|
OK,
Here it goes how many of you feel as the DM/Player that the Player should have all the same knowledge of the dungeon/campaign/adventure as the DM?
I feel that there is no reason for the Player to have the same knowledge about such as the DM, as he is the one running it and of course there are often times things going on behind the scene that the player(s) are just not aware of.
I understand this question is vague but i'd like a feel for general opinion on this before delving deeper into it.
Thanks,
Many of us have an understandngi that a player is not to read anything that he is in as a player. It is pretty much equivalent with cheating.
I have never even seen such things recommended.
Yeah, totally agree with Wraith.
If I find out a player has intimate knowledge of a campaign/module or whatever, he gets to play the monsters vs the players or is excused.
Yeah, I have never seen anyone claim that a player should read the adventure before playing it.
Not only is that more or less cheating, but also ruins the fun for everyone.
I've actually called out a player after a game for exhibiting, what I thought to be, specific "behind the screen" knowledge. The player admitted that they had procured a copy of the module and had read through "some" of it. We discussed it and the player agreed that's akin to cheating. Much like Noah and Wraith have already said. If a player has knowledge of what is "supposed" to happen in a module or adventure path, they've essentially just ruined the campaign for themselves and anyone else that benefits from their "behind the screen" knowledge. It's a no-no. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that would be happy about it. HOWEVER!!! If you have a very controlled player, it is entirely possible for them to "forget" any knowledge they gained from an AP or module, and play their character as if they knew nothing. This requires a lot of self discipline, but I have seen it done effectively.
|
|
Alright since there is some input here I show go into further detail.
I'm running a homebrew setting and adventure. So there is NO way for the player to know what is happening. Perhaps now in hindsight maybe more of this is a question on how to deal with the dreaded rules lawyer.
It is a multi level dungeon/complex. The group has been using one room in particular on the first level for resting and such. After venturing into the second level they now have to worry about patrols. Well patrols that would be looking for them. During a gaurdshift one of the members heard something outside the room, a conversation but he did not understand the language. Wakes everyone up, no one wants to exit the room and the baddies knowing this isn't an ideal situation don't burst down the door. Instead they set a trap.
There is only ONE way to the lower levels, through a large chamber! Baddies set up in this room, have time to hide themselves and set their ambush. The party walks into the room. I draw the map out, then have one player:
Rogue: "I stealth"
DM: "Ok roll it."
Rogue: "30"
DM: "Sure"
Now I rolled perception checks with modifiers for the baddies, all goblins. Well I gave them bonuses, which I don't feel I need too explain to the player. All I say is I need a 20 on the dice to see him. I get three 20's! Yeah me! Out of 8. Now I gave everyone a perception check to see them hiding, and those that succeeding are not caught flat footed in the surprise round. Anyway fight goes on, players descimate the goblins.
Then the next day I get an email from the rogue about Skill checks and DC and how a 20 isn't an auto success. I as DM don't feel I need to explain the details of this encounter to him or all that was involved. And i'm waiting for another response from him on this matter and depending what it is...well lets just say I may just become a player and let someone else DM. This dude after almost every session sends me something he didn't agree with it. I take most of this with a grain of salt and understand it's his personality.
But with the above info, what would YOU do as the DM?
Alright since there is some input here I show go into further detail.
I'm running a homebrew setting and adventure. So there is NO way for the player to know what is happening. Perhaps now in hindsight maybe more of this is a question on how to deal with the dreaded rules lawyer.
It is a multi level dungeon/complex. The group has been using one room in particular on the first level for resting and such. After venturing into the second level they now have to worry about patrols. Well patrols that would be looking for them. During a gaurdshift one of the members heard something outside the room, a conversation but he did not understand the language. Wakes everyone up, no one wants to exit the room and the baddies knowing this isn't an ideal situation don't burst down the door. Instead they set a trap.
There is only ONE way to the lower levels, through a large chamber! Baddies set up in this room, have time to hide themselves and set their ambush. The party walks into the room. I draw the map out, then have one player:
Rogue: "I stealth"
DM: "Ok roll it."
