Gm hands out solo experience in group of six players


Advice

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brian... don't you think you might be better off just playing 2nd edition with him than trying to play Pathfinder when his head is still in 2E?


Bran Towerfall wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Bran Towerfall wrote:

we want the game to run faster and smoother. we take no joy in telling the gm that the ogre can't just pick up the dwarf and start running out of combat with him. "but the ogre is bigger than the dwarf?!?"

yes true..but you have to follow the grapple rules

"i hate the $%$# grapple rules, it was so much easier in 2nd edition"

Have you ever tried GMing Bran?

It seems like you're suited for it. At the very least, you recognize some of the biggest issues GMs can have, and that's half the battle.

Offer to give your GM a break and handle the next game. See what happens.

i was running the game two games ago. it went real well and when it was finished, the current gm asked if he could run his homebrew from 2nd edition d&d. he's not a fan of the paizo adventure paths/modules. we agreed with the caveat that conversions would be put thru the paizo conversion system. it's been a sloppy no sheriff in town nightmare.

... Ah.

Yeah, I'd just pick up the GM reigns in that case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking maybe the OP should find a new group, whether the GM is really this bad or not, for both the OP's and the GM's sanity, and possibly the group's, too.

I'm not getting the impression this mix of personalities is working out.

In any event, the Great Rules Lawyer Shoe-Tying Debate is the best thing I've read in a long, long time - thank you for that, guys :)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like this GM really misses his 2nd ed DnD game and wants to relive those days. Unfortunately the group uses pathfinder rules, and he has to agree to that while secretly longing for the "good ole days". Not a pretty combination...

Either get the group to agree to step outside this 2nd ed homebrew world into an AP or the like, or I agree, its time to find a new game. If he is and old school player wanting to roll back the years, he is probably not going to be open to you asking him to change his ways... just saying..


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or play 2E, there's really nothing wrong with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Or play 2E, there's really nothing wrong with that.

There is if the rest of the group doesn't want to play 2E, which seems to be the case.

Sovereign Court

Bran

You sound like you're stuck in a game that my wife and I were stuck in a couple years ago. GM claims that we can play Pathfinder, but really wants to play 2nd Ed and every session is a hodgepodge of whatever the GM makes up today is going to be the rule.

Trust me, he's never going to change and he's never going to learn Pathfinder rules. You'll either have to live with his quasi-2nd ed Pathfinder hybrid or find another game.

I suggest the later.


kestral287 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Or play 2E, there's really nothing wrong with that.
There is if the rest of the group doesn't want to play 2E, which seems to be the case.

As far as I'm aware, Pathfinder seems to have been the default answer for whatever reason.

We don't have the whole story, maybe the group does specifically want to play Pathfinder. All we know [unless I missed a post somewhere] is that Brian was GMing PF, then the old timer took over and PF clearly isn't his zone.

Verdant Wheel

The Pale King wrote:
I don't give XP at all. Players level up when I deem appropriate. Usually all at the same time, and if not all at the same time within the same session.

What is the reasoning for this (the "within session" part)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
The Pale King wrote:
I don't give XP at all. Players level up when I deem appropriate. Usually all at the same time, and if not all at the same time within the same session.
What is the reasoning for this (the "within session" part)?

I could envision it being used thematically.

The Balor has the Cleric on the ropes, he's low on options, all hope is lost... and then he reaches level 17. Cue Miracle.

Admittedly it'd require players to be quick on putting out a level up or just fully integrating the new level after the session, but that could be really cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
rainzax wrote:
The Pale King wrote:
I don't give XP at all. Players level up when I deem appropriate. Usually all at the same time, and if not all at the same time within the same session.
What is the reasoning for this (the "within session" part)?

I could envision it being used thematically.

The Balor has the Cleric on the ropes, he's low on options, all hope is lost... and then he reaches level 17. Cue Miracle.

Admittedly it'd require players to be quick on putting out a level up or just fully integrating the new level after the session, but that could be really cool.

Or letting players know when they're 'close' to leveling and having them bring their next level Character Sheet with them to each game thereafter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bran Towerfall wrote:

we want the game to run faster and smoother. we take no joy in telling the gm that the ogre can't just pick up the dwarf and start running out of combat with him. "but the ogre is bigger than the dwarf?!?"

yes true..but you have to follow the grapple rules

"i hate the $%$# grapple rules, it was so much easier in 2nd edition"

Almost this same scenario just happened to me last game session. My GM had a huge-sized ape successfully grapple my half-orc fighter, then proceed to pick him up, use my character as a bludgeoning weapon, and try to walk away with me in his grip next turn (at full move, not taking the grapple rules into account whatsoever.)

My buddy is GMing, and he's got a lot of heart but he mixes up rules all the time with what he "remembers from 3rd edition", even when the rule in question never existed in 3e.

