I often times run one off training games using Crypt of the Everflame. In fact, I just got back from running such a scenario. When I have a new player at a table. I always take my time to explain what they can do, why they can do it, and why they should do something. For instance, withholding to move on the Rogue's turn (or move on the Fighter's turn if playing a Rogue) to set up a flank. I'll teach them about things like 5 ft movements and their many uses, or positioning for spells that affect an area (like Burning Hands). Little things like that can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Just today I had an experienced player make a rookie mistake while I was distracted teaching another about something he could do, and it ended up killing another character, and made him leave the table. A character was 1 point away from death, and the healer decided he'd be better off showing how cool he could be with a greatsword, than heal the fallen character. The other player died at level 1 before he could even roll a dice. I offered to let him get a save, but he was angry and left the table because he didn't want to play with a guy that was too busy being a bad*** to help the group.
If the party is making rookie mistakes, play a couple sessions where you explain what they should do, and why, and what the consequences are if they don't. Explain why they should always try and set up a flank, if possible, and why they should avoid being flanked. Explain about why they should with hold their actions until the casters can get the buffs, like Bless or Haste, off to make them party. Explain why the fighter with a high AC and lots of HP, should try and provoke attacks of opportunity, so the wizard can cast his spell without worrying about losing it. If you do that for a few sessions, and keep reiterating and remind them every once in awhile, then they'll learn the basic tactics of adventuring, and you won't find yourself so frustrated.
|
No, in general I don't see silly players. I don't even know how Pathfinder could be any easier. Don't smoke drugs? :)
If I had a group like that I'd try to educate them and at least tell them what they're doing wrong.
If we could get examples of what they do, we might be able to help better.
I had a new player this weekend who kept opening doors before we finished the current encounter. That was definitely not helpful. And the other players told him.
|
With my players, I play things straight. The only warning I give is something along the lines of "Is that what you want to do?". Most of my players now know they should read that as: "Are you *INSANE*?! ABORT!".
Yeah, if someone is about to do something epicly stupid, I usually, in a deadpan voice, "So, let me get this straight, you want to..." and many times the response is, "Um... well since you put it that way, it doesn't sound so good." Sometimes the response I get is, "yeah, and this is why it will work." I shrug, give them some rolls to make, and let the chips fall.
But players who are obviously new, I usually try to be very helpful with them.
|
Do these 6 players always have to play together?
My suggestion is to switch seating up if you can. Mix this group in with the other people in your group, so that we only have a few of them at any one table. by doing this, if you are lucky, the foolish players may pick up some good habits.
Playing with people you arent used to can give you ideas or make you see things a certain way you might not have otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take a PFS adventure they already failed.
Have them take characters who already died.
Run the mission. Take *alot of time* explaining to them.
Ask what they would do. Help show them the problems. Explain what killed them last time.
They clearly aren't getting it by just dying. You need to sit down with them and help them see how tactics can help (or seriously hinder) what they do.
If they are interested in learning, they will. If not, then time to drop the group.
-S
|
I don't think you necessarily need to replay the adventure. But explaining to them what they're doing wrong, and how they can play more tactically, should be useful.
I actually GMed an almost-TPK last weekend, where all 3 PCs were on the floor in negative HPs until the pregen cleric returned to the room (she had run away from a Cause Fear) and channeled energy to heal them all at once.
The players had been fighting a cleric and zombie minions when this happened. They knocked down the zombies first, then tried to go after the cleric. But the cleric had already scared away the pregen healer and channeled negative energy to hurt the rest, so they were already in bad shape before they even started fighting the enemy cleric. I told them afterwards that they should always focus on the most dangerous target first, which in this case was obviously the spellcaster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I told them afterwards that they should always focus on the most dangerous target first, which in this case was obviously the spellcaster.
I find frequently it is more advantageous to focus on the easiest targets first. Reducing the action economy of the opposition is a huge boon.
Not that that's always the best either, but I don't think it's nearly as absolute as you're claiming.
I focus on the strongest opponent that I can get to. If I'm a fighter, surrounded by mooks, I have to kill the mooks to get to the BBEG. But if I'm a fighter, with mooks in front of me, and a way to get through them to the BBEG, bypass the mooks and kill the BBEG, unless the mooks would seriously hurt the squishies.
|
|
I told them afterwards that they should always focus on the most dangerous target first, which in this case was obviously the spellcaster.
I find frequently it is more advantageous to focus on the easiest targets first. Reducing the action economy of the opposition is a huge boon.
Not that that's always the best either, but I don't think it's nearly as absolute as you're claiming.
