Well, first of all, you have to try to not get insulted when someone calls you out for being wrong (and I'm not saying you were, but you seem to be annoyed by the idea of being corrected often).
As you said, you're only human and you're going to be wrong a lot more often than you're right, at least for a few sessions.
I would suggest the possibility of making Bill a sort of "co-DM" meant to help you with rule related stuff.
If you're good at the IMPORTANT part of DMing (being a story teller, bringing characters to life, making awesome scenes, etc), then they should be willing to let you stumble over the crunchy parts, as they are the least important part anyway.
And take their word for it when they correct you, then write down the rule on a piece of paper to look up later. Give them the benefit of the doubt until you catch them trying to get stuff by you that's not kosher.
Generally my advice for new GMs and especially those that haven't actually played as players in a system is to seek a Co-GM who can run the encounters while you focus on plot/story meta.
3.5/Pathfinder can be a rather litigious game. What rules are you "breaking" and are you doing it because you don't understand how to apply them or to try and be cinematic? Again part of the reason I suggest bring on an experienced Co-GM is they will have knowledge of when and how to fudge rules without having to take it to trial each time. Your players should really be trying to help you get a grip on the rules and not ragging on you with "noes" at each chance. I'd get with your more chronic rule lawyers and come up with a "oops" system way in which you can have some breathing room to make mistakes and learn. The idea is to make a system that will favor the players in the case of really bad mistakes, as that's the root of much hard core rules lawyering agains new GMs, a fear your trying to screw them in some way that goes against established rules.
I'm sad to say your also starting from a flawed premise that "game rules are meant to be bent (sometimes broken)." The rules are there to help shape the shared game space and allow everyone to participate in a predicable way. You stopped just as 2nd Edition was ending correct? That edition had many elements that were kinda loose and really up to DM Fiat. You skipped 3rd Edition and having to actually DM though the rather heavy up tick in player options (which some folks felt were more like player entitlements). Part of that is an underlying rules structure that says NPCs and world do not operate on different principles then the PCs. A rock is a rock regardless of who's hand its in, unless there is a rule that says otherwise (like with giants). While there are times and cases for bending or outright breaking rules in the 3.X world, it requires a far more deft touch and a healthy dose of player trust. Your player's need to know your not out to screw them when you go about bending and breaking rules.
I disagree with Dorje... I'm not sad to see you willing to bend or break rules at all. For the sake of the story, GMs should be able to make things happen. If the scene calls for something, as the GOD of the world, you can make anything happen. Try not to do it often but for a good story I'm willing to "off the cuff" it.
Suggest what you want to have happen and then let your rules lawyers let you in on how it can be done.
"The Ratkin Assassin leaps over the bannister at the top of the stairs and grabs the hanging chandelier, rides the swing until just over your party cleric and then dives on top of him with his poisoned dagger held high."
Several ways that cinematic could be completed. A few acrobatics rolls and so on OR you could just move the bad guy the required number of squares and attack.
How you describe something doesn't need to be the actions you use. You can re-skin any number of actions with other actions to make it sound more entertaining with impunity.
Check out the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast on advice for new GMs (episode 198).
Can you give us an example of when this was brought up? I've got a player who is an absolute rules lawyer, and there are times we both have to concede to the other for the sake of the game. Generally, if it's a super way to describe something he'll concede to me, but if it's taking away from his char's abilities or it would result in something terrible to a player I'll concede to him.
I'm the same as you, I took about 15 years off and DM'ed Chapter 4 of Rise of the Runelords. After a few sessions the debates became fewer and fewer in number.
An example, I described a young dragon that he literally one-shotted plummeting down to the earth and it's body exploding in a dazzling array of magical energies being released back into the world. He wanted to loot the corpse but after the cinematic-vs-rules discussion he was OK with it.
While there are times and cases for bending or outright breaking rules in the 3.X world, it requires a far more deft touch and a healthy dose of player trust. Your player's need to know your not out to screw them when you go about bending...
I think this is a really important point and can't be under estimated.
I'm a newish PF GM (have been playing PF for +3 years on the player side of the table, have played other editions, other games, etc.) and have a group of very experienced players. They flat-out know the rules better than me and at times I rely upon their knowledge to move things along and they are OK with that.
