|
Nope, my games don't break out in arguments. Evidently yours do, since you post a new thread about how a entitled player throws a fit every week.Actually it does. I'm not sure which role playing game you've been playing but it doesn't sound like it was Pathfinder.
Do your games break out in arguments of "I hit you, no you did not, you missed", or do you take turns trading blows?
Oooo I know, let's play Monopoly and instead of using dice we just say where we want our little game pieces to land. I'm taking Boardwalk first!
Well I can tell you don't actually read what I post, you jump into assumption mode.
I've been playing and running games since 1985 so in all those years a few instances do prop up. This is not part of my on going weekly game, this is something that happened a few years ago.
No arguments at all huh? Well consider yourself to be one of the lucky ones who is in the minority.
|
That is what it's all down to, your fun and your story.
First off, that's not true. The simple truth is that a good story doesn't depend on anyone dying. Character death can add to a story, but if it doesn't it's just a waste of time (storywise). So if it doesn't add to anyones fun but diminishes the fun of the player losing his character, there is good reason not to insist on the PCs death.
Now if you are truly all for the story and role playing then you will see that trying to change things in order to bring back your favorite character isn't always going to be an option storywise and it needs to be accepted.
Well there's always raise death. Apart from that, story isn't unchangable. if the return of a character doesn't fit into a story, just change the story. It's as simple as that.
Your legacy is written and finished when you stand alive and well at the end of the campaign.
Right. That's the reason why I expect to stand alive and well at the end of the campaign and would never partake in a game where this possibility wasn't real. I've no interest in playing a "Boromir" if I can play an "Aragorn (or at least an Samwise)" instead.
Could you honestly see Drizzt being killed during Homeland? That's why using the "novel" analogy isn't good.
Well if Drizz't had been killed during Homeland, I had probably lost interest in this novel. And if my character is killed during a campaign I probably lose interest in this campaign. That's why using the novel analogy is perfect.
Just to be clear: I've had my share of character deaths (and they all hade a huge background)and I still think that the old school approach is a perfectly valid style of game. I also agree with most of what Erik Mona said regarding this topic in the interview in Kobold Quarterly #1.
The thing is, that is only one of many different approaches to roleplaying games. And just because I still use D&D rules that doesn't mean that I still have to play the same game since 1974. I've run and played in campaigns where not a single character died and we still had as much (or even more) fun as in traditional D&D-style games.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if Drizz't had been killed during Homeland, I had probably lost interest in this novel. And if my character is killed during a campaign I probably lose interest in this campaign. That's why using the novel analogy is perfect.
So basically what you do is back a DM in a corner by essentially saying that if your character dies you will lose interest in his campaign.
Gotcha.
Wouldn't work in my games I'm afraid. I would present you with your options and let you decide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always warn my players that if they write more than a paragraph of backstory they risk wasting my time and their time. The interesting part of the story happens at the table, backstory exists to provide origins, context and a couple if plot hooks for the GM.
To expect special treatment with no indication of the fact is unreasonable.
I wish more GMs worked this way. It drives me mad when a GM asks for more then a few lines of back story for a 1st level character.
As to having faced this in the past, I have been lucky in that I have never had a player that fought me when they lost a character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically what you do is back a DM in a corner by essentially saying that if your character dies you will lose interest in his campaign.
I don't have to, because it isn't his campaign. It's ours.
To put it into perspective: I'm the GM most of the time. But that doesn't mean that it is my game or that my opinion has more value than that of my players'.
So when we play it's not that I tell the players what we play and then let them decide which characters to build. What I do is letting them build their characters and then build the story around those characters. I present the setting, I present the plot developments but my decisions are heavily influenced by the players wishes and their characters actions and can be overruled by the players.
You may understand why character death without meaning kind of undermines our concept of play. If a certain character is essential for a story but suddenly dies then suddenly the whole campaign has to be rebuild. If it happens to often, the campaign will eventually crash.
Which is why we're really careful when it comes to character death. There is a fine line between "challenging" and "deadly". And we're working hard not to cross this line if it isn't truly important
The simple truth is that a good story doesn't depend on anyone dying. Character death can add to a story, but if it doesn't it's just a waste of time (storywise). So if it doesn't add to anyones fun but diminishes the fun of the player losing his character, there is good reason not to insist on the PCs death.
