Hi all - I have a bit of a problem & am looking for advice.
I've been running a Pathfinder game for 8 sessions now, using a homebrew campaign setting I'm hoping to eventually distribute (as a free OGL product; unemployment makes for well-developed hobbies). The gaming group is made up of myself and six players who have all been avid gamers since the 80s, and who all retain an encyclopedic knowledge of every game supplement, optional rule, Dragon article, etc. going back many years.
I love my players - they come up with awesome ideas and we have had very good sessions so far - but it seems that lately, a lot of gamers I know have succumbed to what I call "MMO Syndrome". MMO Syndrome means players going beyond power gaming and min/maxing (which I can handle), and trying to exploit rules-hacks to give characters absurdly unbalanced powers. I'm a versatile GM and devote at least 15 hours/wk to the game, but there is no way I can compete with the combined efforts of six very clever players in terms of stopping up loopholes in the rules and the problem becomes much more sticky when having to deal with 3.5/Pathfinder conversions...
I know I can always say "no", but I don't want them to fell totally unrewarded for their cleverness, I'd just prefer they expend their energy in more substantial character development (or at least good ol' fashioned power gaming) instead.
Anyone else have issues with players and rule exploits? I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Welcome to the Paizo boards, Lil0tyk. Lilith will be around shortly to offer cookies.
Could you provide a couple of examples?
The party is still pretty low level, so nothing concrete has really come up yet. But, for example, there was some table talk last session about a stackable, unslotted magic item that adds a die to breath weapons, which two characters will eventually have (sorry, I don't know what supplement they're gonna pull it from - a big part the problem!).
I know my players, and lately they'll pursue anything until I tell them "no" or come up with something devious. I wasn't looking to resolve a specific issue with my question, but was hoping to hear about others' approach to the problem in general.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, I've generally found that the game mechanic (feat, spell, class ability, item) as the player envisions it is usually spiffier than the mechanic as written.
If you read through these threads, you'll see several that begin with a DM posting a very concrete "my player is trying to use This Thing and That Spell to wreck my campaign". And it ofen boils down to the player using This Thing illegally, or overlooking a restriction on That Spell. So, many of these cheesy effects can be constrained by a reading of the rules.
On the other hand, there are rules abuses out there, particularly in some of the hastier splat books. (And PC breath weapons have always struck me as poorly-playtested...) In those cases, I've made a policy: "Some combinations of game mechanics weren't meant to align together. So, there are some if you try to combine them in your PC, I'll smile and laugh with you, and congratulate you on finding another broken combination. But I won't let you play it without modifications that would bring your PC back in line with the power curve of the campaign."
Don't let them pull stuff from books that you do not have personal access to. They need to either make you a copy of the page in question, or live without the ability.
I tell my players that I need to approve anything that's not from the SRD + Psionic SRD, but that I'm generally willing to approve anything within reason. I think that just knowing that it has to pass the DM's sniff test cuts down on the crazy things that players ask for. YMMV, of course.
I've made a policy: "Some combinations of game mechanics weren't meant to align together. So, there are some if you try to combine them in your PC, I'll smile and laugh with you, and congratulate you on finding another broken combination. [...]"
This is golden, and I LOL'd. Really, though, I think this is a good policy, and it's very much what I was thinking.
Don't let them pull stuff from books that you do not have personal access to. They need to either make you a copy of the page in question, or live without the ability.
Well, that's tough because their RPG libraries are very full, and they often pull ideas & concepts that add a ton to the campaign from sources I've never heard of. I do take detailed notes, and almost everything not in the SRD / Pathfinder Beta + Web Supplements is custom-fit into the campaign setting. The point is to keep their power level in while while allowing them wide access to supplemental rules.
Many Thanks Chris, hogarth, and Abraham for your input!
You might in addition to asking for copies of the pages that the "buff" is coming from tell them that you will need at least one session to consider their requests. That way it gives you time to hit the internet and look the reference up and get some feedback. Just a thought.
I personally find that some of the third party stuff out there is either broken or open to exploitation.
You might be able to save yourself the reading of a whole book by trying to find a review of the book from a credible source.
I personally find that some of the third party stuff out there is either broken or open to exploitation.
You might be able to save yourself the reading of a whole book by trying to find a review of the book from a credible source.
Heck some WoTC stuff is way out there broken and open to exploitation!