Rogue: "30"
DM: "Sure"Now I rolled perception checks with modifiers for the baddies, all goblins. Well I gave them bonuses, which I don't feel I need too explain to the player. All I say is I need a 20 on the dice to see him. I get three 20's! Yeah me! Out of 8. Now I gave everyone a perception check to see them hiding, and those that succeeding are not caught flat footed in the surprise round. Anyway fight goes on, players descimate the goblins.
Then the next day I get an email from the rogue about Skill checks and DC and how a 20 isn't an auto success. I as DM don't feel I need to explain the details of this encounter to him or all that was involved. And i'm waiting for another response from him on this matter and depending what it is...well lets just say I may just become a player and let someone else DM. This dude after almost every session sends me something he didn't agree with it. I take most of this...
He may not trust your rules-fu. If you run light and loose he may be a rules guy like myself who values consistency. I would just ask him why he keeps questioning you to be honest.
Neither play style is wrong, assuming that is the case, but if you run things loosely, and fudge dice rolls then I would state it openly so he knows you are not making errors, but doing things your way.It is also possible he is making assumptions that he should not be making.
PS:At least he waits until after the session, and does not bring the game to halt trying to tell you how to DM. It is a lot more respectful than other stories I have heard.
|
|
Right and I agree with how respectfull he is about it. But it's just starting to get annoying.
I don't fudge any rolls, I roll them in front of my players.
In regards to the situation above I felt as though he was only going "stealth" mode early because I drew out the encounter room. His normal thing is they get to where they are going, he goes 'stealth' and scouts ahead while the party waits for him to come back with a status update of their situation or what lies ahead.
You said they heard talking in that room I'd have probably gone "stealth" mode as well or door kicked in sword swinging.
His normal thing is they get to where they are going, he goes 'stealth' and scouts ahead while the party waits for him to come back with a status update of their situation or what lies ahead.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If these were lowly, single HD goblins, then he should have been able to pull it off easily.
It seems most topics today fall right into my current grief ... sheesh.
In my current campaign, aside from nerfing my class features, my DM loves to nullify my skills. He pretty much loves making everything I do useless in some fashion. Try not to do this!
If a character has great skills, he's EARNED them. He's developing a scout-type character, and he will get the most enjoyment out of performing the way he's designed his character. Don't worry, he'll fail eventually, just be patient and play by the rules, just like you expect your players to.
I've rolled 25+ Diplomacy checks vs commoners and failed in the campaign I'm playing now to an opposed roll even. What the heck is that?!
Seriously, let the players do what they do best without manipulating against them. All it will do is make them feel like the unluckiest people alive and suck the fun right out of the game, if you do.
This is coming from my own personal experience as a player over the last few weeks.
Edit: Just wanted to add that it's not 'rules lawyering' when a DM is painfully obvious when fudging rolls against the party.
|
|
Allow me to clarify:
The room they rested in, direclty outside is a hallway. From the hallway they heard the conversation. They continued to rest that night in their 'safe' room, then went about into the hallway the following morn. Through the hallway, and into another new room is where the encounter happened.
If the player in question was ALWAYS stealth mode everytime they left that room there would be no issue in my eyes with the above scenario, and yes none of the goblins would've seen him. But again I go back to what I said before, he doesn't leave the room stealthed. He normally goes stealth once they are about to explore new areas or hear/notice something ahead. He went stealth once I drew up the encounter room on the mat.
I'm all about not fudging rolls, if he makes a badass stealthy, which he has he'll be able to be stealthy. Hell he even has a ring that allows him to vanish for one round. Nice to establish stealth!
To the OP. You did it right, and you're right that you don't need to explain it to your player in game. He was perfectly within his rights to raise it to you after the game, and you should explain your reasoning to him.
What we are talking about is situational modifiers, which falls squarely within the realm of ordinary DM discretion. In this case, the goblins were aware of the party, deliberately set an ambush in terrain they knew well and knew the PCs would have to pass through. They know the PCs are coming and from where, have set themselves up in position to watch that approach, and are alert. That sounds like some pretty significant Perception modifiers to me. I'd say in the +10 range. In short, stealthing just isn't a good option in that situation.
If the players want to be stealthy in this situation, they need to roleplay and come up with a plan for how they are going to try to overcome those situational modifiers, not just say "I'm making a stealth roll", perhaps by climbing the walls and coming in high where the short little goblins aren't looking.
