ChaosTicket |
There is a similar thread to this currently active, I know.
There arent alot of options of game groups in my area. I have to tolerate reckless characters alot. I cant tell people off for being nearly suicidal because I might get kicked out of the Pathfinder Society group.
Ive gotten in trouble "suggesting" players not be so reckless ingame to avoid total party kills. I dont want people to get my characters killed off, but Im also trying not to make any DM/GM angry for being bossy. It is an additional problem when the character is roleplayed so being "chaotic stupid" is in character. That might make people actually like the character in certain ways instead of thinking he/she a Leeroy Jenkins/Load.
I play in a Pathfinder Society campaign group which makes things harder. I get maybe one RPG game per week and I only get ANY rewards by finishing the whole module for the day. So I cant just take my earnings and leave when my patience runs out for the day.
The default suggestion I expect is to quit the group. Anything better than that?
silverrey |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are willing to put the time into it you could try the MMO method. Be the buffer/healer/everyone's best friend and roleplay as the exasperated parent.
"You decided it was a good idea to stand in the fire... Again... No, you don't get healed/buffed until you stop wasting them. Now you can sit there and watch the others do good and think about what you did."
Might not make everyone happy but it will let you make your point in character while not disrupting the rest of party. Making a small show of limited resources each time can make it more convincing. Just my $0.02
Wei Ji the Learner |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is a consistently meeting group, ask for a group meeting before a scenario and bring the PFS Guide to Organized Play with you.
Point out that you're not trying to be a jerk, but that you have concerns about the tactics that some of the other characters have been using, and ask if there is some way to Cooperate on them and reach a common ground.
Then if they are adamant in their suicidal antics, ask them how they'd like to be Reported when you don't participate in their 'lemming strategy'.
Exploring the interaction between your fellow gamers should be an educational experience. If it proves negative or seems impossible, there is a listing of Venture Captains, Lieutenants, and Agents that may be able to address your concern.
PFS play should be *inclusive* not *exclusive*.
Good luck, and hopefully you'll work this out for everyone's benefit.
The Steel Refrain |
If you are willing to put the time into it you could try the MMO method. Be the buffer/healer/everyone's best friend and roleplay as the exasperated parent.
"You decided it was a good idea to stand in the fire... Again... No, you don't get healed/buffed until you stop wasting them. Now you can sit there and watch the others do good and think about what you did."
Might not make everyone happy but it will let you make your point in character while not disrupting the rest of party. Making a small show of limited resources each time can make it more convincing. Just my $0.02
I like the idea of using in-character actions to reinforce the out-of-character concerns given that your out-of-character suggestions have been frowned upon to date. (I otherwise would have suggested a respectful out of character discussion, but it appears that effort has already been made.)
You'll still need to be pretty gentle about how you go about it (and maybe not *quite* so patronizing as silverrey suggests if you have thin-skinned co-players), but it isn't really believable that a smart member of the Pathfinder Society is going to look the other way if their fellow members are consistently endangering them, or otherwise churning through their collective resources.
Daw |
Is the GM complicit in their playstyle? First, sit down with the GM, if the Zerglings are playing the game he wants to play there is no pleasant way to change it. If the GM is amenable to change, you have options. Standard tactic if you want to stay in the game is to find an ally who also also wants a less exuberant playstyle, and work as a team. Unless PFS rules somehow make dead PCs receive full shares of treasure, your characters should stay at the top of the WBL curve while the Zerglings will be at the bottom. If the now threatened Zerglings start trying to engineer TPKs to level the playing field instead of playing smarter, it will just have to be unpleasant with complaints etc, or it will have to be history.
pauljathome |
The other possibility is to contact either the Store Coordinator or local Venture Officer. They may not know about the issue and may be able to get some changes to be made.
Also, in PFS you get full XP if you are present for 3 encounters. You get whatever Prestige you've earned (likely not much but sometimes you get lucky) and the cash you've earned (also varies).
Running away and keeping your character alive is a viable tactic that costs less than actually dying.
Dave Justus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, make sure you aren't being an ass. Second, make sure you aren't being an ass.
