Detoxifier's page

Over the next few weeks I am temporarily handing my campaign off to a friend to run an adventure arc that takes place almost exclusively underwater. I have considered various methods of solving the issue of water-breathing for the PC's that need to breath, but we both agree that a clockwork device fits best into the theme of the campaign since clockwork items have been used in so many other areas and encounters. I would like some help with constructing the item, determining cost, limitations, etc.
I'm also open to considering other underwater items or whole sets of diving gear if someone has the time to put the work into it.

General Info -

As a spymaster his spell selection should focus on information gathering (Divination & enchantments - charm spells) and escape/survival. What the party should be worried about is his bodyguards and traps.

Question: Is there a reason for the Spymaster to fight the party?
Normally, I'd have him spend 2-3 rounds 'buffing' his bodyguards and then Dim-Dooring away.

Yes, the spymaster had one of his assassins kill an NPC the party had a lot of love for(We have been playing this game consistently for about 20 months now), and is now preparing to send the assassin to kill the paladin, the Slayer has discovered this by tracking the assassin(a catfolk monk/ninja) back to the spymaster, he discovered that the spymaster is holding the assassin's daughter as a hostage for leverage against him. The Spymaster is working for the (corrupt)Church (theocracy) that rules this land, and all the PCs have essentially been marked for death. Its a story of betrayal. The PC's have worked with him before to root out corruption within the church ranks, but now that the PCs reputations have begun to grow, the church wants to get rid of them to prevent them from gaining too much influence and threatening the elites in the hegemony. So the spymaster himself doesn't really want to fight, but the PCs are now actively hunting him, and the gap is closing.

Tactics -
Need something to shut down that Witch, depending on the type of Witch can completely dominate any encounter with humanoids.

The spell Darkness and Darkvision can be a pain for the party. Fact is, depending on if they have darkvision or no way to dispel it, can shut down the effectiveness of a lot of the party.

Slow can be a extremely nasty spell for a Arcanist with them having the ability to bump the DC up by 2 with a arcanist point.

Escaping has been a focus in his build. Its quite likely that the first few encounters will not have the full group facing him, or the group at full strength which will make escaping easy. The witch is likely to be incommunicado for another in-game month or so, shes currently on an island about three days sail from the coast. The Paladin has a great number of followers and is likely the biggest immediate threat due to the number of combatants he could bring to bear in a single encounter.

The Tarroh Student archetype gets some relevant class skills and can pick up divination spells from other classes - which seems useful to a spymaster. I might pick deathwatch, focused scrutiny and pierce disguise as spells known via it.

School understanding (divination: foresight) and bloodline development (rakshasa) also seem useful.

Except the school understanding that's mostly out of combat, tho' with a little time to buff he'd at least be very hard to fool. In combat you're looking at a 10th level arcanist presumably with the potent magic exploit. Hold monster or persistent glitterdust or dazing burning arc works well with that. Or if he has a familiar, dazing burning gaze.

With the followers - I assume he has a few body doubles? Disguise other or magic jar or illusion of treachery (/greater) may help.

Thanks, I will check those out.

Also, these guys love to split the party. It is split 4 ways right now.

Within the next few sessions a party of PC's consisting of:

8th Lvl Paladin/Inquisitor
8th lvl Ninja
8th lvl Witch
7th lvl Rogue
7th lvl Slayer(ranged)
7th lvl Gunslinger

Are going to encounter one of the main villians of the current arc. He is an Arcanist of 10th lvl, 3rd Mythic Tier.

Now this guy also happens to be the spymaster for a rather large and powerful organization, so his resources are virtually unlimited when it comes to followers.

Any advice on building a spymaster arcanist of 10th level would be appreciated. Everything from feat, Arcanist Exploit, spell selection to guides please.

I'm Looking for a little creative help in advancing a monster to an appropriate challenge for my campaign.

I want some help advancing the Rhu-Chalik on page 203 of Bestiary five.

Advance to CR 8, then add mythic ranks (4 MR) until it is CR 10.

I'd like for the advancement to be within the previously defined thematic and mechanical role of the monster.

It is important to note that for this encounter the Rhu-Chalik will be in service to and in physical proximity to the Mythic Aboleth on page 178 of Mythic Adventures.

What combinations of new spell-like abilities, mythic abilities do you think would work great for this abberant team?

Here is a Mythic Green Dragon. I recommend toning him down quiet a bit. But don't make him an easy foe.

Give him 1 Mythic Troll You can buff him slightly or use a varient. I highly recommend giving him 1-2 levels of Barbarian.

Then add in 3 Barbarian Troll (normal).

The issue with 1 BBEG is you have a 4v1 fight. But fighting a Mythic Dragon, Mythic Troll Barbarian, and 3 Barbarian trolls turns the fight into a 4v5 situation which will actually be a hell of a challenge for these guys.

The Trolls should be relativity easy to get rid of...with the Mythic one being stronger than the others. but the real challenge will be the Dragon.

I recommend running the fight by having the dragon buff in round 1 with a Haste on the Barbarians.

He will then watch how they do for 1 round.

By round 2 If the Trolls displease him he will breath on them and the players engaged with the non mythic Trolls. This should really hurt both sides (expendable pawns). But his breath also can cause Nauseated from those who fail the save. As well as giving them a Hit to their HP. If you can clip the PC casters this will help you. A Healer and Arcane caster who can not move and cast will freak out.

Round 3 The dragon should move in and Free action Frightful Presence and then snag up a PC who seems the most resilient to His Breath+ Presence Combo. From this point forward the Dragon will try to full round any PC he faces.

It would be a very rough fight and Make the PC fearful of who pulls the dragon's strings (Grand Necromancer Mardorim)

This is good. I am also going to set this whole thing up in an huge ancient ruined castle deep in the jungle. Loads of low level minions doing various tasks, traps, etc.

I worked it out with one of my players last night, his PC was badly wounded and separated from the group last session. He will play his backup character while the group sets about a rescue mission to find the lost PC. Who is going to be captured and held by the new BBEG. With a few mini-sessions punctuating the regular play to build up the suspense.

