|
For Carrion Crown, I intend to "force" the issue thusly:
PCs get elite array, with 1 trait of choice, and 1 campaign trait.
Each player must provide a valid, reasonable background as to why the Professor would include them in his will.
Sanity rules are in play, with phobias, psychoses, etc. that are going to affect the players.
No OOC talk at the table, and probably next to no battlemat/minis used. Exception: all pcs will get a custom painted Reaper fig.
NPCs will react to player speech IC as much as possible, and handouts like maps/messages will be created, aged, and disbursed as appropriate.
I figure the extra prep will be a wash with my current time spent (upgunning all the encounters & creating custom encounters for Kingmaker).
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
That's an odd question. You can be immersed in the game world and know what the game mechanics are at the same time. It's not as if a hardcore roleplayer will spontaneously forget what die to roll when making a saving throw, for instance.
I personally tend to build my character persona around the crunch, and vice versa. If, say, I'm making a fighter who wants to get the most out of Intimidate (Dazzling Display, Cornugon Smash, etc), then I roleplay him as a bully, using physical threats and violence to solve most of his problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
A bit rambling, but...
An immersive sandbox game with detailed history, background and NPCs. Oh, and no follow the path / must do adventures. Adventures should be optional, otherwise players tend to think ahead to the next step. Optimization is just around the corner from there. That's not a horrible thing, btw but when they're totally focused on their "build" they are often not focused on the setting / events. You want your players to live in and experience the world. Some players can pay attention to both their build and the world around them.
It takes a lot more background work to run a sandbox game as opposed to running an AP. APs can be great but players build for the AP as opposed to seeing the world. Bury dozens of adventure seeds with NPCs or events in your world. Let the players stumble in to them and decide to follow a given thread. Have large adventuring zones ("dungeons" etc.) near the start point. Have a variety of urban adventures set for low to mid levels. Anything from bar brawls to gang problems to guild / family rivalries. Plan your world to last.
It's way too involved to lay out in a few paragraphs. Example: My start point is a medium sized city on the edge of the wilderness (which is across a major river). There is a vast ruined underground fortress across the river and a large dark forest below that (also across river). The river protects the relatively civilized area (which is still a frontier). The city is the center for trade between humans, elves, dwarves and goblins. It is also noted as a center for adventurers. The city is detailed from temples to street gangs to the underworld. The court system is detailed along with watch organizations, guilds, major noble families and business families, etc. And all the politics that involves. Its taken a long time to get it to this level of detail. Players get sucked into the world. Their characters revolve around their friends, enemies, and lives as well as whatever adventure they've gotten themselves into lately. They worry more about their "lives" than what level they are / what they will be doing in three levels.
It's a homebrew of course. When you create it yourself you are forced to think through aspects that would otherwise go undetailed (and these often come in handy) For example, I started laying out my Theives Guild, and later Assassins Guild (OD&D era). This led to other criminal organizations, street gangs, the Watch, the courts, jails / prisons, etc. All of which have come in handy. If you use a commercial setting, make it yours. Become intimately familiar with the known details, expand and add to it. Change it to suit yourself. It's a terribly involving thing (degrees in history and cultural anthropology came in handy). It's also taken me 35 years to get where I am. It doesn't take that long to get it going, but the longer you live with your setting, the more detailed, flavorful and interesting it gets. And it's fun. Really :D
Other things... make sure your NPCs have lives. Your PCs will get involved. I do “cut scene” write-ups. Things the PCs may overhear (conversations between NPCs). Things happen. I’ve had NPCs quit adventuring (after a near death with the PCs on an adventure), get killed (by a vampire while on Church business, my PCs went on the warpath over that one – they were really angry), get married, get kidnapped, have children taken etc. It all involves the PCs sooner or later. NPCs are your biggest tool for involving the PCs in the setting. NPCs have lives, they're not worried about the next level or what their build up to 20th level will be. Just what's happening.
Sorry to be long winded, somewhat repetitive and unorganized but it's a complicated topic to think through on short notice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you start a campaign 3 weeks before a new important book like ultimate combat comes out, no one has a clue what their build will be.
Here's how I do it:
1) let the players play what they want
2) do some foreshadowing but don't give away the plot
3) let the players make adjustments to their future plans
4) let them know at character creation that sticking 100% to a build may not be the best option. They need to keep their options open for organic character growth
5) let the players play what they want
In the end, so long as their characters meet the character guidelines for the campaign, I don't worry about it. It's not my character. If someone sticks too closely to a spiked chain trip build and they are going up against mostly creatures they can't trip, they need to adapt. This is especially true if I have given them enough info that this is what to expect.
I have a player who stuck out a build that he really wanted to play. It worked great for the campaign so far (18 levels) but he has changed some things based on what has happened and what he expects to happen.
I had a DM who just kept the pressure on.
