| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but going insane and dying is the point in CoC
Yeah, if I don't die, go insane or both by the end of a session, I get bored in a Cthulhu game. I don't play that game to be a hero, I play to have interesting and horrible fates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much should a GM cater to the group? That depends; how many snacks and bribes did they bring me this week?
No bribes, and I only cater the bare minimum amount; that red dragon only flies overhead looking for would-be heroes, as shallowsoul said. Generous bribes, and it's a wyrmling with dumped Int/Wis so that the party can use its best tactics against it. (It never directly engages the all-ranged party, or it immediately lands to engage the all-melee party.)
Just kidding...kind of. ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't seem very heroic for the PCs to die to a force of nature. In our world, people frequently die for no fault of their own. That doesn't make a very exciting story, and is rather depressing in a roleplaying game.
When has Pathfinder ever given you the impression that all PC's are heros and that they should never die or only have meaningful deaths?
I think you are mistaking one playstyle for default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try pretty hard to incorporate character backstory when I can. For example, in my Runelords game, the paladin had an extensive backstory about being a minor Chelaxian noblewoman from Kintargo, and had briefly been a Hellknight, before having a crisis of conscious, resigning from Citadel Vraid, and taking vows as a paladin of Iomedae.
I ran a scenario in Magnimar with a run-in with a Hellknight former commander, I give the character a +2 on Knowledge (religion) checks to identify devils, and I gave her Infernal as a bonus language.
I've added more traps in the AP to give the rogue more to do. I added a temple of Sarenrae to Magnimar for the cleric. I ran a short scenario in Magnimar about the barbarian's father's wine shop being extorted by one of the Sczarni gangs. So, I do add/modify content to suit the party. If I want PCs to write a compelling backstory, I need to reward them!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't seem very heroic for the PCs to die to a force of nature. In our world, people frequently die for no fault of their own. That doesn't make a very exciting story, and is rather depressing in a roleplaying game.
When has Pathfinder ever given you the impression that all PC's are heros and that they should never die or only have meaningful deaths?
I think you are mistaking one playstyle for default.
It's not about meaningful deaths, it's about having fun. Being deus ex machina'd into a TPK isn't fun for anyone. I'm not saying you shouldn't challenge the players and test their weaknesses, just that you won't have a very enjoyable game if you don't center it around the PCs to some degree. The GM is running a game for the players (and by extension the PCs). Saying, "Here's the world and your characters are in it. The town of Aubres will be eaten by an elder god, and if your PCs are there it's a TPK please reroll. No you have no way to know this will happen." is poor game design. The preferable situation is, "This is the world your characters live in. You have learned that the town of Aubres will be eaten by an elder god unless you do something to stop it. Do you try to save the town or leave and save your lives, leaving the town to its doom?"
What I'm really saying is there's a difference between babying the PCs and throwing them into a world that doesn't depend on them at all. You need to find a balance where the PCs are the focus of the game while simultaneously challenging them (which can occasionally kill them). In the OPs case, yes, the PCs will be in situations they aren't particularly skilled in. But for the enjoyment of the group you cut back on those situations and make them a bit less critical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being deus ex machina'd into a TPK might be fun...
...if you're Gen Urobuchi or a person with a similar out-look on stories.
Call of Cthulhu DOES have a win condition: if your character dies WHILE SANE, you won.
Being deus ex machina'd into a TPK might be fun...
...if you're Gen Urobuchi or a person with a similar out-look on stories.
I don't mind it. I like to know upfront that things won't end well for me, nothing specific. Then I can help set up my death. Like a Halloween one-shot that emulates a slasher flick.
I don't mind it. I like to know upfront that things won't end well for me, nothing specific. Then I can help set up my death. Like a Halloween one-shot that emulates a slasher flick.Being deus ex machina'd into a TPK might be fun...
...if you're Gen Urobuchi or a person with a similar out-look on stories.
It's assumed that you do NOT expect it when it's a Deus Ex Machina style TPK nuke.
Call of Cthulhu DOES have a win condition: if your character dies WHILE SANE, you won.Never ever happened to me. And i have played CoC quite often.
Wow that's a win?
I guess I won CoC a lot. Most of my CoC characters die long before they have the chance to go insane. Although I do have one CoC character I now call "Alice of Wonderland" who actually lived through two CoC adventures. It helps her to have an out that is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the crazy events... like being high or drunk. "Wow guys I had the craziest hallucination the other night! I dreamed the attacker was some freaky thing with tentacles. Totally wild! This new drug is just awesome." Although she is a frustrating witness for police to handle.Her second adventure was a nightmare on elm street rip off. And after surviving to the end the GM awarded me with a dream shaping skill. Of course if she ever sobers up before seeing something creepy... bye bye sanity points.
