So you want to play Pathfinder RPG: A comprehensive guide for Dungeon Masters and Players


Advice

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:

I have a great working relationship with my players. In fact I usually ask for feedback after every game on what I can do to make the game more fun. But I will not stand for arguements during game. That does nothing but slow the game down to a screaching halt. I wont let my game crash and burn because a player wont listen. I have a standing rule that any objections can be voiced after the game. I am happy to listen and change the outcome if needed.

This is a worse case senario in which a player wont adhere to my rules. I have yet to see a player be that bull headed.

It takes two to argue, here. I have GMed for quite a long time, and in that time I've found that increasing control means a greater propensity for arguments, either with me or between the players, just because of the greater feeling of restriction. Lots of GMs will squeeze their fist tighter to stop these arguments, but they're only ratcheting up the tension even more.

I agree that the GM needs to take swift action to deal with arguments, and often say, "Guys, stop, this is derailing and isn't going to lead to having any fun." However, it's just as important and ten times harder to say to an angry player, "Whoa, man, okay... what is it you actually want?" and then accommodate someone who just got in your face.

Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

What about unhappy GM's? Ah, sorry, forgot that they're supposed to be mindless drones tasked with making the players feel special.


sirmattdusty wrote:
Buri wrote:
For example, if I'm asked to make a save and I ask if it's such and such because I get a bonus to that only to be told "no, you don't" would make my blood boil.

What if it's something you don't know about? What if you have to make a save against A and though you 'normally' get a bonus against A, it's because of B that makes your bonus not apply - and you just don't know about it. I might do that once...ONCE against a player's expected powers/save/abilities, ect...

For example, there was this very powerful whip in an old written adventure mod whose special abilities temporarily removed an elf's immunity to magic sleep effects for so many rounds, allowing for the mage to cast sleep on an elf. I think it was the last boss in the dungeon...can't remember, this was super early days of 3.x. I can remember the elf's player being quite surprised at what happened and I do remember that AFTER the session ended, I showed him the whip's stats and he was like...'oh, ok, that's cool'.

Sorry, didn't see this until now. I honestly can't say I'd be "cool" with it. Racial abilities are something intricate to the being of the creature so it'd have to be some heinously high level magic, as I'm assuming that whip is. I would have to say level 15 minimum before I could accept it out of hand. You could call this dictating to the GM/game, I guess, but those bonuses are for there for a reason and I made a sacrifice to gain it (because I didn't choose another option to boost something else). It would also depend on the bonus type. The racial that you mentioned would have to be well explained to go over well. But a bonus from a magic item/feat that only works in certain circumstances I could more readily let go of out of hand. I would equate shutting off a racially inherent ability to shutting off an entire class ability. Would it be cool to completely shut off a casters ability to cast spells without the appropriate level effect (like an antimagic field)? That's kinda where I'm coming from there.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:


What about unhappy GM's? Ah, sorry, forgot that they're supposed to be mindless drones tasked with making the players feel special.

I am? Damn, I've been doing it wrong all along...

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Maxximilius, for the final version of this you're working on--I noticed you said you would be putting this up on GoogleDocs, would you like an editor?

I think what you've written already is fantastic, very clear and excellent so please don't take anything I say the wrong way. I have noticed a few very minor slip ups in your English. Since a lot of people seem to want to link to it, doing the minor clean up it needs would help it look its best. I'd be happy to proofread for you (something I've done professionally, but I'm just volunteering here). Also, while you are far more fluent in English than I am in French, I've done French translation work in grad school so if you're having trouble finding the word for something I'd probably be able to help out.

If you've decided not to work on it or would prefer no one else work with you, all's good. Good luck, I love the intent of this piece.


A Man In Black wrote:
Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

Be careful with your absolute statements here, AMiB.

Some of the people arguing here are hearkening back to actual incidents with naughty children, I'm sure. Both players AND GMs. That's part of the problem.

You're describing an ideal situation I agree with, but unfortunately a lot of personal immaturity has convinced 50% of us that the GM can't be trusted with absolute power, and convinced the other 50% that the GM must have absolute power.

100% of us are claiming the other person must be wrong, and that the game will degenerate into a horrible experience.

But clearly, 100% of us have also had at least one good game experience, or we wouldn't be here.

Just food for thought.


Irontruth wrote:
Werecorpse wrote:

what happens in your games if the Gm doesnt want a certain prestige class or say guns, or psionics, but a player does?

How do your games run when there is an in game disagreement as to how a particular spell/feat/magic item etc works, and the diagreeing parties agree to disagree - who makes the final call on how it will be played?