To use an even more blunt example, I don't care what your Diplomacy score is or what your roll, you aren't going to convince the devout nun with a vow of chastity to have public sex with your entire party in a barroom. Her situational modifiers in that situation are through the roof.
To summarize, this game is about more than just simple die-rolling and number-crunching. To work well, it requires a lot of GM discretion to be realistic (in the sense of allowing enough suspension of disbelief to permit immersion), challenging and fun. GMs should strive to be consistent in the way they use their discretion, and should be willing to explain their logic after the game if someone has questions. Players should respect the GM's discretion and hold their questions until after the game. And everyone should recognize that occasionally the GM will get it wrong. Players should cut him some slack, and GMs shouldn't be afraid to admit their mistakes and correct for the next time.
To the OP. You did it right, and you're right that you don't need to explain it to your player in game. He was perfectly within his rights to raise it to you after the game, and you should explain your reasoning to him.
What we are talking about is situational modifiers, which falls squarely within the realm of ordinary DM discretion. In this case, the goblins were aware of the party, deliberately set an ambush in terrain they knew well and knew the PCs would have to pass through. They know the PCs are coming and from where, have set themselves up in position to watch that approach, and are alert. That sounds like some pretty significant Perception modifiers to me. I'd say in the +10 range. In short, stealthing just isn't a good option in that situation.
If the players want to be stealthy in this situation, they need to roleplay and come up with a plan for how they are going to try to overcome those situational modifiers, not just say "I'm making a stealth roll", perhaps by climbing the walls and coming in high where the short little goblins aren't looking.
Situation modifiers are perfectly acceptable. The OP was unclear, at least to me, when stating, "Well I gave them bonuses, which I don't feel I need too explain to the player."
A simple, "You left the room prior to stealthing, and therefore they have a situational modifier," would have cleared it all up on the spot. Nothing wrong with disclosing what the player did 'wrong', so they can learn from it.
To use an even more blunt example, I don't care what your Diplomacy score is or what your roll, you aren't going to convince the devout nun with a vow of chastity to have public sex with your entire party in a barroom. Her situational modifiers in that situation are through the roof.
Not even close to the situation in which the Diplomacy should have EASILY worked.
... GMs should strive to be consistent in the way they use their discretion, and should be willing to explain their logic after the game if someone has questions....
Where do I sign up for this group?
A few things to note:
1) When a player questions the DCs I set, I just let them know that there are factors that they are unaware of and that the DCs are correct. Sometimes I tell them what those factors are later, sometimes I don't. In this case, he walked into a room with the goblins in hiding. He actually shouldn't have been able to use stealth in the first place since he was being watched from the beginning.
2) I allow characters to use stealth sometimes in situations that may seem like metagaming. The reasons are simple: the characters are not the players. A scout, for example, would often be looking for subtle signs of an ambush. Even if he doesn't overtly notice anything he could still get a feeling. It's something that we covered in training in the Army. I noticed several potential ambush sites (all but one were actually ambushes) in training. I couldn't tell the Drill Sergeant why, I just knew. I got better at this once I got out of training. Also, keep in mind that the character's Intelligence and Wisdom scores are probably not the same as the player's. He may do some things that the player wouldn't normally do. I allow a few instances of minor metagaming based on the character's Intelligence and Wisdom scores. It's very free form and not really consistent but my players don't mind. If you wanted to solidify it, you could allow a number of minor metagaming equal to an average of the character's Intelligence and Wisdom modifiers.
3) To minimize the arguing about some die rolls, you should be making them yourself. Stealth and Perception are two that you should probably be doing.
So in the end should I have to tell the player that there was situational modifiers to the encounter and what they are?
Nope. Just that they exist.
Bob_Loblaw is also correct that some player skill rolls are best left for the DM to make in secrecy.
A few examples are Forgery, Stealth, Disguise, Disable Device - Traps, Perception - Find Traps, and many more.
Their successes should sometimes be left a mystery to create the air of suspense.
