LOL, Cranewing says basically "if I screw up a spell as a GM I can always treat it as a researched spell and keep the game going" and he gets SLAMMED as a badwrongfun GM by people who tbink he just said "my games are a horrible mess of NPC favoritism, GM railroading and I smell funny."
I love these boards. It's like a daily course in human psychology...
Well AD apply that logic to the PCs and imagine a game where -anyone- could do what crane suggests and tell me if you think the game could possibly work?
Or would the game instead be reduced to complete unbalanced gibberish because anyone could wave their hand and say, "What magic missile doesn't do 60d6 unavoidable unresistable damage at level 1? It's cool I just researched that spell instead."
Gnome, GM =\= player. That is all.
Say that, during an interesting and thought-provoking political mystery, your GM had a highly intelligent wizard send you and your fellow PCs on an important quest to deliver some missives to the King. These messages were SO important, a matter of national security in fact, that the PCs were given multiple copies spread out amongst the party (should someone fall) and then expressly forbade from reading them themselves (as they were meant for the king's eyes only).
Along the way, you meet some NPCs, some friendly, others not. You go through several encounters and a few semi-related mini-adventures--some of which involve people, for and against the king, trying to stop you for various reasons. Through interacting with them, you slowly begin to suspect that your employer is a really bad guy. Eventually, you realize the truth of his past history. Rather than continue the quest and be a pawn in whatever evil scheme the wizard has going, you return to your would-be benefactor and demand an explanation of his past crimes that have so recently come to light.
In response, he asks you one question: Do you still possess the King's letters? Yes? Good.
*greater dispel magic*
The GM TPKs the entire party in one go via the dozens of explosive runes letters we had been carrying all along--those that were meant for the king.
Your GM ends the (brief) campaign and congratulates you all on completing a rather "interesting" story. He compares it to the movie, THE DEPARTED, which was apparently his inspiration.
How would you feel after that? Was it a good game with a great and interesting story? Or were you totally cheated?
I'm not like a lot of other posters on here who gets so upset by the death of a character that I nerd-rage about it or flame an unknown GM about doing it to someone else in their campaign.
This is actually pretty funny and ingenious if you think about it. As you stated the characters could have looked at the letters, lost the letters, given them to the king, or found out about them in any number of other ways. The GM (playing the Wizard) would have no idea what would happen to the letters along the way and it was just a very opportunistic chance that presented itself for the PC's to be the ones to die because they confronted the wizard with his fireball bombs on them.
They should have come in prepared and kept the pages in extra-dimensional spaces or in safe places, but they kept the pages on them without knowing what they would do, that was their mistake and it cost them in the end. I know that hindsight is 20/20, but this is akin to a bunch of low levels walking into a dragon's lair and not expecting to get eaten.
As a player you have to be like a boyscout and always be prepared, especially for the worst case scenario. Bad planning is what ended up causing their own deaths in this instance.
To the GM of your game, I say bravo for an epic conclusion and to the players it's time to roll up new characters, maybe next time you'll be a bit more careful when confronting a BBEG or supposed BBEG. Live and learn.
Raving Dork is fond of throwing out hypothetical cases that rely on corner rules manipulation and it's easy to forget that he's not generally talking about actual game sessions.
That seems like a fair description. Also, you spelled my name wrong.
I'm not like a lot of other posters on here who gets so upset by the death of a character that I nerd-rage about it or flame an unknown GM about doing it to someone else in their campaign.
This is actually pretty funny and ingenious if you think about it. As you stated the characters could have looked at the letters, lost the letters, given them to...
Sure, that *IS* funny and ingenious and so is "Rocks fall, everyone dies. " (if you like the classics) or
"A Huge pile of small gravel, mixed up with some one-eye constables falls, everyone dies" for those that prefer the "Gritty" version. (I am so tired of hearing "I like "gritty" games"....)
Or " a tremendous steak sandwich falls, everyone dies , burned to death by the molten cheese" which seems to be our fave here in this thread.
Which one would you think is more "funny and ingenious"? The second one is ingenious but the last one is funny as all heck. Who wouldn't like to die by a giant Philly cheesesteak?
Back to the important discussion- what about the cheese? The classic is Cheez-whiz, but I much prefer the texture of mozzarrela . What does everyone else think?
The key to a good game is equal treatment under the rules AD. When the GM starts repeatedly violating his own rule he undermines the reasoning for the players to keep following them.Gnome, GM =\= player. That is all.
It is really impossible to try to explain to you just how totally, insanely, crazily wrong you are. But if you like it that way, fine. That's just not the way the game was designed, in ANY incarnation and is not the best way to play it.
Besides, you are either completely misunderstanding me, or deliberately misstating both my and cranewings comments. Neither of us has said to "repeatedly violate the GM's own rules." That is a towering straw man that blots out the sun.
But, the bottom line is that the GM is the GameMASTER for a reason Gnome.
To me, there is a difference between:
DM: Hmm I need a magic-missle like spell that can sunder a sword. *flips through books* Bummer. there aren't any.
*waves pencil* viola! spell exists. *does a write up of spell, gives it to said NPC*.
