Dear everyone,
It seems that we are in the midst of a bit of a quandry on these boards- you can't throw a stone without hitting a topic on how someone should and shouldn't play a character, or things that went wrong in games because of power-mad DMs or XP-hungry players. However, I do not think this is because of any one thing anyone is doing wrong or right, just that gaming styles differ between individuals, sometimes wildly so. So, how do YOU play this game of ours?
This thread isn't necessarily for listing all of your house rules alphabetically or your skippy lists(although you can do that if you wish), just to give a brief synopsis of your dos and don'ts in a game, from either side of the DM screen.
Dear everyone,
It seems that we are in the midst of a bit of a quandry on these boards- you can't throw a stone without hitting a topic on how someone should and shouldn't play a character, or things that went wrong in games because of power-mad DMs or XP-hungry players. However, I do not think this is because of any one thing anyone is doing wrong or right, just that gaming styles differ between individuals, sometimes wildly so. So, how do YOU play this game of ours?
This thread isn't necessarily for listing all of your house rules alphabetically or your skippy lists(although you can do that if you wish), just to give a brief synopsis of your dos and don'ts in a game, from either side of the DM screen.
My style is very sandboxy, with a (usually) obvious meta-plot that PCs can tackle from whichever angle they like. I like when they surprise me and I usually roll with whatever they come-up with.
I'm a very descriptive DM, but only insofar as to contribute to the game. I try to adapt to my group however; I understand that some players love the immersion, some have low patience for "that kind of crap".
I like when things "make sense", but I do understand and fully assume that game =/= reality. Nevertheless, I do manipulate the "reality" of the game through houseules, and I've got lots of them. The most prominent being a variant of the vitality/wounds points. I also ditched the iterative attacks concept for fast-paced combat rounds. I also like to tone magic one notch down, but not to the point of considering it low-magic.
I think I do have to work on my pacing 'though. We often have short gaming sessions and I often wonder if I gave enough "stimulation" for my PCs to move forward.
As for players, I pretty much allow anything short of "being a dick" in any way, shape or form. Luckily for me, that hasn't been a problem in a long time; I've been blessed with exquisite players that are compatible with my style of play.
'findel
As a GM I play sandbox style and never run APs. One of my biggest sources of fun is coming up with it myself. Here are a few of my rules:
Flexibility, flexibility, flexibility.
If it's a cool idea it should probably work, but it probably won't be easy.
If they ask for the rope it's their own idea to hang themselves.
Players forget crap, don't be a jerk just because they forgot something.
The GM is not always right, but it is his responsibility to have the final say.
Have fun.
Dice are not holy object worthy of worship, but try to avoid fudging them whenever possible.
Not all fight should be winnable, but unwinnable fights should never be mandatory. There are plenty of ways to make it clear when something is enough more bad@ss than the players.
Be ready to improvise because they will rarely do what you want and never how you expected.
If a plot hook is important be ready to slap them in the face with it. Even the smartest players can be dense.
Most players are playing characters smart than themselves.
Never make a player feel like they never had a chance or a choice.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
|
As a DM/GM I try to make sure that every player gets a chance to shine. But it is just that, a chance, if they botch it, stuff happens, of they don't take the opportunity, they don't shine. If the players tend to be going "off script" I change the script. The game is about fun, as long as everyone is having fun, it is a success. If the group wants to level quicker so they can get to higher power levels and get involved in bigger things, I try to work it out so that they have the opportunity to do so. Of course, that means more difficult encounters, and if that means they don't make it...next time they will get a chance to play that other character they were thinking about when they were amking a character for this campaign. It takes me and my grou so long to get through anything like an adventure path or a cohesive set of modules or home-made adventures, that there is always some other campaign or source book that has come out that everyone wants to try out anyway. Not to mention all the other systems that we want to try. Too much DM/GM fudging can ruin a game, sometimes a character dies, sometimes a party dies. My players understand that, as a player I understand that.
Dear everyone,
It seems that we are in the midst of a bit of a quandry on these boards- you can't throw a stone without hitting a topic on how someone should and shouldn't play a character, or things that went wrong in games because of power-mad DMs or XP-hungry players. However, I do not think this is because of any one thing anyone is doing wrong or right, just that gaming styles differ between individuals, sometimes wildly so. So, how do YOU play this game of ours?
