How do GMs deal with Wind Walk?


Advice

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fried Goblin Surprise wrote:
I think your main mistake was using the word prohibit. Many people have a strong negative reaction to that word due to having a poor GM/Player experience. Worded differently, I believe that your question wouldn't have garnered anywhere near the level of venom as it did.

I don't think the word "prohibit" is the issue. I still believe he fundamentally doesn't understand high-level play.

barry lyndon wrote:
One of my players has just taken Wind Walk. I don't like prohibiting any options but so it isn't used just as different teleport spell in the world, I am wondering what has been people's experience with making this more interesting?

I highlighted the bit I find problematic.

Just to start out,..... it's wind walk. It's a travel spell. What the hell else do you expect it to be used as, an Empowered fireball? Teleport is also a travel spell, so if the spell is to be used at all, it will be used as a different teleport spell, because that's basically what travel spells do.

So saying that you don't want wind walk to be used as a travel spell is saying you don't want wind walk to be used.

But then he gets all passive-aggressive about it : I don't want it to be used, but I don't want to be upfront with the players and tell them I don't like travel spells, so is there some way I can nerf the spell into uselessness?

I'm finding little in this behavior to admire.


This has a lot to do with expectations. If what you expect to get is not what you get, frustration comes. Same go with the players.
As long as you and your players are in the same boat, and you all get what you expect, the game is ok.

Only pointing out what the ruleset is, beyond level 12. At level 12, the average fighter can grapple a rhinoceros, with a hand tied to his back (-4 grapple), without Magic items. A cleric is literally Jesus. And a Wizard is close to become good. Thisis what the game offer beyond lvl 12. If that's what you and your players expect, it becomes a lot easier to GM high level play. If you want to do something different, it's posible, but harder, as you need to row against the flow of the ruleset. That's all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
But then he gets all passive-aggressive about it : I don't want it to be used, but I don't want to be upfront with the players and tell them I don't like travel spells, so is there some way I can nerf the spell into uselessness?

Different interpretations I suppose. What I see is a GM who is willing to go the extra mile to make things more interesting for his players.

I didn't take anything he said to mean that he wanted to fundamentally change rules or anything like that, simply that he was curious about what things could happen to players while using wind walk. I don't see his intent as being any different than someone who says "What interesting things can happen to my players riding their horses down this road?"

Sure, some players and GMs prefer to hand-wave as much of the travel process as possible and that is fine but that doesn't seem to be the case with this GM and group of players.

Obviously I am taking his word on it but, if his players like the way the game is going does any of this really matter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For most aspects of the game, there are two viable approaches. Either make it interesting, or make it quick.

For example, shopping for magic items. I have a tendency to take the 'quick' approach. "You have a chance to shop in this city. You can find any item with a value of up to 10,000gp here. Choose your purchases before next week's game session." That way, shopping doesn't take up the table time I'd rather use for the exciting bit where the PCs have to infiltrate the necromancer's guild. (It doesn't matter if it's quick for the characters, as long as it's quick for the players.)

But you can also take the 'interesting' approach where finding someone to sell magic items, looking over the stock, trying to identify which items are worth getting, haggling, and so on, are all played out with dice rolls and/or improvised dialogue. This is much harder to do well, but a good GM (or rather, a specific type of good GM; there are many kinds) can pull it off.

Pathfinder as a system tends to make the 'interesting' version harder in a lot of cases - for example in the magic item shopping example above, the mechanical necessity of constantly upgrading your Big 6 items means that playing it out every time gets tedious. Making magic interesting is difficult because by RAW it's reliable and clearly defined. So it's easy to see why most GMs take a gamist approach and say, "Six hours later, you reach your destination."

The more narrativist GMs hate that. Imagine if you were reading a novel and one of the characters revealed that he could turn everyone to fog and then they could fly to their destination at incredible speeds, and no-one treated it like a big deal, and nothing happened along the way. Wouldn't that be dull? For someone who's never had access to a form of travel faster than a horse, flying overland would be an incredible experience, terrifying and thrilling. How do you convey that, and still provide an interactive and unpredictable experience for the players?

'Gamist' players often find the narrativist approach annoying. They just want things to work like they do in the rules.

