Before I could suggest casting the “Sleep” spell (I am a Sorcerer) our fighter of the group jumps up and suggests it first. Our DM said “Do you have Spellcraft?” (Which he knows he does not). The DM warned him if he makes a suggestion like that again out of character, he would be docked minor xp.This board is amazing. I thought I had bad GMs before, but the more I read here, the more I'm convinced that they weren't that bad.
I really need to put that thing I have with the blunt instrument and the shovel and the bag of quicklime into my signature or profile and refer people to it.
I mean, a guy who says that unless you have ranks of spellcraft, you cannot suggest the spell you already saw, and it puts people to sleep, and just call it "the sleep spell".
GMs like that are the reasons munchkins exist.
Read a little further down in the thread. The OP makes it clear that he chose a poor example to illustrate the point of a player constantly telling another player how to run his spellcaster character, efen though the first player's character would not have the knowledge to give that advice. Still not an example of wonderful GMing, but more nuance.
A lineman who comes into the huddle and suggests to the quarterback that the receiver run a slant, rather than a go pattern is most likely to get a quarterback in their face telling them to shut up and just do their own job and let the QB and WR do theirs. Probably laced with at least six profanities. During a timeout or on the sidelines, some QBs (or actually offensive coordinators, these days, since they call all they plays) might be amenable to suggestions from a veteran, respected lineman. Or they might not. In the huddle, during regular playcalling (which is actually a good comparison to a six second combat round) there is no time for that kind of BS. The QB has to announce the play, the formation, the blocking scheme and the count, all in about 15 seconds or less. It's not a democracy and not a debating society.I don't think I understand your example in context. The "problem" is that one player made a suggestion to another, not that a team member is contradicting the leader that they may or may not even have.
At least as far as we're aware the only thing the fighter did was suggest the sleep spell before the sorc had decided on a course of action- he didn't say "oh there are too many HDs of monster there" or "what you want to do is dumb, do this instead." Nobody is allowed to make a suggestion without penalties?
Suggest you read the rest of the thread. the football analogy wasn't mine. i just responded to it saying it wasn't a good analogy.
Also, later in the thread the OP makes it clear this wasn't an isolated occurence, but rather a pattern of behavior showing two issues: metagaming by using knowledge the character does not have and consistently trying to tell another player how to run their character.
No. A thread-starting post should be able to stand on its own.
Doesn’t always work that way. To get the whole picture or story, sometimes you do need to read the rest of the thread. I can't help you are too lazy to do so.
I don't need to do anything, really. You need to think before you start a thread so not to tell misleading stories.
Yeah, actually you do. And you should take your own advice.
If you are going to post something inflammatory, take the time to read the rest of the thread to get the entire story. If you feel too bothered to read the rest, then please don’t post at all.
I think you need to read a little closer as well. The TC only referenced another player suggesting a course of action for the spellcaster twice. It's not even clear that it's the same player- in fact it's implied that the whole group engages(or engaged) in this sort of behavior. S/he has never said that the complaint was one player running another player's character, only out of character knowledge in knowing which spells are good for what and the particulars of each spell. The last part there wasn't even in the original post, it was added later. Overbearing players might be a problem, but it's not something the TC has mentioned yet.Suggest you read the rest of the thread. the football analogy wasn't mine. i just responded to it saying it wasn't a good analogy.
Also, later in the thread the OP makes it clear this wasn't an isolated occurence, but rather a pattern of behavior showing two issues: metagaming by using knowledge the character does not have and consistently trying to tell another player how to run their character.
Thanks for the correction. I did reread Hobbun's posts again and he does indeed say that it is GM frustration not just with one player but with many in the group metagaming and using knowledge they wouldn't have. I and a few others read beyond what the actual posts say to imply a different but related problem, trying to play someone else's character. You're right that Hobbun hasn't specifically identified that as a problem, although the tenor of some of his posts indicated that he might not like the other player telling his caster what to do. Correct of you to point out that that isn't what he actually said, though.
Of course none of that has much to do with why I rejected the football analogy, which is what you responded to. So why are we arguing this?
There 2 big points here player knowledge vs PC knowledge. All most evey one on this board and that plays has " ranks in spellcraft" so they know what your talking about. Now go find non gamer and ask them what the 3 rd level fire spell on wizard list that has 20 ft radius is. They no freaking clue cause they no rank in spellcraft just like the fighter. There is flip side if npc or big bad has no ranks then should not auto attack the caster. So if you think should be able to such with no ranks in spellcraft then you are the reason the antagonist feat was made. So pick poison when it comes to realism in your game.
Read a little further down in the thread.
Are you being ironic?
There 2 big points here player knowledge vs PC knowledge. All most evey one on this board and that plays has " ranks in spellcraft" so they know what your talking about. Now go find non gamer and ask them what the 3 rd level fire spell on wizard list that has 20 ft radius is
Right, but at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Cronk: We need do this quietly. Lamentations of their women wake the guards. Cronk not happy to hear. You make guards go sleepy with.. ahh uhmm...
