Character Vs. Player Knowledge and General Roleplaying in Greyhawk AP
Elttaes
gnawing at me for some time now.
1) Just becasue you know something as a player it doesn't mean your
character knows it too. As an example, I'm going to use the thing that
seems to get abused the most and that's Spell Kowledge. Most martial
classes have no idea how spells work. To me its just bad roleplaying
to ask for something by name. For a Cure Light Wounds spell for
example it's acceptable for your character to ask for healing magic
but not for a CLW. To me that's bad RP. We had an example where a
character had an ability drained. That character would have had a slim
to none chance of knowing what a restoration spell was let alone
asking for it by name, Lesser Restoration. I'm not against letting a
character possibly know what a spell can do IF you have the skill for
it, K: Arcana or something similar. If the spell has been used on you
before you would also have a chance to remember it. From now on if you
want to see if you know something ask for a knowledge roll in your PM
room and I'll let you know if i feel you have a chance of knowing tht
specific fact. From now on players asking for a spell by name, stating
what level or giving a discription of what it does without credible
knowledge will lose XP. This goes for quoting anything out of a book.
If your character has never fought Skeletons you most likely would not
know that bludgeoning weapons do full damage while slashing do 1/2.
Roleplaying to me is playing your characters to their abilities, not
yours and I'm going to give more XP for that from now on.
2) I'm going to say this once more because there was what I felt was
some complaining about my crit rules. In the last battle the group was
fighting a powerful undead. With my new crit rules I allow crits on
undead. There was a comment from a player that roled two 19's that
they would have been crit threats in the offical 3e rules. Well under
the "Offical" rules you wouldn't have had a chance for a crit since
the monster was undead. There also wouldn't have been any sneak attack
damage becasue undead are immune to that too.
Another note, personally as a DM I drop a lot of the rules to speed up
play. AOO's are an example of this. There are often times I allow a
hit on something that might have had an immunity such as the undead
example above. If we want to go back to strictly following everything
by the book that's fine, we can but remember this that it goes both
ways, it's going to slow down the game because combat will take
forever and as a DM I'll no longer go easy on the gas when the party
is in trouble which is going to up the kill count.
3) Many of you seem to play this game with a video game mentality. For
me that doesn't work. Please remember this is DnD, a roleplaying game
and not World of Warcraft or Everquest. Here are some observations I
have concerning this;
Sure you might have the strength to carry something but unlike a video
game you don't have 8 sword slots, three bow slots and 4 ax slots to
carry stuff. It's going to be my call on what you can carry
realistically. If you try to strap 6 swords to your back, carry
100,000 coins etc. there wil be adjustments to AC, Att Bonus etc as I
see fit.
Personally I play this game online for the RP, I'm not really big on
dungeon crawls because they seem to drag on but that's where we are at
the moment in this game. (This will probably change and will be
explained below). I'm not a big fan of the kill, loot and search
routine. This is not to say I won't allow it, if that's your style
that's fine just remember this style will gain less XP for RP. For me,
if that's the way the game's going to go all the time I'd rather just
go fire up my old XBox and play Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance, it has
about the same affect.
4) Finally (thank Hieronious I can hear some of you say) there is
something that really has been bothering me since the issue came up
about 1-2 months ago and that's player cheating. As you are all aware,
I caught Sally with the map of the adventure. I first found it on my
computer, she was using it becasue I had started out on our other
computer before it crashed but then I switched to my laptop that she
had been using. Anyway, I first had thought that I had brought up the
file and left it on the computer when I signed her on. She then signed
on to our other computer and later I found her looking at the map
again. When I asked her where she got it she wouldn't tell me even
though she knew I was livid. Let me say this, to me anyone looking at
the map, reading the adventure or even looking at the monster books to
gain unfiar advantages, I consider this to be cheating and I have no
place for any of you guilty of this in my game. If I do catch anyone
doing this they will be expelled from the game and banned from all the
channels I OP on Darkmyst. Another of the reason's I'm rehashing this
issue is that i thyink some of you are still using some of this
information. This may or not be true, my point is this one instance
has really damaged the trust that I once for the group leading to...
I haven't decided what I'm going to do after this adventure is over.
There are three options I'm considering. I might drop the entire game
and replace it with nothing, I might start a new home brew game or I
might continue the ongoing game but make drastic changes to it to
avoid curious eyes looking for dungeon information on the internet. I
haven't made that decision yet. I'm waiting to see how the rest of
this adventure goes. After we finish with "Flood Season" I'll talk to
everyone and see how you all feel. You're also free to post your
feelings about this or any of the other topics I've covered in this
post here and we can discuss it. I'm not trying to be Draconian but my
level of enjoyment has really waned of late and a lot of it has to do
with the map instance.
