Opinions on "Level X" Characters


Homebrew and House Rules


For those of you who don't know or simply call it something different, a Level X is a character who does not actually have a de facto sheet with stats and everything filled out to the point that something can actually fight it. In the vein that "If it has hit points you can kill it", a level X is not supposed to be designed even far enough to have hit points. Sure some impossible thing like hundred handed ones or whatever may be able to kill it if you want, whatever the case, the point of a level X is that the players aren't meant to fight it in a physical sense. The Gods are made this way in Pathfinder for example. I've had mixed opinions on this, as I've had players who were just upset that when they slice at the floating demon prince, nothing happens, but on the opposite side, I've had roleplayers love outwitting the reality warper into making his own prison. Whenever I have a Level X, I always get at least one person who feels like they're useless because I always have at least one player who doesn't roleplay so much as "I swing my sword at it". In my current campaign, I have just such a player and I'd love it if they decided to not play a different game while their character stands there doing nothing. Sure there are things to fight, the godlike character may summon a creature to entertain itself while the players fight it, but ultimately it will come down to the group having to trick it or at the very least do something beyond attacking it. I don't really think any advice will help in this case because the player will literally not do anything beyond physical actions, otherwise they state their character starts drinking. So really this comes down to whether or not I should even do it. One character won't have a lot of fun, but not doing it, I feel will deprive many other players of enjoyment. I personally enjoy taking on Level X characters because they aren't so much a physical challenge as a mental one. But I can see why some players dislike them, believing them to be power hungry GM's inserting their OC's or feeling like a GM is lazy for not actually designing an encounter with stats. What I'd like to know is how you feel about these Level X characters or even hear any stories about any you may have encountered in the past, to help me make my decision about doing this or perhaps even bettering it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I would rephrase that sentence into "if you can encounter it, it should have hit points". There really is no good reason for a god to directly interact with a PC.

In my opinion, you don't have to rely on god-like creatures to create situations where the PCs can trick a powerful monster. Offering alternative options to deal with an encounter is great, but it should be done in a manner that gives players more agency instead of restricting their options. Coming up with a non-violent resolution for an encounter should be its own reward. It comes with a feeling of accomplishment ("I outwitted an efreet!") and it saves limited resources.

If the GM doesn't want the players to kill an NPC, he'd better come up with a mechanically sound ability to make it work. And he has to accept the possibility that the players may come up with a mechanically sound solution to counter that ability. If the odds are stacked against the PCs, it is very unlikely that they will succeed, but it is not impossible. If they succeed anyway, it gives them a great sense of accomplishment, and that's what it's all about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Amanuensis wrote:
There really is no good reason for a god to directly interact with a PC.

Piles and piles of fantasy literature disagree with you.

What if someone is playing something along the lines of the Sanctuary setting where gods encountered characters every few books?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

It's an overused and hyperbolic trope in fantasy for sure, but that doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do. If I want the PCs to get in touch with a higher power, I can use outsiders as proxies, let the players have a dreamscape encounter, etc. and achieve the same result without making gods the same profane creatures as everyone else in the campaign world.

Not everything that works well for a story makes a great adventure plot.


Pfft, just about every NPC I run is pretty much like this. When a party of level 3s fights the shopkeep they typically get their bums handed to them by an impossibly powerful enemy. There are no townspeople, just a slew of potentially lethal challenges. Then again, I treat the PCs like they're a bunch of storyless babies looking to become on par with others in society.

As for deity level challenges, I have those as well. Usually I treat them all as having +20 modifiers in their stats and at least 50 levels.

But at the same time, I treat a die roll of a nat 20 as a 40 and a roll of a nat 1 as a -19, so there are ways of pulling a 50+ for a level 5 character and ways of rolling a total of a 5 for a level 17-20 character. So there may not even be a chance of beating a level x's nat 1 on a die. Plus I love throwing impossible teir challenges at people, challenges which could easily be avoided, like the 20 shocker lizard challenge I like to throw at level 3 characters (simply do not enter the clearing full of lizards and you will be fine, but they end up entering and often the whole party dies).

As for gods directly interacting with players, the last time that happened was after Shar (my own adlet based version of her, who is the creator of Nightshades) had a player ultimately taken from a party for eternal torment and torture. Which came after 3 failed perception tests, a failed attempt to avoid a grapple, and a failed save against a planeshift.


I never did state that the party was going to meet Gods, I just used them as an example. Using outsiders as a proxy on a party that can't fight that outsider yet can be considered just as bad. The point of me asking about Level X's tho is that one wouldn't be limited to the things that are already in the rules and would allow you to set a sort of GM rule 0 on what that character can do. Sure you can alter an already made thing to have it do some sort of thing it can't normally do, but then suddenly it's a different CR and needs to be reworked, but if it isn't intended to take damage, why should I have to make some illogical sheet for it to just say it can do this too.

I've made a Dullahan that used a steam train as it's steed and the train was powered by the souls that it captured, but it was meant to be physically fought by the party as they maneuvered their shoddy train next to it. I altered a Dullahans Couch of the Silent to a more grander scale and it was designed to be fought against and won and people generally had a lot of fun with that.

But, I'm asking about a challenge that CANNOT be physically defeated. Outsmarting an efreet is one thing, but having to outsmart it is another.

I've had the party have their choice of physical challenges versus mental, but it only takes one party member throwing anchor tokens at doors to ruin the mental challenge for everyone else. (The situation being that they were basically in a jail after being wrongly arrested and instead of waiting to have their roleplaying ah-ha thing to point out the true villain, one player used the feather tokens he smuggled in to break out and free the others, this being fine and all, but the players are upset now that they are wanted men and are now actually criminals in that place for having done that)


Honestly, outside the times my party has been obligated to fight in gladitorial combat for punitive reasons against things they couldn't handle (plasma ooze), they are almost never forced into anything. They can just turn around and bugger off for all I care in game.

But my settings are sand boxes.

Then again, I do consider a CR of 5 higher than the party level to be an acceptable challenge...