I had originally planned on playing an elf druid archer that pretty much just took archery feats, but it was a small party, the BBEG had taken over most of civilisation, so we had to be self sufficient. I ended up taking Craft Wand for some heal sticks the rest of the party could use, then Empower Spell because it worked real well with my flamestrikes (15d6 x 1.5? Yes please!). Improved Counterspell became an unexpected lifesaver, trading unempowered flamestrikes for fireballs and lightning bolts against some nasty rakshasa.
Our arcane trickster had 2 levels of fighter because early on, we needed more tanky goodness. He was a bit of dabbler, but then at 16th level he was a rogue 4/fighter 2/wizard 3/arcane trickster 7, so he had 5th level spells he could pull out of his pocket and surprise the rest of the party, since he usually threw daggers at things.
The agnostic fighter eventually took some levels in mystic (divine sorcerer-type from Dragonlance) for some backup healing and buffing. He was pretty much a sword (khopesh) and board guy, but was heavy on the role play, so I think the mystic also gave him access to some diplomacy and knowledge type skills too that totally fit his character.
This was a 3.0, maybe 3.5 campaign.
For my next game, I assured the players their characters won't live past level 1.
I'm confused as to why you think that not having a build is EVER good. I've never had any immersion without one as either a DM or player.
I've gamed with quite a few people in different groups and all seem to follow the same two pattern. A) Have a detailed build planned till high level, so they can just play the defined character while developing the story between games or B) Don't have a focus so they are trying to figure out what to do (that's useful) with 4 feats and 2 class randomly put together. After that they spend the time between games working on crunch instead of what the character would do next or cool saying he might have.
Don't get me wrong, there a people who just don't care about anything but the crunch just like there are people who slow things down because they refuse to learn the crunch. And if you can tie your character's story into the crunch that goes better most times. But a player who wants to stick to a build isn't going to be any more fun at the table because you talked him out of having one, anymore then someone who wants to build an "organic" character will be if you force him to have a build before you start the game.
|
It all sounds good and looks good. Untill you start trying to play the characters at high level. At level 12+. If you did not plan your characters path to power it's to late. Your at the level range of why I plan out characters. If for what ever reason your not ready for high level play. You will end up with dead characters. And being ready to play high level means you did ever thing geting there that you needed to. That takes planing a path to power.
It's not about optimization. It's about knowing your path to power befor you start the character. And knowing that at after level 14 your character can still do it's role.
|
Yes, I totally have but I find it only happens when the player's are devoted to a role playing concept, a rich character background, and are clear on what their character's motivations and goals are. If the players have a really clear concept and background set up I have found that they are more likely to make decisions based on what a character would do vs. build.
|
Most the people I play with take no interest beyond the character concept. Coincidently, most people I play with that don't frequent these or any othe boards :)
I have been in many games where lvling is a slow process because no one knows what they want until they start browsing the book. Or thers knowing roughly what they want based on their char design but need to find something that fits.
|
It all sounds good and looks good. Untill you start trying to play the characters at high level. At level 12+. If you did not plan your characters path to power it's to late. Your at the level range of why I plan out characters. If for what ever reason your not ready for high level play. You will end up with dead characters. And being ready to play high level means you did ever thing geting there that you needed to. That takes planing a path to power.
It's not about optimization. It's about knowing your path to power befor you start the character. And knowing that at after level 14 your character can still do it's role.
Actually, no, at least not for every game (I don't dispute the truth your quote holds for your gam). If I GM, I have to take my Group into account when designing encounters or playing pre designed encounters. I don't run a game against the group.
BTW: I might be wrong in my perception of optimization, but what is the difference between that and the character planning you describe? (really curious, not meant as an attack or flamebait)
It is a matter of playstyle, I believe, and the question of the OP shows he wants to work with his players, so I guess he would keep their characters in mind while running his game and is willing to rework encounters if necessary (keep in mind, not every monster, high level villain ran a preplanned course to his present state, so he might react in a suboptimal way because of his personality or misleading experiences).
To the OP:
I have good experiences in beginning the character design with the background (OK, most players decided for a race and class beforehand, but from time to time that has changed during background creation). Wehn we plan the background together, I try to note what aspects of the characters "pre adventuring" life exite the player and try to support these aspects and help him fleshing them out.
This way, most players enter the mechanical creation and the game exited about other aspects of their characters. If I continue to support the exiting bits of the characters history during the campign,
RotR spoiler
In my RotR campaign I changed the Sandpoint historian to be the former mentor of a sagely dwarven cleric character, two Varisian characters stayed in town as kids (for a child sorceres to learn from her aunt, also a Sandpoint character) when the gruesome murders happened and the old cathedral burned, they are also childhood friends of the Vinde Sisters etc.
They stay exited about their characters story and will do their best to fit their characters mechanical development with this story.
|
|
Wow. I've never had a problem with any of this.
My players aren't super optimisers but they do fine after 12th level. Plus there's nothing wrong with looking up a spell or taking an AOO whilst disarming someone. That doesn't break immersion.
