I think one can play a game and not meta-game. An example is someone playing the same AP twice because it was cut short the first time around.That's my point.
It is rare however that someone reads ahead intentionally without using the knowledge.Perhaps you read it for fun, not expecting the opportunity to play it (I've heard lots of people do this with adventures). Later on, the opportunity to play it comes up. You have intentionally read ahead. You did not intend to use this knowledge to your advantage. Why should you be banned from playing if you are able to divorce character and player knowledge?
The second sentence was akin to someone reading a module/AP that they are playing in.
Example:I am a player in your group for Skulls & Shackles so I begin to read it. I may not use the information, but most people reading ahead like that don't have good intentions in my experience.
I'm sorry for getting too confrontational. I just think that, unless the AP/module was read with metagaming as the specific intent, cheating is too strong a word for the action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then don't call me selfish and accuse me of ruining everything, and I won't harp at you.
...or maybe you could just roleplay that we didn't.
|
Reading a ap may not be metagaming to you,but its like a judge ruling on a case he has a personal interest in.You should excuse yourself immediately as you cannot really tell how much what you do know will color your reactions.I would love to read second darkness but I cannot as it would cheat me of the three modules we havent finished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An old DM of mine related a story once about how he was running one of the original 1e modules (I don't recall which one) and the players were a) using their out-of-game knowledge to deal with the module and; b) when he started changing things on the fly, called him on it.
The DM ignored their complaints, and continued changing things on the fly. Finally, at the end of the session, when the players were up in arms, he said:
"Anyway, you're all dead. At the beginning of the module, you didn't post a sentry while you were asleep. A mind flayer came into your camp and mindblasted you. This whole adventure was just a group dream as you all were immobilized by the illithids and now they've eaten your brains. Please don't come back to my house."
Hee hee!
I'm sorry for getting too confrontational. I just think that, unless the AP/module was read with metagaming as the specific intent, cheating is too strong a word for the action.
I think the use of the word "cheating" has been thrown around too generally. Another view: when you read an adventure ahead of time, you're cheating yourself as well. You already know the solutions to the puzzles. You already know which NPC's are secretly villains. You already know the secret to defeating the Big Bad. You already know the ending. Why would you even bother playing an adventure you already read?
Now, the other perspective: I seriously challenge you to walk up to a DM, any DM, about to run a module and tell them "Hey, I've read this adventure cover to cover, can I play?"
Bring a camera. The look on their face will be priceless.
Even if they let you play, you can expect them to be keeping an eye on your every movement. I know as a DM, I sure as hell would. Why would you want to play in a game like that?
I had a player of this nature, I emphasize the word HAD...his entire gaming experience before me was the 3 to 3.5 transition...and he never understood the concept of roleplay, for him it was all about roll-playing. I took my group to Pathfinder, and down a more immerse path into roleplaying, as that's what I believe the game is, only to listen to him week in week out whine that I just ignored what the books said was supposed to happen. I think my final straw was catching him scanning through my notes one night when he thought I wasn't watching the room. We knew he had been reading the other player's character sheets, but looking over my notes, no way was that going to fly.
I had a player of this nature, I emphasize the word HAD...his entire gaming experience before me was the 3 to 3.5 transition...and he never understood the concept of roleplay, for him it was all about roll-playing. I took my group to Pathfinder, and down a more immerse path into roleplaying, as that's what I believe the game is, only to listen to him week in week out whine that I just ignored what the books said was supposed to happen. I think my final straw was catching him scanning through my notes one night when he thought I wasn't watching the room. We knew he had been reading the other player's character sheets, but looking over my notes, no way was that going to fly.
