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 was saying that once a DM says a thing about a monster, then it is true. Regardless of what was true before, and it can stop being true if the DM says otherwise later. If the DM says goblins are vulnerable to lightning damage then they are, until the DM says they aren't.
In my personal games I invite the players to create their own lore about creatures (including vulnerabilities and such), then I'll set a DC and they roll a knowledge check to see if the thing they thought up is true. If they roll high it is true. if they roll low they realise they were mistaken and have recalled nothing useful. If they roll exactly 1 below the DC (which I haven't openly announced) then it is a critical failure; I say that the thing they thought is true, but at some later point I reveal that it was in fact catastrophically untrue, e.g. the player thinks they remember that vampires hate garlic, but they rolled a critical fail so I say they are correct until later when I reveal that vampires like garlic just fine and can in fact smell it a mile away and now the players stink from all the garlic they smeared on themselves and will have difficulty hiding from any vampires for the next few days.
When I was a lad, I believed - because I believed the scientists of the time - that nothing, not even light, could escape from the massive gravity of a black hole. Now I'm told they belch out stuff all the time!
When I was a lad, a first level wizard could cast magic missile a handful of times a day, and did D4+1 damage (per spell.) Now I am older, and a first level wizard can cast magic missile once every six seconds and deal 3D4+3 damage (per spell.)
For myself, the most important part when playing as a character is consistency of physics. If I do something and something unexpected happens, I have to believe that it is because the DM knows something that I don't. If you don't trust the DM, then that is a problem. Talking to him will probably help.
If my DM ( a theoretical beast because I am a tiny bit narcissistic here) made a decision that "confused" me, I hope I would be able to say "So those ghouls resisted my turn effect...?" He could say, with confidence, "Your turning attempt had no visible effect." and I would nod and move on from that. I have given him a hint that I think a mistake may have been made, without challenging his authority. He can shuffle his papers and make a note (perhaps changing how the world works, perhaps not) and we can move on.
But you must trust that the DM is trying his best. And as a player, it is your job to support him.
(When I was a lad, I was taught never to start a sentence with "And" or "But.")
When I was a lad, a first level wizard could cast magic missile a handful of times a day, and did D4+1 damage (per spell.) Now I am older, and a first level wizard can cast magic missile once every six seconds and deal 3D4+3 damage (per spell.)
Not to be nitpicking, but how would a first level wizard cast magic missile more than twice/day? :P
Err, either I have just leaked 6th Edition rules, or I was thinking MM was a cantrip, which is of course crazy. Change the anecdote to use a cantrip and please don't report me to Mr. Mearles.
When I was a lad, a first level wizard could cast magic missile a handful of times a day, and did D4+1 damage (per spell.) Now I am older, and a first level wizard can cast magic missile once every six seconds and deal 3D4+3 damage (per spell.)
Not to be nitpicking, but how would a first level wizard cast magic missile more than twice/day? :P
And that is how you question the DM without upsetting him.
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.
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.
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.
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
Most of your post I didn't quote because we're just going to have to agree to disagree. If you think metagaming is totally fine, and you're 100% ok with it, and your DM is cool with it, more power to you. For myself, I think it's very important that there's a separation of what your character knows and what you know. I'm not going to penalize a player for not knowing how to pick a lock, it's irrelevant, their character either knows or doesn't know how to do that. Similarly, I'm not going to reward a player for knowing how to pick a lock, it's irrelevant to their character knowing or not knowing how to do so. Why would monster lore be any different? Why would I invalidate all of the time and effort they make, in game, to find things out? Why would I negate the usefulness of those knowledge skills? But hey, that's just me. As you say, you don't play with me. Whatever makes you and your group and DM happy can't inherently be wrong, but I can certainly disagree that it's fun.
As for no one knowing anything in game, *that* to me would be a larger problem than anything else. Sure, random farmers in a field aren't going to know anything, but really, there are no libraries? No sages, or scholars, or folks who took expertise in Nature and know every weird quirk of all the creatures of the natural world? Well then yeah, if the entire world is 100% ignorant and every effort to get knowledge in game is stymied, I can understand the temptation to metagame instead. Personally if there's such an unmet need in the world, it seems to me that a character specializing in acquiring such knowledge could make some Massive $$. Certainly I think it would warrant a conversation with the DM, about it. "Where exactly are you expecting me to learn things, since no one in game seems to know anything? Is it your intent that no one ever knows *anything* about what they're facing, or has any means to acquire knowledge, and if not, any particular reason why? I don't find that style especially fun."
