|
And the modern player expectation seems to be survive until level 20...
Feh! *spits* I expect to die every time I enter battle! If I die, then all has gone according to plan. And if I survive, then it is a joyous day! If I wanted to survive, I would cower in the back behind a tower shield, chanting nonsense, making shadow puppets, and playing with owlbear feces. But that is not the way of a true warrior! And why would I want to live such a life? If you do not enjoy the visceral feel of cleaving through an orc's skull while surrounded by more of the orcish horde, then you are not alive!
And the modern player expectation seems to be survive until level 20...Feh! *spits* I expect to die every time I enter battle! If I die, then all has gone according to plan. And if I survive, then it is a joyous day! If I wanted to survive, I would cower in the back behind a tower shield, chanting nonsense, making shadow puppets, and playing with owlbear feces. But that is not the way of a true warrior! And why would I want to live such a life? If you do not enjoy the visceral feel of cleaving through an orc's skull while surrounded by more of the orcish horde, then you are not alive!
My compatriots think I have a death wish. I will die some day, either at the hands of some great evil, or at the hands of a lovely assassin. Dead either way. That I've lived this long is a miracle, frankly.
|
I get where you're coming from Derek. Some players do tend to b~**@ and moan about changes. But if you're upfront with the party that you will be making changes, and not to expect the 'standard boring predictable crap' that they are usually fed, most players I know will accept that.Now you're clear into hyperbole country.
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
What do you need a DM for? I can go to any kindergarten and get story hour. And players know as much about the rules as DMs any more, so you don't need one to adjudicate anything. In fact, any time a DM does something logical in the world, it seems a player will go to some forum and b*#*# about it. And all of the other players will tell him the DM is a dick.
So, what do you need us for again?
Outside of my immediate group, I haven't found a group of players who even want to consider attrition. For the most part, I run into types who think a ten page back story entitles them to immunity to death.
I get it. It takes seven hours and a slide rule to make a character. That's why I have people make three.
|
|
Dammit Derek, now your making yourself look old. I've yet to even learn how to calculate with a slide rule.I get where you're coming from Derek. Some players do tend to b~**@ and moan about changes. But if you're upfront with the party that you will be making changes, and not to expect the 'standard boring predictable crap' that they are usually fed, most players I know will accept that.Now you're clear into hyperbole country.
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
What do you need a DM for? I can go to any kindergarten and get story hour. And players know as much about the rules as DMs any more, so you don't need one to adjudicate anything. In fact, any time a DM does something logical in the world, it seems a player will go to some forum and b*#*# about it. And all of the other players will tell him the DM is a dick.
So, what do you need us for again?
Outside of my immediate group, I haven't found a group of players who even want to consider attrition. For the most part, I run into types who think a ten page back story entitles them to immunity to death.
I get it. It takes seven hours and a slide rule to make a character. That's why I have people make three.
Shoot, I've used an abacus for math problem.
|
|
Although I really like the Pathfinder RPG product, from a collectors point of view, this thread presents why my group has returned to playing 1e AD&D. We ended up with more arguments than play in some sessions under 3.5e, these were usually 'my fault' because I was injecting some of the logic mentioned previously as DM. The players and I sat down to work things out after one player left the group. In the end it was a case of 'inverse-houserules', that's where we went through and took rules out by mutual agreement. Still PF is a beautiful looking game - can't take that away from Paizo.
If I take this thread as a typical example of players and the game, I have to ask why anyone would want to play this game? Seems like a game about arguing the semantics of the armor value of a dragon, I guess people need hobbies.
S.
As to the guy who said buffing was something that might not happen in combat, I don't agree with you at all. The fact of the matter is the pit fiend I showed earlier can buff himself every 2 minutes for free, so assuming he's not taking the 3 seconds to refresh his main buff now and then seems exceptionally questionable.
Likewise, it's not like the pit fiend is severely limited in its ability to decide when and how they fight the party. I mean it does have a +28 Stealth, invisibility and greater teleport at will as spell-like abilities. You don't like your odds vs the adventurers, or feel buffing is a waste of time? Greater teleport to a nearby location, stealth, buff, murder.
Like I said. The baseline standard is generally met, before applying buffs and/or equipment. Creatures have a certain amount of treasure. Not once did I suggest that they use all their treasure, or that it is always equipment, but it seems questionable that if a shiny +5 cloak of resistance is part of the pit fiends double-standard treasure, that he wouldn't be wearing it (on a side note, such an item would only give him a +1 bonus over his unholy aura buff).