Some people are going to prefer a more fast and loose play style and find a lot of planning and deliberation to be dreadfully boring. Others, like yourself apparently have a different view and prefer careful, well thought out approaches. Neither is wrong, both can be fun, and a group can have members of the two camps and still have a good time as long as they aren't on the extreme end of things or are willing to be a bit flexible.
You seem to think the others are at the extreme end of not planning, I would guess that they see you in the opposite manner. We will assume both of those characterizations are correct. That probably means unless there is some flexibility from both sides you are going to be incompatible.
If there are one or two leading the 'Leroy Jenkins' charge, talking with them privately maybe over a cup of coffee, and trying to explain to them that you really want continue playing in the group, but are having a hard time enjoying such a chaotic play style and see if they have any suggestions. Asking for help solving the problem tends to make people invested and works a lot better than trying to trick, guilt or bully them in to changing. At the same time, you are pretty obviously going to have to be flexible yourself and try to learn to 'go with it a little.'
I will note that 'playing until your patience runs out for the day and then leaving' is a violation of rules one and two. There are worse options, but if you don't have the self control to handle finishing a single session that you start if people don't act exactly as you like, you probably need a different hobby. I certainly get that some days anyone can find they don't have the patience for the bullshit, and walking away is better that causing other problems, but that should be the 'oh I guess I shouldn't have even showed up today, my temper is too thin' and not 'the plan'.
Lastly, if there are not a couple particular 'Leroy Jenkins' people leading the charge here, if it is everyone, every group even when the individual members are different, then it is actually your problem not theirs. I don't mean you are wrong in what you want and how you want to play, but if you are that far off the baseline from that community you are probably either going to have to learn to enjoy a different playstyle, or not participate.
Claxon |
If they really are being overly reckless don't help them. If their character dies they may learn a lesson from it.
Of course, this could cause your character to need to retreat/not finish the adventure. And depending on the situation it could result in getting yourself killed because you don't have as many party members as you should.
Ultimately the best way to handle this is out of character by talking to the players themselves. Talking to someone about what you perceive as a problem could go a long way, but be polite in doing so.
Mark Carlson 255 |
IMHO, from your description it sounds like you and the group have different focuses/goals in gaming.
The two camps as I have dubbed them over the years are "acting" and "computer game" and they use vastly different styles to play the game and what they want from the game. I will not go into more detail as it can bet boring to some.
I do not have some magical way/words to change one group into another or to suddenly enjoy one style if you like the other.
But...
1) As other have said talking to people can sometimes help but I have seen it make it worse also as sometimes people just double down on what they want and think is right/fun.
2) I have seen this situation more when there are younger players and and old hand and RPGing (but not always) and sometimes time is what is needed to move one camp to another.
3) You can also have an alpha male effect when there is a strong personalty that like things there way and everyone follows. When someone breaks away from the pack often it ends badly.
I wish you luck in what ever you end up doing and always be on the lookout for a game you can enjoy more.
MDC
ChaosTicket |
It does not help the the venture-captain thinks Im a nuisance for playing too seriously. I dont play with him personally anymore.
There is a difference between myself and the people I dont get along with. I plan things out and play defensively, playing like combat is chess or Xcom(if youve ever played). Some other people play more loosely and it shows in small actions when they take more risks like moving through threatened zones.
That shows up in other ways. I show up a little early to try to talk to people before the game begins. Each session I ask what classes people are. I write scenario details down in a notebook. Sometimes the difference really is shocking when some people casually mention they dont care if there characters die.
The goals of players can be very different. I want the hours I spend each week playing the game to result in a profit for me and my character. Making jokes and doing hilarious things is a bonus, and that doesnt make a dead character come back to life. For other people it might be the reverse.
In easy scenarios everything works out and we walk away happy.
I think I can just summarize things as "don't get me killed, and we'll be fine". I need to say that without offending anyone. Is that even possible?
Wei Ji the Learner |
It does not help the the venture-captain thinks I'm a nuisance for playing too seriously. I don't play with him personally anymore.
There's two levels of 'serious' that one could infer from this.