I do want to say I 100% agree about knowing what you're in for, having expectations landed up front regarding the style of campaign and how the game world works, and it being important to maintain consistency. I hand out a campaign primer to my players indicating all of the houserules we're playing under, the ways the game is different from standard, etc. However none of that includes monster lore, just like it doesn't include the needs or wants of key NPCs, or the population breakdown of regions. Knowing how the game *works* is after all a very different preposition than knowing everything in the game, after all. But yes, it's critical there's consistency, that expectations are met regarding an understanding of what they've signed up for, and if there's no consistency, it's certainly fair to call it quits.
Yes, I do DM, and have for many years. That's why I say the DM plays god. Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. It's their *job* to know everything, and to keep a million things straight, to formulate a world that makes sense and is internally consistent. It's also their responsibility to keep separate that knowledge, to think about what a given NPC would know, and make sure their actions are in line with the limitations of that knowledge. *They* metagame constantly. Their NPCs should not. If you think about it, you probably have that expectation as a player, after all. Just because the DM knows that you implanted a spy into a count's court, doesn't mean the count automatically does, and it's *really* annoying if they magically do. For them to know requires them to take the actions needed to discover that knowledge, whether that's because they are scrying you when it's discussed, or because of their own spies, or whatever. It's not "fair" or fun if all NPCs are omniscient just because they're controlled by the DM, who is exploiting his out of game knowledge, in my opinion, any more than it's "fair" or fun if PCs exploit their out of game knowledge. My abhorrence of metagaming doesn't have a DM exclusion clause, after all :-)
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...
... he could just play Adventurers' League. AL DM's are expected to follow the books (as best they are able... they still make judgement calls of course). That's also how I (and the DM's I associate with) run even non-AL games.
Indeed, having any rules in the first place is kinda for the players benefit (as the DM can otherwise do anything anyway)... it gives some predictability and consistency so that players aren't frustrated. To that end, I actually enjoy it when a player can teach me something new about the rules (at the appropriate time, of course).
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...
... he could just play Adventurers' League. AL DM's are expected to follow the books (as best they are able... they still make judgement calls of course). That's also how I (and the DM's I associate with) run even non-AL games.
Indeed, having any rules in the first place is kinda for the players benefit (as the DM can otherwise do anything anyway)... it gives some predictability and consistency so that players aren't frustrated. To that end, I actually enjoy it when a player can teach me something new about the rules (at the appropriate time, of course).
I mean: if you have rules, might as well use 'em.
So to be clear, you don't do any of the following non-book related activities:
1) Design NPCs, their needs, wants, motivations, and prescribe the course of their actions and the flow of their interactions with players and each other
2) Modify MM creatures and NPCs to build the specific characters or actors you wish to use in your setting, including simple weapon swaps as well as adding class levels, modifying HD count for boss or veteran creatures, adding proficiencies for groups trained in something, or so forth
3) Create custom equipment not described in the PHB or DMG for use within a campaign or adventure, at the request of PCs ("I want to make a grappling arrow!") or otherwise; you instead say "if it's not in the book, it can't exist in the game world"
4) Modify or reflavor a class feature, customization option, or anything else to better fit the vision of either the players for their character, or your vision for what a NPC would be like or have or do or whatever else. By the book or not at all.
5) Found existing rules inadequate for describing how a situation occurs (like in a fight between groups on a bunch of mine carts riding along tracks, or while rappelling down a shaft through the center of the earth with variable gravity rules, or in the midst of the astral sea) and either created rules to manage the situation or modified the behavior of existing rules to accommodate the differences between "standard" environmental rules and the current situation
If that's the way you want to play- crack open a premade adventure and consider it only your job to be a rules referee between what that book says happens and what the players say they want to do- then more power to you I suppose. I've NEVER seen an adventure go that way though outside of the lowest tier of AL games, and I certainly wouldn't consider that optimal. When I say the DM is god, I don't mean throw out the rulebook, I mean the rulebook is a STARTING point, not an ending point, and it's a duller and less immersive world if you never venture beyond the boundaries already spelled out for you. If the only NPCs you use are those which are made for you, the only monsters you use are generic default examples of them, the only environments on which you fight is in the material realm in a largely static two dimensional theater, the only items and options you have are the scant examples provided by the PHB, well, that's, uhm, adequate? I suppose? Do you really though consider it optimal? Even if you run your games that way, whether due to convenience or whatever else, do you truly consider it the best way to play?
