|
The DM sets up a situation for the same PC in which her character's father is planning a rebellion against the Lord to whom he has sworn his sword. The player, who, when using one word to describe the character during generation, picked "naive," had the character make her decision solely based on who she thought would be more likely to win in a struggle, along with her knowledge of the series of novels on which the campaign was based (she chooses the stronger nobleman and allows her father to be summarily executed, then allied with the most powerful nobles from the novel series, whom her character had actually never met).
Is there any way to “fix” situations like this?
Don't run games so solidly based on novels/movies/etc?
Take the plot and file off the serial numbers first.
Set the player up, by having the metagame choice be the wrong one.
Also;
|
1) If any locals or authority finds out there should be a trail. And if it is a medieval/french justice system the defendant will have to prove themselves innocent. In other words the PC would have to prove the NPCs guilt.Also if the character had no reasonable knowledge of the persons guilt... At the very least a very chaotic act and probably a very evil act.
"I'm not sure if he is guilty but my gut tells me so... so I'll just kill him to make sure."2)For me a flat out no. If they can not provide a reasonable (in the DMs view) explanation of why their character would both betray their father and align themselves with a lord they don't know, well...
I wasn't actually the DM for this game, it just annoyed me that this player was metagaming in this way. I felt like she was playing her character like a Monopoly piece, and using out of game knowledge to help her "win." Betray your father, collect $200.
I agree with you that the PC killing the NPC was murder in the game's context, but the player disagreed vehemently and tried to use it as an example of her character's good nature. She also tried to claim that ruling like Machiavelli's Prince was morally right, because it made you a good leader. I had to try to explain to her the difference between successful and righteous.
To Snorter's point, we weren't basing the actual plot off of the novel series, just the setting. So she didn't know what was going to happen, but she knew who the most influential and powerful people were even though her character had never met them. It would be the same thing if you rubbed the serial numbers off of the nobles, but then said "Lord X is the wealthiest person in this region; Lord Y has the largest standing army" and then the player allied with them regardless of what they were actually after in game and even though they may have been responsible for the death of her father or the murder of the man she betrayed her family to join in the first place.
|
Here we go, I'll be interested in how other DM's handle these. I'm not sure if they qualify as metagaming, maybe table etiquette.
1) The party are stood in front of a huge spider with a drow priestess on board. One player looks at another and says across the table, "Shall we rush her?"
The drow attacks.
The player says I wasn't talking out loud.
DM tells him that what is said at the table is said in game. He explains that otherwise it's not good roleplaying.
2) Later in the same dungeon, the players are in mid-fight and getting beaten badly. Player One falls (with a potion of healing in his belt). He starts bleeding out. The last man standing runs over and says, "But I can't heal him. I'm out of potions. (Oh and he fails his heal check).
The party look at each other and keep quiet. Player dies.
Jumping off a cliff? ... This example is meta-gaming at its core.
True - but is that necessarily a problem?
Just because I know that a fall won't kill me, doesn't mean my PC would. If I ever have a player do this, they'll either suffer the above penalties (more or less depending on the situation) or just land on their neck and die regardless of HP, no save. This is nothing more than a DM meta-gaming a meta-gamer, sounds fair to me.
-Kurocyn
One hopes you have informed your PCs ahead of time that if you feel their meta gaming your going to strike them down with lightning. Certainly thats the kind of thing they should be informed of before they sit down at your table.
Personally if my players just arbitrarily jumped off a cliff I'd check to see if massive damage killed them. Admittedly there are times when leaping off a cliff is better then facing another blast of dragon fire - but then I could see that as something that might actually come up in heroic fantasy. At my table if they want to jump off cliffs I let them.
However if they want to fight to the death amongst themselves, as per magdalena thiriet's example, now that I'd not let fly. Not that I think her solution is wrong, its just wrong for my table, her game is much more story driven then mine.
2.) The DM sets up a situation for the same PC in which her character's father is planning a rebellion against the Lord to whom he has sworn his sword. The player, who, when using one word to describe the character during generation, picked "naive," had the character make her decision solely based on who she thought would be more likely to win in a struggle, along with her knowledge of the series of novels on which the campaign was based (she chooses the stronger nobleman and allows her father to be summarily executed, then allied with the most powerful nobles from the novel series, whom her character had actually never met).
Is there any way to “fix” situations like this? Should they just be chalked up to “that’s just the way this player wants to play the game?”
This annoys me more then players intentionally jumping off cliffs. A lot more.
