It all depends on what you've decided is the point of playing the game. I've run merciless games before, and less relentless games before and as far as my group and I are concerned, we have more fun together when I'm less relentless and I put my effort into challenging the heroes rather than wiping them out.
That being said, those few previous games of total relentlessness - chiefly because they resulted in many PC deaths - still work to heighten my players' sense of "Oh Crap!" when I bring big opponents against them in my less heavy-handed games. They all know that I am willing for their characters to die horrible deaths - I've done it before! But there is a sweet spot of balance where they are challenged, pushed to the very brink and then triumph that we try to find our way into.
That approach has been the most rewarding for us.
YMMV
I tend to challenge my players by playing the monsters to the very best of their abilities. I play them to win the fight. Doing otherwise seems to cheapen the game for me as a GM...and as a player. As long a the challenge is of appropate power for the group.
I don't hold back with most of my groups meaning if it makes sense for a enemy to coup de grace a down PC....it will. My players know that though and they usualy take actions to protect a downed character so I actualy rarely do it. Because I think it goes beyond dumb for the enemies to down a character watch a cleric heal that character back up...drop him again and not take actions to prevent it from happening again.
In my first DMing experience, I was running a game for a few of my friends in D&D4e. In general I wasn't harsh enough on them, which I both regret and don't regret, since it made it possible for their characters, and therefore them, to feel epic in sweeping away enemies with ease. Then again, they never really feared combat encounters as they should do, and ended up doing pretty much whatever they wanted. And it's also a flaw with 4E, where it tries to make every character a superhero from level 1.
Currently, I play in two PF games, both of which are pretty damn unforgiving; I like it that way, since needing my wits to stay alive (especially since both my characters are squishy casters) adds a lot to the fun factor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see anything wrong with this approach so long as you add: "I make a reasonable effort to ensure that while they fight to win, the capability of these enemies is such that the party has a reasonable chance to win with sound tactics and good teamwork."
I generally dont pull punches for my party. The only reason I havent killed a PC in a while is that I use 'hero points' that can be spent to put you unconcious instead of dead. But I also take pains in designing encounters for my party. They are meant to bring them to the edge of defeat (the big ones anyway, there are some that are not meant to be challenging but instead to fill out the world ALA bar fight or town guards) without killing them. Sometimes I am right on the money and the party THINKS they are going to all be killed but ultimately succeed. Sometimes I fall short and the party steamrolls my encounter. And sometimes I miss the mark long and a party member is 'killed' but saved by a twist of fate via hero points.
I am strongly in favor of letting the dice lie where they may, but you also have to make sure the pluses that go with those dice are in a range that is fair for your party.
So I've been pretty involved in the discussion concerning Pathfinder Online and frequently run into the following position.
One thing I have noticed, in a Pathfinder or D&D before it, when the GM is running the “opposition” be they monsters with tusks and horns, or monsters clad in human form, the GM, the skilled ones, are managing the monsters to challenge the Player Characters.
When I have seen the “opposition” run by someone other then the GM, another player, they are run to win against the other players.
So I'm here to discuss this with my fellow players and GMs in general.
When I am GMing, the "opposition" are there to win to the best of their ability. There is absolutely no hand holding (except with new players still learning the ropes) no fudging (rolled in the open) and no mercy. These enemies are run to the fullest of their capabilities as dictated by their intelligence and personal tactics and will do EVERYTHING they can to succeed within their limitations (although there are, of course, times when they will favor a retreat rather than fight to the last HP.)
What do you guys think of such a GMing approach? Is it 'unfair' for a GM to use his characters in such a manner? Or do you favor the challenge of opposing characters played with all the desperation to succeed that they should have by virtue of the story.
Before anybody jumps on me saying I'm abusing my players, I would like to note that I, as the GM, am perfectly and totally neutral. I have no vested interest in anything except running the world how the world functions. I am not here trying to 'win' or creating challenges intended to kill them. Instead I am created a world with its own merits and the characters interact with it.
I read the initial post you quoted. The point wasn't the NPC's not fighting to win, it was the DM building appropriate encounters, that the PC's are expected to be able to handle.
