Hey everyone -
Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere but a search didn't turn up anything quite like this, so I wanted to get this out there.
I don't GM PF games very often and I have a player who seems to be having some issues with seperating player knowledge from character knowledge - specifically, looking for changes in NPC and PCs that (may) have occured, but his PC would have little to no reason to suspect anything. He rolls his skill checks (or asks which he'd need to roll) to see what's changed and when I ask him to explain why he's checking, it turns out he's reaching to justify it or using past experience with another character to justify the current attempt. And of course, he get's huffy when I ask him to justify it.
So my questions is this - how do you usually define a legitimate reason vs. a stretch in to player knowledge? Would you allow 'previous experience' so long as a connection can be made? He views it as nitpicking on my part and feels that his "character would notice" but in some of these cases the story states even the player affected doesn't immediately realize it, so I have a hard time going with that.
Metagaming seriously chaps my butt, but I don't want to take a hardline if he has a reasonable (if a bit tenuous) position.
Any thoughts would be extremely welcome.
Could you give an example? I can't really understand what sort of checks and why he is making them from your post.
I will say though that in general, a GM is the 'eyes and ears' of the player and the character. From the general tone of what you have written, this player doesn't trust you to fairly report what his character should notice, and is thus trying to force the issue. Whether he is correct or not, his perception that you won't fairly relay to him things that his character should be aware of is an issue.
Well player vs. character knowledge is often one of the hardest things to sort out.
As for a justifiable reason to make a check, I think any time there is a "change" in a character or NPC that has previously been interacted with, there will almost always be a reason for a check. In fact, the player shouldn't even really need to ask to make a check. So if, for instance, the normally laid back, easy-going, party tagalong (i.e. "I don't care, just lead the way and I'll follow) suddenly becomes highly disagreeable, it's probably fair to allow the other PCs the opportunity to make a check to see if they notice something odd about him (i.e. maybe he picked up a cursed item). Ironically, the cursed PC probably doesn't get a check per se.
Now the DC for the check probably depends on a) how unusual it is for the PC to be disagreeing (in my example) and b) how often the effects have come up. A single disagreement over a single instance, probably doesn't trigger a check. Disagreeing about everything almost certainly makes for a pretty easy check.
Now, for how to resolve these issues, a lot depends on your group and how well they deal with things like note passing and what not. However, what I usually recommend is to either a) have the relevant skill check modifiers in your GM notes and make the checks secretly, or b) have the players make X number of checks on skills A, B, and C at the start of each session. Obviously, in the latter situation you don't tell them what the checks are for, you just record the results and apply them as needed. This way, if a player were to say, put on a Ring of Contrariness, you pass her a note telling her the effect, but don't tell the party. The idea here is that the players won't know what the checks were for, nor how good the results were (if rolled by you). This gets around the "I check for traps <roll . . . 3> hmmm, I check for traps again!"
As to your particular situation, its a little hard to tell what to do without knowing the specifics.
Sorry, but your post is waaaaaaaaaay too vague for me to understand where you're coming from or what you're asking. Can you give a real example?
OK, a detailed situation:
Both he and another character were in close proximity to conduits to the Negative Energy Plane. It's a pre-generated adventure which states that after 1 round, they experience intense pain (a warning to leave ASAP) and after 2 rounds they make a save or be instantly converted in to free-willed undead. They failed their saves, but between games we were discussing it and the player in question (PIQ) pointed out (correctly) that his response would have had him exiting before the end of the second round. The other player very honestly pointed out that he would still have been there, but was wearing deathless armor which I ruled entitled him to a roll. We did the roll with out the PIQ involved and it turns out he failed the roll - his halfling paladin is now a deathknight!
The PIQ is now wanting to make an attempt to determine what's different about him after the DK 1/2 asked to use an extra sword he had, rather than his holy bow (which is how the DK character knows something has changed).
I asked the player to explain why he is making the check and am currently awaiting a response. I hope that was enough detail - if there are any particular aspects I can further clarify, please let me know - I appreciate the help.
