|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a case of: A + B + C + D series of encounters, which all designed to be level appropriate/winnable, thus why bother even giving xp.
In some cases a few of those encounters are designed way above the PCs head, beyond their ability or even foreshadowing encounters - you can still give them some xp for running away/avoiding it. At least till they get higher level/x item to come back and trounce it.
But in both cases, the GM is allowing the PCs to win/escape. When someone has absolute control of the game, you only succeed at their whim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually make the encounter and then play it by ear. What will the PC's do? How would the NPCs react to this? I love off the wall creative solutions to things and I make it possible for the encounter to be completed several different ways. Always, the can choose the "Run away Brave Sir Robin!" path, but they usually don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For our 2nd edition D&D game we used to give exp for skill use, crits taken, crits given, rewards for completing objectives, hero moves, clever ideas, and once all that was totaled you added a Playing in Character bonus that was a percentage of the total.
We stopped calculating exp when we switched from 2nd edition to Pathfinder. For a few years we just gave exp as needed. If the module recommends players be level 4 then we are level 4. It was easy cheesy.
Recently our group reverted back to playing 2nd edition and the entire table voted to use the old exp system. For our table it encourages us to think about using skills more often as well as attempting hero moves and thinking outside the box. And it gives us the sense that our characters are growing and learning. When the GM just gave character levels as the module indicated we never felt a sense of ownership to the process.
Also it's worth mentioning that in 2nd edition classes were not designed to advance at the same rate. Thieves in particular advanced much fast that warriors, this was by design. So maybe the comparison is not fair to either.
I feel like RPG's are being simplified so much that they are losing some of it's charm. But then again I never could run a 2nd edition D&D game when I was drunk because somehow Rum and THACO don't mix. So maybe simplicity has it's charms after all.
-MD
I like games that are player-driven almost exclusively and I also like "old-school" games where the game is about adventurers seeking fortune and glory, rather than heroes on a quest. Also, in my games advancement is not a given, rather it is a result of successful play.
That makes sense: definitely different play styles.
That said, however, it still does not require XP.
If you'll allow me to discuss my own reasoning?
Please bear in mind that I am not telling you how you should play, but rather my own reasoning for why I play the way I do, and how that can (if you so-choose) apply to your own styles, regardless.
One of the things that XP is useful for is minute increases - i.e. incrementally approaching a level based of of <X> variables (usually a semi-arbitrary number based off of some formula or another).
While very nice in its own, the down side of this is that varying XP amounts divided between players can result in inequitable distribution, and strange effects.
In the older editions, this was actually presumed - the XP charts had varying amounts of XP for leveling up for a combination of that reason and for some vague allusion to "game balance" (which I never really saw that it had, but that's another thing altogether).
It was also presumed that a GM would step in and arbitrate and alter, as needed, in order to make the group, as a whole, capable of working together.
One of the great things about this is that, in some ways, this is a very free-form experience, and exceedingly in-character - you level up because you've accomplished <X> and the player controls (in terms of writing it down on his or her sheet) how fast they advance.
It's nice because a GM can reward small amounts of XP as a sign of approval, or because something was well-done without worry of undue effects or unbalanced (hypothetically) options.
One of the problems, however, is that it's fiddly, minute, time-consuming, and... naturally im-balancing.
Take, for example, the OP idea of awarding RP-XP. If done right, it's pretty awesome, but if not handled properly - which involves more care than it seems on the surface -, it is an unbalancing, and often frustrating example of what happens in games, as demonstrated by the OP.
While in some ways it's frustrating to have lost the XP-cost for crafting and spell-casting from 3.X in PF (because now XP is simply a tally of how far you've come instead of something tangible and real in the world), it's not frustrating to have the level imbalance that comes with that sort of thing.
Indeed, you and I award "XP" similarly, save for the fact that the "XP" I award comes in lump sums - sums that so-happen to equal a level's worth of growth - instead of small incremental amounts that vary by individual accomplishment.
What this means is that the players can still do what they wish, and go after accomplishments as they desire, but instead of having to track individual sums or grants of XP (which is prone to fault and differing amounts), they simply get notified of when they've accomplished enough as a group to level up... which is really all that XP does.