This player is abusing the story and players that abuse the story should get less story. I'd shift the spotlight to a more deserving player and keep an eye on this player in her actions as supporting caste. Attempts to improve the way she plays brings more spotlight, meta-gaming unrealistically diminishes the amount of spotlight time.
The players encounter a magical item. From the description one of the players says "Oh thats a (insert item name)! OOC of course".Lord, I hate this one. “I put on the ring. Can you see me? I try jumping. I try looking through a wall. I try…”
My solution has been, and this may not work for everyone, is to severely limit magic items that aren’t being used by someone. Not only does it not make sense that these things would just be sitting in a vault waiting for the PCs, but it gives the players a greater chance of seeing the item in use and having an in-character excuse to try it out.
In the end, though, I want my players to know what the magic items are so I’m not going to cheat them of finding out. I just don’t want them to pull out a piece of parchment with all the ring types on it and try them out one-by-one.
I want my players to know what the item is most of the time as well. But mainly I don't want to spend a bunch of time with this issue. If you have a way of IDing the magic Item I tell you what it is - if not nothing works, buy an identify spell when you get back to town and I'll tell what the item is.
Now this can be a problem if the players need item X for the adventure at hand. But in general I'd then just put in a plot based reason why what the item does is going to be obvious.
Here we go, I'll be interested in how other DM's handle these. I'm not sure if they qualify as metagaming, maybe table etiquette.
1) The party are stood in front of a huge spider with a drow priestess on board. One player looks at another and says across the table, "Shall we rush her?"
The drow attacks.
The player says I wasn't talking out loud.
DM tells him that what is said at the table is said in game. He explains that otherwise it's not good roleplaying.2) Later in the same dungeon, the players are in mid-fight and getting beaten badly. Player One falls (with a potion of healing in his belt). He starts bleeding out. The last man standing runs over and says, "But I can't heal him. I'm out of potions. (Oh and he fails his heal check).
The party look at each other and keep quiet. Player dies.
Umm, was it a good game? Did you have fun?
What I mean is there is no right or wrong answer here. The DM obvously wants strict adherence to something along the lines of 'if you say it then so does your character'. OK thats a preference that some players and DMs have. Now I think that this should have been communicated to the players prior to the Drow attacking but I guess the DM kind of made his point with the attack.
So do you and the other players want to play in this style? Or would you rather a style thats less immersive but allows for more out of character planning?
If their is no clear majority in preference then the DMs preference should probably be taken as its his game and he'll hopefully provide a better game if you play to his preferred style.
One hopes you have informed your PCs ahead of time that if you feel their meta gaming your going to strike them down with lightning. Certainly thats the kind of thing they should be informed of before they sit down at your table.
Everyone in my group knows that I try to keep my games as "realistic" as possible. *NOTICE* Before anyone reads the word "realistic" and goes off on a 12 page rant about it being a fantasy game and realism not playing a part in it, know that I only add elements of "realism" to try and enhance the game, not change it. So please, don't start.
In our games, stupid actions without reason/justification, almost always result badly (see cliff jumping post above). The others who DM in my group act the same why I do when someone is meta-gaming/not playing their character.
As for fighting amongst PCs? As long as the tension stays in-game, I don't really mind. Why stop it? They can always roll new PCs up after the dust clears.
-Kurocyn
|
Caravan goes north, caravan goes south, caravan goes north, caravan goes south.... Most boring campaign EVER.
PC-led Caravan goes north, drops off spices from city A, heads northwest to city B, buys foodstuffs from city B, humps it doubletime through marshes and bandits to city C to the southwest of city B before the food can spoil. In city C, civil war breaks out while PCs are there. PCs are forced to spend a lot of money to aid the better of the two factions, because it's the only way they're getting out of the city alive and with their caravan. Despite their efforts, their side loses. PCs escape the city by the skin of their teeth, hunted by agents from the despot who controls city C. The manage to make it to city D, and realize that they may have to raid a few old tombs to get enough seed money to restart their caravan. They do so and it works. However, shortly after collecting, plague breaks out in city D. The ruler promises them vast wealth if they can use their skills as caravaners to make it back to city A and purchase some rare herbs needed to help with the plague. The PCs agree, and, not wanting to go back through city C's territory where they are wanted criminals, cut through some dangerous mountain areas, where they are attacked by orcs. The PCs beat the orcs back, but lose valuable time. They make it to City A alive and reasonably intact, but far behind schedule. They now have to decide whether to take the fastest road through city C's territory or risk the orcs in the mountains again now that they have the plague cure for city D.
