From what I read in this thread, I have already cornered two profiles of bad GMing.
One is focusing on the story rather than the characters. Who cares that PCs die if I get to tell my awesome story ? Players do, just so you know.
Another is teaching players through bad things happening to their PCs. Do some actual talk with your players about what you dislike. It shows respect to your fellow gamers (and I suppose friends).
I guess it was only a matter of time before somebody tried to break this down to just "GMs wanting to protect their awesome story".
Why do you defend players who like low-death games, but say GMs who don't hold back just don't know how to GM? As far as I've seen, the conflict here is between two different playstyles that don't need to interact at all.
And no matter how many times somebody says "both playstyles are valid" and that somebody gets a bunch of Favorites, we keep arguing about this. Somebody always has to launch little insults at the other side, like "uncreative GMs" or "whiny players". Somebody always has to complain about the game being played wrong, and then everybody has to go and defend it, and they launch insults, and then the whole thing becomes personal and Chris Lambertz gets annoyed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "punishing" someone in a leisure activity in a order to "teach" them something is douchey behavior. That isn't a play style that is a jerk style. If a GM doesn't like how the players are doing something, then the GM should talk to them about it.
If a GM and a group want to play a "every 5 feet take a 20 so as not to miss a trap" type of game and a player doesn't want that, the player is in the wrong game and should either leave or just stand in the back and ask the party to tell them when their turn comes up to do something. That is a clash of play styles.
But a GM that doesn't like gnomes, and so lets a player play one and then has all the bad guys attack it in the first fight killing it. "See that is why you don't play gnomes." That is just being a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with pres man, despite his side comment bashing my favored play style. Putting that aside, his assertion that the play styles don't mesh and don't need to is correct.
Let me just say, though, that the best way to use traps is to give players reasons to search. Make areas look suspicious. Making them search every five foot square, like the detractors keep mentioning, can start to drag on.
Good traps are foreshadowed. Bad traps come out of nowhere. Awesome traps are so great that the PCs have a chance but die anyways. ;D
Not exactly a reference. I've seen that movie several times, and a much clearer reference would be something like...
If a GM and a group want to play a "I crawl down the floor, an inch at a time, looking for traps" type of game...
;D
Not exactly a reference. I've seen that movie several times, and a much clearer reference would be something like...
If a GM and a group want to play a "I crawl down the floor, an inch at a time, looking for traps" type of game...;D
I know, I was trying to put into game terms (things are rarely measured in inches in game).
If a GM and a group want to play a "I crawl down the floor, an inch at a time, looking for traps" type of game...;D
Hmm... I played a game like that once. That was actually one of my first dnd experiences. We were running Pools of Radiance(if I remember right) and we had someone roll up a rogue just for traps. The GMs were used to the type of traps that insta-gib and we didn't know how Take 20 worked. Roll... Roll... Roll... Inching the rogues character little by little across the grid map. We spent a lot of time just watching the rogue roll.
A shortcut involves the following.
Yes, party are checking for traps and moving at half speed with your rogue out (on a pole) and carefully checking what is ahead.
If there is anything then when there is something to find, the rogue makes their roll. You can throw in a few fakes, and make it also about secret doors and not just traps, and then the party can carefully move forward without needing every single role.
I am surprised your group didn't think of that.
I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.
Yea, but it's not very fun. I DM most of the time, though, so it's not really an issue for me, and as I'm not a fan of arbitrary death, my players don't really have to worry about it too often, neither.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PC they wanted to play won't, however.I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.Sucks but you will get over it.
So they play another PC?
Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My table finds it difficult to transition new characters into a party.
Most often the group is someplace isolated, so happening into another person in the middle of nowhere doesn't always work so well. I mean, you can only play off the "lone survivor of another adventuring party" so many times...
And then there's the hassle of forming peer-bonds/trust with a complete stranger. The deceased PC was already situated into the group, but what about this new guy? Why should the party trust him... maybe he murdered his adventuring party and made off with all the loot (after all... look at all those nice things he's carrying; that is, of course, a reference to the fact that new characters are brought into the game per the WBL chart, which rarely aligns evenly with the party and often allows for the newly created PC to enter the game with precisely the right gear for his/her build)?
