Some refs here would say 'you're doing it wrong', grab the ball and do a 360 dunk.
This is a little asking if you're rooting for the referee at a sports event.
And be out of a job.
Bad GMs are (or ought to be) a self-correcting problem.
Some refs here would say 'you're doing it wrong', grab the ball and do a 360 dunk.
This is a little asking if you're rooting for the referee at a sports event.And be out of a job.
Bad GMs are (or ought to be) a self-correcting problem.
You would think this would be the case.
We need an "Angie's list" for bad GM's :P
Some refs here would say 'you're doing it wrong', grab the ball and do a 360 dunk.
This is a little asking if you're rooting for the referee at a sports event.And be out of a job.
Bad GMs are (or ought to be) a self-correcting problem.
You would think this would be the case.
We need an "Angie's list" for bad GM's :P
Nah, we need an education system to help players spot the signs of a bad DM.
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.
+1
In total agreement here. It's not the same as running a game, but in readin these types of threads I'm reminded of my favorite Daredevil arc #227 -233 BORN AGAIN. In which an ex-girlfreind of Daredevil/Matt Murdock sells his secret identity for an armful of smack, the information finds it's way to his arch nemisis The Kingpin. The Kingpin promptly begins to DISMANTLE Matt Murdocks life piece by piece resulting in Murdock becoming unhinged and going after the Kingpin and getting nearly beat to death. The Kingpin has his flunkies dispose of the Murodck's body thinking himself rid of his greatest enemy only to discover later that Murdock had enough strength left to escape...
and that's when the story actually starts to get REALLY GOOD.
But I get the feeling that with this group we would never get to the good stuff becasue they'd say that the Kingpin getting ahold of Daredevil's secret ID wouldnt be fair and was bad DM'ing. :-)
Play with your friends. Be a good friend and a good person. Communicate. Don't be selfish.
I'm sorry guys, but it seems like the criteria for "Good GM" are the same as those for "Good Person" — and it is unlikely we're ever going to fix that problem.
All you can do is search for greener pastures.
There's an old LARPing maxim: what you call 'screwing your character over, I call 'giving your character plot.'"
We've clearly entered the neo-Gyaxian era. The difference between then and now is that what was considered operations in a zone of total hostility has become tennis with dice. It's all about the game, and creating a sort of theoretical level playing field for the DM and the players, where each bring their best versions of the little math constructs they've created. That specific arena of challenge is considered inviolate.
I think that people are so rules-mad - specifically combat-mad - as to make it prohibitive of many honestly interesting things happening.
Nah, we need an education system to help players spot the signs of a bad DM.Some refs here would say 'you're doing it wrong', grab the ball and do a 360 dunk.
This is a little asking if you're rooting for the referee at a sports event.And be out of a job.
Bad GMs are (or ought to be) a self-correcting problem.
You would think this would be the case.
We need an "Angie's list" for bad GM's :P
Yeah, I see the point here.
But with the amount of various playstyles, one person's red flag may be another's green light.
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.
This is basically the perfect example of the OP.
Int 9, Cha 9. Average is 10. He is 1 point off average on the downscale. But he isn't actually allowed to do anything because of it.
How did the rest of the idiots get in on the "War Council?" Apparently it is being ran by Bards.
Why the hell are Rangers so bleeding Charismatic?
I think that people are so rules-mad - specifically combat-mad - as to make it prohibitive of many honestly interesting things happening.
Cheer up, JS. You're responding to people talking about the game on the internet. I think it would be a rosier picture if you actually sat in on people playing. The plot-driven style is alive and well, its players are just less prone to talking math on the forums.
But with the amount of various playstyles, one person's red flag may be another's green light.
+1.
Players must not be screwed. They must be challenged.
Frankly, I think that the biggest difference between a jerk DM and a good DM lies in mere quantity, more than quality.
I found myself behaving without mercy with them, but because they were facing the consequences of a dumb action, or facing a true vile villain.
I can target the book of the wizard or the familiar of a whitc one time because this reminds the player his weaknesses and could create a different scenario and challenge (or just playing an adversary who knows well the enemies). Do it routinely equals saying "reroll another class" which is just sign of being a bad, bad DM.
DM should be fair. Should run the gameworld consistently. I play the monsters at the best of their ability. My encounters can be really deadly if bad handled (not every time, is annoying).
I allow to my players the best the setting offers. I generally allow 25PB, and the APG Antihero bonus feat at level 1.
I don't allow magic shops, but I adjust quest rewards and similar stuff for their needs if coherent in game world.
All of this to allow them to play the hero of their dreams. And hero which will be challenged. HARD.
They reward me avoiding silly abuses and respecting my last word.
Int 9, Cha 9. Average is 10. He is 1 point off average on the downscale. But he isn't actually allowed to do anything because of it.How did the rest of the idiots get in on the "War Council?" Apparently it is being ran by Bards.
Why the hell are Rangers so bleeding Charismatic?
Well, the average Joe's are all kicking it in the barraks while the smart charismatic folks are the leaders making the decisions. Average people tend not to become leaders but followers in the grand scheme of things.