And
DM: the bad guy casts Magic Missle and sunders your sword.
PC: Magic Missle doesnt' work on objects.
DM: *sputters a moment* Well his spell just works like magic missle, it isn't really magic missle.. Your sword is still sundered.
I have no problem with the DM creating spells, magical items, unique abilities for monsters, unique monsters, and all that jazz.
I do have a problem with the DM inventing crap on the fly because his cajones are so very small he can't stand being called out as being incorrect about something.
If you want to be creative as a DM- be creative. More power to you. Your gamers will love you for it.
But don't change things like that on the fly. It just makes you look 1) like a jerk, 2) a tool, and 3)as someone the PC's can't trust to keep a consistent game going.
-S
To me, there is a difference between:
DM: Hmm I need a magic-missle like spell that can sunder a sword. *flips through books* Bummer. there aren't any.
*waves pencil* viola! spell exists. *does a write up of spell, gives it to said NPC*.And
DM: the bad guy casts Magic Missle and sunders your sword.
PC: Magic Missle doesnt' work on objects.
DM: *sputters a moment* Well his spell just works like magic missle, it isn't really magic missle.. Your sword is still sundered.I have no problem with the DM creating spells, magical items, unique abilities for monsters, unique monsters, and all that jazz.
I do have a problem with the DM inventing crap on the fly because his cajones are so very small he can't stand being called out as being incorrect about something.
If you want to be creative as a DM- be creative. More power to you. Your gamers will love you for it.
But don't change things like that on the fly. It just makes you look 1) like a jerk, 2) a tool, and 3)as someone the PC's can't trust to keep a consistent game going.
-S
I mostly agree with this. But the "mostly" part is that I don't have a problem with a GM who can quickly react to a mistake, correct it plausibly and most likely completely unknown to the players, weave it into the narrative and keep the game moving and the story compelling instead of "Ooops guys, I sort of messed up that spell the bad guy cast back there, it doesn't actually work that way, so now we have to retcon that encounter..."
But that's not what I was reacting to. What I was reacting to was the statement that a GM is constrained by the same rules as the players and has to play his NPCs exactly as if they are PCs. This is very similar, if not identical, to the statement that every NPC has to be built in accordance with the PC building rules.
I totally disagree with that. If I want to make up a completely unique NPC with powers no PC could ever hope to gain, I'll do it so long as the result is balanced and fun.
I GM because I want to use MY IMAGINATION, not borrow the imagination of the game designers.
I don't disagree with that, AD.
I don't like retcon's, in particular. I've no issue with the DM saying "I made a mistake about magic missle, it doesn't work on objects. Sorry. My ruling for that game still stands though" and then moving on.
If the DM is glib enough to keep it on the sly and never let the PC know that he made a mistake, thats fine too. But not many are.
And thats really the distinction. Whether or not the PC's know he just made something up, or if its just clearly obvious he invented a new thing just because he was wrong.
May seem like semantics, but at least part of DM'ing is just that. Perception.
-S
I don't disagree with that, AD.
I don't like retcon's, in particular. I've no issue with the DM saying "I made a mistake about magic missle, it doesn't work on objects. Sorry. My ruling for that game still stands though" and then moving on.
If the DM is glib enough to keep it on the sly and never let the PC know that he made a mistake, thats fine too. But not many are.
And thats really the distinction. Whether or not the PC's know he just made something up, or if its just clearly obvious he invented a new thing just because he was wrong.May seem like semantics, but at least part of DM'ing is just that. Perception.
-S
No, I think we're pretty close to the same page Selgard. Again, my issue was Gnome's apparent rigid belief that GMs are CONSTRAINED by the rules, not EMPOWERED by them.
As I said, I can't think of a more completely opposite approach to the job of GM than what Gnome appears to be championing. I would NEVER play a game that is supposed to be all about imagination and story telling, and then be told "but you can't make stuff up unless the players can do exactly the same thing."
It's a strange, weird world out there in REAL life. You can bet that in my fantasy worlds the PCs are going to encounter all sorts of totally unexplainable things. I make it an absolute fundamental aspect of my world building to create totally unexplainable (from the PC's point of view) things. My NPC spellcasters have all sorts of special spells. Some of them the PCs can get copies of, some not. If a player ever says to me "Hey! I don't understand how that works!" my response is "good, you're not supposed to."
Albert Einstein is famous for saying "The world is not only stranger than we DO imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine." I make it a point for my players to be amazed and confused as much as possible.
But, I also do my best to do it all CONSISTENTLY and have it (mostly) worked out in my notes and in my head ahead of time.
But have I ever messed up a spell and just hand-waved it as a newly created "researched spell" and just moved on with my players never being the wiser?
Yep. I sure have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can not help but think what an absolute *bore* the Bestiaries would be, if the writers were constrained by what a PC could or could not do, to determine their abilities.
Blech.
-S
I totally disagree with that. If I want to make up a completely unique NPC with powers no PC could ever hope to gain, I'll do it so long as the result is balanced and fun.
I GM...
TPK's are generally neither balanced or fun.
But they can be cheesy.
