|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM is doing that with meta knowledge, I'm likely to get up from the table immediately and just not get a chronicle sheet for that scenario and mark it as "played".
I suppose that this would be somewhat understandable if a PC were running their mouth about a particular weapon. Aside from that, how can a demon tell some awesome weapon from any old weapon with bless weapon on it?
|
|
I am a little scared some jerk DM will read this thread, get ideas and think. I am going to trash John Doe's character with the next DM session by having him loss the sword I saw him buy. Sunder his locked gauntlet, telekentic the sword out of his hand, swoop in to to steal it, and teleport to a volcano.
Unless the player is Joe Caubo, then it's okay.
|
|
I suppose that this would be somewhat understandable if a PC were running their mouth about a particular weapon. Aside from that, how can a demon tell some awesome weapon from any old weapon with bless weapon on it?
Detect Magic or Arcane Sight (long shot, but technically a way)? If character has a holy demon bane weapon and it starts slicing or piercing (or bludgeoning!) through demons' defenses, getting rid of that weapon (by whatever means) might be a viable strategy.
"Look at that blade, it's slicing through Bob over there like he wasn't even a fiend!"
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Glabrezus and deals!
"You I leave alive, Pathfinder. Since I cannot harm you with my strength, I will destroy you with my cunning. I will teleport to Absalom now and don your image. I will then find your loved ones and kill them, slowly. When you return, I pray it is in time to make their funerals."
I noted that the player earned the ire of a powerful demon on his chronicle sheet. As Kyle did. This serves no mechanical benefit or detriment, as Kyle said, but it does make the player's relationship with his PC a more intimate one than it was before.
Sure, he can choose to ignore it in future games if he wants. But instead I hope that the unique story I've woven around his character is enticing enough that he'll choose to play his character with the knowledge of that loss. It gives him more tools he can roleplay with, as well as gives him something unique to share with others at future tables.
|
|
If character has a holy demon bane weapon and it starts slicing or piercing (or bludgeoning!) through demons' defenses, getting rid of that weapon (by whatever means) might be a viable strategy.
"Look at that blade, it's slicing through Bob over there like he wasn't even a fiend!"
"Darn, there went my 30gp cold iron longsword and the rest of my greater magic weapon duration. Guess I'll whip out my backup +1 longsword and cast bless weapon on it."
;)
|
|
I suppose that this would be somewhat understandable if a PC were running their mouth about a particular weapon. Aside from that, how can a demon tell some awesome weapon from any old weapon with bless weapon on it?Detect Magic or Arcane Sight (long shot, but technically a way)? If character has a holy demon bane weapon and it starts slicing or piercing (or bludgeoning!) through demons' defenses, getting rid of that weapon (by whatever means) might be a viable strategy.
"Look at that blade, it's slicing through Bob over there like he wasn't even a fiend!"
Unfortunately for our demon in question, the concentration requirement for detect magic is not likely to be met. Paradoxically, the wealth limitations for the PCs work in their favor for this, because most PFS PCs won't be able to afford an obviously spectacular weapon, and thus, avoid having it singled out.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Glabrezus and deals!
** spoiler omitted **
I noted that the player earned the ire of a powerful demon on his chronicle sheet. As Kyle did. This serves no mechanical benefit or detriment, as Kyle said, but it does make the player's relationship with his PC a more intimate one than it was before.
Sure, he can choose to ignore it in future games if he wants. But instead I hope that the unique story I've woven around his character is enticing enough that he'll choose to play his character with the knowledge of that loss. It gives him more tools he can roleplay with, as well as gives him something unique to share with others at future tables.
That sounds like a great way to have a monk start to "crack", shift out of his lawful alignment, and start taking barbarian levels thereafter.
|
|
I wonder what people would think of a scenario where the PCs were expected to have no gear except a pathfinder's pouch full of whatever they could fit in it. Like starting as fake slaves/servants to infiltrate some organization or whatever.
That's actually pretty close to how I start most adventures, gear-wise. I have some jewelry (some of it magical), a spell component pouch, and everything else is in a pathfinder pouch. Oh, and I keep a few coins in the actual mundane pouch, just in case I need to say "See? Just my coin purse is all!"
|
|
I wonder what people would think of a scenario where the PCs were expected to have no gear except a pathfinder's pouch full of whatever they could fit in it. Like starting as fake slaves/servants to infiltrate some organization or whatever.
