If I ever encounter a player who is going to challenge the reactions of the NPC's and thinks they know all the motivations of said NPC's, then I would sit him down outside of the game, listen to his concerns and then politely, but firmly explain two things: First, as a GM my rule is law. Period. It overrides everything in the Core Rulebook. In any game book. I create the world, I control the gods, the seas, the weather, the animals, the people, the dimensions, everything. I am the Game Master. If I want my goblins to stand their ground and fight, they will. If I want them to run away, they will. But no player will dictate to me how I will run *my* game, because as the job title says, I am the master of the game. And second, the one rule that sums up the entire game - Have Fun. If they aren't having fun, and I can't address those concerns with my GM style, then they should move on to another group. However, that rule applies to the Game Master as well. If I as the GM am not having fun and having players challenging my depictions of creatures because it's not as it is in the book, then why the heck do I want to invest my time and money into running a game for a bunch of people who can't appreciate the effort I put forth? It's not like the vast majority of GM's out there are getting paid to entertain the players - so why put up with it?
Just my 2 cents.
Um, yeah... THIS pretty much.
|
Demi-Grognard alert: I've been DM-ing since 1980 and every player I've ever had has argued with some ruling I've made (but my Grammy hadn't read the rules, so I shut her down hard!). I hadn't run a protracted D&D campaign in eight years when I picked up Rise of the Runelords two years ago.
When we started, I hewed pretty close to the original storyline, but as time progressed, I added more and more material that reacted to what the players have done and what they have changed. It was in Hook Mountain Massacre that I found what I love about DMing and why, for me, it's still fun: because, once you've got players who are committed, you're telling a story. The script, such as it is, must give way to players who have their own ideas and have not been told that they can't do X, kill Y, or flirt with Z. My most important job as the less-than-humble GM is to make the world react to what the players have done: it's what makes them feel invested, it's what makes them feel like what they do matters and that, in my experience, is what most players are looking for.
Today, I've gone from running a fairly straight script to plotting already how I'm going to change Carrion Crown. We measure what we love by what we spend our time on. I spend most of my time trying to be a better GM, because it's what I love.
So yeah. It's still fun.
|
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
A GM can obviously do whatever he likes. The problem is when an expectation is set in the player's heads that a GM should be obeying a script.
The consensus of opinion here seemed to be that for Pathfinder Society scenarios this was much more the case. If I've understood this correctly, in that case the Warchanter really would fight to the death.
The problem is that this attitude, in player's minds, can easily bleed across into non Society modules, especially if those modules are written in a very prescriptive manner.
If players come to expect that GMs will run adventures as written, with variations treated the same way that house-ruling and GM fiat is, then creative GMs will find themselves getting into more and more arguments over this.
I think we need to re-establish in player's minds what are the rules and what are just guidelines. I think we need to try to make sure players understand that modules are not instructions to the GM - they are guidelines and frameworks. I think it helps if the language used in modules support this by emphasising setting but allowing the GM to decide consequence. That way we avoid any possibility of players accusing GMs of breaking the module.
My approach in the goblin situation, for example, would be to explain the relationship between the various types of goblins and the plan of attack, and then leave it to the GM from that point on.
Some years ago I wouldn't have been so sensitive over what might seem like a trivial matter. It's just with the player/GM trend as I have seen it I have a fear that player-power will invade the GM arena completely.
One poster here talked about wanting, as a player, to play the module as written, not as interpreted by a GM. I wonder how many more players are like that?
Richard
|
|
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
I don't mind the inclusion of tactics, I think it's a great guide if the encounter set up is weird (odd environment) or you are dealing with a high powered foe with many, many options. The tactics are helpful for newer DMs and can be tweaked/optimized for more experienced DMs or DMs dealing with up powered players (build, optimized, etc)
What I would like -
With the APs I would just like more options if the players go off the rails. I think part of the problem is including more supplemental material to flesh out the APs and environs.
I like how Paizo has paired up releases of the various environs books to go with the APs, I just wish that these books were longer and had more crunch, then as a DM the APs could be supported in a more flexible and open fashion - not having all the game locked in the AP, but tied to the environs around the AP.
The supplemental material included in the APs are great - I would like something just as solid and more detailed in a 96 or 128 page book. DMs are going to buy it if the content is good, and they don't have to be mechanics/rules heavy but instead maybe offer up fluff, some stats, various monsters, etc. - the labor part of DMing (the stat part not the fluff, fluff is just good for spring boarding ideas). More or less the current book layout but just more.