It took a few sessions, and even more statements like - "I'm not saying no, I'm only asking to make sure I understand" to help start building trust that I wasn't just trying to kill their characters. I also quickly realized that following the rules, or a very close proximity of the rules, is critical at the point where the characters are working through an encounter. Players don't enjoy DM fiat at times like these. It means, as a GM, you need to be very flexible and willing to let your intended storyline for the session go off path. I've literally spent hours writing up cool little scenarios that never see the light of day because players go off in a completely different direction.
When I have allowed flexibility around the rules it is so a really cool action can be taken by a player or npc that contributes to the story line. And I say "I'm going to let that happen because it is really cool!" The players seem to enjoy and respect that.
When I have allowed flexibility around the rules it is so a really cool action can be taken by a player or npc that contributes to the story line. And I say "I'm going to let that happen because it is really cool!" The players seem to enjoy and respect that.
this. cinematics should trump rules if done well and not screwing your players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BltzKrg242 if rules are meant to be broken, why have rules at all? As I said the purpose of the rules, in playing any formalized game, is to have a shared expericne that is at one level fair to those involved. When you start breaking the rules, changing them, you are altering the whole experience. Break enough rules and you're no longer playing a game, you're telling the players a story. Likely it's one the "audience" won't like.
Only DMs/GMs who's players trust them to deliver a good story when breaking the rules can get away with using that infamous "rule 0." The only way that happens is by proving over time that you have the player's fun and entertainment at heart. Additionally that you've got a grasp of what they actually find fun, not just your idea of fun.
Pathfinder and D&D games are shared stories. Yes, it begins with the GMs plot but there are many ways for the players to have a direct impact on it. The rules are there to give them a fair chance at doing so. They are also there to guide the GM in not just yanking control back on demand (the guidelines of challenging encounters for example).
A cinimiatic "leap, rope swing, stab" is all very and cool (I've used such little tricks myself in the past), but it needs be in keeping with that "fair chance." If the assassin just pops out of nowhere, does a rather rule breaking maneuver, which results in a player losing their chance to influence events, they are likely going to get mad and rightly call the GM on breaking the rules.
To quote some old DMing advice from a TSR board game, "the main objective is for everyone to have fun, and if game isn't fair nobody will."
Does fairness need to exist in something inherently non-competitive?
If winning and losing is impossible, how does fairness factor in?
I'm not advocating that only the GM/NPCs get to be cinematic.
If a player tells a great cinematic about some kick @$$ maneuver, I don't require 7 acrobatics rolls and a dex check to let them. Sure, the RULES say that each of those steps should require a roll but hell..
"The Barbarian leaps from the alter onto the giant basilisk's back and runs up to it's head to lay a punishing blow." Sounds 4000 times better than
"I move up 2 squares to be in base to base and roll to hit."
The first could be done within the characters movement but it'd be hard to pull off rolling "by the rules" but the chance of success is low and slows things down. The second is what happens mechanically.
BltzKrg242 if rules are meant to be broken, why have rules at all? As I said the purpose of the rules, in playing any formalized game, is to have a shared expericne that is at one level fair to those involved. When you start breaking the rules, changing them, you are altering the whole experience. Break enough rules and you're no longer playing a game, you're telling the players a story. Likely it's one the "audience" won't like.
Only DMs/GMs who's players trust them to deliver a good story when breaking the rules can get away with using that infamous "rule 0." The only way that happens is by proving over time that you have the player's fun and entertainment at heart. Additionally that you've got a grasp of what they actually find fun, not just your idea of fun.
Pathfinder and D&D games are shared stories. Yes, it begins with the GMs plot but there are many ways for the players to have a direct impact on it. The rules are there to give them a fair chance at doing so. They are also there to guide the GM in not just yanking control back on demand (the guidelines of challenging encounters for example).
A cinimiatic "leap, rope swing, stab" is all very and cool (I've used such little tricks myself in the past), but it needs be in keeping with that "fair chance." If the assassin just pops out of nowhere, does a rather rule breaking maneuver, which results in a player losing their chance to influence events, they are likely going to get mad and rightly call the GM on breaking the rules.