Anyway, if a game has lasted to the point where the PCs have access to Wind Walk, the players are probably happy with it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
barry lyndon wrote:
One of my players has just taken Wind Walk. I don't like prohibiting any options but so it isn't used just as different teleport spell in the world, I am wondering what has been people's experience with making this more interesting?
So saying that you don't want wind walk to be used as a travel spell is saying you don't want wind walk to be used.

You ignored the word 'just'. He doesn't want it to 'just' be an alternative form of teleportation. He wants it to be different and interesting.

Not that there's anything wrong with not wanting players to cast Wind Walk. Most of the Adventure Paths I've seen appear to be entirely unprepared for it. "There are teleport traps so the PCs will have to walk." "The Seal is warded against teleportation so the PCs will have to carry it overland."


barry lyndon wrote:
There's no "we". No majority consensus.

Uhhh. As one of the several people who - at the time of my posting - had agreed that hourly random encounter checks etc regarding wind walk, I'd like to respectfully disagree on both points. I'm a card-carrying member of "we", who were in the majority.

Quote:
Some offered suggestions (thanks for that)

Yup, I read the thread.

Quote:
, some accused me of being here on purely an ego trip (bizarrely, despite the OP admitting I didn't really have an idea), some told me I shouldn't be GMing like I do, that I didn't understand the rules, and anything other than discussing what I hoped to. And when I defended my campaign by explaining quite politely what I was trying to achieve in it, I was of course only wanting "to hear what I wanted to hear".

Friend, like many things, it's just not that simple. Some of us have read dozens of threads over the years wherein a DM asks "how can I improve X? I am thinking of doing this because Y." Those threads sometimes offer interesting ideas that haven't been thought of. Sometimes those threads talk about systems and rules that we honestly don't think will be improved by the proposed changes, for the reasons given.

So, trying to be helpful, we reply. We try to illustrate and explain why the suggested changes and their reasons aren't necessarily a good idea. Why, in short, we wouldn't do them. It's not that you, or any of the other posters are stupid, evil, cruel, power-tripping, or in any other way horrible. By definition, anyone trying to improve their players' games is a good DM. It's just that good intention doesn't necessarily translate to fun, which is what some of us are trying to explain, knowing fully that every table is a little different and YOU are the best judge of your players.

Quote:
You yourself talk about how YOU'VE had enough of travel until the next game. Well, my players haven't. Should I change my game because of your experiences?

Do you KNOW that to be the case? More importantly, do your players KNOW that do be the case? Sometimes "yeah, I like my burgers this way" comes from having never tried them another way. The experience of pickles can be life-changing. "I can't believe I ever thought I liked pickle-less burgers!"

Let's turn it around. Do you KNOW your players don't like wind walk to allow more or less straightforward long-range travel?

Quote:
My campaign has been going for 14 months now with the same group that have a 85-ish% turn up rate, real life commitments notwithstanding. And you know what? I AM proud of that. I've put a hell of a lot of (very enjoyable work) into my first campaign, only my second PF experience as a GM. Ok, it might not measure up to the standards of PF Society or experienced GMs but it's been working for us. And I try hard to improve, both my role and their experience. I know a lot of games don't go that far.

Good. Great. Vunderbar. And yes, that's something to be proud of. So is making the effort to come here and ask questions seeking to improve the player experience. Compliments, kudos. You are saluted.

Doesn't change anything I've tried to say.

Quote:
To be honest it's a little vexing that a well-intentioned request for ideas was met with such derision, so many assumptions of what my players REALLY think, they can't POSSIBLY be enjoying it, that I don't know how high level play is so I should do it THIS way, but that's the nature of the internet. I made the mistake of thinking it might be different here from some of the threads I've read in the past and the nature of the game itself.

Sigh. When a bunch of people tell you that doing X is a bad idea for reasons Y and Z, it's best to consider that maybe, just maybe, they're right. Don't discount your personal experience of course, because - again - your table is not our table. But we're not insane. Neither are you. Take our information in the same spirit as your request; the desire to improve someone's game. It's not personal.

Quote:
Whatever. I'm very happy to go back to lurking. It's left a sour taste in my mouth. And you know what, if none of that resonates with anyone then that's fine. Maybe it's an age thing, I'm back playing PF for the first time since playing AD&D as a kid back in the 80s. I'm sure I'm out of touch. Things have moved on. But this experience of looking for ideas from like minded GMs has sucked.