What does break immersion is people playing on their phones or laptops during the game or people who discuss what happened last night on TV. The trick is to engage your players, describe things fully and give them chances to roleplay. There's no need to be a dictator at the table, lead them to water and they will drink.
My players create characters based on coolness factor, not a bunch of feats. This doesn't mean they die every single week, PF is pretty forgiving actually. That said my players do plan their characters to fit their concept. There's nothing wrong with that, working out how a character will mechanically develop within your concept is natural. What isn't natural is choosing a bunch of feats and calling that a character.
Raging that any consideration of the rules is bad roleplaying is wrong but equally saying that if you don't concentrate on squeezing every last plus out of your character then he/she is doomed is also wrong. My players completed Legacy of Fire with a Bard, Summoner, Monk and Rogue. That's not an optimised party but they did fine.
Basically, optimisation is not the enemy of roleplaying. When optimisation replaces roleplaying then you have a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I love experiencing that I too have a hard time encouraging in others. Maybe it's just the people I play with but they have to plan their entire characters from 1-20 including any and all magic items picked up along the way.
What happened to just being pleasantly surprised when you found that +1 shocking longsword? Now that longsword isn't even considered. It needs to be pawned for the 2000g the wizard needs to craft his Headband of INT II.
|
|
What is required for level 14+ play. Is very difrent from lower level play. At level 4+ there is a level of optimization required.
I optimize my characters to fit the idea I have for them. I don't make a optimized character then play it.
My character creation.
Base idea of what I want it to do. (I tend to multiclass, or make characters that can cover 2 to 3 difrent roles in the party.)
Make the crunch fit what I want it to do. (Required if I want to make a oracle of battle that can do traps and be the party face. That was my last character I made any how.)
Develop the character as we game making changes to the crunch as needed. (If some one makes a character to cover one or more of the roles I made my character for. I let them and just pull back the resorces for that ability and find a new place for it.)
Flavor + Crunch = good over all character.
And I never ever plan for magic items. With the exception of maby a +2 or 4 stat bost item for level well after I should have them.
This is something I love experiencing that I too have a hard time encouraging in others. Maybe it's just the people I play with but they have to plan their entire characters from 1-20 including any and all magic items picked up along the way.
What happened to just being pleasantly surprised when you found that +1 shocking longsword? Now that longsword isn't even considered. It needs to be pawned for the 2000g the wizard needs to craft his Headband of INT II.
Yeah, my players do the same thing. Apperantly magical items has just become another tool for players to customize their characters with.
Twice. Both times it ended up with me having a character who struggled to achieve plot goals.
@ OP
There is, to me, a disconnect between the two things you speak about.
To plan out ones arc, ones lifepath and goals, is a very human thing to do so why exactly would the characters not do the same?
Now just like in life sometimes things occur that alter that path but I am unconvinced that this effects immersion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waive pre-requisites.
Replace all pre-requisites with GM approval — you don't need x ranks or a feat to take a prestige class, you need to roleplay into the class. Likewise for feats, which are trickier (you might want to leave BAB and Caster Level pre-reqs in place) since they need slots, but it still helps a LOT to eliminate stepping stones and open the window of opportunity.
The system as written begs for players to plan ahead of time or lose out on really cool things. This lets you keep the choices, but removes the importance of planning levels ahead in order to even get access to choices.
While this method would work, bear in mind that some players really enjoy the deckbuilding aspect of Pathfinder characters, and working around pre-reqs is part of the "minigame" of character creation. If they are enjoying that, then it probably has a lot to do with why they are enjoying Pathfinder and not complaining about it. Removing pre-reqs will help, but be certain you're not removing something your players love in service to your own pride as a GM.
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
Since the build directly modifies your experience with the game world, it's kind of hard to avoid thinking about it.
Optimization and builds can go hand and hand with immersion. The best way to do it is get your players involved in developing the world. An example is, in a friend's kingmaker game, a couple of the PC's got together to actaully write out a constitution for our kingdom. We created an organized system of government, and created context with which to interact with the npcs. Getting players involved is a great way to increase immersion (not to mention a way to reduce your workload).
One of the biggest problems dms run into is they have this awesome world, with this awesome story, but it is completely inaccessible to the players. The plot is happening behind the scenes and the players never see it untill the end(if at all). And even in the end they might not know all the details. Many times this is neccessary as the secret cult is trying to stay hidden, and the mystery should be mysterious. But we as dms have to remember that this isn't a movie or book where the audience (in this case the players) gets to see scenes with the bad guys, all they have is the heroes perspective. So you have to take more care to have the world and the story interact with the PCs. If you do that, over time the players will get immersed if only by osmosis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
No. Nor should we.
A character-sheet is the inspiration from which all that is to be comes. It is the seed that germinates into all the flowering role-play that is eternally sought after. It is the DNA, the blueprint, the framework that guides and outlines a self-consistent entity. The character-sheet influences the actions of the avatar and the events of the game influence the character sheet. There is a beautiful synergy at work here.
