|
Good lord, Sense Motive is a weird skill.
I just read it in order to try to intelligently comment on thenobledrake's statement above, but it warrants it's own thread.
Off to use the search functionalty and see if this has been talked about before.
PS: The skill itself says "You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy."
I think based on this, both ways of doing it can certainly be acceptable. "You get the feeling this guy is trustworthy" is a literal reading of the skill, whereas "He seems to believe what he's saying" is helpful, if slightly more vague. For me, I just want to ensure that the player receives what he's supposed to receive from the check. A failed check, for me, would be "You can't get a read on this guy". Of course, the NPC could be either trustworthy or untrustworthy.
The same would be true for the opposed check vs. Bluff.
What I always did when I GM'd was preroll and write down the numbers. For example, 20 d20's and number them. I would then have the players roll a d20 and refer to the list. I would then cross ot off the list. The other trick I would use, is to roll a random die and/or dice, and then say, "That is interesting." If they ask what, I would say that I will tell them later, even though the roll meant nothing. It kept my players on their toes without revealing what I did not want them to know.
What I always did when I GM'd was preroll and write down the numbers. For example, 20 d20's and number them. I would then have the players roll a d20 and refer to the list. I would then cross ot off the list. The other trick I would use, is to roll a random die and/or dice, and then say, "That is interesting." If they ask what, I would say that I will tell them later, even though the roll meant nothing. It kept my players on their toes without revealing what I did not want them to know.
Interesting pre-rolling technique.
I once tried to have a few numbers pre-rolled for each players, and it turned out that I didn't like to know in advance that 'Joe was likely to succeed his first three rolls' or that 'Mary had few chances of succeeding anything today'. Yet I didn't like rolling for them either.
That cross-reference technique is new for me; and an interesting way to have players roll their own rolls without knowing their results...
'findel
We seem to be confusing "using a screen" with "fudging." There are good reasons (that do not involve fudging) to roll things like perception checks behind a screen.Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.
I think you should (still) watch your absolutes.
Saves ("by nature") may need to be concealed (as others have actually long since noted), depending on the group.
Certain groups may be able to take the number rolled and make quick calculations on their own. PC casts fireball (Ref DC 17), DM rolls a 5 and announces "20". Players quickly calculate the NPC has a Ref modifier of +15. They immediately stop using Ref-based spells/effects.
"By nature" is entirely dependent on the group, as has already been established. It may not matter to some groups, but may affect others. Some people in this thread are just going to have to accept that.
|
|
What rolls?
I find that, as a GM, if I just start making rolls for no reason (as far as the players know), they don't pay me much attention. If I roll Stealth for 6 Orcs, it's not like I sit there and tabulate bonuses and announce results. I just roll six dice really quickly. Nobody generally asks questions.
Does this not work for other people?
When I roll a players perception check, they don't need to know if they rolled high or low when I tell them they don't see anything.
Just one of many examples.
|
|
I can appreciate your point of view, but if a piece of cardboard makes that much difference to any particular group, that group has problems that aren't going be to solved simply by taking the cardboard away or even remotely touched by the removal of the screen. A healthy group doesn't care one way or another if the cardboard, with its charts and GM aids, is present or not, because both sides trust each other enough to know the limits they can get away with. A DM is not just another player who happens to be controlling the NPCs and will not always follow the same rules that players do 100% of the time; he can't, because his role requires a bit of room for judgment calls, and players need to realize this, just as the DM needs to understand that trust must be earned, and going out of your way to make every roll hypersecret probably won't help with that.+1 for truth
and a bonus +1 for the part I bolded.
It isn't just about trust.
If it is a big roll, I usually do it in the middle of the board and there is an epic dramatic moment.
Sometimes I will roll dice behind the screen for absolutely no reason to make players think there is something happening so they don't get to comfortable waiting for me to say "roll initiative.
It is a tool that used properly makes a game much, much better.
When the rogue has worked with the fighter through the whole encounter to set the bad guy up to fall back into the firey pit, it's better for the group to see it happen than for the lone sorcerer to suddenly step out and waste him with a lightning bolt in one action.
Unless you're the sorcerer. I'm sure that player would have loved to kill the BBEG. That's why he cast it, right? If the fighter in that scenario decided to attack instead, and rolled a nat 20 are you going to take the crit away too, just so the rogue can push the BBEG into the fire?