I believe every group should talk about how to resolve rules conflicts before the "first session", or at the "session 0". There are multiple options, the simplest is to pick one person to be the rules expert and make decisions (usually, but not always, the GM). I'm in favor of that method, but it requires everyone to agree to it and respect it BEFORE the rules conflict.

Second, if your players keep coming to your table with character ideas that run counter to your proposed theme/mood/setting, you either haven't communicated your goals properly, or they just aren't interested in your theme/mood/setting. As a GM you have 3 options that I can see:

1: take the option the player is interested in away, forcing them to play a character they are less interested in.
2: adjust your theme/mood/setting to accommodate the player.
3: try explaining the theme/mood/setting to the player again to see if they alter their goals.

If you're having trouble keeping your players interested, 1 is probably the poorest choice.

Werecorpse wrote:
who decides if the king is a benevolent good guy or a manipulative sneak?

If an NPC is being introduced via player actions, I usually let them tell me something about them, sometimes through a leading question.

-Why did this king start the tradition that everyone must wash their hands before entering the throne room?
-Why does the king desire to expand his kingdom eastward?
-Why is the king always seen in public riding a horse?

Whatever answer they give me I'll go with. I will probably modify it a little, but the essence of their suggestion will remain.

In the first example the gm has the final say most of the time on rules.

( I have never been in or heard of a game where a single player gets to overrule the DM and all other players on a rule interpretation but if you say it happens fine. Someone is the rules god/ control freak in this situation, but not the gm.)

Your second example seems to have the gm consulting with the players but making the final call.

( and no one said players asking if they can try an option out means they aren't having fun with what they want. My experience with players is they don't mind being told no by the DM in the course of consultation about a character concept or new feat )

Your third example is one where the players are mined for ideas but it is the dms decision how those ideas are ultimately used.

I don't see any of this as contradictory to the ops post. Or the idea of the gm having the final say.

I am not sure there is much actual difference between the positions besides semantics and particularly the idea that being in the position of god ( or final decision maker) means that you are by definition a tyrant.

Toz I am still interested to hear how you gm in those direct disagreement situations as you seem to have some other method of gming.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Gorbacz wrote:
What about unhappy GM's? Ah, sorry, forgot that they're supposed to be mindless drones tasked with making the players feel special.

If the GM is unhappy because he's being asked to concede absolute power over the game, that's an unhealthy attitude that needs adjusting. Being a control freak isn't compatible with social games, or socializing in general. GMs aren't mindless drones, but if the players aren't feeling special, then he's probably not doing his job very well, no.

If the GM is unhappy with what the player wants, then it just comes down to some sort of give-and-take. There isn't any hard and fast rule, and ultimatums don't make for a healthy group. Like I said before, oftentimes what people demand isn't actually what they want; it's a perceived solution for a problem they want to see solved, and there may be a better, easier, or cleaner solution. This is one of the most important reasons discussion—even if it's deferred discussion—is better than an iron fist attitude.

Also, this is a decent question. If you have a decent question, it's worth asking in a non-sarcastic fashion.

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Some of the people arguing here are hearkening back to actual incidents with naughty children, I'm sure.

I'm comfortable with my statements. I would submit that this attitude is more effective than simply trying to rule with an iron fist over any actual child over the age of nine. This isn't an invitation to derail the discussion with child care arguing, though. Players don't argue because they need discipline, they argue because they want something.

Shadow Lodge

A Man In Black wrote:
Also, this is a decent question. If you have a decent question, it's worth asking in a non-sarcastic fashion.

...I don't understand.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

Be careful with your absolute statements here, AMiB.

Some of the people arguing here are hearkening back to actual incidents with naughty children, I'm sure. Both players AND GMs. That's part of the problem.

You're describing an ideal situation I agree with, but unfortunately a lot of personal immaturity has convinced 50% of us that the GM can't be trusted with absolute power, and convinced the other 50% that the GM must have absolute power.

100% of us are claiming the other person must be wrong, and that the game will degenerate into a horrible experience.

But clearly, 100% of us have also had at least one good game experience, or we wouldn't be here.

Just food for thought.

This is a false dichotomy - several here have asserted that it is more likely somewhere in the middle and that both of the opposing arguments hold merits and weaknesses.


A Man In Black wrote:
Players don't argue because they need discipline, they argue because they want something.

Do you mean to say that because the want something that they are entitled? Even if it is unbalanced or not inline with RAW/RAI?

Just thought I'd clarify the intention behind the assertion before I respond to it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Said it, promised it, there is the Google Document.

Comments opened, so everyone can give a counter-opinion on any topic addressed in the guide if needed.

