How brutal should the GM be?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I would like to start off by saying I like tough games, I hate when the Gm coddles; but with with the great power being GM provides, there has to be a bit of responsibility. Consider the following situation: I was in a solo campaign playing a level 4 necromancer, with no items save a chain shirt, and some rations. I was not given any items or gold the two sessions I played.

At the start of the second session I was following a character that was supposed to be my mother down an ally. Suddenly she cast hold person on me, while a team of archers use a readied action to fill me full of arrows. Each shot twice and was able to hit me rather easily; downing me after the first volley. The surprise round over, my "mom" pulls out a dagger and slits my throat. To me this seemed....excessive.

He acted to be pretty surprised I died so quickly and offered me to come back "through sheer force of will" but I had died "fairly" and I said I would just reroll.

I am sorry this has been so long, but in short. Should the GM ever show restraint? Or do you think they should go full out and use everything available to them? Are intelligent tactics, like charming a person(that is why I was told all my attempts at sensing motive and perception failed), leading them into an ambush of 10 readied archers, and making them helpless a good way to go about crafting encounters?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Were there any warning signs something was amiss? Did the GM think: "Oh, he'll likely sense that this is not his mom and take actions"?

GM's shouldn't execute their players. Challenge them, yes. Set them up to be completely helpless and over matched? No.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GMs should be challenging, not brutal.

Charm Person should not negate Sense Motive and should definitely not negate Perception - even if you think the NPC is your beloved mother you might notice she seems distracted or distant (perhaps suspecting that she's the mind-controlled one), and you'd definitely be able to spot archers.

That entire scenario looks like a save-or-die to me so I don't know why the GM was surprised by the outcome.

If the GM wants to kill characters, the GM can kill characters. That's not the point of the game.

Silver Crusade

Uh, if the GM wants to win then "rocks fall. Everybody dies". Sounds like that was essentially what happened (assuming your account is basically accurate).

But the level of brutality is very much up to the participants (GM AND players). Different groups differ radically on what level they want.

If the group doesn't come to some agreement the group disbands.

Shadow Lodge

I'm trying to picture the situation and how the GM could possibly show "surprise".

The surprise round is a bunch of archers shooting you, hitting you, and dropping you, then round 1, and the GM decides the woman's next move will be to move up and attack, while you're down.

Then the GM is surprised you died. What the?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A GM isn't required to be brutal. Some GMs might prepare encounters that pose little risk on the party. These games can still be fun.

A GM isn't required to be fair. Some GMs might liberally fudge dice rolls. These games can still be fun.

But a GM should strive to make the game fun for everyone involved. From what I read from the OP, if I was GM, I would try to be brutal and fair, because it seems like that is what constitutes fun for the OP. Possibly the OP's GM overdid it.

To answer the thread title: As brutal as the GM thinks would maximize fun.


Avatar-1 wrote:

I'm trying to picture the situation and how the GM could possibly show "surprise".

The surprise round is a bunch of archers shooting you, hitting you, and dropping you, then round 1, and the GM decides the woman's next move will be to move up and attack, while you're down.

Then the GM is surprised you died. What the?

When I last played with him(couple of years ago) I was big into min maxing and being a bit of a powergamer. As the years passed though I have started to play more in the "make a fun character as strong as they can be without sacrificing flavor" category. He kept asking if I had anything to do, like he totally expected me to pull out some crazy character ability to save myself.

Also I have to at least entertain that he didn't like my character and just wanted it dead. Though the way he was acting afterwards(offering to just bring me to life) makes that seem unlikely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always had the mindset that the story comes first, which is why I like rolling behind a screen. If the players are just rolling really badly and doing badly through no fault of their own, I don't capitalize on that as it simply frustrates the players even more. That is when my die tends to roll 'low'. The exception to this is of course in very climactic moments such as the end to a story arc, a confrontation with the BBEG or something very dramatic. This is to preserve the fact that the PCs are heroes who should not be pub stomped by any old group of goblins... unless they seem to ask for it. In which case, if I roll high, its fair game. (I define 'asking for it' as essentially ignoring the GM's Are you SURE you want to do that?)

I never fudge to give myself an advantage though. Only the players. The story comes first, and by the gods, I will move heaven and earth to make it fun for the players.

Unless of course I have a discussion with my players and they all really WANT a brutal game. Then I go nuts and roll in the open.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This really can't be answered without context, and also one person's brutal is another's cakewalk.

