knowledge too. I also know all of the strengths and weaknesses of the players and the party; it's no fun for the players when every monster always drives straight for the weak point.
For both the players and the DM, it may or may not be cheating, but it is at the least very poor sportsmanship in all cases. If your table is fine with that, awesome, go nuts. Just be aware that it's like playing a mashup of soccer and no-holds-barred-kickboxing; it is not the way the game is normally played, or that the game was intended to be played, and you're going to get some weird reactions from people the first time they see you kick someone in the crotch to get the ball away from them.
There is only one piece of out-of-game knowledge that use when playing, but I use it quite frequently: the chances of outcomes of improvised actions. Please note, I am not trying to derail this thread into a conversation about improvised actions and how to adjudicate them. With that out of the way, I will decide not to do something if the DM tells me the DC is a number that is too high for my liking. Additionally, when a DM gets to the third roll required to complete the action I've asked about, I've already decided it's not worth doing. That is knowledge of DCs and probabilities that my characters don't have, and I am using it for my own ends when I play.
Tautologies are tautological. And if they aren't tautological, they aren't tautologies, Saelorn.
Role playing, like acting, is about portraying a character & making decisions as to how the character thinks, behaves, speaks, etc. The considerations any given person takes into account in portraying their character MAY or MAY NOT include meta-game knowledge. If it DOES include meta-game knowledge, that doesn't invalidate the act of role playing - which has nothing to do with the source of inspiration, knowledge, etc.
At any rate, the Characters belong to the Players - not the DM. If you want to worry about what a PC knows, be a player.
Second, and equally important. A lot of DMs have conflated the concepts of difficulty and challenge. To that end, they hide a monster's strengths and weaknesses, claiming "oh you couldn't possibly know" about them. (See examples in the OP). This is just bad DM-ing. It relies on the ignorance of the participants instead of taking into account their intelligence and capabities.
Lets have a fight. Except you will be blindfolded, and have a hand tied behind your back. I'll be just fine, and will likely turn you on your head. It won't be fun, challenging, or interesting. It'll be hard, for you to win, though. So there's that.
So maybe, instead of being concerned about what the players know, or trying to have yet another advantage over them (and really, your DM toolbox is large enough already so that you could simply kill a PC w/o effort), we start designing our games with Challenge in mind. We look at circumstances, advantages, smarter play - and we tell the players up front what the scenario is (our basic f-ing responsibility) - and see what they come up with when fully informed!
Then, if they outsmart us, be happy for them. They did a good job. We shouldn't punish them for being creative or knowing something.
Let me put it like this. All the cards are on the table. Some are face down & some are face up. Nothing "in play" ISNT on the table. If you need to cheat, and hold back trump cards to smack your PCs around, then your DM-Fu is weak.
Quit worrying about what the players know and step up your game.
(All uses of "you" are informal, plural- not at anyone in particular).
MechaPilot wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Qmark wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Qmark wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
One of our players will sometimes roll a die to determine if his character would have thought of what the player just thought of. We much prefer to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate, and to keep DM knowledge and monster/NCP knowledge separate. It's just the way we prefer. YMMV, and I don't have a problem with that.
In my view, if it is going to move the game forward to use only knowledge that I believe the character has, I'll do that. If it's going to move the game forward to use my knowledge as a player, I'm going to do that. In neither case will I allow myself to use either sets of knowledge to make the game uninteresting to me or others or to violate the social contract.
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
There is no orthodoxy in D&D, there is no "one ring to rule them all" and no vengeful deity to smite heretics. To each his own.
- If Karnos were to metagame he would be cheating because, by the rules of his table, it's not allowed.
- If Isereth does it, he is not cheating because, by the rules of his table, it is allowed (and, indeed, expected).
- This is not a problem because different tables are allowed to have different rules and different social conventions.
If both were participating in organised play and were in competition for a prize of some kind, then it would depend on what the rules of the competition said and what the competition organisers thought. But they aren't.
So in my judgement, it is unreasonable of Karnos to object to Isereth's style of play.
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
One important bit of advice I have for the OP when finding a new player is to ask what they think about "meta-gaming".
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith is correct, uisng metagame knowledge to play your character is not proof of bad roleplaying.
It's cheating, of course. But it's not necessarily bad roleplaying.
And since, as everyone agrees, there is no right way to play D&D, it's perfectly fine if any table wants to accept cheating. It's not anyone elses place to judge.
dmgorgon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
I've come to a new conclusion: There is a wrong way to play D&D.
Now, while most of you are seething, let me explain. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with playing a game the wrong way. Instead, I'm claiming that in a game that has a defined standard of play (whether D&D, other RPGs, Monopoly, Poker, whatever) to play in a way outside of that standard is to play the game wrong. Sometimes this can be quite fun. I have nothing against it. I do it myself. But my claim is that it is the wrong way to play it.
Most editions of D&D have encouraged players to keep player knowledge separate from character knowledge (and DM knowledge separate from NPC knowledge). That's how the game has traditionally told you to play it.
D&D has also traditionally been moderately simulationist. Attempting to play it strongly narrativist or hard simulationist is playing it wrong. (With one exception--4e had more of a narrativist/gamist bent, and attempting to play it in a simulationist manner is playing the game wrong.) Most editions of D&D have supported and/or encouraged minor narrativism. 5e is doing something weird. It is taking a fairly traditional simulationist approach, but is baking a few narrativist components into the system in a manner that conflicts with the simulationist base, which is a volatile mix.
To be clear: I like 5e, it will be the version of D&D that I play. I might have to make some houserules to make it a more coherent system, depending on what options are published in the DMG. If my house rules significantly alter baked-in components in a way that goes beyond the degree of adaptation modeled by (but not limited to) the modules in the DMG, regardless of how much those components may conform or conflict to previous D&D standards, I will then be playing 5e the wrong way.
Meta-gaming by not keeping knowledge separate is a playstyle component that conflicts with the simulationist basis shared by most versions of D&D (and with the exception of the specific narrative baked-in components of 5e, this applies to 5e also). It is, as far as I can tell from current rules, the wrong way to play 5e.
SteeleButterfly wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
Qmark wrote:
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
iserith wrote:
For me, out of character knowledge should stay out of the game. Otherwise, what is the point of IN character knowledge? Why make a character with a high Int, when I can just play a dumb character powered by my own intellect?
In addition, it penalizes new players and rewards experienced players.
Personally, I think part of the challenge (and fun!) of being an experienced player is roleplaying an inexperienced and/or naive character. It means sometimes doing the wrong thing on purpose. In a way, it is a lot like being a DM. I of course know that if I have the orc do THIS and THIS and, of course, THAT in the right order, the poor rogue won't have a chance. But I don't HAVE to have the orc do those things. He could just as easily do something else. And yes, you can come up with clever explanations that seem to show that you aren't simply trying to thwart the PCs, but unless it was something the Players had already learned about, they are going to know what you are doing.
I also think that part of the DMs job is to tell the players when their characters do know something, especially when the player wouldn't know it.
Ultimately, each group will be different. It is important to get a sense of what your players want and expect. Everyone has a different threshold for what they consider to be out of character knowledge. For example, I think everyone in the combat knows about things like Dodge or Sanctuary. When you use the Dodge action, you aren't just standing still, waiting to be attacked. You are literally dodging around. Similarly, for me, the Sanctuary spell creates a visible barrier around the target. It is clear that there is something there. A monster probably won't know the exact effect, but they know there is something magical surrounding the target.
Qmark wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
"
Your players must understand the distinction between what they know and what their characters know. Your players have read the rules and shared stories about each other's games. They've torn out their hair as the entire party of adventurers was turned into lawn ornaments by the medusa who lives beyond the black gateway. That is all player information. No other characters know what happened to that group, except this: They went through the black gateway and never returned.
The problem of player knowledge/character knowledge is always present, but it is much worse when players control more than one character in the same region. It takes good players to ignore information that their characters have no way of knowing, especially if it concerns something dangerous. The best solution is to avoid the situation. If it comes up and players seem to be taking advantage of knowledge they shouldn't have, you can discourage them by changing things a bit. Still, prevention is the best cure."
--------
Yeah, I see where he's talking about player knowledge and character knowledge. And no dispute that's there.
However, I don't see where he's defining role play or suggesting that using player knowledge isn't role play. it seems to suggest that using player knowledge IS role play, but a type that ought to be discouraged.
Maybe the fault is mine, though. I wasn't clear. What definition of ROLE PLAY are you using.
FWIW, the concept of "meta game" is a military study of the theatre of war - trying to maximize effective strategy by understanding the geographical, political, and socioeconomic circumstances.
Likewise Role Play had social & psychology applications before D&D reared its head. So, while you can argue the definitions of Role Play have changed, I'd have to say they're going through iterations. Language conveys ideas - I don't think it's safe to assume that "Role Play" refers to the discussion of player-character knowledge that your provided. As I've argued, that discussion apparently ignores wide behavior that is otherwise commonly understood to be role play.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
"Good roleplaying" and "bad roleplaying" are red herrings, the sort of thing that can send the argument around and around in circles forever. It's irrelevant.
Using player knowledge that your character does not have for gain is simply cheating, no different than reading the module the DM is running, lying about your HP total, or scooping a dice no one else has observed off the table and declaring the result to be anything you want.
And if that's the sort of game you WANT to play, well, more power to you. Life is too short to care how other people amuse themselves (or who they amuse themselves with, for that matter).
Apparently choosing to stay in character is destroying ideas according to some of the aberrant play-styles supported.
I'm cooking dinner and I need to flip my burgers in 5 minutes, so I'm not going to do a full point by point response. Holwever, two points iserith made which I find particularly objectionable.
1- Iserith's main point regarding meta-gaming seems to be that it isn't strickly banned based on the rules in the starter set, so it's okay.
I don't think loaded dice is strickly banned by the starter set either. I don't think the starter set strickly bans bribing the DM, or paying cash to him for in-game favors. There are a lot of common sense assumptions made in the writing of the rules. Something that isn't strickly prohibited isn't necessarily a-okay.
2- Iserith's second point I have issue with, is he argues that he can explain the metagaming through convoluted roleplay explanation, for example his character's knowledge of the dungeon came in a supernatural dream.
I again don't agree that this is a logical argument. You can explain anything through roleplay. I can explain that my character is a distant relative of an ancient barbarian king, thus he starts the game with a vorpal great axe +6. I can explain that my character bribes the gods of luck themselves, which is a perfect roleplay explanation for the bribes I hand the DM to keep my character in good shape. I can explain that my character was born under a lucky sign, which explains my good rolls thanks to my loaded dice.
A roleplay explanation for cheating does not making cheating okay.
Time to flip the burgers.
Saelorn wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
1.) That's a misrepresentation of his point. His point is that an affirmative definition was given. "Role playing is..." An affirmative definition tends to exclude things not mentioned.