Perhaps I am reading this a bit wrong, but for starters, I'm pretty sure that the deathknight would know that he is undead. Between not breathing, not having a heart beat, and potentially having his God(dess)shun him, those would be some pretty big clues.
As for PIQ, if the DK is suddenly approaching combat much differently, and is opting to use what is (presumably) an inferior weapon (assuming nothing had changed), then I would think it would warrant some questioning from the party. Granted, the first question should have probably been directed toward the DK along the lines of "Ummm, why are you using that rusty old sword instead of the Holy Bow that you have wreaked so much havoc with dude?" Assuming that the DK doesn't give an honest answer, that would then provoke an opposed Bluff vs. SM roll.
As to whether or not a perception roll is warranted, I guess that depends on how you characterize the physical changes that come about as a result of the transformation into undeath. If the skin goes paler, the face becomes gaunt, etc., then absolutely the other PCs should get a roll to notice that. If there are no visible physical changes then its a little less warranted, though the whole no breathing thing likely should produce a check at some point.
Also, I would absolutely allow checks with regard to the negative energy conduit. Not only what it is, but what it does.
If a player gets suspicious of something, they can roll. There's a reason that they're opposed checks. I have players roll sense motive checks against NPCs who are telling the truth all the time, because they just naturally distrust people. I don't look for excuses, I roll "bluff" checks and tell them that the NPC seems legit or whatever. If the NPC is actively lying to them, I roll an opposed Bluff check (or just take 10, if the NPC is confident in his or her abilities).
But PCs who are constantly at the alert aren't a bad thing. They're actively engaged in their characters' narratives, which shows that they care about the game.
Based off the example you gave I see no metagaming. Which paladin turns in his holy avenger for your weapon? Thats really not normal.
Also, since we're dealing with an undead creature, anyone trained in Knowledge (religion) gets a check to identify him the moment they lay eyes on him.
Good point, theres this too.
Also, since we're dealing with an undead creature, anyone trained in Knowledge (religion) gets a check to identify him the moment they lay eyes on him.
And theoritically a Knowledge (local) check will reveal he is not humanoid, though that comes with slightly more arguement.
OK - This is what I was looking for.
There hasn't been any combat, and the weapons aren't inferior, just different (ranged vs. melee). It was a holy bow for an intelligent longsword.
In fact, there hasn't been a session since this happened, so this is all very new and the characters have had minimal interaction OR oppurtunity to really notice a difference. The DK player has said that if he asks, he'll tell him outright - but PIQ hasn't, so it entered less clear territory than a Sense Motive v Bluff check.
The Knowledge (religion) portion *is* a good point - I hadn't considered it. Thank you very much!
I really encourage the players to be perceptive and careful (and creative), but to do it through the lens of the characters. The fact that an out of game email seemed to lead to the request was what caused me to hesitate (and come here, of course). The biggest point for me in this (perhaps in error) is that the change is explicitly described as instantaneous and subtle - even to the character affected. If he doesn't know right away (maybe 3 hours have passed in game), it seemed like something that would need a specific cause for a check.
I think I have a good in game solution (seperate from the knowledge religion one) - the intelligent sword changes it's appearance based on it's wielder, so when he takes it up, that will lead to a check oppurtunity.
Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the input.
Honestly, while a roll to realize exactly what he is would be appropriate, realizing that your friend is an undead horror, emitting an aura of fear and is, in short, an ex-alive ex-Paladin, should not take any roll at all.
He is dead. And walking around. With glowy eyes and all sorts of scary now. He is so different that his stats have changed, including CHR which is how others react to your presence. Perhaps a deathknight that took special means to prepare could conceal what he was, but transforming without warning means that the deathknight doesn't even know what he needs to conceal right away.
The question isn't why your player is asking for a roll, the question is, why you didn't tell you player things that should have been obvious.
Honestly, while a roll to realize exactly what he is would be appropriate, realizing that your friend is an undead horror, emitting an aura of fear and is, in short, an ex-alive ex-Paladin, should not take any roll at all.