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I feel the same way. It's okay to give the PCs a nudge, but if they don't want to follow my lead, I'm not going to railroad them. That's potentially very frustrating, especially if the GM and the players don't see eye to eye on a given situation. If they want to give that insufferable pompous NPC the thorough beating they deserve and if they are prepared to deal with the consequences, I'm not going to stop them.

Conversely, as a player, I think it's okay if NPCs have plot armor, but it shouldn't be impenetrable. I don't mind if a GM comes up with a variant monster that has special abilities, as long as they are in concordance with the actual rules (DR, concealment, regeneration, rejuvenation, etc.).


Personally, when I play, I don't care if an encounter is impervious to my character's spells or weapons, as long as I can defeat it with my mind and role playing ability.

Of course, I wouldn't want that to be every encounter, or even a relatively uncommon encounter; that would get tedious. However, every once in a while is fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master Codex wrote:
I never did state that the party was going to meet Gods, I just used them as an example. Using outsiders as a proxy on a party that can't fight that outsider yet can be considered just as bad. The point of me asking about Level X's tho is that one wouldn't be limited to the things that are already in the rules and would allow you to set a sort of GM rule 0 on what that character can do. Sure you can alter an already made thing to have it do some sort of thing it can't normally do, but then suddenly it's a different CR and needs to be reworked, but if it isn't intended to take damage, why should I have to make some illogical sheet for it to just say it can do this too.

I'll be honest -- I'm not a big fan of this type of character.

I'm generally hostile to any sort of deus ex machina in RPGs, or even in the theater, as it acts to deprive the characters I actually care about and sympathize with of any agency. Especially in an RPG setting, I want to feel like my thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions really matter.

Level X characters negate that. You've created this obviously important being and stripped me of the ability to interact with it in any way outside of your narrow parameters. Why don't you roll my dice for me, too? In fact, why don't you just hand me a script with my lines highlighted on them, so I know what to say.... and show me the marks taped to the stage floor so I know where I'm supposed to stand to deliver the dialogue?

I similarly dislike the BBEG boss monsters with pan-immunity to every status effect so that the only way you can defeat them is by hit point attrition in combat, and for the same reason -- it deprives me of agency.

And the fact that you already know one player will not enjoy it and you're still even considering it elevates it to the level of Dick Move.


This isn't a dues ex, this isn't salvation, it's a threat they must overcome through a manner beyond simple combat. If that's all your character can do than I'm sorry for you. This is coming because of the players actions, they helped release this threat upon the world through their slip ups and they're going to have to stick it back somehow.

I suppose you dislike it whenever a monster with that has the ability to destroy weapons show up or an anti magic field is used or unnatural cold comes in and shatters your cold resistance. Sometimes something does stunt what you would rather do and you have to work around it.

If you want to fight the level x, that's fine, you'll just learn that it's not going to be favorable for you and you will either have to find a way to hurt it or die as you mindlessly swipe at it for the millionth time. There are mechanics beyond the simple I roll to attack, they could roll any number of skill checks to try and find out more or trick it, they have a plethora of items at their disposal and they have their wits.

You can't please everyone, but when one person in a group of six literally does nothing but swing their weapon and stand around, anything non combat related will bore them. (Yes we try and get them to roleplay more, but this is another matter)


I mean, you asked for opinions on insurmountable enemies through combat. It's pretty much going to tun the gamut from positive to negative. Personally I treat things with 30-35 character levels as pretty common (guild leaders, kings, etc), while 15 character levels is the standard shopkeep. Meanwhile I have unescapable situations that pop up, and potentially leathal sotuayions which can be easily avoided. It all depends on the situation.

Some will argue that insurmountable odds are story killing (Sin from FFX for example), others will treat them as par for the course. Heck there are rules for Cthulu in pathfinder.

It's all opinion


Yes, I understand all that, this is a rare occurance, but one the party basically asked for over the course of several sessions. Basically it's like they summoned Cthulu, but they aren't of level to fight it, so all this here happened.

The reason I responded somewhat harshly there was because I perceived what orf to say as hostile, especially with his choice of saying I was being a dick.


Master Codex wrote:
This isn't a dues ex, this isn't salvation, it's a threat they must overcome through a manner beyond simple combat. If that's all your character can do than I'm sorry for you.

Yup, definitely a Dick Move.

You asked how I felt about it, I told you, and now you're not only doubling-down on it, but you're insulting me to boot.

If this happened in game, you've basically told me that you don't care if I have fun at your table and insulted me for having an opinion that differs from the opinions I'm allowed to have. So where's my script and my tape marks?

More to the point, in what possible universe is "go out of your way to make the game un-fun" a good idea?


Why would you use a Level X character when you can use a Level 999 character? What's wrong with giving them stats? Are you afraid that your level 5 PCs are going to kill Cthulhu?

I'd much rather use a super high level statted NPC over an unstatted one. There's no rule saying that I can't use an overpowered NPC in the core rulebook. And this way, I'm not indirectly depriving my players of their character traits.

Edit: I guess what I don't like about Level X 'God' characters is that as long as they exist in the game scene, you're essentially folding the core rulebook, cease playing pathfinder, and play a 'roleplay only' game. I don't mind roleplay, but generally, when I get together with my friends to play pathfinder, I want to play pathfinder.


Yes, I suppose the way I handled that was rather childish and for that I apologize. However, you also need to take a look at your own mannerisms of speaking. You started off in this tone, so at the very least you should expect retaliation in kind. It is the internet.

As I've said earlier, I've done this before and people like it, but there is always someone who doesn't and I wanted opinions, not attacks on character.

If you have anything of value to add, I'll listen to it and take note of it, but I wish it to be done in a manner that doesn't revolve around mocking someone.

voideternal wrote:

Why would you use a Level X character when you can use a Level 999 character? What's wrong with giving them stats? Are you afraid that your level 5 PCs are going to kill Cthulhu?

I'd much rather use a super high level statted NPC over an unstatted one. There's no rule saying that I can't use an overpowered NPC in the core rulebook. And this way, I'm not indirectly depriving my players of their character traits.

