Okay, my take on this...
I am a very easy going GM. I WANT the PCs to win. I really do, I apologize when their decisions get them gacked. I root for them to make saves, get crits and do really nifty plans in the campaigns.
I have now, 3 games that I GM. I am the only GM in my area now for over 12 years and heres a bit that gets me:
My Old Grognard Game from the mid 80s has a bunch of roleplayers that love the story and the fighting and understand that the Dwarf Fighter with a 7 Charisma should NEVER be in the room of any important meeting. He plays his character like a 7 Cha. He's rude, loud and thoroughly annoying if he thinks his opinion is right. He's only slightly less annoying if he thinks others are right.
My 90s Group is a Tactical Combat Heavy group. They enjoy the fights. They understand that taking low stats is a bother but hey, if it ups their Main Combat Stats that's all that matters to them. In this group, I have to constantly remind the Int 9, Cha 9 Fighter that he is NOT invited to the War Council as he is just not up to the in depth planning of coordinated battle plans and beside, his Cha makes him friggin annoying to the Kingdoms Paladin and Ranger Generals. He gets all pouty and watches as the Cleric and Wizard are allowed in to the Planning. Which those two players enjoy WAY too much. Punishing him? Yeah, not.
My new group, which is just getting into Kingmaker, has a 1/2 Orc Barb who has a Cha of 5. Yes, a 5. He is a very outgoing person and likes to be the front man. Tell me, are you going to let The Elephant Man to do all your negotiations? He is a great Rollplayer and thinks his personal ability, which is quite impressive, should be all he needs. He gets very annoyed when I ask for his Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate rolls. The entire group likes him as 'The Face' and are kinda hoping his Barb bites it in an upcoming fight so he can make a real 'Face' Character. Is that picking on the poor guy? I don't think so.
Now, these Three Groups have only one Player that overlaps them, and he is good with way I do it. I personally hate Min / Maxers that try to avoid the rules by taking a low stat and work around the consequences by rollplaying or other means. Sorry, you take low stats, your gonna get bit. Lots of monsters now have Save DCs based on other than the main Con/Dex/Will stats. Characters whine and moan when they see them and go out of their way to avoid these fights. Not happening.
Is that mean? If so, give me the black hat, waxed curly 'stache and maniacal laugh.
If your group is having fun, you're doing it right and since I've had the one group since the mid 80s and sometimes we have to drive 10 hours to get to each other for our monthly game, I must be doing something right. If your group is having fun, you're doing it right.
TLDR: We all have different play styles and Players, if your group is having fun, keep doing what you're doing. If not, work something out and move on.
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
Stuff like:
1) How do I make my players regret...
1.A) Dumping Strength?
1.B) Dumping Dexterity?
1.C) Dumping Constitution?
1.D) Dumping Intelligence?
1.E) Dumping Wisdom?
1.F) Dumping Charisma?
1.G) Dumping Anything?
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
3) 1,001 ways to make a Player regret playing a Paladin.
4) 1,001 ways to make sure a spellcaster can't protect their spellbook/components/magic items.
5) 1,001 ways to make sure warriors can't have nice things.
Whooa hold up there.
Almost all of these things people have made a conscious decision to do.Taking 1. A through G these should be major parts of there characters nothing should ever just be 'dumped' this is playing purely mechanically which is fine for some people but that's not what role players do that's what roll players do.
Taking each of those there is great stories there.
C. is the story of Raslin.
D. is Forest Gump.
I could mention others but you guys get the picture.
These are major flaws but people OVERCOME them they don't hand wave them.
If you simply skip over this your doing your player a disservice by ignoring it.
No you shouldn't punish them but you should challenge them.
Number 3.
I know someone who complains about this constantly.
If you choose a paladin just like if you choose a cleric.
You should be challenging that characters ethics.
If your player takes this character concept they are doing so knowing dogma of the concept.
Think of every great movie you know of with a holy knight type character.
Even take a look at movie with cops in it.
What does it all focus around.
Ethics.
How much easier it is for the other side.
The challenge of being a good guy and the pay off.
If you do not challenge your player when they take this your saying I don't care what your pick.
Your character concept won't ever have tailored challenges.
Now honestly who would want that.
Number 4.
Spell casters are by far the most powerful among the classes.
I don't want to argue this because I know I am right and I know that any argument will be pointless but if you wish to argue that is fine.
Players should have a challenge for there choices.
If you don't as I said there is little point in making any choice.
I often hand wave components but if one is rather odd make them work for it.
Make them enjoy the spell they earned.
If you just give people things they don't see any value in them.
I understand what your saying.
Your complaining about some GM's antagonistic nature.
But if your player write in his back story he will never harm a human, child or the elderly something like that.
If you never challenge that you know what you have done?
You have cheated your player.
Because they have said right there.
This is my morals, work with this and you have automatic hook for me.
When a player does something and nothing happens you show that, that action has no meaning.
In the world every action has a reaction.
And in a fantastical world should not those actions reactions be much more magnified?
These are the player characters they should have a spot light on them.
And when your under the spot light all of your defects come out no matter the amount of make up you use.
Nice post Ashiel and all posters get 100 gold for good roleplaying and keeping the thread cival.
