But to the point of the post...
She keeps an adventure journal for her fighter(s). Everything her fighter has fought or encountered is in that journal. For example: "fought a zombie, it used a slam attack, is vulnerable to radiant damage, it gets a single action per round and is not that intelligent." In our home game it's never been an issue. She also keeps a journal for her LFR character too, which includes the name of the mod, her fighter's level at the time of the encounter, where the encounter occured and what attacks the monster used.
Well two nights ago, we played an LFR game with a semi-new player in our group, who happened to DM this mod. He totally disallowed her character journal. He implied she had gone through the MM and copied information from the book and that keeping a journal was "meta-gaming." That her fighter was in possession of knowledge she would not normally have access to. The whole thing started over an encounter with a dark creeper, which her fighter has encountered in earlier adventures. She simply mentioned it gets extra damage when it has combat advantage and the DM went from human to jerk in less than a milli-second. We explained that she always kept a journal for her fighter so she could remember everything her fighter has fought against for future reference. HE said that's fine for home brew games, but in LFR, that's meta-gaming and cheating. I didn't find anything against keeping a journal in the offical rules, I told him in her defence. But he didn't budge on the issue and even threatened "consequences" if we didn't "get off his case."
So am I to understand that all PC's go through a "mind-wiping proccess" after every mod they play in LFR. Because it sure looks this way. I thought gaining experience was more than accumulating experience points and choosing a new exploit. What about "remembering" the things that almost killed you and your party in previous adventures? In other words, knowledge.
Has anyone else encountered this? Opinions?
Two nights ago I played in a very interresting game of LFR. This situation involves the same player from a previous post I made a few weeks ago. (The lady at our table who plays a human fighter who was berated for trying to put a sunrod on her shield.) She's been in our group for a long time and we also play in a home brew campaign where she plays a fighter there too.
But to the point of the post...
She keeps an adventure journal for her fighter(s). Everything her fighter has fought or encountered is in that journal. For example: "fought a zombie, it used a slam attack, is vulnerable to radiant damage, it gets a single action per round and is not that intelligent." In our home game it's never been an issue. She also keeps a journal for her LFR character too, which includes the name of the mod, her fighter's level at the time of the encounter, where the encounter occured and what attacks the monster used.
Well two nights ago, we played an LFR game with a semi-new player in our group, who happened to DM this mod. He totally disallowed her character journal. He implied she had gone through the MM and copied information from the book and that keeping a journal was "meta-gaming." That her fighter was in possession of knowledge she would not normally have access to. The whole thing started over an encounter with a dark creeper, which her fighter has encountered in earlier adventures. She simply mentioned it gets extra damage when it has combat advantage and the DM went from human to jerk in less than a milli-second. We explained that she always kept a journal for her fighter so she could remember everything her fighter has fought against for future reference. HE said that's fine for home brew games, but in LFR, that's meta-gaming and cheating. I didn't find anything against keeping a journal in the offical rules, I told him in her defence. But he didn't budge on the issue and even threatened "consequences" if we didn't "get off his case."
So am I to understand that all PC's go through a "mind-wiping proccess" after every mod they play in LFR. Because it sure looks this way. I thought gaining experience was more than accumulating experience points and choosing a new exploit. What about "remembering" the things that almost killed you and your party in previous adventures? In other words, knowledge.
Has anyone else encountered this? Opinions?
Well, first off, your DM was a jerk. D&D isn't a competitive sport and metagaming isn't steroid abuse. It's not something to encourage, but it isn't a severe enough transgression to risk creating a negative rapport with (and between) players, especially not in a public venue where DMs must accommodate differing styles of play.
Myself, I'd have given the player the benefit of the doubt, especially if she had an actual, physical journal and could relate details of her prior experience. It's one thing to say "Look out, Purple Worms can devour whole!" It's quite another to say "Watch out, one of these things killed a friend of mine - swallowed him whole, in fact!"
I might argue, however, that she couldn't access and read her journal during combat rounds, since fighting isn't conducive to reading. :-) Unless she wanted to take a standard action to crack her book, she'd simply have to remember what she'd written.
-Unmaker
However, I think it could all have been mitigated if the fighter player had given the information in an in-character mode.