I agree with allowing most everything, and I do, however I have a standing rule that anything the PC's can use I can too. I'm not saying to not let them have it at all, but as a DM you need to know exactly what it can and can't do, so as per my suggestion, you need to have a copy, meaning they should print you one off. Not the whole book, just the pertinant pages. That way they get what they want, and you can double check and make sure nothing fishy is going on.
Heck some WoTC stuff is way out there broken and open to exploitation!
Yes, some of it certainly is. As for 3rd-party supplements, I deeply sympathize with the difficulty in crafting balanced rule additions. Wow. Before embarking on a quest to design My Ideal Campaign Setting, I couldn't imagine the kind of work that's required - I'm up to more than 300pp in half-edited notes and materials already (again, I *love* my player's rule-scavenging abilities in most cases), and feel like I haven't scratched the surface!
Agreed, I've never really thought of myself as a writer, so I was completely stunned when I had blown way past the 150 pg mark working on my homebrew. I haven't revised anything from the core either, that's just new stuff... speaking of which I need to get back on that, players are about to enter a new area.
Yeah, I tend to run my games with a few books (presently Pathfinder Beta and the SRD) and anything outside those books is permitted by permission only.
An example of my woes includes the Artificer class, which is obviously quite powerful. The problem is that the Wizard of the party has been having great fun digging up interesting spells and capturing spellbooks, it has become the key to his having fun. But an Artificer with maxed out UMD and scribe scroll can make a scroll of any spell.
Clearly I could not allow this. Make it a policy that if it isn't in your "core rules", the players must get your approval on ability selections. If they gripe about that, point to one of the many cases where the rules can be severely abused if there is no restriction
That breath-weapon item doesn't sound so bad, though. Make them take a side quest to get the components to make it, then be sure to use that sidequest to introduce a villain with the same power. Balance restored!
|
Taking at least one session to make a decision is a great idea.
Make sure you get copies of whatever pages of whatever 'trick' they want.
Then go check the Character Optimization boards on the WotC site to see how it has been 'taken advantage' of. The Char Ops is the place to find the 'broken' stuff, those guys know their stuff inside and out.
Don't be afraid of all the stuff you find on the Character Opt boards over there though. The people over there can make a commoner a very over the top character.
Welcome to the Paizo boards, Lil0tyk. Lilith will be around shortly to offer cookies.
Indeed! Welcome, have some snickerdoodles, they're fresh out of the oven! *passes Lil0tyk some cookies*
|
Hi all - I have a bit of a problem & am looking for advice.
Anyone else have issues with players and rule exploits? I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Oh yeah, I've been down that road before. We had one player who would look for all the broken stuff in our FR supplements. Some of the stuff he came up with was pretty clever.
Anyways, at the beginning of the most recent campaign I started, I wrote that turnaround is fair play. If a player finds the cool feat, uber spell, and cool combos from official material, it will only make sense that highly intelligent foes will possess the same abilities and resources. The most common example is using Sunder feat. If the players don't want me using Sunder on their magic weapons, then they should avoid picking the feat themselves. Another example was a player who found that Many Jaws from the Spell Compendium was a better spell than fireball, so naturally some evil NPC sorcerers and wizards would have that spell.
Welcome to the Paizo boards, Lil0tyk. Lilith will be around shortly to offer cookies.Indeed! Welcome, have some snickerdoodles, they're fresh out of the oven! *passes Lil0tyk some cookies*
*steals a cookie*
I'm with the opinion that congragulates them on a find well found...but if it's too powerful they still can't have it. I hate telling players they can't have or do something , but if they get then power curve goes out the window ya know?
I'm guilty of mmo syndrome too. Everyone is or has been and will be again at some point.
After sword and fist came out, I was the first player to have a fighter/barbarian with monkey grip, all the two-weapon fighting feats, two greatswords and a ring of jumping. Yea, I was that guy. But hey, sometimes it's fun to do stuff like that, maybe not fun for you personally, but to others it is. Don't discourage players from finding cool things from the books and try not to limit them from doing what they like to do. But it's good to put your foot down somewhere and draw a line so things don't get too out of hand.
And I pray for your sake that you never get a player who is also addicted to Oblivion. Holy Crap is the only thing I can say about that.
They think they are being clever, but they are shooting themselves in the foot. Arms races are never fun. How fun is it to look over everything with a magnifying glass?