Anyway, that's it, again if you have anything to say feel free to post
here, I encourage everyone to let me know how you feel.
El out.
Widersinn
I am saddened to see that the situation with the group has made you so
angry. As one of the last players to join the game, I am at a loss as
to what to say to help (although as I go back to review my post, my
"loss" for words is close to 5 pages – sorry about that).
As someone who has spent more time as a GM than a player, I have given
some thought to the topics you have mentioned, which I will be happy
to share. While some of the criticisms and critiques may sound a
little snarky, the truth is that I am writing this later than I should
be and, while I hope I have it written to be neutral toned and
helpful, I do not know if I achieved that goal.
=.=.= (1A) =.=.=
Making the distinction between what you know as a player and what the
character knows can be difficult, at times. This is especially true
when facing some monsters, and relates specifically to trying to
figure out what is "common knowledge" for the world. A good example
of this would be: werewolves (as a monster of legend). Would it be
common knowledge to know to use silver?
This actually raises a deeper question about the world. As an RP
world, it is rich in its own history and details. As players we
accept that there is more to the world than just the bit with which we
interact. The world is suppose to have depth, but with that comes
some background issues. The characters did not just spring into
existence the day before our first adventure. Ideally, they have
background stories as well. They grew up in the world and learned
from parents, friends, and mentors before taking up the sword (or
wand).
As I player, it makes me wonder: What stories do the parents in
Greyhawk tell their children before bed? What bogeymen do children
fear? What evil wolves (or hobgoblins) will gobble up Little Red
Riding Hood when she strays from the path?
Considering the werewolf question, as a person (and avid horror movie
fan), if facing a werewolf while staying at a cabin in the woods, I
would immediately go for the silver, likewise garlic for vampires, and
head shots for zombies. Would any of this work? That is hard to say
- as these monsters do not exist in our world (or so we are led to
believe). However, in a world where they do exist, what would be
known? I do not doubt that some of what would be accepted as "fact"
would indeed be complete wrong, but would any of the old wives tales /
fairy tales / bedtime stories have merit? Would any stories of
bogeymen and demons be common themes for fire and brimstone sermons in
churches? Remember, good people living in a world with real demons
would have better cause to listen to their ministers. How much would
be useful, and worth trying as an adventurer, and how much would be
hype or travel brochure lies?
I readily accept that for many rare creatures with unusual abilities,
their combat secrets would remain unknown until you are toe to toe
with them. But would the same hold for more common monsters?
Granted, we had never fought skeletons (etc). But then, were we not
given any tips and tricks in bardic college (or fighter training)?
As adults in the world, would we have not known anyone who faced a
skeleton and told the tale? Ever? Cauldron is a huge city, chock
full of adventurers.
While there is a game mechanic in place for players to determine what
the character knows (a la knowledge skills), as a GM, I have often
found them (ironically) both too broad and to narrow in scope. To
categorize everything into 9 knowledge skills seems rather limiting,
while at the same time, what is included in some knowledge skills is
unreasonably broad, e.g. arcana, which then allows you a chance to
know something about all magical beasts, dragons, rituals, ancient
mysteries, cryptic writings, and arcane symbols. It always seemed
like you had a shot to know basically about everything in a magical
world for only a few skill points, not a bad deal – unless you are a
fighter and get almost no skill points, and all knowledge skills are
cross class. (But I digress; that is a discussion for another day.)
I did have a follow up question relating to DR. If we face creatures
with DR, without the proper tools, will you give us any indication
that we are doing less damage than we think we should be doing?
That all being said, there is still the case of blatant abuse of
knowledge. That is a separate issue, and one where I can understand
your annoyance. I have had problems with that in my own games.
=.=.= (1B) =.=.=
I would like to also address the spell knowledge issue. I have no
problem with the fact that a non-spellcaster would not know much about
magic. A mundane would not really know the effects of 99% of the
spells. An adventurer might know a little more (maybe clueless on
90%) – but yet perhaps somewhat familiar with a (half-) dozen or so
common spells – the general effect of, say a magic missile (zap ->
ow!), as well as some of the common healing magic (CLW) and perhaps
some divine magic (bless). This would not mean that they would be
able to know what spell was being cast (either by friend or foe), but
I feel it would not be unreasonable for a PC to be aware of some
spells by either name or effect.