I had a GM that was fair, yet allowed PCs enough rope to hang themselves. In other words, if PCs weren't careful, expect a brutal ambush with little to no way out. Why? Because he made antagonist NPCs that acted with realistic intelligence and motivations, rather than plot-blindness.


The entire point of playing RPGs together is for everyone to have fun. The game should be enough of a challenge that death is a possibility, not a certainty. It's possible that the DM didn't think it through and realize how heavy-handed the setup was, but that happens to everyone. I once had a DM who wanted an opponent to capture my ultimate magus in 3.5. So he used Cloudkill. Three times. Yeah, it was that bad. Once he realized that wasn't exactly a nonlethal spell he did a touch of backpedaling to keep my character alive. No hard feelings when he made a mistake like that, and we played out a fun campaign. Good times.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like he just misjudged the encounter.

Readied action shouldn't slow two shots.

Charm doesn't prevent perception from working against seeing the ambush.

Momst importantly though, it doesn't sound like he followed the guidelines for encounter design. This is one character, not four. Sounds like he set up an encounter for a standard party rather than just one character.

Other than that, DM can be as brutal as his players are happy with. If he gets too rough, they'll leave his game, too soft may end up the same. It's a group game, so set up some group expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!

er...

I mean, uh...

I'm of the mindset that DMs should fairly try to kill the party.

FAIRLY.

Which doesn't mean they succeed every session, or even every OTHER session. Just that they should make a damn concerted effort of it.

That being said, the level of ludicrous gibs that are spewn about should basically be decided upon by everyone at the table.

Some groups like the traditional "meat grinder" style of play where your characters can die left and right, Critical Hit tables are basically NOTHING but limbs and organs being lopped off left and right, and everyone brings 6 different characters to the table knowing full well that characters 1-3 are pretty much there purely for canon fodder.

Some groups will hate it if a character dies.

A good litmus test is to ask the party if they'd like to play Tomb Of Horrors set in the Dark Sun universe.

If the table rises from their... *ahem*... "excitement", then you know you've got players who think I Wanna Be The Guy is the greatest game ever devised.

If they immediately start crying and/or if any of them passes, foaming at the mouth following a PTSD episode, then you've got players who love their characters and don't want to see them melted.

---

In your case, however, the DM probably seriously overestimated your character (as you said, probably expecting minmaxing nonsense), and was honestly amazed that your character went squish.

It's usually a good idea for the whole group to talk about what the campaign is going to be, and what their characters will be, in order for the DM to get an idea how much lethality he should use.

Conversely, the DM can run a level of lethality by the party and see if it's fine; then the party builds characters around that lethality and the DM adjusts things as they go along to hit a "happy medium."


This reminded me of when Boromir dies in DM of the ring.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=796


Moving purely from the description of the encounter you described... whomever this GM was, they stunk. I don't just mean they were bad, but they were truly horrible. You could have been playing a 4th level Barbarian - if you're solo adventuring and you have Hold Person cast on you, you could be the victim of a coup de grace. The ONLY reason a GM would have of using this tactic would be to capture the character for a plot point.

Now, I'm uncertain if the individual was supposed to be the mother of your character or if they really were... but I can say that you would have had to have had some pretty horrible family problems if they felt that even under a Charm Person spell that it was okay to put you in a position where it was possible for you to be killed. Whether it broke the Charm Person or not, the spell does not command 100% mindless loyalty. It also does not erase cues of deceptiveness that would have been noticed by Sense Motive.

Plus... let's be honest. A 4th level Specialist Wizard Necromancer on a solo adventure? While they do know a bit of magic, when it comes to physical confrontations this is a combination that's barely above a milk maid. Actually, the milk maid might have actually developed some muscles in her forearms for grip strength, so I'd give her the edge in a fight. If your GM couldn't adapt his gaming style to the appropriate challenge, they have no right to complain if you don't want to play with them.

To see the GM as a rival makes about as much sense as trying to play a competitive sport where your opponent is the referee. Like the ref, they should keep the play fair and keep the game moving. This person strikes me as someone you probably doesn't even know the rules well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM I don't have a problem with this level of brutality, as long as you failed several saves, or made several mistakes that resulted in your death.