That's a shame. But you know, it also very much reinforces the impression of "if I don't get the answer I want, I'm taking my marbles home."

Quote:
And for the record, not wanting to abruptly change my playing style because someone said that's better than exploring possibilities is NOT the same thing as not being willing to take advice.

You explored. You got answers. What you do with them is YOUR choice, and I for one respect it. Good luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


So saying that you don't want wind walk to be used as a travel spell is saying you don't want wind walk to be used.

Um, that's not what he's saying at all, and this interpretation of his statement is apparently the source of your hostility.

He doesn't say that he doesn't like Wind Walk being a travel spell. He has an issue with it being treated as an instantaneous travel spell that bypasses every aspect of the world between the start point and the end point (which is what Teleport does). Wind Walk by the explicit reading of it's rules does not automatically bypass stuff.

When I read his post, I felt that he was looking for ways to make that travel more interesting than just saying, "Ok, four hours later, you arrive at your destination uneventfully."

To the OP:

Now, there is merit to the idea that at higher levels, encounters made during travel can be somewhat tedious if they do not directly further the plot of the campaign. Also, there are ways to make that travel interesting without actually requiring dice rolls or throwing in encounters. You can have weather descriptions that are purely narrative while allowing player agency.

You can tell your party that there is a large thunderhead between them and their destination. Give them the option of trying to detour around it or go through it. If they go through it, describe the howling winds, nearby lightning arcs, and how drenched the party gets. Roll some dice behind the screen, roll your eyes, and let them know that luckily they managed to avoid being struck by a bolt on their way through. If they go around, describe to them the violence of the storm they saw in the distance as the pass by, the rumbling of the thunder, and the thrashing of the trees on the landscape below from the high winds. Make them feel like they made the right choice by going around.

In either of these options for the storm scenario, the travel has become more interesting to the players without there being hazards or damage that doesn't directly contribute to the overall plot of the campaign.

If you need encounters, the land based incidents witnessed from above are a good idea, as long as those incidents are something they could reasonably see from their altitude. Also, as the party uses Wind Walk more often, their enemies will discover this (assuming they have recurring enemies or a long standing BBEG). Those enemies will attempt to use that mode of travel against the party, using things such as Control Weather and Call Lightning to make attacks that seem to merely be natural disasters, or maybe use illusion magic in the form of false clouds to hide aerial ambushes.

Ultimately, though, it's up to how your players find entertainment in the process. It might be that they're using Wind Walk specifically with the intention of bypassing travel encounters because they don't like them. If the players don't find such encounters interesting and fun, then you can probably do without them. Conversely, if the spell is being used more for speed of travel or for novelty, and the players enjoy the occasional random encounter or happening, then go for it.

In my opinion, this really has nothing to do with difference between low level and high level play (I play and GM at all levels, and have done so continuously since 1976), and everything to do with understanding and accepting what your players like and tailoring your presentation to match that.


So assuming that the OP is just looking for things to add to encounter tables for flying players... why? Wind Walk isn't teleport, it's Mount with wings (Phantom Steed?). That can't get shot out from under you. It doesn't convey some kind of magical direction sense or knowledge of terrain. You would still have to follow the roads unless you had a really good map.

And the encounters on the ground wouldn't suddenly disappear, they just wouldn't generally be a threat (either because the players can blow past them or because they couldn't reach the players). The players could still choose to stop and interact with them. And any new encounters in the sky better be way the #@$% up there otherwise the players should have seen them when they were still landbound. And if it's far enough up the players couldn't have seen it from the ground, how are the players (who must be flying that high as well) making out any details on the ground? Because perception works both ways. If it doesn't work one way, it shouldn't work the other.

Ditto for the weather effects. Why would you suddenly roll new weather? If they're far enough out they're in a different weather band they probably need to be making high-altitude checks as well. And if they don't have to make those checks, why would they choose to?

Poor maneuverability does not mean "they can't avoid things". Poor is actually only a single step below average (and a step above most dragons). It means they take a moderate penalty to fly checks. That's it. Fly checks which only come up if they're pulling fancy maneuvers during a single move. They can absolutely move forward 600 feet then next round move right 600 feet with no penalty or check whatsoever.