A good, particular story might depend on someone dying. I've had PCs in that position and seen other players accept loss of a character because it was a brilliant or heroic end to his particular story. And in the case of my long-played bard, it came up because that's how the dice rolled. I accepted that he died, fighting against overwhelming odds to save his friends, and brought in a completely different character for the rest of the campaign.
I would argue that there is nearly always at least one good reason to insist on the PC's death: that's how the situation actually played out. It really happened out there on the game table. It may not be what the player wanted, it may not even be what most people expected, but in adjusting to adversity and unexpected change, really interesting things can happen that weren't planned or predicted. It is, literally, a game changer.
Your legacy is written and finished when you stand alive and well at the end of the campaign.Right. That's the reason why I expect to stand alive and well at the end of the campaign and would never partake in a game where this possibility wasn't real. I've no interest in playing a "Boromir" if I can play an "Aragorn (or at least an Samwise)" instead.
At the start of the campaign, you have no way of knowing if you're a Boromir or a Samwise. Yet, Boromir's actions are nevertheless important to the story even though he doesn't survive until the end. New characters arise to take his place, adding dynamism to the saga as a whole.
Well if Drizz't had been killed during Homeland, I had probably lost interest in this novel. And if my character is killed during a campaign I probably lose interest in this campaign. That's why using the novel analogy is perfect.
On the other hand, you've got counter-examples like the Song of Ice and Fire. We've seen the death of point-of-view characters and yet lots of people are still reading the novels. New characters come to the fore as the story develops.
|
|
The simple truth is that a good story doesn't depend on anyone dying. Character death can add to a story, but if it doesn't it's just a waste of time (storywise). So if it doesn't add to anyones fun but diminishes the fun of the player losing his character, there is good reason not to insist on the PCs death.A good, particular story might depend on someone dying. I've had PCs in that position and seen other players accept loss of a character because it was a brilliant or heroic end to his particular story. And in the case of my long-played bard, it came up because that's how the dice rolled. I accepted that he died, fighting against overwhelming odds to save his friends, and brought in a completely different character for the rest of the campaign.
I would argue that there is nearly always at least one good reason to insist on the PC's death: that's how the situation actually played out. It really happened out there on the game table. It may not be what the player wanted, it may not even be what most people expected, but in adjusting to adversity and unexpected change, really interesting things can happen that weren't planned or predicted. It is, literally, a game changer.
Your legacy is written and finished when you stand alive and well at the end of the campaign.Right. That's the reason why I expect to stand alive and well at the end of the campaign and would never partake in a game where this possibility wasn't real. I've no interest in playing a "Boromir" if I can play an "Aragorn (or at least an Samwise)" instead.At the start of the campaign, you have no way of knowing if you're a Boromir or a Samwise. Yet, Boromir's actions are nevertheless important to the story even though he doesn't survive until the end. New characters arise to take his place, adding dynamism to the saga as a whole.
Well if Drizz't had been killed during Homeland, I had probably lost interest in this...
Exactly!
When Ned Stark died I was angry but I wouldn't dream of stopping the book because of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"PC death is not common in my games, however, if it does happen I trust my players would accept it with grace (however frustrated they might be)."Perhaps this should go on a placard above every game table. Kind of like "Home Sweet Home"
hahahahahha
:)
I'll work on rephrasing it in verse, so it would be appropriate to cross stitch.
|
|
A good, particular story might depend on someone dying.
True. And if that's the case, I've no problems with my/a PC dying.
I would argue that there is nearly always at least one good reason to insist on the PC's death: that's how the situation actually played out.
That's where I disagree. Because the GM always could have prevented this outcome with the appropriate action. And sometimes he should have.
At the start of the campaign, you have no way of knowing if you're a Boromir or a Samwise.
That's also true. And as said before, I don't mind being Boromir or Ned Stark because that includes my character's death being meaningful. But what gets proposed by shallowsoul and others is that death has also to be accepted if it degrades a character to "Red Shirt #XYZ". And that's where we disagree because in my opinion that's what NPCs are for.
By the way thzere's a difference between Salvatore's Drizz't novels and Martin's GoT novels. The first are about Drizz't, the second about the Game of Thrones, not about Ned.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing and running games since 1985 so in all those years a few instances do prop up. This is not part of my on going weekly game, this is something that happened a few years ago.
Nevertheless, you do seem to frequently start threads in which you ask whether others have dealt with player 'entitlement' issues, and then argue smugly with anyone who doesn't support your rather cut-and-dry viewpoints.
