DnD is very mentally stressful, it is you against someone with absolute power. (Or you with absolute power required to make the game challenging but fun for those without it.)For you, maybe. I have never subscribed to that approach.
What's your approach then?
Role playing is an interactive story co-authored by everyone at the table.
|
Role playing is an interactive story co-authored by everyone at the table.
That's the way my group always looked at it too. essentially I was writing a choose-your-own adventure story and they act out their characters to further the bigger story. It's (almsot) never a them against me situation, and even those few times is always settled through discussion and compromise. I can count the times I outright said no in 5 years on both hands, and three of those were for bags of holding.
I was beginning to think I was alone in this. I know it is a game, but I was drawn to it because it transcended other games and, for me at least, the paradigm that someone must win/lose.
Contributor
|
I don't think you're alone at all, CourtFool. As for me, I might just be too nice. As a GM, I'm always rooting for my PCs...but I have a few reasons for this kind of thinking.
First, I know that most people I choose to play with create characters with a long-term goal in mind. They want to see their characters advance and develop. I like to see the characters succeed because I want to see how the players will develop them as we go along.
Second, I need the characters so I can advance the story. I could never look at a TPK as a "victory" for me, because it would mean a drastic change in the story at the very least...which usually involves a lot of work to allow me to reveal the conclusion of my tale.
That's not to say that I coddle my players. PCs who have gotten themselves into a real mess because of stupid choices will have to pay the price. But if imposition of a roll or a rule forces me to choose between total PC failure or "letting" the PCs win in a particular instance, I'm going to err on the side of the PCs. It may not be pretty or even be what they can call a win, but I won't destroy the entire story based on a few unlucky rolls.
Similarly, I see my players' job as helping to advance the story, as well. I like to allow players to have their characters work toward personal goals, but it irks me to no end when a player won't accept that a great story has an arc and won't allow themselves to be guided by any of the hooks I provide. To me, it's as if Johnny Depp had walked onto the set of Pirates of the Caribbean and decided that Jack Sparrow would actually prefer to spend his time drinking in Tortuga or that he's more interested in looking for some legendary treasure than in reclaiming the Black Pearl. It would have derailed the entire trilogy. (I won't presume to know whether anyone thinks that's a good or a bad thing, mind you.)
As a GM, there is a kind of unwritten contract between my players and me. I provide the framework on which the whole group's story can be built (whether that's by using a published adventure path or by creating my own campaign). Even though I shouldn't railroad my players and force them to take every action just so I can tell my story, it's not fair to me, either, when players decide that the story arc doesn't matter and decide to go off and do their own, completely unrelated, thing.
Some people do get enjoyment from a sense of competition with the players. It can be fun trying to come up with the most devious trap or the toughest villain and let the players try or die against it. A lot of people don't create campaigns with story arcs and just allow the characters to face one challenge after another and to either gain levels as they go or die trying. That's fine, if the group wants to play the game that way. But that's not what I enjoy.
Ultimately, this is another reason that players and GMs should discuss this kind of thing when starting a game. It's important to know what kind of game people in your group want to play. I'd hate to join a group and put a lot of effort into developing a character only to find out that the GM prefers a more lethal approach to PC management. ;)
I also don't think that a "me vs. them" approach is the only thing that introduces the kind of stress that Kain Darkwind is talking about. I actually prefer play-by-post games specifically because I get a little stressed when prepping for a table-top game, myself.
I think that's due to an untamed perfectionism in me that wants to run the "best session ever." When I'm running PbP, even if I'm not 100% prepped at the moment, I have time to think about NPC actions and game rules, rather than having to come up with something "on my feet" at the table. I still make mistakes in my PbP games, but I think I do make better decisions because time isn't quite so compressed.
|
|
Thanks for the input guys. I'll definitely take that to heart. I need to be more firm and basically say "ok, you made your argument and that's it." I think I'm going to let the player trade in his chainmail for a chain shirt as well, that will get rid of that problem. I also need to try to stop it from being an adversarial thing as well. I guess I'm used to that sort of style and so I'm kind of doing it myself (as much as I try not to).
As for the haggling thing, you're right, I'm just going to tell them: this is how it is, you won't always get a discount.
With the night attack, I wasn't really trying to attack them when they were weakest per se. It was really just (what I thought would be) an interesting encounter. The last two nights I left them alone to sleep peacefully anyway =).