So I guess what I'm saying is, why would Wind Walk change anything unless they're flying several miles up? And why would they fly several miles up when they'd just get lost, have to make repeated fortitude checks, and have almost no advantage over 600 feet up (and absolutely no advantage if you decide that suddenly there's a bunch of new monsters up there)?


Anguish wrote:

Do you KNOW that to be the case? More importantly, do your players KNOW that do be the case? Sometimes "yeah, I like my burgers this way" comes from having never tried them another way. The experience of pickles can be life-changing. "I can't believe I ever thought I liked pickle-less burgers!"

Let's turn it around. Do you KNOW your players don't like wind walk to allow more or less straightforward long-range travel?

Well yes. Because the first few replies undermined my confidence enough and made me question my approach. Maybe I was in fact doing it all wrong. So I discussed the thread quite openly with two of my players, one of whom plays the character in question. Not surprisingly, since I'm posting this, they were on board. Ha, maybe it's all THEIR fault. Maybe they don't understand high level play and should be playing another game. Maybe they're lying to me because they're loath to have to find another occupation to fill a midweek evening slot.

And Matthew was correct, the most important bit of this is that I especially want the first time this is cast to be a big moment. A memorable experience that will be in the back of their minds whenever it is later cast.

I totally appreciate that maybe if they played in you guys' campaigns they would experience the game on another level, maybe a more correct version, maybe more immersive for not getting bogged down in details. But at the moment they're stuck with me and I've got at least some pretty good ideas from the thread that has made the rest of ...whatever this is... worth it.

I guess all this could be seen as blatant lying to win an internet argument but I can't do anything about that.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

But then he gets all passive-aggressive about it : I don't want it to be used, but I don't want to be upfront with the players and tell them I don't like travel spells, so is there some way I can nerf the spell into uselessness?

I'm finding little in this behavior to admire.

My intention, when I said I didn't want it to be used as another teleport spell, was that I didn't just want it to be "You've cast the spell, you're there". I wanted it to have its own flavour, especially for the first time. Not that I had any objection to the end result or using it to bypass encounters. While I am responsible for the initial phrasing, I think I have clarified this more than once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best advice you've received so far (and likely will receive) is 'Sani's. You don't need a special "Random Aerial Encounter" table or fiddly weather bits, you just need to do like you would with any trip: Describe what's on the route. Except now they have a different vantage point.

Perhaps a village is under attack. Maybe they spot an old overgrown temple in the midst of an untamed forest. Could be there's a suspicious group of hobgoblins sneaking through the brush toward a town.

Plot hooks, not weird things that feel like punishment for use.


Fried Goblin Surprise wrote:

I have just a couple of things to add but I want to say first that I applaud your thought process and how I think that you approach the game.

I think your main mistake was using the word prohibit. Many people have a strong negative reaction to that word due to having a poor GM/Player experience. Worded differently, I believe that your question wouldn't have garnered anywhere near the level of venom as it did.

One question I have for you is about the weather and the fly checks issue. The spell states that they are in gaseous form and THAT spell states that all fly checks are made automatically. To actually have the weather effect your characters this part of the spell description would have to be changed/ignored.

I, for one, am curious what you decided to do about this and also about what ideas you and your player came up with.

*Edited for spelling and grammar due to sleep deprivation.

Aah yeah, but it's the other aspect of the spell that comes into play.

"If desired by the subject, a magical wind wafts a wind walker along at up to 600 feet per round (60 mph) with poor maneuverability. Wind walkers are not invisible but rather appear misty and translucent"

I think that maybe opens up some potential. I'm playing with the idea that as Teleport uses the astral plane to move instantly, Wind Walk draws from the elemental plane of air, thinning the boundary between the two planes with the potential for denizens from, and glimpses into, there.

Plus I will use some great ideas from this thread. The variable winds that can either slow down or speed up travel makes the spell more organic.


Saldiven wrote:

In either of these options for the storm scenario, the travel has become more interesting to the players without there being hazards or...

Totally agree, it was that kind of flavour I was after. The perception of danger and maybe the chance of real danger if very bad decisions are made, that kinda thing. It's one thing to have a storm playing overhead and another to actually fly through it, which would be awesome.