To quote some old DMing advice from a TSR board game, "the main objective is for everyone to have fun, and if game isn't fair nobody will."
Some of the best advice I've read on the forums. Spot on gospel
Dracarius do not be intimidated by how long they have been gaming. As a long time gamer it is refresing to have new new people step up to the GM's seat. With the exception of the gamer retirement community known as Dragonsfoot most old school gamers can learn new tricks.
-MD
So, after 15 years in hiding, I decided to dust off the dice and start gaming again. It isn't as if I just shunned the world of gaming, I just set aside my dice, and decided to watch from a distance.After I saw, and browsed through, The Haunting of Harrowstone, I just knew it was time to break down the barriers that kept me away. Who doesn't enjoy a good ghost story? The difference this time is that I wanted to be on the DMs side of the table.
My problem is this: Everyone one of my players has been gaming for years. Most noticeably, Bill, who's been gaming for 25+ years. He's been a valuable asset and has assisted me through my questions about "What should I do if..."
To be fair, my game is not perfect, I've flubbed my way through encounters. I'm human, I make mistakes, and I can't quote a page, paragraph, and line number for every rule.
I realize the game rules are meant to be bent (sometimes broken), but how do you make the game fun for those that are dead set on exact rules? I'm at a loss on how to overcome this obstacle. I want my players to have fun, but being quoted rules from players that say "NO, you can't do that" has started taking a toll. Or, do I keep plodding along and glaze over obvious errors and tell them to deal with it?
Say all of this to your friends you're going to be playing with.
Ask them to cut you some slack as you get into the swing of things.
Ask them for feedback, but not to dominate the game.
Good luck!
I prefer great attack lines like
"Spearpoint first, I leap into the pit to impale the beast. My momentum will drive my weapon deep into it's heart."
I'd be happy to give a double base weapon roll on that. 2d8 instead of 1d8.
"I move 3 squares to the pit's edge and using my reach weapon I attack for 1d8 damage?" yeah I'm ok with standard rules for that.
When one player notices that with a good description of events there might be a bonus, the game becomes a heck of a lot more interesting than pawn to queens 3. The scenes get more descriptive, the action seems more Action-y.
Yes a miss is still a miss and fumbling a charge up that Basilisks back would be much worse but the game is STILL more fun. I had a Paladin shout out his challenge (Smite) and charge pel-mel across a room to roll a 1 on his attack. The last couple of feet were a 3 step dias.. He tripped at the base and rolled clangingly but harmlessly into the feet of the undead king.
"While your challenge is accepted, Paladin. Your Delivery is lackluster" said the Lich. and then proceeded to kick his ass. But the Paladin still had fun because that was a funny line.
"While your challenge is accepted, Paladin. Your Delivery is lackluster" said the Lich. and then proceeded to kick his ass. But the Paladin still had fun because that was a funny line.
I love this. I'd have to be likewise good-natured about being on the receiving end of a beatdown after a line like that.
Does fairness need to exist in something inherently non-competitive?
If winning and losing is impossible, how does fairness factor in?
Frack, Mobile Safari crashed and ate my post.
Yes fairness is needed. You may not think of it as winning and losing but to many different degrees there are points of "influence" that need to be arbitrated during the course of play.
For example, I had one some time back when I put a reoccurring villain into a street encounter with the PCs. Now the players had though they'd killer her the last time and her body had fallen off a lighthouse and into the ocean. It was supposed be a single "eye contact" momment.
The rogue player chose not to take it as such and went for her, sword out. At this point "fair" becomes an important part of that Art for DMing. Being able to make a judgment of how to run things based on what you know of the players, their level of trust in you, and yes fairness. This villian was to be the "boss" of this adventure so a knee jerk reaction to protect the story would be to bend the rules and protect her and let force get away.
Which is not fair to the player and his choice. The player and I at that momment, did in fact enter a Win/Lose sitution. He could win and kill the villian he'd come to hate so much, or I could win and she'd get away (only be eventually be killed... again, later on). This is where rules become useful and important. Between us we needed to adjudicate this influence on the story. I'm describing this at GMs meta-level but that was what was ultimately driving this. It was about as pure in-character reaction as you could get, with awareness of the adventure meta.