It is very frustrating when you're straddling the line between not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings, and wanting the game to be played by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zedth wrote:
Bran Towerfall wrote:

we want the game to run faster and smoother. we take no joy in telling the gm that the ogre can't just pick up the dwarf and start running out of combat with him. "but the ogre is bigger than the dwarf?!?"

yes true..but you have to follow the grapple rules

"i hate the $%$# grapple rules, it was so much easier in 2nd edition"

Almost this same scenario just happened to me last game session. My GM had a huge-sized ape successfully grapple my half-orc fighter, then proceed to pick him up, use my character as a bludgeoning weapon, and try to walk away with me in his grip next turn (at full move, not taking the grapple rules into account whatsoever.)

My buddy is GMing, and he's got a lot of heart but he mixes up rules all the time with what he "remembers from 3rd edition", even when the rule in question never existed in 3e.

It is very frustrating when you're straddling the line between not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings, and wanting the game to be played by the rules.

I tend to go with believability over strict adherence to the rules. If the creature's big enough to wield you as a weapon, chances are it's not going to be any more hampered in it's movement than a fighter with a Greatsword. Having said that, consistency is the main thing. If the creature can get away with bending(/breaking) the rules in this way, the characters should be able to as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bran Towerfall wrote:

mr charisma...ty for post

...

core
core
core...for god's sake the damn core rulebook

Yeah, honestly, it mostly sounds like he's not a very good GM. One thing I didn't put in that last post is that he's only one of the players at the table. If everyone's unhappy, take a vote. Get someone else to take over as GM.

The main points I was trying to make in that long post were:
1. Use Diplomacy, not Intimidate.
and
2. Come up with solutions, not just problems.

I feel like you're basically doing all the right things already, but maybe it's time to take a lesson from your characters: When your Diplomacy check doesn't meet the required DC, it's usually time to take someone out (of their role as GM).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what it is about a certain demographic of roleplayers that makes them think this dynamic is completely thrown out the window as soon as we're talking about an RPG GM.

Yeah I was really tired and ramble-y.

What I was trying to say with that post was: "Use Diplomacy, not Intimidate".
I don't really think Bran is in the wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
I tend to go with believability over strict adherence to the rules. If the creature's big enough to wield you as a weapon, chances are it's not going to be any more hampered in it's movement than a fighter with a Greatsword. Having said that, consistency is the main thing. If the creature can get away with bending(/breaking) the rules in this way, the characters should be able to as well.

That's what the Grab ability is for-- there's a reason it's so common.

However, just because a fighter is bigger than a greatsword doesn't mean that it would be easy for him to use that greatsword if it's actively struggling against him. Grab reflects that with its penalties.


Zedth wrote:
Bran Towerfall wrote:

we want the game to run faster and smoother. we take no joy in telling the gm that the ogre can't just pick up the dwarf and start running out of combat with him. "but the ogre is bigger than the dwarf?!?"

yes true..but you have to follow the grapple rules

"i hate the $%$# grapple rules, it was so much easier in 2nd edition"

Almost this same scenario just happened to me last game session. My GM had a huge-sized ape successfully grapple my half-orc fighter, then proceed to pick him up, use my character as a bludgeoning weapon, and try to walk away with me in his grip next turn (at full move, not taking the grapple rules into account whatsoever.)

My buddy is GMing, and he's got a lot of heart but he mixes up rules all the time with what he "remembers from 3rd edition", even when the rule in question never existed in 3e.

It is very frustrating when you're straddling the line between not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings, and wanting the game to be played by the rules.

yeah, you got it right...

feelings are always hurt and it takes the whole week before the next session to get everybody back down to earth and then prepare for another dramatic flip-out. the gm claims that his homebrew is not really rules dependent. we feel that the rules are the only thing keeping our characters from being unnecessarily killed. he refers to two of us as "rules lawyers" because we site fundamental core book rules. his original story he's running is a long winded exercise in railroading the party(rules or not) into pre-planned scenarios that two other groups have run thru over 20 years ago. when we try,(inside the rules system) something clever or unorthodox, things get crazy. since the party is not terribly interested in the storyline, they spend the whole session trying to further their character's advancement in levels, experience, and wealth. no npcs or country or ideals seem worth fighting for so the group has evolved into a group of murdering hobos with no allegiances or agendas outside their personal goals.


Let's put it simply. The cleric succeeded after a scouting check to know what was going on. So it wasn't a solo adventure.

The monk and cleric succeeded because the group held them with rope to be safe.

So ask yourself 2 questions. One. If the group had dropped the rope and walked away, would that have changed the fight? Of course. So the group clearly was helping, therefore deserve xp. And two. If you're in a fight and keep rolling 4, and so does everyone else except say... the magus who rolls 7 natural 20's, does he deserve all the experience? Of course not. Team efforts mean team experience. The group didn't contribute to damage? So what. They kept him from being damaged. That's the point.