Any other ideas you'd like to contribute? Such as story or motivations?

Ask your players to roll their attacks and decide on what actions they will take prior to their turn, so that when their turn comes around all they do is give you the numbers. - this means that people are not getting up and going to get snacks, etc during other players turns, then coming back to the table clueless of what is going on.

Casters should (obviously) have their spell lists prepared in advance and know what those spells do prior to the game session.

Ensuring that communication from the DM to the players is crystal clear will also help. Make sure you clarify things so that the players understand the situation in no uncertain terms for each encounter. If players have to ask clarifying questions that generally means you are contributing to slowing down the encounter.

If a player is unsure, I give them 30 seconds to a minute to make their decision or they lose their turn. No exceptions.

I can generally burn through high level encounters with large numbers of variables in a short time, but a lot of that is just practice and making sure I am overly generous with the information I give to the players when setting up the encounter.

Well, what level are you expecting the party to be by the time they finally encounter this BBEG? Are you looking to have him/her challenge the party relatively soon, or have them act in a more prolonged manner by using minions?

Basically, what CR range are you looking for?

Well, I'd like for this to be prolonged if at all possible, I hate one shot villians, although its always a risk I like for them to be a persistent problem for the PC's. So often they first must make work of dispatching their minions.

As far as CR range, they are probably going to hit 7 in a session or two, but as for when they actually fight this BBEG, it could be quite prolonged, say 3 to 5 levels from now.

Well I was going to recommend a Mythic Template Green Dragon. Who had made followers out of the Denizens of the Jungle. Perhaps a Lieutenant is a Mythic template Troll Barbarian with an army who serves the dragon like he is the Forest's God.

BUT

Quote:

because the last BBEG was likely a blood relative

So that is out I guess. But it is a good level to be fighting Dragons.

Not necessarily out, I said likely only because I'm wanting to make them related to the story so far, there are other ways to do that.

That is an interesting idea, and it lines up with the final BBEG. The Grand Necromancer Mardorim is actually a Half-Dragon (green) lich.

This might be of some help.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/variant-rules-3rd-party/4 -winds-fantasy-gaming/The-Loss-of-a-Body-Part/Prosthetics

Mechanically speaking, it isn't much different than flesh to stone.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/fleshToStone.html

So I'm not sure why it would need to be an 8th level spell.

Thematically though its an interesting idea.

The previous BBEG has been dispatched...for the second time now, and he is really done this time, so I need a new one.

Both the old BBEG and the new one 'should' be servants to the Grand Necromancer Mardorim (homebrew). To start the new BBEG would likely reside somewhere deep in the jungle(yes, necromancers in a hot humid jungle), have a solid base of operations and a considerable number of minions at his disposal. The new BBEG would likely be looking for revenge against the PCs, because the last BBEG was likely a blood relative.

So What kind of thematic/story/gameplay elements would come of use for a jungle necromancer looking to get revenge against an adventuring party? Go crazy, I'm looking for a mythic challenge.

Party is level 6, MR 2.

So here is the rundown.

First a brief description of the world (emphasis on the word brief):
The mortal races are constrained to a single city that is a hold out against a world of undead. The government is a Catholic church style theocracy to which the PCs have sworn allegiance. The PC's are purifiers, who are sent out to do battle against the undead. Some months ago they waged war against, and captured an old city that had fallen to the undead. The undead are intelligent and cunning in this world, not just mindless zombies.

Two player mythic campaign, level 6, MR 2- Tiefling Witch and Human Inquisitor. The group rolls with a DM-PC that I try to keep out of the spotlight as much as possible (Ninja 6, MR 2), and a series of hired NPCs The old BBEG has been unmasked and put down.

As of this time the PC's are defending the city against a small invasion of Mohrgs with the assistance of about 100 members of the militia who had actually been dispatched to clear out an old ruin. The Witch PC decides to head back to town to give warning, severly bloodied, spells expended...you get the idea.

This is where the last session left off.

So hers the loose plan so far....Dire Bat(or other appropriate monster) grabs the witch out of the air, knocks her unconscious (should be easy enough) and flys her back to the NEW BBEG lair, where she loses a limb or two and is tortured for some time (we need an excuse for someone to get clockwork limbs anyhow).

So here is where you come in, help me flesh out the new BBEG, get creative, get mean, I want him introduced in dramatic fashion, with plenty of reason for him to be hated.

and go!

Most of my campaigns last about 4-6 months, but some run much longer. One game I am in has been going for just over 4 years now.

I greatly prefer longer running games so its not boredom or wrap ups, its usually life that gets in the way somehow. I also usually have as many as 3 games running concurrently. Right now I have two, but I was invited to join 2 others, one I dropped after a month because of TERRIBLE table manners and the DM was atrocious, the other hasn't started yet.

I usually use the slower xp progression chart. We also do a weird sort of point buy, all abilities are set to 8, you have 30 points to spend, no more than an 18 in any ability prior to racial adjustments, 2 bonus feats at first level, and you gain an ability point at every even level instead of just every 4 levels. I also like to play Mythic adventures. Generally granting a new mythic tier every 2 to 3 levels. So far the highest pathfinder game has gotten to about 8th level. The game I have been in for 4 years is 18th level, but its 3.5e darksun.

Buri -

Guilty as charged. I asked my question in all good faith, then got caught up in my argument. I really was curious about your perspective, so thanks for answering fully, despite my tone.

I will say that compared with a lot of folks in the RPG world, I'm not putting a ton of time into the game. I'm maybe just shifting more of my time away from stuff I used to do (creating worlds, cooking up adventures, grinding through stat blocks) and focusing it instead on this part.

Part of that is that I've become more and more comfortable running published adventures. I love home-grown campaigns and adventures, but this is one cool aspect of buying stuff - you can focus a bit more on getting ready for the performance at the table rather than all the writing.

(I do rewrite my purchased campaigns a lot -- even Slumbering Tsar, which is a masterpiece as written, was fun to homebrew a bit.)