He is dead. And walking around. With glowy eyes and all sorts of scary now. He is so different that his stats have changed, including CHR which is how others react to your presence. Perhaps a deathknight that took special means to prepare could conceal what he was, but transforming without warning means that the deathknight doesn't even know what he needs to conceal right away.
The question isn't why your player is asking for a roll, the question is, why you didn't tell you player things that should have been obvious.
Apparently the adventure path did say it was supposed to be subtle, to the point where perhaps the paladin even fails to recognize he has changed. So i doubt the "glowy eyes" and such occured. Though, he would lose his con score, and his charisma would possibly increase. It also seems possible he does not emit a fear aura.
Honestly, while a roll to realize exactly what he is would be appropriate, realizing that your friend is an undead horror, emitting an aura of fear and is, in short, an ex-alive ex-Paladin, should not take any roll at all.
He is dead. And walking around. With glowy eyes and all sorts of scary now. He is so different that his stats have changed, including CHR which is how others react to your presence. Perhaps a deathknight that took special means to prepare could conceal what he was, but transforming without warning means that the deathknight doesn't even know what he needs to conceal right away.
The question isn't why your player is asking for a roll, the question is, why you didn't tell you player things that should have been obvious.
Fair points all. Parts of this are my personal handling of it. I ruled (in the interests of keeping the game moving) that he could suppress his aura with a concentration check. I also ruled, as a concession to the DK player, that if he took steps to try to reverse his state (or switch characters) before leveling, he wouldn't fully show all aspects of his new state (only cosmetic factors eg, unnatural parlor, glowing eyes, sepulcher voice, etc). If he doesn't do so, he is fully,obviously undead. I did allow him to shift alignment to LE instead of CE (because frankly that player is a handful when he's playing NG - him playing CE gives me nightmares). Also, he made a point of saying (when he intro'd the character) that he's always in his full plate (and all that this entails).
At this point, when the roll is made (and it will be made), it's likely to be very easy for PIQ.
My intent with the original post was to build an idea of what a fair standard is, as I don't have a lot of PF experience as a GM. This particular example was the first that came to mind and may not have been the best, but has been very helpful. If anyone has other helpful hints, I always appreciate learning from those with more experience under their belts.
Perhaps the writers wanted it to be subtle. Frankly, I don't see how they can justify that. I stand by by statement that it shouldn't be difficult to notice your lawful good paladin is now a chaotic evil undead.
Did the failed rolls/transformation end the previous session? I suppose if they rolled their checks and you recorded the results and said "Ok, session's over, see you next week." and the players involved are now talking about it through e-mail, its maybe, MAYBE, a minor bit of metagaming. That said, I really don't see it as such since as Dave Justus points out, the questions are likely to start flying from the characters (not the players) at the start of the next session anyhow. Like when the cleric casts Cure Minor or Healing Burst and it doesn't do what he expects to the paladin.
It does sound like the writers really kind of screwed the pooch on this one though. It seems as though they wanted a Sixth Sense type of moment but the problem is that this isn't single player game.
Can you put what AP this is in a spoiler?
Sorry for the lack of response - Real Life Stuff is a pain.
Dave Justus - It's the Return to the Tomb of Horrors, so I don't know if the writer was trying to be subtle, or just an @$$hole - I guess it could have been a little of each. :) I even found an old copy of Ravenloft: Grim Harvest to use as a reference for the conversion, but templates fit better.
Gargs454 - There *was* some email back and forth about what was going on, and this was one of the things that contributed to my response. I also didn't fully realize the passive aspect of Knowledge skills, which would allow them to make a check if they "realized" something from context clues or differences in behavior vs. having a reason to actively distrust a valued ally.
Paladin of Baha-who: it's not a PF AP. It's the infamous Return to the Tomb of Horrors, converted from 2nd edition to Pathfinder by yours truly, with a fantastic amount of assistance from a variety of web sources.
Wow, this is a huge change for the Pc's. It hardly seems fair.
Wow, this is a huge change for the Pc's. It hardly seems fair.
You've obviously never run or played the Tomb of Horrors or the Return.
