hello,
how do you guys handle the rules when it comes to storytelling? I feel like my players are very focused on the rules and won't allow anything except it is 100% within the rules of the game. When something supernatural happens or there is a "magic accident" they always ask "what spell was that? you know it does not work like this" but in that situation it was part of a montage I did to make them move to their next destination.
In addition to that they are super focused on dominating everything. They have a hard time roleplaying their characters and only care for winning (they always break character just to get the best results for every situation). I tried if I could take something away from them before/ make them suffer in some way to improve their roleplaying but they just got mad at me.
I can't surprise them with anything. We started playing plunder and peril and I added a weak version of the scar rules (where they can't loose limbs and generally won't suffer penalties but can get cool scars bc I like the idea that characters are influenced by their battles) and they already got mad that one of them got a minor scar.
Honestly it's very tiring to play with four overlords who just kill everything without being conflicted in any way.
thanks for your help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say this, but my biggest suggestion would probably be to try to talk to them about the kind of game you want to run, and if you have different ideas than they do? You may need to find a different gaming group.
This isn't about Badwrongfun - but it is about incompatible desires for what you want around the gaming table. And to be honest? They'd probably be happier with a GM who isn't trying to get them into involved storytelling, just as you'd be happier with a different group of players.
I hate to say this, but my biggest suggestion would probably be to try to talk to them about the kind of game you want to run, and if you have different ideas than they do? You may need to find a different gaming group.
This isn't about Badwrongfun - but it is about incompatible desires for what you want around the gaming table. And to be honest? They'd probably be happier with a GM who isn't trying to get them into involved storytelling, just as you'd be happier with a different group of players.
yeah I will def talk to them too.
Finding a different group isn't really an option bc we are a group of close friends who play to meet up regularly. Only one of the others is willing to gm and will do a one shot soon. If he can do it better, he will probably continue from then on but I'd rather finish my story first and find a way to make the game work for all of us.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with AaronUnicorn, it seems your gaming preferences aren't the same as your players'. You like storytelling, and the players like killing things. They don't seem to appreciate your expositive, narrative introduction, transition, and denouement.
A GM, especially in a home game, invests a lot of his or her passion in world-building. William Faulkner said, “In writing, you must kill all your darlings.” Sound advice for the GM, too.
A possible solution: Do your storytelling through your NPCs' dialogue and actions, giving them memorable allies and unforgettable bad guys. Having built them, you can shape your story within the context of their capabilities. When the players slay them, pour all your creativity into describing their spectacular deaths, or have the player whose PC dealt the deathblow describe the moment himself or herself.
Another suggestion. If your players know the rules so well, they're probably capable of occasionally running sessions themselves. It's nice to share the burden and the opportunity with others.
I third what has been said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finding a different group isn't really an option bc we are a group of close friends who play to meet up regularly.
I understand that issue - but it may still be the case that, if you guys can't come to an agreement on the kind of game you want to play/run, walking away from this game might still be the right solution.
Which doesn't mean you can't still get together and hang out, but maybe playing RPGs together isn't the best choice for your group. Maybe break out a dungeon crawl board game?
Then see if you can find another group to satisfy your narrative urges.
On the other hand, the one advantage here is that, if you're friends, they should be at least somewhat receptive to your wishes. So, starting with a good discussion is still the best place to start. And maybe there can be some compromise between you.
|
Depending on the dynamics of the group, the next time you do something that is not quite by the rules and your players challenge it, you can refuse to engage with their questions. Just repeat that that is what happens. If they continue to argue, point to the places in the core rulebook that explain how the GM can change what they want. If done in the wrong tone of voice, this could come off as a jerk thing to do, but if done carefully, it's more of just showing that you are going to use the leeway given by the core rulebook to make the game the best you can.
It sounds like you are a story driven GM in a group of murderhobos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you are a story driven GM in a group of murderhobos.
While that may be the case, being of the philosophy that rules must apply symmetrically or they are not true rules does not make one a murder-hobo.
It sounds like you are a story driven GM in a group of murderhobos.While that may be the case, being of the philosophy that rules must apply symmetrically or they are not true rules does not make one a murder-hobo.
Of course not. But the OP made other statements that suggest that his players are:
They have a hard time roleplaying their characters and only care for winning (they always break character just to get the best results for every situation).
and
Honestly it's very tiring to play with four overlords who just kill everything without being conflicted in any way.
