But this is the same thing. You're just putting a negative spin on him. I won't be forced to run a style I'm not willing to run, you say basically the same. And so is he, but he's the autocrat and you (and I) aren't?
How is being willing to run a game in one style but not another forcing a style onto your players that they don't like? Because that's what shallowsoul is saying.No, that's not what he's saying. What he keeps saying throughout the whole thread is that the only opinion that counts is his. It's his game, it's his rules and there is no way he would even think about his players wishes as they already accepted to play exactly the game he offers when they rolled their characters.
Yeah, I dont quite understand his point either. Just seems sort of, I dont know if mean spirited is the right word, but that's close. Antagonistic maybe?
I really dont see the problem where if I as a GM or almost 30 years with a family and a full time job and other extra curricular activities (mostly revolving around our child) only have two saturdays a month to dedicate to gaming and wants to maximize that fun by playing / running the type of game that I like.
If I let perspective players know what type of game that I run and let THEM decide if they want to play I'm a bad / poor / dictatorial GM for running / playing this way?
If my time is limited and I dont want to run or play in a game whose style I know that I wont enjoy and am fine with people finding a game that they may like or me finding a game that I prefer instead of compromising by playing / running a style of game that I know that I wont like, I'm some sort of bad / poor / dictatorial GM?
This seems to be what he's implying if not outright saying. And honestly, it seems more fair, to me, to bow out or let people play the type of game that they want than to stay in a situation that will not make either side very happy. Compromise requires something from both sides. A GM buckling under to his players to run a style that he/she isn't going to enjoy isn't compromise. It's buckling under to your players. I find it a bit odd that people here like to throw out that the GM is just another player and is no more important than the other players EXCEPT when it comes to the GM getting any sort of enjoyment.
This may not be what he is outright saying, but it really seems to be what he's implying.
|
I think players who spend that much time with back story and role playing should be protected from boring death.
If a character puts that much thought into his character I think the GM should put equal thought into his death. It would have to be something worked out with the player from the beginning. The GM promises that the character won't die as a result from random chance but the player agrees that his character will die in a dramatic and epic fashion.
In contrast, players who simply roll up characters to min/max everything and just treat it as a video game or wargame shouldn't be upset when they die by random chance.
There are actually better games that accommodate this style of play in all honesty. You "can" do it with Pathfinder/D&D just like you "can" role play in Candyland but that doesn't mean the game was designed for that.
If you know the outcome then what's the point in even playing the game? You would actually be better off just coming over and doing a bit of LARP.
|
|
But this is the same thing. You're just putting a negative spin on him. I won't be forced to run a style I'm not willing to run, you say basically the same. And so is he, but he's the autocrat and you (and I) aren't?
How is being willing to run a game in one style but not another forcing a style onto your players that they don't like? Because that's what shallowsoul is saying.No, that's not what he's saying. What he keeps saying throughout the whole thread is that the only opinion that counts is his. It's his game, it's his rules and there is no way he would even think about his players wishes as they already accepted to play exactly the game he offers when they rolled their characters.Yeah, I dont quite understand his point either. Just seems sort of, I dont know if mean spirited is the right word, but that's close. Antagonistic maybe?
I really dont see the problem where if I as a GM or almost 30 years with a family and a full time job and other extra curricular activities (mostly revolving around our child) only have two saturdays a month to dedicate to gaming and wants to maximize that fun by playing / running the type of game that I like.
If I let perspective players know what type of game that I run and let THEM decide if they want to play I'm a bad / poor / dictatorial GM for running / playing this way?
If my time is limited and I dont want to run or play in a game whose style I know that I wont enjoy and am fine with people finding a game that they may like or me finding a game that I prefer instead of compromising by playing / running a style of game that I know that I wont like, I'm some sort of bad / poor / dictatorial GM?
This seems to be what he's implying if not outright saying. And honestly, it seems more fair, to me, to bow out or let people play the type of game that they want than to stay in a situation that will not make either side very happy. Compromise requires something from both...
