|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally do have an issue with that sort of playstyle (that is where NPC's can do things that Players can not). It was one of the major things about 4E I did not like, as the game was designed to have monsters and players use different rules. One reason for that is because it breeds antagonistic play between the Players and the GM, or at least easily gives that impression. Another is that what usually happens is that one or more of the players find something an NPC did (with an NPC only power) to be really cool/interesting/effective and thn want to learn to do that. Thing is, it's usually ok for NPC's to do it, because they are kind of one-shot encounters, but if a player gets that power, they will have access to it from then on, which will really show how broken it is. It's ether going to lead to that character overshadowing everyone else (and then everyone else wanting to escilate to match or outdo the first character), or people being denied what an NPC gets handed to them with no effort, for an arbitrary reason.
That being said, I was one of the first that mentioned that there are ways that the OP's Cleric could manage to do what they did within the rules, and maybe he or she didn't know the whole story. That seems more the case, and it does seem like the DM realized they where going a little too hard and started to back down. Mistakes happen, and honestly at that level of play, the GM has a lot on their plate. That being said, if the players are having an issue, just talking about it, hearing their issues out, and explaining (and addressing) those issues (after the encounter is completely over, or the NPC will not be reoccuring anytime soon) is probably a good idea, even if the answer will occasionally be "I can't tell you what specifically is going on, but I have a reason, and I will tell you ooc later" can go a long way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally do have an issue with that sort of playstyle (that is where NPC's can do things that Players can not). It was one of the major things about 4E I did not like, as the game was designed to have monsters and players use different rules. One reason for that is because it breeds antagonistic play between the Players and the GM, or at least easily gives that impression. Another is that what usually happens is that one or more of the players find something an NPC did (with an NPC only power) to be really cool/interesting/effective and thn want to learn to do that. Thing is, it's usually ok for NPC's to do it, because they are kind of one-shot encounters, but if a player gets that power, they will have access to it from then on, which will really show how broken it is. It's ether going to lead to that character overshadowing everyone else (and then everyone else wanting to escilate to match or outdo the first character), or people being denied what an NPC gets handed to them with no effort, for an arbitrary reason.
That being said, I was one of the first that mentioned that there are ways that the OP's Cleric could manage to do what they did within the rules, and maybe he or she didn't know the whole story. That seems more the case, and it does seem like the DM realized they where going a little too hard and started to back down. Mistakes happen, and honestly at that level of play, the GM has a lot on their plate. That being said, if the players are having an issue, just talking about it, hearing their issues out, and explaining (and addressing) those issues (after the encounter is completely over, or the NPC will not be reoccuring anytime soon) is probably a good idea, even if the answer will occasionally be "I can't tell you what specifically is going on, but I have a reason, and I will tell you ooc later" can go a long way.
I agree with all of this.
I would like to add, however, that DMs have ways to make things *effectively* NPC only without making them actually so: Impracticality. Make it require a lot of setup, make it require human sacrifice, make it require a rare resource that the villain wholly subsumed (i.e. a new source would need to be found). There are so many ways to make the villain use things that are normally impractical, but not technically unavailable. Just don't make it something so impractical as to be impossible or it begins to smell like a PC/NPC divide again.
Of course, I would suggest only using these occasionally. Only the real big bad type would go through so many hoops for power.
Who knows, maybe the players will surprise you and be willing to found a keep to protect the ritual circle needed to activate ability X. This is actually a boon as it becomes a great plot point to work off of!
DISCLAIMER: I understand not everyone cares to run a game where PCs and NPCs live by the same rules, but I do. If your qualm with the above post is because you prefer to have such a difference, then please do not try to "correct" my interpretation by inserting your own playstyle. If you *do* agree with the premise, then by all means.
|
|
That, in my opinion is a little bit different, and even a rare NPC unique power can be ok too, (Chosen of Tiamat) or the story hugely depends on it. I think it comes down to if the players could actually do it without needing extra free stuff, that's one thing. If the NPC's get it as a bonus, and only NPC's can have it, or follow different rules than the PCs, that's another. Like I said, that's a part of how 4E worked, and it was one thing that I really didn't like about that system. Another part of it is how it is presented, (mechanically). Having a one-time NPC BBEG that is a deity or uber demonlordguyofevulstuff rock some powers in the final fight can be really cool. If they do it and absolutely blow through all the player's defenses and retaliations isn't. If said BBEG is a reoccuring threat, it's really not cool at all, and I (as a player) do not care about your (generic DM) story, because it's like we (players) are the NPC's in your (DM's) little personal drama where the BBEG is actually the focus.
It's not a "wrong" way to play, but, sir, your post is pretty silly in its implications. I rarely play tactical war games (though PFRPG certainly has its roots deeply embedded into such, and many consider it one), but, please do understand, the idea that somehow someone who plays differently than you are not playing an RPG is very... poorly thought out.
Don't switch positions here. That different styles of play are perfectly valid was my position. My comment was addressed to anyone who claimed that any PC should be able to take the same class and get the same power. That claim is utterly false for games that don't play by that assumption. Different styles of play are valid, which means it's perfectly okay if an NPC has access to powers that players don't. They don't have to have those powers, but they can.
Now if your GM promised that NPCs will never have access to different powers than the PCs, and suddenly they do, then you could argue that he broke a rule.
And of course it's the GM's responsibility that everybody is having fun (although it's not his sole responsibility), and designing an encounter that will kill everybody and there's nothing they can do about it, is generally not going to be a lot of fun. But he can also do that without inventing new abilities.
Also, as a note, I've been extremely frustrated with an otherwise great campaign when my expectations were destroyed in an encounter that I simply couldn't win. Although not easy, we'd successfully won everything so far, and I'd done my best to win the encounter (note: this was very different in my mind from "beating" the GM), and even though I'd rolled spectacularly, the creature I'd faced was literally too powerful for us to kill (or even really defeat). Every time I thought we'd done it, they kept going.
I'd poured so much into the effort that I was really, genuinely upset and frustrated... it was a huge disappointment that no matter how well we rolled or how well we did, we simply weren't able to defeat the creature.
So the issue is really that you felt an implicit contract had been violated. You felt you're supposed to be able to figure out a solution to any encounter, and this time, there wasn't one.
It's an issue of trust, of GM-player contract, rather than "do the rules allow this?". And that's absolutely an important issue. The more trust there is between GM and players, the more awesome the game can get. Lack of trust, whether it's because of player paranoia, unspoken assumptions, or an untrustworthy GM, is likely to harm the game in some way.
Later, I spoke with GM, and she explained that it wasn't meant to be "winnable" - the creature we fought was eleven levels higher than we were (and were actually just taking their thing and leaving, anyway), and she shared with me the stats and in-game notes. I actually felt much, much better. My perception was adjusted as to what was going on. She pulled back the curtain and told me, the player, things that the character didn't and couldn't know. With that revelation, with my perception suitably altered, my character changed, but in the way that allowed the story to progress - he became more humble, more cautious, and more methodical, making sure he was in a position to evade fights altogether (and occasionally run away) as much as win them.
And so the game continued, and changed, and, though the character changed, he did so "in character", taking a defeat, chalking it up to the will of the gods, learning, and becoming a little bit of a better person for it.
This kind of stuff happens in games. Personally, I'd be a better person if I hadn't needed the GM to tell me, but I wasn't at that point. Maybe in the future! :)
That sounds great. It sounds like real character growth, which is definitely among the more awesome things you can get in roleplay.
As a GM, I also often worry about the players' attitude that they should be able to win everything, and I'd like to do something about that. Yet as a player, I'm just as vulnerable to assuming that we can defeat any opponent that the GM throws at us. Quite often, losing doesn't seem to be an option in RPGs, and I think the game would be much richer if it was.
I personally do have an issue with that sort of playstyle (that is where NPC's can do things that Players can not). It was one of the major things about 4E I did not like, as the game was designed to have monsters and players use different rules.
Note that there's a big difference between a game where all NPCs/monsters play by different rules, and one where a significant villain has powers that nobody else in the world has.
Should Gandalf or Galadriel be able to learn how forge an item comparable to The One Ring, or be able to acquire other powers that Sauron has?
If every goblin or city guard can do things with a sword that no PC can ever learn, that's annoying. But if a major villain can do it, it's part of the plot. Personally I feel it's perfectly okay if powerful magic users and demons violate all the rules, and can do things that are not in any book.
Of course such powers should be limited somehow. If the PCs are supposed to do something about it, there has to be something they can do about it, and they should be able to figure out what it is.
The rule sets are only effective if both parties follow the rules.
There is no "both parties". There's only one party.
Well, it depends on taste, I guess. You could play it as an antagonistic GM vs players wargame, and apparently some people like that, but that's hardly the only way to play.