This thread isn't necessarily for listing all of your house rules alphabetically or your skippy lists(although you can do that if you wish), just to give a brief synopsis of your dos and don'ts in a game, from either side of the DM screen.
I run a hard game, but I do adjust it to the abilities of the players. I just got two newbies so I will give them kids gloves for a while. That does not mean they won't die, but it means I will remind them to cast defensively when needed.
As a player I normally take the group style into consideration, and I also make my character last since I don't like being in a group without all the basis covered. If there is not arcanist I will do that as an example. I have enough character ideas in my head that I can play anything that is need.List:General group philosophies
Don't split the party.
Casters(wizards and sorcs)don't go into melee even to cast touch spells.
I won't target your familiar if it stays out of combat. If it interferes it becomes fair game though.
No Calls, No Shows get no XP.
If you allow someone to play your character it can die. I figure if you can get the benefit of full XP you have to deal with the possible consequences.
Any new rules must be put out before the session/campaign begins.
That is all I can remember off the top of my head, but there are more.
I also run a tough game. It is always home-brewed to allow maximum flexability and because I really enjoy coming up with all the ideas. As a DM, I state clearly that NO ONE rolls ANYTHING without permission or announcing it, had to many bad things happen with that one. Also, absolutely NO social checks (bluff, diplomacy, etc.) between PC's. Party violence is a go, as is total mayhem if that's what the party chooses to do. I will not intentionally try to kill a player, unless they leave me an opening. Then I go for the throat.
How do YOU roll?
To focus just on the rolling:
All combat rolls are made in the open and are never fudged.
Skill rolls where success or failure is obvious are made in the open (e.g. something like lockpicking, acrobatics, ... ).
Only skill rolls where success or failure would not be obvious to the character (sense motive, bluff, diplomacy) are rolled in secret, and might be fudged, but usually are not.
As a DM, I focus on roleplay and story first. I try to provide interesting combats and exciting scenarios but the rp is the most important part of the game for me. I do not encourage my players to create PCs who are ultra powerful. Their background and personality is far more important than how effectively they've optimized their characters.
I also tend to put the spotlight on the PCs. I create a mystery or a scenario and let them take it where they want. So I guess it's fairly sandboxy, though I'm going to experiment with that soon by running APs.
I roll dice out in the open, and I often roll randomly so that the players don't know when the dice mean something and when it does not.
As a player, it's much the same: roleplay comes first. I only optimize a character if I feel I need to in order to survive under a particularly gruelling DM. My preference, however, is to play a character with flaws and to force him to overcome those flaws in interesting ways through roleplay. The character development is my favorite part of the game and I consider PC death to be the natural conclusion to that development. So while I do everything I can to keep my character alive, I accept his death and would rather roll up a new character than bring him back via magical means.
I also go to great pains not to metagame. I hate it when, especially at low levels, a player knows things about monsters that they shouldn't and act accordingly. So I often do things that as a player I know are mistakes simply because I know that my PC wouldn't know any better. It's dangerous but strangely thrilling at the same time.
I tend to now run published adventure/AP for D&D due to time constraints however I try to keep two things in mind:
1. I give the players as much information about the style of campaign, the setting etc. and expect that they will build their characters to have some connection to that world.
2. Though I'm running an AP I then massage, alter content to make greater connections to the characters and give opportunities to meet their goals (e.g. a thief who wants to become leader of the thieves guild will get that chance at some point). Of course this works in proportion to how well the player tried to follow #1. Still I try to find a way so each player feels their character's arc is played out somehow. Of course death sometimes puts a crimp in that...
Anyways I feel overall with publsihed adventures its much like a director and a playwright's relationship. As I'm GMing it I feel free to ignore the stage directions and do what feels right at the table. I like having a script to work from but I don't follow it too rigorously.
1. I only DM published adventures (currently only from Paizo).
Why: I am not a professional author nor do I have a professional editor at my disposal so I will not ask my players to spend hours of their precious free time playing something I made up. I would much rather expose them to professional work. Afterward we can critique it as a group and no one gets offended.
Is this your personal preference for how you run, or do you disapprove of homebrew games in general?
The statement could be take either way and I try not to assume on these boards. I'm curious which it is.
|
As far as homebrew games in general, to each his own, if you like them good for you. I don't so I don't DM or play them. There is plenty of good published stuff out there already and thanks to PF and OGL more being made all the time.