I totally disagree with that. If I want to make up a completely unique NPC with powers no PC could ever hope to gain, I'll do it so long as the result is balanced and fun.
I GM...
TPK's are generally neither balanced or fun.
But they can be cheesy.
For the record, in over 30 years of GMing, I've never yet actually had a full TPK. Usually at least a couple party members run away in time. ;-)
In all seriousness, I really haven't had a TPK as a GM. I've had plenty of times the party ran away, but I think my reputation as a lethal GM has helped to avoid TPKs.
TPKs isn't really the issue I've been talking about though Dr.
Indeed. But even if it's not, here's whats wrong. Many, many , years ago, back in the days of 2nd Ed, I had a game with some special races allowed.
Well, they were in a town, digging up some graves for a quest. The grave diggers guild attacked them. They were supposed to beat the PC's into subdual. But, I forgot one PD was a were. So, he pointed out that the shovels wouldn't hurt them. I then said "Oh yeah, they were SILVER shovels." So bogus.
What I forgot is that the game is cooperative storytelling, and supposed to be fun for all. The PcC's aren;t just actors in the DM's little play and the players aren't there to read scripts.
Sometimes you swing and whiff as a DM. If it's minor and can add to the mystery and flavor, Ok you can cover that with some quick BS to move the story forward. But when it means a PC death or anything serious- then the rolls are the rolls and the RAW is the RAW. Then, in those cases- a good DM never fudges... except sometimes to help the PC... and that only in a minor way.
If as a DM ya blew it? Then take it like a man, 'fess up, move on, there's always another nite.
For the record-in my 38 years of DMing I have had a number of TPKs. In each and every case, however, everyone at the table- players included- agreed it was either very bad luck or gross stupidity/foolhardiness on the PC's fault... or both.
I can not help but think what an absolute *bore* the Bestiaries would be, if the writers were constrained by what a PC could or could not do, to determine their abilities.
Abilities is one thing, but everyone plays by the same set of rules. Otherwise, why even bother having them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abilities is one thing, but everyone plays by the same set of rules. Otherwise, why even bother having them?I can not help but think what an absolute *bore* the Bestiaries would be, if the writers were constrained by what a PC could or could not do, to determine their abilities.
Your two assertions contradict each other.
the DM has the right to invent new things for monsters, which are by their very nature things that the PC's can't do and don't have access to.
The monsters by their very definition don't follow the same rules as PC's.
(que racial hit die here, and the slew of benefits they get for certain races, heck just check out dragons and tell me they follow the same rules as PC's).
Now I agree that if you are saying "the monster has improved crit" then its the same that a PC has.. but the DM can say "The monster has Supreme Crit" and thats just somethinghe made up for that monster, that he PC has no access to. (assuming he even tells the PC how the monster has such a crit range. and why should he? "you don't know thaT' is the Dm's best tool.)
I mean we're all using the same rulebook. the difference is that the DM's rulebook says "Do what it takes to keep the game consistent and interesting" and the PC's rulebook says "Follow these rules unless the DM says otherwise".
Why? Because the job of the PC and the job of the DM are entirely different. Both are playing the same game- but their roles are entirely different. And so they get different tools.
-S
To me, there is a difference between:
DM: Hmm I need a magic-missle like spell that can sunder a sword. *flips through books* Bummer. there aren't any.
*waves pencil* viola! spell exists. *does a write up of spell, gives it to said NPC*.And
DM: the bad guy casts Magic Missle and sunders your sword.
PC: Magic Missle doesnt' work on objects.
DM: *sputters a moment* Well his spell just works like magic missle, it isn't really magic missle.. Your sword is still sundered.I have no problem with the DM creating spells, magical items, unique abilities for monsters, unique monsters, and all that jazz.
I do have a problem with the DM inventing crap on the fly because his cajones are so very small he can't stand being called out as being incorrect about something.
If you want to be creative as a DM- be creative. More power to you. Your gamers will love you for it.
But don't change things like that on the fly. It just makes you look 1) like a jerk, 2) a tool, and 3)as someone the PC's can't trust to keep a consistent game going.
-S
Best route....
DM: You see the mage fire of a bolt of magic from his fingers that snaps your sword in half
PC: /Rolls spellcraft!! What was it?
DM: It looks like magic missle
PC: Magic Missle doesn't work that way!
DM: I said 'looks like'... You've never seen THIS spell before, but magic theory tells you it shares properties with MM.
If the good guys win...
DM: Ok... on the loot you find a spell book, I'll get you the list by email later....
FYI, I ALWAYS thought Magic missle should be able to target objects ;)
|
Your two assertions contradict each other.
the DM has the right to invent new things for monsters, which are by their very nature things that the PC's can't do and don't have access to.
The monsters by their very definition don't follow the same rules as PC's.
(que racial hit die here, and the slew of benefits they get for certain races, heck just check out dragons and tell me they follow the same rules as PC's).Now I agree that if you are saying "the monster has improved crit" then its the same that a PC has.. but the DM can say "The monster has Supreme Crit" and thats just somethinghe made up for that monster, that he PC has no access to. (assuming he even tells the PC how the monster has such a crit range. and why should he? "you don't know thaT' is the Dm's best tool.)