Personally I'd say that no, a long backstory does not grant plot immunity, and I've never heard a player argue otherwise. But there are DMs who go so far as to create alternate penalties for failure, and completely avoid unintentional PC deaths -- and I'm not going to say they're doing anything wrong. And I could understand a player putting a lot of time into a backstory, and then being disappointed by a [permanent] character death.
My experience tells me a GM is just as replaceable as a player. I've even had a GM replaced and just continued with the same game.If you want to have a discussion on GM power and authority I'm game, but we can probably resurrect a previous thread or start a new one.
I partially agree with you--especially on the second paragraph--but I think this should be stated: if I left my game, the game would end. Just like that. None of my players are ready to GM--heck, half of them barely know which die to roll.
The GM is more important than the players, technically speaking. If he leaves, you need a new GM. Whereas you can keep going as long as you have at least three players without much hassle at all. Heck, you can go with one player, it just creates a very different dynamic.
I'm not saying that players should suck it up if they dislike a GM. GMs are plenty replaceable. But GMs aren't quite as replaceable as a player, because players don't always need replacing.
Hyperbole bugs me, in case y'can't tell. ;)
I would argue that there is nearly always at least one good reason to insist on the PC's death: that's how the situation actually played out.That's where I disagree. Because the GM always could have prevented this outcome with the appropriate action. And sometimes he should have.
There are deaths the GM can prevent, and deaths that they can't without breaking the story.
Example from my Council of Thieves run-through: The Oracle runs up to two large skeletons, not knowing even knowing what they are or how powerful they are, thinking "I can handle a couple of attacks just fine". She gets shredded by two full-attack actions because she is the only one in range of two mindless skeletons. Should I have prevented her death? Do I have the skeletons not attack the person right in front of them? How much can I fudge the dice rolls before it is just too much?
Another potential example (hasn't happened yet, but may soon): The party knows they will be fighting devils, but do not equip themselves with the appropriate weapons. Nor do they heed the multiple NPC warnings that if they do X, Y, and Z the battle will be much easier. As a consequence, they get demolished by a pit fiend. Should I have prevented it? I made sure the PCs had more than enough knowledge and clues to make the encounter a fair one, they just failed to act on said knowledge.
There are times when death will occur due to the whims of the dice. Sometimes this is just bad luck. I generally am wary of fudging dice rolls, just because if you go too far you lose consistency. I have fudged dice rolls in the past (a PC got hit with a Shadow crit for 8 Str in his first round of combat, I knocked it down to avoid killing him), but generally I think it should be a rare occurrence.
There are times when death will occur do to PC mistakes. It is not the GM's job to equip all enemies with styrofoam weapons and claws to prevent PC death (sorry for the hyperbole KC ;)), but rather to make sure that the challenges are appropriate and fair. I would rather (as a player and as a GM) have a PC die due to a mistake they made over the GM bending the story, or intentionally having the enemies behave out of character, in order to avoid that death.
The harsh reality is that adventuring is a dangerous business. No one wants to see their character die, especially if it is in a lame manner. However it happens, and the players should be prepared for it. Death does not discriminate based on how colorful your history, nor should it, in my opinion.
In addition, mourning the loss of a character and throwing a fit about it are two completely different things. If my druid in Skull and Shackles died, I would be sad because she has a really interesting backstory, and a lot of character. However, I would mourn the loss, then prepare my next character who hopefully would not share the same fate. I like to think that most people who are capable of writing an epic backstory are creative enough to come up with another one. I myself have never been so invested in one character concept that I was unwilling to switch to a new one if necessary.
Personally I'd say that no, a long backstory does not grant plot immunity, and I've never heard a player argue otherwise.
I think if you look up-thread and in the one or two (or more) related threads, you've got several players who feel they should have some plot, random die roll, and/or selective death immunity.
Unless you're starting out significantly higher than 1st level, PAGES of backstory is a little ridiculous.
You can cover your childhood and apprenticeship in whatever career you're GOING TO PURSUE.
But that's it, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) take pages to delineate growing up and learning your trade.
Imo.
|
|
That's also true. And as said before, I don't mind being Boromir or Ned Stark because that includes my character's death being meaningful. But what gets proposed by shallowsoul and others is that death has also to be accepted if it degrades a character to "Red Shirt #XYZ". And that's where we disagree because in my opinion that's what NPCs are for.
This is all down to the player I'm afraid and I'm not obligated to adjust my game to accommodate this type of mentality. I can't help that you feel like a red shirt unless your character reaches some milestone but that is your problem and not mine or anyone else's.