Edit: I guess what I don't like about Level X 'God' characters is that as long as they exist in the game scene, you're essentially folding the core rulebook, cease playing pathfinder, and play a 'roleplay only' game. I don't mind roleplay, but generally, when I get together with my friends to play pathfinder, I want to play pathfinder.

Well it's not of the note that I don't want to stat it, I have a vague idea of how it should be treated need it come down to that, but rather that I wish it to do things that the core book doesn't allow a creature to do. If I want a childish god to make the players play the floor is actually lava, I should have a way to do that without finding a needlessly complicated rule set to allow it to do as such. Similarly I don't want to make it so powerful that if the freed demon lord were to mindlessly bat a player away, that it wouldn't kill them if I rolled high. If the forgotten lord of nature brings forth something not of the Summon Monster List, how should I treat it as a spell if the beast has no summon equivalent. Rather than making an increasingly complex sheet to cover these bases, it's simply accepted that they can do these things because they are so powerful. Generally a Level X is defeated by being outwitted or by having what little power it was gathering used up by the party because the party kept passing it's challenges and beasts before it had time to truly gather all of it's strength. Even Level X's with stats are still sort of Level X's if they have a bunch of abilities that were made up for them. (Edit: These Abilities being of such power that a normal monster shouldn't have them)


Master Codex wrote:

Yes, I suppose the way I handled that was rather childish and for that I apologize. However, you also need to take a look at your own mannerisms of speaking. You started off in this tone, so at the very least you should expect retaliation in kind. It is the internet.

As I've said earlier, I've done this before and people like it, but there is always someone who doesn't and I wanted opinions, not attacks on character.

Apology accepted. But my point stands that it's your responsibility as a gamemaster to make sure that the people at your table have fun -- and that responsibility extends to all of your players. It doesn't matter what random people on an internet forum say; even if everyone on the forums like it, if Timmy the Wizard doesn't like it, you need to make sure that the people you are gaming with are enjoying themselves.

As you yourself pointed out, "there's always someone who doesn't like it," and in this case, you've even got a specific person in mind. That should be a strong hint to you that it will not, in fact, make the people you are gaming with enjoy themselves. You run this trick, and you're telling Timmy that you don't respect him enough to make sure he likes game night. What kind of incentive does he have from that point on to make sure that you, or anyone else, enjoys game night? You've more or less forfeited any claim to courtesy or respect for your own gaming preferences by ignoring his.


Master Codex wrote:


Well it's not of the note that I don't want to stat it, I have a vague idea of how it should be treated need it come down to that, but rather that I wish it to do things that the core book doesn't allow a creature to do. If I want a childish god to make the players play the floor is actually lava, I should have a way to do that without finding a needlessly complicated rule set to allow it to do as such. Similarly I don't want to make it so powerful that if the freed demon lord were to mindlessly bat a player away, that it wouldn't kill them if I rolled high. If the forgotten lord of nature brings forth something not of the Summon Monster List, how should I treat it as a spell if the beast has no summon equivalent. Rather than making an increasingly complex sheet to cover these bases, it's simply accepted that they can do these things because they are so powerful. Generally a Level X is defeated by being outwitted or by having what little power it was gathering used up by the party because the party kept passing it's challenges and beasts before it had time to truly gather all of it's strength. Even Level X's with stats are still sort of Level X's if they have a bunch of abilities that were made up for them. (Edit: These Abilities being of such power that a normal monster shouldn't have them)

Custom monsters are a standard part of role-playing and have been since Gygax. Those aren't Level X characters, though. If you want to make a Zinc dragon who radiates electrical sparks in a 100' aura instead of using a conventional breath weapon, that's simply a custom monster. Letting the sorcerer summon something off-menu is a fairly standard trick, and there are even lots of published feats to allow that.

Level X characters occur when you've defined something that's literally outside the rules and can't be interacted with in any way other than than the preapproved solution method. I've joked in other threads about the "Hall of Infinite Orcs," but that's actually a good -- by which read, bad -- example, because it will kill characters unless they realize that they can only turn off the orc-generator by putting the Gauntlet of Expressive Fingers into the Dyke of Eternal Peril. Otherwise, they're simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers of orcs.

At best, it's railroading, because it removes player agency. If it's not lethal, it's still often boring because the plot grinds to a halt as the players try to figure out exactly what solution to the puzzle the game master has in mind. And at its worst, it destroys both verisimilitude and trust.

I'd like to single out one phrase that I find telling:

Quote:


If I want a childish god to make the players play the floor is actually lava, I should have a way to do that.

What part of that thought process enhances PC agency? You're basically taking control of their characters away from them.


@OP What you are describing is called "Fiat" or MTP*. Basically what you are saying is that nothing written on a player's character sheet matters and they will only pass this encounter when you decide they have done whatever dance you have planned properly.

I personally hate this style of play, but I admit I am a strong player agency advocate.

If you want to understand why your player is upset consider this. He is able to control and design only one thing in the game, his character. If you put him in a situation like this you are saying that all of the work he did in character building does not matter and until the player figures out what you have designed this impossibly strong thing to want him to do he is unable to act either.

Some players just want to play something they are not and if a person of normal intelligence wants to play "Zod, The Great, Supergenius!!!!", he would most likely get extremely upset when his character does not matter and you expect him the player to solve your "Clever" super being situation.

Note: I am assuming you do not let players defeat these "Level X" super-beings via rolling diplomacy or just rolling Int checks to figure out what it wants?

If not then why not just play pretend?

Also why would such a ridiculous being not simply solve the characters problems for them if friendly or squish them if malicious? I assume because neither is fun correct?

That is due to the fact that tropes that work in one form of media, such as literature, do not work in all other forms, in the case TTRPG's.

TL;DR: Stripping players of agency is frustrating for many players.

*MTP=Magic Tea Party

P.S. In the future if you break up your posts with line breaks it helps vastly with readability.


