I am currently running 2 games and some of the players I have played with as players in their games.
I have noticed that there is a huge difference between thinking like a player and thinking like a GM. I have also noticed that it is often very difficult to switch between the two.
GMs tend to know everything that is going on because they set up the world... their job is to react to and guide the players telling the story as it progresses in reaction to the players actions.
Players on the other hand tend to not know anything except for what they are told and what they intend to do.
when a player is thinking like a GM they have a tendency to rule lawyer, get frustrated by situations they dont understand, disrupt the story to argue insignificant points, meta game monsters and spells, and generally approach the game in a mechanical sense rather than a PC in the world perspective.
have you noticed this in your games? if so how do you deal with it... I am trying to figure out how to talk to one of my players who does this to a great degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know the only thing that frustrates me anymore between these 2 schools of thought? Improvisation.
I don't mean with the story or roleplaying. I mean with actions. I played in a guy's 4e game and didn't understand the mechanics very well, but I kept trying all kinds of crazy stuff with my spells to either burn through doors or intimidate foes with held flaming spheres or what not. I am usually a GM so I improvised a lot; he was usually a player so his statement was always "that's not how its written so...no"
Now on the flipside in my PF games I'm running I wholeheartedly encourage my players to imrpovise. Maybe it doesn't SAY in the rules that Knowledge: Engineering may give you a +2 bonus or more to disarming a trap or sundering a door or something, but maybe I'd give it to you...if you'd just try.
I improvise tactics all the time as a GM. Goblins gang up, use mud flinging ("that wasn't MUD...") or other things to try and keep combats dynamic and interesting. My players on the other hand will look at the terrain, calculate the best bonus from the maneuvers they KNOW and the factors they can SEE, and then execute. But they never try anything new; they just go off of what they know as cannon.
Maybe this isn't a GM/PC thing; maybe its just a me vs these players thing, but it seems to bug me in 2 different games with 2 entirely different sets of gamers, so I figured I'd vent here.
I noticed it in one game I played in a couple of years ago, but I was the usual GM who was playing for a change. I think it's more a matter of style than a GM or player perspective.
As a GM I tend to play 1e modules using Pathfinder rules. These tend to be lethal unless the players think cleverly. Consequently I play evenly with the rules and enjoy it when the players do something unusual to gain the upper hand.
In the game I'm thinking of, I created a serpentine sorcerer that was focused around information gathering - massive diplomacy (can't remember but it was something like +14 at first level with multiple feats and traits applied) and of course charm person (which we've discussed on other threads). This information would then allow the party to make best use of the terrain, the enemy's internal disputes, watch patterns etc etc. The GM didn't like this as he felt it was ruining the surprises in the module and basically refused to give any information out. At the same time he overruled game rules for dramatic effect, such as a dire boar (medium size but without stat modification)charging through a stone wall we were using for cover or difficult/narrow terrain for which we had to make acrobatic checks but the enemies didn't.
The other players were enjoying the story telling (which he was great at) but I was getting frustrated and probably disruptive by the inability for the party to control its own path by discovering information and the inability to use the terrain for tactical advantage so I left the group.
From your description it sounds as though you are trying to tell a story as the GM whilst the frustrated player wants to play in a strategic/tactical game where the GM sets the scene and the characters tell the story.
when a player is thinking like a GM they have a tendency to rule lawyer, get frustrated by situations they dont understand, disrupt the story to argue insignificant points, meta game monsters and spells, and generally approach the game in a mechanical sense rather than a PC in the world perspective.
I know this type of person and I have had players like this. But I woudl nto lay it at the feet of GM thinking. One fo the worst never ran a agme. But he looked at every situation through the lens of Rules. He always broke it down and became frustrated as you say by the situations he could not explain by the rules.
I think this is just a particular type of person. :-(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From your description it sounds as though you are trying to tell a story as the GM whilst the frustrated player wants to play in a strategic/tactical game where the GM sets the scene and the characters tell the story.
actually its just the opposite.
I WANT them to play smart, use skills, out think the monsters, hell one of the best battles we ever had ended when one of the players took a flying leap off of a balcony and attacked a flying demon, I made up some on the spot rules and penalties for the action and he succeed spectacularly with a critical hit... we still talk about that moment to this day. But in another group they never bother to try. to be fair some of the players would but one guy kind of dominates the group.