Ask the sorcerer if he's ok with that type of adjucation. Some players might be, I'm not. That's why I let the dice fall as they may.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the rogue has worked with the fighter through the whole encounter to set the bad guy up to fall back into the firey pit, it's better for the group to see it happen than for the lone sorcerer to suddenly step out and waste him with a lightning bolt in one action. So the die roll for the villain's save is pretty much decided before I even pick up the die.And I don't apologize for that. Because it makes for a much better and memorable game session. That's my job. I'm a GM. And I need my screen.
When I'm a player, I find that deeply unsatisfying. At that point, if I'm the sorcerer, why am I even at the table?
And maybe this is the hair to split between the camps:
If I'm pro-screen, probably I want my GM to make a cool story.
If I'm anti-screen, probably I want my GM to play things straight up.
You can trust your GM in either case; it's just that what you want from them are two slightly different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the rogue has worked with the fighter through the whole encounter to set the bad guy up to fall back into the firey pit, it's better for the group to see it happen than for the lone sorcerer to suddenly step out and waste him with a lightning bolt in one action. So the die roll for the villain's save is pretty much decided before I even pick up the die.And I don't apologize for that. Because it makes for a much better and memorable game session. That's my job. I'm a GM. And I need my screen.
When I'm a player, I find that deeply unsatisfying. At that point, if I'm the sorcerer, why am I even at the table?
I'm with Jerry on this one, I think. If you're playing the sorcerer in this situation, you're horning in on the other players' action. If they need the help, that's one thing. But in this case, they've got a plan in action and it's a good plan they've spent time setting up. Why are you trying to mooch their kill? Why are you trying to overshadow them rather than let them handle the situation their own way?
Frankly, I'd have no problem with the NPC auto-saving in that instance. I agree that's one of my jobs as a GM.
Under most circumstances, I don't fudge to save my NPCs. I'm OK with letting them die horrible, horrible deaths even if player luck means it happens fast. When I fudge, which isn't often, it's usually to forget some of my NPCs' damage modifiers or for them to fail a save when the players have a good plan in action. For a pair of examples:
A few months back, the PCs encountered a skeletal dinosaur. The rogue tried to tumble past it but, because of a rule change from 3.5 to PF that I don't agree with, that skeletal dinosaur was virtually impossible for her to tumble past. It critted on the AoO. I had no clear idea how many hit points the rogue had. I rolled the damage, added the strength modifier, but managed to forget a negative energy one that was also involved. She limped away with 2 hit points and a strong chance of a TPK had the witch not remembered a scroll of command undead that settled the issue fast.
Last night, the witch had gotten a hold of a crystal ball and was trying to scry someone to answer a question for a long-standing NPC. The info to be gained by the scrying would also serve to further the background plot of the campaign by feeding info to the PCs. The first attempt failed so she sent the NPC away to find some personal item of the scry target. Next day, the NPC has enough stuff to impose a -1 save on the target. As it turns out, the die meant failed save, but had it not, I would have fudged it because the witch set up a good plan and I wanted to award the plan with good info rather than rely on the die to validate it.
I'm with Jerry on this one, I think. If you're playing the sorcerer in this situation, you're horning in on the other players' action. If they need the help, that's one thing. But in this case, they've got a plan in action and it's a good plan they've spent time setting up. Why are you trying to mooch their kill? Why are you trying to overshadow them rather than let them handle the situation their own way?
When the rogue has worked with the fighter through the whole encounter to set the bad guy up to fall back into the firey pit, it's better for the group to see it happen than for the lone sorcerer to suddenly step out and waste him with a lightning bolt in one action. So the die roll for the villain's save is pretty much decided before I even pick up the die.And I don't apologize for that. Because it makes for a much better and memorable game session. That's my job. I'm a GM. And I need my screen.
When I'm a player, I find that deeply unsatisfying. At that point, if I'm the sorcerer, why am I even at the table?
How about because the PCs are fighting for their lives and so want to end the threat ASAP? So if the the sorcerer starts the fight with a save or suck spell the other party members should stand back and let him do his thing. It's a team game, and 3.x assumes it's generally 4-6 PCs against 1 baddie. Is the sorcerer supposed to sit out of combat and wait for the other two guys to do their plan? I would lose my mind if I knew my DM was nerfing me because he thought somebody else's actions were better.
