Ways GMs can annoy their players


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

redward wrote:
That's part of the problem I have with a screen in the first place. It tells me up front that the GM doesn't want to me to see his rolls, which makes me immediately suspicious of any 'clutch' rolls, whether for or against the PCs.

I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.

And some will start questioning the results, saying "It rolled a 12, it is not possible for it to hit me with that roll, that require a attack bonus of 15, I have 27 AC, a XXX has only an attack bonus of 13." and pretend to know from where the extra +2 come.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.

Then you'll be happy to hear that in fact, that is not what a good percentage of the players spend their time doing when there's no screen. I have in fact found that the absence of a screen typically has no ill effects on player behavior, so you can rest easy. :)

The Exchange

Jiggy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.
Then you'll be happy to hear that in fact, that is not what a good percentage of the players spend their time doing when there's no screen. I have in fact found that the absence of a screen typically has no ill effects on player behavior, so you can rest easy. :)

actually, I gave up using a screen back in LG days, so I have not used one in PFS ever. I do not recall the last time I saw a judge using one... wait, yes I do. For 3-21 Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment, the week of it's release, so in Season 3. The judge at the time apoligized for using a screen (not his usual thing)... and only did it for that one game. Other than that, almost never.

In my area, if you use the term "GM screen" many players will say something like - "yeah, that's the thing with the quick reference tables for all those odd things. Mike's got one he uses when we play, sets it down like a place mat and rolls his dice on it. That way it's out when he needs to reference it."


In my perfect world as a player a GM would roll behind the screen but never fudge.

I played an online game with BlazeJ GMing once. The VTT we were using allowed people to roll dice that only the GM could see. I truested him to be rolling legit even though I never saw the dice.

The Exchange

Pirate Rob wrote:

In my perfect world as a player a GM would roll behind the screen but never fudge.

I played an online game with BlazeJ GMing once. The VTT we were using allowed people to roll dice that only the GM could see. I truested him to be rolling legit even though I never saw the dice.

you know, for me it's not anything about trust... doesn't even come up. At this point it is not a feeling of trust or not-trust, it's "...everyone can cheer with the good rolls, and moan with the bad...", so we can all feel part of the roll, it's kind of like sharing the fun? even when it's not my turn.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
redward wrote:
...Personally, I'd much rather see the natural 20 and sweat out the confirmation or see the natural 1 and rejoice in our luck....

(snipping a line out of the spoilered text to expand on it....)

this! this is cool!

I roll in the open and roll BIG dice. The d6 are 1" cubes, surely you have seen some? I have several sets (and loan more out if needed), and always roll in the open. And I tell people that I do it (and advise beginers to do it too) so that "...everyone can cheer with the good rolls, and moan with the bad...", so we can all feel part of the roll, even when we didn't even touch the dice.

I have a large D20 I bought from ThinkGeek. It flashes when you roll a 20 so there is no way I can fudge it. Even if I were to roll it behind a screen, which I don't, the flashing light would still reflect off my face in an evil red hue. It has an unearned reputation for rolling Crits frequently so I bring it out when I want to taunt the players "with certain doom."

The Exchange

trollbill wrote:
nosig wrote:
redward wrote:
...Personally, I'd much rather see the natural 20 and sweat out the confirmation or see the natural 1 and rejoice in our luck....

(snipping a line out of the spoilered text to expand on it....)

this! this is cool!

I roll in the open and roll BIG dice. The d6 are 1" cubes, surely you have seen some? I have several sets (and loan more out if needed), and always roll in the open. And I tell people that I do it (and advise beginers to do it too) so that "...everyone can cheer with the good rolls, and moan with the bad...", so we can all feel part of the roll, even when we didn't even touch the dice.

I have a large D20 I bought from ThinkGeek. It flashes when you roll a 20 so there is no way I can fudge it. Even if I were to roll it behind a screen, which I don't, the flashing light would still reflect off my face in an evil red hue. It has an unearned reputation for rolling Crits frequently so I bring it out when I want to taunt the players "with certain doom."

this is kewl! yeah... but I could see getting a little LED light to flash just to freak out my players...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

These are all lies by western capitalist imperialist pigs. All players are happy all the time in always sunny and glorious DM motherland.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Zach Williams wrote:
I feel it is the GM's job to provide a challenge

I disagree.

I believe it's the GM's job to represent the NPCs and setting in their interactions with the PCs, so that everyone working together creates a series of interactions unique to that particular combination of PCs, NPCs, events, and luck.

The players bring unique PCs, the GM brings a set of NPCs, events, and setting details; they meet, they interact, you mix in the luck of the dice, and you watch what story unfolds.

Sometimes the story that unfolds is a TPK, sometimes it's a cakewalk, sometimes it's somewhere in between. But I believe it's always supposed to be a unique product of that table's mix of PCs, scenario and luck; for the GM to decide ahead of time how he/she wants it to play out and then altering any events that cause it to stray too far from their personal vision, is a very short-sighted idea of what this big beautiful game can be, and is a disservice to everyone at the table—including the GM.