Not that I favor punishing players at all, but I do like a sense of consequence. Now if the store needs players in the war council, then the players will be there charisma or no, but if its just a RP moment they have to lump a given weakness.
I'm all for challenging a player, but that is very different than torturing them. While the badly beaten hero may be a very sympathetic story character, no one likes getting their ass kicked night after night just so the GM can tell a ripping yarn about their eventual rise to glory (an only because mr GM throws them a bone of some kind).
As a GM I don't want to be in control of the win/loss column too much. I want to throw out a challenge and have the characters tackle it in their own way. I may have a moment where a very powerful enemy is not beatable yet.. and then later they face them again when they are more prepared and powered up. But I tend to for-shadow that so the characters get the message that "now is not the time." They tend to go for the gold anyway and get smacked down, but then they feel its their own fault and not mine for just picking on them.
My players tend to respect that I have complete control over the outcome of the game, and in return I don't exercise that power fully. If I did they would resent it and see me as the source of their troubles rather than the provider of their challenges.
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.
+1
In total agreement here. It's not the same as running a game, but in readin these types of threads I'm reminded of my favorite Daredevil arc #227 -233 BORN AGAIN. In which an ex-girlfreind of Daredevil/Matt Murdock sells his secret identity for an armful of smack, the information finds it's way to his arch nemisis The Kingpin. The Kingpin promptly begins to DISMANTLE Matt Murdocks life piece by piece resulting in Murdock becoming unhinged and going after the Kingpin and getting nearly beat to death. The Kingpin has his flunkies dispose of the Murodck's body thinking himself rid of his greatest enemy only to discover later that Murdock had enough strength left to escape...
and that's when the story actually starts to get REALLY GOOD.
But I get the feeling that with this group we would never get to the good stuff becasue they'd say that the Kingpin getting ahold of Daredevil's secret ID wouldnt be fair and was bad DM'ing. :-)
While I see your point and to many that may be accurate, that isnt really what I am saying.
To alter your anology, what I am opposed to is the DM's who says " I am not a fan of using the blind trait just to get more points for accrobatics" so I will spend every session beating on your character by manipulating something you wrote in your background until you agree to play something different.
Most of us crave cool character moments like the Daredevil plot you just outlined...thats why we take the time to craft a background. We are hoping an praying you will use it in a cool way just like that. But what sucks if if you have a GM who uses his considerable power just to grind his Axe at you expense.
Well, the average Joe's are all kicking it in the barraks while the smart charismatic folks are the leaders making the decisions. Average people tend not to become leaders but followers in the grand scheme of things.
So would the Fighter have then been left out if he had a 10 in Int and Cha (no dump) or even an 11 in Int and Cha (putting points in them)? He's still an average Fighter.
This is basically the perfect example of the OP.
Int 9, Cha 9. Average is 10. He is 1 point off average on the downscale. But he isn't actually allowed to do anything because of it.
How did the rest of the idiots get in on the "War Council?" Apparently it is being ran by Bards.
Why the hell are Rangers so bleeding Charismatic?
Sounds to me like an excellent example of choices having interesting and even appropriate consequences.
Who would want someone with even average intelligence or wit in the war council if they can snob it up and limit it to the "best and the brightest"? That's part of the fun of politics in RPGs - getting into the "in" crowd or even getting back at them for being snobs.
But please don't exaggerate this into the fighter not being allowed to do anything. He's not invited to the war council to hobnob with the professional generals and political elite - that's not being prevented from doing anything at all.
When I gm I aim for near death. If I think a an npc is too powerful that I create I do not use it or if it screws over one player. A sos wizard at low levels will hate fighting evil dwarf monks with the steelsoul feat so all the saves vs spells are at least +6 plus save stat on the monk vs the spells that does not sound fun. This does screw over casters at low levels.
So would the Fighter have then been left out if he had a 10 in Int and Cha (no dump) or even an 11 in Int and Cha (putting points in them)? He's still an average Fighter.
Well, the average Joe's are all kicking it in the barraks while the smart charismatic folks are the leaders making the decisions. Average people tend not to become leaders but followers in the grand scheme of things.
I would imagine that to be in on the war council, the PC would either have to have specific intel or at least one of the mental stats sitting around 14 or higher. If they have a strong physical stat, they might be called in at the end to help hammer out specific details for the portion involving them and their immediate group, but wouldn't be involved in the planning of the grand strategy.
The war council example is a good one to highlight differences in play styles. There are some who seem to think that just because the PC is a PC, they should be there. There will be others who believe that, barring special circumstances that come from the story, to attend PCs need to have the stats to back their presence up. To their eyes, its not punishing the player, rather its creating a believable setting that takes into account people's stats when determining how the their character's fit into that setting. Neither side is right or wrong, but if the differences are not acknowledged, it will not make for a very pleasant situation.
I suspect that for many GMs the frustration with cookie cutter builds and hyper optimization basically comes down to frustration with having to build encounters that can effectively challenge optimized god wizards and uberchargers while not completely slaughtering the casual players in their group.
The simple fact of the matter is that very few games feature a group composed of 100% optimizers or 100% casual players.
