Yes. In my opinion. Shall I prepend all of my qualitative and value statements with that, in order to make things clearer for you?
Once upon a time, that was standard practice -- one to which I, for one, would gladly return. Increasingly, people now do as you do, and state their opinions in the form of facts -- or worse, have only the haziest of ideas as to the difference between "fact" and "opinion" at all.
Actualy it is your opinion that 'a huge number of people hate save or die and think they harm the game.' As I have never seen a huge amount of people ever say so(I don't consider what the twenty people on a message board and about ten people in real as a huge majority...). I personaly think save or die effects have their place in the game...I have seen them abused by GMs in the past...but so can anything really.Both 4e and Pathfinder moved away from save or die and save or lose effects. I'm basing my idea that a general distaste for such effects exists on the idea that player concerns drive industry consensus when it comes to design issues.
And what is this large move you see in the industry away from leathality? WotC 4th ed? Is the only one I can think of...and Pathfinder reduced them...but did not get rid of them. Actualy the added more with the APG. So really only 4th ed D&D...which in my opinion is catering exclusively to one style of players...and I speculate their sales are hurting because of it.Again, both 4e and Pathfinder have made significant efforts to level out the lethality of their systems. Just as it's not a lot of fun to be killed outright by a single orc's axe chop at 1st level, it's not a lot of fun to be killed outright by a failed Finger of Death save at 10th. Designers are moving towards mechanical design where players have the ability to be more reactive to threats.
Well in Pathfinder a PC can still die from a single orc's axe chop at 1st level...and there did not get rid of all save or die effects. And I don't mind what Pathfinder did to alot of them...but the fact that they kept some seems to indicate to me atleast that they feel there are players out there who enjoy them in their game. WotC approach...just shows that they are out of touch.
Also....you do know there are serveral other RPG systems out there right? Besides D&D( Pathfinder or 4th ed)?
Personaly I like game where the players interact with the world...grow in power...explore....have to sometimes run from things...etc. I like starting at the start of my characters career and if they die...well I have a thousand other ideas....and it not like you can't recycle concepts( well it is easier if you have three different groups you play with like me). Sure I don't like Gygaxian level of leathality...but if there is no risk... it is not fun.That I can wholeheartedly agree with.
As far as story-driven games go: it is quite easy to feel involved in such a game as long as the story is (at least partially) about the characters. When I'm the GM, I work with the background of the player characters even if I run them through something like the Pathfinder APs. Most often that means that I start with the premise of a campaign and let it develop according to what I get from the players. Sometimes it's easy as when the PCs are inhabitants of Sandpoint and therefore have quite the motivation to fight for their town. Other times we deviate at some point from the APs premise and follow ideas which developed from the PCs background. So the story isn't necessarily what's prewritten in some product (or the GM's imagination) but what develops through multiple influences but it's a story nonetheless.
It's a fine line to walk though as you don't want a character becoming too important just to have her dying at the next corner. I agree with Scott that that's the main reason why many players don't like their characters to die. It's not about winning, it's about the story losing cohesiveness if PCs die to often. Or, as in your case, the characters staying irrelevant to the story so that they can die without negative consequences for the story.
I agree with you...I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that the story driven GM I have played with might not be the best out there. But the 'story' in a story driven game has to able to survive the lost of a character or two...or even more. RL does tend to be what keeps people continueing in games over deathof character. It does get frustrating. You are right it is a fine line to walk.
Also another note on things that annoy me about story driven games that I have seen happen too often. The DM give a very vague desciption of what the story will be( which is fine by me...I like to be surprised)...but if you do that than you have to say just say 'No' to some character concept/backgrounds. I played a character who totaly did not fit in with the campaign...but would have worked perfectly for what the DM said his next campaign would have been. Instead of just saying so...he let me play that character out in the campaign the character is maginalized in. Just saying comunication is a useful thing.
It is odd but when I am in a story driven game and my character does not fit the story...I look for that character death so I can bring in a better suited character.
I think that Alexandrian reference was interesting reading.
Sometimes we have stuff crops up that isn't in the rules, and the GM has to make a call. What I find helpful is noting down the contentious rules and then re-raising them on the post session debrief email - I can (in the cool calm of a quiet afternoon) firm up the ruling or clarify it, or even open a debate on it for consideration between sessions.