One final-final thought: I've really come to love DMing. A couple of people have noted in this conversation that it's kind of a burden and 'taking a bullet for the team' to play from behind the screen. I hadn't thought of that.

That's maybe the most important thing that we should be talking about. As we try to make DMing better for PF players, how can we also make it funner and more rewarding for the DMs?

--Marsh

http://dungeonsmaster.com/2012/09/collaborative-dungeon-design/

Collaborative design in all elements of the game vastly reduces the DM workload, increases player investment in the game, and improves the game for everyone by incorparating more ideas than any one person could have.

As another example, we had a Gunslinger who played as a sniper. In a series of ongoing fights I had him challenged by another gunslinger ala "enemy at the gates" style. He lost, taking lethal damage. The PLAYERS decided it would be way cooler if instead of dying the PC simply lost his shooting eye and was disabled while the other shooter escaped thinking he had just killed him.

This sparked an awesome adventure for that character where he had to overcome his new weakness by learning to shoot with his other hand, and hunt down his nemesis. It was far better than losing the character and all the history, rerolling, or simply taking 2 negative levels.

I would encourage you to think outside of the box that is negative levels or ability damage and allow the players to come up with creative solutions that add flavor and history to their characters while simultaneously satisfying the need to have consequences without giving up continuity.

There is a win-win-win solution to the problem of PC death.

If a PC dies, I ask the player want they want to do. They have a few choices

1. Create a new PC
2. Bring the same character back with a cost.

Most of my players choose option 2. To put it simply, if you take so much damange that it would kill you, instead of dieing you can pay a cost and continue playing with the same PC.

I let the players choose the cost, the group usually has a short discussion about the context of the situation and what would be appropriate.

As an example, Togomor the wizard took massive amount of lethal damage from an Orc Barbarian with a big axe. The group discussed it and created 4 possible conditions, rolled a d4, and Togomore lost his left leg from the thigh down instead of dieing.

Eventually Togomor saved up enough gold to have a clockwork leg crafted for him. It made his character more interesting, satisfied the need for some kind of death consequence mechanic, and allowed the player to continue on with the character he loved.

Marsh,

I strongly agree with the premise of your last post. Over the years that I have been both player and DM I have found that a great deal good DMing is actually largely independent of story telling, acting, improv, planning, and even your proficiency with the art itself.

I've seen plenty of incredible story tellers and improv masters have their games fall flat.

What they and most DM's I have seen are missing is dispute resolution skills, and more importantly, the knowledge of how to prevent disputes from arising in the first place. This is generally from a lack of communication skills. Thats why I say things like clearly communicating your intent, no blocking, and session 0 are critical to the success of a game. Sure you can go without them, but your success is more a matter of luck, less a matter of surety. I'd rather KNOW that my game is going to succeed than just hope. Thats the purpose of the methodology I outline above.

Now, there are much more advanced concepts I would include, but the above are simple enough most people should be able to grasp and apply them immediately.

While DMing styles may vary greatly there are a few basics that every DM should adopt that will improve their game and ensure cohesion at the table. Most of these are out of game and don't impact anyone's particular method of storytelling.

These are the basics, there are some more advanced ones I will leave off for now.

Methodology guidelines:

1. Ask for and listen to feedback from your players at least once a month.

2. Have a session 0. This means that you sit down with your players before launching into the campaign, have a discussion about everyones expectations, lay out the houserules or any rules modifications appropriate for the campaign and openly address any concerns the players have. This includes explaining the style or approach you will take to running the upcoming game and ensuring the players fully understand what they are agreeing too.

3. Clearly communicate your intent. If you want the players to know something, or understand something, tell them. Dropping hints or clues or calling for perception checks for them to notice clearly visible things is just dumb. Just tell them what you want them to know and stop wasting time. I see DM's do this all the time and then wonder why their games fell flat. As Mark Hoover put it, be specific, not general. If the room will fill with acid in 4 rounds, say that, not "the room is filling with acid" or some other general description that doesn't give them enough information to determine what risks/rewards they have opportunity for.

4. Ask the players what they want to do next week at the end of every session. Don't waste time blindly creating dozens of hooks to reel in your players. Just ask them what they want to do, then go home and prep your next session based on their answers. My story hooks NEVER fall flat, PERIOD. Incorporate the players wants into the game.

5. No dead hooks. If you spend time describing something in detail, don't waste precious game time with it being a dead hook. For example, a friend of mine ran a game a few months back and we had 9 dead hooks in one session. He took great care to describe a run down hovel off the road, so I went and kicked down the door, it was empty and of absolutely no significance. When the players swallow a hook, you better make something interesting happen.

6. No blocking. This applies more to the players than the GM, but the GM has to make sure it is enforced. No blocking means the players cannot tell each other no. If the fighter says "I charge!" and then the Monk says "I jump in the way to stop him" the next sentence out of my mouth is "The fighter runs right through you and charges." Blocking isn't fun, its another waste of time that breeds resentment at the table.

7. Include an epic setpiece. Every session. Period. Remember all the walking in LOTR? Thats not epic. Skip that crap and get to the adventure unless something awesome is going to happen along the way, in that case, skip to that part. Make the encounters multi-layered, dynamic sandboxes with multiple moving parts. Provide problems with no set solutions and let the players figure it out. More on this if anyone is interested in how to do this.

8. Use the d*** dice! Don't ad hoc failures/successes, let the dice determine the outcome. NEVER AUTOFAIL ANYONE. Give the players a chance to succeed.

9. The game is about the PC's, not an opportunity for you to force a story they don't care about down their throats. Remember that.

10. When in doubt, err on the side of the players.

I can understand that view, just to clarify I'm certainly not against an effort to improve the quality of DM's, I'm just thinking Paizo might not be the people to lead that charge, but as you say, so long as they are aware of that and go looking for the right people it might turn out fine.

I think for me, it would have to be a collaborative effort, and I believe a lot of the reason that hasn't worked so far is because of the massive amount of resistance from DM's who...don't know they suck, vehemently refuse to believe it, will defend their terrible methods to the death, and seek to propogate and expand their ignorance to everyone else. I just don't want paizo to hire that guy.

