Every 10 points of Intelligence a monster or character has over 10 grants them a "Oh, my character is smart enough to know not to do that" every once in a reasonable while.I'm not one for hard-coded house rules in situations such as these, but seeing as most of my characters have 20 or 30 intelligence, I would probably do pretty well under such a rule.
It's a counter-rule to our original rule of "No take backs."
It came up when we were facing down a creature described as a tactical genius who made one really bad mistake in regards to what spells he brought to fight the PCs...
|
So I guess the barbarian shouldn't be allowed to make the DC 30 Strength check unless his player can move 5 tons of rock all by himself, either.
Yes, if you can move 5 tons of rock in your imaaaaaaagination so can your character. You have now figured out roleplaying.
This "my character would never forget" stuff is false on its face. You are living your life right now and everyday you forget stuff. You forget what you were thinking of a minute ago, you forget your wallet on the way out the door, you forget an appointment, you forget your homework, you forget your 12 year anniversary. If you never forget anything then you are either a very special person or deluded.
My GM has asked me what my INT score was or make an INT check and has given me advice accordingly. One of the major hurdles of table top gaming is that no two people have the mental movie in their heads completely in sync with each other. Mistakes happen, you discuss them, laugh and move on.
|
I never said they'd never forget. But you have to admit, punishing characters for being smarter than their players but not punishing characters for being stronger than their players is a double standard.
The fact that you get to put points into knowledge skills, linguistics, etc, emulates "being smarter than the player". If you've actually known any extremely smart people irl, they tend to be rather absent minded, forgetful, preoccupied, trapped in their heads, all kinds of things that make them ignore or neglect day to day things most people just take for granted.
Point is, intelligence and remembering to tie your shoes aren't related.
And, again, it's a game. You can write INT: 50 on the character sheet, doesn't mean the player gets a pass for being disorganized and not prepared to play.
|
|
Then the player also shouldn't get a pass for being a wimp.I never said they'd never forget. But you have to admit, punishing characters for being smarter than their players but not punishing characters for being stronger than their players is a double standard.The fact that you get to put points into knowledge skills, linguistics, etc, emulates "being smarter than the player". If you've actually known any extremely smart people irl, they tend to be rather absent minded, forgetful, preoccupied, trapped in their heads, all kinds of things that make them ignore or neglect day to day things most people just take for granted.
Point is, intelligence and remembering to tie your shoes aren't related.
And, again, it's a game. You can write INT: 50 on the character sheet, doesn't mean the player gets a pass for being disorganized and not prepared to play.
Obvious troll is obvious. Yay.
This "my character would never forget" stuff is false on its face. You are living your life right now and everyday you forget stuff. You forget what you were thinking of a minute ago, you forget your wallet on the way out the door, you forget an appointment, you forget your homework, you forget your 12 year anniversary. If you never forget anything then you are either a very special person or deluded.
+1
I have been wearing glasses since I was 12. I'm an expert at wearing glasses. Occasionally I can't find them. I look everywhere and then someone points out that I'm wearing them.
I think a PC Wizard forgetting he's wearing boots is on the same level as a carpenter forgetting which side of a hammer is used to hammer the nail (which, sorry, will never happen).
These are two very different types of knowledge.
Then end of a hammer that is used to nail in nails(face) isn't going to change. I would hardly think of it as carpenter specific knowledge. Who doesn't know which end of a hammer to use?
Whether or not you have boots on could change hourly.
|
|
I get the feeling this is becoming a DMs & players debate; with the DMs concerned about keeping their game running smoothly and the players concerned about keeping their character alive. I'm sorry but a smoothly running game is gonna take precedence.
If I retconned every time I forgot a monster's power or an NPCs magic item the players would scream bloody murder. Believe me when I say that your DM forgets ten times the stuff all the players forget together. You run your characters game after game. Most of the characters we run get played once (or if recycled --once in a great while). Even with a lot of prep we are going to forget stuff. Cool abilities to make fights interesting or tough.
Frequently I have to let my monsters die to keep my game running smoothly. Now players get that one special character. The only character they have to think about in the game. One sheet of crap to keep in mind rather than 30 so excuse me if I am not sympathetic when you whine about forgetting something.
