With only a +1 weapon and no cloak of resistance of any bonus, the player would need the luck of gods to function. Basically rolling a 20 to hit, 20 to save, basically he needs to roll a 20 on every roll to function because he has no gear and is well below the level of the party. I don't know how any GM can balance that.
It's actually not that hard, it just requires encounter design that takes into account the relative power levels, and players that realize that that is happening.
Back in 1st edition, we regularly had PCs 5-6 levels lower than the current PCs due to player death, or even a 10th level character that decided to dual class and was functioning at level 1. Because of the way experience worked, these tended to be short-term problems, but in cases like this the DM would normally have an encounter against, say, an Ogre Mage. But because there were some cohorts/followers/low level PCs/whatever, there would also be hobgoblins or orcs or gnolls or whatever that were going to set off a trap, drop a boulder to set off an avalanche, whatever... the high level PCs would go after the big threat, while the low-level PCs deal with the smaller threat, and potentially get access to something that let them be effective vs the big threat if they wiped out the little guys quickly enough.
Lower level characters can provide supporting fire or buff spells.
You could run the lower level character with likewise characters till they are the required level.
Are you trying to adjust the game to accomadate mixed levels, or do you want to adjust the characters?
Brian Bachman's post is the best advice you'll get here on your OP.
Hey, really. Everything is a matter of how you see the game and what experiences you have.
On this very thread, I've read elements that would make me a bad DM. I've raised my eyebrows a few times and waved it away. My players are having fun progressing through most of what I throw at them.
- Serious plots involving enemies far stronger than themselves (Which they must outsmart. Some would say I don't measure my PCs to things they can handle. They would be wrong. They win without necessarily drawing their weapons.)
- They're laughing to tears because of a terribly unlucky NPC that follows them, interacts with them, fight with them (Some might say he has the spotlight often, while I think he's just a way to stimulate the PCs, give a constant reminder of in-game speaking, and keep things running should the players become too static.)
- I have a player that wanted to bang his fist on the table because a part of the story filled him with outrage. Injustice in his PC's face and he couldn't do anything about it on the spot. Hell, he's still talking about how epic the end of that quest was, 2 years after. (An emotive player to begin with, but some would say that placing vividly heart-taking subjects to the table can be bad). My whole group (him included) thinks it's immersive and fun, and in the end gives chills no other game would ever give.
Sure, I'm not perfect, and some out-of-game problems sometimes bug me, but I don't consider myself a bad DM. I'm trying to be as fair as I can to everyone, building an atmosphere, make my players into heroes for a couple of hours per week, create memorable encounters, give everyone a chance to shine and feel epic.
I think you become a bad DM the moment you never reconsider yourself, don't listen to your players, or play against them.
Now for pointers; Talk to your player. If he doesn't enjoy himself, ask him reasons. Maybe he feels technically weak and lacks the experience to make up for it with other means, probably more RolePlay oriented. Maybe he expects a different type of gameplay. Can't know. You might be able to give him some time changing your "mode of play" but he should understand that it cannot be his way all the time. If not, well he should find another more fitting table for him, that's all.
Brian Bachman's post is the best advice you'll get here on your OP.
Indeed.
Brian, Jeremiziah and Turin -- you're all INSANE!
If you're not a diehard fan that bleeds Purple -- YOU DON'T HAVE A SOUL!.
(At least you admit your Problem and acknowledge that your steeler baggage is what's ruining your life.)
If I'm bleeding purple I'm concerned about something more serious than my football allegiences ... :P
I have played in other systems where characters weren't remotely balanced. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as players are enjoying the game. However, constraining a starting character with restrictions on gear, to put him into a position where his character is a "sidekick", seems from an outsider's point of view unfair.
I imagine a lot of this is 'plot' driven. Obviously this player showed up after the game had already started... (or at least the characters did...)
Bringing new characters in can be pretty tricky when your group is in the middle of nowhere.
The last 'back up' character i had to bring in. Was because my paladin died in a one-on-one fight with a dragon... Which was an awesome night...
But the next character was introduced as one of the hostages of the cult and as a wizard the only item he had with him was his spellbook in a chest. He'd been there too long for the rest of his mundane gear to be around... and if it hadn't been for 'eschew materials'... he REALLy would have been up a creek!! As it was he was only at about half effectiveness until they got out of the dungeon and he was able to track down some better components.
I seem to remember making the comment, 'Ok... umm... 16 hps... and a Dragon still out there... Ummm.. If this is a TPK, then the guy in the cage.. WASN"T my new guy, He'll join in with the next group!!! ;)"
Not EVERY night is an ideal time to join a party ;)
The player recently lead a rather skewed post regarding what I am doing and why... in which I was lambasted.
Should I simply suggest that the player that doesn't just not come? or change everything for the one (to the likely disdain of the others.. unless they are lying)?