That's a classic adventure trope. There's nothing wrong with this, except the author should remember to modify all the CRs, since the CR table assumes average WPL. OR at least, it seems to.
|
|
I had this exact little disaster happen to me during the
Party of 4 of us, 3 in melee with it and myself 30ft away, a witch throwing hexes at it.
It was tearing us apart and my ice tomb hexes kept failing, and I realised that if I didn't do something to buy us time, we were going to have dead characters in the very next round, so I used misfortune, which luckily worked. Cackle to keep it going.
Then it made a beeline for me, taking 3 AoO's without blinking. On my turn, I was in its range and couldn't escape (even with a withdraw), so I knew I was going to take the next hit, even with misfortune. I think a slumber was my only option, but whatever it was I did failed to work.
The meleers came back to hit its mirror images again. On the glabrezu's turn, it full attacked me, knocking me from 70something hit points to -11 (14 con, thank you +2 belt of con).
On one of the party member's turn, they moved down (we were flying) to CLW me, putting me on -4 and stable. Then the glabrezu hit me on the ground, killing me.
Then the glabrezu asked one of our party members via a note (with its telepathy) if he wanted to have our party member come back, which he enthusiastically said yes, not realising what was happening. And then I came back as an undead vampire - turning my 16 prestige raise dead into a 32 prestige resurrection.
I wasn't happy about the whole thing on several levels and the general verdict I hear is that you just have suck it up. I had no problem with being knocked unconscious to -11, but really, beyond that, I had big problems with its tactics, as a player, even if it is a demon.
The problem is that it ruins my enjoyment of the game to go quite so far and be quite that brutal.
When I'm GMing, my rule of thumb is that if there's a reasonable option to go for anyone else, to do anything else, while a player is on the ground instead of attacking them, take that option. Unless players either want hard mode or they're using similarly dastardly tactics themselves (which I can't recall seeing anyone actually do), killing helpless characters is something I put on my too-harsh list.
The wish at the end added insult to injury - I didn't even have the prestige to come back from that. Even if I did, I took into account if I would use that tactic if I were GMing, and again, it would fall under the same rules of thumb as killing helpless players that I mentioned above. Then I found out that the scenario actually talks fairly specifically about this - and this is key to the whole thread - if Paizo wants us to do that from their (albeit rough) tactics, I'd still be obliged to follow it.
Knowing all that, I don't know what to think about the whole encounter. I'm inclined to never want to run - or play - a scenario like that knowing how harsh it is.
|
|
Jeez, so many players crying that demons are supposed to do what every other monster in PFS is supposed to do. Target your HP until they fall. Even despite loads of magical abilities to do otherwise.
If the PCs are winning the battle due to the inclusion of 'Platinum Vindicator' the +2 Holy Cold Iron Longsword, please explain to me why the demon is meant to ignore that? A Marilith has Improved Disarm for a reason.
Is it strategically the best decision ever? No, it's not a Devil. Is it going to cause epic amounts of PC butthurt? Yes, that's what it likes. It's DELICIOUS! Drink up your tears!
Locked gauntlets are 8gp.
Cold iron backup weapons are cheap and light.
If your hero is really as good as they say, surely you can win battles even without the medieval equivalent of a F-22 Raptor fighter jet in your hands.
Stop your crying and keep fighting.
|
|
Jeez, so many players crying that demons are supposed to do what every other monster in PFS is supposed to do. Target your HP until they fall. Even despite loads of magical abilities to do otherwise.
If the PCs are winning the battle due to the inclusion of 'Platinum Vindicator' the +2 Holy Cold Iron Longsword, please explain to me why the demon is meant to ignore that? A Marilith has Improved Disarm for a reason.
Is it strategically the best decision ever? No, it's not a Devil. Is it going to cause epic amounts of PC butthurt? Yes, that's what it likes. It's DELICIOUS! Drink up your tears!
Locked gauntlets are 8gp.
Cold iron backup weapons are cheap and light.
If your hero is really as good as they say, surely you can win battles even without the medieval equivalent of a F-22 Raptor fighter jet in your hands.Stop your crying and keep fighting.
First off, F-22 raptors suffocate their pilots. And PFS PCs can't afford such weapons on the budgets we are given. I believe I pointed this out above. Mariliths are beyond the scope of tier 10-11 anyway.
|
|
It's obvious different players can handle rough situations better than others (easily more obvious than the easy vs hard mode/make scenarios more vs less difficult discussions), so we have to be careful not to make blanket statements that cover the whole GM base, the whole author base or even presuming an individual GM's running style will never change or adapt.
Having said that, it feels more than ever (over the past 3 odd years, at least) that the campaign and the community is willing to push the lines to becoming as punishing as possible - since for some people, that makes a fun game.