I prefer to not try to screw my players over as it just makes the game more fun and speeds the game along when players aren't pushed into a confrontation. i use the slow experience path which most players hate, but i've done this to cram more side adventures and paths into my kingmaker campaign. I've rewarded the players for adjusting to it by awarding standard experience path treasure, which has put them all above there WBL which has made them super happy. when slow experience is brought up from time to time i ask "would you rather level fast and have low wealth?". thats usually the end of it as my players love magical thinga ma bobs. i try to avoid screw over the players and labeling it as "challenging the player" this could really be a catch all phrase that really means yes just screwing the player over lol. oh im not screwing you over by not giving you any treasure, im just challenging you. or, im not screwing you over by destroying your magic sword you put half your wealth into, think of it as challenging you. I kow you need your spell book to memorize spells but think of it as a roleplaying challenge. To me things like that IS screwing the player over and just putting a different label on the same brew...
with the discussion on punishing players on dumping charaisma i find a lot of times it's also the same GM's not rewarding high charisma. for example- not allowing leadership feat or modifying it to dang near worthless. like, it will just give you an NPC that is only good for carrying access weight and watching the horses. why waste a feat on that and pumping charisma if you can pay a scmuck 2 silver a day to do those things? or, GMs that disregard diplomacy roles just because he doesn't want to reward the pc for high diplomacy ranks and has it set in his head that an NPC is going to act this way no matter how high your char is but will call the guards if you dumped it. Or not using diplomacy checks WHICH counts in charisma when roleplaying and forcing the result on how well the player actually plays it out. To me these are some of the things GMs botch that let players feel there's no reward FOR NOT dumping charisma. just because the book says players can NORMALLY sell gear for 1/2 value doesn't mean thats the minimum. reward players with high diplomacy roles and give them an extra cut, MAKING sure to point out. "if it wasnt for your high charima you wouldn't have so easliy befriended Geroge, and he has greatly taken a liking to you. he has offered to pay you well above what your stuff is worth. you shouldn't take advantage of his friendship though and expect him to do so all the time, he must just be feeling very generous today for meeting such a friendly person".
things like this can greatly reinforce to the players that there are some benefits to charisma over some other stats. Charisma is the one stat that might be soft IF the GM becomes soft to how he uses it in his game!
the real question shouldn't be "how to punish players or pursued them not to dump charisma" but how to reward charisma. because if GM reward charisma players wont be dumping it as much and the rest will follow.
my players have played with me for over 10 years and know my style, all my players including the tank have 12+ charisma except the new player to the group who has a 10.
My current tabletop group consists of 3 regular players (several of our other friends have some RL stuff that makes our meeting day difficult to keep), and the party currently consists of a psychic warrior (the brawn), an egoist (the tank - humorously), and a conjurer (the magic), and they are part of an underground resistance fighting against their former kingdom after its rulers have allied themselves with fiends to take a stab at world domination.
#1, let me congratulate you Ashiel on overcoming what I'm beginning to see as an almost anti-psionic attitude by every D&D player I've talked to in the last 10 years. My next rolled-up character is going to be a psionic, barring rolling three 3's in a row, and I'm ready for a knock-down, drag-out fight to play outside of the GMs' (plural, they rotate) box.
But to answer the topic's question, I see a lot of GMs who only care about the story in their heads, and see the players as actors refusing to fit in their predetermined role. Even modules like Pathfinder's APs. The GM has a plot wagon, and you'd better hop on and enjoy the ride, or else you become the monster magnet in the next battle. I've had GMs declare Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection doesn't exist in their game, no matter how high your Cleric is or how much money you have to raise a fallen comrade. I've had treasure in modules disappearing from gameplay, especially the stuff that would turn the tide of battle in the next encounter, such as a specific scroll or weapon. I've had entire continents without any kind of magic shop, forcing me to craft all my magic stuff myself. If I even mention reading a review of the current module we're playing, I get cries of "Metagamer! Cheater!". It turns the players into paranoid, uber-optimized self-reliant killing machines who view Diplomacy the same way a psychopath views lying to look like a normal person to the rest of the group they work with in the cubicle farm. Somehow you are supposed to play the role the GM has made up in their minds for you, never rely on the Cleric to heal you, and scrabble for food in the wilderness or gold coin in the cities. Apparently I'm also not allowed to kill a monster in one round unless I am a Fighter (never with a spell), but the monsters are allowed to cut players' characters in half in one stroke with their makeshift, worthless-to-sell weapons.
I'm also ready to verbally spat with GMs who say "Death comes easily, so bring a stack of pre-made characters, because that's the way Gary Gynax played." If a GM kills off a character over 1st Level, they had better be prepared for the psychological repercussions from the player(s). Throwing CR +3 creatures and boss monsters at the gaming group every time "to challenge them" and counting a battle only as "good" if one or more players drops to below -9 hit points is not GMing. It's the GM playing a video game with the players. Sure, it's just a game, but I've known people leave a table for good when their 7th-level character died and the GM said "roll up a 1st-level in the next 15 minutes", not caring that the player has done everything but name their dog after their character. Hey GMs, grow up. It's not 1st Edition any more.
Obviously players need to find GMs who match their mentality. But it's always more "fun" to play a PC than to GM, and the Living version of the modules require you to pick and choose because you can't do both.
I game because I have an idea for a player character's class. That idea is always changing, even after I plot out the character to 20th level. I might actually play a character who makes it past 12th level for the first time in 16 years, too.
So to all those "good" GMs out there, I applaud you. Maybe one day I can convince my GMs to not pout when their boss monster rolls a critical miss and trips right in front of the party, allowing six AOOs that kills him in one round. Maybe when I counter the GM's magical attack on our group with a well-established and well-known spell they won't cry "Foul! You broke my module!" Maybe my character will actually get the Big Six of magical clothing one day.
I know for me that the issue is less about DM vs player, as much as it is, if the player knowingly gives themselves a weakness, how willing are they to deal with it if a situation comes up where it is exposed? A deliberately chosen dump stat, a critical item required to function, and other potentially major weaknesses need to be acknowledged as something that can, under certain circumstances, come into play. I don't mean constantly attacking it, but gently reminding the player that it exists, and rewarding those players who find a way to turn such weaknesses to their advantage. Someone who chooses to dump a stat down to 5 is not automatically going to annoy me, such characters can be fun to play with if controlled by a good player, but someone who chooses to dump a stat that low and than complain when their weakness in that area gets exposed will. The problem with characters like Raistlin is that unless the entire group is willing to cover such an extreme weakness, including the DM, no body is really going to have fun. Checking the preferred play style of the DM and other players is always a good idea for this reason. Some groups would love to play with Raistlin, while for others he would be a lead weight around their neck.
