So I've been reading threads like this one and this one and that one, as well as a lot of other threads around, and I feel compelled to ask a question...
Am I the only GM who doesn't want to screw over their players?
This probably sounds like an amazingly silly question, but I'm legitimately wondering. I see these posts so very often. Threads and advice centered around picking on your players, punishing them for something you think they shouldn't do, or how to make some player regret that he or she did something other than what you wanted them to do.
Stuff like:
1) How do I make my players regret...
1.A) Dumping Strength?
1.B) Dumping Dexterity?
1.C) Dumping Constitution?
1.D) Dumping Intelligence?
1.E) Dumping Wisdom?
1.F) Dumping Charisma?
1.G) Dumping Anything?
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
3) 1,001 ways to make a Player regret playing a Paladin.
4) 1,001 ways to make sure a spellcaster can't protect their spellbook/components/magic items.
5) 1,001 ways to make sure warriors can't have nice things.
And the big one: "How to I force people to roleplay the way I want them to?"
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters. I see people lining up with piles and piles of really bad advice, telling them to do stuff like making extra rules to punish them twice, or telling them they can't do something arbitrarily ("you've been hit with Feeblemind, your intelligence is 1, you can't sneak attack because you're too stupid to use strategies, even though animals and even vermin act more tactically than I'm telling you you can" - "Your Dexterity has been damaged to a 3, so I'm not letting you make a Reflex save, because you wouldn't be able to evade it anyway").
Or, oh, I like this one. "You're not roleplaying right". Gotta love that junk. Everyone seems to have their own idea of what roleplaying is, and dagnamit you will be punished for it if the GM has anything to say about it; 'cause that's the way this game is played!
Is it just that people are really vocal about this stuff? Or am I just the minority? Is it odd that I tend to follow stuff by the book, give house-rules upfront, make house rules to benefit the players instead of screw with them? Is it odd that I help players make mechanically decent PCs ("Well, are you sold on throwing daggers, or would darts fluffed as throwing knives work, 'cause darts are lighter, cheaper, and throw farther...")? Am I the only one who is happy when the party foils my diabolical encounters (and some of them would make Asmodaeus proud)?
Am I the only GM who's more interested in seeing how a player is going to bring his or her character to life, rather than telling them how to play their character based on numbers on their paper?
C'mon, I'm just wondering?
Am I alone, or are there others?
So I've been reading threads like this one and this one and that one, as well as a lot of other threads around, and I feel compelled to ask a question...
Am I the only GM who doesn't want to screw over their players?
This probably sounds like an amazingly silly question, but I'm legitimately wondering. I see these posts so very often. Threads and advice centered around picking on your players, punishing them for something you think they shouldn't do, or how to make some player regret that he or she did something other than what you wanted them to do.Stuff like:
1) How do I make my players regret...
1.A) Dumping Strength?
1.B) Dumping Dexterity?
1.C) Dumping Constitution?
1.D) Dumping Intelligence?
1.E) Dumping Wisdom?
1.F) Dumping Charisma?
1.G) Dumping Anything?
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
3) 1,001 ways to make a Player regret playing a Paladin.
4) 1,001 ways to make sure a spellcaster can't protect their spellbook/components/magic items.
5) 1,001 ways to make sure warriors can't have nice things.And the big one: "How to I force people to roleplay the way I want them to?"
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters. I see people lining up with piles and piles of really bad advice, telling them to do stuff like making extra rules to punish them twice, or telling them they can't do something arbitrarily ("you've been hit with Feeblemind,...
Two of those were made by the same person, and not too many people agree with him the last time I checked in. As for the lowering XP thing I did not agree with that either.
Amen brother.
Two of those were made by the same person, and not too many people agree with him the last time I checked in. As for the lowering XP thing I did not agree with that either.
They were just the straw that broke it for me. I just had to know at this point. This junk goes on a lot of places, and I see it around here a lot. I tried to write a mini-guide to building characters that worked yet matched your concept in how they played; and the thread was attacked with so much fervor by people telling me what my characters looked like or how they acted because a guy his a -2 in Charisma instead of -0, even when most of their logic was proved fallacious.
I eventually got tired of it. I really probably should go back and post some more in the thread, or begin anew, since it seemed that some people were enjoying it; but I was getting tired of fighting tooth and nail, and ending up with some 30 posts between each project with nothing but fighting.
Amen brother.
Ahh, I guess that's one more who feels the same way. ^-^
Two of those were made by the same person, and not too many people agree with him the last time I checked in. As for the lowering XP thing I did not agree with that either.They were just the straw that broke it for me. I just had to know at this point. This junk goes on a lot of places, and I see it around here a lot. I tried to write a mini-guide to building characters that worked yet matched your concept in how they played; and the thread was attacked with so much fervor by people telling me what my characters looked like or how they acted because a guy his a -2 in Charisma instead of -0, even when most of their logic was proved fallacious.
I eventually got tired of it. I really probably should go back and post some more in the thread, or begin anew, since it seemed that some people were enjoying it; but I was getting tired of fighting tooth and nail, and ending up with some 30 posts between each project with nothing but fighting.
Amen brother.Ahh, I guess that's one more who feels the same way. ^-^
I remember that. I was in on it, on your side that is.
I remember that. I was in on it, on your side that is.
Yeah, I remember you too. I always like your posts on the boards. It seems like you think things through, and it shows in your posts.
I believe a large amount of these people do not play with their friends, freeing them from social consequence of being a jerk to their players or imposing their will on them for no reason. When I go to play D&D, it is much more than a dice rolling session, I could play settlers or robo rally if i wanted that, it's an excuse to act goofy and ferret out some deep seeded social views of your friends they might otherwise wall away.
I agree completely. I'm probably too nice to my players, actually.. I want them to succeed, so they can get to the next cool encounter I've planned :)
Having been on the receiving end of 2 of the worst DMs I have ever seen, I actively try to not screw over my players. I make sure they know the consequences for their choices and actions, but I will not unduly punish them for it.
As for number 2 on your list, that seems more like campaign style than screwing over the players. I used to give the players less XP because I didn't like for them to level so quickly, but Pathfinder fixed that with the Slow Experience progression.
i agree with ashiel's points.
i also beleive that punishing somebody for dumping anything creates unneccessary bookkeeping for both the players and the DM.
not everybody has the confidence to be a table diva, i know i don't. another thing that compromises my roleplaying ability besides lack of social skills, a lack of confidence, and a lack of common sense is a 33% processing delay from my autism.
i don't think a player such as myself should be forced to recite impromptu speeches on the spot.
i usually dump charisma and play silent characters in person. usually only speaking to announce my actions or plan tactics behind the scenes.
the internet can make up for the processing delay to an extent, but it cannot compensate for my lack of proper social skills, my lack of confidence and self esteem. my tendency to play quiet low charisma characters makes up for some of this unless i am put on the "hot seat" by the DM, but it fails to compensate for my processing delay.
Umbriere Nox Astrum Lunas Moonwhisper and Luminiere Solaras Dawnbringer II are my first 2 socially oriented characters to sacrifice any damage dealing potential whatsoever. but both have some combat oriented support abilities. Umbriere buffs and misdirects, Luminiere heals. both of which are roles i lack the patience for in an IRL game while playing in person. both are the complete opposite of the characters i normally play.
Yay, people. I'm not alone. ^-^
Power to the players! *rawkfist*
Actually, yeah. It's important for we GMs to remember that without players, there is no game. Some might contend that without we GMs there is no game, but if I don't have a GM I can go play Baldur's Gate or WoW. There are other things that can keep players from being bored than having to put up with "Your charisma is too low, everyone in the bar hates you on sight".