How about because the PCs are fighting for their lives and so want to end the threat ASAP? So if the the sorcerer starts the fight with a save or suck spell the other party members should stand back and let him do his thing. It's a team game, and 3.x assumes it's generally 4-6 PCs against 1 baddie. Is the sorcerer supposed to sit out of combat and wait for the other two guys to do their plan? I would lose my mind if I knew my DM was nerfing me because he thought somebody else's actions were better.
If you came to my table playing like you're a one-man team without regard to the efforts of the other players, my nerfing you as DM would be the least of your worries. You'd have the other players to answer to.
If you came to my table playing like you're a one-man team without regard to the efforts of the other players, my nerfing you as DM would be the least of your worries. You'd have the other players to answer to.
How about because the PCs are fighting for their lives and so want to end the threat ASAP? So if the the sorcerer starts the fight with a save or suck spell the other party members should stand back and let him do his thing. It's a team game, and 3.x assumes it's generally 4-6 PCs against 1 baddie. Is the sorcerer supposed to sit out of combat and wait for the other two guys to do their plan? I would lose my mind if I knew my DM was nerfing me because he thought somebody else's actions were better.
How is casting lightning bolt acting like a one-man team? Is the fighter making an attack acting like a one-man team? What is your suggested action for the sorcerer in that situation? Again, should he just sit out of combat and hope that pushing the guy into the fire works? "Sorry guys, I'd love to contribute, but what you're doing looks way cooler. Send me a text when you're done."
How is casting lightning bolt acting like a one-man team? Is the fighter making an attack acting like a one-man team? What is your suggested action for the sorcerer in that situation? Again, should he just sit out of combat and hope that pushing the guy into the fire works? "Sorry guys, I'd love to contribute, but what you're doing looks way cooler. Send me a text when you're done."
Everything you've said on the topic suggests you're not considering what the other players are doing. Sure, the sorcerer would love to kill the BBEG... but a couple of other players have been working through the encounter to maneuver him into place for a cool scene. Either do something that supports that action, find something else to do, or find a group that won't be POed by you acting like the pro from Dover. In other words, act like a team player.
How is casting lightning bolt acting like a one-man team? Is the fighter making an attack acting like a one-man team? What is your suggested action for the sorcerer in that situation? Again, should he just sit out of combat and hope that pushing the guy into the fire works? "Sorry guys, I'd love to contribute, but what you're doing looks way cooler. Send me a text when you're done."
Just because you can cast Lightning Bolt, does not mean you should.
Yes, it could be acting like a one-man team, here's why: If you always come to the table and step on other people's plans because it needs to be done ASAP, you're not a team player. You risk having the rest of the team resenting you for "helping out" and the whole team will suffer because of it. Sometimes you need to "pass the ball", to use a basketball term, and let the rest of the team shine.
Sure there are times when you need to get things done now, but sometimes you need to let go and let things work out for themselves.
FWIW, I've seen the "One-man Party" so many times in my experience, and it ends badly every time. Don't be that guy.
Everything you've said on the topic suggests you're not considering what the other players are doing. Sure, the sorcerer would love to kill the BBEG... but a couple of other players have been working through the encounter to maneuver him into place for a cool scene. Either do something that supports that action, find something else to do, or find a group that won't be POed by you acting like the pro from Dover. In other words, act like a team player.
How is casting lightning bolt acting like a one-man team? Is the fighter making an attack acting like a one-man team? What is your suggested action for the sorcerer in that situation? Again, should he just sit out of combat and hope that pushing the guy into the fire works? "Sorry guys, I'd love to contribute, but what you're doing looks way cooler. Send me a text when you're done."
I see where both sides are coming from. I've been in this same situation many times, where the players, as a team, were trying to set something up for a big dramatic effect, just to have the casual player do the instant-killshot move and make all our effort for nothing. It's wrecked campaigns before.
Example: We were playing in a Greyhawk campaign that had last a couple years. We were high level, high teens/lower twenties. Our group had been involved in attmepting to subvert an army comprised of every Frost Giant on Oerth, and had finally made it to the BBEG; the biggest, meanest Giant any mortal had ever seen. The group formed a stategy, we were moving into place, the melees were readying up for an epic battle to slug it out with this guy. The mages were buffing the melees and covering crowd control for the hordes of giants accompanying the BBEG.