I think we just have to remember that what's fun for some isn't necessarily fun for everyone, and that no one person's perspective - including yours and mine - is the "correct" way to do it at every table.
The easiest fix would be for scenarios to include better tactics, including what the bad guys absolutely will or absolutely will not do. Maybe the reporting needs some sort of GM note that allows "extreme actions" that occured during the scenario, which might include lost 18K gp items? Just throwing ideas around.
|
|
I still don't understand why 'wealth curve' is such a big deal. I have a character who's mostly played down (before the changes) and has averaged about 1.3 fame per scenario. He's doing just fine and is quite a blast to play and still pretty competent (at what he's supposed to do).
I can't think of any of my characters that would be "unfun" to play if their stuff was stolen or destroyed. *scans brain for character info* Yep. As long as they had a basic thing or two (holy symbol, musical instrument, arcane bond, etc), they'd still be a blast to play and I bet I could even make them competent enough to contribute in PFS play. Not being the absolute best at something doesn't have to ruin the game.
|
|
I still don't understand why 'wealth curve' is such a big deal. I have a character who's mostly played down (before the changes) and has averaged about 1.3 fame per scenario. He's doing just fine and is quite a blast to play and still pretty competent (at what he's supposed to do).
I can't think of any of my characters that would be "unfun" to play if their stuff was stolen or destroyed. *scans brain for character info* Yep. As long as they had a basic thing or two (holy symbol, musical instrument, arcane bond, etc), they'd still be a blast to play and I bet I could even make them competent enough to contribute in PFS play. Not being the absolute best at something doesn't have to ruin the game.
There is a lot of I's in here. While I agree with your opinion on fun in the game. This is you using the standard person problem. How you enjoy the game is not how others enjoy it.
Telling players something they play is "unfun" is a form of stupidbadfun.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem is that it ruins my enjoyment of the game to go quite so far and be quite that brutal.
Then stay away from demons. Play other seasons. I'm sorry the dice didn't go your way, but the GM played the opposition exactly right in that case.
Demons aren't real. There's no requirement that they act any certain way to make them "more believable."
I disagree on both counts. It's not worth arguing on the first count; I agree that dretches and lemures don't exist.
But a creature doesn't have to be real in order to be well-defined or consistent. In fact, fictional characters typically have to be more consistent. (If Frodo suddenly whipped out a battle axe and started reaving orcs, many people would consider that poor writing.) Read the Bestiary entry on demons. Read "Demons Revisited." Nobody's trying to grief the player, but we are trying to get into the headspace of creatures who are absolutely trying to grief the character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that it ruins my enjoyment of the game to go quite so far and be quite that brutal.Then stay away from demons. Play other seasons. I'm sorry the dice didn't go your way, but the GM played the opposition exactly right in that case.
Demons aren't real. There's no requirement that they act any certain way to make them "more believable."I disagree on both counts. It's not worth arguing on the first count; I agree that dretches and lemures don't exist.
But a creature doesn't have to be real in order to be well-defined or consistent. In fact, fictional characters typically have to be more consistent. (If Frodo suddenly whipped out a battle axe and started reaving orcs, many people would consider that poor writing.) Read the Bestiary entry on demons. Read "Demons Revisited." Nobody's trying to grief the player, but we are trying to get into the headspace of creatures who are absolutely trying to grief the character.
Chris, you seem to be completely missing both Avatar's and N N 595's points still.
As N N 595 points out, PFS does not work like a real campaign. The DM cannot make the necessary adjustments to loot to compensate for dramatic losses. The WBL system in PFS is changed to integrate your total earned wealth rather than the RAW wealth system which represents a loose baseline of wealth on hand. This is a huge change in the basics of tha game and that needs to be taken into account as part of the basic social contract of the game. Don't grief the player by irreparably damaging their character. Grief the character like Kyle did by killing everyone they know and love in-game. Therefore, yes, your idea would constitute being a jerk as the DM because you disregard the differences between PFS and real, in-depth campaigns.
Not everyone had 300 tables of DM credit with which to fix a nonviable character or start a new character at high levels and N N 595 is right about a disconnect in perspective between the elite big names here on the board and the rank and file players who PFS needs to revolve around the needs of. PFS is light, shallow pathfinder fare to most people I feel. To be used when there is no constant gaming available or to connect to the Pathfinder community at large at cons. Don't try to force it towards a super deep intense RP/drama experience because the house rules and changed basic assumptions about the underpinnings of the game will not support that in a way that is fun for players who are not as intense as you are.