I've been GMing since I started playing, 'cause I only got to play for about a week before the ones that introduced me to D&D had to go back out of state. I got the books, read through them, and even ran a few adventures without players to get an idea for the mechanics (good practice for a GM who's just starting out; though admittedly it's about as entertaining as playing chess with yourself; but also a good way to learn not to metagame). Then, players came, and I've been running D&D both online and offline for the past 11 years.
It's an honor, and a privilege to be a GM. Let none tell you differently. I'd not trade it for anything (barring crazy hypothetical situations like "never GM or your brother is hurled off a mountain"). The feeling of satisfaction at the end of a great game, or the look on the players faces when their cleric has fallen down a 20ft pit trap, set on fire by kobolds, while the whole party is wedged into a less than 5ft-wide path while the kobolds are pestering them from the other side of the pit - and then overcoming this hellish challenge - is absolutely priceless.
I play my junk by the books. PCs die and new characters are rolled; but it for my players I cheer, and I tip my hat when they roll criticals, and I raise my screen when a bad-guy makes a particularly bad save to show them their fortune, and I thank god that I'm lucky enough to share with them the magic of D&D as I've been exploring it for almost half my life.
Sorry, a bit of a tangent there. Q.Q
|
I do think that the majority of the people posting in those threads aren't out to screw their players. Most of them just want to see certain things in their game, and look for methods to bring that about. Since they would be fine with their own 5 Cha character getting dirty looks and poor service, they think it's fine to do that to other people's characters. They have a fundamental disconnect between the people that see no problem having a character with a 5 Cha. Until they actually talk it out instead of using passive methods to bring about change, that disconnect will not go away.
Actually, yeah. It's important for we GMs to remember that without players, there is no game.
The beauty of my statement was that GMs are players too. So ALL players have equal power. :)
@ Karel: There are better ways, and if you as the DM are getting bored then talking to them outside of the game is a better way of promoting chance.
Example:My current campaign is very power focused(Age of Worms). My next campaign in order to promote "play want you want, not what you have too" will be a lot more laid back. I will tell the players this up front, and it will be pure PF unless the player has a storyline reason to borrow something from 3.5.
i have always desired to play a more social pc, but don't have the confidence to follow through in person. made even worse with both a combat focused DM and a table diva stacked against me. i can do it on the internet with a more laid back DM.
I think you are misinterpreting some of these questions.
Stuff like:
1) How do I make my players regret...
1.F) Dumping Charisma?Is not about punishing players but abut making charisma more interesting to the players. And to give them incentives to break out of the stereotypes like a 7 charisma fighter.
4) 1,001 ways to make sure a spellcaster can't protect their spellbook/components/magic items.This isn't about punishing players but about offering them challenges they don't normally encounter. And about slightly nerving certain characters that are overpowered without resorting to cheesy houserules you mention. And about keeping players that deem themselves God, on their toes so they don't let their guard down.
I can understand that. I'm all for stuff like having warriors sunder spell components or pouches in combat (now that's frightening as a caster) if they opportunity presents itself, but some GMs really seem to want or suggest making it hell on them; at least the way I've been seeing things on these internet forums (for the past many years).
As for the charisma bit, I really still don't get it. If people wanted to provide an incentive to having a better charisma, they'd make it worth their while; not invent new penalties to hurt people who have a lower charisma. Something like letting Will saves be based off Wisdom OR Charisma, or allowing feats that let you apply 1/2 your Charisma modifier on saving throws (like a watered down Divine Grace), or making a mechanic based on charisma that raised your minimum damage by an amount equal to your charisma modifier (so if you're a fighter with a +3 Charisma then your greatsword could only roll a 5 before modifiers, so instead of 2-12+6 you'd have 5-12+6).
I think giving more reasons to actually focus on Charisma would make people stop dumping it. Currently it is the "soft" stat. It gives the lightest penalties and benefits, except to certain classes that focus on it (which can also allow designers to use it for balancing purposes).
EDIT: Which isn't actually a bad thing. Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized. Athletes are encouraged to be stronger, faster, with more stamina. Most of us are taught to study hard and be well educated and smart. Really, being socially gifted is not much of a focus even in real life, as much as being able to get a job and live. Those that do stand out as socially gifted do just that - stand out.
I do think that the majority of the people posting in those threads aren't out to screw their players. Most of them just want to see certain things in their game, and look for methods to bring that about. Since they would be fine with their own 5 Cha character getting dirty looks and poor service, they think it's fine to do that to other people's characters. They have a fundamental disconnect between the people that see no problem having a character with a 5 Cha. Until they actually talk it out instead of using passive methods to bring about change, that disconnect will not go away.
Actually, yeah. It's important for we GMs to remember that without players, there is no game.The beauty of my statement was that GMs are players too. So ALL players have equal power. :)
Good point, and good point. Yay for we all, the players. ^-^
I refuse to play with a DM/GM whose idea of having fun is to "win" against the players or who makes things so hard that you have to play in a min/max or munchkin way just to survive. When I run games, I enjoy it when the players succeed in overcoming my challenges. I do not run easy games, but in 20-some years of off and on DMing, I have almost never killed a character or ruined a player's fun. I also do not understand the desire to have a stat that provides a negative bonus. I know I would never want to play a character with that kind of handicap and maybe that is why I do not allow characters to have starting stats below 10.
I see that the "DM should really be a monster combat AI and not much else" club is alive and well.
Oh? Where have I suggested such, if you could be so kind as to point it out to me?
My current tabletop group consists of 3 regular players (several of our other friends have some RL stuff that makes our meeting day difficult to keep), and the party currently consists of a psychic warrior (the brawn), an egoist (the tank - humorously), and a conjurer (the magic), and they are part of an underground resistance fighting against their former kingdom after its rulers have allied themselves with fiends to take a stab at world domination.
They have currently went from fleeing their homeland and rescuing villagers on bordertowns from being forcefully drafted into the armies of their country, to outside its borders and helping a resistance movement gather fellows. They have braved forests, and roads patrolled by soldiers and fiendish spies (like flocks of fiendish bats and ravens under the control of the evil powers), and are currently on a mission to ally the nations of the drow, dwarfs, orcs, and hobgoblins against the threat of demonic invasion; only to have found that the drow queen has defected to the temptations of the fiendish power, resulting in a great civil war between the drow; and they have since fled from the capital city of the drow nation, through the underworld, on the bag of a drow-trained Bulette as they fled apprehension.
They rescued an honorguard of the queen who was nearly killed for discovering too much, who has proven to be a useful ally when dealing with the more benevolent faction of drow. However, finding that the drow are now fighting amongst themselves, they have set forth northward to the lands controlled by the hobgoblin warlords, and then - hopefully - towards the dwarf lands ruled by the council of dwarven princes; but they are sure to be dogged every step of the way by the minions of the evil powers who mean to rule the world...
They have repeatedly turned over large sums of their treasures from their adventures (including equipment and gold) to their resistance group (run by NPCS), so I've started giving them bonus XP for doing so, and adjusting treasures to compensate; so that their heroic and selfless contributions are rewarded slightly; because it was just too good.
Woe is me, for I have but a series of 0s and 1s in the ticking pattern of the enemy AI. Mayhaps if my PCs can wedge themselves in the cave just right, a big dragon will glitch out and become perpetually stunned while they shoot arrows at it. Time will tell.
EDIT: For anyone curious, this campaign is taking place in a piece of history from my homebrew campaign setting that I'm working on, and not a published setting. Those 0s and 1s are sure useful. :)
Its good to see a thread like this one, but I wonder how long it will take before afore mentioned jerks find and derail it?
I completely agree with all points made so far. I've had the fortune of experiancing a plethora of different GM play styles in my time as the members of my group tend to take it in turns with different projects. Thos conversation has come up time and time again.
Personally, I used to hold with those who like the antagonistic GM approach. I used the justification of wanting to 'Challenge players' or doing things right as I saw fit. Luckily time and experiance has balanced out these in my own style, but I have encountered this attitude time and time again. This can result in an deletarious relationship that only serves to cause tension between friends new and old.