For me, I cater just enough for my players to have fun, but not enough for me to stop having fun.
Though, if it ever came down to a choice between my fun and their fun, since I do all the work and they just show up, I choose my fun over theirs. :P (But that's pretty much just a false dichotomy, since it's never come to that when it matters - and when it does, the impact is so small to the overall game itself that it's negligible.)
With that said, this sort of thing doesn't really happen with us. For a long time now, we choose the campaign democratically/through discussion and consensus, and I develop and give out a Player's Guide to the chosen campaign before character creation. Everyone's on the same page before the first dice is even rolled.
(I.e I present a list of campaigns that I'm willing to GM, with a brief/very general synopsis on what the campaign is about. We all discuss what we think we'd like and what we're in the mood for, and come to a consensus as to which is the next one we'll play.)
It doesn't seem very heroic for the PCs to die to a force of nature. In our world, people frequently die for no fault of their own. That doesn't make a very exciting story, and is rather depressing in a roleplaying game.
When has Pathfinder ever given you the impression that all PC's are heros and that they should never die or only have meaningful deaths?
I think you are mistaking one playstyle for default.
It's not about meaningful deaths, it's about having fun. Being deus ex machina'd into a TPK isn't fun for anyone. I'm not saying you shouldn't challenge the players and test their weaknesses, just that you won't have a very enjoyable game if you don't center it around the PCs to some degree. The GM is running a game for the players (and by extension the PCs). Saying, "Here's the world and your characters are in it. The town of Aubres will be eaten by an elder god, and if your PCs are there it's a TPK please reroll. No you have no way to know this will happen." is poor game design. The preferable situation is, "This is the world your characters live in. You have learned that the town of Aubres will be eaten by an elder god unless you do something to stop it. Do you try to save the town or leave and save your lives, leaving the town to its doom?"
What I'm really saying is there's a difference between babying the PCs and throwing them into a world that doesn't depend on them at all. You need to find a balance where the PCs are the focus of the game while simultaneously challenging them (which can occasionally kill them). In the OPs case, yes, the PCs will be in situations they aren't particularly skilled in. But for the enjoyment of the group you cut back on those situations and make them a bit less critical.
That is a playstyle not a default way to do things. That is why the conversation about expectations should take place.
Personally I let the players know up front what types of things the party should have if they don't want things to get too difficult.
I do all the work and they just show up
I am sure that is not correct. It would more accurate to say you do almost everything, or most of the work. This is not a party where the host is providing everything. It is a party where the host is providing the main dish(campaign setting, NPC's, time spent on preparation, etc.). The guest are bring themselves and character sheets which would equal their company, plates, sides dishes, and other small things. The host can eat the main dish all alone, but it won't be as satisfying without the guest participation.
PS:I am aware that you probably did not mean that in a literal sense, but many GM's do, and it is a woefully bad exaggeration that needs to stop being spread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do all the work and they just show upI am sure that is not correct.
PS:I am aware that you probably did not mean that in a literal sense, but many GM's do, and it is a woefully bad exaggeration that needs to stop being spread.
It is correct for the particular group I'm in. (Note that we are all fine with how our very-long-running group works.)
Don't pretend you know other people's groups and their group dynamics, wraithstrike.
|
Don't pretend you know other people's groups and their group dynamics, wraithstrike.
Exactly!
I've had groups, and while they were excellent role-players, they did nothing to contribute to the game world other than just show up to my house and play their characters within it...
They never read anything other than the Player's Handbook, or other pertinent player material...
They didn't even care to write their own character backgrounds (they wanted me to fit their characters into the game world)...
This was in no way "DM Story Time", they showed initiative during play and decide what to do and where to go on the own, but this was ALWAYS based upon elements that they encountered during actual game play...
So no, it's not a "woefully bad exaggeration" by any stretch...
I do all the work and they just show upI am sure that is not correct.
PS:I am aware that you probably did not mean that in a literal sense, but many GM's do, and it is a woefully bad exaggeration that needs to stop being spread.
It is correct for the particular group I'm in. (Note that we are all fine with how our very-long-running group works.)
Don't pretend you know other people's groups and their group dynamics, wraithstrike.
Actually by him implying players don't do anything he is doing the same thing. Maybe you should send him the same message. I am sure that in most groups the GM's don't make the player's characters for them, which make me more likely to be correct. Thanks for being impartial though.
Don't pretend you know other people's groups and their group dynamics, wraithstrike.Exactly!
I've had groups, and while they were excellent role-players, they did nothing to contribute to the game world other than just show up to my house and play their characters within it...
That is still contributing and had you read my post you would have realized I that was what I was talking about, since even making a character is more than just showing up.
Doing "all the work" would also involve creating the PC's also. So yes it is a woefully bad exaggeration, even if it does happen in his games because he said it as a general statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the group should have to live with their choices.