Timmy, however, just attacks and stands around. When it comes to the choice between two things, Timmy will choose hit it until it is dead. Timmy has been targeted by a natural 20 intimidate that equaled out to a 64 (Mythic Stuff) and Timmies response was to stand there and stare back. Timmy has seen comrades sacrifice their lives for the party and Timmy says nothing and stands there. Timmy has been told not to attack by his party, so he stands there. In a fight however, Timmy attacks. He then stands there and attacks again until target is dead or Timmy is dead. Timmy will target the thing he deems most threatening as well, so while Timmy and the Bossman duke it out, the party has to take on the bossmans men, who are often times their own competent party who will be simultaneously helping the bossman and attacking the now separated party, because Timmy ran past them and took all their AoO damage. So when it comes down to the party having released hell because of Timmy doing something stupid in the end (I kill the only person who can stop the ritual). So how should this be treated in a meaningful way that would make sense. I see it as a powerful being that the party must entrap again, because it would all be very anticlimatic if they just fought it until one or the other died. Timmy will be interested during the beings "I summon stuff at you" tirade, but Timmy will not be interested during any skill challenge or roleplaying. Timmy wants the boss with a million hit points and weaknesses to everything except purely getting hit with a weapon, because that's all Timmy does. There are five other players to think about here, but it would be a damn shame if even bland as oatmeal Timmy had zero fun in the end of the campaign because the monster didn't shoot out a million tentacles to have Timmy cut them off.


Covent wrote:


Note: I am assuming you do not let players defeat these "Level X" super-beings via rolling diplomacy or just rolling Int checks to figure out what it wants?

If not then why not just play pretend?

Also why would such a ridiculous being not simply solve the characters problems for them if friendly or squish them if malicious? I assume because neither is fun correct?

That is due to the fact that tropes that work in one form of media, such as literature, do not work in all other forms, in the case TTRPG's.

TL;DR: Stripping players of agency is frustrating for many players.

They can roll, their stats are still there. If the creature makes the floor lave it isn't a "Oh my stats are worthless", it's a oh our rogue can really shine through with his acrobatics check.

If Zod the Super Genius wants to roll Diplomacy and does well, the Level X may find him entertaining and pay attention to what Zod is doing and Zod is welcome to roll checks to find out what it wants, from there even if Zods player is not coming up with an idea, someone else in the party can because 1. Even smart people do not solve every problem or 2. The player may tell Zod about his idea so that Zod can do it as a communal roleplaying sort of thing if they're friends about a character like that.

Why does the creature simply not just solve the worlds problems or utterly destroy them. Perhaps there's a limitation put on the creature that disallows it from physically altering the world and has to do so through other means or the creature itself is just a devious prankster that wants to be entertained. Either way, it does come down to fun, but can have it's reasons that the party can exploit.

If you happen to take offense to me defending this, it's because I am trying to show my side of it, as some assumptions were made.


Master Codex wrote:
Timmy, however, just attacks and stands around.

... and that's his choice, which you're depriving him of.

Quote:
So how should this be treated in a meaningful way that would make sense.

I don't know -- but I do know that Timmy isn't sitting at your table because he wants to watch you construct a narrative that "makes sense" all by yourself.

Covent phrased it well. "You are saying is that nothing written on a player's character sheet matters and they will only pass this encounter when you decide they have done whatever dance you have planned properly." You're passing judgment on Timmy's style of role playing and refusing to allow him to have fun until he acts in the approved manner --- which, by the way, you've admitted that he will not enjoy.

I'm still trying to figure out how any of this is supposed to be anything other than your prevention of a player having badwrongfun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you or your players have an issue with how Timmy chooses to engage with the game and it's mechanic's then you might want to try talking to him about it instead of passive aggressively creating a thing that's completely immune to his characters abilities via fiat.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Master Codex wrote:
Timmy, however, just attacks and stands around.

... and that's his choice, which you're depriving him of.

Quote:
So how should this be treated in a meaningful way that would make sense.

I don't know -- but I do know that Timmy isn't sitting at your table because he wants to watch you construct a narrative that "makes sense" all by yourself.

Covent phrased it well. "You are saying is that nothing written on a player's character sheet matters and they will only pass this encounter when you decide they have done whatever dance you have planned properly." You're passing judgment on Timmy's style of role playing and refusing to allow him to have fun until he acts in the approved manner --- which, by the way, you've admitted that he will not enjoy.

So, if your character stands around and does nothing, in any setting except fighting, that's roleplaying? That's a really shitty style of roleplaying if you ask me. What kind of player just waits for things to happen?


People who are bored, unhappy, or feel they have been wronged, usually.

But, if he is meant to be a diehard stare in the face of any danger and laugh barbarian, I suppose it could suit the character.

Also, it sounds like a lot of people in here stat out every npc there is, which to me is silly. Then again I arbitrarily set my DCs, npc rolls, etc based entirely on getting the players to be constantly challenged instead of having things easy (they get bored easily).

Finally, if you know he will wack it until he dies, you're essentially killing his character


Stephan Nears wrote:


So, if your character stands around and does nothing, in any setting except fighting, that's roleplaying? That's a really s&$!ty style of roleplaying if you ask me. What kind of player just waits for things to happen?

Timmy, obviously.

If you don't like it, you don't have to play with him -- but this passive-aggressive method of making sure he doesn't enjoy game night because you don't approve of his style of play is mean-spirited, underhanded, and a Dick Move.

This is, as far as I can tell, no longer about Level X characters. This is about blatant abuse of GM fiat to punish a player for daring to enjoy role-playing in an unapproved manner.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Stephan Nears wrote:


So, if your character stands around and does nothing, in any setting except fighting, that's roleplaying? That's a really s&$!ty style of roleplaying if you ask me. What kind of player just waits for things to happen?

Timmy, obviously.

If you don't like it, you don't have to play with him -- but this passive-aggressive method of making sure he doesn't enjoy game night because you don't approve of his style of play is mean-spirited, underhanded, and a Dick Move.

This is, as far as I can tell, no longer about Level X characters. This is about blatant abuse of GM fiat to punish a player for daring to enjoy role-playing in an unapproved manner.