Exactly!
Sounds to me like emotional blackmail because it's all about his fun and not anyone else's.
So what is the GM compromising when he says he'll "let perspective players know what type of game that I run and let THEM decide if they want to play"?I think it's the take it or leave it attitude that bothers people. Which isn't to say the opposite. The GM doesn't have to run whatever way the players want, but there may be a middle position acceptable to both (or all, since there isn't just one player).
So, no. No one is saying the GM has to buckle under to the players and run a style he/she won't enjoy. Just that it might be worth finding out what the players actually want, to see if you can accommodate it and still enjoy the game.
As I said before, it's probably also best to be explicit about things, rather than assume every has the same understanding of default styles as well.
So wait...exactly how far back are we going to go here?
If I get asked to run a game and I say :"Okay I want to run Pathfinder for this." and I'm told that the players want to play 4E? and I say I have no desire to run 4E because I dont particularly care for the game, is that giving off a my way or the highway vibe?
If we agree to the Pathfinder game and the players want to use everything from 3.5 as well but I want to keep things to Pathfinder core only? Is that a my way or the highway as well?
I guess my question is at what point if any does a GM get to decide what he/she uses in his game WITHOUT player input? I know that I like to put together a character creation guidelines sheet as well as a short house rules document. For instance I play with Action Points but you can only use action points for certain things. So I print out and action point use sheet on card stock and make sure each one of my players gets one. During the course of play we may decide that one of the uses shouldn't be there / is broken or there should be something added. We talk about it and make changes accordingly.
Less formally I let the players know the tone of the game verbally and that's usually not something that I'm interested in negotiating on. I implement a fair amount of in game buffers to make character death kinda hard. To me fudging dice to save your PC's is really, REALLY weak and reeks of entitlement and molly coddling. I know not everyone sees it that way, but I do. Let the dice fall where they may. I dont do it for my encounters either. If the PC ranger crits and kills that advanced Minatour (sp?) in one shot? Then the PC's get to bask in their TOTAL AWESOMENESS for that encounter. (This sort of happened except it was with Tiefling Inquisitor or Abadar and an Alligator. One shot Crit. Crit card was a save or die. Alligator failed the save. DEAD ALLIGATOR. Much rejoicing was had around the table...)
I care about my players fun however I also feel that there are certain choices that as a GM I get to make. I know that I wouldn't take kindly to players dictating the monsters, traps and other encounters I should be using against them or telling me that I need to be using X ruleset with these house rules and oh the PC's can only die when the players say that they can. Those players would need to find another GM. I'm definitely of the mind that no gaming at all is better than bad gaming. And if you're not having fun gaming? you should probably fix that situation post haste. And that's for players AND GM's.
|
If I let perspective players know what type of game that I run and let THEM decide if they want to play I'm a bad / poor / dictatorial GM for running / playing this way?
So you develop a campaign and a game style which are supposed to maximise your fun. Right? And then you invite other players to this game as long as they are content to follow the rules set by you.
That basically means that those players have to compromise in order to partake in your game. They may or may not have the same background as you and me (I'm 40, full-time job and two children, by the way), but the point is that they cannot maximise their fun as long as they haven't exactly the same taste you have (and given that no two persons are equal, this is impossible).
Meaning that the price they pay to be able to play in your game, is to accept that you have more fun than they have.
And there's the difference. I don't believe in my fun being superior to my player's fun just because I'm the GM. From my point of few, being the GM doesn't make me more important and apart from that I'm just a guy like anybody else.
So what I do is to invite my perspective players and then we decide together, what we play. They have the same vote like me, when it comes to which system and which setting to use, which style of game to play, which campaign and so on. Basically, I run what we want, not what I want. Exceptions being one(!) particular system and evil campaigns.
This may sound extreme to you but I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm perfectly aware that other people handle this question in other ways and it may well be that you run great games within the parameters set by you.