Having said that, some of the points made by the 'heavy handed' GM camp are valid. Even if they are dogmatically defended by Fascistic, whimsical and antisocial people who can't handle the role of GM. This animosity that leads to player mistreatment, is often born of player attitudes. I have played with and GMed for guys and gals who are Selfish, Lazy and disruptive. Who complain when things don't go there way. Who oppose estabilished and thoroughly tested rules with their narrow and whimsical viewpoinst. The player thinks only of themselves in many cases, whereas a GM must consider the game as a whole.
The trouble is many GM's efforts are unapreciated bu these kinds of players. And no matter how much you try and distance yourself emotionally from your game, when players deride or destroy your darling plots and monsters you have a reaction. Theres no helping it. It many cases these perceived slights of power gaming and the failings of players under your watched. Most will agree that a heavy hand should in theory iron out these wrinkles in a group, as fear of reprisal seems to be the only language some players understand. But when used too often this can be as disruptive to your game as the offences commited by players that you seek to punish.
The style I hold with is more of a Director or executive descision maker than a dictator or enemy. I don't see the point of grinding players under your heel. That approach just ends campaigns prematurely. I'd much rather play with the group than against it. As a GM I want my campaign to run smoothely and the players to enjoy playing it as much as I enjoy running it. As such I have to intervene often for the good of the game, but I will often find myself on either side of the rules for the sake of balance and progress.
At the end of the day what motivates people to change? When players make mistakes I could mock them or smash them for it, but is the easy way out and it solves nothing. Instead I prefer to praise creative solutions that don't break the rules and efforts on the players part to find a balanced approach to character development. When you have a player accepting that their characters weaknesses are as much of source of comedy and tools for roleplaying oppertunities. After all, we can agree that the most compelling protagonists are those that succeed against long odds despite their weaknesses.
Bottom line: You shouldn't Force players to act as you see fit, merely encourage them to take a more reasonable approach to matters of the greater game. For the benefit of the group as a whole.
Well thats my two cents (always wanted to say that...).
Seeing as someone brings a character to life is cool, but the greatest characters became that against all odds. GMs are those odds.
I like to screw over paladins. (but I tell my players that before character creation)
I like to give them things like wish-spells way early, then screw them over if they try to use it foolishly. (but it then normally becomes an encounter or quest in itself)
And finally, I like to screw my players over if they hit a 1 on a skillcheck (houserule: critical failure on skills). Altough that's normally more slapstick than real life-or-death situation.
My players never complained, probably because I give them enough loot, exp and such.
I believe I gave advice in one of these threads a couple days ago, not to be a softy GM like I was for so long, giving away too much info and being too interested in seeing the players succeed.
My motto has long been: "I don't want to kill your characters; I do have to play the NPCs who want to kill your characters."
My other motto is: "I'm not your daddy, and I'm not here to punish you."
That said, a weakness detected in a playing style or build is a potential challenge to the player who has displayed it. I don't think it is a punishment to exploit that weakness to create a challenge for the player and his PC. Forcing people to think differently and adapt is not punishment, it is a challenge that accurately reflects life.
Actually being mean is different.
I think the danger in reading these posts is that we come away thinking that the one example somebody gave is indicative of everything they do all the time. I have been blasted countless times over the years by people who misinterpreted something I said, and came away thinking I was a horrible person/GM/whatever because of their own misperceptions.
One time, on the Reaper site (a site I love, but sometimes is haunted by rather rigid-minded and judgmental folks), I joking said that although my then-six-year-old-son had made a mistake of some kind (I can't even remember what now), he at least had the excuse of being six-years-old. Something in a light-hearted vein I think most of us can understand.
I was promptly treated to a lecture on proper parenting by a "real" parent who knew far better than I, and never allowed his children to have any excuses for any of their behavior at all.
To me, this notion that this person could glean my entire worth as a parent from one flippant comment was outrageous and fantastically presumptuous. But my point is anybody can take the wrong meaning away from one of these boards at any time, and in the right (read: wrong) mood, we can all look like villains to each other.
I also do not understand the desire to have a stat that provides a negative bonus. I know I would never want to play a character with that kind of handicap and maybe that is why I do not allow characters to have starting stats below 10.
Just because you don't like to play your characters a certain way that does not mean you should restrict others. What if I don't like TWF'ing? Would it be fair to force that on you, or what if I enjoy powergaming? Would it be fair to tell you that your fighter can't do enough damage to meet my standards so you can't play?
*A very cool and experience inspired post.*
Thank you for your post. It shares a lot of good. *hands Oggron a drink since he laid down his 2 cp*
Seeing as someone brings a character to life is cool, but the greatest characters became that against all odds. GMs are those odds.
I like to screw over paladins. (but I tell my players that before character creation)
I like to give them things like wish-spells way early, then screw them over if they try to use it foolishly. (but it then normally becomes an encounter or quest in itself)
And finally, I like to screw my players over if they hit a 1 on a skillcheck (houserule: critical failure on skills). Altough that's normally more slapstick than real life-or-death situation.My players never complained, probably because I give them enough loot, exp and such.
Heheh. Nice. I agree that an game without challenge is boring. Monty Hauls aren't too exciting when you grab the 30,000 gp and the +6 vorpal holy avenger after defeating the three kobolds and their pet dog scruffy. =P
Ok, that was silly, but the idea is there. I'm usually pretty evil with my encounters. I'm strictly by the book, generally, when it comes to things like encounters, CRs, etc; but making them interesting is part of the fun of GMing for me.
Side Note: I found encounters with multiple low CR enemies played well are much more entertaining than throwing 1 equal or greater CR enemy at the group and letting them trade punches for 1.5 rounds. Fear kobolds, always. :P
As with Paladins, I generally try to let players know what's expected of them beforehand, and I don't constantly throw lose/lose situations at them (such as a paladin who must be honest and protect the innocent, who has to either lie or let the innocent die), 'cause that kind of thing can get old very quick.
I actually modified the Paladin in my games to be more versatile. You can find the modifications on my house rules page for my online games; under the Major Alignment System Changes section.
Railroading a player into a certain build is not something I ever want to be a part of. It is not my place as a DM to tell you that your character does not fit my vision. I do look over character sheets and make suggestions, but in the end the choice lies with the player. One of my players has a cha of 5 or 6. I knew that at the end of the game I was going to be using a psion with ego whip. I did not tell him that, but I did stress that such a low score might be his downfall. He chose to keep the score.
edit:If he makes it though the encounter then good for him, but if not he has been warned.
edit 2: edit for clarification.
I think railroading a player to certain build is not something I ever want to be a part of. It is not my place as a DM to tell you that your character does not fit my vision. I do look over character sheets and make suggestions, but in the end the choice lies with the player. One of my players has a cha of 5 or 6. I knew that at the end of the game I was going to be using a psion with ego whip. I did not tell him that, but I did stress that such a low score might be his downfall. He chose to keep the score.
edit:If he makes it though the encounter then good for him, but if not he has been warned.
Pretty much this. I once ran a game as a favor to a friend (he was going to be away that evening, but his players were coming over), and he told me that I could use this nondescript (not even a name) level 17 lich wizard with a handful of artifacts only it could use (including something that gave it +8 to all saving throws and its intelligence score) and a lot of other stuff so the lich could last "more than 2 rounds against the party" (there were about 8 PCs, around 11th level). So I scrapped that and rebuilt the lich as a 13th level lich using standard NPC equipment for her level, tossed in a couple of advanced allips, and called it a day. The battle raged for 24+ rounds, with 6/8 of the party members fleeing the fight. The cleric was the only one who continued to fight the lich to the conclusion - the player later told me it was because she had been waiting for a fight like this - and the battle eventually ended in a draw. Having more or less exhausted the resources of each other, they ended up ending the fight and resolving their disputes over a game of chess in the Lich's study, as the two ladies discussed politics and the state of the world; resulting in the preventing of the lich attacking the city and the cleric agreeing to represent the interests of the lich and her followers; and the cleric was given a sword (a minor intelligent magic item that could cast animate dead once per day), which she wore proudly.