Point-buy and dump stats are simply tools that some players can utilize to propel them ahead of NPCs and their fellow PCs. Further it's pretty apparent that optimized concepts tend to break the basic game math in a variety of interesting ways.
I think that a lot of GMs see how optimized PCs tend to dominate their games to the point where the job of the GM becomes more difficult and the enjoyment of other players is diminished. They see optimized PCs (dump stats, excessive multiclassing, god caster antics, etc) as the core problem point.
This typically leads to 2 scenarios, either a rigid lockdown of the char gen process in order to force similar power levels across the board, or a tit for tat escalation between the DM and CharOp PCs until both PCs and NPCs are at the bleeding edge regardless of the consequences on the game.
I think where people who are suggesting "How do I make my PCs take more than a 7 in Charisma" are coming from is an attempt to solve gameplay issues through heavy handed char gen restrictions rather than engage in Player-GM escalation. Many also seek house rules that they can incorporate in order to make some of the less used abilities more relevant.
That's where I see some of the suggestions that individuals like Kirth come in. They provide a deep understanding of the game balance issues involved in the 3.x design and they have played around with the guts of the system to the point where they understand what changes are required and how to implement them in a manner that doesn't lead to issues later on.
The simple fact of the matter is that not everyone has the ability or inclination to examine the various inter-dependencies of the 3.x systems and they often don't even have a shared language to express how certain issues tend to "break" their games.
So honestly I'm kind of glad that we have various DMs coming to the messageboard explaining their problems with the RAW version of the game and looking for advice on how to proceed. If other people can provide insight and best practices that goes a long way towards improving the gaming experience for the entire Pathfinder community.
This is basically the perfect example of the OP.
Int 9, Cha 9. Average is 10. He is 1 point off average on the downscale. But he isn't actually allowed to do anything because of it.
How did the rest of the idiots get in on the "War Council?" Apparently it is being ran by Bards.
Why the hell are Rangers so bleeding Charismatic?
Sounds to me like an excellent example of choices having interesting and even appropriate consequences.
Who would want someone with even average intelligence or wit in the war council if they can snob it up and limit it to the "best and the brightest"? That's part of the fun of politics in RPGs - getting into the "in" crowd or even getting back at them for being snobs.
But please don't exaggerate this into the fighter not being allowed to do anything. He's not invited to the war council to hobnob with the professional generals and political elite - that's not being prevented from doing anything at all.
Well, to be honest, that sounds like metagaming to me. I mean, how does anyone in the council know that the Fighter has a 9 Intelligence? Did they drill him at common questions and check to see how many he does or does not know? Seems kind of bogus to me.
Are you stealing me and Kirth's ideas? :P
Nope. I actually suggested this idea for alignment a long time ago, as a solution to a lot of the alignment nonsense, and finally got around to instating it in my games out of need, rather than actively trying to mod the system.
Out of curiosity, what are Kirth and your ideas? :D
Ashiel, you and I have had disagreements, but I'm with you here.
...
So high-five.
Disagreements happen, but high fives are forever. ^-^ *high fives*
So would the Fighter have then been left out if he had a 10 in Int and Cha (no dump) or even an 11 in Int and Cha (putting points in them)? He's still an average Fighter.
Ya probably. He's presumably a hell of a killer but why would you ask him to help you plan an assault if his thinking is at best average? You might want him there to carefully explain what you want him to do, but you wouldn't be planning your military campaign based on his merely typical brain power.
Unless the NPCs in your war council are stupider than Mr fighter, they don't have that much use for him in the brains and leadership department. Of course if he has some wisdom, then he could leverage that in such a meeting, but if all his mental traits are at best baseline average... then the leaders of a war council don't need him there for any practical purpose.
That said, they would have to know mr fighter. Its not like NPCs look at characters and know how smart or stupid they are. Generally the heroes of the story are heroes and NPCs will listen to them based on reputation or because they are desperate. But if its well known that Thugor is not the brightest of folks, then they will likely want to talk with Braingasm the wizard about matters of planning. :P
This is basically the perfect example of the OP.
Int 9, Cha 9. Average is 10. He is 1 point off average on the downscale. But he isn't actually allowed to do anything because of it.
How did the rest of the idiots get in on the "War Council?" Apparently it is being ran by Bards.
Why the hell are Rangers so bleeding Charismatic?
Sounds to me like an excellent example of choices having interesting and even appropriate consequences.
Who would want someone with even average intelligence or wit in the war council if they can snob it up and limit it to the "best and the brightest"? That's part of the fun of politics in RPGs - getting into the "in" crowd or even getting back at them for being snobs.
But please don't exaggerate this into the fighter not being allowed to do anything. He's not invited to the war council to hobnob with the professional generals and political elite - that's not being prevented from doing anything at all.
Were the Wizard and Cleric paragons of intelligence and charisma?
So would the Fighter have then been left out if he had a 10 in Int and Cha (no dump) or even an 11 in Int and Cha (putting points in them)? He's still an average Fighter.Ya probably. He's presumably a hell of a killer but why would you ask him to help you plan an assault if his thinking is at best average? You might want him there to carefully explain what you want him to do, but you wouldn't be planning your military campaign based on his merely typical brain power.