Likewise, a ring of energy resistance (electricity) would probably serve a pit-fiend well, since it'd give him resistance 10 to the one core energy type he doesn't have naturally.
And, as noted, none of this is enough to increase the monster's CR by +1. Gamemastering says you'd need to give them full-blown PC WBL to up their CR by a whole +1. The basic entries are pretty much naked.
As to the guy who said buffing was something that might not happen in combat, I don't agree with you at all. The fact of the matter is the pit fiend I showed earlier can buff himself every 2 minutes for free, so assuming he's not taking the 3 seconds to refresh his main buff now and then seems exceptionally questionable.
Likewise, it's not like the pit fiend is severely limited in its ability to decide when and how they fight the party. I mean it does have a +28 Stealth, invisibility and greater teleport at will as spell-like abilities. You don't like your odds vs the adventurers, or feel buffing is a waste of time? Greater teleport to a nearby location, stealth, buff, murder.
Like I said. The baseline standard is generally met, before applying buffs and/or equipment. Creatures have a certain amount of treasure. Not once did I suggest that they use all their treasure, or that it is always equipment, but it seems questionable that if a shiny +5 cloak of resistance is part of the pit fiends double-standard treasure, that he wouldn't be wearing it (on a side note, such an item would only give him a +1 bonus over his unholy aura buff).
Likewise, a ring of energy resistance (electricity) would probably serve a pit-fiend well, since it'd give him resistance 10 to the one core energy type he doesn't have naturally.
And, as noted, none of this is enough to increase the monster's CR by +1. Gamemastering says you'd need to give them full-blown PC WBL to up their CR by a whole +1. The basic entries are pretty much naked.
Now you're clear into hyperbole country.
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
What do you need a DM for? I can go to any kindergarten and get story hour. And players know as much about the rules as DMs any more, so you don't need one to adjudicate anything. In fact, any time a DM does something logical in the world, it seems a player will go to some forum and b##** about it. And all of the other players will tell him the DM is a dick.
So, what do you need us for again?
See that is what he means by hyperbole.
They make it EASIER for DMs.
There some things that certain people excel at and some things they don't.
I like coming up with challenging environmental situations, monster crafting, and story generation.
With that said I suck SUCK SUCK at drawing up maps and cities and such. Its just not my forte. But I can pull any of that stuff up from various places, online, in books, wherever.
DM's still have control, infact I feel like pathfinder gave me my hammer back to be honest with a lot more control over the setting. Under most sections about any player options (nigh the core rulebook and core classes) it says ask your DM before you do X.
It just made it easier for guys that suck at creating or using certain elements of the game to filling that gap because it is an essential element.
Also when their are rules on a given situation it lets the GM say "See there is a rule, we are going by the rules" instead of having to say this "That is my GM call. I am sorry you don't like it but that is my ruling". I hate being the bad guy, when you have to tell someone that your opinion differs from theirs and therefor because you are the one behind the screen they lose that sucks. I dont get off on being a power hoard and waving my all knowing finger, I like being fair and role playing and having fun.
Just my 2 cents on the not needing a DM. I feel very needed by my group thank you.
Although I really like the Pathfinder RPG product, from a collectors point of view, this thread presents why my group has returned to playing 1e AD&D. We ended up with more arguments than play in some sessions under 3.5e, these were usually 'my fault' because I was injecting some of the logic mentioned previously as DM. The players and I sat down to work things out after one player left the group. In the end it was a case of 'inverse-houserules', that's where we went through and took rules out by mutual agreement. Still PF is a beautiful looking game - can't take that away from Paizo.
If I take this thread as a typical example of players and the game, I have to ask why anyone would want to play this game? Seems like a game about arguing the semantics of the armor value of a dragon, I guess people need hobbies.
S.
That is your flavor, this is mine.
Rules mean that I can run the game not be the king of the game.
I want to come up with plot twists, create disturbing challenges and monsters, and tempt the PC's with guile in my world.
I just don't want to have to be GOD of the players and make them submissive. They deserve every right to feel equal to me at the table, I am just running the world and making things happen. Yes I hold some power because it is my world and I suppose I like being always in the know, but I enjoy being on an equal level with my gamers, not the biggest man in the room.
In the days of old it required a lot more responsibility, cracking down, game rulings, game decisions, and (for me) arguments.
if there is a rule, all that can be avoided.
That is why it works for me. :)
|
|
Now you're clear into hyperbole country.