Unfortunately it seems like there is a player like this in every state in the union and everywhere else as well. For some reason they've gotten it into their heads that "winning" is the goal of playing an RPG. Some people like to blame video games, others like to blame 4e. Really, as far as I can tell, none of those things are the root cause. Unfortunately there are people who have an uncontrollable desire to "be better" than whomever they are with, or whatever they are doing. Think of all the sore losers from your childhood. The kids who would whine and complain that something wasn't fair, and that's why they lost the soccer game at recess. These are the kids that grow up to be your cheater/no fun gamers. What's even more sad, is that, from my experience, these types of gamers seem to surface much more in the RPG hobby, than they do in, say, chess clubs, or board game clubs. What is it about RPGs that invites this kind of player, I wonder?
Seems to me that Pathfinder APs leave lots of room for customization and are even expected to be run a little different from group to group. Also seems to me that if you're reading AP chapters as a player, you're either deluding yourself or just making it harder on yourself.
Sure, I could read Kingmaker ch 5. My DM wouldn't care and he certainly wouldn't post a complaint about it. Why would I do it, though? I rather like not knowing what's going to happen.
I hearken back to the example houstonderek set -- it sort of changed my mind about a lot of this. I had converted one of the old Slave Lords modules to Kirthfinder. One scene in, Derek confides, "I've run this module enough times that I have it memorized. But I can turn that part of my brain off." I appreciated his honesty, and invited him to stay. We played the adventure. He didn't ruin anything for anyone. The other players (youngsters who don't remember the old "A" series) all had a nice time. No harm was done in any way. No kittens were killed. No unicorns had their horns ripped off as a result of this horrid, blatant, and egregious metagame-fest. So all the yelling of "NO! IT RUINS EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE WRONGWRONGWRONG!!!!!!!!!" is something I can sympathize with -- I believed it, too, until I saw it work out differently. Now, however, I really have to agree with Kelsey on this one.
Yeah, you might not get to solve the riddle, if there is one. You let the other players do that -- share the spotlight, in other words -- which is a good thing to do now and then anyway. As long as you don't spoil things for the other players, and as long as it doesn't destroy your own enjoyment, I don't see the problem.
I'll admit that I intentionally didn't read any of "Second Darkness" when Derek said he was running it; that's my choice. I've read "Legacy of Fire," but would still be happy to play in it, if the opportunity came up -- but obviously not with most of the people here, who apparently view that as a moral failing and a captal crime of some kind, judging from some of the responses.
I had read through hollow last hope when my brother decided he wanted to run it and I said I have read it and he still wanted to run it but I was playing three characters. I didn't remember specific details about adventure but remembered some of the plot but basically what teh purpose of the adventure was. I still had fun but it did not bother him. Being a small town knowing about the npcs in town did not break my suspension of disbelief.
I think it depends on teh type of adventure as well. It is worse in a mystery investigation type adventure or one with lots of traps.
I've played in two separate run throughs of Red Hand of Doom. While the second one was ended early in frustration, it wasn't due to metagaming. Rather, it was due to the other players being dicks with evil PCs with unbalanced racial templates. :/
I'm running that one for a group right now. It's one of my first real attempts to run a module longer than a one-nighter, so it's been a bit frustrating, but still fun. One thing I'm not really liking though, is that it makes some pretty heavy-handed assumptions about what direction the players are going to go. My group has consistently diverted from the intended path and have me constantly back-pedalling and ad-libbing trying to keep the adventure together. Those little sidebar text boxes that have the "just in case" wording, we've pretty much gone down every one of those. I can't wait to get back to homebrews and one-off adventures, personally.
Heck, I'd challenge a player to read this adventure and try and correct my changes. It reads like stereo instructions as is.
It does have something of a 'script' feel to it, doesn't it?
Sure does. Like when interacting with the NPC's, my players ask none of the pre-scripted questions, so when I try and negotiate what they say and answer with the written responses, they're always a bit off, so more ad-libbing and such. I don't have much experience running anything longer than a one-nighter adventure, everything else I do is homebrew, so it's been quite the exercise.
The players call their party; "Everything we touch, dies", which is wonderful considering all the capturing of enemy troops that the book assumes...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as the player isn't spoiling the action or surprises for any of the other players, I don't mind them having read the adventure in the past. But I do expect that players won't be reading the module at the same time they are playing it. I think it's entirely fair for a DM to have that expectation no matter what the player's past history with the published materials are.