What is MOST important is to keep the game moving and the fun flowing, otherwise we may as well end up playing "Lawyers:RPG" which is of limited fun to most people :)
What I'm taking away from all of this is that you want to make completing video games some kind of elite club where only the very skilled get to fully enjoy the game they purchased. That's pretty clear elitism. Rather than being inclusive, and accommodating both easy and challenging playstyles, you want to be exclusive.I mean, is that not what you're saying? In an effort to "dewussify" America, you want to make gaming into a "You must be at least this awesome to fully enjoy," club?
Because, frankly, that's kind of disgusting.
I happily and proudly fly my gaming elitist flag. I've never claimed anything else. If you aren't awesome, don't bother coming to my table. I don't pull punches, I don't go out of my way to ensure players' survivals, and I don't care who that bothers.
Yes. In my opinion. Shall I prepend all of my qualitative and value statements with that, in order to make things clearer for you?Once upon a time, that was standard practice -- one to which I, for one, would gladly return. Increasingly, people now do as you do, and state their opinions in the form of facts -- or worse, have only the haziest of ideas as to the difference between "fact" and "opinion" at all.
There is no such thing as stating a value judgment in the form of a fact, short of saying "It is a fact that X is good!" which is of course a ridiculous thing to say.
Again I assume that most people understand that value judgments are inherently opinions whether or not they are explicitly called opinions immediately before or after being stated. I am not going to start adding "in my opinion" to every value judgment just because you think it ought to be there, for the same reason that I'm not going to add the words "It is my observation that..." to every time I want to say "The sky is blue."
You are trying to make it appear as though I want my opinions to be taken as fact, and that is not true. As convenient as it would be for you, and as damning for my own credibility it would be, unfortunately it's just not the case. My opinions are to be taken as opinions, and are worth very little in discourse without support.
But, please, do continue making this about me.
I happily and proudly fly my gaming elitist flag. I've never claimed anything else. If you aren't awesome, don't bother coming to my table. I don't pull punches, I don't go out of my way to ensure players' survivals, and I don't care who that bothers.
Oh, alright. I very strongly disagree with your philosophy, here, but I admire your consistency and forthrightness.
... what really matters that regardless of levels or personal achievement or tracking steady progress in terms of the strength of person's character or how much a story they've participated in, what "modern gamers" want is a "casual gaming experience."
Agree/Disagree?
Disagree. I used "casual gaming experience" as a challenge to Digitalelf's comment. Certainly, some modern gamers do want a casual gaming experience (and, I believe, probably more now than in quite some time, whether we're talking about video games or tabletop games), but that wasn't the point. I was just pointing out that the overly litigious nature of modern American society is pretty depressing because of the unflattering truths it reveals about what we as a people consider important. In contrast, I don't see anything all that depressing about wanting a game experience that is less grueling, whether to preserve story integrity or simply to play an easier game. I don't think that the two can be compared easily (and I'm not sure that Digitalelf was necessarily trying to compare the two, but I wanted to address it just in case), and I think that you'd have a lot of work to do in arguing that both phenomena are symptoms of a perceived "wussification" of America or modern society.
Blame LotR and fantasy tropes. You are the ONLY ones who can save X from Y. Imagine LotR if Aragorn and Frodo died, was replaced with someone almost completely unrelated; would you have the same epic?
I invest a lot of time into my characters, because I am intending to run them through a whole campaign, with goals, personal investment and so forth. Sure, I could play in a "you are a grain of sand in a desert" approach, but then I need to be informed. If my 10+ hours of work go down a drain because the GM thinks character death should be commonplace, he is losing a player. I can deal with losing one character, maybe two, but after that, I am coming out swinging my power-game hammer like a berserker, because if you are not going to respect my effort as a player, I am not respecting your effort as a GM.
I can definitely understand where you are coming from, but at the same time, just because you put 10+ hours into rolling up your character, that doesn't make you immune to death. Especially if you lost 2 or 3 characters already. Using phrases like "I am not respecting your effort as a GM..." are very confrontational, and often times I've found that kind of hostility at the gaming table extremely counter-productive. Heck, I've seen campaigns go down in flames from that kind of negativity and "player vs. DM" mentality.
Sometimes in campaigns, it just happens. Bad rolls, bad situation, fellow player doing somehting completely unpredictable, and WHAM! Character dies. More often than not, I'm willing to bet the GM didn't want it to happen. I've seen a lot of players get hostile or defensive over random chance deaths, and that kind of negativity can do wonders to bring a game to a screeching halt.