Depending on the dynamics of the group, the next time you do something that is not quite by the rules and your players challenge it, you can refuse to engage with their questions. Just repeat that that is what happens. If they continue to argue, point to the places in the core rulebook that explain how the GM can change what they want. If done in the wrong tone of voice, this could come off as a jerk thing to do, but if done carefully, it's more of just showing that you are going to use the leeway given by the core rulebook to make the game the best you can.
I suppose another plan of action could be to ask the players to get in the mind of their characters. There are so many feats, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, ect... that I find it hard to imagine that just about anything couldn't theoretically happen. Perhaps ask for an appropriate knowledge check if you think the PC has such a skill. If the PC lacks such a skill, you could respond "your character doesn't know, perhaps they could research the matter?". Also keep in mind that there are rules for making or altering spells.
Asking about game rules in game is kind of 4th wall breaking, you could also ask the players to save such game rule questions until the current game session is over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you are a story driven GM in a group of murderhobos.
A group of ppl who just want to "win" is more accurate I think. Especially with two of them I sometimes feel I can't let the characters struggle or put them in a bad situation without them getting mad at me ^^ (not as bad as it sounds probably but I don't know how to express it)
I suppose another plan of action could be to ask the players to get in the mind of their characters. Perhaps ask for an appropriate knowledge check if you think the PC has such a skill. If the PC lacks such a skill, you could respond "your character doesn't know, perhaps they could research the matter?". Also keep in mind that there are rules for making or altering spells.
Asking about game rules in game is kind of 4th wall breaking, you could also ask the players to save such game rule questions until the current game session is over.
seems to be a good idea. we are all quite unexperienced and I feel the 4th wall breaking often interrupts the game and my intentions as gm.
A group of ppl who just want to "win" is more accurate I think.
You could say, "There will be a +50% experience bonus to whoever role-plays the best this session".
(Not something I like to do in my own game, for various reasons, but it could work...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you are a story driven GM in a group of murderhobos.A group of ppl who just want to "win" is more accurate I think. Especially with two of them I sometimes feel I can't let the characters struggle or put them in a bad situation without them getting mad at me ^^ (not as bad as it sounds probably but I don't know how to express it)
seems to be a good idea. we are all quite unexperienced and I feel the 4th wall breaking often interrupts the game and my intentions as gm.I suppose another plan of action could be to ask the players to get in the mind of their characters. Perhaps ask for an appropriate knowledge check if you think the PC has such a skill. If the PC lacks such a skill, you could respond "your character doesn't know, perhaps they could research the matter?". Also keep in mind that there are rules for making or altering spells.
Asking about game rules in game is kind of 4th wall breaking, you could also ask the players to save such game rule questions until the current game session is over.
Have you ever asked them what they think constitutes "winning"? Figuring that out specifically might help you bring them around to your way of playing. I've dealt with a lot of players who come to the table thinking there's some kind of "win" state that they can look for like chess or cuphead and tend to not understand that the reality is way more complicated than that. They don't tend to think about how the way you win might be as if not more important than the win itself and that for each PC & GM winning might be different. For example, I usually think of a winning session as one where my players get through the bulk of what I prepared that night, they explored the map I made, and we get closer to the big shift that will come at the end of the season that is drawing ever closer and getting to foreshadow it with dreams and mysterious clues to get them trying to parse out what's to come. Along with that, I want to have at least one of them make me laugh once, and I want to see them find a challenge that makes them sweat and cooperate.
Meanwhile, the changeling witch player wants to try to study more arcane stuff and keeps looking for excuses to dive in at it, the warpriest player wants to test his might and try to help his NPC friend find the faith, and the medium players wants to do more stuff that will get her elevated within her faction. And because I know all of these goals I can choose which to apply pressure and attention to and when, and on top of that, I can put some of those goals and odds with each other, like having a massive storm of arcane power that could teach the players new spells, but is considered a fiendish and taboo thing by the medium's faction. Now they have to debate and discuss what to do, and that forces them to rp their characters.
You might want to ask them individually what each of them wants to get out of their characters, both in the short term and the long term. Maybe give them resources to read or watch to get their creative juices flowing if they are having trouble and ask for some inspiration.
A group of ppl who just want to "win" is more accurate I think.You could say, "There will be a +50% experience bonus to whoever role-plays the best this session".
(Not something I like to do in my own game, for various reasons, but it could work...)