One thing that I didn't mention though that toyrobots made me realize: I'm having a hell of a time making encounters that are challenging but not so much that 1/2 the party dies. The player who has the fighter I mentioned earlier is on 4th level and basically takes any advantage he can think of to up his damage output and AC and everything else. He's got like +11 to hit and +9 to damage and 21AC. Now, I don't really have a problem with that necessarily, and of course you want your char to be powerful. But, it makes it really hard as a DM to try to come up with something that will challenge the group but not kill them. I mean with a regular party of 4th level chars I might think that 3 ogres (CR 3) would be somewhat challenging. But our dear fighter only needs like a 5 to hit and can kill either of them in a couple hits even without cleave. On top of that, there are 3 other chars to help him out. So I sent 4 ogres after them, thinking this has to be a challenge, but between bad rolls and the fact that they only need like 8 to hit it was yet another joke encounter. So when it comes down to things like "ok, I'm going to just swap out the chain mail for a chain shirt to remove one of the only weaknesses my char...
With the haggling issue, create some modifiers, +5 DC if the item is uncomon, +10 is rare +20 if unique. It's contested, and the Merchant most likely has Diplomacy also. So take the merchants Diplomacy also. The merchant who has profession (merchant) gets to take 20 on his rolls, while the player can take 10 or roll...
With no index in the back of beta, just call it how you want, and look the rules up at the end of the game, so the pace doesn't suffer. It's not your fault that he didn't know the rule, ignorance is not an excuse.
name-calling doesn't work, tell them if they resort to name-calling again, the game will end right there....or the name-caller will take max dmg everytime they're hit.
Role playing is an interactive story co-authored by everyone at the table.
Does that preclude setting challenge in the way of your players? Challenge that sometimes kills them? (Against their will, of course.)
Whenever I was a player, I liked the DM to push us to the limits. Defeats made the victories we did get that much sweeter. When I picked up (and by picked up I mean "forced into it as the lesser of two evils.") DMing, I confess I was amazed at how easy the DM had made it all look. It put a whole new outlook on things. Where before I thought it rather innocent and ok to ask if I could use my spear butt as a quarter staff, and if I could take such and such feat and play a half-celestial minotaur and be a bladesinger and arcane archer, etc....when I was having to deal with people halting the game because they wanted to invent an alchemist fire throwing repeating crossbow and play a CE player that would disrupt the rest of the party's goals, etc...it was like a light clicked on. My DM would work with you all week out of the game, but when the game began, he was very abrupt and not tolerant of much argument. We all thought he was a control freak, but having seen three players start to yawn as the game is paused for an hour for someone to look up the rule, I see why he did some of the things he did.
I've always seen the game as an interactive story. The player's role is that of a single character. The DM is responsible for the setting and all the other characters. How the interactions play out is in both the player and the DM's hands.
But that doesn't make it stress free. Just like some people can have a lot of fun playing a video game but get stressed out if it gets too hard, some people have a ton of fun playing DnD until the story doesn't go the way they wanted it to. When I'm a player, I don't get stressed. I see death as just another part in the story. When I'm a DM, I confess I'm a wreck. I don't want to make the game challenge-free. I don't want my PCs unconcerned with death because they know I won't let them die, or unconcerned with NPC lives because they know I won't let them fail. At the same time, I want them all to have fun, and what is fun for some of my players is boring for others. I try to mix up role play and heavy character interaction with combat and action packed scenarios, but it is tough to make sure the ADD player doesn't start wrecking the game for everyone else by tossing a fireball at the king in the middle of his "You heroes have saved the kingdom" speech. The other players want that speech....they earned it and it is important to them. Who do I satisfy that day? And that is apart from all the rules stuff, like people who get pissy if they have to track arrows and rations and people who get pissy if they don't have to track arrows and rations. (I've got 2 of both types in my current group)
It is frankly, an exhausting monumental task to make all of these wildly divergent personalities enjoy the game. We haven't even gotten into all of the extra work and set up with maps, handouts, pictures and such that I'm responsible for. And the only reward I ever will get is for the players to say "that was a great session, Kain!" If they say nothing, or tell me that it was horrible, boring or disappointing, all of my hard work has been for naught and I must simply strive to do better next week.
I admire anyone who can do it easily. I'm not very good at it.
But that doesn't make it stress free. Just like some people can have a lot of fun playing a video game but get stressed out if it gets too hard, some people have a ton of fun playing DnD until the story doesn't go the way they wanted it to. When I'm a player, I don't get stressed. I see death as just another part in the story. When I'm a DM, I confess I'm a wreck. I don't want to make the game challenge-free. I don't want my...
Ditto to that - DMing is a long day for me. It's not easy for me, and I feel responsible for giving my players a fun day.