As a GM, my rule of thumb is that if it's a one time deal, I'll let it slide. If it's routine, however, then all bets are off. Your (the general you, not you specifically RD) character is your responsibility, and if you routinely forget what resources you have available to you, that's your fault, not mine. In such a case I find it to be good incentive to learn your character again. The rest of the players at the table shouldn't have to be burdened by your forgetfulness.
|
|
Actually, no, it isn't. Perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with his posts. Nowhere did he ask for complete immunity.No one is asking for immunity to making mistakes. There's a lot of people claiming that without any backup whatsoever, though.That's pretty much Ravingdork's entire premise. Remember him? The OP?
Yeah.
"Oh, I forgot, my guy wouldn't forget, he's too smart"? Yeah. Pretty much asking to always be allowed to make the best decision because his piece of paper is "smarter" than he is.
|
|
What about WIS 50 though, which would, presumably, cover those kinds of common sense and little mistakes?I never said they'd never forget. But you have to admit, punishing characters for being smarter than their players but not punishing characters for being stronger than their players is a double standard.The fact that you get to put points into knowledge skills, linguistics, etc, emulates "being smarter than the player". If you've actually known any extremely smart people irl, they tend to be rather absent minded, forgetful, preoccupied, trapped in their heads, all kinds of things that make them ignore or neglect day to day things most people just take for granted.
Point is, intelligence and remembering to tie your shoes aren't related.
And, again, it's a game. You can write INT: 50 on the character sheet, doesn't mean the player gets a pass for being disorganized and not prepared to play.
Were he that wise, he'd find a more fulfilling, less random profession than adventuring. Like sitting on mountains dispensing advice or something.
This is one of the things I use Hero Points for. They give the players a nudge (or an "oh wait!" opportunity) while having a limited number of uses. That way the players feel they have a chance to make the final adjustment without poring over their character sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
houstenderek, really you're being kind of rude. I see where you're coming from, but the tone you present is... well, arrogant at the least and often seems out-right insulting. Fozbek, you might want to take a breather, as you seem to be getting worked up. I know I can be sometimes, so I'm dropping a reminder: sometimes it's better to walk away for a while.
karkon, I've got to disagree with you: I GM as much as I play, and I'm generally more lenient than the GMs I play with in regards to this - a dichotomy I'm generally fine with, despite being quite attached to my characters (and despite often playing the highest INT/WIS character in the group).
Personally, as a GM, I'll handle things on a case-by-case basis. Much like Kryptic mentions, I'll generally hand wave once or twice, but if it becomes a habitual problem... well, then, it's usually time to talk to the player and make sure they understand their character. On the other hand, I've known extraordinarily... let's say "distracted"... people in real life, who, for various reasons, just have focusing problems. They love being at the table, they love the camaraderie, they love making the story, but it's genuinely difficult for them to remember things. It has little to do with taking notes, little to do with reading - they're just genuinely poor at comprehension and retention. And they're playing the cleric or wizard (or worse: Mystic Theurge!). When playing with them our group had a social contract that allowed for individuals' weaknesses to be overlooked. It was our play style and our personality and what we just non-verbally agreed to. So long as it wasn't a personal attempt to disrupt others (we had one of those, too) we were okay to have that every once in a while.
When/if I allow rewinds, I generally am fine with it if its basically at the end of your turn, before anyone else has gone, or, if they've gone, before the next set of dice are rolled. Even if you've rolled your dice, but forgotten bonuses or failed to do something, or even declared something, but didn't add your bonuses at the time, I'm generally fine. Also, like Bruunwald, if I, as GM, make a mistake that harms the players, that's on me and I own up to it: I generally work for the players more than I do for myself, after all. If, on the other hand, a number of rounds has passed, well, it's difficult to impossible to say. Depending on the enormity of what's happened or been forgotten, I'll certainly consider it*, but the vast majority of the time it's just too bad, and we go on with it.
Jeff also makes a great point: hero points (I've used "Fate Points" in the past) can make for excellent moments to try and pull through when all else fails.
Still, this basically falls into a personal preference, GMing and player style, and your local social contract. The OP asked for a personal preference and that's what we've got: personal preference.