Absolutely. I don't think anyone is objecting to this. You can, of course, give creatures special abilities unknown to PC-kind, and nobody is saying you can't.
I mean we're all using the same rulebook. the difference is that the DM's rulebook says "Do what it takes to keep the game consistent and interesting" and the PC's rulebook says "Follow these rules unless the DM says otherwise".
I actually agree with this. More or less anyway.
But part of making the game consistent is responding to NPC errors the same way you would to PC errors. Them being your errors as well doesn't change that. If you would respond to a PC error in understanding a rule by letting them take back an action, say,then doing so is appropriate for NPCs as well...if you wouldn't allow them to do that, then you don't get to do it either. Same situation here.
It's not the inventing a new spell that's being complained of, it's the idea of making an existing spell a new one retroactively, which seems both unfair and uncool.
Why? Because the job of the PC and the job of the DM are entirely different. Both are playing the same game- but their roles are entirely different. And so they get different tools.
-S
The roles of the Player and GM are indeed vastly different, but the roles of PC and NPC are quite similar. Favoring PCs over NPCs inevitably happens sometimes, and isn't a huge deal, but favoritism in the other direction is a big deal, and a very bad idea as well as an awful precedent to set.
Your two assertions contradict each other.
the DM has the right to invent new things for monsters, which are by their very nature things that the PC's can't do and don't have access to.
The monsters by their very definition don't follow the same rules as PC's.
(que racial hit die here, and the slew of benefits they get for certain races, heck just check out dragons and tell me they follow the same rules as PC's).Now I agree that if you are saying "the monster has improved crit" then its the same that a PC has.. but the DM can say "The monster has Supreme Crit" and thats just somethinghe made up for that monster, that he PC has no access to. (assuming he even tells the PC how the monster has such a crit range. and why should he? "you don't know thaT' is the Dm's best tool.)
Absolutely. I don't think anyone is objecting to this. You can, of course, give creatures special abilities unknown to PC-kind, and nobody is saying you can't.
I mean we're all using the same rulebook. the difference is that the DM's rulebook says "Do what it takes to keep the game consistent and interesting" and the PC's rulebook says "Follow these rules unless the DM says otherwise".I actually agree with this. More or less anyway.
But part of making the game consistent is responding to NPC errors the same way you would to PC errors. Them being your errors as well doesn't change that. If you would respond to a PC error in understanding a rule by letting them take back an action, say,then doing so is appropriate for NPCs as well...if you wouldn't allow them to do that, then you don't get to do it either. Same situation here.
It's not the inventing a new spell that's being complained of, it's the idea of making an existing spell a new one retroactively, which seems both unfair and uncool.
Why? Because the job of the PC and the job of the DM are entirely different. Both are playing the same game- but their roles are entirely different....
You and I aren't disagreeing.
I think its great for a DM to make up a new spell or whatever when getting ready for the next big fight.
I think its bad when he does so in mid combat after being told Magic Missle doesn't effect objects.
Its only "ok" when he's glib enough to do so in mid combat /such that the PC's never knew it happened/ but even then I don't like it. I Just don't necessarily know about it. :)
Either way though the integrity of the game is preserved *from the standpoint of the players*
From a player perspective whether the DM spend 4 hours making a new spell the night before, or came up with it on the spot and was glib enough to cover it so the party never knew- the result is the same. We think he came up with a new thing for his guy to use against us.
So while I'm against it, I also never know it.
Of course if he Isn't glib enough and it comes out as fake then he just lost the confidence of the group. I'd rather him say "sorry I made a mistake" than say "Well tough crap, this spell works anyway cuz I forgot that". Granted, if the mistake is realized 2 hours later then its knowledge to go forward on not something to Retcon. (imo anyway).
-S
"Do what it takes to keep the game consistent and interesting"
-S
Note that you guys keep using these words consistency, balance, and fun. But having the GM tell you "You all die thanks to this extremely questionable rule illegal dodgy spell combo I made up that you will never be allowed to use." Isn't consistent, balanced, or fun.
The more ridiculous you get about what GM characters are capable of doing simply reduces immersion and fun in the game because they are not being consistent in the rules and they're often breaking game balance.
There's a reason the rules have to go through editing and play testing before anyone is sure that they're fair and even after they do you tend to see a great deal of variation in balance which is why the DM shouldn't believe that willy nilly changing of the rules for himself is a good idea because a lot of the time it isn't.
Now I'm not saying that there isn't a place for creativity and DM fiat but it's a narrow path and needs to be walked along carefully instead of used in every situation to amuse yourself.
The fact is, the PC's aren't going to have at their disposal the same things that any given NPC is.
Its just a fact of the game.Published material is full of things the PC's can't do. (bound Balors to run the flood gates on a dam being one such).
Now I grant you if a PC sees someone cast a spell they should get spellcraft and if afforded the opportunity to get a spellbook then said spell should be in there.
Now said spoell could require components that make most PC's queasy about using it, or it could even have the Evil descriptor.
