Part of the problem is the DM using DM knowledge where his monsters are concerned. I'll explain...
We justed added a new player to our group who has a novel way of using his Drow Rogue's Cloud of Darkness racial power. He brought a custom "grid" with him that is numbered 1 through 9, with the number 5 being the center square and origin of the CoD's burst 1 radius. However, when he moves around in the cloud, such as a shift and makes a stealth check, he then removed the figure from the grid and wrote down what square within the grid the rogue has moved to. He also showed it to the rest of the players and placed it face down near the mat where everyone could still it.
Well the DM had a problem with it. He sent an enemy into the cloud and then told the player to put the figure back on the mat. The player then asked if the enemy had detected him using passive perception and the DM said no. Then at that point the player refused to put the figure back on the mat. The DM then said the enemy would still be able to "detect" the rogue whether or not his passive perception beat his active steath check and could attack the rogue's square, but only at -5 penalty.
At this point, I spoke up and asked "how?" The DM responded that the enemy would have a "general idea" of where the rogue "might" be based of where he was after the cloud was activated. But everyone at the table said that the rogue has shifted and made a stealth check, a 25 I think the roll was, and did not take an opportunity attack when the enemy moved past him.
To make a long story short, the DM's "psychic" monster and the DM got his way. I, our new player and one other tried to get the DM see reason, but he wouldn't budge. We even showed him the rule in PH2 to back up our arguement.
Was the situation mishandled?
That said, there was probably a sense of automatic animosity when a player goes to the described lengths to distrust his DM. That grid set-up is an explicit statement of mistrust, and may have provoked the DM into a sort of power-struggle mentality that only escalated or even sparked the issue at hand.
Without a certain measure of trust between the DM and the players, no D&D game can survive.
As a player, he doesn't know all aspects of what's happening on the battlefield and there are things that will affect his character regardless of whether he's stealthed or not and as Dm,I would need to know where his character is on the battlefield to apply them.
His hiding where his character is located is simply not an option and I don't understand where he got the idea that it was. His attempting such a tactic would cause problems with any DM.
As far as the Dm goes, he would still need the monster to beat the stealth roll to guess correctly where the character was located.
Was the situation mishandled?
Yes. By the drow's player. If there was no reason to mistrust the DM, the player should have behaved himself. If there was reason to mistrust the DM, the player shouldn't have participated in this game. Trying to pull a fast one on one another generally doesn't help creating a nice gaming atmosphere.
The DM might have mishandled the situation as well. I don't have enough information to make that call about the DM. Important factors would be the kind of monster he sent in the cloud, the exact wording of the total concealment rule (I don't know it by heart), and whether there were other variables that the players didn't know about.
If someone came to my table and treated me, as the DM, in that fashion I'd be pretty offended.
Depending upon how offended enough possibly enough to cause an escalation.
Hard to make a call on the DM without more info but regardless of that missing info the Drow player's actions are pretty offensive.
Starting off a game assuming you're going to be cheated is insulting and essentially set the mood for the entire game right there.
But, the enemies should have to choose a square to attack. The -5 penalty only really matters when the target square contains a creature.
Yes. By the drow's player. If there was no reason to mistrust the DM, the player should have behaved himself. If there was reason to mistrust the DM, the player shouldn't have participated in this game. Trying to pull a fast one on one another generally doesn't help creating a nice gaming atmosphere.
Seriously.
That is a neat idea, and if the DM and player discussed it before hand it might be really cool, and I would love to do something like that with my players.
But in a situation like this, where a player whips something out that hides information from the DM suddenly without warning and inists on using it, I can get behind the DM saying no.
Honestly though, the DM should probably have just said "look I am not dealing with this. Its a neat idea, and if this were a home game maybe we could work something out, as it is though this is LFR, so I am going to lay it on the line 'Leave or stop using the thing' your choice, I don't care either way."
It's the PC hiding his figure thats problematic to me here. His character is stealthed towards his opponents on the battle field, not the DM.
As a player, he doesn't know all aspects of what's happening on the battlefield and there are things that will affect his character regardless of whether he's stealthed or not and as Dm,I would need to know where his character is on the battlefield to apply them.
His hiding where his character is located is simply not an option and I don't understand where he got the idea that it was. His attempting such a tactic would cause problems with any DM.