He didn't argue that things not mentioned are allowed. He argued that 5E defined RP in a way that was utterly agnostic to player-character knowledge or meta game concerns.
2.) Matter of tolerance. Why shouldn't someone have a magic heirloom? What about a regular heirloom? Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw it there?
Or maybe you're arguing that his examples permit everything? Ok, what if they do? Even if you don't like it, should nobody else?
iserith wrote:
I have not read the whole thread but have a question.
do the rules of the game also work like the laws of phisics for the world ?
If so characters would be familiar with some consepts becouse they have been living in that wirld experiancing those laws of phisics their whole life.
especialu things like advantage and disadvantage not stacking would also have a effect on daily life growing up.
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Ah, another discrepency. If you want to explain away your cheat knowledge through roleplay, you still need to follow the rules of the game. Namely, if your character is recalling an ancient nursery rhyme, it's a history check. If he is recalling some magical information about a spell, it's arcana. If you are sensing that a nearby room is trapped, that would be investigation or perception. There are rules to cover those sort of situations, you can't just hand-wave and say "roleplay" without playing through the steps.
iserith wrote:
Adorable, it's like a child who knows what he/she is doing wrong, but is using some flimsy loophole to justify his/her naughty behaviour.
I used to think that metagaming led to bad RP. But, I have found I have had some of the most fun playing with people who are brand new to TTRPGs and such players are usually unable to separate player knowledge from character knowledge.
This made me come to the realization, that metagame knowledge has no impact on how enjoyable the game is, and I care a lot more about having fun than I do about continuity in some 100% immersive storyline. I have found that the people who care overly much about such things aren't really fun to RP with (for me) because they tend to have a huge stick up their bum.
Saelorn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Y'know, it's easy to play "pile on to Iserith", but after a certain point it's not productive.
Iserith, why do you think there is such a discrepancy between your approach/philosophy and everyone (with the exclusion of Bawylies) in this thread?
Iserith, I didn't look until now, but I finally took a look at the roleplay section on page 66.
You realize that that section doesn't even apply to the examples you gave, right? That roleplay heading is under the broad "social interaction" section, it's not a general definition of what roleplay is, it's just describing what roleplay is in the situation of social interaction.
It's not talking about combat, dungeon exploring, or anything else that fit into the prior examples.
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Personally, yeah, I'd be against higher levels for my games.
But not VERY against it. If you want to throw your money at an adventure I'm gonna change anyway, that's your business. I hope you have fun, but that seems to me to be a waste of money.
And the other one with the treasure. If I'm giving something out in the game world - it's out in the game world. Cards on the table.
The rules don't care about your social contract, nor do they care about mine. The rules are there to facilitate play and mutual understanding, but anything we bring to it is what we bring to it.
I may allow my players to make up and recall anything they want about their past, while you may require a given skill check, depending on context. Remembering a nursery rhyme told by your Nan might be a gimme in my game, whereas properly interpreting that rhyme into knowledge about trolls or whatever might be a monster lore or mythical lore check in yours.
RAW doesn't tell us every situation that calls for a check, or that we must use a check, but it does tell us now to resolve a check when we decide to one.
Either way is good and supported by RAW. In neither case is what we are doing not roleplaying.
I've been thinking. I don't believe that "meta-gaming" is incompatible with or prevents "role-playing". Rather, I think the former can be channelled or transformed into the latter.
Saying "Your character wouldn't know that" in response to "meta-gaming" seems like such a bad move, IMO. It can bring play to a dead stop as you argue about what is appropriate knowledge for a character to have. It can block an action a character would have liked to do, taking away from their enjoyment. The player in question may not feel completly in control or their character because somebody else is determining what know and don't know, which will guide the actions they'll take.
I'm not certain which advatages exist for saying "No" in such a case. Play stops and the player has to retcon his action. No new narrative is created. Meh.
On the flipside, rolling with it opens up "role-playing" opportunities. "How did you know about the trolls' weakness to fire?" "I heard about it in my nana's bedtime stories. / I learned it from Wizard during downtime; he knows quite a bit about exotic monsters. / What kind of Ranger would I be if I didn't know about the baddies roaming these woods I protect?" It's a chance to establish new fiction, or reinforce existing fiction. You can use this chance to create bonds between (N)PCs.
And play doesn't grind to a halt because of it. They can fit seamlessly in-between actions scenes, like character moments.
So, yeah. When I think about it this way, why would I want to prevent these golden opportunities?
In a game with full metagaming investigative / mystery type adventures are pointless. It would be like reading the back of the novel to find out who the killer is.
Karnos wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Would you be okay with a player spontaneously adding an extended family?
a true love?
a tragedy?
a mentor?
Whats the deal with a powerful magic item?
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
" wrote:
Karnos wrote:
CCS wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
I didn't realise this thread was supposed to be titled "Hey, let's bash Iserith."
Iserith:
Really what this comes down to is opinion. You have based yours on the reading of the rules in the Basic Rules v 0.1 (bolded for emphasis), while other interpret it differently, based on personal experience and expectations. What you and your group choose to do is really no one else's business (no matter how offensive some of us might feel it is). However, your insistence that you are following RAW and that others aren't, is stupid.
By your own logic, what is stated in the rules, is RAW, and the social contract has nothing to do with it. If that's the case, then one of your players can (and should) bring a d20 with "20" on each side. By RAW, this is legal.
basic rules pg 3 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Having a sense of mystery and/or not knowing everything about the world =/= roleplaying.
Roleplaying is playing as a character. And since it is your character, no one but you can tell you what your character is like, why he does what he does, and how he knows the things he knows.
Roleplaying games have the additional factor of being "games", and thus they have rules that, depending on the game, place certain restrictions on how things can be attempted, how success is measured, and what resources (both physical like items and metaphysical like luck points) are available.
Your character attacks the troll with fire? The rules don't say you have to try to attack with non-fire first. They don't say you have to go through a sequence of failed attacks. You don't have to go through a "trial by fire" until you get to use fire. The rules just say non-fire attacks aren't fully effective. The rules don't care why you did anything. All they care about is how you resolve what you chose to do.
Choosing to use fire from the get-go, whether derived ultimately from prior player knowledge or not, isn't not roleplaying. By choosing to use fire, the player is establishing that his character, at least at this moment, is choosing to use fire. He is roleplaying by playing as a character. How he comes to his decisions is irrelevant.
Ultimately, there are no rules for roleplaying in D&D, or any roleplaying game for that matter. Roleplaying isn't enforced because roleplaying is its own reward. Players will limit their own actions and shared player/character knowledge to their own comfort zone and their own sense of fun. If someone's limit is beyond yours, then think about not playing with that person, or learn to ignore it and get over it. Your choice. You are your own person.
Shirebrok wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
SteeleButterfly wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I want to be clear that anyone and everyone is free and clear to make meta gaming verboten at their table. You want to give a player a warning on the first offense, and boot him on the second? Go ahead!! No skin off my back. It's your table, and your group.
But it you can't say the rules dictate that. That's a matter for your social contract.
As for meta gaming a background and bypassing challenges, or a DM disallowing a background (as Saelorn pointed out), the game is a marketplace of ideas. I as a player am free to come up with any idea that interests me. If I expect to be welcomed into a game it behooves me to pick an idea that won't offend the sensibilities of my fellow players including the DM. And in the reverse, a DM that wants players engaged should endeavor to not reject every idea offered by the players.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Nice quote chopping there, bud.
Once again, play how you like. I don't care. But you don't get to claim your personal preferences for how players should act or roleplay at the table is representative of a ruleset that includes no such rules for governing behavior.
Personally, I don't care for the amount of meta gaming Iserith seems to be okay with. I don't view his permissiveness as an attack on the foundations of D&D, nor is my game affected by his choices. Moreover, I recognize the difference between the rules on the page and social contract at my table.
Metagaming is not disallowed by the rules. The rules are neither for nor against metagaming. Furthermore, metagaming is not the antithesis of roleplaying. You can do both at the same time, either one, or neither. It may be disallowed by your social contract. Like many aspects of social contracts, what you allow or not can have effects on how wants to play with you and who doesn't. Ultimately, it's a marketplace. Choose people with like minded views as yours, and recognize that the more extreme you are (both too permissive or too restrictive), the less players and DMs will be willing to play with you. If you can manage to find a group despite that, then more power to you. Play what you like how you like.
Feats are topical, right now.
Feat: Self-Aware
Your character has read and understood his/her/its own character sheet and knows everything it says. At DM's discretion, every PC gets this feat at level 1 as a bonus feat.
Feat: Group Awareness
Your character has read the character sheets of all of your friends around the table and can use that knowledge to collaborate effectively as a member of the party. DM may disallow this feat entirely, or may allow it on a successful one-time Insight check. Pre-requisite: Self-Aware.
Feat: Subtle Awareness
You are so bound up in your character that a two-way empathic bond has been established. Your character is aware that a personal deity (i.e. you, the player) is guiding his/her/its actions and the empathic bond is so strong that your character can even read your mind. Your character knows everything you know and may act accordingly. This feat is optional. Some DMs may disallow this feat altogther; some may grant it the first time that the character rolls a natural 20 for Insight; others may grant it automatically at level 1. DM's call.
There. I've houseruled it.
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
I Dm in the same world for 15 years. I strongly encourage players to use any memories they had about past characters and game.
i consider sadic to force experienced players to pretend to be total newbies, if you want to create mysteries create real one!
Shirebrok wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
That's ridiculous - as if nobody has ever heard of a beholder and nobody ever talks about the crazy world they live in where floating eye-tentacles freaking melt people.
"Sorry, you don't know anything about this completely extraordinary creature - and if you survive this fight, you can't tell anyone about it. Otherwise that information will get out and I won't be able to write lazy encounters anymore."
weak.
bawylie wrote:
Here you all go, I've written the last encounter you'll ever need. There's no meta-gaming it - so don't even worry! It's impossible!
"Suddenly, out of nowhere, a Probability Field coalesces somewhere near you."
Probability Field
HP unknown
AC irrelevant. As the true location of the probability field is unknowable, it can never be struck by any weapon or spell.
Speed irrelevant. Once in play, the Probability Field is always somewhere near the PCs, probably.
Senses True Sight, Blind Sight, & Dark Vision (it really always knows where everything else is in relation to it).
Alignment - why even ask? That's meta-gaming! (Warning 1)
There you go. Now you never have to write anything again. And for God's sake, don't tell the players this thing exists! Spring it on them and eject their meta-gaming butts when they complain about it.
Tojours Pur.
iserith wrote:
role-play·ing
noun
noun: roleplaying
1. Psychology
the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context.
2. participation in a role-playing game.