What if the Fighter put a bunch of skill points in Knowledge (geography) or Diplomacy or Knowledge (engineering) or Profession (map maker) or any OTHER number of things? Congratulations, you are shafting a player simply because you don't like his ability scores and completely ignoring the fact that ability scores are modifiers to a roll, not the be-all, end-all deciding factor in how anything works.
As far as an int 10 fighter ending up in a war council... well...
We have no context, and therefor the argument is meaningless.
Mark Antony: "I do not like to disagree with you, but you are being far too lenient with him. He let Pompey go, and you let him live? The man should be made an example of!"Gaius Julius Caesar: "Any other man, certainly. But those two... They found my stolen standard. Now they survive a wreck that drowned an army and find Pompey Magnus on a beach. They have powerful gods on their side, and I will not kill any man with friends of that sort."
Translation: Sometimes just being a PC should be enough to put you in powerful company. Sometimes not. We here — arguing in the abstract — can't expect the suggested scenario to shake us from our dearly-held opinions. There can be no progress on these terms.
|
+1. This thread might have been titled "Do that many people really game with people they don't even like?" :) Something I often wonder.
Don't laugh - back in the mid 90's I ended up running a game for almost a year with some people I grew to despise. Part of the problem, I think, was that it was all recruited online I hadn't met any of them beforehand. Thus, we weren't friends before we were a gaming group. Took me long enough to realize it wasn't working and call it quits.
What if the Fighter put a bunch of skill points in Knowledge (geography) or Diplomacy or Knowledge (engineering) or Profession (map maker) or any OTHER number of things? Congratulations, you are shafting a player simply because you don't like his ability scores and completely ignoring the fact that ability scores are modifiers to a roll, not the be-all, end-all deciding factor in how anything works.So would the Fighter have then been left out if he had a 10 in Int and Cha (no dump) or even an 11 in Int and Cha (putting points in them)? He's still an average Fighter.Ya probably. He's presumably a hell of a killer but why would you ask him to help you plan an assault if his thinking is at best average? You might want him there to carefully explain what you want him to do, but you wouldn't be planning your military campaign based on his merely typical brain power.
By this logic, the int 20 diviner wizard I presented for the "lol, lets pretend we don't have gear" thread would not be welcome because he has Cha 7? Excellent. Only the brightest mind in the realm, with the power to scry upon the enemy and foretell the outcome of battles with his magic. But he is sooooo boring!
But then again, the council in question is made up from PALADINS, who are probably the WORST EFFING STRATEGISTS EVER.
"Who here knows how to read a map?"
*silence*
"Who here understand siege weaponry?"
*silence*
"Who here has knowledge of past battles?"
"Oooh! I have a fluff-rank! So I can roll!"
"Shut up, Sir Winnifred!"
"Sorry..."
"Anyone know anything about the race of boggards? What special abilities they have that we should be aware of?"
*silence*
"*Sigh* OK, lets just wing it then! Shall we advance towards the held castle using the village as cover for our troops?"
"Oh no, that might lead to innocent lives lost. Lets go knock on the front door and ask politely. After all, we all have lots in diplomacy!"
I suspect that for many GMs the frustration with cookie cutter builds and hyper optimization basically comes down to frustration with having to build encounters that can effectively challenge optimized god wizards and uberchargers while not completely slaughtering the casual players in their group.
Yeah. I don't have that problem. My players are all bad people. All combining Doomspeak with Extended implosion or mining the Dragon Compendium for retarded stuff like Knowledge Devotion or Kung Fu Genius or figuring out how many times they can cast fortunate fate before I assign it an experience cost..
But it serves me right, I look over the same stuff when I play. Instead of dealing an extra 4 damage with an optimized character, I'll choose something else so my guy does everything well, so as to impact the campaign instead of having it impact me. I only get away with it cause I'm a good roleplayer and I know when to let someone else shine. I mean, not always. But I try to. : }
I don't want to be misunderstood. I won my first Iron GM by killing all of my players. Get 'em. But make it dramatic and cool and use their own choices to tell a story where they have painted themselves into a box. Between the 4-12 of them (I got start saying no some day), they'll figure out a way to save the day. Give them nothing but a well-crafted hard time so they feel like geniuses when they take the path you gave them during campaign design.
Ans I am totally with you, Lazurin. It's a challenging game, not an adversarial one. You exploit decisions and weaknesses when it is germane, you do not craft a campaign designed to punish someone for building a character.
Actually unless one or more of the PCs is noble-born or elevated to the nobility they aren't going to be invited to a war council anyway. Common Peasants are little better than animals or children at best.
Sure some have talents that make them useful to their social betters but the ability to understand the big picture and implement plans accordingly should rest in the hands of the upper social status characters (Aristocrats, Nobles, Royalty).
This trend towards egalitarianism and democracy in the world is a dangerous anachronism and like all such heresies should be crushed by the powers that be lest the unwashed masses get ideas and grow restless.
;)
This is basically the perfect example of the OP.
Int 9, Cha 9. Average is 10. He is 1 point off average on the downscale. But he isn't actually allowed to do anything because of it.
How did the rest of the idiots get in on the "War Council?" Apparently it is being ran by Bards.