I figure at this point the PCs are about level 7. Yeah, that sounds mind-numbingly boring. ;)
Campaigns are what you make of them. Still need convincing? The scenario above doesn't even take into account the various non-combatant NPCs that make up the caravan. Think about the show Firefly for a sec: Mal, Jayne, Inara, and Zoe are all very PC-like characters, but that leaves a "supporting cast" of Wash, Kaylee, Simon, River, and Book. To bring it back to the fantasy paradigm: along with the PCs themselves, their caravan includes a fortune teller (a beautiful young woman with a possible romantic link to a PC), a couple of teamsters (brothers, who get along about half the time and bicker the other half), a moneychanger , a couple independant merchants that do their own thing but pay for the benefits of being part of the caravan, etc.
And then there's the potential in the cities. You can have all manner of interesting urban encounters between people who buy and sell the PCs wares to local crime lords who try to extort money from them to locals who fawn all over these wealthy, important people, to local rulers, tax collectors... the mind boggles. In many ways, a caravan game would be awesome. You have a good-sized static cast of NPCs, a larger fluid one, a mix of urban and wilderness adventures, the list goes on and on. Heck, I may run this for my next game!
2)For me a flat out no. If they can not provide a reasonable (in the DMs view) explanation of why their character would both betray their father and align themselves with a lord they don't know, well too bad.
If you don't like "rewinding" the game you can have their character poisoned to death, thrown in a dungeon, sent on suicidal missions or simply have the chosen lord say:
"I'm sorry but I do not accept your offer of service. I would not have a person in my service who would not lift a finger to help their father. Your sense of loyalty is weak and I do not trust naives such as yourself. Leave my lands." (Harsh but very expected if the lord isn't ignorant a dumb.)
I would go for the latter route, though perhaps not as strict...unless she can really explain curious choice of allies, the character has pretty much advertized that she has no sense of loyalty whatsoever and should be treated accordingly by her "allies". Who may congratulate her on choosing the winning side and let her be allied to them in name, but they will not trust her.
Even if she could explain why choosing the other side, there will be lots of suspicion and bad blood.This isn't Monopoly, and actions have consequences.
|
Here we go, I'll be interested in how other DM's handle these. I'm not sure if they qualify as metagaming, maybe table etiquette.
1) The party are stood in front of a huge spider with a drow priestess on board. One player looks at another and says across the table, "Shall we rush her?"
The drow attacks.
The player says I wasn't talking out loud.
DM tells him that what is said at the table is said in game. He explains that otherwise it's not good roleplaying.
I personally allow the players about 15-20 seconds of player conversation before combat is initiated. I construed the "Should we rush her" comment to a quick raise of the eyebrow from one party member to another or something of the sort. Now if the player trys to lay out an elaborate plan and trys lay out all the strengths and weaknesses of drow and blah blah blah. Then ya, the drow opens fire.
2) Later in the same dungeon, the players are in mid-fight and getting beaten badly. Player One falls (with a potion of healing in his belt). He starts bleeding out. The last man standing runs over and says, "But I can't heal him. I'm out of potions. (Oh and he fails his heal check).The party look at each other and keep quiet. Player dies.
Hrm, this can be aided with a spot check to see the potion, or a raw int check to remember the PC bought a potion in the last town they were in, or the character may just be dense and the PCs die.
I'll try to be Dr Frankenstien and revive this monster.
Evalute these scenarios and comment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The players are 3rd level and encounter a troll (for the first time). No player has made a knowledge nature check to know anything about trolls. This is assuming that fire is not their standard attack.
Describe the troll without using the name. If the players make the connection and remember to use fire, let them. Trolls, unless very rare in a specific setting (in which case, you should change the description), are one of the common "awful enemies" in adventurer's tales.
The players encounter a magical item. From the description one of the players says "Oh thats a (insert item name)! OOC of course".
Mix things up. Some magic items might have a visual connection with their enchantments (some flaming or [/i]flame burst[/i] weapons, holy avengers, staffs, etc.) and others are unadorned.
Oh and a common one: "I'll just jump. The fall can't kill me. It is only going to be Xd6 damage." Says smug player.
Break out the Death from Massive Damage rules, possibly with variations, if appropriate.
Caravan goes north, caravan goes south, caravan goes north, caravan goes south.... Most boring campaign EVER.PC-led Caravan goes north, drops off spices from city A, heads northwest to city B, buys foodstuffs from city B, humps it doubletime through marshes and bandits to
I've always thought a caravan campaign would make an excellent game. Caravans combine some of the strong points of a city based campaign (Strong recurring NPCs) with less static campaigns (lots of neat places to explore and new sights to see).