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...
... he could just play Adventurers' League. AL DM's are expected to follow the books (as best they are able... they still make judgement calls of course). That's also how I (and the DM's I associate with) run even non-AL games.
Indeed, having any rules in the first place is kinda for the players benefit (as the DM can otherwise do anything anyway)... it gives some predictability and consistency so that players aren't frustrated. To that end, I actually enjoy it when a player can teach me something new about the rules (at the appropriate time, of course).
I mean: if you have rules, might as well use 'em.
So to be clear, you don't do any of the following non-book related activities:
1) Design NPCs, their needs, wants, motivations, and prescribe the course of their actions and the flow of their interactions with players and each other
2) Modify MM creatures and NPCs to build the specific characters or actors you wish to use in your setting, including simple weapon swaps as well as adding class levels, modifying HD count for boss or veteran creatures, adding proficiencies for groups trained in something, or so forth
3) Create custom equipment not described in the PHB or DMG for use within a campaign or adventure, at the request of PCs ("I want to make a grappling arrow!") or otherwise; you instead say "if it's not in the book, it can't exist in the game world"
4) Modify or reflavor a class feature, customization option, or anything else to better fit the vision of either the players for their character, or your vision for what a NPC would be like or have or do or whatever else. By the book or not at all.
5) Found existing rules inadequate for describing how a situation occurs (like in a fight between groups on a bunch of mine carts riding along tracks, or while rappelling down a shaft through the center of the earth with variable gravity rules, or in the midst of the astral sea) and either created rules to manage the situation or modified the behavior of existing rules to accommodate the differences between "standard" environmental rules and the current situation
If that's the way you want to play- crack open a premade adventure and consider it only your job to be a rules referee between what that book says happens and what the players say they want to do- then more power to you I suppose. I've NEVER seen an adventure go that way though outside of the lowest tier of AL games, and I certainly wouldn't consider that optimal. When I say the DM is god, I don't mean throw out the rulebook, I mean the rulebook is a STARTING point, not an ending point, and it's a duller and less immersive world if you never venture beyond the boundaries already spelled out for you. If the only NPCs you use are those which are made for you, the only monsters you use are generic default examples of them, the only environments on which you fight is in the material realm in a largely static two dimensional theater, the only items and options you have are the scant examples provided by the PHB, well, that's, uhm, adequate? I suppose? Do you really though consider it optimal? Even if you run your games that way, whether due to convenience or whatever else, do you truly consider it the best way to play?
He didn't say that, nor did I. You really should stop ASSUMING things just from reading a few posts.
The reason I don't like too much customization is when I'm being told the game is from an adventure source book and the encounters for the most part are static. To me the guys who made that book are much smarter then me. They took the time to create and publish an awesome idea for everyone to play. If you want to mess with stuff then to me, that's not the original piece of art that the creator came up with. I want an RAW style game for my first play through unless the book gives suggestions or tells you to make it up. If the DM needs to make fly adjustments and I find out that they did, I want to know why. for the simple reason that i run my own games, understanding someone else's decisions could help me better understand a frustrating part in a game. I currently am a player, but I always have my brain set to DM mode. I want to understand and soak up as much as I can to make myself a better DM.
I think the best games are when you feel connected to the world you are playing in. If that means for some players to have unique monsters then yes absolutely do it. I dislike when my DM takes out a core part of a monsters weakness, or strength to be different, unless its for a specific reason. Cool weapons and gear is also a really good way to get your players loving their characters even more, because now their paladin doesn't just have a boring old Holy Avenger for the fifth time but now they have a Holy Moly Avenger! it makes them feel as unique and memorable (In my experience.)
To answer your previous reply, I have attempted to avoid meta-gaming at all times. The worst offence I have made is, when my party had descended into a basement area in a magical house, when we went to walk through a certain door the door started to move. I yelled out of character "OH crap guys that's a mimic!" sure enough it was. I still played the encounter the way my character would, I got grappled trying to shield a friend and we killed it two rounds later. I didn't say anything to my friends about the mechanics or the damage it's capable of dealing I just allowed the game to flow. Honestly i'm a little sadistic, I love watching them walk head first into something, when I know whats up and playing along with a blindfold on. It may make me meta to you but I enjoy fighting a pack of goblins and trying to outsmart them because I know they are dumb, maybe I get them to fight each other or maybe I can become their new leader. To me that's fun and if my OoC knowledge drips into my games i'm sorry that offends you.