All-in-all, it's just a pain. Now, if the DM and/or players want to participate in a player-killer campaign, that's a discussion to be had before the game begins.
|
|
The PC they wanted to play won't, however.I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.Sucks but you will get over it.So they play another PC?
Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.
Who is bringing it up?
Fact of the matter is, that player still lost that character. They may have been very invested in that character. Some players don't enjoy losing such characters to seemingly arbitrary deaths, for a variety of reasons.
Different strokes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My table finds it difficult to transition new characters into a party.
Most often the group is someplace isolated, so happening into another person in the middle of nowhere doesn't always work so well. I mean, you can only play off the "lone survivor of another adventuring party" so many times...
And then there's the hassle of forming peer-bonds/trust with a complete stranger. The deceased PC was already situated into the group, but what about this new guy? Why should the party trust him... maybe he murdered his adventuring party and made off with all the loot (after all... look at all those nice things he's carrying; that is, of course, a reference to the fact that new characters are brought into the game per the WBL chart, which rarely aligns evenly with the party and often allows for the newly created PC to enter the game with precisely the right gear for his/her build)?
All-in-all, it's just a pain. Now, if the DM and/or players want to participate in a player-killer campaign, that's a discussion to be had before the game begins.
If you want to play outside the default of the game then more power to you but I wouldn't call it player-killing.
PC deaths are a part of the game, it is in the design of the game.
|
|
The PC they wanted to play won't, however.I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.Sucks but you will get over it.So they play another PC?
Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.
Who is bringing it up?
Fact of the matter is, that player still lost that character. They may have been very invested in that character. Some players don't enjoy losing such characters to seemingly arbitrary deaths, for a variety of reasons.
Different strokes.
Nobody likes character death. Just like nobody like losing but it's a fact when you play games. Now if your DM wants to eliminate death all together then they can do that but there are other games that are better suited for that kind of play.
|
|
Nobody likes character death. Just like nobody like losing but it's a fact when you play games. Now if your DM wants to eliminate death all together then they can do that but there are other games that are better suited for that kind of play.The PC they wanted to play won't, however.I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.Sucks but you will get over it.So they play another PC?
Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.
Who is bringing it up?
Fact of the matter is, that player still lost that character. They may have been very invested in that character. Some players don't enjoy losing such characters to seemingly arbitrary deaths, for a variety of reasons.
Different strokes.
Who is suggesting eliminating death altogether? This is about arbitrary death, not telling people to go play another game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.Sucks but you will get over it.
And it's comments along this line that start many of the fights we've been having. I happen to like dungeon crawls and traps; that said, "Get over it" isn't a great approach to take to the players of your game.
Sure, they'll get over it, or at least many will. But some will harbor grudges against killer GMs, and you in particular, if they believe there is any sort of malice (real or imagined) in your actions. Further, as Mikaze and Detect Magic were saying, there are other complications to adding in a new character into the existing party. They are not insurmountable, but they do exist and represent time and energy lost to some people.
Not everyone enjoys the same sort of game as everyone else, nor does everyone keep a stack of disposable characters in case die rolls go bad and they have to bring out Bob the Barbarian IX, which is the same as all the others with a new number. From my experience, within a few sessions you should have an idea of what your players like and want out of a game, and at the very least should strive to incorporate some of that into the game. If they dislike keeping track of camp and random encounters, phase some of that out. Not into social play or urban adventures/detective work? Then you adapt and look for the things that make you all happy. Otherwise it makes for a long and tedious game. YMMV.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the position of the other side comes when you call death by anything you don't like "arbitrary".
Traps exist in most games in modules. If a trap (not your GM, a trap) kills you, that is not "the GM" killing you "arbitrarily"
That is the game happening.
If you want a game that is more story focused with lots of plot armor, great. Enjoy and be happy.
I want my GM to look at every situation and say "What would be here" and then put it there.
That way when, as a player, I think "What would be here." I am getting a fair shake.
If the place would likely have traps, I expect traps. If it wouldn't, I expect a reason the GM decided there were traps to appear at some point.
Same with monsters. If I go to a "haunted" place, I'm not going to go "Why are there undead?!?!"
What I want my GM to do is follow whatever seems logical to happen. And sometimes, players roll poorly, fall off cliffs, and didn't have a feather fall/fly potion...despite us planning on going into the mountains...
