TLDR: Is it wrong to look up a monster your DM throws at you after you end your session? And if you find something that they played wrong ask them about it?
I have a question regarding my playstyle. My friends and I are playing Curse of Strahd. I’m loving it. The thing, is I’m normally the one to DM for my group. It’s in my mentality to see something and want to understand it, and the way it interacts with characters that I create. While I don’t meta-game I find myself looking over monsters that we have encountered so far. Especially the ones that make the group go “Holy crap we almost died there!” As a DM I would be frustrated if my players cracked out the monster Manuel every time an encounter pops up but what about after the session when the players are no longer in danger, is it still wrong in a meta-game sort of way? Also, what if I find something about the creature that my DM didn’t see. For instance, say we fought a creature that had resistance to non-magic fire, but the wizard casted firebolt. Would it be wrong to approach the DM and say “hey that last creature would have taken full dmg bc it was magic that casted the fire not matches and a thrown torch.”
It's not wrong to look it up, and if you want to ask about it later make sure you make clear why you're asking about it. The DM might have reasons to play a monster differently, disregarding abilities or adding some. In some cases it might be that you interpret an ability or rule differently than them. You are only "that guy" if you're trying to prove that he did "wrong" in any way. If you have criticism on your dm (or anyone for that manner) make sure it's constructive, be willing to hear their side and let them know yours. If you had fun while playing, did he play it "wrong"? If he made the creature more powerful and that made the encounter more exciting, is that "wrong"?
I might also add that if you're playing CoS for the first time, make sure you don't spoil the fun by looking up important monsters or npc's. They might have secrets that pop up later.
I am actually having a blast playing CoS. I'm not peeking ahead to see whats to come as that's no fun. My friends and I don't care if we die as long as its justified. The only times the game isn't fun is the random encounters bit...fighting things we don't expect and they deal more damage in a round then we do. It leads us (or at least me) to want to understand how they did that. For instance we fought one of the boss encounters and our party dispatched him in three rounds with out a scratch on us. Yet we had a random encounter that almost killed the entire group and they weren't even significant to the story! I don't question my DM at the time, as he has a lot going on behind that screen and I can understand that. I just wanted to make sure before I get to that constructive criticism point, that i'm not stepping on his toes and being an annoying player with the "I looked in the manual and that creatures ability is actually worded like this, so in that instance it wouldn't have dealt damage."
It is possible sometimes that random encounters are not meant to be fought and won. Sometimes you need to run. May I ask what the situation was? Perhaps it is a case of misinterpretation (you may send it private in case you don't want to spoil it for others)
Not to sound snide, but would you like it if positions were reversed?
If the GM receives it well then it's cool, if it's taken as armchair quarterbacking then not so great. If you're doing it after the game it could certainly be helpful, clearly during the game in being 'that guy'!
Does proximity to rules perfection = fun? Clearly not, so put your PC hat on and play your character as best you can. That will help your GM more than anything.
As a DM I don't care what the players know, look up, or otherwise try to anticipate me, however I'm running a game of my own creation so there's no source book in a sense.
If a player has concerns about what I did, they look it up in any of the available books, and then present it to me, I'm cool with that. As long as they're approaching it, like RAJdeBoer said, with curiosity and constructive reasons. On the other hand, my fiancee, being new to the DM side of things, can't stand it as it makes her struggle with confidence as being a "good DM". So there's a balance to be had, and you'll have to see how the DM responds to the situation.
As a player, I avoid doing this type of thing, but only because I know too much already. As a DM I've played every monster, every npc, on and on, so I have a good grasp on what is 'normal' in most cases. However, I don't mind asking why when I don't understand what's going on. I DM one way, and no other DM has the same method, so rather than thinking it was done "wrong" I simply ask why and if I don't agree I'll present my thought and let it go.
It is a hard pill to swallow at first, the whole "I'm a DM and I run things this way" and then sit back and pretend you don't know anything as a player. I back seat DMed my fiancee's game for the first few weeks...it landed me on the couch, that's when I learned my lesson fully :)
Not to sound snide, but would you like it if positions were reversed?
If the GM receives it well then it's cool, if it's taken as armchair quarterbacking then not so great. If you're doing it after the game it could certainly be helpful, clearly during the game in being 'that guy'!
Does proximity to rules perfection = fun? Clearly not, so put your PC hat on and play your character as best you can. That will help your GM more than anything.