I encourage you, as a big name here in PFS with the implicit authority of those five stars, to not encourage the kind of behavior that we seen from bad, adversarial DMs who are "out to get" the players, rather than the characters.
|
This is a huge change in the basics of tha game and that needs to be taken into account as part of the basic social contract of the game. Don't grief the player by irreparably damaging their character. Grief the character like Kyle did by killing everyone they know and love in-game. Therefore, yes, your idea would constitute being a jerk as the DM because you disregard the differences between PFS and real, in-depth campaigns.
Id just like to touch on a point in that. What Im saying does not apply to every character however there are a lot of characters out there are blank slates. What little character history they have cannot always be used in this way. In fact some players have never developed a character history for their character even as they reach the very high levels. Their +4 sword of funkyness may infact be their most prized possession, certainly more than any last minute fuzzy family that is possibly mentioned never seen.
I play society because I enjoy it. I dont go to many cons and whilst I have other campaigns going on outside society, I enjoy society for the people I meet, the games I get to run and the characters I develop. I try and add depth to my npcs, and to my characters, so I certainly dont feel it is light and shallow.
Now Im sure Chris knows where his limits are. However he has brought up an extremely valid point concerning running Demons. The Handbook is a great source for that and as they are the big bad this seasons I think its in all our best interests to read that.
The sooner I start treating Society games as light fare and not a real campaign, is the sooner I will lose interest in playing and running. Just because some might treat it as a reserve game or something to do if nothing else is in, does not mean it is so for me. The other way leads to half an hour of time in game being co opted by discussions on last nights game of thrones or other.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yeah. Saint Caleth, I don't see a distinction between PFS and "real" campaigns. It's not usually a home game, but I don't see it as any less real. It is as deep or shallow as you want to make it. If you want it deeper, then the seasonal story arcs help.
--
An aside: for what it's worth, the way Paizo thinks about wealth would never be accepted in any home campaign I've ever been a part of. The parties have always split treasure equally or according to need. We would laugh at the idea that if one character gave her loot away to charity, then she (but only she) should get all of it back. In the WBL system, even the most expensive consumables are essentially free. I find the PFS rules for wealth much more satisfying.
--
As for encouraging poor GMs to abuse players: getting a handle on what's appropriate or not is the point of this discussion. There's been some good back-and-forth here.
--
When I'm GMing, my rule of thumb is that if there's a reasonable option to go for anyone else, to do anything else, while a player[-character] is on the ground instead of attacking them, take that option
That's reasonable and merciful, but it's the way I'm trying not to think when role-playing a demon. If your character's buddy falls wounded in combat against a demon, then it's up to your PC, not the GM, to save his life.
|
|
hyper-optimized death machines
These things have been around since 3.0 easily. They aren't a reaction to any campaign, but a evolutionary step as people gain system mastery. They exist because they can exist. There are people who want to win Pathfinder. There are those who love to play on God Mode. There are those that simply don't want a challenge. There are even others who want the power if needed, but keep their death machine hidden from the table until it becomes necessary to reveal themselves.
These types of characters existed during season 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and now 5. If there's any increase in their prevalence, it's coming from PFRPG being out for over 4 years.
|
|
When I'm GMing, my rule of thumb is that if there's a reasonable option to go for anyone else, to do anything else, while a player[-character] is on the ground instead of attacking them, take that optionThat's reasonable and merciful, but it's the way I'm trying not to think when role-playing a demon. If your character's buddy falls wounded in combat against a demon, then it's up to your PC, not the GM, to save his life.
The easiest way to do this is to try to make it so the demon never acts. Or as close to this as possible.
|
|
Yeah. Saint Caleth, I don't see a distinction between PFS and "real" campaigns. It's not usually a home game, but I don't see it as any less real. It is as deep or shallow as you want to make it. If you want it deeper, then the seasonal story arcs help.
The reason that I call homebrew games real campaigns is because playing a reasonably long campaign hopefully with a set of characters who have persistent and extended character interaction and where hopefully the character's background is intertwined with the plot. Where the DM and players can meaningfully collaborate to create a story from the ground up. PFS is not that. While there absolutely can be intense and deep experiences during PFS play and you are very lucky if you manage that in the context of organized play that depth of your character being relevant to the story and world is lost because of the sad reality that PFS play has to be instanced and homogenized across the entire world. PFS is a stunning success in spreading the hobby to new places and communities and it is valuable in that right, lets not pretend that it can live up to the towering heights of collaborative creativity that the hobby can achieve in long, homebrew campaigns.