I can go through five fully detailed characters in five sessions and still not feel like a red shirt.
You know before hand that Pathfinder relies on the roll of the dice and unless someone tells you any different you assume you are playing the default.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're starting out significantly higher than 1st level, PAGES of backstory is a little ridiculous.
Unless you are finally going on that adventure you always planned on.
|
|
But that's it
Not quite. I've had players develop whole communities with history and all within the frame of their background. Once I used the background of my character to explain why there are wu jen dwarves in Eberron. And so on.
There is a lot of stuff you can implement in the character's background. it's not just childhood and apprenticeship.
@Scaevola: Don't get me wrong. If a character takes a risk, he has to live or die with the consequences. I also don't like fudging too much. So what I do (depending on my players) is to tone down the encounter challenge while granting the PCs boons like hero points to use in emergency situations. So if they don't do anything too stupid, their chances of survival are quite high(not guaranteed, though)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Backstory shouldn't provide plot immunity.
However, PCs have connections to the story they're in. It may be preferable on occasion to work a dead PC back into the story somehow, instead of trying to work in a brand new PC with no connection to the story.
I have given players a "mulligan" from time to time, usually if a PC dies at very low level under dubious circumstances. One in particular comes to mind, in which a 1st-level wizard walked straight into the middle of a group of rogues who took 20 on their Stealth checks by posing as training dummies. 8 consecutive sneak attacks later and he was hamburguesas. Had he died, he would just have rolled another 1st-level wizard with probably the same stats, spells, and equipment, so I just declared him stable at -9 hp.
So, while backstory shouldn't give you plot armor, my hesitance at having to bring in a new PC might possibly do so.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
shallowsoul, I have a question for you. If you were running a game, and after a few unlucky deaths (man, those pick wielding miners sure could roll crits) they come to you as a group and ask you to start fudging dice or improvising to keep them alive.
That is, your entire group would prefer that the game you were running diverged from the 'default' and became more character-story oriented. What would your response be?
(For the record, I prefer to play the same way you do. Let the dice fall where they will, and sometimes you die.)
I would tell them I'm sorry but I'm not happy running games like that. If anyone else would like to run that type of game then they are more than welcome.
If I can't enjoy it then my dislike will spill over into the game and end up making everyone miserable.
|
|
You know before hand that Pathfinder relies on the roll of the dice and unless someone tells you any different you assume you are playing the default.
Well, our default is that the only rule that really matters is rule zero
Or in the words of Mike Mearls: Think the rulebook has all the answers? Then let's the the rulebook run a campaign.
There is no default how to roleplay in general or to play Pathfinder in specific. Just sayin'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know before hand that Pathfinder relies on the roll of the dice and unless someone tells you any different you assume you are playing the default.Well, our default is that the only rule that really matters is rule zero
Or in the words of Mike Mearls: Think the rulebook has all the answers? Then let's the the rulebook run a campaign.
There is no default how to roleplay in general or to play Pathfinder in specific. Just sayin'.
Actually there "is" a default way to play the game. What this does is it keeps everyone on the same page so if you walk into a FLGS then you can sit down and expect to play Pathfinder by the book. Don't mistake "default" as the "right" way to play because there is no right way to play. Anything outside the books is considered houserules and you are supposed to let your player's know if you do anything outside the rules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can't enjoy it then my dislike will spill over into the game and end up making everyone miserable.
To put it in your own words: "So that is what it's all down to, your fun and your story." No compromises because you think that you're more important than your players.
Well, have it your way, then.
By the way, I'm totally playing by the book, no houserules at all, no fudging. Still: nearly no character deaths.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can't enjoy it then my dislike will spill over into the game and end up making everyone miserable.To put it in your own words: "So that is what it's all down to, your fun and your story." No compromises because you think that you're more important than your players.
Well, have it your way, then.
Talk about negative spin. Would you refuse to play in a game if the GM ran a style you aren't comfortable with and didn't like? If so, it's the exact same thing.
(If not, why?!? Why play in a game you won't like?)If you, as a group, can't agree with the general style and ground rules, there's no point in playing that particular game with that mix of GM and players.
I wonder why you started the thread if you felt so confident about your choices.