I would love it if my players came to me with their frustrations! I hate feeling this way. Knowing i might be stepping on someones toes or being discouraging. its not my intent. I only want the game to be fun for everyone and that includes me. Also rules are meant to be broken, i agree. Yet respecting the fact that DM didn't say this was a Home brew campaign this is a by the book deal. idc if he changes HP or the amount of creatures to scale our party but changing the damage or the like when you're inexperienced its not a good idea. It may be an unpopular opinion but i'm of the belief that if characters die, your not having fun (unless its tied to some role-play aspect between player and DM) and that's not the reason we play.
As a DM I don't care what the players know, look up, or otherwise try to anticipate me, however I'm running a game of my own creation so there's no source book in a sense.
If a player has concerns about what I did, they look it up in any of the available books, and then present it to me, I'm cool with that. As long as they're approaching it, like RAJdeBoer said, with curiosity and constructive reasons. On the other hand, my fiancee, being new to the DM side of things, can't stand it as it makes her struggle with confidence as being a "good DM". So there's a balance to be had, and you'll have to see how the DM responds to the situation.
As a player, I avoid doing this type of thing, but only because I know too much already. As a DM I've played every monster, every npc, on and on, so I have a good grasp on what is 'normal' in most cases. However, I don't mind asking why when I don't understand what's going on. I DM one way, and no other DM has the same method, so rather than thinking it was done "wrong" I simply ask why and if I don't agree I'll present my thought and let it go.
It is a hard pill to swallow at first, the whole "I'm a DM and I run things this way" and then sit back and pretend you don't know anything as a player. I back seat DMed my fiancee's game for the first few weeks...it landed me on the couch, that's when I learned my lesson fully :)
I cant go into full detail about my current game because there are spoilers, but i'm just trying to be constructive to my friend who is doing his best at first time DMing. I feel like I might discourage him even if I put it nicely it might still come out as "Yo i'm looking at the monsters your using and you're doing it wrong. the book says this..." especially when they leave out details like in my OP example with the wizard and the fire, that would have made things easier on us. Ultimately ill have to confront him about it, but I guess I'm looking for validation for the way I feel. If I sound pretentious its not my intention I am NOT a perfect player, my role-play sucks and I struggle to make smart decisions all the time. I just remember when I first started DMing that a lot of videos and things told me to pay attention to what the players say and that if their not having fun you shouldn't be having fun. Well now i'm on the other side of the table and i'm starting to feel the frustrations of a player who feels strung along for a ride rather then playing OUR game.
... i'm just trying to be constructive to my friend who is doing his best at first time DMing. I feel like I might discourage him even if I put it nicely it might still come out as "Yo i'm looking at the monsters your using and you're doing it wrong. the book says this..." especially when they leave out details like in my OP example with the wizard and the fire, that would have made things easier on us.
This part is difficult, but necessary. The best advice I can offer here is to avoid the words "you did it wrong", this comes off as an attack. Instead try to frame it first with a why "Why did you choose to reduce the damage from the fire?" Give them a chance to answer that question then give your opinion something along the lines of "From my understanding it is described as happening this way". Basically make it a back an forth instead of a "you're wrong, the book says" statement. From my understanding you're the experienced DM vs this other person, so you are there to educate based on your experience so they have more tools to work with.
... Ultimately ill have to confront him about it, but I guess I'm looking for validation for the way I feel.
You do not need validation to feel anything, you are confused about the ruling, and as such clarification is needed. This is part of the learning process as a DM, consistency, clarification, and realizing that you may have missed something. Most of us have had to learn through our mistakes, not having a DM to give us an alternate point of view. Your friend has an asset in you, but only as long as they're willing to receive constructive criticism.
... Well now i'm on the other side of the table and i'm starting to feel the frustrations of a player who feels strung along for a ride rather then playing OUR game.
This is something that I've been struggling with myself, I'm playing in CoS as well. In my opinion it is poorly written, my fiancee has had to come to me for advice on how to resolve inconsistencies and other problems as she's been DMing. She's a new DM, this is her second module, and second time DMing. Myself, I've had to learn to bite my tongue at how I feel like I'm chasing a carrot on a stick.
For what it's worth though, I have been told many times during the course of the module, the monsters have different stat blocks than the MM. I have yet to look into the module, I'm still making Strahd hate me, so I can't confirm how different the stat blocks are.