For example, (Buldur's Gate, no cannon spoilers):
I had a party this skipped exploring areas where I told them were suspicious several times. This party failed sense motive checks habitually. They acted out of assumptions based on NPC personality, and ignored warning signs. They even put innocent lives in harms way at a protest they knew had been a bloodbath in the past.

As a result I allowed a school full of the town's impoverished youth to be blown up by Duke Silvershield. Their jaws dropped when it happened, but they realized it was their fault.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Coltron yes it's excessively brutal, but you have learnt a hard lesson,

Always kill your character's mother before she gets to you first, or for that matter you are better off killing every member of your character's family.

“I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”


Coltron wrote:

I would like to start off by saying I like tough games, I hate when the Gm coddles; but with with the great power being GM provides, there has to be a bit of responsibility. Consider the following situation: I was in a solo campaign playing a level 4 necromancer, with no items save a chain shirt, and some rations. I was not given any items or gold the two sessions I played.

At the start of the second session I was following a character that was supposed to be my mother down an ally. Suddenly she cast hold person on me, while a team of archers use a readied action to fill me full of arrows. Each shot twice and was able to hit me rather easily; downing me after the first volley. The surprise round over, my "mom" pulls out a dagger and slits my throat. To me this seemed....excessive.

He acted to be pretty surprised I died so quickly and offered me to come back "through sheer force of will" but I had died "fairly" and I said I would just reroll.

I am sorry this has been so long, but in short. Should the GM ever show restraint? Or do you think they should go full out and use everything available to them? Are intelligent tactics, like charming a person(that is why I was told all my attempts at sensing motive and perception failed), leading them into an ambush of 10 readied archers, and making them helpless a good way to go about crafting encounters?

In your case I think the GM is not good at building encounters.

To answer the general question, there is not really a perfect answer. The GM and the group should be on the same page when it comes to difficulty level, and what is or is not off limits.

edit: I see he was expecting you to get out of it. If you are now playing fun characters you might need to let him know, but I still dont know what he expected from a commoner with no gear.


Why did your necromancer have a chain shirt?


I'm currently GMing a ROTRL campaign in which the party is level 2, has just received a letter regarding an early PC kidnapping, and two of them are insisting on going off to hunt the Sandpoint Devil, which is a CR 8 encounter with save-or-die abilities.

They really want to go hunt this creature, but I don't want to drop a TPK on them, in their 4th session.

There's a level of mystery and intensity with creatures like the Sandpoint Devil, and I won't nerf him, out of principle.

What should I do here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even for a 'Killer GM' this was a malarky encounter. Character deaths earned fair and square are one thing ... this ... this was ... no points.


Soilent wrote:

I'm currently GMing a ROTRL campaign in which the party is level 2, has just received a letter regarding an early PC kidnapping, and two of them are insisting on going off to hunt the Sandpoint Devil, which is a CR 8 encounter with save-or-die abilities.

They really want to go hunt this creature, but I don't want to drop a TPK on them, in their 4th session.

There's a level of mystery and intensity with creatures like the Sandpoint Devil, and I won't nerf him, out of principle.

What should I do here?

Breadcrumbs until they're accessing 3rd level spells (5th or 6th level). ;)


Cap. Darling wrote:
Why did your necromancer have a chain shirt?

Maybe he's a Cleric?


So I made a monk using the unchained rules....he instantly made a fiendish dire boar charge me....it did 73 damage to me. And then killed me when I was down. Does he just hate me?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's impossible for us to say whether the GM is incompetent, malicious, or just trying to train you to make the ultimate optimised character to overcome the deadliest challenges.

Providing a balanced challenge in Pathfinder is difficult. Providing a balanced challenge for a single-player campaign is practically impossible. An effect that gives a 30% chance of knocking out any given PC during a battle is no big problem for a group of adventurers, since usually at least half the group will resist and be able to fight back. The same effect inflicted upon a solo adventurer has a 30% chance of rendering him helpless and doomed - which means that within three of such attacks the campaign will most likely be ended.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well I was a fiendish boor with smite good( I am good) and was a huge creature that beat a preception check of 32 with its stealth check. I was then told the ground shook as it walk and it knocked down all trees in its way(I had to roll reflex to dodge the falling trees btw) I am really starting to think it was malicious. I talked to him about it afterwards and he just acted really awkward about it.

I might just have to stop playing with him.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Why did your necromancer have a chain shirt?
Maybe he's a Cleric?

