|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a mustang Marine officer, I understand the necessity for teamwork and coordination in order to overcome obstacles. I understand the necessity for open lines of communication and dialogue between people so the mission can be accomplished with the minimal amount of risks. My gunslinger and ranger both act like some part of the military--both acting as forward scouts--and they do that well. My knowledge in real life bleeds into my characters in a way that makes them almost realistic in many ways. From calling commands and strategy to acting like the good soldiers (Marines, I refuse to believe they are soldiers!) they are, they almost seem like they could be straight out of a war movie.
As a GM, I don't really change much. My group, however, has had a problem recently--really, since they started--of lacking communication. Since day 1 (and I have reiterated my policies to the group just to be safe) I have stated the following:
1.) If given the chance, I will allow Mr. Murphy to poke in his ugly head. If you don't know what Murphy's Law is, it is this: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong,and at the worst possible time." If you give me half-hearted actions constantly and you aren't thinking things through, more often than not in some way it isn't going to go according to how you want it to go in your head (example: my best friend and I are avid Order of the Stick readers. OotS is based on DnD 3.0/3.5/4.0. One of the earlier comics had the party "prepare actions" which were vague. The triggering action was the leader saying he would trip the first person to come near him, and the party almost killed an ally because of it. During one of the first campaigns, my friend said he was going to trip the first person to come near him. I asked him if he was sure, and there was inflection in my voice for a reason. He said yes. The cleric ran to heal one of the party members and ran through a threatened square. I told him to make the trip attempt. My friend understood what was going on and did it.) The intent of this is to get the team to work together more than just go Rambo on everything.
2.) I prefer some roleplaying in my scenarios, because I enjoy the immersion. As such, I want them to work as a party, but to stay in character as much as possible. Obviously, I can't fault people for not wanting to, but I enjoy it, and so do many of my players.
3.) If there's a question about the rules, feel free to ask. If I don't know, I'll tell you. If we can't find the answer in a reasonable amount of time, I'll make something up, we can check on it later and keep the answer in our heads for the next time it comes up.
Now, I am by no means an incredible GM. In fact, one of the things we've had happen lately is I don't even see the scenario beforehand, I might get a few moments to read the beginning, and I look as I continue to go along. None of my players have had a problem with it--in fact I get a lot of compliments when I do it.
However, recently we've had a few things come up. In one of my earlier campaigns, the druid released Obscuring Mist to the detriment of the party (it had quite a few people). I decided that the druid acted without a thought for anyone, and so Mr. Murphy would make his first appearance. During the encounter, if someone went running through the Mists I would have a person they ran by make a Perception check, with a DC of 15. If they failed, I would have them roll an attack against that person's full AC (I assumed they wouldn't be flat-footed, since they knew enemies were around). Because of the small area and the Mists, I didn't even give melee full vision. One attack was made, and the players complained about this effect. I finally relented when they started complaining about "additional effects not on paper" being added to their spells, making them "unreliable". I reminded them that I had said acting before thinking would have consequences, and this would be their only warning. I removed the penalty.
A few games ago, however, I tried to put my foot down about a beneficial effect. In a fight, a few enemies were approximately 30' up on a wall. While a few of the PCs were fighting them, the SUmmoner cast Enlarge Person on the barbarian. The rogue was on the barbarian's shoulders while he ran around using reach to hit the bad guys. One guy was at range away from the barbarian's melee attack, however using the Raging Hurler rage power he could throw something. The game was paused because the rogue wanted to know if he'd get a sneak attack bonus since it would be "death from above". I consulted a few books and determined that there were no actual rules for this tactic, and so I would allow him full sneak attack damage. However, he would have to take falling damage, plus the damage that normally occurs with the Raging Hurler ability since he was not an actual item. In essence, I would allow him to attack with both weapons, full sneak attack for both attacks, and the mob would also take the Raging Hurler damage. I would even treat the attack as catching him flat-footed, since seriously, noone expects the Roguedoken. However, the rogue would take the Raging Hurler damage as well since he was not an actual object, and because they could not position themselves for him to land on the wall he'd have to fall the full 30' and take 1d6 falling damage. I denied him the reflex save because I was giving them a huge damage boost and figured they'd accept the terms. They did not and complained about that not being in the rules. I did, however, put my foot down and state that what I was doing was not in the rules either, so it was either my way or the highway. They accepted my terms.