Here are some good places to go if you are looking to improve:

http://dungeonmastery.blogspot.com/2014/10/dungeon-master-101.html

http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threa ds/4167196

http://www.thoughtcrimegames.net/structure-first-story-last/

http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html

I know of a lot of others...but this might get you started in the right direction.

Captain Marsh, part of the issue with encouraging Paizo to do this is that they likely have substantially LESS experience DMing than large swaths of the community.

I'd be willing to wager that I and a great many DM's on here have a lot more time running games than most of the writers and content creators at Paizo. Because they are spending their time creating content, not running games. Sort of how Bungie created halo but when I had the opportunity to play the devs in Reach I steamrolled them. Sure they were better than your average player, but compared to their dedicated fans they were terrible. I'm quite certain the situation is similar with Paizo. Sure they are some of the best writers and content creators out there, and they are probably better than the average DM, but compared to the vast number of very experienced and highly intelligent, observant, adaptive DM's out there they are novices-and it shows. The Gamemastery guide was full of goofy misgivings about the best way to run a game and didn't provide a shred of insight into the fundamental principles at work in a game.

A community project might be a better alternative.

I never apologize. I'm sorry, that's just the way I am.

Uh-huh...

Well the remark was meant to be humorous (I thought my use of "like" would give it away) but I have definitely seen threads with fewer than twenty or thirty people drag on and on and on...

Most people on forums are talking past one another.

If you have players or DM's that get emotionally involved every time there is a difference of opinion on a rule, and won't back down once the rule is clarified you have problems bigger than lack of knowledge in your group.

That problem is probably that someone at the table has played in a group where they HAD to behave that way in order to make their wants and needs known because the group dynamic between the DM and players was abusive at best. Or, it could be that you have the dynamic at your table (not you specifically Durngrun) and thats what is causing the problems. If the players at your table are competing against you and one another in order to have 'fun' then you have failed. DM vs players is not a healthy dynamic for a gaming group, it will eventually result in resentment and poor behavior.

Most people are not really interested in fixing their games though. Several years ago I was in a different group and it went something like this: January-March Person A is DM, everyone is bickering and fighting, the game barely moves.

April - July I am Dming, we haven't had a single fight or argument the whole time, people are laughing and enjoying their characters.

August - September Person B is DM, the bickering has resumed.

October - I am filling in for B, no one is fighting, laughter and progression have resumed.

November, Person C is going to try his hand, half the group is fighting again.

Almost everyone was completely oblivious to the fact that the houserules I introduced, gave everyone a copy of, and read outloud for everyone to follow along with essentially eliminated all the stupid fighting. The other DM's just kept saying "but I like to run this way" or "This is just my style man" I eventually just left and started my own group with more than half the players.

Read the Alexandrian Blog.

Most of his ideas are fairly good. I've raised issue with him a few times on the old "Whats a DM to do" forum at WOTC back before that forum pretty much died.

There were a lot of good DM's on that board, and some with horrible ideas. That board was very loosely moderated so people would argue the same topic for months, often producing some really fascinating conclusions (once you sorted them out from the insults).

I hate to say it but the people at Paizo don't really have the philosophical horsepower to do this. There are a lot of blogs and forums where ancient sage DM's lurk and argue about the one true way for years and years that do. People who have the critical thinking skills to break things down to their fundamental principle level and argue based on first principles...not on an issue by issue basis, and independent of any particular ruleset that may be used in the system.

Most of what makes a really good DM is actually independent of any particular system. The ruleset that is applied comes after the understanding of the axioms at work.

Every single system I have ever played in has about a half a dozen rules that run counter to the best practices a DM could apply. Rules that literally run counter to and interfere with the best approaches found in other models of game theory involving social cooperation. Once those rules are removed or modified most groups I have seen run much smoother. Especially in groups with personality conflicts.

I'd be very uneasy with the idea of Paizo trying to put out a comprehensive "how to" set on being a DM. 1. I know they would muck it up (I love all of Paizos products by the way, but I can tell they wouldn't be the best fit for this) and 2. We would then see a flood of new DM's who blindly accepted whatever they read in a book even to the detriment of their games, because paizo said so.

Discussion and debate is a better approach. A lot of people simply lack the ability to question 'the rules' if it is written down in something that appears authoritative, regardless of how nuts they are.

If the DM isn't willing to stop the game for five minutes to make sure his rules call that killed a PC is correct despite the obvious protest of a player then don't play at his table anymore. That DM doesn't place enough value on the enjoyment of the players at his table.

My approach to solving rules disputes is pretty simple. If a player raises an objection I will do one of three things.

1. Advise him that his objection is incorrect and that the rule is covered under X, section Y of blah. I know most of the rules well enough to do this.

2. Admit I am unsure and if the matter is of little consequence make a judgement call, in the players favor, then I will research the issue after the game. If the player disagrees with me invoking fiat, I will move to rule 3.

3. We stop the game and research the issue as a whole group.

I've never found need to stop a game for more than 5 to 10 minutes while an issue was being researched. Most of us have the PRD on our phones or tablets, and we have multiple copies of every book at our disposal. Not to mention that the player with the least experience in our group has 'only' been playing for 15 years.

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)

I've played in a variety of groups over the years and I believe that nearly everytime I have seen a DM use rule 0 (including myself in earlier years) it has been because of a failure of communication and a failure to set proper expectations in session 0. The few exceptions to those have been because of players that just didn't belong at the table in the first place due to maturity and personality conflicts.

If the DM communicates all the houserules and provides an explanation of them in session 0; briefly details how rule disputes should be handled; how player to player and character to character disputes will be handled; and sets expectations about how the campaign will be run and what kinds and how much input the players will have; then there should be virtually no need for rule 0.

I've taken the mantle of DM in groups where the players were constantly fighting and then...all of sudden, like someone cast calm emotions...everyone was chill. People cooperated, the game progressed, and everyone seemed to forget about their petty disputes. I'm not some magical 'player whisperer', all I did was set the ground rules and communicate with the players. Now, granted, my houserules are a bit different from most peoples and are designed to eliminate disputes (by preventing the cause, not by banning the arguments) but I don't think it takes that much.

My approach to solving rules disputes is pretty simple. If a player raises an objection I will do one of three things.

1. Advise him that his objection is incorrect and that the rule is covered under X, section Y of blah. I know most of the rules well enough to do this.

2. Admit I am unsure and if the matter is of little consequence make a judgement call, in the players favor, then I will research the issue after the game. If the player disagrees with me invoking fiat, I will move to rule 3.

3. We stop the game and research the issue as a whole group.

I've never found need to stop a game for more than 5 to 10 minutes while an issue was being researched. Most of us have the PRD on our phones or tablets, and we have multiple copies of every book at our disposal. Not to mention that the player with the least experience in our group has 'only' been playing for 15 years.

Players can and do have just as much investment in a game as the DM. If a player is in a game for years with the same character, from 1st to 13th level (or whatever), it is completely unreasonable to expect the player to shut up or quit if a bad call that killed his character can't be resolved in 10 minutes or less.

Speaking as someone who GMs most all of the time, the idea that a GM has some special ownership of the game or the the GM is above following the rules is complete crap.

Yup.

I'd say it is all in the context and the severity of the issue at stake. I've seen some pretty horrific calls by DM's that had rather severe game changing consequences. Sometimes its worth stopping the game to work it out before making a ruling. On the other hand I've seen players bring games to a screeching halt over nearly insignificant disputes.

I don't perceive rules lawyering as bad, so long as you actually know the rules and have a desire to see them consistently and accurately applied. I do consider a lack of understanding the rules or inconsistent application of them a problem. If a group has a rules lawyer or two its usually only a matter of time before the other players at the table have a precise enough understanding of the rules to diminish the need to occasionally stop the game. Its a problem that will solve itself as long as the other players are paying attention to the discussions.

This is not to say that all rules lawyers have the same tact, patience, rigor, and emotional detachment from the subject they are arguing. Some people are just jerks.

The Ninja, pretty much the class I want to play about 80% of the time. That would pretty much ruin the game for me.

About a decade ago I played in a group for about three years that was comprised of about six rules lawyers. When the group first convened games moved somewhat slowly but that improved over time as the general degree of precision and understanding improved for all players. We didn't mind taking a few minutes to look up and resolve any rules disputes that arose. If it wasn't found expediously we just houseruled it and someone (usually two or three of us) would research it after the game or sometime before the next week.

The only bad rules lawyering I have ever seen was from a player who didn't actually know the rules but constantly insisted that his random rules were completely and absolutely true, no matter how many times I proved him wrong.

A few years ago I was in a low level campaign where the DM kept pestering us with the BBEG's familiar, an imp, with invisibility and a series of annoying spells.

We finally got sick of it and once when we saw signs of it nearby we locked all the doors, two of us grabbed a sheet and ran across the room, where we caught it, wrapped it up, stuff it in a pot, put the lid on and beat the edges shut.

We then proceeded to carry the pot around, occasionally consulting it for insults and pleas of mercy.

As for your other point I like the idea of putting a timer on it. Part of that advice though is to be specific about said timer. Its not enough to tell the PCs: the room is filling with lava. You need to set the timer by saynig: the room is filling with lava; at this rate you'll be knee-deep in it at the start of round 5, so here we are in round 1. You have 4 rounds to deal with this. Go.

That falls in line with the lesson I taught myself last night: choose specific over descriptive.

In last night's game session there were 2 paths. One was a series of Small-sized tunnels the kobolds were using and the other was a steep earthen ramp the kobolds were guarding through murder holes with improved cover. Rather than use flowery, descriptive narration to set the scene I simply told the players the RAW of the situation. If they pursue the caves they'll be Squeezing and fighting at -4, but they can take the fight directly to kobolds they KNOW are in there. If they go up the ramp they'll have to make DC 5 Climb checks; not enough for them to be challenging, but steep enough to slow their move by half. With the 2 murder holes the kobolds have access to the entire ramp so with the party moving slow you can't just run through the gauntlet trusting your speed to protect you.

Since we play in 3 hour sessions I felt delivering the RAW was prudent, time wise. To my surprise though a magical thing happened. Usually my fancy descriptions are fun to listen to but bog down play into debate as the players try to reason out EXACTLY what the pros and cons are in a situation I've described. Since they didn't HAVE to debate they seemed a lot more secure in making the final decision to go up the ramp and they made a very sound plan.

Anyway I think I'm starting to find my footing again as a GM. In upcoming sessions the PCs are going to assault the kobolds' position whole hog. I intend on taking your advice to create a timed fight scene based on the release of foul waters. The fight will also carry a sadistic choice for the heroes: if the PCs defeat the high-priest Imvyryx but allow the water to be released they keep him from turning into a bigger threat later, however this triggers the awakening of a Nuckelavee, a CR 9 fey creature (PCs are APL2). If however they focus their efforts on stopping the water then Imvyryx gets away so he can be turned into a half-dragon later.

Excellent. I always advocate for being direct with the players about what is happening instead of giving them clues and expecting them to figure it out based on how your words translate into pictures in their mind. Its amazing how much resistance I get for that one point.

That sounds like a really fun campaign you are running, and the encounter design sounds great.

I ran an encounter recently that required the group to split up to accomplish two goals at once. I'll give you the jist of it so you can decide how something like that might function in your game if you ever found need of it.

The encounter is set in a walled fortress-city called Sanctuary on Mirth Island. The city is in turmoil, the gates are hanging wide open as the city residents have split into warring factions for control of the city after the current pope has been declared an open servant of the Grand Necromancer (equivilant to the devil in the world). High ranking members of the Clergy have sealed themselves away in the high towers of the Cathedral, dark speech is echoing from their chambers as a maelstrom begins to take shape swirling overhead. They are casting a ritual spell to create a storm of darkness over the city. It would appear the Cathedral guard are under the affect of some sort of spell and have repelled attempts by the citizenry and city guard to gain entry to the Cathedral. At the same time a vast army of Ghouls is bearing down on the unattended gates of the city, using the swirling darkness above to shield them from the sun (sunlight in this world incinerates undead). I gave them the specifics, making it absolutely clear through use of time and distance that if the party focused wholly on one goal, the other goal would be a failure. They did not have enough time to send everyone to the Cathedral and stop the ritual before the army of ghouls reached the gate. Likewise, if they sealed the gate it would not buy them enough time to reach the cathedral and stop the ritual before the gate was breached. They had to do both at once.

It worked out beautifully. The group that went to the gates managed to get them sealed and held off the breach until two rounds before the group that went to the cathedral reached the towers and interrupted the ritual. The sun burst through the clouds incinerating the overwhelmed forces at the gates just as it looked like all hope was lost. (one PC at the gates was cut in half, the others were completely out of resources)

EDIT: For anyone wondering why the assualt simply didn't take place at night, the Lord of Aed has created a star that perpetually hovers over the city of sanctuary, ensuring that it is never cast into darkness.

Adjusts the onion on his belt

Back in my day we called those gems. And we liked them. We loved them.

Get off my lawn!

I've tried doing that before too, but I find a lot of players have trouble grasping the concept so I just started using standardized coins at higher values.

Another option I have seen used in game is non metal currencies. One of the games I play in uses plaster currency with the denominations imprinted into the face of the currency. The central bank of the kingdom holds all the gold and platinum in its vaults, or at least that is what we are told.

This opens the game up for some interesting uses of counterfeiting

You may be better served by simply adding a new coinage, such as Nickel between Copper and Silver, bumping silver, gold, and platinum up an extra unit of 10.

I usually go the opposite direction and add a few types of exotic new metals or coins onto the end of platinum that only the very wealthy trade in.

Good stuff.

Have you read the writeup for the Kobolds in the Monster Codex? In may give you some ideas for the different roles individuals would play in Kobold society.

Also, did you see any of my previous posts? I actually did address the issue of what you can do to adjust your encounters a bit if you think they are too short.

As one of the people who echoed some of the same sentiments (namely, StFranciss' concerns about murderhoboing) I disagree.

There are a wide variety of viewpoints on this thread, many of which completely validate Cuup and place the blame on oblivious players. Cuup to his credit is...

My point wasn't tell the players every time they are wandering into an ambush. I ambush PC's all the time without them knowing.

Cuup seemed perplexed as to why his players didn't pick up on the clues he left for them. My first point was simple, don't leave clues. It leaves too much open to interpretation. Hence the problems that others pointed out with certain types of mystery/investigation games. I also pointed out that he needs to be clear on what the mindset of his players was, why they were following along with the NPCs-ie was it that they did not pick up on the clues or did they just want to see where it was going?

The solution to both of these issues is pretty clear, just talk to the players and find out if they missed the clues or were following along because they wanted to see where it lead. Then just make sure you set basic expectations about the game with them. Clear communication will solve the issue.

If it is a no-holds barred campaign where the NPC's will try to trick and deceive them or stab them in the back...tell them that, that way they still trust you as the DM, just not your NPC's. Otherwise you may start molding a group of paranoid DM-hating murder hobos. It doesn't mean give every secret or hook away, or tell them when they are getting ambushed. The point about clues is to make sure they understand the context and meaning you intend...IF you want them too understand the clues.

I wasn't suggesting Cuup change his DM style, most of this issue could be addressed out of game simply by making sure you lay out the basic expectations for the game.

Anyway, I hope I can lay the confusion over my point to rest now. I wasn't going to respond to this again but I can't let the last word be "you told people to give away when they are being ambushed"...because that is a massive misinterpretation of my post.

Gold and Silver have historically maintained a ratio of about 1:16

So 1 to 10 is actually not that unrealistic.

Also the Romans and many other ancient societies did use gold or silver coins in their currency. Its really not as rare as you might think. It is actually rarer in todays society, where the banks have concentrated all of it into vaults.

I know quite a bit about economics...and I won't bore you with the details about how artificially our current systems are constructed but to put it in historical perspective, or game perspective. Every time you see $1000 picture a gold coin, and every time you see $63 picture that as a silver ounce. Gold and silver are not that rare...just hoarded.

I'd say don't get caught up too much in how brief the fights are in duration in real time. Most medieval combat was very brief. Each swordsman might swing once or twice (per combatant) in a real fight. Parry, hard downward slash onto the arm or hands, fight is over. Movies portray fights with multiple parries, dodges, blocks, etc. It just doesn't go down that way. Block with a real sword a few times and somebody is breaking a weapon.

One strategy for prolonging or challenging the players that can consistently work is by having additional troops in reserve. These troops only exist if the PC's are mopping the floor with the challenge. "Having heard the sounds of battle six more of X come dashing around the corner and join the fray."

Complicate the battle. I remember a year or so ago I gave you some advice about using an epic setpiece in every game and let your combat revolve around that (and you alluded to me changing my profile picture from green scum swamp creature-which deeply hurt my feelings, and I have since become a goat demon). I like to keep the clock ticking, so to speak. To prevent the combat from being a simple bit of our team vs their team.

A few examples:
"A mass of crimson robed priests are blocking your way, you can determine based on the state of the spell (spellcraft check) that within 4 turns the Cultists prayer will open a portal to the (insert dimension of vile horrors here)"

"The room will have filled with magma in six turns-sealing you in the volcanic lair with the Lich, there is a lever on the south wall that will stop the magma, but in two turns the Fire Lich's minions will have dragged the helpless prince through the north door. All the while, a horde of burning skeletons are raining burning oil covered crossbow bolts down onto you from the wall to the East."

The goal should not be to simply prolong the combat with the same number/type of enemies. If you want to prolong the combat, make it because there is another layer of action taking place. Kind of how those absurdly complex transformers battle scenes from Michael Bay aspire to have all the fight scenes at once instead of spread out like a sensible director would...cough, ahem. The point is make a cake.

Detoxifier wrote:

I hate to say it Cuup...but I don't think you came on here looking for advice. You are displaying a lot of what is called confirmation bias. Which means you came here looking to have others confirm what you already believed.

I encourage you to expand your horizons a bit and consider the possiblity that it wasn't just the amount of hints that may have gone wrong, or that you could have done better.

Most DM's never really examine what makes a good DM, they just sit down with some books and dice and follow in the footsteps of whoever it was they have seen run games before, without critical examination of the best possible methods to employ. Often, improving your game means doing something that is counter to what you have been exposed to in the past, or doing something that may not be so obvious.

Just some food for thought.

Your food for thought is that I don't DM the way you do. I absolutely came here looking for advice. Here are two pieces of advice - directly related to my question - that I specifically pointed out and agreed that my problem may have fixed itself had I done them:

Cuup wrote:

Also, I see now that a Knowledge Nature check should have given a bit more info. I should have explained the nature of Russet Mold and its connection to Vegepygmies. This probably would have left them more alert.

Cuup wrote:

I do like the suggestions that I should have left some evidence outside the cave (there's plenty inside). Leaving dozens of trails of footprints from others doing exactly what the PC's did was a good idea too.

I came here convinced that I did everything right, but eager to learn if I was wrong. Many people's advice I found helpful (on both the I-was-right side of the equation, and the I-was-wrong side), and others', I found either misguided, or I just disagreed with them. Your style of DM'ing is very different from mine, and I take no issues with how you do it, so please don't try to tell me I'm ignorantly stroking my own ego and just looking...

Sigh, I'm not being rude, you're just missing the point, and now you are missing the point about missing the point. You've misinterpreted each of my posts you've responded to so far, which ironically makes my point about ensuring clear communication.

When you read my posts, assume that I am being as polite as possible and my intent is to be genuinely helpful. There is no angry, arrogant, or impolite tone here.

I haven't made any allusions to your competence or 'level' of dming, whatever that means.

So I'll try to be as clear as possible. The narrow question you are posing here is only a symptom of why your game 'flopped' as you put it, and is not addressing the cause. Personally I wouldn't say your game went that badly, seemed fine for the most part, but if you want to know why your players did not pick up on or react in the manner you expected it is because you did not provide clear guidance, not necessarily because of a lack of hints or skill checks. Now I'd say in the circumstance you outlined it was a fairly minor communication gap that would be pretty easy to fix, but you have to understand the principles at work in order to do that, which could save you from bungling something big later. I'm not the only one trying to point this out to you either, there are at least 3 others who have echoed the same sentiments.

Best of luck.

I hate to say it Cuup...but I don't think you came on here looking for advice. You are displaying a lot of what is called confirmation bias. Which means you came here looking to have others confirm what you already believed.

I encourage you to expand your horizons a bit and consider the possiblity that it wasn't just the amount of hints that may have gone wrong, or that you could have done better.

Most DM's never really examine what makes a good DM, they just sit down with some books and dice and follow in the footsteps of whoever it was they have seen run games before, without critical examination of the best possible methods to employ. Often, improving your game means doing something that is counter to what you have been exposed to in the past, or doing something that may not be so obvious.

Just some food for thought.

Everybody seem to be saying the only alternative to "Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead them along in a forest where they're investigating disappearances" MUST be "Kill everything in sight".

I posit that the far more logical alternative for most intelligent beings is simply "DON'T Follow the unknown, dangerous creature into its cave without even questioning its motives after it conveniently shows up to lead you along in a forest where you're investigating disappearances" or at least "show caution while doing the above".

"Not automatically assuming everything that doesn't try to gank them immediately is friendly" is not the same as "Being a murderhobo".

True, but often thats worse than being a murder-hobo. They don't follow the quest hook, they don't murder the npc...in fact, nothing much happens at all except a lot of arguing about whether they should trust the NPC or not.

For many years before I became a DM I saw a lot of this kind of behavior. The Cleric doesn't trust the NPC, the Fighter and Barbarian want to kill it on the spot but the Paladin keeps arguing with them about his code while the Rogue and the Ranger sneak off following the NPC's tracks back to the dark cave where they loot and murder the whole place by themselves.

Of course the Rogue and the Ranger catch flak from the rest of the group for going off to get all the treasure and XP while the rest of the group stood around doing a dress rehearsal for ethics 101, save for the paladin who simply threatens to lock them up for drawing their weapons. Later that night the Ranger murders the Paladin in his sleep and runs off into the night while the Wizard, who hasn't said a word the whole time, turns out to be the Paladins best friend, starts raining down flame strikes in the darkness. The Rogue takes advantage of the distraction to slip the Paladins big magic sword into his bag so he can hock it later when they get back to town.

Sigh...when I started to DM I very carefully examined what was at the root of these kinds of dynamics, and it usually boiled down the DM being unclear, or just a lack of communication between the DM and the players overall. Thats one reason I say drop certainties, not hints.

Ok don't know if this has been covered but it takes a whole lot less effort to go into the kneeling than prone. As an infantryman that's most of my life. We get into the kneeling misstep and get up just as easily so whoever was arguing prone is easier to get into than kneeling needs to go out and actually try it.

I was thinking the same thing. We avoided going prone if at all possible. Much better to be kneeling.

Going out and trying it with 80 to 120 lbs of gear too. Its not just a matter of walking out and flopping on the grass. Put on some body armor, helmet, weapon, backpack with at least 60lbs of various crap in it...then go practice going prone on some rocky terrain and sharp dune grass.

I took a running dive into a prone position in full gear in some tall grass once and landed my groin on a big rock. That was just a great bunch of fun.

As far as in game, I would call kneeling a free action (since going prone counts as one) and standing up would be equivilant to a swift action that does not provoke.

I'm running a game with my own setting called Mirth Island Mists.

Mirth Island is overrun with cannibal tribes of ghouls that hunt down humans in packs, flay them, and drag their disembowled corpses back to their underground lairs to eat.

The ghouls hunt in organized packs, Festrogs in place of dogs, a stealthy tracker or two, and a few others to run down the game.

They set up ambushes along well travelled paths, take advantage of early morning fogs and the near constant mist that covers much of the island. They build pit traps, log traps, nets, alarms, and use undead crows and ravens to scout ahead for the living without alerting anyone to their presence.

Their gear is about what you would expect these kinds of intelligent monsters to have. Bows, spears, leather armor, and of course the occasional equipment scavenged from their quarry.

@Detoxifier: Sorry, but I don't agree with your philosophy on clues vs. certainties. Pathfinder is a Roleplaying game. It's not my job to tell the PC's what conclusions they make from information they find. That's not Roleplaying, that's King's Quest. If I leave a bad hint, that's my fault, but that's the nature of the game.

You do what you deem appropriate, I'm not at your table, I don't know you or your players. I'm just here to offer advice that has seen me through many years of success.

There are multiple ways of approaching this issue, I'd suggest running a few ideas past your players to see which they prefer. Even as the DM you are only 20% of the perspective at the table. Just make sure you at least get the psychology right, you might think your meaning is crystal clear, but if you don't know what their frame of mind is you could be making a mistake.

In regards to the drop certainties and not clues, I'm not sure you grasped my meaning. Unless you are running a mystery of some kind in which the PC's figuring out the meaning of the clues (riddle) theres no harm in communicating your intention behind the clues, especially if you are hoping for or invested in a certain outcome, or just want to avoid frustrating your players who may think you are not being clear enough.

Final point, all I'm really advocating for is clear communication with your players about their expectations. Just make sure they know beforehand what they are getting into. Like Chaoseffect said, it may benefit you to advise them they can trust you, just not the NPC's.

Detoxifier wrote:

Remember this first part of my post was to agree with StFrancisss expressed that the players were playing along with the GM, which meant that sort of unconsciously, the characters were playing along with the NPC. Sometimes its necessary to remind the players of which dynamic you would like them to be aligning themselves with at the moment.

Also, remember the power of peer pressure and the desire to not be left out. Even players that think its a bad idea to follow along will probably go along with it for a long time before turning around due to the power of peer pressure and the fear of being left out of an encounter.

Fair enough. It is easy for players to put logic aside because they know it's an obvious plot hook and if they don't then the DM will be at a loss. Perhaps the TC does need to remind his players that though he isn't trying to kill the PCs, some NPCs most definitely are. Sense Motive checks are handy for that. The TC should have called for them upon the party being led to the super sketchy cave.

Exactly. It can be as simple as setting up a 'safety phrase'. Such as "Hey guys, I'd like to go 'on rails' for a while so we can set the stage for X, so I'd appreciate it if you play along." or "Tonight we are going 'off rails' so just remember, anything goes, and playing along with the NPC's is not guaranteed to yield good or interesting results."

Detoxifier wrote:

In addition, don't drop clues, drop certainties. When you leave clues you leave room for the player to misinterpret your meaning. No matter how obvious you think it is...you think its obvious because you wrote the encounter. Its not obvious, never underestimate the imagination of your players...whatever you think your clues mean, you're wrong. Tell them directly what you want them to understand. "The pygmy attempts to lead you into a dark cave where you believe you may be ambushed and killed." If the player tries to argue and say he has interpreted the clues somehow differently, kindly inform him that he is wrong, and he in fact believes he may be ambushed and killed.

I can understand your point in general, but not in this scenario. They essentially met a wild eyed man in a trench coat who offered them free candy if they got into his van, and not only did they get in, they yelled at the person who tried to get out once it was clear there never had been any candy in the first place.

"Chillax bro, don't be rude. He's probably driving us to the store to buy it right now."

The only way it could have been more ominous is if there was literal ominous chanting coming from the cave.

Yes, in this scenario too.

Remember this first part of my post was to agree with StFrancisss expressed that the players were playing along with the GM, which meant that sort of unconsciously, the characters were playing along with the NPC. Sometimes its necessary to remind the players of which dynamic you would like them to be aligning themselves with at the moment. GMs who don't will eventually find players and characters who are resistant to virtually every adventure hook and dungeon crawl they offer. Giving your players a headsup isn't going to spoil the fun (or more likely non-fun) they were going to have by "being punished for being stupid".

This doesn't mean the DM needs to spoil every mystery btw, but just make sure that your intentions are well communicated. Assume players will not get the meaning of your clues, or that they will somehow follow along into the ambush anyway because they are playing along with you. Make sure they know when to differentiate between the two by providing clear communication, not hints.

EDIT: Also, remember the power of peer pressure and the desire to not be left out. Even players that think its a bad idea to follow along will probably go along with it for a long time before turning around due to the power of peer pressure and the fear of being left out of an encounter.

I agree with StFrancisss, you are setting a dangerous precedent. You have just encouraged your PC's to distrust you, and that could bring the game to a grinding halt as they may now assume everything is a trap.

I would also like to point out something no one else has yet. When you tell them to 'play smart' you are assuming they understand your exact context of 'play smart' and not their own ideas about it. You are going to end up with different ideas about smart-not to mention fun.

In addition, don't drop clues, drop certainties. When you leave clues you leave room for the player to misinterpret your meaning. No matter how obvious you think it is...you think its obvious because you wrote the encounter. Its not obvious, never underestimate the imagination of your players...whatever you think your clues mean, you're wrong. Tell them directly what you want them to understand. "The pygmy attempts to lead you into a dark cave where you believe you may be ambushed and killed." If the player tries to argue and say he has interpreted the clues somehow differently, kindly inform him that he is wrong, and he in fact believes he may be ambushed and killed.

Too often 'hard-mode' ends up being players vs DM and not actually hard mode. You must take great care to craft your game in such a way that your players understand you aren't trying to f*** them.

Encounters can still be very difficult, suprising, dangerous and edge of your seat without the DM deceiving the players...NPC's can deceive characters, but the DM SHOULD NOT DECEIVE THE PLAYERS. There is a big difference, make sure you are on the right side of that line.

Is there a list somewhere of monsters with horrible group killing synergies?

Check out the Arcanist white mage archetype if you are looking for an arcane spellcaster with healing abilities.