I had a lot arguing with my friends about many things, and I found that sometimes there are players that are so stubborn that there is no way to reason with them. Me and my friends have played over 40 sessions (unfortunately this is where it ends), and finally after last 20 sessions of playing I understood that its very hard to be GM. I had epic stories prepared for them, detailed, everything, even they have made backgrounds of their PCs, and I used those backgrounds to make also for everybody a personal life quest (and yes of course, I read most of the books about Golarion, sometimes I even used some pre-made modules, which I always changed something to my liking, and I can say thanks very much to Jason Bulmahn and others from Paizo for making this game come true, Golarion countries are described in full detail, everything, it's pure epicness :D ), and after first 20 session, my friend which played as a Paladin of Torag started to act like a fighter, beating good NPCs without to be sure if those NPCs have made something wrong, started tobe egotistical,he didn't even had respect for other paladins. And when I started to remind him that what he's doing is wrong and it won't end well for him, he started to argue that he didn't do anything wrong, and I told him to read about Torag's paladin codes, how he should behave, and he always argued that he wants to be a paladin like how he imagined, that he can much more liberty, to be chaotic, to summarize, like a fighter. And since he made many mistakes as a paladin, and wanted to quit playing because who couldn't act like one, he made excuses that I didn't have an interesting story for his character,and that his character didn't knew what to do etc.
Finally, I have too much to say, but since I want to cut the story short, it's very hard to find players which wouldn't argue a lot,and sometimes no matter how you as a GM try to reason with them, there is no chance in hell you can reason with them...
Thread necromancy! This one was dead for four years! Spooky...
When starting up a new campaign, I find it helpful to print up a codified set of the house rules that we will be using, and ask the players to read/comment on them.
It's also helpful to check in with each player out-of-game every few weeks to see how they're feeling about the game.
Haladir, I agree completely with you, but now I have another problem... If you can help me. One of my friends who plays as a human paladin, as I mentioned something about that in my previous post, and I triedto find a soluttion to explain to him that beating good NPCs is not good, I even know a couple of GMs that they would have punished him for doing such acts, but once again, he is so stubborn and he told me: "You know, Adrian, my character thinks that as a paladin is ok to beat good people, and it doesn't matter if you, the GM, don't like it. I know you see that a paladin shouldn't beat good people, but I don't care, I will continue doing that as I please, it's only up toyou if you wantto punih me or not."
Ok, I know this is not going to end up well. But tell me Haladir, should I let him do how he wants, to beat good NPCs, to lie etc. even if by the rules in the core rulebook and my own personal opinion that paladins shouldn't do that? If I lethim do his biding, then he would behave more like a Chaotic Fighter instead of a Lawful Good Paladin. Andplus, he told that he should also smite good people ifhe sees it necesary, which I also dissagreewith, it's smite evil,not smite good. In advance, thanks!
The paladin code can be tricky. It seems to mean something different to almost everyone that reads it. That is why I have been considering eliminating the class completely from any games where I am GM.
Having said that, this doesn't appear to be one of the common edge cases. From what you said, it sounds like:
1) He is trying for the boundary to see how far he can push you.
2) He wants to play a fallen paladin.
The smiting on good is easy. He can try it, but it just won't work. Nothing happens.
For the other, I would have him slowly fall. Say each time he does something that far against the code. Have him lose access to some paladin ability. First time, the good saves. Second time, spells. Then the lay on hands. Then the smite. Etc...
If he balks and throws a fit about it, "Sorry you feel that way. Apparently you and I can't come to an agreement on what the paladin's code means as far as the game is concerned. Why don't you roll up a new character that is not a paladin and the current character can retire."
Thanks a lot Kydeem de'Morcaine, finally I found someone that could understand me :) Just an hour ago, I talked with other two friends which are playing my game, and they told me in theend that I'm the one that it's pushy, that I should adjust to the needs and desires of players, which in a hand is OK, but in my opinion, I cannot allow someone to play a Paladin, but acts like a chaotic barbarian! That's hilarious! I wish only there was someone here who would be a GM and let me play with a paladin, I wouldn't show my friend how it should be played. Ok, I amnot a rules lawyer, I respect those rules and everything that people from Paizo madefor us, but I think I'm not crazy, and that paladins shouldn't behave like beating good NPCs and many other bad things. I even figured out, for example:
My friend, playing a paladin, has met a Lord (whom is NG by alignment, honest, responsible, discipled etc.). And I as a GM I gave my best to describe that Lord what kind of a personality he is, which means, as a GM I did a great job, but in the end, the paladin slapped the Lord in his face and started to beat him, and when I would ask why did he did that, not just him, but anyonecan say, as an excuse, that he thought that the Lord what an irresponsible, CN idiot, and that's thereason why he beat him.Or he can also say that I didn't describe the Lord very well that the Lord is honest, disciplined etc...
About punishing him, I did once, and I gave him a second chance, but it can't be helped. I only know in the end that if I punish him again, he will throw his character sheet in my faceand quit, and after that other players will quit, and then they will tell me I'm a negative GM etc. which all of this equals like I would in the end quit to be a GM. But right now, I'm really thinking about quiting to be GM andconclude this all "saga". It was great, I had epic campaigns, epic tales for players, but in the end, everything comes to an end...