Regardless, Gary Gygax said in "Role-playing Mastery",
"The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of the PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined. Conversely, he has no ethical or moral obligation to keep a PC alive and viable if that character's player insists on leaping into the jaws of adversity - and he owes it to himself and the others in the group to discipline or dismiss a player who has a selfish and treacherous attitude towards the campaign."I don't think that I can say it any better than the developer himself. The dice are the default mode, yes, but sometimes the default must be overridden. I think this was one of those situations.
Quoting for truth.
Fudging the dice is all a part of being a dm :)
For me, rpgs have always been about telling a story and having fun, not running a game. So if someone worked hard on their character and rolled bad on their first combat, I'd try to fudge it a bit, especially if they were trying to be heroic. If it wasn't something I could fudge (MASSIVE damage, falling down a cliff, throat ripped out by an evil rabbit), its time to roll something new and use some of the unused plot hooks that you wanted to use for your character. I'll even help you figure that new character out after the session and give you an NPC until then.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you, as a group, can't agree with the general style and ground rules, there's no point in playing that particular game with that mix of GM and players.
I agree, but first you should look for a compromise everyone can agree with.
what shallowsoul does (according to his answer to Gaekubs question) is to tell the players that there is no compromise. It's his way or no way.
And that's not cool in my book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't enjoy GMing a game (or playing in a game), there is no point in playing. Shallowsoul has his way of running a campaign. If he and his players have incompatible styles, they shouldn't be playing together. That's just common sense. Neither group should be forced into a game they dislike.
what shallowsoul does (according to his answer to Gaekubs question) is to tell the players that there is no compromise. It's his way or no way.And that's not cool in my book.
So how would you handle if everyone in the group approached you and asked you to participate (or worse, run) a game in a style you didn't like? Would you decline to participate?
To put the is in my perspective: I decline invitations to play in Vampire games because I like neither the typical style of play nor the subject matter. I won't run Cyberpunk games other than some variation of police campaigns. I won't run mercenary Traveller campaigns in which the PCs are all soldiers of fortune handling missions in some client state backwater. All of these are styles of campaign or content I just don't want to run, nor will I be made to run them even if everyone else wants me to. I also generally don't run rigidly-by-the-book RPGs with no DM editorial control of the game's inputs (and that includes dice or target numbers). I simply won't agree to run a game of that sort, though the players I hang around with are free to play those games without me. Am I really being uncompromising? There are thousands of possible game configurations I might be willing to run, but because I have certain ones I won't, it's my way or the highway?
|
|
If you, as a group, can't agree with the general style and ground rules, there's no point in playing that particular game with that mix of GM and players.I agree, but first you should look for a compromise everyone can agree with.
what shallowsoul does (according to his answer to Gaekubs question) is to tell the players that there is no compromise. It's his way or no way.
And that's not cool in my book.
Why should I run a game that I do not enjoy? For someone who talks about compromise you have none to give. As long ssh you are the one having fun eh?
Am I really being uncompromising? There are thousands of possible game configurations I might be willing to run, but because I have certain ones I won't, it's my way or the highway?
Yes, you selfish bastard. :D
What you fail to realise is that apparently Rule 0 only applies to players. DMs should just cowboy up and take a hit for the team.
But that, in no WAY, should be construed as a double standard... except by hateful DMs.
By the way, I'm totally playing by the book, no houserules at all, no fudging. Still: nearly no character deaths.
That's cool and shit but "it's never happened to me" is not the same thing as "it's impossible for this to happen". Not by a long shot.
Death is a part of this game. Period. That is a fact. Whether you fudge the dice every time a character gets in trouble is your own business but many people decide they LIKE playing by the rules and letting characters die when they're supposed to.
If character death automatically ruins a book, series, whatever for you, you must hate every media ever invented besides shows on the level of Dora the Explorer.
You want to know why the Drizzt analogy is bad? His name is on the cover. He is the viewpoint character. He is indisputably the MAIN character, the reason why people pick up the novels and read them. Killing him off kills the series.
Your Pathfinder party? It's a group. Everyone is as equally important as the other. You guys are the "Elite Task Force" in any movie or book you would like to name. Your job is to go in, adventuring, and do something. You're the main cast of Star Wars essentially, except none of you are Luke. Collectively, you may survive. You may not. Nobody stopped watching when Obi Wan died. Nobody stopped watching when Marines died in Alien or Predator. Nobody stopped reading the Drizzt novels when Wulfgar ate it, did they?
No, they didn't. Because they understand that this is a thing that happens. Characters die. Sometimes they come back. Sometimes they don't. Pulling a Deus Ex Machina to get the characters out of every jam they run into is bad writing.