So I brought to play rules of moving through crowds, the time it'd the guard to respond, etc. All established rules or closely based on existing ones. A "fair" way to let it all play out, letting the dice fall where they will. Simple? No, as it got worse.
Another player wanted to stop the fight, and so we now had a three-way for infucance on the plot. His contribution was a Web spell, rules and fairness again. Both the villian and rogue got their chance to roll a saving throw. The rogue passed, the villian didn't.
In a game that really doesn't have any true winners and loser, we ended up with two losers and a winner over the outcome of this change in the overall story. The rogue player "won." The other player and I "lost." Did it really change the mechanics of the adventure, no. There was still a boss with near identical stats. Did it alter the overal tone and flavor of the story, yes.
So does fairness need to exist in what is over all a non-competiaive game? Yes, because otherwise you can't have rather enterating events like the above that let the players buy even more into the story and setting.
P.S. Fair does not need to mean 50/50. Fair can be as lopsided as 90/10. Fair cannot be 100/0.
I just don't see pen and paper the same way you do.
I'm rolling out of their view, they'd never know if I fudged a roll. So they're experience has not changed as they have no idea if I'm rolling legit or fudging.
Obviously if my roll start becoming statistically anomalous they'd get suspicious, but I'm pretty good at avoiding that.
So how can their experience be affected by something they have no clue is happening?
Dorje, your example is odd.
If you only wanted an "eye contact moment," numerous ways to do it with out killing your NPC. Teleport or even invisibility being the two easiest.
Alternatively, you could do like many movies:
"You see bad guy #1 accross the street eying you as you hear the last gasp of your opponent. It appears that he is sizing you up."
The heroes rushes over and confronts the bad guy...
"as you pull away the cloak that Bad Guy #1 is wearing you realize that your imagination was in overdrive and you have just startled the HECK out of a random townsperson. they Shriek in surprise and fall back into the door way"
You haven't robbed the player in any way. You've reminded them that bad guy #1 is out there and not to forget it. This was the point of the encounter right?
I just don't see pen and paper the same way you do.
I'm rolling out of their view, they'd never know if I fudged a roll. So they're experience has not changed as they have no idea if I'm rolling legit or fudging.
Obviously if my roll start becoming statistically anomalous they'd get suspicious, but I'm pretty good at avoiding that.
So how can their experience be affected by something they have no clue is happening?
this
I just don't see pen and paper the same way you do.
I'm rolling out of their view, they'd never know if I fudged a roll. So they're experience has not changed as they have no idea if I'm rolling legit or fudging.
A long time ago I played in a game for about a year. At one point we added another player did a seating change and I sat next to the DM and could see his rolls and he fudged rolls to make the game more exciting and dramatic. It fundamentaly ruined my experience. I altered my perception on all previous events and put all future events under a cloud of suspicion.
Nothing mattered. The dice was a BS formality. I was not alone in my dislike of this practice. The entire table pretty much hated the idea of fudging dice.
First thing I did when I got the opportunity To run a game was to remove the GM screen and roll openly and honestly. The players can’t hide behind a screen so why should the GM?
Fudging dice is the crutch of a poor GM.
Relying on the dice so much that you can't enjoy the story is the broken spine of any player.
Might as well play craps. No one hides the dice in that.
Or Trouble. The dice are under a bubble so no hiding that.
I just don't see pen and paper the same way you do.
I'm rolling out of their view, they'd never know if I fudged a roll. So they're experience has not changed as they have no idea if I'm rolling legit or fudging.
A long time ago I played in a game for about a year. At one point we added another player did a seating change and I sat next to the DM and could see his rolls and he fudged rolls to make the game more exciting and dramatic. I ruined my experience for and CHANGED my perception on all previous events and put all future events under a cloud of suspicion.
Nothing mattered. The dice was a BS formality.
First thing I did when I got the opportunity was to remove the GM screen and roll openly and honestly. The players can’t hide behind a screen so why should the GM?
Fudging dice is the crutch of a poor GM.
It has nothing to do with being a poor GM, it has to do with playing pen and paper in a completely different way.