It could be cast by the cleric of an evil deity and be a spell only available to that god- or others of that same vile portfolio.
But that doesn't mean that the DM isn't using the same rules as the PC.
Anymore than he isn't when the Big Bad has some soul sucking artifact that he's trying to use to bring back Bigger Bad from the Abyss or whatever.
I grant you that Magic Missle is the same for the Dm as it is for the PC. In as much as that is true across the board, then we're in agreement.
But the difference is that the DM has the ability to make up new stuff and apply it to his monsters.
Such as a template, or to give his sorcererss of doom a demonic pact for more abilities and such and so on.
Even the application of a template the PC's can't use (such as half-dragon or half-fiend) is both going by the rules and using rules the PC's don't get. And its perfectly legal, fine, acceptable and even expected of the DM.
So while the DM shouldn't just handwaive changes because the battle is going poorly- I have no issue with the DM deciding that some NPC gets something I can't get, or that some monster or even classed person gets something I can't do.. as long as it makes sense in the game world and goes with the flow of whats happening and makes things interesting, challenging, and engaging.
-S
Honestly, as the gm if I misunderstand a rule regarding a spell, I just state that the spell the npc has is one he researched that works the way I am explaining.
Spell research can make RavingDork's scenario plausible.
Imagine that Wizard Inkster researched a new variant of Explosive Runes. His version, Explosive Sigil, is just like Explosive Runes except that it also triggers if another copy of Explosive Sigil within 20 feet triggers.
Inkster was the court wizard until the king exiled him to the Tower of East Nowhere for court intrigue and illegal spell research. The adventurers do not know this, and when they visit the tower Inkster realizes they would be perfect stooges for his revenge. He makes up envelopes, each containing enough Explosive Sigils to kill the king or adventurer. He insists that each adventurer carry two envelopes and warns them to always carry them on their person and not to open them. He maxed out his Bluff skill and took Skill Focus(Bluff) while conducting court intrigue, so his words sound honest.
Inkster figures that when the king reads one Explosive Sigil from the first envelope handed to him, it will set off a chain reaction killing the king and the adventurers. He knows the king will be raised from the dead, but blowing him to bits is all the revenge he wants ... for now. He doubts that the adventurers will be raised, so that will leave no witnesses.
On the road, the adventurers meet people who tell them that Inkster was exiled for for court intrigue and illegal spell research. One of them even knows that Inkster created a variant of Explosive Runes. But to complicate matters, the party is being followed by a high-level rogue who thinks that they picked up a magic item he wants, and the party sees signs of the rogue searching their gear whenever they leave it unattended.
With that setup, the scenario would be plausible enough to satisfy me. If the party returns to confront Inkster, he will ask for one envelope, take out one sheet, hand the envelope back, move 15 feet away, and read one Explosive Sigil himself, taking damage to start the chain reaction.
However, I would not use it, because the most likely outcome is that a player character would say, "Once we are out of sight of the tower, I open an envelope and read it."
My scenario also works if my wizard got someone else to cast all those explosive runes.
Less cheese.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, there's a big difference between "big monster who gets special monster abilities appropriate to its CR" and "NPC cleric who is casting a 7th level spell but it's special just-for-him a 4th level spell". The former is being creative and using imagination and doing what a GM is supposed to do. The latter is, well, cheatery.
If an ability isn't supposed to happen until 13th level, then wait until the NPC is 13th level. Don't give the 7th level cleric a "special" version of destruction and then when the PCs complain about it, say 'well next time I'll just make him 13th level then'. That's unfair and unfun. There's a reason certain abilities are considered high-level abilities, and there's a reason some spell effects don't happen at lower levels. If I'm facing death spells that require a resurrection to come back from, for example, I want to be of appropriate level to face them or have done something terribly stupid to cause me to face them.
Creating new spells is fine (even on the fly, if you can be glib about it as discussed previously). Creating new [evil] spells or spells with expensive material components that the PCs won't want to cast is fine. Creating new spells that your PCs aren't allowed to have is not fine, especially if they are minor modifications to existing spells.
Creating new feats is fine. Creating new monster feats that the PCs can never qualify for is fine. Creating new fighter feats of badassness and then denying them to the PCs is not fine.
Is the distinction I'm making clear, or am I just muddying the waters more?
Melissa, I and those who have weighed in more or less agreeing with my points would not consider giving a seventh level spell to an NPC as a fourth level spell "consistent" or "balanced." So your example would not fit our criteria for what a GM is able to do to "make the game more fun and interesting."
Balance is still critical for the game to be fair. But giving a wizard a special version of magic missile which can target objects is not unbalanced. In fact if a player wanted to research such a spell, as a GM I would encourage it.
This debate is traversing the typical internet debate trajectory. It is quite likely that most of us posting here are well within one standard deviation of GM rules enforcement and the debate is just getting twisted around due to people exaggerating points for rhetorical impact. (Like your "seventh level spell as a fourth level spell" example.)
The crucial point to make is that GMs can do things players can't and that's a good thing when it allows the game to be smooth, consistent, fast-moving, interesting and challenging. When the GM does the same thing and it makes the game inconsistent, bogged down, boring and unfair, that's a different problem than "the GM can play by different rules."