Published adventures frequently include "a(n) [insert monster here] with the following changes" or "a(n) [insert monster here] with N (XdY + Z) hit points". The odds are, I think, quite thoroughly in favor of this being one of those times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Would it be wrong to approach the DM and say “hey that last creature would have taken full dmg bc it was magic that casted the fire not matches and a thrown torch.”
That would not be useful: the event has passed, and overlooking minor details is commonplace. I'd only bother mentioning it if it mattered going forward (example: casually mentioning it the next time you encountered the same creature seems reasonable).
Somewhat early on in the campaign I'm currently playing, my panther animal companion attacked a Gray Ooze with her claw attack. Our DM ruled that the acid basically destroyed the claws on her attacking paw. After the game I looked up the creature (for slightly different reasons. I was playing a ranger and the group had access to a very big library. Our DM was allowing me to study creatures in my character's downtime to be better prepared for future encounters. I could also study creatures we had faced to fully understand their capabilities). Anyway, when I saw that the ooze's Corrode Metal ability only targeted non-magical metal I brought it up to the DM. He pointed out several things to me that I think are pertinent here:
1) The DM is always right. But (generally) quite willing to listen to what the Players have to say, especially when it comes to a ruling that may have been a mistake.
2) The MM is a guideline for the monsters, but the DM can tweak them situationally.
3) In the specific encounter mentioned above he countered with, "It's acid. That's what acid does."
I remember another time when he had a bunch of pixies cast Fly on me. I pointed out that the Fly spell can only be cast on a willing target. These were very pranky pixies and they were having fun with my character. The DM offered me a saving throw as a middle ground. I passed. Then he had me make about a dozen more, since there were a lot of pixies. I got the point ;)
Anyway, your 2 original questions are quite separate. The MM is a source book and as such you're welcome to read whatever you want. Just know the difference between what you know and what your character knows. As for the 2nd, communicating with your DM is an important part of the process. Everyone is there to have fun, and addressing with confusing elements helps keep the fun going longer. In our campaign, unless it's immediately game altering, our DM has us write down questions we may have with how something went down and we usually hang around for 20-30 minutes after the game and discuss them. It keeps the game from grinding to a halt from rules lawyering. Sometimes we resolve issues by posting on these forums and getting a fresh set of eyes. Sometimes it leads to an interesting debate about game mechanics, and other times the DM simply says, "That's the way it is."
Somewhat early on in the campaign I'm currently playing, my panther animal companion attacked a Gray Ooze with her claw attack. Our DM ruled that the acid basically destroyed the claws on her attacking paw. After the game I looked up the creature (for slightly different reasons. I was playing a ranger and the group had access to a very big library. Our DM was allowing me to study creatures in my character's downtime to be better prepared for future encounters. I could also study creatures we had faced to fully understand their capabilities). Anyway, when I saw that the ooze's Corrode Metal ability only targeted non-magical metal I brought it up to the DM. He pointed out several things to me that I think are pertinent here:
1) The DM is always right. But (generally) quite willing to listen to what the Players have to say, especially when it comes to a ruling that may have been a mistake.
2) The MM is a guideline for the monsters, but the DM can tweak them situationally.
3) In the specific encounter mentioned above he countered with, "It's acid. That's what acid does."
I remember another time when he had a bunch of pixies cast Fly on me. I pointed out that the Fly spell can only be cast on a willing target. These were very pranky pixies and they were having fun with my character. The DM offered me a saving throw as a middle ground. I passed. Then he had me make about a dozen more, since there were a lot of pixies. I got the point ;)
Anyway, your 2 original questions are quite separate. The MM is a source book and as such you're welcome to read whatever you want. Just know the difference between what you know and what your character knows. As for the 2nd, communicating with your DM is an important part of the process. Everyone is there to have fun, and addressing with confusing elements helps keep the fun going longer. In our campaign, unless it's immediately game altering, our DM has us write down questions we may have with how something went down and we usually hang around for 20-30 minutes after the game and discuss them. It keeps the game from grinding to a halt from rules lawyering. Sometimes we resolve issues by posting on these forums and getting a fresh set of eyes. Sometimes it leads to an interesting debate about game mechanics, and other times the DM simply says, "That's the way it is."
I can understand where your coming from. I dont know if its my natural disregard for authority but i hate the idea that "the DM is god" mentality. The DM can play by himself if he wants to play that game. Lol.