Honestly, putting different characters at different levels of XP is just a bad idea all around in Pathfinder. Levels mean too much in this game to create disparity; just ask a PFS player what it's like to be a level 7 playing up in a 7-11 scenario...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Honestly, putting different characters at different levels of XP is just a bad idea all around in Pathfinder. Levels mean too much in this game to create disparity; just ask a PFS player what it's like to be a level 7 playing up in a 7-11 scenario...

Considering how many 7th level players tried to get into a 10-11 table so they could have higher reward and loot access in the bad old days... that's not a great example. Even in the new days, they still get more gold for playing out of tier.


Okay, try asking a PFS player that's more concerned with doing things in the session than the reward afterwards what it's like to be a level 7 playing up in a 7-11 scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Or play 2E, there's really nothing wrong with that.
Bran Towerfall wrote:

we want the game to run faster and smoother. we take no joy in telling the gm that the ogre can't just pick up the dwarf and start running out of combat with him. "but the ogre is bigger than the dwarf?!?"

yes true..but you have to follow the grapple rules

"i hate the $%$# grapple rules, it was so much easier in 2nd edition"

*Prepares to get Dice thrown at him...*

Or, dare I say it: perhaps 4E is a better option? No, seriously: I've never had a chance to play 4E, but I'm told it's a far more "cinematic" rule set than earlier editions, and (presumably) lends itself well to the sort of thing the DM is apparently trying to do.

Whatever the case, compromise sounds like a challenge for this group, so it sounds like this group is going to have to weigh the various risks and rewards to their options, and figure out which option requires the least amount of compromise to work.

Maybe trying a different game will do it.

Maybe just gritting their teeth until the current GM is finished and then putting a different GM in charge will do it.

Maybe an intervention is needed to sort the GM and/or one or more players out and get them all on the same page.

Maybe the solution requiring the least amount of compromise would be for everyone to break the group up peacefully, and move on to other groups.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bran Towerfall wrote:
...feelings are always hurt and it takes the whole week before the next session to get everybody back down to earth and then prepare for another dramatic flip-out. The gm claims that his homebrew is not really rules dependent. We feel that the rules are the only thing keeping our characters from being unnecessarily killed. He refers to two of us as "rules lawyers" because we site fundamental core book rules. His original story he's running is a long winded exercise in railroading the party(rules or not) into pre-planned scenarios that two other groups have run thru over 20 years ago. When we try,(inside the rules system) something clever or unorthodox, things get crazy. Since the party is not terribly interested in the storyline, they spend the whole session trying to further their character's advancement in levels, experience, and wealth. No npcs or country or ideals seem worth fighting for so the group has evolved into a group of...

Well, the long thread did some good. Rather than deal with the proximate problem you've admitted the underlying trouble. The question is no longer, "Should we kick up a fuss about PCs receiving individual XP awards?" The question is "Should I stay and watch the slow horrible collapse, or should I withdraw from the table?"

You should withdraw. Doing as little damage to your friendships as possible, of course, but don't let yourself get talked into sitting at this table again.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem I see now is that unlike an AP or module, a homebrew has no clear end. If you don't have a conversation with your current GM, he might just be in that role for a looong time, especially if hes walking down memory lane...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Okay, try asking a PFS player that's more concerned with doing things in the session than the reward afterwards what it's like to be a level 7 playing up in a 7-11 scenario.

For many of them... The answer is Cool! I get a bit more gold and access to the higher tier stuff when I can afford it! And yes, it's dangerous enough that I might think twice. these days. The thing is you're mistaken if those preferences always represent different players.

Like I said, there are those who WANT to play up for the above reasons, but they are a lesser number than they used to be.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Okay, try asking a PFS player that's more concerned with doing things in the session than the reward afterwards what it's like to be a level 7 playing up in a 7-11 scenario.

For many of them... The answer is Cool! I get a bit more gold and access to the higher tier stuff when I can afford it! And yes, it's dangerous enough that I might think twice. these days. The thing is you're mistaken if those preferences always represent different players.

Like I said, there are those who WANT to play up for the above reasons, but they are a lesser number than they used to be.

The typical reaction when I go to PFS and something like this happens is something to the effect of: "Crap, we're all going to die."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Okay, try asking a PFS player that's more concerned with doing things in the session than the reward afterwards what it's like to be a level 7 playing up in a 7-11 scenario.

For many of them... The answer is Cool! I get a bit more gold and access to the higher tier stuff when I can afford it! And yes, it's dangerous enough that I might think twice. these days. The thing is you're mistaken if those preferences always represent different players.

Like I said, there are those who WANT to play up for the above reasons, but they are a lesser number than they used to be.

The typical reaction when I go to PFS and something like this happens is something to the effect of: "Crap, we're all going to die."

PFS is one of those ultimate expressions of Your Mileage May Vary. I myself, keep generating new characters so that I can maintain a stable of characters suitable for all tiers. It's why I've got 16 of them, and would probably have two dozen if I played more often.

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Gm hands out solo experience in group of six players All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.