RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Should players have all 20 levels planned out?
I sure wouldn't want to. I'm indecisive enough just deciding on the first level of a character!
In regards to the OP (haven't read the rest of the thread), as a player I find it easiest to be immersed when I really understand the rules and mechanics and abilities of my character - because if I don't, I have the compulsive drive to learn, so it's harder to focus on being in character.
Which is more important to you as a Player, winning the game or experiencing the story?
Well, not all experiences are good... so this is tough to answer.
If experiencing the story means that I lose my character first encounter or in some random encounter... um... well, I can't experience it if I keep loosing.
On the other hand, not having a good experience would make me look for a new game (or just start GMing) instead of sticking with it and trying to "win." I made that mistake in High School for a while, and it just meant staying in a bad game way too long.
Additionally, enjoying my character also makes me more involved in the story. For ME, if I don't have a plan of where my character is going, including a lvl 1-20 build, I have a tough time getting into the character from an RP point of view... so the first few games will seem sort of hollow... like I am just fumbling around with no idea who I am playing.
Which would you rather play under, a Strict RAW GM, or one who finagles the rules to facilitate dramatic events?
I want a GM who follows the rules and whom I trust. If both of those aren't there I am going to be not running under that GM for long. I will stick around long enough to try and build that trust, but if things keep happening that frustrate my attempts to play my character because the GM thinks it makes a better story if all combat last X rounds, then I am gone.
What I want in a GM is one who knows the rules well enough they are not getting in the way of his facilitating dramatic events. I want him to see the rules as inspiration for dramatic events, not a hindrance. If the GM has to fight the rules to make a good story, I am not sure I think they know the rules well enough to GM.
Do you enjoy GM'ing? If so, why?
I do, though truth be told I wish I could play more often as well. About a 50/50 split would be ideal for me, I think.
My particular group has some issues with leadership and trust. They seem to work ok when I am driving things and trust that I will be fair in game, but one of the downsides of playing with people since highschool is that they remember the bad games that some GMs ran... even if it was a decade and half ago... and hold it against them. We are working through it though... soon we will be able to switch up GMs a lot more I think.
Do you consider GM'ing a chore, or work? If so, why?
Well, I don't get paid... so it isn't a job :-P
It's work to GM, but it's fun. Not sure what you are getting at here. I guess if someone doesn't enjoy it and isn't willing to put the work in, then don't do it, it's a game. Likewise, I like to put a lot of work into my characters (a lvl 1-20 build is a lot of work! So are the backgrounds!) and it is work AND fun.
Do you play more frequently from published works, or via "homebrew" adventures?
I vastly prefer published adventures. I get a lot of entertainment out of reading and imagining the published adventures (specifically APs) and then doing what I can to bring them to life and enhance them specifically for the players and PCs.
Do you actively try to "work" with the GM with regards to the game (i.e. providing backstory hooks, going along with a particular plotline, not assassinating random NPCs "because I could)? Or would you rather have carte blanche to do what you like, when you like?
I would much prefer to have a coherent story in the world I am in. I want to work with the GM and have us both move that story forward, but not feel trapped or railroaded or like I am not helping make the story as well.
If I spend a ton of time with character hooks and such and they all just get ignored, I am annoyed. It is tough to know what the GM is looking for in background, so I guess my suggestion here to GMs is make sure you are really communicating what you want from backgrounds and what you don't need.
Do you expect a GM (whether average, poor, or excellent)to be able to react to a wild PC tangent, and provide the same quality of game as that which he/she actually prepared for?
I think it is part of the job description, yeah. Though I guess by definition if they are a poor GM they are not performing to expectations of GM so I wouldn't expect they would (but it wouldn't make it acceptable that they are not).
As a GM I try to make sure I am crafting my plots around what the bad guys are doing, not what I expect the PCs to do. So if the PCs do something it isn't really what I expect or didn't expect... it is just what they are doing and I know the world and the bad guys well enough to say, "hrmm, here is what would happen."