Pointy hat: My sleep spell.
Cronk: Right, that. THEN we get girl, THEN blow up the camp with the... ah uhm.. the ball of fire?
Pointy hat- Fire. Ball.
Cronk: Pointy hat man go to school for this?
I think the line between metagaming and not is how much description the noncasters uses in his suggestion. If the noncasters says use spell X that is one thing. If he says since the spell takes up X cubic feat per caster level, and be also be shaped into a dome shape, and then proceeds to give exact measurements as to where and how to place the affect.........then he is using out of game knowledge.
As to the artillery comparison I know generally what it does, but different artillery has different ranges, and does different amounts of damage, among other things, and all that matters also. I am sure there are more spells than there are artillery types, and all those spells do different things so that example is not a good one. Being buddies with the artillery guy allows you to suggest use artillery X, but you should not be going into depth as per the above paragraph.
In short it depends on who much suggesting is done, and to what detail. Saying the name of the spell and, or giving a general use of it as a suggestion should not be banned(any other negative action also applies).
|
I think that there is nothing wrong with requiring knowledge checks to know things in your game, beyond a very basic understanding, as long as there is an emphasis on no metagame chatter at the table from the get go. It is just like business deals or anything else, if you set the rules from the beginning, everyone knows what assumptions to start with, and there is no confusion later on.
I know several games where you don't break character the entire game, in those cases, the original issue takes care of itself, because you would be letting someone else IN-GAME tell you what to, which usually irritates wizards as they are smarter than everyone else. The wizard would likely say, "How many years did you study magic at the Ancient School of Van-der-Togg? Oh thats right, none, so STFU..." and the warrior would grouse and hope he didnt get his sword turned pink when he set it down for the night.
But yeah, I don't think there is really a place for that sort of strictness on knowledge checks in general unless that is a point of emphasis for your game and has some sort of storyline reasoning to back it up.
How does your DM handle that? Or if you are a DM, how do you handle it?I'd say, "How about you let Hobbun play his character, and you play your character?"
I think the GM just got a bit annoyed with one player trying to control other players actions. Staying in character helps people to play their individual characters and have fun without other players interfering with their action turn. In itself I do not see a problem with a fighter suggesting to cast a certain spell he has seen cast before, but if it is in combat make the fighter do it on his turn, during other players turns he has to zip it unless the other player interacts with his character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There 2 big points here player knowledge vs PC knowledge. All most evey one on this board and that plays has " ranks in spellcraft" so they know what your talking about. Now go find non gamer and ask them what the 3 rd level fire spell on wizard list that has 20 ft radius is
Right, but at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Cronk: We need do this quietly. Lamentations of their women wake the guards. Cronk not happy to hear. You make guards go sleepy with.. ahh uhmm...
Pointy hat: My sleep spell.
Cronk: Right, that. THEN we get girl, THEN blow up the camp with the... ah uhm.. the ball of fire?
Pointy hat- Fire. Ball.
Cronk: Pointy hat man go to school for this?
Most military folks go several months of school to learn how call in firer support mission. So your military point is moot at best.
Precisely, if something can be explained to someone of average intelligence in an afternoon or less...it is NOT a skill point expenditure. People often have +4 or less in their life's work. To go back to my modern military example, someone in the infantry may have no bloody idea how to load a heavy artillery piece, but they most assuredly know what artillery does and when and where they want it to land. Average casters, even at mid to high levels usually do at least 80% of their casting in less than 20 different spells. Memorizing that small of an amount of information is hardly something that comes to the expenditure of even a single skill point. Hell, a lot of card and dice games don't compress down to that little information, but nobody expects that to be honored with a skill point expenditure.
If your real issue is that you consider such in combat advising rude, or you don't like the fighter assuming the role of 'quarterback'---which in my view fighters generally SHOULD, since their training actually includes things like strategy, tactics, and logistics, then just say that. It's perfectly ok to ask someone to stop doing something simply because it annoys you or a significant fraction of your players. Don't try to drag 'metagaming' or some cosmic principle of...
Wraithstrike,
Imagine you are a level 5ish fighter in a fantasy world. You've been adventuring with mages since level 1. Your success in battle depends intimately on how you synergize your combat skills with the magical support your wizard or sorceror provides. Do you think you'd periodically have 'training days' where you'd practice various manuevers (such as creating a kill zone for his area effect spells)? I bet you would. You'd probably be intimately familiar with the burst area of any of his spells that did such and would be practiced in your movement and tactics so as to both minimize friendly fire and to maximize the number of foes caught in it. And as to what sort of artillery support soldiers have, modern soldiers have dozens of different sorts of support packages available---everything from small mortars and mini grenades to offshore bombardment to conventional tube or rocket artillery to airstrikes to drones run by some guy in a cubicle in another country. And they do know the general area of effects, something considered terribly important when 'collateral damage' is against the rules of engagement.