SO, though I use the best tactics for my encounters that I think they are capable of, roll all my dice openly without fudging, and try to push the envelope as a threat to the characters, I still build the encounter with the intention of the PC's winning. There may be losses, it may be by the skin of their teeth, and the NPC's/Monsters fought their hearts out, but I the DM am not trying to beat the PC's, so they are expected to win and advance the story.
If they go somewhere and bite off more than they can chew, than it was a choice on the player's part to walk into the face of a threat that is not likely surmountable. But if they face something, that I put against them to face, as part of our joint, cooperative, story-telling venture, then they should expect to be able to overcome it (die rolls willing).
So, for the quoted's point, I think you are misrepresenting it. He was saying that GM's (aka everything in the game itself that is not a PC) should not create the encounters to defeat the PC's, but challenge them. Whereas, when it comes to PC's fighting against each other, they DO NOT do it to challenge the other PC but to gladly remove the other from play.
When I run a game, I play the NPC's and monsters how they're meant to be played. An goblin wouldn't hold back from killing a gnome and then setting him on fire and dancing around the corpse any more than one of my players would hold back from killing same said goblin. On the other hand, a group of thieves is just as likely to run away if they lose the upper hand.
Pulling punches isn't staying true to the game, and cheapens the experience. I'm not out to kill my players, but they definitely earn their rewards.
I haven't ever really held back with the powers of the NPCs, and I've actually sometimes made it clear to them when they're picking on a thing they can't win. That once led to an interesting encounter with an Aboleth (the guys were only level three at the time) which ended with the being deciding that they're not worthy of his time despite them first taunting the alien fish thing into attacking them. People have died in my campaigns, sometimes in an epic way (Paladin facing off a greater Efreet) and in not-so-epic ways (Iron golem made a critical hit on the cute and sweet Aasimar Cleric).
Others have died too, but so far, only the Aasimar's and Paladin's deaths have actually been mourned.
With that said, I've noticed that in other games where I'm the player instead of the GM (same group, though we usually play 4e instead of Pathfinder), my pals are just as unlikely to hold back as I am when behind the GM screen, and last time we played, the guy decided to add a Bugbear into the dark dungeon filled with Goblins. It was a good challenge, and made sense given the nature of those ninja bear things. We almost died, but it was fun from start till finish in that session.
If you don't hold back, you had better make sure the opposition is very finely tuned. Otherwise, a TPK happens so easily. Don't complain when something like Aushanna or Nabthatoron wipes them out just because one of the players could not attend that day. I coup de graced a PC recently after he got paralyzed, but if it had been another player, I dpn't know if I would have. I know he will handle it well.
It is not as simple as letting the dice fall where they may.
|
Ok.
But, let's say the adventurers are attacking a den of thieves. Would they stay in a distribution of a few CR appropriate challenges at a time? Or would they all rush in weapons drawn?
An adventure is NOT a perfectly naturalistic world headed by an impartial god. It's an adventure story, where the a GM allows enough danger for the PCs to feel threatened but not overwhelmed.
Read an AP the players do not encounter foes of impossibly high CR until they can reasonably challenge it. Even Kingmaker's notoriously difficult encounter tables worked best when impossible challenges were relegated to foreshadowing rather than actual fights. (see also: number of troll deaths in obits).
Killing PCs is easy challenging them is hard.
With that den of thieves example, a lot of things need to be taken into account. For one, do the thieves have a chance to alert their allies to the threat (if these allies haven't noticed by themselves), and even then, do these ruffians even trust each other? What if the guy yelling happens to be "the guy who cried wolf" among these thieves?
|
|
With that den of thieves example, a lot of things need to be taken into account. For one, do the thieves have a chance to alert their allies to the threat (if these allies haven't noticed by themselves), and even then, do these ruffians even trust each other? What if the guy yelling happens to be "the guy who cried wolf" among these thieves?
Making any of that true can be construed as holding back. Holding back is more than fudging the occasional dice roll. It's also changing NPC behaviors to act in any way less than sun-optimally. There's a reason Tucker's Kobolds are the exception rather than the rule.
I try to play the NPCs like real creatures.