One is the attention-to-obscene-levels of detail serious that hampers play.
One is the focused player taking notes, so for example, the party doesn't lose out on the second prestige point (or any prestige points period).
There is a difference between myself and the people I don't get along with. I plan things out and play defensively, playing like combat is chess or X-com(if you've ever played). Some other people play more loosely and it shows in small actions when they take more risks like moving through threatened zones.
Some people seem to think the "NO GUTS!? NO GLORY!! is the be-all and end-all of gaming. It is not, and there needs to be consideration for those who play in a more conservative fashion. It's not all 'rocket tag'.
That shows up in other ways. I show up a little early to try to talk to people before the game begins. Each session I ask what classes people are. I write scenario details down in a notebook. Sometimes the difference really is shocking when some people casually mention they don't care if there characters die.
Italicized for emphasis.
That is very much against the spirit of Explore, Report, Cooperate from this old bird's position.
By getting their character into the 'deceased' column, it directly and immediately has an impact on the difficulty for the rest of the party, and can lead to further fatalities as an underpowered team attempts to accomplish scenario objectives.
The goals of players can be very different. I want the hours I spend each week playing the game to result in a profit for me and my character. Making jokes and doing hilarious things is a bonus, and that doesn't make a dead character come back to life. For other people it might be the reverse.
In easy scenarios everything works out and we walk away happy.
I think I can just summarize things as "don't get me killed, and we'll be fine". I need to say that without offending anyone. Is that even possible?
That's a start, but if particular tactics are making it difficult for one to contribute (everyone lining up in a 'conga line' in front of one's character who is a ranged shooter, for example) that needs to be addressed, as that would be a form of griefing (barring unusual exceptional circumstance).
Daw |
OK,
More information. Sorry, nothing I say will have any validity here. Our basic assumptions are just too different.
I believe that nothing in the game "profits" me in the real world, other than the fun I had.
<Digression deleted>
Loss of a character who died well doesn't bother me.
I would consider CT's playstyle over-careful for my taste.
I have had game theory pounded into my head enough not to make a few comments that will perfectly reasonably be ignored. (I really am just that way.)
Dangers inherent in your approach. Note that this just a read from your statement, it may not be at all true, but if I was gaming against you or with you as an ally, these are my assumptions that I would base initial strategies on. If wrong, readjust strategies and improve my model of your playstyle.
You are predictable, your goals are easily defineable. (You said this.)
You are cautious to the point of being controllable. (Comment on threatened zones.)
You are not good at dealing with allies who play a different style.
If I wanted to "defeat you" I would use predictable tactics in line with your own until you commited, and then would blitz you with unpredictable higher risk attacks. This would likely be over-risky if it looked like you hadn't succeeded in alienating your allies. If they hold back to "teach you a lesson" then you are in trouble.
I hate playing like this by the way, I am not even really comfortable thinking like this.
I try my hardest not to GM that way, I WANT to be out-thought, because as a non-PFS GM, I CANNOT be outgunned unless I design it that way for a reason.
ChaosTicket |
That is a quite confusing. It reads like a computer report with missing dialogue.
Are you criticizing my tactics or something else?
We cant out-think the GMs in Pathfinder Society games. Theyre pre-made modules. They do often have out-of-context enemies. Its fortunate when we face normal enemies like Goblins and Kobolds. Often we can go someplace and suddenly "flaming space skeletons".
Wei Ji the Learner |
We cant out-think the GMs in Pathfinder Society games. Theyre pre-made modules. They do often have out-of-context enemies. Its fortunate when we face normal enemies like Goblins and Kobolds. Often we can go someplace and suddenly "flaming space skeletons".
Scenarios or modules?
That does make a bit of a difference.
GMs shouldn't be in the habit of 'adding random stuff' to 'enhance game play'.
If one encounters this, report it.
TriOmegaZero |
Some other people play more loosely and it shows in small actions when they take more risks like moving through threatened zones.
Is that because they don't care/know they will provoke, or because they don't think the AoO will hurt them? I have played plenty of characters who armor up, use Total Defense, then run through the enemy line to soak AoOs and leave them off balance. If you're high AC/using miss chances, there isn't as much risk to provoking.