Now, if you have a group that likes to go and do things on its own - an oft-split party -, this can be much more difficult to implement in a way that makes sense in-world.
That's the down-side.
The up-side is that there are fewer mistakes, less fiddly bits, and less to keep track of.
In a game like PF, that's actually pretty nice.
It predominantly relies on player buy-in and play-styles, which one is better, but I've found that, lacking costs or drains on it (in other words, in Pathfinder), XP-less systems are far easier to maintain and keep a grasp on than XP-based systems.
And identical XP systems are far, far easier to maintain than varying XP systems which were always irritating to me and my fellow players in every game I've ever played with them in.
I feel like RPG's are being simplified so much that they are losing some of it's charm. But then again I never could run a 2nd edition D&D game when I was drunk because somehow Rum and THACO don't mix. So maybe simplicity has it's charms after all.-MD
The first RPG I ever played was D&D 3.5. THACO just makes no sense to me because I can't wrap my head around it. So for me it's 3.0 and up or a completely different RPG that has nothing in common with D&D. I will never play a game with THACO involved because I hates it my precious.
I want to say, reward for accomplishments - even running away when you're out-matched - is not beyond the pale for non-XP systems.
The fact is that a GM holds more control - which is both good and bad - in story-based awards like the kind that I use (i.e. "level up at this point." type systems).
It's bad in the sense that it could diminish the sense of accomplishment (as you don't see the incremental increase), and a GM could misapply their fiat.
It's good because it allows control of what's awarded and what's not to be held by the person that's actually running the world at large, and thus they can simply note what happened, and can gauge how well the group is doing independent of weird and fiddly number things based on the arbitration of XP charts.
("Look, we just go through the forest and kill, like, four goblins. Man, levelling's easy!")
This latter is really what sold me - that and the fact that it functions more smoothly for APs in general.
The "less to keep track of" and "don't worry about something that doesn't exist as part of the game-world" are just bonuses.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in both cases, the GM is allowing the PCs to win/escape. When someone has absolute control of the game, you only succeed at their whim.It isn't a case of: A + B + C + D series of encounters, which all designed to be level appropriate/winnable, thus why bother even giving xp.
In some cases a few of those encounters are designed way above the PCs head, beyond their ability or even foreshadowing encounters - you can still give them some xp for running away/avoiding it. At least till they get higher level/x item to come back and trounce it.
Actually no - they need to make the decision to attack, hide, evade, deceive. Whatever path they take.
And we also use dice.I know you don't believe it (based on your assumptions and arguments), but there are some GMs who throw out encounters that are not meant to be beaten at level, and the players can either hear about it and avoid it (till higher level), encounter it and run/hide/evade or die.
I don't buy this whole "at their whim", I think there can be GMs who make the world, throw things out there and let the players take their chances as they see fit.
If anything is "at their whim" I would say that story/plot leveling is - no matter how good or bad an individual player used his character the GM just decides that it's time. I suppose surviving can be the sole metric to level up at certain points but I'd rather assign rewards based off of play merit vs. attendance.
Absolute control is assigning arbitrary level up points when it "feels right". I think this moves away from the concept of this being a game.
---
This does seem to be (mostly) a new school/old school discussion and disagreement.
Again, with no side convincing the other - probably a good point to cut losses and move on.
The "less to keep track of" and "don't worry about something that doesn't exist as part of the game-world" are just bonuses.
Exactly. I tend to use other types of rewards. Recently I got a hold of the Plot Twist deck and I intend to use those as rewards for excellent RP, etc. It also gives the PCs a way to influence the game with their card. Each PC will get one at the start of my modules at the Con I'm running. Besides, what good is XP for a One Shot game??
|
|
Actually no - they need to make the decision to attack, hide, evade, deceive. Whatever path they take.
And we also use dice.I know you don't believe it (based on your assumptions and arguments), but there are some GMs who throw out encounters that are not meant to be beaten at level, and the players can either hear about it and avoid it (till higher level), encounter it and run/hide/evade or die.
I don't buy this whole "at their whim", I think there can be GMs who make the world, throw things out there and let the players take their chances as they see fit.