I liked it better when the DM mattered. You don't really need one any more.
What do you need a DM for? I can go to any kindergarten and get story hour. And players know as much about the rules as DMs any more, so you don't need one to adjudicate anything. In fact, any time a DM does something logical in the world, it seems a player will go to some forum and b##** about it. And all of the other players will tell him the DM is a dick.
So, what do you need us for again?
See that is what he means by hyperbole.
They make it EASIER for DMs.
There some things that certain people excel at and some things they don't.
I like coming up with challenging environmental situations, monster crafting, and story generation.
With that said I suck SUCK SUCK at drawing up maps and cities and such. Its just not my forte. But I can pull any of that stuff up from various places, online, in books, wherever.
DM's still have control, infact I feel like pathfinder gave me my hammer back to be honest with a lot more control over the setting. Under most sections about any player options (nigh the core rulebook and core classes) it says ask your DM before you do X.
It just made it easier for guys that suck at creating or using certain elements of the game to filling that gap because it is an essential element.
Also when their are rules on a given situation it lets the GM say "See there is a rule, we are going by the rules" instead of having to say this "That is my GM call. I am sorry you don't like it but that is my ruling". I hate being the bad guy, when you have to tell someone that your opinion differs from theirs and therefor because you are the one behind the screen they lose that sucks. I dont get off on being a power hoard and waving my all knowing finger, I like being fair and role playing and having fun.
Just my 2 cents on the not needing a DM. I feel very...
I'm happy you have nice players. I guess you've never experienced the 30 minute shut down when the player looks up rule x, subsection 1.863m that states clearly HE runs the game.
Here's my problem: in 1e, I could wing everything with skill and aplomb, completely on the fly (I obsess over drawing maps - cities, dungeons, subterranean complexes, homes, whatever, so I always have a ton lying around that haven't been assigned), so if a player was a dick, I didn't have much of a time investment, mostly just notes.
In 3.x/Pathfinder, it can take me a couple of hours to just stat out one NPC. DMing seems like work. See, I HATE statting out ANYTHING in 3.x. It's like doing homework.
So, after spending an average of fifteen hours a week working on my game, I get REALLY bent out of shape when some punk who spent six seconds on his character starts calling me out on stuff.
Oh, and god forbid a character die, or build his character in a way that I cannot accommodate his need to feel bad ass all the time. You know, like most martial builds. I'm sorry, I played WoW for all of six minutes before finding something better to do, I have no idea why you think you should be able to "draw aggro" or whatever the term is. If you have no ability to make something do what you want, you picked the wrong class, sorry.
Oh, and the stopping every three seconds so everyone can add up the sixteen zillion modifiers when I'm trying to set a mood? Ugh.
|
|
Although I really like the Pathfinder RPG product, from a collectors point of view, this thread presents why my group has returned to playing 1e AD&D. We ended up with more arguments than play in some sessions under 3.5e, these were usually 'my fault' because I was injecting some of the logic mentioned previously as DM. The players and I sat down to work things out after one player left the group. In the end it was a case of 'inverse-houserules', that's where we went through and took rules out by mutual agreement. Still PF is a beautiful looking game - can't take that away from Paizo.
If I take this thread as a typical example of players and the game, I have to ask why anyone would want to play this game? Seems like a game about arguing the semantics of the armor value of a dragon, I guess people need hobbies.
S.
That is your flavor, this is mine.
Rules mean that I can run the game not be the king of the game.
I want to come up with plot twists, create disturbing challenges and monsters, and tempt the PC's with guile in my world.
I just don't want to have to be GOD of the players and make them submissive. They deserve every right to feel equal to me at the table, I am just running the world and making things happen. Yes I hold some power because it is my world and I suppose I like being always in the know, but I enjoy being on an equal level with my gamers, not the biggest man in the room.
In the days of old it required a lot more responsibility, cracking down, game rulings, game decisions, and (for me) arguments.
if there is a rule, all that can be avoided.
That is why it works for me. :)
I've seen more arguments over rulings in 3x than I saw in 20 years of playing AD&D. YMMV.
I'm happy you have nice players. I guess you've never experienced the 30 minute shut down when the player looks up rule x, subsection 1.863m that states clearly HE runs the game.
Here's my problem: in 1e, I could wing everything with skill and aplomb, completely on the fly (I obsess over drawing maps - cities, dungeons, subterranean complexes, homes, whatever, so I always have a ton lying around that haven't been assigned), so if a player was a dick, I didn't have much of a time investment, mostly just notes.