You don't use Rule 0, I do. Neither of us are superior or inferior.
This is an inherently subjective matter.
No one can be right or wrong.
The dice are as part of the storytelling experience as the GM and the players. Yeah, fate (the dice) can screw people at times but they can also make for some fun twists and turns.
To cheat in a game that uses fate to determine an outcome of any given situation undermines the game.
So yeah, I would say cheating at D&D is wrong.
|
A good GM does not railroad.
A good GM does not have NPCs hog the spotlight away from the players.
A good GM does not impose arbitrary restrictions on players or thwart the normal function of their characters.
A good GM does not play AGAINST the players and does not become invested in "defeating" them.
HOWEVER...
A good GM also has the final say over everything that isn't the PCs, rules be damned. You do not need to let players challenge you on mechanics and you are fully empowered to cheat like a bastard in the name of better drama. (or better comedy!)
I have occasionally had a player challenge me on an NPC's actions, saying something like "Hey, that guy can't do that, according to the rules!"
My response has always been a friendly smile and the reply "Normally, you'd be correct, but somehow he manages to do it anyway."
Except that it's not cheating, it's rule 0.
It's in the opening couple pages of the 3.5 DMG, and if I remember right it has existed in some form or another in most DMGs through the ages.
The GM isn't against the players.
This isn't checkers, it's cooperative story telling.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110719
This is an excellent article on the point of the rules in D&D and the role of the DM.
It even has the line
In my view, rules that try to force the DM to play fair are a waste of time. After all, the DM can just put Tiamat in the next room of the dungeon and slaughter the characters whenever he or she wishes. Why try to legislate some of the DM’s power while leaving huge, gaping holes elsewhere? Is the book going to suddenly animate and pummel the DM for being a meanie?
I'm not saying the GM is against the players. When I run a game I'm just trying to entertain. But the dice have no dreams of entertaining, winning, or loosing. They do not care if your character lives or dies. It's fate...
Putting Tiamat in a room is a silly example of a GM with no consideration. A good GM plans out a reasonable encounter and should not need to cheat to hinder or help the players.
The constraint of DM power is not the rulebook, but social ettiquette. RAW makes a very poor substitute for it, even though it is a tool to help facilitate it.
In regards to the OP:
I began GMing Pathfinder a couple of years ago in pretty much the same situation you are in, with the exception of them being 3 and 3.5 veterans, but having little experience with Pathfinder.
I noticed a couple of things that helped. I would let myself be corrected, or I would ask a question. I would make a note and look up the rule later.
Now, I had some antagonistic players in that game, for a number of personal reasons, that resulted in restructuring of the play enviornment. This did lead to situations where I thought people were, at times, attempting to make rules quotes that were not true. That issue was usually resolved with me saying something along the lines of, "huh, that doesn't seem right, I will look it up later, you are comfortable with all the NPCs getting to do that to, right?" If it was hinky, they usually backed off and shuffled papers.
I discussed with each player their character at creation and how it works. I got copies, I asked them on rules about how their characters worked and looked them up.
Every time I had to take a dump, I read the rule book a little more. It is amazing how much rule knowledge you can brush up on while on the crapper.
When I designed the game, I placed constraints I felt comfortable with. I didn't want player antagonism and asked people to stay away from evil alignments. (I am a social worker in real life and I have little need to add to my case load in fantasy land.)
I made cohesion their responsibility. I presented them with a world and a scenario. I required them to make characters that would want to help guard a merchant caravan through dangerous terrain. (To further that end, the first "encounter" was actually a job interview with the owner of the caravan. Your performance in that interview determined your treasure. It was good times.)
If there are rulings to be made in an unclear situation, I find if I follow the three little rules. Try to be fair, follow the rule of cool, if it isn't possible to be fair error on the side of the player.
Lastly, make sure you are communicating with what kind of game you are hoping to GM. Be honest. If someone is stepping on your toes to much, it is ok to point this out. (Usually in private, after the session, or during a break.)
I'm not saying the GM is against the players. When I run a game I'm just trying to entertain. But the dice have no dreams of entertaining, winning, or loosing. They do not care if your character lives or dies. It's fate...