Believe me when I tell you - without embelishment - that "Fair" doesn't even enter the equation. In fact, it's decidely 'unfair'. It's explained in the materials, but the entire cmapaign is a meat grinder for characters. They even caution you to carefully consider whether you want to make it a part of your regular campaign as every player is likely to lose *at least* one character. This is my fourth time running it but the first in PF and I've never had a single player make it all the way through with a single character. It tests the players and punishes the characters if the player fails. That's probably the hardest part of running it and the part I caution people on the most. But they all said they wanted to try it and made separate characters just for this, so...
I also have never played Tomb of Horrors, though have heard many stories about it. Its one of those modules that people either loved or hated. I don't mind the meat-grinder as long as the players are aware of the style of play and not expecting the standard Pathfinder experience.
Don't accuse Dr. Deth of never having run or played in any of the classic modules. He goes back a ways. I'd wager that he fought King Snurre before the Vault of the Drow was more than a gleam in Gary Gygax's eye... am I right, there, DrD?
(Now me, I've never played Tomb of Horrors, but that's merely a combination of a shortage of GMs who owned the module and my personal desire to have all my characters retain their starting quota of 1 life, 1 soul, and 4 limbs.)
Yep. I was playing before there were modules, even. Do note that ToH was built by Gygax just to show his players the meaning of the word "hubris". "Don't get cocky, kid!"
OK, WLoon, if it's supposed to be a "meat grinder" like ToH, and advertised as such, then sure.
Water under the bridge now, of course, but for anybody else running 'Return' with the same conversion WL used, I'd advise using the Juju Zombie template rather than the death knight/graveknight because Dave Justus raises a valid point - the undead needs to be of a type that can plausibly attempt Bluff/Disguise if the adventure text seems to indicate that that is an option. (I don't remember reading any rule saying that a DK/GK has to have luminous eyes, an odor as of the grave, and an eerie sepulchral voice, but the flavor text for such monsters invariably has those qualities. Sets a precedent of sorts.)
While I agree with you in principle, there were no other templates that struck me as appropriate and reasonable given the entire circumstance. I gave him the oppurtunity to retire the character and he said he was ok to play it. And he's done a fine job. It's a one off that exists a bit outside the normal rules and as much as they have to adjust how they normally play, I have to adjust how I normally DM. In any other game, none of this crap would have happened. :)
Juju Zombie is an interesting template, but all things considered, I felt the DK template was closer to what he actually was while forcing him to deal with his new nature. A few minor mechanical elements helped round it out (suppressing the aura, etc.). In the end, it had a major impact ont he character who ignored the signs of danger and didn't wildely unbalance the game.
No disrespect is intended, but as you said, ToH and the Return (which got Gygax's blessing after he read it) are so wildly different from what most people consider fair, fun play that it's hard to apply the same standards. When success is measured in how few characters you had to go through, it's a whole different paradigm.
No one in my group runs games like this. *I* don't (normally) run games like this. I warned them for almost a year (between when it came up and when we started) that it was brutal, unforgiving and I would not be able to help them in anyway. It's like comparing an evening stroll to a triathalon - sure, you're using your feet, but one's for fun and relaxation - the other is to kick your own ass.
My biggest regret is that I'll never get to play this module to see how I would do. I've been lobbying for one of the other members of my group to run Whiteplume Mountain since I've heard so many horror stories about that one (and he's run it) - I have a feeling after this, I'm gonna get punched if I bring it up again...
Don't accuse Dr. Deth of never having run or played in any of the classic modules. He goes back a ways. I'd wager that he fought King Snurre before the Vault of the Drow was more than a gleam in Gary Gygax's eye... am I right, there, DrD?
(Now me, I've never played Tomb of Horrors, but that's merely a combination of a shortage of GMs who owned the module and my personal desire to have all my characters retain their starting quota of 1 life, 1 soul, and 4 limbs.)
I'm pretty sure I only referenced ToH and the Return...
<checks post>
...Yep, I only referenced those two.