I'm not against rewarding players for roleplaying, but generally when I've seen it used in the past it's either so minor that it really makes no difference or it is so large it creates a quite noticeable power gap among the PCs. There are other ways of rewarding roleplaying though, my first GM gave out what he called "brownie points" that where like hero points, except that it was limited to the die reroll. I like these kinds of rewards since they go away after used, and aren't a permanent thing. I would not personally make getting a reward a once a session thing to the winner, I'd give them out to each player as I thought they "earned" them, but I'd have a limit per session and how many each PC can have at a time, the standard is no more than 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but generally when I've seen it used in the past it's either so minor that it really makes no difference or it is so large it creates a quite noticeable power gap among the PCs. There are other ways of rewarding roleplaying though, my first GM gave out what he called "brownie points" that where like hero points, except that it was limited to the die reroll. I like these kinds of rewards since they go away after used, and aren't a permanent thing...You could say, "There will be a +50% experience bonus to whoever role-plays the best this session".
(Not something I like to do in my own game, for various reasons, but it could work...)
We are currently using something like the inspiration points from D&D 5e. I should remind them that they exist.
You might want to ask them individually what each of them wants to get out of their characters, both in the short term and the long term. Maybe give them resources to read or watch to get their creative juices flowing if they are having trouble and ask for some inspiration.
Seems to be a good homework for them and preparation for the talk I want to have about our gamestyle.
Our group uses a background PDF sheet to be filled out by each character and given to the GM. I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but it included
Five things essential to the character’s background including previous adventures and events.
Four goals the character has.
Three people from the character's past or present.
Two secrets about the character.
Failure to provide this to the GM results in your character being on the slower exp track.
The thing I always try to impress upon players who I've not run games for is that my philosophy is thus-
"The rules exist to serve the story, and the story exists to provide context to make the game more fun. If there's ever a conflict, the higher on the aforementioned hierarchy will receive priority."
As for "the players just want to kill stuff and get loot" the fundamental problem with this sort of thing is that it gets old after a while. Maybe it hasn't gotten old with them for a while. Sometimes the best thing to do is to give someone what they think they want until they realize they don't want it, and pay attention to what the players seem interested in other than their stated goals, and try to switch the focus to that.
But never let players say "the rulebook says x, so you can't do y", that's simply not an argument you should accept (though "when you do y, I feel that it makes the game less fun and thought you should know this" is 100% something you should accept.) After all, Paizo publishes new feats, spells, archetypes, items, etc. every month and those can change up the basic assumptions of the game, and you're no less qualified to do this *for your own game* than Paizo's writers and freelancers are.
|
Even if they get mad...quite honestly, sometime it is better to show consequences to their actions.
If your party their entire career keep killing people and then suddenly find themselves in a situation where they really need someone help...they probably aren't going to get it just because of their reputation or even worst, will get double crossed...put into an ambush and while they plead for mercy, the npc will remind them that they didn't have any.
Yeah It's harsh...but sometime, learning the hard way, is a way to cement that the world is alive and real, reacting to the pc decisions and choices.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may help you to read through some pfs sinarios they have many unique environmental effects, hazard, anti magic effect, wield mess with schools of magic stuff.
The rules are not covered in any books but it makes it clear to me that gms are allowed to create effects outside the constraints of environmental rules for story effect. There are also compulsions wierd sleep walking also responsible of individual effects to draw from as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"'What spell was that?' It was 'Mordenkainen's P*ss Off, I'm the GM', that's what spell that was. Now roll your bloody saving throw."
"'What spell was that?' It was 'Mordenkainen's P*ss Off, I'm the GM', that's what spell that was. Now roll your bloody saving throw."
I'll assume you mean for a character without spellcraft and know. Arcana?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, if <some made-up environmental hazard> works one way this week, and a different way next week, expect discontent.
If there isn't a rule for something the GM wants to have happen, that's fine. Make some up, but try to make them consistent with the existing rule structures. However, if there *IS* a rule for it, then use it. Otherwise what did you pay all that money for the books for ?
@plahpers: And if a GM tells me to piss-off, that's exactly what I'll do. Get PISSED OFF.
i've seen a pattern of GMs on this board who are frustrated with their players for one reason or another and decide upon punishing them somehow through gameplay. Geez this is just confusing to me. Reward them for playing well, sure, but if there is a disagreement, talk about it. If people are punished without explanation why, it's not going to curb the behavior being punished.
I do think there should be realistic ingame consequences to PC actions, as Eltacolibre mentions, perhaps the rampant destruction left in the wake of the PCs attracts the attention of some sort of powerful outsider. That would create a new narrative to involve the PCs in, it would increase the challenge, but it wouldn't be a punishment in terms of GM punishing Players.
