You must log in or register to comment.
“I pet the cat mimic with my other arm”
Dude… I’m laying in bed between my son and cat right now. He’s playing Marvel on Switch, I just made him look at this pic. Meanwhile, my arm is around the cat, petting her. She suddenly bites me while we’re looking at pic. I reprimand and continue petting. Bites again. I reprimand and stop petting. Pause, resume petting in spite of angry tail in peripheral vision. Child applauds cat for getting me good while saying the pic is sick. I read your comment. I am living your comment. I would not have second guessed my current petting mimic if I hadn’t read your comment. Pets biting cat again.
You’re probably infected with T. Gondii. Not sure how to make this a cute comment, so here’s this face :3
Cats don’t carry it hereditarily, they have to be infected and it’s usually because they’re outdoor cats.
“Can I roll to pet the cat again?”
Mimics, mimics everywhere is a sign of a bad DM who can’t create tension without bullshit paranoia, or a personal grudge.
Unless the table signed up for that kind of adventure, the challenges should be achievable within the party’s abilities, eg “Oh if only you could speak with animals you could have foiled the BBEG’s plans”
I mean, the same could be said of GMs that run a module without telling the table they’re running a module “to keep you from looking it up”, etc. Personally, I flat-out tell my players I’ll be running a certain module and that I’ll be considering it like jazz does sheet music. In fact, when I ran Xanathar’s arc after it’s release, the silent business partner to his faction was an ages-old black market syndicate headed by a mimic mafia (with changelings as their juvenile stage, tasked with learning humanoid ways via a sort of rumspringa).
Establishing that not only can anything be a mimic, but the resonant fact that said mimics were more interested in observing rather than mindlessly ambushing outright was far more paranoia-inducing than any stereotypical expectation, NGL. It wasn’t long before the party was all but wishing for the wardrobe/carriage/over-large chest/ornate tome to just attack and get it over with. 🤣🤘🏼
edit: spelling, clarity
I’d argue that it’s more fun to bury the lead on a module/set dungeon, to prevent any (even subconscious) meta-gaming from upsetting the play between more/less seasoned players, but I do like the “jazz and sheet music” analogy.
If someone clicks/is told you’re using Tomb of Horrors, they’ll know more than a player who is experiencing that for the first time organically. Obviously applying that and not breaking PC-player knowledge divide is the players issue to maintain, but they’ll still have that seed lurking in their brain about the upcoming set pieces
I’m on team “tell the players”, personally, because it lets the players customise their characters for the module. A group for Wilds Beyond the Witchlight are going to be different from Descent Into Avernus, for example.
(Of course, if a player decides to put Doom Guy in a fairy tale, that’s perfectly fine, but it should be their choice.)
Also, a person who knows about Tomb of Horrors will figure it out pretty quickly during gameplay anyway because of those set pieces you mentioned, so it doesn’t matter if you didn’t tell them what it was. Heck, they might even have bowed out so they don’t ruin things with their meta-knowledge, if only they knew what they were going to be playing.
GMs that run a module without telling the table they’re running a module
Why is this a problem?
The rest of the quote you omitted answers your question.
I’m reading your comment and it really doesn’t say anything about why not telling people what module it is, is bad. You just talked about something you did in one of your sessions, not the supposed bad thing. I took am curious as to why not giving the module is a “bad GM”, it seems that if you don’t want anyone entering the game with advanced knowledge or an advantage on things that’d be a no-brainer
It’s not the action that’s the problem, but the motive. It’s fine not to tell your players, but it’s a problem not to tell your players because you think they’ll cheat if they know. One is inaction, the other is paranoia. If the GM doesn’t trust the players, the game will be shit.
It’s in the first sentence, FFS.
…GMs that run a module without telling the table they’re running a module “to keep you from looking it up”…
🤦🏽♂️
…
Ok. So WHY is it bad that GMs don’t want their players to look up the module. That’s the part nobody is understanding. If you missed the last sentence of my comment…
if you don’t want anyone entering the game with advanced knowledge or an advantage on things that’d be a no-brainer
Why is this a problem.
No, I didn’t miss any of your comment, thanks, and relying on hyperbole to support your argument (eg. “nobody”) isn’t the best. If you personally prefer to treat your players as maladjusted toddlers and assume they’re better off with you “in charge”, I hope you find a decent group soon (and I hope anyone who unknowingly sits at this sort of table has better luck next time).
Again, for those in the back: removing players’ agency is no way to begin a gaming group/campaign/session, and the same goes for assuming they’re out to fuck with your precious plans. The whole hobby is rooted in communication, so maybe try that first. 🤦🏽♂️
He’s right you didn’t explain why not telling players what module you’re using to keep them from looking it up is a problem.
Are you high?
The party is ambushed in a tavern by four cats with white puffs on their chest. The cats mrowl out an ultimatum, but alas, the players do not speak Animal! After helping themselves to the players meals, the cats hang around and generally make a nuisance of themselves; knocking down cups and getting underfoot.
When the party finally realizes they’re being extorted by Cat Sith, they’re already an encounter deep in the next dungeon, and are making loads of rolls with misfortune! Only a rare fish will appease the cats, but how will the PCs find that out?
