Greetings Everyone,
I would like to ask you for a few hints based on your on experiences on GMing and playing.
For a better understanding:
We're from Brazil, then:
- It's hard to find players at all.(There're few players here)
- It's really hard to find "good" players (good = interested in devoting to the games, come to the sessions, read the rules, follow the campaign, etc)
- Most of players "knows" English, but hardly knows well enough to follow understand the Pathfinder rules, spells, etc. Who has a better English understanding has to "teach" who hasn't, this create a "overhead" during the sessions, especially on combat.
There're only to skilled(experienced) players, me (Who actually is not the Game Master, but it's considering) and the other one, who is the actual GM and it's "suffering" (it's a little frustrating for him, create all the world, the plot, the NPCs, prepare sheets...). There are 3-4 friends, neighbors, most of them really beginners.
Well, now that you got the context, let'me show the issues and how we're dealing with:
1) Issues with rule understanding:
- Limiting the content only to the CRB.
- Using more "powerful" characters (25 points).
- We're printing little summaries of the rules, actions, movements, attacks...
- Avoid using skilled monsters and skills usage.
2) Issues with player concentration and attention.
Sometimes (the real problem is, this happens a lot) the players get distracted or talk off game excessively. There are a lot of unnecessary jokes too, this "breaks the mood".
-We encouraging PC to pay attention giving extra EXP for important campaign relevant discoveries and side quests solutions.
-There's only allowed to talk "in-game" (this is really hard to apply).
-Punishing unnecessary jokes or jokes that are not funny at all. (Because we're having to much trouble with some players "bullying" others).
3) Sandbox vs Rails Campaign:
This is actually our main discussion (between me and the GM). He GMing style is extremely Sandbox(but I particularly argue that the adventure must start in rails, and them gradually turn into a sandbox). The last adventures results in all PC get killed by NPC, or killing each other. On his adventure, I usually play as a "pivot".
4) Adventures with 1GM and 1 or 2?
I've grown up playing in adventures with 4 or more players (usually 6, in AD&D and D&D3.0). During many years I've not played, and a few months ago I start again with the pathfinder. So, I would like to ask, what do you think about few-players adventures?
Thanks for the support, I'm really interested in another points of view.
Att,
Jack ShortCandle.
On one or two PC games.
Games with few players allow you to develop themes that would be too personalized or that would be considered "playing favourite" in other games.
Quests of self-discovery (involving one of the character's family or provenance), personal enmity, rivalry with important NPCs, relationship with master and apprentices etc become much easier to pull-off without boring the rest of the table.
The whole "chosen one" theme is obviously easier to do with one or two players. Time-travel, dreams, and planar travel are also easier to implement IMO.
In other words, a one or two player game can thrive on character development more than tactical combat.
Laurefindel,
That's really a great point of view.
I'll try it this weekend.
Thanks! Really appreciated.
1) Limiting to CRB or, even more, to the Beginner's Box can really help new players. It gives them less stuff to worry about and less places they can mess up. Frustration is a leading cause of inattention.
Higher pointbuy never really breaks the game, it just means an extra few HP or a point or two more damage, maybe a few % better chance to get a skill check. It does a lot at the start of a game with little effect later on; it will also make the players feel more awesome.
Summaries are a great idea, especially with the formulae printed out for the player. For example you have a card titled Attack which has the "to hit (longsword): 2 (strength) + 1 (masterwork sword) = +3 bonus; damage (longsword): 1d8 + 2 (strength)" This lets the players see what they should roll and understand what goes into the bonus.
I wouldn't exclude skill usage. Combat simulation isn't going to keep players paying attention out of combat and will make them think the only option is to fight. Use the skills whenever you can, but provide bonuses for clever usage. For example, there's a wall the players need to climb. If they just say "I climb the wall", then it is a straight skill check. But if they use perception or knowledge engineering to look for a good path, give them a bonus.
2) Yeah, this happens. It is hard to keep it out and, honestly, sometimes it is fun. I have to prod my group to get back on topic now and then. You may consider having breaks now and then to let your players joke around before getting back to the game.
Good idea to award players for paying attention.
If you're having problems with teasing and the like, try having a one-on-one with the problem-maker. They probably don't really think what they are saying is causing as big an issue as the others think. If the guy won't listen, you may have to remove him from the game.
3) Sandbox games can be interesting but will also lead to bored players who don't know what to do next. Bored or unmotivated players will fail at a sandbox game because those require a fair bit of motivation and interest in the characters. I prefer to run the official Adventure Paths. They are a good mix of options and interesting story. The other awesome thing is that most of the work is done for you, so the GM doesn't get burned out making up stories and worlds and maps and monsters and plots.
4) Pathfinder is balanced against 1 GM and 4 players. Understand that the GM is the ultimate decision maker though. 1 player, 8 players, 4 players, it doesn't really matter because the GM can make the story fit the players.
You can also let the players play more than one character, gestalt characters (one character with two classes gaining levels in both classes at the same time; it is a very powerful character but great for low-player games), or GMPCs that are characters played by the GM (usually simple combat types and the GM has to be careful not to use the GMPC to solve all the puzzles and get all the glory).
GMing can be a lot of work, and I can't imagine how much more it would take to do it in a non-native language, but it can also be very rewarding.
It is also hard to get players to pay attention; you might consider asking what they would like to see in the game, rather than trying to make them like the game as it is right now. You don't have to listen to them, heh, but it may help just to show that you'd like to know what they think.
Good Luck!
MurphysParadox,
Thank your for the hints.
1) I think I've expressed myself badly, by limiting the skills i mean: Not use secondary skills usages, like feint with bluff, or provoke with intimidate. It's not forbidden to use this abilities, but just avoid teach all of them, it make the game more complex and slow.
2) The talk with the troublemaker already happens, and it had little effect, we're gradually obtaining "success". Breaks are a nice idea, and can be helpful.
3) "so the GM doesn't get burned out making up stories and worlds and maps and monsters and plots."
Heheh, this happens a lot.
4) I've never heard about this gestalt characters before, but seems a nice idea. This'll make the few character more self-sufficient.
Thank you a lot.
Everything that was written in this topic will be carefully.
Att
1) Ah, yes, I agree. Provoking isn't a good system, I agree that you should avoid it. Feint can be confusing and definitely slows the game down.
2) Well, sometimes you have to kick a person out of a group. It sucks but it is better to kick one bad player out than have good players get upset and leave.
3) That's why I went to published Adventure Paths; I don't have time to make everything up from scratch like I used to.
4) There is still the problem of action economy (4 players can take 4 turns while 2 characters only get 2, even if they have two classes worth of actions they can perform). The GM still has to be careful about how hard fights are. But, as Laurefindel said, less players can mean less combat and more story.
1) Sure, I think this "advanced combat" must be implemented gradually. Let the player take the initiative to use new tactics, and then explain the rule.
2) Year, it's not a "nice" task, but sometimes seems really necessary.
3) I've never played the Published Adventures, usually I use scenarios ,like Dragonlance or Ravenloft, or creating the own world. But now I'm getting old (college, work... ) and it's becoming harder and harder.
4) Agreed with Laurefindel. Less players will make the few ones to interact more with the NPC's and the plot. On large groups, usually each player take it row on the campaign, like the Fighter just combat, and the thief do the talking, it's hard to conciliate all this flavors. In small groups, i believe that is possible to make something extremely on demand, easier to conciliate the two or the players flavors. The few actions for 2 class habilities looks like an interesting challenge.