Let me say he is not a horrible player or overly argumentative or anything, he just gets frustrated if presented with something new or unexpected like a troll that is immune to fire damage and if he makes a bad choice or the bad guys use a clever trick he didnt expect he takes it personal as if I as the GM were intentionally trying to get over on him.
The thing is... I know that I have made the same mistakes in the past, I think being a GM has made me a better player, less rules mongery and open to GM improvisation. and so I am not mad at him.. I am just trying to figure out how best to work it out without sitting him down like a kid and having a 'how to play nice' conversation.
Y'know the only thing that frustrates me anymore between these 2 schools of thought? Improvisation.
I don't mean with the story or roleplaying. I mean with actions. I played in a guy's 4e game and didn't understand the mechanics very well, but I kept trying all kinds of crazy stuff with my spells to either burn through doors or intimidate foes with held flaming spheres or what not. I am usually a GM so I improvised a lot; he was usually a player so his statement was always "that's not how its written so...no"
Now on the flipside in my PF games I'm running I wholeheartedly encourage my players to imrpovise. Maybe it doesn't SAY in the rules that Knowledge: Engineering may give you a +2 bonus or more to disarming a trap or sundering a door or something, but maybe I'd give it to you...if you'd just try.
I improvise tactics all the time as a GM. Goblins gang up, use mud flinging ("that wasn't MUD...") or other things to try and keep combats dynamic and interesting. My players on the other hand will look at the terrain, calculate the best bonus from the maneuvers they KNOW and the factors they can SEE, and then execute. But they never try anything new; they just go off of what they know as cannon.
Maybe this isn't a GM/PC thing; maybe its just a me vs these players thing, but it seems to bug me in 2 different games with 2 entirely different sets of gamers, so I figured I'd vent here.
I've seen some dms crush improvisation, and it is a sad sight. The real fun is not in following the rules, it is going off the rails and into the pit of adventure!
I don't quite agree with the first guy, but I get what he is going on about. As a dm, I want the players to be impressive, improvise, make decisions (and not just talk about it for forty minutes, come on people!) and generally be active adventurers, debonair even. When this doesn't happen somewhat, the game isn't what it could be.
When I am a player, I want to improvise, try anything that might work or which seems great. Then if this is shut down, then as a player I am frustrated.
I mentioned in another thread that I often play the lancer archetype, and that I am not always loyal to the party. I once tried to sell our mercenary contract plans and intel to the bad guys for extra dough (we would be done with the job before they could stop us and they were under-manned). What happened? I got the offer of a pittance for valuable war intel. I improvised, played both sides and got jack. Nice one dm.
Other times I have seen daring punished hard.
From your description it sounds as though you are trying to tell a story as the GM whilst the frustrated player wants to play in a strategic/tactical game where the GM sets the scene and the characters tell the story.actually its just the opposite.
I WANT them to play smart, use skills, out think the monsters, hell one of the best battles we ever had ended when one of the players took a flying leap off of a balcony and attacked a flying demon, I made up some on the spot rules and penalties for the action and he succeed spectacularly with a critical hit... we still talk about that moment to this day. But in another group they never bother to try. to be fair some of the players would but one guy kind of dominates the group.
Let me say he is not a horrible player or overly argumentative or anything, he just gets frustrated if presented with something new or unexpected like a troll that is immune to fire damage and if he makes a bad choice or the bad guys use a clever trick he didnt expect he takes it personal as if I as the GM were intentionally trying to get over on him.
The thing is... I know that I have made the same mistakes in the past, I think being a GM has made me a better player, less rules mongery and open to GM improvisation. and so I am not mad at him.. I am just trying to figure out how best to work it out without sitting him down like a kid and having a 'how to play nice' conversation.
There is a type of troll that is immune to fire damage though, the rock troll...
Good old rock, nothing beats rock!
Sounds like the guy wants it nice and predictable and known, the unknown, being outsmarted hurts his pride. Awww snookems.
So true.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it is a player vs. GM mindset so much so as something else. What that is I am not sure. I have been playing D&D/AD&D/3.0/3.5/Pathfinder now for 25 years. I know a lot of the rules, sometimes I even confuse them. I run a couple games, and play in one as well. As a GM if I have a player that wants to try something, and it sounds feasable, I try to come up with a way to apply a "rule" to it so it can work for their benifit. It is hard in the game I play to seperate what I am a person know, vs. what my character knows. But I think because I know a lot of the rules it allows me to be very creative as a player. For example using the spell enervate to save a Dhampir character in my group from death. I am not sure everyone would have thought to use the spell like that.