If they choose to play a certain way IMO it is not the GM's job to cater to them.
What if "live with their choices" means they don't enjoy the game, though? There have to be limits. Which is more important: teaching the players a valuable lesson about practicality, or making sure the game is fun?
...which make me more likely to be correct.
If it's a matter of probability, the sole witness (Arnwyn) carries a lot more weight than your theories of "most groups". :P
|
What if "live with their choices" means they don't enjoy the game, though? There have to be limits. Which is more important: teaching the players a valuable lesson about practicality, or making sure the game is fun?I think the group should have to live with their choices.
If they choose to play a certain way IMO it is not the GM's job to cater to them.
Sometimes you need to teach them a lesson. Although, if you can do it in a fun way, more power to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you need to teach them a lesson.
These priorities are skewed. It's more important to teach them to make optimized parties than to enjoy the game? I didn't realize Pathfinder was such serious business.
While the point of a game would be to have fun, the GM may have to 'teach the players a lesson,' I've already warned my players that not every creature they encounter are placed there for them to kill, and thinking like that will get them killed.
If, using a previous example, you have a dragon torch a village where there are lvl 1 characters, they obviously aren't meant to engage, but do everything to not die. These types of events, imo, are important for players to relate to the people and the world they live in.
If a group forms w/o a key class type, good for them, but I wouldn't cater to them in terms of encounters. Treasure, yes, a little. If your players all play casters, they have more options to compensate for their weakness as casters than say, a group of all warrior types. If they fail to do that, it's really their own fault, and there should be no expectation for the world around them to gimp itself.
This topic is one of the reason I used to hate paladins. People who play paladins seemed to be obsessed with never running from combat or creatures that would obviously kill them easily. As a GM you have to occasionally correct players false assumptions about the game you run. Sometimes, paladins get themselves killed for the lamest of reasons.
It may not be fun for a game, but it's better then feeling obligated to run gimped game after gimped game to entertain silly notions.
Teaching the players not to charge in like idiots is one thing. But massacring them for not making a balanced party just feels harsh to me. Surely there's a middle ground between "never design a melee-only battle" and "bash sense into them with a TPK".
Teaching the players not to charge in like idiots is one thing. But massacring them for not making a balanced party just feels harsh to me. Surely there's a middle ground between "never design a melee-only battle" and "bash sense into them with a TPK".
I completely agree, my group started with fighter, soulknife, wizard and sorcerer. Some wanted to reroll as a cleric, but I encouraged them to instead play smarter and stick with a non-traditional group.
|
|
Sometimes you need to teach them a lesson.These priorities are skewed. It's more important to teach them to make optimized parties than to enjoy the game? I didn't realize Pathfinder was such serious business.
I dedicate a lot of work hours to pathfinder. Damn right it is serious business.
The point is, if the players make an all ranged party, they should not expect to only fight ranged battles. If they do, even though you told them that that is not the way the world works, then you disillusion them by using melee combatants in concert with ranged combatants.
If they throw a fit, it is the same as if they entered a red dragon's lair, prepared to fight black dragons. Should they complain that they got burned to a crisp? No, their own fault. The GM has clearly stated that the cave is occupied buy a red dragon. And no amount of wishing for it to be a black one, because it is more convenient, will change the fact that it is still a red dragon.
Teaching the players not to charge in like idiots is one thing. But massacring them for not making a balanced party just feels harsh to me. Surely there's a middle ground between "never design a melee-only battle" and "bash sense into them with a TPK".
Where does 'teaching a lesson' equal 'massacre the party'? I might kill a character or two, or drop them to low negatives or something, but there is no need for a TPK to prove my point.
I never said they should only get ranged battles. I said it's a good idea to avoid sticking them in a bunch of brawls where they don't have a chance to use their class features.
Oh, sure. Challenging the PCs is great. I was just worried that "teach them a lesson" meant a deliberate act, instead of just letting the dice fall. I feel that shoving the characters into situations they're bad in makes things more interesting. Keeps those guys from getting cocky. :)
A lot.
Actually by him implying players don't do anything he is doing the same thing.
You are (again) incorrect. I was only speaking for my group. (If you were erroneously thinking that my statement applied to any other group, then that's a whoops on your part.)
I am sure that in most groups the GM's don't make the player's characters for them, which make me more likely to be correct.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
I am not doing it wrong! I am doing it badong!
Also, letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is one of the worst things to do when you are DM.
I am sure Icyshadow that by now you also know that it is one of the worst things you can do as a player too. In fact letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is bad in ALL areas of life, even outside of gaming.
Also, letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is one of the worst things to do when you are DM.I am sure Icyshadow that by now you also know that it is one of the worst things you can do as a player too. In fact letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is bad in ALL areas of life, even outside of gaming.