Some one that is just a Necromancer is generally assumed to be a specialist wizard, at least around my gaming friends. But Lets hope you are rigth:)


Cap. Darling wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Why did your necromancer have a chain shirt?
Maybe he's a Cleric?
Some one that is just a Necromancer is generally assumed to be a specialist wizard, at least around my gaming friends. But Lets hope you are rigth:)

Yes an undead lord cleric


Coltron wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Why did your necromancer have a chain shirt?
Maybe he's a Cleric?
Some one that is just a Necromancer is generally assumed to be a specialist wizard, at least around my gaming friends. But Lets hope you are rigth:)
Yes an undead lord cleric

Good:)


Coltron wrote:

Well I was a fiendish boor with smite good( I am good) and was a huge creature that beat a preception check of 32 with its stealth check. I was then told the ground shook as it walk and it knocked down all trees in its way(I had to roll reflex to dodge the falling trees btw) I am really starting to think it was malicious. I talked to him about it afterwards and he just acted really awkward about it.

I might just have to stop playing with him.

Seems like that might be the right move. Once is an accident, twice is a trend.


Coltron wrote:

Well I was a fiendish boor with smite good( I am good) and was a huge creature that beat a preception check of 32 with its stealth check. I was then told the ground shook as it walk and it knocked down all trees in its way(I had to roll reflex to dodge the falling trees btw) I am really starting to think it was malicious. I talked to him about it afterwards and he just acted really awkward about it.

I might just have to stop playing with him.

Pehaps suggest to him that he can be the player next, it seems he is either sligthly incompetent and inexperienced or not worth playing with.

Sovereign Court

Yeah finding some other people to play with will probably be best. (Sounds like you are Solo adventuring (1 char and 1 GM?) Playing with more people is always more entertaining as well!

Have you tried your local PFS? or maybe a good Roll20. game? (To Find other players+New Games)


I am just going to go the other way with this. We are playing every day this week(nothing else to do really). I am going to have every new character be the following, hopefully he gets the message since talking to him doesn't work.

Dhamphir: -2 con
Sorc- d6, 3hp/lv (half is hs rule)
7 starting con

7hp @ lv5

Contrasting my last character:

Dwarf: +2 con
Uc monk: d10, 5hp/lv
Favored class 1hp/lv
18 starting con(not including racial)
Toughness 1hp/lv
Item: +2 con

60hp @lv 5(I was one shot by a charge atk hit on 30 to ac)


Even with a negative Con score, you should have more than 3HP at level 5 since you always get at least 1/level and max (adjusted for Con) at 1st.


born_of_fire wrote:
Even with a negative Con score, you should have more than 3HP at level 5 since you always get at least 1/level and max (adjusted for Con) at 1st.

I added one a level but I am fairly sure that while you get the full amount a lv one the con bonus still can subtract. If not I will as 3 more.


Coltron wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:

I'm trying to picture the situation and how the GM could possibly show "surprise".

The surprise round is a bunch of archers shooting you, hitting you, and dropping you, then round 1, and the GM decides the woman's next move will be to move up and attack, while you're down.

Then the GM is surprised you died. What the?

When I last played with him(couple of years ago) I was big into min maxing and being a bit of a powergamer. As the years passed though I have started to play more in the "make a fun character as strong as they can be without sacrificing flavor" category. He kept asking if I had anything to do, like he totally expected me to pull out some crazy character ability to save myself.

That right there indicates a pretty big failing on the part of the GM. Did he not take the time to examine your character sheet then familiarize himself with your class, archetypes, spells, and equipment prior to conducting the game?

I mean, there are so many combinations out there that no GM can reasonably be expected to know all of them, but the GM needs to have a strong understanding of every single one of his PC's abilities. A GM should never be "surprised" that a given attack was too much for one of his/her PCs. If he/she is, then that demonstrates a lack of understanding of those PCs.


There are all kinds of GMs because lets face it; GM's are people too. Sometimes we GM's fall prey to things like jealousy, frustration or revenge. If you've had an honest conversation with the GM and he's still 1-shotting your AC 30 dwarf monks, chances are the GM in question is just upset and lashing out.

Treat him like a toddler having a tantrum or being naughty.

If your GM won't listen to reason take yourself out of the situation, like taking the toddler's toys away. If said GM then goes off on you or tries to shift the blame, as calmly as you can simply remind them that you'd like to have a constructive dialogue. Ask them why they feel the need to kill your characters. Sure, he gave you the chance to come back in the OP, but he still killed the PC rather than capture, subdue or "leave for dead."