But if you're not willing to compromise because you think that your fun is more important than my (or others) fun, just because your the GM and it is YOUR game, I wouldn't be interested to take part in this game.
Bolded part is what I speak of.
Ah. I think Grimdark is easy to mess up, but it can also be done well. I've read some pretty engaging Grimdark stories. I mean, Call of Cthulhu is generally Grimdark. It's definitely a matter of taste.
So do you have a "style of play" document you hand out? Or a detailed description you usually use? Or do you, like most GMs just mention the ways you differ from the default and assume that the player is working from the same default you are?I run by default unless there is an obvious RAW rule that needs fixing but that's all talked about before hand.
Essentially when I don't tell you any different then you assume default, by the rules, etc....
And when anyone who isn't a rules geek hears "default" he thinks "the way I've always played", especially when it comes to things like fudging, challenge level, mortality rate, etc that aren't specifically rules changes, but style changes.
Assumption clash.
OK, guess I'm a rules geek. But assuming default=the way I've always played is a bad assumption unless you've always played "standard." Which, yeah, doesn't exist any more than "normal" does.
But hearing "default" wouldn't lead me to expect anything more than a RAW standard... those style differences are things I'd wait to see in play, rather than jump to the conclusion that the style in question is similar to some other GM's style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to address the issue of who's fun is more important (which seems to be at the heart of this debate) I'm gonna side with >gasp< the GM.
There is a LOT more work involved in running the game than playing it -- even if you're running an AP rather than a homebrew setting/adventure.
And, as I enjoy playing a hell of a lot more than I do running, it seems to me that letting the GM set the rules and style -- letting the GM DO THE GM's JOB -- without b~$&!ing and moaning is a more than fair exchange.
There ARE some instances wherein I will choose not to play, rather than play in a style/setting/rules set which I dislike.
But I don't waste the time of the GM, the other players, and myself with arguing that "that isn't how it should work."
On the occasions when I GM, I expect the same courtesy. "This is the game I'm running, these are the houserules, you can expect (x) to be the general tone." I ask if there are questions about the game as I envision it. I think I do a decent job of letting players know what kind of ride they're in for when they climb into my game. (Haven't had much in the way of alarm and surprise when things play out, anyway.)
But, well, no; these decisions are not up for negotiation, second-guessing, or more than a few grumbles of complaint. There are plenty of GMs, despite the GM/Player Ratio Myth. If the players don't like the game I want to run, they are more than welcome to find a different game.
I've had very little complaint from those players who decide to play it and see how it runs. Maybe I'm so intimidating (hah) that they just swallow it. But generally speaking, I SEEM to have a satisfied player-base, despite my "my way or the highway" stance on How The Game Will Operate.
YMMV -- but it's my experience that a happy GM leads to happy Players, once the dust settles and things start moving.
|
I don't want validation for anything because I run my games the way I want to run them. When you sit down at my table you know what's there and it's consistent.
With respect SS I think you are. From what I have read in other threads and this one imo your very much the "DM is god and its my way or the highway" style of dming. You also mentioned that if your not having fun your not running the game. So I have a very hard time believing that as a DM you would put up with so many players that are apparently causing so many problems in your game. there is no way any DM can have that many players causing that many issues at the table so often. Every thread lately imo seems to go from the original topic at hand to the usual DM vs player and DM is never wrong and cannnot not ever comprise stance that you favor. Your not the first poster to come and seek validation on these boards or be the last. After awhile you threads keep looking like the same and we as posters are going to notice that.
So by all means seek validation from the forum members just drop the "what me" act. Your not fooling anyone.Im sure next week its going to be another thread that of course has another player at the table causing some sort of isssue and the DM of course will be blameless as usual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I let perspective players know what type of game that I run and let THEM decide if they want to play I'm a bad / poor / dictatorial GM for running / playing this way?So you develop a campaign and a game style which are supposed to maximise your fun. Right? And then you invite other players to this game as long as they are content to follow the rules set by you.