Its not being a dick if the timmy, doesn't try to do any other roleplaying. It seems that there's a lot of assumption going on that Timmy is playing his character and should be allowed to do so.This is true. If you go and play a video game while everyone is talking about plans and such in game, That must be a good manner of role-playing in your eyes.


Stephan Nears wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


If you don't like it, you don't have to play with him -- but this passive-aggressive method of making sure he doesn't enjoy game night because you don't approve of his style of play is mean-spirited, underhanded, and a Dick Move.
Its not being a dick if the timmy, doesn't try to do any other roleplaying.

Certainly it is. I don't see any notes from Paizo on your profile that empower you to decide on Timmy's behalf that he's having badwrongfun.

If he's enjoying himself, then he's enjoying himself and to attempt to stop it would be a Dick Move.

And I think it's cowardly and chickens--t to sneak around behind his back and keep him from having fun in the way he wants instead of speaking to him about it. So, let's see....

* mean-spirited
* underhanded
* cowardly
* chickens--t
* infantile
and
* a Dick Move

I think that's all the descriptive adjectives I want to use at this moment.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Stephan Nears wrote:


If you don't like it, you don't have to play with him -- but this passive-aggressive method of making sure he doesn't enjoy game night because you don't approve of his style of play is mean-spirited, underhanded, and a Dick Move.
Its not being a dick if the timmy, doesn't try to do any other roleplaying.

Certainly it is. I don't see any notes from Paizo on your profile that empower you to decide on Timmy's behalf that he's having badwrongfun.

If he's enjoying himself, then he's enjoying himself and to attempt to stop it would be a Dick Move.

So your answer is kick him out of the game. Nice to know.

Timmy just sitting being a lump of sand.You just encourage mediocrity.

So every encounter has to have another lump for timmy to fight. If timmy's not happy that obviously the fault of the GM and not Timmy's lackluster imagination. You seem to think that no one talks to there players. I've had situations where talking solves nothing. Some people just play the lump until forced to rise up and speak. I've had people thank me for having them do something other than just roll for hit and damage, but as I can see Mediocrity is fun to you.

Also you are being a child with the passive name-calling.


Firewarrior44 wrote:
If you or your players have an issue with how Timmy chooses to engage with the game and it's mechanic's then you might want to try talking to him about it instead of passive aggressively creating a thing that's completely immune to his characters abilities via fiat.

This thing was made before I saw his style of 'play', the point of this thread was to see how I could handle this better for his sake, but all I'm getting are people claiming I dislike the player and am intentionally making this to harm him.

Even now, Orf is having a discussion with a person who isn't me and insulting me over it, showing me that he came in here simply wanting to insult me, hence why I am going to ignore him from this point on, as he is simply trying to say that his way is better while throwing a tantrum about it. His way may have been better, but now the world will never know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you see it as a behavioral problem then just talk to him about it.

Relevant


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master Codex wrote:


Even now, Orf is having a discussion with a person who isn't me and insulting me over it, showing me that he came in here simply wanting to insult me,

Not at all. I pointed out that it was a Dick Move -- as in, "a move only a dick would make" -- for a number of reasons that I was very careful to articulate. I had hoped you would realize that because you don't want to be a dick, you shouldn't do that.

At this point, I don't care if you want to put that shoe on and loudly proclaim that it fits. But I gave you a chance to actually look at what you were doing from the standpoint of player agency and autonomy. Your response, which I even singled out for you, was that you want to "make" his player character behave as you desire.

And only a dick would do that. Do you want to reconsider, yet?

You acknowledge that he's playing his character the way he wants to, but you don't like the way he's doing it -- in other words, in your opinion, he's having badwrongfun. And so in order to prevent him having fun the wrong way, you propose to knowingly and willingly set up campaign events to prevent him having any fun at all.

And only a dick would do that. Do you want to reconsider, yet?

And you're doing this behind his back instead of simply saying "hey, the rest of us would have more fun if you played your character differently." But no, talking to him is not an option when screwing him over is.

And only a dick would do that. Do you want to reconsider, yet?

And then, when you come to the Internet to ask whether this is a good idea, you get a lot of negative feedback and you start insulting the people who provide you with detailed feedback to your idea.

And only a dick would do that.

So, the hell with it. It's up to you. You have absolute freedom in this matter, because I respect your own autonomy. You can choose to be, or not to be, a dick.


Firewarrior44 wrote:


Relevant

Well put.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Master Codex wrote:


Even now, Orf is having a discussion with a person who isn't me and insulting me over it, showing me that he came in here simply wanting to insult me,

Not at all. I pointed out that it was a Dick Move -- as in, "a move only a dick would make" -- for a number of reasons that I was very careful to articulate. I had hoped you would realize that because you don't want to be a dick, you shouldn't do that.

At this point, I don't care if you want to put that shoe on and loudly proclaim that it fits. But I gave you a chance to actually look at what you were doing from the standpoint of player agency and autonomy. Your response, which I even singled out for you, was that you want to "make" his player character behave as you desire.

And only a dick would do that. Do you want to reconsider, yet?

You acknowledge that he's playing his character the way he wants to, but you don't like the way he's doing it -- in other words, in your opinion, he's having badwrongfun. And so in order to prevent him having fun the wrong way, you propose to knowingly and willingly set up campaign events to prevent him having any fun at all.

And only a dick would do that. Do you want to reconsider, yet?

And you're doing this behind his back instead of simply saying "hey, the rest of us would have more fun if you played your character differently." But no, talking to him is not an option when screwing him over is.

And only a dick would do that. Do you want to reconsider, yet?

And then, when you come to the Internet to ask whether this is a good idea, you get a lot of negative feedback and you start insulting the people who provide you with detailed feedback to your idea.

And only a dick would do that.

So, the hell with it. It's up to you. You have absolute freedom in this matter, because I respect your own autonomy. You can choose to be, or not to be, a dick.

Weren't you the one who started insulting people? That makes you the 'Dick'

Every encounter isn't made specifically for a group unless it's made that way.