Then, one player, who was only playing that one particular session as a guest since he lives in Europe and was in town for the weekend, one-shotted the BBEG with a Psionic Power. That was it. This particular story arc had lasted nearly a full year, we had slogged through some crazy adventures leading up to this point, just to have the one-nighter guest one shot the last boss and end it all. It was a pretty big letdown around the table. The DM got flustered and just ended it. He actually stopped DM'ing 3.5e for a long time after that.
Strategically, "we" won. The guest player chose to use the Power that was the most effective, and to great success. But for story purposes, it felt like a defeat. None of us who had put the time in, and played the campaign to that point, had a single action against the BBEG. Of all the other Powers that player could have chosen, they chose the Save or Die effect. Strategically effective, but thematically disappointing.
It all just depends on the group dynamic; our group had grown to the point where we played as a team, but we simply had the one guest player who wasn't part of the dynamic.
If one PC can end the encounter solo more easily than the entire rest of the party working together, then it really breaks my suspension of disbelief for that guy to stand around and be a "team player" (aka nonparticipant or self-gimped half-participant) instead. Am I to infer, then, that none of these encounters are all that dangerous, allowing people to fool around with "cinematic" stuff in preference to a clear and straighforward path to ending the encounter?
I'd rather see the "problem" PC promoted to a more powerful party, facing threats he can't handle alone, and the former party can pick up another stooge who won't get in the way of their bumbling fun.
This is one of the reasons I always like to have 2+ groups of PCs in play, if at all possible.
Are we talking about this yet again?
Just let him pop some wheelies because it's like, you know, totally not cool to do things efficiently if your hapless teammates are being "cinematic" instead.
No, we aren't. The sorcerer in this particular discussion could really be anybody stomping into a situation and short cutting things that the other PCs are already doing. Magic is an effective means of doing so but not the only one.
I'd rather see the "problem" PC promoted to a more powerful party, facing threats he can't handle alone, and the former party can pick up someone who won't get in the way of their bumbling fun.
Problem players are problems depending on the group they're in. Hence my suggestion he either act like a team player or find a group that doesn't get POed by his behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence my suggestion he either act like a team player or find a group that doesn't get POed by his behavior.
This particular GM needs a MUCH bigger bag of tricks, in my option. The player has used the rules approved by the GM, to create a character approved by the GM, and when he tries to use his GM-approved abilities in game -- that same GM turns around and tells him he's ruining everyone else's fun, and hands him two options:
1. Don't play his character and be a sideliner instead; or
2. You'll kick him out of the game.
Just. Wow.
If everyone agreed in advance that this was a Three Stooges RPG, then starting at level one, right out of the gate, the GM should have been reminding the sorcerer that he had to take stream of confetti instead of color spray. The GM dropped the ball, and now wants to punish the player for it.
There are lots of spells that can end encounters. If a GM doesn't want to deal with them, then just tell the players up front you don't allow those spells. Don't approve the spells and then declare they don't work mid-encounter.
Hence my suggestion he either act like a team player or find a group that doesn't get POed by his behavior.This particular GM needs a MUCH bigger bag of tricks, in my option. The player has used the rules approved by the GM, to create a character approved by the GM, and when he tries to use his GM-approved abilities in game -- that same GM turns around and tells him he's ruining everyone else's fun, and hands him two options:
1. Don't play his character and be a sideliner instead; or
2. You'll kick him out of the game.Just. Wow.
Go back and re-read some of the discussion. If you have a character horning in on the plans of other players and negating the efforts they've put in, don't you expect those players to have a problem with that? Why are you putting this all on the DM and not on the problem player?
The game doesn't belong to the Pro from Dover. The game belongs to everybody at the table. If they're not on the same page and cooperating, the problem player should recognize that and find a more suitable place to play. As a DM, it would be partly my job to make sure that a game is fun for everybody and if that means making sure a player who won't fit in realizes that and doesn't waste his time, then that's what I have to do.
And since that's nothing to do, really, with using a screen, that's the last I'll say on the matter.
|
Go back and re-read some of the discussion. If you have a character horning in on the plans of other players and negating the efforts they've put in, don't you expect those players to have a problem with that? Why are you putting this all on the DM and not on the problem player?
Why does he have to be a problem player? What do you do when a player just likes blasting and it ruins the setup? Tell him not to do that in the future or he'll be kicked?
Why does he have to be a problem player? What do you do when a player just likes blasting and it ruins the setup? Tell him not to do that in the future or he'll be kicked?
Go back and re-read some of the discussion. If you have a character horning in on the plans of other players and negating the efforts they've put in, don't you expect those players to have a problem with that? Why are you putting this all on the DM and not on the problem player?