That basically means that those players have to compromise in order to partake in your game. They may or may not have the same background as you and me (I'm 40, full-time job and two children, by the way), but the point is that they cannot maximise their fun as long as they haven't exactly the same taste you have (and given that no two persons are equal, this is impossible).
Meaning that the price they pay to be able to play in your game, is to accept that you have more fun than they have.
And there's the difference. I don't believe in my fun being superior to my player's fun just because I'm the GM. From my point of few, being the GM doesn't make me more important and apart from that I'm just a guy like anybody else.
So what I do is to invite my perspective players and then we decide together, what we play. They have the same vote like me, when it comes to which system and which setting to use, which style of game to play, which campaign and so on. Basically, I run what we want, not what I want. Exceptions being one(!) particular system and evil campaigns.
This may sound extreme to you but I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm perfectly aware that other people handle this question in other ways and it may well be that you run great games within the parameters set by you.
But if you're not willing to compromise because you think that your fun is more important than my (or others) fun, just because your the GM and it is YOUR game, I wouldn't be interested to take part in this game.
Technically I dont create campaigns any more, I run AP's. Did I present the types of AP's that I was interested in running? Sure. There were at least 3 or 4 that I was familiar enough with (Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves and Legacy of Fire) that I felt comfortable enough running.
I get the impression that according to you I should present ALL of the AP's and let the players choose. Also, there really is no choosing together. There are multiple players and ONE GM. If the players decide that they dont want to play something then you (as the magnanimous GM that you are...) are pretty much stuck. So in that case THIER fun trumps yours. That is a decision that you make as a GM to be passively involved because to you compromise is more important. But again, that's not compromise that's the players interests taking precedence. Commendable? Yes? but lets not pretend that it's any less of a steamroller proposition that you claim mine and to an extent Shallowsoul's way is.
You may not believe that your fun is more important, you dont believe that it's equal either.
You also dont run one particular system and evil campaigns? So then your fun IS more important than that of your players in those circumstances. So THOSE exceptions are okay but the rest of us are just wrong? For the record I have my systems that I wont run as well and I also refuse to run and/or participate in evil campaigns. Those are my preferences but according to you if I followed your method and the group wanted me to run that system and run an evil campaign (which would be a double suck for me) I should do it because if not then I'm a bit selfish fo placing my interests above theirs. You say this sort of thing but YOU dont even follow those guidelines when it comes to things that you dont like?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am thankful to play approximately half-a world away from most of the GMs who posted above.
I believe that all we read above basically deter a player from getting involved in his character.
Why should we be surprised then that games turn into hack&slash fests with players having no involvement in the ROLE-playing part ?
If the common reaction of the player when his PC dies is supposed to be just a shrug and reaching for another PC sheet to fill with numbers, people have absolutely zero right to complain about players turning into power-munckins of the first order. Nor about players having zero interest in their GM's story.
After all why should they show respect for his efforts if the GM himself has zero respect for the effort of creation they put into their character's backstory ?
And frankly, this is the message I got from reading this thread, even if it was not the one intended (which was maybe just another rant thread against "entitled players").
I believe that respect and trust are the keys to having real fun with friends, especially in RPGs. And that they should not be one-way streets.
I do not think anyone is saying you should be uninvested in your character. The problem mentioned was
A) thinking your character should not die because he has a backstory.If you love your character the appropriate response it to not let it die through your own skillful play. If your beloved characters die because you cannot keep them alive, it means you are not playing very well. Take a break for the session coming up with a new idea for a character. I have seen that people who get invested in characters will not mind foregoing play if they are coming up with a cool new idea. It is only if you were dead set on one idea, you could not keep yourself alive, and other people were not able to resurrect you that this even becomes an issue.