As I said in my other response, no offense intended, but context is key. If you get the oppurtunity, I'd whleheartedly recommend playing them. They really challenge players to up their game and the story is a great one. I wouldn't recommend DMing though unless you're *very* comfortable with high level games. It's starting to wear me down a bit. But that could also be the players. LOL!
Don't accuse Dr. Deth of never having run or played in any of the classic modules. He goes back a ways. I'd wager that he fought King Snurre before the Vault of the Drow was more than a gleam in Gary Gygax's eye... am I right, there, DrD?
(Now me, I've never played Tomb of Horrors, but that's merely a combination of a shortage of GMs who owned the module and my personal desire to have all my characters retain their starting quota of 1 life, 1 soul, and 4 limbs.)
I'm pretty sure I only referenced ToH and the Return...
<checks post>
...Yep, I only referenced those two.
As I said in my other response, no offense intended, but context is key. If you get the oppurtunity, I'd whleheartedly recommend playing them. They really challenge players to up their game and the story is a great one. I wouldn't recommend DMing though unless you're *very* comfortable with high level games. It's starting to wear me down a bit. But that could also be the players. LOL!
Played it, DMed it, and even beat it (took a couple of tries).
Lincoln, he probably doesn't know who I am...which is understandable of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lincoln, he probably doesn't know who I am...which is understandable of course.
Who are you Dr. D? I find I agree with much of your philosophy so you have my curiosity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lincoln, he probably doesn't know who I am...which is understandable of course.Who are you Dr. D? I find I agree with much of your philosophy so you have my curiosity.
Primary Author of the Manual of Aurania, first 3PP supplement, published in 1977. Inventor of the Thief class. Grognard, general troublemaker. DMing since 1974 (so, if I use the term "DM" instead of "GM" please forgive me, my friends.)
And thank you. I do like to argue too much, I cheerfully admit.
(so, if I use the term "DM" instead of "GM" please forgive me, my friends.)
You're forgiven ;) I do just the opposite on Old School D&D boards, which I'm sure annoys more than a few people, "GM" is just a habit that I purposely force myself to keep so I don't start forgetting myself and end up putting it into print somewhere.
Metagaming seriously chaps my butt,
Have you tried "Anti Monkey Butt Powder"?
First of all knowledge checks should be automatic. It is like when you see a car and recognize it as a 67 corvette with 350 hp. The knowledge check is rolled in real life to see if your character can recall the information, but in the game the character either knows the info or he does not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Primary Author of the Manual of Aurania, first 3PP supplement, published in 1977. Inventor of the Thief class. Grognard, general troublemaker. DMing since 1974 (so, if I use the term "DM" instead of "GM" please forgive me, my friends.)
And thank you. I do like to argue too much, I cheerfully admit.
That's fraking awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lincoln, he probably doesn't know who I am...which is understandable of course.
I certainly did not know. You have my respect sir. I've always been more a cleric guy but one of my best friends (and longest running gaming buddies) loves the Thief in all iterations and will probably faint when I tell him I interacted with you. And then promptly laugh at me for stumbling in to that one. Lol.
Have you tried "Anti Monkey Butt Powder"?
Metagaming seriously chaps my butt,
I have not. Not sure I want anything with 'Monkey' in the name on my butt, but I'll look in to it. Thanks! Lol
I never forget. As I've posted before, I was delighted to shuck the title of "Dungeon Master," which when overheard by non-gamers tended to leave me in a little bubble of 'Stay away from that guy' space. I'm not terribly fond of "Game Master" as it still suggests a certain... shall we say James Bond villain quality?... but it is an improvement.
Still, it lacks a certain something in the mate-attracting department. Would anyone care to sign my petition requesting Paizo to change the title of GM to "Commitment-Loving Billionaire"?
I explained Pathfinder to my girlfriend using sports comparisons and now she's fascinated. I was vey lucky to find her. Lol.
I've always been partial to storyteller or ST but there may be some copyright issues.