I find the best way to show the players that it was the dice that killed them is to roll all dice in the open, no screen. Then they can see that no fudging is going on. Works for Kirth's game.
Indeed. We've been doing this for quite some time.
I find the best way to show the players that it was the dice that killed them is to roll all dice in the open, no screen. Then they can see that no fudging is going on. Works for Kirth's game.
And now that Mr Betts has (albeit with poor grace) conceded that his point-blank declaration of badwrongnofun was opinion only, he's sort of forced to accept that this approach might work for other groups after all -- even though it doesn't work for him.
I find the best way to show the players that it was the dice that killed them is to roll all dice in the open, no screen. Then they can see that no fudging is going on. Works for Kirth's game.And now that Mr Betts has (albeit with poor grace) conceded that his point-blank declaration of badwrongnofun was opinion only, he's sort of forced to accept that this approach might work for other groups after all -- even though it doesn't work for him.
I find myself rolling out in the open when I DM more often, so the players don't think I'm fugding. My dice hate players; seriously. As a player, I'm lucky to roll over a 5 on a given check or roll. As a DM, I roll multiple natural 20's per session.
As a player, I'm lucky to roll over a 5 on a given check or roll. As a DM, I roll multiple natural 20's per session.
I used to think I was "jinxed" with low rolls as a DM -- always remarking on the succession of 1s, 2s, and 3s for NPC initiative rolls, etc. I tried switching dice and it didn't help. Then it occurred to me there might be some sort of confirmation bias going on, so I made it a point to look specifically for high rolls. All of the sudden, I seemed a lot less jinxed to me.
I don't doubt that it's possible to end up with a long string of lousy (or really good) rolls, or for a particular die to be weighted or otherwise biased. However, in my particular case, the problem was neither of those things, but just my tendency to notice the low rolls and not the high ones.
Okay, I understand. I apologize for calling you out, but I wanted to get your attention.
Do you consider the desire to have a "less-grueling game experience" part of what it means to be a "modern gamer?"
It certainly has a lot to do with how you define "grueling", but yes, in general, I think that gamers nowadays tend to prefer game experiences where the level of discouragement is lessened.
I'm becoming curious about this myself, now, though. I just started running a campaign for a group of players with an average age of about 20. I consider all of them to be part of this "modern" generation. I don't think any of them played D&D prior to 4e/Pathfinder. I'll see what they have to say about this topic. It's completely anecdotal, of course, but it'll be informative for me.
I find the best way to show the players that it was the dice that killed them is to roll all dice in the open, no screen. Then they can see that no fudging is going on. Works for Kirth's game.And now that Mr Betts has (albeit with poor grace) conceded that his point-blank declaration of badwrongnofun was opinion only, he's sort of forced to accept that this approach might work for other groups after all -- even though it doesn't work for him.
Pardon? I roll all dice out in the open (save dice that need to be secret, like Stealth rolls for monsters). When I kill characters, I kill characters. I don't pull punches. But I don't design my encounters to be of the "meat-grinder" variety.
And, of course, at no point did I imply that such a style of play wouldn't work well with other groups. But now, as before, you're really only out to make my position look as untenable as possible and paint me as the harbinger of badwrongfun idiocy.
So, I mean, it would be pretty awesome if you would stop the sniping.
Okay, I understand. I apologize for calling you out, but I wanted to get your attention.
Do you consider the desire to have a "less-grueling game experience" part of what it means to be a "modern gamer?"
It certainly has a lot to do with how you define "grueling", but yes, in general, I think that gamers nowadays tend to prefer game experiences where the level of discouragement is lessened.
I'm becoming curious about this myself, now, though. I just started running a campaign for a group of players with an average age of about 20. I consider all of them to be part of this "modern" generation. I don't think any of them played D&D prior to 4e/Pathfinder. I'll see what they have to say about this topic. It's completely anecdotal, of course, but it'll be informative for me.
It is interesting...but I would hazard a guess that they will more er less agree with you. As you said they really have never played any of the other editions of the game....so all they have to base their judgement on it is your own anecdotal evidence or other peoples' horror stories of things like save or die all shaped on opinion.
It is interesting...but I would hazard a guess that they will more er less agree with you. As you said they really have never played any of the other editions of the game....so all they have to base their judgement on it is your own anecdotal evidence or other peoples' horror stories of things like save or die all shaped on opinion.Okay, I understand. I apologize for calling you out, but I wanted to get your attention.