Rather than saying that the dark creeper does extra damage when it has combat advantage, she could have said something like:
"I've fought these things before. Make sure they don't gang up on you, because if they do they can really mess you up. Much easier to take them on when you can keep them where you want them."
That way the information would seem less meta-gamey and more like something the fighter would have known from experience. Her journal should probably be written more in character as well rather than using game mechanic terms, but that is less important to me than how she shares the info with other players.
Overall though, it seems like a petty thing for the DM to be upset about.
d
Well, first off, your DM was a jerk. D&D isn't a competitive sport and metagaming isn't steroid abuse. It's not something to encourage, but it isn't a severe enough transgression to risk creating a negative rapport with (and between) players, especially not in a public venue where DMs must accommodate differing styles of play.
Myself, I'd have given the player the benefit of the doubt, especially if she had an actual, physical journal and could relate details of her prior experience. It's one thing to say "Look out, Purple Worms can devour whole!" It's quite another to say "Watch out, one of these things killed a friend of mine - swallowed him whole, in fact!"
I might argue, however, that should couldn't access and read her journal during combat rounds, since fighting isn't conducive to reading. :-) Unless she wanted to take a standard action to crack her book, she'd simply have to remember what she'd written.
-Unmaker
She keeps the journal to "remember" what her fighter has seen. The journal is the character's "brain." The fighter she runs is not a scholar by any means, but she does take "mental" notes on the things that pose a threat to life and limb. Also, she didn't offer the information on the dark creeper until after the wizard had made his skill check to ID the creature. Her fighter then "recalled" an earlier encounter at a lower level with another dark creeper and it had done extra damage when it had combat advantage. This is what touched off the incident.
Also, she only records the attacks that she actually saw being used. For example: dark creepers have dark step, that wasn't used in the lower level fight. So her fighter had never seen it and therefore wouldn't be in the journal.
She keeps the journal to "remember" what her fighter has seen. The journal is the character's "brain." The fighter she runs is not a scholar by any means, but she does take "mental" notes on the things that pose a threat to life and limb. Also, she didn't offer the information on the dark creeper until after the wizard had made his skill check to ID the creature. Her fighter then "recalled" an earlier encounter at a lower level with another dark creeper and it had done extra damage when it had combat advantage. This is what touched off the incident.
Well, a journal record in no way simulates memory. Memories are fuzzy and typically non-specific. The best representation of her character's memory is her *own* memory. As a public DM, however, I likely wouldn't push the issue. It isn't worth the strife.
-Unmaker
Like Unmaker said, combat is fuzzy. If it wasn't, then the authorities would never have the problems they do when 12 witnesses can't agree on what a particular person looked like.
I don't know about anyone else , but to me this Fighter players of yours stretches the game into shapes it is not supposed to go. While it may not seem like much at first, more and more of these "minor" issues can up to some major problems when stacked together.
I play a lot of Earthdawn. A game that encourages player journals. I have no problem with player journals. However if the player is using game terms for a journal entry. I will take exception to that and correct the situation. If a player is being creative enough to keep a journal, then they can be creative enough to write in the journal as their character would and not as a player would.
Well, a journal record in no way simulates memory. Memories are fuzzy and typically non-specific. The best representation of her character's memory is her *own* memory. As a public DM, however, I likely wouldn't push the issue. It isn't worth the strife.
-Unmaker
Fortunately for the player, memory works very well when remembering trial and error or cause/effect scenarios. The problem isn't that the character "remembered" sound tactics for fighting these creatures but rather that the player described those tactics mechanically, in terms that would be meaningless to the characters.
Faelar
Fortunately for the player, memory works very well when remembering trial and error or cause/effect scenarios. The problem isn't that the character "remembered" sound tactics for fighting these creatures but rather that the player described those tactics mechanically, in terms that would be meaningless to the characters.
Faelar
No argument there. If a journal is written in game jargon then it doesn't belong to the character, but rather to the player.
The question before is: Is it worth making a stink over? And, if so, how big of a stink does it warrant?
Myself, I've been to many, many conventions and have played in (and DM'd) dozens of tournaments. As a player, it's very hard to suppress meta-knowledge, especially in a competitive venue. It takes a SERIOUS personal will-save for a player to have his character draw steel against what he KNOWS to be a rust monster. As a DM, it's hard to judge what a player-character legitimately does or does not know.