You do realize that virtually all published campaigns started out as someone's homebrew world, right? Gygax ran home games of Greyhawk before anything of it was ever published. Golarion is a blend of a few of the Paizo staff's homebrew worlds. Monte Cook ran Ptolus for years before he published anything about it.
|
Before Age of Worms, I was always creating new and different home brews, some successful, some not. When I started reading AoW (and later the Pathfinder APs), I found I wanted to run them, so I did. They save me time, I like them, and I can add in my own little side-fun to help the players.
I allow any book I own or I've read before, as long as I'm fine with it.
I am a Monte Hall player when it comes to treasure. I will dump extra treasure on players, as I know they'll sell it off.
I play mid-fantasy, and most large cities have magic shops.
I always randomize treasure (if I'm adding it in) or items to be bought. I don't mind a plant here or there, but since Weapons of Legacy and a KQ with an updated (better) version, if they want a specific weapon they can make one themselves.
I flub a little more than I used to these days. I need to stop that. I prefer to roll out in the open, and if someone dies, they die (there's been some stress in the group due to outside forces, thus why I've flubbed more to avoid blowups).
I allow players to add their 2 cents to rulings, but they also know that, at the end of the day, if I rule on something and say it's final, it's final until we discuss later on.
Re: Homebrews.
It's interesting, but until Age of Worms and Savage Tide, I hadn't played and enjoyed a published module in over a decade. The best games I've played have always been homebrews and I was quite anti-published adventures until I started seeing what Paizo's doing. Now I'm a big fan (and subscriber) of the APs but I still enjoy homebrews most if they're put together with great care and attention from the DM.
As a PC:
I tend to come up with the character I will like to play first then try to get a class concept to fix. I tend the play a "face" character first and foremost. One with plenty of Non combat skills and social ability. Fighter/Rouges, Sorcerers, Clerics and Paladins.
I Like to play standard races most of the time. Humans, Dwarves and Half-elves. But usually whatever works best for the game at hand. I take a lost of feats that will tie me into the game world and choose a background that tends to make it easy for him to "fit" into the current game.
As a GM:
I tend to have "homebrew" games that are derivative of published settings. So I will take favorite areas and or PRC's and adjust them to fit with the current game.
I tend to limit to base classes and races. Although I have been known to remove some of the base classes for a specific game and offer other classes to give a different perspective. Such as removing Monks and Paladins and introducing Runeblades from Monte Cooks website and Rune casters from the WOtC website as PC classes. Or opening it up for classes such as Hexblades, to give a more Finnish feel to the game. And then offering Cleric options to go with it.
I use premade adventures most of the time, not for lack of ideas, I change them greatly, but rather as a starting point for a more open campaign. This allows to me more verisimilitude by having answers such as, whats on the menu.
The first thing I DM'd this century was Shackled City AP, mostly because I didn't have time to get familiar with the 3.5 monster building *and* rules *and* design my own adventure.
What I found was that my group liked the people and the politics and enjoyed taking control of events in Cauldron and environs. I learned how to run with that.
Now I run AP's only but spend a great deal of time on the first book, levels 1-2. I give the players lots of material about the setting and background, work with them on backstories, and give them their own stable of NPC acquaintances of varying uses. Some of their stories or friends or enemies are hooked into the AP at some time, but not all. If they have a cliffhanger backstory, I work to lay out where in the AP it can get resolved. We focus on building the story together, and I try to give PC's as much leeway as possible within rational constraints of the environment, while hitting the main plot points. NPC's act independently as well, driving some plot if the players don't.
With all the emphasis on PC development, I try hard not to kill the PC's, but still make it interesting and battles frightening. I've learned to tier the fights to the number, strength, and state of the PC's. Of course, if they do something rash or stupid, they are liable to end up dead. They also end up with NPC friends, family, romances, rivals, and enemies, which they like.
I rebuild most baddies according to house rules (if I remember), and usually have multiple versions of them now that we're doing our very first Pathfinder and are not so sure about the CR system: one at recommended level, one lower, and sometimes one higher. I have no problem with throwing extra encounters in if the PC's are doing well, to make sure they are challenged, but we tend to be slow in combat, and I try to keep things moving and not let them get boring.
One of my players, Studpuffin, is an experienced 3.5 DM and great monster builder, so I use that as much as possible. He'll build things for me and I work them in, sometimes in places he doesn't expect. He's "pro" enough not to metagame.