Try to get at the root of the problem. If the GM stonewalls you, complete the action of removing yourself and let this person know in no uncertain terms that you'll be back only when they've had the chance to cool off and are willing to deal with the issue.

In the meantime there are SO many more ways to get your gaming fix. Meetup groups, game stores, online requests for local gamers, play-by-post, or Roll20 are all options. There's also board games, video games, or even just simply cracking your own books and designing your own stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coltron wrote:
So I made a monk using the unchained rules....he instantly made a fiendish dire boar charge me....it did 73 damage to me. And then killed me when I was down. Does he just hate me?

It also sounds like the GM has no understanding of the CR system. A fiendish dire boar is a CR 5 encounter. That would be a moderately challenging fight for a full party of four level 4 characters, which the CR system is (ostensibly) balanced for.

It's pure murder for a single level 4 character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was totally unfair and pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coltron wrote:
At the start of the second session I was following a character that was supposed to be my mother down an ally. Suddenly she cast hold person on me, while a team of archers use a readied action to fill me full of arrows. Each shot twice and was able to hit me rather easily; downing me after the first volley. The surprise round over, my "mom" pulls out a dagger and slits my throat. To me this seemed... excessive.

NOT FAIR:

In this scenario, the DM is ignoring, glossing over, and outright breaking the game rules willy-nilly.
DM: So, you meet your mom, and she asks you to follow her down the alley.
You: Uh, OK!
DM: She casts a spell! Roll a Will save!
You: 6.
DM: You are paralyzed. A bunch of archers start shooting at you (rolls dice).

TOTALLY FAIR:
This scenario follows the game rules. It's tough, but fair.
DM: Roll Perception.
You: Uh, OK... 15.
DM (checks against DC 16 disguise): You notice your mom has changed her dress since that morning, but assume she spilled some cake batter on the other one -- she's always baking. Anyway, she asks you to follow her down the alley.
You: Maybe there's cake! I roll Sense Motive... 17.
DM (rolls Bluff and gets a 19): You have no idea what's down the alley, but she seems to genuinely want you to go down there.
You: Cool. I look for cake.
DM: Roll Perception.
You: 10.
DM (checks; archers get Stealth results of 13): You notice no cake. Meanwhile, your mom turns around and makes some weird gestures and loudly babbles a bunch of nonsense at you. Roll a Will save!
You: Crap, a 6.
DM: You are paralyzed! And you were so busy looking for cake you missed the archers up on the walls!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Serves you right for not being an orphan in the background. Remember guys, when planning a new character always make sure you have no close relatives. They only provide troubles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soilent wrote:

I'm currently GMing a ROTRL campaign in which the party is level 2, has just received a letter regarding an early PC kidnapping, and two of them are insisting on going off to hunt the Sandpoint Devil, which is a CR 8 encounter with save-or-die abilities.

They really want to go hunt this creature, but I don't want to drop a TPK on them, in their 4th session.

There's a level of mystery and intensity with creatures like the Sandpoint Devil, and I won't nerf him, out of principle.

What should I do here?

Let them. But, as others have suggested, when they actually succeed at finding him is totally up to you.

If they press on, "remind" them of the more important quest line re: Sandpoint and the goblin attack and what else is brewing.

Don't nerf him. And sometimes a PC death is a necessary reminder that death is a possibility for their characters. The devil doesn't need to TPK. It can knock off one and seriously injure the others before escaping. Encounters don't have to be: "go until one side or the other is dead!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Soilent wrote:

I'm currently GMing a ROTRL campaign in which the party is level 2, has just received a letter regarding an early PC kidnapping, and two of them are insisting on going off to hunt the Sandpoint Devil, which is a CR 8 encounter with save-or-die abilities.

They really want to go hunt this creature, but I don't want to drop a TPK on them, in their 4th session.

There's a level of mystery and intensity with creatures like the Sandpoint Devil, and I won't nerf him, out of principle.

What should I do here?

Let them. But, as others have suggested, when they actually succeed at finding him is totally up to you.

If they press on, "remind" them of the more important quest line re: Sandpoint and the goblin attack and what else is brewing.

Don't nerf him. And sometimes a PC death is a necessary reminder that death is a possibility for their characters. The devil doesn't need to TPK. It can knock off one and seriously injure the others before escaping. Encounters don't have to be: "go until one side or the other is dead!"