A DM seeking to "crack down" on metagaming is going to have his hands full, and the game will likely suffer because of it.
I did, however, write a tournament module some years ago where the team was scored based on its ability to a) properly play their provided characters, and b) not act on information that they wouldn't be privy too. The module was an experiment designed to put the player's motivations at odds with the motivation of the characters they were playing. It worked pretty well, I think - but the powergamers were pretty angry to discover that their meticulous efforts were for naught.
-Unmaker
In regards to memory. Studies have also shown that adrenaline can influence memory. The more adrenaline running through your system, the more you can remember. The less adrenaline, the less you can recall. If a RL person (or D&D hero in this case), is in a desparate fight to survive, they're paying attention to what's hurting them. In the case of the fighter, she remembers very well what happened when she was cornered by a dark creeper and it kept hitting more often than she did. The player was having crappy luck rolling to hit anything. The creeper would move, provoke, she'd miss, it attacked, hit her and that's how the round would go. Things like "combat advantage" and "extra damage" stick in your mind. As I said earlier, she only wrote down what she actually saw the creeper use in that encounter and nothing more. Also, I don't remember if I mentioned this. She writes it down as it's happening. She's never gone through the MM. As I said, only what's her character has seen first hand.
In game, characters go through their adventures firsthand and go through an in-game week like we would. PLAYERS however, will spend an in-game week in a month or two, maybe more. In my case, it was often months before I could play again, so my memory of what happened last session was rather lax.
Keeping a journal of what the characters did was beneficial, only because I knew what my *character* experienced. I didn't take notes over HP, damage die, or special attacks that weren't used.
I still have my journal from my first gaming session, and it's great to look back through it and say, "Wow, that was a great fight. I forgot how powerful that spell was."
Does your DM protest to taking notes of any kind (other than what goes on a character sheet)? If I were that player, I would see what he would allow and try my best to adapt...
She does tend to use "game terms" in her journal. However, it's for note taking purposes only. Instead of writing out a long description of what the creature did, she just jots it down in game terms for easy reference. When I DM games, I don't count terms like "combat advantage" or "extra damage" exclusively as "gaming terms." In terms of characters using the exact same terminology to describe what a creature can do, said in "game terms," I don't see where there would or should be a problem. It takes less time to say and accurately describes what a creature can do. I'm sure if I were writing a fantasy novel I would use different terms to describe the creature in question, but D&D is a game. In the incident, he was insinuating she had gone through the MM and copied information from the entries on the various creatures her fighter had encountered.
How should a Dm react? If I had someone say something along the lines of "Hey guys remember these creatures have a move of 6, with CA they do extra damage, do an extra attack when bloodied, vulnerable 10 radiant and have resist 5 cold."
Why yes I would have issues with that. That is meta-gaming. There is no way a player could 'know' all of those things.
If a player is going to keep a journal, then at least have enough gratitude towards the game to write it in character. I got no problems with a player jotting things down note style then writing it out in character later on. But if you jot down table talk as your journal? Sorry but that is someone trying to 'get a leg up on the competition' so to speak.
If you guys don't have an issue with it in your personal games, that's fine. However you can't come here complaining about it when it is done in an RPGA game.
I really question that the DM was 'insinuating', but the player was being 'honest'? Particularly when the player writes down everything as it happens instead of relying upon memory when the character would actually write the days events
How should a Dm react? If I had someone say something along the lines of "Hey guys remember these creatures have a move of 6, with CA they do extra damage, do an extra attack when bloodied, vulnerable 10 radiant and have resist 5 cold."
Why yes I would have issues with that. That is meta-gaming. There is no way a player could 'know' all of those things.
If a player is going to keep a journal, then at least have enough gratitude towards the game to write it in character. I got no problems with a player jotting things down note style then writing it out in character later on. But if you jot down table talk as your journal? Sorry but that is someone trying to 'get a leg up on the competition' so to speak.
If you guys don't have an issue with it in your personal games, that's fine. However you can't come here complaining about it when it is done in an RPGA game.