Not mentioned in the original post, but brought up soon after:
B) players who come into a game world with a huge background that does not fit into the world. This is most easily solved by both player and GM acting like rational, brain-having people. You say you were kicked out of Suchandsuch Acadamy for Healers for destroying property in a youthful prank. I say there is no such school nearby, but there is a Druid college, would you like to switch it to this college (and heres some basic info about it). You say you could, but it really only makes sense with healers, and I might say, well you give it a try and I will think about what town could use a healer's college, and you can be from there. Some slight details might have to change though, is that ok. We would end saying, I will think about what you said, and we can discuss this after I have looked into adding the Academy and you have looked into the college. Now lets play the game, and not let this backstory be an issue.
C) Not bringing a printed out back-story means you are a powergaming munchkin? Not an issue, and an insulting assumption to make. I love my bastard halfling bard who grew up at the side of a military training school, helping his mother clean up after the troops. He honed his archery skill using the butts after training, with arrows he had repaired from his cleaning. He always hoped his mother was telling the truth when she said his father was a powerful dragon, but when reality kicks in, he realizes such stories are probably not true. I play my character as if he has a low wisdom (says what is on his mind, even if it is silly or embarrassing, as long as it does not disrupt the party plans), high charisma (tries to be adorable in his silliness), and keeping his background in mind with his interaction with the world. Never wrote a word of it down, and never tried to force to DM to incorporate my backstory into his world. No need to.
|
|
I get the impression that according to you I should present ALL of the AP's and let the players choose.
No. If you feel comfortable presenting just 3 or 4 of them that's still fine. At least your giving them choice.
Also, there really is no choosing together. There are multiple players and ONE GM. If the players decide that they dont want to play something then you (as the magnanimous GM that you are...) are pretty much stuck.
I don't see the problem with that. To define what the players don't want to play is part of the process of finding out what they actually want to play. So they ruled out one of a bazillion possibilities. Poor me.
That is a decision that you make as a GM to be passively involved because to you compromise is more important.
I'm not passively involved it's just that my voice counts as much as each players' voice. I can make suggestions, I can give input as everybody else. And at the end we're deciding together what to do. There's nothing passive about that.
You also dont run one particular system and evil campaigns? So then your fun IS more important than that of your players in those circumstances.
Well I guess then I'm lucky that those circumstances don't exist as far as my players are concerned but technically you're right. But even then, there are a lot of other options available, there is a middleground to find. And by the way, that I don't run these things has as much to do with my abilities as with my preferences. I once tried to run an evil campaign and it was a desaster. I'm simply not good at it. I don't understand where the fun is in playing an evil character so I suck at presenting the players an enjoyable experience.
Be that as it may, but there's still a difference between trying to find a common ground with one's players and just dictating what game will be played.
Bah...It is neither right nor wrong for the GM to save a player, but the player should not expect it to happen. It is the player's job to keep the character alive, not the GM's. That is why I say GM's don't kill characters, they just allow them to die..
PS:There are exceptions of course..
PS2: As for the issue of compromising with the player, not compromising on fudging to save characters does not mean a GM is completely inflexible. It just means he is not flexible in that area.
PS3:I read about 90% of the posts so I still may have missed something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything like this ever happen to you?
Recently a player creating a new 1st level PC created a very interesting and involved backstory for his PC. I complimented the player on the backstory, but reminded him that 1st level PCs are fragile, and that his PC might easily die. In the first session, it almost happened! The PC was critted and reduced to -9 HP; fortunately the other PCs managed to save his life. I would've felt bad if the character had died like that - but it wouldn't cause me to change the outcome.
I would be peeved if (knowing how things stand going in) the PC tried to claim plot immunity on account of his backstory.
Be that as it may, but there's still a difference between trying to find a common ground with one's players and just dictating what game will be played.