The details of the campaign the DM is trying to run is also important. It is possible that a character will work quite well in one campaign, but if the exact same group starts a new campaign, that a different type of character is going to fit better.
|
It is not about Screwing over the Players, DMs shouldn't be doing that, It is about Challenging players and some times the best way to do that is to attack the characters weakness.
GMs also should not be kowtowing to all the players wishes because that could cause problems with other players. A GM needs to maintain a balance between what he lets players do and not for the enjoyment of the group. There is no such thing a what The group wants it is always what the player wants, I have never seen a group that all played the same, and the GM needs to balance all the wants and needs for the better of the group for a cohesive game.
The only times I put my foot down and tell people to reel it in is when there is a huge gap between players. I have two very knowledgeable players who made a god-wizard and a "I hit on a 2+, most everything needs 20 to hit me" fighter, who could literally pretty much pull through any given AP entirely on their own. But I also have two players who do NOT like this style of play, and make characters with flaws.
Ergo: Anything I make to threaten the power duo slaughters the other two. Anything I make to be balanced with the non-power duo is murdered before things even get to act.
So I nerf a little here, and fiat a little there to make sure there is a point for them to even stay in the same party. They whined a little when I took away 3.X materials, but after I let them take on a boss-fight as written with the power they had, and wasted the APL+5 encounter with a guy wielding an artifact in 2 rounds without taking any significant damage OR spending much in terms of resources, they agreed to tone it down.
They are still extremely powerful, and unless I rewrite a little, the rest of the AP in question will be a walk-over. But this allows me to personalize things, so no biggie.
I most CERTAINLY do not punish people for making their characters like they want to.
Hiya.
*WARNING: Semi-rant below...*
[SNIP section about Lich fight]... On a side note, they ended up raising the beguiler/shadowcraft mage, but she went out and purchased a cloak of displacement and a couple of +deflection items immediately after.
This is a perfect example of why we see a lot of "how to get your players" attitudes nowadays, IMHO.
Now, stay with me on this...
Ever since 2e (no typo...I did say 2e) there has been a production focus on giving the PLAYERS more "choice" in how and what goes on in a campaign via "player books". Oh sure, the DM can always veto stuff, but when you have 5 of your friends who each bought 2 or 3 extra books they thought had cool PC stuff in them, and then you say "No" to most/all of those rules/options...well, you might as well start looking for a new group of players (and/or friends). As 3e came along, it got even worse. Suddenly, the rule books were opened for all to paruse, digest and use. Want to play a minotaur barbarian? Go for it. Not good enough? How about a half-minotaur, half-brass golem barbarian? Now we're talking! Toss in the hulking hurler prestige class and you're laughing!
What's a DM to do? Well, the only thing he can do; fight back with his power to control what/how rules get interpreted and what shows up to challenge these now over-powered characters. And the only way to do that is to hit them where it hurts...their weaknesses (however few there are).
The rules (3e...maybe 4e?) specifically state "A character of X level should have X money and X magic items of X level". Want to run a low-magic campaign? Too bad. What about nixing the idea of players being able to buy magic items? Nope...try that and you are instantly called a "cheater" or a "killer DM who just wants to kill all the characters". If you do nix the magic item per level thing, and a PC dies...it's INSTANTLY *your* fault for screwing them. No, not the poor, distraught player whos character you "screwed over" because you...
I can honestly say that no group I've ever been in has had serious problems based on the DM banning material. I've never met one of these mythical players for whom a rule like 'these books are allowed; outside of that,case-by-case excpetions may be allowed but don't hold your breath; and X, Y, and Z are absolutely not allowed' is a deal breaker.
As to WBL and high vs. low-magic--playing with those represent very large alterations to core assumptions of the game mechanics. While a DM should be able to alter his game to suit what he wants to tell, changing these requires significant work and understanding of the consequences, which many such DMs simply don't seem to demonstrate. That is what gets them called killer DMs, not the bare fact that they're changing up the assumptions.
|
|
I can honestly say that no group I've ever been in has had serious problems based on the DM banning material. I've never met one of these mythical players for whom a rule like 'these books are allowed; outside of that,case-by-case excpetions may be allowed but don't hold your breath; and X, Y, and Z are absolutely not allowed' is a deal breaker.
I have... More then one in fact.
If I could redirect the thread back to one of the initial conundrums.
For I think we've collectively ranted by the min/max stat issue long enough.
I would like to discuss the issue of 'How do I get my group to roleplay how I think I should?' For that ones quite a tricky one thats been puzzling me lately.
Its the contradicting messages of:
'Your free to play your character how you want'
anf
'If you want to play this alignment you must act like this'
Now the time old example of this is a good cleric who loses access to his spells for acting evil. T
he player reaction: why can't I play my dude how I want?
GM: because if you want divine favour don't murder anyone genius...
Now this is one of my pet peeves as players get this confused alot. Hell, with the diversity of opinions of the morality its easy enough for anyone to quabble over exactly what constitutes an 'Evil' or 'Good' act.
Now I've started enforcing an alignment chart and moving characters along the axis according to their actions in game. This has proved to be an unpopular addition. The main argument being, why is your opinion on morality more valid than mine? I can see their angle, even if there points are biased. I have thus far suck clear and explained guidelines on how I will be tracking their actions. Selfish, Cruel & Spiteful actions move then towards the evil axis for example.
One player, a LG Oracle, has withheld healing and has repeatedly been rude to an annoying Halfling NPC. I ruled that as the lil fellow was being annoying cos he was afraid, Mistreatment of him was enough to but him a couple of points towards the Evil axis. We argued over it, but he eventually saw that such an act was not LG. So he changed his roleplaying to try and be a bit more benevolent and understanding, which reversed the slight shift.
The problem however is adjudicating for the three CN PC's the group. Chaotic Neutral being the 'I can do what I want' alignment. Ones a Crazy (Wis 8) Alchemist, anothers a true mercenary fighter and the thirds a pot-smoking-boomerang-wielding Ranger who cares only for the will of 'da speereets'.