OK, one more since you asked so nicely.
It's not a question of just one incident when it comes to being a team player or not. If the player consistently behaves in a way that cheeses off the other players and won't fit in, then, yes, he's a problem player for that group. He should find another group where that behavior isn't a problem. That's elementary group management. Some play styles and behaviors don't work together unless the players are really trying to make it work. And repeated failures indicate that they aren't succeeding. Reconfiguration is an appropriate option.
In the case of a player who simply likes blasting, that largely solves itself because there's usually two levels of effect for the spell - one less lethal than the other but capable of helping soften up the opposition for other characters to exploit. If the NPC makes his save and doesn't get totally fried by the lightning bolt (whether I fudge or not), I can work that into the NPC's reactions and provide more support for the successful execution of the other PCs' plans. Think of the lightning bolt as helping keep the NPC's attention divided. I might even give the other PCs a good circumstance bonus to achieve their goals. All of the 3 PCs we've mentioned so far have participated constructively in defeating the NPC in a cool and flashy way. Maybe I needed to fudge a bit to make sure that the second half of the situation gets a chance to play out, if so, I'll accept that as the right thing to do for the whole group of players.
If one PC can end the encounter solo more easily than the entire rest of the party working together, then it really breaks my suspension of disbelief for that guy to stand around and be a "team player" (aka nonparticipant or self-gimped half-participant) instead. Am I to infer, then, that none of these encounters are all that dangerous, allowing people to fool around with "cinematic" stuff in preference to a clear and straighforward path to ending the encounter?
I'd rather see the "problem" PC promoted to a more powerful party, facing threats he can't handle alone, and the former party can pick up another stooge who won't get in the way of their bumbling fun.
This is one of the reasons I always like to have 2+ groups of PCs in play, if at all possible.
2 groups of PC's at once? I have enough trouble keeping up with one group as is. Does your "bumbling stooge" party know you refer to them as such?
2 groups of PC's at once? I have enough trouble keeping up with one group as is. Does your "bumbling stooge" party know you refer to them as such?
It must be the other group.
It must be the other group.
That's a good one, Mr. Int Penalty...
I'd rather see the "problem" PC promoted to a more powerful party, facing threats he can't handle alone, and the former party can pick up another stooge who won't get in the way of their bumbling fun.
Nice insult - that was good!
Elite player who uses a s!*%ty SOD/WIN to end the last encounter = go to Kirths Hardcore game.
Everyone else trying to play as a team (even when it's not required due to poor game design) = stooges, mouth breathers, bumbling fun.
Too bad 3rd ed isn't hardcore.
When I'm a player, I find that deeply unsatisfying. At that point, if I'm the sorcerer, why am I even at the table?
And maybe this is the hair to split between the camps:
If I'm pro-screen, probably I want my GM to make a cool story.
If I'm anti-screen, probably I want my GM to play things straight up.
You can trust your GM in either case; it's just that what you want from them are two slightly different things.
I don't quite buy that.
If I'm pro-screen, probably I believe that as a GM I know exactly what makes a cool story.
If I'm anti-screen, probably I believe that I don't absolutely know what will make a cool story and I prefer to allow my players adapt to situations and we'll develop a cool story out of what comes out of that.
Certainly playing without a screen requires the GM to be a little lighter on their feet.
You realize the example given was lightning bolt, right?
Elite player who uses a s~*$ty SOD/WIN to end the last encounter
Wait what?
Also, you were the only one to mention mouth breathing. Stop misrepresenting please.
Well I must have misread what you guys were posting through all the elitist fake-hardcore spew.
Carry on.
[Elite player who uses a s$%*ty SOD/WIN to end the last encounter = go to Kirths Hardcore game.
Everyone else trying to play as a team (even when it's not required due to poor game design) = stooges, mouth breathers, bumbling fun.
If you were paying attention (and TOZ even posted as two of his characters from my game to underscore it), I'll alternate adventures: this week is for hardcore Party A, so we can get our fix of encounters that are likely to kill you if you goof off. For a break, the next adventure will be with the "B" team (same players, different PCs) and will be more bumbling/stooge-like in the sense that the PCs won't be facing challenges designed to... um... challenge them in that way.
In the example given, I'd move the sorcerer CHARACTER from Party B, where he's a problem, into Party A, where he can shine. Notice, as GM, I don't have to kick the PLAYER out at all. All I do is shuffle the party composition a bit.