We have an online group where I post documents and pictures, we have message threads, and I email privately with each PC for individual stuff their character has going. It's a ton of work and really expands the AP, but it's much more immersive that way.
|
|
So, how do YOU play this game of ours?
Interesting.
I don't like "munchkins". Don't get me wrong -- I encourage strong builds, but "munchkins" tend to dominate the game. If one person (or two?) are dominating the game, it becomes a lot less fun for all.
Rules -- are good for starting guidelines. If we come across a rule that either doesn't make sense to us (after researching) or that we simply don't like, then we change or get rid of it.
I guess that the simple way to explain how we play is we ask ourselves -- "are we having fun?" If the answer is "no", then something is wrong and we try and fix it. I've killed characters and kept them alive as a DM. I've lied about rolls to keep the game going. I've railroaded players and I've let them do whatever they want. I've changed the Big Bad Guy at the end of the adventure to be either more powerful or less because "as written" in our game would have been ... "bad".
And I've learned a lot.
We play in such a way as to make it as fun for all as possible.
|
|
I use premade adventures most of the time, not for lack of ideas, I change them greatly, but rather as a starting point for a more open campaign. This allows to me more verisimilitude by having answers such as, whats on the menu.
I use premade adventures as well. I modify them greatly though. My main reason is that I simply don't have as much time to devote to it as I did 15 years ago.
Right now I am running Kingmaker, but when I write adventures I write railroad in the sandbox adventures. So what do I do? I write an encounter or series of encounters for the adventure. Those encounters will occur wherever the party goes, but there are free to go wherever they want.
|
Do's:
Have fun.
Stop playing when you stop having fun.
Discuss things with your GM/Players honestly.
Discuss things with your GM/Players maturely.
Roll dice in plain view when possible.
Fudge dice rolls if it's going to completely ruin the game if you let a roll stand.
Don'ts:
Be a jerk.
Pout and flounce to get your way.
Drink all the sodas unless you're ready to get more.
Rules lawyer with the GM unless it's something your GM's ok with.
Just my 2 cp.
|
One thing some people find odd about me is that I tend to be the last one in the group to make a character. Often I'll sit back until everyone else has decided and figure out what the group could use the most, and then I work on coming up with a really interesting character concept for the race and class I've chosen. That's heresy for a lot of people, but I like the way it forces me to be creative and think about possibilities I otherwise might not.
As to character creation, one of the things I've found interesting to do is to not allow players to discuss their characters at all during creation. While this may make things much more difficult (such as not having a cleric, rogue or arcanist in the party), each player gets to make what they really want to play. Recently, 5 of my 6 players are cross-classed into rogue.
One thing some people find odd about me is that I tend to be the last one in the group to make a character. Often I'll sit back until everyone else has decided and figure out what the group could use the most, and then I work on coming up with a really interesting character concept for the race and class I've chosen. That's heresy for a lot of people, but I like the way it forces me to be creative and think about possibilities I otherwise might not.
Actually I've met a lot of players like that. Experienced players at least usually check what has already been made.
As a player:
I enjoy playing the odd thing out, like the techpriest in a group of Inquisitors or the tiefling in the group of standard races. I use props and/or voices to flesh out that difference. I make damned sure, however, that it's not annoying.
I HATE min-maxing. With a screaming passion. I'd rather be useful and interesting at a few things than indispensable at one thing but useless at everything else.
As a DM:
When I homebrew it always ends up dark. Stars-gone-right dark. I don't know why. I prefer using written adventures because of this and will add in bits and things from written adventures into an otherwise homebrewed game to try to keep it from going too dark.
I describe using sounds, smells, taste. Sight is hard for me so unless it's a grand vista I somewhat gloss over it. It's both a strength and a weakness.
I still hate min-maxing. If you're gonna min-max I'm not gonna stop you but I'm not altering the adventure so you're more relevant because of it.
I encourage more thoughtful solutions than "I hit it with a stick". Especially from a wizard rockin' an int of 18. If you need to kill a guy surrounded by guards and are down to just a charm person then I expect you to figure out you can charm your mark, lead him off, and have your rogue shank him thereby avoiding the fight entirely.
If there's something in the rules that doesn't make sense with a really good piece of fluff (Eastern-style-only monks raised by Devil Nuns in Isger? Really? The Erinyes-taught Infernal fighting styles don't vary from standard monk styles at all? Really?) then I add to the rules in order to make the good fluff make sense.
And that's how I roll.