A GM feeling their job is to provide a challenge =/= a GM altering events that stray too far from their personal vision.

In general though, I agree with you that a GM just facilitates a shared storytelling scene.

But in that facilitation is the adjudication of the rules and the representation of the environment.

If a GM softballs things and purposefully doesn't present a challenge, then that's the flip side of the coin isn't it? They are modifying how the story unfolds based on some vision of theirs.

But if I do my best to present a challenge, while adhering to the storytelling aspect described above, then how does that modify anything?

Nowhere does it say that there is only one way to run a set of monsters or a particular encounter. Indeed, in PFS, the Guide specifically allows for some modification of how they present a scenario based on fluff text, to make things either more or less challenging based on how they feel the characters can do in the given encounter. You can choose to have it be raining with difficult muddy terrain if you want, if the fluff description of an encounter says its raining. Even if the encounter doesn't detail out the effects of the rain.

That's pretty much a paraphrase of the exact example given in the guide.

So yeah, part of a GM's job when facilitating the shared story, is to adjudicate, in whatever way they are allowed (a Home Game allows a ton more freedom to modify things as necessary), the challenge of the encounter.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

As long as all players are having a good time, everyone has a chance to contribute, and the DM gets to tell the exciting story they wanted to tell, everyone wins.

And isn't that the point of this whole thing?

I find that the harder the GM tries to make the second bolded part come true, the less likely it is that the first bolded part is happening.

GMs having a particular story they want to tell and trying to make sure it gets told instead of just seeing what story naturally unfolds, is one of the larger sources of bad games, hurt feelings and general non-fun in this hobby.

I agree with this.

The truly fantastic GMs, though, can tell the story they want to tell, without impinging on the player's freedom of will.


Diego Rossi wrote:


I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.
And some will start questioning the results, saying "It rolled a 12, it is not possible for it to hit me with that roll, that require a attack bonus of 15, I have 27 AC, a XXX has only an attack bonus of 13." and pretend to know from where the extra +2 come.

I'm going to throw out another perspective. In real life, when you engage someone in any competitive activity, you intuitively begin to know what their bonuses are. The more skilled you are in that endeavor, the more quickly you can asses your opponent's abilities.

When I play basketball, tennis, or baseball, I quickly and almost instantly know what I'm up against. Lions who hunt herd animals, can immediately pick out which ones are easy to catch and which ones not so much. When you hit me with a stick, I'll immediately gain an understanding of how much of that is the stick and how much of that is your strength.

When GMs hide dice rolls, you're effectively blind-folding the character and by extension, the player. Too many GMs don't get this. You think it's meta-game for players to know modifiers, when it's actually meta-gaming for you to take that information away from players.

The modifiers convey to the player what the character would intuitively know.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
A GM feeling their job is to provide a challenge =/= a GM altering events that stray too far from their personal vision.

Correct, but in the context of the post I was replying to, that's what he was talking about doing.

Quote:
If a GM softballs things and purposefully doesn't present a challenge, then that's the flip side of the coin isn't it? They are modifying how the story unfolds based on some vision of theirs.

Agreed.

Quote:
But if I do my best to present a challenge, while adhering to the storytelling aspect described above, then how does that modify anything?

It doesn't, at least not inherently. But again, the context of my post was as a reply to a post about such actions.

Quote:

Nowhere does it say that there is only one way to run a set of monsters or a particular encounter. Indeed, in PFS, the Guide specifically allows for some modification of how they present a scenario based on fluff text, to make things either more or less challenging based on how they feel the characters can do in the given encounter. You can choose to have it be raining with difficult muddy terrain if you want, if the fluff description of an encounter says its raining. Even if the encounter doesn't detail out the effects of the rain.

That's pretty much a paraphrase of the exact example given in the guide.

So yeah, part of a GM's job when facilitating the shared story, is to adjudicate, in whatever way they are allowed (a Home Game allows a ton more freedom to modify things as necessary), the challenge of the encounter.

I agree with this insofar as the decision to increase/decrease difficulty is a function of perceiving that the players are interested in that level of difficulty, rather than the GM feeling that the scenario somehow needs to be a certain difficulty level. Again, context of my post.

Overall, though, yes; GMs can and should use what flex is allowed to tailor the experience for maximum fun. But that doesn't seem to be what was being talked about in the post I replied to.


If I don't lament the deaths of the helpless monsters the pcs are slaughtering, then who will?

single tear

Shadow Lodge

The GM's job especially in pfs is like that of an MC. They set up all the acts and facilitate the entertainment. As a GM if my audience is happy, than I'm happy. Pretty much all my issues with other GM's stem from them basing their enjoyment off something else.

The one other thing that irks me are GM's that don't know the rules. Another aspect of GMing is being a referee. You would never volunteer to referee a soccer game if you didn't know all the rules, so why would anyone think judging a RPG would be any different?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, soccer rules fit in a several-page manual... it is not feasible to expect every GM to know every rule. But I get that you're talking about the basic rules that come up over and over. To me, it's not a big deal if the GM doesn't know a particular rule, as long as they are giving the player the benefit of the doubt. GMs who don't know the rule but say "no" instead of "yes" are definitely a problem.