And my point is that regardless of what encounters are thrown at you, you only beat them because the GM lets you. Because the GM has the power to invalidate the dice through sheer numbers. It logically ends at 'rocks fall, you die', but just because you get a good GM that doesn't blatantly fiat it that way doesn't mean you are accomplishing something he couldn't stop at any time.
Player accomplishments are a genre fiction we use with suspension of disbelief to pretend our characters are accomplishing something.
When all that is really happening is words and die rolls that don't actually achieve anything.
I like games that are player-driven almost exclusively and I also like "old-school" games where the game is about adventurers seeking fortune and glory, rather than heroes on a quest. Also, in my games advancement is not a given, rather it is a result of successful play.That makes sense: definitely different play styles.
That said, however, it still does not require XP.
If you'll allow me to discuss my own reasoning?
Please bear in mind that I am not telling you how you should play, but rather my own reasoning for why I play the way I do, and how that can (if you so-choose) apply to your own styles, regardless.
One of the things that XP is useful for is minute increases - i.e. incrementally approaching a level based of of <X> variables (usually a semi-arbitrary number based off of some formula or another).
While very nice in its own, the down side of this is that varying XP amounts divided between players can result in inequitable distribution, and strange effects.
In the older editions, this was actually presumed - the XP charts had varying amounts of XP for leveling up for a combination of that reason and for some vague allusion to "game balance" (which I never really saw that it had, but that's another thing altogether).
It was also presumed that a GM would step in and arbitrate and alter, as needed, in order to make the group, as a whole, capable of working together.
One of the great things about this is that, in some ways, this is a very free-form experience, and exceedingly in-character - you level up because you've accomplished <X> and the player controls (in terms of writing it down on his or her sheet) how fast they advance.
It's nice because a GM can reward small amounts of XP as a sign of approval, or because something was well-done without worry of undue effects or unbalanced (hypothetically) options.
One of the problems, however, is that it's fiddly, minute, time-consuming, and... naturally...
I don't really get this. Tracking xp is how you determine when you have accomplished enough to level up. I give it at little at a time because the players have earned that particular amount of xp by accomplishing whatever challenge they overcame to earn that xp in the first place. Only when they have built up enough xp to attain the next level is when they have accomplished enough to attain that level up.
|
|
Actually no - they need to make the decision to attack, hide, evade, deceive. Whatever path they take.
And we also use dice.I know you don't believe it (based on your assumptions and arguments), but there are some GMs who throw out encounters that are not meant to be beaten at level, and the players can either hear about it and avoid it (till higher level), encounter it and run/hide/evade or die.
I don't buy this whole "at their whim", I think there can be GMs who make the world, throw things out there and let the players take their chances as they see fit.
And my point is that regardless of what encounters are thrown at you, you only beat them because the GM lets you. Because the GM has the power to invalidate the dice through sheer numbers. It logically ends at 'rocks fall, you die', but just because you get a good GM that doesn't blatantly fiat it that way doesn't mean you are accomplishing something he couldn't stop at any time.
Player accomplishments are a genre fiction we use with suspension of disbelief to pretend our characters are accomplishing something.
When all that is really happening is words and die rolls that don't actually achieve anything.
Ah, so every GM is running a variation of Magic Tea Party game then?
Or everyone but you?
Twinge of guilt or do you change the result to fit the story you or the group are trying to tell?Or everyone but you?Why would I be anything special?
I do it every time I look at a roll and feel the twinge of guilt pushing me to announce a different result.
A bit of both sometimes. :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to think this worked, but I've changed my mind. The GM still has near absolute control. It's still the GM's responsibility to be sure to give the players adequate warning of challenges beyond their ability and to make sure they are avoidable or at least escapable. It's a different approach than the more standard one, but it's far from "make the world, throw things out there and let the players take their chances".
If it really was that, there would be cases where the party just gets whacked by an ambush beyond their level with no realistic chance to avoid or escape, because that can happen in the world. It happens to NPC victims all the time. But it's no fun, even for sandbox players.
Yes, but this comes down to players making the best choices based upon the information that they have.
I have had several players who fought and died because they put themselves in over their heads. They either checked out something they knew was dangerous in advance or just didn't go about utilizing best practices (whatever that is for each game).
The players are still making all the calls once the data is presented.