I can sympathize with both sides of this issue. I have been on the recieving end of seemingly rediculous situations as a player. I remember a campaign where the enemies made over 60 consecutive single target saves against my spells/effects. The reason I know is I try to avoid falling into the trap of remembering the failures more then the successes, so I thought I'd write it down to I could see it actually wasnt as skewed as I thought. And well I was wrong, the dm's creatures never failed a roll where I targeted a single opponent. Eventually I challenged the dm on it because I thought it was pretty absurd. And I discovered he wasnt fudging rolls in favor of his monsters, he just manipulated things to give them high saves. He accounted for it in rewards of treasure and experience, but his enemies had much higher then typical saves because he wanted harder fights.
I think the problem is that you can fall into a certain perception of a dm fudging things in favor of his monsters to thward the players and feel slighted even when it is simply the dm making an effort to make things more challenging.
At the same time I certainly dont want to explain every point of attack bonus or AC or whatever to my players either during or after the game. So it is important to maintain that player dm trust. Somewhere along the lines the OP has lost this players trust that he is following the rules (or houserules or what have you), and that he isn't being adversarial with the players. I think rather then discussing whether or not the right rules are there, you need to have a discussion about playstyle and about what rules you use explicately and what things you ballpark or add adhoc bonuses and penalties. This discussion will help the player understand where things are coming from. The trust needs to be re-established.
I'd say there may also be a question whether or not the PCs could even use stealth vs the goblins. Without any concealment or cover, the PCs can't succeed at being stealthy and darkness is no concealment to a creature with darkvision. If there was no other concealment terrain or corners to hide behind, all of the goblins would be able to see the PC trying to sneak into the room.
|
|
Honestly I don't feel it's a matter of trust. The player in question, just in his own personality is a questioning fellow. Seriously the game could go perfectly smooth and the following day there is a question. Sometimes not even pertaining to anything that happened.
He is just that person who; encounter plays out one way, everything smooth. Then the next day I get an email full of: What if this had happened? What if blah?
As I said before all in all I take it with a grain of salt and after one encounter he sees things could've played out differently and is now asking questions to answer any what if scenarios he has running in his head.
I can sympathize with both sides of this issue. I have been on the recieving end of seemingly rediculous situations as a player. I remember a campaign where the enemies made over 60 consecutive single target saves against my spells/effects. The reason I know is I try to avoid falling into the trap of remembering the failures more then the successes, so I thought I'd write it down to I could see it actually wasnt as skewed as I thought. And well I was wrong, the dm's creatures never failed a roll where I targeted a single opponent. Eventually I challenged the dm on it because I thought it was pretty absurd. And I discovered he wasnt fudging rolls in favor of his monsters, he just manipulated things to give them high saves. He accounted for it in rewards of treasure and experience, but his enemies had much higher then typical saves because he wanted harder fights.
I think the problem is that you can fall into a certain perception of a dm fudging things in favor of his monsters to thward the players and feel slighted even when it is simply the dm making an effort to make things more challenging.
At the same time I certainly dont want to explain every point of attack bonus or AC or whatever to my players either during or after the game. So it is important to maintain that player dm trust. Somewhere along the lines the OP has lost this players trust that he is following the rules (or houserules or what have you), and that he isn't being adversarial with the players. I think rather then discussing whether or not the right rules are there, you need to have a discussion about playstyle and about what rules you use explicately and what things you ballpark or add adhoc bonuses and penalties. This discussion will help the player understand where things are coming from. The trust needs to be re-established.
I'd have to say at this point, after the plethora of occasions in which my DM has thwarted nearly my every move with blatant and sick fudging or simply no regard for how skills work, he's doing worse than that. In a situation, such as yours above, I'll usually point out that the monsters appear better-equipped than normal for their race or somehow give the impression they are more capable than 'normal' when I do something like that. It makes it so much more acceptable to experienced players when you do.
|
|
Nice points!
So what i'm taking away from this also is that I never should've allowed him to use stealth vs creatures with Darkvision, when there was no cover coming into the large open room? And with that train of thought it was bad of me as the DM to allow the roll since he doesn't have anything like Hide in plain sight ability?
Nice points!
So what i'm taking away from this also is that I never should've allowed him to use stealth vs creatures with Darkvision, when there was no cover coming into the large open room? And with that train of thought it was bad of me as the DM to allow the roll since he doesn't have anything like Hide in plain sight ability?