I really question that the DM was 'insinuating', but the player was being 'honest'? Particularly when the player writes down everything as it happens instead of relying upon memory when the character would actually write the days events
And again, all she said was something like, "The last time my character fought these things, they did extra damage when they had Combat Advantage against me. Be careful!" Stop exaggerating; you're basically trying to strawman the argument. Also, there IS NO COMPETITION. Jesus. Again, this is DnD, not a COMPETITIVE game.
Lastly, a battle takes a full minute or two AT MOST In-Game. Meanwhile, in the Real World, it can take up to a full hour, during which, you may have forgotten what happened on turn 1, whereas the character would most definitely NOT have forgotten that the creature deals way more damage when it has an advantage against you. Those are some mildly ridiculous arguments. The Player did nothing wrong but talk in Game Terms, and if you've ever read Order of the Stick, you should know that you can talk in Game Terms (usually to saved time!) and not disrupt the story in any way.
And again, all she said was something like, "The last time my character fought these things, they did extra damage when they had Combat Advantage against me. Be careful!" Stop exaggerating; you're basically trying to strawman the argument. Also, there IS NO COMPETITION. Jesus. Again, this is DnD, not a COMPETITIVE game.
Lastly, a battle takes a full minute or two AT MOST In-Game. Meanwhile, in the Real World, it can take up to a full hour, during which, you may have forgotten what happened on turn 1, whereas the character would most definitely NOT have forgotten that the creature deals way more damage when it has an advantage against you. Those are some mildly ridiculous arguments. The Player did nothing wrong but talk in Game Terms, and if you've ever read Order of the Stick, you should know that you can talk in Game Terms (usually to saved time!) and not disrupt the story in any way.
Let me add this.
She only writes down what her character has experienced and no one elses. For example: In one fight, in our home game, her fighter faced a zombie who attacked her with a long sword, wore leather armor and carried a light shield. Her fighter never experienced the zombie's slam attack. Her fighter also had to beat that zombie to pieces. While in the same fight, my fighter did have the slam attack used on him and I killed it with a natural 20, much to my surprise and delight. It wasn't until a later fight in another session that a zombie used its slam attack and she was able to record it in her journal.
Regaling a story told directly from the written collection of thought you personally experienced (adding some dramatic flair for interest and spice) makes a great deal of character sense for a Bard, or even just a veteran sword-swinging having a drink or two in a dusty inn feeling sentimental. There are sorts of completely valid ways to carry around a journal, though I personally prefer to write in first person from the perspective of my character instead of quick game term notes. But so long as those terms are portrayed through the character (as per your friend) in a manner inclusive to the game (speaking in first person or character perspective), then more fun to you, her and everyone else!
I have to agree that your Dungeon Master pulled-a-God or just felt that his own security was threatened by something as harmless as a characterized journal. I highly suggest you (and the group) have a discussion with this person over the responsibilities of being a good, solid DM. Meta-gaming should be curved and kept in check, but intelligent roleplaying should never be discouraged.
Oh, and recording those thoughts as the battle takes place? I wouldn't have an issue with that. Battles take a very long time to finish in most cases, and the chances of you remembering a great deal aside from the big finish are slim. So long as recording those thoughts in-motion with the table top doesn't effect the overall atmosphere of the game, I would definitely allow it.
But he didn't budge on the issue and even threatened "consequences" if we didn't "get off his case."
Proper response:
"I'll get on your case anytime I please when you're being a control freak, and you aren't going to do a thing about it, or we'll leave."
Keeping a journal of what the characters did was beneficial, only because I knew what my *character* experienced. I didn't take notes over HP, damage die, or special attacks that weren't used.
Precisely. Moreover, what if you have 6 year old characters like I do that you now play rarely? How are you supposed to remember that last thing you did, or where you got the Flaming Artifact Gauntlets of Pancakes? Or why your level 12 character is a millionaire? By this DM's logic, you just forget all that - it could be metagaming.
Besides that a combat vet could very well keep a journal of all the fights he or she has been in in order to later use that information to compile a book of fighting tactics to be passed on to other fighters.