So stop screwing with it. I - for one - use the little squiggly numbers and feat choices and skill choices and equipment choices and racial choices and so on as my muse. The build is critical. It has to be SOMEONE I want to pretend to be. If you make me stop being concerned about my build, I stop being concerned about the avatar I'm role-playing in your game. Give me my XP, my gold, and my magic shop and I'll just shove some numbers around here and... role-play until the cows come home.
No. Nor should we.
A character-sheet is the inspiration from which all that is to be comes. It is the seed that germinates into all the flowering role-play that is eternally sought after. It is the DNA, the blueprint, the framework that guides and outlines a self-consistent entity. The character-sheet influences the actions of the avatar and the events of the game influence the character sheet. There is a beautiful synergy at work here.
Anguish, this describes only one style of play. Although I agree with most of what you're saying, it is bad to insinuate that it's the only way.
I'll add one more thing: There are lots of games where the advancement of a PC's abilities is a minimal part of the game and where it would never cross my mind what my character would look like with more experience (e.g. Toon, Paranoia). D&D is not one of them.
Also what about what your character in character wants to be able to do in the future. What about an archer that wants to shoot rapidly planning rapid shot for the future or manyshot becuase he thinks that is waht is effective from things he heard. Using a build for the dreams of the character syntheisizes the metagame and in character.
|
|
Perhaps I am grasping at straws here, so here are some simple questions for general discussion:
Which is more important to you as a Player, winning the game or experiencing the story?
Which would you rather play under, a Strict RAW GM, or one who finagles the rules to facilitate dramatic events?
Do you enjoy GM'ing? If so, why?
Do you consider GM'ing a chore, or work? If so, why?
Do you play more frequently from published works, or via "homebrew" adventures?
Do you actively try to "work" with the GM with regards to the game (i.e. providing backstory hooks, going along with a particular plotline, not assassinating random NPCs "because I could)? Or would you rather have carte blanche to do what you like, when you like?
Do you expect a GM (whether average, poor, or excellent)to be able to react to a wild PC tangent, and provide the same quality of game as that which he/she actually prepared for?
Do you find it acceptable if that "off-the-cuff" adventure time is less "good" than her usual material?
Also what about what your character in character wants to be able to do in the future. What about an archer that wants to shoot rapidly planning rapid shot for the future or manyshot becuase he thinks that is waht is effective from things he heard. Using a build for the dreams of the character syntheisizes the metagame and in character.
Indeed I prefer abilities that translate into things that can be said and related to in character. "He is training to be a focused specialist in longswords" = That fighter is picking up weapong focus and weapon spec for longswords next level. If you encourage this kind of talk around the table it helps immersion alot. Also encouraging descriptive language even in combat is good. The more flair you add to in character knowledge and actions, the less metagame and immersion breaking mechanical terms rear their ugly head.
|
|
Which is more important to you as a Player, winning the game or experiencing the story?
Definitely experiencing the story. Winning individual challenges is nice and all, but without an overarching plot, the game quickly fades in my memory.
Which would you rather play under, a Strict RAW GM, or one who finagles the rules to facilitate dramatic events?
Not Strict RAW by any means. A little latitude is needed for maximum fun time.
A: Do you enjoy GM'ing? If so, why?B: Do you consider GM'ing a chore, or work? If so, why?
A: When my players put thought and energy into the game, yes. When they treat it as nothing more than a series of combat encounters or an opportunity to break the rules as intended, not at all.
B: Chore and Work when I have to spend more time thinking up ways to actually challenge the PCs than why and who is doing the challenging.
Do you play more frequently from published works, or via "homebrew" adventures?
Almost exclusively from APs nowadays. Although, they're not the incredible timesavers I thought they'd be, what with all the tweaking and re-statting necessary.
Do you actively try to "work" with the GM with regards to the game (i.e. providing backstory hooks, going along with a particular plotline, not assassinating random NPCs "because I could)? Or would you rather have carte blanche to do what you like, when you like?
Always and forever. I know how difficult it is "behind the screen," and quite frequently will toss "pre-hooks" at the GM, whether at the table, before or after in discussions, or via email/phone. I am that guy who really wants the Adventure to happen, not just to sit around and stare at the magic item tables, calculating whether it's more efficient to get an X over a Y.
A: Do you expect a GM (whether average, poor, or excellent)to be able to react to a wild PC tangent, and provide the same quality of game as that which he/she actually prepared for?B: Do you find it acceptable if that "off-the-cuff" adventure time is less "good" than her usual material?
A: No, not at all. Some folks are great at extemporaneous RP and can come up with plots, NPC's, and encounters at the drop of a hat. Most of us cannot do so as easily.
B: Absolutely. If the party "goes off the rails" and the GM is trying to play catch up, I cut them more than the usual amount of slack, and will typically try my darndest to get us back in her comfort zone.
TL/DR version: I want to play in a game run by a GM with the same goals as me, or to GM games where my players share those goals. How can that be achieved?