One person's arbitrary is another persons "Logical outcome of piss poor planning"
It's all about expectations. No one way to play is correct, but everyone at the table should know what to expect. If you're the kind of DM or player that enjoys brutal games, make it known to the group before the campaign starts. Get it all out there and make sure everyone's on the same page.
Some people don't mind character death, others do. As a DM, it's your responsibility to know these things and to provide a gaming experience everyone will enjoy. (i.e. Don't play the game you want to play; play the game that's most accommodating to the majority of folks involved, and maybe rotate campaigns so that everyone's preferences are explored from time to time.)
But some of us feel like when the GM uses fiat to save us, that cheapens our character.
I don't think anyone's disagreed with that sentiment, ciretose. Indeed, I agree with your previous post about dungeon design and how a DM should be consistent and logical in planning them. That said, we really must define the word "arbitrary" here. When I here someone talking about an arbitrary PC death, I think of poor dungeon layout. I think of encounters that aren't designed well, with much higher CR than is appropriate, and adversaries with pimped-out gear and such. Falling into 100 foot chasms with no Perception check. That kind of thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.Sucks but you will get over it.And it's comments along this line that start many of the fights we've been having. I happen to like dungeon crawls and traps; that said, "Get over it" isn't a great approach to take to the players of your game.
Sure, they'll get over it, or at least many will. But some will harbor grudges against killer GMs, and you in particular, if they believe there is any sort of malice (real or imagined) in your actions. Further, as Mikaze and Detect Magic were saying, there are other complications to adding in a new character into the existing party. They are not insurmountable, but they do exist and represent time and energy lost to some people.
Not everyone enjoys the same sort of game as everyone else, nor does everyone keep a stack of disposable characters in case die rolls go bad and they have to bring out Bob the Barbarian IX, which is the same as all the others with a new number. From my experience, within a few sessions you should have an idea of what your players like and want out of a game, and at the very least should strive to incorporate some of that into the game. If they dislike keeping track of camp and random encounters, phase some of that out. Not into social play or urban adventures/detective work? Then you adapt and look for the things that make you all happy. Otherwise it makes for a long and tedious game. YMMV.
Let me stop you right there.
Player's dying by the rules of the game is not "DM's killing the players". If I said "bang you die", then you would have an argument but that's not what I am talking about. People need to stop this attitude of saying DMs are killing them if they die in the course of the game in any way but the way they want to die. It does suck to die but "everyone" will get over it. If you can't get over it then maybe you don't need to be playing games in the first place.
People also need to lose the attitude of holding a DM hostage to the jive about being a "killer" or "bad DM" if they allow the players to die during the course of a campaign. I'm not here to coddle people and pretend that s!$&e smells of roses. There are rewards and there are consequences built into the game by default and it is the DMs job to bring "both" of those into the game. I mean for god sakes, you already have multiple ways of being brought back from the dead, saves, healing, etc.. What more do you want?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But some of us feel like when the GM uses fiat to save us, that cheapens our character.I don't think anyone's disagreed with that sentiment, ciretose. Indeed, I agree with your previous post about dungeon design and how a DM should be consistent and logical in planning them. That said, we really must define the word "arbitrary" here. When I here someone talking about an arbitrary PC death, I think of poor dungeon layout. I think of encounters that aren't designed well, with much higher CR than is appropriate, and adversaries with pimped-out gear and such. Falling into 100 foot chasms with no Perception check. That kind of thing.
Why are you having trouble defining the word? Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim. If you are going through a dungeon and you have no map that tells you exactly where you need to go, then you are exploring it randomly. Now when I create dungeons, I will randomly put traps here and there. If you happen to choose corridor A instead of B, walk into a trap, fail your save, and die from HP loss then you just had an arbitrary death. That is part of the game. Everything is not guts and glory unless your DM is giving you that kind of game and that would entail a single corridor with what you seek at the end.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why must you be so argumentative? Run your games however you wish and stop being so defensive about it.
|
|
It's perfectly within the rules of the game to play a less lethal version of the game. Certainly in a home game a DM is perfectly able to tailor encounters for his group so that the chance of death is very low even playing 100% by the rules. It's fine for you to not enjoy that style, but people doing things differently from you aren't automatically breaking the rules, doing it wrong, or playing the wrong game.Let me stop you right there.