Another reply mentioned that it was sucky to roll weather, but I do it anyway once or twice a day so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary or seem like a punishment. If it happens to be a stormy day maybe they'll just want to take a flying trip through it for the hell of it. On Roll20 with a decent map and sound effects it could be very dramatic.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

So assuming that the OP is just looking for things to add to encounter tables for flying players... why? Wind Walk isn't teleport, it's Mount with wings (Phantom Steed?). That can't get shot out from under you. It doesn't convey some kind of magical direction sense or knowledge of terrain. You would still have to follow the roads unless you had a really good map.

And the encounters on the ground wouldn't suddenly disappear, they just wouldn't generally be a threat (either because the players can blow past them or because they couldn't reach the players). The players could still choose to stop and interact with them. And any new encounters in the sky better be way the #@$% up there otherwise the players should have seen them when they were still landbound. And if it's far enough up the players couldn't have seen it from the ground, how are the players (who must be flying that high as well) making out any details on the ground? Because perception works both ways. If it doesn't work one way, it shouldn't work the other.

They can turn at 45 degrees I think without a skill check? Same for ascending. So far, for flight, I have a table-map in Roll20 that is standard top down representing different weather systems: storm, cloud, night, clear, etc. I can right click and swap out to whichever map is appropriate. I could just change the grid scale for the greater speed of Wind Walk.

On the right hand side I have an altitude indicator in increments of + or -x (again depending on speed/scale) so the players can position themselves in 3 dimensions, based on their initial stated height when any given encounter begins. We all work in 3d at work so I am hoping it won't be too confusing for anyone. Obviously it's kind of restrictive but what map isn't.

I might incorporate chase mechanics as well, since they can't do much but run away/hide in cloud cover. I don't know, it's early days so far and I have 2 weeks to prep before next session. I'll have to run some test encounters to see if I think it's going to be fun or just keep it to a purely descriptive encounter. This is new territory for the whole group so we'll just have to see what works and doesn't.

Btw, I wouldn't suddenly roll weather, I roll for it anyway already in the morning and sometimes the afternoon, I would just re-roll every 100 miles for example to represent an organic weather system and give an idea of scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might had totally misinterpreted the actual issue, but this sounds like struggle to stop the high levels from de-mystifying the world.

In which I am kinda with Barry.


Rynjin wrote:
The best advice you've received so far (and likely will receive) is 'Sani's. You don't need a special "Random Aerial Encounter" table or fiddly weather bits, you just need to do like you would with any trip: Describe what's on the route. Except now they have a different vantage point

This.

For a GM with a narrativist approach to the spells,as the OP, it's kinda weird. I suppose if you put that much effort to describe a travel spell, you are a GM strongly story-driven.

For story driven approachs to GM, I think it might be much better to drop the early 80s mindset of simulationism, with the encounter tables and such. Do you want Wind Walk to be interesting? Fine, do so. Make them spot a smoking Tower, a sieged castle, a trade caravan or a djinni bazaar in the Clouds. Whatever you (and not a dice roll) wants to happen to improve the story and advance the plot.

I don't know if this is going to be helpful to the OP, as he looks for gms with similar mindset, but sometimes a different point of view from a different mindset may help to open your mind to different approachs

Liberty's Edge

From what I can see the OP will have trouble running the game at higher levels imo. Magic has so many was to bypass regular modes of travel. Wind Walk, Fly Spell, Overland flight, Phantom Steed Communal or is it mass (I don't remember). Even ambushing a party at high levels is difficult Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Secure Shelter. They can be annoying for a DM as I can speak from personal experience.

The other issue is if they use Wind Walk and they always get aerial encounters it can be frustrating for the players as well. What are the odds that every time wind walk is used that their just happens to be a conviently placed aerial creature for a encounter.

So my advice is to accept that by RAW players can bypass certain obstacles. Or play another rpg. As unless you nerf much of the magical spells designed to do this I can't see the DM having fun. The problem is that if he nerfs it for the players it's also nerfed for the npcs.

Silver Crusade

Hey Barry it sounds as if you have a rich developed world and your players and you are enjoying it so keep on keeping on until it's not fun.

Silver Crusade

As previously stated by many, try not to penalize use of the spell. You can choose to make it as immersive as you and your players wish.

If you want more than you cast Wind Walk, 4 hours later you reach your destination then describe the journey as many have stated. Plan out the route for the area that you believe that they would travel, and give them some potential hooks for further exploration if they choose.