OR
role–play verb \ˈrōl-ˌplā, -ˈplā\
Definition of ROLE-PLAY
transitive verb
1: to act out the role of
2: to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>
intransitive verb: to play a role
OR
role-play·ing [rohl-pley-ing]
noun
1. a method of instruction or psychotherapy aimed at changing attitudes and behavior, in which participants act out designated roles relevant to real-life situations.
2. the modifying of a person's behavior to accord with a desired personal image, as to impress others or conform to a particular environment.
OR
role-play [rohl-pley]
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.
verb (used without object)
3. to engage in role-playing.
Several different dictionary definitions, none of which support clue as roleplaying. Never in Clue, by Clue RAW, do you act out anything with regard to the pieces. Three different dictionaries and they all disagree with you.
"Represent in action."
edit:
"
2: to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>
intransitive verb: to play a role
OR
role-play·ing [rohl-pley-ing]
noun
2. the modifying of a person's behavior to accord with a desired personal image, as to impress others or conform to a particular environment.
OR
role-play [rohl-pley]
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.
verb (used without object)
3. to engage in role-playing."
Actually, all of these do.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Man, I'm already imagining several books and films with out-of-character knowledge...
Lord of the Rings
- Hobbits flee the Shire with the ring.
- Hobbits hide under the tree when they see the Nazgul riding through the road.
- Witch King says, "Wait, for no reason at all I know hobbits are hiding under that tree with the ring. Ah-ha! Gotcha!"
End of book.
Seriously, this topic has to be one of the most absurds ever.
I'm positive that anyone defending something so ridiculous as out-of-character knowledge can only be trolling.
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
2: to represent in action. I've never represented in action the thoughts and feelings of Colonel Mustard. Maybe you do, but that's not the rules of the game.
If you've moved colonel mustard around the board, you've represented him in action. Action is not limited to thoughts and feelings.
2. the modifying of a person's behavior to accord with a desired personal image, as to impress others or conform to a particular environment.
The rules don't involve the modification of a player's behavior to accord with the desired image of Colonel Mustard.
The rules do involve conformity to a particular environment (a murder investigation in a mansion).
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
The rules don't involve the assumption of the attitudes, actions, and discourse of Colonel Mustard.
The rules do involve the assumption of actions in a make-believe situation. Or do you think it's real? Again, you don't have to act, characterize, mimic, imitate, or do an impression to roleplay.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.
The rules don't involve experimentation or experience of a situation or viewpoint by playing a role. Apparently you've never engaged in the sort of roleplay being talked about here if you think it applies.
The rules do involve you experiencing a murder Investigation by playing the role of one of the attendees.
Someone nes call the fire department - you just got burned.
powerroleplayer wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
If he didn't frame the trap, first, the players could say what they wanted about it.
If he did frame the trap first (indicating its difficulty, etc), then the players can say whatever they want about it so long as nothing they say contradicts what's already been said.
DM: "This trap is X"
Player 1: "This trap is X, but also +1"
Player 2: "This trap is Blue X plus 1."
Player 3: "This trap is Blue Y plus 1."
DM: "No, I'm sorry it's already established as X, not Y."
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
A bit off topic, but does remind me of one particular memory from my early days as a DM for D&D.
I actually had a player who would regularly go out and buy any module I was using. Once I figured out he was using "inside knowledge", I would occasionally tweak things a bit just to throw him off. I still remember pretty vividly the argument we had (the type you only get in your pre-teen years) when he realized that I was "cheating" by changing the game.
Still makes me chuckle to this day.
But I suppose at it's core, his assessment of my actions were relatively accurate. I was "cheating" as he defined it. After all, I was specifically changing an encounter (be it social, trap, or combative) based on the knowlege I had as a DM of his out-of-character knowlege that he imparted to his character.
Almost 35 years later, though, and he and I still regularly get together to play D&D. Guess we survived that particular debate. ;)
All's fair in love and (D&D) war?
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
[quote="Karnos"]
iserith wrote:
What if the DM bought 2 copies of an adventure and handed one to a player?
Is that ok? I mean what's the principle at work, here? information is ok if sanctioned by the DM?
if so, then this is a stupid debate over what gets sanctioned (whatever the DM wants).
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
[quote="Orethalion"]
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos, I suggest you drop it. Even Orethalion, who stands on opposite shores of playstyle preference compared to Iserith and I, finds your line of reasoning flawed. This is a guy who agrees with you about how the game should be played, and you're losing him.
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Regarding the last point, I'm gaming the player to get him more invested. It's nothing to do with the adventure, scenario, characters, etc. It's me manipulating his ability to pay attention by refocusing his off-turn attention to the game and to another player with whom he's obliged to communicate throroughly.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
The Basic rules as printed don't say I can't physically assault the DM. Therefore it has to be governed by an explicit social contract. If the DM does not specifically tell me, prior to the games beginning, that I am not allowed to physically assault them then I can.
Does that sound right?
Saelorn wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
"Doesn't that argument sound silly?"
Absolutely. Would you care to examine WHY it's silly? The conclusion is germane to my point.
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
"On that note, I think it's safe to say that whether or not it's okay to physically abuse a person is covered under basic rules of human decency."
Or another way to put that is that part of the underlying social contract of civilized behaviour is assumed, and not to be changed without prior discussion.
And part of those baseline assumptions, right along with "No physical violence", is "No cheating".
As I have said multiple times, if your group wants to suspend either or both of those principles at your table, that's your choice. Good on you if that's fun for you. It certainly is no reflection on whether or not you are roleplaying, an entirely unrelated issue.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
No Iserith, it exists BELOW the level of the social contract, at the level of (to use your phrase) "basic rules of human decency".
I would no more read a module in advance than I would install a mirror behind someone when I played poker with them.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Remember errrbody: Everything not expressly forbidden is compulsory!
Bawylie
To clarify, in NO WAY was I implying that Iserith advocates or condones physical violence. If that was the impression you took or Iserith took from my statement, I apologize for being unclear.
That example was chosen specifically to undernote that some standard of behaviour is assumed as bedrock below the level of the ubiquitously termed "social contract".
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Karnos wrote:
"Remember errrbody: Everything not expressly forbidden is compulsory!"
I love that. I may add that to my code to live by, right below "Never hit on 17 (cards or women)" and right above "Not to go on all fours, that is the law!".
[quote="Orethalion"]
Foxface wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
I just skimmed the last 200 posts that showed up while I was gone and this thread has not progressed one bit.
Everyone agree to disagree and walk away. Either that, or some sort of death clock.
How does separating player knowledge from character knowledge enhance a game?
Does making someone go through the motions of experimentation to "find" the monsters weakness add to the game? If someone goes to "look" for a secret door or a trap don't they still have to make a roll to find/bypass it? If the captured alderman is in room d-17 are you really so anxious to re-use the dungeeon that the party can't just head to d-17?
I guess what am I asking isn't why do you think it's cheating but why do you care? What makes it a better story/session/experience for you?
"Amend that to "Once you actively take a stance on it and engage a tenet of the social contract, then whether it's violation of the social contract or not becomes an issue," and you'll find me in total agreement."
Wait wait wait. This is a side issue, but if the DM makes a house RULE, it is now a RULE of the game at that table. It is no longer an issue of social contract. It is a RULE, as valid and binding as anything printed in a book or PDF, and violating it is cheating.
That's not really relevant to the larger discussion, it just stuck out.
Kulland wrote:
Kulland wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Kulland wrote:
bawylie wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"My job, DM-ing, is to create an experience that captivates my players. They can police their own characters (or not) as they see fit. But I'm not writing challenges that rely on ignorance anyway, so it's moot if characters have knowledge that they didn't come by "on screen." I don't care. "
Bawylie
I don't know if you were being facetious, but I recall in a recent thread you said that most of your DMing was done for kids. Do you think that influences your stance on this?
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Wait wait wait...
Can someone give some examples of how a player metagaming has ever ruined their fun.
Not strawmen hypothetical examples. I'm talking real actual examples.
Orethalion wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Karnos wrote:
If you are using OOC knowledge to help improve a scene, then it's all good.
Example: I see that a fellow player is trying to display fear at some potential impending disaster. Perhaps I know, in real life, that this player is a new role player and still getting the hang of it. I will do everything i can to come up with a reason for my character to also act fearful, to better help the other player convey it in the scene. That's what I call Player Awareness, or good metagaming.
However, using OOC knowledge, to say, concoct gunpowder. Or using the knowledge that since you, the player, have been in this dungeon before and know there's a trap 30 feet in, is absolutely and uncategorically cheating. Full blown, out and out cheating.
It's so obvious, it's not even something I would mention in a social contract.
dmgorgon wrote:
Kulland wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
These all seem like examples of players metagaming and failing to build upon the established narrative, or worse, flatly contradicting established fiction.
The fake crown example: I would have invited the player to explain why he had such a powerful urge to avoid going down the corridor. His answer might have shook up the adventure and taken it down a path that few would have predicted, especially the DM and the player who had read the module before.
The fussy sun elf: not only does this behavior run contrary to established patterns of behavior, but it is a huge missed opportunity. Of course, since a character's actions are always under the purview of its player (there is no "your character wouldn't so that), it is well within the rights of the player to decide that the sun elf is willing to get his hands dirty. The real question should've been "why now?" The DM could've asked the player to explain what was so special about this gnome corpse that compelled the DM elf to act.
Sure, the players motivation in both cases was self preservation and greed, respectively. Yet the DM and/or group could have turned it around into something that grew the campaign world.
Ask yourself: what was the purpose of the cursed crown? To encite fear? To punish greed, or rash action? Seems the player was scared enough to avoid it, and acted cautiously. What if the player said he had a vision, telling him to avoid the corridor? Who sent the vision? Why are they protecting the party, warning them of danger? Does this third party have ulterior motives?
what was the purpose of the gnome corpse and the treasure? To be found? Was there a critical or helpful magic item? Is the story served by keeping the treasure hidden? What's better, keeping the treasure hidden so it affects nothing, or building the sun elf's story while adding the magic macguffin to the adventure, and possibly creating tighter connections to the world (was the gnome a friend? A lover? Was there a mystic aura that only keen elf eyes could see? A vision or diving message?).
Not only are these missed opportunities to use metagaming to build on the narrative in interesting and surprising ways, they are missed opportunities to help transform players who are governed by fear and greed into players who take more initiative in telling compelling stories.
by shutting them down (even when they are acting like jerks) all you do is train them to be suspicious and retaliatory. You are embittering them and driving a larger wedge between the two of you.
I'd rather encourage good behavior by rewarding good play and transforming bad play into good opportunities for new good play.
dmgorgon wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So you punished him by making him sit out the remainder of the game.
sounds fun.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Hey. As long as we can purge the non-believers, it's all good, right?
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I think there are 3 main catagories of in OOC knowlage.
1) Things people in the world could know the question is why would your character know ?
A example would be vunrebility to fire for trolls.