The funny part about this story, however, was not the end boss fight. It was actually the very first fight. Just to set the mood of the lich's tower, the party encountered a group of Shadows (the CR 3 shadows) who at this point were so far beneath them that they were barely worth XP points. Several members of the party just casted deathward and laughed as the shadows could do them no harm.
Except for the party's very heavily (but in my opinion poorly) optimized beguiler/shadowcraft mage, who had a 7 strength, and an AC of 10 (she had never bothered to ever invest in even a few minor protective items, despite being 11th level or so, instead throwing all her money into various metamagic rods, pearls, and the best +stat items she could get), who died in the very first round of combat as three shadows touched her, dealing about 9 points of Strength damage.
The player actually begged me to veto the action, but as I said "this is what they would do, a these three are around you. I hope they miss, but what happens, happens."
That's why only 6/8 of the players fled the final battle leaving the cleric behind. On a side note, they ended up raising the beguiler/shadowcraft mage, but she went out and purchased a cloak of displacement and a couple of +deflection items immediately after. >.>
EDIT: The reason I felt the beguiler/shadowcraft mage was optimized so poorly was because, while virtually nothing could save vs her spells, and she could quite honestly cast any conjuration or evocation spell at will by heightening silent image, she never bothered to actually prepare for something as simple as not getting hit by a bit of strength damage.
EDIT 2: Also, Wraithstrike, you are so right. Ego Whip is the bane of low-charisma people everywhere. It's like the #1 reason a low-charisma warrior may seriously wish to have his wizard friend cast mind blank on him in the morning. XD
Yay, people. I'm not alone. ^-^
Power to the players! *rawkfist*Actually, yeah. It's important for we GMs to remember that without players, there is no game.
It's also important to remember that the GM is one of the players! :)
Edit: Hurray for not reading the entire thread first! :p
That sounds like an awesome game session, Ashiel. I hope one of my players some time gets to play chess with a Lich :)
Yay, people. I'm not alone. ^-^
Power to the players! *rawkfist*Actually, yeah. It's important for we GMs to remember that without players, there is no game.It's also important to remember that the GM is one of the players! :)
Edit: Hurray for not reading the entire thread first! :p
That depends on the GM. I don't consider myself a player when I play. I am part ref, and part fun facilitator. Even as a player you should not tell another player how to build something, and the GM being a playere does not detract from her statement which ToZ already pointed out that he thinks GM are players also, and that all players have equal powers.
PS:Yes the DM is responsible for the final decision, but everyone should have a say in how the game should be run.
If they said "How do I reward my fighters for not dumping CHA", would you have been as offended? They're functionally the same thing; throwing in a ghost now and again rewards the decisions of other players who DIDN'T dump charisma. This is basic game balance here; some players like to play good charisma scores, some like to play bad charisma scores, and ideally there ought to be ups and downs for both choices.
That's my take, at least. I'm sure there are ALSO hundreds of ways to "punish charisma dumpers" or "reward charisma" which would make a game less fun, and I'm also not saying you're wrong or a bad DM if you disagree. Yes, there are some things that DO definitely make you a bad DM no matter who you are or who your players are, but I certainly don't see any of those things in the OP's list.
I just feel like some of the statements in this thread are too righteous and prejudgmental of the other side (which, it sounds, may have itself been too righteous and prejudgmental in its anti-cha-dumpers crusade. But two wrongs don't make a right).
Its good to see a thread like this one, but I wonder how long it will take before afore mentioned jerks find and derail it?
-1 seconds. No saving throw.
I'm just amazed that so many GMs who hate arbitrary things need to ask for help on how to make their players suffer through arbitrary and unfair means when there are so many ways to give them a horrible day already.
Allow me to clarify this point.
I run a campaign which is probably best taken only slightly serious, as it is the only campaign I've ever known of where 'rocks fall everyone dies' was both the setup to and punchline of a joke. (no characters were actually harmed in the making of this joke) In this game, any arbitrary law about what characters you can and can't make and here's how it screws you over if you don't play exactly the way I like it would just make it worse. As a GM for this campaign (completely homebrew at that), I consider it my solemn duty to take all the silly plot threads that I can find from these guys' player characters and weave them into something coherent, and dare I say it pretty derned awesome. I grant my PCs hero points and double the standard point buy in order to make them feel as though they are heroic whatchamafaces in a world full of not so heroic no-faces. If they want to have a CHA of 7? Awesome. I'll ask them why and ask them to play it properly. Same for INT, WIS, STR, DEX, or CON, though the physical stats are harder to play out in character. Maybe lots of coughing for low CON if they're sickly... but I digress.
The players want a world where they can be heroes. They want a world where they can stand out and do something awesome. They want a world where Fel Bustrani fights to the death, while his zombie minions sit among the living and start singing really badly in time with the chorus of an opera. They want a paladin whose patron saint is the Muffin Goddess, Adelle (Admittedly, that last one is kind of out there). What kind of a GM would I have to be in order to impede upon their wishes by forcing them to roleplay their character or place their stats exactly one way? I much prefer seeing what my PCs can bring to the table, both literally and figuratively.
If they said "How do I reward my fighters for not dumping CHA", would you have been as offended? They're functionally the same thing; throwing in a ghost now and again rewards the decisions of other players who DIDN'T dump charisma. This is basic game balance here; some players like to play good charisma scores, some like to play bad charisma scores, and ideally there ought to be ups and downs for both choices.
That is not a reward. It is disguised as a reward. The game already handles low stats. Those that boost charisma get to do social things, and those that don't can't do social things as well.
What is being suggested is no different than someone who dumps con having less HP. I will admit that not all stats are created equally, but this(trying to force charisma) is nothing but a DM trying to force equality across the stats. Why waste my points on a stat I don't care about? Trying to force someone to boost charisma is no better than trying to get someone to drop a good spell to take a bad spell of an equal level by contriving a situation that depends upon the bad spell.If it makes anyone feel better feel free to replace spell with feat, skill, class, magic item, and so on.
edit:snipped the part of Hydro's post I am not replying to.
If they said "How do I reward my fighters for not dumping CHA", would you have been as offended? They're functionally the same thing; throwing in a ghost now and again rewards the decisions of other players who DIDN'T dump charisma. This is basic game balance here; some players like to play good charisma scores, some like to play bad charisma scores, and ideally there ought to be ups and downs for both choices.
That's my take, at least. I'm sure there are ALSO hundreds of ways to "punish charisma dumpers" or "reward charisma" which would make a game less fun, and I'm also not saying you're wrong or a bad DM if you disagree. Yes, there are some things that DO definitely make you a bad DM no matter who you are or who your players are, but I certainly don't see any of those things in the OP's list.
I just feel like some of the statements in this thread are too righteous and prejudgmental of the other side (which, it sounds, may have itself been too righteous and prejudgmental in its anti-cha-dumpers crusade. But two wrongs don't make a right).
I try to make options available to the players all the time. If I wanted to encourage or reward Fighters who focused on Charisma, for example, I would consider homebrewing a few feats that were based on Charisma that would be worth pausing for. In this case, everyone wins. The guy that dumps Charisma doesn't get hosed and gets to enjoy his PC, while the guy who doesn't dump Charisma might find he can do something a bit new.
I'd have just as much of a problem if someone said everyone with a above-average charisma should always start at friendly with people, 'cause they just like them for their raw charisma, or some other equally silly thing that's just added in (poorly, I might add, from a mechanical sense) to reward players who have a high Charisma. It's the same thing, only in reverse.