Player's dying by the rules of the game is not "DM's killing the players". If I said "bang you die", then you would have an argument but that's not what I am talking about. People need to stop this attitude of saying DMs are killing them if they die in the course of the game in any way but the way they want to die. It does suck to die but "everyone" will get over it. If you can't get over it then maybe you don't need to be playing games in the first place.
People also need to lose the attitude of holding a DM hostage to the jive about being a "killer" or "bad DM" if they allow the players to die during the course of a campaign. I'm not here to coddle people and pretend that s@$$e smells of roses. There are rewards and there are consequences built into the game by default and it is the DMs job to bring "both" of those into the game. I mean for god sakes, you already have multiple ways of being brought back from the dead, saves, healing, etc.. What more do you want?
You can't play the game 100% and ignore death. What happens when your creature gets that wonder crit and totally annihilates the PC HP wise? Do you give that player a mulligan or hand wave it away? If you do then that's not playing 100% by the rules.
I am well aware of handwaving and changing things but there comes a point when so much is handwaved that you ask yourself why am I even using this system?
You can't play the game 100% and ignore death. What happens when your creature gets that wonder crit and totally annihilates the PC HP wise? Do you give that player a mulligan or hand wave it away? If you do then that's not playing 100% by the rules.
I am well aware of handwaving and changing things but there comes a point when so much is handwaved that you ask yourself why am I even using this system?
Actually, you can. You can play the game anyway you want and, you know what, it's perfectly fine. You don't have to like it, you do not have to play that way, but there are as many ways to play the game 100% in a manner that you do not care for and still play the game and have fun.
We've had dozens of these threads and that is the message that still doesn't seem to resonate.
|
|
And apart from the strawman you want to rail against who has said that death should be 100% ignored? And it would still be within the rules to allow a PC to die but also have means available to the party to bring them back.
And the point at which one would ask if it makes sense to keep using a system is obviously going to be different for different people. Some people think that any amount of handwaving is wrong. Some think a little is fine, some think a lot is fine. Why are you wanting to tell people what level is 'right'?
Raise Dead, Resurrection, True Resurrection, Reincarnation.
There are four means of bringing a PC back right there.
|
|
You can't play the game 100% and ignore death. What happens when your creature gets that wonder crit and totally annihilates the PC HP wise? Do you give that player a mulligan or hand wave it away? If you do then that's not playing 100% by the rules.
I am well aware of handwaving and changing things but there comes a point when so much is handwaved that you ask yourself why am I even using this system?
Actually, you can. You can play the game anyway you want and, you know what, it's perfectly fine. You don't have to like it, you do not have to play that way, but there are as many ways to play the game 100% in a manner that you do not care for and still play the game and have fun.
We've had dozens of these threads and that is the message that still doesn't seem to resonate.
Explain how then?
You say that you can but I haven't seen the how.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't play the game 100% and ignore death. What happens when your creature gets that wonder crit and totally annihilates the PC HP wise? Do you give that player a mulligan or hand wave it away? If you do then that's not playing 100% by the rules.
I am well aware of handwaving and changing things but there comes a point when so much is handwaved that you ask yourself why am I even using this system?
Actually, you can. You can play the game anyway you want and, you know what, it's perfectly fine. You don't have to like it, you do not have to play that way, but there are as many ways to play the game 100% in a manner that you do not care for and still play the game and have fun.
We've had dozens of these threads and that is the message that still doesn't seem to resonate.
Explain how then?
You say that you can but I haven't seen the how.
You do not see the how in playing the game however you want? You do not see that you can play a combat heavy game or a social game, within the rules? You do not see that you can alter the rules -- yes, they let you do that, SKR isn't coming to your house -- to lower the chances of death?
Some people prefer games on a hardcore everyone dies mode. Some prefer less. Some people want epic/mythic play and others don't. Some people want to kill Thor by pushing him off a wall and taking his hammer. Some people want guns or blasters and others don't.
You don't have to like or want any or all of those. They can still exist in others people's games and not affect your fun one iota.
|
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
I must interject to say you are welcome at my game table ANY time! I have had my morbid share of "entitled" players. Just because they invest in their character's verisimilitude, detail, backstory, and whatnot, they feel entitled to survive everything.