As far as the Dm goes, he would still need the monster to beat the stealth roll to guess correctly where the character was located.
This I agree with, the player came into the group with the clear intent of chalenging the DM's authority and his ability to run the game. This IMO is unaceptable, and were it my group I would have given the player a clear altimation; Either place the figure on the screen or leave the table.
If the other players disagreed, then I would close my book, stand up and say "Games over for the night, sorry folks. Look if you don't like my DMing or want someone else to DM, then just say so, but do not bother to waste my time and effort in putting in the work to run these games just so I will get treated like crap. I will run my games this way, you have until the next gaming session to either sort it out or to leave my game, thankyou."
There are many reasons why the DM needs to know where the PC is, even if the monster cannot see the PC, and the player has no right to be arbitrating the game for the DM and the rest of the players. The DM does NOT have to roll in front of the players, nor prove what his rolls are or the monster's stats etc. for one example "If there is a trap or other conditions in the area of effect that the player is unaware of, then the DM needs to know where the PC is."
But in all seriousness - I find it's a little of column A and a little of column B
A - the player stepped over the line by not getting pre-game approval from the DM. This could have been as simple as "Hey look at this awesome thing I got, this is how it works..." Player and DM lay down some ground rules for using it in combat.
B - The DM's position is slightly questionable, the info you provide about the DM's responses sound a little biased towards the player, but playing both sides of the coin here it's possible the DM was annoyed that the player found a clever and useful way to play the game and trump the DM's plans to basically ignore the player's stealth ability. It is a common enough problem and it's difficult to ignore the obviousness of a mini despite any stealthy effects they might be using. A better solution would have been to either stop the player from using the grid from the moment it surfaced ("I'm sorry, you can't just introduce new stuff mid-combat, lets discuss it later") or if the player absolutely (read: obnoxiously) insisted on using it right then and there, to call a short break and discuss the issue.
Again, it all comes back to player-DM communication.
As a seperate problem, the issue of the not letting the DM know where you actually are comes up. That knowledge should not need the be hidden by the players but the DM handled the issue poorly.
This was a LFR game, if the GM is not following the rules the GM should be reported, simple enough.
As far as the questioning the GM's authority. Sometimes it's needed, Cause sometimes the DM's are wrong. And don't give me that Rule 0 nonsense, this is LFR play not some home game.
The player could have done better at explaining it earlier, but exactly what was the DM doing when the player was setting up his template and showing the rest of the group where he was to show he wasn't cheating.
Some fault for the player but MOST of it should be heaped on the GM.
And all the "Pro Rage-Quit" people who posted, I'm so glad I'm not in your games.
This was a LFR game, if the GM is not following the rules the GM should be reported, simple enough.
The player should have gotten a warning in the first place, according to the penalty guidelines. Failing to obey the DM's instructions classifies as a Major Disruption.
Well the DM had a problem with it. He sent an enemy into the cloud and then told the player to put the figure back on the mat. The player then asked if the enemy had detected him using passive perception and the DM said no. Then at that point the player refused to put the figure back on the mat.
Right then and there. Of course, this pleads for both the DM and the player. The player should have followed the DM's instructions. The DM should have applied the rules and guidelines he had at hand, instead of becoming a street judge and attacking the character outright.
Unless the DM determined the character's position fair and square. Either by monster abilities, a random roll, or some other circumstance we're not aware of. In that case, the player is lucky the DM went easy on him with the RPGA-rules.
The GM should not be reported anyway. In case of a disagreement, an appeal should be made with either the Senior GM or the Appeals GM of the event. Their decision is final, end of story.
Springing it on the DM and assuming the DM would allow it: Not cool.
You indicate that the Drow showed the other players what square they were in. How is that different than now showing the DM? How would the other players know what square the Drow is in?
There are many things a DM could do that are similar to the Drow player's actions. I would hope, however, that most DMs don't try these "sleight of hand" maneuvers.
My questions is: In this group (that DM and the Drow player), is the DM regularly targetting the Drow when they have total concealment? If so, I can understand the Drow player's frustration and why they might have come up with this idea.
It comes across to me as: Hey, I came up with a great way to mess with the DM!
He should have cleared it with the DM first, and described it well enough that the DM and he agree exactly what is agreed upon. If the DM says no, he could have, within reason, negotiated, but he shouldn't have raised a stink.