Remember, though: all good GMs started as bad GMs, and instead of giving up when they got yelled at or embarrassed by players at the table who knew more than they did, they kept going. Players should always remember, they can't fix a bad GM in one game experience, but they *can* guarantee a GM never gets better - by giving them such a hard time that they give it up. If you are sitting at a GM's table, and you don't think they're doing a great job - well, you owe it to them to mentor them and help them get better, not complain or demand a better GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Making it clear which PCs you personally disapprove of. Maybe you don't like that one of the PCs can take out an enemy in a single round (whether via SoS, pouncing, a keen falcata, whatever), and maybe one or more of the players feels the same way. Maybe nobody likes it and you need to say something to that player about it. But whatever the case, things like rolling your eyes or replacing roleplay opportunities with things like "Fine, whatever, you win" does not help anyone.

Yeah, passive-aggressive attitudes are an ugly thing to see. From either GMs or players, really.

Folks may not realize it at the time, but it's really a form of poor sportsmanship, if we can apply such terms to RPGs, and tends to create an detrimental adversarial tone between player and GM.

GMing living campaigns like Pathfinder is a little like being in the service industry. There's a lot of stuff you just don't do even if internally you want to scream at the other person and throttle them.

-j

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
A GM feeling their job is to provide a challenge =/= a GM altering events that stray too far from their personal vision.

Correct, but in the context of the post I was replying to, that's what he was talking about doing.

Quote:
If a GM softballs things and purposefully doesn't present a challenge, then that's the flip side of the coin isn't it? They are modifying how the story unfolds based on some vision of theirs.

Agreed.

Quote:
But if I do my best to present a challenge, while adhering to the storytelling aspect described above, then how does that modify anything?

It doesn't, at least not inherently. But again, the context of my post was as a reply to a post about such actions.

Quote:

Nowhere does it say that there is only one way to run a set of monsters or a particular encounter. Indeed, in PFS, the Guide specifically allows for some modification of how they present a scenario based on fluff text, to make things either more or less challenging based on how they feel the characters can do in the given encounter. You can choose to have it be raining with difficult muddy terrain if you want, if the fluff description of an encounter says its raining. Even if the encounter doesn't detail out the effects of the rain.

That's pretty much a paraphrase of the exact example given in the guide.

So yeah, part of a GM's job when facilitating the shared story, is to adjudicate, in whatever way they are allowed (a Home Game allows a ton more freedom to modify things as necessary), the challenge of the encounter.

I agree with this insofar as the decision to increase/decrease difficulty is a function of perceiving that the players are interested in that level of difficulty, rather than the GM feeling that the scenario somehow needs to be a certain difficulty level. Again, context of my post.

Overall, though, yes; GMs can and should use what flex is allowed to tailor the experience for maximum fun. But that doesn't seem to be what was being...

In all fairness, the quote you replied to implied nothing other than the GM felt it was his job to provide a challenge.

That's it.

You read into it, that he was modifying the story to fit his vision.

If you were replying to more than the statement you quoted, then you need to quote the entire thing.

Otherwise, you made a ton of assumptions about what he meant in that small, very simple, quote.

Liberty's Edge

gnoams wrote:

The GM's job especially in pfs is like that of an MC. They set up all the acts and facilitate the entertainment. As a GM if my audience is happy, than I'm happy. Pretty much all my issues with other GM's stem from them basing their enjoyment off something else.

The one other thing that irks me are GM's that don't know the rules. Another aspect of GMing is being a referee. You would never volunteer to referee a soccer game if you didn't know all the rules, so why would anyone think judging a RPG would be any different?

Its impossible to truly know all the rules. Seriously.

GM's should be familiar with the basics of the rules and how, in general, the game works. They should also be familiar with where to find the more complicated rules in the rulebook.

But expecting GMs to know all the rules is a bit much, don't you think?

And we have to make allowances for new GMs. If we are this critical of GMs, without allowing new GMs to learn on the job, then we aren't going to get very many new GMs. When the old ones burn out, we are left with not much for game play.

Dark Archive

Jiggy wrote:
Making it clear which PCs you personally disapprove of. Maybe you don't like that one of the PCs can take out an enemy in a single round (whether via SoS, pouncing, a keen falcata, whatever), and maybe one or more of the players feels the same way. Maybe nobody likes it and you need to say something to that player about it. But whatever the case, things like rolling your eyes or replacing roleplay opportunities with things like "Fine, whatever, you win" does not help anyone.

I actually had this problem when I first started PFS a few months back. The GM went to great lengths explaining to me how much he disapproved that I was playing a Gunslinger and that gunpowder had no place in a fantasy setting and I should probably play something else. When my girlfriend joined PFS, I ended up playing a new character with her but I never have/will probably go back to my first because of how he acted towards me.

Also, tossing this little gem out there:

GM: You walk into a room. There are some crates.

