What happens behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance, stays behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance.
What happens behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance, stays behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance.
Heh ... that shield protects both ways ...
GMs can cheat...even with rule zero.
Would you guys call a GM who allows one player to use a rule but bar from another Cheating? I would.
Or a GM that states a rule is one way...than changes it next session...than again after that session...and again? That is GM cheating.
Or how about the mandate to provide fun? What does that mean exactly? Here I thought that was everyone's responisibility...but with the philosphy that it is only the GMs job...you are cheating your players by enforcing your version on what is fun for them. Are you not?
I know in games with those three types of GMs(ones who do it too often) from above I have felt cheated.
No they can't.
A GM is always right. Even when he is wrong, he is right. If you don't like the way he runs the game, leave, or stop whining an play.
This has to be the stupidest attitude I have ever seen. When a GM is cheating it is usualy the result of a lack of knowledge. If the GM is always 'right' than that GM will never actualy learn from his mistakes...EVER. They will remain a bad GM if never challenged. They will never grow.
Personaly I need to learn and will forever need to be learning. There is always something new. A new way to look at things...new house rules...heck a new way to look at using the GM screen...whatever.
I willl agree with you...whining is the wrong way to challenge a GM...I tend to perfer a polite and respectful conversation. But challenging a bad GM is not neccessarily a bad thing.
|
I know, but i have never seen bad GMs change their ways. Just players. A lot. A bad GM is a bad GM, generally nothing can be done to fix it. I for one love it when i misinterpret a rule and a player corrects me by reading it from the book. Then, if i like my way better, i simply houserule it on the spot and write it down.
Btw, the GM rules say:
- A GM is always right
- If a GM is wrong, check rule above
I know it is an attempt to be humorous, but the point is that the GM has a story to tell, and do it in a way that they all have fun participating in it. So doubting him is not nice or polite. You can talk to him after the session, or during a break, but jumping and saying AHA! during play is considered incredibly rude at my table, and most people won't stand for it.
Of course, there are precedents, like when something really bad is going to happen and i read the rule wrong, or still remember the one from 3.5 For instance, i didn't know that if you deal 0 damage, you actually deal 1 point of nonlethal damage.
I'm rather surprised at the strong emotions people have invested in whether or not the DM is rolling behind a screen. Last campaign I used a screen, current one I'm not.
To clarify my own 'strong emotions' on this issue, it isn't about whether or not a DM has the screen for me. It is about the DM's absolute, utter and undeniable right to choose whether or not she uses the screen.
Also, Hama isn't explaining it very well, but here's the thing, John Kretzer.
You can be wrong, and not cheat.
The DM can be wrong. The DM cannot cheat.
The DM is not always right, however, the DM sets the rules. By the commonly accepted definition of cheating, which is 'to break the rules', a DM cannot cheat.
If he breaks the rules of the group, he is cheating.
The DM is not always right, however, the DM sets the rules. By the commonly accepted definition of cheating, which is 'to break the rules', a DM cannot cheat.
I guess I'm not entirely grasping this concept.
Are you saying, the DM has the power to agree to rules, then not follow them, and that such is cheating?
Or that the group has the power to enforce rules that even the DM needs to follow in the game?
|
If I see you pass a saving throw, and say 'You fail the save', I am cheating you. Even if the group has agreed that the DM can fudge the rules in game, at it's very basic level, he is still cheating the player.
You cannot say 'The GM never breaks the rules, because the rules say he can break the rules.'
If I see you pass a saving throw, and say 'You fail the save', I am cheating you. Even if the group has agreed that the DM can fudge the rules in game, at it's very basic level, he is still cheating the player.
You cannot say 'The GM never breaks the rules, because the rules say he can break the rules.'
Which is why I didn't say that. I said the GM never breaks the rules because the rules say she sets the rules.
However, our argument will be never ending, because we're using two different definitions of cheating. You are using "to elude; deprive of something expected" and I am using "to violate rules or regulations".
We're both right as far as our definitions take us.
If I see you pass a saving throw, and say 'You fail the save', I am cheating you. Even if the group has agreed that the DM can fudge the rules in game, at it's very basic level, he is still cheating the player.
You cannot say 'The GM never breaks the rules, because the rules say he can break the rules.'
Which is why I didn't say that. I said the GM never breaks the rules because the rules say she sets the rules.