Do you consider the desire to have a "less-grueling game experience" part of what it means to be a "modern gamer?"
It certainly has a lot to do with how you define "grueling", but yes, in general, I think that gamers nowadays tend to prefer game experiences where the level of discouragement is lessened.
I'm becoming curious about this myself, now, though. I just started running a campaign for a group of players with an average age of about 20. I consider all of them to be part of this "modern" generation. I don't think any of them played D&D prior to 4e/Pathfinder. I'll see what they have to say about this topic. It's completely anecdotal, of course, but it'll be informative for me.
It depends. I'm not really familiar with what their previous campaigns have been like, and it's quite possible to run a meat-grindy campaign using any system, Pathfinder/4e included. Some of them might have firsthand experience with such campaigns. Who knows.
I find the best way to show the players that it was the dice that killed them is to roll all dice in the open, no screen. Then they can see that no fudging is going on. Works for Kirth's game.
What would you say to this then?
The random orc, who can crit you do death with his rusty greataxe, is just part of the fun, for ME.We are of a dying breed...
You got proof of that...or you just think that?
I don't pull my shots and such....and 90% of gamers I play with have fun in my games. I think the problem is bad DMs. Always has been always will be. Does not matter what you do to the rules...they will exist.
But I don't think we are dieing out....we are making a come back.
|
You got proof of that...or you just think that?
Obviously that is just my opinion. But it is based upon threads like these, where my fellow gamers through their statements appear to be moving away from the style of game I prefer to run and play in. Where there are things like save or die effects and a party of adventures can encounter (randomly) something seriously above their ability to handle it. Where, simple put, characters may die through no particular fault of the player...
You got proof of that...or you just think that?Obviously that is just my opinion. But it is based upon threads like these, where my fellow gamers through their statements appear to be moving away from the style of game I prefer to run and play in. Where there are things like save or die effects and a party of adventures can encounter (randomly) something seriously above their ability to handle it. Where, simple put, characters may die through no particular fault of the player...
I can see how you can get that opinion...but this is the internet. Do you realize how small of the population of gamers actualy post on a message boards? Or how small of that same population that plays in organizd events(RPGA or PFS)? Or attend Cons consistently?
Also I think part of it is that people just have a very wrong impression on the above things due to bad DMing...it is a misperception we should all fight.
Why should the whole world level up with the party ? Makes no sense to me.
Why shouldn't your imaginary fantasy construct crafted for the enjoyment of all involved scale its difficulty to roughly match the capabilities of those for whose enjoyment it was created?
The characters aren't the center of the plot or world, they are just inhabitants like everyone else.
Except that "everyone else" isn't the imaginary analogue of a single player. The fact that a real life human being is attached to the PC makes them inherently not like "everyone else".
IF every death is pre-planned by the DM, such as "only in the epic fight, against the big bad evil guy, is where you CAN actually die", then every other fight will be plainly boring.
The random orc, who can crit you do death with his rusty greataxe, is just part of the fun, for ME.
You can't act like the only choices are:
A) Every death is preplanned by the DM.
or
B) An orc can crit you to death with a single axe swing.
The happy middle ground that we're seeing become more and more popular is the idea that a PC's death tends to be the result of poor luck enabled by less than ideal choices on the part of the player. The challenge of a combat encounter should be in the player's ability to adequately deal with the situation thrown at him. The challenge should not be an unavoidable 10% chance that he be killed outright. That's not a challenge, that's an unavoidable statistic.
If a PC dies, that player should feel like the death could have been avoided if different, informed choices had been made, whether by himself or his companions.
I can see how you can get that opinion...but this is the internet. Do you realize how small of the population of gamers actualy post on a message boards? Or how small of that same population that plays in organizd events(RPGA or PFS)? Or attend Cons consistently?
This point cannot be emphasized enough: if your impression of the world of tabletop roleplaying is informed primarily by internet message boards, it's safe to say that your impression is probably not very accurate.
|
|
it's safe to say that your impression is probably not very accurate.
While I did say my opinion was based upon what I've read on forums like this, I did not however say it was based solely upon what I have read on the internet...
I have also seen this trend with many of those gamers I have interacted with IRL...
I also view the "Gygaxian" way as kind of "story-based". But the big difference here is: While in the modern games, the story seems to be already pre-planned...on the other hand, in the old-school ones, the story it is actually the RESULT of the characters (inter)actions with the game world. The world itself will however also work without the actions of the player characters in a perfect way.What's your opinion on the Giants/Drow/Queen of the Demonweb Pits series?