Why the hell are Rangers so bleeding Charismatic?
Problem with this is that Officers are nominally a higher class of soldier than the Grunts primarily because they have the perception, the tactical knowledge and the leadership skills to surpass and lead the average Grunt.
Generals would probably be around the 14 in a mental stat, probably Intelligence, then Wisdom and then Charisma in order of necessity to the career, although I'd make it a toss-up between Intelligence and Wisdom, given that Knowing Things (Intelligence) is just as important as being Perceptive and Mentally strong (Wisdom).
That said, a Generally in a fantasy world setting like Golarion probably got their rank through a combination of three different ways.
1) PILES OF CORPSES: This type of Soldier/Officer/General/Supreme High Badass got his (or her!) rank via being the meanest mother on the battlefield, and having the experience of the battlefield guiding their future actions. The mental scores could all be in the negative, being 8 or 9 across the board ... but the knowledge gained from surviving all those battles gave the Soldier/Officer/General/Supreme High Badass the edge needed to gain all those promotions and be able to lead an army.
Of course, a Soldier/Officer/General/Dear God this is getting annoying probably hired a Bard or a Talking Rogue to do the smart-talking for him, while the General just focuses on making sure the Army of Minions kicks ass as they are supposed to.
2) BORN TO IT: This type of Soldier/Officer is born to Nobility who hold a hereditary title in the army or has a history of service in the armed forces in their family. Literally from the moment they started talking, they've been around people who lived and breathed this lifestyle. By the time they hit puberty, they've been saturated in this sort of environment to the point it's second nature. Of course, whether or not they want to be party to all this is another story.
Of course, just because you live with it day in and day out doesn't mean you're particularly good at something. Could be a dead-weight kind of Officer who is mediocre but has the right connections.
3) I'M JUST THAT EPIC: Sometimes the military wins the lottery and gets the soldier that's not only talented physically, but also mentally too. This guy (or girl) might not have overwhelming physical scores or be a mental juggernaut, but with positive scores across the board, this Soldier just screams Officer material, able to fight in the field if necessary and out-think their rival officers on the other side of the battlefield, this Jack-of-all-Trades can fill just about any position the higher ups need, from leading a squad into combat to giving detailed and precise reports to the Generals about the movements of enemy troops.
Of course, the downside to this is that the IJTE Soldier tends to not shine in any one situation, but is useful in nearly every situation. Some armies would frown at this, others would be doing the macarena in joy. YMMV.
What if the Fighter put a bunch of skill points in Knowledge (geography) or Diplomacy or Knowledge (engineering) or Profession (map maker) or any OTHER number of things? Congratulations, you are shafting a player simply because you don't like his ability scores and completely ignoring the fact that ability scores are modifiers to a roll, not the be-all, end-all deciding factor in how anything works.
That's a legitimate point, but without further details, I am forced to assume he's just another soldier in a rather large army. While I can think of many reasons why he could be there, I can't think of any reason why he would automatically be there. A person with a reasonably high mental stat would be seen as someone capable of contributing to the general strategy without needing specific circumstances to justify their presence; a fighter without unusually high mental stats is going to be seen as another soldier, who while capable in his own field, is not going to be invited to the overall strategy meeting unless the people running the meeting know ahead of time that such specific knowledge will be needed.
|
I think that people are so rules-mad - specifically combat-mad - as to make it prohibitive of many honestly interesting things happening.Cheer up, JS. You're responding to people talking about the game on the internet. I think it would be a rosier picture if you actually sat in on people playing. The plot-driven style is alive and well, its players are just less prone to talking math on the forums.
I agree. I play with about 8 people we are a complete mix with only 1 serious all combat player. The RP is awesome and much flavor over power. on the opp axis of that... i have opened the doors to my players for a redo of the return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Anything goes, any race, feats classes from 3.0 to pathfinder. 25 poin buy in heavy magic. They are going crazy and trashing the adventure but were having fun. Sometimes you have to indulge your players and watching them go crazy with too many options... lol
Great post.
Nowhere in any version of the game, from 1st edition up to Pathfinder, does it say that ability scores are no longer a guide to playing your character in non-com situations. Nowhere does it say that their only use has been reduced to ability checks and skill checks.
In fact, I recall one edition, perhaps 3.5, stating that a poor Dexterity could indicate your character is clumsy or shortsighted. This would imply that not only do the scores reflect a means of playing your character in a roleplaying situation, but that they also count towards what is actually being simulated in combat. In other words, the low Dex score mentioned above is a guide for the GM to say that your character missed the shot because he couldn't see the target, even while squinting his eyes. Or that he simply tripped over his own feet trying to get away from the orc's attack.
I think it is perfectly okay - FOR WHOEVER REALLY WANTS TO - if their chosen style of play is to ignore ability scores in every way except how they pertain to the attack or defense mechanics, but we're losing a lot when we do so. And please do not try to convince anybody that this is what the designers of the game intend. Surely they do not intend a lesser, more diminished roleplaying experience. Removing what has, from the beginning of the game's history, been the heart and crux of our characters, from the roleplaying aspect, is about as diminished a state as I can imagine.
Surely, we are not all easily convinced this was any designer's intent.