I understand that the DM/GM sets the stage, even sets the chances of survival/what is the right choice to make. But the players still need to make that choice. Even if it's dressed up with: Foreshadowing (not always the case), chance to escape (usually the case), option to address challenge (usually the case). With all of those the players still have to make a choice, and if they make the wrong one they die.
IDK, maybe we are all just running different games I suppose.
|
|
Twinge of guilt or do you change the result to fit the story you or the group are trying to tell?Usually it's because I don't want to kill the character or cripple the party due to lack of knowledge.
I still drop that hammer however.
So for all the padding a GM may apply, if you roll in the open and drop that hammer then you are not running a "GM lets you" game.
Anyway this is breaking down into the usual camps so I can't add much more to this one.
Do whatever works for your individual groups.
I generally don't fudge unless not doing so would punish a player for nothing but bad luck. If the PCs happen to run across the hardest monster on the dungeon level after a long and arduous expedition, for instance, I might fudge things so that they aren't instantly obliterated and have a chance to escape (but not to let them win). I might substitute a weaker random encounter if I feel that it would be disruptive to the game to have the stronger encounter at that time. Otherwise the dice fall where they may.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it was just the first thing to come to mind. (Actually the first was radiation poisoning but hazmat suits don't protect against that.) I'll have to figure out a better analogy.I actually did not take offence at the "chump" comment; it was the "plague" analogy that rubbed me the wrong way...
So again, I thank you for the apology.
Pizza.
If I like anchovies, but you don't, we should probably get separate pizza's.
]Fudging is the most blatant and least important way GMs have to change the odds against the PCs. Fudging rolls is a subset of that. You can roll everything in the open and the only thing that really changes is things like criticals and some saves.
Otherwise, you design the bad guys. You decide how many there are, how tough they are, whether they have reinforcements at hand, what tactics they will use, when and if they'll surrender or run, what the setting is and thus the tactical advantages, how much the PCs know about them ahead of time and so much else that actually fudging dice rolls is almost unnecessary. A lot of that can be changed on the fly with no one the wiser.
I generally don't change aspects of my adventure design on the fly unless there is a really compelling reason to do so. I'm certainly not going to do it to make sure characters do not die, for instance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for all the padding a GM may apply, if you roll in the open and drop that hammer then you are not running a "GM lets you" game.
I absolutely am. Because it has everything to do with allowing you to win, not allowing you to fail.
I can make the PCs fail every time. I have to allow them to win. And I allow that before I even begin the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for all the padding a GM may apply, if you roll in the open and drop that hammer then you are not running a "GM lets you" game.I absolutely am. Because it has everything to do with allowing you to win, not allowing you to fail.
I can make the PCs fail every time. I have to allow them to win. And I allow that before I even begin the game.
I guess we do look at it differently then. I set the stage and they act on it. They can succeed and fail on their own. I don't allow them to win or fail, they decide that.
-
And yes, I understand the implications of being the DM - setting the encounters, taking it easy or hard, etc - the whole lot of what comes with the job.
Generally though - once the game is in motion, it's on them. If an encounter requires them to be at their top game so they can survive, they need to be on their top game. Or they die.
Anything else and my players feel cheated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally though - once the game is in motion, it's on them. If an encounter requires them to be at their top game so they can survive, they need to be on their top game. Or they die.
Anything else and my players feel cheated.
I, as a player, usually feel cheated when, due to bad luck or an encounter that's just too hard, the character I've put months of effort into, dies. That's when I as a player feel cheated. I have never felt cheated because the DM fudged a roll to let my PC live and continue playing the game. But I get attached to my PC's, maybe other people don't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, as a player, usually feel cheated when, due to bad luck or an encounter that's just too hard, the character I've put months of effort into, dies. That's when I as a player feel cheated. I have never felt cheated because the DM fudged a roll to let my PC live and continue playing the game. But I get attached to my PC's, maybe other people don't.
I can't get attached to a PC that can't ever die. If my character was going to get to the same point no matter how the game went than what's the point of playing that all out? That's how I feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't get attached to a PC that can't ever die. If my character was going to get to the same point no matter how the game went than what's the point of playing that all out? That's how I feel.