2) rules knowlage.
example would be characters not using the disingage action becouse they know the enemy already used it's reaction.
3) specific info about a modual/advanture that is being played.
Example exactly knowing what is in the next room because you have read the modual.
I think we can all agree number 3 is a bad thing.
So it leaves 1 and 2 to discuss, how do you handel these in your game.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Foxface wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Foxface wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
This thread has definitely drifted into the arena of the unwell, making an enemy of its own future.
This thread has been unwell from the OP.
MechaPilot wrote:
A technique that I've used a couple of times is inspired by TV 'clipisodes' --ya know, those episodes where the cast typically sits in a circle and recalls the good ol' days via flashbacks of previous episodes.
When the PCs level up, I encourage the players to save the 'old' character sheets (most are inclined to anyway). Then, later in the campaign, we'll revisit favorite encounters from the past. Each player gets to vote for their favorite. Everyone pulls out their character sheets from that particular encounter and we re-enact the events. Sorta 
. They think they know what to expect but there's always a surprise or two.
Even though the players have been through it before, it's still a lot of fun. New tactics, what if scenarios are dreamed up. Clipisodes are the equivalent of the Superman gimmick from the 1950s comics ('This is an Imaginary Story'); nothing sticks or is permanent, nothing changes. Still, an 'alternate timeline' sounds kinda fun --maybe someday .
The adventure I first used this technique in, I called 'Shades of Gray' after the abyssmal Star Trek TNG episode.
Karnos wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Literally ANY action taken based on "out of character knowledge" can be justified as the character acting on impulse, or any number of other perfectly valid "in character" motivations.
"How did you know to burn the troll to stop its regeneration?"
"Trolls regenerate? I just felt like burning the corpse for all the trouble it put us through!"
"How'd you know the McGuffin was up that tree?"
"I didn't. I was just looking for squirrels."
Since the player already gets to decide virtually everything that their character knows, their personality, etc...ANY action can be justified by a sufficiently creative player.
Meta-game actions taken without any attempt at in-character justification may detract from the game, but are really no worse than any other player who does not provide justifications for their non-meta-game actions.
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
I don't have a issue with meta-gaming. There is good meta-gaming and there is bad meta-gaming. In my last game of PF I was trying to go off on my own to contact the thief guild, but another player whos PC is my sister really wanted to tag along. So we just worked out that she would be able to follow me un-noticed, despite the fact that my PC is a urban ranger in his favorite community. It made for a more entertain story since I was trying to be super secretive, but she was able following me. It turned out that someone was also following her.
In retrospect, I knew the player wanted to be part of the visit to the thieves' guild, but there was no in-game reason or mechanical reason for it to happen. Having done it made the session better and I think those kind of decision improve the experience.
Emerikol. wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Life's too short to police what thoughts are going on in someone's brain when they make a decision with a character. I find instead, it's best to concentrate on the experience of their actions for everyone at the table. If it's a fun experience that fits with the fictional content of the game, that's all I care about.
Directors don't care what approach actor's use to portray their characters as long as they can be worked with on set and get the scenes done. They might be method acting where they get in the mind of their character, or they might do a practical aesthetics approach where they are a million miles away from feeling or thinking like the character.
Results matter. Don't waste your time policing brain states.
BoldItalic wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
NathanIW wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zappy wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Although I totally agree with the OP... there is another angle that I think is worth considering.
Not only does the player know things that the character does not and cannot always necessarily unknow them...
But there are things the character know that the player doesn't know and cannot possibly know.
It is generally speaking that, save for an unusual game set up, that characters have spent a good amount of time in their own world. They know the way time passes and it is recorded. They know the various holidays. They probably know many of the people who live in their town. They almost certainly know a fair bit about the local flora and certainly the local fauna. They have probably heard various legends and stories about the most dangerous things lurking out there in the wilderness that are typically encountered and some tips for surviving those encounters the players are likely unaware of.
They know the various traits of the local religions, they know stories of past heroes, they know the laws, regulations and general expectations for the conduct of citizens. They know the world geography, at least as well as any of us know ours, and know the closest, most important cities.
They can see what is going on around them in greater detail than the DM's words likely describe. It is entirely reasonable to think that they could guess at the difficulty of attempting an action and the likely consequences of failure. It might be totally reasonable to think they looking over a group of enemies, they can pick out which of them seems least likely to be able to dodge or block the swing of a sword and which one is likely to go down at the first impact of that weapon (i.e. AC and HP)-- not always, sometimes the visual information might be misleading, but typically they'd be able to wager a guess.
The world probably has some various customs, non-verbal hand signals or body language that would allow for base communication between various sentient beings of the world (although conveniently, pretty much everyone worth talking to already speaks "common" so... whatever). They have also probably heard considerable more about the various other denizens of their world than is presented to the players in the book-- although sometimes when presented in the books the player might be presented with some facts the character wouldn't know about their history or religion or origin creating a weird situation where there are a lot of semi-important small details that the character knows but the player doesn't while the player might know the deepest, darkest secrets that might ultimately be of no actual importance, but the character doesn't know these things.
Its... an issue to be sure.
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Beoric wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I think the debate over FoxFaces and Iseriths style has been hashed out very thoroughly. Not just this thread but several others went on for a long long time. I realize you may not have seen those threads karnos but really it's pointless to keep arguing. The only thing it will get you is higher blood pressure.
FoxFace has mostly been pretty nice in the debate. I still don't like the style advocated.
It really is just a matter of taste. I do ask that people keep in mind that some playstyles may not be foremost in other peoples minds when talking about the game. For example I'd never assume a game is like FoxFaces until I got more information.
ShadeRaven wrote:
@iserith: I read that article link and thought it well presented. I personally found it inconclusive, though. For me, at least, there wasn't enough evidence available within that particular article to state factually that knowing the end of a good book or good movie before seeing it was better than going in without prior knowledge.
I am sorry your experience with DMs seem to be so poor, at least as you relate it. Again, I can only judge from what you've revealed here, but the general theme is that "most DMs don't know how to create a good situation so they go through odd processes of stonewalling and misdirection to make players work for the Big Reveal. I find that incredibly boring and amateurish." Perhaps I would have a jaded view on expectations when it came to playing in D&D campaigns if I thought the DMs narrating them are an unimaginative, amateurish lot. I might just be a glass-half-full sort but I am just going leave it at - I am fortunate to not had such a plethora of unpleasant experiences in my history.
Unfortunately, you also tend to present your opinion as fact ("I find it hard to believe anything can make those shows any worse than they already are."). The truth of the matter is that it doesn't make you superior or anyone else inferior because they find entertainment in something you find unsatisfying. Personally, like D&D play, shows as such offer a chance to stretch one's imagination as one embarks on a (hopefully) well crafted series of investigative clues and discoveries towards some conclusion. That's my take on it. Neither wrong nor right. I do not discard the baby with the bathwater simply because I know there's a chance that they don't live up to my expectations.
Re: Your Encounters. I saw them earlier and thought them well crafted and astutely designed. Definitely worthy of play. That does not, however, preclude other presentations as unworthy. It just means that you've offered a compelling, different approach that's meritorious but not necessarily better. As for the discussion at hand, I would still offer your encounter without divulgence of its properties and organization prior to its inception. I maintain that my group would enjoy the surprising aspects of the encounter more for having it revealed in real time (imaginative that it may be) than to know it afore.
I try not to label DMs from the late 80s through 90s as having ownership of poor DMing techniques. I started in '81 myself and have been active in the industry a long, long time. There's both skilled and developing DMs of all ages and beginnings out there.
I don't automatically assume that because my friend here (on these boards - who offers me the rare treat to experience the game as a player) placed a trap in the kobold's lair while also having the chieftain hide a chest's key in the hollow of a log, that therefore he is an inadequate DM for using such "plot devices." I just accept that as the DM, he believed there was good reason for said obstacles, even if there were no obvious work-arounds to defeating them other than the discovery of each. Yes, he could have included three other ways to avoid the trapped hall by expanding the dungeon and offering paths, or perhaps you might suggest he should have made sure that the chest was also openable by a magic word found inscribed in ancient Calishite along the base of the chest as well as a flaw in the backside hinges that allowed a clever character looking for another way to breach the strongbox's seemingly impenetrable exterior. Yes? But why? Maybe my friend thought, simply (and simple answers are not the "province" of those incapable of complex ones before it's suggested)... "Hm... that kobold chieftain has a key to his strongbox... I don't think he honestly thinks he needs any other way to get into it."
As unpopular as this may be, I am going to suggest that failure (especially on such a minor scale as was that chest opened) is an acceptable option. Failure to discover some item of interest or magic, some cache of gold or wealth, or some alternative path to a goal should not be considered a failure as a DM. Honestly, I've been fortunate enough to know that failure (of all kinds) hasn't hindered the vast majority of DMs I've had the pleasure to play around, but has, instead, led to different paths on our journeys as players.
Finally, yes, I agree that a well-designed situation is interesting and (can be) full of surprises even with prior knowledge. There's no arguing that. 
I just tend to maintain that it probably would have been even more exciting and entertaining to discover it in the moment.
Emerikol. wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I have to admit, in all the years I've been gaming, I'd never thought I'd hear anyone say that metagaming is not only NOT cheating, it's encouraged.
This is simply far too alien a concept for me. Using out of character knowledge is flat out, pure, and irrefutable cheating to me. I would never tolerate it at a table, nor would I ever even consider sitting at one where it was considered acceptable. Fudging every single die roll is less cheating than metagaming.
I'm nerdly shocked.
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ill hazard to connect the dots here.
I do not believe iserith intends to label various DMs and DM styles as awful or bad except for as it reflects his own opinion, which is colored simply by his own experiences. He clued me in by a recent post where he asserted that it was just that, his opinion. Thus, I added the imo to some statements that lacked them and seemed very condemning otherwise.
Upon reflection, what comes through strongly is a sense that his personal viewpoints has been strongly formed through what must have been some very unpleasant experiences in campaigns where, as a player, he came away feeling railroaded, blindsided, forced into linear solutions, and/or etc. (Thus his assertions that most DMs are bad - " most DMs don't know how to create a good situation [...] boring and amateurish"... " keeping the players in the dark is probably the only way that DM knows how to create challenging situations" ... " they love to create them more than their players like to experience them" ... "I would find it unacceptable if no other way to open the chest or deal with the trap was viable" ... etc)
If I were to, for example, take a trip to the moon where space monkeys battered me mercilessly with overripe bananas, it's a possibility that I'd return from said trip with a heavy dose of cynicism toward all monkeys in general, not to mention little love for space travel or taste for bananas.
As a DM, I have to accept that he views me as just another space monkey trying to force him to digest the one-solution bananas as I try to rocket him into space (even if it was only his perception of my intent, not anything close to my intent).