I don't like to play the GM Card. I like to reason out what I do, but I'm getting annoyed with the arguing if something isn't in the rules and negatively affects them, but if something's not in the rules and benefits them, if I throw on conditions of my own to balance it out they will complain about that, too. It seems like they want their cake and want to eat it, too.
As a GM, how does one handle an issue like this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will admit, I like the anecdotes. The hurler especially seems reminiscent of the group I play with. Our group has worked with a 'Give me a reason why it would work' type of mentality. Forcing the trip on the one guy, well, he could have given up his ready action. the mist i liked that touch, and to be fair, the attack may have been much, but if you said they saw a shape and they chose to swung... *shrug*
communication has always been key, and it seems for good or ill, your group has seemed to hit a wall. I'd hate to say that you might have to go pure RAW, cause that leaves out a lot of ingenuity and interesting ideas. but at the same time, having players bicker at your rules and choices (rogue taking damage from hurl makes perfect sense.) then...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will admit, I like the anecdotes. The hurler especially seems reminiscent of the group I play with. Our group has worked with a 'Give me a reason why it would work' type of mentality. Forcing the trip on the one guy, well, he could have given up his ready action. the mist i liked that touch, and to be fair, the attack may have been much, but if you said they saw a shape and they chose to swung... *shrug*
communication has always been key, and it seems for good or ill, your group has seemed to hit a wall. I'd hate to say that you might have to go pure RAW, cause that leaves out a lot of ingenuity and interesting ideas. but at the same time, having players bicker at your rules and choices (rogue taking damage from hurl makes perfect sense.) then...
I very much like when a group uses some ingenuity in the game. I absolutely love it. If I teach them the importance of it, they will go to other games and GMs and they will pass on this tactic. It can make or break many groups!
I like to give people the opportunity to create their own scenarios. If they can give me a reason why it should work, I'll go along with it. But my groups know I apply physics, and if there's some stipulations that should be made, I will.
I will also say that allowing him to give up his readied action at that point when I gave him several chances to reconsider would have been metagaming, just as it would have been if I had allowed them to make it based on "You see a shape, do you swing?" because they can see the board. I don't like metagaming, so I made it chance-based with Perception checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Make sure your players understand when you are questioning them, at least the first time, that you want them to clarify intent. Don't just go out of your way to hit them with Murphy. Explain the first time.
Now, for experienced players, just verify, as long as they know that is how you run.
Make sure they know that you take things like Readied action triggers as though you ran it through a computer, not a person's psyche.
Aside: Do you really require your new Looie to state out exactly whenhe wants the mortars to fire, not at one of our own foxholes, but at an enemy?
Remember to apply some common sense. In general, remind the players that an enemy may not be who comes up first. Also remember that in a combat environment, an experienced combat specialist, which all Pathfinder PCs are once they hit second level, is not likely to lose their head and attack an ally that surprises them during combat.
Neither your GM NPCs, nor the PCs, are robots or computers, and they will act as members of their own side, seldom intentionally adding the enemy.
2) Remember that not everyone is an immersive role-player. I, for instance, am not. And, sometimes, when I do wind up role-playing one of my PCs, it is as likely as not to be something uncomfortable, either for me or my audience, or both. {My Magus: In a creepy voice: "Have you met my good friend, Higgs? Higgs really wants to, heh heh, get together with you." Explanation: Higgs is the name for my Bladebound Magus's Black Blade, so interpret it that way, now that you know.)
I also played for a decade with a group that keep working on me to improve my RP. Overall, I found it more irritating than helpful. I had to exercise my patience with it, however, since I had no access to any other gaming group. Overall, both sides were not enjoying themselves as much as they could have.
3) On the Obscuring Mists: No way does a 20% miss chance equate with, "Take a random chance of making an Attack of Opportunity on your allies." Especially since, for most PCs, AoOs are a limited resource, and carefully husbanded. Especially a DC 15, which is a difficult DC, and therefore, for non-Perception experts, something they are likely to fail. To me, there is nothing in Physics which supports your call, and it would be detrimental to my fun.