All of the arguments here are well and good. But it comes down to what does the Character remember and what does the Player remember. They are two different entities or should be at least. If the Fighter keeps a journal of what they have fought and experienced its all good. But how does that Fighter reference said journal in the middle of combat? Is he/she digging in their backpack to pull out the journal and read up on the monster ?
Well, this is an excellent point, and one I addressed earlier. The OP said (if my memory serves) that the journal was intended to serve as the "character's memory." So the journal is not the character's journal, but the player's journal.
I argued that most people don't recall information with such meticulous detail. Someone else pointed out, however, that the journal helps the player bridge the time discrepancy between player and character. What may be a few days ago to the character, may be several weeks or months to the player. The journal helps bring the player's memory up to speed with that of the character she is playing. Or so the argument goes.
So I think it's pretty well established - the journal belongs to the player.
-Unmaker
The player is basically trying to replace a game function with personal information. The KNOWLEDGE skills are there to recall information on monsters. By allowing the player to just automatically know this information you are allowing them to circumvent game mechanics. There is a lot I know about a lot of different creatures but I never discuss it at the table when playing and my characters dont use this info unless they make the appropriate Knowledge checks.
So even though I dont know how the GM reacted in full in the original post he was well within his rights to not want to allow this. If the Fighter wanted to recall this information they needed to make the appropriate Knowledge skill check.
Monster Knowledge Checks
Regardless of the knowledge skill you’re using, refer to the rules here when making a check to identify a monster.
Monster Knowledge: No action required—either you know the answer or you don’t.
✦ DC: See the table.
✦ Success: You identify a creature as well as its type, typical temperament, and keywords. Higher results give you information about the creature’s powers, resistances, and vulnerabilities.
✦ Failure: You don’t recall any pertinent information. The DM might allow you to make a new check if further information comes to light.
Monster Knowledge - DC
Name, type, and keywords - 15
Powers - 20
Resistances and vulnerabilities - 25
Paragon tier creature +5
Epic tier creature +10
So from looking at the original post the Fighter was giving out information that could only be gained by a minimum of a 20 and in some cases a 25 on a Knowledge check.
I mean to write this earlier as well but well it was bed time when I posted before.
The player is basically trying to replace a game function with personal information. The KNOWLEDGE skills are there to recall information on monsters. By allowing the player to just automatically know this information you are allowing them to circumvent game mechanics. There is a lot I know about a lot of different creatures but I never discuss it at the table when playing and my characters dont use this info unless they make the appropriate Knowledge checks.
So even though I dont know how the GM reacted in full in the original post he was well within his rights to not want to allow this. If the Fighter wanted to recall this information they needed to make the appropriate Knowledge skill check.
So from looking at the original post the Fighter was giving out information that could only be gained by a minimum of a 20 and in some cases a 25 on a Knowledge check.
The only place this starts to get redundant is if the character has faced before and seen what they can do.
Let's take the "ever-present" Goblin Hexer, for example.
After fighting one, the character might not know all the tricks, but after 2-3, he'd know how to handle them pretty well.
Is it really fair to make the character roll a knowledge check for something they've encountered?
The only place this starts to get redundant is if the character has faced before and seen what they can do.
Let's take the "ever-present" Goblin Hexer, for example.
After fighting one, the character might not know all the tricks, but after 2-3, he'd know how to handle them pretty well.
Is it really fair to make the character roll a knowledge check for something they've encountered?
If you look the at the FAILURE line it states you fail to RECALL any information.
Adventurers do much more than just go thru a module and a dungeon they travel and do things in between. There could be large increments of time in between running into the same monster again. The Knowledge skills allow players to recall info on the monsters.
If you as a GM wish to give the player a bonus on the roll because the player has seen the monster before etc then go for it. But how does a GM at say Gencon really know how to adjudicate this? This is why there is a game mechanic for it. Whether it makes sense or not, its what we have. Otherwise you are leaving it open to GM adjudication and well we know how that is supposed to work in the living campaign.
Is it really fair to make the character roll a knowledge check for something they've encountered?
I think this question is exactly the point. Characters don't make knowledge rolls; players do. A PC fighter can see his wizard friend use a fire-based power on a creature with resist 5 fire. The creature still takes damage. Does the character know that the creature has resist 5 fire? Does the character even know that the creature has any resistance to fire at all? A creature that does +2d6 damage when it has combat advantage hits when flanking, but rolls minimum damage. Then it attacks again without flanking, crits, and kills a PC. Would the fighter PC watching this even know about the extra damage?