However, our argument will be never ending, because we're using two different definitions of cheating. You are using "to elude; deprive of something expected" and I am using "to violate rules or regulations".
We're both right as far as our definitions take us.
Setting the rules does not mean you can't break the rules. If I say the rule is all natural attacks do triple damage, but any monster I use as a GM does quadruple damage then I am not following my own rule. I did not change the rule so therefore I am breaking the rule.
A violation of the rule is not a changing of the rule.
If he breaks the rules of the group, he is cheating.
The DM is not always right, however, the DM sets the rules. By the commonly accepted definition of cheating, which is 'to break the rules', a DM cannot cheat.
Only in the sense that I am cheating if I go to hang at your house and then, without your permission, eat the pasta your wife was saving for dinner.
The DM is not breaking the rules of the game in this circumstance, instead he is violating the social contract that this group has established.
What happens behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance, stays behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance.Heh ... that shield protects both ways ...
Nonsense. I have eyes beyond the shield. They are loyal to me and only me.
If he breaks the rules of the group, he is cheating.
The DM is not always right, however, the DM sets the rules. By the commonly accepted definition of cheating, which is 'to break the rules', a DM cannot cheat.
Only in the sense that I am cheating if I go to hang at your house and then, without your permission, eat the pasta your wife was saving for dinner.
The DM is not breaking the rules of the game in this circumstance, instead he is violating the social contract that this group has established.
All rules are social contracts.
The only ones that aren't are the immutable laws of physics.The expectation at the table is that the general rules (not including the rules for particular instances, such as "this monster has 12 hp") are either known or available to be known to everyone. If the general rules change without everyone's knowledge, that's a violation of the expectation, which is itself a rule.
That said, if the expectation is violated often, the expectation should change. Thus the old adage "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Meaning, the easiest way to not subject yourself to this violation is to not be there (AKA: vote with your presence). However it's possible that the most EFFECTIVE way to not subject yourself to this is by talking to the GM to see if it's possible to come to an agreement that everyone likes.
THEN, I kicked his ass at chess, enough times to prove it wasn't a fluke, which should've been impossible because he had a 165 i.q. or some b@%*$%@&, and he was convinced I had a microphone for some chessmaster to feed me moves.Heath, you cheating little cheatweasel you. Doing the old chessmaster trick again?
I thought everyone was off that. Delicate little flowers get achy ears from headsets.
Don't they have a Deep Blue App for those pretentious phones now that you could use to swindle poor Aussies out of their well-earned chess victory?
This probably happened before you were born.
Sometimes, as a DM, you have to cheat (or ask the players to roll up new chars). As recently as yesterday, I had my hand "forced" this way.
** spoiler omitted **
Honestly, if I was playing in that game, I would have said, just kill us all.
It's not fun for me when there is no chance of loosing. It means my actions don't matter because eventually we will win anyways. It becomes like a video game.
I used to be kind of a GM#1. I would occasionally fudge things so that characters wouldn't die. I'm not sure if my players ever noticed, but really I felt like I was cheating them out of chance to be truly victorious.
So the last campaign I ran, I changed how I did things a little. I gave everybody a hero point. A player could use there hero point to temporarily take over the story. They could say- No, I didn't get killed by the werewolves, we slaughtered them all. I did this to account for encounters I misjudged.
The other changes I made. I started rolling in front of them. I would tell them what number the villains needed to roll to make their saves, and let the dice fall where they may. I banned Resurrection, True Resurrection, and Raise Dead. You have one hero point to save your character, when that's gone- dead is dead.
Now when they win, they really have beaten the challenges set before them. My players really seem to like it.
I know, but i have never seen bad GMs change their ways. Just players. A lot. A bad GM is a bad GM, generally nothing can be done to fix it. I for one love it when i misinterpret a rule and a player corrects me by reading it from the book. Then, if i like my way better, i simply houserule it on the spot and write it down.
Btw, the GM rules say:
- A GM is always right
- If a GM is wrong, check rule above
No I have helped some GMs get better. It is possible. It is just alot harder with the philosphy that 'the GM is always right' attitude. Which is why I called it stupid. I understand what it means....you understand what it means...but some just don't.
As for making a ruling and latter finding it was wrong according the book rules...and than saying I like my way better...I have done similiar. As long as you are consistent with your ruling it is not a problem.