The point of playing is to have fun and shenanigans. I don't like my games to be like real life. I play to escape real life. I don't care if I know my character isn't going to die, the journey is the adventure and knowing the end doesn't bother me. It's not the end that counts, but how you get there. Just my PoV. I understand it's not the same for everyone, but luckily it is the same for everyone I RPG with on a regular basis.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, as a player, usually feel cheated when, due to bad luck or an encounter that's just too hard, the character I've put months of effort into, dies. That's when I as a player feel cheated. I have never felt cheated because the DM fudged a roll to let my PC live and continue playing the game. But I get attached to my PC's, maybe other people don't.Generally though - once the game is in motion, it's on them. If an encounter requires them to be at their top game so they can survive, they need to be on their top game. Or they die.
Anything else and my players feel cheated.
My players also get attached to their PCs, and they have a general rule (the experienced one do at least):
"Never let your fate come down to a single die roll."
Whenever any of my players die, they can go back and see where they (or someone in their group) made some major mistakes and put their characters life at risk. It is very rare for any of them to die from one "bad roll". The road that got them to that roll is what they control, and when it happens they see it coming and are not very surprised.
-
And since it's still a game and you failed those die rolls (due to bad luck) then you shouldn't feel cheated. That's the game. Does it suck? Yes, it does. I don't think players should feel cheated though.
I can't tell you how to feel personally, nor am I trying to invalidate your feelings. But feeling cheated at a legitimate character death in a game should only come into play if your GM actually cheated you.
-
I don't think many of us are playing the same game or want the same things out of our games, so making comparisons is just going to result in more conflict since these are entirely different schools of thought on gaming. Half the premises presented here by one side as the absolute truth (as they see it) I vehemently disagree with, and as long as they are presented as absolutes I can see nothing constructive coming from this thread and exchange.
I don't really get this. Tracking xp is how you determine when you have accomplished enough to level up. I give it at little at a time because the players have earned that particular amount of xp by accomplishing whatever challenge they overcame to earn that xp in the first place. Only when they have built up enough xp to attain the next level is when they have accomplished enough to attain that level up.
That's how you (and a fair number of others) do this, yes.
But that's hardly the only way to keep track of such things.
There are numerous ways of evading the XP system.
One is to treat the XP system "differently".
Example:
To achieve level 2, you need 2,000 XP.
Each CR 1 accomplishment awards 100 XP (give or take).
That's about 20 CR 1 encounters to hit level 2.
A CR 2 encounter is worth half again as much - two CR 2 awards = three CR 1 awards.
A CR 3 encounter is worth twice as much.
A CR 4 encounter is worth three times as much. (This is noted as an "epic" difficulty, so we'll stop here.)
A CR 1/2 is, in fact, half (which is the lowest CR noted on difficulty - presumably less is less).
Looking at that, it's easy to gauge how much out of "20" you've achieved - each time something is worthy of note - whether it's a combat, or RP, or skill use, or clever tactics, or anything whatsoever - anytime something like that is accomplished, you make a mark.
If it's CR 2, you make one and a half marks. If it's a CR 3, you make two marks. CR 4, three marks. CR 1/2, half a mark.
This is a really easy way of tracking XP and events without bothering with the fiddly part of XP.
On to level two - it's 5k, this time, to hit level three.
CR 2 gives, as noted, 150 XP - that's about 33 (and 1/3) encounters of your CR.
CR 3 a third again as much, CR 4 double, CR 5 two and two-thirds, while CR 1 gives only one third less.
Make your marks.
Now that you're third, to hit level four: 9k.
At 200 XP/level, that's 45 encounters! It's... it's growing!
CR 2 grants 1/4 less, CR 4 grants 1/3 more, CR 5 double, and CR 6 triple!
From four to five, it's 15k!
At 300 XP per encounter, that's 50 encounters! Wee!
57.5 to go from 5th to 6th
58 and 1/3 to go from 6th to 7th
63.75 to go from 7th to 8th
62.5 to go from 8th to 9th
65.625 to go from 9th to 10th
64.58333... to go from 10th to 11th
68.75 to go from 11th to 12th
65.625 to go from 12th to 13th
69.53125 to go from 13th to 14th
66.1458333... to go from 14th to 15th
69.53125 to go from 15th to 16th
67.708333... to go from 16th to 17th
70.3125 to go from 17th to 18th
66.40625 to go from 18th to 19th
70.3125 to go from 19th to 20th.