On the flip side of this I played in a game that a guy I knew was running. It was his first game he ever ran, and he left no creativity. If the rules did not say you could do it, then you could not. I was ok with that, until he stopped enforcing that rule on the npc's. For example I was playing a tiefling, who had a hat a disguise to hide his true appearance. Though it was a wated magic item as everyone could see through the guise. We always failed our saving throws (He rolled those for us by the way) but my favorite was when we were killing this monster, who I assume was almost dead, acted out of turn and did a 360 degree bull rush to everyone, provoked no attacks of oppertunity and fled far enough away that no one could attack it or cast a spell on it. This of course led to me arguing with him over it and me getting kicked out of the game. Which in the long run was for the best. His arguement was that it was in its natural enviroment, and could there for do things like that. THis was a big instance of a DM vs. the players mentality. He was a very competitive guy, and hated to loose. So he carried that over to his DMing style.
Anyway I notice there are definately different styles to play, but I would not say it is DM vs. player differences. There may actually be too many to list.
when a player is thinking like a GM they have a tendency to rule lawyer, get frustrated by situations they dont understand, disrupt the story to argue insignificant points, meta game monsters and spells, and generally approach the game in a mechanical sense rather than a PC in the world perspective.
have you noticed this in your games? if so how do you deal with it... I am trying to figure out how to talk to one of my players who does this to a great degree.
The problem with that player is that when you GM, you have all of the CONTROL. When you're a player, you lose that control.
He argues about rules because:
1) He is probably right.
2) When it comes to rules, he normally gets his way as GM.
Since you're GM now, you have to listen to what he says for 30 seconds, get him to show you the rule in the rulebook, but keep the game moving along until he finds the rule.
Getting frustrated by situations he doesn't understand, again he normally has all of the information. He will change with time, and hopefully someone tells him to relax and enjoy the mystery.
He should be told not to metagame monsters if his PC doesn't have the appropriate knowledge skill. Even if he has the skill, he can't speak as a free action until it's his PCs turn. I'm not sure what the appropriate response is, but I'd start with him missing a turn.
Btw, I'm a GM and player and I don't think mechanically in either role. That's just the way your friend is.
I know I GM about 90% of the time and I value an opportunity I get to play. I do find there are some shifts that I have to make as, I notice I tend to backseat DM. I read rules, I remember them, and sometimes adjudication seems out of whack. I have learned to approach people after games and only offer suggestions if people seem confused.
I do have a problem that I haven't been able to quite work out and that is my group is used to me doing the talking, so when we play, I end up taking the social lead in discussions. I am aware of it, and even when I sit back, I get everyone looking at me to say something when there is a situation. A group of us are playing Coyote Trail and my character is abrasive, we have other characters with social skills, but they always push me to take the lead in the investigations and interactions. Its funny, I usually point out, hey you have the interrogation skill or the negotiation skill, you are probably better off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who, like most in my game, is new to Pathfinder. He does, however, read a webcomic called Darths and Droids. He takes most of his ideas from that.
Surprisingly, this isn't a good thing. He doesn't seem to separate In-Character from Out-of-Character, and at one point got annoyed with a fellow player for something her character did.
He's also trying to play a tactical genius. The thing is, his tactics tend to be...bad. Even ignoring the general "we'll surround 'em" tactics. He comes up with "crazy ideas", like...
- Spin my dagger and shortsword to lift me out of the water.
- Use my helmet full of air to lift me out of the water.
- Take apart my chain shirt and throw the chain links at enemies.
I'm not really doing these justice, but I think you get the gist.
The thing is, this wouldn't be a problem if he could handle criticism. But he can't. If we joke about these ideas, we get one of these two reactions: "It's actually not that crazy," or "Please stop laughing at me."
He takes it personally. So I have to tell him, firmly, "No, physics doesn't work like that." And then he sometimes tries to debate it. I seriously pretended the helmet thing was viable just to appease him (though it was too late to try and use it). I also let him keep wielding his swords while he swam, because I knew otherwise he'd be ticked about that.
In my opinion, if you say you're just trying to come up with crazy ideas until one works, you have to be willing to accept that most of your ideas are, y'know, crazy.
My point is, sometimes improvisation is just annoying. Sometimes the player is trying too hard.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have found the opposite to be true. Before I GMed I was very much a rules lawyer and pain in the ass at the table.