Instead of arbitrarily punishing them, new options (think supplemental material) that could make Charisma more attractive, or allow for Charisma based characters to fit some of the usual norms (giving a Frightful Presence to Fighter that has a cold stare could be a pretty cool feat in a series of melee-oriented feat chains).
If you want to encourage players to feel good about being a fighter with a 14 Charisma, give 'em a few reasons to; don't beat them down because they don't have one. It's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar, they say.
Does that help explain my feelings on it?
Just like to throw in that I don't care what my players stats are, you can have a 4 DEX and still act like the nimblest person ever (you may need good skills and a few choice feats to show it but whatever)
Point is that I don't let anything on the character sheet affect roleplay, the stats come pre-built with bonuses and weaknesses and don't actually need to reflect the character at all, they just determine what you can do when the dice are involved.
I can make a pretty good guess that the developers didn't have roleplaying in mind when they determined what a stat does for you, roleplaying is our job not the rules job (but they can help, like with shopkeeping and diplomacy)
I can make a pretty good guess that the developers didn't have roleplaying in mind when they determined what a stat does for you, roleplaying is our job not the rules job (but they can help, like with shopkeeping and diplomacy)
No. I'm pretty sure I can look all the way back at my 1st Ed PHB and see the abilities given both in mechanical terms and in terms of what it means to your character generally (is he clumsy, shortsighted, not good in company, makes bad decisions, etc.), and that this has been repeated in every edition since.
The ability scores, like alignment, have always been a guide to roleplaying your character.
Hiya.
*WARNING: Semi-rant below...*
[SNIP section about Lich fight]... On a side note, they ended up raising the beguiler/shadowcraft mage, but she went out and purchased a cloak of displacement and a couple of +deflection items immediately after.
This is a perfect example of why we see a lot of "how to get your players" attitudes nowadays, IMHO.
Now, stay with me on this...
Ever since 2e (no typo...I did say 2e) there has been a production focus on giving the PLAYERS more "choice" in how and what goes on in a campaign via "player books". Oh sure, the DM can always veto stuff, but when you have 5 of your friends who each bought 2 or 3 extra books they thought had cool PC stuff in them, and then you say "No" to most/all of those rules/options...well, you might as well start looking for a new group of players (and/or friends). As 3e came along, it got even worse. Suddenly, the rule books were opened for all to paruse, digest and use. Want to play a minotaur barbarian? Go for it. Not good enough? How about a half-minotaur, half-brass golem barbarian? Now we're talking! Toss in the hulking hurler prestige class and you're laughing!
What's a DM to do? Well, the only thing he can do; fight back with his power to control what/how rules get interpreted and what shows up to challenge these now over-powered characters. And the only way to do that is to hit them where it hurts...their weaknesses (however few there are).
The rules (3e...maybe 4e?) specifically state "A character of X level should have X money and X magic items of X level". Want to run a low-magic campaign? Too bad. What about nixing the idea of players being able to buy magic items? Nope...try that and you are instantly called a "cheater" or a "killer DM who just wants to kill all the characters". If you do nix the magic item per level thing, and a PC dies...it's INSTANTLY *your* fault for screwing them. No, not the poor, distraught player whos character you "screwed over" because you wouldn't let him buy an adamantine flaming keen bastard sword...its *your* fault for not playing by the rules.
This is, IMHO, why you see a lot of "how to attack the weaknesses of a PC" threads; it's the only thing "by the rules" that we, as DM's, are 'allowed' to do that the players can't instantly cry foul at. It's also frustration. Frustration at not being able to enjoy the potential of a carefully crafted campaign world...because all it takes is one player to moan and b$*$@ about not being able to play that half-minotaur barbarian to start the cascade effect. I mean, if he can play that character, why can't Bill play that tiefling necromancer? Why can't Suzan play the doppleganger rogue/enchanter? Or John's idea of that half-elf bard/wizard with an effective CHA of 47 and a Lyre of Building? How campaign-disruptive can *that* be? *rolles eyes*
What it all boils down to is DM's nowadays feel, IMHO, attacked for being DM's. Players don't want a challenge. They want to win and have all the candy they want...but they don't want it to be 'easy', just inevitable...but not so obvious. Basically, they want the unspoken illusion that they are "doing well" to be kept up. Coddled, if you will. You know, no winners, no loosers kinda thing.
*sigh* The calibre of truely skilled players has definitly dwindled significantly since I started playing, that's for sure...
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I like playing with my players, not against them. I will admit humbling them a bit when they get carried away with the power of their characters is satisfying. Blame them for making disparaging remarks about their opponents abilities. :p
However, I do admit I get annoyed when one of the players tries to twink out his character to the max, like with the upcoming Priest of Saranrae in my soon-to-start Kingmaker campaign, who starts with a strength and dexterity of 8 both. I warned him repeatedly that a Priest doesn't have the defenses to survive easily with so bad physical stats, but he handwaved that away. I am sorely tempted to prove my point, but now I don't want to apppear to be gunning for him specifically. :-/
Especially since he already lost one character ( died twice ) and two animal companions in the current campaign. No, not on purpose, he just was the one who didn't make his saves and stood in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|
So I've been reading threads like this one and this one and that one, as well as a lot of other threads around, and I feel compelled to ask a question...
Am I the only GM who doesn't want to screw over their players?
This probably sounds like an amazingly silly question, but I'm legitimately wondering. I see these posts so very often. Threads and advice centered around picking on your players, punishing them for something you think they shouldn't do, or how to make some player regret that he or she did something other than what you wanted them to do.Stuff like:
1) How do I make my players regret...
1.A) Dumping Strength?
1.B) Dumping Dexterity?
1.C) Dumping Constitution?
1.D) Dumping Intelligence?
1.E) Dumping Wisdom?
1.F) Dumping Charisma?
1.G) Dumping Anything?
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
3) 1,001 ways to make a Player regret playing a Paladin.
4) 1,001 ways to make sure a spellcaster can't protect their spellbook/components/magic items.
5) 1,001 ways to make sure warriors can't have nice things.And the big one: "How to I force people to roleplay the way I want them to?"
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters. I see people lining up with piles and piles of really bad advice, telling them to do stuff like making extra rules to punish them twice, or telling them they can't do something arbitrarily ("you've been hit with Feeblemind,...
Ashiel, unfortunately there are plenty of DM's out there who view the game as a competition between themselves and their players. I happen to be a cat of a different stripe.
Just as i think that Pathfinder is a game that by the specialized structure of the character classes, encourages the players to work together cooperatively to overcome the obstacles and challenges that the GM puts in front of them, I think it has been mentioned somewhere that this is kind of like a game of cooperative story telling. Both the GM and players are included in that story. The GM is the primary weaver, and the players provide the threads by way of the characters they create. Or another way to think of it is the Players write the main characters or Protagonists of a story and the GM writes the exposition, the foils the support characters and the antagonists. The GM also writes the conflict in the story as well. It is the dice and the players choices and Decision that determine the outcome of the story. Nobody knows what the outcome will be.There is a certain trust that has to exist between the GM and the players. The GM has to trust and that the players are going to try and contribute positively to the game and respect them and hopefully will give them the freedom to do so, while the Players have to trust that the GM will be doing his best to make sure everyone at the table is having fun. This of course includes the GM as much as it does the players. This is after all a cooperative game.
This trust can of course break down for a variety of reasons. It can result in all sorts of unpleasantness, the least of which could be an arms race between the GM and the players. Also the players can start to deliberately sabotage the GM's story.
So Ashiel, i would like to think we are on the same page about that. Now I am not saying that as a GM, that I'm not going to skin their characters, and beat their characters into unconsciousness so their characters are within an inch of dying, I am. It keeps my players nervous about their characters, which i think is a good thing. Perhaps it is also the green fuzzy Cuthulu hat that I sometimes wear when I GM that also helps make them nervous.