By the way, used properly, an Obscuring Mist can be a great defensive spell, which can be used by the caster and his allies to give them protection while denying it to their enemies.
On the Hurling Thrower thing, not a bad call, but find out why they object, and what they would propose instead.
Overall, remember that communication needs to include you, as well, and that it is a two-way street.
If something comes off as an arbitrary call to your players, it means that they didn't understand your reasoning, and you should take a few moments longer to explain it.
Also remember that things like the CR of monsters are only a guideline, and keep an eye out for lose-lose propositions, like running a party of totally new PCs up against a Shadow. A Shadow is "only" CR 3, and therefore, by definition, a "challenging" encounter for the party. But, overall, for new 1st levels, unless they all have positive energy channeling, it becomes a frustrating encounter, with a strong potential of being a TPK.
And, after that first party member goes down, the situation goes rapidly south. No more than 4 rounds after the first PC goes down, there is another Shadow attacking the party. That can rapidly escalate. Two Shadows can more rapidly bring down more party members, creating mre Shadows, until TPK is reached.
Channel Energy and magic weapons (and what new PC bought an Oil of Magic Weapon?) and other positive energy effects (Cure Light Wounds) are the only attacks that can affect a Shadow. Mainly at 50% damage. At least it doesn't have DR to go with the incorporeality...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that your profession is giving clear, concise, combat orders. You probably shouldn't expect the same level of communication from your other gamers, especially when the marching orders are going from their own characters heads to their own characters bodies.
|
I'd kinda be on your players' side with the Mist and the Readied action, to be honest. 20% miss chance does neither mean "You hit everything coming in side" nor "You are not able to differentiate friend from foe". You aren't blind, you just have some trouble seeing. Maybe if you fight with a reach weapon and he is 5 ft. away, but not in close combat. Plus, even if you fight in small spaces: I don't think that Obscuring Mist works like a smoke grenade - the thickness doesn't change if the mist is enclosed by walls.
The readied action on the other hand seems really nitpicky, to be honest. I am by no way a friend of too broad descriptions — "I ready my action. I will attack someone who does something that might have a negative effect on my party!" wouldn't fly with me — but if it is clear what is meant I won't make a huge fuss about it. We do jokes like this in my circle of friends all the time — "Hey, can someone lend me 20€?" - "Sure." - "...so?" - "Hey, you just asked if someone can lend you 20€, you didn't say I should do it!" — but really, if we have to be this precise in a game, it slows things down. "I ready my action. I want to attack the first enemy who comes near me. Wait. No. I want to attack the first enemy who comes near me with a melee attack! Er, with a melee attack with my sword, obviously! With my MAINHAND sword! And an "enemy" means "one of the guys we are fighting against" in this case, not Joe, even though we jokingly referr to each other as ones. And by "near me" I mean "an adjacent square", otherwise I would just hit thin air - 10 ft. could be considered near, after all!"
Obviously, I am overdoing it here, but I think you know what I mean. At some point you can rely on common sense instead of overspecification.
I'm with you on your ruling on the hurled halfling, though. Not sure if I had done the same thing, but if you're pulling rules out of thin air the players can be thankful for everything they get out of it, I suppose ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be aware that your NPCs are inherently favored over the PCs because :
1) They all share a hive mind (ie, yours). That will make them extremely more efficient than any real group of antagonists.
For example, did you apply the "force blind attacks in the mists" to your NPCs too ? And if not, why ?
2) They are almost always built to challenge PCs. Thus they will have far more focused tactics and builds than a group of PCs who just does not know what they are going to face.
It is the reason why mind-affecting powers are so strong on the NPC side (because very few if any PC will be immune) while they are a bit weak on the PC side (because so many antagonists are immune).
GMs will tend to forget all of this, as well as how much they metagame when playing the NPCs, especially in combat.
If you keep this in mind and aim for a result enjoyable for your players (and yourself) then everything should turn out all right.
BTW, just like the poster above, I do not like how you "houseruled" the mists and I like how you houseruled the thrown rogue.