I don't make an encounter to counter anyone. If a monster has this ability I use it. If that ability was the one thing your character I'snt made for. Then tough luck, help your party out and defeat that thing. You can be useful in other ways. Swing wildly and distract it. Yell insults a bout its mother. Just don't stand there and play a different game.You keep encouraging mediocrity. Your post go ona and on a bout freedom of character. I'm all about it. I'm just saying if your gonna be a literal tree, give me some reason or another. I make encounters that correspond to CR, I don't look at ability's and think "Oh this will counter him nicely." Yet you seem to think that everyone is against timmy. We like timmy, He's a nice guy, if he wants help, he'll listen to suggestions, if he doesn't he'll get bored and wonder off into the woods somewhere. We won't give up on him until he just shows that he doesn't care. In the end its the player, not the game.

This enemy may do that or this enemy might have an immunity.
Your basically saying that everyone should have there hand held and do the minimum amount of thinking possible.
Timmy can play his character as a Lump. It's no skin of my back. If he's not having fun he can tell me and we can fix it. I don't kick people out for roleplaying bad. We fix it , where I'm from. I can see that you still think that no one talks to anyone about any problem and that if someone has an opinion that differs from yours ,that there a dick, but from what I've read above, you seem to be the one who instigates it more or less.


I personally see no difference between an encounter with an unstatted creature and an encounter with a social situation where combat is poorly suited to success, such as needing the cooperation (and very specifically not decapitation) of a king.

You aren't creating a combat encounter, and if my character is strictly combat then I understand this is simply not the challenge I geared my character towards. I have the ability to politely set myself aside and use roleplay techniques to enjoy myself, knowing my diplomacy roll will most likely fail.

I'll then look forward to the next encounter being something that plays more to my stengths, because you've made an encounter that worked in favor of the other players and it is now my turn.


Shiroi wrote:

I personally see no difference between an encounter with an unstatted creature and an encounter with a social situation where combat is poorly suited to success, such as needing the cooperation (and very specifically not decapitation) of a king.

You aren't creating a combat encounter, and if my character is strictly combat then I understand this is simply not the challenge I geared my character towards. I have the ability to politely set myself aside and use roleplay techniques to enjoy myself, knowing my diplomacy roll will most likely fail.

I'll then look forward to the next encounter being something that plays more to my stengths, because you've made an encounter that worked in favor of the other players and it is now my turn.

Basically this, but I would like it if character who is solely combat has something to do. Even with combat added in, it won't take the entire encounter so at best that's just short term catering. But thank you for understanding.


I mean if he's fixated on combat and the enemy is to be disabled, he could still gill a vital role of distraction


Personally I feel that even unstatted creatures should have some 'combat stats', in the same way that artifacts have a way you can destroy them, there should be some creatures so powerful that only certain conditions can kill them.
Unless you can do that, all you can do is drive off their presence for a while and try to escape to sanctuary under the coat-tails of an equal being.
Cut out Zon-Kuthons Black Heart and expose it to the raw, pure elemental light of a place where Shadow has no meaning and die for his sins.
Create a contract that Asmodeus cannot worm his way out of, forcing him to banish himself from reality.
Capture Shelyn in a land where art itself has been ripped from the cultural zeitgeist of the kingdom and all love has been replaced with lust and intrigue before hunting her down with the corrupted blade of a hero who was born from purest love.

Doesn't mean they can just rock in and deal with it without trouble, but if Lamashtu can kill a god, why can't a PC of equal level to where she was at that point? Leaving it to GM Fiat and going 'No this should never happen' just seems arbitrary in my opinion.

Then again that's because I hold fast with the idea that if an NPC can do it, a PC should be able to, under the right conditions and if they actually work out a way, do the same. And gods have been killed in the past in Golarion so I might be bias.

Edit: Having read a touch further in the thread, I got to agree, pure combat shouldn't always be the be-all-end-all solution, or at least, combat on the spot, toe-to-toe style.
If your players spend months, years IC researching a way to slay the Great Lord Xenu, that's a world different to if they kick in the doors to his palace and roll initiative. You can boil it down to 'just the fight', but you better believe if you're doing something like that, there has to be pre-time and effort before hand, even Lamashtu had to ambush on her own turf and so on.
But it also isn't always on the GM's head to make sure every player wins every fight. I'm a pro-active player, a really pro-active player, to the point where my level 9 (Mythic 3) character is currently involved in a quest to speak with Naderi herself and convince her to become Room Mates with Pharasma instead of sleeping on Urgathoa's couch. All off my own bat and outside of the main plot line.
The GM is totally down with this, my character has put nearly a year of IC research into it and done a few minor quests to build up to it, its cool stuff.
And there's a silent acknowledgement between us that he is totally within his right to kill my character out there in the middle of nowhere, where no one will ever find the body, if I mess up, or draw the attention of the Pallid Princess herself before Naderi turns up, or if the dice just don't go my way at a critical moment, or if a million other things happen.
And that's fair enough. He's letting me give it a shot. But he doesn't owe me the right to survive it, that's on me, to be more cunning IC than the monsters, to be more subtle than the cultists after me and to be more convincing than Urgathoa herself.

There's a decent chance it won't work out at all and my character is going to end up as breakfast.
But that's life and fair is fair, its not a dick move to challenge the players when they punch outside their weight class.


Master Codex wrote:
Shiroi wrote:

I personally see no difference between an encounter with an unstatted creature and an encounter with a social situation where combat is poorly suited to success, such as needing the cooperation (and very specifically not decapitation) of a king.

You aren't creating a combat encounter, and if my character is strictly combat then I understand this is simply not the challenge I geared my character towards. I have the ability to politely set myself aside and use roleplay techniques to enjoy myself, knowing my diplomacy roll will most likely fail.

I'll then look forward to the next encounter being something that plays more to my stengths, because you've made an encounter that worked in favor of the other players and it is now my turn.

Basically this, but I would like it if character who is solely combat has something to do. Even with combat added in, it won't take the entire encounter so at best that's just short term catering. But thank you for understanding.