Now the swarms were supposed to make it impossible to see, but he had several types of senses that basically let him target things anyway and have a decent comprehension of what was happening... within range. I thought I'd made this clear, but the player just didn't get it. In the midst of my involved descriptions - which the player enjoyed - I'd described the difficulty seeing, but since the player could perceive the monster well enough, he didn't understand that he had a limited range on his perception. When the monster "disappeared" he just kind of started looking around, and when it (using a super speed from outside his perception) slammed him, he died.
It was upsetting to say the least, and he questioned why he was flatfooted (which was the only reason he took enough damage to die from several hits) because he didn't realize he couldn't see. I'd described the difficulty seeing, but because he perceived things anyway, the he wasn't aware that his range was limited. So I had to carefully consider it. Eventually I reversed the round and allowed him to cast a spell to negate his flat-footedness instead of just "looking around" (there were a few critical hits which remained) and he survived the round and fled.
|
|
Here's the thing. I am a hand holding DM. I have a lot of patience. I will explain options repeatedly. I will write long handouts and then have to explain every bit of them to players who are just there to hang out and have a good time. I want my players to have fun so I let them have the level of involvement that they enjoy. I know my games are fun because players rarely miss them, even the most casual of the casual come to have fun.
I let my players discuss tactics in the middle of combat. I allow long out of character discussions to bring the less involved characters up to speed. If a player is about to do something bad for the character I make sure they know that. Every step of the way I try to make certain my players know the world and what is going on.
But after all that once their turn in combat is over then it is done. You need to wait till your next go round. I have 7 or 8 people here and one turn takes 30 minutes. You had plenty of time to consider all your options, you even changed your mind a few times on your turn and I was fine with that. But time's up. Turn's done.
One, I find it funny that you, Ravingdork, have a blind icon.
How insensitive. :P (I love you, man!)
(And I hope you're able to smooth things out with your fellow players re: your hearing.)
Two, there isn't a double standard between players and DMs. It's a spectrum. The player with one character and fewer responsibilities gets less leeway then the DM with 10x responsibilities (or more).
Frankly, that list of 250 lb. of equipment, as impressive as it is for a player, is nothing compared to what a DM deals with.
(And should probably be broken down into subsections re: type.)
Or wait, maybe there is a double standard because the DM's narration is the reality for PCs & NPCs alike, and if that narration is unclear, then yeah, it is much more important to rectify that than somebody's unfortunate action.
Note: I didn't see any DM's arguing they'd take back their NPC's actions, only their narrating errors.
Three, it's a role-playing game. Your success will depend on how well you can play your role. And, IMO, should. If the role is out of your ability to play, maybe you shouldn't play it.
This goes for DMs as well.
I'm not suggesting a low Int player shouldn't play a high Int PC (it IS a game of wish fulfillment), but the player's not being asked to emulate high Int or do nearly anything the PC does. He doesn't have to learn all the Kn. skills & magical theory or make excellent tactical choices in the framework of 6 seconds. He gets much longer, often can consult books, the DM, and fellow players. He has a very clear idea of friend, foe, and positioning and the game effects of terrain, probability of success at various endeavors, and so much more because it's a game system, and the PC doesn't know that. The player also has lists in front of him of his items and abilities, which probably haven't changed much from session to session, and isn't burdened by hunger/yearning for love/cuts/burns/poison/etc.
I'd say that makes up the difference.
You (example player) know you need to jump the wall to survive, and there's a decent chance you learned that on somebody else's turn. And you didn't note you had Boots of Speed? (An item specifically helpful in fleeing that you probably use very often.) Well, yeah, your PC suffers.
You're in fire form and you forget it gives you fire resistance? Yeah, your PC suffers.
You're in a tree and you start a campfire that burns you up? Well, that's the DM being a Dxxx and not doing his job of narrating (re-setting the scene).
"I start a fire."
"You're in a tree."
"Oh."
(If the wall was particularly high, and the player had the (honest) impression he could make the jump, I'd put the onus on the DM to reset the scene then too, before the attempt is made.
There's a decent chance, you being on fire, that I'd say "Really? Aren't you on fire?")
Now, as a DM, I most certainly remind players and re-set the scene for them as much as I can, especially with newbies where I might include their abilities, items, & status. But veterans? People into the game enough to post on Paizo?
Come on...play the game already. I'll be rooting for you, and yes, you might lose. And it might be because you did something a 'real' adventurer never would.