Help.
How the heck should I know? You're not telling your side of the story. I get it that you don't want to start an argument, but maybe you are a bad DM. Maybe you do need some advice. Dunno.
For instance, there's a guy with a thread about a DM who repeatedly screwed him over on character creation choices... from not allowing a random stats roll to not actually introducing the character that ended up being created to forcing the new guy to have substandard equipment to eventually playing an the PC he originally rolled up. Maybe that's you. Maybe it's not. Maybe half of it was fabrication. Maybe it's not.
So again, how can I know you're a good or bad DM without knowing the specifics? Just because your regular playing group is accustomed to you doesn't actually prove you're good. Just that you're good enough.
Look, to be clear... I'm NOT saying you're a bad DM. I'm just saying something textually equivalent to "This Thread Is Useless Without Pictures!"
You are not a bad GM and you do not need to give us more details.
If what you say is true, and you have a table full of longterm, loyal players, and one new guy is a pill, the problem is the new guy and he ought to find himself a more compatible game.
That's all there is to it, no matter how far into the minutia the more rigid posters here want to go, and no matter how deeply the misguided here believe in and pray for a die roll and a citation in a book to tell them what fun is.
Loyal players + having fun = Good GMing.
Kick him. He has proven how and who he is by telling you how to run your business and then hauling off to a website to get his ego stroked over it.
Let him think he knows better, that's fine. He can do it in another group. No skin off of his, mine, or anybody here's nose if you run your game your way.
|
He has proven how and who he is by telling you how to run your business and then hauling off to a website to get his ego stroked over it.
Let him think he knows better, that's fine. He can do it in another group. No skin off of his, mine, or anybody here's nose if you run your game your way.
Dude, did you read the linked thread?
|
I'll refrain from commenting about specifics here before it descends into he said - she said, but if you are sincere about being a better GM I can get you a few tips.
Playing with the same group of people for years can lead to lead to some peculiarities that will look weird to a newcomer. As a group you may fall into some habits, gaming shorthand, house fules and style of play without realising. My suggestion would be to get some experience outside your group as both a player and GM. PFS is great for 'dipping the toe' as it's a small time commitment with one shot scenarios. If you play at your local gaming store, or at a conventions, you're likely to get a wider exposure to GMs and players. I've grown a lot as a GM since being involved with PFS for the last few years and I've been playing this game since the Red Box Basic.
I'd also suggest breaking up the chapters of your campaign by playing other RPGs (controversial on this board I know!). I've found a new appreciation for the Pathfinder rules by doing this. You see the game with new eyes.
Further, reading a bit of game theory can be really inspiring. Monte Cooks journal is a good play to start. I've also found Ben Robbin's blog http://arsludi.lamemage.com/ a great read and I wish I knew about it when I was running my home-brew scenarios.
Chin up.
Dude, did you read the linked thread?
To be fair, that Thread has not been confirmed as being the Player in question. The DM never said it was on this set of Forums, so until its been proven to be the Player's Lament, I don't think calling the DM out on a "Potentially Similiar yet completely different" thread is beneficial.
I've read both, and I see too many differences where I am by far not convinced they are from the same gaming group.
That being said, I still agree with the thought of talking to the other players in the group, and seeing if they agree or disagree with the new players concerns/complaints/issues.
You are not a bad GM and you do not need to give us more details.
If what you say is true, and you have a table full of longterm, loyal players, and one new guy is a pill, the problem is the new guy and he ought to find himself a more compatible game.
That's all there is to it, no matter how far into the minutia the more rigid posters here want to go, and no matter how deeply the misguided here believe in and pray for a die roll and a citation in a book to tell them what fun is.
Loyal players + having fun = Good GMing.
Kick him. He has proven how and who he is by telling you how to run your business and then hauling off to a website to get his ego stroked over it.
Let him think he knows better, that's fine. He can do it in another group. No skin off of his, mine, or anybody here's nose if you run your game your way.
This is not true at all. Like I said in another post sometimes bad DM's have players that just don't know better.
Example:I have a player who was telling me he had a "great" DM. I asked him about the guy's games since I always like to steal things from other DM's.
After the talk was over he realized he should not have put up with the DM's blatant favortism, and lack of ever setting anything up.
Now if this "great" DM was all that great my friend's opinion would not have changed. Maybe all it takes is for the OP's players to play under another DM.
Brian, Jeremiziah and Turin -- you're all INSANE!
If you're not a diehard fan that bleeds Purple -- YOU DON'T HAVE A SOUL!.
(At least you admit your Problem and acknowledge that your steeler baggage is what's ruining your life.)
You have my sympathies.
Indeed.
Brian Bachman's post is the best advice you'll get here on your OP.
Y'all are going to make me blush.