Oh! Ooh! If you can, refer your potential GM to Return to White Plume Mountain, one of the few jewels of TSR's decidedly unsuccessful "revamp" era. Largely written by Bruce Cordell if I recall. The original module is surprisingly small; Return is impressive in scale and has a wicked plotline that my players still talk about years later.
As for my references to Hall of the Fire Giant King and Vault of the Drow, sorry if it seemed I was replying to one of your references. I was just saying that with so few modules back in the day, most of the AD&D veterans have played most of them, so it was unlikely DrDeth had missed anything as... er... genre-defining as Tomb. No offense intended on my end either.
Cordell wrote Return to the Tomb of Horrors! I'll mention the Return to Whiteplume. I think we're going to have to go back to 'normal' games for a bit. The classics are awesome, but I'm not sure they'll go for two in a row. I'm very anxious to actually play in one of the classics. This'll probably be the last time I run the Return to the Tomb of Horrors. I'm just no enjoying it as much anymore.
And as mentioned - no offense taken. Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy flying monkies of doom. Who knew we had someone like Dr. D on the boards? My hat's off to you sir, Thief has always been awesome (and always my 'home' class when I get burned by the other ones).
That said... I did not know they made a Return to the Tomb of Horrors... I've always wanted to try it.
Was it Tomb of Horrors or Temple of Elemental Evil that had the Sphere of Annihilation in the gargoyle's mouth that I hear joked about so much?
Holy flying monkies of doom. Who knew we had someone like Dr. D on the boards? My hat's off to you sir, Thief has always been awesome (and always my 'home' class when I get burned by the other ones).
That said... I did not know they made a Return to the Tomb of Horrors... I've always wanted to try it.
Was it Tomb of Horrors or Temple of Elemental Evil that had the Sphere of Annihilation in the gargoyle's mouth that I hear joked about so much?
I don't know about Temple of Elemental Evil, but the Tomb has the Sphere in the mouth of a Green Devil Face. That's probably the one you've heard about.
Return to the Tomb of Horrors is a campaign box set published using 2nd edition rules. As such, it requires a fair bit of adaptation. The monsters aren't that bad, but the specific enemies (named baddies with class levels) are a bit of a chore. Thankfully, many brave souls have ventured in to that arena and there are lots of online resources to draw from. I started my group around level 10 to allow them to make progress rapidly while maintaing a reasonable level of real danger. It goes to high levels, so comfort with those sorts of games is certainly needed (and as I'm learning, hard won). I think they sell the box set on Amazon.
They also made a 4ed edition of Tomb of Horrors (can't recall if there was a 3ed edition or not). That said, by the time 4ed rolled around, it seems as though it got softened quite a bit. Of course, that was a major feature of 4ed in general where it is much more difficult for a character to die (or rather, a lot less likely to have a character die due to one or two bad rolls).
As for DM/GM I tend to use both. I try to use whatever term is used for whatever game whose boards I'm on, but I slip plenty of times. :p
First of all knowledge checks should be automatic. It is like when you see a car and recognize it as a 67 corvette with 350 hp. The knowledge check is rolled in real life to see if your character can recall the information, but in the game the character either knows the info or he does not.
I somewhat disagree with this black and white interpretation. I usually give out information on knowledge checks depending on how vital the information is coupled with the die roll. If it's vital information that's liable to stall the game, I let the die roll indicate how much time it takes for the PCs to gather the info. This is especially tension building if the PCs are on any kind of timetable, or have a rival looking for the same goal. Otherwise, I let the die roll first determine the truth of the information gathered(beat or match the DC means the information is accurate, the deviation from there determines how much information). So in the case of the car, the high roll would determine the make, model, year, engine, performance metrics etc, (Ford Mustang, 1965, 286 engine, light frame, known for being quick as well as fast, has high performance disc brakes, with glass pack muffler, etc), while a low roll would do the same but might result in (Chevy, Corvette, 1965, 440, etc, with the information becoming more wrong the lower the roll.)
This has nurtured some of the more fun RP experiences in my games, where the other PCs kind of look at the PC that made the roll and just go "Are you sure that's accurate?" "Yeah, positive."