To be honest, I too struggle a bit with arbitrary death and wonder if it is worth the investment in the character. Your original post has reminded me that I am also on the right path with you, insomuchas I ALWAYS invest in a character's believability and pour rich detail into my PC, while at the same time learn to accept that the adventuring life is a wibbly wobbly trappy schmappy one, and I can accept arbitrary deaths as well (albeit sometimes a sad struggle to do so).
Pax
|
|
And apart from the strawman you want to rail against who has said that death should be 100% ignored? And it would still be within the rules to allow a PC to die but also have means available to the party to bring them back.
And the point at which one would ask if it makes sense to keep using a system is obviously going to be different for different people. Some people think that any amount of handwaving is wrong. Some think a little is fine, some think a lot is fine. Why are you wanting to tell people what level is 'right'?
I'm not asking what is right.
What I am asking is why you are still using a system that you have ignored and or hand waved most of what makes the game what it is.
Quite right, you're not asking at all. You're telling people that they're having badwrongfun.
And you seem to have a lot of ideas about the detail of how I run a game that I haven't mentioned. But I run the system because I enjoy the system. Enjoying different parts and focusing on different things from you doesn't mean I'm doing it wrong. And you're not doing it wrong by playing however your group wants too.
Oh here we go with the "badwrongfun" card.
I will state this again one more time. Why do you continue to use a certain game system that you hand wave away?
|
|
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
I must interject to say you are welcome at my game table ANY time! I have had my morbid share of "entitled" players. Just because they invest in their character's verisimilitude, detail, backstory, and whatnot, they feel entitled to survive everything.
To be honest, I too struggle a bit with arbitrary death and wonder if it is worth the investment in the character. Your original post has reminded me that I am also on the right path with you, insomuchas I ALWAYS invest in a character's believability and pour rich detail into my PC, while at the same time learn to accept that the adventuring life is a wibbly wobbly trappy schmappy one, and I can accept arbitrary deaths as well (albeit sometimes a sad struggle to do so).
Pax
Cheers for that.
Well I will say this. I don't plan on making actual money with my characters and concepts are a dime a dozen to me so if my character dies by a trap or a lucky arrow then I morn for a moment and then get ready for the next one.
|
|
Cheers for that.
Well I will say this. I don't plan on making actual money with my characters and concepts are a dime a dozen to me so if my character dies by a trap or a lucky arrow then I morn for a moment and then get ready for the next one.
As you've been told before, for some of us, it's not about how hard it is to come up with a new concept, but about losing that character's connection to the campaign. He'll have his own sub-plots and character arcs, he'll have built connections with NPCs, etc. When he dies all of that goes with him. Or, sometimes, can be picked up by another PC, but that generally doesn't work as well.
The new PC may be a cool concept and may even bring more stuff in through backstory, but it will take time to build up the depth of a long played character.
Now, I don't mind the occasional death too much, even an "arbitrary" one, though I prefer deaths that come with some closure, tying up character arcs rather than leaving them dangling. But if the deaths happen too often, then there's no longer time for character's to build up depth, much less actually have resolution. So why bother even trying?
So I'll ask again, for those arguing in favor of "arbitrary" deaths, how often do these actually happen in your games? On average? Are PCs dying every session? Every couple of sessions?
Because that makes a much bigger difference to me than technical arguments about plot armor or what the exact meaning of arbitrary is.
There is no number to how often it happens or even if it where to happen. That is the nature of playing a game that requires dice. You could save against every trap you come across, or you could get lucky and side step every brutal crit and come out with just a few bruises, but sometimes people aren't so lucky.
It's about accepting what happens when using the game by default. The game already provides people with ways of bringing your character back but there are also times when a PC can't be brought back and that is just a fact of the game as a whole.
You should never write your characters story assuming that he is going to make it to the end unless your DM tells you it's okay and the story essentially has a rigged ending to where you know whats going to happen. But if that is the case then why are you using the Pathfinder system?
But if that is the case then why are you using the Pathfinder system?
You keep saying this, and I'm not sure where you are going with it. Any system can be deadly. They do not have to be, and by your comments you are continuing to tell people they are doing it wrong, by playing the wrong way or the wrong game.
There are different ways to play the same game. Insisting that people play another because you believe they are doing it wrong does not help your arguments. The game, by default, doesn't do anything. It sits there and waits for you to play. Don't blame the game for doing something.