But even with the declaration of Pathfinder rules, by the book, dice out on the table - there's still lots of choices the players have. They could play an AP, disconnected modules, a homegrown sandbox, courts of intrigue, smash and grab, freedom fighters, inglorious bastards, etc, - high conflict, low conflict, something in the middle. That's the difference between, say, choosing campaign content like which of 3 APs to play and what rules and decision style will be used. But the process is ultimately still the same. Ruling out certain combinations, even broadly pervasive ones like rule system and decision style, isn't dictating the game even if it does take options, significant ones, off the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when anyone who isn't a rules geek hears "default" he thinks "the way I've always played", especially when it comes to things like fudging, challenge level, mortality rate, etc that aren't specifically rules changes, but style changes.Assumption clash.
I think you mean anyone with a lick of common sense would realize "default" means "default" as in "out of the box way the game was written to be played".
Him not knowing those rules is not an excuse for him to get pissy when they get enforced.
But we're going around in circles here. Some people believe GMs ruling out possibilities and playing by the book is a terrible thing, and some believe the GM should have some control over the game he's running.
Let's call it irreconcilable differences and let this drop.
And as said, you and others have a problem with the GM dictating what he would like to play and I and others do not.
|
I ask my players what kind of game they want when we first sit down to generate characters.
Unfortunately, they never seem to have any ideas.
Then I get more specific, asking about character death, magic level, DM fudging, and other possible playstyle conflicts that may arise.
We can usually get a good feel for each other that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ever have those player's who felt, and argued, that their character shouldn't die because they spent so long writing their back story? ... Anything like this ever happen to you?
No, but I don't game with crazy people.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't we all just agree that if you know there is a risk and the dice kill your character fair and square, suck it up and don't argue that the length of your back story should prevent you from dying? Especially if you then try to introduce your twin brother although your BG says you're the very last of your kind.
I'm a rather new player, I've been playing since Spring and I'm still on my first character in my first campaign, we just finished the Hook Mountain Massacre, and we've only seen one death so far. (And even this could have been avoided had the player wished to use the 2 Hero Points it takes to cheat death). What I am trying to say is that I have no real experience on the topic, but I am fairly sure that when the time comes and my bard dies with no possibilities for resurrection, I'll be sad to see him go, but I'm not going to blame my DM for letting it happen.
Then I'll work with him to introduce my rage prophet, and if she dies first encounter or something stupid like that, well, that's going to be sad too, since she's been my primary backup for half a year with ongoing elaborations on her backstory, personality and motivations. Still, if the Dice Gods decide to get rid of her, then it'll just be the sad story of the half-elf Shoanti who set out fighting for the glory of battle and victory to prove to her tribe that she can still be a great warrior despite being a half-elf* and an oracle, but dies in the process. It may not be the ending I want and hope for her to get, but I will hopefully accept that.
*half-elf = elf = sissy
I trust that my DM plays fair, just like he trusts those of us not physically there (we play via skype and maptool with only a few players present at the DM's table) not to cheat if we choose to use our own dice rather than maptool's dice roller. If he says I take so-and-so much damage and that kills me, then that's it. I should've played better, or maybe that Halfling Luck just wasn't enough. If I can survive on a roll of luck, I can die on an unlucky one.
Go ahead and accept it if your DM wants to negotiate a little to bring you back even if your story should logically end then and there (party can't get the body, has no funds etc.), show your gratitude. Just don't expect him to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah...It is neither right nor wrong for the GM to save a player, but the player should not expect it to happen. It is the player's job to keep the character alive, not the GM's. That is why I say GM's don't kill characters, they just allow them to die..
This. This is what I wanted to say, just infinitely shorter.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a rather new player, I've been playing since Spring and I'm still on my first character in my first campaign, we just finished the Hook Mountain Massacre, and we've only seen...
Good Lord, TV, get out of this thread! You don't need to see this fetid argument - not for at least 2 years. Run! Run while you still have your innocence!
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our group writes big back stories 14 pages is our record... 21 if you count, equipment, heraldry and retainers for one game.
Two examples of why death matters and back story matters.