Depends on if the mooks are hitting regularly or sparingly. If they are hitting regularly, I agree with you. If they are hitting sparingly, then they are just designed to be extra HP for the BBEG, so may as well bypass them and get right to the nitty gritty.
|
Aside from the great advice that has already been given above, I think that it is good to note that tone and demeanor are important when coaching feedback to players. The key thing to remember is that everyone is sitting at the table to have fun.
At it's heart, Pathfinder is a group storytelling session. Everyone gets to play a part at the table, and you get to direct. Part of being the director is catering the same scenario to different people each time you sit down and run.
Part of the art of GMing is reading the table, taking cues, and making adjustments where necessary. While most of the time, running the same scenario will yield similar results, that doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate to adjust how you are running the scenario with a group of players that are atypical compared to groups you normally run the scenario for.
It is impossible for scenario designers to create scenarios that are perfect for every single table out there, due to the disparity in play styles, experience and other factors. Interpreting feedback that you are getting from you players and making adjustments accordingly is one of the most important jobs you have.
"its too hard" and "are you sure you running it right"and being told
that you should adjust things to make it easier for them
Are strong indicators that the players aren't having fun, and some adjustments should be made.
And by adjustments, I'm not talking about making major changes to the scenario like adding, or removing monsters.
You are in control of how those monsters, traps, etc. are behaving. Sometimes hand-waiving, adjusting dice totals on the fly, or quirky behavior and poor tactics from enemies are justified, and if done right, can actually enhance the experience. If you do it right, the only one who knows you've made the adjustments is you.
I'm not saying that you have to do these things all the time, but it IS appropriate at certain tables. If the scenario designers knew that they were building the scenario for exactly your group of players, they would have customized it to their needs.
The keyword is FUN. If it is not being had, make adjustments.
|
|
And before someone jumps on him, I'm sure that Brent means, "Make adjustments that do not change the scenario as written" when he says, "make adjustments."
There are many examples of just enough ambiguity in many PFS encounter write-ups, that allow you to adjudicate said encounter in different ways depending on circumstance. Being tied to one interpretation can hamper a GM when certain circumstances arise.
Just remember not to "creatively" interpret things to such a point that you are no longer running the scenario as written.
|
|
And before someone jumps on him, I'm sure that Brent means, "Make adjustments that do not change the scenario as written" when he says, "make adjustments."
There are many examples of just enough ambiguity in many PFS encounter write-ups, that allow you to adjudicate said encounter in different ways depending on circumstance. Being tied to one interpretation can hamper a GM when certain circumstances arise.
Just remember not to "creatively" interpret things to such a point that you are no longer running the scenario as written.
Exactly right Andrew. Thank you for clarifying. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, even in home games. Some of my players call me a killer GM because I don't hand adventures to them on a silver platter. They argue things like bad guys are supposed to die to heroes, so they can't fight intelligently. If someone is beating the heroes, then I should fudge all the rolls to insure the heroes win.
I disagree with this a lot, as a player and a GM. If I try to tackle something out of my league, I expect to be seriously hurt, die, or be forced to run away. If you're 7th level and want to try and fight a CR 15 dragon, and it becomes clear the dragon is going to murder everyone, you should flee. Those same players try and argue that I should play those dragons stupid and that they should just flop over and die, because they are the player characters and they should always win.
This sounds to me like what's happening here. You have players that are refusing to learn the tactics of the game, playing impulsively with no consideration for the consequences of their actions, maybe expecting an auto-save somewhere, and then complaining when the consequences they ignored come back to bite them in the ass.
However, if every group of enemies you're throwing against them is a tactical genius, that's another situation. I've only just recently started playing GMing PFS, and I've looked through a few scenarios, and so far, all the enemies have clearly outlined tactics. Something like, "These goblins are not very intelligent and simply attack the nearest enemy. They don't intentionally set up flanks, but rush their target."
So if you were to suddenly change the goblin behavior to tactical geniuses, using flanks, aid another, etc. then yes, you're being unfair. The encounter was designed around the goblins being stupid and not helping each other. If you play them smarter than they are, then the encounter is harder than it is supposed to be.
|
|
Depends on if the mooks are hitting regularly or sparingly. If they are hitting regularly, I agree with you. If they are hitting sparingly, then they are just designed to be extra HP for the BBEG, so may as well bypass them and get right to the nitty gritty.I told them afterwards that they should always focus on the most dangerous target first, which in this case was obviously the spellcaster.
I find frequently it is more advantageous to focus on the easiest targets first. Reducing the action economy of the opposition is a huge boon.
Not that that's always the best either, but I don't think it's nearly as absolute as you're claiming.
In the case of spellcasters, they tend to be a big enough threat that they should usually be the primary focus. But I agree that it sometimes depends on whether the rest of the mooks are really threatening, or just there for numbers.