We cant out-think the GMs in Pathfinder Society games. Theyre pre-made modules. They do often have out-of-context enemies. Its fortunate when we face normal enemies like Goblins and Kobolds. Often we can go someplace and suddenly "flaming space skeletons".
I know exactly what scenario you mean, and despite the unlikeliness of you being prepared for that specific combat, you can certainly be prepared for common things and recognize certain foreshadowing in other cases. Sometimes you get to prepare exactly what you need to defeat the scenario. My own experience has shown that you can out-think the adventure, sometimes very easily.
Daw |
CT,
I am trying to get across that your tactics are no better or worse than what I can deduce of your fellow players tactics. Look at what they do that works, support that. Accept that sometimes another's idea of what is acceptable risk could be more appropriate to the situation. If you are unable to, you need to find a way to address that, it does not sound like your current approach is working with your local branch.
On your comment that you can't out-think a canned adventure. You are out-thinking the designer who had to set his strategy and tactics in stone, so the strategically bound GM has little leeway to adapt to your own strategies. Add to this that everything there is specifically designed to be challenging but defeatable. How can you not out-think a module?
I need to stop now, thanks for an interesting thought experiment.
Dave Justus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have a pretty good grasp on the problem.
Given the added info, I would suggest two things that might help.
First, you seem to realize that you are pretty far on one end of the spectrum, that means that a random group of people won't be a perfect fit. If you can adjust your expectations ahead of time to a more freewheeling attitude in the games than is your ideal, you will probably be able to enjoy it more. The one person's behavior and attitude you have the best chance of controlling is your own.
Second, demonstrate the behavior that you would like to see. I don't mean planning things out, but rather than trying to control everyone or micromanage things, at the start of the session volunteer what your character is good at and ask each of the others how best YOU can support them. Then follow through. This might mean at times following up on a crazy maneuver, but be there to help out in the way they want you to help out (the first step, adjusting your own expectations is important in making this work.) No guarantees, but it is possible with time that the reverse will happen, and people will start asking you how they can support your character, and a bit more teamwork will develop. Probably never to the level you would really like, but possibly to something you are a lot more happy with. Adding in a few words of appreciation when it does happen will also help speed the process.
Bodhizen |
There is a similar thread to this currently active, I know.
There arent alot of options of game groups in my area. I have to tolerate reckless characters alot. I cant tell people off for being nearly suicidal because I might get kicked out of the Pathfinder Society group.
Ive gotten in trouble "suggesting" players not be so reckless ingame to avoid total party kills. I dont want people to get my characters killed off, but Im also trying not to make any DM/GM angry for being bossy. It is an additional problem when the character is roleplayed so being "chaotic stupid" is in character. That might make people actually like the character in certain ways instead of thinking he/she a Leeroy Jenkins/Load.
I play in a Pathfinder Society campaign group which makes things harder. I get maybe one RPG game per week and I only get ANY rewards by finishing the whole module for the day. So I cant just take my earnings and leave when my patience runs out for the day.
The default suggestion I expect is to quit the group. Anything better than that?
So I'm going to make a left-field suggestion here.
Play like the others.
Hear me out. If you play like the others, and your character dies, the GM can't cite you for recklessness, because in doing so, he'd either have to cite the other players as well, or risk exposing himself to criticism. Get your points for finishing the module for the day and then try to find other games that are rewarding to play in for the strategy at some other point during the week.
If you're the party healer, don't roll up another healer. Design another character that fits the same mold that the others at the table are playing. If that leaves the party healer-less, oh well... I suppose they shouldn't be so reckless, nor should they have been so reckless with their healer.
If that's not going to be fun for you, then try online play. Society play is awesome and all, but having fun is the most important thing.
Cheers!
ChaosTicket |
Ok the #1 problem is tactics, but social problems. I have to be extremely careful not to offend ANY players or else I might get reported. Even asking someone to not run ahead springing traps or starting encounters can be a problem.