For example, recently my group of 5 hunted down some blink dogs who were attacking the local hobgoblin city. They'd fireballed the first group they ran into (no shamans). So the second group consisted of 10 average blink dogs (CR 2) and 2 shamans (blink dogs with sorcerer levels). The shamans cast Resist Element (Fire) on everyone, and Chill Shield and Resist Element (Fire) on themselves. Then when they blinked in during the first two rounds of combat, the shamans unloaded four fireballs on the party (killing one party member who failed every save). This left them with just a few magic missile spells though (The rest of their spells having been spent protecting from fire). So while the party was wounded, the pack members couldn't do much damage, and the party whittled the numbers down. As a pack member fell, another pack member would blink them out to the underground pack warren,a nd would stay there if they were wounded, they'd already lost a 1/3 of their pack earlier to the fireballs). So when the party had them down to 2 pack members and the two shamans, the pack blinked out, cared for their wounded as best they could, and then decided to leave the area permanently.
I usually have my monsters run away when they're hurt, because it's stupid to fight to the death unless you're a golem that's been ordered to kill, or a summoned creature.
One thing I have noticed, in a Pathfinder or D&D before it, when the GM is running the “opposition” be they monsters with tusks and horns, or monsters clad in human form, the GM, the skilled ones, are managing the monsters to challenge the Player Characters.When I am GMing, the "opposition" are there to win to the best of their ability. There is absolutely no hand holding (except with new players still learning the ropes) no fudging (rolled in the open) and no mercy. These enemies are run to the fullest of their capabilities as dictated by their intelligence and personal tactics and will do EVERYTHING they can to succeed within their limitations (although there are, of course, times when they will favor a retreat rather than fight to the last HP.)
In reference to ElyasRavenwood's quotation, I have to say that I have played with many, many people that embrace the conditions of a confusion or insanity spell with undisguised glee, especially when it means they get to attack their fellow PCs.
As to being a GM, I play my monsters and NPCs intelligently and wisely. Some of them fight to the death, some attempt to flee at the first wound, and most fall somewhere in between. "Winning" depends on the circumstances of the encounter, as has been mentioned by other posters. Not everything is a toe-to-toe slugfest ending in the annihilation of one side or the other. Nor does an evil creature have to kill a downed foe given the opportunity. Evil doesn't mean dumb any more than good does; an intelligent foe will understand the repercussions of its actions. I especially love aggravating PCs with a foe that can hide behind the law and get away with nefarious things, knowing that if the PCs try to kill him outright, they'll pay for their do-goodery.
I had a DM once who said he was playing the monsters smart when he had them run away but in fact all he was doing was preventing us players from getting all the xp we deserved from a fight.
I tend to run games in the MIDNIGHT setting.
'nough said.
I had a DM once who said he was playing the monsters smart when he had them run away but in fact all he was doing was preventing us players from getting all the xp we deserved from a fight.
xp is not derived from killing monsters. It is derived from defeating or overcoming encounters.
Monsters that run away usually have been defeated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that den of thieves example, a lot of things need to be taken into account. For one, do the thieves have a chance to alert their allies to the threat (if these allies haven't noticed by themselves), and even then, do these ruffians even trust each other? What if the guy yelling happens to be "the guy who cried wolf" among these thieves?Making any of that true can be construed as holding back. Holding back is more than fudging the occasional dice roll. It's also changing NPC behaviors to act in any way less than sun-optimally. There's a reason Tucker's Kobolds are the exception rather than the rule.
I was more on the realism side of it, not in the sense of holding back. Making every battle a fight to the death makes no sense if the foes are kobolds, for example. And it would seem pretty darn meta-game if all bandit guilds have a hivemind, not to mention fiends, orcs, or ogres.
I had a DM once who said he was playing the monsters smart when he had them run away but in fact all he was doing was preventing us players from getting all the xp we deserved from a fight.xp is not derived from killing monsters. It is derived from defeating or overcoming encounters.
Monsters that run away usually have been defeated.
Not with this DM.
Not with this DM.I had a DM once who said he was playing the monsters smart when he had them run away but in fact all he was doing was preventing us players from getting all the xp we deserved from a fight.xp is not derived from killing monsters. It is derived from defeating or overcoming encounters.