Me: Ok, cool. I head on in an-

GM: Attack roll. Guy in the middle of the room shoots you. *points to an area that is completely open on the map*

Me: Wha, was he hiding or som-

GM: No, you never asked me what was in the room. 5 damage.

(Also, people, get back on track! Stop debating what the GMs job is!)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Well, soccer rules fit in a several-page manual... it is not feasible to expect every GM to know every rule. But I get that you're talking about the basic rules that come up over and over. To me, it's not a big deal if the GM doesn't know a particular rule, as long as they are giving the player the benefit of the doubt. GMs who don't know the rule but say "no" instead of "yes" are definitely a problem.

Remember, though: all good GMs started as bad GMs, and instead of giving up when they got yelled at or embarrassed by players at the table who knew more than they did, they kept going. Players should always remember, they can't fix a bad GM in one game experience, but they *can* guarantee a GM never gets better - by giving them such a hard time that they give it up. If you are sitting at a GM's table, and you don't think they're doing a great job - well, you owe it to them to mentor them and help them get better, not complain or demand a better GM.

I think I was misunderstood a bit. I'm not expecting GMs to memorize every rule in the game. However, there's a structure, and there are rules. For another analogy, GMing is like being a lawyer, you need to know the structure and how to look up rules that you don't know off the top of your head. The more rules you do know without looking, the smoother play goes. Preparation also goes a long ways. A good GM will look up relevant rules when prepping a module. Nothing breaks immersion like a tense in game moment in a water based scenario and the GM has to take a 5 min break to look up the rules for drowning.

If you're a new GM, I expect you are interested in GMing. That means you put the effort in to try to learn the rules, you'll make mistakes, that's fine. What isn't fine is saying you want to GM, not reading the rules and barely skimming through the module. What isn't fine is GMs who have been playing since first edition, have been playing pfs since season one, and still don't get how an attack of opportunity works. Just cause you've been playing forever doesn't give you a pass on knowing the basics. To those types of GMs I feel perfectly justified in telling them to shape up or ship out.


One of my first games of DnD 3.5 a homebrew game in a setting where desert had overcome most of the world. We were facing a Dry Lich that needed a living member of his bloodline in order to undo the curse that he had started with his blood.

My character was a druid who had been found in the woods and raised by the fey - I'm a bad person because his name was Justiah Feykin. So I cut myself over the altar, explaining that I do not know who my parents are and that its worth a shot... DM tells he'll roll a d100, he rolls 99. It was epic, still one of my favourite moments in RP, it made me love DnD and was the moment I became hooked. Everyone loved it and went crazy when I made the roll, you had to be there I am sure, but it was wonderful.

I am 100% certain that moment would have been nowhere near as special if we had not all seen that roll in the open.

Lantern Lodge

Mikaze wrote:

A GM dictating how a PC feels, what they think, or what they do regardless of how the player envisioned their character. I've seen this ranging all the way from irritating to outright horrifyingly awful.

Speaking of the latter, GMs that spring obvious triggery material on players without any kind of warning whatsoever.

As a GM, I admit that I did this to a PC Cleric once. I had him saw a fellow PC as his "Goddess" and had him worshipped her, groveling at her feet.

Of course, I only did it only because that PC Cleric was high on Flayleaf and failed a fort save and a will save.
I mean what was I suppose to do when a PC goes breathing tons of Flayleaf smoke?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.
Then you'll be happy to hear that in fact, that is not what a good percentage of the players spend their time doing when there's no screen. I have in fact found that the absence of a screen typically has no ill effects on player behavior, so you can rest easy. :)

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...

My experiences say the opposite of yours.
So which is right?


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.
Then you'll be happy to hear that in fact, that is not what a good percentage of the players spend their time doing when there's no screen. I have in fact found that the absence of a screen typically has no ill effects on player behavior, so you can rest easy. :)

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...

My experiences say the opposite of yours.
So which is right?

Just have one girdle of masculinity /femininity listed as a girdle of str/dex/con +4 in your notes and the players will never trust your notes again...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
pauljathome wrote:
trollbill wrote:
One thing that annoys me is DMs who make announcements about their DMing style when you sit down at the table. Such announcements invariably end up being some warning to the players about how the DM strictly adheres to something. In theory, the DM is being polite by making this announcement. In practice he is making all the players paranoid about their behavior and I do not find paranoia conducive to fun. Strictly adhering to something in a home game where everyone is on the same page is fine. But in organized play, where there is a huge variety of play styles, strictly adhering to anything to the point you feel it is necessary to make an announcement is bound to drive players away, or at the very least, make them feel uncomfortable.

I find this very interesting. I'm one of those GMs who announces stuff before hand. I honestly can't see where anything I say would cause paranoia, but obviously I'm biased.

Could you please give some concrete examples of "bad" things GMs say?

I have never had a GM make such announcements and thought anything but "Great. One of -these- guys." It really doesn't matter what is being said. The mere fact that the GM feels the need to warn the players (and it's always a warning, veiled or not) takes the fun right out of the game. Now it's not a bunch of gamers, it's an authority figure and the lucky recipients of his wisdom and time.