Tactics are just a secondary concern. Ive encountered enough problems with people trying to rush through choke points and attacks of opportunity that Ive learned to do the opposite and instead use terrain to my advantage by luring enemies into feints, traps, and chokepoints instead of running into prepared enemy attacks.
Another secondary problem is just how inconsistent PFS games are. They arent like a ongoing campaign you expect in an RPG. Each week is big gamble of who will be the GM, who you will be able to play with, what the scenario it is, etc.
------------------
Part of the situation really is that I want a steady game system with a reliable GM, players I can work with(and names I can remember), and an ongoing story. I would really like to see constancy instead of randomness.
That is something I should ask about.
Bodhizen |
Ok the #1 problem is tactics, but social problems. I have to be extremely careful not to offend ANY players or else I might get reported. Even asking someone to not run ahead springing traps or starting encounters can be a problem.
Tactics are just a secondary concern. Ive encountered enough problems with people trying to rush through choke points and attacks of opportunity that Ive learned to do the opposite and instead use terrain to my advantage by luring enemies into feints, traps, and chokepoints instead of running into prepared enemy attacks.
Another secondary problem is just how inconsistent PFS games are. They arent like a ongoing campaign you expect in an RPG. Each week is big gamble of who will be the GM, who you will be able to play with, what the scenario it is, etc.
------------------
Part of the situation really is that I want a steady game system with a reliable GM, players I can work with(and names I can remember), and an ongoing story. I would really like to see constancy instead of randomness.That is something I should ask about.
You're right. You should ask about it. As I said, PFS games are awesome and all, but if consistency is what you crave, then perhaps these players are not all for you.
ChaosTicket |
Similar thing this week, so im adding it here.
I got extorted by a GM when I tried to retreat in what was just short of a total party kill. The group has one character death and only survived by alot of "GM Mercy" so the enemy stopped fighting rather than kill the last person standing.
Dying and total party kills are more acceptable than withdrawing from a losing battle in the group I am in.
If I am going to be threatened, railroaded, and otherwise forced into doing things I dont want to do so other people make their experience more enjoyable, then we arent really compatible.
I am trying to improve and reach to a competitive level and everyone is just wants to play.
I dont know what is "normal" now.
Secret Wizard |
Did someone say throw in some ghasts? I heard someone say throw in some ghasts.
Seriously.
Just use ghasts.
Make three rooms connected by one door to each other.
Put some ghasts.
If they don't realize that the only way they can survive is by holding positions, stemming the entry of the ghasts and killing them one by one as they choke a point, they get eaten by ghasts.
It's ghasts.
ChaosTicket |
Im not the GM. I think an "average" GM would murder this group. The ones we have dont perform any Finishing moves, and we still have almost wipeouts.
Coincidentally, we fought Ghouls. I urged to play defensively, we did and we won quickly.
Next battle against ghoul boss, play rushes into bosses readied attack and gets paralyzed the whole fight.
MageHunter |
So it's pretty IC for them to do stupid stuff. That's an appealing archetype to follow in characters. IC you just need to reinforce yours as the levelheaded one. OOC explain, but in game try to subtly redirect them, so they realize your ideas hold merit, and respect you. They can still go crazy, but you help nudge them from TOO crazy.
To better roleplay, they may have to be reckless, but for better roleplay you can assuage them and redirect them.
Works better than killing the characters' personalities.
DuksisDarker |
It really sounds like you aren't having fun. I have a player in my friend circle who used to be really consistent in showing up, and responsible for actively and intentionally nearly killing my character 3 times. It was in good fun because i liked the role play in that game (Dark Heresy) of it, But that was 90% of his characters in every game and if he couldn't do that he just wasn't having as much fun. He stopped coming to game nights when he realized he couldn't get what he wanted out of our group. We still see and hang with him often, just not to play tabletop.
I'm not saying your situation is identical, but it sounds like you need to bite the bullet and find a new group. Something that can be catered to you and a group of like-minded (Or at least less extreme) players by a DM who is going to be consistent. It seems like the rest of your groups only incentive to change is because you want them to, which is unfair to everyone involved.