I was running savage tide - I cant remember if it was a suggested encounter or something I added. There was a temple full of Slaad posing as humans. Epic battle and one PC is killed in the last gasp of the battle, it was unlucky and I roll my dice in-front of the screen and he was caught in the area effect of a trap as he circled around to get a better shot. The final Slaad was killed on the next dice roll.
I felt that it was not fair - the character had a great back-story, he had become the captain of the Ship the there was a huge love triangle going on between him the ships owner and one of the other PCs that was in competition for both.
So the village even-though by the book it was too small by the rules to have a high enough level spell caster to cast the spell had the captain raised out of gratitude.
The player came to me two sessions latter and asked if he could retire his character, he felt that I cheapened the tragedy of his characters death by bringing him back and that the tension and drama had gone out of the game for him.
Next example from my point of view as a player - we assumed a potential ally was a dangerous enemy and we assumed he only a few levels above us.
We ambushed him and did him some serous damage - He tried to negotiate with us, until we became a threat to his life, in his self defence he killed my character several times over in one go.
The GM felt bad and did some god like hand wavy you are on a mission from god back to life stuff with my cleric. I would have done the same thing in that situation.
But I felt the same thing as my player above did. The party was stupid, we were given chances but we got a free pass and my character was no longer fun for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a rather new player, I've been playing since Spring and I'm still on my first character in my first campaign, we just finished the Hook Mountain Massacre, and we've only seen...Good Lord, TV, get out of this thread! You don't need to see this fetid argument - not for at least 2 years. Run! Run while you still have your innocence!
:)
But the raw, untamed chaos is keeping me captive, like a Goblin in front of a house fire :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A game I enjoy, Dungeon World, has a cool method for character death that I like. If you get to 0 HP or less, you roll 2d6.
10+: you survive and recover after the battle
7-9: you die, but death greats you and offers you a bargain. If you accept the bargain, you go back to the living.
6 or less: you die.
The GM has leeway over what the bargain is and what happens if you don't live up to it or take too long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the raw, untamed chaos is keeping me captive, like a Goblin in front of a house fire :)
Chaos? Chaos is unpredictable. :P
But the raw, untamed chaos is keeping me captive, like a Goblin in front of a house fire :)
Well, in that case, I suggest you pull out a bag of marshmallows. It is s'mores time!
Chaos? Chaos is unpredictable. :P
But the raw, untamed chaos is keeping me captive, like a Goblin in front of a house fire :)
But refined, tamed non-chaos doesn't sound as captivating :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But refined, tamed non-chaos doesn't sound as captivating :(
My point is that chaos is unpredictable. These threads are not. ;D
Our group writes big back stories 14 pages is our record... 21 if you count, equipment, heraldry and retainers for one game.
Two examples of why death matters and back story matters.
I was running savage tide - I cant remember if it was a suggested encounter or something I added. There was a temple full of Slaad posing as humans. Epic battle and one PC is killed in the last gasp of the battle, it was unlucky and I roll my dice in-front of the screen and he was caught in the area effect of a trap as he circled around to get a better shot. The final Slaad was killed on the next dice roll.
I felt that it was not fair - the character had a great back-story, he had become the captain of the Ship the there was a huge love triangle going on between him the ships owner and one of the other PCs that was in competition for both.
So the village even-though by the book it was too small by the rules to have a high enough level spell caster to cast the spell had the captain raised out of gratitude.
The player came to me two sessions latter and asked if he could retire his character, he felt that I cheapened the tragedy of his characters death by bringing him back and that the tension and drama had gone out of the game for him.
Next example from my point of view as a player - we assumed a potential ally was a dangerous enemy and we assumed he only a few levels above us.
We ambushed him and did him some serous damage - He tried to negotiate with us, until we became a threat to his life, in his self defence he killed my character several times over in one go.
The GM felt bad and did some god like hand wavy you are on a mission from god back to life stuff with my cleric. I would have done the same thing in that situation.
But I felt the same thing as my player above did. The party was stupid, we were given chances but we got a free pass and my character was no longer fun for me.