No if there wasnt any cover or something to conceal besides darkness, the goblins would have automatically seen him regardless of how well he rolled. It is one of the drawbacks of a lack of facing rules in pathfinder. You cant sneak if you are 'behind' someone or out of their range of vision, because there is no way to establish what behind is.
A few things from my perspective.
One: I'd have informed your player that "I know a 20 isn't an automatic success. But given the circumstance modifiers in play a 19 was a failure and 20 wasn't. That's all that was going on."
Two: You don't - and shouldn't - start explaining or justifying what you do. That being said, taking player input isn't a bad thing. The more you lift the veil and reveal what you've done and precisely why, the more you invite differing opinion. I don't mean a case of your rules-fu being off. I mean cases where you've decided a +5 modifier to some circumstance is fair and your player might feel that only a +2 is justified because X, Y, and Z. Revealing what the modifiers are and why exactly you assigned them just provides ammunition for argument.
Three: I suggest working out SOP. Standard Operating Procedure. In all of my games - player or DM - the PCs work out their SOP. I don't need to be told "we check for traps" each time someone reaches a door. I don't need to be told "we detect magic" each time treasure is sorted out. A party of PCs should work out their general default tactics and should be assumed to be following them.
To expand on #3, we generally establish a default "marching order". Have the PCs align their minis as they usually would be in a given environment. If the rogue is always 30 ft in front, so be it. Also, if their standard trap-searching technique is to have everyone out of the room, they should say so. Find out what they normally do.
From then on, you can narrate things, describing only. Give plenty of detail so your players have an opportunity to override SOP. "What, wait... a rope bridge? Um, the paladin who's usually first... in back. She's too heavy."
That way, you describe travel, then you can abruptly stop and draw a room on the table. Mini-placement should adhere to SOP norms, and what stance the party is in (ie. stealth, rush, retreat etc) are all givens. No metagaming, just... Showtime!
one thing I'd like to mention. I'n regards to the players decision to initially stealth. if you want to avoid this don't out a battkemap down players read body language cues from dms all the time even when they don't even realize it.
As a general rule… if the player asks, explain yourself. There may be times that it would spoiler the plot to explain. If that is the case tell the player that you can’t explain now, but all will be clear within the next few sessions. If you can’t even give a reason you are willing to put up to scrutiny, then it’s almost assuredly a bad reason, or without reason – ‘because I say-so’ is not legitimate. GMs that don’t value transparency and group input may say it’s because, ‘oh, the game will fall apart if the players know the rules and/or play by the same rules as enemies!’, but I don’t buy it.
Can anyone give me an example in gaming or life where a good leader’s team is destroyed or even just made slightly worse, because people get a better understanding of what in the hell the leader is thinking – assuming again that no story spoilers are involved? Anyone?
Now, is ‘because I think it will be more fun’ legitimate? Sometimes, yes. However if the ‘ruling’ involves nurfing PCs’ abilities (even a lowly skill check), then I don’t see how that is more fun. There are gazillions of ways a GM can legitimately challenge the PCs. Making up houserules on the fly that only benefit enemies is just not necessary. Any GM who tells me it is (as a matter of course, mistakes are different) is not one I’m going to have fun playing under, and that is something I’d rather know sooner than later.
If you want to add modifiers to checks, that’s totally legitimate – but why not simply say ‘creatures lying in wait to ambush get +10 (or whatever) to perception’? Why not give the players that knowledge to use for themselves – or is it only enemies that get this bonus?
|
During a gaurdshift one of the members heard something outside the room, a conversation but he did not understand the language. Wakes everyone up, no one wants to exit the room and the baddies knowing this isn't an ideal situation don't burst down the door. Instead they set a trap.
There is only ONE way to the lower levels, through a large chamber! Baddies set up in this room, have time to hide themselves and set their ambush....
Now I rolled perception checks with modifiers for the baddies, all goblins. Well I gave them bonuses, which I don't feel I need too explain to the player....
That's all you need to say.