Four, expand the argument to other 'intelligences'. A 10th level fighter would know not to position himself to where he can get flanked & full-attacked by two world-class assassins. Does he get to take it back when they shank him to death?
It's just as legitimate an argument, and can be used for any choice made by the player that the PC wouldn't make.
Enough of this and PF loses many of its game qualities. (Which is a fine option, but not for me.)
Does the DM get to take it back when his monster with god-level Int makes a gaff? Not in most games. Does he get an 'out' because he doesn't have god-like Int himself? Not really.
Five, our group does do some retcon. When it'd be cheating not to, and the retcon makes things worse for the PCs. My players will step up when they've made a gaff in their own favor. "Oh, wait, I sold the Boots of Speed." Sometimes I'll handwave it away, sometimes I'll roll an extra smack against them, but the smooth flow of the 'timeline' is more important than going back.
Six, history is full of brilliant people dying for stupid choices, so there's no loss of verisimilitude.
Your PC gets to join the ranks of some very esteemed people. :)
Lastly, the PC is the player's puppet, and he gets to play him, and call upon his heroic strengths at will. But retroactively?
That is the puppet pulling his own strings.
JMK
P.S. On a more flip note, I can imagine a chess player saying "Oh, but my Queen actually would have known better..."
Edit: minor line change
I'm normally of the opinion of, if things go undeclared, then they go unused. The exception being of course passive buffs like haste which are always on for better and for worse.
On the flip-side, I'm willing to rectify things that happened multiple turns ago if it benefits my players, and I've been punishingly difficult, and if I something and it benefits the party I'm GMing in the end, then it stays forgotten. This is because I tend to ratchet up encounter difficulty significantly against my players, and then see where things go.
However I normally fix my mistakes by introducing new events into the mix, that way any mistakes I make are better hidden, and mistakes that the party make end up seeming like less of a big deal.
Still, this basically falls into a personal preference, GMing and player style, and your local social contract. The OP asked for a personal preference and that's what we've got: personal preference.
I seriously wish that I could + your post more than once. Thank you.
And Castilliano, you're sarcastic to the nth power. Impressive sure, but you kind of come across like a "Dxxx" as you put it. That's a good way to get people to shut their ears, so if that's not what you want, then I'd suggest trying a different approach.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I find it amusing that you talk about verisimilitude in the subject and original post, but expect the GM to effectively rewind things because you forgot something which IMO is terrible for immersion/ verisimilitude.
Once your turn is over, it's over.
I've been at a lot of cons where hearing the GM is a challenge, and while my hearing isn't so bad it requires a hearing aid I do have issues, particularly in those big rooms with lots of background noise so I sympathize. If a player says something which makes me think they didn't hear something I'll point it out. If the game has moved on to the next guys turn, then it's a bit to late to 'undo' something and we just move on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm still trying to figure out what asking a player to actually be prepared for a game and knowing what's on his character sheet has to do with moving boulders.You were saying that a character's mental stats don't matter, only the player's. I just applied it to the physical stats as well. /shrug
The character's mental stats are reflected as much as they ever will be in game mechanics. The ability to learn more languages, the ability to learn more powerful spells, the ability to KNOW more things, the ability to Perceive things, the ability to persuade a merchant.
Adding in some other mystery abilities for mental stats is pretty much impossible and certainly not something a GM can reasonably and fairly pull out of his hind end in a pinch.
If you feel seriously short changed by this then you can 'game' the system by playing low INT characters who slide by most of life using your mental stats and you can get one over on the GM!
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out what asking a player to actually be prepared for a game and knowing what's on his character sheet has to do with moving boulders.You were saying that a character's mental stats don't matter, only the player's. I just applied it to the physical stats as well. /shrug
Ok, seriously. 99% of the issue is player prep. And, again, if a player can't be bothered to know what his character has, what buff are running, etc, they're probably in the wrong hobby. When I dm I have a million things to track. A player has exactly one: his character.
Is it too much to ask that a player keep that one thing straight? And, if he forgets something, do drop it and just try to remember next time?
The "mental" v. "physical" stat deal is 100% irrelevant. If someone isn't invested in the game enough to keep track of what equipment a character has and what buffs are running, and wants to complain because he or she can't keep track, maybe they need to do something less involved, something more passive.