GDQ////best adventure modules EVAH.
Played it through original style, AD@D.
Played it through the Dragon Updated style, where you increased the damage of the giants and their AC based on size and what they wore.
Played it through the 2E style, where they handed out Str bonuses and gave all the giants +4 HD and even more AC.
Awesome fun times! Redid the original Lloth to a combo of the FR stats and Demon Lord stats as a demigod...also much good times.
Loved running into Animal Growth'd Giant Spiders in the Abyss...on Chaotic Planes, normal animals have x2 Hit Dice. So those things had 16 + 16 HID, or about 96 HP each on average...and were the size of small houses.
Oh, good times, good times. Recruiting the slave army and storming the temple, butchering her army in Kandelspire, la la la...hehe.
And they even recycled Fonkin Hodypeek and Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter for the second Against the Giants module in Geoff!
===Aelryinth
And as an addendum, does anyone remember the WoTC staff playing against a 3.5 rendition of the Hill Giant Steading? Nonsrna was a Frenzied Berserker, and the Wolf Trainer was a werewolf - he one shot a dwarf with a 43 AC from full hit points to 0 with one crit...and the deadliest creature in the fight was the Druid's buffed up dinosaur animal companion with an AC so high the Giants couldn't hurt it. And it turned out summoning a Vrock was a good play...DR the Giants couldn't bypass basically kept it alive as it shredded them.
=+Aelryinth
it's safe to say that your impression is probably not very accurate.While I did say my opinion was based upon what I've read on forums like this, I did not however say it was based solely upon what I have read on the internet...
I have also seen this trend with many of those gamers I have interacted with IRL...
Right, my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general caution not to generalize the internet hardcore to the rest of the gaming population.
Why shouldn't your imaginary fantasy construct crafted for the enjoyment of all involved scale its difficulty to roughly match the capabilities of those for whose enjoyment it was created?
Because such a world breaks some peoples sense of enjoyment. For me it breaks down when we run into 2 nd level badits...and never see the same level of competence again in bandits.
Conversely alot of the more memorable fights were the one we 'should not' have won.
Except that "everyone else" isn't the imaginary analogue of a single player. The fact that a real life human being is attached to the PC makes them inherently not like "everyone else".
Ah the infamous PC T-Shirt. Sorry I found a world very boring in to interact with is a card board cut out because they don't wear a PC T shirt. Which that kind of thinking leads to more often than not.
The rest of your points I don't disagree with except...actualy I don't really disagree with any of your points...it is a question of play style...except to say I don't mind death due to bad luck. I tend to see people who die to bad luck just chalk it up to that...while people who die to a mistake seem to argue endlessly and such about it.
it's safe to say that your impression is probably not very accurate.While I did say my opinion was based upon what I've read on forums like this, I did not however say it was based solely upon what I have read on the internet...
I have also seen this trend with many of those gamers I have interacted with IRL...
Sorry to hear that. I don't think it is dieing out...as much as go though cycles...as I said these things are not anything new...and I am seeing a rebounding of trends in my area.
Hope you find some gamers who are more your play style....or atleast those open minded enough to give it a try soon.
Because such a world breaks some peoples sense of enjoyment. For me it breaks down when we run into 2 nd level badits...and never see the same level of competence again in bandits.
Right. Both styles of play make sense depending on what you're looking for. Furthermore, I think that sandbox-type games lend themselves to game worlds that do not scale with the party, and adventure path-style games lend themselves to game worlds that do scale.
That said, both game worlds should take the PCs into account in their design. For instance, a game world comprised of nothing but dragons would be a tough one for a group of typical 1st-level PCs to succeed in (by way of hyperbole).
Ah the infamous PC T-Shirt. Sorry I found a world very boring in to interact with is a card board cut out because they don't wear a PC T shirt. Which that kind of thinking leads to more often than not.
I don't see why developing a game world from the standpoint of ensuring a relatively smooth leveling curve would necessitate turning everyone else into cardboard cut-outs. That doesn't follow. If that were the case, Paizo's NPCs would be cardboard cut-outs, since Paizo APs are developed along a leveling curve. And, of course, Paizo's NPCs are of very high quality, typically.