I'm not convinced these questions will really inform the OP, but I took a crack at it cuz I'm bored at work:
Which is more important to you as a Player, winning the game or experiencing the story?
That is a loaded question, I suggest you rephrase it unless you're trying to incite flames.
In general, I like experiencing a story — but part of that experience is winning and losing as a result of choices I've made. I think the losing is as important as the winning to my having fun. A game where I just sit around and win with no setbacks and no threat of death is dull.
Which would you rather play under, a Strict RAW GM, or one who finagles the rules to facilitate dramatic events?
Another loaded question. Please be careful when phrasing them.
All GMs finagle the rules to facilitate dramatic events. Some of them do it during the game, others call it prep. I try like hell to set everything right in the prep, but I'll admit I have fudged results before to enhance the game. I don't like doing that though, so 99% of the time, I am a super-impartial GM.
Do you enjoy GM'ing? If so, why?
I love GMing. I love providing the venue for players to stage the characters they so want to play. I find it extremely gratifying to manufacture memories that my friends will share with me and among themselves for a very long time.
Do you consider GM'ing a chore, or work? If so, why?
It's like anything... chore or work depends on context. Sometimes I love mowing the lawn, sometimes I am too busy or conditions make it a hassle.
Prepping for games is a "chore" like that, sometimes pleasurable, sometimes inconvenient. Actually running is more like sex... incredibly fun, but you can only keep at it for so long before you need to collapse for a while and bask in the glory. Yeah, I said it.
Do you play more frequently from published works, or via "homebrew" adventures?
Used to homebrew exclusively. Now I do APs all the time, some modules. Still brewing the next homebrew.
Do you actively try to "work" with the GM with regards to the game (i.e. providing backstory hooks, going along with a particular plotline, not assassinating random NPCs "because I could)? Or would you rather have carte blanche to do what you like, when you like?
If the GM is trying to manage a plot and hasn't called "sandbox", doing whatever you want is a dick move. It's your job as a player to make the story what your player wants to do. You don't show up to a dinner party and complain about how they didn't just order pizza.
A pizza party (or a sandbox game) reverses all of that entirely.
Do you expect a GM (whether average, poor, or excellent)to be able to react to a wild PC tangent, and provide the same quality of game as that which he/she actually prepared for?
GMing overclocks the brain. ANY GM has the right to call a time out. If you're a player, and the GM says he needs a few minutes, an hour or a day, you'd be foolish not to give it to him — he's asking for that time to make your game better. Don't be the type of person who has fun at everyone else's expense.
Do you find it acceptable if that "off-the-cuff" adventure time is less "good" than her usual material?
Acceptable? Yeah. GMs are human beings. Players who set their expectations way too high are more likely to turn a good game into a bad one than to elevate a mediocre one.
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
As a PC I was once. I came up with an idea based on our previous character's exploits, ran it by the GM and he was cool with it.
It required multiclassing, and it wasn't going to be "optimal" but it fit the image/idea perfectly. Sadly I don't play with that DM anymore...EDIT: It was a rogue/cleric/ranger in 3.0...if I'd've had the Inquisitor class back then, I would have done that instead as that was the concept, pretty much.
Perhaps I am grasping at straws here, so here are some simple questions for general discussion:
Which is more important to you as a Player, winning the game or experiencing the story?
Which would you rather play under, a Strict RAW GM, or one who finagles the rules to facilitate dramatic events?
Do you enjoy GM'ing? If so, why?
Do you consider GM'ing a chore, or work? If so, why?
Do you play more frequently from published works, or via "homebrew" adventures?
Do you actively try to "work" with the GM with regards to the game (i.e. providing backstory hooks, going along with a particular plotline, not assassinating random NPCs "because I could)? Or would you rather have carte blanche to do what you like, when you like?
Do you expect a GM (whether average, poor, or excellent)to be able to react to a wild PC tangent, and provide the same quality of game as that which he/she actually prepared for?
Do you find it acceptable if that "off-the-cuff" adventure time is less "good" than her usual material?
1. I want both an equal amount but perfer victory not to be cakewalk as a player or gm.
2. strict raw Gm can be boring if draws into rules debates or soemthing like no you cannot use the moonlight bridge revelation as a boarding ramp because a ship is not ground.
3. Gming is fun but requires prep work which can be fun in itself.
4. It is very hard to predict players.
5. The off the cuff stuff should not be horrible but if the prepared adventure is awesome and improvised is good then I am fine with that.
|
|
@EL...yeah, phrasing could have been better. Mea culpa, there.
How about:
As a Player, which is more important to you: mastering the RAW so as to "master" the In Game Universe, or Mastering your In Game Presence within the context of the rules?
Do you prefer a Strict RAW GM or one more open to RAI and/or "judgement calls?"
(note, from what I've been hearing, there are some GM's who go strictly by the RAW. I don't understand how, but that's what they said, so I take em at their word)
Perhaps I am grasping at straws here, so here are some simple questions for general discussion:
Which is more important to you as a Player, winning the game or experiencing the story?