And, you know what? A character's mental stats don't matter when it comes to "remembering" a pair of boots of speed, or a potion, or anything like that. Just like their physcial stats are meaningless if they forget to add a mod to a skill. Once their turn is over and someone else goes, done is done.
I mean, you should see my character sheets. They have a ton of notations on them covering a bunch of contingencies (plusses against certain types of spells, favored enemy bonuses, etc). And, yeah, every once in a while I forget to add something. But, if the action is over, and something else has happened, oh, well, I goofed. I move on.
Again, the player has to demonstrate a degree of investment in his character. Know their equipment. It isn't the dm's or other player's jobs to keep track for them (with allowances for noobs and the like). "Oh, the character wouldn't have..." is a cop out. The character isn't going to do anything the player doesn't say he or she is doing. All the stats do are modify numbers for skills, saves, attacks, etc. They don't endow the character with "dm has to tell me the answers to riddles and remind me to activate my wonder twin powers" abilities.
|
|
For what it's worth, I'm surprised Derek is on this side of the argument, he complains that he should get compensated for not being as bright as the 7 INT barbarian he plays.
Barbarian?
It's a wizard. He can't cast spells or anything. I use him for roleplaying, because, you know, if he could do anything useful, I'd be an evil optimizer.
;-)
|
|
So, if a player acts TOO INTELLIGENT for their character, do I get too... cut their XP? Kill them outright? Ask them to drop their pants and bend over? Suggestions?You get to say "are you really sure your 7 Int barbarian is able to formulate an attack plan that complex?".
This is not a solution, this is an escalation of the problem, since if the player answers "well yes, sure", you're having a mid-game argument. An argument that's not a rules argument, not a setting argument, but an argument that's about what do Jim and John think about an unquantifiable quality (say, Charisma).
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
When I DM, my reaction to this is almost entirely based on *when* the ret-con happens. For example:
Player: I try to jump the pit. [rolls dice] That's a 19.
Me: Sorry, you just miss the edge and fall in. You take [roll] 5 points of damage as you slam into the wall of the pit and then fall to the bottom.
Player: Ouch. Oh, wait, hang on a sec -- I have boots of speed! I should have made that check!
In my mind, the above situation is OK. It's something the PC probably would have remembered, and we only have to "rewind" the player's turn. On the other hand, I would be less likely to allow a change in the following situation:
Player: I try to jump the pit. [rolls dice] That's a 19.
Me: Sorry, you just miss the edge and fall in. You take [roll] 5 points of damage as you slam into the wall of the pit and then fall to the bottom.
Player: Ouch. OK, well, I guess that's all I can do this turn.
Me: OK, the evil wizard begins casting a spell. Suddenly, thick webs begin to form over the --
Player: Wait! I just remembered that I have boots of speed! I should have made that check!
Though the below scenario is hypothetical only, I have had similar experiences on more than one occasion:
An extremely intelligent character (an alchemist perhaps), fleeing from an enemy, attempts to climb a wall. He makes a successful climb check and, due to only being able to move 1/4 his speed, falls just short of making it over. His enemy catches up to him and...
Player: Oh wait! I have boots of speed! Had I activated those than I would have had more than enough movement to get over the wall and to safety! My character, being so intelligent, would never forget something so simple.
GM: Sorry, but no. You've already made the climb check, expended the movement, and we've practically started the NPC's turn.
Player: But it doesn't make any logical in-game sense to do it that way. My character bought these boots specifically to escape situations such as this. He shouldn't be punished because I momentarily forgot about them out of game.
***
I have had GMs rule in my favor, as well as against me, in similar situations. I'm curious to know how you feel on the matter, both as a player and as a GM.
Would you let a player go back "just a little" to preserve verisimilitude? Would you be upset if your GM made your smart/wise/charismatic character look like a dumb schmuck just because you had a momentary brain-fart?
Just how much might you let slide? Would you slide back momentarily if the player only remembered in the middle of someone else's turn? Would you let the change actions altogether (possibly forcing re-rolls of some kind) if it made more sense to do so from the character's perspective? Where should a GM draw the line? In what situations should a player speak up, or shut up?