Now the alchemist has performed some saintly acts: donating his tent to npc's, giving a dying gnome his last Remove Disease potion. So I moved him a step towards Good.
The Fighter has continually acted rashly: never misses a moment to chart or throw is large sword at monsters. This recklessness I ruled to moving him a step towards chaotic.
The ranger has continually acted antisocially: witholding essential resources from others who need them more, smuggling hallucenogenic drugs, belittling other characters for faults. This Self serving attitude has moved them towards the Evil axis.
To clarify all are still CN, and still have a ways to go before they change moralities. But each now shows a different interpretation of CN. The whimsical tinkerer, the reckless warrior, the self preservationist rogue. They argue that these match their own' balance' of character personality and shouldn't shift further. I on the other hand am implementing a system whereby unless a player actively maintains his alignment through roleplay. Their alignment and the accompanying shift in the way the world reacts to them changes.
They tell me this is not within my rights as GM to impose upon them, and I am inclined to agree but I see the need to do something to encourage players to consider their Alignment more carefully. I am just wondering if this is the correct approach to take.
|
|
They tell me this is not within my rights as GM to impose upon them, and I am inclined to agree but I see the need to do something to encourage players to consider their Alignment more carefully. I am just wondering if this is the correct approach to take.
It is a good approach, but it sounds like you are being a little too strict.
Whooa hold up there.
Almost all of these things people have made a conscious decision to do.
Taking 1. A through G these should be major parts of there characters nothing should ever just be 'dumped' this is playing purely mechanically which is fine for some people but that's not what role players do that's what roll players do.Taking each of those there is great stories there.
C. is the story of Raslin.
D. is Forest Gump.
I could mention others but you guys get the picture.
These are major flaws but people OVERCOME them they don't hand wave them.
If you simply skip over this your doing your player a disservice by ignoring it.
No you shouldn't punish them but you should challenge them.
Agreed fully. I'm not sure you've read through the thread or examples, but these bits are clarified a bit further in. What I meant was, this idea the GM should go out of there way to make them suffer for daring to have something less than 10. In the threads I listed as examples, people were advocating making up special penalties to spite these players with; such as automatically setting the starting attitudes towards those PCs lower, in addition to the normal penalties, or basically ensuring that no matter how much they try, they just cannot engage in social activity with a low charisma.
I actually believe, fully, in the idea of heroes and protagonists who aren't perfect and do have drawbacks, who can overcome these disabilities as they advance. To get a good idea of what I mean, please consider reading this post, this post, this post, and especially this post.
Number 3.
I know someone who complains about this constantly.
If you choose a paladin just like if you choose a cleric.
You should be challenging that characters ethics.
If your player takes this character concept they are doing so knowing dogma of the concept.
Think of every great movie you know of with a holy knight type character.
Even take a look at movie with cops in it.
What does it all focus around.
Ethics.
How much easier it is for the other side.
The challenge of being a good guy and the pay off.If you do not challenge your player when they take this your saying I don't care what your pick.
Your character concept won't ever have tailored challenges.
Now honestly who would want that.
Agreed. I noted in a subsequent post that I meant GMs that go out of their way to make sure the Paladin falls. Not merely creates situations where there is morally questionable options, or situations where it's something of a struggle to decide between the high or low road; but more in the sense of setting up traps where the paladin falls no matter his options. I've seen stuff like this before. "If you don't tell me where *innocent A* is, I'll execute *innocent B*, but if you lie to me you break your paladin's oath against lying and duty to protect innocents". Stuff that no matter which moral high ground the paladin tries to take, he's caught in a catch 22.
Number 4.
Spell casters are by far the most powerful among the classes.
I don't want to argue this because I know I am right and I know that any argument will be pointless but if you wish to argue that is fine.
Players should have a challenge for there choices.
If you don't as I said there is little point in making any choice.
I often hand wave components but if one is rather odd make them work for it.
Make them enjoy the spell they earned.
If you just give people things they don't see any value in them.
Oh I agree. Wizards can replicate every act of god in the christian bible by 17 level or earlier, including the creation of the world and filling it with sentient life by his/her own creation (admittedly, the world creation bit requires genesis which isn't PF core, but with the appropriate cheese they can still do stuff like part an ocean with a staff or create living people from dirt).
Instead, I was meaning in the case of GMs who are all like "Sure, you can play a wizard" and then setting out as their personal mission to follow through with "Yeah, your spellbook was stolen while you were sleeping, so enjoy playing a commoner for the next few sessions", or "Everyone washed up on the island after the storm, and unfortunately Allorn's spellbook and components were washed away you drifted ashore", etc.
I myself said shortly after that I'm all for giving them a challenging time in situations. I'm 100% down with calling for line of sight/effect, cover, sundering their spell components & holy symbols on AoOs (that'll learn ya!), and junk like that, but there's a point where it just becomes spiteful, y'know?
I understand what your saying.
Your complaining about some GM's antagonistic nature.
But if your player write in his back story he will never harm a human, child or the elderly something like that.
If you never challenge that you know what you have done?
You have cheated your player.
Because they have said right there.
This is my morals, work with this and you have automatic hook for me.When a player does something and nothing happens you show that, that action has no meaning.
In the world every action has a reaction.
And in a fantastical world should not those actions reactions be much more magnified?
These are the player characters they should have a spot light on them.
And when your under the spot light all of your defects come out no matter the amount of make up you use.
I'm inclined to agree.
#1, let me congratulate you Ashiel on overcoming what I'm beginning to see as an almost anti-psionic attitude by every D&D player I've talked to in the last 10 years. My next rolled-up character is going to be a psionic, barring rolling three 3's in a row, and I'm ready for a knock-down, drag-out fight to play outside of the GMs' (plural, they rotate) box.
Psionic hugs all around. ^-^
I love the 3.5 psionics, and began writing my own PF conversion for it. I know that Dreamscarred has published a psionics book, but I didn't like the direction they were going in with some things, so I started working on my own. It's not complete yet, but it's getting there. It can be found on my Heroes of Alvena website, under Expanded Classes. It is currently incomplete (needs all the prestige classes, monsters, and the psicrystal rules have yet to be placed in the book - 'cause I can't decide if I should put them in the monster section or in the psion section, or after the classes).