Plus they don't need to be hardcover to save on cost. At least for the environs books
I liked the FR environs books, not for the Prcs or spells (mostly player stuff) but for all the detailed background info, creatures, new items (specific to locale) and mini encounters (dropped from the APs). Mini encounters can be a break from the AP while still playing in the environ, could work as a tie-in or just used to bring up xp to the next level needed for the next mod in the path.
I think trying to put some greater detail & more content in the Pathfinder Chronicles/Campaign setting is the way to go, 64 pages is too short. The current offerings are too thin and light, if anything they feel like a teaser for the material/environ covered.
Lets use the River Kingdoms book as an example - the material in there was only a few pages long (covering the Stolen Lands). Something more fleshed out (and twice as long) would be more useful to DMs than a few entries on the region.
I don't know if the business model is to keep things minimal/gazette format deliberately but I personally would love to see you guys write more of what you are good at - creative content. To me a Rivers Kingdom book would be
Environ fleshed out –
Civilized
Wilderness
Dungeons/Encounter sites of the River Kingdoms
Magic and Lore of the Kingdoms
Monsters of the River Kingdoms
God of the River Kingdoms
Adventure Hooks
Supplemental AP material (mini encounters, what happens now, etc)
96 or 128 pages of solid material
sidetrack which turned into a rant off/
I never run a module as it is written, NEVER. Every modules need to be adjusted for your own group because every groups are different. However, I don't need a section in every modules to remember me that this is my right as a GM.
... stuff ...
Just curious, but how does a Procrastinator get to be level 12? Or is it that you should be level 20 by now but you keep putting it off?
|
|
What concerns me is a trend within published material to discourage GM interpretation of scenarios...Can you provide an example of a published adventure that has this sort of discouragement?
I would LOVE to see an example, because that's not something I'd like to be in any adventures we publish. snip....
The following presents the morale information from the first three encouters in the first AP adventure (which I don't think is going to spoil anyone's enjoyment now):
snip examples
In my opinion this is the module writer telling the GM how to do his job. Contrast this with the following excerpt from G3 again:
snip example
I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any discouragement. Instead, what I see is modelling the GM behavior that would stem from the instructions in G3. I don't see any discouragement, rather the opposite. By providing examples, the new GM starts to think of this as a regular matter of course.
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
No, I don't think so. I would never look at that and think my hands were tied. If running without insight, I would use what was presented. If I thought of something that made more sense to me, I would use that instead. All of this assumes non-organized play.
A lot of very good points
+1
I would LOVE to see an example, because that's not something I'd like to be in any adventures we publish. I would much rather a GM who reads a Paizo adventure to be inspired to make it his/her own and to tinker and to make it unique for his/her particular group, and when I develop adventures, I generally try to infuse the adventures with this sentiment. I certainly don't say "you can't change any of this or the adventure breaks!" in print, and if something we do DOES sound that way, I'd like to know about it so I can make sure it doesn't keep happening.
Paizo's adventure paths and modules have many comments emphasising the need to alter things as needed. (I don't have quotes, but I'm sure this is a recurring theme in forewords, plot summaries, etcetera). I don't want to see some 'disclaimer' every encounter though - a comment here or there in the introduction is enough, imo.
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
In my view, these do more harm than good (given space which could go to other things, plus the frequency with which they don't make sense given the vagaries of how the plot has developed, how the PCs are approaching the encounter etcetera).
I don't think they hamper GM creativity though and I think they're probably invaluable to new GMs or GMs running monsters they are unfamiliar with.
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
No. Honestly, the people who write the modules, APs, whatever, are much, MUCH better DMs than I will ever be. Please keep including them.
As for DMing being fun, I hate it. Well, not really, of course, but I have a party that will do whatever they want whenever they want and keeping ahead of them is a headache. On top of that, one of them is a steward in the Teamsters and seems to derive more pleasure from arguing about the rules than playing the game.
I am not comfortable making decisions on the fly. As well, since I am the DM and know everything, the flaws or defects in the storyline are always much more glaring to me than they are to the players which detracts from MY immersion in the game.
I don't know how many nights a session has ended that I thought was just terrible and didn't have any fun and then I realize that my players loved it.
So why do I keep doing it? Well, DMing is better than not playing at all! (Also, my players bribe me with free beer and pot.)
*Yawn!*
What? It's late over here! 02:39 when I started writing.
Oh, and I'm tired of this baseless complaint.