But i am not out to get my players, nor am i trying to kill their characters. If my players are cursed with bad luck, and the dice just hate them, then I try to mitigate that where I can. But if a player does a spectacularly stupid thing and does not heed my warnings, well then i let the dice fall where they may, and i chew their characters up and spit them out. the dice do funny things too, and like my players they also do what I least expect them to do.
I think that there is far more art then science to GMing, and you have to be flexible, you have to be willing to go with the flow. But on the other hand you have to be willing to put your foot down and say no. Sometimes you have to say no to that obscure feat one of your players want to use, or no to a character concept a player wants, ( a halfling in hat and duster, with two six shooter revolver pistols, riding a velociraptor is beyond the pale for me). Sometimes as a GM you have to say no to a player's interpretation of a rule, particularly if it gives the player an unfair advantage. as a GM you have to be willing to be the final arbitrator of the rules, and it is your interpretation that stands at the table. you have to on occasion be willing to use DM fiat. All of that being said, the less you do all of that the better. In my opinion it is far better to run the game with a light hand then a heavy one. But occasionally you do have to put your foot down.
I have begun to ramble. in summation Ashiel, i think we are on the same page. I am sure the thread trolls will arrive soon. they can smell a civil thread from a mile away and love nothing more then to chew on one a bit.
good luck
What it all boils down to is DM's nowadays feel, IMHO, attacked for being DM's. Players don't want a challenge. They want to win and have all the candy they want...but they don't want it to be 'easy', just inevitable...but not so obvious. Basically, they want the unspoken illusion that they are "doing well" to be kept up. Coddled, if you will. You know, no winners, no loosers kinda thing.
I remember in the old WEG Star Wars RPG, there was an actual rule that the player characters shouldn't die. Ever. I'm not the kind of GM who goes out of his way to kill the characters, but once one of the players got a hold of the rulebook and read this section on GM rules, the mood of the game changed. Suddenly the players realized that they were immortal, and started acting accordingly.
All that rule accomplished was that it essentially forced a GM to kill off a couple of characters, just to get the sense of danger back. :)
First off, I would like to say that I think a big part of what leads to this is that a lot of people have come to view the gaming table as the GM vs. The Players instead of the GM and The Players. The gaming session in a lot of cases I have seen, goes sour when the GM and/or players view the experience in the former manner. It breeds natural animosity and contempt, and develops a hostile mindset. it's no wonder to me when such games go bad.
In contrast, I think the games work better when the players and GM think together to recognize that it is about everyone's fun, and most often that is done by the success of the party, except for some really cool and epic deaths. some TPKs are unavoidable, but really, the GM should be seeking to find ways fot the players and characters to shine, while still providing sufficient to make it challenging and possibly deadly. But hey, the more fun my players have, and the more cool stuff they can do, the more fun I have challenging them.
i have always desired to play a more social pc, but don't have the confidence to follow through in person. made even worse with both a combat focused DM and a table diva stacked against me. i can do it on the internet with a more laid back DM.
I would like to comment that you remind me a little bit of one of my former players. While he wasn't autistic, he did have some very strong personal confidence issues, and is a naturally more reserved and quiet person. As his GM and friend, I tried to find ways for him to develop in game and as a person. It took patience from the group, being willing to wait at times 5-10 minutes for him to come up with what he wanted to say, be willing to share the spotlight, and to provide the safe space for him to roleplay at his pace, but it was worth it.
Not only did he get some great leg work out of higher CHA characters, but he became more confident with them, and in the group, to the point that he actually ran our last campaign as the relief GM while I took a break. I think it would be awesome if you found a group of friends with a GM who has insight and leadership to help you develop that and be able to play any type of character. With the right people, I know you can do it! =]
I can make a pretty good guess that the developers didn't have roleplaying in mind when they determined what a stat does for you, roleplaying is our job not the rules job (but they can help, like with shopkeeping and diplomacy)
No. I'm pretty sure I can look all the way back at my 1st Ed PHB and see the abilities given both in mechanical terms and in terms of what it means to your character generally (is he clumsy, shortsighted, not good in company, makes bad decisions, etc.), and that this has been repeated in every edition since.
The ability scores, like alignment, have always been a guide to roleplaying your character.
Ability scores meant a lot more back in 1E-2E. There really wasn't much to a character beyond their ability scores. Just their hit bonus, saving throws, and either spells or thief skills. You gained the majority of your power from your ability scores (a 4th level Fighter with 18/00 strength was often better than a 9th level fighter with a 14 strength).
Skill checks were typically resolved by an ability check, such as rolling a d20 and seeing if it rolled under your score (so an 18 dex guy succeeds 85% of the time if he's trying to preform some sort of acrobatic stunt).
Today, ability scores still represent the bare bones of your character, but that's about it. The bare bones. It's what your character is before you put the meat and flesh on him or her. Unlike in 1E-2E where an 18/00 strength meant you were a superhuman with a +4 to hit and a +6 to damage, received bonus XP, had a 50% chance to break through force cages, 100% chance to break through barred doors/stuff.
Also, +6 damage meant you were the king of smack. HPs were very low back then. I believe when Lolth was still just a demon queen (instead of a goddess), she had something like 63 Hp? You will make burgermeat out of your enemies with that. A +1 sword was a bigger deal too, 'cause +1 hit/damage meant more. It was a simpler time.
No, today, ability scores are less empirical to the character that you play and their depth. Instead of roleplaying a set of randomly generated numbers, we play characters that are far more than the sum of their ability scores. Thanks to the addition of an actual skill system, we can have a character with 7 Charisma who is quite charming, though he will never be able to have the force of will to make a wand work without training (or more investment in UMD).
An 18 strength today may seem to provide the same +4 hit/+6 damage (assuming a 2 handed weapon, but it used to be with 1 handed too!) as the older editions, but that +4/+6 means a lot less than it used to. You can easily meet enemies by 3rd level that have in excess of 40 Hp, which would have been a ton and a half back in OD&D (heck, in 1E D&D, an 11th level fighter has 9d8+4 Hp, which is only 44.5 average; a CR 3 NPC warrior in Pathfinder can have that much or more).
While I'm not going to suggest that a Str 30 fighter isn't better off than a Str 26 fighter, often your class and abilities make up more of your character's effectiveness than they used to. Fighters can dump their BAB into damage with Power Attack, and get weapon specialization, and bonus damage, etc. This means that even if you have a 30 strength (+15 with a 2 handed weapon), you get more from your class (+18 power attack, +5 weapon training, +4 weapon specialization), whereas in old editions, Strength 18/00 = Win Duels.
In short, all the stats are well and good, but they play a much, much smaller role in what your character can do, and more importantly, who they are. I do not play a Lawful Good Str 16, Dex 12, Con 7, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 18. I play Ashmae the Haunted, Paladin of the Goddess of Death and Magic, who struggles to find her place in the world that fears her and her ways, who protects well meaning Necromancers and the innocent, and will one day ascend to the status of an Archlich (those are good liches, by the way) so that her radiant sword will forever ward the lands against tyranny.
I like the increased depth. Makes for better roleplaying. Some things are usually set in stone (you can only pickup just so much weight with a certain strength score, but then again you might have a feat that lets you treat your strength as more for carrying, so...) but others definitely are not, which gives us far, far more room to develop our characters, and build them in a way that we can be happy with both in and out of game.
But, I digress. This thread wasn't meant to discuss the depths of ability scores vs roleplaying. It was meant to discuss the unsettling trend of GMs who seem to only want to screw over their PCs. The ability score thing was just an example of this kind of behavior; but given 15 minutes and a few webpages, I could draw you up a larger list.
Hiya.