Summary:
Have read it before, OK
Read it after, OK
Read it during, please control yourself.
Is it all right if I read it beforehand and bring a crib sheet?
But seriously, If you've got a small gaming group with revolving DMs, the "But I can turn that part of my brain off," approach is the only way you get to play.
Mind you, a disappointed player going off and reading an adventure just to call back and rules-lawyer is the not a workable situation IMO.
|
I've read "Legacy of Fire," but would still be happy to play in it, if the opportunity came up -- but obviously not with most of the people here, who apparently view that as a moral failing and a capital crime of some kind, judging from some of the responses.
Same here. Both myself and several of my friends have run through Keep on the Borderlands three or four times, without meta-gaming ever being a problem.
We all have such different GMing styles (I change *everything*, for instance, just because I like rebuilding encounters), that it would probably be more dangerous to try to meta-game, anyway...
Same here. Both myself and several of my friends have run through Keep on the Borderlands three or four times, without meta-gaming ever being a problem.
I can imagine it would have been a Herculean task, what with the deep and complicated plot and the surprising twists and turns of the myriad NPC's you need to negotiate to solve the mysteries of the Caves of Chaos...
:P
In all fairness, Keep on the Borderlands is a beer & pretzels experience for a bunch of friends chucking dice and having a laugh, akin to watching a favourite movie you all saw a hundred times, and is more about light entertainment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You bring the movie, I'll bring the beer and chips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe someone would complain about that sort of thing. I think I would be driven insane if I couldn't explore an area or check something because "it's not written" or if nothing reacted to crazy decisions because "the writers didn't account for it". He might as well be playing a pen and paper video game. Don't get me wrong, I love video games but I come to table top games with expecting the ability to do the unexpected. You can't do that with video games because you'll break them.
It's a GM's job to keep the game fun and challenging, and if everyone just runs by the modules "by the book" there is no accounting for different party compositions or sizes. It can become easy to "break" make "too challenging" or "too easy" which can lead to boredom or frustration.
I don't think it has anything to do with 4th edition, it's just a player who came to the table expecting the GM to be just a processor for the game thinking it was entirely analogous to video game except on pen and paper. I guess he didn't think a GM was supposed to be there to account for challenge disparity and unexpected actions; which probably explains why he had such a hard time GMing his own game.
Stuff
You sound like a talented GM and a very patient guy. (Much more patient than me, if my players read my AP I'd freak out and probably quit. Or kill a PC or two. Heh. :) ).
Keep doing what you're doing, and I hope you enjoyed your venting session. :)
|
Sorry to disagree with you so totally, but it is the DM's game and he can do what he wants. Unless you're planning to prepare for encounters ahead of time (and therefore cheat), why does it matter that the AP/module has been changed?My personal opinion on this is that it's fine to change whatever you like however you like, as long as your flyer (or whatever) says "Come play in my Pathfinder game!" and not "Come play in the ORIGINAL, THE ONE, THE ONLY, TOMB OF HORRORS!!!"
If you do that, and then you're like "Oh, except there's 90% less traps and it's full of skeletons because I really like skeletons", and then you're like "RRRAGH I AM THE DM I CAN DO WHAT I WANT!!", that I have a huge problem with.
All my own personal opinion.
It's OK, you're allowed to disagree.
A lot of the time people forget that players matter, too. Like, if a player wants to play through Tomb Of Horrors (adapted, let's say, but still as close to the original as possible), and the GM instead runs Tomb Of Horrors But With 90% Less Traps™ and doesn't tell anyone, he's not doing anybody a service. The player walks away with misconceptions about one of the greatest RPG supplements of all time, with battle stories that won't line up at all with those of his friends who have played the actual version of the module. He thinks he's played it, but he hasn't. I could draw half a hundred analogies for this, but I am sure I don't need to. It's essentially depriving the player of what they signed up for.