Do you find it acceptable if that "off-the-cuff" adventure time is less "good" than her usual material?
I would much prefer to hear, "Wow! I had no idea things were going to head this way... I am going to need some more prep time to keep things going, lets bust out some Magic or Dominion for the rest of tonight and pick this up next session." than to have an adventure feel like we are just filling time or doing meaningless encounters to keep things moving.
A GM needs to know their limitations, some are better at improve than others, and that's ok. It's not a weakness to know your strong suits and play to them and admit when something isn't and avoid it. It's like GM min/maxing and I fully support it.
Sean Mahoney
Should players have all 20 levels planned out?
Having an idea where you are heading with the character and how the mechanics works is REAL good idea.
If someone wants to play a character who has feats with a bunch of pre-reqs and just opens the book and dismisses them because they don't have those pre-reqs or doesn't start working on them until late in the game can be very dissatisfied with their character and feel like they can't really do much.
If I put in the time to make a lvl 1-20 build and as much into the background and personality... I am REALLY into that character and want to see their story through. For me, that gets me into it!
There are players who don't feel that way though, which is fine. If they are still feeling like their character can't do as much I will see if they would accept someone else making a build for them and sitting down with them and talk about what it can do and how. If you have players who really enjoy making builds they may enjoy working with that other player.
But a player who isn't willing to put any time into his character in either background/personality or in their mechanics tends to be a problem player in my experiences. Not because they are a bad person or intentionally ruining peoples fun, but because they are not showing investment or putting the work into the game... they aren't taking it seriously.
Likewise, I think it is the GMs job to understand their builds and goals and make sure they are not making it so those goals can't be reached. And if there is a good reason they can't let them know that WAY before it would ever come up in play.
"But I really wanted to take a few levels in Red Mantis Assassin, can't we go to where I can get trained?"
"Nope, that's not where the story goes."
"If I had known that I wouldn't have made this character!!!"
And it's a good point. If YOU as the GM know that it won't work out then you need to share that with them, but you have to be as interested in what they find fun in the game.
I guess for me that is the bottom line. Be interested in what is making the game fun for the other people at the table. Don't give up what makes it fun for you, but if people enjoy builds... take the time to understand those builds and support them through RP elements.
Personally I have never had a build ruin my game. I have never felt the need to adjust encounters from the APs... they tend to be pretty deadly when I run them... even for the people who craft good builds. My guess is that there are rules adherence issues somewhere (either in their builds and what they are doing or through tactics and rules adherence/application at the table), but there is no way I can really look into that.
Sean Mahoney
In regards to the OP (haven't read the rest of the thread), as a player I find it easiest to be immersed when I really understand the rules and mechanics and abilities of my character - because if I don't, I have the compulsive drive to learn, so it's harder to focus on being in character.
I completely agree with this. But as a player that is part of the reason I make sure to spend the time (and it is not insignificant) in making a build. I want to take my time and learn all the rules and mechanics, because they are then facilitating my gameplay instead of hindering it (surprises on how my abilities work when at the table really suck... ESPECIALLY if the GM seems to be changing how my stuff works to make a better story when I took all the time to learn how the stuff works and he didn't seem interested in my character at all, just his story).
Sean Mahoney
I believe this all boils down to party composition. By party I don't mean characters, I mean the players.
Some players LOVE builds. They LOVE planning their build. Other players LOVE the story aspect and seeing what happens.
I don't think it's wise to stop the build players from being able to plot their build. It actually detracts from their experience.
I think that, as a DM/GM, if you want to push that style of play, then you need to find a composition of players that agree to this and like this.
My groups are usually very mixed. For example, my current group is six people.
Person 1 - heavy roleplayer. Loves the background. Goes into depth on her character bio. Builds etc are considered on a level-by-level basis.