You want me to address something? Say it honestly, without the bile. Give examples of my 'elitist fake-hardcore spew'.
I think he's just been referring to Kirth's posts. And I can certainly see how he'd read a few statements as being elitist, what with bumbling stooges and all.
|
If you were paying attention (and TOZ even posted as two of his characters from my game to underscore it), I'll alternate adventures: this week is for hardcore Party A, so we can get our fix of encounters that are likely to kill you if you goof off. For a break, the next adventure will be with the "B" team (same players, different PCs) and will be more bumbling/stooge-like in the sense that the PCs won't be facing challenges designed to... um... challenge them in that way.
I'd rather see the "problem" PC promoted to a more powerful party, facing threats he can't handle alone, and the former party can pick up another stooge who won't get in the way of their bumbling fun.
Great in theory unless of course there is only one playing group with a similar level of proficiency (most cases) - you know, the ones with the players you called bumbling stooges? Of course you couldn't possibly see how that could be construed as insulting.
Doesn't matter, none of us here play the same game.
|
|
Nobody plays the same game, Aux. Not even those who are in the same group. Perspective is funny like that.
I think he's just been referring to Kirth's posts.
I think you're wrong.
You forgot about the elitist fake-hardcore spew....or are you in denial about that?Ah well, I wouldn't expect you to admit it.
And I can certainly see how he'd read a few statements as being elitist, what with bumbling stooges and all.
My post didn't just apply to Aux. I'm a little tired of Kirth's hyperbole against fudgers and the like as well.
Great in theory unless of course there is only one playing group with a similar level of proficiency (most cases) - you know, the ones with the players you called bumbling stooges? Of course you couldn't possibly see how that could be construed as insulting.
At no time did I call any players bumbling stooges. I called their characters stooges. Good players can easily play hapless characters, and have fun doing so.
Apparently I'm not being clear. I am not in any way talking about two groups of PLAYERS. I'm talking about two groups of CHARACTERS, run by the same players. This actually presupposes that the players are not, in fact, bumbling -- I know it's a lot easier to insult me if you keep ignoring the distinction between players and characters, so please do, but the idea is to have one party of PCs that you can do laid-back fun stuff with, and make characters who aren't optimized for save-or-die scenarios; and a separate party for when everyone is in the mood for a do-or-die game. Both of these parties are run by the same players. That way everyone can enjoy some hard scenarios, and some more playful scenarios as well, and if a character in the playful group is too optimized, or a character in the do-or-die group isn't pulling his or her weight, you just swap out which party they're in.
Now, if this is a situation in which three players ask for a goofy game with a lower threat level and no exceptions to that, and the forth player didn't get the memo, then obviously that fourth guy has invested a lot of time and effort into a game he'll want a break from at some point. If that's the case, it seems like there was a definite lack of communication somewhere along the line -- and it happened a long time before this problematic stuff got to be such a headache.
I'm a little tired of Kirth's hyperbole against fudgers and the like as well.
Remember, I'm against people fudging and then claiming they're not. If it's been agreed on beforehand, I have no issues with it -- hyperbolic or otherwise.
Just because you can cast Lightning Bolt, does not mean you should.
Yes, it could be acting like a one-man team, here's why: If you always come to the table and step on other people's plans because it needs to be done ASAP, you're not a team player. You risk having the rest of the team resenting you for "helping out" and the whole team will suffer because of it. Sometimes you need to "pass the ball", to use a basketball term, and let the rest of the team shine.
Sure there are times when you need to get things done now, but sometimes you need to let go and let things work out for themselves.
FWIW, I've seen the "One-man Party" so many times in my experience, and it ends badly every time. Don't be that guy.
First off, the sorcerer in this hypothetical instance doesn't have a history at all. He showed up to one fight against 1 big, bad, evil guy and used one spell, lightning bolt. He hasn't always been stepping on people's toes. He isn't a problem player. He just thought that killing the BBEG was the goal.
I don't know how he turned into a problem player with such a sordid past. I suspect some poster's real life got mixed into this hypothetical situation.
Here are the specifics of the hypothetical situation: a rogue and fighter have been trying to manuever the BBEG into position to push him into some hazard. Even though the goal of all players involved seems to be to kill the BBEG, some DM's have said they would nerf the sorcerer's lightning bolt in order to allow the fighter and rogue a chance to succeed.