However, in both cases, I think you did the right thing in the end : honestly listen to your players' opinion and decide according to what you felt was the better idea.
A couple of points...
1) Readied Actions: I don't like the way you handle them. One it is nitpicking. Two you can always choose not to take a readied action.
2) Obscuring Mist: This just entirely breaks the rules as you don't get AoO against targets with mischance. Though you did relent on this ruling.
3) Hurling Rogue: Yeah I would probably not have given them SA.
But hey it is your game. As long as you are consistent...IE if you make a mistake with the NPCs and Murphey Law hits them also...than it is not a problem.
As for player never minding a ruling against them...and complain as if the world is going to end when it goes against them. I have seen it...I don't to it as a player personaly...as I point alot of rules out to the GM to that benefit the npcs/monsters as I do for the players. But I think this human nature.
|
Did the rogue know about the damage it would take before or after he was thrown? I could see it getting upset if you told him sure go for it and then did damage after no warning. I think you were extra generous letting him get two attacks without pounch, or some feat/class or ahetype feature or spell/maneuver to do so. Plus two full Sneak attacks without fanking or sneaking? Very generous, but again, did it know the exchange rate before going for the ride.
You already acknowledge your error itobscuring mist. Very good, too many peocannot admit they are wrong and hangs their mind evenwith evidence. Their claim about extra effects not on paper was valid, be careful.of that sort of stuff in the future.
The readied action might have been too fad or not. I can see it against a friendly who unexpectedly comes around an unseen corner right. In
n front of you but if there is space between you, you should have a chance to recognize the.ally.
I hate the way this.phone types and fails.to.correct via the.delete touch pad button and hafe the time delete where the cursor is not.
Be aware that your NPCs are inherently favored over the PCs because :
1) They all share a hive mind (ie, yours). That will make them extremely more efficient than any real group of antagonists.
For example, did you apply the "force blind attacks in the mists" to your NPCs too ? And if not, why ?
2) They are almost always built to challenge PCs. Thus they will have far more focused tactics and builds than a group of PCs who just does not know what they are going to face.
It is the reason why mind-affecting powers are so strong on the NPC side (because very few if any PC will be immune) while they are a bit weak on the PC side (because so many antagonists are immune).
GMs will tend to forget all of this, as well as how much they metagame when playing the NPCs, especially in combat.
If you keep this in mind and aim for a result enjoyable for your players (and yourself) then everything should turn out all right.
BTW, just like the poster above, I do not like how you "houseruled" the mists and I like how you houseruled the thrown rogue.
However, in both cases, I think you did the right thing in the end : honestly listen to your players' opinion and decide according to what you felt was the better idea.
I love personalising npcs, so breaking them off the hive mind into little actors. Ha ha, it can be the difference between elites, which fight as if they do have a hive mind, and have solid morale, and the flunky mooks, which are fragile, poorly coordinated.
One example, the party stumble upon a kobold den in a series of tunnels. Alarm is sounded, some kobolds try to stop the party invading, they use defensive tactics, some even go full defence. Good tech for these kobolds so they have metal armour and tower shields. Party is a bit confused, they can hear there is chaos behind the defenders. Chop chop, hurt. Nice, almost got through the defensive wall, and then the kobolds bring out their dung throwers with special mits. What is in the dung you ask? Why rot grubs Jim, yep. So in this situation we had strong elites that had a plan, chaotic weaklings running about (and later dying easily), and some ranged trying to get their act together and use very strong weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is anyone allowed to play less than military or swat team level of teamwork in your games? No one can play a bumbling level one wizzard or a CN Gnome Fey Blood sorcerer or a cowardly noble with a lot of skills but no real world battle experience?? Everyone has to be super tactical take-down guy once the initiative dice roll?
Also I doubt I would play in your group if you started making up rules to punish what you believe to be poor tactics, even going so far as to alter the way a spell works so you could "punish" the druid by having people attack each other (how that punishes the druid I have no idea). YOU CAN SEE 5 FEET IN OBSCURING MIST. Says so right in the spell. Also a 20% miss chance, again right there in the spell but from your post it seems you ignored it for inter-party combat? WTF?
It's been my experience that bad tactical choices on the part of the PCs will punish them enough without me as a GM "helping" it along.