The GM has the right...no I'll say the duty to change any rule in the game to increase the fun of the game. I don't deny that....but a rule is set...everyone should know what the rule is...if the GM really cares about the fun of the group he'll even open up a discussion about a rule change. But the players need to know about the rule changes, because if they do not than logicaly how can they play their characters?
I know it is an attempt to be humorous, but the point is that the GM has a story to tell, and do it in a way that they all have fun participating in it. So doubting him is not nice or polite. You can talk to him after the session, or during a break, but jumping and saying AHA! during play is considered incredibly rude at my table, and most people won't stand for it.
Of course, there are precedents, like when something really bad is going to happen and i read the rule wrong, or still remember the one from 3.5 For instance, i didn't know that if you deal 0 damage, you actually deal 1 point of nonlethal damage.
I agree with you 100% here you don't point it out in the middle of the game. You do so as you say after before or during a break...not at the table. All my games has that as a rule...only when a character's life is at stake would allow that kind of interruption.
To clarify my own 'strong emotions' on this issue, it isn't about whether or not a DM has the screen for me. It is about the DM's absolute, utter and undeniable right to choose whether or not she uses the screen.
I agree with you. As the GM has the utter and undeniable right to use any supplement he wants.
And to clarify my ealier post on screens...I won't tell the GM not use a screen...or even rationaly assume he is fudging dice left and right. It is when there is a longer pause between dice rolling and the GM declaring what happens then normal. Or when the GM asks "how many HPs do you have?" Etc.
Also, Hama isn't explaining it very well, but here's the thing, John Kretzer.
You can be wrong, and not cheat.
The DM can be wrong. The DM cannot cheat.
The DM is not always right, however, the DM sets the rules. By the commonly accepted definition of cheating, which is 'to break the rules', a DM cannot cheat.
Sure the GMs sets the rules...I am not argueing about that. Hopefuly he gives his players a nice page or more of house rules so the players knows about them. But is he does not stick to those rules he himself sets...well than that is cheating. A GM can even change the rules he sets...but the players should know what those are.
Or when the GM asks "how many HPs do you have?" Etc.
I had a GM that did this. I would just say, "Does it matter? Just tell me how much damage I take."
Sometimes, as a DM, you have to cheat (or ask the players to roll up new chars). As recently as yesterday, I had my hand "forced" this way.
** spoiler omitted **
Even if they were not knew it should not change what weapons they had since that would mean using out of game knowledge which is also called cheating to some people. I would have had them roll any relevant knowledge checks to see if their characters would know what to do about the situation though.
I used to be kind of a GM#1. I would occasionally fudge things so that characters wouldn't die. I'm not sure if my players ever noticed, but really I felt like I was cheating them out of chance to be truly victorious.
So the last campaign I ran, I changed how I did things a little. I gave everybody a hero point. A player could use there hero point to temporarily take over the story. They could say- No, I didn't get killed by the werewolves, we slaughtered them all. I did this to account for encounters I misjudged.
The other changes I made. I started rolling in front of them. I would tell them what number the villains needed to roll to make their saves, and let the dice fall where they may. I banned Resurrection, True Resurrection, and Raise Dead. You have one hero point to save your character, when that's gone- dead is dead.
Now when they win, they really have beaten the challenges set before them. My players really seem to like it.
So the one hero point is to cover any mistake you might make + all of theirs? I would ask for more hero points if the Raise dead series of spells were removed.
PS:Just trying to get clarification.
I had a GM that did this. I would just say, "Does it matter? Just tell me how much damage I take."Or when the GM asks "how many HPs do you have?" Etc.
I had a player do that to me before. I was impressed with his willingness to accept death. He is one of my favorite players to this day.
The irony here is that much of this discussion would have been impossible even twelve years ago. First of all, there was a distinct difference between what you would expect from an RPG and a skirmish-level wargame. 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4.0 have all blurred the line between the two. Heck, back in my day, we expected the GM to make things up as he went along.
Even concepts such as balancing party levels vs. monster CRs are a relatively new addition to the game. The bottom line is that players who want all rolling done out in the open are harking back to the old 1st edition, adversarial style of GMing.
I have to completely disagree with you here. As I am not a big fan of skirmish- level wargame(or any wargames at all) and a big fan of RPing.
To me RPing is about telling a story the two sides the GM and players are there to tell their story together. Each has their own things to do in the story. And the rules and the dice are meant to balance the power between the two. Which is why when I as a GM I change a rule I ask for the opinions of my players.