Who is stalking the gaming shops, basements and uni campusses harvesting gamer balls? Because there seem to be a lot of GM wannabes who just don't have any, or they wouldn't let their players walk all over them and feebly blame a bunch of books.
At first, I wanted to leave out the basement thing with the "Roleplayers are 40-year-old fatbeards who live in their parents' basement" implications, but since these people are not just unable to stand up to their players, but also seem to lack the social competence to talk to their players to reach a compromise about how the game is run, that stereotype had what it called plausible claws or something like that and got a gig in this post. Damn unions.
Seriously, people: Stop complaining that the evil game is taking away your power as a GM. The game can't take away that power. Only players can, and then only if the GM lets them do it, so it is, in a way, like giving away that power.
Not to mention that the whole GM power thing is nonsense, anyway. The GM was never supposed to be Absolute Ruler and Tyrant of the gaming table. The GM is primus inter pares. Since this game is a social activity, communication and compromise are important for a healthy playing environment.
I understand the need for a GM to control the game but to me the players should have the same opportunity. After all, what is a GM with no players? As GM I can control a lot of things but I have to play the same game as the PCs. I can't decide Knowledge Checks aren't part of my game as GM yet still have my players invest skill pints in Knowledge. I can't decide as GM to not use initiative but have my players select Initiative based feats. Players and GM, I believe, need to be using the same rulebook so I as GM don't get to overrule it at my whim.
Any GM who decides to arbitrarily remove game mechanics or override the rules in such a fundamentally blatant way is not a GM I'd want to play with. That is taking the role too far - the game has rules for a reason. And I wasn't talking about changing the rules, I was discussing what is in the GM's purview - NPC reactions in a tactical situation. Players should only get to dictate that when they have Dominate Monster going (or some other similar effect).
However, in regards to GM's changing the rules, I believe that if a GM has a serious problem with the RAR then they should propose changes to their group that work, are balanced and has a rationale behind it. And players should have the right to ask and question why rules are changed, and to express displeasure at changes they disagree with in an adult manner. Ultimately though it is the GM's decision. The power to change the rules should never, EVER be left to players alone.
As for overruling the rules on a whim, I do it all the time - when I roll dice behind the screen. If I feel that my players are getting trounced through bad die rolls on their part, I will throw a few bad die rolls on my own, even if they are nat 20's. This is to help preserve the story and the fun and enjoyment of the players, not to show them up or lord it over them.
One of the first things I learned as a GM is I can kill the player characters on a whim. I can have their 1st level PC's "randomly" attacked by horde of angry ogres, or the master assassin in town take a serious dislike to them and poison the whole lot (just in case). But that sure as heck isn't fun for anyone except the power-tripping GM-wannabe.
GMing is all about finesse - how many balls can you keep in the air while distracting your audience enough to temporarily steal away with their mundane concerns? Rules are a science, but running a game is Art.
Gming is still fun with the right group. Finding a group that suits your style is the difficult part and it is a collaborative game in that both Gms and players need to make agreements as to how they want to play.
Additionally, if you're running a pre-published module and you feel you're just a script reader I would argue that your missing the point of a published adventure. Actors, directors, designers read scripts but bring their own approaches and ideas to how they interpret the words and action on the page. The material in a module is only the bare foundations its what you as a GM add to that with your players that will make a memorable session. The AP or module shouldn't constrain you it ideally should free you to run the session by having somethings you can fall back on to keep the action moving and not have to worry that much about stat blocks and the like.
An interesting thread, particularly since I'm returning to the hobby after more than a decade away. But I started -- and thus started DMing -- in 1979. I don't think I ever ran a "module" after I was 15 years old. I'm now 42 (and I'm not fat, have all my hair and then some...but I do have a basement lair, so I guess I'll just have to hang with my contemporaries.)
As a consequence, I look at the PF rules with the eyes of someone who hasn't played AD&D since it was AD&D. I am utterly ignorant of 3e, and it seems I'm happy to be so, based on the descriptions I've read/heard. It's clearly been infected by the MUD/MMPORG disease of statting everything and reducing RPGs to "stat blocks" and "adventure paths" and "leveling up" to the detriment of "character concept" or "background" or "roleplaying." That's unavoidable, I suppose; adjudication only works with good judges, and those are, simply stated, rare. Most judges are middling to poor, and most people -- player or GM -- don't have much imagination. They just want to play a game; telling a story is a secondary consideration at best.