In 3.x/Pathfinder, it can take me a couple of hours to just stat out one NPC. DMing seems like work. See, I HATE statting out ANYTHING in 3.x. It's like doing homework.
So, after spending an average of fifteen hours a week working on my game, I get REALLY bent out of shape when some punk who spent six seconds on his character starts calling me out on stuff.
Oh, and god forbid a character die, or build his character in a way that I cannot accommodate his need to feel bad ass all the time. You know, like most martial builds. I'm sorry, I played WoW for all of six minutes before finding something better to do, I have no idea why you think you should be able to "draw aggro" or whatever the term is. If you have no ability to make something do what you want, you picked the wrong class, sorry.
Oh, and the stopping every three seconds so everyone can add up the sixteen zillion modifiers when I'm trying to set a mood? Ugh.
hmmmm
You want the truth man? Here is what I would do:
Tell them "Hey this is a game, not a math competition. If it is going to take you twenty minutes to add, then you dont get the bonus. Make your adjustments quickly. I do the same for you all and you should do the same to each other."
Second before each session say "We can use the rules to build characters however is necessary but you can not take up game time calling me out on what my NPCs, Monsters, or Environments do. I do not call you out everytime your character makes an attack roll and I expect a mutual trust from all of us."
Lastly, Dont do the math. Right down an arbitrary value of HP that seems reasonable, set an armor class, slap on some damage for those weak NPCs you didnt expect them to fight, or those monsters that could have become a problem.
only flesh out whats necessary to flesh out and when they travel into the realm of the unknown? well play your cool and pretend you planned for it.
"you attack the shopkeeper? Oh no.. roll initiative my friend."
see how often they derail your plots in the future haha
Your party sounds like a little bit of a hassle, but I am positive a guy with your experience can bring them under control. You got this. :)
YMMV.
It appears so. Perhaps your iron hand was enough to shut people up sometime. I am not so hard, almost too open minded and timid to be that guy that says "NO!" so when the rules do it for me I appreciate it.
|
|
I'm happy you have nice players. I guess you've never experienced the 30 minute shut down when the player looks up rule x, subsection 1.863m that states clearly HE runs the game.
Here's my problem: in 1e, I could wing everything with skill and aplomb, completely on the fly (I obsess over drawing maps - cities, dungeons, subterranean complexes, homes, whatever, so I always have a ton lying around that haven't been assigned), so if a player was a dick, I didn't have much of a time investment, mostly just notes.
In 3.x/Pathfinder, it can take me a couple of hours to just stat out one NPC. DMing seems like work. See, I HATE statting out ANYTHING in 3.x. It's like doing homework.
So, after spending an average of fifteen hours a week working on my game, I get REALLY bent out of shape when some punk who spent six seconds on his character starts calling me out on stuff.
Oh, and god forbid a character die, or build his character in a way that I cannot accommodate his need to feel bad ass all the time. You know, like most martial builds. I'm sorry, I played WoW for all of six minutes before finding something better to do, I have no idea why you think you should be able to "draw aggro" or whatever the term is. If you have no ability to make something do what you want, you picked the wrong class, sorry.
Oh, and the stopping every three seconds so everyone can add up the sixteen zillion modifiers when I'm trying to set a mood? Ugh.
hmmmm
You want the truth man? Here is what I would do:
Tell them "Hey this is a game, not a math competition. If it is going to take you twenty minutes to add, then you dont get the bonus. Make your adjustments quickly. I do the same for you all and you should do the same to each other."
Second before each session say "We can use the rules to build characters however is necessary but you can not take up game time calling me out on what my NPCs, Monsters, or Environments do. I do not call you out everytime your character makes an attack roll...
Eh, I hung up the DM spurs for a little while and just let Kirth DM. I will pick it up again since I dig Kirth, Androstre and TOZ (when he and his wife can make it). They're not a problem. I'm mostly just rehashing events that caused me to nearly pull my hair out and wonder how I could run 1e for 20 years and not hear the level of whining I found in the 3x players I encountered.
In Kirth's game, about all I will do is point out where something might be miscalculated if it's actually important. 99% of the stuff that might not be "correct" I ignore. Dude knows what he's doing, he doesn't need my help.
