To address some of the things that have come up:
Of course, when I say that players will hand GMs their sheet, I assume that the GM will have clean fingers. If a GM will keep them for a check-up or something else, I assume that is for good reasons, that he'll store them properly, and that he won't do anything heinous with them. I'll let your minds fill in the blanks on that last one.
In fact, replace assume with expect.
Good reasons for sheets staying with the GM is players being notoriously forgetful, or only there half the time (and agree that the other players will play the character for him the rest of the time).
This should always be voluntary on the players' part (the sheet really belongs to them), and in normal cases should be the exception. The GM can make copies (or expect the players to make copies), or write down important stuff. Or just look at things when they come up.
Tailoring adventures and encounters to the party: I also think that is part of good GMing. It might be less common if you use pre-made modules, but even then, the GM should be mindful of the party's strengths and weaknesses.
The purpose of this is not to find and exploit weaknesses. It's to know the characters' weaknesses. And their strengths. This knowledge is important for the GM to have encounters that are neither too easy for the party nor overwhelming or even impossible to defeat because the party lacks something.
Example: One time, the GM (in a D&D 3.0 game) used an enemy with something like DR 20/+4. He assumed that my character, the primary warrior, could overcome this DR. He couldn't. His weapon wasn't powerful enough. He had some magic, but not nearly powerful enough to increase the weapon to the necessary strength, and the party wizard had transmutation as his banned school.
So the fight was a lot harder than first thought, because the main damage dealer did almost no damage. It was still doable, and it's a harmless example, but this stuff can kill parties or require a lot on the wing GM changes.
What's weird is I've played in games where the GM didn't let the players see their character sheets, and that was just the way it went. The idea that the player could somehow legitimately keep information secret from the GM is just bizarre, as the GM can simply say "No, it isn't!" to anything the player might try to assert.
Secretive PC: "I have a potion of heal! It says so on my character sheet (where I just wrote it)!"
GM: "No, it turns out you don't. Perhaps you just -thought- you did."
Secretive PC: "I totally do! And I'm drinking it. I'm back at full hit points."
GM: "No, it turns out you don't. And furthermore, what you are actually drinking turns out to be a strange brew that attracts dire penguins. 1d12 of them immediately appear and eat off your head. Your character dies a painful and messy death."
-The Gneech
Every session I have a legal pad were I take the character sheets write down the HP/AC/cmb/cmd/ saves/init/primary weapons and BA. I do this to make my job easier. I have the final determination of HP damage not players. i tell them the damage they took but what i have written is the final say.
Seriously I would have bounced that player as soon as he refused.
I as a GM spend many, many hours preparing a game then a player does with one character as such it is my ball play by my rules or go home.
I had a GM that liked to play with characters when no one was around ususally benificial but really annoying. He changed one players character from male to female. ( Pretty Random ) However it was fun getting an adventure from an old character of mine one day. :)
|
Thank you for your responses.
My thoughts and extra information to consider my position...
Both him and his wife play. Without them, I would be stuck at three players. This is not an enormous issue as I can GM without my preferred five players, but a third player is a good friend of the problem player. I do not want to create any strife that might cause the non-combative player to reconsider playing as his play-style very much suits mine.
I live in a small town and gathering players is difficult. Not trying to work this out might shutdown my gaming entirely.
The problem player also has been a DM for 20+ years. My impression of his current campaign (although I have not played in it) is that he tries to kill the players each session and he does not design encounters at a reasonable EPL. His wife hinted at these things.
I do not believe he is cheating, nor a weasel.
I do believe he may have some mathematical mistakes. He normally plays 3.5 and does not have access to the Pathfinder books without me. Yet, this is not the reason I want his character.
I think a session should have a range of hard and easy encounters. I realize random rolls play a huge part of those fights. But from a GM who designs his sessions from the ground up (not using premade modules), I could really use the help of seeing what the players could handle.
I am not that evil GM a few of you have referred to. I am not changing character sheets, nor trying to be dastardly. I simply want the sessions to be challenging at times...I have played enough MMOs in my life that I do not desire my time to be spent building characters who are at no risk of losing.
Sorry, but a reward without the work is no reward at all.