I think its mostly an issue of communication. Its not necessarily that the DM wanted to rain on the guy's parade, and its not necessarily that the guy wanted to cause a stink, but there was a disconnect and it wasn't resolved cleanly.
The DM in question has always tried to bend the rules in favor of his monsters. The monster in this case was a Goblin Cutter, a minion which is why our drow player didn't use his OA and risk missing, and in turn giving up his postion. The part about "psychic" in reference to our DM's monsters mainly applies to PC's who are stealthing. He sees stealthing as an "attempt" whether you succeed on the roll or not. The monster in question will always have an idea of where the PC is.
For example: If a rogue makes a 25 stealth check and sneaks up on a guard, even if the guard fails his passive perception, when combat starts, the guard will see the rogue because "he's alert" now. The rules allow for an active perception check in this case when combat starts and initiatives are rolled, but the guard has to pass the check in order to see ,or at least hear, the rogue. Our DM believes that it's unfair for the alert guard to have only a +2 to perception checks while the rogue has a +12 to stealth checks and can sneak by the guard at his leisure, even in combat. We have all tried to explain that's what rogues do. Rogues are supposed to be the last word in stealth. The common guard is going to have an extremely hard time trying to catch a sneaky rogue if he rolls high enough.
Our drow player should have given us all a warning before springing his CoD grid on the DM. But like I said, I had no problems with it. Even our rules lawyer thought it was cool and he usually never lets anything get by him.
Say a wizard makes himself invisible. Technically, he is invisible to the foes on the battlefield. But not to the DM (who by the assorted arguments posted above, should have perfect knowledge of where he was). And the DM is the one controlling the monsters. What should the DM do?
What if you are facing a foe who uses AoE attacks? Should the DM deliberately ignore the wizard? Is he "barred" from ever targeting any square that overlaps with the wizard just to prove that he is not metagaming? What if he fires at a square the wizard is in and claims that the monster simply got lucky.
I am not sure if this should be labeled as mistrust, as I feel that given the scenario, it is very difficult for the DM to act in a manner that would be deemed as fair, regardless of what he did, because the assumption is that he would use metagame knowledge of where the invis player was and factor it into his actions. He would likely spend more effort explaining himself and justifying his actions than necessary.
Conversely, if the DM did not know where the invis player was, then anything he did would be fair game, simply because he had no knowledge. The player in question would have no reason to complain whatever the outcome was. The DM may not have complete control of his game, but it might arguably run more smoothly, because of less friction.
As a DM, I probably would have allowed it. I just wish I had thought of that black grid sooner...
Take a step back, and you can still have room to go forward. :P
This reminds me of the time the human and drow ranger were in a room alone with the bad guys. The human went down on the first round. The drow walked up, used the cloud and then shifted to stealth.
I asked, "Why would you do that?"
The drow player responded with something to the effect of, "I don't want them to know what square I'm in".
The bad guys went next and proceeded to attack, and kill, the downed PC in the cloud. Their reasoning: at least we know someone is in that square. Oh silly drow.
The DM was wrong but that doesn't excuse the player's behaivor.
This reminds me of the time the human and drow ranger were in a room alone with the bad guys. The human went down on the first round. The drow walked up, used the cloud and then shifted to stealth.
I asked, "Why would you do that?"
The drow player responded with something to the effect of, "I don't want them to know what square I'm in".
The bad guys went next and proceeded to attack, and kill, the downed PC in the cloud. Their reasoning: at least we know someone is in that square. Oh silly drow.
Uh, in the same situation if I was the drow I'd have done the exact same thing. Let's see, there's only two of you and the enemies took your buddy down in the first round, why wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep them from doing the same to you in the next round? Sounds to me more like the first player got killed by a DM annoyed at the drow's tactics. NPC reasoning is whatever the DM decides, they could have just as easily spent the round trying to locate the drow reasoning the first player is no longer a threat.
As to the OP, I'd have to side with the DM to a point. Like others stated, there could be many reasons for the DM to know exactly where the model needed to be. I'd probably start the model on a methodical walk through the cloud rolling an active perception each round, or just have the NPC back off and deal with other players until the cloud wore off. If you can't trust the DM, you really shouldn't be playing in their game.