The same here, in an ideal situation. And I personally highly enjoy these kind of situations and they're usually the ones my character actually is built towards. But from the point of view of the kind of person for whom this would be a problem, a little patience and an understanding of what exactly is being accomplished is all that's necessary to enjoy yourself at the table.

Edit:

Perhaps that'd be exactly the right move. Tell the player beforehand that there's going to be a social encounter that looks a lot like a combat encounter, and explain that they'll be allowed to have their moment in the spotlight at a different time during the night.


No sir, I don't like 'em.


Yes, him hitting the thing can prove to be an invaluable distraction as the party comes up from behind to do whatever it is they want to do to it. But there is still the whole part between that and the start where he'd rather be playing a different game, so if he does that before the party decides an idea that requires a distraction, it'd be a shame if he just didn't pay attention because he's off doing something else.

There are a couple of ways I thought of that can seal it back, the most prominent idea being to get the exact same thing it broke out of and to try and do a soul jar sorta move on it. But I'm all down to see if the party can come up with their own things. Soul Jar will be the idea given to them if they get all their knowledges worked out well enough, but the party has given me so many wonderful solutions to puzzles in the past, I can't help but root for a new one.

As such, there are things that can catch the creature off guard the first couple of times that it happens to it, like dog piling on it (Grappling) or casting a pit under it, forcing it to fly out, which will give the party a round or so to prepare whatever else they need to do.

Yeah, there is the possibility that the creature will leave before whatever and this can happen meaning they'll have lots of in between time to really work out a complicated solution, but that's not important right now.

I do dread telling him that it's going to be a predominately roleplaying session because last time we did that, his character stood around and drank while the party got all the stuff needed to continue on. Yeah I through stuff at him, but instead of talking with the guy to get information or even rolling a knowledge local in the bar to hear rumors, he just stood there and ignored him. He was only really happy next session when the combat in the light house started. And then when some of the things seemed to have been mind controlled people and he was told to stop, he resumed standing around procedure.

Scythia wrote:
No sir, I don't like 'em.

That's fine. Is there anything you don't like about them specifically?


To be honest it sounds like you have a player who doesn't enjoy roleplay ing games in general, and would be happier playing a miniatures war game. Perhaps if you advised him of the game "malifaux" he'd be interested in roughly $100 to start up, with rulebook and first faction team included? Most major gamestores should have it. It's all combat, small teams of 3-6 minis, et cetera. It's quite nice, and there's no need to roleplay at all. I wouldn't normally push someone to a different product, but I hate to hear about people who aren't enjoying a game outside of a very limited scope, especially when they seem to be interrupting the enjoyment of others in the game.

Pathfinder is a combat based system, there's no doubt about that, but unless everyone is of the same bent as this player the game's greatest moments aren't combat based at all, but deep exploration of characters and amazing accomplishments which don't always require a natural 20 attack roll.

I've had people who didn't play in my games, but stayed and chatted and hung out and drank with my players and I. If he was there to hang out, have a good time, and not really to play the game, this might be a better chance for him to enjoy his evening and you and the party enjoy yours.

Other games that don't require deep back stories and getting into character would probably fulfill his gaming needs better than a full campaign, and once in a while a violent and dirty one shot dungeon would be a good way to keep him involved when he feels left out.

Of course, if it seems like he's basically there playing the game during combat scenes and just hanging out during the roleplay scenes, then in a sense you've already done exactly that. The combat is a daily short dungeon he can enjoy with the party and the non combat is time he just hangs out with the crowd. If he's okay with that, then I think as long as everyone accepts it for what it is then things might work out fine.

Another thing you can try is to talk to him about killing him off and rerolling. Sometimes we make characters that are all about killing and have no backstory or anything effective to do outside of combat, so we just don't particularly participate outside of combat. If he was interested in being more effective outside of combat, a slight modification to his skill points and maybe stats and a feat or two could give him more options to feel useful when the swords are sheathed, or a reroll chance might give him an opportunity to use a more intriguing backstory and personality so he isn't pigeonholed into his initial choices of a bland mercenary with no conflicts or interests.

I hope something here helps out at least a little. Good luck and happy gaming!


Yeah, without me checking in with him, I think he does play mini war games. Perhaps it would be best to ask him if he wants to roll up a new character. We have asked him about his character numerous times and the age old answer of "I'm playing my character" is his response. But he really is not interested in anything non combat, so perhaps it would be best to ask him if he wants to make a character who can do more when we aren't fighting. He started off with a paladin, but changed when he saw that his paladin wasn't going to be a tyrannical purge all who dare not worship my God thing. He likes to hang out with us outside of the game though, so I really am chalking it up to him thinking that the game is more of a combat simulator.


Hmmm... try Spheres of Power and see if he likes a Mageknight with talents in the Enchantment sphere. They're heavily combat oriented but with a few low DC enchantment spells they can actually interact with things in a non combat setting. Add an enhancement talent or two to let him buff mental and physical stats and he can then gain enough charisma when needed to actively participate in conversation. They can choose their mental stat to base DC and SP off of, I believe, so he can decide to get more skill points to use for a variety of good solutions or to make charisma or wisdom his zone and be specialized onto a particular social role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master Codex wrote:
Scythia wrote:


No sir, I don't like 'em.
That's fine. Is there anything you don't like about them specifically?

Do you play any video games? Particularly in RPGs, does it ever bother you when something happens in a cutscene that makes no sense within the rules of the game? Like when a character dies from a single attack, but you've seen them eat fireballs, slashes, poison, lightning, and be mauled by giant beasts yet be okay. Then you think to yourself "Why can't I just use a resurrection item on them?"

That's why I don't like NPCs whose have, in place of stats, the words "you lose". This is a game, with rules. Even gods in my games follow the game rules. Sure they might have 30 - 60 class levels, and quite a few racial/divine hit dice, but they still have stats.

This doesn't preclude players from coming up with clever strategies, in fact that's always an option. I've had players decide to bribe kobolds into an alliance rather than fight them, it doesn't take overwhelming odds. What it does take is a player who is crafty or intrigue/politically minded. If a player is more of a "kill the bad guys" type, then putting them into a situation where they can't fight won't get them to try manipulation, it'll just shut them down.