This is an excellent point. If they insist on hunting the Devil to the exclusion of all else, let them find him. Then, once the Devil has knocked one down/out, he scoops up the body and flies off for dinner. For added poetic justice or karmic interference, target the character that was most adamant about pursuing this fool's errand.

Or, if you want to try one more deterrent, have them run into a group of adventurers passing through Sandpoint. Make it obvious these adventurers are more powerful than the PC's party, but have recently come off the worse for wear against some beastie in the wilderness; have them sporting many wounds and burned equipment. Have the party talk to these adventurers who relate how the Sandpoint Devil ambushed them as they were traveling to Magnimar and almost killed them all before the adventurers managed to escape.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To quote a different game:

Human Occupied Landfill wrote:
If you want the campaign to last -- don't kill off the players. Yes, unless the drama dictates you should for the purpose of the story, it's best to let them keep kickin'. Let them develop into their characters -- torture them all you want, tease them with the scythe -- but if you're going to dice 'em, do it in a way that makes them want to spew epic poetry. (Or whatever). Remember -- f%#$ rules, the play's the thing.

The point of playing this, or most any, RPG is to tell the story of how this weird improbable group of characters succeeds.

The GM needs to kick out the crutches of characters, needs to put them in unusual situations, else the players have no real stories of how they overcame.

Yes, gear should get broken.
Yes, gear should get stolen.
Yes, monsters should steal fallen characters and escape.
Yes, monsters should sell fallen characters.

No, the GM should not grease you in the first round of combat whilst shrugging. They are doing it wrong.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Abrisene wrote:

To quote a different game:

Human Occupied Landfill wrote:
If you want the campaign to last -- don't kill off the players. Yes, unless the drama dictates you should for the purpose of the story, it's best to let them keep kickin'. Let them develop into their characters -- torture them all you want, tease them with the scythe -- but if you're going to dice 'em, do it in a way that makes them want to spew epic poetry. (Or whatever). Remember -- f%#$ rules, the play's the thing.

The point of playing this, or most any, RPG is to tell the story of how this weird improbable group of characters succeeds.

The GM needs to kick out the crutches of characters, needs to put them in unusual situations, else the players have no real stories of how they overcame.

Yes, gear should get broken.
Yes, gear should get stolen.
Yes, monsters should steal fallen characters and escape.
Yes, monsters should sell fallen characters.

No, the GM should not grease you in the first round of combat whilst shrugging. They are doing it wrong.

Incorrect. Pathfinder is a not a story at all, but a game. The game does tell a story but it in no way guarantees the player's success in that story. And sometimes the story the game tells is "The evil Wizard kills the brave band of heroes.


Anzyr wrote:
Abrisene wrote:

To quote a different game:

Human Occupied Landfill wrote:
If you want the campaign to last -- don't kill off the players. Yes, unless the drama dictates you should for the purpose of the story, it's best to let them keep kickin'. Let them develop into their characters -- torture them all you want, tease them with the scythe -- but if you're going to dice 'em, do it in a way that makes them want to spew epic poetry. (Or whatever). Remember -- f%#$ rules, the play's the thing.

The point of playing this, or most any, RPG is to tell the story of how this weird improbable group of characters succeeds.

The GM needs to kick out the crutches of characters, needs to put them in unusual situations, else the players have no real stories of how they overcame.

Yes, gear should get broken.
Yes, gear should get stolen.
Yes, monsters should steal fallen characters and escape.
Yes, monsters should sell fallen characters.

No, the GM should not grease you in the first round of combat whilst shrugging. They are doing it wrong.

Incorrect. Pathfinder is a not a story at all, but a game. The game does tell a story but it in no way guarantees the player's success in that story. And sometimes the story the game tells is "The evil Wizard kills the brave band of heroes.

But it is not just a game. It is a roleplaying game and therefore also a story. And the above described approch is a good one. IMOP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What in God's name are you doing Darling?!?!?

Sorry, but I've been wanting to do that for some time.


Cap. Darling wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Abrisene wrote:

To quote a different game:

Human Occupied Landfill wrote:
If you want the campaign to last -- don't kill off the players. Yes, unless the drama dictates you should for the purpose of the story, it's best to let them keep kickin'. Let them develop into their characters -- torture them all you want, tease them with the scythe -- but if you're going to dice 'em, do it in a way that makes them want to spew epic poetry. (Or whatever). Remember -- f%#$ rules, the play's the thing.