I can't argue that there is a wide variety of fruits at my buffet or that I am just an individual monkey who enjoys all sorts of travel, both earthbound and beyond, because as soon as he sees any indication that the moon is one possible destination or catches even the briefest whiff of banana (regardless if they are of the one-solution variety), there will be an understandable strong aversion to my presence, or at least presentation. I am, after all, a monkey who's capable of space travel. What can he expect?
As loathsome as Sherlock is to iserith ("I find it hard to believe anything can make those shows any worse than they already are."), I am going to borrow from a rather famous quotable of Mr. Holmes:
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
It's taken me a bit to truly understand the personal truth in the statement that he sees no merit in any process of discovery or mystery. I may not be able to indentify with his belief that foreknowledge and repetitive play is the best approach to D&D, but evidence points to that conclusion. Having a blueprint of all possibilities and being able to plan accordingly ahead of time *is* the fun for them. Knowing what's needed, what's at stake, who the "players" are and what roles each take, etc., sets the stage for their challenge. From there, it's a question of whether or not they can devise a plan of attack that offers them the best chance at success against very visible obstacles.
Reminds me of a the old-fashioned Marble Maze Game. You had a start. A finish. And a marble that needed to weave along a path with many chances at failure along the way (traps, if you will). It was a fun diversion and even replayable despite having no mystery to it.
Granted, it's not a good example here because, let's face it, it has One True Solution - the preeminent anathema to good gaming for this particular audience.
Marble mazes aside, perhaps it's time to call a truce because his viewpoints may not be for everyone, but they are undeniably for him.
PS: As I said before, I like a good case to study and this actually has been enlightening. I had honestly never come across the "play that module again" sort before nor the "knowing the conclusion - and the details that lead to it - before the start has no impact on enjoyment of the adventure. It's eye-opening and intriguing. I'd actually like to see at least one session where everyone is given the details on what's ahead, allowed to study and plan, and then attack it over and over again until they find a satisfactory conclusion. I've enjoyed various tabletop wargame scenarios so why not?
Orethalion wrote:
Some prefer an aberrant approach to D&D, simple as that, live and let game.
This may ruffle some feathers( meh') but it's true.
Back in the 1990's it was common to recruit players from your local comic book store or Hobby store. We would leave a notice for D&D or sign a " Looking for players" registry. We would try out players for 3 sessions or so to see whether or not their playstyles meshed with our own. If so they could become a regular member of our group if voted in by majority rule. If however the player showed some blatant dysfunctional behavior that he refused to curb he or she was removed completely & rejected as a "bad fit" and told why. This would happen at the end of a session at the table in full view of the group with them voicing their own opinions to said player. I.E. To your face we told you as a group why "we weren't the group for you and you weren't the player for us". There were a few automatic disqualifiers for membership. Metagaming was one. Fudging dice rolls was another. Disrespect was a third. If any of these took place at the table the game would stop and the person was permenently removed. The D.M. pulled no punches in making you aware of why you had been kicked out of the group. I.E. "you are a cheater". You need to change this behavior to change our opinions of you. Or; " hey he has to go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdpOBnoiSU "
Back then- the dysfunctional playstlyes and attitudes were often codified in TSR books. We would cite the book and tell you "this is how you are acting" case closed. The book tells us you are a problem player. Back then TSR wasn't afraid to advise you and help you weed out those who detracted from the fun of the group. We were honest and strait forward as players.
The game meant more to us than hanging out, socializing, or watching a movie. We played together for years, sometimes with a group of 11 people. Rarely with less than 6. There was no time to play "nursemaid" or "game cop" to try and keep an inferior player until he or she was able to overcome the problematic behavior. The game meant something to each of us and we didn't want that wrecked. Should you discuss it (what happened) in public: Good on ya', we would too. This = everyone knew you were a cheater or were disrespectful as a guest in anothers home. Most of the time rejected players left without incident. We moved on never losing sleep over the situation, and sometimes using these people's antics as comic relief. We never ran short of players and they were always those we considered good r.p.ers and gamers who enriched our group. The end result was: we had alot of fun.
ShadeRaven wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
@Brightmantle: I think that's fair. Each table has the right to set their own rules for membership (so to speak). An honest, up-front approach is generally for the best, imo. Similarly, I keep the consensus in mind when running games here. I have nothing against those who like to eliminate surprise or discovery, but I do know that someone blurting out or acting upon information they have that's not part of the character (IE: I have a few players who own the starter set, but have avoided reading the adventure's details in it) would cause a problem in my game sessions. I would be honest and ask a player to leave, too, if they were ruining the fun for others because they know all the details to the adventure ahead of time.
@Bawylie: Beautifully put! I enjoyed your approach, analogy, and example. The "knowing ahead of time" type that I really had no prior experience with was the "it would be okay in my campaign if a player read through the module I was running" D&D group. That, coupled with the idea of playing the same module or adventure repeatedly, kind of startled me. But, hey, I love a good surprise, right? :D
Your "framing" is right up my ally. Although, to be honest, I have a tendency to wrap responses to questions in period speak that's often shrouded in subtleties and intrigues leaving them to decide how they want to interpret it or further pursue it.
"The queen is a dragon, isn't she?!?"
"There's little to indicate it, though there's a malevolent spark and an intellectual arrogance to her disposition and speech that you've come to associate with dragons. What she is, however, is clearly more than her physical form relates. She's undoubtedly very dangerous."
"Can I make an insight check, maybe?"
"Sure. Roll a Wisdom check. Don't forget to add your proficiency bonus if it's warranted."
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
MODS: The post I'm quoting here appears to be deleted. Feel free to delete my post if needs be.
Karnos wrote:
I’m late to this thread, and I read quickly but not 458 posts quickly.
My take on the original questions, though, is that for the PCs actions, anything goes. Already knowing the layout of the dungeon seems plenty undesirable for the player, anyway. It would seem to be bad form for a player who knew the dungeon to spoil it for other players who did not. I think the idea of any harm to the DM is silly, though. Want secret adventures? Write secret adventures.
For the DM to use knowledge about invisible/sneaking players to out of the blue use countermeasures is not actually against any rules, but any DM is welcome to try it and carefully time how much longer they remain DM. I recommend that the players unionize (probably metaphorically rather than literally, but either way works).
Specifically with respect to the players dodging and the monsters knowing that or not, I think being fair to the players is what matters. If the DM tells the players that a monster is dodging, then it would be fair to have the monsters know that a player is dodging. If not, then it wouldn’t.
TLDR: Equity.
Edit: Also, I don’t see anything in the disagreement that is not opinion. Arguing about opinions is basically pointless. If I missed any facts, please let me know; I love debating facts.
Brightmantle wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
@ bawylie Yep, looks like we are in agreement. Life's to short to play with dysfunctional players. Sometimes it's just not worth the frustration and changes must be made for the good of the group.
Happy gaming. 
bawylie wrote:
Y'know we were teens in the 90s and we didn't know better. We assumed this is just how it was. Eventually, we decided this ISNT how it was - this was bad play. Bad DMing.
We still play with that guy (who's a fine friend) but not as DM.
ShadeRaven wrote:
I'm being pressured in some corners to run some games online to demonstrate how all this works. I've actually gamed with a lot of people from the WotC forums and whereas with a forum discussion these kinds of things can seem opaque, they are much easier to relate to in actual play. Once my schedule clears up, I'll seek to do just that and will invite interested parties accordingly.
Until then, it's forum posts and the odd posted encounter...
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Player Foreknowledge of World:
If I know ahead of time that I would need to do 100 push-ups, does that make the 100 push-ups less challenging?
Player Authorship of World:
If I decide to challenge myself with 100 push-ups instead of 100 pull-ups, does that make the 100 push-ups less challenging?
"Hard" Failure vs. Failing Forward:
If failing to do 100 push-ups means that my next work-out will be made harder - as opposed to it being completely canceled - does that mean that there was no consequence for failing at the 100 push-ups?
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I've generally ran my groups similar to yours brightmantle except I just rule the group unilaterally on that stuff. Usually though by the time I get to the point of tossing a player, the rest of the group is more than happy to applaud the decision. Part of the reason is that my campaign starts with me building a world and offering that world with it's attending playstyle philosophy and then people buy in and play it. So I already generally have players of like mind.
In my area, I believe that there are plenty of players who would not agree with every houserule or table rule I have in place. They might wish for something different. They are more than willing to sacrifice that preference though for the kind of world I give them to play in. I know my worlds like Ed Greenwood knows his worlds. So I provide a really immersive experience if that is what your looking for as an element of your immersion.
I think the point I made about spoilers earlier might have been missed.
The following can be true and getting a spoiler can still be bad.
The movie or show is better after getting a spoiler.
Why is that? Because the pleasures provided by an unspoiled movie are different from the pleasures of a spoilered movie. So by watching the movie the first time unspoiled I can get all of the pleasure that comes from that approach. Then I can watch it a second time and get all the spoiler pleasure I missed the first time. If though someone tells me stuff before I watch it that first time, I've lost the chance to get that pre-spoiler pleasure.
I think it is pure silliness to claim that mysteries and surprises are not appealing to a large segment of the populace. Mystery novels are some of the most popular. Mystery movies also. My dad has told me often after a movie that the very best movies are those he couldn't predict what was going to happen. Most movies he can predict. I can predict most movies too sadly. That is a failing of the art though. I agree with him that being surprised is far bettter.
In D&D, for some people, it is the same way. The more the DM can provide twists and turns I don't expect the more I'll enjoy it. I think with D&D spoilers are far more onerous than with movies. I'm not playing the exact same session over and over. Whereas I might watch a movie more than once. Nowadays I don't do repeat modules.
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Just thought I would share an anecdote about spoilers here. I recently joined a new gaming group to play some D&D. I thought they were running a home brew campaign. When I show up for the first session it turns out that they are in fact running a published module that I have DM:ed for my regular group just a few months ago! After contemplating for a few minutes I decide to not tell them and just roll with it. I didn't spoil it for anyone else ofc, nor did I use my metagame information to our benefit in anyway (quite the opposite at one point).
What surprised me in all of this was the effect it had on my roleplaying. Instead of focusing on "solving the problem" as a player I was entirely focused on "how does my character think, feel and act at this moment". Problem solving and overcomming challenges is ultimately a dissociative activity, since its done by the cleverness of the players not the characters. I had a blast, and tbh the"challenge" was pretty much unchanged. It is not like rpg-puzzles tend to be particularily hard..
kalil wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Let's try this again, without the crazy formatting errors:
emwasick wrote:
iserith wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
kalil wrote:
Let's look at it logically. Consider these three axioms:
- Playing D&D requires a knowledge that D&D exists and that you are playing it.
- Your character doesn't know that D&D exists or that you are playing it.
- Using knowledge that your character doesn't have, is cheating.