Anyway,if I quit now to be a GM, that doesn't mean I would retire from playing this epic game, I think I'll take my time and read Pathfinder Books :)
If I'm going ever to have another chance to be a GM, I will definitely take your advice and not allow paladin PCs in my campaigns. Thanks a lot friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know the other players' POV, but expecting a paladin to behave by his code is not being pushy.
There is a fine line between "adjust to the needs of the players" and "letting the players walk all over you." Everyone needs to have fun, that includes the GM. And there needs to be a strong player-GM contract that you try not to screw over the players, but the players abide by the rules of the game to the best of their ability and abide by your rules callings and respect your role as GM to do so. If your rules callings are blatantly unfair, that's one thing, but saying a paladin will fall because he is attacking innocents is nowhere near the realm of unfairness.
Given the circumstances, I don't blame you for wanting to stop GMing. If that's where you're leaning, I'd encourage you to take a break and see how one of your other group fares as GM instead. I'd also encourage you to look for other groups of players and see if you can find players that would work with your GMing style much better.
If you do continue to play, and you run to the best of your ability, and your player ragequits because you are daring to do your job as GM and uphold the rules, then good riddance to bad rubbish.
I also wouldn't necessarily ban paladins from your game--I have seen many paladins in my lifetime played extremely well--but I would take into consideration a player's personality and make clear that you will uphold the code of conduct strictly if you do allow it. Make it clear at the beginning that you will make a paladin fall if they repeatedly break their code of conduct, and that if the player does not like that, they can play a different character or leave the game.
I wish I could meet players that would play well as Paladins. Anyway, right now, I even think that my 3 friends which played my game are starting to talk behind my back and start playing their own game without even telling me. Ok, I don't want to get nervous about that, I don't care let them play without me, but that kind of "act" is ridiculous. That kind of behaving is childish. I'm even thinking aboutbeing a player again, but now it will be with my fourth friend, who is a GM. He came back from holiday and he wanted to, let's say, we make a playtest, so he can revise the rules, and I created a 10th level fighter. Ok it sounds strange only me playing and my friend beinga GM, at least I don't push other GMs and I play how it should be played. I'm even trying to play as a Paladin and get myself in situations where I wouldn't make mistakes like my friend playing the Paladin does. I don't plan to quit, this 4th friend of mine has introduced me in DnD 3.5, and now in Pathfinder, I read Inner Sea World Guide and I like Golarion and it's kingdoms, empire, cities, NPCs (of course, I used Golarion and everything from the book above while GMing, longlive Forest Marshall Weslen Gavirk :D ). I think I will for now in free time read Pathfinder Books, cool down a while, make new ideas etc. Anyway, thanks a lot from you DeathQuaker! :)
... I also wouldn't necessarily ban paladins from your game--I have seen many paladins in my lifetime played extremely well--but I would take into consideration a player's personality and make clear that you will uphold the code of conduct strictly if you do allow it. Make it clear at the beginning that you will make a paladin fall if they repeatedly break their code of conduct, and that if the player does not like that, they can play a different character or leave the game.
I have also seen them played well. But I'm not sure if I've ever been in a campaign (as player or GM) where they didn't cause a plentitude of arguments about the code. Not even necessarily between the GM and player. But eveyone has to get in the issue and stop play while they argue about it. I've just gotten tired of it.
I suppose if I know the group really well and I'm sure we can get everyone to agree on what the code means I would allow it. But I've never seen a group like that.
... he will throw his character sheet in my faceand quit, and after that other players will quit, and then they will tell me I'm a negative GM etc. which all of this equals like I would in the end quit to be a GM. But right now, I'm really thinking about quiting to be GM andconclude this all "saga". It was great, I had epic campaigns, epic tales for players, but in the end, everything comes to an end ...
Based upon what you describe, if it was me, I would stop being GM.
"Look guys, sorry to say it, but apparently no one is happy with how it is going. I am going to stop GM'ing for a while. Does one of you want to take a turn?"
See what goes from there.
The only thing I know if one of my friends would take the role of GM, is that I won't be the one that argues. I was harrased by a GM when I started playing pathfinder as a fighter, and by the storyline, demons have entered in my head (through telepathy of course) and tried to dominate me,torture me until I don't give up and become a Demonic Knight. And back then, I knew it was harrasement but I didn't argue and quit,I just continued playing until I have managed to banish those demons. I don't know, maybe I'm just too much a good person, and I don't like to argue, and I try to adjust to the GM,and always one of the other players is the one that starts arguing. I only wish I met more players that also think how I'm thinking, and then it would be great, but that's not going to happen.
On paladins not holding up their code...
It's a tough balance, and how you handle it really depends on the character's motivations. If it's done out of ignorance, it's one thing; out of malice, it's another.