Monsters that run away usually have been defeated.
So you punish players if they show mercy?
But capturing enemies alive gives you a good reason to take their weapons from them so they don't escape in the middle of the night and stab you in your sleep.
Also enemies with horns or singal whistles that can alert the other groups if they are guards or the horn of pursuit spell from ultimate magic.
Im a strong believer in the idea if there is no threat of death then why play.
But when the PCs are working up to about 5th level I am a little easier and as they get higher level and more powerful I get more and more deadly and hold less and less back
My attitude is simply this: if it isn't challenging and if choice doesn't matter, why bother? Stories are things you tell after an awesome session, not a thing you go in expecting.
I agree with the first part but not the second -- but then, I tend to think that loss can be as compelling a story as victory.
The problem I have with "no holds barred" games is that they tend to make the players paranoid, in my experience. And when the players get paranoid, the game gets tedious, with elaborate preparations required before anything gets done (e.g. lengthy information gathering before going anywhere even slightly dangerous, overly cautious defensive measures before daring to go to sleep, etc.).
However, I'm sure kyrt-ryder will be along any minute now to say "that doesn't happen in my group!" so please feel free to ignore my comments. :-)
But why go in expecting it? One of the features of RPGs not shared by any other medium is limitless* freedom. Freedom comes from choice, and choices gain importance by having consequences. The reason the "sandbox" has seen a resurgence in popularity is, in my opinion, because gamers relish that choice-consequence relationship. it is at the heart of the experience.My attitude is simply this: if it isn't challenging and if choice doesn't matter, why bother? Stories are things you tell after an awesome session, not a thing you go in expecting.I agree with the first part but not the second -- but then, I tend to think that loss can be as compelling a story as victory.
But even sandbox games have stories... plot points taking place, etc. There needs to be a reason that the heroes are going into that cave other than just "Oh, look, a cave!" -- there needs to be something in there that's worth something -- and that should be a challenge.
Ah, I see. You're equating "story" with 100% scripted rails.
To me, backstory, character development, NPCs (both on and off camera) taking actions -- and, the very chain of event-->action-->consequences is the story.
The problem I have with "no holds barred" games is that they tend to make the players paranoid, in my experience. And when the players get paranoid, the game gets tedious, with elaborate preparations required before anything gets done (e.g. lengthy information gathering before going anywhere even slightly dangerous, overly cautious defensive measures before daring to go to sleep, etc.).
I'm one of the odd people who finds all that to be fun, rather than tedious.
The problem I have with "no holds barred" games is that they tend to make the players paranoid, in my experience. And when the players get paranoid, the game gets tedious, with elaborate preparations required before anything gets done (e.g. lengthy information gathering before going anywhere even slightly dangerous, overly cautious defensive measures before daring to go to sleep, etc.).I'm one of the odd people who finds all that to be fun, rather than tedious.
Let me give you an example.
Suppose you're a party of level 3 characters who have ticked off a powerful enemy. When you go to sleep at an inn for the night, an invisible, silent bone devil teleports into your room and coup de graces all of you.
Having learned their lesson, every night before bed your next party goes through an elaborate process of hiding their tracks, taking anti-teleport measures, taking anti-invisibility measures, taking anti-mind-reading measures, taking anti-scrying measures, taking anti-illusion measures, making sure no spies spotted them, doing elaborate precautions in case one of the party is actually a doppelganger, etc.
Fun or not?
Having learned their lesson, every night before bed your next party goes through an elaborate process of hiding their tracks, taking anti-teleport measures, taking anti-invisibility measures, taking anti-mind-reading measures, taking anti-scrying measures, taking anti-illusion measures, making sure no spies spotted them, doing elaborate precautions in case one of the party is actually a doppelganger, etc.
Fun or not?
Thinking of all those anti-X measures and editing them into a workable sequence would be fun for me. Allocating the resources so that I could use those measures -- and still have enough spells left to adventure with -- would also be fun for me.
I've been told before that I'm not ever allowed to play a wizard, because I'd want to spend 9/10 of every adventure gathering intelligence and hedging my bets, then work out an outrageously specific series of spells and actions that would maximize success chances. In the past, this has had a tendency to turn the game from "D&D" into an episode of "Mission: Impossible." When I'm given a game in which a single stupid slip, or opportunity not ruthlessly exploited, probably means eventual death? That's when I have the most fun.