Tweaking monsters and doing things to better challenge the party is understandable. However, about the point of separating my own knowledge from the game i will only do that for a new campaign as that literally takes away from the fun. When knowing who the bosses are and what i might have to fight would be not fun for the DM especially when he/she spend money on the books. I read in a thread that if in real life we know about these fake monsters and the lore they carry, then surely the characters would know of the REAL dangers of encountering a Zombie/Goblin/Vampire. I would think my character could deduce what type of beings my character encounters just because I know what hes encountering. Unless its some boss or variant type.
I have no problem accepting changes made on the fly, but i'm worried that my DM's inexperience would lead to more conflict down the road. As an example we throw holy water on a undead creature and DM says "you give him a refreshing drink of water." When that takes my action and wastes time because he changed or added some effect to the creatures we are fighting just to be different. Instead of being rewarded for a smart play of strategy you are punished. Its not a fair compromise.
I just want to understand how to fight the creatures we encounter so the next time my companions have a better shot at survival. Just like we get education to earn a good job my characters want to learn from their opponents to become legendary adventurers. Level 20 is the dream.
Even after having said all of that I would never, ever, ever put my friend down and tell him hes doing a bad job (especially because hes not doing bad). I don't even want to approach him about the situation unless it continues and its not bringing me joy. I was more or less seeking validation for the minor frustrations and newbie mistakes that hes making (the same ones I made/make.) I feel like i'm sneaking around looking at everything he's throwing at us and I find myself going "Wait, he said that dealt 14 damage but its 2d4+3 or I should have killed that thing after my sorcerer friend hit it with a fireball..."
Maybe i need to put the book down as I think its the root cause of the feelings of getting cheated.
I can understand where your coming from. I dont know if its my natural disregard for authority but i hate the idea that "the DM is god" mentality. The DM can play by himself if he wants to play that game. Lol.
First mistake. The DM is god in a quite literal sense. It's their job to build and rationalize the world in which the characters play, they define how it operates and what its structure is, and can make changes on the fly, in real time, if they are so inclined. It's not just their job to roll the dice for the monsters. If you would rather have things work exactly as prescribed in a sourcebook, the same advice you give can be applied to you as well. Just pick up adventures and play them solo with no DM. See how rewarding of an experience that turns out to be. If you have fun, great! If not, I'd suggest getting used to the idea that it's quite literally the role of the DM to figure out how the world works and play as god.
Tweaking monsters and doing things to better challenge the party is understandable. However, about the point of separating my own knowledge from the game i will only do that for a new campaign as that literally takes away from the fun. When knowing who the bosses are and what i might have to fight would be not fun for the DM especially when he/she spend money on the books. I read in a thread that if in real life we know about these fake monsters and the lore they carry, then surely the characters would know of the REAL dangers of encountering a Zombie/Goblin/Vampire. I would think my character could deduce what type of beings my character encounters just because I know what hes encountering. Unless its some boss or variant type.
I have no problem accepting changes made on the fly, but i'm worried that my DM's inexperience would lead to more conflict down the road. As an example we throw holy water on a undead creature and DM says "you give him a refreshing drink of water." When that takes my action and wastes time because he changed or added some effect to the creatures we are fighting just to be different. Instead of being rewarded for a smart play of strategy you are punished. Its not a fair compromise.
Second mistake. WHY did your character throw holy water on the monster? Per your own description, it's because you used your out of game knowledge and expected it to 100% always work exactly as the sourcebook describes. A few things to keep in mind: 1) The internet does not exist in the game world, and printing technologies are relegated to those of scribes literally rewriting books by hand. The spread of knowledge is not the same in game and out. 2) The "lore" you're referring to is that which is made up, IRL. We "know" it because it's written down by someone who required absolutely no hands on experience with it. In game, who during a literal fight to the death is going to be taking copious notes regarding what exactly they did and what the reactions were, and more importantly building up a large enough sample size to be able to make meaningful conclusions? How could you take "Greg hit him 4 times with an axe and Scott hit him with a firebolt" and get "Trolls regeneration is stymied by fire damage", for example? It's not comparable whatsoever. 3) IRL, for *centuries* we held onto knowledge that was just Wrong. Like the Earth being flat, the sun revolving around the Earth, Mercury being an effective treatment for Syphilis, disease essentially boiling down to toxic gas, the "four humors" of the human body, and so on and so forth. What would make this Fantasy world 100% accurate, when our world was not?