I said, if I was the sorcerer, I would be terribly upset to know the DM nerfed my spell because he thought the other plan was cooler. Somehow that turned me into "the pro from Dover".
Nobody knows if the other players are upset or pleased. Some might think I stole a kill, some might be happy that together we killed the BBEG. I say together because it is 99.9999% likely that somebody else damaged the BBEG in this example and lightning bolt does hit point damage too, but they may not have and my spell could have been the only hit point damage.
Now, some reasoning as to why I'd be upset about it. If I were the fighter or rogue instead, and decided to attack and did a crit for equivalent damage would the fudging DM fudge that too? I don't think so. Most spells allow saves, and in 3.x the DM is allowed to roll them behind a screen, so often spells are the only attacks that get hosed by DM fudging. The sorcerer in this example may or may not have other ways to contribute to the "plan", but even if he does, the DM has never told him that his lightning bolt spell is not a valid option (we can assume this because he wouldn't use a very limited number of spell selections for an invalid choice). If the BBEG had forewarning of the party and knew that the sorcerer always used lightning bolt and had energy resistance up, I would accept that. As a DM, that makes perfect sense, it makes so much more sense than thinking the other plan is cooler. If you are the DM and you really want the BBEG to fall into the fire, give the sorcerer an in-game reason not to use lightning bolt. It's not fair to say that isn't a cool enough way to end this fight, so it doesn't. And finally, the sorcerer doesn't know if the rogue and fighter are going to succeed, as far as he knows there's a chance the other guys could fail. Nobody has given any in-game reason why the sorcerer should not try to kill the BBEG. I could see if the sorcerer yelled out "What should I do, I only have lightning bolts left?" and the others said "No, we got this, you go do..." But that wasn't the case (heck the DM didn't even say "The plan is so cool that there's no chance I'd let it fail"). The sorcerer, fighter, and rogue were fighting the BBEG and the sorcerer's attempt to aid in the battle failed because the DM said so. That's it.
As the DM you have every rule and option at your disposal as well usually a bit more prep time than the PCs. You designed, or at the bare minimal, you chose to put the encounter in. You could have added mooks or traps or what have you, but you're going to just say the one thing the PCs have control of - their actions, don't work just because you'd rather something else, or in this case, somebody else's actions happen instead. If your actions are the ones being negated, you'd be upset. As the DM, what can happen in the game is only limited by your imagination, isn't it lazy to resort to fudging rolls. Why have piles of stats if you don't think this is cheating? Shouldn't it just say Fort/Ref/Will: whenever it suits your fancy?
Don't say anything about the hypothetical sorcerer's hypothetical history of upsetting his allies, it's never happened.
[edit]I'd also like to say that I agree with Kirth. If the sorcerer knows ahead of time that the DM will fudge to make the story cooler, then he has nothing to complain about, unless his actions are the only ones being fudged because saves happen behind the screen and attack rolls happen in the open.
If you came to my table playing like you're a one-man team without regard to the efforts of the other players, my nerfing you as DM would be the least of your worries. You'd have the other players to answer to.
How about because the PCs are fighting for their lives and so want to end the threat ASAP? So if the the sorcerer starts the fight with a save or suck spell the other party members should stand back and let him do his thing. It's a team game, and 3.x assumes it's generally 4-6 PCs against 1 baddie. Is the sorcerer supposed to sit out of combat and wait for the other two guys to do their plan? I would lose my mind if I knew my DM was nerfing me because he thought somebody else's actions were better.
That is a good metagame answer, but I try to play the game as if my real life were at stake. If someone else gets the kill I never care. They can have it(the kill) because at the end of the day it would really not matter who got the kill if fantasy land were real. What matters(would matter if fantasy land were real) is were you successful or not, because ultimately you fail or succeed as a party, and that is what matters.
PS:I do understand many people place see the game as them looking into a story they are helping to create instead of them being the character while the game is going on. In short neither idea is wrong. You just have to decide as a group how much certain things matter.
Long post that I won't quote here except to make it clearer which post I'm responding to...
I think you're reading way more into Jerry's hypothetical situation than he wrote.
Long post that I won't quote here except to make it clearer which post I'm responding to...I think you're reading way more into Jerry's hypothetical situation than he wrote.
I was just trying to clearly layout my feelings on the discussion as well as debunking the Pro from Dover status that got attached to the sorcerer.