As others have said there seems to be a mismatch between the GM and players, personally I would just quit GMing for them.
With the regards to the supernatural issue you could draw inspiration from Occult Adventures and just declare whatever it is as the product of ritual magic. You could try explaining that NPCs will have spells, skills, abilities and resources not available to player characters.
My GM works it that with your knowledge of spellcraft, magical theory etc. you're able to make an educated guess as to what the spell does, as well as details such as school and approximate power level (on a scale of 0 to 9).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how do you guys handle...
Here's my $.02
Pathfinder is a rules-heavy game. I think of it like chess. It's clearly documented what each piece on the board can do, and how it can do it. All players follow the same rules. In the case of Pathfinder, a GM has "secrets" in the sense that players won't know what monsters can do, or where traps are, etc, unless they succeed at the appropriate rules-provided methods to learn those things.
That's what this game is.
To a degree, what you're describing is the game of tag. That's rules-light. It's not clear at the start if some areas will be out-of-bounds, or if someone has to touch with both hands, or if hiding is allowed, or if tag-backs are permitted, or if tagging hair counts, or, or, or, or. Stuff is made up as the game evolves, as needed, or for entertainment.
That's not Pathfinder.
Now let me offer advice. Your players have a character sheet and a rulebook that tells them what they can do. It tells them how to do it. It tells them how the universe their PCs live in works. It teaches them about things like hardness, and about things like how hard it is to climb a wall. The materials the players have gives them a foundation to build their roleplay upon. If you answer "well, what spell was that" with "don't worry about it, it's just a montage that moves the story along", you are saying "that Spellcraft skill on your character sheet doesn't matter. And also, the entire section of the core rulebook on how magic works." That takes away the player's foundation. It erodes their sense of how things work, which damages their roleplay. But only because this is a rules-heavy system.
An experienced DM learns how to play the game while still getting things done. "Oh, what spell? Please roll me a Spellcraft check. Oh, that number let you identify all the way up to 9th level spells, the most powerful in the book. Well, this is clearly not a common spell, but you'd suspect it's an exotic variant of fireball combined with teleport maybe. Probably about a 7th-level spell." That lets the players "ooh" and "ahh" over the potency of what they're seeing, but it also lets them start thinking about if they can/should use dispel magic or if they could use some dimensional anchor type ability, or, or, or. It lets them think about what they CAN do.
An experienced Pathfinder DM plays by the rules, even when they don't play by the rules-as-written. Monsters (even house-designed monsters) don't get to do Just Anything. If it can go through the walls, don't screw around; make it incorporeal. If it can latch onto its enemies, don't screw around; give it grab, inflicting the grappled condition, so the players know what they can do about it.
Enable your players while you tell you story.
Hopefully this helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually an interesting question. What do you learn if you make your roll to identify a unique, researched spell?"'What spell was that?' It was 'Mordenkainen's P*ss Off, I'm the GM', that's what spell that was. Now roll your bloody saving throw."I'll assume you mean for a character without spellcraft and know. Arcana?
You get everything but it's name, of course.
Look at this a different way. Take a unique monster. There's only one of it anywhere in the world. But it's CR1 and the player rolls Knowledge(the right one) and gets oh... 16. The rules say that for particularly rare monsters, the DC is CR+15. So 16 makes it. If a DM doesn't give one bit of information, they're saying "your skill doesn't work". If the DM does give one bit of information, they're saying "wow, your character is so amazing they they recognize this ultra-rare creature and know that it... tickles people to death."
Empowering. Anything else is taking away a player's ability.
I treat spells, traps, etc all the same way. If the skill check gives the answer, it gives the answer as long as that is possible. (Example: Knowledge(history) to know something that was literally never recorded anywhere or witnessed... can't work, because it's can't.)
Some people make chili with no beans, and this is fine. Some people make chili with beans, and this is fine. Some of the people in the previous two think this is the *only* way to make chili, and they are wrong- they are both making chili; it's just different chili.
It's much the same with Pathfinder and people who insist on a legalistic or less strict reading of the rules. You're playing Pathfinder if you use the Pathfinder classes, spells, feats, races etc. even if you don't follow the mass nautical combat rules to a T.