Memorizing areas of affect is not the same as spells which I mentioned before. Knowing bomb A can only go ___ far and bomb B can only go so far is not the same as remembering exactly what every spell does since the affects are so different. You also have to take caster level into account. I think you can know the general use of the spell, but being intimate with it is something different.
Fighter: (knows the fog spell has a 20 ft radius) Hey we need cover drop the cloud/fog spell over here.
That makes sense. Something like shape stone is harder to do though.
Sounds like your DM is a.....jerk.
First off, out of character does not require in game skills. Ever. Not every player is as proficient with the game as another and to dock one or the other for helping each other OOC is complete BS.
Second off, to dock XP is just about always bull and any DM threatening his players in anyway is a sign of a poor DM. If he doesn't have control of the game that is his fault but you only need to control so much, what to players discuss out of game is not something that should be controlled.
The last time I had a DM threaten me with something like "minor XP loss" or "wealth loss" I proceeded to tell everyone the answer to the next half dozen situations out of game and walked out, I tried to help a new player and he only wanted to kill players over and over. There is no reason to be a jerk and then expect respect or cooperation in return. But assuming you want to keep talking to the DM I would pull him aside when you guys take a break of away from game time and tell him that it was uncalled for even if he is the DM and that you have every right to discuss out of character when ever and where ever you want.
Alternatively you could avoid the issue and use Texting or, if you game close to computers, AIM or facebook messenger to discuss things so that he can't throw a fit about it.
The real answer here is that your DM is trying to regulate something he has no right to regulate. Yea its his game, his world but conversation outside of his world and his game is not his to punish you for. whats next? "You made out with my sister! -1 level!"
Yet another person who only read the OP and overreacted.
The issue here was not my DM and the threat of docking xp, I made the OP to see if they considered suggestions for spells, or knowledge of spells, out of character knowledge for those who do not have Spellcraft. And how they handled it.
Of course I want to "keep talking to my DM", don't be silly. He is a good friend of mine and is not the malicious overbearing jerk you make him out to be. As I said before (which you obviously did not read), he never docked xp, and never has. The comment was made due to he was tired and frustrated (with what he felt was metagaming).
I appreciate those who have given helpful posts, without insulting my DM. Brian Bachman, Ogre and Momar to name a few.
And I make a request to those who continue to post, please do so for the topic at hand, which has NOTHING to do with my DM's threat of docked xp.
Depending on how long it takes you to gain levels---if it is a fairly slow advancement game, your wizard might well occasionally inform you that his 'effective firing range' has increased just a bit. If you're a smart fighter---like the college-trained fighter, he might even...Wraithstrike,
Imagine you are a level 5ish fighter in a fantasy world. You've been adventuring with mages since level 1. Your success in battle depends intimately on how you synergize your combat skills with the magical support your wizard or sorceror provides. Do you think you'd periodically have 'training days' where you'd practice various manuevers (such as creating a kill zone for his area effect spells)? I bet you would. You'd probably be intimately familiar with the burst area of any of his spells that did such and would be practiced in your movement and tactics so as to both minimize friendly fire and to maximize the number of foes caught in it. And as to what sort of artillery support soldiers have, modern soldiers have dozens of different sorts of support packages available---everything from small mortars and mini grenades to offshore bombardment to conventional tube or rocket artillery to airstrikes to drones run by some guy in a cubicle in another country. And they do know the general area of effects, something considered terribly important when 'collateral damage' is against the rules of engagement.Memorizing areas of affect is not the same as spells which I mentioned before. Knowing bomb A can only go ___ far and bomb B can only go so far is not the same as remembering exactly what every spell does since the affects are so different. You also have to take caster level into account. I think you can know the general use of the spell, but being intimate with it is something different.
Fighter: (knows the fog spell has a 20 ft radius) Hey we need cover drop the cloud/fog spell over here.
That makes sense. Something like shape stone is harder to do though.
I agree that if the fighter ask for the info it can be, but in most groups such info not shared, and it can be done in downtime, but I would probably want it to be stated at least until the I know the group would do so.
In general, unless the game I'm running/playing uses the convention that all vocalization is in-character vocalization (where obviously the discourse is held to a different standard and *any* character would be expected to say something more flowery and/or less direct than "cast Sleep!"), I consider the discussion of tactics, strategy, and procedure to be a valid course of action for any player, regardless of the character that they play. Under most circumstances, I don't even object to non-players (who hold no "behind the screen" knowledge) making suggestions about what to do.
The reason I take this view, in general, is that it is true that different people might approach situations from differing perspectives, and for example, just because Joe happens to be playing the Fighter doesn't mean that his idea for spell use won't be exactly the thing that Mary's Witch would do and could do, and Mary just hadn't thought of it until Joe said it. That said, I do prefer to play and run games where the PCs are at least a cut above average and are usually stonkingly heroic and capable folk (possessed of few negative ability modifiers). While I might favor the restriction of spell suggestions if the Wizard had Int 15, I honestly don't think that such a game would be fun for me, so I don't think it likely that I would. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to - I find that players having this kind of discussion makes the game more fun for everyone.