
Ringtail |

One of the other GMs that I play with has gotten it into his head that the players at our table (9 including those of us who rotate GMing) metagame too much, as in trying to figure out enemy armor classes and saving throw bonuses during combat. As one of the other GMs, whose turn it is to currently run a campaign, I only see that behavior from one person (the one claiming to have a problem with it). He's informed me, that when his turn comes around, he is going to combat this by hiding almost all of that information from the players.
He said that he would roll all of the dice behind a GM screen; and by all, I do mean all, including player rolls. He wants to have player's say what action they are attempting and then he will roll behind the screen to resolve it to prevent players from trying to figure out DCs and how likely they are to succeed or fail based on what comes up on a die. He would rolls skills, saves, attack rolls, and so forth. I felt that it was needless and would consume extra time and expressed this too him (I honestly feel that the group for the most part is very good at seperating out of-game and in-game knowledge and not prone to abuse metagame information; in fact I often run without a screen and roll in the open because of this and have on occassion, when my dice have been forgotten at home, had player's roll monster's saving throws and attacks for me).
As the conversation rolled on he said that he also wanted to try hiding pretty much everything from the players, including their character sheets and statistics. He would want us to rank our 6 ability scores from highest to lowest and then he would randomly roll 4d6 dropping the low and place them in that order. We would also rank the skills we thought were the most important to least important and he would assign skill points to the most important skills as we leveled (we would not even know how many skill points we were getting since we wouldn't know our Intelligence modifiers) and to the skills he felt we used the most and what best fit the backstories that we wrote for them. We wouldn't be aware of our normal maximum hit points or our current hit points beyond "fresh," "above half," "below half," and "nearly down."
Pretty much the only things the players would be keeping track of would be their money and property, and their spellcasting (which they wouldn't even know the DCs of, theoretically).
When I continued to express to him that I don't think I'd be a very big fan of that style of game and neither would most of the rest of the group, I was told: "Of course you wouldn't, you're the prime offender." Appearently I have a tendency to rarely put max ranks into skills and just put enough into several different skills to reliably hit the DCs of actions I most care about and he had a problem with that because I wasn't "really roleplaying."
I was rather irked by the who'll ordeal and it just came out of no where. Discussing the matter with several of the others they also thought the idea was rather rediculous, but the GM is adament to give it a try, and between us we are debating which of us care to show up to the session at all. So far it seems like the primary issues for most are 4 things:
1. This style of game requires a lot of trust in the GM. The GM has lost the trust of most of us before when it was found that he has on several occasions cheated to kill characters either because he was annoyed with their players or was bored of GMing and didn't want to end the game like an adult. And he has been known to be a bit of a controll freak both in gaming and outside of it.
2. Rolling dice is a lot of fun. When I play casters half of the time I pick up fireball or chain lightning simply because it is fun to roll a few fistfulls of d6s, even if it isn't the most helpful option.
3. It will make leveling (specifically feat selection) a chore.
4. Its unneccessary and insulting.
I'm trying to decide if I feel like going or not. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that it could be enjoyable, but I'm skeptical.
Has anyone else played in this style of game before?
Does anyone actually see any merit to this method?
Would never even seeing your character sheet somehow make you better at roleplaying for some reason I can't comprehend?
Would you give it a shot?

Ringtail |

I'm mostly weary of what he has planned that knowing your current hit points or whether or not you were able to put a rank into Swim at some point in your life is considered metagaming. I've honestly half-expected him to have us tell him what kind of character we want to play like warrior or something and then not even know what actual class we are.
Maybe I should let him try it for an hour or so and let him see how troubling all of that bookkeeping is going to be; though I suppose he could just start pulling numbers out and narrating whatever he feels like with no one else any wiser.

Ringtail |

Appearently he only told me and one other (the 3rd GM) because a most that I discussed it with were clueless about his intended changes; and while hie game is likely months off (he is waiting for my RotRL campaign to finish and they've only just begun Sins of the Saviors), I'm beginning to wonder if he intended to tell them at all before the game was set to begin. Since 4 of the group commute in from a couple towns over every other week for a long session, that would have been a heck of a surprise.