You don't have to invite me to your table, you don't have to listen to me, you don't have to think my way of playing is fun. That's the best part about DnD is that you can play the way you want to, and group up with people who think like you and make real memory's. All things aside I think you would run a kick ass game just from the dedication you give to make everything unique, fun and inspiring for your players. Thank you for taking your time and allowing me to see into your brain, and I honestly have considered everything you have to say. It has changed my outlook on some very key things. The people of this community are very smart, yourself included. Again thank you.
He didn't say that, nor did I. You really should stop ASSUMING things just from reading a few posts.
"If you would rather have things work exactly as prescribed in a sourcebook..."
"... he could just play Adventurers' League. AL DM's are expected to follow the books (as best they are able... they still make judgement calls of course). That's also how I (and the DM's I associate with) run even non-AL games."
I provided examples of situations where I consider it likely the average DM would do things in a way Other than just exactly as it's prescribed in a sourcebook. I also hedged all statements with "if", as indeed I'm *not* assuming that's the way he runs things, but rather attempting to clarify whether that is what he means, and if not, what the boundaries are as far as he would consider them, as well as clarifying that such things *are* the things I meant with the initial statement. No assumptions made, just attempts to build clarity and understanding.
Beyond that thanks for the reply, and I 100% agree about your statements regarding the best part about DnD.
I do as much as I can do to avoid the meta-gaming elements as a player so things like thumbing through the MM to double check on exactly what creature X can do I avoid doing, especially when you don't know what the DM has planned. To me for example, the idea that the DM might have simplified something like "resistant to non-magical fire" into "resistant to all fire" wouldn't particularly raise an eyebrow. Overall it doesn't REALLY matter to me in those kinds of scenarios and I'll leave it be, it's not worth being "that guy" to try and haggle over a minor part of the overall game. I mean, on the assumption that you're DM isn't saying openly "okay, you've done half damage and the creature has 48 HP left" and is giving descriptive effects you would probably understand that "the fire doesn't appear to be hindering it as much as you thought" and stop throwing fireballs at it.
I will sometimes after a session try and assist a newer DM in elements if there are little things that could help them. For example, a Goblin has seen some of his comrades smashed to oblivion and rather than stay to get ripped apart decides to dash away. The DM then gives the PCs opportunity strikes forgetting (or not realising) that it could use its Nimble Escape to disengage as a bonus and then Dash as it's action. After the session or on the way home I can say something like "I liked how you played those goblins we were fighting earlier. I think they might have something that makes running away a bit easier, They're cowardly little so-and-sos!". I find that it's easier to encourage them in little things like that. Unless there's something huge wrong (like the time the newbie DM accidentally gave us Grick to fight rather than goblins at level one due to reading the wrong stat block) it's not something worth worrying about too much.
I do as much as I can do to avoid the meta-gaming elements as a player so things like thumbing through the MM to double check on exactly what creature X can do I avoid doing, especially when you don't know what the DM has planned. To me for example, the idea that the DM might have simplified something like "resistant to non-magical fire" into "resistant to all fire" wouldn't particularly raise an eyebrow. Overall it doesn't REALLY matter to me in those kinds of scenarios and I'll leave it be, it's not worth being "that guy" to try and haggle over a minor part of the overall game. I mean, on the assumption that you're DM isn't saying openly "okay, you've done half damage and the creature has 48 HP left" and is giving descriptive effects you would probably understand that "the fire doesn't appear to be hindering it as much as you thought" and stop throwing fireballs at it.
I will sometimes after a session try and assist a newer DM in elements if there are little things that could help them. For example, a Goblin has seen some of his comrades smashed to oblivion and rather than stay to get ripped apart decides to dash away. The DM then gives the PCs opportunity strikes forgetting (or not realising) that it could use its Nimble Escape to disengage as a bonus and then Dash as it's action. After the session or on the way home I can say something like "I liked how you played those goblins we were fighting earlier. I think they might have something that makes running away a bit easier, They're cowardly little so-and-sos!". I find that it's easier to encourage them in little things like that. Unless there's something huge wrong (like the time the newbie DM accidentally gave us Grick to fight rather than goblins at level one due to reading the wrong stat block) it's not something worth worrying about too much.