The GM already has alot power as it is....when he remove the dice...or change the rule to enforce his vision of story...he is breaking the rules of what a RPG is all about.
I had a GM that did this. I would just say, "Does it matter? Just tell me how much damage I take."Or when the GM asks "how many HPs do you have?" Etc.
That is my usualy response to that question as well.
So the one hero point is to cover any mistake you might make + all of theirs? I would ask for more hero points if the Raise dead series of spells were removed.PS:Just trying to get clarification.
Yeah, that's it one. I told them if they did something truly heroic it might be possible to earn another one, but pretty much one per character is all they got.
I know it's a little rough, but I think that the real possibility of irreversible death is necessary for a sense that victory is earned rather than awarded.
That is my usualy response to that question as well.I had a GM that did this. I would just say, "Does it matter? Just tell me how much damage I take."Or when the GM asks "how many HPs do you have?" Etc.
And as a DM, my response would be "you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."
As the DM, I'm entitled to know how wounded the players are. I have multiple monster hp tracked, buffs, etc. I shouldn't have to count how much damage my players are taking, but when my foe needs to choose appropriately who to attack (whether they prefer more wounded foes to finish off, or less wounded foes to fight with honor, or what the hell ever), I don't need a snarky response tossed at me to slow down combat even more. The foe can see how wounded the character is, and thus the DM needs to know how wounded the character is.
So yeah. It does matter.
And as a DM, my response would be "you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."
As the DM, I'm entitled to know how wounded the players are. I have multiple monster hp tracked, buffs, etc. I shouldn't have to count how much damage my players are taking, but when my foe needs to choose appropriately who to attack (whether they prefer more wounded foes to finish off, or less wounded foes to fight with honor, or what the hell ever), I don't need a snarky response tossed at me to slow down combat even more. The foe can see how wounded the character is, and thus the DM needs to know how wounded the character is.
So yeah. It does matter.
When he asked me the question, I had been told I had been hit, but he hadn't rolled damage yet. At that point it really doesn't matter how many hit points my character had left unless the GM was planning on fudging the damage to not kill the character.
As a player, I don't like that, and I don't want to play in a game where the GM is going to fudge things to save my character. I have no problem telling the GM anything about my characters current condition, I just don't want the GM to Nerf encounters, or fudge rolls in my favor. I think that's lame.
Other people have different ideas about what is acceptable behavior for a GM. I don't play with that GM anymore.
|
|
As the DM, I'm entitled to know how wounded the players are. I have multiple monster hp tracked, buffs, etc. I shouldn't have to count how much damage my players are taking, but when my foe needs to choose appropriately who to attack (whether they prefer more wounded foes to finish off, or less wounded foes to fight with honor, or what the hell ever), I don't need a snarky response tossed at me to slow down combat even more. The foe can see how wounded the character is, and thus the DM needs to know how wounded the character is.
So yeah. It does matter.
+1 to that...
Besides, failing to do so may lead the DM to think the player has something to hide, or (GASP) may himself be cheating!!!
When he asked me the question, I had been told I had been hit, but he hadn't rolled damage yet. At that point it really doesn't matter how many hit points my character had left unless the GM was planning on fudging the damage to not kill the character.
As a player, I don't like that, and I don't want to play in a game where the GM is going to fudge things to save my character. I have no problem telling the GM anything about my characters current condition, I just don't want the GM to Nerf encounters, or fudge rolls in my favor. I think that's lame.
Other people have different ideas about what is acceptable behavior for a GM. I don't play with that GM anymore.
While I understand where you are coming from (and my hp checks are well in advance of attacks), I still disagree with the principle of the thing. A DM needs to have information given to her immediately, not have the game disrupted by player vs DM tensions.
I do agree that if a DM isn't going to provide you with the sort of game you enjoy playing, you ought to find a different one. There is give and take in the social contract, but it ought to be sociable. If you are unwilling or annoyed at answering a DM's question, it suggests there are more underlying issues that are the real problem.
If you are unwilling or annoyed at answering a DM's question, it suggests there are more underlying issues that are the real problem.
You are absolutely correct. I think most of these bad GM threads really come down to one issue: trust.
The players have to trust the GM to be fair. Usually when people say that, they mean that the GM isn't doing things to the detriment of the players. But really it works in reverse too.