For example, the player of the Paladin of Iomedae in my current campaign didn't quite understand how her detect evil power worked, and assumed that if something didn't radiate evil, then it wasn't evil. The party had recovered an item I'd designed called the amulet of undead command, which allowed the user to command undead once per day as the wizard spell. It was more powerful if the user had the Channel Negative Energy class feature. Anyway, the party encountered the ghost of a kidnapped child that had been tortured by a serial killer and had gone insane before he died. During the conversation phase of the encounter, the paladin took pity on the ghost, and when it attacked, she decided that it would be better to try to command the ghost to halt rather than just fight it.
Of course, the amulet of undead command was an artifact created by the Church of Urgathoa, and it worked by summoning the power of the goddess of undeath. Consequently, using the device was an evil act. But because its caster level was only 5th, it didn't have an evil aura.
I decided that, while using the device was an evil act, it was committed out of ignorance rather than malice. I decided that, in using it, I wanted the device to telegraph that it was in fact an evil artifact that she was using. Consequently, when she activated it, I described a cold, yet strangely compelling dark energy flowing out of the device into her, filling her lungs with dark power of the grave. While she intended to speak the one-word activation command for the device, she heard her own voice cry out, "In the name of Uragotha the Palid Princess, Queen of Undeath, obey my command!" And the power left her through her voice, and then she felt oddly drained. She also felt her longsword grow cold to the touch and strangely heavy, as if the Inheritor was displeased with her. I also said that she felt sick to her stomach after using it, and gave her the sickened condition for the rest of the day.
No one else noticed any of these effects-- they only heard her speak a single command word. The effect she experienced was her god giving her a warning.
If she used the device a second time (which she never did-- she got the message), then I would have had her holy powers falter until she atoned. Likewise, if they had identified the amulet as an unholy device powered by an evil god, and she used it anyway, then that would have also caused the paladin to fall.
... I also wouldn't necessarily ban paladins from your game--I have seen many paladins in my lifetime played extremely well--but I would take into consideration a player's personality and make clear that you will uphold the code of conduct strictly if you do allow it. Make it clear at the beginning that you will make a paladin fall if they repeatedly break their code of conduct, and that if the player does not like that, they can play a different character or leave the game.I have also seen them played well. But I'm not sure if I've ever been in a campaign (as player or GM) where they didn't cause a plentitude of arguments about the code. Not even necessarily between the GM and player. But eveyone has to get in the issue and stop play while they argue about it. I've just gotten tired of it.
I suppose if I know the group really well and I'm sure we can get everyone to agree on what the code means I would allow it. But I've never seen a group like that.
I've seen/been in/run at least four campaigns with a paladin in which no such argument came up.
The only thing close I think was in one campaign I ran, in which a paladin's player asked me if it would be within his code to try to work on redeeming a foe of the party. I told him within the viewpoints of his code and his god, helping bring an evil character toward goodness would be an effective way of vanquishing evil and within his code.
That's the only discussion I can recall of the paladin's code in my group, and it ended well, and it was never an argument. (For the record, the reformed foe eventually became the paladin's wife. :)
A very interesting story, redeeming a foe of the party which was female, and that miss or lady was so happy that she was redeemed that the only way to repay the paladin from saving her andmake her atone for her sins was forher to marry to him, real fantasy epicness :D I also have an epic moment (one of the good ones before paladin became rogue, beating innocents) was I think my 15th session, where the party (a Paladin of Torag, Fighter\Duelist, and a Ranger) have joined the army of Nirmathas in the epic battle against Molthune known as "The battle at plains of Molthune" on 4th Sarenith 4711.AR. Nirmathas had an army of Forest Guard (3000 rangers, both skilled in ranged and melee, led by Forest Marshall Weslen Gavirk), 50 "Dendroids" how I called them (Treants like the ones from LOTR), led by an Ancient Dendroid named Kayn, the Guardian of Fangwood (my friends have done a side-quest for Kayn so they could ask him to join the war), and my friends also managed to get Behexen, a Behir(it's a long story) to join the war. On the other hand, Molthune had an army of 20000 men (archers, swordsmen, pikemen etc.).
An army of dwarves from Glimmerhold which also joined Nirmathas have attacked the city of Braganza in Molthune while the main battle took place (my friends also persuaded dwarves of Glimmerhold to join the war).
I hope I'm not bothering, but I just have to tell you all this :)
And finally, the battle took place, andwith great strategy, the army of Molthune was crushed, and before the battle to come to an end, a huge army of Cheliax (40,000 soldiers, mixed with bearded devils, led by an erynies) had arrived on the battlefield. When it would seem that Nirmathas would lose, the Chelaxian army charges, and right before they would strike Nirmathi army, a beam of light fell from the sky, splashing nearly half of Chelaxian soldiers, and the Aroden came down (that's also a long story how Aroden was back, since by the Pathfinder books he "died"), and with two Solar Angels and an army of celestial soldiers behind his back,Aroden charged and eradicated the entire Chelaxian army.
That was a real epic moment to my friends, especially for the paladin (with whom I have problems right now).