Putting Tiamat in a room is a silly example of a GM with no consideration. A good GM plans out a reasonable encounter and should not need to cheat to hinder or help the players.
Again, YOUR IDEA of a good GM.
Do you not understand that this is an entirely subjective subject.
There is no right or wrong in this discussion, only varying opinion.
Objectivity exists only in math and science, the rest is a big subjective mess.
This conversation is entirely based on opinion.
For example, my idea of a good GM is any GM that causes the game to be enjoyable to the players.
I don't care how he gets that point, only that it is fun.
Is my idea superior or inferior to yours? Nope. Just different.
Ok, for Fleshgrinder...
It is my opinion or idea that fudging dice is cheating and is a crux for a poor GM.
Does every post really need an “it is my opinion” disclaimer? I assume that everything said on the forum is opinion.
I will say that like you I strive for a game is fun and enjoyable. My experience has been that if players find out that a GM fudges dice then that paticular party is over.
And just for arguments sake an opinion can be wrong in comparison to another opion. for example:
You might say that Kirsten Stewart in the movie Snow White and the Huntsman is the fairest of them all. I would argue that Charlize Theron is far and above more attractive. And you would be wrong…o so wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, for Fleshgrinder...
It is my opinion or idea that fudging dice is cheating and is a crux for a poor GM.
Does every post really need an “it is my opinion” disclaimer? I assume that everything said on the forum is opinion.
I will say that like you I strive for a game is fun and enjoyable. My experience has been that if players find out that a GM fudges dice then that paticular party is over.
And just for arguments sake an opinion can be wrong in comparison to another opion. for example:
You might say that Kirsten Stewart in the movie Snow White and the Huntsman is the fairest of them all. I would argue that Charlize Theron is far and above more attractive. And you would be wrong…o so wrong.
We could measure their fairness through the amount of light refraction and determine with 100% accuracy which of them in fairer.
And if you weren't putting forth your ideas like they were facts, I wouldn't call you on it.
Look at the difference between how I put forth my point versus how you put forth yours.
You make absolute statements, I avoid them.
Yes, I do realize that everything you say is an opinion, but your typing mannerisms are arrogant.
You put forth your opinion in a style and form that is insulting to those who do not share it.
Instead of pointing out what you feel you do right, you point out what others you feel do wrong.
It's about framing.
Your style of communication is rude and abrasive.
It does not take much to put forth your arguments in a more neutral form.
Because while I know it's your opinion, the way you talk makes it appear that you don't think it's just an opinion. Maybe you DO think it's just an opinion, but your word choice does not convey that.
You might say that Kirsten Stewart in the movie Snow White and the Huntsman is the fairest of them all. I would argue that Charlize Theron is far and above more attractive. And you would be wrong…o so wrong.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you on this particular subject, there must be SOMEONE who prefers Kirsten? I can't, for the life of me figure it but... someone? But still opinion.
Sorry. Tangential.
The party is only over if, while telling a story, the players feel cheated. If they feel like they had fun and the rules didn't need to be argued BECAUSE they were having fun, then Win-Win.
Some people have fun arguing rules. I'm not one of them. I have fun telling a story. If a rule gets in the way, it gets bent. If a player decides that he'd rather spend the next 10 minutes arguing then I can replace him later.
I let this be known up front. It's not a secret. It is, in effect, one of my rules.
Yeah, my players KNOW I fudge dice and it doesn't bother them.
I am quite open about the fact I've fudged dice.
Hell, I've run games where I arbitrarily decided success and failure in my head and they could see and hear that I wasn't rolling anything.
So, again, it's all a matter of opinion.
Last session I didn't fudge dice and I nearly killed them all with a EL-1 encounter.
You gotta remember, some of us have been DMs for more than half our life, and we're playing with people new to the hobby.
If I didn't fudge dice, my players would die weekly.
Seriously though, I hate my players sometimes. They're PS3 players, their idea of an RPG is Final Fantasy.
Time for new players. I like your style.
I think I can fix them, it's just a little work erasing all the years of JRPGs.
Ok, for Fleshgrinder...
It is my opinion or idea that fudging dice is cheating and is a crux for a poor GM.