That's just a hair under 1,090 total CR-appropriate encounters. (Hopefully in quite a few places along the way, someone will run into higher-than-expected CRs and other sources of bonus XP.)
((It's actually, according to my math - which could be off due to automatic calculator rounding - 1089.947916666667 encounters, though practically speaking, it would be 1090 encounters, since there's no such thing as ".947916666667 of an encounter" to speak of.))
That averages to about 54 encounters per level (more than noted on the earlier end, and less on the later ends, but that's the average), though it would probably be better to stick with 20 on level 1, 34 for level 2, 45 for level 3, 50 for level four, and 58-59 per level thereafter.
Looking at the XP rewards system for encounters yields similarly flexible results.
At level six: CR +1 = +1/3; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x2+2/3; CR -1 = -1/3
At level seven: CR +1 = +1/4; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x3; CR -1 = -1/4
At level eight: CR +1 = +1/3; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x2+2/3; CR -1 = -1/4
At level nine: CR +1 = +1/2; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x3; CR -1 = -1/3
At level ten: CR +1 = +1/3; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x2+2/3; CR -1 = -1/3
At level eleven: CR +1 = +1/2; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x3; CR -1 = -1/4
At level twelve: CR +1 = +1/3; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x2+2/3; CR -1 = -1/3
At level thirteen: CR +1 = +1/2; CR +2 = x2; CR +3 = x3; CR -1 = -1/4
At level fourteen: I don't care anymore, hopefully the math has been established, and Attention Deficiiiiiiiiiiiiii~!
Anyway, it's pretty clear: AP +2 is always supposed to be double the XP, and everything else is based off of that amount, the increases varying from 1/2 to 1/3 to 1/4... but averaging out to (very roughly) about 1/3 increases/decreases or variability.
((Though CR +3 is a bit trickier translating x3 and x2+2/3 becomes 9/3 and 8/3, respectively, or - > 5 and 2/3s [added] ==> average of 2.5 and 1/3 or 2 (1/2+1/3 = 3/6+2/6 = 5/6), meaning x2+5/6 each AP+3. For ease, I'd generally stick to about "x3", but that's just me.))
Now, what these numbers mean is... ultimately very little.
The system for determining XP is different from the system determining level ups, and thus the exact numbers of encounters vary dramatically.
But it gives you an idea of how XP is supposed to flow, and how it's expected to be handled.
This lets you see what is expected to happen and then adjust accordingly.
(Obviously, if you're using a faster or slower XP, just decrease or increase the amount of encounters you're using by about 1/3 in the earlier levels or by half in the later levels.)
What this means is that you can then gauge how well your players are doing by making simple notes - you no longer need the fiddly system to tell you how much progress they're making.
Of course, tally marks are just one option.
Simply knowing when, where, and how they are doing can tell you.
Of course, if you use an older set of presumptions, you can alter this amount further, at your option.
This is part of the flexibility of the XP-less system, and it's pretty great: once you know what you're aiming for, you can track progress however you see fit, and in a manner that makes more sense, in-character, than simple arbitrary numbers.
As I said, there are benefits and drawbacks for any system.
In this one, it's easier, faster, and neater, more internally consistent (in a narrative manner), and requires less fiddly parts that have nothing to do with the game-world at large.
And since it's still a game and you failed those die rolls (due to bad luck) then you shouldn't feel cheated. That's the game. Does it suck? Yes, it does. I don't think players should feel cheated though.
I can't tell you how to feel personally, nor am I trying to invalidate your feelings. But feeling cheated at a legitimate character death in a game should only come into play if your GM actually cheated you.
Yeah, well, you're players must have better dice than mine then, because mine fail A LOT. I am not nor have I ever been lucky at games. I don't win on a regular basis (board games anyway) and it's a fluke when I do win, so I want to play at lease ONE game where I can "win" even if I have bad luck. So, yes, I fell cheated by the games not the GM. I don't actually like games of chance and some people play RPGs as if that's all they are, games of chance. For us, the role play can overcome bad rolls, which is why I enjoy my group.
As for the absolute truth thing, saying you aren't trying to invalidate my feelings and then making a STATEMENT that I should only feel cheated if the GM actually cheated invalidates my feelings. What you should have said was: "but I don't feel that I'm cheated at a legitimate death in a game and would only feel cheated if the GM actually cheated me." That would be a statement of your feelings and not a condemnation of mine.
Edited: And I'm not mad or anything. I'm just saying that there are better ways to put things otherwise you end up coming across as condemning someone else's feelings and ideals rather than just making a statement as to how you feel about things and believe. Luckily, I was not offended and was not hurt by this, but others could be. Text is a dangerous thing without inflection and facial expressions to back up meanings. So please be careful how you put things.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess we do look at it differently then.
It's a philosophical thing. The game is no different, you're just looking at it from different perspectives.
But it is why I can't take the view that experience is earned seriously, or feel that players need to earn their character levels.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the absolute truth thing, saying you aren't trying to invalidate my feelings and then making a STATEMENT that I should only feel cheated if the GM actually cheated invalidates my feelings. What you should have said was: "but I don't feel that I'm cheated at a legitimate death in a game and would only feel cheated if the GM actually cheated me." That would be a statement of your feelings and not a condemnation of mine.
What I was trying to convey is that it's a game, and when you die you don't necessarily lose. When you die that is component of the game. An "unfun" part of the game that sometimes happens (legitimately) during the course of play.
In effect, dying in game is part of the game, and unless the GM made a bad call or railroaded you into death it isn't cheating.
How you feel is how you feel, no one can take that away from you. Using "cheated" in the context to describe a negative feeling while playing a game carries it's own baggage and probably isn't the best term. "Cheated" implies that someone broke the rules to get a result, and it that wasn't the case then you probably shouldn't use that term.
And we can disagree on this; I do know that having a pc die sucks - flat out.
If you feel cheated that's fine, I just hope you understand that in the context of it being a game adds some extra meaning to that term.
Again, wasn't trying to invalidate your feelings or offend you in any way.
-
As to the luck thing, my players are not lucky - they just play cautiously. Which is part of the play style that they prefer and I as DM/GM am ok with. Sometimes they take crazy risks, but since we do not run PF anymore they know that all encounters are not designed for them to be beaten or are CR appropriate for their level in a head on fight.
It isn't for everyone and that's ok, it works for my group though.
Nor does it mean PC's can't ever die. Just that they're not going to die to a couple of bad rolls.
But I do understand that some players are interested in the game mostly as a game. And that, I think, is where we circle back around to XP. It's a means of keeping score, of showing that you've earned your powers fairly, not just had them hhanded to you by the GM's whim or the needs of the story. If that's how you're approaching the game, I can definitely see how you'd feel cheated by the GM fudging combat.
For me, it's the sense of immersion, developing a character's personality and relationships with NPCs and other PCs and slowly unravelling the plot (or plots) that the antagonists are weaving in the campaign. Losing a character in the middle can work, if that character's in the right place, but all too often you lose plot threads that were linked to him and it's a long time before a replacement fits as well as the one that was there from the start. The actual combats are often almost incidental.
Exactly and, if it weren't for the fact that my GM is forgiving of bad rolls, my character would have been dead several times over throughout the game. Actually, I think she would have died our very first session due to the fact that I couldn't roll anything over a 5 to save my life that entire game.
It isn't for everyone and that's ok, it works for my group though.
Which is why not everyone can play in the same groups, because of how we are shaped and how we feel. I think it's awesome that you found a group that has the same feelings about the game and outcomes as you do.
And thanks for the clarification on what you were saying. That sounded a lot better.
You're players may not be lucky, but I certainly doubt the are unlucky. There's a saying that fits me. "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have none at all."
So my character, regardless of how careful I was and how cautious, would probably die very quickly in a game where the GM doesn't fudge rolls to keep me from dying. I have not only gone /one/ game where I didn't roll anything (saves included) over a 5, I have gone several.
Here's the kicker about the bad luck thing. When I'm GMing, I don't consistently roll like crap. Only when I'm playing in a game. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should mention that I use xp for treasure. You could call that a sort of roleplaying xp for a certain value of "roleplaying". It encourages a certain kind of behavior- accumulating treasure.
Liranys, I had a player in my game who after over a year playing a weekly campaign rolled his first critical success. It would have been a moment of celebration had it no been so damn sad.
He just has the worst luck rolling dice, fumbling all the time.
That being said his characters never died as a result of his bad rolling since he seldom put himself into situations were he had to rely on his dice.
-MD
Liranys, I had a player in my game who after over a year playing a weekly campaign rolled his first critical success. It would have been a moment of celebration had it no been so damn sad.
He just has the worst luck rolling dice, fumbling all the time.
That being said his characters never died as a result of his bad rolling since he seldom put himself into situations were he had to rely on his dice.
-MD
So what did he do? Just sit back and let everyone else do the fighting? Even my healer gets hit because she's trying to be part of the team and help. If I didn't put myself into some risk, the other PCs would not be happy. As it is, I try to avoid as much as I can. Maybe out campaigns are just more full of danger than yours are.
But yeah, I'm that player. I still have yet to roll a critical hit on a monster since we started this campaign sometime about a year ago. And my character USED to be a semi-fighter type. Now she's just a healer because I'm useless in combat since I can't roll high enough to hit anything.
I don't know how that player could avoid putting his PC in much danger, but I don't know what kind of campaign you have going. Ours is, well, kind of in an area where we have few allies and the evil people are all over the place, so just walking down the street could be dangerous.
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.
Liranys, I had a player in my game who after over a year playing a weekly campaign rolled his first critical success. It would have been a moment of celebration had it no been so damn sad.
He just has the worst luck rolling dice, fumbling all the time.
That being said his characters never died as a result of his bad rolling since he seldom put himself into situations were he had to rely on his dice.
What does that even mean? Did he stay safe at home? Hide in the back row out of sight? It's a game where success or failure is determined by the dice. How do you avoid relying on the dice?
I can see avoid situations where you have to get really lucky with the dice, like relying on a lucky criticals or something.
For instance he would rope himself off before crossing balance beem ledge over lava because sure enough he would fail his balance check. If he was disarming a trap that he knew had poisoned he would ready the healer or take a potion before attempting.
He just played this a little overly safe. He still mixed it up in combat and hit but none of his hits were criticals. He stayed near the fighters and attacked engaged/occupied enemies.
You just minimize your loses and always have a backup plan should your dice decide to screw you.
-MD
I don't know how that player could avoid putting his PC in much danger, but I don't know what kind of campaign you have going. Ours is, well, kind of in an area where we have few allies and the evil people are all over the place, so just walking down the street could be dangerous.
Why are you worried about danger, I thought your characters could not die? You know, fun and shenanigans.
I think it depends on how you play it. If there's ONLY one way to do something, of course you could come to a grinding halt, that's why I always make sure there are multiple ways to do something. If the survival roll to track fails, I'll let them go ask around the nearest village, or have them stumble upon a group of baddies returning to their lair or leaving it. If you play it like a wargame, yeah, you might have problems. But if you play it like one of those choose your own adventure games where whichever choice you make eventually leads to the same ending (since APs don't have that much wiggle room) even if that ending is reached through a rather circuitous route, the PCs can continue on. That may be seen as railroading a little bit, but if it's necessary to keep the story moving, what's wrong with that? It's not likely your forcing the PCs to make a specific decision. Usually they WANT to continue the mission and would be glad of some "Divine" help in the form of the GM saying, you run into a group of monsters that look like they might have been the same ones that left the tracks you couldn't follow earlier.
Why are you worried about danger, I thought your characters could not die? You know, fun and shenanigans.
I don't know how that player could avoid putting his PC in much danger, but I don't know what kind of campaign you have going. Ours is, well, kind of in an area where we have few allies and the evil people are all over the place, so just walking down the street could be dangerous.
No, I said I wish my character's couldn't die. They still can if I do something really stupid, they just won't die because my dice hate me.
Because my GM is the understanding sort who will allow some fudging of dice if the player is having the worst luck ever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.
Better doesn't matter if you can't get a group together.
And the APs are not routes, their road maps. You can arrive at the same destination multiple ways.