The example I gave was just one instance where I thought he was being unfair to the game universe. On more than one occasion mysterious NPCs showed up to save us from certain TPKs. I could keep going, but the real point is simple: I had stopped trusting him.
Nonsense. I have eyes beyond the shield. They are loyal to me and only me.What happens behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance, stays behind the Shield of Fear & Ignorance.Heh ... that shield protects both ways ...
Sounds like the beginning of an entertaining story. :)
If you are unwilling or annoyed at answering a DM's question, it suggests there are more underlying issues that are the real problem.You are absolutely correct. I think most of these bad GM threads really come down to one issue: trust.
The players have to trust the GM to be fair. Usually when people say that, they mean that the GM isn't doing things to the detriment of the players. But really it works in reverse too.
The example I gave was just one instance where I thought he was being unfair to the game universe. On more than one occasion mysterious NPCs showed up to save us from certain TPKs. I could keep going, but the real point is simple: I had stopped trusting him.
Not feeling risk kills a player's ability to take the game seriously. A DM has enormous influence over how a player feels their actions will be taken.
Want players to not give a rat's ass about your noble NPCs or nobility in general? Let them talk whatever way they want to those NPCs, and allow them to humiliate them when push comes to shove. Want players to never retreat, never surrender? Cause every retreat to be cut off if attempted, cause every surrender to cost far more than death. Want your players to accept parlay? Don't have every villain use it to backstab the players when their guard is down.
None of these are bad perse (a Robin Hood style campaign is well suited to mocking nobility, and a Game of Thrones style is not.), they are just styles, but once the players feel out how things react, they start developing their own understanding of how the game world works.
If players understand that the game world works only to keep them alive no matter what, they lose interest quick.
And as a DM, my response would be "you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."
As the DM, I'm entitled to know how wounded the players are. I have multiple monster hp tracked, buffs, etc. I shouldn't have to count how much damage my players are taking, but when my foe needs to choose appropriately who to attack (whether they prefer more wounded foes to finish off, or less wounded foes to fight with honor, or what the hell ever), I don't need a snarky response tossed at me to slow down combat even more. The foe can see how wounded the character is, and thus the DM needs to know how wounded the character is.
So yeah. It does matter.
I was more refering to after the damage roll is made....
But sure you can ask me what my condition of my character....I'll reply with the like of unijured...or slightly injured...or about half-way...badly injured or near death. Just like how I would respond if I was a GM and a player asked me how hurt any of the NPCs are.
Heck I would even allow Bluff checks to make it appear you are not as hurt...or more hurt then you are.
So um yes it actualy does matter in that the GM should not be basing NPC action on numbers that they have no way of knowing. That is called metagaming. A form of cheating if taken to a certain degree.
Also who is slowing the game in this case...
GM rolld the damage...and asks," So how many HP do you have left?"
Player," Just tell me the damage. I don't want you pulling any punches for my character"
Your response,"you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."
Not only do you react with rudeness and hostility...which will probably get a raise out the player. You are slowing the game down as it is obvious the players does not want you to fudge the roll in his favor(hopefuly you are not that big of a douch to fudge to 'punish' the player).
I was more refering to after the damage roll is made....
But sure you can ask me what my condition of my character....I'll reply with the like of unijured...or slightly injured...or about half-way...badly injured or near death. Just like how I would respond if I was a GM and a player asked me how hurt any of the NPCs are.
Heck I would even allow Bluff checks to make it appear you are not as hurt...or more hurt then you are.
So um yes it actualy does matter in that the GM should not be basing NPC action on numbers that they have no way of knowing. That is called metagaming. A form of cheating if taken to a certain degree.
Also who is slowing the game in this case...
GM rolld the damage...and asks," So how many HP do you have left?"
Player," Just tell me the damage. I don't want you pulling any punches for my character"
Your response,"you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."Not only do you react with rudeness and hostility...which will probably get a raise out the player. You are slowing the game down as it is obvious the players does not want you to fudge the roll in his favor(hopefuly you are not that big of a douch to fudge to 'punish' the player).
You would be immediately thrown out of my game. I have no patience for that sort of nonsense and attempt to create a power struggle when none should exist. I'm already investing 10 hours for every one my players do to ensure that the game is fun, challenging, interesting and exciting for everyone.