Does every post really need an “it is my opinion” disclaimer? I assume that everything said on the forum is opinion.
I will say that like you I strive for a game is fun and enjoyable. My experience has been that if players find out that a GM fudges dice then that paticular party is over.
And just for arguments sake an opinion can be wrong in comparison to another opion. for example:
You might say that Kirsten Stewart in the movie Snow White and the Huntsman is the fairest of them all. I would argue that Charlize Theron is far and above more attractive. And you would be wrong…o so wrong.
We could measure their fairness through the amount of light refraction and determine with 100% accuracy which of them in fairer.
And if you weren't putting forth your ideas like they were facts, I wouldn't call you on it.
Look at the difference between how I put forth my point versus how you put forth yours.
You make absolute statements, I avoid them.
Yes, I do realize that everything you say is an opinion, but your typing mannerisms are arrogant.
You put forth your opinion in a style and form that is insulting to those who do not share it.
Instead of pointing out what you feel you do right, you point out what others you feel do wrong.
It's about framing.
Your style of communication is rude and abrasive.
It does not take much to put forth your arguments in a more neutral form.
Because while I know it's your opinion, the way you talk makes it appear that you don't think it's just an opinion. Maybe you DO think it's just an opinion, but your word choice does not convey that.
This derailed thread started asking for opinions and I gave one. You seem happy to converse in a manner that asks open questions than do not seem to care much the response. I'll take your word for it that it’s my communication style, I’m blunt I admit that.
But now I know how to frame a neutral post.
Some of those true JRPG's are just as brutal as what you're describing. Ok, fanboyism aside, it IS a lot of work erasing years of any idea. Maybe not erasing, but adding to, erasing makes it sound like their chosen hobby is less than tabletop.
And I like your style too, my eyes tend to light up when the players get more than a little cocksure!
1.read the rules
2.ask questions about rules you don't understand
3. Ban the Master Summoner and Leadership(some can handle these responsibility but a lot of the time it breaks the game and/or bogs down encounters)
4. Allow the Big Four Books only.(Unless something fits their character concept well)
4. Do 20 point buy and two traits.(This allows classes that are MAD to do just as well as SAD classes. It also makes sure that dice rolls don't determine what people are going to play and it's the fairest way.)
5. Come Prepared(Dice, Grid, monster Sheets, etc.)
6. Watch how your group plays and adjust to their play style while encouraging to try new things. Reward them for their strengths and challenge their weaknesses.
7. Have Fun
Ok, for Fleshgrinder...
It is my opinion or idea that fudging dice is cheating and is a crux for a poor GM.
Does every post really need an “it is my opinion” disclaimer? I assume that everything said on the forum is opinion.
I will say that like you I strive for a game is fun and enjoyable. My experience has been that if players find out that a GM fudges dice then that paticular party is over.
And just for arguments sake an opinion can be wrong in comparison to another opion. for example:
You might say that Kirsten Stewart in the movie Snow White and the Huntsman is the fairest of them all. I would argue that Charlize Theron is far and above more attractive. And you would be wrong…o so wrong.
Actually, I disagree with your statement about fudging dice. Encounters are meant to challenge the players but not kill them because of lucky rolls in my opinion. I feel as if critting a pc and killing them is a little harsh and sometimes you should just say they fall unconscious opposed to killing them. I would also help out monsters as well if the encounter is supposed to be challenging but someone crits a couple of times killing the mob. You want that suspense that they might die if they make poor decisions but you also don't want to flat out kill them for little to no reason. Just my two cents.
Dorje, your example is odd.
If you only wanted an "eye contact moment," numerous ways to do it with out killing your NPC. Teleport or even invisibility being the two easiest.
Alternatively, you could do like many movies:
"You see bad guy #1 accross the street eying you as you hear the last gasp of your opponent. It appears that he is sizing you up."
The heroes rushes over and confronts the bad guy...
"as you pull away the cloak that Bad Guy #1 is wearing you realize that your imagination was in overdrive and you have just startled the HECK out of a random townsperson. they Shriek in surprise and fall back into the door way"You haven't robbed the player in any way. You've reminded them that bad guy #1 is out there and not to forget it. This was the point of the encounter right?