I will forever remember that moment...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm back! :) It has benn a month since I posted here, and I think it would be interesting to tell you something. Since i quit last time to being GM and relaxed, I finally got some inspiration in making puzzles, maze, labyrinths, dungeons etc. for the, let's hope, if I would be a GM again. During this period, the samefriend that played as a Paladin had 'transfered' his own Paladin into another party of PCs where one of his friends is a GM, and I found out that he still continued doing things as he did in my sessions, and that GM also had issues with him, and once again the friend playing was once again stubborn and continued doing his things, and in theend the GM made a very, to me very FUNNY thing, I laughed loud for5 minutes after I heard about it. The GM gave the Paladin to be of CG alignment sohe could make exception for the Paladin to beat good people, lie etc. That's hilarious! The whole ideal of Paladin is ruined. Ok GMs can make exceptions, break some rules, but to go that far is hilarious!
Going to go full lawful (retard) here.
The rules are the rules are the rules.
If the player doesn't like being fatigued because he slept in armour, that is just too bad.
If he doesn't like being attacked at night by monsters, beasties, thieves, bandits and giant insects, that is too bad. It is a fantasy game and it isn't safe "out there" at night. Certainly camping out in the woods at night isn't a safe bet that you will get a good nights sleep without your head being torn off.
Now make sure you stand up for yourself, be clear on what the rules are, and take no s%*~. Other than that, listen and be friendly, but don't let yourself be pushed around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
everyone's got some great advice for interacting well over this situation. I however recommend that you remember your a player in the same game they are.
My suggestion? If all of the 'nice' avenues fail (and I do recommend them first) sit down with all your stuff packed except maybe a gm screen if you use one. Know the general gist of the adventure you want to run tonight, but dont put any effort into things like, oh say, details.
you're night should go something like this.
GM: Intro, player options, hand off to the players.
Players: I want to buy...., I want to search....,
GM: It's yours, the shopkeepers give it to you for free. You search, You find out exactly who the villain is, and where they are hiding. you also find out about the traps, and lesser minions in detail. (GM hands over adventure to player for reference)
If they get suspicious, move onto the second part of this post, but if theyre still buying into it, continue with:
GM: OK, you went directly to the mansion/dungeon/keep where the bad guy is, you are confronted with the gate guards. they yell halt.
Players: ok we're going to...
GM: (interrupting) dont worry you kill them. they had several hundred gold pieces. carry on.
Players: ok, we're going to sneak....
GM: You find your way directly to the BBEG (and really say big bad end guy) Kill him and take his loot. he had several thousand gold pieces, three magic items each of you wanted for your characters and you are now kings of your own kingdoms for killing the BBEG.
Part 2
So inevitably they will sense something amiss. Sit quietly whilst they corroberate, question, and await an answer.
Then stand up, tell them "This is what happens when you play a game not to be challenged, with consequences for your characters. This is what happens when you ignore the rules laid down for everyone to play by, and attempt what you want to really happen regardless. This is what happens when you just come to the table only to argue until you get your way."
Fly the double eagles, fold up GM screen, and walk out.
Locate new players to play with, enjoy new scene much the wiser about how and who you want to play with.
As it's been said before, and I've said myself: It is a cooperative effort between all players and GM to sit down and play this game. The GM is not a whipping boy meant to cater to player egos, nor are they some nemesis that the players must outwit, out rules-lawyer, and out shout to win the game. If for any reason you come to an impass with your current players, life is too short to be angry, resentful, or hurt because you cannot mesh with the people you play with.
We're a growing community, and though it may take you some effort to find a better environ, you'll be better off for it all the way around.
The thing is, since I'm from Serbia, city of Zrenjanin, there aren't many people that know about Pathfinder or Dnd, especially that play it, especially not those who DO NOT ARGUE A LOT. I can number at least 10 people who tried Pathfinderand whom I was GM but, since how they always look to argue about less important things, like: Why this crypt is built two levels, what kind of a architect would build such a crypt etc. After that, my last group (friend playing a Paladin and two others) have started well, and when the Paladin gone rogue, all the others argued with him a lot, and since they also couldn't reason him just like I tried, in the end they blamed me for not in the end letting him do all those that Paladin shouldn't do, that I should be the one to simply let the Paladin go rogue, but I can't let a Paladin act like a CN Barbarian and not punish him. I know some GMs which would instantly make him fallen, our they would do that slower. I hope I'll meet some new people who like gaming and maybe one day I'll have a chance to be GM again, because not just that I have experience,plus I read Pathfinder books in free time, I started making mazes, puzzles, labyrinths, dungeons, and since I'm a great fan of LOTR Spartacus Series and many other fantasy movies, there are also games like Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Heretic etc. and I like Celtic\Epic\Gothic\Dark Fantasy music, I know to make epic quests, campaigns, stories etc. and the only thing that many people tell me is that, since no one has the nerves to write EVERYTHING andI mean EVERYTHING in the notebooks while making stories, encounters, locations, NPCs, and many other details.