Given that most GMs aren't so great, it's nice to have rules that keep them from being utter berks. Yet, at the same time, there are tremendous constraints on both players & DMs. Want to play a battle-mage? Don't bother -- the rules aren't set up for that. A spell-caster's job is now battlefield control, rather than creating wonders. Don't like maps & minis? Prepare for arguments about AoO and so on. I find this depressing and constraining...but not impossibly so.
I'm having a blast DMing. My players, so far, are really into it, as well.
But when I initially told my players they could only play humans, and they were all starting in a single, small town squeezed between Orcs to the north & Ur-men (don't bother looking it up in the Bestiary) to the south, they balked. I would if someone proposed such a campaign to me. I acknowledged that ... and asked them to trust me. And they did.
Among other things, I ignored any background info from the race descriptions and completely re-designed them to be familiar ... but unexpected. I suppose I could have given the players handouts and they could choose from a bunch of unfamiliar concepts in an unfamiliar setting, but I know all too well how that works out. Hell, *I* don't like playing in games like that, and I read the appendices for LOTR twice for every time I read the trilogy when I was young and obsessed, so I'm hardly averse to "fluff." But frontloading with information, whether in a game, novel, movie, whatever, is almost always a poor gambit.
Instead, they get the joy of discovering a new setting, and they can grow into it without being overwhelmed. Furthermore (and ever-so-cunningly) I now don't have to design absolutely everything ahead of time -- based on what the players show interest in, I can form & refine my ideas in ways that make it fun, and interesting, for all.
That's just how I roll. No book or player is going to change that. I never had any interest in tournament play, and I still don't, no matter how it's been repackaged. Bully for those who do ... but I'd rather have something unique and surprising than just garnering another notch on the gaming book.
|
|
Who is stalking the gaming shops, basements and uni campusses harvesting gamer balls?
Haha! Yeah, after returning to this thread I became convinced it's either an elaborate TROLL or a symptom of a GM that is not necessarily a type-a personality.
Complaining about combat tactics and morale because you don't appreciate the book telling you how to do your job? Living in fear that the players will check your work? Also, since when are splatbooks the exclusive purview of players?
I can't help but wonder if this is all due to a lack of imagination, ambition, or genuine interest in the art of GMing. Unfortunately, the answer may not be found trying to discover some ominous trend, but through serious introspection.
The GM is a player in the game, too. You have a right to have fun as much as anyone else participating. In fact, the GM is arguably in the best position to have the most fun. The best part of GMing is being able to break the rules and make the world. If my players think for one second that I won't hesitate to give an animated table leg 10-levels of frenzied berserker to make an encounter more interesting, then they have another thing coming!
|
|
Any GM who decides to arbitrarily remove game mechanics or override the rules in such a fundamentally blatant way is not a GM I'd want to play with. ....
...As GM I can control a lot of things but I have to play the same game as the PCs. I can't decide Knowledge Checks aren't part of my game as GM yet still have my players invest skill pints in Knowledge. I can't decide as GM to not use initiative but have my players select Initiative based feats. Players and GM, I believe, need to be using the same rulebook so I as GM don't get to overrule it at my whim.
It's not changing the rules on a whim that's the problem, necessarily; it's whether the DM lets the players respond appropriately. Don't like Knowledge checks? Fine, but tell your players before they waste their skill points. The players come to the game with a set of expectations based on the rules set you claim to be running, and arbitrarily violating those expectations is...well, it makes having fun a lot harder as a player.
|
My reply here is to the OP.
Table top RPG's are not about what's printed in the books. It's not about where the industry is going with the newest edition of the game or the new modules or power balance of the classes. It's about a group of friends (or strangers) getting together and enjoying an adventure.
Being a GM is great, just as it always has. It doesn't matter the system you are playing. It's about the people around the table. If you don't like whats in the rules change them. If you don't like how the module is laid out, rewrite the parts you don't like. If you are not currently having fun GM'ing, don't GM for a while, let someone else do it. If your players are power gamers that just want to grind through adventures (and that's not what you want also) find new people to play with.
Everything is within your control as a GM. It's always best to craft the game that your whole gaming group thinks is fun, which may be the power gaming blitz to the end of your current module. But never forget that you, as the GM are part of your gaming group and should have an equal share in the fun.
|
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
The Tactics and Morale section were part of what caught my eye when I first started looking at Paizo adventures. I enjoy knowing how they were intended to behave as written, and treat 'em like guidelines if I'm running the adventure as written. Even if I'm changing stuff up, it can still be useful.