Nowhere in any version of the game, from 1st edition up to Pathfinder, does it say that ability scores are no longer a guide to playing your character in non-com situations. Nowhere does it say that their only use has been reduced to ability checks and skill checks.
In fact, I recall one edition, perhaps 3.5, stating that a poor Dexterity could indicate your character is clumsy or shortsighted. This would imply that not only do the scores reflect a means of playing your character in a roleplaying situation, but that they also count towards what is actually being simulated in combat. In other words, the low Dex score mentioned above is a guide for the GM to say that your character missed the shot because he couldn't see the target, even while squinting his eyes. Or that he simply tripped over his own feet trying to get away from the orc's attack.
Interesting. Does that mean that the inverse is also true? With dex 20 I no longer have to roll attack rolls with my bow, because I have perfect vision and perfect coordination, and thus can easily hit anything I wish?
As soon as you introduce a MECHANIC for low stats, one must exist for high stats. The more severe the mechanic for low stats... you get the picture.
|
Nope. I actually suggested this idea for alignment a long time ago, as a solution to a lot of the alignment nonsense, and finally got around to instating it in my games out of need, rather than actively trying to mod the system.
Out of curiosity, what are Kirth and your ideas? :D
Aww, now I don't feel so special for thinking of them. XD
Were the Wizard and Cleric paragons of intelligence and charisma?
Who says they need to be paragons? But I'll bet that they each have a good 4-5 points on the fighter in intelligence and charisma, respectively. Simply put, the fighter has two significant strikes against him that'll keep him out of the clique. He's not particularly clever and he's not particularly fun to be around. If he doesn't have a substantial political power base to come from (like a noble title), I can see him being barred quite easily.
Well, to be honest, that sounds like metagaming to me. I mean, how does anyone in the council know that the Fighter has a 9 Intelligence? Did they drill him at common questions and check to see how many he does or does not know? Seems kind of bogus to me.
They wouldn't have to know anything specific. Given any significant amount of interaction, they'd probably be able to tell he's no intellectual and he's not particularly personable. So why should he be included in meetings with the military elites?
Nowhere in any version of the game, from 1st edition up to Pathfinder, does it say that ability scores are no longer a guide to playing your character in non-com situations. Nowhere does it say that their only use has been reduced to ability checks and skill checks.
In fact, I recall one edition, perhaps 3.5, stating that a poor Dexterity could indicate your character is clumsy or shortsighted. This would imply that not only do the scores reflect a means of playing your character in a roleplaying situation, but that they also count towards what is actually being simulated in combat. In other words, the low Dex score mentioned above is a guide for the GM to say that your character missed the shot because he couldn't see the target, even while squinting his eyes. Or that he simply tripped over his own feet trying to get away from the orc's attack.
Emphasis mine. It could indicate that. Certainly. But no where does it say that having an 8 Dexterity means your clumsy, or that you're shortsighted, or that you have no hand-eye coordination. It could mean any or even all of those things, if you wanted it to; or it could represent the fact you're slow to react to things, or maybe it represents that you're kinda chunky and that makes you less graceful (I've been there; I used to be kinda obese).
The fact of the matter is, they can be used as a guideline, but there are no hard and fast rules on the matter. If I want to represent my Charisma 7 fighter's penalty as his being overly blunt after being exposed to primarily military training with other overly blunt military trainees, that's just as viable as someone else taking the same 7 Charisma and saying he's playing a beautiful yet stinky barbarian. Yet a third person might say that her 7 Charisma character is so amazingly perfect that she annoys the hell out of people around her, because she knows she's pretty darn awesome and flaunts it, grating on people's nerves.
I think it is perfectly okay - FOR WHOEVER REALLY WANTS TO - if their chosen style of play is to ignore ability scores in every way except how they pertain to the attack or defense mechanics, but we're losing a lot when we do so. And please do not try to convince anybody that this is what the designers of the game intend. Surely they do not intend a lesser, more diminished roleplaying experience. Removing what has, from the beginning of the game's history, been the heart and crux of our characters, from the roleplaying aspect, is about as diminished a state as I can imagine.
Surely, we are not all easily convinced this was any designer's intent.
No one ignores ability scores in every way, that I know of. We wouldn't have them then. I seriously think you're taking what I said out of context, or perhaps I'm not communicating it very well. If you you want to come up with some roleplaying ideas based off your ability scores (or based off your modifiers, since either method is just as useful) you can do that. My 7 Constitution paladin is fluffed that she was born with a rare blood disease that makes her immune system poor; and that was my idea to explain why she wasn't as physically tough as someone.
However, I'm not going to force someone else who has a 7 Con to have a rare blood disease. They could just as easily have a "glass jaw" and just can't take a hit. All is an abstraction. It always has been. Otherwise, we're not roleplaying characters but a series of digits on a piece of paper.
And honestly, if I wanted to behold the epic of 7, 13, 12, and 16 and their adventures together, I'd watch Sesame Street.
So after reading through this thread I've pretty much surmised it goes like this:
OP + Most of the First Page: Boy, look at those jerks!. I' glad I'm not a jerk. Yeah! We also agree with how much of a not-jerk you are thus making us not-jerks by association.