What if it was the players' choice, such as a "only by sacrificing yourselves can the world be saved" kind of scenario?
To me that is fine.
Your original scenario I would not have enjoyed.
I'm not like a lot of other posters on here who gets so upset by the death of a character that I nerd-rage about it or flame an unknown GM about doing it to someone else in their campaign.
This is actually pretty funny and ingenious if you think about it. As you stated the characters could have looked at the letters, lost the letters, given them to...
Sure, that *IS* funny and ingenious and so is "Rocks fall, everyone dies. " (if you like the classics) or
"A Huge pile of small gravel, mixed up with some one-eye constables falls, everyone dies" for those that prefer the "Gritty" version. (I am so tired of hearing "I like "gritty" games"....)
Or " a tremendous steak sandwich falls, everyone dies , burned to death by the molten cheese" which seems to be our fave here in this thread.
Which one would you think is more "funny and ingenious"? The second one is ingenious but the last one is funny as all heck. Who wouldn't like to die by a giant Philly cheesesteak?
Talk about touchy players, sheesh this is exactly what I'm talking about when I think nerd-raging players who get upset if their characters die. This wasn't a GM doing a hand-wave thing, this was the players fault being under-prepared or unprepared for possible outcomes when they came to confront someone they thought was evil and pulling their strings.
If you would have quoted the rest of my post rather than snip what you took out of context as focusing on the "funny" part you would see what I meant by that. I won't post it all again, but suffice to say players made the choices leading up to their death and it very very very easily could have been avoided, they died, roll up new characters and put on your big boy pants is what I would have told them. That's not being mean, that's being realistic without holding player hands and altering the story and the plans of the wizard. It's not like he handed them the letters then immediately detonated them at the beginning of the campaign killing them, they went through an adventure and died because of their lack of thought, it is really that simple.
I'm not like a lot of other posters on here who gets so upset by the death of a character that I nerd-rage about it or flame an unknown GM about doing it to someone else in their campaign.
This is actually pretty funny and ingenious if you think about it. As you stated the characters could have looked at the letters, lost the letters, given them to...
Sure, that *IS* funny and ingenious and so is "Rocks fall, everyone dies. " (if you like the classics) or
"A Huge pile of small gravel, mixed up with some one-eye constables falls, everyone dies" for those that prefer the "Gritty" version. (I am so tired of hearing "I like "gritty" games"....)
Or " a tremendous steak sandwich falls, everyone dies , burned to death by the molten cheese" which seems to be our fave here in this thread.
Which one would you think is more "funny and ingenious"? The second one is ingenious but the last one is funny as all heck. Who wouldn't like to die by a giant Philly cheesesteak?
Talk about touchy players, sheesh this is exactly what I'm talking about when I think nerd-raging players who get upset if their characters die. This wasn't a GM doing a hand-wave thing, this was the players fault being under-prepared or unprepared for possible outcomes when they came to confront someone they thought was evil and pulling their strings.
If you would have quoted the rest of my post rather than snip what you took out of context as focusing on the "funny" part you would see what I meant by that. I won't post it all again, but suffice to say players made the choices leading up to their death and it very very very easily could have been avoided, they died, roll up new characters and put on your big boy pants is what I would have told them. That's not being mean, that's being realistic without holding player hands and altering the story and the plans of the wizard. It's not like he handed them the letters then immediately detonated them at the beginning of the...
I don't get upset when my PC dies. I'm on my 3rd one in my current campaign.
One died to shadows, another died to.. well, I'm not sure what- but it hurt like hell.Neither was the DM's fault.
However, the Dm can point at me and say "Your Witch is dead." And by the rules- he's toast, a goner, crispy critter, worm food. no save no nuttin.
But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
And if the DM has a carefully orchestrated "If you don't do exactly what you should then its an auto TPK" then he's basically pointing at me and saying "You are dead.". Which is basically the scenario that RD presented.
See the problem is in assuming that the pieces of paper had a spell on them at all. I, myself, doubt they did. If it was a real scenario then its just a pissy DM getting mad that the players didn't go through his little hoops for whatever mental masterbation campaign plot hook he'd dreamed up, and this is his little way of teaching them a lesson. "ha, next time when I tell you to deliver it to someone you will. none of this backtalk doing your own thing crap"
Thats basically what people are agains't.
Give me a story. Give me challenge. Let my characters play out their role.
leave your "You are dead" crap at home. I am not interested in it.
If all I'm there to do is play the part you ahve *scripted* with no choice of my own then all you've really done is waste my time. if i want to read a book, I'll go read a book. And it'll be entertaining. Not annoying and frustrating.
The DM has the right and ability to do alot of things. No doubt.
but the PURPOSE isn't to enforce the little story he wrote.
The PURPOSE is to engage the players and allow them to *play their characters*.
A good DM can both accomplish the means of his campaign AND keep the players entertained, engaged and challeneged.
A bad DM kills the players when they go left instead of going right or when they go confront the BBEG an hour after meeting him instead of going and killing the King and having to track down the BBEG afterwards.