ChaosTicket |
I an interested to know if this is normal, or what is?
To me the problems are that other players are too casual an uninterested in being serious, while I am trying to be meticulous. That was actually used as an insult by a GM.
For example some tactics and build, use chokepoints, move more than 5 foot away from the enemy so they cant full-round attack, never dump constitution, and so on.
Charon's Little Helper |
I an interested to know if this is normal, or what is?
To me the problems are that other players are too casual an uninterested in being serious, while I am trying to be meticulous. That was actually used as an insult by a GM.
For example some tactics and build, use chokepoints, move more than 5 foot away from the enemy so they cant full-round attack, never dump constitution, and so on.
Seems like a variant on the Stormwind Fallacy.
LittleMissNaga |
From the GM perspective, the 'Leeroy Jenkins' characters are great. It's absolutely maddening to have a party that sits on their backsides refusing to ever open doors or go into suspicious rooms because they're being cautious. The over-cautious player who criticizes the others for simply trying to do things is bad to have around.
Sounds like you might not be that far into the paranoid-players camp, but I could still understand why a GM might be wary of you. You sound like a potential threat to the game. maybe not an actual threat, but if you sound like that, your actions probably look like that in person too. Your GM might be looking at you and thinking "Oh great, here's the guy who keeps wasting game time by trying to coerce people into not playing." Or maybe you look like you're trying to dictate how other people should play their characters.
...Again, this isn't to say you're actually doing these things. This is a guess at what your GM might be worried about, based on my own experience with over-cautious problem-players.
Alleviating these worries depends on addressing them properly. "I don't like the look of that door. I'm not going through it." drags the game to a halt because you haven't suggested any other options. "I don't like the look of that door, maybe we should see if one of the windows might be safer to go in through" is better.
Also sometimes you get outvoted. Take it gracefully when it happens. My worst player ever was a cautious player who would threaten to ditch the group if they voted on a course of action he disagreed with.
In combat, your tone is key. "You can avoid that AoO by taking a 5 ft. step to the right there, and then readying an action for when I complete the flank with a 5 ft. step on my turn" is okay. It's helpful, and it's a suggestion. On the other hand "No, don't move like that. Take a 5 ft. step there and then ready an action for when I complete the flank with a 5 ft. step on my turn" is not okay. It's the exact same strategy, but that second example is ordering someone to do things your way. It's usurping control of their character, and that's bad.
...But all that aside, it sounds like your biggest problem might be PFS itself. It sounds like you would do well with the regularity of a home group. Try gathering players you like from among the PFS games. Might take a few weeks, or a couple months, but it could be beneficial in the end.
ChaosTicket |
That strikes a cord with me.
#1 I asked if we could get some extra supplies. GM Immediately asked if I knew the scenario and had insider knowledge. Later on I found out why when we needed a large amount of food.
#2 trying to retreat during/after an almost total party wipe. GM threatened me about this.
#3 Using ranged attacks and warning people to stay out of my line of fire, in character.
We barely survived a total party wipe because I was savvy. The GM "accidentally" almost killed us all, and then forced me to stay. I dont know how GMs are supposed to act. The PFS system is a problem as it doesnt allow people to bring in new characters during a scenario and anything your character earns it lost when you die. Its not like you can will your gold to somebody else.
---------------------
I am trying to get some regular players and a GM to make a stable group while staying in PFS.
MageHunter |
ChaosTicket wrote:Seems like a variant on the Stormwind Fallacy.I an interested to know if this is normal, or what is?
To me the problems are that other players are too casual an uninterested in being serious, while I am trying to be meticulous. That was actually used as an insult by a GM.
For example some tactics and build, use chokepoints, move more than 5 foot away from the enemy so they cant full-round attack, never dump constitution, and so on.
What have you done? We can never turn back now...
Mark Carlson 255 |
I do not play in PFS but to me having an GM threaten any player is a bad move and the company should look into it. Juts like having any employee being not on page with the companies goal.
Having said that I also think that you and the rest are in different RP'ing camps and have different goals in mind when RP'ing. I know you said it is not an good option or it was a hard option but I would really try and find another game or get another game going.