Bad tactics sort of work themselves out without prodding from you.
So is anyone allowed to play less than military or swat team level of teamwork in your games? No one can play a bumbling level one wizzard or a CN Gnome Fey Blood sorcerer or a cowardly noble with a lot of skills but no real world battle experience?? Everyone has to be super tactical take-down guy once the initiative dice roll?
Also I doubt I would play in your group if you started making up rules to punish what you believe to be poor tactics, even going so far as to alter the way a spell works so you could "punish" the druid by having people attack each other (how that punishes the druid I have no idea). YOU CAN SEE 5 FEET IN OBSCURING MIST. Says so right in the spell. Also a 20% miss chance, again right there in the spell but from your post it seems you ignored it for inter-party combat? WTF?
It's been my experience that bad tactical choices on the part of the PCs will punish them enough without me as a GM "helping" it along.
Bad tactics sort of work themselves out without prodding from you.
I've known and at times ran some really memorable characters that were not at all tactical (or didn't start that way). Like an old coot wizard with far too much pride and a know-all without substance (from a friend), or a fighter barbarian Brevoyan that was always hovering on wavering morale, and would either flee or enter berserk mode (and natural 20 will saves like a champ).
Bad tactics can turn an average combat into a really hard battle.
With my group, some of them at least will try off the wall things at times. I will always let them know of the consequences. If it will be damage I tell them (maybe not how bad) but I will say things like that might leave a mark for light damage to that could really go bad depends on your rolls. And I let them know the DC and what rolls they will have to make.
Then before we begin what they are attempting I will use strong voice inflection Are You Sure? If they then confirm we begin the rolls. I will judge the outcome based on how good or bad their rolls were compared to the DC.
I don't use the succeed or fail flat out ruling. If you got close you may have pulled off some of what you were trying with some of the consequences as well. If you rolled a 1 so be it and you failed miserable take the maximum consequences.
By doing it this way you are letting the dice determine how great they succeed or how bad they fail. Players don't usually question what happens if they rolled poorly. Just remember if they are trying heroic crazy things it should come with great reward as well as great risk.
Just my 2 cents.
In my opinion the best way to handle this situation is to be clear with what you expect of the players, and to understand what they expect of you. Compromise in the way that player A says " I want to do this but its not covered by the rules" don't offer what he wants plus what you want. Offer to find a middle ground. Like the raging hurler case. Maybe offering him flatfooted and thus SA but not the damage from the hurler, applied to both rogue and victim, and keep fall damage as there is no way to avoid 30' drop like that. Second sometimes you should clarify what they want. Ask if they meant to trip the first enemy they come accross, not just the first guy. Just my 2 bits.
PS sorry for not following messageboard rules, having my previous post deleted...;) I hope this post helps
|
|
Quendishir, when you are playing, do you often find it really hard not to fall into the role of party leader/tactician? I'm an Army officer and my gaming buddy is a retired platoon sergeant and we both experience that particular difficulty.
THREAD NECRO! BWAHAHAHA!
Seriously though, I never answered this, and i Should have...
I find myself rolling up quite a few militaristic characters. My Ranger and Gunslinger both act as forward scouts/scout snipers, though they are also competent tacticians in their own right. It's hard to break yourself of it, and the game really does focus on everyone being a strong tactician.
I think how you handled the readied action is fine. In tabletop games it's really important to clearly state what you are doing to avoid confusion, but also to prevent people from trying to retroactively change what their character "did" to avoid consequences.
I've had issues where players don't say if they're using Stealth, which is very different from just walking down a corridor, and then get upset when the enemy hears their loud footsteps and makes stealth checks of their own.
|
|
2) Remember that not everyone is an immersive role-player.
Dude, totally!
But it would be nice to meet more immersives. I know of like a handful of folks who are...As long as the players are really trying, it's okay to give them hints about how you want to see them call it out.
It's also okay to compromise in the name of "character common sense"--a 3rd level character won't make the same mistakes in combat a 1st level character might, such as having run off without knowing what "the signal" they're waiting for happens to be! You can rule that they'd be smart/wise/self-preserving enough to be able to figure that out beforehand.