Hitdice |

DM can make his rolls behind the screen if he so chooses, but player rolls should be done by players. (Well, flat-foooted perception, search etc. rolls aside, the DM does those, he's the only one who knows and that's cool.)
Edit: actually Talon, that doesn't sound so awful provided the Dm is fair; but yeah Ring, you'd definitely want to give people warning before their hours-long commute.

Bruunwald |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Of course besides those that should be rolled by the GM, nobody wants their rolls taken from them. So, of course, nobody wants to play in this game.
However, the players are metagaming, and not only is that annoying, it ruins the challenge for them, and it makes it harder to GM. No GM should have to be forced to play in THEIR game.
See how it swings both ways?
Meanwhile, if the GM is so worried about that, give him this advice: add class levels and/or Hit Dice to creatures, don't reveal the creatures by their names, but describe them by their lesser-known traits, and occasionally swap powers of one creature out for another.
Rinse and repeat until the players get used to being surprised.

Ringtail |

Of course besides those that should be rolled by the GM, nobody wants their rolls taken from them. So, of course, nobody wants to play in this game.
However, the players are metagaming, and not only is that annoying, it ruins the challenge for them, and it makes it harder to GM. No GM should have to be forced to play in THEIR game.
See how it swings both ways?
Meanwhile, if the GM is so worried about that, give him this advice: add class levels and/or Hit Dice to creatures, don't reveal the creatures by their names, but describe them by their lesser-known traits, and occasionally swap powers of one creature out for another.
Rinse and repeat until the players get used to being surprised.
I think what he was referring to was not knowing standard monster statistics, but the realizing that you hit on a 24 but your friend missed on a 23 style of learning a monsters AC and then doing some quick math in your head to maximize damage on whatever it is; which like I said, the group is pretty good about not doing for the most part, so I'm unsure as to why he thinks it has suddenly become an issue. But Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary is one book I will never get rid of, I use it all of the time for fun little surprises.

Ringtail |

First, is he hosting the game? (do you play at his place?)
Generally we play at his apartment. Occasionally there is need to game elsewhere, but he usually refuses to game elsewhere longterm despite others having more accommodating apartments or homes, and most of us live halfway across down while others live in a different town.

![]() |

There;s a middle ground you know...
roll everything it makes no sense for the players to know (like for example Perception checks when they're not paying attention, yet makes no sense that they shouldn't be allowed to try and make a pass at noticing a sneaking enemy without you giving it away by asking them roll Perception out of nowhere, or a Fortitude save if they just got pricked by an envenomed needle by a passing assassin, etc.) But to fully do it all yourself is a little harsh.
Also, most DMs roll the stuff of the enemies behind a screen, and don't ever outright reveal a creature's HP or AC or saves until its relevant. Most DMs I've seen only tell me what level of injury the monster has sustained and lets us judge, and its not usually so bad.
But going this far is...
Well, it is insulting. The DM shouldn't be too afraid to let his players actually do things...

Talonhawke |

Belle Mythix wrote:First, is he hosting the game? (do you play at his place?)Generally we play at his apartment. Occasionally there is need to game elsewhere, but he usually refuses to game elsewhere longterm despite others having more accommodating apartments or homes, and most of us live halfway across down while others live in a different town.
Sounds like control issues personally. Played with a guy the same way even though most people lived closer to another player it constantly came down to driving across town to his house. He was the guy who constantly pushed the rules whenever someone else ran then in his games dropped the ban hammer on simple things like monks and half elves
(3.5 half elves at that)
Belle Mythix |

Belle Mythix wrote:First, is he hosting the game? (do you play at his place?)
Generally we play at his apartment. Occasionally there is need to game elsewhere, but he usually refuses to game elsewhere longterm despite others having more accommodating apartments or homes, and most of us live halfway across down while others live in a different town.
So the guy might be aiming at "If you don't like it, leave"... might bite him in the ass if you have somewhere else to play and someone else to DM/GM.