Lol, arguing about crypt architecture. That is really strange.
Lol, arguing about crypt architecture. That is really strange.
Believe me, there many other STRANGE arguings like: Since the party played in Nirmathas, and when I introducedthem to Forest Marshall Weslen Gavirk, that same person that argued about crypt architecture said: "why Forest Marshall, and above all Weslen Gavirk? How couldn't you just gave him a simple name like King Bob?" when it comes to that same crypt, there was a room in it where in the middle was a fire pit, and when I asked them for perception check, they have seen a key in that fire pit. And then he said: "You got to be kidding me? Who the hell would throw a key in a fire pit?" I think you wouldn't want to have that kind of person in your sessions, he is a reason why the first group of players split up in the end.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have had numerous heated exchanges in our games resulting from people with 30 years of history pushing each others buttons. The specifics of each row are irrelevant. I ran into some helpful advice at a training seminar.
1. Thank you for pointing this out to me. (Diffusion)
2. What do you see is the issue. (Viewpoint)
3. How did that impact you. What was your expectation. (Emotion)
4. What do you think should be done. (Examination)
5. Is this an appropriate response. (Reflection)
6. Action
In your case I would ask the player why they are so upset at this rule. (At our games its rarely the games rules at the heart of the matter.) Then ask them what prep they think is right. (Not rewriting the book of course.). Then offer suggestions for prep against the situation. Then ask if these are workable / helpful. The DM plays the antagonists but need not be the antagonist.
My recommended fighter prep for out of armor encounters - mage armor and shield potions. Cheap and easy.
|
|
Either your players trust you or they don't. If a player is arguing with you about crypt archetecture what they are implying is they would have done it better.
My suggestion, offer to let them run a few time.
I find that once you've run a game or two, you complain a hell of a lot less about what the GM does.
I only know that one truth is that I never argued about anything when I ws a player. There were sessions where one guy which I met for the first time and he was my first GM under whom I played, and he was very cruel. I made a NG Fighter who was a follower of Sarenrae, and after 10 sessions (and the next 20 it continued like that), my Fighter every night had nightmares (but in fact, an Archdevil named Vorgat entered in my brain, torturing me untill I don't accept to become a Devilish Knight), and I tried everything and I asked help from the Church of Sarenrae to help me, but still whatever I done, I had nightmares. I even remember a nightmare when Vorgat asked me to take a cursed dagger in my hands, and I refused, and then that dagger started attacking me, and I remember that dagger had hit a critical, he split my stomach open, and when I woke up, I had a spurting wound from my belly and I could even see my intestines. It was sick, twisted, but still I didn't argue, and in the end, I managed to overcome my nightmares and banish Vorgat from entering in my head.
The bottom line is, I wish there were players that don't argue, if there were more like me.
Should have asked, can we just play the game, and not my nightmares: the game? It is getting old hat.
Anyway, since we all stopped playing those campaigns2 years ago, in the end it doesn't even matter. Currently what matters is that I got some inspiration and started making puzzles, mazes, labyrinths and dungeons that could be used by any level of party if I'm going to be GM one day. Since I was GM for 40 sessions (and by some people I know, they told me that it was a huge success, since many couldn't make it to 10 sessions before stop playing), I think I did one hell of a job, and I'm optimistic and inspired to continue creating, making new ideas, reading pathfinder books, and i manage all of those besides my private life. Once I find a suitable people to play as a party, I will say FINALLY! Adventures have come back to Golarion! :)
Good luck Adrian, player entitlement syndrome, when witnessed in extreme cases, should result in the player jettisoned from all games. All. Gone. Now.
Also be clear with the players why that person is gone and emphasise that it is about fun and adventure, not complaining and trying to coerce the dm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a fellow player like that. Feels way over-entitled as a Player, and feels like the DM should be pandering to his every whim. No request is too great, any attempt at dealing lethal damage against his PC should be hand waved away. He thinks that a Natural 20 on a skill checks mean automatic success, flying in the face of any extenuating circumstances or situational modifiers. Then, argues how a Natural 1 is somehow not an automatic fail on the same skill. Blah.
Urgh, absolutely terrible to encounter.
I have a fellow player like that. Feels way over-entitled as a Player, and feels like the DM should be pandering to his every whim. No request is too great, any attempt at dealing lethal damage against his PC should be hand waved away. He thinks that a Natural 20 on a skill checks mean automatic success, flying in the face of any extenuating circumstances or situational modifiers. Then, argues how a Natural 1 is somehow not an automatic fail on the same skill. Blah.
Natural 20 is indeed a success, but if its something reasonable that a player wants to perform, not for example: a Fighter to jump 400ft high which is impossible, or whatever. Everything must be reasonable.