Again, many thanks for the responses.
Irrie.
One of the worst games I was ever in one guy didn't even bring his sheet with him. Claimed to have it memorized. Somehow this involved having "+ Obscene" in everything by sixth level. He was one of the worst players I ever gamed with but an excellent, if completely irreverent GM. He was the king of powergaming himself, Frank Trollman.
Personally, as GM I see the character sheets at character creation. If you don't bring your sheet to game you don't play. And I reserve the right to check that sheet at any point, a right I very rarely have to use. However, all stats and HP are rolled in front of me and I'm present for every level-up. That combined with my fairly good knowledge of the classes and the players telling me what they're buying/using/wearing lets me keep a mental image of their character sheet. It's common for a player to get bogged down trying to add numbers and I call the answer they're looking for off the top of my head without any paper or book in front of me.
My advice to the OP, ask 'why?'. Do not accept an answer you feel is unsatisfactory. You are the GM. You run the game. You don't have to explain to your player in an attempt to get him to see reason, you are reason in this case. If he won't produce sheet you don't have to provide him game.
As everyone else has pointed out, yes, of course, it goes without saying.
You know, I have never had a player outright refuse to show me their character. Even the newbs who had never played knew instinctively to show them to me. But I did have one player who got angry once that I was GMing my own campaign.
It was my infamous King of All Disruptive Players, and it was the Straw that Broke the Camel's Back and ended his days gaming with us. The KoADP had been causing more trouble than usual lately, and had been holding sessions up with constant challenges to my authority as DM, and by picking fights with the others. Anyway, one day at the end of a session, the party made camp in a spooky place. One of the other players got bored the next day and emailed the others in-character, trying to decide the next course of action for when we got together the following weekend.
The KoADP removed me from the thread (I later found out it was intentional), in one of his replies, but when my wife and another player noticed, they inserted me back in. The KoADP didn't notice.
I was enjoying reading their conversation, so did not interject anything. Finally, it looked like they had decided on a plan of attack. So I added a little flavor at the end, something simple about the night getting darker and the wind whispering, etc.
The KoADP flipped out. He accused me of "spying" on them, of "stalking" them and wrongly inserting myself into what was becoming "their game" evidently out of envy and spite. He told me I was no longer necessary and that I should just butt out entirely. I asked him how I could possibly butt out of a campaign I had spent endless hours writing, and he emailed back two pages of ridiculous ranting, about how they didn't need a DM, and how I was just useless baggage holding him back (from what, I don't know), and all this crazy stuff. It was totally bizarre.
Well, tolerant fellow that I am, I was still trying to reason with him when my wife interjected with some harmless comment. He had been being rude to her the previous two sessions, but now he tried to twist what she was saying around, and get her to join him in banning me. That was it. The whole group kicked him out, practically simultaneously.
Anyway, yes. You need to see those sheets. Player Characters have no secrets from the Doctor/Fates/God.
|
First, do you require your players to share their character sheets?
Absolutely. Was a time I would COLLECT sheets after a game! Too often someone would forget theirs. As a GM, I never would.
Second, what is the best way to approach this individual? Bare in mind, he told me nearly 2 months ago that he would copy the character, and now he does not return my phone calls.
The GM has to make a lot of rolls in secret for the PC's - rolls to spot an ambush, sense a scam, save vs an illusion, etc. My players know I will use the most recent info they've provided me. No info would fail every such roll. Spell it out for him. Its kinda jerky but, honestly, what else could he expect you to do in these situations?
|
...
Both him and his wife play. Without them, I would be stuck at three players. This is not an enormous issue as I can GM without my preferred five players, but a third player is a good friend of the problem player. I do not want to create any strife that might cause the non-combative player to reconsider playing as his play-style very much suits mine.
...
The problem player also has been a DM for 20+ years. My impression of his current campaign (although I have not played in it) is that he tries to kill the players each session and he does not design encounters at a reasonable EPL. His wife hinted at these things.
...
Irrie.
A question. Do you think that his wife, or this mutual friend, would object to gaming without him? It might be worth discussing with all the players individually, if you are considering dropping him, what the potential fallout might be from such an action.