If I ask your hp, you tell me your hp. End of story. Same if I ask you how much you are carrying, how long your haste lasts, what your range increment on your bow is, or anything else that I feel like asking pertinent to your character. I don't know when this entitled attitude crept in, that somethings are allowed to be kept secret from the DM, but it has no place in my games. As far as 'reacting with hostility' goes, you're damn right. I crush that crap like a bug, and if I have to make an example out of one person to do so, so be it. The remainder of the game (my current campaign is approaching 1000 hours of session time) will be absent that nonsense, and better for it. There are no power struggles between the DM and the players in a good game. Everyone is working for the same goals.
And as a DM, my response would be "you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."
As the DM, I'm entitled to know how wounded the players are. I have multiple monster hp tracked, buffs, etc. I shouldn't have to count how much damage my players are taking, but when my foe needs to choose appropriately who to attack (whether they prefer more wounded foes to finish off, or less wounded foes to fight with honor, or what the hell ever), I don't need a snarky response tossed at me to slow down combat even more. The foe can see how wounded the character is, and thus the DM needs to know how wounded the character is.
So yeah. It does matter.
I was more refering to after the damage roll is made....
But sure you can ask me what my condition of my character....I'll reply with the like of unijured...or slightly injured...or about half-way...badly injured or near death. Just like how I would respond if I was a GM and a player asked me how hurt any of the NPCs are.
Heck I would even allow Bluff checks to make it appear you are not as hurt...or more hurt then you are.
So um yes it actualy does matter in that the GM should not be basing NPC action on numbers that they have no way of knowing. That is called metagaming. A form of cheating if taken to a certain degree.
By RAW, there are some situations where the NPCs would simply have this knowledge, possibly without you knowing that they do, so it would be best to just give the GM the information when she asks. For instance, the NPC might have (unbeknownst to you) put up a Deathwatch, so they would see someone at 4 hit points in a different category than 3 (3 counts as 'fragile'). The GM already has access to your maximum hit points and to her own damage rolls, so she could keep a record if necessary, but chances are this will slow down the game a good bit.
You would be immediately thrown out of my game. I have no patience for that sort of nonsense and attempt to create a power struggle when none should exist. I'm already investing 10 hours for every one my players do to ensure that the game is fun, challenging, interesting and exciting for everyone.
So your game is very anti-new player who might have played under a GM who uses a similiar thing as I do. And their would not be a power struggle is you recognize the the very limited power that the PC's do have, which it seems to me you don't.
If I ask your hp, you tell me your hp. End of story. Same if I ask you how much you are carrying, how long your haste lasts, what your range increment on your bow is, or anything else that I feel like asking pertinent to your character. I don't know when this entitled attitude crept in, that somethings are allowed to be kept secret from the DM, but it has no place in my games. As far as 'reacting with hostility' goes, you're damn right. I crush that crap like a bug, and if I have to make an example out of one person to do so, so be it. The remainder of the game (my current campaign is approaching 1000 hours of session time) will be absent that nonsense, and better for it. There are no power struggles between the DM and the players in a good game. Everyone is working for the same goals.
If you ask me for my HP total before the attack roll got no problem with that. Actualy as a GM I keeep track of PC HPs to make sure their is no cheating...and all the things you do to. Don't try to tell me about all the hard work a GM does because I do GM also. If you are defining it as work...maybe you should not GM.
Or how much I am carrying...or the range increment on my bow.
And if a GM has to ask how long my haste spell last...I see there is a whole another major problem with the game. If the GM does not know his players character's enough to know that answear than it is obviously that you don't know them well enough to design a adventure or a story they will care about. Maybe you should spend that 10 hours for every one the players spend( though if I was a playing in your game that would mean you are spending about 60 hours on the game) to actualy know the characters and the players.
If a player does not want you pulling punches for his character...what is the problem not doing so? He is not asking for you to not pull punches with everyone else characters...just his. Why rob him of his enjoyment of the game?
As to player entitlement....sure that is a problem. As is GM entitlement.
You would be immediately thrown out of my game. I have no patience for that sort of nonsense and attempt to create a power struggle when none should exist. I'm already investing 10 hours for every one my players do to ensure that the game is fun, challenging, interesting and exciting for everyone.So your game is very anti-new player who might have played under a GM who uses a similiar thing as I do. And their would not be a power struggle is you recognize the the very limited power that the PC's do have, which it seems to me you don't.