I would talk to them. Explain to them that if you wanted to be Sebastian you would have gone to law school. Role playing is suppose to be fun. GMing is suppose to be fun. If it is not, you are likely not to continue. So if they want to keep you around as a GM, they need to tone it down a bit.
Personally, I limit everything that is not Core (by which I mean Pathfinder stuff including Chronicles and Companions and the Beta; also, my own house rules) to by permission only - and then I't like notice one session in advance and, if necessary, a copy/scan of the rule in question, so I can read it.
I also reserve the right to nix stuff if I should find that the player has tried to sneak something under the radar to make a killer combo out of some way-out-there mix of races, classes, feats, spells and magic items. (Luckily my players don't try that sort of stuff, not even the resident powergamer).
Always remember that you're playing a RPG that is powered by imagination, not by a computer game engine, and arbitrated by a real person, not a computer and a set of rules files. Hacks and Exploits might work well in computer games (until a patch takes care of them, or, in the case of multiplayer games, you're found out and have your account banned), but completing the Death Combo From Hell and then jumping up, shouting "BINGO!" and doing a little victory jig doesn't work if the GM is in no way obligated to take this lying down. There's no law to appeal to, no star lawyer to win your case. There is no justice - there is only the GM!
|
|
They think they are being clever, but they are shooting themselves in the foot. Arms races are never fun. How fun is it to look over everything with a magnifying glass?
I would talk to them. Explain to them that if you wanted to be Sebastian you would have gone to law school. Role playing is suppose to be fun. GMing is suppose to be fun. If it is not, you are likely not to continue. So if they want to keep you around as a GM, they need to tone it down a bit.
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."
|
|
Don't let them pull stuff from books that you do not have personal access to. They need to either make you a copy of the page in question, or live without the ability.
i agree
i need 1st to see it, then I decide if it gives the game more than it takes from it, if it does.. then I accept it... if not... well... sorryi try not to do this very often, but my players know that i try to have nothing from 3rd party books (some things are very unbalanced), things that need other set of rules to really work or other classes and races out of the core book (this is an almost always NO!, i have had very bad experiences allowing things out of the book :S)
when i want things mixed strangely... it should be me beginning with the changes...
smart actions, tactics and even stunts i allow...
actually the only non-core class that i have accepted is the Beguiler... and only because my magic-expert said he was ok with it :P
|
|
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."They think they are being clever, but they are shooting themselves in the foot. Arms races are never fun. How fun is it to look over everything with a magnifying glass?
I would talk to them. Explain to them that if you wanted to be Sebastian you would have gone to law school. Role playing is suppose to be fun. GMing is suppose to be fun. If it is not, you are likely not to continue. So if they want to keep you around as a GM, they need to tone it down a bit.
ahhh good good, yes this is true and a nother good policy we enforce... when we see soemthing that iscool,but looks abit to powerful the only thing left to say is "do you understand that anything you use... the npcs will be able to use too... right?"
the most offensive things usually go out of the window after that... the others either the player is willing to pay the price... or really thinks that it gives more to the game
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."
Does this not penalize the players who choose not to exploit?
|
|
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."Does this not penalize the players who choose not to exploit?
if the exploit is too big I just outlaw it... if not to big... they also have the option to take it, if they don't like it and they are the majority... we might outlaw by 'vox populi' (people's voice)
|
|
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."Does this not penalize the players who choose not to exploit?
It's one of those "peer pressure" things. I dunno, the player who choses not to exploit (or min/max, Powergame, go "splat happy" with charop options) is going to lag probably, feel kind of "third wheel-ish" if he doesn't keep up with the jones's (how many cliches can I fit in one post?). So, they're kinda "penalized" anyway, I think.
I've always found it easier to let the other players (with some instigation, behind the scenes, if needed) reign in the power hungry. A "come on, dude, seriously" from a fellow party member goes over better than a "no" from me, in my experience.
In my experience, the power gamers have more forceful personalities. So the meek get doubly screwed.
|
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."Does this not penalize the players who choose not to exploit?
Turning it into an adversarial 'arms race' seems counter-productive. I'm with the poodle here.
Don't let yourself get played. Change the rules and make the game your own.