Ringtail |

@ The Drunken Dragon (I enjoy the name and avatar both): A lot of that has already been staple and most people I know play like that. I'm perfectly fine with those rolls being hidden. In fact, we generally have each player have several d20 rolls rolled up before the game starts and handed to whoever is GMing along with a list of Perception modifiers and saving throws, who then starts at a random place and goes down the list for any relavent hidden rolls needed during the session.
@ Talonhawke: Half-elves...really? Painful.
@ Belle Mythix: Generally speaking, I would- I have few reservations about being blunt when the situation calls for it. Like I said, we alreay rotate GMing duties (I enjoy GMing a great deal actually). We've been friends for many years however and he has a...strong personality for lack of a better word. We feel he may take the criticism of his "perfect method" a little personally, and I'd hate for something as little as D&D/PF pose a problem in the relationship, so I'm wondering if I should give it a try. When you only get to game twice a month when you are lucky though, it is hard to see that game lamed by such heavy-handed houserules.

Matrixryu |

I would only play a game like that with a GM that I trusted completely. It seems like you guys don't trust this GM. If you are going to have doubts about whether or not he's telling the truth about his die rolls, you probably don't want to have him rolling for your characters.

![]() |
That sounds like @$$hattery on the DM part to me.
I agree with Bruunwald, players shouldn't make rolls they don't know about, but as a DM, I tend to assign my players colors that were established at the beginning of the campaign arc and roll behind the screen, then lift the screen to show I'm not fudging. (My boyfriend tends to have max ranks in Knowledge: Metagame)
If I see my players using Knowledge: Metagame, I throw terrifying monsters with multiple crazy templates at them, then when they apologize, I take it away, but make them suck the hit point loss and tell them tough cookies.
Then I give them a cool but (mostly) useless item to reward their lack of metagaming if they don't do it for a few sessions.
I'm also probably too nice, because I refuse to kill ANY pc within the first book and a half of an adventure path.
Perhaps send him a link to this thread for ideas?

Talonhawke |

Yes really and we are talking the crappy 3.5 ones that had nothing going for them. It would just be arbitrary. Started up a Dragonlance campaign and had to listen to him complain for over two hours in the car about druids having to choose a Diety in Krynn. After showing him the Mystic and such he looked up and said "oh I just thought it was unfair I'm playing a rogue."
Of course this is also the guy who tried to argue using slieght of hand to steal things out of peoples grasp in combat was still just a static DC 20.

Doodlebug Anklebiter |

If the DM kills off characters because he gets bored or sick of DMing, how long's it going to take for him to get sick of keeping track of up to 8 players' stuff?
As for the metagaming thing--trying to calculate AC isn't so bad. A reasonably well-experienced brawled should be able to figure out how hard someone is to hit after a few swings.
I might (might) put up with a DM rolling all the dice, but not allowing me to allocate my own skill points (Peform: Seduction, every character)? I'd have to be hard-pressed for a game to play in that one.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

I've had different DMs tell me different things but I always ignore them and write in "Seduction" in one of the blank spots for the Perform skill.
Usually, the DM will try to say "no," but it's such a little thing and it makes me so happy that usually they give in if I make a big enough stink. Except Kirth, of course. That fascist.
Goblins do it in the street!

Hitdice |

Way back when (3E had just come out) I had one PC seduce another. (Look, they were both male IRL and had known each other for years, it wasn't as creepy as it sounds.) I was all, "Now, do you you want roll on Diplomacy or Bluff?"
Dude was all, "Oh, Bluff. Definitely Bluff."
That one question set the scene for the whole campaign.