I think I disagree with this almost completely. Not so much the part about the Paladin dying on a one on one fight, I will take your word on that.
Oh yes... It was a GLORIOUS battle!! As i was playing a 'don quiote' type of paladin... who truly COULD be called 'Lawful Stupid...' Or manybe 'Lawful Crazy...." I NEVER expected him to survive TOO long... and still made it to a healthy level. When the party ended up split,
Best death i could have hoped for!!
Usually when I invite people to play in my games I do it under the pretense that it will be worth their time. Why even bother inviting someone to play if they are going to spend most of the time shining the PCs shoes before they go to bed. If the story is suppose to be survival based, and all the PCs survive by their wits then that is one thing, but to play an entire session or multiple sessions where one player starts the game trivial to everyone else seems like a poor choice in my opinion. Obviously there will be times in play where someone will shine over others, but I am not sure if I would make a habit of perpetuating it.
We've instigated an new rule I refer to as 'the quickening' rule. If your charcter dies, then the new one can come in with the same xp as the dead one. Sooooo... my new guy was coming in at lvl 7 or 8. Even without the components and mundane gear, he was hardly boot shining.
In that situation, there was NO way a fully armed and equipted charcter should just be walking down the path to meet the new group...
Since my Paladin had died in the first 20 minutes of the game night... My choices were either... A) Finish leveling up my back up wizard and join in as one of the hostages... or B) turn around and go home till the other champions found a way out of the shadow plane.
As i hadn't even assigned equiptment, it was a no brainer there!!
I think a lot of it would also depend on what value you place on your time. With my group of friends the drive out there and just WATCHING would have been time well spent ^_^
This is mostly based on speculation about the original post, but it sounds like Phantom you sort of knew what you are getting into. The other poster didn't. Contributing to the group does not always have to be in form of the PC either, but you sort of alluded to that. I think as a new member to the group though it is harder to feel like you are contributing, and the rules might need to be bent a little, the story as well.
Yeah, I'll agree things like that could be rough on a new guy. Also, Pathfinder is a lot more 'equiptment based' then 2E... even our evolved 2E.
I was just stating that sometimes things happen in the story, and 'how' you are brought in is less then ideal.
:)
|
Ok People I'm back. Thank you for all the input. Despite rampant speculation on what thread excreta this is referring to I found much of your input useful. I should have worded my post differently. It would have helped and in truth I think I was a bit angry at the time.
I have a game style it creates a 'type' of reality and it seemed that the reality that I created was in conflict with the play style of my new player.
Also after a few lengthy discussions with said player few of his concerns really had to do with play style but with "player style." In my games if the characters are jerks natural responses tend to occur.
Therefore, (and here is my major fault I suppose, because I allow it) they often act out for and against other PC's (were not talking society play here people) which can be aggravating. Eventually characters tend to develop a niche both class/skill/mechanically and socially. In this case the player was having difficulty since his characters never found a niche socially and he felt like an outcast.
I have since spent wayyyy to much time talking with the player and thus far an agreement has been made. Play style sticks however, player dynamics will change. I hope this will deal with the problems. For all the players (and I play when I can as well and understand you will have differences of opinion) out there PLEASE talk to your GM first when you have troubles/issues you will likely find us to be quite humane (when not playing the evil overlords of Nex of course).
As far as bringing people into a story... It's a story it shouldn't always be the same or similar. Furthermore when a character dies deep in the underdark or abandoned tomb of Kermit the Frooong it seems highly illogical that an equivalent level character with similar worldviews would be waiting just around the corner eager to step up and help; there need to be some transition or the story looses out big time. Therefore due to situation requirements my players find characters in places other than the tavern, but often not in wandering the aforementioned Tomb of Kermit.
Cheers
And a big thank you to all of you. I have read, understood and learned something from most of the posts.
Thank you.
|
|
Hey I don't think that makes you a bad GM at all. In fact, I only run my players at an even experience level because i am afraid of my own GMing. If you can handle it, and your original players are having fun, then the problem is with the new player. Ask him/her to kindly conform or find a new...
Thank you for the encouragement. And yes there is some creative work that goes on to make player survivability possible.
|
|
It's actually not that hard, it just requires encounter design that takes into account the relative power levels, and players that realize that that is happening.Back in 1st edition, we regularly had PCs 5-6 levels lower than the current PCs due to player death, or even a 10th level character that decided to dual class and was functioning at level 1. Because of the way experience worked, these tended to be short-term problems, but in cases like this the DM would normally have an encounter against, say, an Ogre Mage. But because there were some cohorts/followers/low level PCs/whatever, there would also be hobgoblins or orcs or gnolls or whatever that were going to set off a trap, drop a boulder to set off an avalanche, whatever... the high level PCs would go after the big threat, while the low-level PCs deal with the smaller threat, and potentially get access to something that let them be effective vs the big threat if they wiped out the little guys quickly enough.