They tell me this is not within my rights as GM to impose upon them, and I am inclined to agree but I see the need to do something to encourage players to consider their Alignment more carefully. I am just wondering if this is the correct approach to take.It is a good approach, but it sounds like you are being a little too strict.Instead of moving alignment charts, go by my favorite three word adage.
"Acts have Consequences."
Those three words are generally how I view the game, whether as a player or a DM, and whether its about stats, alignment, or other facet of the campaign or character. If you make a choice, especially a deliberate choice, the world will react accordingly.
Agreed fully. I'm not sure you've read through the thread or examples, but these bits are clarified a bit further in. What I meant was, this idea the GM should go out of there way to make them suffer for daring to have something less than 10. In the threads I listed as examples, people were advocating making up special penalties to spite these players with; such as automatically setting the starting attitudes towards those PCs lower, in addition to the normal penalties, or basically ensuring that no matter how much they try, they just cannot engage in social activity with a low charisma.
I'm not quite sure how using the stats that people give themselves to adjust how the world interacts with them is automatically punishment. I don't think anyone in those threads is suggesting that a character with low charisma be threatened with death just for entering a town. It's more about how to get players who dump a stat that low for purely math reasons to recognize that it will have in game consequences for doing so. Nobody in the charisma threads that I have seen is advocating forceful tactics for the sake of forceful tactics, but a lot of people are saying that in certain scenarios, if applied properly, they are not only helpful, but necessary. Most people also recognize that differences in play styles will play a big role in how and what is done.
I actually completely re-wrote the alignment system for my games, because I wanted it to be more about acts, personality, and consequences in my games. The alignment system is simple and keeps all the mechanical buttons for alignment (detect, smiting, etc), but I think is much, much simpler to adjudicate.
For the most part, everyone is "neutral". Everything is "neutral". Just some things have alignment subtypes which represent their innate connection to certain forces. For example, a cleric or paladin's aura also bestows upon them the appropriate alignment subtype, and a devil has the law and evil subtypes, which make them mechanically "lawful evil".
For balance reasons (since there are far less extreme alignment NPCs floating around), effects based on alignment affect non-aligned targets half as much or as specified if the normal rules specify they work on neutral characters. Thus a +1 holy longsword deals +1d6 damage to almost everything, +0d6 damage vs a good domain cleric, and +2d6 vs an evil domain cleric.
I also simplified the explanation of the alignments to what I felt was most universally recognizable:
Alignments in Alvena: In Alvena the power of good, evil, law, and chaos can be harnessed into real tangible powers. These are similar to prime fundamentals of consciousness, and several beings either are born from these prime elements, or embody them through particularly strong devotions. Alignments are generally viewed based on traits they exhibit.
Good = Altruism, Love, and Kindness
Evil = Selfishness, Hate, and Cruelty
Law = Justice, Order, and Logic
Chaos = Freedom, Change, and EmotionCertain creatures are naturally tied to these primal traits. Succubi for example are born of raw chaos and evil, and exhibit strong traits of selfishness, cruelty, emotion, freedoms, and so forth. Such creatures may break away from their fundamental aspects; such as a "Fallen Angel" acting with evil traits or even becoming a champion of darkness (see creature alignments, below).
This was primarily in response to some of the players in our group constantly changing the way their characters interacted with other players because they found out what the other player's alignment was on their sheet; or constantly trying to guess the alignments of NPCs and the like. I've found this has done nothing but improve our gameplay, at least tenfold!
Heroes of Alvena.Fixed link.
Thank you TriOmegaZero. ^-^
I'm not quite sure how using the stats that people give themselves to adjust how the world interacts with them is automatically punishment. I don't think anyone in those threads is suggesting that a character with low charisma be threatened with death just for entering a town.
Actually, in one of those threads they were talking about having NPCs begin as Hostile to PCs with a very low charisma, refusing to serve PCs or sell items to them, or charging a 10% penalty on buy & sell for every -1 point of Charisma the PC had. It was pretty bad.
|
I guess while we're all venting, repostan:
Here's some things I've seen held up as virtues all too often by some GMs on other parts of the interbutts:
GMs who feel it is their duty to beat the idealism out of their players who wanted to play heroic characters.
GMs who turn the campaign into non-stop misery porn when the players were expecting a heroic campaign.
GMs who see no problem with turning every single victory by the players into failure. Every positive occurance is poisoned or a Trojan Horse.
GMs who are determined to turn heroic characters into buffoons in their own personal D&D Candide for their own amusement.
GMs who have every attempt by the players to do heroics/better the world/advance their goals blow up in their faces.
GMs who actively punish players for actually having backgrounds involving family or loved ones. I'm not talking about bad stuff happening to them because it makes logical sense within the campaign, I'm talking about GMs who do it as a matter of course or use that approach as a crutch.
If you are a GM and you want to run a game like this, you need to be upfront with the players before they ever agree to play with you.
After this Professor Cirno kindly provided a link* to one reason why "misery uber alles" GMs are still propagating.
*May induce rage.
#1, let me congratulate you Ashiel on overcoming what I'm beginning to see as an almost anti-psionic attitude by every D&D player I've talked to in the last 10 years.
For srs.
I just want to chime in and agree with the OP here. Our DM is Brutesquad on here, and he is very good at what he does, he seldom bans something and if he does he explains why in a very clear and concise manner. You may not always agree with his reasoning, but ultimately you respect it because he runs a damn fine game and puts way more work into it than anyone can ask for. He also never punishes anyone at the table because the encounter didnt go his way, the character isnt built the way he would like it to be, or the person isnt the strongest role player in the bunch. Are there encounters that are tough...sure, do we sometimes, as players feel like there are things that single out a PC, sure...but I think if we didnt feel that way once in a while he wouldnt be doing his job.