After I GMed I tended more to go along, as I knew how hard it was to be on the other side of the table and I trusted the GM wasn't trying to screw me all the time.
I don't know if it is a player vs. GM mindset so much so as something else. What that is I am not sure. I have been playing D&D/AD&D/3.0/3.5/Pathfinder now for 25 years. I know a lot of the rules, sometimes I even confuse them. I run a couple games, and play in one as well. As a GM if I have a player that wants to try something, and it sounds feasable, I try to come up with a way to apply a "rule" to it so it can work for their benifit. It is hard in the game I play to seperate what I am a person know, vs. what my character knows. But I think because I know a lot of the rules it allows me to be very creative as a player. For example using the spell enervate to save a Dhampir character in my group from death. I am not sure everyone would have thought to use the spell like that.
On the flip side of this I played in a game that a guy I knew was running. It was his first game he ever ran, and he left no creativity. If the rules did not say you could do it, then you could not. I was ok with that, until he stopped enforcing that rule on the npc's. For example I was playing a tiefling, who had a hat a disguise to hide his true appearance. Though it was a wated magic item as everyone could see through the guise. We always failed our saving throws (He rolled those for us by the way) but my favorite was when we were killing this monster, who I assume was almost dead, acted out of turn and did a 360 degree bull rush to everyone, provoked no attacks of oppertunity and fled far enough away that no one could attack it or cast a spell on it. This of course led to me arguing with him over it and me getting kicked out of the game. Which in the long run was for the best. His arguement was that it was in its natural enviroment, and could there for do things like that. THis was a big instance of a DM vs. the players mentality. He was a very competitive guy, and hated to loose. So he carried that over to his DMing style.
Anyway I notice there are definately different styles to play, but I would not say it is DM vs. player...
Lol, are dungeon an adventurer's natural environment? Certainly for experienced treasure hunters. Begone rules this is my natural environment!
Some dms, I have wanted to explain, it is okay to lose monsters and npcs to the pcs, it is okaaaay.
I actually have found the opposite to be true. Before I GMed I was very much a rules lawyer and pain in the ass at the table.
After I GMed I tended more to go along, as I knew how hard it was to be on the other side of the table and I trusted the GM wasn't trying to screw me all the time.
Dming and really hard reflection can make you a much better player.
Hilarity
That...is...AWESOME! I am really impressed with both your candor and restraint KC Masterpiece.
At the other extreme of the spectrum is my uber-tactical player; fantastic with a fight scene but play comes to a screeching halt with something as simple as a pit trap in the middle of the bridge.
Part of bridge collapses but along the side the railing still holds. These are his solutions:
I jump it (fails initial roll)
My other character (worse acrobatics) jumps it (predictably fails)
This is impossible. Why did you give us an impossible trap with only one way across?
Best part? 1 of the other 2 players at the table at the time ALSO couldn't figure out what else to do and so jumped and failed. We lost 3 players into the rapids below; one nearly died except that another made a lucky grab with an auto-stabilize trait.
The 4th PC (I'm not making this up) tied off a rope to the stable side; not to Climb or anything, but to lower themselves down near the surface of the water and then throw themselves in to attempt to swim across (fail) and was caught downstream by the barely-alive party.
After it was all over they could CLEARLY see the reason the railing held; an elaborate scaffold, like a second bridge, ran along the underside where the mites rode their giant insects to avoid the trapped section. All in all this CR 3 encounter took nearly 2 hours of my life that I'll NEVER get back. At least unlike the Chain-Mail Flinger my guy got super-red in the face when I revealed that, had he made a simple perception or tried to use the railing the party would've been fine. "Wow, it must be REALLY late" he mustered; it was 8:30 and we'd barely started playing.
The point of this is that while he's fine with combat if he doesn't have a monster to fight this particular player literally has no idea how to overcome a threat. Puzzles, traps, hazards and haunts; he merely charges through them counting on saves. If a trap just has an attack roll he gets hit, every time, with VERY few exceptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm picturing your party as four armored lemmings.
Take apart a chain shirt??? Seriously, that would have been met with "Okay... right. You will need a full-round action to remove one link from its 4/6/8 neighbours, and only if you have tools to do so. How many links did you say you wanted to remove, and do you have the tools? Also, provokes attack of opportunity."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think GMing does make you a better player. It definitely helps your rules-fu. It also helps you understand the thought process behind rules adjudication. You're less likely to assume the GM is just out to get you and more likely to realize that rules adjudiction involves decisions about consistency and balance.