If it is a good death, and the story can grow from it and continue, let them die.
Some, as you show above, don't want their tragic end to just be pushed off with "you get betta". Paladins, fighters, samurai and knights can be especially memorable for their suicidal charges against all odds to buy just a little time, their sacrifices to hold the tunnel/corridor and save others. It is good rp.
I'm going to write a novel-length background and venture in Rappan Athuk solo. You can all thank me for ridding the Material plane of Orcus when I come out unscathed.
Killing Orcus? Now that sounds like backstory material!
DM: Okay, so you want to use Diplomacy to gather information on Death's location then?
Kthulhu: I wanna Take Strange Aeons.
DM: Wait, I need to ask the boards if that's even legal.
Deaths typically happen when I don't want them. I have learned to roll with it.
One guy had the bad luck to keep dying. He didn't really do anything horribly dangerous, but he had bad luck and I think he died three times in a few months of playing. He asked me if I had anything against his characters, which I had never had.
Another player's character got critted by a two-handed weapon from full health to dead-dead in the first attack made in an ambush. The other characters had him buried, and whenever his name was mentioned, the players would howl in mock grief. Thing was, he was an outsider, obnoxious, untrustworthy and greedy. A thoroughly fun character.
A third was a great character who was interacting with NPCs, attracting plotlines like flies to crap, and everybody liked. A stupid fight against some necrophidii had him paralyzed due to dance of death, bringing on a coup de grace and death. The player was fine with it, but I as GM wasn't happy about it.
Well ruling out certain combinations without taking the input of the players into account IS dictating the game. I know a lot of players who don't have a problem with that because they are content to let to do the GM all the work. Doesn't change the fact that it's still dictating.
So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?
Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well ruling out certain combinations without taking the input of the players into account IS dictating the game. I know a lot of players who don't have a problem with that because they are content to let to do the GM all the work. Doesn't change the fact that it's still dictating.So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?
Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?
Sounds like player entitlement to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonono... he killed ORCS. Damn you, autocorrect!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like player entitlement to me.Well ruling out certain combinations without taking the input of the players into account IS dictating the game. I know a lot of players who don't have a problem with that because they are content to let to do the GM all the work. Doesn't change the fact that it's still dictating.So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?
Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?
Not to me. Players have a right to get together and shop around for a GM willing to run what they want without being considered over-entitled. Both are opening positions in a negotiated settlement of game to play with some GM. But then, I don't see either as being dictatorial either even if both preferences were derived without consultation with the other negotiating partner.
Just had a similar situation in RL.
Me: "Hey guys, I'm thinking about starting up a Star Wars Saga game, anyone interested?"
Friend: "No, not really. We want you to run WoD."
Me: "I don't want to run WoD right now. Looks like no gaming then."
And just like that, game didn't happen.
On a side note, I had some other friends interested in the SW game(that read this forum), but by then the logistics would have the game be way more of a pain in the butt than I care to deal with right now (most of the players have no transportation).
|
|
Not to me. Players have a right to get together and shop around for a GM willing to run what they want without being considered over-entitled. Both are opening positions in a negotiated settlement of game to play with some GM. But then, I don't see either as being dictatorial either even if both preferences were derived without consultation with the other negotiating partner.Sounds like player entitlement to me.Well ruling out certain combinations without taking the input of the players into account IS dictating the game. I know a lot of players who don't have a problem with that because they are content to let to do the GM all the work. Doesn't change the fact that it's still dictating.So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?
Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?
If player's expect me to run a game even if I flat out tell them that I don't want to because I don't enjoy running those types of games to me is entitlement. Now if the player's say "Oh okay that's cool, maybe someone else can run it" is a perfectly legitimate answer to me.
I'm cool with running or not running, I don't need player's because of they don't want to play in my games then I just won't run it. I'm not dying to run a game so I'm desperate for players and will tolerate anything to get them to play, I just don't work like that.