It's not odd to me as I tend to let the PCs interact with the world as it is presented and accept the ramifications. I'll admit that I goofed and put her way to close, in an attempt to enhance the drama of her being alive.
Teleport was not an option, Neither was invisibility as a realistic impromptu asset.
The movie example is also a no-go as I try to avoid burning such tropes until I actually need them, and when they are actually appropriate. I also tend to run with a batch of very experienced plays, more then few are also DMs, and thus know most of the "oops I goofed" deflection tricks. So something as simple as a case of mistaken identity generally doesn't work well when applied as a retroactive plot saver.
I think our difference in GM philosophy can be summed up on the Narrativist vs Simulationist scale. Which is kinda the point where this becomes an impasse. I much prefer to present the world and let the players react to it, let them drive the story forward. That includes allowing the result of purely random rolls take priority over minor story details (sometimes major).
This could also be one of the issues at play with the OPs group. If he's approaching things from a more narrative driven style while the players are used to a more simulationist one, things are not going to play well until that dynamic gets shaken out internally.
Well said there at the end.
Indeed, different play styles are sometimes not congruent.
Actually, I disagree with your statement about fudging dice. Encounters are meant to challenge the players but not kill them because of lucky rolls in my opinion. I feel as if critting a pc and killing them is a little harsh and sometimes you should just say they fall unconscious opposed to killing them. I would also help out monsters as well if the encounter is supposed to be challenging but someone crits a couple of times killing the mob. You want that suspense that they might die if they make poor decisions but you also don't want to flat out kill them for little to no reason. Just my two cents.
I do not mind disagreement Black Lantern.
But can I ask you this? Why would you bother rolling dice if you are not prepared to deal with the repercussions of that dice roll?
I get the concern you and some of the other posters have about killing off players, ending games, and maintaining a cinematic feel. I would argue that there are other ways to do this without the GM fudging dice.
I’ll give one example. Have you ever used a Benny system? A Benny is a token or a coin that can be used to alter fate. In an old game I ran a player earned a Benny via good role playing and hero moves in combat. When the player spends one Benny they could roll any dice twice. They saved the coins and broke them out when the crap hit the fan. If they spend two bennies they could make the GM roll twice and select the worse of the two. If the GM was so inclined (I was not) they could allow a Benny to affect a roll after the fact such as a crit that could potently kill a character.
So in a sense giving a Benny allowed the players openly fudge dice. This gave the game a bit of a safety cushion for the times when I underestimated the power of an encounter or the dice just were just on fire.
* As a side note the Bennies did encourage a lot more Role Playing and Hero Moves.
There are other options. If fudging works for you and your players are cool with that then it sounds like you have something good. I'm not trying to discredit your GM style or choices you make just sharing some ideas in the same way you are with me. In the end what works for you and your players is what matters.
-MD
Sounds like you are describing Hero Points.
We use them and they are downright nifty to add cinematics.
Check here for details:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html
* As a side note the Bennies did encourage a lot more Role Playing and Hero Moves.
There are other options. If fudging works for you and your players are cool with that then it sounds...
I agree, we do something very similiar as your bennies. We have "hero points" used for the same reason. We give them out to the best role player at th end of every session. They can be used to re roll dice, buy items, even gain an attribute stat.
Things like this aren't covered in the rule book, but let me tell you. Every one of my players tries so hard to gain these.
Sometimes a little outside influence goes a long way for your game.
I realize the game rules are meant to be bent (sometimes broken), but how do you make the game fun for those that are dead set on exact rules? I'm at a loss on how to overcome this obstacle. I want my players to have fun, but being quoted rules from players that say "NO, you can't do that" has started taking a toll. Or, do I keep plodding along and glaze over obvious errors and tell them to deal with it?
What would you do?
From a players perspective, I hate it when rules lawyers go on rants. It's one thing to point out a mistake. It's another to berate a GM and take a stubborn single-minded stance. Sometimes the rules don't make sense for circumstantial purposes. It's your call as a GM.
If a player is so hellbent on rules lawyering and can't enjoy themselves any other way then it's your right to ask them to depart the game.
Good call Ian.