Can you provide an example of a published adventure that has this sort of discouragement?The following presents the morale information from the first three encouters in the first AP adventure (which I don't think is going to spoil anyone's enjoyment now):
Morale: These goblins are convinced that the plan to raid Sandpoint can’t fail and are far too excited to consider the possibility of losing the battle. As such, they fight to the death—but more by accident than out of any real sense of bravery.
Morale: If the warchanter dies, remaining goblin warriors panic and flee.
Morale: The warchanter fights to the death.
In my opinion this is the module writer telling the GM how to do his job. Contrast this with the following excerpt from G3 again:
Even when the party first enters the Hall you will have to gauge the reaction of the giants if and when they learn the intruders are within. How will they react? From whence will they call in guards? Where will Snurre go? Most assuredly, he will not remain seated upon his throne when an attack is in progress! You have not ceased being a Dungeon Master by using this prepared scenario. You simply have some details handled for you so that you can better script the more important details.
In the first case, as a GM, I may choose not to have the warchanter fight to the death. He may decide, if he loses his little goblin retinue, to go and find some other goblins to inspire. Equally, for whatever reason, the goblins that are supposed to run away might not.
All of this I'm sure most GMs, if not players, would agree is perfectly legitimate GM creative licence. However the former case (with the Goblins) rather than the latter (with the Giants) does open the door for a player to challenge the GM, especially if the combat turned out harder than otherwise, with questions along the lines of: "did the module *say* that the warchanter was supposed to go and find another group of goblins to support?"
And if the GM admitted that it didn't,...
When I ran BO,
Now, none of that was in the rules, but we had a blast and it made for a memorable finish to the attack on the town. (And later, when they found his lair, it made for some fun jokes...when one of the heroes failed his fright check, he ended up fleeing into the torturer's lair and thats where the rest of the party found him.
After it was over and we discussed it, I told them about some of the changes, and none of the players seemed to feel "cheated" or that I'd done something wrong. In fact, the general concensus was that it sounded like a better game. MAybe it was. (I thought so.)
Did I GM fiat. Probably. Did ot ruin the game. No.
Being a GM means that you often have to wing it. Create on the fly. Ignore what's written to make the game more fun. And sometimes even fudge the results so that characters aren't killed though sheer dumb luck. (though dumb actions should get them whatever they deserve.)
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
Heck, no. I love those sections. Helps me get into the character's heads when my players encounter them.
|
|
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
Personally I love it. They are a handy reminder of what the feel of a particular combat might portray, or even something as simple as reminding me that monsters and villains want to live to and will flee or not flee depending on circumstance.
They're a guideline, but a handy one.
It's not changing the rules on a whim that's the problem, necessarily; it's whether the DM lets the players respond appropriately. Don't like Knowledge checks? Fine, but tell your players before they waste their skill points. The players come to the game with a set of expectations based on the rules set you claim to be running, and arbitrarily violating those expectations is...well, it makes having fun a lot harder as a player.
I absolutely agree that letting the players know of your preferences and game style before play are not only appropriate, but wise to announce if you are to have a fun game. Players will know what to expect by the tone and flavor of a campaign and a smart GM can also help make suggestions in character choices during creation that help their players (especially inexperienced ones) to have more fun in the campaign.
And personally I would never dream of removing Knowledge skills from the game as a GM - no, they are far (FAR!) too useful in directing a storyline or helping clueless players who aren't putting the pieces of the mystery together at 1am in the morning. :)
Can you provide an example of a published adventure that has this sort of discouragement?The following presents the morale information from the first three encouters in the first AP adventure (which I don't think is going to spoil anyone's enjoyment now):
Morale: These goblins are convinced that the plan to raid Sandpoint can’t fail and are far too excited to consider the possibility of losing the battle. As such, they fight to the death—but more by accident than out of any real sense of bravery.
Morale: If the warchanter dies, remaining goblin warriors panic and flee.
Morale: The warchanter fights to the death.
In my opinion this is the module writer telling the GM how to do his job. Contrast this with the following excerpt from G3 again:
You are being told what to do, not because you are a slave to the rules, but because the author is trying to portray certain things in order to make the story come alive. If a DM knows the author's method does not work for his group, of course he should change it.
Goblins are cowards, and have no discipline so if the one person they look up to is taken down they scatter.
What concerns me is a trend within published material to discourage GM interpretation of scenarios...Can you provide an example of a published adventure that has this sort of discouragement?I would LOVE to see an example, because that's not something I'd like to be in any adventures we publish. I would much rather a GM who reads a Paizo adventure to be inspired to make it his/her own and to tinker and to make it unique for his/her particular group, and when I develop adventures, I generally try to infuse the adventures with this sentiment. I certainly don't say "you can't change any of this or the adventure breaks!" in print, and if something we do DOES sound that way, I'd like to know about it so I can make sure it doesn't keep happening.