That said, GM always has the right to look at sheets. I might disagree with the GM always having the right to take the sheets at end of session, but that's a case-by-case agreement. Personally, I don't find it a bad idea. At the very least, having copies of the sheets or abbreviated stat-blocks is a very good idea. I can understand the Players wanting to keep their stat-sheets, but I'd keep a secondary copy for reference as GM.
As for how to approach it, tell the player you want to check his math and get certain information for hidden checks. If he refuses, tell him that he won't be using that character sheet for your game or that he needs to go elsewhere.
My 2cp. -J
I had this once. Interaction went something like this:
Player: You can't see my sheet, it's mine, and my character has secret stuff.
Me: Cool. See that bit that says "Conditional Modifiers?" Bottom Right? Put in "Sexual attraction to fire."
Player: Wait, what?
Me: You all are at the inn. It's warm and inviting. Unfortunately, [player], a little too warm and inviting. The fire in the hearth is massive...magnificent...you can't resist. Make a roll, please.
Player: I'm not doing that! That's not part of my character!
Me: Oh, you choose to fail then? Ok. Your will slips away from you, as do your pants, as you fling yourself groin-first into the inviting, sensual embrace of the flames. Everyone else watches you thrust yourself to a horrible burning death, too stunned to react in time to save you.
...Now, after you roll your new character, I'd like to see the sheet.
Players for my game roll the character at the table. With the group. I don't do antagonistic player v. GM play, and don't tolerate attempts to frame the game that way.
ABSO-frigging-LUTELY hilarious! My wife just snorted her tea out her nose. You sir win the Thread in her humble messy opinion!
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
Thank you for your responses.
My thoughts and extra information to consider my position...
Both him and his wife play. Without them, I would be stuck at three players. This is not an enormous issue as I can GM without my preferred five players, but a third player is a good friend of the problem player. I do not want to create any strife that might cause the non-combative player to reconsider playing as his play-style very much suits mine.
I live in a small town and gathering players is difficult. Not trying to work this out might shutdown my gaming entirely.
The problem player also has been a DM for 20+ years. My impression of his current campaign (although I have not played in it) is that he tries to kill the players each session and he does not design encounters at a reasonable EPL. His wife hinted at these things.
I do not believe he is cheating, nor a weasel.
With all due respect, what I got out of this is,
"I would prefer to play with stubborn, disrespectful players and have no fun nor be able to GM in my preferred style than either deal with confrontation or finding new players."
Because the thing is, your player here--he is being disrespectful. Of you, of his fellow players, of his own players. If he doesn't show you his character sheet, he will also probably give you a hard time about a number of other issues that should be non-issues. He will make your ability to plan your adventures a nightmare one way or another. Your campaign will probably not be fun for you nor the other players. The only person who will be having fun is the guy who's getting his rocks off from "beating" the GM.
This post above makes it sound like you would rather put up with his disrespect than deal with the consequences of confrontation. (And honestly, confrontation--as long as it is mature and civil--usually solves problems, the "strife" comes when you avoid confrontation.)
If I have misinterpreted you, then you will talk to the problem player and the rest of your players about the situation, individually and perhaps as a group afterward. If talking to the guy directly, non-aggressively but assertively, does not get him to agree to respect your role as GM, then perhaps ask his wife and/or buddy to chat with him instead.
And if that doesn't work, then it's time to ask who is willing to play if he is asked to leave. If you lose three players for the price of one, then so be it. Even in a small town--there are gamers out there. Usually whereever I've been, when I've looked, I've found them--or at least people willing to learn to play if they're not gamers yet. Advertise at local stores and at the Gamer Connection forum below. If all else fails, join a play-by-post until you can gather your new group. There is ALWAYS another choice and there are beautiful, wonderful player groups out there who do not try to "compete" with their GM. You may only be preventing yourself from finding them.
If however you choose to allow this fellow to continue his disrespectful behavior--and thus also show your other players that you are willing to sacrifice your relative authority as GM just so you can game at all--more power to you. I hope you still find a way to have fun.
((Note: this post is meant in a "tough love" sort of mode. If what I say sounds like a load of wash, by all means disregard it and move on. I don't mean to be disrespectful myself, and perhaps I am being ignorant of a situation I am not properly understanding.))