However, even for the spells that a PC might be familiar with, how
would (or should) we refer to them? Some spells are basic enough that
referring to them by name is not something I consider to be outside of
a PC's knowledge – even one without spellcraft. If a "light" spell is
not referred to as a "light" spell, then what is it called? CLW is
more of a gray area, but not that much of a stretch when you consider,
what is "lightly wounded" compared to "seriously wounded"? The terms
are still vague. However, if a CLW is not known by the name "cure
light wounds," is it just "healing magic" or "send me some love"?
Even to other clerics (or bards)?
I do not argue the point for more unusual spells. Even an experienced
fighter (or some wizards) would not be familiar with say,
"Mordenkainen's Disjunction." But, I think some other spells would
not be entirely unheard of, e.g. "fireball," "light," maybe even
"detect magic." Some are either obvious names to spells with blatant
effects, or obvious replies to the simple question, "What's that
you're doing, mage?"
The game is set in a wonderous world where clerics can raise the dead,
wizards can wantonly splatter whole crowds of people, and necromancers
can bring forth armies of skeletons. More specifically, the game is
set in a city in a caldera where if magic is not used on the lake on a
regular basis, disease runs rampant or the lower sections of the city
flood.
=.=.= (2) =.=.=
To tell you the truth, I am not sure how much of the crit rule
"complaint" was directed at the house rules. When I saw the comment,
I thought that it was just an exasperated player's comment directed
more at the dice-bot, than at the rules of play. That might be a case
of missing the context, because in chat we can only read the words
posted, not the inflection behind those words.
I understand the desire to speed up combat. In my own game, I must
confess that I dread combat because it is so mind-numbingly slow.
Oddly, the last few tabletop games I ran, combat was pretty slow there
as well (it seems to just be a facet of the 3.X rules).
I do not have a problem with the way you trimmed the rules in
principle (in practice it will take a little more time to get
accustomed to your style). There are from time to time tactics that I
may want to use in a combat, but as happened last session with "aid
another," I will ask. It is sometimes difficult for those who GM our
own games to step back and play. Likewise, many of the players are
very knowledgeable about the game mechanics as well (which also leads
to problems like the entire first section of your post). When asked
about a rule, I answer with the book answer, which is not necessarily
the rule in use. In the future when asked, I will make more of an
effort to reply with, "by the book it is such and such, but you will
need to ask if that is how the GM is running it."
=.=.= (3) =.=.=
Ain't got no problem at all with anything you wrote in this section,
El.
=.=.= (4) =.=.=
I agree with what you have to say in the first part about trying to
gain unfair advantages.
My comments are for the second half… I would hate to see the game
dropped and no game happen. If given the chance, I would gladly play
in a home brew game.
Considering the amount of work involved in altering a published module
to avoid players learning too much about it, you might as well go with
a home brew game in my opinion. Furthermore, I am concerned about
you having to do the work to change it, then running the group through
the alterations would just cause a lot of resentment over the fact
that you had to change it in the first place. That may not be the
case, but considering how sore a topic it is, I think it may be
likely.
Therefore, I would much rather see a home brew game, but would ask if
there is any possibility of keeping the same characters? I
acknowledge that it is just me being selfish, but I do not feel that I
have run Taio long enough to really get him fleshed out, and would
relish the opportunity to continue with the character. I do
understand if you want to just start fresh with a whole new group for
a home brew game.
Well, there is all is… You asked us to comment. Unfortunately, my
two cents rang up to about thirty-nine, ninety-five.
-Widersinn
s g
Making the distinction between what you know as a player and what the
character knows can be difficult, at times. This is especially true
when facing some monsters, and relates specifically to trying to
figure out what is "common knowledge" for the world. A good example
of this would be: werewolves (as a monster of legend). Would it be
common knowledge to know to use silver?
This is an interesting question. As a DM my solution has been never use any monster that is familiar and if it is from a book then I change is enough that any player knowledge
I readily accept that for many rare creatures with unusual abilities,
their combat secrets would remain unknown until you are toe to toe
with them. But would the same hold for more common monsters?
Granted, we had never fought skeletons (etc). But then, were we not
given any tips and tricks in bardic college (or fighter training)?
As adults in the world, would we have not known anyone who faced a
skeleton and told the tale? Ever? Cauldron is a huge city, chock
full of adventurers.
I did have a follow up question relating to DR. If we face creatures
with DR, without the proper tools, will you give us any indication
that we are doing less damage than we think we should be doing?
That all being said, there is still the case of blatant abuse of
knowledge. That is a separate issue, and one where I can understand
your annoyance. I have had problems with that in my own games.