Before I get badwrongfun thrown at me, if everybody still has fun anyway, great. Great! But the player still hasn't played ToH. He's had that experience denied him by his GM, who falsely advertised what the deliverable would be.
As Wraith said: Substitute an enemy ranger for a barbarian, no big deal. And I completely agree. But give the players what they signed up for, otherwise you're not doing them any favors.
|
Sorry to disagree with you so totally, but it is the DM's game and he can do what he wants. Unless you're planning to prepare for encounters ahead of time (and therefore cheat), why does it matter that the AP/module has been changed?It's OK, you're allowed to disagree.
A lot of the time people forget that players matter, too. Like, if a player wants to play through Tomb Of Horrors (adapted, let's say, but still as close to the original as possible), and the GM instead runs Tomb Of Horrors But With 90% Less Traps™ and doesn't tell anyone, he's not doing anybody a service. The player walks away with misconceptions about one of the greatest RPG supplements of all time, with battle stories that won't line up at all with those of his friends who have played the actual version of the module. He thinks he's played it, but he hasn't. I could draw half a hundred analogies for this, but I am sure I don't need to. It's essentially depriving the player of what they signed up for.
And I think, there is the key-- to restate your opinion (as I understand it)-- it is okay for the GM to change whatever he/she wants in a module he/she is using for the game, but if the GM is making major changes, the GM should be reasonably straight-forward that while he/she may be using a published module it is (or may be, anyway) heavily modified for the individual game, rather than run straight-up. One should only state that he/she is running that module/adventure path (without any qualifications attached to that statement), if he/she is running it relatively unmodified.
If that's what you meant-- I agree with you, and I do see the point that the players should be informed (particularly with famous and/or infamous adventures) if they've played it basically as written or not in your game (if they want to know-- if the understanding is that your players don't really care about that, then "no harm, no foul" on any changes you make).
Stuff
Let me get this straight: A player did something of questionable wisdom, a TPK ensued and now your player is ticked off? Could it be that your player is really just ticked off about the TPK?
Maybe the player just needs to chill out, and be smarter next time. Or maybe he has a legitimate complaint; maybe your adventure adjustments have turned a challenging module into a "Bring at least five replacement PCs" adventure. I don't know, but it sounds like this isn't really about "how it's written" at all.
That player, and others like him, are the exception, not the rule. Any player who tells the DM how the adventure is supposed to go is missing the entire point of the game, and has no place in a roleplaying game.
I hope that didn't discolor your opinion of modern gaming in general. It certainly has changed over the years, but don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch.
Yeah. I have some old timers playing with me, but I also have kids in their 20s in a couple of my groups. They're smart kids, and great roleplayers.
They don't have the problems mentioned by the OP. I think it has to do with the level of intelligence and the cooperative spirit and desire for challenge and drama that come with it.
A smart player with a good attitude will listen to you when you tell them it is your original world you're playing in, or that you have altered a pre-written adventure to mix it up. He will understand what metagaming is, and help you avoid it. These people exist. You just have to recognize them and appreciate them when you find them.
He had drawn attention to the party which I then used to start the fight in that area. Creatures where already in that area and it would have been the party perception vs creature stealth. I hadnt changed the creatures' stats or added more of them.
Sounds like he just needs to chill out then.
I had asked him at least 3 times if that was the action he wanted to take, to which he replied yes. The rest of the party took precautions and had weapons out. 6 party members with full health/spells vs 2 creatures with a lower CR rating then the party.
Fight started after his rookie mistake, party was spread out by thier choosing that left thier healer and wizard unprotected. The creatures attacked and dropped the healer and wizard then the rest of the party. Didnt help that the creatures also crit several times either, but results would have been the same.
I am curious about this fight though. What exactly did this Zap Brannigan PC do to draw the two monsters? And I know that the CR system is pretty sketchy, but how did two lower-CR baddies take out six [albeit poorly positioned] PCs? They must have been crit-lucky, and then some!
|
|
I believe that there would be only one reason that it would matter to a player that a DM has made changes to an AP/module, and that is because the player has read that AP/module, and is expecting it to have specific traps/encounters/treasures, etc.