I had this once. Interaction went something like this:
Player: You can't see my sheet, it's mine, and my character has secret stuff.
Me: Cool. See that bit that says "Conditional Modifiers?" Bottom Right? Put in "Sexual attraction to fire."
Player: Wait, what?
Me: You all are at the inn. It's warm and inviting. Unfortunately, [player], a little too warm and inviting. The fire in the hearth is massive...magnificent...you can't resist. Make a roll, please.
Player: I'm not doing that! That's not part of my character!
Me: Oh, you choose to fail then? Ok. Your will slips away from you, as do your pants, as you fling yourself groin-first into the inviting, sensual embrace of the flames. Everyone else watches you thrust yourself to a horrible burning death, too stunned to react in time to save you.
...Now, after you roll your new character, I'd like to see the sheet.
Players for my game roll the character at the table. With the group. I don't do antagonistic player v. GM play, and don't tolerate attempts to frame the game that way.
That was cruel, sadistic, and in the very best traditions of GMing. GMs should play nice, but only if people play nice, too. People trying power plays against the GM are fated to suffer.
A player that did not provide his/her character sheet to me upon request would be out of my game, period, end of story, no need to additionaly discuss or argue the issue. I'm not begging for it. I'm not negotiating over it. I'm not going to try to figure out why you are not doing it. You will hand it over or get out of my game, period.
Both him and his wife play. Without them, I would be stuck at three players. This is not an enormous issue as I can GM without my preferred five players, but a third player is a good friend of the problem player. I do not want to create any strife that might cause the non-combative player to reconsider playing as his play-style very much suits mine.
Well, you'll have to ask yourself a couple of things:
How likely is it that the friend will leave because you refuse to be played for a fool?
What would you prefer? Not playing or having a game where you send clear signals that you're not in charge. I don't know the guy, but since you said he always tries to kill the players, he might have issues with power.
And I've seen people destroy campaigns because they overpowered the GM and ruined the fun for everyone.
You know the guy better than me, so you'll have to think about what would happen if you don't send a clear signal that you won't be made the fool.
I live in a small town and gathering players is difficult. Not trying to work this out might shutdown my gaming entirely.
Well, It's not impossible that this will turn ugly and the game will shut down later - after a lot of people have a falling out.
On the other hand, while I don't say you should take the guy out back and shoot him, you should not let it slide. Next time you play, tell him that you will see the character sheet now. That the guy will not play until you have seen the sheet.
The problem player also has been a DM for 20+ years. My impression of his current campaign (although I have not played in it) is that he tries to kill the players each session and he does not design encounters at a reasonable EPL. His wife hinted at these things.I do not believe he is cheating, nor a weasel.
From what you write it does sound that he plays to win. It's not impossible that he'll cheat to win the game. But you'll find out once you've seen the sheet.
Since the guy is GMing for over 20 years, he should be a grown-up by now. Holding the sheet close to his chest saying "No, you cant haz" isn't exactly an adult reaction...
I am not that evil GM a few of you have referred to. I am not changing character sheets, nor trying to be dastardly. I simply want the sessions to be challenging at times...I have played enough MMOs in my life that I do not desire my time to be spent building characters who are at no risk of losing.
Sorry, but a reward without the work is no reward at all.
Well, there are basically two ways to make sure you don't lose: Either you min-max or you cheat. I won't tolerate cheating in my games. I do have a player who's a natural min-maxer. His characters tend to be very effective. I sometimes hold him back a bit, outlawing combinations that are just too good (but they're general cases, not just for him), but in general, I let him play that way.
I usually manage to challenge him, and the other players, too. He sometimes has to fear for his character's well-being, too, just like everyone else.
Clearly state your intent when asking to review a character sheet, and what may occur, i.e. if you find something wrong, then how will it be addressed. You may also state that any discussions are between you and him. If this person is such an "expert", they may be afraid you will find out to the contrary and embarass him.
I allow the players a couple sesssions to work out all the kinks in their characters, and allow for some minor changes, before asking for a copy.
Yes the GM has the right to ee any character sheet. That is simple...I never have heard anyone who has said differently really. But I have seen GMs who have abused it to no end...