But I tend not to argue with the DM anyway (unless he's drunk and hitting on my girlfriend, but that's a different tale). I know how much work it is and feel like a time investment players don't have to make deserves some respect and understanding.
|
|
YMMV.It appears so. Perhaps your iron hand was enough to shut people up sometime. I am not so hard, almost too open minded and timid to be that guy that says "NO!" so when the rules do it for me I appreciate it.
Most of the arguments in 1e were theoretical, since they didn't have a rule for every time you stubbed your toe on a Keen Rapier. There weren't actually many rules discussions as much as general discussions about possibilities of things. And I was the type of DM that, if something sounded really awesomely cool, I'd give you a shot to pull it off.
The arguments in 3.x were insane. With four zillion rules for everything, compounded by a bunch of rules in splats there was no way in hell I was buying, I was constantly barraged with "but, but, but, it clearly states on page 247..."
Throw a lot of the vague language in Pathfinder, and...
Eh. I'll only DM for people I know well in a regular game these days, and at conventions for PFS maybe. I don't really care what someone at a Con I don't have to see every week says, and the other players at the table will generally regulate for me, with the four hour time limit and all.
I know how much work it is and feel like a time investment players don't have to make deserves some respect and understanding
+1
I'm sure everyone's group could use more of this. Which comes down to the person not the game IMO, I rarely run into this problem. My players respect the time and effort I give and rarely (not never) do arguments ensue because of this.
What do you need a DM for? I can go to any kindergarten and get story hour. And players know as much about the rules as DMs any more, so you don't need one to adjudicate anything. In fact, any time a DM does something logical in the world, it seems a player will go to some forum and b##** about it. And all of the other players will tell him the DM is a dick.
So, what do you need us for again?
Maybe I'm just jaded because of the internet or something, but I don't see people behaving as douchebags as an indication of the state of the hobby as a whole. It's just douchebags that whine, big deal, they've always been around, in all fields and all ages of mankind.
I'm definitely not as old school as you are, but I don't think being a DM means knowing more than the players, it's mostly a matter of roles, really. It's okay if a player knows the rules better or even more, he can even help out if it's important, the rules are just there to make the game go along.
DM calls are for when it's more awesome to go with the flow than the rules as written, heck I even encourage my players to come up with stuff and surprise me. A most common rule in my last 4e game was that you could use any skill you could convince me into letting you use, and it worked fine. PF's list isn't as open-ended but the same principle can easily apply.
In the end this is a matter of personal maturity, it has nothing to do with the game system except when people are dishonest about themselves and blame a rule or lack thereof for their inability to communicate properly.
Sometimes unclear rules can make the situation a bit trickier, like the above examples about CR: what's printed is, after a certain level, not all there is and just "assumes" a lot of things, which can therefore bring to noticeable disagreement even amongst the playerbase. Check back and read the discussion about AC 60 being just "okay" for level 20 despite the printed attack bonuses for that CR are about +30something, now imagine a DM that gives for granted that you have to uberbuff and optimize things properly, and a player that gives for granted that CR 20 means the numbers printed and increasing them means increasing the CR.
Imagine them at the same table. Yeah, you'd have a whiny player writing on a board some hours later. But really, you can't blame it all on the system, albeit I am still convinced it's not very clear, not at all times, on how it wants to work and present itself, the heart of the matter is proper communication around the table in cases like this.
|
|
That is why it works for me. :)
And that is cool. Imagine how dull the World would be if we were all the same?
If I may give an example of perhaps the straw that broke the 3.5e back for me - and the member that left our merry band, well perhaps not so merry by that stage.
Savage Tide AP, they get to the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The Trip Fighter (I thought this was a fighter with a drug use problem btw) states "I trip the T-Rex". I laugh thinking he's joking - this was followed by him spouting modifiers and rules and pages and clarifications from the web. After the group and I respectfully sit quietly until he's finished and rolled a dice declaring "And the T-Rex is DOWN! HA!". I tell him, sorry pal, I care little for what you think the rules say, your mass couldn't never ever trip a freak'n 30ft T-Rex, it's 3 tons! Yelling ensured. Ending with me challenging him to jump in the rhino pen at the zoo. If he could tackle a rhino I would give him the T-Rex went down to his trip attack*.
Now had this been 1e if a player wanted to trip something they would explain how they were going to go about this - if I thought, wow, that's silly but hell cool, I would get them to roll something. The 3.5e type system has for me at any rate removed the free flow of silly ideas both in and out of combat and replaced them with KEYWORDS, like you find in Magic the Gathering or over codified games. I concede this is great for the newer DM/Players, but for me it feels a little like a straight-jacket for creativity.