I'll check the temperature before giving it it's own 2.0, official thread. Let me know about it.

Silver Crusade

DeathQuaker wrote:

Maxximilius, for the final version of this you're working on--I noticed you said you would be putting this up on GoogleDocs, would you like an editor?

I think what you've written already is fantastic, very clear and excellent so please don't take anything I say the wrong way. I have noticed a few very minor slip ups in your English. Since a lot of people seem to want to link to it, doing the minor clean up it needs would help it look its best. I'd be happy to proofread for you (something I've done professionally, but I'm just volunteering here). Also, while you are far more fluent in English than I am in French, I've done French translation work in grad school so if you're having trouble finding the word for something I'd probably be able to help out.

If you've decided not to work on it or would prefer no one else work with you, all's good. Good luck, I love the intent of this piece.

Thanks for the proposition and the kind words !

I think I'm handling myself well, except with some frenglish from time to time and a different cultural interpretation of humor and the meaning of some turns of phrases ; but if you wish to be added as an editor to the document, I can give you the rights (just have to see how to do it, though...).


The thing with RAI, is that no GM and no player can definitively say what that is short of a developer posting thoughts on something here. And, even with that, that's just their take on it most times with the exception being someone in a leadership role like James Jacobs. The printed product is the result of teams of people going over the text and multiple edits and revisions. We can guess and we can debate but ultimately all we have is what's printed, in the FAQ and the dev post here and there giving insight into things. No one has a dev on speed dial, generally speaking. I hate the "that's RAW but not RAI," which is actually somewhat insulting really (to say a company whose primary product is printed materials, didn't intend to print the books as we know them), argument because frankly, you more than likely weren't on the teams who determined the rules, made the edits or ultimately decided what was printed and subsequently shipped. You didn't hear arguments for/against something. You didn't hear the ideas that *almost* made it in but due to work politics or whatever didn't. You also didn't hear the ideas that couldn't be printed due to space/budgetary/time reasons. Most of you aren't even friends of devs or their friends.

Arguing the intent of something without first consulting the publisher/team members is ultimately futile. You can say "use common sense" but trying to argue intent just makes you sound like a pompous jackass in most circumstances, to think you know the inner workings of the minds of the people who did nothing but work on the rules day-in/day-out and decided to hand us what we can go and buy on the shelves. Generally speaking, unless there is another source on a topic the books are all we have to go on as to their intent since they decided to print what was printed as it was printed! Seemingly conflicting sections should be compared and a decision made by the GM. That keeps things fair.

The books allow for a GM to make these ad-hoc decisions but please don't say it was done because that's how it was intended. That's such a meaningless reason, really. Just be honest and say that you want it this way or that way. In the GM/player dynamic I think just being honest and talking (which is in the guide btw, tip of the hat, Maxx ;)) will be what solves disputes. Put your egos down. GMs, discuss your reasons with the players. Players, likewise do the same with each other and the GM. Everyone is dealing fellow sentient, capable, reasoning people.

Come on, everyone. Let's hold hands.

*cue Michael Jackson, we are the world*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s


If this guide will be made into a Google Docs, let me know. I added it to the Guide to the Guides.

Silver Crusade

The google doc has been added, two posts ago ;)

Silver Crusade

Bumping thread and almost final Google document guide. :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
What about unhappy GM's? Ah, sorry, forgot that they're supposed to be mindless drones tasked with making the players feel special.

If the GM is unhappy because he's being asked to concede absolute power over the game, that's an unhealthy attitude that needs adjusting. Being a control freak isn't compatible with social games, or socializing in general. GMs aren't mindless drones, but if the players aren't feeling special, then he's probably not doing his job very well, no.

If the GM is unhappy with what the player wants, then it just comes down to some sort of give-and-take. There isn't any hard and fast rule, and ultimatums don't make for a healthy group. Like I said before, oftentimes what people demand isn't actually what they want; it's a perceived solution for a problem they want to see solved, and there may be a better, easier, or cleaner solution. This is one of the most important reasons discussion—even if it's deferred discussion—is better than an iron fist attitude.

Also, this is a decent question. If you have a decent question, it's worth asking in a non-sarcastic fashion.

You seem to flatten everything into rules and power. There are a lot of things that can make a GM unhappy. Conceding his power and bowing down to player demands isn't everything. In fact, in my experience the whole "who has the power muaaargh" issue is always the least problem.

Say what about players who are can't make up their minds during combat rounds? If I say, "sorry, you're forfeited your round" am I an evil rule 0 warlord who is trying to play out his control fantasies?

