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.
Ohh hell yeah. Like 1k% for sure. Like a race of hypnotoads in our fucking homes
The only reasonable response to such a situation.
“Can I roll to pet the cat again?”
“psss-psss-pssss”
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.
Lede*
And, I don’t necessarily disagree, though it’s the latter half of the statement that clarifies the problematic thinking: removing player agency is not a good first step.
Fair point, though I can only assume that it won’t be long before people are mispronouncing it IRL, for reasons not unlike “decimate” vs. “devastate”. 🫣 Ah, the consequences of underfunded education at the national scale. 🥹
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”…
🤦🏽♂️
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?
…
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. 🤦🏽♂️
Wow, that jazz simile. Love it!
Still, memes likes this one actually breed such GMs, because somehow they think it’s funny.
They are funny as memes, but beginner DMs might not be able to tell the difference.
I feel the same way about the False Hydra. As a recounted creepypasta it sounds cool. As an actual TTRPG enemy it’s unworkable. Either the adventure will be very scripted, because the DM has to pretty much allow you to perceive it, or it will be completely unfair and insufferable, because you’ll need to constantly pretend you don’t notice it and that you forget things as it decimates the party. It’s not a good D&D enemy, it doesn’t even fit the rules of D&D well. Mind effect with no saves unless you cover your ears? C’mon…
Unless the table signed up for that
Can’t trust any damn furniture!
The mimic table ate the contract.
It’s also a quick way to turn a regular player into a murderhobo, because if can’t trust anything not to be hostile, the best approach is to attack first.
Serious question, who here actually tries to create such paranoia in their players? It’s probably one of the biggest reoccurring memes around here and I don’t entirely get it.
Is this the tone some people are actually trying to create and if so, why?
It could just be I have a very narrow group of people I’ve played with, but this doesn’t necessarily seem a tone I’d be striving for.
I had a DM hide mimics and traps everywhere and then get pissed at us for “wasting” so much time checking everything for traps.
my personal rule is to only lay a trap that has clear potential to be discovered in-game, with a context clue, and not an ambiguous “roll for perception” out of nowhere.
randomly dropping an anvil on a player is a dick move.
telling players they’re walking through an active construction site of a new smithing conglomerate, with an unfinished forge 10 meters above them, at least sets the tone and let’s them know caution is a reasonable option.
also sets up some weird intrigue that could easily turn into a sidequest.
The confusion lies in calling them a GM. Sounds like they were just a dick
In a lot of ways, yes. It was my first time playing D&D, so I didn’t really know any better.
Generally, such paranoia is only for a single adventure (I had a haunted mansion my friend did where that paranoia was well done), or a one-off scare/surprise we can all have a good laugh about later.
Yeah, if you try to make it a regular thing, I think you need to expect your player count to be less and less regular in correlation.
I think that’s a terrific answer!
I had a sort of opposite problem the last time I ran a campaign. my players came into the game super paranoid, probably from reading stories about tricky DMs, and it made my life pretty difficult.
I did set up traps and misdirection, but only when there were exactly enough clues to figure it out. I learned that the major problem with that method, is that what’s obviously a clue to me wasn’t always obvious for them. so, I was thought of as a tricky DM. then, after I softened up, my sessions looked too easy and obvious.
honestly, it’s just a really difficult balance. I eventually got it to a good place for everyone, but everyone really does have a preferred level of deceit, and it isn’t easy to cater to a group of 5 with varying levels of expectation
My life is so stressful. I like to giggle with friends when I play games. This would give me so much anxiety and end relationships.
who here actually tries to create such paranoia in their players
Call of Cthulhu DMs, I’d assume, though I don’t know if there’s mimics in that, I’m just somewhat familiar with shoggoths and garden gnomes.
I’m genuinely curious how garden gnomes fit into the Cthulhu mythos. I thought I was relatively well versed on the topic, but that’s new to me.
Ah. I see you’re unfamiliar with the tale of Old Man Henderson. Enjoy.
(To be fair it was specifically the lack of garden gnomes that was a significant plot point in said tale, but characters in a setting being aware of a lack of garden gnomes sort of implies that garden gnomes do exist in said setting… but, again, given Old Man Henderson’s nature they could have easily just ever have existed in his head…)
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?
Are those just… normal cats?
Side note, if you ever want to calibrate Detect Evil, any cat will do.
kind of! They get codified unluckiness and a SOUL STEAL power if someone gets so unlucky that they die near them. No raise dead for u, should’ve been nicer to the weird cat.
…but they’re otherwise just big cat faeries.
A furocious foe!
So… less dangerous than a normal cat then? :-D
Never let David Cronenberg or John Carpenter DM your games.
I softly scratch the cat mimic behind the ears
Worth it.
DM: that’ll teach you attacking every chairs and table in every room.
Thanks, I hate it!