Perhaps it isn't always that way, but it usually is, and that's enough to color the perceptions every time a game starts with the announcement. Just play the game, please. We're all there to have fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Ok, you searched that square, now for your next move action..."

The search skill is dead. LONG LIVE PERCEPTION!

Shadow Lodge

In home games, I'm fine with sticking my finger on the scales, just a little bit, in order to make the game more fn.

One of the PCs gets critted 3 times during a full attack? Yeah, I'll ignore enough of the damage to keep the PC alive, but critically injured.

Plot important NPC that the party was supposed to rescue dies after a bar gets burned down? Hey, turns out he actually made it out.

Fighting the final boss and the Gunslinger crits him twice after winning initiative? Yeah, he totally had a Jingasa of the fortunate soldier.

At least for my group, combat is only fun in the long term if it's challenging for the players. Wiping the floor with 4-5 CR 1/2 enemies is entertaining at first, but if that what most of the encounters are, it gets tedious. However, above level 4-ish anything that can provide a significant challenge can TPK them if it rolls well.

That's where I'm willing to step in as a GM, and adjust things as needed.
Do my players know it happens? No.
Do they enjoy playing more when I do it, as opposed to when I don't? Yes.


Disk Elemental wrote:
In home games, I'm fine with sticking my finger on the scales, just a little bit, in order to make the game more fn.

This is why I gave up playing 3.5 and non-PFS a long time ago. Every GM thinks the game can't possible be fun if they don't stick their finger in it.


GMing is always (IMHO) a balancing act, even (sometimes) in the middle of combat. Even in PFS. take this as an example:

You are fighting a villain who is evil to the core and worships the god of murdering defenseless creatures. one of the three party members who is engaging him in melee combat drops from the first of his three attacks. Now, in all honesty, most judges will not have him put his second and third attack into the downed guy, even though that would definitely be something he would do. Most DMs would have him focus on the next biggest threat in melee with him instead. That's an example of GMs "sticking their finger in it".

Sometimes, as a gm you might have accidentally stacked the deck against one character, without even realizing it.

and sometimes, a combat that you didn't think anything about when you read it ends up being the deadliest combat in the mod, cause players didn't think to do something/lack something (like, say, ranged weapons).

Lantern Lodge

Huh. I give out warnings. Of course, my warnings basically boil down to 'I occasionally railroad: I assume you'll search the bodies, taking 20 if you have time, I assume that if you knock on a door and the butler opens it, says "Come with me, the Lord is waiting," then you'll follow the butler." I also tell people (in my announcement) that if they disagree with any assumption I happen to make (i.e. they intend to inter the body with full respect, not searching through pockets) then let me know and I'll happily ret-con back.

I do this to save time - I've seen to many DMs demand narration of every little stupid thing, and it irritates me.

As to annoying my players? I don't go out of my way to kill anyone. But I really love giving them diseases. :)


A GM that softballs.

A GM that does not know the rules and does not wants too.

A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.

A GM that hates roleplay or combat, and avoids either.

A GM that starts the game off bashing the adventure. I am spending 4+ hours playing this do not start it on a bad step.

A GM that ignores people.

Shadow Lodge

Finlanderboy wrote:


A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.

This I find really interesting. Back in the day, it was written in the dungeon master guide suggestions on when you the DM should cheat. That's why you had the screen. Part of the DM's job was fudging rolls to make the game more exciting and to keep players from dying to lameness. When I started playing without a screen when 3.0 came out, it was novel and put some people off.

The expectations now seem to have completely flipped itself so that players expect GMs to roll in the open and are put off by GMs using screens and fudging their rolls.

I'm also not sure what is outputting to a GM giving play style preambles. I personally hate being hit with houserules out of the blue and like it when the GM states if he's doing something out of the ordinary. When I first started rolling in the open, I would warn any new players that's how I roll. Telling players is a courtesy. And if its a warning that the player knows they'll hate, it gives them a chance to bail before getting stuck in.


gnoams wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:


A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.

This I find really interesting. Back in the day, it was written in the dungeon master guide suggestions on when you the DM should cheat. That's why you had the screen. Part of the DM's job was fudging rolls to make the game more exciting and to keep players from dying to lameness. When I started playing without a screen when 3.0 came out, it was novel and put some people off.

The expectations now seem to have completely flipped itself so that players expect GMs to roll in the open and are put off by GMs using screens and fudging their rolls.

I'm also not sure what is outputting to a GM giving play style preambles. I personally hate being hit with houserules out of the blue and like it when the GM states if he's doing something out of the ordinary. When I first started rolling in the open, I would warn any new players that's how I roll. Telling players is a courtesy. And if its a warning that the player knows they'll hate, it gives them a chance to bail before getting stuck in.

Ina home game the scenario is perfectly fit to match what my character. There are events that help my speciific character do what the DM thinks I would find enjoyable to put them through.