*WARNING: Semi-rant below...*
[SNIP section about Lich fight]... On a side note, they ended up raising the beguiler/shadowcraft mage, but she went out and purchased a cloak of displacement and a couple of +deflection items immediately after.
This is a perfect example of why we see a lot of "how to get your players" attitudes nowadays, IMHO.
Now, stay with me on this...
Ever since 2e (no typo...I did say 2e) there has been a production focus on giving the PLAYERS more "choice" in how and what goes on in a campaign via "player books". Oh sure, the DM can always veto stuff, but when you have 5 of your friends who each bought 2 or 3 extra books they thought had cool PC stuff in them, and then you say "No" to most/all of those rules/options...well, you might as well start looking for a new group of players (and/or friends). As 3e came along, it got even worse. Suddenly, the rule books were opened for all to paruse, digest and use. Want to play a minotaur barbarian? Go for it. Not good enough? How about a half-minotaur, half-brass golem barbarian? Now we're talking! Toss in the hulking hurler prestige class and you're laughing!
What's a DM to do? Well, the only thing he can do; fight back with his power to control what/how rules get interpreted and what shows up to challenge these now over-powered characters. And the only way to do that is to hit them where it hurts...their weaknesses (however few there are).
The rules (3e...maybe 4e?) specifically state "A character of X level should have X money and X magic items of X level". Want to run a low-magic campaign? Too bad. What about nixing the idea of players being able to buy magic items? Nope...try that and you are instantly called a "cheater" or a "killer DM who just wants to kill all the characters". If you do nix the magic item per level thing, and a PC dies...it's INSTANTLY *your* fault for screwing them. No, not the poor, distraught player whos character you "screwed over" because you...
Everything you just complained about has been covered in various threads, and you hit on several things that are not necessarily true, but are more of a playstyle issue. I will leave it at that so as to not derail the thread.
I see a lot of GMs being actively antagonistic towards their players. Trying to punish them for things the GMs don't like personally. I've seen GMs throwing actual fits and threatening to can the campaign (or actually canning the campaign) after they lost a fight. Yeah, lost a fight. At that point, they were fully committed to that philosophy. One time, the GM hand-crafted an encounter that felt like it was supposed to kill the whole party. When the party prevailed despite the odds, the campaign was canned anyway.
But it's not universal. It's just that memories like that stick around, and people like that are usually quite vocal, because they think they're so great.
In my opinion it is far better to run the game with a light hand then a heavy one. But occasionally you do have to put your foot down.
I have begun to ramble. in summation Ashiel, i think we are on the same page. I am sure the thread trolls will arrive soon. they can smell a civil thread from a mile away and love nothing more then to chew on one a bit.
good luck
Thanks ElyasRavenwood, and I agree. Thank you for the detailed post. I think we can all learn from the collective knowledge of stories and insights being shared here. ^-^
Ever since 2e (no typo...I did say 2e) there has been a production focus on giving the PLAYERS more "choice" in how and what goes on in a campaign via "player books". Oh sure, the DM can always veto stuff, but when you have 5 of your friends who each bought 2 or 3 extra books they thought had cool PC stuff in them, and then you say "No" to most/all of those rules/options...well, you might as well start looking for a new group of players (and/or friends). As 3e came along, it got even worse. Suddenly, the rule books were opened for all to paruse, digest and use. Want to play a minotaur barbarian? Go for it. Not good enough? How about a half-minotaur, half-brass golem barbarian? Now we're talking! Toss in the hulking hurler prestige class and you're laughing!
Heheh, I know what you mean. There's one guy who wanted to join my game (which has no less than 26 different playable races ranging from humans and dwarfs to drider) and then spent 3 hours asking if he could play something different. It didn't seem to matter what it was, as long as it wasn't something that was allowed. In the time it took him to actually pick something related to lizardfolks which I was cool with, my younger brother (he's 12) rolled up a party of 4 dwarfs for fun (2 fighters + 1 rogue + 1 cleric).
What's a DM to do? Well, the only thing he can do; fight back with his power to control what/how rules get interpreted and what shows up to challenge these now over-powered characters. And the only way to do that is to hit them where it hurts...their weaknesses (however few there are).
Well, I think Elayas Ravenwood is right. Sometimes just putting your foot down and telling them what is and isn't allowed in your game should work. If they're your friends, then they will accept that. However, I also agree that hitting their weaknesses can be a fair method for challenging players (but I wouldn't make a habit of doing it every session, unless their weaknesses are something really common, like the AC 10 guy - you're going to get whacked a lot, try to stay out of combat :P).
The rules (3e...maybe 4e?) specifically state "A character of X level should have X money and X magic items of X level". Want to run a low-magic campaign? Too bad. What about nixing the idea of players being able to buy magic items? Nope...try that and you are instantly called a "cheater" or a "killer DM who just wants to kill all the characters". If you do nix the magic item per level thing, and a PC dies...it's INSTANTLY *your* fault for screwing them. No, not the poor, distraught player whos character you "screwed over" because you wouldn't let him buy an adamantine flaming keen bastard sword...its *your* fault for not playing by the rules.
This is why I explain stuff like this up front. If I'm going to be running a game where you can buy stuff (my normal games), I don't bother telling them it will be standard. If the party won't be able to purchase anything for a while (such as hiring on as part of an expedition through rural or wilderness areas) I'll let them know. If I don't plan to follow the guidelines, I'll let them know.
I have a lot of little house rules (most favor the PCs), and I just let people know up front. I find that communication really helps. Sometimes I speak to my players between sessions about the games. "Well, you guys have been in a lot of wilderness area for the past three sessions; don't worry though, you'll have your chance to catch back up with treasure soonish".
This is, IMHO, why you see a lot of "how to attack the weaknesses of a PC" threads; it's the only thing "by the rules" that we, as DM's, are 'allowed' to do that the players can't instantly cry foul at. It's also frustration. Frustration at not being able to enjoy the potential of a carefully crafted campaign world...because all it takes is one player to moan and b&#@& about not being able to play that half-minotaur barbarian to start the cascade effect. I mean, if he can play that character, why can't Bill play that tiefling necromancer? Why can't Suzan play the doppleganger rogue/enchanter? Or John's idea of that half-elf bard/wizard with an effective CHA of 47 and a Lyre of Building? How campaign-disruptive can *that* be? *rolles eyes*
Heheheh. Y'know, I know what y'mean. I played with an online RPG community called the Black Marches for a while, and even ended up being nominated and then voted up onto their "GM council", and ended up having to deal with a lot of that stuff. The original creator basically said "All 3.5 book legal + LA buyoff" so God help us all (chuckles). It was fun surprising all these little powergamers (but aren't we all just a tiny bit? :P) with the sheer brutality of little goblins and non-super NPCs, and such. I realized a lot of them were trying to find the most powerful PCs, but really weren't very skilled as players (honestly, the best PCs out of the group was a human paladin, a human bard/sorceress/something, and a cleric with a silver-dragon bent; 'cause they could actually play).
I ended up resigning from Black Marches due to getting frustrated with drama between some of the GMs, as well as some other things, and then I decided to make my own D&D/PF community, Heroes of Alvena, and have several members who used to be part of the Black Marches. Several of them have told me that, while at first they really were upset that I wouldn't let them use some of the goofy stuff they had been using back on BMs, that they liked HoA better; because it was more structured.
What it all boils down to is DM's nowadays feel, IMHO, attacked for being DM's. Players don't want a challenge. They want to win and have all the candy they want...but they don't want it to be 'easy', just inevitable...but not so obvious. Basically, they want the unspoken illusion that they are "doing well" to be kept up. Coddled, if you will. You know, no winners, no loosers kinda thing.
*nods* I had a couple of players join HoA, and then made the absolute dumbest decisions they could have made, and then one literally told me that there should be a deus ex machina incident that saved them from their own bad choices. I told them that I'd wait for them to re-roll characters; and even try to rescue their characters from the badguys if they wanted. Some were A-OK with that, one said PCs getting killed isn't fun and quit, but I'm OK with that.