Based on the explanation in the OP, I'd be totally against this except in once in a very blue moon and then only if it is heavily supported through the storyline of the campaign. Players should only be battling unbeatable gods in the rarest of circumstances.

Why are the characters encountering this god? What is the purpose? What is the intended outcome? Players should feel useless when all of their options have been taken from them. If it is justified through the story as some sort of mythic trial, then it would be acceptable but only once or twice over the course of an entire campaign.


Master Codex wrote:
Timmy, however, just attacks and stands around. When it comes to the choice between two things, Timmy will choose hit it until it is dead. Timmy has been targeted by a natural 20 intimidate that equaled out to a 64 (Mythic Stuff) and Timmies response was to stand there and stare back. Timmy has seen comrades sacrifice their lives for the party and Timmy says nothing and stands there. Timmy has been told not to attack by his party, so he stands there. In a fight however, Timmy attacks. He then stands there and attacks again until target is dead or Timmy is dead. Timmy will target the thing he deems most threatening as well, so while Timmy and the Bossman duke it out, the party has to take on the bossmans men, who are often times their own competent party who will be simultaneously helping the bossman and attacking the now separated party, because Timmy ran past them and took all their AoO damage. So when it comes down to the party having released hell because of Timmy doing something stupid in the end (I kill the only person who can stop the ritual). So how should this be treated in a meaningful way that would make sense. I see it as a powerful being that the party must entrap again, because it would all be very anticlimatic if they just fought it until one or the other died. Timmy will be interested during the beings "I summon stuff at you" tirade, but Timmy will not be interested during any skill challenge or roleplaying. Timmy wants the boss with a million hit points and weaknesses to everything except purely getting hit with a weapon, because that's all Timmy does. There are five other players to think about here, but it would be a damn shame if even bland as oatmeal Timmy had zero fun in the end of the campaign because the monster didn't shoot out a million tentacles to have Timmy cut them off.

First, please if you can step back, take a breath and reduce the amount of sarcasm and condescension in your posts. There is no reason to be mean.

Secondly, perhaps it would be best if your entire group at your next session sat down and had a 30 minute discussion on the subject of expectations. Include questions such as

a.) How important are rules to you?

b.) How much combat do you like in your sessions?

c.) What about Pathfinder do you like?

d.) What about pathfinder do you not like?

e.) What about this campaign do you like?

f.) What about this campaign do you not like?

g.) How can we make this more fun?

Get everyone on the same page or if that is impossible perhaps split into more than one group.

Perhaps the issue you're facing is due to a player that is disengaged due to feeling disempowered, or perhaps he/she simply does not understand the rules enough to interact with them.

Speaking openly and honestly with everyone involved on a level playing field is in my opinion the best thing you can do.

When I say a level playing field, I mean no

"I'm the GM, so I think we should do it this way."

or

"Since I GM I put in more effort, we do it my way."

Also no

"I just want to hit things and others fun does not matter to me."

Hope this helps and happy gaming.


Shiroi wrote:
I personally see no difference between an encounter with an unstatted creature and an encounter with a social situation where combat is poorly suited to success, such as needing the cooperation (and very specifically not decapitation) of a king.

I think non-combat encounters should still have stats. Specifically, I think the GM should pre-define the DCs for various skill checks, the Will Saves for the king (in case Charm Person is expected), the amount of Divination / Abjuration Spells in effect, etc.

I think a non-combat encounter that is completely unstatted has arbitrary win-conditions for the PCs. I think a non-combat encounter that is completely unstatted is about as poorly defined as attempting to do a combat encounter without the Pathfinder Core combat rules - in other words, the GM says you win when the GM feels like it. I acknowledge how such a game can still be fun, but when I play Pathfinder, this isn't exactly how I envision myself having fun. When I play Pathfinder, I want to play with the Pathfinder rules, not arbitrary make-believe.


voideternal wrote:
Shiroi wrote:
I personally see no difference between an encounter with an unstatted creature and an encounter with a social situation where combat is poorly suited to success, such as needing the cooperation (and very specifically not decapitation) of a king.

I think non-combat encounters should still have stats. Specifically, I think the GM should pre-define the DCs for various skill checks, the Will Saves for the king (in case Charm Person is expected), the amount of Divination / Abjuration Spells in effect, etc.

I think a non-combat encounter that is completely unstatted has arbitrary win-conditions for the PCs. I think a non-combat encounter that is completely unstatted is about as poorly defined as attempting to do a combat encounter without the Pathfinder Core combat rules - in other words, the GM says you win when the GM feels like it. I acknowledge how such a game can still be fun, but when I play Pathfinder, this isn't exactly how I envision myself having fun. When I play Pathfinder, I want to play with the Pathfinder rules, not arbitrary make-believe.

I never said such a social encounter wasn't expected to have rules, merely that the BBEG being in the room doesn't mean it's a combat situation. Sometimes it's a puzzle, sometimes it's a social encounter. Once you have a Sense Motive and Bluff score, or a set of options for how the players should handle the situation, you advance as normal for the encounter type you chose. This does, as with any encounter, include the willingness to improvise if a sudden move changes the situation, but should start with base numbers regarding the options you expect the PC's to take, even if some of those numbers (such as HP and AC) are arbitrarily high.

Dark Archive

I'm reminded of the latest season of Supernatural...

Supernatural Season 11:
Dean and Sam let loose God's sister, The Darkness. The evil goddess that God banished at the beginning of creation. The greatest evil the universe has ever known. Dean and Sam can't just kill her. God is out on a permanent vacation. So, how are Dean and Sam going to defeat an evil so great, even God couldn't kill her, merely imprison her?

How lame would it be if they just staked her and moved on like the monster of the week?

That's what I think the key is, just constant "We kill it" gets boring... using your wits, finding that way to defeat that which seemingly cannot be defeated...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Opinions on "Level X" Characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules