Pogybait's page

Regarding Metagaming; I have a very experienced player at the table who dominates the in battle conversation with "recommendations."

Often they would take long discussions over their next courses of action (especially out of combat) for issues like how to cross the river without having to cross at Villareth ford recognizing the tactical threat is posed.

There simply comes a time when you have to put your GM hat on. I started off our last session and cautioned the party; "where you may know the various spells available in depth as player; you might of the PFSRD open and can look at the spell list; I will grant that even your bard may know ""a little bit of that"". Your characters in general do not share in that knowledge."

Play your roles or I will have to start penalizing your experience for poor role play.

I expect party members to ask the wizard "do you know of any spell to cross the river" and if he cannot think of one, they do not start listing off spells like they have +15 in Knowledge: Arcana. You say "damn" and walk away.

Likewise in battle; I limit table talk on "how to fight." Players may call out "tactics" as a free action. "Get behind him!!!" to encourage flanking or "Hold your fire I've a surprise up my sleeve" to create a delayed action.

If it crosses the boundary between description and cinematography into metagaming between the players simply penalyzing them their action for that round often is enough to get the message acoss; to JUST PLAY THE GAME not the rules.

I don't punish the players as much as it may seem.. I manage their expectations. If an ability is too powerful I tell them; if their course of actions is out of line with their character I tell them.

It' a high fantasy world; I am not beyond having Gods talk to mortals in their dreams and having them pay penance or ask for sacrifice.

----------

on a side note; to make encounters difficult; think 3 dimensions and removal of senses always works; demons have wings and simply placing them 20feet in the air is a great equalizer as well as archers on battlements. Losing sight, sound, touch... all can impact part dynamics. People often say you cannot cast because you are silent. Telling players they may not communicate to each other in the presence of a silence spell is something many GMs forget to do; it interupts the metagaming ability when player can only directly say their actions to the gm.

The scales thus far have had varying level of usefulness. From very frequently to just about forgotten depending upon who is in possession of them.

I also forgot to give them out; and just had them found within the packs of a later "encounter" scavenged by the inhabitants of the tunnels.

Just starting the AP, the first 2 fights have been depressingly trivial with each attack against the enemy routing them on a single die roll.

The paladin high OV and DV at least in the initial fights; makes it seem like the mass combat is nothing more than cinematic fluff. We're hoping the later battles makes the army feel threatened.

The mass combat rules thus far are cinematic fluff. The party brought along NPCs to strengthen the Army; Irabeth to lead, Anevia for scouting, and Aravashniel for lore (all of them for bonuses).

They would discuss strategy in transit or upon the eve of battle; and then would alternate rolling the dice for any engagements.

There simply does not seem enough meat on the mass combat rules to worry at the level of details I see so many above. The party spends more time engaging the NPCs inbetween events or in the party excursions; the army with the pending siege just serves as a "clock" of sorts by tracking their resources.

So far; in the first few battles "knights of Kenabres" seem so overpowered with their high OV that they are winning the battles with a single high die roll which has us digging in the books to see what is wrong.