Again, the key is that what's fun for player A may well be tedious for player B, and vice versa. Ideally, the game should be able to accommodate them both.
Having learned their lesson, every night before bed your next party goes through an elaborate process of hiding their tracks, taking anti-teleport measures, taking anti-invisibility measures, taking anti-mind-reading measures, taking anti-scrying measures, taking anti-illusion measures, making sure no spies spotted them, doing elaborate precautions in case one of the party is actually a doppelganger, etc.
Fun or not?
Thinking of all those anti-X measures and editing them into a workable sequence would be fun for me. Allocating the resources so that I could use those measures -- and still have enough spells left to adventure with -- would also be fun for me.
I've been told before that I'm not ever allowed to play a wizard, because I'd want to spend 9/10 of every adventure gathering intelligence and hedging my bets, then work out an outrageously specific series of spells and actions that would maximize success chances. In the past, this has had a tendency to turn the game from "D&D" into an episode of "Mission: Impossible." When I'm given a game in which a single stupid slip, or opportunity not ruthlessly exploited, probably means eventual death? That's when I have the most fun.
Again, the key is that what's fun for player A may well be tedious for player B, and vice versa. Ideally, the game should be able to accommodate them both.
dude... i have one game name for you...Cyberpunk 2020. I have a feeling that you'd enjoy planning edge runs.
dude... i have one game name for you...Cyberpunk 2020. I have a feeling that you'd enjoy planning edge runs.
I'll have to check it out. I can tell you that, so far, the only game I've enjoyed as much as D&D has been Victory Games' "James Bond 007."
Thinking of all those anti-X measures and editing them into a workable sequence would be fun for me. Allocating the resources so that I could use those measures -- and still have enough spells left to adventure with -- would also be fun for me.Having learned their lesson, every night before bed your next party goes through an elaborate process of hiding their tracks, taking anti-teleport measures, taking anti-invisibility measures, taking anti-mind-reading measures, taking anti-scrying measures, taking anti-illusion measures, making sure no spies spotted them, doing elaborate precautions in case one of the party is actually a doppelganger, etc.
Fun or not?
Huh. I thought I remembered following along with a Red Hand of Doom play-by-post that you were playing in, and it didn't seem like you were doing any of that kind of ultra-paranoid stuff.
Having learned their lesson, every night before bed your next party goes through an elaborate process of hiding their tracks, taking anti-teleport measures, taking anti-invisibility measures, taking anti-mind-reading measures, taking anti-scrying measures, taking anti-illusion measures, making sure no spies spotted them, doing elaborate precautions in case one of the party is actually a doppelganger, etc.
Fun or not?
Thinking of all those anti-X measures and editing them into a workable sequence would be fun for me. Allocating the resources so that I could use those measures -- and still have enough spells left to adventure with -- would also be fun for me.
I've been told before that I'm not ever allowed to play a wizard, because I'd want to spend 9/10 of every adventure gathering intelligence and hedging my bets, then work out an outrageously specific series of spells and actions that would maximize success chances. In the past, this has had a tendency to turn the game from "D&D" into an episode of "Mission: Impossible." When I'm given a game in which a single stupid slip, or opportunity not ruthlessly exploited, probably means eventual death? That's when I have the most fun.
Again, the key is that what's fun for player A may well be tedious for player B, and vice versa. Ideally, the game should be able to accommodate them both.
Haha. That sounds like a whole load of fun for me too. I would love to have someone like that playing a wizard in my game.
The problem I have with "no holds barred" games is that they tend to make the players paranoid, in my experience. And when the players get paranoid, the game gets tedious, with elaborate preparations required before anything gets done (e.g. lengthy information gathering before going anywhere even slightly dangerous, overly cautious defensive measures before daring to go to sleep, etc.).I'm one of the odd people who finds all that to be fun, rather than tedious.Let me give you an example.
Suppose you're a party of level 3 characters who have ticked off a powerful enemy. When you go to sleep at an inn for the night, an invisible, silent bone devil teleports into your room and coup de graces all of you.