I applaud the player who keeps an in-character journal about his or her exploits. I would consider giving them some in-game benefits for doing so. But one could also say that the +.5 per level to skill checks equates to PCs learning about creatures over time already, and the in-game journal is redundant to that.
What all of this refers to is the issue that has been around since this game started all those years ago: what to do about player knowledge versus character knowledge. Everyone is going to have an opinion, and there are going to be a wide range of opinions. The most we can hope for is respect for other people's sense of fun.
Shawn
The most we can hope for is respect for other people's sense of fun.
QFT. This is exactly correct and is particularly true when it comes to DMing for a public venue. Yes, DMs must enforce the rules of the organization they represent, but beyond that a DM's attitude should be one of inclusion rather than exclusion. Just because a DM would discourage a certain playing-style in his or her home game doesn't mean that it's wrong or cheating. A DM may see certain practices as cheap or inappropriate, but if they aren't actually against the rules the DM should think twice about bringing the hammer down. Negativity can kill fun faster than the cheesiest cheese that ever cheesed.
-Unmaker
I think this question is exactly the point. Characters don't make knowledge rolls; players do. A PC fighter can see his wizard friend use a fire-based power on a creature with resist 5 fire. The creature still takes damage. Does the character know that the creature has resist 5 fire? Does the character even know that the creature has any resistance to fire at all? A creature that does +2d6 damage when it has combat advantage hits when flanking, but rolls minimum damage. Then it attacks again without flanking, crits, and kills a PC. Would the fighter PC watching this even know about the extra damage?
Based on the text in the DMG on the "got you" abilities I would argue that a player and PC would know the monster theoretically deals more damage in outflank or seems to be less hurt by the fire. If everything goes as planned, the DM would describe that the effects IC in a way that the player knows what is going on and plan according. After all, that sneak attack is not just an extra potential damage, it is caused by special tactics that an observent character whose life depends on interpretting a fight, should be able to observe. Of course, sometimes IC descriptions are confusing, and hence using game terms can be much easier to use and understand.
The most we can hope for is respect for other people's sense of fun.
Of course, this is absolutely true.
Just my two cents,
Tim
How does she know the creature she is fighting is a Dark Creeper? A Dark Creeper is a small humanoid creature that usually wears concealing clothing that covers much of its prominent features. That particular description could fit a whole number of potential bad guys (goblins, kobolds, etc.).
Imagine the same scenario against random undead. Her character, untrained in either Nature or Religion, is unlikely to be able to identify a zombie vs. a ghoul vs. a wight simply based on how it looks.
So, I have no problem with PCs maintaining knowledge between adventures. I think it is cool and helps provide continuity, but that knowledge needs to be put into context. Personally, in the Dark Creeper example, I would give her a knowledge check to identify the creature. If she successfully identifies it as a creature she has previously fought, she can use whatever knowledge she previously gained, even if she doesn't hit the higher DCs for offensive and defensive abilities. If not, then she has no clue whether it deals extra damage with CA, can shift when missed with an attack, or can shift when someone moves adjacent (dark creeper, goblin, and kobold respectively).
In one of my character's personal experiences, he got his hands on a holy symbol of Bane and a holy symbol of Cyric. He knows nothing about the religions, but he labeled the damn things (on the back) after another knowledgeable person informed him which was which. He considers them props for possible impersonation. But, while a DM might be nice enough to provide a +2 bonus to religion checks for identifying either, I wouldn't expect to be able to identify all possible variations of those symbols just because the character has them.
I think it is clear the DM over-reacted, though, I think the player is somewhat at fault here, too. She seems to be pushing the rules (unintentionally) and probably should discuss the use of the journal with DMs before using it.
-SYB
As long as players aren't cracking open the MM or other sources to get their information, they're welcome to use any knowledge they'd like, in-game or out-of-game to come up with strategies for defeating a particular monster. D&D is a tactical strategy game as well as a role-playing game and players (as well as characters) only get better with experience. I understand and respect DMs that prefer that all PC tactical decisions be based on PC knowledge, but I respectfully have my own philosophy that I encourage when I DM and try to follow as a player when it doesn't upset my DM.