We're not talking about new players who don't understand. "How many hit points do you have" is not a very 'open to interpretation' sort of question. Someone who did not understand the question the first time would be informed that they give me the number of hit points they have. It's a simple task, a piece of information that the PCs should have immediate access to at all times, and one that, should I decide to back track over the damage dealt, I have access to as well. My asking for it is simply to speed the inevitable, which is me knowing the hit points of the character.
Your response is a passive aggressive attempt to avoid producing the required information. Both the "why does it matter?" and "here's sort of what you were asking for, but not really, hee hee." If I asked you 'how wounded are you', 'half way', 'badly', 'barely', etc are all valid answers. If I asked you 'how many hit points do you have', only a number properly answers that question. You (as a player) don't get to make the decision of which question to answer.
If you ask me for my HP total before the attack roll got no problem with that. Actualy as a GM I keeep track of PC HPs to make sure their is no cheating...and all the things you do to. Don't try to tell me about all the hard work a GM does because I do GM also. If you are defining it as work...maybe you should not GM.
Maybe you shouldn't presume to tell me what I should and shouldn't do in my personal life, or what I should call the work I put into a game. Maybe you should look up the different definitions of 'work', and see if maybe you are misusing my use of the term to try and score a cheap point.
See, that's the difference between you and me as fellow Paizonians and you and I in a DM/player relationship. Those relationships have different requirements. A DM can choose not to ask for injury status, choose to have hit points expressed in nebulous terms or have them stated as a number. That's the DM's choice though, and not the player's.
And I will tell you about all the hard work a DM does, when it is pertinent to an argument. Your status as a DM has no bearing on that. Again, your understanding of relationships is critical here. When I am speaking as to what a DM is allowed to do, that is for the game. On a forum, one does not come on here and say "I was the DM, thus Rule 0 says I win the internet." Trying to act as though my points were a similar situation to such is crafting a straw man.
And if a GM has to ask how long my haste spell last...I see there is a whole another major problem with the game. If the GM does not know his players character's enough to know that answear than it is obviously that you don't know them well enough to design a adventure or a story they will care about. Maybe you should spend that 10 hours for every one the players spend( though if I was a playing in your game that would mean you are spending about 60 hours on the game) to actualy know the characters and the players.
This is actual gibberish, both due to the poor use of English and to the idea that not knowing player and character motivations is the same as not knowing if they are using their +2 composite longbow of distance or their +5 shortbow for a given attack that was described "I draw my bow and shoot the gazebo."
As for your snippy remark, my players spend between 6 and 8 hours a week on the game. So your 6 would clock in at the low end for my group.
If a player does not want you pulling punches for his character...what is the problem not doing so? He is not asking for you to not pull punches with everyone else characters...just his. Why rob him of his enjoyment of the game?
As to player entitlement....sure that is a problem. As is GM entitlement.
None of my players feel that I'm pulling punches on them. Not the player whose rogue had his halfling head kicked in like a pumpkin in the very first dungeon of the game three years ago (and proceeded to have 5-6 more characters die), nor the nearly invincible armored fighter who found himself in negative hit points last week against angry hurrotchs. Nor do they feel that the 'important NPCs' are untouchable, after I focused fire on the 'DMPC' cleric of the group, or chucked a flaming stone coffin into the tender yet beautiful body of Lavinia Vanderboren.
I don't ask how many hit points my players have to save them, or because I suspect them of cheating. I ask so that I have a good situational awareness of the encounter at all times, so that the foes who can tell how wounded you are make their ideal actions.
Entitlement is only a problem when it is false entitlement. The DM is actually entitled to know all of the mechanical happenings of her game. That's part of her job.
Entitlement is only a problem when it is false entitlement. The DM is actually entitled to know all of the mechanical happenings of her game. That's part of her job.I completely agree with this statement.
Then you might want to consider crediting it to me, rather than John. I don't think he'd like to be misquoted as saying something I said, given our fairly large difference in opinion.
For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll? I mean logicaly you should not. It does make the whole dice in the game silly though...the reasons given can be applied to a player who is doing the same thing.
I don't fudge rolls a lot, but I do it on occasion, often not to save a character but to challenge them more (fights where the bad guys never land a blow can be pretty dull affairs if they go on very long).
I honestly don't mind when a player tips the dice in their favor on fairly rare occasion. If it were really obvious and they abused it to never fail, that would be a problem, but if they at some point decide they really really don't want to fail a given save, especially if the life of a fellow hero is on the line... OK, thats just a bit of creative control of the story. I rather like systems that actually let players do this as part of the rules from time to time.