Neither actually, I want to be part of the telling of the story. "Experiencing" implies to me at least that I am a spectator or an actor in a play. I dont look for that in the least as a player. I want to feel like I have influence over the events unfolding around me as a hero (or anti hero or what have you) within them. I dont want to sit around and listen to story time, any more then I want to walk over my enemies in combat or non-combat situations (then again I dont like spending the entire time getting my butt kicked either, so I guess its all about moderation). But I'd say agency within the story is most important to me.
Which would you rather play under, a Strict RAW GM, or one who finagles the rules to facilitate dramatic events?
It is important to me for the world to be coherent and follow rational rules. I dont expect strict raw, nor do I want it, but I also dont want a dm that will change things mid stream to fascilitate his 'drama'. That again robs players of their agency in the story. If I had to choose between strict raw and wild fluctuation in the rules, I'd choose strict raw, but somewhere in the middle is infinately prefereable.
Do you enjoy GM'ing? If so, why?
Yes, for a couple reasons. First and foremost being a good host was ingrained in me growing up. If you invite people into your home you see they are entertained. And that can be satisfying for me. I like to entertain in that fashion, and dming is very much like hosting a particularly themed party (ostensibly with friends).
I also like the challenge of creating a world that can absorb my player's creativity. I have some wild ideas pop out from them, and being able to adapt and shift my world to match their actions can be fun and exciting. I also like the mechanical challege of keeping them on their toes. My group optimizes considerably and consequently it is a mental challege to keep them from overwhelming fights and encounters without going too far and creating an unfair challenge. I aim for the players to always THINK they will fail, but for them to ultimately succeed. When I hit that target, I am generally pleased.
Do you consider GM'ing a chore, or work? If so, why?
Some of it can be, I dont like the process of 'world building'. I prefer to leave those details to proffesionals like those at paizo. They do it better then I do.
Do you play more frequently from published works, or via "homebrew" adventures?
I do use them in a way. I use them as a framework for my adventures. So I'll use golarion as a base and change a given region to suit my adventure needs. I might also take a piece of an adventure's story and expand on it or shift it. Again letting the proffessionals do as much of the work for me as I can, but keeping things to my own personal tastes in adventure setup and style. For instance right now I am finishing off a campaign based on The council of theives AP, with many of the events of the game in tact, but alot of the 'behind the scenes' story completely changed, and numerous encounters changed and re-written.
Do you actively try to "work" with the GM with regards to the game (i.e. providing backstory hooks, going along with a particular plotline, not assassinating random NPCs "because I could)? Or would you rather have carte blanche to do what you like, when you like?
I always try to help my gm. I look for hooks and if i am lost as a player I will tell them so. Sometimes DM's forget about the rule of 3 (anything you need your players to know you should show them or tell them 3 times so they might actually notice it once). And I try to give feedback and input for the game. For instance in my current kingmaker game with 2 of my other fellow pc's we developed along with the DM (and some help from here on the boards) a constitution for our kingdom. It has created a framework for our interaction with NPCs and lead to some great story points that would not have been possible without it. It also gives our dm hooks and ways to set us on the paths he wants.
Do you expect a GM (whether average, poor, or excellent)to be able to react to a wild PC tangent, and provide the same quality of game as that which he/she actually prepared for?
Any dm has to prepare for the unexpected. It is simple math. One person no matter how much preparation they put into it, wont think of all the same things as 4 or more people (who likely think differently). Every dm HAS to imrpovise to some extent, or you end up with a very painful railroad of a game. Without that improv the quality of the game is low to begin with, so there is no fear of dropping the quality due to improv (in my opinion ofcourse). Again this comes down to player agency vs hardline stories. In my experience the most memorable moments have been when for better or for ill the players thought of something the dm wasn't expecting and took things off the rails, because that is where genuine collective storytelling happens.
Do you find it acceptable if that "off-the-cuff" adventure time is less "good" than her usual material?
I dont see why it is automatically 'less good'. It is all a matter of perspective. I am certain that very few players like being told 'no you cant do that because I didn't expect it', so it will become 'better' not 'worse' when the dm is working off the cuff. I certainly thing many excellent dms can make the players THINK it was all planned ahead of time even when its off the cuff, and that is my favorite kind of dm, but I would still rather the attempt then the videogame style end of the road (where there seems to be more road, but you cant go that way because it wasnt programmed any further).
I do think your questions are rather weighted, and it seems to me at least you are a little jaded. I think you will find in the end, fighting with your players over control of the story will never create immersion, and even the best 'storyteller' wont immerse you as well as an average 'improviser'.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
Yes. Play with people who think that story and character development (as in personality, not numbers) are just as important as game rules and 'winning'.
In my experience game rules have little to do with immersion. Good story telling, creative players who are willing to add their stories into the setting's and each others stories and a gm not affraid to act out npc's and use some props for flair make for good games.
Have them answer these questions about each of their characters and keep their answers on file to use in your game so you can tailor the stories to include their characters more. Sometimes creating something more than a combat toon will get them more invested in the character RPwise.
Also their answers can often tip you off to those players in your game who don't care one bit about immersion.
1.What is your full name? Do you have a nickname?
2. How old are you? When is your birthday?
3. Where were you born? Where do you live now? Are you patriotic?
4. Who are/were your parents? (Names, occupations, personalities, etc.)
5. Do you have any siblings? What are/were they like?
6. What is your occupation?
7. How tall are you? How much do you weigh?
8. What color is your hair? What color are your eyes?
9. What is your race?
10. To which social class do you belong?
11. Do you consider yourself to be attractive? Do others?
12. What is your style of dress?
13. Do you have any scars? Tattoos? Birthmarks? Other unique physical features?
14. Do you have any allergies, diseases, or other physical weaknesses?
15. Are you right- or left-handed? Left
16. What does your voice sound like?
17. What kind of vocabulary do you use?
18. List three quirks or other defining characteristics.
19. How often do you bathe? Do you wear perfumes?
20. What kind of facial expression do you commonly wear (dour glare, wry smile, etc)?
21. Do you use body language? How?
22. Do you have a commonly used saying?
Part 2: Growing Up
23. What is your earliest memory?
24. How much schooling have you had? Did you enjoy it?
25. Where did you learn most of your knowledge and skill?
26. How would you describe your childhood in general?
27. As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up?
28. When and with whom was your first kiss?
29. Are you a virgin? If not, when and with whom did you lose your virginity?
30. Do you have a notorious or celebrated ancestor? Does that affect you?
Part 3: Past Influences
31. What do you consider the most important event of your life so far?
32. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
33. What is your greatest regret?
34. What is the most embarrassing or shameful thing ever to happen to you?
35. Do you have any secrets? If so, what are they?
36. What is the most evil thing you have ever done?
37. When was the time you were the most frightened?
38. Have you ever traveled outside of your country? If so, to where?
Part 4: Beliefs And Opinions
39. What is your alignment?
40. Are you basically optimistic or pessimistic?
41. Do you believe in a god? If so, which one and why?
42. Do you believe in an afterlife?
43. What is your greatest fear?
44. What makes your character angry? Sad? Happy? Why?
45. Do you think people are basically good or basically evil?
46. What are your views on politics? Religion? Sex?
47. What are your views on gambling, lying, theft, and killing?
48. How far will you go to defend your beliefs?
49. How much do you value money?
50. In your opinion, what is the most evil thing any human being could do?
51. Do you believe in self-sacrifice for the greater good?
52. Do you believe in the existence of soul mates and/or true love?
53. Are you superstitious?
54. How much do you respect the beliefs and opinions of others?
55. How honest are you about your thoughts and feelings?
56. Do you have any biases or prejudices?
Part 5: Relationships With Others
57. Who is the most important person in your life, and why?
58. Who is the person you respect the most? Despise the most? Why?
59. Do you have a significant other? Who?
60. Do you have a lot of friends? Who is your best friend?
61. How do you relate to members of the same race? Class? Sex?
62. How do you relate to members of a different race? Class? Sex?
63. Have you ever been in love? If so, describe what happened.
64. What do you look for in a potential lover?
65. How close are you to your family?
66. Do you want a marriage, family, and/or children?
67. Do you tend to argue with people, or avoid conflict?
68. Are you a listener or a talker?
69. How long does it usually take for you to trust others?
70. Do you hold grudges?
71. Do you tend to take on leadership roles in social situations?
72. Do you like interacting with large groups of people?
73. How well do you express yourself?
74. How quickly do you judge others?
75. Do you care what others think of you?
76. Do you have any enemies? How or why are they your enemy?
Part 6: Likes And Dislikes
77. What is your favorite pastime? Color? Food? Possession?
78. What are your preferences in arts and/or entertainment?
79. Do you smoke, drink, go whoring, or use drugs? Why or why not?
80. How do you spend a typical Saturday night?
81. What is your most cherished fantasy?
82. How long is your attention span?
83. Do you laugh a lot? What do you find funny?
84. Is there anything that shocks or offends you? If so, what?
85. How do you deal with stress?
86. How much athletic ability do you have? Artistic?
87. Do you like animals? Do you like children?
88. Are you spontaneous, or do you always need to have a plan?
89. What are your pet peeves?
Part 7: Self Images
90. What is your greatest strength as a person? Weakness?
91. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
92. Are you generally introverted or extroverted?
93. Do you like yourself?
94. Do you have a daily routine? How do you feel if your day is interrupted?
95. What goal do you most want to accomplish in the next six months? Your lifetime?
96. Where do you see yourself in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
97. If you could choose, how would you want to die?
98. What is the one thing you would like to be remembered for after your death?
99. What three words would you use to best describe your personality?
100. What three words would others probably use to describe you?
101. Why are you risking your life to adventure?
Prepping for games is a "chore" like that, sometimes pleasurable, sometimes inconvenient. Actually running is more like sex... incredibly fun, but you can only keep at it for so long before you need to collapse for a while and bask in the glory. Yeah, I said it.
I liked alot of what you had to say, but if this board allowed signatures, I think you would have just added to mine. I award you 4 internets for an awesomely quotable statement.
|
|
I do think your questions are rather weighted, and it seems to me at least you are a little jaded. I think you will find in the end, fighting with your players over control of the story will never create immersion, and even the best 'storyteller' wont immerse you as well as an average 'improviser'.
Fair enough.
While my wording may have been less than neutral, I would suggest a gander at some of my Campaign Journal entries. Link, if you're interested. My players typically "program" the game for me, lately, and I find myself on the back foot quite frequently trying to react to their actions.
You do make a good point about Player Agency. That's what I was really trying to get across, but badly. When the PCs have the opportunity to affect the In Game Universe in a meaningful fashion, the players attune more closely with their characters. At least, so far as I've found.
I do think your questions are rather weighted, and it seems to me at least you are a little jaded. I think you will find in the end, fighting with your players over control of the story will never create immersion, and even the best 'storyteller' wont immerse you as well as an average 'improviser'.Fair enough.
While my wording may have been less than neutral, I would suggest a gander at some of my Campaign Journal entries. Link, if you're interested. My players typically "program" the game for me, lately, and I find myself on the back foot quite frequently trying to react to their actions.
You do make a good point about Player Agency. That's what I was really trying to get across, but badly. When the PCs have the opportunity to affect the In Game Universe in a meaningful fashion, the players attune more closely with their characters. At least, so far as I've found.
I agree, when the players feel like they are a part of the story and not just actors in it, you get the best out of them. And it's ok to feel like you are on the back foot, ESPECIALLY if you are running an open world game like kingmaker. It is all kinds of open for crazy ideas on the part of the PCs.
My advice is to never thing of improv or rolling with player ideas to be a drop in quality of your game. It isnt. Those moments (like in mine when the group decided to establish sootscaleholt in honor of our newest vassal) are the ones your players will remember most. The wont care if you had to spend five minutes sorting out how the heck you were going to deal with their crazy idea, they probably wont even remember the delay. They will just remember the in game moment. Agency breeds immersion, and a stutter or hesitation on your part is a small price to pay for that.
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
That is not even possible with everyone, but to answer your question, no and I have never tried.
I don't think it is possible to ignore the build unless you tell the players up front that you will weaken encounters match what they make so they know what they choose does not matter too much.
PS:I also don't think being immersed has anything to do with not worrying about a build. You can ignore building and the game world equally just as much as you can fine tune a character and be deeply involved in how the game world operates.
Waive pre-requisites.
Replace all pre-requisites with GM approval — you don't need x ranks or a feat to take a prestige class, you need to roleplay into the class. Likewise for feats, which are trickier (you might want to leave BAB and Caster Level pre-reqs in place) since they need slots, but it still helps a LOT to eliminate stepping stones and open the window of opportunity.
The system as written begs for players to plan ahead of time or lose out on really cool things. This lets you keep the choices, but removes the importance of planning levels ahead in order to even get access to choices.
While this method would work, bear in mind that some players really enjoy the deckbuilding aspect of Pathfinder characters, and working around pre-reqs is part of the "minigame" of character creation. If they are enjoying that, then it probably has a lot to do with why they are enjoying Pathfinder and not complaining about it. Removing pre-reqs will help, but be certain you're not removing something your players love in service to your own pride as a GM.
Say I am playing a sneaky type, and I'm playing along and meet a Shadowdancer. I think, "Hey cool, I want to do that". Sorry, it takes 3 feats I don't have and perform(dance). The perform I could pickup in a level, but the 3 feats...thats 6+ levels (barring multiclassing or using rogue talents, etc...). As long as there are significant prerequisites for PRC and feats, players have to plan their builds. I'm not sure I would waive them, but I might consider Test-Based Prerequisites from Unearthed Arcana(3.5), which can be found here;
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm
I might also allow players to "fill in" prerequisites after taking the class. Take the previous sneaky type, he passes his audition through luck and determination, now, the next feats/skills he takes have to be the prerequisites for shadowdancer. If you allow this I would defintely put a hard minimum level on PRC. Minimum of x level before they will even consider your application.
(Test-based, and post-hoc prereqs)
Wow, those are two awesome suggestions that both satisfy my take on the problem. Bravo!
Thanks, you're welcome.
Waive pre-requisites.
Replace all pre-requisites with GM approval — you don't need x ranks or a feat to take a prestige class, you need to roleplay into the class.
Time constants can make this difficult or impossible. Nothing wrong with it for a group who enjoy it BUT if you have players or a DM who don't have tons of time to devote might not want to figure out what counts as roleplaying Improved Initiative. And that's not even getting into disagreements about what counts.