I've not let the incompetence of my previous DM affect my current run as DM, at all.
I've not let the incompetence of my previous DM affect my current run as DM, at all.Also, letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is one of the worst things to do when you are DM.I am sure Icyshadow that by now you also know that it is one of the worst things you can do as a player too. In fact letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is bad in ALL areas of life, even outside of gaming.
It was a subtle (or not) reference to how you exploded all rude at me because you assumed I was like your bad GM. Clearly you were painting all GMs who liked having a story with the same bad experience you had as a player with that one GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Contrary to what most believe, I truly think that it's AS MUCH the group's job as it it the DM's to help move the story forward. Roleplaying is a social game, based on a lot of exchange and cooperation. You don't play roleplaying games just to do YOUR thing; It's not YOUR fantasy (and this goes for the DM as well). And althought the DM acts as the narrator and knows much of what's to come, it's a collective story that everyone at the table must help build.
Ultradan
I won't change an adventure to cater the group (e.g. removing the traps because there's no thief, removing undead because there's no cleric). OTOH, I won't dragoon the group into going on an adventure that they are not well-suited to. Information about various adventure locations/opportunities is usually available. If the group doesn't try to find out what they'll be facing ahead of time, then they'll find out the hard way. If they find out that they'll be facing dangers they are ill-equipped to handle, and proceed anyways, then that's their decision, and the consequences are on them.
While the point of a game would be to have fun, the GM may have to 'teach the players a lesson,' I've already warned my players that not every creature they encounter are placed there for them to kill, and thinking like that will get them killed.
If, using a previous example, you have a dragon torch a village where there are lvl 1 characters, they obviously aren't meant to engage, but do everything to not die. These types of events, imo, are important for players to relate to the people and the world they live in.
If a group forms w/o a key class type, good for them, but I wouldn't cater to them in terms of encounters. Treasure, yes, a little. If your players all play casters, they have more options to compensate for their weakness as casters than say, a group of all warrior types. If they fail to do that, it's really their own fault, and there should be no expectation for the world around them to gimp itself.
This topic is one of the reason I used to hate paladins. People who play paladins seemed to be obsessed with never running from combat or creatures that would obviously kill them easily. As a GM you have to occasionally correct players false assumptions about the game you run. Sometimes, paladins get themselves killed for the lamest of reasons.
It may not be fun for a game, but it's better then feeling obligated to run gimped game after gimped game to entertain silly notions.
If you can't keep the game fun without relying on "gimped" notions, then you are clearly doing it wrong.
Also, letting bad experiences from the past cloud your judgement is one of the worst things to do when you are DM.
My group usually seemed like a bunch of idiotic murder hobos, but they have more than once proven me wrong in that regard.
If you read my quote you'll see that I specified "a game" not "the game." The point being, taking all that I've said in context, you'll see that I'm referring to the occasional foolish notion the players have in their games.
Teaching the players a lesson, by allowing negative consequences to affect them due to THEIR mistakes is not only right, games where that doesn't happen are even lamer when the GM cheats time and again to keep people playing their characters stupidly alive.
I figured the paladin example I used one that everyone who actually GMs games could relate too. My judgement is, in no way, clouded against paladins, I love to see them played correctly. However, when players have nonsensical notions that they will never have to flee a monster and capable, and obligated, without proper preparation to just take off to kill every evil they hear off, that character will eventually get in over their heads and get themselves killed.
Remember we are talking about how far GM's should cater their players, specifically.
And I've had no complaints about my games, thank you.
And too the OP, I think you already know this, but, you should run games "similar" to how you run all games. Your group having no 'tank' shouldn't compel you to tailor all encounters to the group. It's a challenge THEY need to address and deal with, and you should encourage them to. If they wish to pretend that the basic dynamic of combat is going to change on their behalf, then that problem will solve itself, yes?
Good points Belazoar. The game should challenge the party but remember to even out the encounters, some are nasty, others are moderately easy. Having every second encounter being a near victory can become quite tiring. Furthermore, it forces the characters to feel that they haven't improved since level 1. I'm not a fan of tpks but they can and do happen. It boils down to how the party goes about quests, side or main wise. Not having a certain role in the party like the frontline tanker or the healing bot can be circumvented through planning and clever use of tactics. Such games are normally fun and the sense of achievement is heightened for the party. I remember rogues who rescued the other captured pcs by bull rushing the golem off a ledge. Good times all around. The other thing to remember is that not every npc, combative or otherwise, will automatically be tailored so the party can take them straight up. This situation is quite rare but parties who surge ahead without bothering to clear the underlings who are level appropriate for them may be forced on the backburner. If they stubbornly refuse to flee, then thats too bad. As unfortunate as it is.
It's interesting to me to juxtapose this thread against all the "my players are power gamers who don't roleplay" threads.