I've been there. I've written 10 to 15 page backstories, just to have the character get critted by some random chump weasel on our way back to town to sell off loot. I've had very fun, very interesting characters die the very first session they are played.
Heck, I had a character get killed by another PC immediately after the first encounter. Nobody told me the guy had an immense hatred for Tieflings. I felt a little miffed, but oh well.
Writing backstories is an activity that is completely voluntary at our table. We've had lots of new players who have never written anything creatively since high school, so there are no rules requiring backstories. If the player is having trouble coming up with a short paragraph describing how they came to the adventure, the DM is always willing to assist just enough to get the game rolling and give them some ideas.
The times when I've written those semi-epic, 10+ page stories and had the character go belly-up in one session, that was all on me. I made the decision to write that much, not the DM. It's a dangerous world, and every time we sit down to play, it's a gamble as to whether everyone's characters will be alive by the end of the session. So, I knew the risks ahead of time. No regrets.
Me too. It is superstition, but I somewhat don't trust the dice to be good, if I put too much into the backstory.
Personally I'd say that no, a long backstory does not grant plot immunity, and I've never heard a player argue otherwise.I think if you look up-thread and in the one or two (or more) related threads, you've got several players who feel they should have some plot, random die roll, and/or selective death immunity.
My bad, I meant I've never heard that argument in person.
It's also worth mentioning that I can count on one hand the number of players who have handed me backstories longer than one paragraph.
The harsh reality is that adventuring is a dangerous business. No one wants to see their character die, especially if it is in a lame manner. However it happens, and the players should be prepared for it. Death does not discriminate based on how colorful your history, nor should it, in my opinion.There is no such "harsh reality". This is a game. Adventuring is exactly as dangerous as the GM and the players want it to be.
If you want PCs dropping like Red Shirts in every session, play that way. If you want PC death to be rare and always dramatically meaningful, play that way.
But don't pretend it's reality. It's a choice.The only issues come up when people in the same group are on different pages and don't realize it. Assumption clash.
Excellent observation. Beginning any in-game statement with "the harsh reality" or somesuch doesn't mean anything, and really just makes us hobbyists look like geeks who can't separate our game of pretend from reality.
I agree with shallowsoul that a DM isn't under any particular obligation to change how s/he DMs*, but let's not pretend that the DM doesn't have complete control of the game world. Any harsh reality that exists in the game world exists because the DM made it so. And s/he's perfectly capable of making it otherwise. Love it, own it, game it.
*With the usual caveat that a DM without players isn't much of a DM.
My experience tells me a GM is just as replaceable as a player. I've even had a GM replaced and just continued with the same game.If you want to have a discussion on GM power and authority I'm game, but we can probably resurrect a previous thread or start a new one.
I partially agree with you--especially on the second paragraph--but I think this should be stated: if I left my game, the game would end. Just like that. None of my players are ready to GM--heck, half of them barely know which die to roll.
The GM is more important than the players, technically speaking. If he leaves, you need a new GM. Whereas you can keep going as long as you have at least three players without much hassle at all. Heck, you can go with one player, it just creates a very different dynamic.
I'm not saying that players should suck it up if they dislike a GM. GMs are plenty replaceable. But GMs aren't quite as replaceable as a player, because players don't always need replacing.
Hyperbole bugs me, in case y'can't tell. ;)
Two dedicated players is great for a buddy-style campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two dedicated players is great for a buddy-style campaign.
I absolutely agree. I've seen some really awesome two-player games. It makes this great dynamic between the pair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
shallowsoul, I have a question for you. If you were running a game, and after a few unlucky deaths (man, those pick wielding miners sure could roll crits) they come to you as a group and ask you to start fudging dice or improvising to keep them alive.
That is, your entire group would prefer that the game you were running diverged from the 'default' and became more character-story oriented. What would your response be?
(For the record, I prefer to play the same way you do. Let the dice fall where they will, and sometimes you die.)
I'm not Shallowsoul but I know what my response would be:
"Sorry that we cant come to a consensus. I think that maybe you should find a GM who will run the type of game that you like, while I start looking for players who have a play style more in line with what I like. Good Luck."
I let my players know exactly what kind of game that they're in for at the outset. I've had exactly one player bow out of one of my games because our styles didn't mesh. It wasn't antagonistic and he was very polite and cordial about it. In short he carried himself like an adult. Not like the typical passive agressive/tough guy message board poster. And I definitely respected his decision and wished him well.