If all three axioms are believed to be true, then to play the game at all is automatically cheating and D&D is reprehensible. Suppose we deny this. Which of the three axioms do you wish to abandon?
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
bawylie wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So even third person is meta gaming?
come on.
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
kalil wrote:
I just say what my character is doing. I certainly don't "tell him what to do according to the solution." That sort of confusion between the game and real life is how Tom Hanks went incurably crazy in Mazes and Monsters! 
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
NathanIW wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Karnos wrote:
kalil wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Ah, the old hit/miss problem!
What if your low attack roll is a lot of contact but none of it damaging. Say the defender is in plate and you're walloping him. Do you know how much damage you're doing? How effective your attacks are? Does your character know that, even when it's not observable?
bawylie wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Here's a critical thing that needs to be understood (outlined on page 4 of the Basic Rules):
A "hit" or a "miss" is a hit or miss against the target number for the check (saving throw, attack rolls, ability check vs. AC or DC), NOT a "hit" or "miss" of the target in the game. If you hit or exceed the target number, your action succeeds. If you miss the target number, your action fails or some progress is made combined with a setback (page 58). Remember, the DM narrates the results of the players' actions (page 3), not the dice.
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Characters don't know anything. They don't exist. Only the player exists. So any "knowing" that occurs can only be done by the player.
Everything that is put into portraying the character is within the player. Thus there is no separation of knowledge between the character and the player.
However a player can have his character act as if it was without knowledge.
autolycus wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
One thing I did enjoy (well, it was love-hate... ah, the infatuations of youth!) about RoleMaster was the broader view on how weapons and armors interacted. Heavy Armors (17-20) often meant taking many more hits, but the significance (and chance at being critically hit) was greatly reduced. Light armor (1-4) generally meant you were very hard to hit, but if it made contact... ouch.
With D&D, it's the descriptive account of actions that relates the details of the die results. Even a "hit" doesn't necessarily mean drawn blood in my session (although, it certainly can). Although, there are some days where mental facilities are a bit lacking and all you get is "that's 3 points of damage." Shameful as that is to admit 
My wife is going to take away my Tad Williams card if she finds out 
(she constantly ribs me for being a bit.. verbose).
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
autolycus wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If my preferences required me to sweat about what was going on in everyone else's heads, I'd prefer something less taxing.
BoldItalic wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I once won a sizable (non-monitary) bet against my sister that she still gripes about to this day.
She was a big Yankees fan growing up (I, quite the opposite, as I am a die-hard for the Mets). Trash talking Yankee that she was (is there another type? 
), she predicted all sorts of beat-down on their playoff opponent. Sort of tongue-in-cheek, I rejected her assessment and she totally challenged me to a wager. How could I not accept?
Thing is, what I knew that she didn't, was that the penutimate game had been played the day before and her work schedule seemed to have left her unaware of said fact. Is it my fault that I had greater knowledge of events than she thought was fair? She never asked. Perhaps there was assumption that the game was yet to be played, but that particular condition was never discussed or agreed upon.
Obviously, I didn't lose the bet and some 30+ years later, she still grumbles about how I "cheated". Hey, if the parameter wasn't agreed upon (not already knowing the outcome), how could I possibly be cheating?
I have a good, mischeveous grin every time she goes into her little mini-rant.
Moral to the Story: None. Morals are personal so how could any story be suitably told to cover everyone's individual expectation? Which brings us back to....
emwasick wrote:
People understand the world around them, even things that they "shouldn't" know.
for example, i am neithee a doctor, dentist, mechanic, electrician, engineer, scientist, biologist, archeologist, or and number of professions, and yet i have some understanding in all those fields, as does everyone else. Common knowledge.
as for what the characters know, they too should understand the world around the. We know about trolls and dragons and wizards in the real world where they don't even exist. In a world where they actually do exist, and where tales of trolls defending their bridges from gruff goats are literally the news rather then a fairy tale, I would think much of what we call "player knowledge" would be more like "common" knowledge. Especially if the character isn't a peasant farmer but is a skilled adventurer.
But you say the fighter doesn't have X skill? Do you think it realistic that a person would spend years of training to follow their life long dreams of adventuring and fighting monsters and being generally heroic and at the same time somehow never learn anything about what that would entail? Even if they are lazy and don't ever read or study, wouldn't songs and tales (and even children's fairy tails would be literal) not give them some common knowledge about what is in their world?
i would be shocked if a character didn't know about the weakness of a common and well known monster like a Troll. The real question would be how could they not know?
MrCustomer wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
It's up to the players, not the DM.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I find players doing whatever they wish their characters to do, and me not getting in the way if there is a plausible explanation (even if they didn't actually give me any explanation) much preferred over players thinking of something for their character to do and then talking themself out of it because they aren't sure their character has the appropriate knowledge.
For example: I know my players know what a troll is, and I've told them outright that what their characters see is a troll coming their way one night at camp.
The dull-witted fighter player (I have no idea why, but unless I am playing the fighter - which is rare since I am usually the DM - there is always a dull-witted fighter in the party) states "I'll shove this big nasty jerk into our campfire!" and then...
A) Follows through. Doesn't matter that fire is specifically effective against the troll because the fighter doesn't need to know it is going to work better than other options in order to decide to do it - he might have done the same thing to an Ogre, or even a far out of place Efreet, because all he knows is that fire burns most things, and getting burned hurts bad.
or B) Asks whether his character knows anything about trolls, worried that he is using out-of-character knowledge inappropriately... probably ends up letting a die roll, with his dim-witted character stacking the odds against him, decide whether the characters knows about the fire weakness or not - and somehow leaps from not knowing fire will work well to the convoluted logic of not trying fire anyway because he doesn't know it is a good choice, so he'll just use his weapon which he doesn't know is a bad choice (and somehow picking a bad choice you didn't know was bad is acceptable when picking a good choice you didn't know was good isn't).
I prefer A every time.
Of course, there is a limit - the plausible explanation - which prevents players at my table from doing things like... well... hmm... I can only think of a few examples, and most of them are summed with "No, you don't know that this character you are talking to right now is the person you didn't see at all when they robbed you last night, there is no evidence to lead you to such a conclusion - you can have your character assume that if you want to, but you can't have your character know that."
Just to put things in perspective on trolls. In 3e, knowledge of trolls (giants) was expressely not common knowledge. To even have a chance to know about one by RAW, you had to be trained in knowledge nature. You then had to roll a DC 16 check to get 1 tidbit of information which may or may not be regeneration as trolls have 5 abilities. For every 5 points you exceed that DC 16 check, you got ONE more tidbit of information. It took a DC 36 knowledge nature check to know all there is to know about the "common" troll.
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Zappy wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zappy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
iserith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Do you at least see my point that the DM doesn’t get to dictate what the player’s character thinks?
Overpromises wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Pretending to discover monster stat blocks for the same monsters in campaign after campaign sounds terribly boring. But not as boring as pretending to control a character that really belongs to the DM.
Orethalion wrote:
There are three schools of thought:
- Metagaming is cheating
- Metagaming by players is cheating but the DM is permitted to metagame
- Metagaming is not cheating
Each has its advocates.
(edit) I note that this is post #666 
666
posts...
BoldItalic wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The DM withholding information is just fine. The DM demanding the players not act on information they have establishd their characters as having, not so much.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
NathanIW wrote:
Uh, I can't speak for everyone, but most of the people I know who are against metagaming are against it from BOTH sides. The players can just as easily call out the DM for cheating, if he gives NPC or monsters knowledge that they shouldn't have.
Those of you who think it's only ever the PCs who can cheat are missing the real complaint here.
NathanIW wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Hrm. Yay, for weekends where things are fun
The one trend I think I find uncomfortable here is the simple fact that there seems to be an undercurrent through recent posts that it's DMs vs. Players.
On both sides.
Not a lot of cooperative thinking here. Does everyone realize that the DMs and players alike are both, well, playing? All have an equal right to enjoy themselves?
I wouldn't want to play in a campaign where a DM held tight reign on my characters actions by dictating what is appropriate for me to know or do through my character.
I wouldn't want to DM in a campaign where players believed THEY own the campaign and the DM was there to ensure THE PLAYER was having fun.
Fortunately, I've not met that many (but I have met them) DMs who take on this adversarial role and impose their expectations upon everyone.
Equally fortunate, I've not had many (but I have had them) players who display completely selfish disregard for the extra effort and energy expended by DMs to be the conduit to this shared roleplaying experience.
My solutions to, well, all the above: Communication.
As a DM, I'd hope my players understand that I have the right to change or mold the NPC actors of the world to suit the campaign theme. If I want a cold vulnerable troll or lightning breathing red dragon, honestly, that's my right.... I'm obviously putting in the time to do this. But to be fair, I would let players know that whatever they think they know about creatures and hazards of this world, well, it's worth about as much as an Electrum Piece in 4E. But I will be fair and within the normal framework of balance for interactions. Observe and learn. And never be afraid to ask or use your character to be your knowledge portal to the world.
As a player, I'd hope my DM understand that (and I know this treads dangerously along some unkind stereotypes of roleplayers) my character is *my* character, and in the moment of play, an extension of me. (Hopefully) I've invested time, energy, and thought into creating a persona that *I* want to be within the imaginative world we'll be traveling together in. But to be fair as a player, if the DM's running a module I've already played through, I should let her know that I have that rather obvious advantage, especially over other players who don't... just as a courtesy. If the DM doesn't care, great. If the DM decides she'll change things up here and there enough to keep me guessing, great.
What I don't get is the "I'd never play for a DM..." or "I'd throw out a player who.." absolutes when a little honesty and open exchange between people who, generally speaking, have a love of a shared hobby that lends itself to lasting friendships, would almost always lead to a peaceful, satisfactory resolution.
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
iserith wrote:
NathanIW wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Obviously some have had horrendous DM experiences, hence their approach, thank god I have not been subjugated to it (tyrannical DMs or this aberrant approach some have), and in turn not had my approach/view of this game unhealthily warped.
Orethalion, would you allow a new player who knew nothing about trolls to use fire against them, for whatever reason? Assume that the character has no knowledge about troll weaknesses.
Hitdice wrote:
I wonder if there exists a middle ground between "The rules don't say I can't know everything" and "thought police?" Probably not.
Thanks Iserith, but I wasn't worried. An Int 7 might not be very smart, but it doesn't take Steven Hawking to realize that if you're scared of fire, you oughta wet yourself down. I guess my question at this point is, when do people think it's acceptable for a player who knows about a troll's vulnerbilities have his character act on that knowledge. After a certain number of encounters with trolls? After a certain number of levels gained, to simulate having been in the biz long enough to have heard it around? Only after making the ability check the DM deems appropriate?
Hitdice wrote:
NathanIW wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
More on point to the heated part of the thread....