I find that sticking to the results of Knowledge checks helps mitigate prior GM metagaming. You may have memorized the stat block of a marilith OOC, but IC you limit yourself to acting on the information you got from your Knowledge check (or your buddy's). Or obvious stuff like fire creatures probably take more damage from cold attacks.
I have, however, noticed that the long experience that I have GMing also makes me keenly aware as a player when another GM is fudging or adjusting an encounter on the fly.
So GMs, don't be afraid to let the chips fall where they may for your monsters. You do not have to "keep them alive long enough for them to do their thing." If the PCs are clever and circumvent or just cold steamroll them, roll with it and be thankful you have smart PCs. Not the bridge guy though. That was really dumb. What second level party doesn't have 50 feet of rope and a grappling hook?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've found my improvisation depends on the GM, a lot.
I'm in 3 games right now. Game #1 is a 3.5 homebrew, and I rarely improvise anything. This is largely because I find that the GM implicitly discourages it. Stakes are extremely high, threat levels are high, and it's frankly too risky to either do anything outside of my core competency (full attack) or without seriously thinking through what might happen. It often seems like there's only one way to move forward in that game.
Game #2 is a semi-Pathfinderized Eberron game. Here I'm much more willing to play fast & loose, try to do interesting things that are not quite within standard rules (interesting uses for spells, mostly). The stakes are still often high, and despite the fact that my character is supposed to be reckless and overconfident, I often end up playing it very safe, and trying to analyze a situation rather than jumping in. That's something I'm trying to change, though.
Game #3 is Kingmaker. Here, there hasn't been a great deal of opportunity to improvise, largely because combat goes very slowly and leaves us with fairly little time for combat. The last attempted improvisation actually did not go through (since fireball doesn't set things on fire, it clearly doesn't burn leaves at all, and I wasn't able to even remotely take away the cover of a camouflaged hide that an archer was using; a ruling I definitely disagree with, but will turn to if the GM ever destroys all the items in a room when I fireball it).
So in one game, I feel afraid to improvise, in tactics or plot actions. In the second, I feel encouraged, and am trying to do more of it. In the third, I often avoid it because I want to avoid slowing down combat further, and my capabilities are fairly limited by a heavy focus on damage spells and only having intelligence skills.
In the game I'm thinking of, I created a serpentine sorcerer that was focused around information gathering - massive diplomacy (can't remember but it was something like +14 at first level with multiple feats and traits applied) and of course charm person (which we've discussed on other threads). This information would then allow the party to make best use of the terrain, the enemy's internal disputes, watch patterns etc etc. The GM didn't like this as he felt it was ruining the surprises in the module and basically refused to give any information out. At the same time he overruled game rules for dramatic effect, such as a dire boar (medium size but without stat modification)charging through a stone wall we were using for cover or difficult/narrow terrain for which we had to make acrobatic checks but the enemies didn't.
The other players were enjoying the story telling (which he was great at) but I was getting frustrated and probably disruptive by the inability for the party to control its own path by discovering information and the inability to use the terrain for tactical advantage so I left the group.
From your description it sounds as though you are trying to tell a story as the GM whilst the frustrated player wants to play in a strategic/tactical game where the GM sets the scene and the characters tell the story.
What a coincidence! I was the GM for that game. Just scanning the boards and came across this post. Anyway, I hope you've since read Howl of the Carrion King and have a better understanding of what Almah did and didn't know. Suze says hi. We still remember the whisky night fondly.
Zo
- Take apart my chain shirt and throw the chain links at enemies.Coffee was spewed.
Maybe he could turn his chain links from his chain shirt, into a spiked chain? All on the fly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe he could turn his chain links from his chain shirt, into a spiked chain? All on the fly.- Take apart my chain shirt and throw the chain links at enemies.Coffee was spewed.
I demand that he has Armor Spikes in order for that to work.
Maybe he could turn his chain links from his chain shirt, into a spiked chain? All on the fly.
That's just a Combat Crafting roll, right? I got a +14 on that.
I demand that he has Armor Spikes in order for that to work.Maybe he could turn his chain links from his chain shirt, into a spiked chain? All on the fly.- Take apart my chain shirt and throw the chain links at enemies.Coffee was spewed.
C-C-C-Combo! Maybe he can add his armour as a single use grappling tool on the end to the spiked chain.