NOT saying any game is better than any other, that is personal preference. With my current group a coupler of people seem unable to resist the sort of character's that CoDzilla says exist - and as a DM I'm unwilling to run that sort of game.
I really don't bother memorizing the rules semantics and details, so a lot of the time I never know if someones crapping me about rule specifics, as I really don't like halting the flow of a game to look things up.
S.
*Please note no rhinos were interfered with as he refused to attempt the tackle and resorted to calling me a moron instead. I did point out that me being, or not being, a moron didn't constitute evidence that a human could tackle a T-Rex.
Savage Tide AP, they get to the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The Trip Fighter (I thought this was a fighter with a drug use problem btw) states "I trip the T-Rex". I laugh thinking he's joking - this was followed by him spouting modifiers and rules and pages and clarifications from the web. After the group and I respectfully sit quietly until he's finished and rolled a dice declaring "And the T-Rex is DOWN! HA!". I tell him, sorry pal, I care little for what you think the rules say, your mass couldn't never ever trip a freak'n 30ft T-Rex, it's 3 tons! Yelling ensured. Ending with me challenging him to jump in the rhino pen at the zoo. If he could tackle a rhino I would give him the T-Rex went down to his trip attack*.
I'm sorely disappointed that he didn't actually jump in the rhino pen to prove his point, you did well to kick him out.
I personally would've allowed it, because I'm the sort of DM that allows this kind of stupid stuff, but what annoys me is that this result didn't come out of a creative ploy or even a nice description or a cool move or some posing and manly shouting and large hamming and stuff... It all came from math.
As I said several posts ago, the problem with noncaster combat options is that they're really, really boring, and you either never ever do them because they make you actively worse by getting you beaten up for, most often, no good reason, or you do them every time because you've spent several of your extremely limited reserve of feats to be able to do that, and not using that option would be like playing a wizard with int 3 and spending all feats to specialize in fighting with the greatclub.
That's why noncasters need some other way to accomplish stuff than by saying "my bonus is so bigger than yours I automatically succeed into using this extremely specific and situational trick", if anything because it's boring and there's no real way to stop it except just frustrating the player by repeating a "No" that should've come before he started playing.
|
|
Yeah, I'd have a difficult time trying to play in a game like that Stefan. To me these adventurers we're playing are supposed to be heroes. Making the T-Rex more resistant to the melee guys options just makes the melee guys suck more against it (in my mind.)
Then again, you're talking to a person who removes the size limit on grapples, and who is very glad PF reduced the size bonuses/penalties on grapples/trips to +1 per size category instead of +4.
EDIT: Gah, sorry about misspelling your name when it's right there lol. I've fixed it Stefan.
Completely cool with your point of view. It was just an example of the rules and my DMing style having differences with no easy resolution. I was honest with the remaining 5 players and said I like DMing but just can't get the feel of the D20 style of DM, said I felt like we were fighting against each other to come up with the most destructive rule combo or loop-hole, we even tried 4e, 3e and lastly PF. They were all really good about it and said they would give 1e a bash. For the record 4e came cloest to 1e style DMing but still suffering from endless fiddly-bits.
Again, depends on what the players and DM are gaming for.
S.
More rules does not mean "the DM has no voice". MOre rules mean "if the DM does not know how adjudicate or rule a situation, there is a rule for that".
Rules can be changed and ignored in an RPG. Rules are there to support the DM. DM is helped by the rules.
The issue can raise when rules are changed and players are not informed of this - it can happens, but is annoying if frequent. But that is not fault of the system, regardless the number of rules.
|
|
Rules can be changed and ignored in an RPG. Rules are there to support the DM. DM is helped by the rules.
The issue can raise when rules are changed and players are not informed of this - it can happens, but is annoying if frequent. But that is not fault of the system, regardless the number of rules.
Agreed, but part of the problem with such a rule-heavy system as 3.X/PFRPG is that there are so many rules that it's a bit hard to come up with a list of all the rules that you will be changing/ignoring without sitting down and going through the books with a checklist. Which is rather tedious.
Agreed, but part of the problem with such a rule-heavy system as 3.X/PFRPG is that there are so many rules that it's a bit hard to come up with a list of all the rules that you will be changing/ignoring without sitting down and going through the books with a checklist. Which is rather tedious.Rules can be changed and ignored in an RPG. Rules are there to support the DM. DM is helped by the rules.