Ah the infamous PC T-Shirt. Sorry I found a world very boring in to interact with is a card board cut out because they don't wear a PC T shirt. Which that kind of thinking leads to more often than not.I don't see why developing a game world from the standpoint of ensuring a relatively smooth leveling curve would necessitate turning everyone else into cardboard cut-outs. That doesn't follow. If that were the case, Paizo's NPCs would be cardboard cut-outs, since Paizo APs are developed along a leveling curve. And, of course, Paizo's NPCs are of very high quality, typically.
Um...stop moving the field posts...
You said
Except that "everyone else" isn't the imaginary analogue of a single player. The fact that a real life human being is attached to the PC makes them inherently not like "everyone else".
Which seems to me as a arguement about PC T-Shirtism...which I find really poor in any type of game. But I'll admitt maybe I misunderstood the point you were making here.
As I saw it the comment was made in response to 'the PCs are not the center of the world'...which atleast how I run my games has nothing to do with levels....a King in my game could be a 1st Aritrocrat...and you know what for maybe some...or all of the game that king is going to be more important than the PCs....unless if the PCs do something about it. It all depends on the PCs actions. They are the focus of the game...but the world will continue to move along also. Alot these things might happen in the background till the PC decide to get involved...but that is up to the PCs.
Um...stop moving the field posts...
Pardon? I said that a world that scales with the PCs makes perfect sense in many campaigns. You said that leads to everyone but PCs being cardboard cut-outs. I said that if that were true Paizo APs (in which the world the PCs experience tends to scale appropriately) would be full of cardboard cut-out NPCs.
Where were the goal posts moved?
DunjnHakkr: Welcome! Besides just going and finding a group that plays your style, I wonder if you couldn't introduce your new gaming acquaintances to some of the virtues of old school style, while integrating some of their desires for story and cinematic scenes. Some experimentation from both sides might be really enriching and rewarding for both.
I feel what follows has a lot to do with the conversation that's been evolving on this thread...
Defining the Game Master
You might already know what a Game Master is. The likely definition, if you're reading this, is "you." But if you don't know, a Game Master (or GM) is the Pathfinder RPG player who arbitrates the rules of the game and controls the actions of every game element that isn't explicitly controlled by the other players. But as any experienced Game Master knows, being a GM is also much, much more.Host: Game Masters are the unifying force behind most of the game, not just organizing a social event but providing excitement and entertainment for those who participate. Chapter 1: Getting Started focuses on the GM's role as a host, presenting considerations on how to start a game, how to prepare for a session, and how to select a tone and rules that players will be eager to explore.
Mastermind: GMs work to keep a game's momentum moving in directions that entertain all the players while exploring the stories and settings they desire. To such ends, a GM manipulates dozens of elements, from how narrative components unfold to what rules are used and how they function in every situation. Chapter 2: Running a Game addresses a variety of topics that help GMs handle some of the most complicated aspects of their duties, from the details of how a GM actually performs in-game and frames a story to ways to create adventures and juggle the myriad aspects of a campaign.
Mediator: Just as GMs make sure all of a game's plots and rules work together to entertain, they must also ensure that the players themselves mesh and cooperate. From tips on handling unusual characters and common PC problems to the delicate tasks of introducing new players and addressing the needs of several gamer archetypes, Chapter 3: Player Characters offers GMs a host of suggestions to help them avoid, ease, and handle the wide variety of challenges that arise from both ingame characters and their real-world players.
Actor: Through the GM, the cast of entire fantasy worlds takes the stage. In a given session, a Game Master might play a generous peasant or a conniving king, a rampaging dragon or an enigmatic deity. Whatever the persona, the GM's characters are only as convincing, endearing, despicable, or memorable as the person who portrays them. Chapter 4: Nonplayer Characters deals with designing and depicting nonplayer characters, encouraging players to take a vested interest in NPCs, creating sinister villains, and many more suggestions to bring even the smallest role to life.
Patron: While GMs constantly confront their players with all sorts of dangers, they also serve as the source of every reward the PCs ever gain, from each experience point to treasures of legend. Chapter 5: Rewards aids GMs in creating and managing a wide variety of rewards, and includes ways to handle common challenges presented by character wealth and bring new life and adventure to old treasures.
World Builder: Whether running games on Golarion, home of the official Pathfinder campaign setting, or on a world of their own creation, GMs control nearly every aspect of an entire fantasy reality. With not just one world, but perhaps even multiple planets, planes, or even stranger settings under the GM's direction, the more insight and forethought invested into the ways and workings of locations, the more believable these become. Details on these elements, along with considerations on societies, time, technology, and more fill Chapter 6: Creating a World.