To Other DMs: Do you use out-of-the-box creatures most of the time? Personally, I think the simplest way to avoid concerns about OOC knowledge is to make everything my own. PCs don't encounter a Troll, they encounter a Direwood Troll. Did I just slap Direwood in front of a Troll stat block because they are from Direwood? Maybe. Or maybe there's something about the Direwood environment that makes them different. Affected their evolution. Altered them magically.
If the players want to assume, that's their business. They might very well be right. If they want to ask in character what they know about them, I'd be happy to give that, too, within what I think is fair parameters. Maybe Direwood is a dangerous place and little is known of it, so other than they resembled trolls of Thagmar (which the group encountered earlier), maybe that's all they get...except I ask for Knowledge - Nature checks for those who are trained in it and then divulge more information based on the quality of the roll. Perhaps the Cleric, during her apprenticeship, was present when the chief scout of the Duke's Legion was being healed of a grievous wound he sustained while trying to escape pursuit by the trolls in the Direwood. So she recounts details that make these trolls different.
Plus I like to reward players for diversity in their skills and backgrounds.
Now I do ask my players, if we are going retro on something (I converted some old modules that most of the younger or newer players have never seen - like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks or The Desert of Desolation), I'd like to know if they've been through it so that I know I should either ask them to let others take the lead so they can experience it unspoiled (sorry, iserith) or that I should tweak it enough so that prior knowledge won't impact the excitement others might derive from a first playthrough.
If the Direwood Troll is different from a regular troll, I'd still telegraph it - perhaps the troll steps right on a campfire and snuffs it out rather than avoid it or grabs some hot coals from the brazier and chucks them at the PCs.
Why are we even arguing about trolls? Know troll weaknesses are on the low end of the scale of cheating, kind of like speeding 3 mph over the limit- wrong but a lot of people do it and hardly anyone seriously cares.
Iserith believes that even reading the entire adventure module prior to play is perfectly kosher, and a player should be able to use any and all information contained within as if it's part of his character's knowledge. Iserith said that if a player wanted to buy a copy of the module he was running, and brought it to the game to read and use as for his party's benefit, he was perfectly fine with it. That is the kind of thinking that inspired me to create this thread. I see no justification anywhere for that sort of behavior.
This isn't just about a character randomly trying to burn a big ugly troll even without prior in-game knowledge.
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Kugnar wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Zappy wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zappy wrote:
@shaderaven
Theres a distinction between telegraphed knowledge and withheld knowledge, sure. And sometimes ambushes, surprises, etc, are great.
But for me, the withheld knowledge still has to be discoverable. Even then, I try to look at surprises as shark attacks instead of "gotchas."
here, a gotcha is using the rules or their ignorance against the players. Such as not informing them of obvious potential consequences they appear to have overlooked.
Shark attacks are when they see a fin coming in the water and have only the briefest time (a round, or maybe just a reaction) to do something before the shark attacks. Basically trying to get an "oh crap" out of them before the bad thing actually comes to pass.
So even where I withhold knowledge, it exists somewhere and CAN be found/known, and when the withheld threat does manifest, I preface the danger with a little color. A little click before the shotgun blast.
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Not stubborn - just consistent. Your view that "metagaming" is cheating isn't held by the rules, nor is "metagaming" even defined by the rules. That is because "metagaming" and how a group views it is all social contract and creative agenda matters.
autolycus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Karnos wrote:
You're flailing, Karnos. A case could probably be made for harrassment at this point.
iserith wrote:
An interesting question does arise out of this, though.
If you want to contain "meta-knowledge" then you must establish a cultural baseline for your world.
For example: Most people in our society know that putting a stake through the heart of a vampire will destroy it. None of us has actually fought a vampire. But it is part of the cultural baseline. Stories are told and many hear them.
The same could be said for trolls and fire. Surely a tale or two has been told around the tavern or among the troops about destroying a rampaging troll with fire? And for that matter it is a world that we know has bards that travel around telling tales of heroic deeds.
So anything a player comes up with could be handwaived with, "I heard a bard sing about this once."
Again, establishing the baseline for your campaign world will help put bounding paramaters (if you want any) on this phenomenon. How fast does news travel in your world? How effeciently is information dissemenated? Are all peasants illiterate and ignorant?
Could be a fun excercise to create a campaign world "common lore".
Sorry, Karnos, gang-smothered by the improv performance troupe.
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
autolycus wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
@Bawlie: Actually, that's one of my favorite devices when building a "scene". The assortment of clues that help set the atmosphere. A build-up to foreboding markers, often through as many senses as I can reasonable include - leaving some to chance (perception, investigation, medicine, etc., checks) and others too obvious to miss. The "taste of the air", the cloying, sickly-sweet stench, the barely audible "tick" that hints at something uncomfortable.
Odd as this sounds, sometimes the lack of detail can do the same thing. I describe things in rich detail usually (too much so, sometimes, I know.. heh)... so that absense of details can also make the party nervous.
That ghoul scene is great, by the way. Has me reaching for my shield and.. wait.. don't have those. Doubt a mechanical pencil is going to suffice.
But I think we can agree that it's just one of limitless approaches to an adventure encounter in D&D... and so long as the players (DM included.. he's playing, just from a different perspective) are enjoying the experience, they are all equally good.
ShadeRaven wrote:
I agree play what you like but if you are going to come on here and spout off what most would think of as a crazy theory of gaming then expect some push back. That is not anyone saying you can't do that. It is people expressing an opposite viewpoint.
For me the only real rule of D&D is rule 0. The DM is the embodiment of a living world. He is the law of physics. Whatever he says is absolutely what happens in the campaign world. The other rules are suggestions, guidelines, and rules of thumb. They help a DM to be a consistent and effective engine for a living world.
I dislike metagaming and never do it as a DM.
If one of my players read an adventure module ahead of time after finding out we were playing it then I'd not only throw that player out of my game forever I'd cease having anything else to do with him either. I don't need that kind of person in my life. I just hope I would find out when we were not face to face. The temptation to ram my fist into his face would be great. Now if the player was up front in his preferences about metagaming ahead of time then I'd just not play with him. I could at least respect him. I think there is an expectation that people do not cheat in a game as it is played by default. I also realize with D&D some people play a variant that is radically different but I would at least expect them to speak up.
In my worlds, common monsters are at least known to some degree by most people through legends, tales, etc... Uncommon are known as well by the more educated. Rares are almost never known. Since I find it is impossible to honestly suppress metagaming and because I still feel that metagaming is very harmful to the campaign, I use another approach. I change up the monsters. From campaign to campaign, my rare monsters will have all sorts of different abilities. I will also NEVER tell my players the name of the monster ahead of time. It's a lot harder to have a thousand monsters memorized purely by their descriptions. Players who repeatedly metagame ultimately find themselves counting on some fact that isn't true and as a result their character may pay dearly.
If I feel the characters would know I tell them. I don't play games and only allow the character to know if the player knows. If everyone in an area knows that Trolls regenerate then I tell the group that fact as something they know. I am all about making the line between the player's thinking and the characters thinking disappear as much as possible.
Hitdice wrote:
I pointed out in some thread recently that some DMs want to play the game and others want to *be* the game. Being the game means monitoring the players' every action for suspicious motives and internalizing "good play" to the point that kicking people out or punching them (!!) sounds reasonable. What a fun game!
The more I read, the more I realize that if I don't give players enough freedom to ruin the game, I can't give them the freedom to make it great for themselves either.
What would be awesome is if someone could punch a metagamer so hard they'd fly out of the basement and into the yard. That'll learn 'em to be so free with their thinkin'.
Emerikol. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
NathanIW wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I would like to posit something:
The characters know the game rules.
They might not know every permutation of the rules - if they've neither encountered nor read about a mindflayer, they might not know that it has the power to use Mind Blast and eat brains - but they know the basics.
They know they live in a universe where fate is determined on a linear probability system. They know the general difficulty to do things, and how likely they are to succeed, and how skilled they are. They know that magic breaks the basic rules of reality, but always in calculable ways. They might not know that their Strength+Proficiency is +6 while Throg's is +7, but they know that if both they and Throg try to climb the rope, Throg's going to have a better chance of success - and by about how much.
They know all this because they've lived in a universe where these things are true all their lives, just as we know that if we throw a walnut in the air, it will fall back down.
iserith wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
[quote="iserith"]Obviously the comment you quoted was meant in jest after a poster tragically (yet predictably) suggested physical violence as a response to "metagaming," but what else to call a DM who steps beyond his role to determine how a character thinks other than thought police?
[/quote]
If "how a character thinks" and "what a character knows" are the same thing, what's the point of lore skills if a player can simply decide that his character knows everything? But really, if you're unable to not insult my group's playstyle by dismissing me as a thought police, I don't think this conversation can proceed any further.
emwasick wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This isn't only a problem for D&D of course. We're having this very discussion on the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay forums: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/110671-player-vs-gm-rules-on-roleplay/
I don't mind if a player doesn't always play dumb, but just don't spoil it for everyone else. You're nobody's hero for breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule (isn't that Rule 0?)
jh
iserith wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
iserith wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
iserith wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
First, I used the first definition and you used the second one. Notable, even if we're both correct about what the word means.
Second, "whatever is available" is the context of established fiction in the game and the rules, but again, the rules say the DM asks for checks only when he feels there is an uncertain outcome or a chance of failure. If the DM decides the fighter's actions result in a spell being cast, then it happens. If he decides it doesn't, then it doesn't. If he decides the outcome is uncertain and there's a chance of failure, then he adjudicates a roll against a DC.
I mean, this is pretty basic stuff we're talking here. I'm really surprised to see you struggling with it given how long you've been on the forums. I assume you've been gaming for at least that long.
Karnos wrote:
Page 2 & 3 don't use the words "social contract." But they DO outline the roles of the DM & players and include checking with the DM for house rules.
So there's a base-line social contract or set of "norms" laid out right in the beginning.
SwampDog wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm going to stat out the smumbles next time I'm at a computer. And they exist in my campaign world now.
emwasick wrote:
Karnos wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Karnos wrote:
The Basic rules call for a roll if there is possibilty of failure.
A roll despite certain failure is allowed, and the Basic rules include an example of one. Such a roll may not be required, but it would be a pretty bold claim to say that the example in the basic rules is “wrong”.
A roll is not necessary for certain success.
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
A plague o’ both your houses! I find key claims by both Karnos and iserith to be ridiculous.
Karnos appears to me to be claiming that for players to use any information, ever, that the DM did not specifically grant to the player characters to be “cheating”.
Iserith appears to me to be claiming that a DM ever withholding information from the players is “making bad calls”.
At least iserith’s claim is opinion, which he is free to have and I am free to ignore. Karnos’ claim, however, is fact, and I do not believe that the written rules support it. If he changed it to be saying that using the information was bad, or something along those lines, it would similarly become opinion and he would be free to have it and I would be free to ignore it.