![]() |

To answer the OP, no, I wouldn't play in that game. It seems that you can go elsewhere to play, though it may require a bit more location juggling to do so. I'd consider that a small price to pay in order to avoid the obsessive DM. I'd advise using another place for gaming if needed and leaving him out of the game if it comes to that. Since I don't like to see any player left out, though, perhaps the group can simply force him to skip his turn at GM...forever.
There are certain groups who play using the exact style that you've described. Heavy RP groups that focus on player immersion may enjoy knowing only abstract facts about their own characters, but most players don't like it. Part of the enjoyment of the game is watching those numbers on the character sheet grow. Taking that away is usually absurd and unsatisfying, unless the entire group is into it.
I once experienced this, in fact. A DM wanted to tell the storyline of the campaign. He took great pleasure in RPing each and every NPC. He wanted us "in character" all the time, speaking only as our characters would. When combat came, I remember him saying, "You're going to win, I'll just roll a d8 for damage for each of you and we can move on the good stuff." And by "good stuff" he meant role playing, of course. His term as DM lasted exactly one session.
I have to add that if you're not getting above 6th level, there is something wrong. As an example, a GM intentionally killing off characters out of lack of interest in the campaign counts as something (incredibly) wrong to me. Given such a history, and the fact that he plans to use a style that the rest of the group is adamantly against, I think you should find a way to have a different GM when the time comes.

![]() |

If the DM is tired of metagame players then that person has many other options open to solve the problem. For instance play a different game, talk to the players, reward roleplaying, make monsters players have never faced before, ect.
I know this person and i lost trust in that first campaign when we tpked what was it 5 times in the underdark? And then that troll ranger in the later one, jeff's ot 1000 fumble...
And he wonders why his players meta...
As for me since unfortunately my work schedule means his is the only game i get to attend i may have to try it at least but will probably end up DM'n my own game or find some new people to play with.

cranewings |
I only care about my character being what he is suppose to be. The fact that I never get to do that is why I so rarely play. If I make a great swordsman, and he can kill 4 guys by himself in a fight, then I want him to be respected as a great fighter. In Pathfinder that's impossible because there is always a bunch of NPCs hanging around the kingdom that can kill 20 guys who can kill 20 guys. That is the part I think is stupid.
So in any case, if my character is strong and he comes off as strong in the game, then I don't care if I roll the dice. The glaring stupidity of most people's games where my power level in relation to the NPCs shifts around harder than superman's power level from year to year.

Martiln |
Wow...I was in a situation like this not too long ago, actually, pretty much to the letter of what you're going through.
I told my GM that him doing everything for us took 1/2 the fun out of our hands. Yes, RPing is a good part of the game, but it's not the only part, otherwise I wouldn't have spent all my money on my dice.
When he refused to listen, and insisted that we do it his way, regardless of how I feel, because he was trying to "Eliminate meta-gaming", I told him that causing a new problem to get rid of another problem is no permanent solution, and that I had no interest in playing his game. He through a fit, but eventually he came around when I decided to run a game of my own, so it worked out I guess.
tl;dr some people do better as players than GMs

Elinor Knutsdottir |

I'd play in the game until it was clear that it was broken. Given your (admittedly biased) description I'd expect it to be broken but I still fondly recall the wonder of playing the game when I didn't know the rules. Being able to be surprised is something that very rarely occurs now and I just can't help 'pulling apart' a monster (or PC) in my head to work out how it was done admiring the clever ideas and railing at the 'abuses'. When you know the rules as well as many of us do I don't think it's possible to prevent yourself from the level of metagaming of 'knowing what to expect' from a situation and we do pick feats and spells with that in mind. e.g. In a high level dragon based campaign, our wizards went through the book looking for 'no SR' spells.
A ref I played with for the first time last year's approach was to allow players to make their own attacks and saves but pretty well all other die rolls were hidden (including the fact that a die roll had been made). More interestingly the ref said "DMG and PH rules apply *only* to PCs. NPCs may work entirely differently." This meant that e.g. at 2nd level we came up against a Shaman in the hills who could cast 'bestow curse'. I was panicking because that 'meant' he was a 7th level cleric. He wasn't, he could just cast bestow curse. This is a general rule that I have in a toned down version adopted, in Frostfinder the rule reads "The GM may change the PH and DMG rules for NPCs at their discretion".

cranewings |
"The GM may change the PH and DMG rules for NPCs at their discretion".
Same here. What I think players need is a consistent way to understand how powerful they are. I don't care about NPCs following the character creation rules because they don't provide consistence. Is the leader of the town guard 3rd level or 15th? Guess it depends on what side of the bed the GM got out of but god knows they will both probably be described the same way.
If the GM changes things, but conveys a consistent power scheme, I think that is much more effective.