Imagine a Campaign in the Forgotten Realms that starts in Waterdeep, goes through the Heartlands and then heads out over the Steppe to Kura-Tur. Once there it returns via Al-Qaddim. You parley and fight horsemen earlier on and deal with Efreeti and Cursed Emirs later. Plus, of course whats a Caravan without a dark secret? Or maybe a half dozen? What the heros didn't know when they signed up for this job at first level was that the last stop on this caravan route is Hell itself.
So, basicly, you guys are saying my 16th level Barbarian carrying loads of healing potions in a bag of holding can't use a catapult as a rapid transit system, even though he can survive the fall? :)
Isn't it hard dragging that catapult around? I can just see him with a big belt around his waist hauling the thing down the road muttering "it'll make me fast when it counts...anyone got some water?"
This reminds of an old article I saw called something like Spells for Fighters!.
It had stuff like
Summon Mostly Hostile Monsters
Material Component: At least two metal shields.
Somatic Component: Smash shields together loudly - hollering a lot helps.
Note that most Monsters Summoned by a Summon Mostly Hostile Monsters Spell are hostile. If you use this spell in an urban area it has been known to get one in trouble with local law enforcement. This spell is much more powerful in campaigns where the DM rolls for random monsters but usually has some effect in all campaigns.
|
So, basicly, you guys are saying my 16th level Barbarian carrying loads of healing potions in a bag of holding can't use a catapult as a rapid transit system, even though he can survive the fall? :)
I'm not saying he can't. But really, is he that big of a masochist? ^_^ I personally would rather walk than run, so human cannonballing is out of the question, no matter how much healing I have.
|
|
So, basicly, you guys are saying my 16th level Barbarian carrying loads of healing potions in a bag of holding can't use a catapult as a rapid transit system, even though he can survive the fall? :)Isn't it hard dragging that catapult around? I can just see him with a big belt around his waist hauling the thing down the road muttering "it'll make me fast when it counts...anyone got some water?"
This reminds of an old article I saw called something like Spells for Fighters!.
It had stuff like
Summon Mostly Hostile MonstersMaterial Component: At least two metal shields.
Somatic Component: Smash shields together loudly - hollering a lot helps.Note that most Monsters Summoned by a Summon Mostly Hostile Monsters Spell are hostile. If you use this spell in an urban area it has been known to get one in trouble with local law enforcement. This spell is much more powerful in campaigns where the DM rolls for random monsters but usually has some effect in all campaigns.
Why would I drag it around? That's what horses are for.
I'll try to be Dr Frankenstien and revive this monster.
Evalute these scenarios and comment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The players are 3rd level and encounter a troll (for the first time). No player has made a knowledge nature check to know anything about trolls. This is assuming that fire is not their standard attack.
Describe the troll without using the name. If the players make the connection and remember to use fire, let them. Trolls, unless very rare in a specific setting (in which case, you should change the description), are one of the common "awful enemies" in adventurer's tales.
I try to think of it a bit like real life (dangerous I know) - but for example there aren't a lot of rattlesnakes around in my home town - but if I see a snake with a rattle on it I can be pretty sure what it is, that it is poisonous and fast, same way I know a snake that rises up and flares a hood is likely to be poisonous.
I think if most people in a (Europesque) D&D environment should know something that wasn't particularly exotic - trolls (IMO) fall into that category. Anything that raids villages regularly, or is a common threat to caravans - would be reasonably well know to all in the region.
Many people today know folktales - it is likely that people in a D&D world where the things in our folktales exist would know something as well - trolls, griffons, unicorns, rocs, dragons, genie, zombies, vampires, ghouls, would all have pretty well established and commonly known lore - the DMs opportunity is to turn this on its head - lightning fast zombies, ghouls that can run along walls, trolls that use armor and weapons, etc.
|
|
I've been working on an idea for the next time this issue comes up. I based it off of one of the sidebars in the Rules Compendium.
Basically, each d6 rolled for the fall does not represent HP, but the percentage of HP you lose. 1-6% for 10 feet, 10-60% for 100 feet. Plus, every 6 rolled gave a chance of a broken limb, be it arm, leg, or neck. This way it doesn't matter what level you are, you have an equal chance of injury or death.
Another thing you could do is a Con check DC 10 + 1 per 10ft fallen - size penalty (but not bonus). Failure indicates death or other serious injuries.