In PFS it is a script. I wanna play that script. I want an experience that is fun and challenging when it shoudl be. If someone's charact's life is threatened they should feel threatened for them.

I love being able to say I did X in an adventure when we fought boss Y. When I say that and the other person shakes their head and say well boss Y is immune to X the DM let you get away with that. It take the accomplishment out of what I did.


gnoams wrote:
The expectations now seem to have completely flipped itself so that players expect GMs to roll in the open and are put off by GMs using screens and fudging their rolls.

That's just an Organized-Play thing. A few bad apples led to angry emails to the campaign staff, and now the whole crop is spoiled.

-Matt

Grand Lodge

N N 959 wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:
In home games, I'm fine with sticking my finger on the scales, just a little bit, in order to make the game more fn.
This is why I gave up playing 3.5 and non-PFS a long time ago. Every GM thinks the game can't possible be fun if they don't stick their finger in it.

See, in a non-PFS setting I completely disagree with this. It's the GM's campaign, not only do they get to decide how to run the game (thus "[sticking] their finger in" is confusing, it's their game!) but they are participating in the game too, so they should have some input in how the game becomes "fun,"be it they want more challenging encounters. I'd be pretty bored as player or GM if the party 1 shots the boss, or the fight the GM prepared turned out to be lot less challenging than expected.

To the topic at hand:
GMs that drag out trivial stuff. They expect you to outline everything you do in excruciating detail.
"I search the room." "You find nothing." later..."You missed x in the room because you didn't specify you were searching the desk." COME ON!
I had a GM in Halls of Dwarven Lore who drew out all the

Spoiler:
Checks for searching for traps
to the point where we didn't finish in time because it literally took an hour to go through one room at the very beginning.

Side-Note about screens: The rules are very consistent, but I tend to take up a bit of space and feel confined with them. Also, the temptation to cheat(I've never acted on it, just the voices in my head) or think others are cheating is very real. At the same time, I GM for groups that look at my dice rolls and see the enemy bonuses, which is frustrating to say the least.


Back in the 3.x days I had a gm that would apply just about every 0 lvl template he could think of to creatures... 5hd 60ft movespeed, exploding, doesn't die when it actually does die, and the explosions dealing negative energy damage in a horde of zombies SHOULD NOT be a CR 3 zombie.


Perhaps announcing your play style at the very start of the game is not optimal, but it is important to discuss it before the start of the game. Some of the worst times I have had as a player or a GM have come from conflicting play styles, even with well-meaning people.

Tarondor wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
trollbill wrote:
One thing that annoys me is DMs who make announcements about their DMing style when you sit down at the table. Such announcements invariably end up being some warning to the players about how the DM strictly adheres to something. In theory, the DM is being polite by making this announcement. In practice he is making all the players paranoid about their behavior and I do not find paranoia conducive to fun. Strictly adhering to something in a home game where everyone is on the same page is fine. But in organized play, where there is a huge variety of play styles, strictly adhering to anything to the point you feel it is necessary to make an announcement is bound to drive players away, or at the very least, make them feel uncomfortable.

I find this very interesting. I'm one of those GMs who announces stuff before hand. I honestly can't see where anything I say would cause paranoia, but obviously I'm biased.

Could you please give some concrete examples of "bad" things GMs say?

I have never had a GM make such announcements and thought anything but "Great. One of -these- guys." It really doesn't matter what is being said. The mere fact that the GM feels the need to warn the players (and it's always a warning, veiled or not) takes the fun right out of the game. Now it's not a bunch of gamers, it's an authority figure and the lucky recipients of his wisdom and time.

Perhaps it isn't always that way, but it usually is, and that's enough to color the perceptions every time a game starts with the announcement. Just play the game, please. We're all there to have fun.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

A GM that softballs.

A GM that does not know the rules and does not wants too.

A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.

A GM that hates roleplay or combat, and avoids either.

A GM that starts the game off bashing the adventure. I am spending 4+ hours playing this do not start it on a bad step.

A GM that ignores people.

I softball, when it is needed.

Voice in the Void:
Running a group through at sub-tier 3-4. Only melee in the party is the 2nd level fighter, who has a good AC. And this is the player's first and only PFS PC, and the first time played at second level.

So, she is having her fighter going Total Defense, which increases her AC significantly. The caryatid column needs a 16 to hit at all.

So, she has already been hit once, took a small amount of damage during this combat. Her allies are using spells and ranged attacks to destroy the column. At this point, the column hits with a critical threat.

The PC can take a hit, and will be unconscious and dying. A critical, on the other hand, is virtually guaranteed to kill her PC. In the first room they have done more than get background in.

Is it fun for her or me if I then kill her PC, who, at this level, is not only dead, but probably won't be able to be raised?

Think about it.


kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

When I think about it, I think wow if I were playing there I would have had my game wrecked.

You gave an example where a player is making bad choice after bad choice and you have to lower the bar to keep them playing.