I have a problem with this because there is an obfuscation between raw intellect (INT) and common sense (WIS). This is often the case as a player is attempting to get the upper hand. As an associated issue with this, the players that seem most likely to attempt this are also the ones who "dump" stats. How many strong will save characters have a high WIS stat when it doesn't effect spellcasting?
Albert Einstein was a genius, that's not up for debate. I have heard stories of him showing up for work with his underwear on outside of his trousers. He also had a tendency to wander around campus in the winter without a coat. Raw intelligence is not an answer for everything. Gamers to often make this argument, they place to high of a value on single stats and believe that one preternaturally high stat will cover the weaknesses of the others.
Verisimilitude is a term that gets bandied about to often by players that are justifying their over optimized SAD builds. This is a role playing game, forgetting a mathematical modifier is just a part of playing a role. Play it to the hilt. When the modifiers start to overrride the game with record keeping and force to many "do-overs" it's time to reevaluate the game your playing in, that's where verisimilitude comes into play.
Personally I have two cardinal rules on this which have settled out over decades of play experience as the fairest balance;
1: No backtracking UNLESS there has been a longer than usual break between games; a new player has taken over an established character, or they are new to the rules system, or indeed roleplaying. Three games is enough of a grace period for newbies - and they are told about this in advance.
2: Backtracking by me (as GM) is ONLY allowed when it favours the PC's - i.e. I have shafted them unintentionally with a mistake. Mistakes in their favour are 'bad guy' misteps and I do my level best to weave them into the plot as seemlessly as possible.
I really do feel if you deviate far wide of these in either direction you open yourself up to claims of favouritism or unfairness which are both game-killers.
... I have 7 or 8 people here and one turn takes 30 minutes. ...
See, karkon, that's the thing. I believe you're a perfectly good GM, kind or whatever you need to be, however that's part of your social contract. ALSO you have seven or eight people - that's going to change the nature of a social contract because, in your situation, there's a lot more riding on a single character's actions and decisions than normal. I've GM'd the super-large groups (the largest one I ever had was twelve, they instantly split up, and we proceeded to have three parties of four, two of which were at cross-purposes with one another at the opposite ends of the city), and so I understand: people are waiting.
What I certainly would never advocate is that a GM alter their style to match with mine. Mine works because of my group set up and our social contract. Yours works with yours. That's great. And honestly, just because I allow some take-backs doesn't mean I'd allow all. That's another thing I see here: a tendency to presume the "slippery slope" argument, that is if certain things are allowed once, they should be allowed again and more frequently and so on until nothing holds anymore.
Again, this goes back to a case-by-case basis. Honestly, I backtrack very little, but I can, on occasion do so.
I argue that this is not so... depending entirely on your group. For my current group, the "slippery slope" holds about as much water as a sieve - that is none at all. For a group I used to GM for - at least for certain players, on the other hand, I couldn't so much as blink without them pointing out that I had precedent in the past that allowed me not to blink, ergo I shouldn't have this time either. Again, this all falls to social contract: each group has their own play style run by their own GM who may or may not be forgiving or mean, and those to appellations, much like alignment, certainly have meaning, but far less weight (in some ways) than we generally hold (and, conversely, far more weight in others).
Saying "I do X" or "I don't do Y" just "because I'm kind" or "because I value Z" is accurate... but also misleading.
It would be like someone claiming to be a Hellknight or Paladin (or both!) because they're Lawful Good. This could be entirely accurate, but just because they're Lawful Good doesn't mean that they must be any class or organization in particular (even though it was their personal understanding of their alignment that led them to becoming what they are), rather the alignment informs them of a part of who they are and they make decisions based off of their core (which may or may not include a specific set of actions, but rather a broad generalization.
I firmly believe that many people who disagree with me are perfectly excellent people who just happen to have the misfortune of disagreeing with me. :D
I seriously wish that I could + your post more than once. Thank you.
Wow! Thanks!
Player preparation and investment
I agree... to an extent.
However:* Some players really are there just for the fun of hanging out with friends and enjoying a decent story, but their lack of immediate memory could harm their friends' characters - in this case, as a casual gamer, it's harder for them to get into the fine details and harming everyone else for their particular mien isn't my style
* Some players have real life things that weigh in on them and actually cause them to be absent minded, misunderstand, or have other communication problems or cause them to otherwise fail to take full advantage of their abilities.