Nah, there are other reasons. Gamers talk, you know. If my buddy says to me (again, keeping the example I've used) "Man, ToH is BRUTAL. There have to be traps every 2 rooms at minimum, and they are KILLER traps. One misstep and you're a corpse ressurectable only by a Wish!", and I think to myself "Neat, I want to play in a game like that!" and then I see a GM advertising a ToH game and there are two traps the whole way through with attainable Save DC's...see where I'm going here? I'm going to be surprised, but not in a good way.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that upsetting those expectations is part of a DM's responsibility to give his players a new and exciting experience. If you already know the plot, then you're not going to be surprised. If they need to know if changes have been made to the text, they can find out after it's over.
I actually don't disagree with you entirely - for instance, if someone in the group HAS read the module, or even played the module before - then yes, absolutely. It's now the GM's duty to provide a new and exciting experience. However, any such modifications should probably be as true to the original as possible while maintaining the tone and theme of the original module. Swap a barbarian for a ranger. Change the trigger for a crucial trap to a slightly different mechanism. Put the secret door on the opposite wall. That sort of thing. Don't, like, put it in a different Plane with totally different antagonists end-to-end. Or rather, don't do so without warning your group.
I had a player ask me why I don't allow rings of sustenance in my game. My response was that I want to be able to catch the characters sleeping. He was shocked by that, until another player pointed out that a game where you're always ready for the encounter is bo-o-o-ring.
Maybe others don't have a problem with reading ahead, but I don't run boring games. My players will attest to that.
Fair enough, although the connection between not being able to shorten rest periods and having read ahead in a module seems tenuous at best. Those things both mean "I'm always ready for the encounter", but one means "I have all my managed resources intact so my character is ready for the encounter" and one means "I know what's around the corner so I personally am ready for the encounter". But I get what you're saying here.
And I will make changes to APs and modules that are "the greatest RPG supplements of all time". Because, since they're so famous, at least one of my players will have read them.
And I'm planning to catch that player by surprise.
That's fine, as long as you realize that you're decreasing the level of authenticity (though not necessarily enjoyment) experienced by the other players somewhat in order to do so. If that's not a big deal for them, great. If you're playing the "what they don't know won't hurt them" angle, that I cannot agree with you on, but I wish you luck with it.
The thing is, when I play a Gygax module, 85% of what makes it awesome is that it was written by Gygax. I'm sure you're a good GM - really, I am, you're articulate and thoughtful and I appreciate that a great deal and those are qualities found in great GMs - but no matter how wonderfully you might alter ToH, when I'm done I'll have played an adventure written by Gary Gygax (except where re-written by Jerry Wright), and that's not quite the same thing. To think that it happened that way because Tom over there read the module one time would irk me, personally. To conclude, I very well might have fun playing in that hypothetical adventure. I want to be clear on that. I'm not claiming badwrongfun.
|
|
A smart player with a good attitude will listen to you when you tell them it is your original world you're playing in, or that you have altered a pre-written adventure to mix it up. He will understand what metagaming is, and help you avoid it. These people exist. You just have to recognize them and appreciate them when you find them.
This. Precisely this.
Now, the other perspective: I seriously challenge you to walk up to a DM, any DM, about to run a module and tell them "Hey, I've read this adventure cover to cover, can I play?"
Bring a camera. The look on their face will be priceless.
Even if they let you play, you can expect them to be keeping an eye on your every movement. I know as a DM, I sure as hell would. Why would you want to play in a game like that?
I'd have no problem letting someone play who knew the adventure backwards (and have done so as it happens). I dont have any problem with people taking advantage of their knowledge either - if that's how they get their fun, who am I to tell them it's wrong? My only problem would be if the other players werent enjoying it. Then there'd be a problem, but that's not specifically related to this behaviour - there's always a problem if one player is reducing the fun of the others.