I think that what your friend does is pretty damn cool - extra effort or creativity should never be discouraged by a DM. Furthermore, the whole "benefit of the doubt" and "good rapport" arguments I've seen thus far should go without saying in my post.
I'm actually of a different school of thought...
As long as players aren't cracking open the MM or other sources to get their information, they're welcome to use any knowledge they'd like, in-game or out-of-game to come up with strategies for defeating a particular monster. D&D is a tactical strategy game as well as a role-playing game and players (as well as characters) only get better with experience. I understand and respect DMs that prefer that all PC tactical decisions be based on PC knowledge, but I respectfully have my own philosophy that I encourage when I DM and try to follow as a player when it doesn't upset my DM.
I think that what your friend does is pretty damn cool - extra effort or creativity should never be discouraged by a DM. Furthermore, the whole "benefit of the doubt" and "good rapport" arguments I've seen thus far should go without saying in my post.
This is actually the way I played for the first five years or so. When I was a child, the whole notion of player knowledge vs. character knowledge was lost to me. We kids simply played our characters with the knowledge that we possessed as players - and, believe you me, we knew our Monster Manuals. We knew how to deal with Rust Monsters just as we know how to tell a Gas Spore from a Beholder. Treasure chest? Look out, it could be a mimic!
As we grew older (12-14 or so) and started going to cons, we found our style of play very, ahem, helpful. It wasn't until we angered a fellow player by acting on "out of character knowledge" that we recognized that we were metagaming, or even that metagaming might be "wrong." We were so embarrassed that we did a complete 180 degrees. "No Jimmy, your character has never seen a spear before. It's just a sharp stick to you."
I admit, part of me misses the old days, before we knew that we weren't supposed to know what we actually knew.
-Unmaker
This is actually the way I played for the first five years or so. When I was a child, the whole notion of player knowledge vs. character knowledge was lost to me. We kids simply played our characters with the knowledge that we possessed as players - and, believe you me, we knew our Monster Manuals. We knew how to deal with Rust Monsters just as we know how to tell a Gas Spore from a Beholder. Treasure chest? Look out, it could be a mimic!
As we grew older (12-14 or so) and started going to cons, we found our style of play very, ahem, helpful. It wasn't until we angered a fellow player by acting on "out of character knowledge" that we recognized that we were metagaming, or even that metagaming might be "wrong." We were so embarrassed that we did a complete 180 degrees. "No Jimmy, your character has never seen a spear before. It's just a sharp stick to you."
I hope you're not insinuating that I'm either a) a child or b) have a child's mentality. If you are, I'm insulted.
I admit, part of me misses the old days, before we knew that we weren't supposed to know what we actually knew.
Who's to say what you are and are not "supposed" to know? People have different philosophies about the game and absolutely have different ways of playing it. The original post is more about mutual respect than anything else. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play the game.
I hope you're not insinuating that I'm either a) a child or b) have a child's mentality. If you are, I'm insulted.
I realize you have no idea who I am nor what I believe, but suffice it to say, no, I'd never insinuate any such thing. In fact, I think there's something to be said for less complicated way that I used to play D&D.
Who's to say what you are and are not "supposed" to know? People have different philosophies about the game and absolutely have different ways of playing it. The original post is more about mutual respect than anything else. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play the game.
You're practically quoting me from earlier in the thread. You're preaching to the choir, friend. In any case, I think maybe you misread the tone of my response. I wasn't going for a "how I learned to play correctly" shtick. Rather, I was going for a "nurture clobbers nature" approach. We knew exactly how to play the game... until we were made to feel badly for playing it *our* way. Then we doubted ourselves and abandoned our natural principles in favor of the collective will.
Do you get me?
-Unmaker
I realize you have no idea who I am nor what I believe, but suffice it to say, no, I'd never insinuate any such thing. In fact, I think there's something to be said for less complicated way that I used to play D&D.