Do not create punitive measures to counter act the casting of a high level spell. It has its benefits for a reason, and it comes off as GM adversarial to force things down a players throat if they are using an option that they invested resources into (spell slot expenditure). Just immerse them in visuals and regale them with your ability to create a scene.

If the players want more in depth go into more and more detail as they inquire further of your explanations of the scenes that they pass over head. If they choose to further explore it may become a little side quest or mission that you have for them while they are en route to their destination. Unless you are really good at coming up with things on the fly this would take more prep time to really create a lasting visual and sensory experience and thus as another person suggested try to steer away from charts.

There have been many books, both 3.X and pathfinder that have discussed level based challenges for GM'ing. All of them state that by 9th level traveling is a non-issue. Unless it is to get into some extra planar, secret location unbeknownst to anyone but a small few, shielded by anti divination magic it generally is not a viable plot device for stories. Use it as an enhancer through vivid descriptions and throw in some potential for player agency to go into more detail.


Barry, I am glad you have fun in your game.

I personally do not enjoy high level play because of things like this when I DM. When I play I would not want the DM to try and make wind walk interesting. I just want "You arrive at blah". The story is at blah I do not care about the farmlands or caravans. I just want to fight the monster at the end. For me high level play is about the game and not the RP. To me only low level stuff is good for RP. I think many of folks on these boards look at pathfinder as a game first and story second.


Mathius wrote:
I think many of folks on these boards look at pathfinder as a game first and story second.

That may be part of it, but there's also a big part of it which is simply "what does this description add to the story?"

Most people prefer active role-playing over listening to description. If the GM is trying to make wind walk interesting by telling me what I see,... well, that reduces me from an active participant to an audience member listening to a monologue.

In the 19th century, writers were paid by the word, which provided a lot of incentive to put lots of descriptive text into an otherwise straightforward story. There's a reason that so much of the 19th century literature has fallen out of favor. By modern standards, it's boring, because nothing actually happens for pages and pages. (Think about the description of the prison door in The Scarlet Letter.)

Role-playing at high levels can still be fun, but it's still about role-playing. It's Spider-man's quips as he dodges the Green Goblin's pumpkin bombs, or Superman's "world of cardboard" speech. It's not two pages of listening to someone describe fruited plains and purple mountain majesties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks heaps for all for the advice. I think it's becoming clearer to me that that a combination of some of these suggestions and the rules themselves is going to work best for this group and hopefully will work with the mapping adaptions I'll try out.

Just to address the concerns:

This is the first time Wind Walk will have been cast by this player, maybe by any of them so I want it to be interesting. Future castings may well work better as less of a deal, but what is set up here should carry on as an associated memory/experience.
It's a mostly RP-orientated group, if they don't feel immersed they get listless and get distracted. Previously I've shoved them into the next encounter too quickly and it frustrates them.
I've no intention of actively penalising them for using it.
I'm not going to subject them to hours of tourist description blurb as a real-time commentary.
I'm not going to attack them with a flock of birds.
I fully intend to continue to go heavy on the RP as long as that's what the group enjoy. I want them to feel engaged right up until the end of the end of the final chapter. If they ever don't want that, I won't do it. It's as simple as that.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

Folks, I removed some posts and replies to posts. If you cannot find a way to dispense advice in a constructive manner, you are welcome to leave the thread. Insinuating someone needs to play a simpler game or doesn't understand how to play because they use a different approach to the game is unhelpful for both the OP and for others who may be reading the thread for ideas. There are many, many differing ways and styles of playing roleplaying games. Try answering the question asked, rather than the question you think that should have been asked and if you have no advice or if your disagreement with the OP's GMing style hampers your ability to provide constructive advice, please move on from this conversation.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

I've also just realized this fits more into the Advice section rather than RPG General so I am moving the thread.


Barry, it sounds like you GM the same way I do. Your OP completely makes sense. I like to make things interesting for my players above all else. How a GM and players decide to build a world together is totally for themselves to dictate. Kudos for making that happen with your group. By the sounds of it, you're the type of GM I'd love to play under.

My sense of Pathfinder (at least on these forums) is that the depth of rules (and maybe the more rigid PFS play) attracts a greater proportion of players who think there is a right or wrong way to roleplay. If everyone is having fun in your group, then you're doing it right. I'm amazed by the number of people who are telling you you're wrong, or even seem upset! This is also endemic to forum culture pretty much everywhere though.