I was surprised by it myself, but I thought it was cool and imaginitive.
The DM in question has always tried to bend the rules in favor of his monsters. The monster in this case was a Goblin Cutter, a minion which is why our drow player didn't use his OA and risk missing, and in turn giving up his postion. The part about "psychic" in reference to our DM's monsters mainly applies to PC's who are stealthing. He sees stealthing as an "attempt" whether you succeed on the roll or not. The monster in question will always have an idea of where the PC is.
I don't think past behavior comes into this argument at all. The Player cheated and was belligerent in his opposition to the DM.
The DM is the law giver, the story teller and the rules adjudicator. He has every right to know where a PC is at all times. Further, removing the mini via the Drow's method implies the DM cannot be impartial. This implied accusation made by a new player is both wrong and ill warranted. More to the point, this is not a home game where the group is free to use house rules rather, the game was being run by the RPGA standards, which should be enforced at all times to ensure everyone is playing by the rules.
The player is completely at fault and is very lucky he did not receive a more severe punishment by those who run the RPGA.
Having said all of that, if the Player had asked for approval BEFORE the game and I had the word of another player who would ensure the Drow player played lawfully, then I would be willing to give the trick a shot.
I don't think past behavior comes into this argument at all. The Player cheated and was belligerent in his opposition to the DM.
The DM is the law giver, the story teller and the rules adjudicator. He has every right to know where a PC is at all times. Further, removing the mini via the Drow's method implies the DM cannot be impartial. This implied accusation made by a new player is both wrong and ill warranted. More to the point, this is not a home game where the group is free to use house rules rather, the game was being run by the RPGA standards, which should be enforced at all times to ensure everyone is playing by the rules.
The player is completely at fault and is very lucky he did not receive a more severe punishment by those who run the RPGA.
Having said all of that, if the Player had asked for approval BEFORE the game and I had the word of another player who would ensure the Drow player played lawfully, then I would be willing to give the trick a shot.
The player cheated, and is lucky to not have had more severe sanctions.
The DM cheated, and is lucky to not have had more severe sanctions.
The RPGA is the 'law giver' and the 'rules adjudicator', the DM is only there to enforce those rules. He is NOT there to change them because he thinks they are 'unfair' to mook guards.
The DM's prior actions imply that he cannot be impartial, and such an accusation seems to have been entirely warranted.
Those RPGA standards? They say that BOTH of these individuals were out of line in their actions, not JUST the player.
All-in-all, the player's demonstration of the DM's incompetence was ill-chosen, and ill-executed, but that DM has no place running any RPGA game, nor really any game at all.
They should both read up on how they are supposed to behave in an RPGA game, and if they' can't live with those rules, there are plenty of non-affiliated games out there that they can likely join in on, or start up themselves.
The player cheated, and is lucky to not have had more severe sanctions.
The DM cheated, and is lucky to not have had more severe sanctions.
The RPGA is the 'law giver' and the 'rules adjudicator', the DM is only there to enforce those rules. He is NOT there to change them because he thinks they are 'unfair' to mook guards.
The DM's prior actions imply that he cannot be impartial, and such an accusation seems to have been entirely warranted.
Those RPGA standards? They say that BOTH of these individuals were out of line in their actions, not JUST the player.
All-in-all, the player's demonstration of the DM's incompetence was ill-chosen, and ill-executed, but that DM has no place running any RPGA game, nor really any game at all.
They should both read up on how they are supposed to behave in an RPGA game, and if they' can't live with those rules, there are plenty of non-affiliated games out there that they can likely join in on, or start up themselves.
The DM should have been given a warning (or worse) for past grievances. The players have had more than enough time to email the appropriate people if this is indeed a re-occurring issue. Along the same line, why would players willingly return to a DM they know cheats? Even if the players lack the time to develop their own games, it is an easy enough process to become an RPGA DM. Thus, for the purview of this topic, past grievances should not be given any weight, most especially with out the DM here to defend himself.
As for the DM's problems in this topic, given that the player cheated and was openly defiant, the DM should be given some lee way in how he handled the issue with the aim of getting the game back on track. That isn't to say he handled the issue correctly but it is a reasonable defense. If the players feel strongly enough about the issue, they are free to email the RPGA/WotC.