Person 2 - moderately heavy roleplayer. Loves the background. Also loves his build. Has his entire character mapped out to 20th level now and they are only level 1 currently.
Person 3 - light roleplay. More into the crunch. Builds characters based on what is needed. Built a defensive tank that can take damage and stay up. Has a build mapped out.
Person 4 - light roleplay to no roleplay. More into the crunch. Typically builds offensive tanks and loves paladin classes. Has a build mapped out.
Person 5 - dislikes roleplay and gets bored with it. When roleplay starts, typically attention wanders away. More into the crunch. May have a small build map, but for the most part likes to do as much damage as possible, kill monsters, take the loot. Works with the party well in terms of what is needed/cooperative.
Person 6 - light roleplay. Tends to get bored easily. Will roleplay if directly stimulated. Otherwise if not being directly rp'd with, will wander like Person 5. May also have a small build in mind but again not too in depth. Works with the party well in terms of what is needed/cooperative.
So here I basically out of six players have a wide variety of players in what they want out of the game. Taking away the ability to plot a build would discourage four out of six of them. As such, with this group I would not consider that.
Again it comes down to the people who make up the group.
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?
Absolutely...by running a different game. Most other rpgs, actually, lend themselves to this sort of thing (my personal favorite is Savage Worlds).
I don't think level-based games work well for this, though, and I think that's perfectly alright (and D&D/Pathfinder, Palladium, and various clones are the only level-based rpgs I've ever seen). There's nothing wrong with using different games for different things.
I don't think one has to work against the other. You can plan ahead and enjoy the game as a character, and planning ahead does not mean anything is written in stone so I can keep my premade plans or adjust as needed.
Honestly, I don't see why it should bother the GM.
If a player comes to you with a 20 level plan, they are telling you what would make them happy AND giving you everything you need to surprise them and knock them off balance.
I think what may be bothering you is the implication that they would be happy building the character in any old campaign. That's the deck-building impulse. Your job as a GM is to make them want to deviate from their plan because of salient and memorable experiences.
Found a way to have the PC's actually immersed in the game world and not worrying about what their build will be in 3 levels let alone 20th?Absolutely...by running a different game. Most other rpgs, actually, lend themselves to this sort of thing (my personal favorite is Savage Worlds).
I don't think level-based games work well for this, though, and I think that's perfectly alright (and D&D/Pathfinder, Palladium, and various clones are the only level-based rpgs I've ever seen). There's nothing wrong with using different games for different things.
Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking so!
Honestly, I don't see why it should bother the GM.
From the comments the OP has made, it sounds like what is really bugging him is that he feels he needs to make adjustments to the encounters in the APs he runs just to challenge his players.
Personally I am not sure this is an issue with people having builds and that if those disappeared the issue would disappear.
We need more info before we could give any worthwhile advice, but here is some general rules of thumb.
1) It is ok for a group to not be challenged by some encounters. It is GOOD if the PCs feel powerful and heroic and are more challenged on the medium-high CR encounters... typically you will find that CR equivalent encounters aren't too tough.
2) Rather than changing the encounters stats, I would recommend changing the encounters tactics to adjust the difficulty. I have found I rarely have to adjust the encounters in an AP and they tend to be deadly. On the rare occasions that I do adjust the stats it is generally downward (like a mimic against 1st lvl PCs in 3.5). I DO adjust my tactics in fights though and it can make a big difference.
3) Know the rules. The rules should not be a hindrance to you. The more you know them and can apply them with out slowing things down the better off you will be. Often I find the GMs who have issues with things being too easy aren't using all the rules (cover, flanking, high ground, etc., etc.)
4) Know your players characters. If these guys are making builds, ask to see them. Get to know their abilities and how they should be working. Make sure the builds are legal and in the rules. Make sure you understand the rules they are using at the table so things aren't being conveniently ruled WAY in the PCs favor (seen this a lot too).
Anyway... that is my generic advice.
Sean Mahoney