Please continue to post here. I for one would love to hear your input more often.

Jay "Uses Goblins at All Levels And People Still Enjoy It" White

;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coffee Demon wrote:

Barry, it sounds like you GM the same way I do. Your OP completely makes sense. I like to make things interesting for my players above all else. How a GM and players decide to build a world together is totally for themselves to dictate. Kudos for making that happen with your group. By the sounds of it, you're the type of GM I'd love to play under.

My sense of Pathfinder (at least on these forums) is that the depth of rules (and maybe the more rigid PFS play) attracts a greater proportion of players who think there is a right or wrong way to roleplay. If everyone is having fun in your group, then you're doing it right. I'm amazed by the number of people who are telling you you're wrong, or even seem upset! This is also endemic to forum culture pretty much everywhere though.

Please continue to post here. I for one would love to hear your input more often.

Jay "Uses Goblins at All Levels And People Still Enjoy It" White

;)

Cheers Jay! I think I'm pretty lucky having a group that want to play it in a way that challenges me. If my campaign is a success it's pretty much credit to them for encouraging me to GM it this way, and I have to give a shout-out to NobodysHome for the write ups of their RotR campaign. I defy anyone to read it and not be influenced by that group's RP.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ohja&page=1?NobodysHomes-RotRL-Campaign


Just jumping in here with some advice from a player's point of view who went through something similar to this.

We are in Book 3 of Wrath of the Righteous and are in the all enjoyable hex exploration section. After two sessions of this, the GM decided that empty hexes were boring and started adding weather table rolls and bad luck rolls.

The first session of this, something bad happened EVERY DAY; whether it was bad weather or some sort of random thing like food poisoning or odd killer plant near by.

We play for about 5 to 6 hours every Saturday. We got through 4 hexes that night.

The next week, we got through ONE! One hex in five hours.

I am a story teller player by DM's Guide standards. I enjoy the story and seeing what comes next. I have a flushed out character with twelve page backstory, I enjoy roleplaying.

THIS DROVE ME NUTS!

Not saying don't do something, just be mindful of your players and their attitudes.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've removed some more posts and replies. Folks, I think the whole issue of the quality of the GMing is derailing this thread and fairly insulting to the OP and has already been covered in this thread repeatedly. Help us keep the forums a welcoming environment by providing constructive advice if you have it and moving on from this thread if you do not.


I agree that Nobodyshome's campaign is wonderful, and that story-driven sessions are great and, imo, the best ones. But I still fail to see how *rolling* for bad weather makes the story better, or the campaign more story driven. I don't think Tolkien rolled a die to see which weather did the fellowship find in the pass of Caradhrass. They got a snowstorm because he thought it could be fun and interesting for the story, not because the fellowship rolled a 3 instead of a 7. If you think a bazaar of djinns in a cloud is something the PC will enjoy, by all means put it in the game. Don't ley the players skip that because they rolled a flock of gulls migrsting to south instead. That's my (storytelling motivated) advice.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I agree that Nobodyshome's campaign is wonderful, and that story-driven sessions are great and, imo, the best ones. But I still fail to see how *rolling* for bad weather makes the story better, or the campaign more story driven. I don't think Tolkien rolled a die to see which weather did the fellowship find in the pass of Caradhrass. They got a snowstorm because he thought it could be fun and interesting for the story, not because the fellowship rolled a 3 instead of a 7. If you think a bazaar of djinns in a cloud is something the PC will enjoy, by all means put it in the game. Don't ley the players skip that because they rolled a flock of gulls migrsting to south instead. That's my (storytelling motivated) advice.

It sounds like you haven't read much of the thread. I've stated that I already roll for weather when the PCs wake up, sometimes more. I do it because weather is variable and has an effect on the game mechanics and also helps them imagine what kind of day it is. I'd prefer to do that based on the season than actually decide myself what the weather is. The only difference in this case is I would be rolling to represent moving large distances. The weather information isn't presented so obviously as the result of a dice roll, it becomes part of the general description of conditions.

Yes, I'm sure novels aren't written on the roll of a dice, I'm not writing a story that they are subject to, I am presenting their world of Golarion as it is at any given point.