In my world, in my games, smart play would be to encounter an undead being, research it IN GAME, in an in game library or with an expert in the field, discern weaknesses from there, and THEN, and ONLY then, if the in game knowledge discerns holy water is a weakness, using it in combat against them. In my campaigns, if it had not yet been determined whether undead were or were not weak to holy water, and a player used metagame knowledge to attack them with it, it would instantaneously and irrevocably change the world such that the undead were NOT weak against it. Metagaming will Never be rewarded. That's just me. Your DM may let you get away with it, may be cool with it even. Yet IMHO it's the height of undeserved privilege to Expect your metagaming to be rewarded, and whine if it's not, that it's not fair for things to work differently than your out of game knowledge indicated it should.
I just want to understand how to fight the creatures we encounter so the next time my companions have a better shot at survival. Just like we get education to earn a good job my characters want to learn from their opponents to become legendary adventurers. Level 20 is the dream.
Cool. Then research that stuff IN GAME. It's a living, breathing world, or should be. Lore experts Do exist somewhere. Find them, learn from them, and apply your IN GAME knowledge to improving your tactics against the beasts.
Even after having said all of that I would never, ever, ever put my friend down and tell him hes doing a bad job (especially because hes not doing bad). I don't even want to approach him about the situation unless it continues and its not bringing me joy. I was more or less seeking validation for the minor frustrations and newbie mistakes that hes making (the same ones I made/make.) I feel like i'm sneaking around looking at everything he's throwing at us and I find myself going "Wait, he said that dealt 14 damage but its 2d4+3 or I should have killed that thing after my sorcerer friend hit it with a fireball..."
Maybe i need to put the book down as I think its the root cause of the feelings of getting cheated.
Yep. Put the book down.
Edit: By the way, I do want to point out that earlier replies indicating it's fine to talk with him about it are 100% correct. I just abhor metagaming, so my response may come across as unnecessarily harsh, and for that my apologies. However there's a big difference between complaining your metagaming isn't working, basically, and approaching a new DM to help him get better at his craft. The way I would recommend approaching a question regarding magical vs non-magical fire damage, for example, would be to say "Hey, so I noticed this creature got resistance to magical fire damage, while normally the creature only has resistance to non-magical fire damage. I just wanted to make sure that was deliberate and wanted to help if you had any questions or confusion on how resistances work if it wasn't." And then, regardless of what he says in response "Cool, it's no biggie either way, obviously you can have your monsters work how you want, I just know this is new for you and figured it might come up in the future so wanted to lend a hand if needed. Thanks!" Not confrontational or accusatory, not entitled, just seeking to understand and offering assistance if needed. Totally acceptable to do.
Yep, agree with all this above. No monsters exist except that the DM describes to you, and they have no abilities, weaknesses or stats except that the DM describes for one reason or another. To add to the above, other than actually researching in character it would be perfectly acceptable to just ask the DM in game about a creature when you first meet it, using in-game lore. Something like: "Gasp! A zombie! Hmm, in my time as a priest in the temple of Zeus I studied how to fight such abominations. Does it have any weaknesses that I can recall?" The DM can then either offer you some information about the monster (which becomes true as soon as they say it) or might ask for some ability check (Religion?) to recall some juicy weak spots. You could even ask "might this holy water work?" and the DM can answer yes, no or maybe. Encourage the other players to do the same and you'll collectively amass a large amount of monster lore that is uniquely true for the universe of your game. Read the books for inspiration only.
If I'm correct, RegentCorreon meant that either you recall something from your past which is true from that point on, or you have to roll a die in order to remember something.
First I just want to state that this thread was created based off of my OP not my opinion that was made in reply to other posts. About custom creatures and all that. As my personal feelings are not the topic.
First mistake. The DM is god in a quite literal sense. It's their job to build and rationalize the world in which the characters play, they define how it operates and what its structure is, and can make changes on the fly, in real time, if they are so inclined. It's not just their job to roll the dice for the monsters. If you would rather have things work exactly as prescribed in a sourcebook, the same advice you give can be applied to you as well. Just pick up adventures and play them solo with no DM. See how rewarding of an experience that turns out to be. If you have fun, great! If not, I'd suggest getting used to the idea that it's quite literally the role of the DM to figure out how the world works and play as god.
If God is just a title you are using to represent a job the DM has to do then yes i agree then he is God, King, chief whatever you want to call him. I'm talking about a mentality of, this world is mine and you can do nothing but what I say I make the rules and you are just along for the ride! That is something that I will not partake in. It is my game just as much as his.