The point of playing this, or most any, RPG is to tell the story of how this weird improbable group of characters succeeds.

The GM needs to kick out the crutches of characters, needs to put them in unusual situations, else the players have no real stories of how they overcame.

Yes, gear should get broken.
Yes, gear should get stolen.
Yes, monsters should steal fallen characters and escape.
Yes, monsters should sell fallen characters.

No, the GM should not grease you in the first round of combat whilst shrugging. They are doing it wrong.

Incorrect. Pathfinder is a not a story at all, but a game. The game does tell a story but it in no way guarantees the players success in that story. And sometimes the story the game tells is "The evil Wizard kills the brave band of heroes.

But it is not just a game. It is a roleplaying game and therefore also a story. And the above described approch is a good one. IMOP.

I must disagree. If you want your player's to always succeed, then don't bother rolling the dice. Or even bother picking classes. They no longer matter because the end result is the same. Also, players hate this kind of game. "Oh I managed to survive even though I only 10 Hit Points left, because the Dragon did something really stupid and decided to walk up to and attack the Fighter instead." is no fun for anyway.


@anzyr he was talking about fallen characters so we Can safely assume he dont play with kids gloves. But the game should be stacked so the PCs Can come out a head. And if they make unforseen choices killing them for it is ending the game. Try rereading what he is saying and see if you actually disagree with him. You dont like him using the word succeeds but he is not saying that it should be a walk in the park, he is asking for setbacks and problems to overcome.


Anzyr wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Abrisene wrote:

To quote a different game:

Human Occupied Landfill wrote:
If you want the campaign to last -- don't kill off the players. Yes, unless the drama dictates you should for the purpose of the story, it's best to let them keep kickin'. Let them develop into their characters -- torture them all you want, tease them with the scythe -- but if you're going to dice 'em, do it in a way that makes them want to spew epic poetry. (Or whatever). Remember -- f%#$ rules, the play's the thing.

The point of playing this, or most any, RPG is to tell the story of how this weird improbable group of characters succeeds.

The GM needs to kick out the crutches of characters, needs to put them in unusual situations, else the players have no real stories of how they overcame.

Yes, gear should get broken.
Yes, gear should get stolen.
Yes, monsters should steal fallen characters and escape.
Yes, monsters should sell fallen characters.

No, the GM should not grease you in the first round of combat whilst shrugging. They are doing it wrong.

Incorrect. Pathfinder is a not a story at all, but a game. The game does tell a story but it in no way guarantees the players success in that story. And sometimes the story the game tells is "The evil Wizard kills the brave band of heroes.

But it is not just a game. It is a roleplaying game and therefore also a story. And the above described approch is a good one. IMOP.
I must disagree. If you want your player's to always succeed, then don't bother rolling the dice. Or even bother picking classes. They no longer matter because the end result is the same. Also, players hate this kind of game. "Oh I managed to survive even though I only 10 Hit Points left, because the Dragon did something really stupid and decided to walk up to and attack the Fighter instead." is no fun for anyway.

Some players hate this kind of game. Especially when it's done blatantly and badly.

Some players also hate the kind of game where the party regularly gets wiped out and they go through 4 or 5 characters before getting one that lasts. Where the group that completes the epic quest doesn't have any survivors from those who set out. Others love it.

Some like games where the characters live throughout. Some like to succeed and win. It's usually preferred to keep any fudging from being too obvious and keep the illusion of high risk - and there are generally better ways to do that. Including and especially gauging the difficulty right in the first place.

The key is knowing your players and what they want.

"The GM should not grease you in the first round of combat whilst shrugging" is true for most groups. Even for the more hardcore types, that's not usually "fun challenge".


Cap. Darling wrote:
@anzyr he was talking about fallen characters so we Can safely assume he dont play with kids gloves. But the game should be stacked so the PCs Can come out a head. And if they make unforseen choices killing them for it is ending the game. Try rereading what he is saying and see if you actually disagree with him. You dont like him using the word succeeds but he is not saying that it should be a walk in the park, he is asking for setbacks and problems to overcome.

He explicitly never mentions killing fallen characters. And sees the game as a story where the players succeed. Maybe you should reread it?

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How brutal should the GM be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.