But what I see on here at times is completely different and there seems to be two destinct idealogies at work with some of the DM's
One is that some see the game as a competetion with the PC's. They run a game like the enemy is their character and they get defensive when the character they breathed life into is destroyed. I understand it, you put a lot of work into this...but you have to treat it more like telling a story and less like a competetion.
The second I like to call square pegs and round holes. There is many a DM here who have in their head that the game has to played a certain way and that every player must conform to their exact ideal of how a player should behave, how a character should be constructed, or even what classes are " over powered". So they proceed to punish anyone who lies outside their ideal..pounding all the pretty little odd shaped pegs until they are uniformly round.
I am not saying you have to be monty haul, or even that you cant on occasion ask players to try something new or tailor their builds to fit a mood you are going for...but some of you need to lighten up a little, you would probably have more fun...at least thats my 2 cp.
Actually, in one of those threads they were talking about having NPCs begin as Hostile to PCs with a very low charisma, refusing to serve PCs or sell items to them, or charging a 10% penalty on buy & sell for every -1 point of Charisma the PC had. It was pretty bad.
How bad it is depends entirely on precisely how it is done and how much everyone involved enjoys that level of realism. It is something that the group needs to have a consensus on for it to work, but it is not automatically punishment. It goes back to matching your play style with that of the other people in the group, and both players and DMs have to do this. It can also vary by campaign. One campaign, the group may be going for a very gritty, realistic feel, and the above techniques can help enhance that feel; another campaign with the exact same group may be trying for a high fantasy, heroic feel, and the above techniques don't fit nearly as well. The common issue between all the points you listed in your original post all come down to one thing: expectations of how things are going to work in a given group with a given campaign/adventure. If the DM and the group can figure out how to manage those so that everyone ends up on the same page and accepting of the final consensus, then there will be no problems, even if to someone watching from the outside it seems that the game is too easy or too harsh.
The second I like to call square pegs and round holes. There is many a DM here who have in their head that the game has to played a certain way and that every player must conform to their exact ideal of how a player should behave, how a character should be constructed, or even what classes are " over powered". So they proceed to punish anyone who lies outside their ideal..pounding all the pretty little odd shaped pegs until they are uniformly round.
While I agree with this, I would point out that this concept goes for players and DMs alike. If the two sides are close enough together that a compromise can be reached, great, but sometimes, the differences are large enough that a DM is better off saying "accept it or don't play" for the sake of the other players and the enjoyment of all. It all depends on who is the source of the contention. If it's a single player objecting to something the rest of the group is happy with, then that player will need to adapt; likewise, if the DM is trying to force something on a group that clearly is not interested in what the DM is doing, than the DM is the one that needs to adapt. The biggest problem I see on the boards is that I see a lot of "I" and not nearly enough "we" when it comes to resolving issues with group dynamics, and both DMs and players are equally guilty of this.
|
Heroes of Alvena.Fixed link.Thank you TriOmegaZero. ^-^
Are you stealing me and Kirth's ideas? :P
Ashiel, you and I have had disagreements, but I'm with you here.
The GM's job is to create a good time for the players, and I don't care much for the school of thought that leads to "player wrangling" and trying to alter their behavior. In some ways, players always know what is best.
Exceptions exist, of course. If one player is having fun at another's expense, that needs fixing. What's more, there's a tricky thing: good GMs are a little bit sadistic, and good players are a little bit masochistic. Just like in an adventurous bedroom, both parties have to be consenting and know where to draw the line.
But that's just the thing — some players really like doing the math and building characters. They like to push the envelope. If a GM has such players, then it is folly to try and make them play a different style of game. They're basically showing you what they enjoy, all you have to do is enable it.
Now, that's not the only style of play, but a thread like "How do I get my players to stop making characters like x" just tells me that the GM is in a player mindset — trying to run the game he wants to play in instead of running the game his players want to play.
So high-five.
To be fair... that link is to a Champions site. And for those who are not familliar with that system, one should know that the bulk of a Champion's power is paid for by disadvantages. and that link is mainly about that facet of the game.
After this Professor Cirno kindly provided a link* to one reason why "misery uber alles" GMs are still propagating.
*May induce rage.
This is a school of thought I could never get into.
It is trivial for a GM to kill PCs. In fact, much of my effort goes into NOT killing the PCs while coming as close as possible to doing so, because that is what makes a good game session, IMO. But since I don't cheat, it's a little like trying to hit a moving target — sometimes I overshoot, sometimes I undershoot. Sometimes a PC dies in the name of action and excitement. But I'm not proud of that.
If I aimed for the death of the PCs instead of the near-death of PCs, I would never miss. Where's the fun in that?
But taking pride in the death of a PC? That's just being a bully. Making a player thank you for the death of a PC (without resorting to contrived theatrics)? That's the art of GMing.
Personally I think the whole thing stems from a lack of willingness to communicate with your group. It also can stem from a disconnect between the dm and players. I think the worst thing for a game is a dm who ONLY dms. Too often you can forget what it is like on the other side of the screen.
That kind of isolation is bad for business in my opinion. I have gamed for quite a long time. And in that time, I have had my spellbook stolen with no way to replace it, I have had my character arbitrarily killed without any reference to the rules of the game because the DM 'thought it would be cool for the story'. I have seen ludicrous challenges that can only end in a deus ex or a party wipe. I didnt like it, so I dont do it. If I hadn't experienced those things, I probably wouldn't feel the same way. Any dm who has not been on the other side of the screen in a long time is doing himself, his game, and his group a diservice. (Mind you I feel the same way about the reverse and players who never dm).
I try my damnest to recognize different people want different things in my game, and to try to cater to that. We are in this to have fun. Roleplaying games, especially one's as robust as pathfinder/dnd allow for an insane number of ways to have fun. Whether its slaughtering monsters, a deep and interesting relationship between characters, or a just doing something 'flashy' every now and again. It is important to know and remember what your players are looking for. If you play to and challenge their strengths more often then their weaknesses, they will have more fun, then if you are constantly trying to push them to do something they cant or wont do.