Giving the NPCs that infomation when there was no way they could know it...my favorite example of this was..
GM:"What is your AC?"
Player:"32"
GM: "Ok so mmm...he will put 5 into power attack"
Player: "What? How does the creature know?"
So I can see that a player might be relucant to give their sheet to a DM.
So I would ask him why he does not want to give it up. Before judging him harshly. If it is because he is cheating then boot him. If it is because of past bad GM abuse than try to show him you are different.
I get suspicious of players who hide their sheets from other players. I have had one too many players ruin a campaign because they wanted to secretly work against the party.
As a GM, I usually insist on a copy of the character sheet. Any changes are required before game night or they do not apply. I have never had a player complain about this.
As most people have implied here, this behavior points to a larger problem. The player is hiding something and/or trust issues. I believe the course is clear and I largely agree with DeathQuaker. Whatever the larger problem is, it is bound to surface again in a different guise. It needs to be identified and dealt with for your own sanity and the sake of the group as a whole. Even if you were to just 'suck it up' for the sake of keeping the group together, it is likely you will become disruptive since you are not enjoying yourself. Before you know it, everyone walks on you because you have become a jerk.
Giving the NPCs that infomation when there was no way they could know it...my favorite example of this was..
GM:"What is your AC?"
Player:"32"
GM: "Ok so mmm...he will put 5 into power attack"
Player: "What? How does the creature know?"
Bad GM here, not because of the Metagaming, but because he showed his hand to the players. For me, most of the time, the GM never says what feats/abilities are being used. Instead it's usually:
GM: "What is your AC?"
Player:"32"
GM *rolls* "You are hit."
Declaring that the opponent is using a Power Attack is awfully generous.
I guess my point is that the GM is more than just the guy who runs the bad guys. Part of being a GM involves hiding a lot from the players. Should GMs also declare that the Bad Guy is also using a +2 Longsword and has healing potions?
|
|
DeathQuaker, I appreciate your candidness. I have 3000 people living in my town. All of the players drive 40min-1hr to get to me. It is hard to find players. I want to play. I would rather not GM, but alas I am the best choice.
Confrontational, I have never had an issue. I have had problems being too confrontational :) That is why I have asked for advice.
I did read your post and I understood your viewpoint. In all honesty, your response was my initial thoughts on the matter.
I also appreciate everyone pointing out that this issue may become a larger problem. I dislike power struggles. I prefer to either win or lose. I will be...firm.
If I understand you correctly, I disagree. I do not think a GM stating the NPC is using Power Attack or even a +2 Longsword makes one a bad GM. I believe there is a wide gap between explaining current factors involved and giving away the farm. In fact, for inexperienced players, I might go so far as to say the GM should tell the players how everything is interacting…at least in combat.
That is not to say I think the GM is required to spell out all the factors in a particular DC. In combat, where there are many different factors, I do not see it as such a bad thing.
Giving the NPCs that infomation when there was no way they could know it...my favorite example of this was..
GM:"What is your AC?"
Player:"32"
GM: "Ok so mmm...he will put 5 into power attack"
Player: "What? How does the creature know?"
Bad GM here, not because of the Metagaming, but because he showed his hand to the players. For me, most of the time, the GM never says what feats/abilities are being used. Instead it's usually:
GM: "What is your AC?"
Player:"32"
GM *rolls* "You are hit."Declaring that the opponent is using a Power Attack is awfully generous.
I guess my point is that the GM is more than just the guy who runs the bad guys. Part of being a GM involves hiding a lot from the players. Should GMs also declare that the Bad Guy is also using a +2 Longsword and has healing potions?
The problem was the metagaming aspect. What a DM chooses to reveal or not is up to him and has to reflect on play style and such. IEthere is no right way or bad way to do so.
And you are right the DM does not just run the bad guy...but when he does so he should not takie into account what he knows about the PC. That is very bad DM...and leads to people not trusting the DM.
Also I admitt in my post I forgot to read the 2nd page before posting.
So you have the worst situration possible. A DM who thinks every DM is like him and plays the game His way. Sometimes even the best of DMs mnake the worst players...
