At the end of the session. You get a good cliff hanger, the players have a chance to talk about it without disrupting the flow of the game, and you end the session on an interesting beat. That's my take, but I don't think you can go wrong either way.
Stuff...+ "Does that sound fair" The problem I see with trying to tell them it's impossible because Cheliax has a ton more resources than them is that it isn't impossible. It just totally changes the game into something you don't want to run. If the players have resources X and Cheliax has resources X to the 50th power, then all the players need to do to win is get X to the 51st power resources- this would include assets, allies both supernatural and otherwise, control of the prevailing culture in the region. etc, etc. But that totally changes the entire nature of the game. The game stops being about going on adventures and starts being about diplomatic missions, influencing culture, propaganda wars, and mass combat. I think the real problem is that the players and you see this as two different problems. The players think that Cheliax is the Empire from Star Wars and they want to play Luke and Han. You see Cheliax as an integral (and interesting) part of the region that can't simply disappear without completely remaking the cultural and geopolitical make-up of the gameworld. Rather than telling them they can't do it, I would try explaining to them what would be required to do it and how that changes the game into something you're not interested in playing.
that opinion is clearly incorrect... Using opinion and incorrect in the same sentence, other than pointing it out I'm not even sure what to say. Alignment is integral to the game as a descriptive element, as a natural cause for drama (it's EVIL! Kill IT!) It's pretty clear from this statement that you and I have entirely different philosophies about how the game should be run and what parts of it need to go to improve gameplay. I think characters should have better reasons to kill things than— It pings Evil. It has to die. That's not drama that's a videogame. As for spell descriptors, planes, and what not- Evil Outsider could be replaced by Outsider of the Lower Planes, Good Outsider by Outsider of the Upper Planes. There's no need to attach the capital E, evil to Demons. The fact that they are willing to torment people for their own pleasure pretty much says it all. While the alignment system works fine for things like Angels and Demons, when attached to people it just seems like arbitrary and pointless pigeonholing. It doesn't add anything to the game. If you leave the tool in the toolbox it doesn't get much use. And if you can leave the tool in the toolbox, it's not a necessary tool. Here's my question. How does the game change if you get rid of alignments? In my experience it doesn't, but that's just my opinion.
Right now the group I'm playing in is playing Giantslayer. After we finished the second module I said to the group, "This is stupid. Why are a group of sixth level characters going to stop a giant army? Why aren't we heading to the nearest big city and trying to convince whoever rules it that there is a huge threat and that they need to martial an army and meet it. In a situation like this, this is exactly what we should do. But the GM hasn't prepped all that crap and that's not how the module is written, so off we go to face a threat that looks on its face to be far above our pay grade." Don't get me wrong. I'm not holding our GM at fault at all. We bought in. We agreed to follow the module. I'm just not entirely enjoying what I bought. The whole AP feels very railroady. Collect the macguffins, kill the villains, rinse and repeat. The thing I really hate about it is just the feeling that what character I made really makes no difference at all. Whether I'm the reluctant sorcerer or the intrepid ranger bent on the destruction of his hated foe, the module rolls out the same. I haven't played modules in years and playing this one reminded me why I stopped playing them- they're too restrictive and too generic.
The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers. There are lots of things I disagree with the game designers about and numerous ways I would advocate for ignoring or changing the rules. To use a less controversial example: The game rules state when you kill a monster you get an award called XP. When you get enough XP your character increases in level. The intention of the game designers was to include a meta-game reward for killing monsters. I don't think that makes for good gameplay and I would encourage anyone who plays the game to ditch XP and just level characters at either regular intervals (i.e. a level every 2 or 3 sessions) or at story appropriate points. The fact that it's in the rules doesn't mean that taking away a cleric's powers is the best thing for a game. It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals. And I would encourage GMs to remove that assumption. All that does is encourage players to play classes that don't have behavior restrictions. What purpose does it serve to say— you can play your wizard any way you want, but if you play a divine caster you have to follow a certain code of conduct? If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power. I guess it really comes down to whether you think gods are characters with motives, thoughts, feelings, and desires or whether you think they're more like ideas. I don't think gods should be characters. I have no problem with the Church punishing a wayward priest, but I don't think gods should ever "do" anything. Anymore than arcane magic or psionics should have an opinion. And since I don't think Saerenrae should be a character, it doesn't really matter who is answering the prayers of the player character. Lots of posters have advocated for switching/suggesting a switch to Asmodeus. I say it doesn't matter which "god character" answers there prayers, what matters is how the gameworld reacts to the PC. Do followers of Saerenrae stop listening to him? Do adherents of Asmodeus start showing up at his new Church? Do peasants that once came to him for comfort and advice now cross the street to avoid him? Have the gameworld react to the character the way you think the gameworld would react to him. Don't use meta-game punishment.
I enjoy providing my players with a game world that I would enjoy playing in. I like getting to play a variety of NPCs and reveal their stories. But the part I find most satisfying is knowing that I helped my friends tell the story they wanted to tell. Being a GM is a lot of work, I don't particularly enjoy the prep or bookwork aspect of it. However, at the end of the night when my players say, "That was f'ing awesome!"— that's a pretty good feeling.
My second name is Jaraczewski. It's a human name from planet Earth. I dare you, I double dare you undereducated 'muricans to pronounce it correctly. You won't, unless you have a degree in Slavic studies or you hail from either Chicago or NY's Greenpoint. Yar a chew ski? I had to try. And no I'm not from Chicago or Greenpoint, but I will admit to being an undereducated 'Murican. |