The 'patch update' idea seems like a key one. If everyone at the table is an MMO fan anyway, they'll be quite used to patches taking away anything that is 'too good.' Just let them know that it is 'patch day' and exactly what has changed and what sort of 'respec' is allowed for the characters who have taken Feats, etc. that have suddenly changed and may not be what they want now that it isn't 'broken.'
|
|
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."Does this not penalize the players who choose not to exploit?Turning it into an adversarial 'arms race' seems counter-productive. I'm with the poodle here.
Don't let yourself get played. Change the rules and make the game your own.
The 'patch update' idea seems like a key one. If everyone at the table is an MMO fan anyway, they'll be quite used to patches taking away anything that is 'too good.' Just let them know that it is 'patch day' and exactly what has changed and what sort of 'respec' is allowed for the characters who have taken Feats, etc. that have suddenly changed and may not be what they want now that it isn't 'broken.'
well in general it has worked well for me, when many players see that a change in the game would come and kick their collective asses they let it go
sometimes when they experiment and they are unhappy about the wholedeal i let them respect... otherwise i have no problem... they have copied things htye have learned from my NPCs... they are not the only creative ones...
ok... if a powergamer tries to force the game in his favor, usually he calls for more attention... creative DM... (evil and not-so-evil) have ways to deal with characters and players that ask for too much attention...
and its funny too
|
|
A bit hard now to address unless you go a clean start.
I have the same issue so I instead of being hard ball I set up some ground rules.
I would suggest that when you start out you limit the books/rules you can use. You also have to clearly set up that PC development should be in game... so you want to go prestiage class... why would he? etc.
I also made it so PCs received less xp for fighting and more for rpging. I also removed mechanical systems from the players. I woould preroll or generate rolls to do skill checks or stop players from doing them if they wanted to.
Unfortunately these sort of players make it hard to play the storyline. Getting newbies to play helps alot but the experience players can burn them.
Some ramblings but... ground rules. You set up the broad parameters and then you make the judgement calls. After all you GM and they can not play woth out you.
|
|
I also forgot. There was an article in the 2md ed DM guide that sticks with me that says the players should always be surprised... so what if a monster is in the wrong place for it has higher hp or BAB... that is your call... just as characters can min/max so can the monsters.
My party has soon learnt that the more people or more min/maxed their characters get the more easier some situations get but also the more difficult... as I match them and the monsters get more min/maxed to balance.
I wouldn't call it "MMO Syndrome" as much as your players just being a group of muchkins. MMO syndrome to me would rather be a linear game with no greather depth than "kill the monster, steal the treasure, stab your buddy", and action scenes reduced to "I attack, I heal, I zipzap" (or your archetypical Attack/Magic/Item/Run menu you'd see in a videogame).
Other than that I think everyone else have already said anything I'd want to say... you're the GM, you decide which additional books are approved in your game and which aren't.
we've used a couple rules off and on through the years that may be of some help
1) If you want to use a new book, then buy the DM a copy
2) If the players "tabletalk", then the monsters can eavesdrop ;)
we've used a couple rules off and on through the years that may be of some help
1) If you want to use a new book, then buy the DM a copy
2) If the players "tabletalk", then the monsters can eavesdrop ;)
^_^ Rule #2 is especially appropo, depending on the baddies. CotCT has a particularly fine example of such "eavesdropping" hardwired into the text.
2) If the players "tabletalk", then the monsters can eavesdrop ;)
I'd like you to elaborate on that, as is, the statement can easily be misconstrued as if you sanctioned pre-emptive gaming, which is the biggest no-no for a GM. =(
...unless your players are actually metagaming, but still I say there are other ways to stop metagaming in a table.
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."
I don't know. I think I'd use it sporadically to bring the point across, but otherwise it really becomes an arms race, probably with added bad blood between players and GM.
|
|
Another thing that can help reign this sort of thing in is to have a high level one-off "broken" session where they can try to create the most broken characters they can....this allows them to try the stuff they want to try without ruining your campaign.
We are playing one of these now (up to 3 seesions) and it is fun.
I definately agree with everyone else in that you should have a copy of the rule and some time to think about it.
Wow! Thanks everyone for all your comments! Sorry I was late for the cookies, I hope there's still one left... ::makes pitiful face & pantomimes munching::
I'm glad to hear that I'm not alone here - I'm still tending toward a liberal "hearty laugh + tactful denial" technique; arms races are fun if you're playing a game for humor, but I really dislike playing to "win" or somehow beat the players. It's just kind to antithetical to the game.