I do play the adventures by myself. Its an amazing resource to do a mock run of an adventure to see where players might struggle and make it a little easier.
Second mistake. WHY did your character throw holy water on the monster? Per your own description, it's because you used your out of game knowledge and expected it to 100% always work exactly as the sourcebook describes. A few things to keep in mind: 1) The internet does not exist in the game world, and printing technologies are relegated to those of scribes literally rewriting books by hand. The spread of knowledge is not the same in game and out. 2) The "lore" you're referring to is that which is made up, IRL. We "know" it because it's written down by someone who required absolutely no hands on experience with it. In game, who during a literal fight to the death is going to be taking copious notes regarding what exactly they did and what the reactions were, and more importantly building up a large enough sample size to be able to make meaningful conclusions? How could you take "Greg hit him 4 times with an axe and Scott hit him with a firebolt" and get "Trolls regeneration is stymied by fire damage", for example? It's not comparable whatsoever. 3) IRL, for *centuries* we held onto knowledge that was just Wrong. Like the Earth being flat, the sun revolving around the Earth, Mercury being an effective treatment for Syphilis, disease essentially boiling down to toxic gas, the "four humors" of the human body, and so on and so forth. What would make this Fantasy world 100% accurate, when our world was not?
In my world, in my games, smart play would be to encounter an undead being, research it IN GAME, in an in game library or with an expert in the field, discern weaknesses from there, and THEN, and ONLY then, if the in game knowledge discerns holy water is a weakness, using it in combat against them. In my campaigns, if it had not yet been determined whether undead were or were not weak to holy water, and a player used metagame knowledge to attack them with it, it would instantaneously and irrevocably change the world such that the undead were NOT weak against it. Metagaming will Never be rewarded. That's just me. Your DM may let you get away with it, may be cool with it even. Yet IMHO it's the height of undeserved privilege to Expect your metagaming to be rewarded, and whine if it's not, that it's not fair for things to work differently than your out of game knowledge indicated it should.
You keep saying I'm making a mistake, but I think you are the one mistaken. It is my opinion it cant be a mistake, its how I literally feel about the situation. Why would I throw Holy water on an undead fiend? I don't know maybe because its been done since the conception of the creature as a way to combat it? DnD, Pathfinder, movies and novels all have that information! Sorry if that's too meta for you. lol
Totally agreed with you about the internet and false information that is an excellent point. That can lead to so many cool and dramatic effects! like when you discover a creature that can be beat with Salt and Fire is actually immune to that stuff and that HE was the one who gave that information away! yet if you do crap like that for every creature it becomes boring and really frustrating. at least it is for me.
Also, we have talked IN GAME about the creatures we have fought and we were given NO information it seems the towns people have no idea what is attacking them other then vague information (wolfs, ghouls, fiends ect.) when we ask if there is known sources of weaknesses or abilitys that they have reveled and are told "sorry we just don't know" then yes it leads to frustration on my part, it makes me want to look at the creature after the encounter to see if we played it right or if the DM is being cruel.
So, you would punish not only a player but an entire party for an attempt at something they thought might work? As an old high school buddy of mine used to say "Whoopee freaking do, glad i'm not playing with you!" I'm at the table to have fun not indulge your power trip. The only thing that is a privilege is you getting to sit and play with your friends. If you want to play a game of "Neeneer neeneer I know stuff that you don't" i'm glad you have found like minded individuals that are willing to play that style of game.
Cool. Then research that stuff IN GAME. It's a living, breathing world, or should be. Lore experts Do exist somewhere. Find them, learn from them, and apply your IN GAME knowledge to improving your tactics against the beasts.
I like how you assume for the second time that we didn't attempt that.
Yep. Put the book down.
I think I will. It creates too much pressure to do well in every encounter instead of just allowing the flow of the story and learning something new. However, that said I don't like the idea that if I was invited to play chess and in the middle of the match you claimed the king can now move again once it takes a piece that we were still playing chess. I like to know what I'm getting into BEFORE I sit down and play.
If i played with you and your group and you told me "dude, we don't play exactly by the book but a VERY loose interpretation of it." then I would totally be down for that game it sounds like a lot of chaos and fun! My CoS game is being ran with all of the rules with little home brew that only the DM comes up with. It should be straight forward. that's what i signed up for every week to clear my Sundays off. If you want to give me something else then i'm out. Simple.