I also think it is important to tell your players what YOU want out of the game. If you want a certain kind of game talk to them about it, IN DETAIL. Explain what you mean and how you want to achieve it. Ask for suggestions. We all have lots of resources at our disposal nowadays, let your players do some of the work for you.
For instance, this weekend my friend is starting a low magic game in a victorian setting. He wasn't sure how he was going to handle this as he isn't particularly good at balancing encounters to what the party can do (as opposed to the CR table). So we talked about it. We looked at possible rules and guidelines to use for things like characters that dont wear armor, or internalizing some of the typical magic item benefits so its part of the character and thus a better fit for the world. We are also looking at rules for firearms that might actually make plays consider using them.
This was accomplished because he has spent time talking to the group about what he wanted to do. And hopefully we will have a better game for it, that we can all have fun with. He wont need to 'get' us for doing things that he doesnt like, if we've worked out ahead of time what everyone wants to do. And if we cant come to an agreement on that with reasonable compromise, then the problem is about playstyle, and it is probably a good idea for someone to bow out of the equation.
|
As the original poster of the "When to Lower CR" thread mentioned in the OP, I feel the need to respond:
I certainly am not "out to get" my players. I don't attempt to kill PCs off willy-nilly, and I do my best to make sure that the players are getting the gaming experience that they want. I communicate with my players and ask them for feedback on how the game went, what they like and don't like, etc. I make adjustments as I go along. I go out of my way to explain why certain things happen in the game, and if something comes up that a player doesn't like, then I make sure that we both understand why it happened and how to avoid it in the future. I don't use a DM screen - everything happens in the open, and roll the dice out on the table in front of my players.
At the same time, I'm playing this game too - I need to get what I want out of the game as well, otherwise why am I doing this? If you've ever taken an Improv class, you know that the first rule is that you always say Yes: you take whatever the other participants propose and you work with it. You never reject an idea. It's a two-way street, however. They have to accept whatever you throw out there. The process is additive, never subtractive.
It's a bit more complicated with an RPG, because as the GM I need to keep the whole mess moving in a coherent direction while making sure everyone has a turn to shine, and I have to be the one creating the conflicts as well. So I need to exercise some control. I try to keep that control subtle, but sometimes I need to be more overt.
When I started my current campaign, I told the players up front: this is a sandbox game. You can do whatever you want to do. You can pursue whatever goals you want. You can build a stronghold, or build a nation, or go exploring, or carouse aimlessly, or cut a bloody swath of conquest across three continents - whatever, I'll make it work somehow. Some of my players have truly taken this to heart, and some of the others are just along for the ride.
I need to create paths to the players' goals within the game, create goals for the players who won't do so for themselves, and then throw complications in that path for players to overcome, and find a way to make those conflicts matter. It's a lot of effort, and I think my players appreciate it enough that they don't begrudge me a little control over the rate of XP gain.
To be fair... that link is to a Champions site. And for those who are not familliar with that system, one should know that the bulk of a Champion's power is paid for by disadvantages. and that link is mainly about that facet of the game.
Also, to be fair, that guy is also turning advantages that have been purchased into disadvantages - disadvantages they, of course, get no points for. For my money, that breaks the game's social contract right there.
You've hit the nail on the head, Wolfsnap. Communication is absolutely vital and makes the difference between a horrible and a spectacular game.
Another complaint is that if I want to play a certain kind of character, be it a psion or non-healing cleric or unusual race or half-monster, all I hear is "No", "Not in my game", "Yeah, good luck with that" and the like. But let me make an announcement that I'm willing to GM a game where that is allowed? I'll have to change my address, there will be mobs of volunteers trying to beat down my door to get into my game, including some of the people that wouldn't let me play at their table.
That's hypocrisy. The good GMs have to stay quietly under the radar while the bad GMs appear to have a never-ending stream of abused players at their table. Oh dear, I'm talking about Living Greyhawk and 3.x again...
|
I'd say these boards are much more pro-DM than pro-player. Along the lines of what jhpace1 just mentioned:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/howMuchControlDoesShouldAGMHaveOverAPC
I'd say these boards are much more pro-DM than pro-player.
Are they really opposites?
It is absolutely essential to both root for your players as the stars of your show AND screw them over as hard as you can. If you don't challenge them, they won't have drama. If you don't give them a chance to shine, they won't come back. If you don't make them pay for their mistakes, they won't grow, and they;ll end up pushing you around so you'll stop ahving fun.
The best GMs are loved by their players for what they give and what they take away.
It is absolutely essential to both root for your players as the stars of your show AND screw them over as hard as you can.
Well, aim for near-death, and don't regret it if you miss in either direction, that's the key.
Are they really opposites?They don't have to be. But if someone put a gun to every forum member's head and said vote or die and the question was "Are you pro-DM or pro-player?" And the only bubbles to click were 'pro-DM' and 'pro-player', most would click 'pro-DM'.
I see what you're driving at, but I really think it's the wrong direction. Sure, with a gun to my head, I'd say pro-DM. But I'd be lying because I really don't think it is adversarial. I'd pick a side in the same situation if it were "Republican or Democrat" even though I think all politicians are scum.
At the end of the day, I can't favor a GM because they get whatever they want. They're not in opposition. The idea that there is opposition here is the very fallacy that creates bad GMs and bad players, and ruins everything for everyone!
This is a little like asking if you're rooting for the referee at a sports event.
I see a lot of GMs being actively antagonistic towards their players. Trying to punish them for things the GMs don't like personally. I've seen GMs throwing actual fits and threatening to can the campaign (or actually canning the campaign) after they lost a fight. Yeah, lost a fight. At that point, they were fully committed to that philosophy. One time, the GM hand-crafted an encounter that felt like it was supposed to kill the whole party. When the party prevailed despite the odds, the campaign was canned anyway.
But it's not universal. It's just that memories like that stick around, and people like that are usually quite vocal, because they think they're so great.