Ingenwulf |

With the right GM I think it could be real fun. You are still fully in control of your characters actions. You still prioritise your skill distribution. Feats could be tricky, given prerequisites. However it's usually when you push yourself to the "feat" level that you find out if you are actually talented or not.
It's a lot of work for the GM, and if done well could inspire a sense of mystery or suspense in the players.
I may try it, or persuade one of my group to GM a game this way. Thanks to the OP and his GM for the ideas.

RunawayFreak |

I don't see the point of rolling at all in this scenario. If he wants to be able to control the outcome of challenges this much, he should just make it freeform/interactive storytelling and be done with it.
If people want to play RPG, they should be able to make their own rolls. It's a *game*. In a game, you roll your own dice.
I would personally be more than a bit annoyed and insulted if the GM declared he would make my rolls from now on since I couldn't be trusted to play fair. So I wouldn't play for that reason, I am not that fond of the mechanical side of the game at all.
There is a thrill to rolling though, even I have to admit that. For example, I once had to make a roll to grab a party member who would have drowned in the next round if I didn't succeed. DC was pretty high, and I remember literally shaking when I made the roll (and rolled a 19, and I couldn't stop smiling afterwards. The thought of a DM trying to take that away from his players irks me.
On another note: apparently I have been metagaming all my gaming life without realizing it. I never knew that assuming the monster to have spell resistance after failing a couple of spells, or deducing AC was metagaming. Agreed, it would be bad form to yell 'it must have an AC of over 25!' in-game. But after a couple of hits, you know what worked and what doesn't. What is metagaming about that?

![]() |

I am gonna go with a more aggressive style of handling this....
Tell the dude that you have 2 DMS already in the group besides him and if he doesn't like the way you all game he can leave. He seems to be the only one to have a problem with how you guys game so he IS the problem. Once you give him the power, even for a moment, over all aspects of the game it is not the players' game but only the DM's game.
Talk to the other players too and get them all on board and talk to him as a unified group so he knows that he can't bully the group into his personal desire of how gaming should be and damn your styles.
If one person is the cause of the problems, then they are the problem.
EDIT---also if you lose your friend over this then he really wasn't much of a friend, more of a long-term user who surrounds himself with people he can control. Doesn't really sound like much of a lose to me.

Kobold Catgirl |

I would have several problems with this idea.
I would not play in this campaign. This is not cool. This is control freak behavior. Tell the other players about it and see what they think. If they react predictably, let the GM know nobody wants to use the idea. If he still doesn't get the message, he clearly has no idea what it means to be a Game Master.

Jared Rascher |

As to the initial question, no, I probably wouldn't be likely to want to be in the game as described.
However, I'm wondering if this guy just pulled this idea out of thin air, or if he was playing back in 2nd edition.
The original Ravenloft boxed set had a section in it that talked about running a horror campaign in the manner described (GM has the character sheet, makes all of the rolls, gives general descriptions of relative health).
I was intrigued with the idea back then, but it didn't take me long to realize I didn't really want to attempt it. However, the original suggestion was for a horror campaign in 2nd edition, which is a specific kind of campaign for a different ruleset.
Again, I don't know if this is where he got the idea, but it sounded awfully familiar.

![]() |

Has this guy ever played 'Amber'?
That game had secret ability scores, on top of being diceless.
And you levelled up by telling the GM your priorities for spending xp.
The difference is, that game assumes all the PCs are godlike, so you can handwave any encounters with anyone who's not a blood relative.
You know your PC is competent enough to easily handle anything that would trouble an Olympic Athlete, so you can get on with the political game.
D&D/PF isn't like that.
Not knowing how tough you are could kill you.
Not knowing how agile you are could kill you.
Not knowing if your a good swimmer could kill you.
Not knowing if you're trained in any physical skill could kill you.
As for mental skills; how would you not know that you studied magic/history/zoology, etc?
How would you not know whether you were considered above or below average, at any activity, in any walk of life?
THe PCs have led a whole childhood and adolescence, before the campaign starts. It's simply inconceivable that they not know how they rate on the local pecking order.