I had a situation with my friends when they came to Fort Thorn which was attacked by Red Drakes, and the Ranger asked for a perception check to is if there is someone on the main building ( Town hall which was 15 meters high) and he rolled a 20, but since in reality it wasn't possible to see Sir Tolgrith who was on the ground wounded off the Town Hall's tower, I told to the Ranger that he didn't saw anything or anybody on the tower of the Town Hall. That situation would make the PCs to think about, since a Paladin was in the group, if Sir Tolgrith really fought on top of the Town Hall or was he hiding cowardly. But unfortunately after the attack, the Paladin made a bad judgement and slapped and punched Sir Tolgrith because he thought that Sir Tolgrith was hiding cowardly inside the Town Hall, but in fact Sir Tolgrith was in the battle before the PCs came, and he was struck by a fireball and was badly wounded. And then the arguing about paladin code started...
To summarize, the rightfull GM has the fall authority to say to PCs if some natural 20s are impossible or not, and they have to accept that no matter what.
|
I have a fellow player like that. Feels way over-entitled as a Player, and feels like the DM should be pandering to his every whim. No request is too great, any attempt at dealing lethal damage against his PC should be hand waved away. He thinks that a Natural 20 on a skill checks mean automatic success, flying in the face of any extenuating circumstances or situational modifiers. Then, argues how a Natural 1 is somehow not an automatic fail on the same skill. Blah.
Natural 20 is indeed a success, but if its something reasonable that a player wants to perform, not for example: a Fighter to jump 400ft high which is impossible, or whatever. Everything must be reasonable.
I had a situation with my friends when they came to Fort Thorn which was attacked by Red Drakes, and the Ranger asked for a perception check to is if there is someone on the main building ( Town hall which was 15 meters high) and he rolled a 20, but since in reality it wasn't possible to see Sir Tolgrith who was on the ground wounded off the Town Hall's tower, I told to the Ranger that he didn't saw anything or anybody on the tower of the Town Hall. That situation would make the PCs to think about, since a Paladin was in the group, if Sir Tolgrith really fought on top of the Town Hall or was he hiding cowardly. But unfortunately after the attack, the Paladin made a bad judgement and slapped and punched Sir Tolgrith because he thought that Sir Tolgrith was hiding cowardly inside the Town Hall, but in fact Sir Tolgrith was in the battle before the PCs came, and he was struck by a fireball and was badly wounded. And then the arguing about paladin code started...
To summarize, the rightfull GM has the fall authority to say to PCs if some natural 20s are impossible or not, and they have to accept that no matter what.
Errm...totally not needed!
On skill checks (or any'check') natural 1s and natural 20s have no effect except adding 1 or 20 to the skill modifier to get a result; 1 is not auto-fail and 20 is not auto-make!
In fact the auto-fail/make mechanic does not apply to any d20 roll in the game....except attack rolls and saving throws!
|
|
I had a situation with my friends when they came to Fort Thorn which was attacked by Red Drakes, and the Ranger asked for a perception check to is if there is someone on the main building ( Town hall which was 15 meters high) and he rolled a 20, but since in reality it wasn't possible to see Sir Tolgrith who was on the ground wounded off the Town Hall's tower, I told to the Ranger that he didn't saw anything or anybody on the tower of the Town Hall. That situation would make the PCs to think about, since a Paladin was in the group, if Sir Tolgrith really fought on top of the Town Hall or was he hiding cowardly. But unfortunately after the attack, the Paladin made a bad judgement and slapped and punched Sir Tolgrith because he thought that Sir Tolgrith was hiding cowardly inside the Town Hall, but in fact Sir Tolgrith was in the battle before the PCs came, and he was struck by a fireball and was badly wounded. And then the arguing about paladin code started...
That paladin behaved dishonorably. Suspicion does not equal proof; if he suspected Sir Tolgrith of cowardice it might be acceptable to question him--privately--on his whereabouts during the battle, but if he says he fought and was badly wounded by a fireball (which, if true, should be abundantly evident from his injuries/burns and singed clothing) and the circumstances are such that he could be telling the truth then the paladin should be honor bound to take him at his word. Only if he caught Sir Tolgrith red handed avoiding combat would it be appropriate to accuse him publicly of cowardice. In this instance Sir Tolgrith would be well within his rights to demand satisfaction for such an insult. Whether it would be wise for him to do so is a different question, of course.
Meh, kill zem, kill zem all.
They can BWMC while they're rolling up new characters and you're dusting off a Cool AP/Campaign/ModuleTM. While they're at it they can look at, oh, the Basic Rules of Their STUFF.
What Hogarth said.
When a rule disagreement comes up, I listen, and if I still disagree I tell them to look up the rule, and in the meantime we go with my interpretation of the rule. If they're too lazy to look up the rules, too bad.