Overpromises wrote:
Players search an empty room.
They roll and fail. They find nothing.
They roll and succeed. They find nothing.
Whats the point of rolling FOR THIS SCENARIO, when the outcome is the same?
Process? "That's how searches are done, by rolling dice." Fine, but not for me. For me, what the players say they do is how they do it.
The dice aren't part of how something is done in the game world - they're part of determining whether or not an action succeeds or fails in the meta-level of the game. I don't need the dice when I know the outcome of an action already.
There's really nothing that's going to convince me of the necessity of superfluous checks. im honestly perplexed as to why anyone needs checks for things that are automatic: change your pants (strength check), find nothing in an empty room (intelligence check).
Call for a totally unnecessary check in D&D. Intelligence (Dungeon Mastery) DC 5. On a failure, you make the players roll, even though the roll has no consequence and doesn't matter. (If you feel foolish, you can drum up some excuse about immersion). On a success, you understand how to play this game, and don't have to feel ashamed.
Karnos wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Notably, when Orethalion and Iserith agree on an issue, they've probably both got it right. Stipulated fact.
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
K. I'm out. Karnos isn't arguing in good faith so there's no understanding to be reached.
Karnos wrote:
I always make players roll (or roll in secret if I'm in the mood) when they search for something, even if there is nothing to find. Otherwise the roll itself is information. I don't know if this is 100% supported by some written rule, and frankly don't care. I am not obligated to tell my players that there is something they just didn't find, especially if there is no separation of player and character knowledge (which there is, in my games).
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Karnos, the text says "regardless of your check result," not "on a failed check." You don't have to roll the dice to know if a 20 will succeed.
Hitdice wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos, I think between this thread and the other, I"ve pinned down where you've gone awry. It's a fundamental disconnect about the nature of the conversation of the game.
You think that players "use skills." "I search the room" to you translates into "Wisdom (Perception) check." If you think players "use skills," then there must be a chance of failure at using them by default because a check is used to determine uncertain outcomes, right?
But this is backwards.
"I search the room" isn't a player using a skill. It's a player stating an action, the results of which the DM narrates. Players do not "use skills." They only describe actions. IF the DM decides that those actions have an uncertain outcome and a chance of failure, then he can assign a DC and call for an ability check.
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
freudpimp wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
iserith wrote:
Finding a Hidden Object When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM TYPICALLY asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook. In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.
I reread the passage. This time I noticed and decided to stress a different part of it.
TYPICALLY asks. As in there are times when the DM will not call for a roll. As in the times when success or failure is guaranteed.
iserith wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos, my final word on the subject will be to point you back to post #915 and subsequent posts of a similar nature. When you've got that sorted out in your head, you'll understand. Until then that breakthrough is made, no agreement of any sort can be reached by discussing the topic with you.
I'm going to end my discourse with Karnos at this point because it's becoming repetitive and I have other matters to attend to. I'll engage with others in this thread as needed and will look for quotes of my content accordingly.
Cheers!
Cheers, Iserith, and thanks for all the input. You've been very patient.
I'm going to watch this thread very carefully and try to get the 1000th post. By my calculations, it should be in about 12h time.
Carefully enough for the DM to ask for a roll on Wisdom (Perception)?
I'm amazed people have continued dignifying Karnos' posts with responses for this long. I thought iserith would have got tired long ago, but clearly he's a man of great stamina and tolerance!
bawylie wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Searching the room for some traps has a chance of failure if there are traps in the room to be potentially found or potentially missed.
If there are no traps in the room, then it doesn't matter if the player rolls high or low, takes 20 (does 5e have a "take 20" rule?), or narrates in exuisite detail how they go about searching for traps. If there are no traps in the room to be found, then there is no uncertainty as to the result.
Karnos seems to be arguing from a position that traps could be found in an visibly empty room because the traps are hidden. Well, yeah, if there are hidden traps then the room looks empty, but it isn't actually empty. It's full of traps to be found! So of course there's a chance of failure to find those traps.
Iserith is supposing a truly empty room. A room with nothing in it. No traps, no secret doors, nothing. And he rightly argues that there is no need to roll for perception or search to notice or find anything because there is no chance of failure to not notice or find the thing that isn't there. It's an empty room with nothing in it.
Now this is obviously a hyperbolic example. It is extremely unlikely that a DM would actually include a room that has absolutely nothing in it. But "the room" is just a stand in for any situation. This theoretical empty room can be any scenario. A desk to be searched, a ladder to climb, a wagon to ride in, etc. If the desk has unlocked drawers or nothing else that would impede a search, then no roll is necessary to search the desk. It is trivially easy (as easy as putting one foot in front of the other in order to walk across a room) to open drawers and look inside.
"Oh look! The key to the chest was in plain sight in the uppermost drawer! You found it!"
OR...
"Well, there was nothing of note in the drawers. A pen, some paper, and a candle. Certainly not the key you were looking for."
Note, this is markedly different from a desk that has a secret compartment, or a locked or otherwise "trick" drawer. In this case, there is a chance of failure (in the former, the chance of not seeing the secret compartment, and in the latter the chance of failing to bypass the lock or "trick"). In such cases, a roll would be called for.
957 Posts to say absolutely nothing new.
Did you know that when photography came out, the exact same debate on whether or not it could be considered "art" like painting happened?
Even now, in the music industry, there is debate on whether or not synthetic sound (dubstep, trance, techno, etc.) is considered musical performance or just music technicianship. Even this is broken down to redefining music – are there instruments playing it? Is someone performing it? Is it a natural sound? Are the vibrations made by a computer? The argument goes for freaking hours and is absolutely a waste of human interaction (with exception to learning to cope with differing opinions).
Whether your character uses Out of Character (OOC) knowledge or In Character (IC) on a decision is a similar argument in its validity.
It's a Game. No nation is going to fall, no life will be taken, no political struggle defined by this argument.
Further, the entirety of your character creation is based upon OOC knowledge – or did you just happen to create that paladin with a silver longsword because he somehow magically already knew that silver kills devils/vampires/wraiths etc. without having ever interacted with one? Oh you decided someone told him? Ok, well, what made that happen? Oh! You wanted to write a story to justify your character's ownership of knowledge therein...
Great, you justified OOC knowledge to be used IC via procedural protocols we commonly call storyline. It's still OOC information filtered through a web of semantics and syntax over the pragmatics of the information itself.
This is just... very frustrating to read through 957 posts of argument over something that cannot be defined for anyone except in their own opinion of its form. It almost kills the image of using the forums as an authority on information and rules adjudication at a table. There are people posting on this argument that I want to support – I really do – but doing so, for me, would be joining a camp in an argument that doesn't need to happen, neighbors. I just ache when I see these things happen.
My parade. Rain.
But I still lovez youz guyz (and galz).
ivstin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
"This is backwards though. Players don't roll unless the DM asks for a check and he asks for a check when he determines there is an uncertain outcome and a chance for failure. What determines this is the situation in its entirety, not the fact that the player said something that sounds like it could be a skill check. The rules are very clear on this in D&D 5e."
Thats Narrative-Mechanical Unity all over. An action is a check is a die roll. That's a strange way to play IMO, but you can't deny a lot of folks (especially PF & 3rd ed fans) like it.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
It is interesting to see the different approaches to Roll Playing Mechanics there are here.
I wonder how much of that is influenced by which edition of D&D was the most influential to each player. The way that D&D was played during 1st/2nd edition by the larger community (GenCon/conventions and face-to-face propagation of style) was quite different from the more deterministic 3rd Edition or the tactics-heavy 4th edition (online propagation of style).
Each had rules that encouraged different approaches to the player/DM relationship and even to how and when one throws the dice.
The question now is: Do we carry this baggage with us into 5e, or do we take the new rule set at face value and see what organically grows from it?
ShadeRaven wrote:
autolycus wrote:
autolycus wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
iserith wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Fenix998 wrote:
iserith wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
#995 and counting ...
Yeah I was worried for a while there that it was petering out. But looks good to hit the big 1k any moment now...
ShadeRaven wrote:
iserith wrote:
Just seen this inthe Adventurers League Players Guide
I claim the #1000th post !
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
There's also this:
It seems to me that, if we take the Adventurers League document as an example of a codified social contract, first of all that prior knowledge of an adventure (for example LMoP or ToD, which are admitted for OP) is condoned and secondly that it is not the kind of thing that is regarded as cheating.
It seems to me that this bears on the topic of this thread.
I see "knowing the adventure" in OP as a necessary evil, not so much something favorable. It's done primarily because DM's wanna play too.
Yeah, I don't really want to get involved in codes of conduct, but I honestly thing that's only determinable on a table-by-table basis.
Even when it came to "D&D" sanctioned events, the Tournament Adventures of GenCons gone by, those were NOT to be done with prior knowledge of the adventures themselves. That kind of distinct advantage when it came to the scoring, etc., would have been legitimately cheating.
In this topic, I think it's safe to say that there's a difference of opinion when it comes to prior knowledge. To say that "Hey, it's okay for anyone to go out and buy 'Hoard of the Dragon Queen'" as a prepper for when the DM runs it in her campaign simply because you can point to D&D Adventurers League as an example of what's "Cheating", wouldn't hold weight for me.
If the DM okays it... the other players are cool with it... then by all means, go buy every module there is so you can read them before playing them. But if the rest of the table considers that "bad form", then just because you can pre-play or replay an Adventurers League module doesn't give carte blanche to that sort of thing for all campaigns and D&D sessions.
As I said before, I think the 1st and most important factor isn't what's OOC, Metagaming, etc... it's communicating as a collective group (DMs/Players) about expectation and table etiquette. Find out what the group as a whole agrees to as fair before trying to make any sort of blanket statement.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Well said, Nathan. It would be OP Suicide if they did anything but try to make them as inclusive as possible.
Now, if they were to bring back Tournament Play, where uncovering secrets, finding or using items, and even the use of varous spells or powers, affected results... you would want everything to be kept close to the vest and could argue strongly that getting advanced copies of the tournament material would be cheating.
I am sure there's a lot of people here who'd hate this, but back in the day, when D&D/RPGs were very much a niche group, it was a lot of fun and those conventions were quirky gathterings of enthusiasts of all types with one shared love of the RPG. Part of the fun was the not knowing. Just grab some dice and let's head to the secret entrance of the slaver's compound. Didn't need to or want to know much more than that.
Sigh... kids these days... if there's not a guide or wiki out there that explains how to overcome everything, it's too much effort otherwise... -wheeze- (This, by the way, is patently untrue and said only in jest. Most the new and/or younger players prefer the not knowing over step-by-step guides - except for in MMOs like WoW where failure is expected and it's almost a prerequisite to know the details of important fights to hope to succeed - not all, obviously, as you can see from the above, but most that I've encountered).
ShadeRaven wrote:
Karnos wrote: