|
I´ll talk about what I like to have in a game:
- I like to have social an mental problems to solve, and not only combat.
- I like to see the fluff in the game in a meaningfull manner. If I enter in a Temple of Besmara and the only differen I see from another temple is the decoration I´m a little upset. (on the other side, the Temple of Empyreal Enlighment catched me, even the architecture talks about calm, and communal life).
- I like the players to cooperate and not try to be the biggest badass of all pathfinder.
-I like interesting treasure in the chronicles, even if I´ll never use it.
- I like when you can solve an encounter by other ways besides killing every foe.
-I like a hard final combat, not as hard as you could easily die, but to feel the risk.
I like it as a player and, when I GM I try to offer scenarios which offer as many of this as possible.
Ah, and recently, I would like to have Venture-Captains that don´t treat you, in game, as if you are stupid. And I would like to venture outside of Absalom and Kortos island (many adventures here recently)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
Core: I guess next time I'll just full-attack/cast an unambiguous save-or-suck. Again.
Standard: I bet I can find some obscure magic item or something that's specifically designed to enable this, so maybe I can do fun things NEXT time.
|
When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
I agree in principle and try to reward creativity wherever possible but it isn't that simple.
The main problem arises when the GM and the player see the creative solution differently. Players A solution may seem hackneyed or totally over the top to GM B. The GM can't accept ALL solutions.
The other problem comes when the player comes up with a creative example that is actually covered by the rules. A classic example that I've seen in play is the "throw sand in the eyes" trick. That is pretty clearly a dirty trick maneuver in Pathfinder. So, when the creative player tries this I pretty much have to explain to them that this is covered by the rules and their character can try but its likely a poorish idea.
|
I'm always glad to see sessions which are a mixed bag of things to do.
Pure combat scenarios can be okay if the combats are varied enough. But I prefer some puzzles, roleplaying, and maybe a chase mixed in. (Yes - I actually like chases overall. I know many on here hate them with a passion.)
Roleplaying/puzzle heavy sessions can be fun - but by the end of Library of the Lion (we apparently did it right and avoided all combat) - I was getting bored with it too.
|
|
The other problem comes when the player comes up with a creative example that is actually covered by the rules. A classic example that I've seen in play is the "throw sand in the eyes" trick. That is pretty clearly a dirty trick maneuver in Pathfinder. So, when the creative player tries this I pretty much have to explain to them that this is covered by the rules and their character can try but its likely a poorish idea.
Yeah - I'm with you. That's almost as bad as someone saying, as if in sudden realization. "I sunder his neck!".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's right at the top of my "List of things to work on to become a better GM."When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
Awesome! :D
I want players to be creative, I don't want them to exploit plot holes just to skip over challenges without expending effort.
On the contrary, I love it when my players do that! I had a player trying to figure out how to get his tablemate's tiger down a cliff safely, and came up with the idea of taking several feet of rope and tying a kind of harness to "attach" the cat to the main rope that everyone else was climbing down. I didn't call for any Craft skill checks, I didn't give any chance of failure, and no resources were expended; I congratulated him on the clever idea and gave the tiger access to the Climb DC for "rope against a wall", which was low enough it could make it down safely.
Personally, I'm of the firm belief that a player who has X should always have an advantage over someone who doesn't. Whether X is a spell, a class feature, or a clever idea; if it's relevant to the situation at hand, that situation should play out more favorably (and noticeably so) than it would have if they didn't have X.
Now I at least have them give me a roll of some sort, which largely serves to give me some time to think about how to handle the situation, and if they flub the roll they often assume they failed and move on before I say anything either way.
That's definitely progress! Keep it up!
Also, if they've spent resources in equipment or build decisions, I want those to be meaningful.
Yes!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
I agree in principle and try to reward creativity wherever possible but it isn't that simple.
The main problem arises when the GM and the player see the creative solution differently. Players A solution may seem hackneyed or totally over the top to GM B. The GM can't accept ALL solutions.
Why the heck not? Do we want to make memorable games, or do we want our games to be the same string of full-attacks and scripted skill checks as the last 17 sessions?
My wife once solo'd a potentially very difficult encounter because she was playing an archer and she figured out that the statue only animated if you were within 30 feet of it. Zero risk to anyone, and the only resource cost was a couple gold pieces worth of arrows. Is that "hackneyed" or "over the top"? After all, she "trivialized" an encounter, and that's the worst thing a player can do (if the mantra of the stars is to be believed).
The other problem comes when the player comes up with a creative example that is actually covered by the rules. A classic example that I've seen in play is the "throw sand in the eyes" trick. That is pretty clearly a dirty trick maneuver in Pathfinder. So, when the creative player tries this I pretty much have to explain to them that this is covered by the rules and their character can try but its likely a poorish idea.
Yeah, there's that. I hate that maneuvers provoke in Pathfinder. That's why, for a 3PP, I wrote a feat that removes the AoO from every maneuver you ever perform. Pathfinder as a system is way too AoO-happy. :/
|
|
^ What the above poster said. I like the "Songbird of Doom" Mouser build that's been floating around recently. When I saw the Ring of Seven Lovely Colors printed originally I immediately started brewing something similar but much worse than this build, not knowing about the Mouser archetype at the time or the Monkey Style feat-line. Very cool to see that come together.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
Of course, you occasionally get:
Cleric (who is only serious damage dealer in the group): "I am going to mount my horse so I can get into a better tactical position."
GM (me): "Okay, but that will provoke."
Cleric: "That's okay, I have a good AC."
GM (thought bubble): If you just hit the monster, it will die.
Cleric: "Okay, I rode around to the other side. You said it was standing on some rubble. Can I use my hammer to try to knock some of the rubble loose and make it fall."
GM: "Sure, but you will need to make a Strength check and it will get a Reflex save."
Cleric: "Sounds good. I roll a 18 on my Strength check."
GM (thought bubble): If you just hit the monster, it will die.
GM: "Okay, the Strength check succeeds. But the monster makes its Reflex save."
Cleric: "Damn this thing's tough. Okay, I am going to cast Command on it to try and get it to drop its weapon."
GM (thought bubble): Sigh.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
Of course, you occasionally get:
Cleric (who is only serious damage dealer in the group): "I am going to mount my horse so I can get into a better tactical position."
GM (me): "Okay, but that will provoke."
Cleric: "That's okay, I have a good AC."
GM (thought bubble): If you just hit the monster, it will die.
Cleric: "Okay, I rode around to the other side. You said it was standing on some rubble. Can I use my hammer to try to knock some of the rubble loose and make it fall."
GM: "Sure, but you will need to make a Strength check and it will get a Reflex save."
Cleric: "Sounds good. I roll a 18 on my Strength check."
GM (thought bubble): If you just hit the monster, it will die.
GM: "Okay, the Strength check succeeds. But the monster makes its Reflex save."
Cleric: "Damn this thing's tough. Okay, I am going to cast Command on it to try and get it to drop its weapon."
GM (thought bubble): Sigh.For situations like this I try to interject something like a really low DC perception check to tell them that the thing looks horribly wounded and is teetering on its last legs.
Or go for sort of a narrative humor to it. They cast command, the thing drops its weapon, and rule that when it does so, it drops the mace on its foot, does two hit points of damage to its big toe, and it goes negative.
Well, now that would just be discouraging creative thinking, now wouldn't it? ;-)
|
|
The GM can't accept ALL solutions.Why the heck not? Do we want to make memorable games, or do we want our games to be the same string of full-attacks and scripted skill checks as the last 17 sessions?
Because some players are either totally off the wall or push things way too hard.
Its not about keeping things challenging. Its about keeping things fair.
I was typing up some examples and I realized that they arguably fall into the second category (Pathfinder has rules).
Pathfinder has a quite flexible skill question. Many of the creative solutions players come up with can be best handled by applying a skill (the CRB even recommends this). So, my answer to a great many creative solutions is to ask the player what skill he thinks appropriate and then make my best determination as to skill and DC, inform the player, and if they still wish to proceed have the player roll the dice.
So, I've let characters swing from chandeliers into the bad guy to knock him prone. Acrobatic check at a minus instead of a CMB check. I'm not going to let that auto succeed no matter how "cool" it is.
With that caveat, I'll give a couple of examples I've rejected:
"A player wanted their cat familiar to talk to the lion and convince it to turn on its owner. Without their cat having speak to animals of its own kind"
"Above chandelier example but character had no acrobatics skill and was wearing heavy armor".
Examples of things I've allowed without a roll :
"I throw food at the swarm and back away"
"I let the swarm cover me and then smash the alchemists fire on myself so we BOTH take the D6 damage"
"Players hid the McGuffin well enough that the bad guys wouldn't have found it, thereby avoiding the final battle. I gave the players the choice of auto succeeding and ending the scenario without the battle or my arbitrarily screwing them over and having the battle occur (with full knowledge that if the battle occurred it was for real)"
My wife once solo'd a potentially very difficult encounter because she was playing an archer and she figured out that the statue only animated if you were within 30 feet of it.
Actually, I allowed exactly that solution when I GMed that scenario (assuming we're thinking of the same one).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The GM can't accept ALL solutions.Why the heck not? Do we want to make memorable games, or do we want our games to be the same string of full-attacks and scripted skill checks as the last 17 sessions?[example snipped]
I'm not going to let that auto succeed no matter how "cool" it is.
There's a lot of room between "can't accept all solutions" (which is what I was responding to) and "auto succeed". You know, like letting them sub in Acrobatics for CMB on a chandelier-trip. ;)
With that caveat, I'll give a couple of examples I've rejected:
"A player wanted their cat familiar to talk to the lion and convince it to turn on its owner. Without their cat having speak to animals of its own kind"
I understand your reaction to this one, but think about it for a moment: yeah, the cat can't talk (or otherwise communicate with the precision of speech), but does that mean it can't try to communicate? I mean, you could buy a lion and try to get it to do something with a DC 25 Handle Animal check as a full-round action despite never having met it before and it not being trained for whatever you're trying to get it to do. Why not allow something similar here?
Like, maybe with a minute or more of interaction, by using the familiar as the "face", you can improve the lion's attitude per the Diplomacy rules (perhaps with a penalty if the familiar doesn't have Speak With Master yet), and then if that succeeds, allow either a Diplomacy (request) or Handle Animal (push) to get the lion to do something.
If it even came close to working, people would be telling their friends about that awesome time they played at pauljathome's table and talked down a lion. These are the things people remember forever.
"Above chandelier example but character had no acrobatics skill and was wearing heavy armor".
What, no love for wrecking balls? ;)
I mean, if he can't reach the chandelier, then clearly he'd need to jump with Acrobatics or find some way to bring the chandelier to him (whip?). Once he's got it, though, why does holding onto something have to be reserved for dextrous swashbuckly types? If Armor McTincan can get his hands onto a chandelier while it's not hanging straight down, I say, bombs away! :DExamples of things I've allowed without a roll :
"I throw food at the swarm and back away"
Yes!
"I let the swarm cover me and then smash the alchemists fire on myself so we BOTH take the D6 damage"
YES!
"Players hid the McGuffin well enough that the bad guys wouldn't have found it, thereby avoiding the final battle.
...I didn't really follow that one, but rock on!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
"Players hid the McGuffin well enough that the bad guys wouldn't have found it, thereby avoiding the final battle....I didn't really follow that one, but rock on!
I'll lay odds he's talking about:
If the bad guys never actually clue that the PCs have the Braid of 100 Masters in one of the earlier encounters then the final encounter never occurs (short of GM caveat).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Best use of profession: Hairdresser ever.
"Players hid the McGuffin well enough that the bad guys wouldn't have found it, thereby avoiding the final battle....I didn't really follow that one, but rock on!
I'll lay odds he's talking about:
** spoiler omitted **
*chuckle*
Or a Pathfinder Pouch.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Players hid the McGuffin well enough that the bad guys wouldn't have found it, thereby avoiding the final battle....I didn't really follow that one, but rock on!
I'll lay odds he's talking about:
** spoiler omitted **
Can't remember whether I've played that one. I know I've played at least one part of the series, but I don't remember anything like that. Still, creating a situation where you can completely bypass/negate an entire encounter—as long as the other players are fine with it—is one of my favorite things to see my players do when I'm GMing, so I give this story a thumbs-up. :)
|
|
There's a lot of room between "can't accept all solutions" (which is what I was responding to) and "auto succeed". You know, like letting them sub in Acrobatics for CMB on a chandelier-trip. ;)
I had misinterpreted you as saying that you'd accept almost all creative solutions. It sounds like our positions are actually quite close.
As to why the penalty, the numbers are on different scales. Acrobatics will generally be significantly higher than CMB. I though I was giving the player enough of an advantage for creativity in basically allowing him to get through the entire room so I didn't also want to make it easy. It also felt difficult.
In my experience, players are happy with highish DCs for difficult things. They feel more excited when they succeed, and they LOVE it when their character blows through the difficult DC because they were optimized that way.
I understand your reaction to this one, but think about it for a moment: yeah, the cat can't talk
...Like, maybe with a minute or more of interaction, by using the familiar as the "face", you can improve the lion's attitude per the Diplomacy rules (perhaps with a penalty if the familiar doesn't have Speak With Master yet), and then if that succeeds, allow either a Diplomacy (request) or Handle Animal (push) to get the lion to do something.
If it had been presented to me in those terms I might well have allowed it. But I wasn't going to let the cat talk :-)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
tHe end fight happens regardless of how you handled things earlier, it is scenario fiat, not gm
True. I guess it is more accurate to state it is GM fiat to not have the encounter occur but since we are talking about GMs rewarding creative thinking, then this is appropriate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to the original posted question, for me, I'm really excited to enjoy more of the exploration angle of PFS. I really dig getting to experience all the various lands and aspects of Golarion and so with the move away from a tight link to the APs I'm really looking forward to more adventures in exotic locales.
|
|
In answer to the original posted question, for me, I'm really excited to enjoy more of the exploration angle of PFS. I really dig getting to experience all the various lands and aspects of Golarion and so with the move away from a tight link to the APs I'm really looking forward to more adventures in exotic locales.
See foreign places, explore exotic locals, meet the locals.. and kill them for their stuff.
|
|
When a player encounters a situation in a scenario, and has an idea for some kind of fun, nontraditional approach that could tackle the obstacle in a unique way, it seems the GM's response is often to assign an absurdly high action/time cost, require 2-3 d20 rolls, and have the result be negligible (and then smile to themselves about how accommodating they are to creative solutions).
Core: I guess next time I'll just full-attack/cast an unambiguous save-or-suck. Again.
Standard: I bet I can find some obscure magic item or something that's specifically designed to enable this, so maybe I can do fun things NEXT time.
I have to agree with where I think this is headed. I'd love to see all the skills have expanded uses. I think 3.5 did something like this with some of its splat books.
It's far too often the case that the best solution is to simply kill the NPC outright. Disarming, sundering, bullrush, repositioning, overrun...I've yet to see a situation where any of those was clearly the superior option. Or maybe I've seen it be true once for Disarm.
Then again, I played it with my trip/disarm build, and the encounter ended quickly, with no damage to either side...
|
|
"Creative Solution" is interpreted differently by different people. Your example seemed to miss the point of what I meant by "exploiting plot holes" rather than "creative solutions."
I dunno, I think it's totally cool to walk around things as long as there's at least a decent hint that it's possible. I know there was one adventure I played semi-recently, with an experienced GM, where we came across an impossibly dangerous-looking lake in the middle of a bog the adventure clearly wanted you to cross.
But see, it was in the middle of a bog, and the bog wrapped around it in every direction a fair ways. So... why not just go around it? This adventure had no time limit, there was no hint that the Seven Wonders of the Underswamp World lay at the bottom of the lake, and half the party would drown if they fell out of a boat. I wouldn't do it in real life, so why would I do it in this game just because the author thought I should?
So, screw it, we said "We go around." The GM looked at us for a second, scratched his head, then shrugged and said "Alright, it takes you an extra hour or so to navigate around the lake. If you have any long-duration buffs, mark them off accordingly. You also recover a cache of buried treasure in the swamp, as this was supposed to be found at the bottom of that lake but you had no in-game reason to search it." Paraphrasing, but essentially the result.
The time saved navigating that annoying chasm or lake or such could be better spent on the optional encounter, or preventing a 5-hour session at high levels, or what have you.