In both of these situations, its fundamentally unfair and rather unpleasant to all involved to be so iron-handed. Have I run into those cases? Not often. But it does happen (and I've run into the latter more often with work or school than with games - it has a definite impact there, too).
A game's primary function is to be fun. Penalizing someone isn't always fun. Sometimes it is. Sometimes "fun" can be greater if tragedy or frustrations happen and sometimes not. Similarly, I let characters die, but I don't play to kill them. It's all part of our social contract. I don't really see anything wrong with the way you guys play, but similarly, I don't see anything wrong with the way we play. I might very well enjoy playing with you guys some day. That'd be pretty cool! Let me know if you're ever in central Florida. :)
|
|
First, I love the term social contract. I use it all the time to explain to troublesome players why they need to play nice. I don't care if that is what your character would do. Make a character who plays better with others.
Like you said our social contract is different. As a DM I am very player friendly but when it comes to keeping my game running smoothly I am iron fisted. My players appreciate that and it works for us.
Second, I was not arguing slippery slope. I was arguing domino effect in cases where other players have taken actions to help another player's character. If I retcon that initial mistake then I have a bunch of actions that need retcon.
About the OP:
I think there are different situations at stakes here.
1) The player forgets about activating an effect that his/her character possess.
2) The player forgets about an effect that was already active.
3) The player fails to realise something about the immediate surroundings of his/her character that would have been obvious for the character but not necessarily to the player via a narrated scene (which may or may not be the GM's fault).
Personally, I tend to be lenient about #1 since I acknowledge that the character has different priorities and its realities are different from that of the player, regardless of the character Intelligence or Wisdom scores.
Keeping track of points should rely wholly on the player. I usually allow the effect to take action immediately but not retroactively. That being said, I try to catch any mistake or slip as they happen so that no backtracking should ever be needed.
I'm pretty generous about #3 as I take it upon myself as a DM to make sure that the players have a good grasp of what's going on.
'findel
Second, I was not arguing slippery slope. I was arguing domino effect in cases where other players have taken actions to help another player's character. If I retcon that initial mistake then I have a bunch of actions that need retcon.
I stand corrected! :)
I fully agree that a domino effect can certainly have problems. But again, that's a situational thing.
As a DM I iften times if I see one of my players:
1. Doing something dumb
2. Forgetting to use an item
3. Misunderstanding a scenario
4. About to step on a trap
I ask them to roll an Int, Wis, , engineering, perception (etc.) check.
If I don't see my players making the mistakes however I hesitate to allow them to go back and change their actions. Often times (not always) it's not a matter of life and death and going back will only slow down the game.
As a player if I forget to do something I just accept it and roll with the punches. The truth of the matter is players do dumb things all the time but the only time 99% of us complain is when it works against us. Rarely do you hear a player say "Oh wait I did my math wrong the dragon isn't dead. Let's go back and see what it does on it's turn. I believe it was readying a breath weapon"
For the backtracking, I don't allow it, generally. Especially not in a situation as you've described. But I do sometimes allow it if/when I (the GM) have made a major oversight or mistake, or misunderstood the player's intent. Never when the player just didn't think of something.How is that not a double standard? The GM can backtrack when he makes a mistake, but the players can't? That's nothing if not unfair.
On another note: What if it was a passive thing the player forgot about, something that wouldn't be effected by choice. Say, example, the character had 40 foot movement (enough to get over the wall), but the player, having been accustomed to 30-foot speed character, simply forgot and should never have been on the wrong side of the wall.
What if an attack hits the character because the player forgot that he was the beneficiary of haste? What if he, moments later after damage has been applied, tells the GM he forgot about the extra +1. That's not something the character can choose or not choose to activate. Once haste is cast, it effects the game world. Period.
I don't backtrack as a GM. If I forget to cast defensively I tell my players to take the AoO. I don't announce to my players that I am casting defensively, but when I genuinely forget such things I just have to suck it up.
I might allow a player to backtrack if his turn is still in progress, but I also tell him not to expect it again. Once the next player's turn starts then the player is out of luck though.
Bookkeeping is a part of the game, and a player should not expect to be allowed to go back and fix things.