2cents on GM and Scenario Knowledge:
To me this is something I would not do but I do know that other do do this. Play a scenario after buying and reading it so they can look like the Big Man on Campus (BMoC)(note I do know that the rules say you can replay a scenario but IMHO this is vastly different that what I am describing). I do not know how PFS deals with this but to me these people are in the same group for me as those who play in a sealed deck MtG tournament and then go somewhere and exchange cards before card registration to get a much better deck.
Other Problem (maybe):
One other big problem I have seen like this in the past is how do you separate player vs PC knowledge? Is the PC the one who thinks the door is strange or is it the player? Does the player always play the same type of "persona" or do they switch it up? ie has the PC in the past had a experience in which they would reasonable think the door is strange? Or they have not and it is pure player knowledge?
It is also had to play a PC that is just clueless (for me at least) to danger or is just and adrenaline junkey as like the OP die'ing to me just seems like a bad deal even if there is a great chance at resurrection. But again that is my choice and view on play styles and from your description is not one they share (ie Video Game vs Acting)
MDC
Cory Stafford 29 |
If the gm is threatening you for retreating, he is breaking rule #1 and should be reported for it. Perhaps you should run some scenarios and punish them mercilessly for their recklessness. You get your prestige, xp, and gold regardless of if they finish the scenario or not, and maybe they will learn a lesson.
ChaosTicket |
Retreating (or at least trying) is the most questionable thing Ive done, and its something I feel remorse about. I can understand that it may seem like "leeching" if I ask for rewards after leaving my party(I havent). In any situation where enemies are more likely to defeat you than the opposite its tactically sound to escape or pulling back to make ranged attacks and preventing the enemy from getting full-round attacks.
Getting threatened for it is just moral-event-horizon where I dont know if I ever want to play with that particular GM ever again.
To be clear I do not know details of every scenario or module, so I am not getting previews like a strategy guide. In and out of character I am just serious and prepared for the dangers ahead.
Baba Ganoush |
To be fair the same sorts of issues can crop up in regular gaming groups as well. Players who are bored out of combat and act poorly when the group is trying to negotiate or gather information (hey worst case it'll end up in combat which is what they want anyway). Characters who ALWAYS charge and the only way to get off an AOE is to beat them in initiative. Players who seem to listen to the groups combat plan for an ambush and then diverge from it before the surprise round is complete. . . I've gamed with them all : <
Charon's Little Helper |
From the GM perspective, the 'Leeroy Jenkins' characters are great. It's absolutely maddening to have a party that sits on their backsides refusing to ever open doors or go into suspicious rooms because they're being cautious. The over-cautious player who criticizes the others for simply trying to do things is bad to have around.
To a degree - I agree entirely. That's probably the main reason that I always make durable characters, so that I can get away with charging forward from time to time.
The one campaign where I made an intentionally squishy character (3.5 Con 10 illusionist) was something of a mess because the action started to drag, and I obviously couldn't lead the way into the next room. (I tried a time or two and got into trouble.)
cell0097 |
It really sounds like this is a combination of a really bad GM and a group of "Kick the door open" style of players.
From you have told us, it really seems like this GM doesn't like having to think beyond a group of players that rush forward all the time. Example of this when you wanted to retreat or buy extra supplies. Also, why would a GM act like a tool if your character wanted to retreat or told the other players, (in game no less) to watch out, i'm firing my bow! I'm sure if you accidentally rolled a 1 and shot one of your party members the GM would have threatened to report you for initiating PVP.
I cant really offer any advice on the GM besides not playing with them, but I can offer some advice on the players.
In the current campaign I am playing now our group consists of myself a level 3 wizard, level 3 half orc barbarian, level 3 human ranger, and a level 3 human summoner.
We've played around four session and have been having a good time for the most part. The one thing that seems to happen the minute combat starts is our barbarian has literally run ahead of the group and charged the enemy at every encounter we've faced. it has often left him bloody and beaten after every fight and at some point I know its going to cost him his life.
In game I had my character drag him to the healer when we got back to town and told him we needed his full strength to continue and that healing was important.