The player is not privy to any circumstance mods that may be floating around, any buffs that may have been cast (maybe the goblin boss had drunk a potion of owl's wisdom to increase his Perception?).Maybe having so many goblins watching each other's backs provide them all with multiple Aid Another mods? They aren't all going to blink at the same time, or get a speck of soot in their eye in synchronised formation.
Given that the guy on watch didn't understand the conversation, they can't say for sure what was discussed.
Given that there really is only one path, given that the goblins know the PCs are there, and that barring teleportation, they have to come through this chamber, I think you're generous for only giving them +10 to spot him.
This is not some bored guard, lazily picking his nose in a hallway that has seen no action for months ("Whyohwhy do they make me stand here? Nothing ever happens..."). These goblins are on full alert, for an intruder they know has broken in. It's not a case of 'You, stand over there, in case anyone comes past', but 'Everyone! get ready for when they come past!'.
Reverse the situation.
Tell them their home base got ransacked by goblins, and none of their henchmen or the town watch saw a thing.
See how quickly they come up with reasons why that could never happen.
Right and I agree with how respectfull he is about it. But it's just starting to get annoying.
I don't fudge any rolls, I roll them in front of my players.
In regards to the situation above I felt as though he was only going "stealth" mode early because I drew out the encounter room. His normal thing is they get to where they are going, he goes 'stealth' and scouts ahead while the party waits for him to come back with a status update of their situation or what lies ahead.
If you think he is metagaming then ask him will he be stealthing through every room unless otherwise specified if the room provides cover or not. If he says he is stealthing then be sure to double the time it takes to get through a room even if there are no baddies. This could lead to buffs running out.
You could also draw out random rooms even if no bad guys are there to see if he is going to stealth. The result will still eat time up, and he will have to decide if he is going to stealth or not.
I roll certain rolls before gameplay starts so the players don't know when to metagame if it becomes an issue. Examples are bluff checks when my NPC's are lying.
He went stealth once I drew up the encounter room on the mat.
Great minds think alike I guess.
So in the end should I have to tell the player that there was situational modifiers to the encounter and what they are?
I would not tell him what they were. All he needs to know is there were situational(circumstance) modifiers. Actually he does not need to know that, but I would let it be known as a courtesy if he ask about it.
Situation modifiers are perfectly acceptable. The OP was unclear, at least to me, when stating, "Well I gave them bonuses, which I don't feel I need too explain to the player."A simple, "You left the room prior to stealthing, and therefore they have a situational modifier," would have cleared it all up on the spot. Nothing wrong with disclosing what the player did 'wrong', so they can learn from it.
To use an even more blunt example, I don't care what your Diplomacy score is or what your roll, you aren't going to convince the devout nun with a vow of chastity to have public sex with your entire party in a barroom. Her situational modifiers in that situation are through the roof.Not even close to the situation in which the Diplomacy should have EASILY worked.
... GMs should strive to be consistent in the way they use their discretion, and...
I agree with your analysis at the top, so long as you don't start a long argument about whether the GM is doing it right during the game. Very boring waste of time for all involved. The GM just says there are situational modifiers the players are unaware of, and everyone moves on. Deeper discussion should take place after the game.
As for my example, obviously it is extreme, but I did that deliberately to counter the very common feeling many players have that if they roll a natural 20 on Diplomacy and have a dozen ranks, they should be able to convince anyone to do exactly what they want. I know nothing about the individual situation you are talking about except what you tell me. Sounds bad, heard from just your perspective, but the GM may very well have reasons neither of us is aware of.
As for your last, I think there are a lot of really good groups and GMs out there, judging from the intelligent, well-reasoned posts I see from multiple GMs on these boards. If you haven't found one to your liking, that's a great reason to take the reins yourself for a while. And if you're ever in the northern VA area, feel free to let me know and you can drop in and see how we roll. We ain't perfect, but we have a lot of fun.
Can anyone give me an example in gaming or life where a good leader’s team is destroyed or even just made slightly worse, because people get a better understanding of what in the hell the leader is thinking – assuming again that no story spoilers are involved? Anyone?
Too easy, and I'm surprised one of the military members of the community didn't already respond. In combat situations, there can be no questioning of the commander's orders just because the grunts don't understand them. Questioning those orders and/or hesitating to carry them out could indeed, quite literally, get everyone killed. Of course, since the Nuremberg War Trials, an exception has been made to this in the extreme case that the commander gives illegal and/or immoral orders.