I find the whole charge of 'cheating' odd - it seems to me to be an implicit statement that there's a 'right way' to play. In fact, it depends on what the players (DM included) want to get out of a game. If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?
I find the whole charge of 'cheating' odd - it seems to me to be an implicit statement that there's a 'right way' to play. In fact, it depends on what the players (DM included) want to get out of a game. If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?
Whether or not there's a right way to play, I do believe there are wrong ways to play. For the most part, the wrong way to play is the way that contravenes your individual table's expectations and standards. If the table's expectation is that you aren't reading ahead in the module, then doing so is the wrong way to play for that table. That's an implicit assumption at the tables I run (implicit because I've frankly never encountered any player who gave the opposite impression). A player may have read something or played it in the past, but I expect them not to be doing so while playing it.
If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?You make the assumption that he's just "playing out a part".
In my experience, it takes an extraordinary player to be able to let his character act as if he doesn't know what's coming. It takes a tremendous amount of concentration to keep yourself from subconsciously preparing for it.
And it takes even greater concentration to keep from alerting your companions of the fact that something is about to jump them.
And you assume that they can't withhold information or play a character not prepared for it.
I've been in games where someone will roll a good perception check. I'll know that they're aware of something, but for some reason they don't tell the rest of the party. (And I'll play my character out as being surprised, because I failed the perception check)
Depending on the situation holding back information can be better or worse. Some people can do it, some people can't. The more boastful or gamey a player is, the more likely they'll spoil or take advantage of the secrets, but not everybody is like that.
Unfortunately, yes.
Just take a look around even these forums. You'll see RAW (rules as written) arguments for just about everything, even when common sense dictates that RAW is wrong.
It seems a lot of people have forgotten about the other golden rule that "The GM is always right."
Not only have they forgotten but many actually think DM Fiat is a bad word. The players are empowered but many don't want to step up and run, they want to control the game from the player's seat.
Out of player knowledge should be challenged...Ask the players how they know that, make knowledge rolls, don't let them act on Player knowledge...
I have a few groundwork rules when I GM:
1. If I am running a pre-published adventure you may NOT read the module during the campaign.
2. You may NOT look at the monster you are curently fighting in a monster manual.
3. If your character seems to have a supernatural knowledge of what is coming I will make you give me a REAL good explination, or do something else. (I will also ask you about rule 1)
4. I WILL listen to your gripes about my DM Fiats or even my interpretation of the RAW, but NOT during the gaming session.
5. I will not explain my NPC's seemingly "made up" spells which purely add flavor to the game, and do not affect your character in a negative way at all. It's fun for me and makes my NPCs more interesting.
6. In cases where I do not know the RAW, I will allow some time at the table for players to look up a combat mechanic or further clarification on a rule (my players seem to actually enjoy this) but when I say "ok that's enough, we will do it the way I think it should be done this time and look up the RAW later" I mean it! Drop it! Take it up later when 5 other people aren't waiting for their turn.
There are others but these seem to come up the most often.
That being said I am a bit of a stickler for the RAW. I stick to them as closely as I possibly can. I am referring to the rules not plot events in a module. I can change a story however I want or replace a mob with a different one of equal CR if I gol-dang want to!
One reason I am so obssesive about it is fariness. I play with guys who are extreme power gamers, I will take every advantage and opprotunity I can to give their characters hell, because they will damn sure do the same to my NPC's. With the power granted to a GM it would be to easy to be "unfairly" hard on the PCs if I didn't limit myself with the RAW. I am asking them to stay within the rules, it seems only fair that I do the same.
Another reason is because, quite simply, the guys who wrote the RAW are smarter than me. They tested and tested and tested these rules and then tested them some more. They understand what balanced and "fair" means in mathematical and system terms far better than I. I don't have to second guess "Is that really fair to everyone?" if I simply follow the rules in the book.