Again I would say talk to him...politly in that you have different views on running the game...explain your style to him. See if he can understand that. If he can't then you might have to ask him to leave.
I get suspicious of players who hide their sheets from other players. I have had one too many players ruin a campaign because they wanted to secretly work against the party.
Some of the greatest characters and situations I had were when I had secrets from the rest of the party.
There was this game where I played a planetouched elf with succubus-inspired powers, like shapechange and suggestion. They only knew him as a regular elf (sans demonic features). I even had a second character sheet.
When I told some guy on a boat that it would be a fine day for a swim and he jumped into the armour - heavy armour and all - the players nearly shit their pants! Good times!
Of course, the GM knew about it. And I never worked against the party.
The other time I did work against the party. Not voluntarily, at least from the character's perspective. He was possessed by some ancient evil.
That was real fun. The GM clued me in before, and then gave me notes with visions I had, and when I was exhausted from the secret nightly prowls that possessor did with my body when I was asleep and he could take over.
The GM would request to see everyone's sheets - which was a ruse: He'd pretty much pretend to look them over and slip me a note in mine.
The best part was when my character was out of town and they found a witness. The GM (through the boy NPC) pretty much described my character. Nobody got it. That's what you get when you don't remember how your fellow players' characters actually look like (I was playing a monk, but he didn't look like the stereotypical monk.)
I also often complained, in character, about having headaches and being dead tired. Nobody batted an eye at this, even though the character never had these problems, and usually, I wouldn't start conversations with my fellow city rulers about something that trivial.
And when the character returned the next day (still oblivious to his possession) and the party gave an audience to the boy to hear more about what he's seen, he just points to my character and says "That's the man I saw!"...
...and that's when the GM said to me: "You want to kill them all."
I almost killed the party wizard in the single round I got to act before the cleric spoiled the fun and exorcised me with magic.
Still, great fun! Great fun!
Still, great fun! Great fun!
No doubt. I have seen intra-party conflict ruin some players' fun, though, which is my concern.
Still, great fun! Great fun!No doubt. I have seen intra-party conflict ruin some players' fun, though, which is my concern.
That's why you have to be careful. I've seen it destroy whole campaigns, too.
You have to make sure that everyone is alright with that sort of thing before opening the PvP arena.
Otherwise, you're limited to ideas like the two I presented:
My shapeshifter might have had secrets from the party, and like many a character had an agenda beyond "help party", but he didn't work against the party. I think stuff like that is a lot easier to swallow than people backstabbing each other.
The other instance was me being "forced" to work against my party because of magic. As a good roleplayer, I of course played it properly and didn't metagame against that plot. The fact that I immensely enjoyed the whole thing was just a byproduct ;-). It also means that the players can unite in their hatred towards the GM :D
It also means that the players can unite in their hatred towards the GM :D
You mean the NPC, right? Of course you did.
That's why you have to be careful. I've seen it destroy whole campaigns, too.
I have also played in games where 'secrets' and 'evil desires' were the method of certain players. Every PC they made were there to kill or rob the other PCs. Disruptive, pointless and fun ruining! (this is one of the reasons I have a blanket policy-No Evil PCs!)
However, Kae, your story is entertaining :) "You want to kill them All!"
I think the difference is that you were not abusing the situation; you too were a victim! Possessed-what a horrid fate! And I can only imagine the faces of your fellow PCs... *grin* Awesome sauce!
GNOME
That's why you have to be careful. I've seen it destroy whole campaigns, too.I have also played in games where 'secrets' and 'evil desires' were the method of certain players. Every PC they made were there to kill or rob the other PCs. Disruptive, pointless and fun ruining! (this is one of the reasons I have a blanket policy-No Evil PCs!)
However, Kae, your story is entertaining :) "You want to kill them All!"
I think the difference is that you were not abusing the situation; you too were a victim! Possessed-what a horrid fate! And I can only imagine the faces of your fellow PCs... *grin* Awesome sauce!
GNOME
You haven't seen the epic efforts of facial muscle control exhibited by me and the GM.
Especially when they were given a description of the perp. That description fit my character like a glove. The sheer lack of faces lighting up in comprehension was simply stunning!