The issue can raise when rules are changed and players are not informed of this - it can happens, but is annoying if frequent. But that is not fault of the system, regardless the number of rules.
Well, there are ways to add "short cuts". As an example, I use the table for monster creation to create monsters on the fly.
Did you even read the AP?
I did. Did you?
1.1
"There is no gap in the first encounter."
Wrong. See p.12.
How many times do you have Color Spray memorized?
2-4, Depending on starting key stat and whether I want Grease/Sleep too. The first encounter consist of only three battles.
And how often are you planning on getting within 15 feet?
Whenever the adventure allows me. I.e., always. All encounters either are entirely useless to piss-weak outside or melee, or are encountered in dungeons, where aa single move will bring me to within 15 feet.
1.3. There is no "ongoing encounters". Either two encounters with PCs getting surprise in both, or one extended encounter.
1.4. Don't insert your assumptions about GMing into AP as written. The sidebar in question says that the monsters can come out only specifically to point PCs to the dungeon they missed, not as any consequences of them going in and retreating.
Besides, monsters coming out don't matter. The town has town watch and s~@+. If interactions with the world are supposed to involve realism and common sense, PCs will just ask them to watch the entrance while they rest.
1.5. You still haven't produced the number of page which says, that enemies get any reinforcements. Also, don't insert your assumptions about GMing into AP as written. Not like alert level at the enemy HQ can get any higher, just after their tried to wreck their neighbors' s+*$.
If your DM allows you to rest without consequences, that is your DM.
No. That's AP. And don't even try to start saying something like "Any sane GM..." because if you try to apply common sense to the plot, then it doesn't work at all, being predicated on people not caring about murderous but easy-to-exterminate monsters right on their doorstep.
2.2. Why would PCs buff in any place but immediately before the encounter (or, if they epically fail Spot, after the first small group of foes), considering they can control its pace completely? Retreat has bad consequences but is not needed. Again, because PCs control the pace.
2.3 You will get attacked on exit whether you pressed on to the limit of characters' abilities or retreated when not entirely spent yet. Therefore trying to bust the dungeon in one go is actively punished here.
2.4 Don't assume that players are drooling morons, who can't figure they are playing a dungeon crawl after 1.5 adventures and PCs are so dense they can't figure the connection between going into a known villain's house and potential of danger.
2.5 I actually agree that this dungeon must be finished in one attempt (not that it is hard to do so, mooks are weak as heck, compared to previous segments), but your penalty for not doing that is ridiculous. The chief badguy does not control the entire law enforcement and therefore does not want to draw any attention to his lair. Remember, his reaction if PCs let him go is to get out of town pronto.
2.6 Again, the penalty for not showing up to the final battle probably is the villain getting away (at worst, PCs also lose a pile of money). Considering that said villain by itself can kill any but the most hardcore parties if played intelligently, it's probably for the best.
I don't remember if trip is limited by size. If it actually is, then that's a fair call.
As it happens, it is -- you can only trip one size up.
Savage Tide AP, they get to the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The Trip Fighter (I thought this was a fighter with a drug use problem btw) states "I trip the T-Rex". I laugh thinking he's joking - this was followed by him spouting modifiers and rules and pages and clarifications from the web. After the group and I respectfully sit quietly until he's finished and rolled a dice declaring "And the T-Rex is DOWN! HA!". I tell him, sorry pal, I care little for what you think the rules say, your mass couldn't never ever trip a freak'n 30ft T-Rex, it's 3 tons! Yelling ensured. Ending with me challenging him to jump in the rhino pen at the zoo. If he could tackle a rhino I would give him the T-Rex went down to his trip attack*.
He couldn't have tripped the T-Rex unless he was at least one size larger but that isn't the point I'm going to make right now. If someone has all the modifiers correct and the rules support his actions, then why deny him those actions out of simple fiat? This is one reason why we hear things like "casters are the most powerful." It's because DMs want to apply reality to melee characters and allow for the fantastic for everyone else.
Now had this been 1e if a player wanted to trip something they would explain how they were going to go about this - if I thought, wow, that's silly but hell cool, I would get them to roll something. The 3.5e type system has for me at any rate removed the free flow of silly ideas both in and out of combat and replaced them with KEYWORDS, like you find in Magic the Gathering or over codified games. I concede this is great for the newer DM/Players, but for me it feels a little like a straight-jacket for creativity.
You could have just as easily done the same thing with the 3.5 character. There is no reason why you have to sacrifice the narrative for the mechanics.