Again, wonderful commentary!
I wouldn't call it "MMO Syndrome" as much as your players just being a group of muchkins. MMO syndrome to me would rather be a linear game with no greather depth than "kill the monster, steal the treasure, stab your buddy", and action scenes reduced to "I attack, I heal, I zipzap" (or your archetypical Attack/Magic/Item/Run menu you'd see in a videogame).
Hmmmm... You may be right about my title. I'll think about it.
I wouldn't call the issue munchkin-ery, though, because it is the exception in their usual playing styles.
2) If the players "tabletalk", then the monsters can eavesdrop
The only time tabletalk is really an issue for me is when one (or more) players begins "playing" another's character or making detailed tactical discussions while a player is debating an action. It has come up a couple times in my current game; I think using miniatures & battlemat encourages players to plan their fights in unrealistic detail due to the wargame-ish feel. In the past, I said something like:
"My dear players, while I totally agree with you that discussing tactics at the table is a reasonable abstraction for cooperative training, etc. moves should be analyzed AFTER they are made."
With my group, the result has been that: 1) the behavior stopped; 2) the players learn their characters' collective strengths and weaknesses more slowly, but in a more interesting way; 3) mistakes are made by the characters, which makes for more fun and a more challenging game with well-experienced players.
I had a 20-year DnD vet almost kill three of his comrades by accidentally dropping a Sleep on them with a readied action. Brilliant! I was in GM heaven. An experienced player playing an inexperienced character and MAKING MISTAKES is a very satisfying bit of roleplaying, even if it is unintentional.
|
|
I don't know. I think I'd use it sporadically to bring the point across, but otherwise it really becomes an arms race, probably with added bad blood between players and GM.
All it takes to calm players down is use the old adage: "What's good for the goose..."
I don't have that problem at my table, actually, but I have in the past. I just use that adage to remind the munchkins there is nothing new under the sun (I really need to stop typing in cliches and adages...)
I guess my point was, if a player wants to play a "x2/y3/z2/a2/b5" with a bunch of crazy feats cherry picked from the various splats, there is probably a bad guy with a similar skills set out there. Maybe they have a common teacher/master or whatever. It is a fairly common literary/cinematic theme, after all :)
I also use the rule of needing a copy to examine first and the ability to say no. Also I also explain that if you come up with a cool combo someone out there probably has aswell. A good example is in a friend of mines campaign where a player wanted to design an exotic weapon that has reach, does 2d6, and crits on a 16 or better. The DM laughed at him and explained why he was aying no, in that if he was smart enough to design a weapon like that then theres a chance someone else could and that could equal bad news for pcs.
I also had to contend with a player who's every character was pre built from forums for the most chance to abuse class and prestige class combos for maximum spell casting and base attack, etc. I just smiled, nodded and let him go, knowing full well He'd invariably get himself killed way before I had to care (I was right, 3 characters in the following 2 sessions and he was off on a new character idea search). Generally I find these things amusing and if something were to prove to be a problem and broken, I just change it and thats that. I explain why and we move on, theres never been a problem to be honest.
Apologies, I don't mean to keep bumping my own post... I wanted to respond to just one more thing (and thanks, Masika, for your reply).
I would suggest that when you start out you limit the books/rules you can use. You also have to clearly set up that PC development should be in game... so you want to go prestige class... why would he? etc.
I really, really don't want to limit the materials available for them; I do require GM approval and custom-tailoring to the campaign setting, though. I agree completely that PC development should be in-game; similarly, I think magic items and the like should also fit naturally into the game world. It takes a little more work, but I find that it's very worthwhile to make all wondrous items from scratch, except for the most generic.
I also made it so PCs received less xp for fighting and more for rpging. I also removed mechanical systems from the players. I would preroll or generate rolls to do skill checks or stop players from doing them if they wanted to.
Making rolls for the players is a bit extreme, IMO. There are a lot of very good diceless systems around, and I wouldn't want to deny players their die-rolling endorphin harvest.
For EXP, I usually set a fixed XP value for the adventure; the more they roleplay (and, thus, the fewer monsters they get time to kill) the bigger the end-of-game roleplaying bonus. It's maybe kinda devious, because the players get the same actual experience either way, but it makes them feel good...