That's real life combat, not PF/D&D, but you did ask for an example.
In PF/D&D, I think it is OK to occasionally question something if you think the GM got it wrong and it can be easily corrected. Doing it regularly can just destroy a game, however, by undermining the GM's authority, shattering the suspension of disbelief, and wasting everyone's precious gaming time on rules discussions. Much better to just accept the GM's ruling and then ask about it later, over a beer. Of course, as my avatar implies, I think discussing things over a beer can solve a lot of the world's problems.
Can anyone give me an example in gaming or life where a good leader’s team is destroyed or even just made slightly worse, because people get a better understanding of what in the hell the leader is thinking – assuming again that no story spoilers are involved? Anyone?
Too easy, and I'm surprised one of the military members of the community didn't already respond. In combat situations, there can be no questioning of the commander's orders just because the grunts don't understand them. Questioning those orders and/or hesitating to carry them out could indeed, quite literally, get everyone killed. Of course, since the Nuremberg War Trials, an exception has been made to this in the extreme case that the commander gives illegal and/or immoral orders.
That's real life combat, not PF/D&D, but you did ask for an example.
That is taking time you don’t have to talk it out causing problems, not having more information causing problems. Possibly related, but not the same. In the type of situation you describe, understanding the commander’s reasoning will not adversary affect the team in any way. If anything it will do the opposite.
So, not that easy :) Feel free to try again.
|
|
James - Sorry but the situation above is different than say "A group of goblins sets a trap/ambush on a commonly used road."
The situation above is more like, "0100 hrs, goblins locate vandals, knowing the destruction the vandals have already caused they know they cannot burst through the door and stand a chance to win. So the move back, knowing that these folks should be up and about shortly and if they continue their standard actions will press deeper into the complex. So the back track, set up a ambush in an area giving them greater tactics with distance weapons and allow them to see the party first. 0600, the party walks into the trap.
So fatigue, I say no, they were there for mere hours, plus they are a nocturnal race for the purpose of this as that is their normal shift work routine as a patrol unit.
Everything is in place and in honesty the Goblins have a small bit of help; a Worg.
|
|
So what kind of bonus did you give on the perception check and why? I'm asking not to take you to task, but rather to help the introspection here that one should always have when making such adjustments. It's very easy to do the players a disservice one way or the other here imho.
Probably a fraction of the bonus most players would have demanded, for their henchmen, defending the PCs' home base vs an invading band of goblins....;)
So what kind of bonus did you give on the perception check and why? I'm asking not to take you to task, but rather to help the introspection here that one should always have when making such adjustments. It's very easy to do the players a disservice one way or the other here imho.Probably a fraction of the bonus most players would have demanded, for their henchmen, defending the PCs' home base vs an invading band of goblins....;)
Most, maybe some. I have never had a player ask for a bonus. I am not saying the OP was not unreasonable as long as he provides the benefits both ways.
example: When the PC's break into a enemy HQ do they get a bonus for detecting traps because they know there will be kobolds?
PS: I do think the OP's player should trust the DM more unless he has a bad habit of not doing things correctly, and in that case the player can run his own game if he is that bothered by it. That is all I got. :)
Exaclty.
I went with a +10 due to familiar terrain and perperation. These Goblins were slightly different from the standard Goblin in that they had Skill Focus (Perception) instead of the improved initiative.
+10. That is a lot. That is like giving them a 10000 gp magic item to help their perception check. I am assuming the skill focus is not included since that came from a feat, and not DM fiat.
If the player knew there were non class goblins I would have not have been happy about it either, but if you are that loose with the rules he should know. That way he can decide to stay, and hopefully stop complaining since he now knows how things work, or leave.edit:With that said I am going to have to alter my reply to your original post. I still think players should stay out of AP's, but a player should know basically how you run things. I would not be happy with an enemy getting a +10 bonus, well maybe if I could get one also, but even then I might decide to not join the group without some type of discussion to understand the circumstances in which such things are possible.