Of course I do not have a cyclopedic memory and I have not memorized every rule in the book. Therefore I occasionally have to make up something that seems fair at the time and research the RAW for official guidance later.
When I do cheat it is by FAR usually in the players favor. For example in a recent campaign my players had to retrieve an ancient scimitar for it was the only weapon that could defeat the terrible Vaorin (jabberwock). I gave this sword lotsa cool powers because it was a quest item and wouldn't really be used in play so balance wasn't really an issue. Long story short I ended up having to add even MORE powers to it to keep the campaign on track, it even resurrected a character once! I cheated in the players favor in this case.
If I had a player like in the OP. I would have handled it similarly. You can gripe at me, you can point out rules that would have helped your case, and I will listen and consider them. I will not however, accept criticism because i added a plot event or changed up a dungeon from what is written in the module. If after I explained this to him, he still didn't drop it, I would ask hime to leave the group, plain and simple.
TL;DR- In the end I fully support the golden rule, the DM is always right, and don't worry, your chance to DM and show me how it SUPPOSED to be done, is coming up soon!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An old DM of mine related a story once about how he was running one of the original 1e modules (I don't recall which one) and the players were a) using their out-of-game knowledge to deal with the module and; b) when he started changing things on the fly, called him on it.
The DM ignored their complaints, and continued changing things on the fly. Finally, at the end of the session, when the players were up in arms, he said:
"Anyway, you're all dead. At the beginning of the module, you didn't post a sentry while you were asleep. A mind flayer came into your camp and mindblasted you. This whole adventure was just a group dream as you all were immobilized by the illithids and now they've eaten your brains. Please don't come back to my house."
Hee hee!
That is gold pressed latinum right there! Anyway, you're all dead... Please don't come back to my house. Rofl.
If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?You make the assumption that he's just "playing out a part".
In my experience, it takes an extraordinary player to be able to let his character act as if he doesn't know what's coming. It takes a tremendous amount of concentration to keep yourself from subconsciously preparing for it.
And it takes even greater concentration to keep from alerting your companions of the fact that something is about to jump them.
I'm not assuming anything (and given the DM has a problem with the behavior, my view is that there's clearly a problem). Also, fwiw, I wouldn't have a problem even if they did act on their knowledge (provided it doesn't impact on the other players' enjoyment).
I was objecting to the label of cheating (via a hypothetical) nothing more.
Whether or not there's a right way to play, I do believe there are wrong ways to play. For the most part, the wrong way to play is the way that contravenes your individual table's expectations and standards. If the table's expectation is that you aren't reading ahead in the module, then doing so is the wrong way to play for that table. That's an implicit assumption at the tables I run (implicit because I've frankly never encountered any player who gave the opposite impression). A player may have read something or played it in the past, but I expect them not to be doing so while playing it.
I find the whole charge of 'cheating' odd - it seems to me to be an implicit statement that there's a 'right way' to play. In fact, it depends on what the players (DM included) want to get out of a game. If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?
That was exactly my point:
"In fact, it depends on what the players (DM included) want to get out of a game."
I don't think one should leap to the conclusion someone is cheating if they act in a way contrary to your unstated assumptions. One should state them. It's pretty much always right to talk about things like this prior to passing judgement, in my view.
Well, slogged my way through -- omg, was it 70 new posts?
One of the questions I ask before I run a published module, rather than a homebrew I cooked up in my spare time, is 'have you played/read this already?' If the answer is 'yes,' even on one or two of my players, I'll usually pass on running it, because like JW307 posted just a bit ago, people are lousy about not pre-reacting to what they know is coming. (Me, too; I tried playing through the Hidden Shrine of Timoachan[sp?] back in the day, but I owned it, had read it, and it was just too trap/puzzle heavy an adventure to not hit it unknowing.)
And if the answer is 'no,' and I THEN get static about 'that's not how it's written,' somebody is gonna be uninvited to my table. Probably permanently, but certainly for the duration of the module.
But then I'm a testy old coot these days.
:)