I've been running a Pathfinder group with roughly the same people for about 3+ years.
I run a game where I do not fudge dice. We removed the confirmation of critical so that a crit is a crit. We play with the critical hit and critical fumble deck. We also play with action points limited to certain uses and house rules.
For instance you can use an Action Point to re-roll an attack roll, save or ability check. You can also us an action point to get 1 extra attack. Also if a character has been killed? each player can give up an action point to bring that PC to -1 instead of negative con (The blow wasn't as bad as initially thought type of thing). It has to be unanimous though. If a character does die they need to give up an action point to come back from the dead (once a Raise Dead or Resurrection is procured). My PC's start off with their HD + Con Score (that's score, NOT bonus) as Hit Points.
So as you can see as a GM I provide several in game buffers to give the PC's a fighting chance. This way because I roll attacks and saves for monsters and enemies in the open, I tend to garner a fair amount of trust from my players. They know I'm not trying to screw them. Even with all of these buffers we've still had at least three character deaths and more than a few close calls (almost TPK's). The last real DIRE situation involved dropping a Black Tentacles in the middle of the party and then dropping a Cloudkill right smack dab in the middle of that. if it wasnt for quick thinking and some good dice rolls from my players at least two members of the 5 man party would have died. (Actually I think we did lose our Sorceress in that encounter...)
My point being once you have players who trust you as a GM and you dont abuse that trust and you also have players who appreciate and have a similar play style as yours? It's pretty awesome. I know I wouldnt give my players up for the world.
The harsh reality is that adventuring is a dangerous business. No one wants to see their character die, especially if it is in a lame manner. However it happens, and the players should be prepared for it. Death does not discriminate based on how colorful your history, nor should it, in my opinion.There is no such "harsh reality". This is a game. Adventuring is exactly as dangerous as the GM and the players want it to be.
If you want PCs dropping like Red Shirts in every session, play that way. If you want PC death to be rare and always dramatically meaningful, play that way.
But don't pretend it's reality. It's a choice.The only issues come up when people in the same group are on different pages and don't realize it. Assumption clash.
Excellent observation. Beginning any in-game statement with "the harsh reality" or somesuch doesn't mean anything, and really just makes us hobbyists look like geeks who can't separate our game of pretend from reality.
I agree with shallowsoul that a DM isn't under any particular obligation to change how s/he DMs*, but let's not pretend that the DM doesn't have complete control of the game world. Any harsh reality that exists in the game world exists because the DM made it so. And s/he's perfectly capable of making it otherwise. Love it, own it, game it.
*With the usual caveat that a DM without players isn't much of a DM.
"Harsh reality" was a poor choice of words. My intent was to say something more along the lines of "If you are playing a game where you are trying to kill devils, demons, dragons, and all manner of other monstrous things". If you are planning on doing that in the game, I don't see why there isn't an expectation or mortal peril.
Honestly, I know there is no such thing as wrongbadfun, but if there is no risk at all because your backstory wills it, or you are too attached to your character, why not just pet fluffy bunnies all campaign? You won't die in either case, because according to some the GM shouldn't let a PC die unless they get consent from the player. I don't understand the point in having a campaign with character and an epic story if there is no risk in it. If others enjoy that type of campaign, that is perfectly fine, but from my point of view that is not fun. I want there to be consequences to my actions/inaction, not hand-holding by the GM, and the other people I play with expect the same.
Also, thejeff, just because death is a possibility doesn't turn the all the PCs into red-shirts marching to death ever session. Saying "death is a risk" =/= "you will die". Managing the amount of risk is something that each group handles differently. With my group, the expectation is that the GM will not bend over backwards to save you. This doesn't mean PCs drop every session as the GM continuously throws things they can't handle at them.
"Harsh reality" was a poor choice of words. My intent was to say something more along the lines of "If you are playing a game where you are trying to kill devils, demons, dragons, and all manner of other monstrous things". If you are planning on doing that in the game, I don't see why there isn't an expectation or mortal peril.
Sure, if they were real demons and monsters I'd expect casualties. I'd also expect groups of would-be (read: 1st level) heroes to be ganked by high-powered monsters and experienced heroes to have meaningless skirmishes with weak monsters on a not-infrequent basis. I wouldn't expect a villain to be dumb enough to tell the "helpless" heroes all about his master plan, or to make his stronghold's self-destruct button big and red.