You're totally right. I hate haggling over things that are simple to forget, it takes away from the story when your entire group is yelling about a stupid ability (unless its going to change the outcome of some huge story event.) However, your second scenario is what grinds me up. If a DM told me I was fighting an X but it was really a Z. As a player i'm gonna be annoyed, that's just me. DnD to me is an imagination game, so in my opinion when you tell me a zombie shambles up and attacks your crew. I'm expecting a zombie fight with crawling hands that have been cleaved off and rotting corpses. Not for the zombo' to start lobbing fire bolts and having radiant resistance while dancing a jig thriller style. LOL.
Oh it annoyed me too at the time! It was an honest mistake though and while I'm not entirely sure how she did it she apologised profusely. She'd read the right equipment but ended up giving them the resistance, AC, HP and statlines of the latter so it was a bit of a grind but the party just about survived with two unconscious and a couple still just about standing. I think she realised a round or two into combat what she'd done but couldn't figure out the easiest way to explain why rolling the same was causing a different result and froze. As after a struggle to handle one that cost us a bit of trouble the reinforcements were dealt with as easily as you'd expect and they had a surprising amount of things on them to loot. It was the first session she'd ever ran and the first encounter so put it down to first time excitement and nerves. If it was someone more experienced or the mistake hadn't been spotted a bit more would have been said but we lived to fight again and the lesson was learned without needing to say too much. Not that it doesn't get thrown into D&D conversations occasionally!
If that's the way you want to play- crack open a premade adventure and consider it only your job to be a rules referee between what that book says happens and what the players say they want to do- then more power to you I suppose. I've NEVER seen an adventure go that way though outside of the lowest tier of AL games, and I certainly wouldn't consider that optimal.
Although missing/misinterpreting a rule or adventure information is commonplace, AL DM's do their best to follow them. That is fairly optimal. Being able to follow the rules is a skill. Of course, they still fill in the blanks - i.e. expand on such things that the source material doesn't cover. I carry these paradigms even into my home games because:
I'm a simulationist DM
It sets a level of fairness/predictability for the players.
It prevents players from wanting to introduce imbalancing changes. The writers have spent a huge amount of time balancing D&D which players (and DM's) tend to undermine with changes.
That said, I still make alterations to improve my presentation of an adventure for my home game, like:
Modifying an important NPC to be one they've interacted with before
Modifying the map to be one I can build using Dwarvenforge (or that I can use a Paizo flipmat for)
Modifying the description of an item to something that I have a prop for
Metagaming is only when your out of game knowledge is passed on to you in game character. Checking behind someone is perfectly fine especially if you find something wrong! If you were at my table I would be thankful for clearing up a mistake I made. If your DM takes offense, then that's a whole other issue altogether about ego or god complex or whatever. Just as long as you don't take any of your player knowledge into the game for your character to use to it's advantage. There are a lot of nature rolls at my table for new characters to see if they know what something is that they just killed a week ago as a different character.
I've found that over the years if you have concerns with something a DM has done it is all about the wording of how you ask (and often when you ask too).
Saying "Were/Are you aware that X lists Y?" I find as a good one as it comes across more as you giving a concerning reminder (good if playing with newer DMs) without putting too much emphasis on pointing things out. Few people expect DMs to remember every detail.
Avoid phrasing that says the DM (or even another player) made a mistake, unless you are certain they are clearly mistakes. Like if the DM says the magic missile does 1d6+1 (like it was way back when with OD&D) rather than the current 1d4+1 (used from AD&D onward).
Newer DMs, especially when using premade adventures often stick to the 'rails' much more than experienced DMs. Give them some slack, it is often not what many of them want to do (especially if they have watched/listened to experienced DMs in whatever media), but its what they are comfortable with to begin with (we all start somewhere).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- Loswaith
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I was a lad, I believed - because I believed the scientists of the time - that nothing, not even light, could escape from the massive gravity of a black hole. Now I'm told they belch out stuff all the time!
When I was a lad, a first level wizard could cast magic missile a handful of times a day, and did D4+1 damage (per spell.)
Now I am older, and a first level wizard can cast magic missile once every six seconds and deal 3D4+3 damage (per spell.)
For myself, the most important part when playing as a character is consistency of physics. If I do something and something unexpected happens, I have to believe that it is because the DM knows something that I don't. If you don't trust the DM, then that is a problem. Talking to him will probably help.