Ouch. >.<
Were you merely a witness to the horror, or an unlucky player in that particular group, Kae? :(
I like to think of myself as the winner of that situation! ;-)
I was one of the players. And in that one instance, my character was instrumental in turning that killer encounter around.
|
|
Are they really opposites?They don't have to be. But if someone put a gun to every forum member's head and said vote or die and the question was "Are you pro-DM or pro-player?" And the only bubbles to click were 'pro-DM' and 'pro-player', most would click 'pro-DM'.
I'd grab the gun and shoot the guy who tried to pull this stunt on me in the face, repeatedly. But dunno, that's just me, maybe those infallible "if you would have the choice between raping you daughter and having a horse rape her, what would you do?" choices never kinda caught on me.
So I've been reading threads like this one and this one and that one, as well as a lot of other threads around, and I feel compelled to ask a question...
Am I the only GM who doesn't want to screw over their players?
This probably sounds like an amazingly silly question, but I'm legitimately wondering. I see these posts so very often. Threads and advice centered around picking on your players, punishing them for something you think they shouldn't do, or how to make some player regret that he or she did something other than what you wanted them to do.Stuff like:
1) How do I make my players regret...
1.A) Dumping Strength?
1.B) Dumping Dexterity?
1.C) Dumping Constitution?
1.D) Dumping Intelligence?
1.E) Dumping Wisdom?
1.F) Dumping Charisma?
1.G) Dumping Anything?
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
3) 1,001 ways to make a Player regret playing a Paladin.
4) 1,001 ways to make sure a spellcaster can't protect their spellbook/components/magic items.
5) 1,001 ways to make sure warriors can't have nice things.And the big one: "How to I force people to roleplay the way I want them to?"
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters. I see people lining up with piles and piles of really bad advice, telling them to do stuff like making extra rules to punish them twice, or telling them they can't do something arbitrarily ("you've been hit with Feeblemind,...
I agree with you completely. Everyone should be working together to have a good time, this adversarial and petty nonsense just gets in the way of all the fun.
As a DM communication is key. I'm not talking about con games since I dont run those and probably never will. I'm talking about "home" games and long term campaigns.
I let players know that I'm not actively trying to kill thier characters (Even though I jokingly start almost every session with "Today, ONE OF YOUR CHARACTERS WILL DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!" - after over a year of playing together there has only been one PC death and that was due to a tactical error of another PC, not me.) but I dont pull punches.
I read a thread like this and I kind of see where people are coming from. People are saying that they want to be challenged but what I think theyre really saying is that they want to be challenged on thier terms. That they want to be challenged within the scope of thier abilities, which to an extent is understandable. I mean who wants to fight an Ancient Red Dragon at 3rd level? On the other hand if you face an encounter or challenge that's within the scope of your abilities I would argue that it's not really a challenge of any type.
Superman stopping a group of non-super powered attackers armed with STAR Labs beam weapons isnt really much of a challenge. That same group however armmed with beam weapons that replicate the effects of a red sun, weakening him with every blow is a challenge. Some of the people here would say that that's not fair. I'd say that it makes for interesting play to see how Superman eventually beats them.
The examples from that Champions link for example are fairly valid. I've had similar things done to my PC's when I used to play Champions years and years ago. Those are the games that I remember the most actually. The characters are built using points from those disadvantages. THEYRE THERE TO BE USED AGAINST THE PC's. With the players fully aware of this fact. Are people just upset at the WAY that the GM used those disadvantages? I'm sorry that's just the risk you take in a point build system like GURPS or HERO and you pretty much know this going in. If it's not something that doesnt cause problems for you then it's not a disadvantage. And if you have a wily or creative DM then...
It just seems to me that some (not all) of the opposition here is people who want softball DM's or DM's that play inside the box at all times so that theyre predictable for the players. I think that makes for a boring game. I hate problem DM's as much as the next guy, but as both a DM and a player? I've run into waaaaay more problem players than I have DM's.
Thankfully the group has 'Signs', little chalkboard sign-posts on poles that the GM can grab, hold up and keep talking so the Players can go "Oh .... oh right." and the PCs can about-face.
I usually do the quiz show host thing (a.k.a. the Windows thing) and ask them "Are you sure?" Or repeat what they want to do back to them, slowly. "You, want, to, charge, the army, of, dragons."
The players know that this is a sure sign that I think they're getting in way over their heads.
If they insist on continuing, I will proceed. No pulling of punches. If the enemy they attack is the kind of guy who would not kill them outright but just slap them around a bit and give them a chance to flee, he'll do that. If not, he'll eat them.
I do fumble a bit sometimes if luck is really against the party, but not overmuch, and not if they charged into an impossible situation while ignoring my warnings.
However, that happens rarely at most.
No, you are not the only GM who doesn't want to screw over your players, and I think few GMs really do--but GMing is hard and GMs (myself included) can get hung up over all kinds of things--some of them quite legitimate, some of them perhaps rather silly.
If you see a post made by a frustrated GM asking about something you find annoying, I would advise either ignoring the thread, or if you reply, acknowledge their frustration but describe the way you would handle the situation and move on.
And to be honest, IMO, the best advice to give to any GM is take their advice requests off the message boards and take them to their players. Usually most player-GM conflicts, regardless of what is causing them, can only be solved between THAT GM and THAT group. If the GM is being heavy-handed, he'll figure it out or he won't (and likely lose his players). Sometimes it's nice to be able to get another perspective, but really, it's ultimately nobody's business how a GM runs his or her game, unless you are that GM or that GM's player. Advice is good and being helpful is good, but nobody deserves to be told that they're having fun wrong, particularly by a stranger on the Internet who's never even observed a game they ran.
I've been told by GM's before "You are all here for my amusement".
Those games rarely last more than a few sessions.
And to be honest, IMO, the best advice to give to any GM is take their advice requests off the message boards and take them to their players.
+1. This thread might have been titled "Do that many people really game with people they don't even like?" :) Something I often wonder.