But in a game of fiction, I don't expect my expectations. :)
Honestly, I know there is no such thing as wrongbadfun, but if there is no risk at all because your backstory wills it, or you are too attached to your character, why not just pet fluffy bunnies all campaign? You won't die in either case, because according to some the GM shouldn't let a PC die unless they get consent from the player. I don't understand the point in having a campaign with character and an epic story if there is no risk in it. If others enjoy that type of campaign, that is perfectly fine, but from my point of view that is not fun. I want there to be consequences to my actions/inaction, not hand-holding by the GM, and the other people I play with expect the same.
Honestly the one time I had a 'hand-holding' DM, it sucked. He grossly misjudged a combat encounter and fudged his dice repeatedly and obviously to keep us alive, and it was a total bore.* But if you talk to a no-death DM, they'll tell you that there's a fun way and a boring way to do it -- just like there's a fun way and a boring way to be a 'pro-death' DM. (Rocks fall, everyone dies.) I've never experienced the non-boring way, but I'd sure give it a try. Here's how it works:
Losing combat becomes a plot device, rather than "Time to burn another diamond for resurrection," or "Time to roll up a new toon," or "Time to start a new campaign." A PC 'dies,' and he gets a permanent ugly scar and a semi-permanent handicap, or his armor is destroyed, or maybe he just has to sit out the rest of the encounter (which is pretty lame, no?). The party 'dies,' and the villain escapes, or the princess dies, or the PCs wake up barely alive in a slave pit. I'm sure a no-death DM could give you even more creative examples. The idea is to create penalties for failure, without resorting to PC death.
*Seriously, a little honesty goes a long way. "Sorry guys, these home brewed dire rats aren't supposed to be TPK material. Let's improvise, or start over."
More seriously, I don't really get the idea that there's no fun if there's no risk of death.
First, any decent character will have goals and things/people that are important to them. There can be consequences and losses without killing the character and ending his story.
So... provided the DM doesn't kill the PC, because they have a good backstory, it's okay if they have their family get slaughtered, because they have a good backstory?
Hoo boy.
Note: I know that's an exaggeration, and not what you were implying, but if there is going to be risk in a world for some people (i.e. NPCs) why should there be no risk for the players?
@ Tequila Sunrise: Agreed, the DM coming up with ways to keep the character alive is not generally too difficult, and can go along perfectly fine in the narrative flow. Of course, that always depends on the players and the DM, so there's no way to really get a standard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly I just see you starting a new thread each week about how a player flipped out because they didn't like how you did something.
Either you need to figure out better ways to find new players, or there is something you're leaving out of these stories.
I'm starting to wonder if the players who keep pulling fits actually exist. Or it's simply to start threads just to get enough players to vindicate and validate the subject of the op. No way imo can a DM have that many players causing that much trouble at the gaming table all the time imo.
[
Nevertheless, you do seem to frequently start threads in which you ask whether others have dealt with player 'entitlement' issues, and then argue smugly with anyone who doesn't support your rather cut-and-dry viewpoints.
Glad to see I'm not the only one starting to see a pattern in thes threads.
More seriously, because when the PC dies, his story is over. If he loses something of value to him, that's more story. Or dies heroically saving them. That works too. If he trips over a turtle and breaks his neck on his way to track down his nemesis, that's at best farce. (More reasonably, dies in a random encounter, but I liked the "trips over a turtle" bit.)
Fair point. You are right, tripping over a turtle isn't very heroic, and a PC who dies in that way is probably not inspiring a very dramatic story.
Now, this might be trying to draw on a very fine line, but just to consider: a group of PC's along with the DM aren't necessarily creating just a 'story,' in which everyone lives or that their deaths at least have meaning. Other times a group may simply be making a 'world,' and in a reasonably realistic world, sometimes unfortunate things happen. Sometimes people do trip over turtles, and happen to break their necks. It's not heroic, certainly, but if it can happen, it can happen, and it becomes part of the setting, the immersion of the world. The adventurers can relate stories to their 'new' party member of how their old friend, with his head full of vengeance against his archnemesis happened to get done in by whatever. It's a touch of realism, because such things can happen, even in very unlikely situations.
I think it really just goes back to what kind of game the players/DM are interested in crafting. If the PC's expect some degree of plot armor and the DM obliges, okay. If the PC's expect a realistic setting and the DM obliges, okay. If the PC's and the DM are expecting different things, then there's a problem.