Now I have always played PFS moving between various far-flung PFS communities so maybe I am missing out on part of the PFS experience that you get circulating among big cons with all the other con regulars. I have never felt that persistence of character interaction or the feeling that my character was in any way doing anything but going through an instanced series of side quests. Please tell me where I can find the depth that I am missing out on in PFS play. I'd love to know.
An aside: for what it's worth, the way Paizo thinks about wealth would never be accepted in any home campaign I've ever been a part of. The parties have always split treasure equally or according to need. We would laugh at the idea that if one character gave her loot away to charity, then she (but only she) should get all of it back. In the WBL system, even the most expensive consumables are essentially free. I find the PFS rules for wealth much more satisfying.
Well the PFS wealth rules would not be accepted in a home game because it is not even remotely the RAW wealth rules on which the CR system and encounter creation rules are predicated on, but that is nither here nor there. I prefer the RAW method, but then again I know that the WBL guidelines are intended to be loose guidelines rather than a draconian progression that cannot be caught up to when something damaging happens.
|
Many interesting perspectives to read here. Many of which are perfectly fair and valid from their given stance.
Any time I GM a PFS game for a new group of folks, after introductions, I ask them if they want me to GM on easy mode, standard mode, hard mode, or ruthless mode. I ask that in order to run the scenario in the manner that will be most fun for that particular group. If that means they get off a little easy or get completely brutalized I am ok with that so long as they had fun and received the style of GMing they wanted.
For my core PFS group, I always just default to hard mode. We're all min-maxers. We deserve it :p. My personal preference is to also play on hard or ruthless mode, so if your demon can disarm me, feel free to teleport away with that 16k shield. I will lament my misfortune and kill that bastard even harder.
|
|
And at what point was that claim made?Well, if that were a universal sentiment, then MMORPG's wouldn't have millions of subscribers.One of these days I'll get around to building a PC with a DPR schtick...
...maybe.
So boring...
Roll a bunch of dice, watch NPC die, cheer.
I'm not saying you did. You just really give the impression that everyone should find things boring that you find boring. Most players I know like the dpr role way more than support roles.
|
|
What's the fascination with taking my opinion and assuming that I'm applying it to the entire player base?
Jiggy writes: "One of these days I'll get around to building a PC with a DPR schtick... ...maybe"
I reply to Jiggy: "So boring... Roll a bunch of dice, watch NPC die, cheer."
What in that entire exchange says, "Jiggy, everyone thinks those builds are boring and are badwrongfun!"
I believe I'm allowed to have an opinion. I don't represent Paizo or anyone else for that matter. My opinions are worth just as much as everyone elses (very little).
|
|
What's the fascination with taking my opinion and assuming that I'm applying it to the entire player base?
Jiggy writes: "One of these days I'll get around to building a PC with a DPR schtick... ...maybe"
I reply to Jiggy: "So boring... Roll a bunch of dice, watch NPC die, cheer."What in that entire exchange says, "Jiggy, everyone thinks those builds are boring and are badwrongfun!"
I believe I'm allowed to have an opinion. I don't represent Paizo or anyone else for that matter. My opinions are worth just as much as everyone elses (very little).
Not sure; I'll try to quit making that mistake. Maybe I'm sensitive about the dpr thing because I usually end up (somehow) as a support PC over and over. DPR is important because a lot of the higher tier outsiders have obnoxious at will abilities.
|
|
ruthless modeI'd love to play at your table for ruthless mode, if only to learn new techniques for collecting tears. Kill my character all you want, but how do you plan on making me, the player, cry? :-)
Heh, well I may not have the tear collection to compare with you, but I do enjoy running ruthless mode when it is requested! How that is ran by me varies greatly depending on the players and PCs sitting at the table. I often have to get creative. One of my 4 ruthless requests:
The alchemist and oracle got bullrushed into the lava ring by the shining sentinel in area I, dying instantly to the 20d6 immersion damage.
The monk was killed in a similar fashion by being grappled by a large fire elemental in one of the area C traps, who then repositioned them both into the lava. The fire elemental then re-emerged to kill the rogue before the fighter put him down.
That fighter held his own though, man. He wrecked the babau in area E because he had blind-fight, so kept all of his AC and didn't eat sneak attack. Sadly the fighter lost both of his weapons to the carytid colums later in and proceeded to die weaponless to the naga. I give him props for insanely refusing to quit though. Very ballsy.
EDIT: small edit, accidentally killed the poor rogue twice in the error!