I'm all about fairness. If they (the PC's) were in their own stronghold, new there was a small invading force and set up an ambush having all the same factors as above they would get the same benefit. Though I would turn it into a negative on the NPC side so as not to confuse their dice rolls.
I edited the last post to shed new light on your original post.
Not knowing what is in an AP, and knowing how your DM handles modifiers are two different things.
Then the next day I get an email from the rogue about Skill checks and DC and how a 20 isn't an auto success.
That's not a lie, you know. A 20 is just a 20 for everything except attack rolls, saving throws, and a handful of special cases.
Personally, when I'd hear "They need a 20 to beat your stealth check", I would assume that the GM forgot that rule, or never knew it. It's quite a coincidence that the stealth check is exactly 20+their bonus, and I as a GM don't usually tell them the exact target number in the middle of a fight. I might do something "they need to roll pretty good to beat that", or "Bah, I don't even need to roll, a 20 is still not enough!" When I hear "They need to roll a 20 to succeed" I automatically think of attack rolls or saves, because a 20 is always a success.
I wouldn't imply shady dealings, but I probably would bring it up just to make sure the GM isn't using the wrong rule. And I'd bring it up right there. That this guy waits for an email is actually quite civil of him. I have that habit of discussing small matters like this right there.
I as DM don't feel I need to explain the details of this encounter to him or all that was involved.
Well, of course not. At least not if there's things that wouldn't be obvious to the character. If an enemy has cover because he sits behind a low wall, I'll point that out.
But with the above info, what would YOU do as the DM?
Depends. Was the total Perception bonus actually just right for a roll of 20 to be successful?
Anyway, I'd answer all his questions. I would not necessarily tell him any secrets, but I'd definitely point out the rules.
And when it comes to the encounter itself, I wouldn't show them the rolls - not only do I reserve the right to fudge, showing them the dice means that you more or less tell them the enemy's stats. Players aren't just handed the sheets, neither directly nor indirectly. And in the case of a skill roll, I wouldn't comment anything. They don't know yet whether there are enemies, and I won't tell them that they need a 20 to spot him. I'd roll dice - whether something's there or not.
In regards to the situation above I felt as though he was only going "stealth" mode early because I drew out the encounter room.
Well, that is metagaming. "I hide because you draw up a map, so there must be someone nearby". I'd totally mess with the guy's head by describing random rooms in greater detail than they need, I'd call for perception checks, I'd draw up maps, the whole nine yards.
Luckily my players don't do that stuff, so I can ask them for Perception checks and the like without going into combat mode because of it.
On the other hand, I'm a bit lenient, because the player's aren't in on the action. They just get verbal descriptions, maybe some pictures and diagrams. The characters are in at ground zero. They will notice things the players won't. They have instincts and experience in sniffing out good ambush spots and the like.
It is one of the drawbacks of a lack of facing rules in pathfinder. You cant sneak if you are 'behind' someone or out of their range of vision, because there is no way to establish what behind is.
Of course there is. The guy is in the highway, looking up the hall. You can saunter up to him. Just because the rules for combat assume that you are aware of your surroundings during the fight doesn't mean that you can't just say "I'm looking northward".
Of course there is. The guy is in the highway, looking up the hall. You can saunter up to him. Just because the rules for combat assume that you are aware of your surroundings during the fight doesn't mean that you can't just say "I'm looking northward".
I agree in general. However, in this case, I think it's clear that the goblins would generally have been paying attention to the right direction since they knew where the PCs were and had set up an ambush to deal with them. Under those circumstances, by allowing the PC to try a stealth roll in plain sight of the goblins, even if he didn't avoid all notice, ended up being on the lenient side.
As far as +10 being out of line for a goblin's perception check, I don't really think so. There's +3 for the skill focus. +2 circumstance bonus for being setup in an ambush, knowing which way the PCs will come from. Maybe another +2 circumstance bonus for knowing the area so well. You're already up to +7. If they're trained with a single rank and it's a class skill, that's +4 for +11. Subtract 1 for their Wisdom penalty and you've got +10. I don't think it's clear that all of the +10 was from a circumstance bonus, particularly when the OP says the player rolled a 30 and the goblins needed a 20 to match it. That implies that +10 incorporates everything the goblins had going for them, not just circumstance bonuses.