If someone is confused by "you are playing Pathfinder, but you are not using the mass nautical combat rules right" they can likely be satisfied with some explanation of "we found those were a pain in the butt, so we stopped using them" else they are perhaps some kind of sapient computer or space alien.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to add that as a GM and player there have definitely been scenarios where the rules didn't support what I wanted to do (or what the GM wanted to do) and so as the GM I did what I wanted to anyways. I never let the rules get in the way, although I did always make sure that anything combat related was balanced (as best I could) and tried to avoid making up anything that players would interact with directly.
Example:
GM: There's a new disease that causes you to turn to stone on the first full moon after catching.
Player: What disease is that I roll 100 heal check, and cast all the remove disease spells. What happens?
GM: This disease is brand new, no one knows how it works but you suspect Baron von Evil-Bad created it. If you defeat him you might find the McGuffin that can reverse the effect.
Player: There's no such thing! What is this!?
GM: Yeah I made it up, so we have an interesting story that isn't solved by the normal easy methods.
Perhaps you just need to explain upfront that not everything will necessarily follow all the normal rules. Most stuff will, but not everything. The rules are there to direct players, limit players and provide methods to interact with other things. As a GM, your goal is to provide a fun gaming experience for you and everyone else at the table. Sometimes you can't do that if you simply try to blindly follow all the rules.
Also, have you pointed out to them where Paizo writes adventure paths and makes stuff up? The first example that comes to mind is in the Hell's Vengeance AP you are supposed to anoint a weapon in the McGuffinSoup to give it super powers. That's nowhere in the rules.
I just want to add that as a GM and player there have definitely been scenarios where the rules didn't support what I wanted to do (or what the GM wanted to do) and so as the GM I did what I wanted to anyways. I never let the rules get in the way, although I did always make sure that anything combat related was balanced (as best I could) and tried to avoid making up anything that players would interact with directly.
Example:
GM: There's a new disease that causes you to turn to stone on the first full moon after catching.
Player: What disease is that I roll 100 heal check, and cast all the remove disease spells. What happens?
GM: This disease is brand new, no one knows how it works but you suspect Baron von Evil-Bad created it. If you defeat him you might find the McGuffin that can reverse the effect.
Player: There's no such thing! What is this!?
GM: Yeah I made it up, so we have an interesting story that isn't solved by the normal easy methods.Perhaps you just need to explain upfront that not everything will necessarily follow all the normal rules. Most stuff will, but not everything. The rules are there to direct players, limit players and provide methods to interact with other things. As a GM, your goal is to provide a fun gaming experience for you and everyone else at the table. Sometimes you can't do that if you simply try to blindly follow all the rules.
Something like your example was exactly the problem I was facing with the stories I had in mind so thank you! Also plays into what I said in my post before about me not addressing my plan immediately
When a DM just makes stuff up on how things work (the topic of this thread) that don't follow the printed rules, that's playing a different game.
No, it's not. It's the basic premise of table top fantasy gaming and its shared reality. The intro to every D&D book since the first says play how you want. You don't get to declare what is and isn't Pathfinder or that your style of rules-heavy interpretation is the only way to play Pathfinder and deviation from that is not Pathfinder. That's not the spirit of this system or its predecessors.
I don't use attacks of opportunity for spell-casting. I say I'm playing Pathfinder, and I'm right. I don't say you have to play that way. You are encouraged to use or discard rules in the spirit of having fun.
I also disagree with the premise that Pathfinder is rules heavy. Part of that comes from my interpretation of every rule as a suggestion. I use what makes sense for me and my group. Part of it comes from my view that what Pathfinder offers a lot of are options. It's option heavy. That's much different from being rules heavy which implies you must adhere. I only use core unless someone asks to use something from a splat book which I take case by case. Options I like. It's why I play Pathfinder instead of basic. Rules? Take them or leave them.
I take offense at the declaration that Pathfinder IS ...insert your opinion, and any deviation from that implies you're not doing it right.
Zecke, you don't have to explain what the players don't know, haven't figured out yet, or don't understand. You don't need to couch your explanations in rules-speak to make it sound like you're following a rule. Mystery empowers DMs and stories.
PCs: What was that?!?
DM: You don't know. You've never seen its like before.
PCs: You have to tell us!
DM: I'm sorry, but it's beyond your experiences. That should give you a hint about what you're dealing with. (heheheh, ok, maybe not but it will sow confusion and wonder)
PCs: I use spellcraft and my arcane knowledge! I roll a 28!!!
DM: Hmm, drawing upon your vast arcane experience you are only able to tell that it's from a power greater than your own level. Reaching out with your senses, the hairs raise on the back of your neck.