By the way, I do want to point out that earlier replies indicating it's fine to talk with him about it are 100% correct. I just abhor metagaming, so my response may come across as unnecessarily harsh, and for that my apologies. However there's a big difference between complaining your metagaming isn't working, basically, and approaching a new DM to help him get better at his craft. The way I would recommend approaching a question regarding magical vs non-magical fire damage, for example, would be to say "Hey, so I noticed this creature got resistance to magical fire damage, while normally the creature only has resistance to non-magical fire damage. I just wanted to make sure that was deliberate and wanted to help if you had any questions or confusion on how resistances work if it wasn't." And then, regardless of what he says in response "Cool, it's no biggie either way, obviously you can have your monsters work how you want, I just know this is new for you and figured it might come up in the future so wanted to lend a hand if needed. Thanks!" Not confrontational or accusatory, not entitled, just seeking to understand and offering assistance if needed. Totally acceptable to do
You don't need to apologize for your opinion. You make very valid points that I didn't think about. I don't know if you DM but DM'ing is all about meta gaming so that would be quite awkward "Hey Scott sorry but the stake through the heart trick doesn't work on that vampire, its not like it is in the book plus I don't like that meta stuff. Oh btw how many spell slots you got left and whats your HP looking like? I already know your WIS save." XD
If I'm correct, RegentCorreon meant that either you recall something from your past which is true from that point on, or you have to roll a die in order to remember something.
I know. I just wanted to say it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
hello everyone!
TLDR: Is it wrong to look up a monster your DM throws at you after you end your session? And if you find something that they played wrong ask them about it?
I have a question regarding my playstyle. My friends and I are playing Curse of Strahd. I’m loving it. The thing, is I’m normally the one to DM for my group. It’s in my mentality to see something and want to understand it, and the way it interacts with characters that I create. While I don’t meta-game I find myself looking over monsters that we have encountered so far. Especially the ones that make the group go “Holy crap we almost died there!” As a DM I would be frustrated if my players cracked out the monster Manuel every time an encounter pops up but what about after the session when the players are no longer in danger, is it still wrong in a meta-game sort of way? Also, what if I find something about the creature that my DM didn’t see. For instance, say we fought a creature that had resistance to non-magic fire, but the wizard casted firebolt. Would it be wrong to approach the DM and say “hey that last creature would have taken full dmg bc it was magic that casted the fire not matches and a thrown torch.”
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
It's not wrong to look it up, and if you want to ask about it later make sure you make clear why you're asking about it. The DM might have reasons to play a monster differently, disregarding abilities or adding some. In some cases it might be that you interpret an ability or rule differently than them. You are only "that guy" if you're trying to prove that he did "wrong" in any way. If you have criticism on your dm (or anyone for that manner) make sure it's constructive, be willing to hear their side and let them know yours. If you had fun while playing, did he play it "wrong"? If he made the creature more powerful and that made the encounter more exciting, is that "wrong"?
I might also add that if you're playing CoS for the first time, make sure you don't spoil the fun by looking up important monsters or npc's. They might have secrets that pop up later.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Good point.
I am actually having a blast playing CoS. I'm not peeking ahead to see whats to come as that's no fun. My friends and I don't care if we die as long as its justified. The only times the game isn't fun is the random encounters bit...fighting things we don't expect and they deal more damage in a round then we do. It leads us (or at least me) to want to understand how they did that. For instance we fought one of the boss encounters and our party dispatched him in three rounds with out a scratch on us. Yet we had a random encounter that almost killed the entire group and they weren't even significant to the story! I don't question my DM at the time, as he has a lot going on behind that screen and I can understand that. I just wanted to make sure before I get to that constructive criticism point, that i'm not stepping on his toes and being an annoying player with the "I looked in the manual and that creatures ability is actually worded like this, so in that instance it wouldn't have dealt damage."
It is possible sometimes that random encounters are not meant to be fought and won. Sometimes you need to run. May I ask what the situation was? Perhaps it is a case of misinterpretation (you may send it private in case you don't want to spoil it for others)
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Not to sound snide, but would you like it if positions were reversed?
If the GM receives it well then it's cool, if it's taken as armchair quarterbacking then not so great. If you're doing it after the game it could certainly be helpful, clearly during the game in being 'that guy'!
Does proximity to rules perfection = fun? Clearly not, so put your PC hat on and play your character as best you can. That will help your GM more than anything.
As a DM I don't care what the players know, look up, or otherwise try to anticipate me, however I'm running a game of my own creation so there's no source book in a sense.