I am sorry your example does not appeal to me only firms my stance. I want that challenge and threat. If I were you, I would have advised the player against the actions that could have caused that. As a DM of new players I say often hey I would advice against X and here is why. So they learn. You taught them they can play reckless with no threat. Again let them know when they are playing up how deadly it is, the threat involved. Say a pregen may be a good idea. If you really wanna play up, you NEED to play smart. Going toe to toe is a bad idea. You failed him letting a newbie walk into hat threat ignorant


Finlanderboy wrote:
kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

When I think about it, I think wow if I were playing there I would have had my game wrecked.

You gave an example where a player is making bad choice after bad choice and you have to lower the bar to keep them playing.

I am sorry your example does not appeal to me only firms my stance. I want that challenge and threat. If I were you, I would have advised the player against the actions that could have caused that. As a DM of new players I say often hey I would advice against X and here is why. So they learn. You taught them they can play reckless with no threat. Again let them know when they are playing up how deadly it is, the threat involved. Say a pregen may be a good idea. If you really wanna play up, you NEED to play smart. Going toe to toe is a bad idea. You failed him letting a newbie walk into hat threat ignorant

Going total defense is reckless? What advice would you give this upstart fighter on how to avoid dying to a crit? Not get in melee?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

When I think about it, I think wow if I were playing there I would have had my game wrecked.

You gave an example where a player is making bad choice after bad choice and you have to lower the bar to keep them playing.

I am sorry your example does not appeal to me only firms my stance. I want that challenge and threat. If I were you, I would have advised the player against the actions that could have caused that. As a DM of new players I say often hey I would advice against X and here is why. So they learn. You taught them they can play reckless with no threat. Again let them know when they are playing up how deadly it is, the threat involved. Say a pregen may be a good idea. If you really wanna play up, you NEED to play smart. Going toe to toe is a bad idea. You failed him letting a newbie walk into hat threat ignorant

wow...

and they say us greybeards are elitist...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

When I think about it, I think wow if I were playing there I would have had my game wrecked.

You gave an example where a player is making bad choice after bad choice and you have to lower the bar to keep them playing.

I am sorry your example does not appeal to me only firms my stance. I want that challenge and threat. If I were you, I would have advised the player against the actions that could have caused that. As a DM of new players I say often hey I would advice against X and here is why. So they learn. You taught them they can play reckless with no threat. Again let them know when they are playing up how deadly it is, the threat involved. Say a pregen may be a good idea. If you really wanna play up, you NEED to play smart. Going toe to toe is a bad idea. You failed him letting a newbie walk into hat threat ignorant

Say what?

Did you actually read my spoiler?

Just as an FYI, a 2nd level fighter, which is what she was playing, has both better defenses and better hit points than most 4th level casters.

Spoiler:
High AC fighter, going total defense for additional AC. Creature needs a 16 to hit.
A 16.
So, 25% chance of a hit.
10% chance of a potential critical.
25% chance of confirming that 10% critical.
2.5% chance of that bad luck happening.

That is neither challenge nor threat. That PC was in good armor, doing the appropriate thing to survive. Your response is neither appropriate nor reasonable.

Additional, semi-relevant information:
The player had already been using pregens at a local con to get 2 of the 3 XP that this PC had. So you want her to play yet another pregen when she was p[laying a perfectly legal PC who was legal for the table?

2nd level PC, in sub-tier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.

As a matter of fact, other than "Don't play.", we, GM included, were giving her good advice.

Caryatid column:
Damages weapons when the weapon hits them, so don't attack.
If you aren't attacking anyhow, you should just go with Total Defense, to increase your AC, and reduce their chance of hitting you.
2nd level fighter with a base AC of 20, Total Defense made it 24. That is a good AC for APL4, not so?

The casters needed someone to block the advance of the columns, so they can get spells off to try and destroy the columns.

Oh, and her PC had both the best AC and the best hit points in the party.

So, other than "Don't play this scenario, or don't play the PC you have built, and play yet another pregen that is, at best, not the build she wants to use, what would your reasonable advice be?

Or would your advice just be to kill her PC, with an evil laugh, and drive yet another new player away from PFS?

Liberty's Edge

Finlanderboy wrote:
kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

When I think about it, I think wow if I were playing there I would have had my game wrecked.

You gave an example where a player is making bad choice after bad choice and you have to lower the bar to keep them playing.

I am sorry your example does not appeal to me only firms my stance. I want that challenge and threat. If I were you, I would have advised the player against the actions that could have caused that. As a DM of new players I say often hey I would advice against X and here is why. So they learn. You taught them they can play reckless with no threat. Again let them know when they are playing up how deadly it is, the threat involved. Say a pregen may be a good idea. If you really wanna play up, you NEED to play smart. Going toe to toe is a bad idea. You failed him letting a newbie walk into hat threat ignorant

Nowhere he say that the group was playing up- My impression is that the fighter was the lowest level character and the other party members where higher level.

Waht would you have sayid to the player? Sorry, you are 2nd level the otehr are 4th, you can't play?


Warn them of the threat. That fighter played. That was her choice to play a character of tier.

You all convince me further that I would still be upset if played at that table. WHy even roll dice? Just describe to my table how we win sign my chronicle and let go home pretending I earned it.