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
Nope. I like that suggestions. Keep 'em coming.
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?A GM can obviously do whatever he likes. The problem is when an expectation is set in the player's heads that a GM should be obeying a script.
The consensus of opinion here seemed to be that for Pathfinder Society scenarios this was much more the case. If I've understood this correctly, in that case the Warchanter really would fight to the death.
The problem is that this attitude, in player's minds, can easily bleed across into non Society modules, especially if those modules are written in a very prescriptive manner.
If players come to expect that GMs will run adventures as written, with variations treated the same way that house-ruling and GM fiat is, then creative GMs will find themselves getting into more and more arguments over this.
I think we need to re-establish in player's minds what are the rules and what are just guidelines. I think we need to try to make sure players understand that modules are not instructions to the GM - they are guidelines and frameworks. I think it helps if the language used in modules support this by emphasising setting but allowing the GM to decide consequence. That way we avoid any possibility of players accusing GMs of breaking the module.
My approach in the goblin situation, for example, would be to explain the relationship between the various types of goblins and the plan of attack, and then leave it to the GM from that point on.
Some years ago I wouldn't have been so sensitive over what might seem like a trivial matter. It's just with the player/GM trend as I have seen it I have a fear that player-power will invade the GM arena completely.
One poster here talked about wanting, as a player, to play the module as written, not as interpreted by a GM. I...
I think you are worrying to much about nothing. Pre-mades have been around for a while, and I have to see anyone tell a DM if you don't follow the storyline exactly you are doing it wrong. Do you have a link to the poster in question?
As stated earlier in the thread I don't think players(most of them) even read the modules because it ruins everything so they have no way to complain. If it becomes an issue all the DM has to say is my story is heavily inspired by _____, and since he is actually changing things it would be true.
I love DMing. I'd get bored if all I ever did was play. I need the extra challenge. Most of my quests are mostly outlines at this point. I have completely freestyled entire adventures based on nothing more than a vague starting scenario on several occasions, in fact. I love ending a night wondering how in the world I'm going to take what happened tonight and write a quest for next week.
I used to over-plot and try to keep my group on rails, but I found that the most enjoyment we all got from the game was when I just relaxed and gave the group as much freedom as possible. I came to love that whole balancing act of letting the players do whatever the hell they want while still keeping the adventure cohesive. You'd be surprised how smoothly things can go when you follow the PCs leads.
I love DMing. I'd get bored if all I ever did was play. I need the extra challenge. Most of my quests are mostly outlines at this point. I have completely freestyled entire adventures based on nothing more than a vague starting scenario on several occasions, in fact. I love ending a night wondering how in the world I'm going to take what happened tonight and write a quest for next week.
I used to over-plot and try to keep my group on rails, but I found that the most enjoyment we all got from the game was when I just relaxed and gave the group as much freedom as possible. I came to love that whole balancing act of letting the players do whatever the hell they want while still keeping the adventure cohesive. You'd be surprised how smoothly things can go when you follow the PCs leads.
I have DM'd for players that make their own stories, and for those that do nothing unless given a big neon sign. I do well with both groups, but I get more enjoyment out of the ones that ignore the rails, even if I do have to think quickly at times.
The problem is that this attitude, in player's minds, can easily bleed across into non Society modules, especially if those modules are written in a very prescriptive manner.
You do realize that convention/organized play of RPGs (and the idea that some modules should be run as written, e.g. the venerable D&D Open) is about as old as RPGs themselves, right?
|
If players come to expect that GMs will run adventures as written, with variations treated the same way that house-ruling and GM fiat is, then creative GMs will find themselves getting into more and more arguments over this.
Still though, the player genuinely shouldn't have any idea it was done 'wrong' until well after the fact.
I think we need to re-establish in player's minds what are the rules and what are just guidelines. I think we need to try to make sure players understand that modules are not instructions to the GM - they are guidelines and frameworks. I think it helps if the language used in modules support this by emphasising setting but allowing the GM to decide consequence. That way we avoid any possibility of players accusing GMs of breaking the module.
Or we go back to the 'old rule' that looking at this stuff is cheating, arguing rules during play is forbidden (but afterwards is fine), and that if the players don't like it then, well, you've been dieing to try out this concept for a Goblin Paladin in THEIR campaign.