Most D&D games are some form of railroad. The DM has the campaign plotted out, and regardless fo what you do the chances are you're going to be doing his campaign.
A good DM does so without you noticing the rails. A bad DM locks you in the railcar without a peephole and drags you along kicking or screaming- assuming he doesn't just run you over with the train and say "well, gee, who wants to roll up a new character?".
-S
I like how bad players confuse a problem with a logical solution and failure = death a railroad. "I'm the hero. Anything I do should be good enough so let me win."
So boring.
'
hmm"Anything I do should be good enough, let me win" would totally suck, and invalidate the entire point of playing the game in the first place.
"If you don't do it the way I expect you to do it, you lose" would also totally suck and also invalidate the entire point of playing the game in the first place.
-S
Which one would you think is more "funny and ingenious"? The second one is ingenious but the last one is funny as all heck. Who wouldn't like to die by a giant Philly cheesesteak?I prefer Dire Butterflies.
Are you full of s@*&? Because butterflies like to eat s!!*.
|
Are you full of s++&? Because butterflies like to eat s!!$.Which one would you think is more "funny and ingenious"? The second one is ingenious but the last one is funny as all heck. Who wouldn't like to die by a giant Philly cheesesteak?I prefer Dire Butterflies.
I think I know how the Dire Butterfly kills PCs now.
I like how bad players confuse a problem with a logical solution and failure = death a railroad. "I'm the hero. Anything I do should be good enough so let me win."
So boring.
'
hmm"Anything I do should be good enough, let me win" would totally suck, and invalidate the entire point of playing the game in the first place.
"If you don't do it the way I expect you to do it, you lose" would also totally suck and also invalidate the entire point of playing the game in the first place.
-S
Personally, I think the state of people in general--the rampant sense of entitlement and expectations of instant gratification--has bled into tabletop RPGs. The rules used to be a means for the DM to deliver a compelling story/narrative to the Players. Nowadays, it seems like people view the rules as a shield from DMs and their "tyranny." I never really encountered this phenomenon until the 3E and onward, and it's only been getting worse. I know there are terrible DMs out there that view the game as one enormous ego stroke, but there's a simple fix to that problem: don't play the game with them as DM.
While I admit that these problems haven't generally been a problem at tables I'm personally involved with, the attitude of forum posters has floored me with how people view the role of the Dungeon Master.
I like how bad players confuse a problem with a logical solution and failure = death a railroad. "I'm the hero. Anything I do should be good enough so let me win."
So boring.
'
hmm"Anything I do should be good enough, let me win" would totally suck, and invalidate the entire point of playing the game in the first place.
"If you don't do it the way I expect you to do it, you lose" would also totally suck and also invalidate the entire point of playing the game in the first place.
-S
Personally, I think the state of people in general--the rampant sense of entitlement and expectations of instant gratification--has bled into tabletop RPGs. The rules used to be a means for the DM to deliver a compelling story/narrative to the Players. Nowadays, it seems like people view the rules as a shield from DMs and their "tyranny." I never really encountered this phenomenon until the 3E and onward, and it's only been getting worse. I know there are terrible DMs out there that view the game as one enormous ego stroke, but there's a simple fix to that problem: don't play the game with them as DM.
While I admit that these problems haven't generally been a problem at tables I'm personally involved with, the attitude of forum posters has floored me with how people view the role of the Dungeon Master.
That's just the internet. IRL these people are less common that the forums would make it seem (and are very likely no more common than they used to be).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the state of people in general--the rampant sense of entitlement and expectations of instant gratification--has bled into tabletop RPGs. The rules used to be a means for the DM to deliver a compelling story/narrative to the Players. Nowadays, it seems like people view the rules as a shield from DMs and their "tyranny." I never really encountered this phenomenon until the 3E and onward, and it's only been getting worse. I know there are terrible DMs out there that view the game as one enormous ego stroke, but there's a simple fix to that problem: don't play the game with them as DM.While I admit that these problems haven't generally been a problem at tables I'm personally involved with, the attitude of forum posters has floored me with how people view the role of the Dungeon Master.
I, for one, actually GM a lot more than I play.
GMs have, by default, all the power in a game. This is in no way abrogated by being bound by the rules. The ability to drop something on the PCs they have no prayer against always remains, after all. I'm also not even arguing against changing the rules (as my 9 page House Rules document will attest). Heck, I've even been known to change or add rules on the fly...but openly, and with the players' full knowledge and agreement.
What I (and, I believe, others) are arguing against isn't absolute GM power per se, but, basically, dishonesty. If a GM is going to be deviating from the books (which are the base assumptions of the game, after all) it seems to me that the players are, in fact, entitled to know more or less how he's doing so. As long as all such deviations are agreed upon, everything's cool. I'm arguing against doing them on-the-fly without telling the players what you're doing, because that's basically lying to your players, which strikes me as uncool.