After another encounter that left him with very low hit points, my character produced two potions which she bought. I then had her berate the orc on wasting my items (in game my character is kind of a b+@&% lol) and I told him that if he insisted on running ahead he better start buying his own potions.
Well, he did buy himself potions but he is still rushing ahead and getting flanked from all sides by enemies. I enjoy playing with him but there isn't much I can do if he insists on this course of action. If he gets himself killed than there really isn't much we can do.
I fully believe that a character can start out as a guy that rushes forward, but i don't think its realistic to have them keep doing it if it results in them being dropped to five or fewer hp every time. The character would learn to maybe not run forward. If the people you play with continue to do this and die, it will not only make the campaign harder for you, but the GM might also find himself without any players. It might just be the only way these guys learn to not try and zerg every encounter.
Ectar |
This might be a bit of a stretch, but here goes:
Try talking with your local venture officer or whoever does the scheduling. Present the issue you've been having and see if you can convince them to run some of the more social and/or skill focus related modules. Things where the Leeroy Jenkins method won't work.
Alternatively, if your PFS group is large enough, maybe you could convince the like-minded people to do modules together. Zerglings in one group (or set of groups) and siege tanks in the other.
Mark Carlson 255 |
GM's often fall into the same two categories as players (acting/simulation and RPG) and this can cause friction. And as we all know some GM's can be better than others and just like players GM's can have good days and bad days.
Also the other dynamic can come into play, social. And that is a group of people who love a play style get together and reinforce that play style. IMHO, in this case it is almost impossible change the groups style as they have so many reinforcements to that style.
It is a bummer but I do think you would be much happier finding a group/system that supports your style better. This can be very difficult as life and factors such as physical location, time availability and number of players in area are huge factors.
For example a while ago a person asked on a RPG companies website if there were any players in Iceland (but it could have been Greenland) and if he could join their group if he was living close enough to them.
MDC
Just a Mort |
Sometimes paying attention to what the mission briefing is about can tell you quite abit about the scenario and if the GM wants to put blame for a player paying attention to the briefing and then accusing the player of insider information, I wouldn't sit at that table either.
If your VC is telling you you're travelling for a month over mountains, oceans and seas, you really ought to bring rations and a cold weather outfit. Probably a climbers kit, air crystals(in case you fall into the water). Thats simple common sense.
ChaosTicket |
Well reviewing the scenario we did last week, I think a large part of the problem is that we are getting into scenarios where non-combat ability is worthless. The first fight last week was against 5 Barbarian NPCs. Each of them had higher hit points and damage than most of the group.
Later we fought against Ghouls with Paralysis and Ghoul Fever. The paralysis almost killed several people in combat and the ghoul fever almost killed people after the boss was dead.
The week before that we fought an enemy that would captivate us every turn, then cause Fear after it attacked, so any coordinated attack was impossible.
I dont think that the fights are really balanced. We can fight small numbers or one slighty stronger enemy, but not focusing on combat hurts. Swarms can cause us a great deal of trouble. The things the players do would be survivable if the situations were more balanced so they didnt require special abilities and equipment that starting characters are unlikely to have.
Being in Pathfinder Society we get several new players, players use fresh characters, or pre-generated characters that are not-optimized for combat.
Thinking about it, of all the scenarios Ive played in the last several months, only 3 were against weak enemies like Kobolds or Goblins.
----------------
That One GM is another problem. He is choosing these scenarios(not making them, its PFS) and they are more difficult than the party can handle. The behavior by threatening me to stay after I start to catch on about the difficulty was improper.
I think should start reviewing the scenarios being chosen to see if they are appropriate after completion.
Just a Mort |
Don't bother. Different people have different playstyles, and if you find that GM not to your liking, join pathfinder-society-online-collective unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Get your PFS fix on Roll20!
The reason I told you don't bother is this:
Even if you find out he's been changing monster tactics, what are you going to do? Report him to the VC? He'll probably get away with a verbal warning. The VC might also mention that you reported him, which would make him want to kill your characters more.
The simpler solution is just not to play at his table.