Or perhaps am I trying to assure everybody, *myself included* has fun at the table, and having a player think 10 minutes about his next move during combat isn't really bringing this any further?

If a player wants to break the landscape while not breaking the rules, am I right to say "no"? Or maybe I'm intruding on his god-given rights to have fun while not caring what everybody else thinks?

Sure, there's talk and discuss, but it's not always possible. Sometimes, you have to take control. Sometimes, that results in folks who walk around talking about dick GMs and how they should just run combats and god forbid anything else. I'm RPing for 20 years, and I've had exactly one clueless GM (out of some 50, or so) that I will never play again not because he's a dick, but because he's really poor at narrative. I've never met those power-hungry dictators who try to smash everybody into pieces. Do they even exist?

And really, you complaining about sarcasm. Like, srsly? Duuuuuuude?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:


Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

No. Sometimes players DO get into arguments because they're naughty children who arent disciplined well enough. Sometimes they forget civility when they feel that they are entitled to something. Sometimes they act like petulant brats EVEN with a GM who is trying to work with them to get something that they want, they'll keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Sometimes it's players sometimes its DM's. to be fair in my experience I've run into far more difficult, rude, self entitled players than I have GM's. YMMV of course.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Lex Talinis wrote:
Do you mean to say that because the want something that they are entitled? Even if it is unbalanced or not inline with RAW/RAI?

They're entitled to it insofar as it's compatible with what everyone else wants. Like I said, it's a give and take. The balance that matters is the balance of entertainment and fun, and the RAW and RAI exist as tools to serve that end.

Gorbacz wrote:
You seem to flatten everything into rules and power. There are a lot of things that can make a GM unhappy. Conceding his power and bowing down to player demands isn't everything. In fact, in my experience the whole "who has the power muaaargh" issue is always the least problem.

Well, you did ask an awfully vague question, and you asked it sarcastically. If you want a specific answer, ask a clearer question, I'm not a telepath.

Quote:

Say what about players who are can't make up their minds during combat rounds? If I say, "sorry, you're forfeited your round" am I an evil rule 0 warlord who is trying to play out his control fantasies?

Or perhaps am I trying to assure everybody, *myself included* has fun at the table, and having a player think 10 minutes about his next move during combat isn't really bringing this any further?

Why did you let it go that long? Why don't you narrow the player's options to force an action? Why is the player taking 10 minutes? Someone who's taking that long seems like someone who's in dire need of help, not someone who's in need of further exclusion from the most time-consuming, complicated part of the game. Why are you taking your irritation out on the player?

Again, it's another example of the iron fist attitude only making problems worse.

Quote:
If a player wants to break the landscape while not breaking the rules, am I right to say "no"? Or maybe I'm intruding on his god-given rights to have fun while not caring what everybody else thinks?

Why does he want to break the landscape? To go somewhere interesting? Do something interesting? Get something interesting? Say yes insofar as is possible. If it means bypassing part of the adventure, you're almost certainly better off rewarding the player for their cleverness, even if it's not the full RAW effect, or else you're just telling the players that it's a guessing game where the only solution allowed is the one you thought of (and that leads to boredom and frustration fast).

Quote:
Sure, there's talk and discuss, but it's not always possible. Sometimes, you have to take control.

Of course. The point is that it's easy to take control, and hard but necessary to give up control to improve the game. Doing the latter makes for a better game, but requires a much more delicate touch.


A Man In Black wrote:
Why did you let it go that long?

Wait? youre basically berating him for being a control freak and then in the same breath berating him for not taking control of the situation?

A Man In Black wrote:
Why don't you narrow the player's options to force an action?

Because then someone would come along and say something like:

"Again, it's another example of the iron fist attitude only making problems worse."

A Man In Black wrote:
Why is the player taking 10 minutes?

Any number of reasons: If they are a new player then yeah they might need help. If they're a semi-experienced player there's no excuse. They needed to be paying attention and figuring out what they need to be doing on the turn PRIOR to theirs at the least. Combat is chaotic and tends to ebb and flow. So it's entirely possible to make plans to attack the thing that your fighter is attacking and have those plans change quickly to "HOLY CRAP, gotta heal the fighter!!" Either way The player should be paying attention and act accordingly otherwise they are taking fun away from the OTHER players at the table, INCLUDING as people are so fond of pointing out, THE GM.

At my table after 2 min, the 2 min timer comes out. Let's keep it moving people...

A Man In Black wrote:
Someone who's taking that long seems like someone who's in dire need of help, not someone who's in need of further exclusion from the most time-consuming, complicated part of the game.