=.=.= (1B) =.=.=
I would like to also address the spell knowledge issue. I have no
problem with the fact that a non-spellcaster would not know much about
magic. A mundane would not really know the effects of 99% of the
spells. An adventurer might know a little more (maybe clueless on
90%) – but yet perhaps somewhat familiar with a (half-) dozen or so
common spells – the general effect of, say a magic missile (zap ->
ow!), as well as some of the common healing magic (CLW) and perhaps
some divine magic (bless). This would not mean that they would be
able to know what spell was being cast (either by friend or foe), but
I feel it would not be unreasonable for a PC to be aware of some
spells by either name or effect.
However, even for the spells that a PC might be familiar with, how
would (or should) we refer to them? Some spells are basic enough that
referring to them by name is not something I consider to be outside of
a PC's knowledge – even one without spellcraft. If a "light" spell is
not referred to as a "light" spell, then what is it called? CLW is
more of a gray area, but not that much of a stretch when you consider,
what is "lightly wounded" compared to "seriously wounded"? The terms
are still vague. However, if a CLW is not known by the name "cure
light wounds," is it just "healing magic" or "send me some love"?
Even to other clerics (or bards)?
I do not argue the point for more unusual spells. Even an experienced
fighter (or some wizards) would not be familiar with say,
"Mordenkainen's Disjunction." But, I think some other spells would
not be entirely unheard of, e.g. "fireball," "light," maybe even
"detect magic." Some are either obvious names to spells with blatant
effects, or obvious replies to the simple question, "What's that
you're doing, mage?"
The game is set in a wonderous world where clerics can raise the dead,
wizards can wantonly splatter whole crowds of people, and necromancers
can bring forth armies of skeletons. More specifically, the game is
set in a city in a caldera where if magic is not used on the lake on a
regular basis, disease runs rampant or the lower sections of the city
flood.
=.=.= (2) =.=.=
To tell you the truth, I am not sure how much of the crit rule
"complaint" was directed at the house rules. When I saw the comment,
I thought that it was just an exasperated player's comment directed
more at the dice-bot, than at the rules of play. That might be a case
of missing the context, because in chat we can only read the words
posted, not the inflection behind those words.
----------
I understand the desire to speed up combat. In my own game, I must
confess that I dread combat because it is so mind-numbingly slow.
Oddly, the last few tabletop games I ran, combat was pretty slow there
as well (it seems to just be a facet of the 3.X rules).
I do not have a problem with the way you trimmed the rules in
principle (in practice it will take a little more time to get
accustomed to your style). There are from time to time tactics that I
may want to use in a combat, but as happened last session with "aid
another," I will ask. It is sometimes difficult for those who GM our
own games to step back and play. Likewise, many of the players are
very knowledgeable about the game mechanics as well (which also leads
to problems like the entire first section of your post). When asked
about a rule, I answer with the book answer, which is not necessarily
the rule in use. In the future when asked, I will make more of an
effort to reply with, "by the book it is such and such, but you will
need to ask if that is how the GM is running it."
=.=.= (3) =.=.=
Ain't got no problem at all with anything you wrote in this section,
El.
=.=.= (4) =.=.=
I agree with what you have to say in the first part about trying to
gain unfair advantages.
My comments are for the second half… I would hate to see the game
dropped and no game happen. If given the chance, I would gladly play
in a home brew game.
Considering the amount of work involved in altering a published module
to avoid players learning too much about it, you might as well go with
a home brew game in my opinion. Furthermore, I am concerned about
you having to do the work to change it, then running the group through
the alterations would just cause a lot of resentment over the fact
that you had to change it in the first place. That may not be the
case, but considering how sore a topic it is, I think it may be
likely.
Therefore, I would much rather see a home brew game, but would ask if
there is any possibility of keeping the same characters? I
acknowledge that it is just me being selfish, but I do not feel that I
have run Taio long enough to really get him fleshed out, and would
relish the opportunity to continue with the character. I do
understand if you want to just start fresh with a whole new group for
a home brew game.
Well, there is all is… You asked us to comment. Unfortunately, my
two cents rang up to about thirty-nine, ninety-five.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DarkMyst Roleplaying" group.
To post to this group, send email to darkmyst-r...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to darkmyst-rolepla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/darkmyst-roleplaying?hl=en.
David Blackwell
companion flew up out of a fissure just after the start of the combat,
and I read the description of a direbat out of the MM without telling
the party what it was... the description made it sound so much more
terrifying that they assumed it was the primary threat and everyone
aborted their plans to attack the druid in order to take out the dire
bat...
s g
--
Doggie
To be honest, I really rarely know the rules in 3.5, I've read
about 1/6th of the book, and maybe 2 pages out of the DMG. So, I
really don't know any of the spells, I think maybe this is a cause of
frustration for the others who are use to playing a spell caster and
just blurt out that I should know such and such spell. I've even had
you ask me about a spell.