You don't have to translate game reality to Pathfinder rules to be a good DM. In fact the opposite is recommended in storytelling. You don't declare, "There are three goblins moving down the hall toward you." You describe it, "Hunched and small shadows emerge from the hall, sharp and dirty teeth fill the mouths of the stained cleaver wielding forms now breaking into a charge, "BREE-YARRRRRRRK!""
I just want to add that as a GM and player there have definitely been scenarios where the rules didn't support what I wanted to do (or what the GM wanted to do) and so as the GM I did what I wanted to anyways. I never let the rules get in the way, although I did always make sure that anything combat related was balanced (as best I could) and tried to avoid making up anything that players would interact with directly.
Example:
GM: There's a new disease that causes you to turn to stone on the first full moon after catching.
Player: What disease is that I roll 100 heal check, and cast all the remove disease spells. What happens?
GM: This disease is brand new, no one knows how it works but you suspect Baron von Evil-Bad created it. If you defeat him you might find the McGuffin that can reverse the effect.
Player: There's no such thing! What is this!?
GM: Yeah I made it up, so we have an interesting story that isn't solved by the normal easy methods.Perhaps you just need to explain upfront that not everything will necessarily follow all the normal rules. Most stuff will, but not everything. The rules are there to direct players, limit players and provide methods to interact with other things. As a GM, your goal is to provide a fun gaming experience for you and everyone else at the table. Sometimes you can't do that if you simply try to blindly follow all the rules.
Also, have you pointed out to them where Paizo writes adventure paths and makes stuff up? The first example that comes to mind is in the Hell's Vengeance AP you are supposed to anoint a weapon in the McGuffinSoup to give it super powers. That's nowhere in the rules.
The issue is can X thing that has been done be replicated by a PC? Or is creating a brand new disease only able to be done by the GM fiat skill? That is the issue people want, it doesn't have to be 100%by the book but the game works off the premise that the rules apply to everyone and everything until an ability the says otherwise. Making up a new curse or way to enchant an item isn't bad or wrong, its when the villains suddenly can plotkai whatever they need whenever and they how is just handwaved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's not. It's the basic premise of table top fantasy gaming and its shared reality.
A shared reality is only shared if everyones expectations of reality matches.
A shared reality is only shared if everyones expectations of reality matches.
No, it's not. It's the basic premise of table top fantasy gaming and its shared reality.
The DM is the arbitor of the reality. If you are questioning him during a session, you may be a dick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue is that there are different types of rules. Using a words/language analogy, the players and the GM need to be speaking the same language but words can be restricted or added. Extending the analogy further; if nouns are things like spells, monsters etc and verbs are the gameplay mechanics then it is perfectly reasonable for the GM to introduce new nouns without defining it to the players - part of the fun is the players working out what the new thing is. But all the verbs need an agreed definition, even those made up on the spot where the GM has to make up the mechanic in response to a particular circumstance.
The time for that is after a session. The DM is free to run the rest of the world shrouded in as much mystery as he desires. The players are free to find another game if they can't have fun playing without every effect explained in rules. If they're interrupting the game to haggle for info I deem is beyond them, I would have a talk with them first not vice versa, and new DMs need to feel empowered to storytell. That's the origin of this thread, not rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM is the arbitor of the reality. If you are questioning him during a session, you may be a dick.A shared reality is only shared if everyones expectations of reality matches.
No, it's not. It's the basic premise of table top fantasy gaming and its shared reality.
If the GM tells me we are playing a game with a rule book and doesn't explain how the rule book will be deviated from before we start the GM is either new or a dick. And no the GM isn't the arbiter of reality, at least not a good GM. He is the narrator of reality, not some omnipresent world force, he explains how the rules work and arbitrates them across existence, not decides for the better good of the narrative that this new spell or new creature is so forgein that experts in the fields are baffled beyond all imagination by it (but you can bet some super important NPC has a catalog with everything to know about the marysueguffin). Now if the players want to play that game and know going in what to expect, good great no one is stopping you. But if we sit down to play Texas Hold em, then expect people to be upset when you start discarding cards to draw new ones ala 5 card draw.
PCs: I use spellcraft and my arcane knowledge! I roll a 28!!!
DM: Hmm, drawing upon your vast arcane experience you are only able to tell that it's from a power greater than your own level. Reaching out with your senses, the hairs raise on the back of your neck.
Then why bother putting points in Knowledge(Arcana) ? Or bringing along that annoying know-it-all bard ?