Not as black and white and as pro-Player as you would color it. See above.

A Man In Black wrote:
Why are you taking your irritation out on the player?

Again see above. That player is being negligent of his fellow players at best. Inconsiderate and selfish at worst. After the two minute timer they get a forced delay and next player in order goes. Hopefully they wont take as long either...

A Man In Black wrote:
Again, it's another example of the iron fist attitude only making problems worse.

Yes, because player negligence or selfishness doesn't factor in at all.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll let you guys know when I meet my 40yr old virgin mom's basement drooling control freak GM who will be compensating for his life failures by enforcing his will unto the players.

In the mean while, I'll remain sceptical of the Player Advocacy Movement calling for special measures to restrain power-hungry rule 0 madmen who supposedly pop up left and right.


A lot of these situations are due to GM's not knowing how to handle certain situations so that leads to the ban or nerf hammer. The X(common thing used/allowed in most groups) being nerfed is an example of that.
If the GM can't handle a common thing such as a smiting paladin as an example they should try to get creative before they ban/nerf things.
Now some of us have a better understanding of the game than others so these ideas won't come up. In that case go online and ask how do I handle X.
I picked up the solutions to a lot of problems before they even showed up by reading other people's issues.

Sometimes it is not a rules issue, but a story issue. As a GM one should remember he is not telling a story or writing a novel. I had a GM give the entire group darkside points in SW Saga for not doing things how he would have done it.
I know players going off the rails can be annoying and trying, but learning to improvise makes you a better GM, and it lets you know that having other options set up can help. I am not saying your options will be rail 2 or 3, but as you learn about your group you can set up alternate rails for the group.

Sometimes the group wants to go "over there"* wherever that may be. In that case they might need a reason to stay on track. If they just refuse to follow the plot no matter what, then it may be time for an out of character talk about what they want to do.

*over there is normally some place that does not advance the story at all.

When/If I have to say no I normally explain why. Some GM's on these board have an attitude of "I do all the work, and I don't have to explain anything."

That works if I am at a job, but at a social outing it does not go over so well. Well it might, but don't think them accepting it makes you a GM. They may have just not learned that there is better out there, kind of like the guy with the crappy gf who does not know how bad he has it until he meets the next girl, and then he wonders why he accepted the abuse for so long.

Silver Crusade

*Cough*

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

ShinHakkaider wrote:
Wait? youre basically berating him for being a control freak and then in the same breath berating him for not taking control of the situation?

I'm berating him for punishing the player instead of taking control of the situation and finding out what help the player needed, yes. Taking charge is an important tool, but disciplining players isn't. If the player is being an obnoxious jerk who isn't participating, you don't need the GM to whip the player into line; anyone can do that, because you just have a disruptive player at that point.

Gorbacz wrote:
In the mean while, I'll remain sceptical of the Player Advocacy Movement calling for special measures to restrain power-hungry rule 0 madmen who supposedly pop up left and right.

Demanding absolute GM control over the game is a special measure. It's not a "special measure" to expect games to dispose of that unnecessary nonsense.

Grand Lodge

Interesting thread. Interesting arguments.

Ill give a real life example, slightly ad-libbed.

To Me "Your the fool who is GM'ing, you can set the game time."

My Response "Your the fool who has donated his house, toilet, and food. You set the time."

3rd Person Response "Its my bloody petrol and pizza money. Ill set the time."

4th Person Response "Its my time. And i dont care. Someone make a decision."

5th Person Response "Bugger it. We start at 6 after we get the pizza, fill the tank, eat the pizza, eat the chocolate, use the dunny, and get comfy. Enough said"

1 through 4 "Sounds good"

All i can conclude. 'Give, and take. Communicate. Everyone wins.'


I agree with Wennalonn, there is a lot of give and take between the GM and players both in and out of game.

On another note, the GM typically has a lot more responsibility. Players usually just have to worry about their PCs/animal companions/familiars/cohorts, the GM has to worry about every NPC, monster and campaign setting. Also being the final arbiter, there may be discussion regarding rules he is not familiar with. It can be a lot of strain over the course of a campaign.

Due to having a toddler and not always being able to join/have a group over, my wife and I take turns being GMs so that the other can enjoy pouring their energy into their characters (we both play 2 PCs in published adventure paths). The GM doesn't always get to play the character they want if it throws off party balance in traditional 4 player groups. Its nice for them to get a break sometimes. Of course whoever is GMing has to deal with player knowledge vs character knowledge, but we are usually pretty good about keeping them separate.

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So you want to play Pathfinder RPG: A comprehensive guide for Dungeon Masters and Players All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.