I also skip looking up or bringing up anything untill I've asked,
so I hope I'm not the one giving you the problem on it.
> 2)
I believe I mentioned that undead were immune to sneak, but I
didn't know you're rule on it and I was giving the rule as I
remembered it from 2e. I don't really recall about the 19's, I may
have said it as a joke at GS just being it's usual self. This was not
a shot at you or your system, I was joking how GS was being crule to
Kel.
> 3)
I believe we discussed carrying things when you droped the
treasure on us and said it would not be a big issue, though I
understand for RP constraints and all, and how you feel now. I I
usualy figure we(atleast me) are dragging these bags around and drop
them for combat or if we head into a new room. I would not try to
fight or walk into a dangerous position on purpose carrying a 1200
pound bag of coins.
> 4) Finally (thank Hieronious I can hear some of you say) there is
> something that really has been bothering me since the issue came up
> about 1-2 months ago and that's player cheating. As you are all aware,
> I caught Sally with the map of the adventure. I first found it on my
> computer, she was using it becasue I had started out on our other
> computer before it crashed but then I switched to my laptop that she
> had been using. Anyway, I first had thought that I had brought up the
> file and left it on the computer when I signed her on. She then signed
> on to our other computer and later I found her looking at the map
> again. When I asked her where she got it she wouldn't tell me even
> though she knew I was livid.
I'm sorry you feel that way and I do understand it. I would like to
note that any time I was asked for a map I would hand it out in my
game. I don't know if it's your style to do this, but for the speed of
the game I try to keep everyone on the same page about where they
haven't explored. Anyone using module knowleadge without my giving out
was punished for it. If it helps you, I will start making a map in
character to get help with the area.
> Let me say this, to me anyone looking at
> the map, reading the adventure or even looking at the monster books to
> gain unfiar advantages, I consider this to be cheating and I have no
> place for any of you guilty of this in my game. If I do catch anyone
> doing this they will be expelled from the game and banned from all the
> channels I OP on Darkmyst. Another of the reason's I'm rehashing this
> issue is that i thyink some of you are still using some of this
> information. This may or not be true, my point is this one instance
> has really damaged the trust that I once for the group leading to...
> I haven't decided what I'm going to do after this adventure is over.
> There are three options I'm considering. I might drop the entire game
> and replace it with nothing, I might start a new home brew game or I
> might continue the ongoing game but make drastic changes to it to
> avoid curious eyes looking for dungeon information on the internet. I
> haven't made that decision yet. I'm waiting to see how the rest of
> this adventure goes. After we finish with "Flood Season" I'll talk to
> everyone and see how you all feel. You're also free to post your
> feelings about this or any of the other topics I've covered in this
> post here and we can discuss it. I'm not trying to be Draconian but my
> level of enjoyment has really waned of late and a lot of it has to do
> with the map instance.
I'm sorry, but I think you are over reacting here and acting like a
bit of a power monger. Your statement feels a bit one sided, and I
understand your feelings are hurt over it, as any GM's would be. I
have a feeling you would not like playing under that kind of
punishment. No one deserve permenant dismisel because of looking at a
map. I find it a little insulting to players to think like that, just
because someone saw a map they are banned from ever playing somewhere
again? Games are about equal enjoyment for all the people in the game,
it is as much the player's game as the GM's. We play because we like
the game, and I ask that you not talk like that to the players because
that will hurt their enjoyment too. "Why should I show up if I'm going
to be kicked?" A far worse punishment for any character is to loose
Experiance for an adventure, if you want to punish people, I suggest
you start there.
I also have to say that without meaning to, because of stress or
what not you've sometimes made yourself un-accessable to help, I felt
on several occasions because of my lack of fimiliarity with 3.5 -
which I cautioned you about - you've slamed the door in my face and
made it hard to get an answer.
> Anyway, that's it, again if you have anything to say feel free to post
> here, I encourage everyone to let me know how you feel.
As to the future of the game, I still like playing the game, and
I'm sure you're going to get pretty pissed at me for half this message
so I'll appologize in advance for any part that you felt angered at or
antaganized you, we've been friends for 3 years, and I think you know
I don't pull punches on what I think, even if it costs me friends.
I'm still up for this game, and I like Greyhawk, as to what
adventures you send us on, that's up to you. I have not read any of
the modules and I don't plan to. If you change to a homebrew, I don't
think I'd have as much fun. I like Greyhawk and that's why I started
playing in the first place.
Well, that's what I think, sorry again b/c I know this will piss
you off.