If a player has concerns about what I did, they look it up in any of the available books, and then present it to me, I'm cool with that. As long as they're approaching it, like RAJdeBoer said, with curiosity and constructive reasons. On the other hand, my fiancee, being new to the DM side of things, can't stand it as it makes her struggle with confidence as being a "good DM". So there's a balance to be had, and you'll have to see how the DM responds to the situation.
As a player, I avoid doing this type of thing, but only because I know too much already. As a DM I've played every monster, every npc, on and on, so I have a good grasp on what is 'normal' in most cases. However, I don't mind asking why when I don't understand what's going on. I DM one way, and no other DM has the same method, so rather than thinking it was done "wrong" I simply ask why and if I don't agree I'll present my thought and let it go.
It is a hard pill to swallow at first, the whole "I'm a DM and I run things this way" and then sit back and pretend you don't know anything as a player. I back seat DMed my fiancee's game for the first few weeks...it landed me on the couch, that's when I learned my lesson fully :)
Published adventures frequently include "a(n) [insert monster here] with the following changes" or "a(n) [insert monster here] with N (XdY + Z) hit points". The odds are, I think, quite thoroughly in favor of this being one of those times.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Somewhat early on in the campaign I'm currently playing, my panther animal companion attacked a Gray Ooze with her claw attack. Our DM ruled that the acid basically destroyed the claws on her attacking paw. After the game I looked up the creature (for slightly different reasons. I was playing a ranger and the group had access to a very big library. Our DM was allowing me to study creatures in my character's downtime to be better prepared for future encounters. I could also study creatures we had faced to fully understand their capabilities). Anyway, when I saw that the ooze's Corrode Metal ability only targeted non-magical metal I brought it up to the DM. He pointed out several things to me that I think are pertinent here:
1) The DM is always right. But (generally) quite willing to listen to what the Players have to say, especially when it comes to a ruling that may have been a mistake.
2) The MM is a guideline for the monsters, but the DM can tweak them situationally.
3) In the specific encounter mentioned above he countered with, "It's acid. That's what acid does."
I remember another time when he had a bunch of pixies cast Fly on me. I pointed out that the Fly spell can only be cast on a willing target. These were very pranky pixies and they were having fun with my character. The DM offered me a saving throw as a middle ground. I passed. Then he had me make about a dozen more, since there were a lot of pixies. I got the point ;)
Anyway, your 2 original questions are quite separate. The MM is a source book and as such you're welcome to read whatever you want. Just know the difference between what you know and what your character knows. As for the 2nd, communicating with your DM is an important part of the process. Everyone is there to have fun, and addressing with confusing elements helps keep the fun going longer. In our campaign, unless it's immediately game altering, our DM has us write down questions we may have with how something went down and we usually hang around for 20-30 minutes after the game and discuss them. It keeps the game from grinding to a halt from rules lawyering. Sometimes we resolve issues by posting on these forums and getting a fresh set of eyes. Sometimes it leads to an interesting debate about game mechanics, and other times the DM simply says, "That's the way it is."
Yep, agree with all this above. No monsters exist except that the DM describes to you, and they have no abilities, weaknesses or stats except that the DM describes for one reason or another. To add to the above, other than actually researching in character it would be perfectly acceptable to just ask the DM in game about a creature when you first meet it, using in-game lore. Something like: "Gasp! A zombie! Hmm, in my time as a priest in the temple of Zeus I studied how to fight such abominations. Does it have any weaknesses that I can recall?" The DM can then either offer you some information about the monster (which becomes true as soon as they say it) or might ask for some ability check (Religion?) to recall some juicy weak spots. You could even ask "might this holy water work?" and the DM can answer yes, no or maybe. Encourage the other players to do the same and you'll collectively amass a large amount of monster lore that is uniquely true for the universe of your game. Read the books for inspiration only.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
First I just want to state that this thread was created based off of my OP not my opinion that was made in reply to other posts. About custom creatures and all that. As my personal feelings are not the topic.
If God is just a title you are using to represent a job the DM has to do then yes i agree then he is God, King, chief whatever you want to call him. I'm talking about a mentality of, this world is mine and you can do nothing but what I say I make the rules and you are just along for the ride! That is something that I will not partake in. It is my game just as much as his.
I do play the adventures by myself. Its an amazing resource to do a mock run of an adventure to see where players might struggle and make it a little easier.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)