Ringtail |

I think a better title of this thread would be "Would you drop-kick this DM?"
Darn...missed my edit window.
I know this person and i lost trust in that first campaign when we tpked what was it 5 times in the underdark? And then that troll ranger in the later one, jeff's ot 1000 fumble...
And he wonders why his players meta...
It was 10,000, and Dave was behind him and later told me and Heather once he closed up shop for the night and we wandered off to the arcade to play Street Fighter and minigolf that he rolled something like a 2, an 8, a couple 7s and so forth. I don't know why Jeff put up with it for so long (or is so forgiving), but it is probably why we haven't seen him at a game in 2 years. The ending of the Fallout game made me almost drop anything to do with him, but it is nice to get to actually play every once in a while and Roy is unfortunately inconsistant when it comes to GMing, what with his kids and all.
While the GM's frustration is understandable, he's gone far overboard. A more reasoned approach would be to discuss his concerns with the players.
It seems like it could be that a 5 minute conversation would address his concerns, which I'm not seeing since he is the only member of the group who regularly does the things he is concerned about, but he is opposed to the concept for some reason and wants to game this way.
If people want to play RPG, they should be able to make their own rolls. It's a *game*. In a game, you roll your own dice.
Generally I agree. There are a few exceptions, but this guy's idea's seem to extensions of minor policies he's already tried implementing; such as rolling a player's fortifacation, blur, displacement, blink, and mirror images chances for them behind the screen. It has been a long time since a player in his game has had fortifacation prevent damage or be missed by concealment, which is another reason I'm weary.
However, I'm wondering if this guy just pulled this idea out of thin air, or if he was playing back in 2nd edition.
He did play 2nd Edition, in fact we still do on occassion. I've not ever personally played in any Ravenloft setting, however, but he may have.
Has this guy ever played 'Amber'?
I think not; at least it has never been brought up while I was around.
Not knowing if your a good swimmer could kill you.
Not knowing if you're trained in any physical skill could kill you.
As for mental skills; how would you not know that you studied magic/history/zoology, etc?
How would you not know whether you were considered above or below average, at any activity, in any walk of life?
This was a big concern and immersion breaker for me. Either I wouldn't know how good I was, as in I'd have no idea if I ever learned it, or I could know what I've trained in (if I convince him to tell me for the sake of making sense) in which case I would likely be able to deduce a bit of my statistics, which is what he seems to what to avoid. I'm also concerned about playing a character where I don't know my statistics. I may know that I'm stronger than I am dexterious for example, but that doesn't tell me if I'm incredibly strong, clumsy, or phsyically fit and a little bad at playing darts. I won't know how intelligent I am, or how much common sense I have. How am I supposed to role play a character when I don't know what my attributes are or where they generally fall?

Kolokotroni |

I wouldn't even get close to a game like this. It is full of all kinds of fallacy and control issues. It would detract from the fun and flow of the game in almost every way. The dm completely fails to realize while the numbers are meta, how hard or easy something is is not. If I only need a 10 in a skill to accomplish a certain task (thus it is relatively easy), I know as a character it requires relatively little training to achieve this consistently. Thats what putting less then max skill ranks into something means.
I also know with experience how good I am at certain things. If I am a soldier I know my hand to hand vs ranged skill (str and dex). My behavior will be influenced by that knowledge. If i am micheal phelps, my choices when crossing a river might be different then if I dont know how to swim. Hiding this information from the player not only doesn't prevent metagame thinking, it makes it impossible to think in character because you dont have enough information about the character to make informed choices.
This screams control freak to me, and really, if a dm wants happy story time and not an actual rpg session, he can do it without me. If he wants to just tell stories, we can go camping or something.