Yep, and when there is little disparity in player level the tweaks get even simpler. As GM you control the battlefield at least to some degree. If the weaker player sends his char after the BBG when there are three obvious weaker threats nearby... well.
|
|
I'll refrain from commenting about specifics here before it descends into he said - she said, but if you are sincere about being a better GM I can get you a few tips.
Playing with the same group of people for years can lead to lead to some peculiarities that will look weird to a newcomer. As a group you may fall into some habits, gaming shorthand, house fules and style of play without realising. My suggestion would be to get some experience outside your group as both a player and GM. PFS is great for 'dipping the toe' as it's a small time commitment with one shot scenarios. If you play at your local gaming store, or at a conventions, you're likely to get a wider exposure to GMs and players. I've grown a lot as a GM since being involved with PFS for the last few years and I've been playing this game since the Red Box Basic.
I'd also suggest breaking up the chapters of your campaign by playing other RPGs (controversial on this board I know!). I've found a new appreciation for the Pathfinder rules by doing this. You see the game with new eyes.
Further, reading a bit of game theory can be really inspiring. Monte Cooks journal is a good play to start. I've also found Ben Robbin's blog http://arsludi.lamemage.com/ a great read and I wish I knew about it when I was running my home-brew scenarios.
Chin up.
Thx, yep play (myself) in PFS events and occasionally with another group. People do things differently PFS doesn't use fumble!!! shock aghast!.. meh, its all good I didn't have to prep it and was done in a few hours brilliant. Love it! but no Fumble.. hehe.
I will have a look at the blog thanks.|
|
I have played in other systems where characters weren't remotely balanced. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as players are enjoying the game. However, constraining a starting character with restrictions on gear, to put him into a position where his character is a "sidekick", seems from an outsider's point of view unfair.I imagine a lot of this is 'plot' driven. Obviously this player showed up after the game had already started... (or at least the characters did...)
Bringing new characters in can be pretty tricky when your group is in the middle of nowhere.
The last 'back up' character i had to bring in. Was because my paladin died in a one-on-one fight with a dragon... Which was an awesome night...
But the next character was introduced as one of the hostages of the cult and as a wizard the only item he had with him was his spellbook in a chest. He'd been there too long for the rest of his mundane gear to be around... and if it hadn't been for 'eschew materials'... he REALLy would have been up a creek!! As it was he was only at about half effectiveness until they got out of the dungeon and he was able to track down some better components.
I seem to remember making the comment, 'Ok... umm... 16 hps... and a Dragon still out there... Ummm.. If this is a TPK, then the guy in the cage.. WASN"T my new guy, He'll join in with the next group!!! ;)"
Not EVERY night is an ideal time to join a party ;)
Yep that's sort of how I go about it too. Although, if your in a big city and you want to dump char A and take on a new one.... well ok. Roll play it and tell me/the group why char A wants to leave and how why char B wants to join up (was he recruited or... just saw shiny new adventurers in town...sigh:( )
|
|
A few observations that may or may not be useful to you.
-- I am always very leery of threads begun by players complaining about GMs and GMs complaining about players. Even assuming that the original poster is trying to be balanced in their portrayal of things, they are limited by their own perspective.
-- Many of us completely forget that (I have been guilty at times) in our rush to provide "helpful" advice. Also, way too many of us on this forum are way, way too quick to throw around harsh judgments on players and GMs we've never met based on very limited information provided from a single source.
-- Every poster on these boards also brings their own "baggage" based on their own experiences and preferred style of play. Some tend to think the worst of GMs in every situation. Others, like me, tend to defend them. Never treat anything any of us says here as anything more than, at best, an educated and well-meaning opinion.
-- Any player or GM who tries to use advice provided on this forum to "win" an argument at his own table or make someone else look bad is being kind of a jerk. My advice to all, worth what they paid for it: be a man (or a woman) and deal with the problems at your table directly (I recommend over a beer between game sessions) rather than running to Mommy (the boards) for support.General stuff aside, a couple of more observations:
-- I too have GMed for many years, through every edition, and have had to adapt my style with each significant change in the game. Pre-3.0 it was very common to have party members of significantly different levels, and it wasn't a problem. It certainly can be in PF/3.X.
-- The game is much more high-powered, and the math plays a far greater role than before, so dramatic differences in level and/or gear can have much greater impacts. I don't think that is a particularly good thing, overall, but there is no turning back the clock.
-- Pre-3.0 there was a steeper penalty for character death, so players were frequently tempted to create a new character...
A+ I copied the whole thing just because I think it was so on point. After re reading my original post I sound like I needed to eat some humble pie. As I said before some things I have changed an hopefully it will work out .
Thanks