Everything Else: Internet Bile.
I hope I just saved someone walking into the thread some time. I really shouldn't have to say this but... your game style isn't better than anyone else. That's the rallying cry right? It works two ways.
-Idle
This is a very interesting topic. Though I think the other extreme is realy just as bad. I remember over on the WotC boards where there was a strong trend for the opposite feeling. I remember a quote of something like Being a DM is like playing chess with a child...the key is to let them win but not to let them know you are doing'. My problem with this is in general my players are not children...they will see right though this...I know because I always do.
Me I am I guess in the middle....my rules of DMing is Try to kill the group, but be fair. Screw the group over sometimes...but be fair. If a player does something make sure the consequences are in line with what the actions are. If the players out think me I love it. Because like players I like to be challenged too. And the number one rule is....DON'T RUN FOR PEPOLE I DON'T LIKE. Because than I can't be fair.
Being fair as a GM is probably the most important thing to being a GM. And sometimes it calls you to do things that might seem to be 'pinishing' one player...but usualy it is to be fair to another player.
I would like to comment on the whole War councxil things do...um I would have to say no PC would be invited to it unless they do something great...or are ranked officers. Their behavior during the war council would indicate if they get invited back. And if the 9 int fight comes up with a smart plan(which I view as possible...I mean even predatory animals of int 2 can come up with cunning tactic....) than he gets invited back....while a wizard with a int 20 comes with a unrealistic idea(again which is possibl as smart people sometime assume they know alot without actual experience) would not. But first both would have to do something to be invited.....but what they do will determine if they get invited back.
Anyway just figured I would bring up the opposite side of this problem.
Screw over players; NEVER! I am interested in an epic story; one where characters matter; is you screw up; that is history; if you do something heroic; that is history; I am mostly Narrator; I set the scene and like that and create obstacles and villians who have ideas and desires and try stay true to those; but, it is all story; one things a GM should ask; would it look good on film? or, would you read a book with a story about your world.
My players can and do sit around for hours talking about all the neat adventures; player screw ups; heroic deed where pc's just missed the mark; heroic sacrifice; all that; makes a gm feel good.
How can you feel good about something like; ooh; I had a rogue who listen to a door and I killed him with a worm that jumped off and ate his brain in three rounds because he couldnt get a cure disease. What then everyone just uses a listening cone with screen over it; like that is the first time someone killed by a worm; so how is that a good story? my players talk about the monk whose ear got stuck to a door that was really a mimic; pc is missing and ear; has a great scar; and a story to tell, much better in my view. Sure pc's die; but hopefully it will be doing something that mattered; not some bogus missed a ride roll and fell off and broke your neck while moderately rideing from one village to another; sure; it happens, RIP Christopher Reeve, but is it a good story? not really.
Emphasis mine. It could indicate that. Certainly. But no where does it say that having an 8 Dexterity means your clumsy, or that you're shortsighted, or that you have no hand-eye coordination. It could mean any or even all of those things, if you wanted it to; or it could represent the fact you're slow to react to things, or maybe it represents that you're kinda chunky and that makes you less graceful (I've been there; I used to be kinda obese).The fact of the matter is, they can be used as a guideline, but there are no hard and fast rules on the matter. If I want to represent my Charisma 7 fighter's penalty as his being overly blunt after being exposed to primarily military training with other overly blunt military trainees, that's just as viable as someone else taking the same 7 Charisma and saying he's playing a beautiful yet stinky barbarian. Yet a third person might say that her 7 Charisma character is so amazingly perfect that she annoys the hell out of people around her, because she knows she's pretty darn awesome and flaunts it, grating on people's nerves.
I totally agree with this sort of approach. I'd like to point out, however, that a lot of people around here ask for advice in making those weaknesses matter in a game, not to screw players over, but to make sure that they can't simply be hand-waved away. The player needs to find a way to live with his or her choices. Maybe they don't get invited to the war council because they aren't enough of an asset to the snobs in charge. Maybe they want to pick up some compensating magic item like an Con booster to alleviate the problems of poor health. Maybe they just want to accept the risks inherent in being weak or clumsy.
I want to make my case that using a character's disadvantages and dump stats against them, when doing so makes sense, isn't necessarily trying to screw over the players (doing so to an excessive degree probably is though). It's making their choices meaningful.|
|
I know this has been said already, but this is a fantastic topic. I think we've all had that one GM that has soured our playing experiences one time or another. On that same note though there are times when players do get a little unruly or big headed. As a GM if I do have a person that is either touting their character build or something massively impressive and "overshadows" everyone else I try to leave it to the players to sort the person out. If no one steps up but it is a problem I will intervene in some fashion, i.e. taking the player aside and talking to them.
I will admit though that on one occassion I have let my annoyances get the better of me and fudged some rolls and other things to take the player down a peg. I think that this has happened to all of us at least once. If not kudos.
What I'm trying to say is although we all dislike bad/heavyhanded GM we're all responsible for it at one time or another. If it's continual the players need to say something to the GM.