(For those curious, the party was 1st level were exploring an old haunted temple on a hill. Several villagers went missing around there, and they were being paid to go up and investigate their disappearance. So the party decides to head over there, and discovers very shortly after venturing inside the front gate that the place was guarded by undead zombies. Big, beefy, orc zombies with greatclubs and cheap armor no less. Now, the party was aware that these zombies were amazingly slow (20ft speed, can't run, staggered) but incredibly strong and durable. Round 1: Wizard charges up into melee range of the zombies and casts burning hands for 1d4 fire damage. Sorcerer charges strait up to the next zombie and casts shocking grasp. Zombies turn. They whack the wizards and sorcerer for 1d10+6 damage per zombie. The psychic warrior stares slackjawed as the casters volunteered to be turned into arcane-jam.
The exceptionally funny part is, the party's wizard could have seriously soloed the entire encounter by just casting acid splash and moving in 30ft increments.)
*sigh* The calibre of truely skilled players has definitly dwindled significantly since I started playing, that's for sure...
AND HOW! I agree 100% with this.
On a side note, thanks again for sharing some reasons for these problems.
I see a lot of GMs being actively antagonistic towards their players. Trying to punish them for things the GMs don't like personally. I've seen GMs throwing actual fits and threatening to can the campaign (or actually canning the campaign) after they lost a fight. Yeah, lost a fight. At that point, they were fully committed to that philosophy. One time, the GM hand-crafted an encounter that felt like it was supposed to kill the whole party. When the party prevailed despite the odds, the campaign was canned anyway.
But it's not universal. It's just that memories like that stick around, and people like that are usually quite vocal, because they think they're so great.
Ouch. >.<
Were you merely a witness to the horror, or an unlucky player in that particular group, Kae? :(
I've only 'stonewalled' the PCs in cases where they are going to be TPKed stupidly.
Thankfully the group has 'Signs', little chalkboard sign-posts on poles that the GM can grab, hold up and keep talking so the Players can go "Oh .... oh right." and the PCs can about-face.
"You are all going to die. Horribly. Give the Gnome back his gerbil."
"No the Sentient Tin Golemn isn't made from Playstation parts, so no, it is not gay."
"You're going to charge the main gates of the Pale Lady at 3rd level. Really."
"Have you replenished your component bags and rations?"
"No the Dryad is not 'loose', stop asking." (swap out Dryad for just about everything with two, four or no legs some nights, jeeze)
"Mountain Dew. Now. I hear Takhsis coming in the distance." (Okay that one was a joke ....)
"You are trying to force open a giant adamantite door large enough to give a Titan trouble with your bare hands. This is probably not the best solution."
So on and so forth, enough so that I can give the Players some OOC advice and avoid the need to 'lessen' their powers.
Ultimately, atagonism will occur, but remember that as a GM, your role is as much to provide enjoyment for the players as well as for yourself. It's a big role, perhaps the biggest in the game, and it depends upon your temperment. Some people just should not be allowed to be a GM if they cannot accept 'losing' to their friends.
If the PCs 'break' your campaign, let them run loose for a level or two before letting them bump up against a BBEG that outclasses them. I say 'bump', not 'get turned into a pale white dust to be snorted off an evil goddess's middle by the BBEG as the Apocalypse rages around them'. TPK should only result when PCs have not taken steps to protect themselves sufficiently, have acted arrogantly and foolishly despite several attemps, IC and OOC, by yourself to try and get them to choose a less rash course of action, or it's the nature of the campaign, in which case I would lay this out before the blank character sheets even get touched.
That's my ramblings on the matter, anyways.
First off, kudos to all who've contributed good points from both camps thus far and for keeping a largely civil tone. It is refreshing to have a mature discussion on these matters.
*Readies Acid Flask to throw at next Troll*
I think it's important to make the distinction between GM hubris and responsibilty. Alot of GM's, even myself on occasion, fall back on the ol 'My Way or the Highway' attitude. They form their own opinion on how things should be run, as indeed is their perogative, but refuses to let anything that looks like reason dissuade them from it. This stems from the weakness of the 'everyones opinion is equally valid' problem. Because to these sorts of antagonistic GM's: no Style, especially not THEIR style, can be wrong if that is the way they want to run it. And who's to tell them otherwize right?
Well yes and no.
Such an intractable and rigid position in any GM style is inherently flawed, for the game that results will be inevitable short due to the brittle bond of GM and player.
Yes as a GM you have to hold authority over your group. You cannot have them second guessing you. Particularly in matters of game balance as they cannot see the whole picture.
Yes often a game can be brought to a standstill by arguments. Even when they are defending points that later turn out to be incorrect, a GM has to stand up for what they believe it.
Problem is people get very angry when people tell them how to run their game, cos even if they are throwing a CR13 adult dragon at a 7th level party (That actually happened, good thing we knew oir characters better than the GM knew how to optimize such a beastie tactically). Its still their call and who's to say otherwize?
But this disregards the second of my points, the GM's responsibility. You have a responsibility to mediate impartial deliberations on often vague rules. You must consider matters important to the stability of the campaign as a whole. It is up to you to keep a group of disparate adventurers from killing each other or themselves. It is up to you to keep them entertained. It is up to you to anticipate the consequences of their actions.
For if it is your campaign, and if you want it to be the best it can possibly be, you cannot reasonably expect players to continue playing if you upset them through bad calls on your part. For in truth not only can the GM be wrong (Blasphemy!) but it their responsibility correct their mistakes and overcome their shortcomings.
Bottom line: it is a GM's responsibility to ensure they are running things the best way they can.
The problem is that too many GM's are too stubborn to accept that other styles have merit. Personally I love scanning forum discussion to see how others run their games to see if they are handling similar matters in more productive ways.
After all, I realize my own opinion on the matter is but a small voice in a larger debate.
I realize that my GM style must be mutable, and must change according to the difficulties presented by each new session. To be a good GM you have to be able to not just adapt but to evolve to meet the demands of your players for the overall stability of your game.
I can think of no better resource for improving my own style, than reasonable debates on matters of the game amoungst like minded individuals.
If the PCs 'break' your campaign, let them run loose for a level or two before letting them bump up against a BBEG that outclasses them. I say 'bump', not 'get turned into a pale white dust to be snorted off an evil goddess's middle by the BBEG as the Apocalypse rages around them'.
Er...is it odd that somehow that sounded incredibly erotic when I read it, as well as the accompanying mental picture of some blackguard doing a line of PCs off the bare stomach of some scantily clad dark goddess like Shar? (No, I do not use or advocate the use of snorting PCs or any other strange substance. :P)
First off, kudos to all who've contributed good points from both camps thus far and for keeping a largely civil tone. It is refreshing to have a mature discussion on these matters.
*Readies Acid Flask to throw at next Troll*
Yes, yes kudos to all. *Takes the flask of acid from Oggron and gives him a small green dragon, a muzzle, and a release pin with the instructions "pull and fire".*
*the rest of Oggron's post*
Agreed, 100%. I always try to remember I'm just a person too, and people make mistakes. I try to listen to what my players, and I think that helps us in our games. Even my little brother knows that if I say something won't be allowed, he knows I'm not saying so lightly.
My campaign setting actually has 26+ playable races, simply because I try to reasonably consider what players want (having a world that's not black & white where all orcs are evil and all elves are good really helps with the PC race options, BTW). I love talking mechanics with my friends (and people on the boards) because it gives me a chance to learn and improve on my games (such as giving some under represented archtypes more toys to play with).
The main thing I try to keep in mind is, I'm not a perfect GM yet. I say yet, because I think it's important to always keep striving, even if you never get there. At least the journey will be worth it. ^-^