Well, I looked through, I think it was called City of Strangers (it's two parts and set in Kaer Maga), and another one that I and another GM were running for our local stores PFS day. I have no intention of really playing PFS much if at all, so I glanced through his scenario. Anyway, I ran the first part of City of Strangers and all the enemies had pretty well detailed tactics for a variety of situations. Like so and so casts this spell if a PC gets to close, or the goblin shaman casts burning hands and isn't worried about hitting other goblins etc. etc.
The combats never really took very long, so the tactics were all relevant through out the fights. I only really had two chances to mess around with my own tactics, and that wasn't much beyond things that were fairly obvious. Like a bard with a bow is going to keep falling back to prevent his enemies from getting close, or a group of thugs with sneak attack are going to try and set up flanks to get their sneak attacks off.
Really, what I saw in the three scenarios I read/glanced through, all their tactics were largely spelled out. Goblins charging the nearest foe and not working together, wizards relying on certain spells, these goblins fight to the death as long as so and so is alive...
|
|
This is starting to sound like a public argument between the GM and the players. I suggest taking it off-line and trying to resolve your issues. If not, then go your separate ways. The forums are not really the place to air your dirty laundry.
Agreed. Is there a Venture-Captain for your area? If you can't take care of your problems privately on your own, then that would be the person to ask for help, as a neutral third party.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Am I late for Springer?
Ah well, I guess I'll just leave this here.
|
|
I think I know what happenned. The scenario is "Edge of Heaven" right, at subtier 1-2?
That scenario is seriously messed up at that subtier and can easily TPK a party even if the GM didn't combine 2 encounters. It was very silly of your group to ring the bell, but according to the tactics of the scenario, your GM should not have attacked with the big boss until you moved farther in, and especially not combined with the first encounter.
So it's partially your GMs fault (for not using the tactics listed in the scenario) but it's also a problem that it's a killer scenario at that subtier. That scenario seems like it was basically made for a min-maxed party and it's just inappropriately challenging for many groups.
I think most of the problem is your group is just running into deadly season 3 scenarios and your GM normally GMs for optimized groups that know what they're doing. He's not softballing (which is normally a good thing), but he's also making adjustments to make things harder (by disregarding the listed tactics). He's basically not adjusting the game to his players, which aren't the same as his other players. I see what he means by his players doing silly things, and doing silly things isn't "wrong", it's just a different (less hardcore) playstyle, and it can often be much much more amusing than min-max optimizers (at least in my opinion). But maybe the GM doesn't like this playstyle, which is also his perogative.
|
I've found season 3 scenarios are the easiest of the lot, actually. I don't know about subtier 1-2 for QFP part 1, so I can't comment there.
As long as you're following the tactics as reasonably as you can, there's really nothing they can blame you for. I have seen some GMs do some very strange things that make the game less fun, too hard, and turn encounters harder than they should be, but I'm not sure that's the case here.
Pathfinder Society scenarios are structured in a certain way where I think some babysitting is pretty welcome to even seasoned players, to begin with at least.
|
|
Had a VERY close run-in with a TPK with QFP, Part 3. The party had no healer. And, they didn't concentrate attacks on one group of attackers to try to break them - they simply spread out attacks all around, not trusting some of their other preparations to help them.
Had a very 'Seven Samurai' feel to it, though. Super-cool Kurosawa conclusion, I must say.
Sometimes almost-TPKs leave everyone (including the dead dead not-coming back dead PCs) with this shivery crazy-good feeling. So what if they made some rookie mistakes - I think we hooked at least 2 new PFS players with that session, despite killing off their PCs.
And isn't that what it's all about?
|
I've found season 3 scenarios are the easiest of the lot, actually. I don't know about subtier 1-2 for QFP part 1, so I can't comment there.
As long as you're following the tactics as reasonably as you can, there's really nothing they can blame you for. I have seen some GMs do some very strange things that make the game less fun, too hard, and turn encounters harder than they should be, but I'm not sure that's the case here.
I can assure you that this has to do with the tactics as written in the scenario.
There's one other possibility, and I ca't think that any of the motives for that possibility could be justified.
|
Event Coordinator - Dragon's Lair Comics & Fantasy®
|
To be honest it sounds like your players, especially after the number of scenarios you're describing, just aren't interested in playing the same style of game you are. The whole "multiple choice" thing can be a valid mode of play--IF the GM is willing. Sounds like a party/GM communication problem to me. Some parties just want a straightforward dungeon crawl with little to no tactical thinking, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Pathfinder Society doesn't have a "right" or "wrong" way of doing things.
Maybe it's time for the GM and party to take a break from each other and try out some other gaming partners?