Storyteller: Among a GM's most important tasks is imagining and telling engaging stories. To aid in this task, Chapter 7: Adventures presents expansive discussions on several of the settings most common in the Pathfinder RPG, focusing on considerations and helpful rules GMs can employ wherever their tales might take them. In addition, numerous idea-generating charts and random encounter tables assure that GMs never lack for details or excitement once their stories reach their destinations.
Game Designer: Even with the vast range of options presented in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, only GMs know what threats their players might face or powers they might come to control. Just as GMs arbitrate the rules within their games, so can they manipulate, repurpose, and wholly invent new rules to improve their games. Chapter 8: Advanced Topics not only offers GMs a variety of new rule subsystems and considerations for running challenging types of adventures, but also expands upon several existing rules elements and demonstrates how GMs can customize the rules they already know to perfectly fit the types of adventures they want to run.
Director: Over the course of a campaign, Game Masters have need of dozens of characters and hundreds of encounters, choosing and customizing each and presenting them however best aids the overarching plot. Yet creating these elements can prove a repetitive and time-consuming task. To aid in this process, Chapter 9: NPC Gallery unveils a gallery of dozens of stat blocks for the types of NPCs most commonly encountered in the Pathfinder RPG. These characters can be used however the GM wishes, allowing him to focus on other, more exciting aspects of his campaigns.
Regardless of skill or experience as a Game Master, it's likely that every GM can identify one of these roles as an area in which she lacks experience or confidence. This GameMastery Guide seeks to address such needs, counseling on challenging aspects of campaigns, contributing new options and inspirations, and refreshing the game's classic elements. Most importantly, the countless tools herein are designed not to change games or tell GMs how they should play, but rather to inspire new stories and save effort, leaving GMs with more time to run exactly the adventures they and their groups want to play, or have been playing for years.
Over and over again this bit of "fluff" makes reference to the fact the GM's duty is to entertain the players. Some players are entertained by a world that levels up as they do; by not facing any encounter they can't handle. Other players want a more "realistic" world where there are enemies that, despite their very best efforts, they just can't beat. Some like completely linear stories; others like a sandbox that they can shape as they go. No option in this game is wrong, or right, because, as I mentioned earlier, it is a game designed to entertain everyone at the table. I think the biggest problem, the one that occurs the most often, is that either a GM fails to sit down and have a conversation with his/her players ahead of time to see what everyone wants from the game, or, even after having that conversation, they're confronted with a group that wants different things. It seems like the biggest problem this hobby faces on the personal/social level, is matching players and GMs that all have similar game philosophies. Even these messageboard threads, as limited as their percentile participation in the overall worldwide hobby are, clearly show that to be the case.
The random orc, who can crit you do death with his rusty greataxe, is just part of the fun, for ME.
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.
IF every death is pre-planned by the DM, such as "only in the epic fight, against the big bad evil guy, is where you CAN actually die", then every other fight will be plainly boring.
The random orc, who can crit you do death with his rusty greataxe, is just part of the fun, for ME.
I think most people would agree with that, to some extent. It just becomes a matter of taste between "a random orc should have a 0.1% chance of killing my PC" vs. "a random orc should have a 50% chance of killing my PC" or some point in between.
We are of a dying breed...
Maybe, although I think the number of "old school" players who didn't like hard-core lethal adventures is underrepresented on threads like this.
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.
Why?
|
|
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.Why?
I know this wasn't specifically asked of me, but I'll take a stab at it none-the-less...
For me, it adds a level of "realism" to the game. It adds a certain amount of danger that you can't get from an environment that is scaled specifically to your character...
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.Why?I know this wasn't specifically asked of me, but I'll take a stab at it none-the-less...
For me, it adds a level of "realism" to the game. It adds a certain amount of danger that you can't get from an environment that is scaled specifically to your character...
This is a false dichotomy. Scaling and the inability of avoiding death are two separate issues, and you can have a world that scales but deals out death by chance (Tomb of Horrors), a world that doesn't scale and doesn't deal out death by chance (Kingmaker might be close to this), a world that scales and doesn't deal out death by chance (most modern game design), and a world that doesn't scale and does deal out death by chance (your "old school" ideal).
But, regardless, extending the query: Why is such a level of realism important to you in your game experience?