Having learned their lesson, every night before bed your next party goes through an elaborate process of hiding their tracks, taking anti-teleport measures, taking anti-invisibility measures, taking anti-mind-reading measures, taking anti-scrying measures, taking anti-illusion measures, making sure no spies spotted them, doing elaborate precautions in case one of the party is actually a doppelganger, etc.
Fun or not?
And after the first time they do this....it takes a minute for the GM to ask..."Are you guys taking the normal precations?"
How is that tedious?
|
dude... i have one game name for you...Cyberpunk 2020. I have a feeling that you'd enjoy planning edge runs.I'll have to check it out. I can tell you that, so far, the only game I've enjoyed as much as D&D has been Victory Games' "James Bond 007."
Ooh, yeah, people playing cyberpunk for longer than six sessions develop acute paranoia...it's so fun. And if they are careless, BAM! Because in this game, you can die from a well placed gunshot. ONE. BULLET. IS. ALL. IT TAKES.
It encourages roleplay and coming up with witty ways of bypassing obstacles. A party that goes in guns blazing, barring a freak series of dice rolls, will be splattered over the landscape in two to three rounds tops.
Screw the players!! If they didn't like being tortured they wouldn't have showed up. Dance! Puppets, Dance!
The DM's job is to challenge the players...so challenge them.
You know you've done your job as a DM when a player glares across the table and calls you a Rat Bastard and his character is still alive.
And after the first time they do this....it takes a minute for the GM to ask..."Are you guys taking the normal precations?"
How is that tedious?
Because all of those preparations take (in-game) time and resources away from doing something that's more fun.* I.e. "Okay guys, I cast my one Hold Person spell for the day; I need the rest of my slots for Undetectable Alignment, Detect Poison, Detect Magic, Invisibility Purge, Zone of Truth, etc., etc. so we better go set up a new hidden camp (which takes 8 hours to scout out a location and set up correctly) and rest." Not to mention that they often involve one or two characters more than the rest of the party.
I was in a superhero campaign once and we were being hunted by a nefarious evil organization. So far, so good. But we spent so time trying to guess our enemy's actions, second-guessing our own actions, distrusting our allies, making sure that no one kidnapped or murdered our families and friends, and trying to cover our tracks that we hardly got any superhero-ing done. :-(
*To me.
That's why you kill your family youself that way the villian can't go after then.
*To me.
Indeed.
Huh. I thought I remembered following along with a Red Hand of Doom play-by-post that you were playing in, and it didn't seem like you were doing any of that kind of ultra-paranoid stuff.
This is difficult, because over the net I can't read your face to see if you're jerking my chain good-naturedly, or if you're just actively trying to be a dick. Barring any of the usual tells: give-away smiley emoticons or disclaimers, I'll assume you're serious -- do correct me if I'm mistaken.
In that light, I would ask, "if something is fun for you, you always do it, all of the time, regardless of circumstances or other people involved?"
I would point out that (a) I wasn't playing the wizard, which I previously mentioned was my favorite class for paranoia-fueled gaming; (b) I had understood that this thread was about "GMs who don't hold back"? and (c) I nevertheless spent an awful lot of time making allies in town and trying to fortify the place against a single day-long trip we were making, before the game ended.
Finally, I would find your constant assertions of badwrongfun to be growing tiresome, even without the dollop of dishonest snark on top. Because, of course, what I do with one character, or don't do with another, doesn't impact your game, nor will it change based on your perception of it.
A party that goes in guns blazing, barring a freak series of dice rolls, will be splattered over the landscape in two to three rounds tops.
That's how 007 games were as well -- fire combat was so ridiculously deadly that you only resorted to it if you'd already rigged the odds overwhelmingly in your favor.
A party that goes in guns blazing, barring a freak series of dice rolls, will be splattered over the landscape in two to three rounds tops.That's how 007 games were as well -- fire combat was so ridiculously deadly that you only resorted to it if you'd already rigged the odds overwhelmingly in your favor.
And that's as it should be, IMO. I prefer my spy games to feel like spy movies and my fantasy games to feel like fantasy movies, and not vice versa! :-)