Also what if the player moved onto a pressure plate that triggers a trap?
These are only a few reasons the DM needs to know where the player is at all times. Personally I don't know why the DM allowed him to remove the piece in the first place. Waiting to bring up the issue until he moved a monster in range then asking does lead itself to questioning the DM's motives. All the DM's I know wouldn't of let him even remove the token from the board in the first place.
For all the reasons specified above (hidden monsters, unknown terrain effects, coming into range of a trap, *a monster moving into his square*, etc) the DM *must* know where all PCs are at all times. Additionally, just because a character is *invisible* does NOT mean he is Hidden - meaning, every single critter out there KNOWS exactly what square he's in until he rolls Stealth *at the end of a move* and beats their Passive Perception, and, this is critical, *he doesn't automatically know if he's done that*, and *they know what square he was in when they lost him*. The Stealth rules are very simple and very clear, on this.
The player? Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, in the wrong in every single conceivable way.
The DM was also wrong, but only because he let the player walk all over him and accepted the player's premise rather than putting his foot down and stopping the nonsense immediately. He should have stopped it sooner, and he should have been clearer about *why* it was failing (and, in fact, if the player *was* Hidden and *had* moved out of the square in which he was Hidden after gaining the status, the DM should have let it work).
If I were the DM I'd have just picked up the figure and put it back on the table where I estimate it should be and if he had a problem with that he'd be more than welcome to leave my game.
If I were the DM I'd have just picked up the figure and put it back on the table where I estimate it should be and if he had a problem with that he'd be more than welcome to leave my game.
I would of said a divine power suddenly removes him from this plain of existence. And his character just vanishes. ;) Followed by the enemy in the cloud is stunned until the start of it's next turn by the awesome power it just witnessed.
As for the rest the DM could of totally BSed the guy as well. The DM is not required to show any of his dice rolls to the players so he could of just said he had a power to detect him and put him back on the table. Of course the player sounds like he was intentionally trying to start something so odds are he would challenge the DM saying he wants to see the roll or monster stat sheet.
I blame the Stealth skill for even making this kind of thing an issue.
I blame the printing company that allowed him to print off a 3x3 grid square with the numbers 1-9 on it using one of their machines.
How would the other PCs know where the rogue was? Did they pass their passive perception checks? After all, he's hidden from view by a cloud, so technically the other PCs shouldn't be able to know where he is and therefor, target him for any beneficial effects (or avoid targeting him with AoEs).
Was the situation mishandled?
Yes, by both sides.
The DM ALWAYS has the right to know where characters actually are, what they are actually doing, etc. There are no secrets from the DM because the DM does not have to play, "Guess what the players will do and then try to stop them." Might be a fun game to play in that Players-vs.-DM style of game, but it's NOT the generally intended approach and no DM should stand for it. If the DM wants to win - HE WINS. If the DM wants the PC's to lose - THEY WILL LOSE. And he doesn't even need to "cheat" to do that. He only needs to have the next encounter be more than the PC's can handle. Any DM can do that.
On the other hand, the DM should legitimately expect to be lynched by his players when he pulls that kind of arbitrary nerf just because a player IS doing something unexpected. A DM doesn't need to explain his reasons to players if there is GOOD REASON for players not to know, but this incident pretty clearly describes the sort of DM who won't tolerate things not going the way he expects... EVER. That's not good.
There are rules in place that cover how stealth, hiding, invisibility, and being otherwise unable to see your opponent works, yes? If you have a DM who is willing to spontaneously suspend or invalidate those rules then you need to have a talk with him about just what the hell CAN you be expected to rely on - or is EVERYTHING going to work in whatever arbitrary fashion the DM makes up as he goes in order to make things turn out like the DM wants? Also, if you have a PLAYER who is doing the same danged thing as the DM and rather than just following basic, reasonably established rules for this sort of situation deciding HE is going to dictate to the DM how the game is going to work then you need to have a talk with that player about just what the hell he thinks his role is at the table. If he wants to run his own game and dictate how the rules are going to be applied then he can damn well RUN HIS OWN GAME. Like it or not, it is not his place to run the game FOR the DM.
Both the player and DM concerned are being idiots. They need to be brought back into the fold swiftly and in a manner they will not soon forget or else you'd best start looking for a new game.