You're practically quoting me from earlier in the thread. You're preaching to the choir, friend. In any case, I think maybe you misread the tone of my response. I wasn't going for a "how I learned to play correctly" shtick. Rather, I was going for a "nurture clobbers nature" approach. We knew exactly how to play the game... until we were made to feel badly for playing it *our* way. Then we doubted ourselves and abandoned our natural principles in favor of the collective will.
Do you get me?
-Unmaker
Absolutely. Thanks for the clarification!
The mage's skill choices are mostly knowledge skills. He really has no choice but to take one or 2. So now he has skills totally of no use because someone at the table is just writing it all down.
Its not that I really care one way or the other. But by allowing a player to keep said journal and then just spouting out that kind of info about the monsters is really bypassing skills and rules within the game.
The mage's skill choices are mostly knowledge skills. He really has no choice but to take one or 2. So now he has skills totally of no use because someone at the table is just writing it all down.
I think that's really just too simplified a way of thinking of it. The wizard's skill choices can still be useful, either to clarify or correct info that the player wrote in their character's journal. Or to add to it.
To say that a player should only use their PC's knowledge skills is frankly ignoring the fact that some PCs regularly encounter certain monsters, and to ignore the fact that this is the fifth time they've faced a dragon is, well, silly.
An example from LG, my ranger had no Knowledge Religion, Arcana or Planes. But by the end had faced so many dragons, demons (the same types, barbed and bearded mostly), and high level undead (Wraiths, Nightstalkers) SO MANY TIMES, that it would have been ridiculous to say that he knew nothing about how to fight them EVERY time he met one of them simply because he didn't have the relevant knowledge skill.
I'm all for roleplaying your knowledge, but IMO this "use only your knowledge skills" concept is purely ROLLplaying, it is based on stats and dice and not on your character's history and background.
An example from LG, my ranger had no Knowledge Religion, Arcana or Planes. But by the end had faced so many dragons, demons (the same types, barbed and bearded mostly), and high level undead (Wraiths, Nightstalkers) SO MANY TIMES, that it would have been ridiculous to say that he knew nothing about how to fight them EVERY time he met one of them simply because he didn't have the relevant knowledge skill.
OT: It always bugged me that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus didn't apply to knowledge for that creature. That would just make sence.
I also kept a limited players journal. Just a list of the undead that my ranger had faced and some basic info. I think I remembered to used it only a few times. I agree that it all depends how it is used. Checking after the adventure in the MM to see the exact stats ... no no. Joting down your observations, sure. Checking it during a battle for a basic piece of information: it's a zombie, hit it with a blade ... sure. Check it for more specific information ... sure but I'll charge you a standard action (or more) to look as your player checks his journal.
I think a journal could be a good asset. Think of all the time at the table you've heard a player say I recall such-n-such, or it does this. Then a few moments later they say, oh that was with a different character. I might play 5 mods at a con and then not play another game for months, yet no time passed for my character. I'm suppose to remember my character's foe's details from a midnight madness a year ago. That's just not reasonable. There were many online games that ended in the 1 to 2 am range that I have no idea how they ended unless I go back and read the transcript.
-Swiftbrook
A few notes for those who feel it should only work on what the player remembers or that you shouldn't get anything at all without rolling a knowledge check:
1) Players and characters are going to remember different things
Among other things a player is only representing their character a couple hours a week and isn't necessarily terribly concerned about most things, while for the character it's literally life or death details. Also, some players have _very_ different memory capability from their characters - for good or ill. I mostly remember the stats of any monster I've ever DMed pretty much, so having a list of what each of my characters have fought sounds like genius to me to help me keep things straight.
2) Once you've actually fought something, you are going to retain real details - even if the player expresses them in game concepts to themself. Talk to someone from an active combat theater about what types of threats they face and how effective their weaponry was - especially some accounts from things like more experienced WW2 vets 'Oh, yeah, you had to aim there cause the armor plating was crap there, that and our shots drifted low anyways so it helped compensate' 'Those were a death trap - once you got a good hit in, the engines lit up and you could switch targets cause you knew the crew was cooking' 'Heard that distinctive engine whine coming you knew it was a...' etc.
3) The efforts by this person sound like one of the most concerted efforts to _avoid_ metagaming short of willful nonparticipation that I've encountered. Think about the effort involved, to make sure each thing was from their own perspective, to track everything, etc.
Eh.