And you're right, you can indeed just leave a bad GM's game. If you know. I mean, I've played in games that were bad...and I didn't realize it for a while. To give a (true) example: the game seemed good on the surface, and if we failed, well, maybe that was just bad luck, and then we kept failing, and the NPCs all knew our every move before they made it, and never made any mistakes...and it became obvious we were never going to win, because the GM wouldn't let us. And sure, then I stopped going, after literally months of wasted time, frustration, a several page character background and details on said character's entire family written out. Plus a fair degree of emotional investment.
Would've been nice to know that I was in a no-win scenario up-front, y'know?
Dishonesty severely curtails the players' ability to know about what's going on, and thus to know when they should leave the game. And that's a problem. A GM shouldn't need to resort to tricking the players in order to keep them in the game, and if they are, something is deeply wrong.
Or, to simplify: It's not about 'being protected from the GM', but about staying informed so you can make accurate evealuations of whether you still want to participate in the game and to what degree.
My scenario also works if my wizard got someone else to cast all those explosive runes.
Less cheese.
Your scenario is a mystery adventure. The fun for the players in this game would be to gradually piece the clues together to figure out what is going on. To have to tell them afterwards that one major clue could have been found on page 280 of the Core Rulebook under the fine print of Explosive Runes (most of Explosive Runes is on page 279, so that later section is less likely to be read) is going to terribly disappoint them. To make it a proper mystery, they should encounter an old friendly wizard who tells them a story of his adventuring days, when he tried to dispel Explosive Runes and it blew up in his face because he failed the dispel.
Furthermore, you have to plan out how the adventure would go if the players are more sensible or more idiotic. For example, what if the party's spellcaster does cast detect magic on the envelopes? What if the party hands all the envelopes over to the king, having ignored all clues that it would be a bad idea?
Actually, the party handing one envelope over to the king could make for some grim comedy.
PARTY PALADIN: Here, your majesty. The court wizard said to deliver this message to you with the utmost haste.
KING: Let me read this. (BOOM!)
PARTY SORCERER: I recognize that spell. Explosive runes!
GUARDS: (rushing in to the king's chambers) The king is dead! The visitors killed him!
PARTY PALADIN: We didn't mean to kill him. We surrender.
CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD: I accept the surrender. Disarm them and search them.
GUARDS: They carry several envelopes.
CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD: Let me see those envelopes.
PARTY SORCERER: Don't read it!
CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD: You have secrets, eh?
PARTY SORCERER: It's Explosive Runes!
CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD: Ah, you protected it. I know how to handle that. I fold back the first page unseen. Then I read the second page. (BOOM!)
GUARDS: They killed the captain! Attack!
PARTY PALADIN: No, no, we surrender!
PARTY ROGUE: They aren't listening. Let's fight our way out. (Performs Steal combat maneuver to retrieve his rapier.)
PARTY PALADIN: Yes, we have to, to clear our names. Nonlethal damage only.
PARTY MONK: No problem. (Performs unarmed flurry of blows.)
PARTY SORCERER: Grab some of those envelopes back. We need them for evidence.
PARTY PALADIN: (after escaping the castle) We are off to see the wizard.
Give me a story. Give me challenge. Let my characters play out their role.
This.
The heart of a roleplaying game is the players making meaningful choices for their characters and then seeing the consequences of the choices.
There's a lot of context that's missing to properly evaluate the original example given out. Such as assumed levels of gullibility etc.
But it mainly comes down to this.
It doesn't take much for a GM to set up a "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" scenario. But that doesn't say much for a game.
TPK's fall in a spectrum between two extremes.
1. Party dies unless they're extremely optimised and totally Batman-level clever
2. Party dies only when they forcibly throw themselves off cliffs and shoot at the guys holding the net beneath.
Between 1 and 2 is a wide gulf of scenarios.
Scenario #1 leaves only one choice that results in survival. That is not enough choice to be fun, though it is better than "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" which leaves zero meaningful choices. Scenario #2 leaves out the consequences of choice, also removing fun. The fun is in the gulf inbetween.
I would actually understand the crybaby whining if there was actually something to gripe about. If you were really invested in the game and the GM gave a Lady or the Lion scenario, and killed you for guessing wrong, I could see being a little upset.
This isn't that though. This is Thinking 101.
The wizard gives you a clue.
You ignore the clue, blatantly.
You die.
Sorry for your luck, thanks for playing.
The Lady or the Lion is one choice, which is too limiting for fun. The original story,The Lady or the Tiger, livens it up with a big Sense Motive check.
Um, what was the clue that the wizard gave?
Was it his request that the party not look at the envelopes?
Alternative universe, soon after the party left the wizard.
SORCERER: (Casts Detect Magic and hold up an envelope.)
PALADIN: What are you doing?
SOCRERER: Scrying the envelope for magic.
PALADIN: I am sure that "Don't open the envelopes" includes not scrying them either.
SORCERER: It is magic. I detect Explosive RUnes.
PALADIN: No wonder why he told us not to open them. The message is so important that he protected it.
MONK: And that's why he gave us extra copies. In case one is stolen and explodes.
SORCERER: We are carrying a load of bombs. I don't like it.
PALADIN: Well, stop fiddling with them and they won't go off.
ROGUE: We should remind the king they are trapped when we hand them over. People like him often miss traps.