In my view, GM's are RARE. Mostly because the job is a lot of work for modest reward. If players want to try their luck in that kind of an 'economy' then I say let them.
... stuff ...Just curious, but how does a Procrastinator get to be level 12? Or is it that you should be level 20 by now but you keep putting it off?
The level advancement system for my class is inversely proportional to that of other classes. The less I do, the better I get at not doing it.
I'm still not sure how I'm enjoying any success at all in my professional career, but it's a fun ride while it lasts.
|
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
I like the tactics section for two reasons especially:
1/ As someone mentioned above, it sometimes creates situations where a monster does a non-optimal choice like casting a buff that I as a DM know will be useless against the group of PC's, but the monster wouldn't know.
2/ Without the tactics section, after a while, my monsters would too often behave the same way. The tactics described in the adventure are way more varied that the same basic set of tactics I tend to revert to by default.
|
|
Time will tell.
I think that in between reading the various protestations from GMs that they would never allow players to take control I have seen and heard enough to make me think that a trend is on its way.
It is, after all, natural. Why should a player trust his carefully constructed and nurtured character to the devious machinations of some wacky GM and his crazy dungeon (or even his wacky interpretation of a purchased dungeon)?
With this argument in mind I think we will see more and more players reading modules after they have played in them, comparing the way they were written to the way they were run, and if they feel that this difference prevented them from using some cool feature of their character or putting their character to best use then they will complain.
Today's generation of GMs may well stand up to this.
Tomorrow's generation of players will probably tell tomorrow's generation of GMs to "stick to the script".
Which is great for players, and publishers, but lousy for GMs who want to be more than referees. If I'm right, and I know it's an "if", then in time the game will suffer from a critical shortage of GMs. Eventually, however, the market will adjust.
It wouldn't surprise me if D&D 5.0 didn't have any GMs in it at all.
I'm sure there will be other systems, however, that will.
Richard
P.S. I intend to find out what an "elaborate troll" is, by the way, and stick him in one of my dungeons ( *without* consulting the players :-) )
Time will tell.
I think that in between reading the various protestations from GMs that they would never allow players to take control I have seen and heard enough to make me think that a trend is on its way.
It is, after all, natural. Why should a player trust his carefully constructed and nurtured character to the devious machinations of some wacky GM and his crazy dungeon (or even his wacky interpretation of a purchased dungeon)?
With this argument in mind I think we will see more and more players reading modules after they have played in them, comparing the way they were written to the way they were run, and if they feel that this difference prevented them from using some cool feature of their character or putting their character to best use then they will complain.
Today's generation of GMs may well stand up to this.
Tomorrow's generation of players will probably tell tomorrow's generation of GMs to "stick to the script".
Which is great for players, and publishers, but lousy for GMs who want to be more than referees. If I'm right, and I know it's an "if", then in time the game will suffer from a critical shortage of GMs. Eventually, however, the market will adjust.
It wouldn't surprise me if D&D 5.0 didn't have any GMs in it at all.
I'm sure there will be other systems, however, that will.
Richard
P.S. I intend to find out what an "elaborate troll" is, by the way, and stick him in one of my dungeons ( *without* consulting the players :-) )
Well it seems your fears are unfounded, and very much in a small minority of players. I would need links to posts that say a DM is supposed to follow a module to a T, even if from another website before I thought this was an issue. I stay logged onto this site, and formerly the WotC website all day long, so I am sure I would have noticed such a trend. If you still feel the way you do I will be around waiting for that link.
|
|
...It wouldn't surprise me if D&D 5.0 didn't have any GMs in it at all.
I'm curious why you think that what is or isn't in Paizo adventure paths (unless you were looking at other published scenarios) would have any effect on the properties of an as-yet hypothetical (and highly contentious) D&D 5.0.
Another point--for the vast majority of people, playing is more fun than reffing. If a company comes up with a way to play without a ref that doesn't sacrifice player enjoyment, more power to them. I don't think such a thing is possible, but am willing to be pleasantly surprised.
...It wouldn't surprise me if D&D 5.0 didn't have any GMs in it at all.I'm curious why you think that what is or isn't in Paizo adventure paths (unless you were looking at other published scenarios) would have any effect on the properties of an as-yet hypothetical (and highly contentious) D&D 5.0.
Another point--for the vast majority of people, playing is more fun than reffing. If a company comes up with a way to play without a ref that doesn't sacrifice player enjoyment, more power to them. I don't think such a thing is possible, but am willing to be pleasantly surprised.