And the modern player expectation seems to be survive until level 20, which is mathematically unlikely.
Then make it mathematically likely. I mean, there are good reasons for PCs to die, but this particular reason is stupid and insulting. Why the heck should anyone play the game where they are likely to be randomly and irrecoverably shafted due to bad rules? Particularly past very low levels, when a character is likely to have significant investment put in it. The only real advantage that TTRPGs have over modern CRPGs (not counting out-of-game ones, like hanging with one's friends) is players' ability to play out their own, personalized power fantasies. Death by random chance screws it over. It is only tolerable in DnD because raising the dead becomes quite possible quite early (assuming the party prepares for eventual accidents), so by the moment your character becomes established and gets some effort put into him he isn't likely to be lost on a poor roll.
What do you mean for random chances? Adventuring is dangerous.. you can meet death behind any corner sometimes. This is one f the things making arriving at the end satisfying.
I do not want to say you must always be in danger of death otherwise you are doing it wrong, but I do not see "random chances". I see danger, period.
I'm sorry I was talking about the gold dragon (unless your pet name for the Tarrasque is goldie and it casts spells like one), and I listed haste..
So what are you talking about?
Again I only put down some basic buffs and didn't go all out. At worst I used an amulet of mighty fists which people seemed to object to my using so much on.
With a little work beyond the 5 seconds it took me to write this I think that you could squeeze out another +7 to hit. But even if you couldn't the point stands.
Now I don't like agreeing with Cod both for how he argues and for what he argues, but you need to give the monsters their due. They're not just sitting around pages of the bestiary waiting for adventurers to attack them in a flat featureless plain.
-James
Emphasis mine. +1 to this.
I missed a lot but:
1.I don't mind a DM making up house rules as long as their are put out in advance. "I am the DM, so there", is a terrible argument. I am also a DM, and part of being a DM is making the story beleivable in and out of character. A "level appropriate" monster that has a + 2 billion to hit is not level appropriate. A DM tried that once, and he no longer has a gaming group.
The 2 billion was an exaggeration, but the point stands.
2. There are normally two situations when a DM is wrong. One is when he missed a rule. The other is when he is not really wrong, but for storyline reasons or due to a modded monster he can break what the player sees as a normal rule.
If I am really wrong I have no issue with a correction. If I am not wrong I say "I know", my players realize I know what I am doing, and that is it. Now if you get a player still complaining he either does not trust you for some reason, or he is a whiner. Politely inform him he has no more right to tell you how to DM, than you do to tell him how to play his character.
3. As for monsters using items, at what point is a CR X no longer a CR X. I really don't care what people do at home because all of us have house rules, but you can't double the to-hit bonus on a monster that is modified by playstyle, and try to make a universal case for saying a fighter can't deal with it.
4. The Big T issue has not been countered yet. <--No way to Buff
5. If we are using buffed monster stats as the standard we should come up with a reasonable standard for that since different DM's would allow different amounts of wealth to be used.
What do you mean for random chances? Adventuring is dangerous.. you can meet death behind any corner sometimes. This is one f the things making arriving at the end satisfying.
I do not want to say you must always be in danger of death otherwise you are doing it wrong, but I do not see "random chances". I see danger, period.
OK. Now, can you explain, why should I play the game where, even at the best times, the probability of survival is set rather arbitrarily without, at the very least, an unspoken agreement that this probability is extremely high, unless I make some blatantly stupid move or fail to put effort into the game? Particularly if the game assumes that my character will encounter various threats hundreds of times in his career, so unless his actual probability of survival against an average threat is about 99.9%, or he has some trick that allows him to un-die, he's not going to survive the game as it is played in published campaigns.
OK. Now, can you explain, why should I play the game where, even at the best times, the probability of survival is set rather arbitrarily without, at the very least, an unspoken agreement that this probability is extremely high, unless I make some blatantly stupid move or fail to put effort into the game? Particularly if the game assumes that my character will encounter various threats hundreds of times in his career, so unless his actual probability of survival against an average threat is about 99.9%, or he has some trick that allows him to un-die, he's not going to survive the game as it is played in published campaigns.What do you mean for random chances? Adventuring is dangerous.. you can meet death behind any corner sometimes. This is one f the things making arriving at the end satisfying.
I do not want to say you must always be in danger of death otherwise you are doing it wrong, but I do not see "random chances". I see danger, period.
I'm on the "extremely high" route (more or less).. but I wouldn't bet it's the same for everybody.