One problem is that rolling can make for very strange weather patterns. In reality, weather can be slow to change, or at least relatively predictable, given the area.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paulicus wrote:
One problem is that rolling can make for very strange weather patterns. In reality, weather can be slow to change, or at least relatively predictable, given the area.

My players are mostly from Melbourne. They would think it odd unless it WAS highly variable conditions :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barry,
I am really picking up what you're putting down. I spend hours agonizing over stuff like this.

"How do I make this cool for my players?"

"How can I describe this in a way that makes them feel like they are there... yet not descend into purple prose that takes this from a game into a monologue?"

I describe as much as I can, I act, do voices, all that. I'm particularly proud of the art I had commissioned to commemorate their defeating the boss of the 3rd Kingmaker module.

All because my players could be playing a video game or watching a movie, so this game and I need to act in the stead of those things.

Did you see that video of Matt Mercer DMing at the table with Vin Diesel? Did you see Vin's face when Matt first described the energy blast class skill Matt had designed for the session? That's joy.

I want that every time I describe something! From every player! During every cool action! I'm a total slut for my players' sense of wonder.

But since this is a game, and I get to control the texture/lethality of my game and my Golarion by attaching d20 rolls and d100 rolls to all kinds of outcomes, I am obliged to do that. It is, after all, a wonder machine powered by a mighty fine combat engine.

The ability to seamlessly merge the two, the creative expression and the rules (attached as they are to the dice's lack of bias), is what always astounds me when I hear or watch a DM like Chris Perkins (from Acquisitions, Inc.) or Matt Mercer.

In my game, I would try to describe how it feels for the PC to have his body dematerialize, then to see the world get smaller and smaller, then what it feels like to have the birds actually pass through his body harmlessly. Stuff like that.

Whatever die roll you assign it-- and it should be just one for all the balance reasons above, i.e. don't make it a poor man's teleport-- just understand how tough you want it to be, and be consistent about it


Paulicus wrote:
One problem is that rolling can make for very strange weather patterns. In reality, weather can be slow to change, or at least relatively predictable, given the area.

You can make it conditional. Simple example:

1 - Sunny
2 - Clouded
3 - Rainy
4 - Same weather as yesterday


barry lyndon wrote:


It sounds like you haven't read much of the thread. I've stated that I already roll for weather when the PCs wake up, sometimes more.

Oh, I did. I'm just stating my surprise, because you said you were a GM pretty focused on the story. For a story driven game, letting the dice roll to decide stuff is counter productive, in my opinion. That's more a simulationist approach than a narrativist one.

A simulationist approach is just as valid as a narrativist one (or a gsmist one). But it is different. The goal there is not the story, but the description of the world in a way that makes internal sense. Some of the advice you got was gamist (about balance, player power, level, etc). Then you stated that you were story driven, and you got some advice about how to make the spell a plot hook (like watching a caravan or whatever), which is a narrativist (ie: story focused) approach. The thing is, maybe your goal is not the story, but the World. For that, rolling might be ok, but that's simulationism more than storytelling.


Aaah I see, apologies and thanks for illuminating.

I think for me, the weather is filed under simulationist then because it has an effect, especially on spellcasting, and I don't want to be responsible for that so I use an online generator that takes into account seasons and climate. The only time I choose the weather is when it is more a scene-setting choice that doesn't impact the mechanics.

Thinking about it, I am totally about the simulationist aspect. The story is written down in the AP for the players to explore so really I'm just there for scene setting and role playing NPCs, and making it as interesting andd immersive as possible. My only intrusion might be some deus ex machina every now and then if they are stuck. And occasionally events/NPCs may tie in to the PCs backgrounds as an optional side quest.


That's perfectly fine. In fact, all groups use the 3 aspects, just depends on the focus. For example, Challenge Ratings are a gamist thing: players don't find Hill Giants at lvl 1, not because a Hill giant doesn't make sense with the World or the story, but because it would not be a fair encounter for the players. There, the focus is not the story or the world, but the game itself. But all groups also try to make it have sense in World (eg: Hill giants live in hills) and all groups have a story (ie: the Hill Giants attack is a story being told)

DnD started itself as a very simulationist game (it was a wargame, after all), and right now its rules (including PF) are every gamist oriented (with stuff like weslth by level or challenge rating) But you can use it for any style, there are elements that support all of them

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How do GMs deal with Wind Walk? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.