I have yet to see anyone agree with him, but he is still holding on. I am somewhat mystified as to where all of this is coming from also.
I also realized I spend too much time on these boards.
Time will tell.
I think that in between reading the various protestations from GMs that they would never allow players to take control I have seen and heard enough to make me think that a trend is on its way.
So you... started a thread to ask a question that you'd already decided you know the answer to, and 100+ posts of people disagreeing with you hasn't changed your mind at all?
I thought I was stubborn...
|
|
I have yet to see anyone agree with him, but he is still holding on. I am somewhat mystified as to where all of this is coming from also.
Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. The entire concept of 'RAW' agrees with him. On a thread adjacent to here, another commenter wrote...
Actually, since 3E/3.5, which Pathfinder is based off of, the rules are designed to define what everyone can do, since PCs, NPCs and monsters all follow the same rules.
This notion, if fostered and encouraged to evolve would support his worries.
I only disagree that this is what 3e did, and that the original spirit of the game simply got squished by splat.
The entire concept of 'RAW' agrees with him.
Well, no. The R in RAW standards for rules. He's talking about adventures.
(And the concept of RAW is a necessary common touchstone and starting point, even for two GMs who both love houserules and each have thrown out half of the rules as written who want to discuss their campaigns.)
Time will tell.
I think that in between reading the various protestations from GMs that they would never allow players to take control I have seen and heard enough to make me think that a trend is on its way.
So you... started a thread to ask a question that you'd already decided you know the answer to, and 100+ posts of people disagreeing with you hasn't changed your mind at all?
I thought I was stubborn...
+1.
Personally I've never understood why people even buy adventures anyway. As GM I don't have to purchase adventures, I get to create them from scratch. That's where the magic is, and I'm betting most of the best adventures ever created have never been seen outside the tables of the GMs who made them.
If a hypothetical GM-less edition was ever created, I would stay far away.
Time will tell.
I think that in between reading the various protestations from GMs that they would never allow players to take control I have seen and heard enough to make me think that a trend is on its way.
So you... started a thread to ask a question that you'd already decided you know the answer to, and 100+ posts of people disagreeing with you hasn't changed your mind at all?
I thought I was stubborn...
+1.
Personally I've never understood why people even buy adventures anyway.
Real life time constraints. It is easier to modify an already written adventure, than it is to do your own when you have a full time job, kids, and other things to worry about.
|
|
The entire concept of 'RAW' agrees with him.Well, no. The R in RAW standards for rules. He's talking about adventures.
(And the concept of RAW is a necessary common touchstone and starting point, even for two GMs who both love houserules and each have thrown out half of the rules as written who want to discuss their campaigns.)
Not in the way it gets used. If/When RAW is law, the players usually rule. This probably deserves another thread, but the old way discouraged using the rules as a sledge to bash one another with, and it didn't suffer from this particular problem as a result.
Also I don't think the line breaks along the content, but rather the authority. In a world where the GM is not allowed to modify game rules, modifying module content could easily be held to that same standard, could it not?
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
I think they are great, althouhg like others I rarely feel boun dby them. Frankly, if I always used the tactics as written, my group probably would not be challenged. But they are useful as a reference for how it could be handled, and sometimes contain valuable info about NPC motivations.
I think they might benefit from just a slight edit to call them "suggested" tactics.
I was struck by Richard's post comparing text from the AP and from hoary old G3. It is a pretty stark example of how the way adventure writers portray the assumed role of GMs has changed quite a bit. I think Paizo products could benefit from more frequent and explicit acknowledgment of the essential discretionary role GMs play. Just my two cents.
The entire concept of 'RAW' agrees with him.Well, no. The R in RAW standards for rules. He's talking about adventures.
(And the concept of RAW is a necessary common touchstone and starting point, even for two GMs who both love houserules and each have thrown out half of the rules as written who want to discuss their campaigns.)
Not in the way it gets used. If/When RAW is law, the players usually rule. This probably deserves another thread, but the old way discouraged using the rules as a sledge to bash one another with, and it didn't suffer from this particular problem as a result.
Also I don't think the line breaks along the content, but rather the authority. In a world where the GM is not allowed to modify game rules, modifying module content could easily be held to that same standard, could it not?
No it couldn't. The rules and the stories are separated for many reasons. The least of which being the players don't have access to the story or if they do they have some explaining to do. I also covered this an earlier post.
Summary of that post--> In short I am running a story based on published module ______.