As for the dump stat, ie cha, discussion. I find low characters with a low charisma a challenge not a problem. I have a dwarf fighter in PFS with a 7 charisma and I'm generally one of the most vocally active players at the table. I play up the fact that he's boisterous, obnoxious, crude, rude, and a might smelly. He infact interrogatted an evil cleric by threatening to take off his armor and clothes to wipe his sweaty chest all over her face. And he did! And the table loved it! They thought it was one of the best uses of a poor charisma ever. Now, I try to balance his low cha and not be too over bearing. But a character with a low charisma need not be a quiet character, in fact I see it as an opportunity to be even louder due to the low stat.
As such it's up to the player to figure out how to play and roleplay their character as they see fit, not the GM's.
Now; the not roleplaying right; ok; this can be a big problem. There are certainly right and wrong ways to roleplay from a GM perspective.
1) do not apply real world knowlege to a game world; ie; dont argue physics because things happen that way in real life. If I want two moons or three; we will have them without massive quakes and tital waves. The GM will tell you how the world works; use your suspention of disbelief, as it is a fantasy game, and go with it and any obstacle it presents.
2) in game and out of game knowledge; you are role playing wrong if your using your knowledge of events and of what other players have their characters do because your sitting there listening/reading whereas your character would have no way of knowing and may not be present. Any player that does this I will penalize exps as a correction and explain it and let the party vote on it; and hope it doesnt happen again cause it ruins the story.
That is about it for roleplaying wrong; now there is a side note on playing true to character concept; but that is entirely different and such things should be worked out in the character background and continually developed; soem characters just work different in the game than they did in the creation idea stage; it happens; but i wouldnt call this roleplaying wrong unless it was a tournement game and you are supposed to act according to some fact sheet and only within those limits.
Playing a paladin for some people is just really tuff. They have a code of ethics; and in my game; this is directly tied to the diety they worship; thus not all paladins have the same set of rules; so they can actually war against each other. Not all LG get along; sometimes a law by one is not a law by another culture. Dieties take an active hand in teh lives of clerics and paladins and by various means, let their precepts be known. This leads to some interesting questions is two good guys go at it over ethics about who is right and wrong; is one evil or good; but this is all fun side note stuff. The tuff part about playing a paladin is to follow those guidelines; it is really tough for some players thus not enjoyable; thus paladins should be fairly rare and it can be a problem if the GM doesnt have a culture that backs up the paladin ethos.
Dumping character stats; meaning attacks by bad guys that lower stats; it happens; it is part of the game and some monsters; doesnt make it good or bad; but who wants to play in a game where that is always the case, and it if is; some defense should be available to the players.
lowering exps; deciding experience is the gm's job regardless of any book number in some chart somewhere. I use it as a guideline; but if my pc's walked through and encounter; it is not worth much experience; if they really struggle; then it is worth more. Problem with charts and stuff is they dont account for gear in a game world. I know gm's who are miserly with items and exps; and I know gm's who are Monty Haul about stuff so how a character is outfitted makes a huge difference to hte game; and how the monsters are outfitted as well. Any gm should explain his exp system before a game or stop and clarify as the game is played. I have a very codified exps system for my game; can explain it at will; as can any of my RL players; not sure if my pbp gamers have the same info; my bad; but I did post it in the discussion page.
I can think of more than a few war councils throughout history that could have really used an INT 9 fighter...
OP. While I agree with your post in spirit I also think that there is a real need to challenge players. I am not saying punish but challenge.
If your party is going to walk through every encounter then you might as well just stay home. Personally as a player I love it when my gm challenges me and my tactics. I like it when my party wins an encounter and we re talking about it 5 minutes later saying "How the heck did we survive."
I like to think that many of the posts that people put up here asking for ways to disable the fighters strength or the wizards intelligence is simply a way of asking how do I challenge my party who constantly relies on my fighter or wizard. I'm sure that is not the case for every post but honestly with out sitting at the table and playing with them how can we really know. Maybe I'm wrong but different strokes for different folks. I mean you're only doing it wrong if you're not having fun.
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...
I get that some are not quite in touch with there inner GM.
But as for stats.Erhm.
Perhaps it is because I played the game back when we insistently referred to it as AD&D to make the point that it was advanced.
But stats show your raw potential (Straight from the book right there.) this means it is what backs everything that your character does.
One could argue with the Forest Gump character he had skill points everywhere to off set his intelligence or that he min/maxed like a mo fo so that he could get the best commoner ever.
None of that matters what matters is at the start of the campaign this person said with the way they used there stats that this, this right here is my handy cap.
Sure people f@+& it up.
Skills verse stats and someone has worked hard at a skill they have overcome there handy cap.
However in that cavalcade of threads there is one thing I noted the fighter talking about great hooters.
And how a charisma 18 character would never do that.
No a charisma 18 character would get away with that.
But that is a triviality I think perhaps the focus should be on his next sentince which is at the core of the debate.
By rewarding people with dump stats, you punish those that don't.
I agree the skills show a progress tackling of the challenge presented by the characters 'disability' with whatever there 'dump' stat is....
Anyway before I go and discuss further on any of these problems it seems that you agree with me on most of what I will say your problem is with a single question rather an a series of them.
Why are GM's antagonistic?
And how they justify it.