The #1 rule for cheating is don't let anyone know. The best cheating should be undetectable by everyone else and simply feel like the hand of fate telling a fun story. I only use it when fate is delivering a crappy one of its own accord.
I had a GM that did this. I would just say, "Does it matter? Just tell me how much damage I take."Or when the GM asks "how many HPs do you have?" Etc.
When the GM asks for information, you either provide said information or bow out of the game. No other way. At least not when I'm running the game. Players talking back when asked for information is an indication for one of two things: Either they don't like the way I run games and are being passive aggressive about it (people who won't discuss things with me - and in the right place at the right time - are useless to me) or they don't trust me (and I don't see why I should bother with that).
Especially since you just assume that he will fudge. Doesn't have to be. Maybe the GM is just curious. I sometimes ask people about their HP when I roll damage. And that doesn't necessarily mean I'll fudge the rolls to spare them.
Plus, there might be abilities related to your HP. In fact, I'm quite sure there is 3.x Material that affects you depending on your HP.
Honestly, if I was playing in that game, I would have said, just kill us all.
It's not fun for me when there is no chance of loosing.
That sounded more as if there was no chance of winning. That's even worse than no chance of losing.
It means my actions don't matter because eventually we will win anyways. It becomes like a video game.
Video games don't necessarily work that way you know.
By RAW, there are some situations where the NPCs would simply have this knowledge, possibly without you knowing that they do, so it would be best to just give the GM the information when she asks. For instance, the NPC might have (unbeknownst to you) put up a Deathwatch, so they would see someone at 4 hit points in a different category than 3 (3 counts as 'fragile').
That or the player's (or character's) assessment of the seriousness of his injuries are totally meaningless.
Obviously, the character's assessment is important to the character, but his enemies couldn't care less.
This sounds like that scene from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. "You have lost" "Have not" "You have no arms." "That's only a flesh wound".
Fun in a Monty Python flick, utterly ridiculous when players try to be smart.
The GM already has access to your maximum hit points and to her own damage rolls, so she could keep a record if necessary, but chances are this will slow down the game a good bit.
Plus, it shouldn't be necessary. Players should be smart enough to track their own HP correctly (and I actually require this of my players. Everyone too stupid to do things like track HP, count diagonal movement or add up attack rolls etc. will not play in my games) and honest enough not to cheat.
@Kain Darkwind:I said I have no problem with telling a GM mechanical stuff. All I did say if you have to ask how long a Haste spell last than you don't even know what level your players are? As the spell last 1 round per level. And if extended than I expect my players to say they casting a extended haste...which means it last 2 rounds per level. Sorry but actualy knowing the rules heads off alot of pointless questions by the GM. Maybe my players are just a little more descriptive in their actions....
So you spend 80 hours on the game? What exactly to spend 80 hours doing?
And your players are spending 6 to 8 hours on the game. Great do they actualy have a effect on the story? If not what are trhey spending their time on?
Also are including actual game time? Or away from the table?
As for my passive-agressive response....how is,"Just roll the damage I don't want you pulling punches" Passive agressive? which is my response to when a GM asks that before rolling damage...one instance. Not at the start of the session...or at the start at combat or heck even during. And only if I suspect the GM is pulling punches.
So you don't pull punches so you agree with me...you don't fudge dice great...actualy it seems we are closer to being in opinion than you think.
Where did I say no GMs should never use a screen?
Where did I say you should not tell GMs mechanical effects? Heck the only time I say you should not is if the GM is cheating because at that point the mechanic just don't matter. I even say I don't need to ask because I keep track of them myself. But as a GM I keep what I know as the GM separate from what the NPC knows...that to me is the GM cheating.
Have you ever been a player? What was it like?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Entitlement is only a problem when it is false entitlement. The DM is actually entitled to know all of the mechanical happenings of her game. That's part of her job.I completely agree with this statement.
And what you guys are completeing missing here is this.
The GM has 90% power by the rules if you will. He controls what the encounters will be like...he controls what the PCs can get...he controls NPC reactions...everything in the game world except...
The 10% the player's control...their characters...and if you look at invidualy it is less as they really just control one character.
This already is diffitcult was to supposely run a cooperative story telling game...now you want to grant the GMs more control? At what point does it just become story hour?