I would have warned the player that I roll on the open table and everyone can see. If you play this adventure you could seriously die. Heck that is not the biggest threat in the adventure means. I would have said there is a noticeable chance these things can kill you in one hit even playing defensive. If all the other characters twice the level were that weak, I honestly think you are lying.

I have run other adventures when I have players unsure what to play or do.

I am sorry it is wrong of me to expect an honest DM. It is wrong of me to want to earn my win.

That is sad.

Silver Crusade

Zach Williams wrote:

Speaking towards fudging dice as a GM.

If I am GMing a table and I simply cannot roll over a 5 for the first half of the session, I will more than likely fudge dice minorly to at least give a challenge for the players.

I follow two rules here though, when I fudge I will only choose a number from 11-16 or 17. This lets people who optimized front line damage soakers and opportunity to feel special, but still at risk. I will NEVER fudge a critical/critical threat, and I will NEVER fudge a nat 1.

I feel it is the GM's job to provide a challenge and I will provide. I will not seek player deaths, but I will seek hit points.

To date I have only fudged a few times, I normally roll fairly average.

I've only fudged rolls once. When a friendly NPC that was assisting the party scored a critical hit on the BBEG that would have killed her before the PCs had the chance to act.

That would have been a lame end for the players as far as I was concerned.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

Warn them of the threat. That fighter played. That was her choice to play a character of tier.

You all convince me further that I would still be upset if played at that table. WHy even roll dice? Just describe to my table how we win sign my chronicle and let go home pretending I earned it.

I would have warned the player that I roll on the open table and everyone can see. If you play this adventure you could seriously die. Heck that is not the biggest threat in the adventure means. I would have said there is a noticeable chance these things can kill you in one hit even playing defensive. If all the other characters twice the level were that weak, I honestly think you are lying.

I have run other adventures when I have players unsure what to play or do.

I am sorry it is wrong of me to expect an honest DM. It is wrong of me to want to earn my win.

That is sad.

nothing wrong with wanting a "honest" GM...

Personally I would rather have a great but "dishonest" GM than a mediocre honest one.

Also: if you think rolling in the open makes the GM honest? You are naive.


Kiinyan wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:
In home games, I'm fine with sticking my finger on the scales, just a little bit, in order to make the game more fn.
This is why I gave up playing 3.5 and non-PFS a long time ago. Every GM thinks the game can't possible be fun if they don't stick their finger in it.
See, in a non-PFS setting I completely disagree with this. It's the GM's campaign, not only do they get to decide how to run the game (thus "[sticking] their finger in" is confusing, it's their game!) but they are participating in the game too, so they should have some input in how the game becomes "fun,"be it they want more challenging encounters. I'd be pretty bored as player or GM if the party 1 shots the boss, or the fight the GM prepared turned out to be lot less challenging than expected.

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about midway through a game, the GM screwing with the RAW because he thinks he's built a better mousetrap e.g. deciding that Move Silently and Hide should be combined into Stealth in 3.5....without modifying how skill points are awarded or the max ranks you can put into the new skill. True story (TM).

Shadow Lodge

Finlanderboy wrote:

Warn them of the threat. That fighter played. That was her choice to play a character of tier.

You're totally right. She should have just gone home, rather than play.

You keep trying to turn this around on the player, because you think it'll justify your opinion.

Finlanderboy wrote:


WHy even roll dice? Just describe to my table how we win sign my chronicle and let go home pretending I earned it.

Earned what?

How does not getting critted by the bad guys, imply any effort on your part?

In my opinion, and this applies to every game not just RPGs, if a player loses, it should be because of their poor choices. Getting Critted, then having the crit confirmed, when you're doing everything in your power to play defensively is NOT, a poor choice. It's bad luck.

When you're invested a significant amount of time into a character, losing them because of bad luck is just unacceptable.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:


A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.

This I find really interesting. Back in the day, it was written in the dungeon master guide suggestions on when you the DM should cheat. That's why you had the screen. Part of the DM's job was fudging rolls to make the game more exciting and to keep players from dying to lameness. When I started playing without a screen when 3.0 came out, it was novel and put some people off.

The expectations now seem to have completely flipped itself so that players expect GMs to roll in the open and are put off by GMs using screens and fudging their rolls.

I'm also not sure what is outputting to a GM giving play style preambles. I personally hate being hit with houserules out of the blue and like it when the GM states if he's doing something out of the ordinary. When I first started rolling in the open, I would warn any new players that's how I roll. Telling players is a courtesy. And if its a warning that the player knows they'll hate, it gives them a chance to bail before getting stuck in.

Interestingly enough, the current Core Rulebook and the Guide to Organized play both discuss times when it may be appropriate for a GM to fudge a die roll or softball something.

So if fudging a die roll or softballing is written in to the rules as a legit option for the GM, you can't call it cheating.

Lantern Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.

I never use a screen - my rolls are right out in the open. I have yet to experience anyone acting as such.

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Ways GMs can annoy their players All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.