If my DM ( a theoretical beast because I am a tiny bit narcissistic here) made a decision that "confused" me, I hope I would be able to say "So those ghouls resisted my turn effect...?" He could say, with confidence, "Your turning attempt had no visible effect." and I would nod and move on from that. I have given him a hint that I think a mistake may have been made, without challenging his authority. He can shuffle his papers and make a note (perhaps changing how the world works, perhaps not) and we can move on.
But you must trust that the DM is trying his best. And as a player, it is your job to support him.
(When I was a lad, I was taught never to start a sentence with "And" or "But.")
Roleplaying since Runequest.
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
He would have to cheat.
Err, either I have just leaked 6th Edition rules, or I was thinking MM was a cantrip, which is of course crazy. Change the anecdote to use a cantrip and please don't report me to Mr. Mearles.
Good catch!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I do as much as I can do to avoid the meta-gaming elements as a player so things like thumbing through the MM to double check on exactly what creature X can do I avoid doing, especially when you don't know what the DM has planned. To me for example, the idea that the DM might have simplified something like "resistant to non-magical fire" into "resistant to all fire" wouldn't particularly raise an eyebrow. Overall it doesn't REALLY matter to me in those kinds of scenarios and I'll leave it be, it's not worth being "that guy" to try and haggle over a minor part of the overall game. I mean, on the assumption that you're DM isn't saying openly "okay, you've done half damage and the creature has 48 HP left" and is giving descriptive effects you would probably understand that "the fire doesn't appear to be hindering it as much as you thought" and stop throwing fireballs at it.
I will sometimes after a session try and assist a newer DM in elements if there are little things that could help them. For example, a Goblin has seen some of his comrades smashed to oblivion and rather than stay to get ripped apart decides to dash away. The DM then gives the PCs opportunity strikes forgetting (or not realising) that it could use its Nimble Escape to disengage as a bonus and then Dash as it's action. After the session or on the way home I can say something like "I liked how you played those goblins we were fighting earlier. I think they might have something that makes running away a bit easier, They're cowardly little so-and-sos!". I find that it's easier to encourage them in little things like that. Unless there's something huge wrong (like the time the newbie DM accidentally gave us Grick to fight rather than goblins at level one due to reading the wrong stat block) it's not something worth worrying about too much.
Oh it annoyed me too at the time! It was an honest mistake though and while I'm not entirely sure how she did it she apologised profusely. She'd read the right equipment but ended up giving them the resistance, AC, HP and statlines of the latter so it was a bit of a grind but the party just about survived with two unconscious and a couple still just about standing. I think she realised a round or two into combat what she'd done but couldn't figure out the easiest way to explain why rolling the same was causing a different result and froze. As after a struggle to handle one that cost us a bit of trouble the reinforcements were dealt with as easily as you'd expect and they had a surprising amount of things on them to loot. It was the first session she'd ever ran and the first encounter so put it down to first time excitement and nerves. If it was someone more experienced or the mistake hadn't been spotted a bit more would have been said but we lived to fight again and the lesson was learned without needing to say too much. Not that it doesn't get thrown into D&D conversations occasionally!
etc.
Metagaming is only when your out of game knowledge is passed on to you in game character. Checking behind someone is perfectly fine especially if you find something wrong! If you were at my table I would be thankful for clearing up a mistake I made. If your DM takes offense, then that's a whole other issue altogether about ego or god complex or whatever. Just as long as you don't take any of your player knowledge into the game for your character to use to it's advantage. There are a lot of nature rolls at my table for new characters to see if they know what something is that they just killed a week ago as a different character.
I've found that over the years if you have concerns with something a DM has done it is all about the wording of how you ask (and often when you ask too).
Saying "Were/Are you aware that X lists Y?" I find as a good one as it comes across more as you giving a concerning reminder (good if playing with newer DMs) without putting too much emphasis on pointing things out. Few people expect DMs to remember every detail.
Avoid phrasing that says the DM (or even another player) made a mistake, unless you are certain they are clearly mistakes. Like if the DM says the magic missile does 1d6+1 (like it was way back when with OD&D) rather than the current 1d4+1 (used from AD&D onward).
Newer DMs, especially when using premade adventures often stick to the 'rails' much more than experienced DMs. Give them some slack, it is often not what many of them want to do (especially if they have watched/listened to experienced DMs in whatever media), but its what they are comfortable with to begin with (we all start somewhere).
- Loswaith