Fair warning. I ramble. A lot. Please, even if your handle is mcv, feel free to ignore some of the spoilers and/or don't respond. I seriously write a lot. WALL OF TEXT, AWAY!
It's not a "wrong" way to play, but, sir, your post is pretty silly in its implications. I rarely play tactical war games (though PFRPG certainly has its roots deeply embedded into such, and many consider it one), but, please do understand, the idea that somehow someone who plays differently than you are not playing an RPG is very... poorly thought out.Don't switch positions here. That different styles of play are perfectly valid was my position. My comment was addressed to anyone who claimed that any PC should be able to take the same class and get the same power. That claim is utterly false for games that don't play by that assumption. Different styles of play are valid, which means it's perfectly okay if an NPC has access to powers that players don't. They don't have to have those powers, but they can.
Now if your GM promised that NPCs will never have access to different powers than the PCs, and suddenly they do, then you could argue that he broke a rule.
And of course it's the GM's responsibility that everybody is having fun (although it's not his sole responsibility), and designing an encounter that will kill everybody and there's nothing they can do about it, is generally not going to be a lot of fun. But he can also do that without inventing new abilities.
First - it's impossible for me to switch positions, since that's the first post I made and all that I spoke to you about was:
Are people here seriously suggesting that NPCs should not have access to anything players can't do? What kind of crazy attitude is that? Since the dawn of roleplaying, no since the dawn of the fantasy genre itself, have villains had access to unique powers they needed to have for plot reasons.
Are you people playing a wargame or an RPG here?
That pretty heavily implies that anything different than that is wrong.
Your post, therefore, implies that people who do have that attitude are "doing it wrong".
I'm telling you that, as a GM, that's how I run things.
Anecdotal Story TimeSo the issue is really that you felt an implicit contract had been violated. You felt you're supposed to be able to figure out a solution to any encounter, and this time, there wasn't one.
It's an issue of trust, of GM-player contract, rather than "do the rules allow this?". And that's absolutely an important issue. The more trust there is between GM and players, the more awesome the game can get. Lack of trust, whether it's because of player paranoia, unspoken assumptions, or an untrustworthy GM, is likely to harm the game in some way.
Yep! What I figure is that this is pretty much what happened with the OP, too. Ergo, I felt that by sharing, he might get a different perspective. :)
As a GM, I also often worry about the players' attitude that they should be able to win everything, and I'd like to do something about that. Yet as a player, I'm just as vulnerable to assuming that we can defeat any opponent that the GM throws at us. Quite often, losing doesn't seem to be an option in RPGs, and I think the game would be much richer if it was.
To some extent, I agree wholeheartedly. In the case of my story, it wasn't that losing wasn't an option, it was that I was railroaded without realizing it, and because it was unexpected, I hadn't "bought in" to the idea that I could be railroaded (as the campaign hadn't seemed to go that way, it was a surprise).
Add that to the fact that we'd all rolled really well, and it felt like, "Welp, the fact that you guys rolled twelve natural twenties in a row means you guys lost!"* And, at the time, we saw absolutely nothing accomplished and felt like most of what we'd done so far was reset to 0**.
It was only by explaining it and pulling back the curtain and giving out-of-character knowledge that the player could see that anything valuable had happened at all in the campaign so far.
I figured it related to the OP's current situation, so I shared. :)
*
** The situation for the curious: while infiltrating a dungeon, we were captured (though it was our own fault, so that wasn't really a surprise). We successfully escaped our prisons by tricking the guard, and then had slowly captured more and more of the creatures, and placing them in the cells unconscious. Then the advanced^ Umber Hulks came by to rescue them all, led by a powerful (but corrupted) dragon-born-like creature^^. Anyway, we managed to render the leader unconscious, but the umberhulks picked him up and shrugged off most of our piddly attacks (the only attacks we had left) and went back through the walls leaving no tunnel to get through. And we were now stuck in the jail area again, because they were now aware of us and where we were again, pretty much feeling like we accomplished a whole lot of nothing, and feeling that at least partially it was because we'd been careful to use non-lethal measures. And we were expecting the unholy wrath of the entire dungeon to descend like a wave of evil and wipe us out... and we were out of resources. Only after the fact, after the GM revealed what was going on from the badguys' perspective, did things "work" for us. Effectively, there was a huge pile of unconscious people, Umberhulks that - due to domination - couldn't actually do anything other than what they were told (which had been "rescue all of our living people, and let no one follow, at least fifty yards away"... which ended up being no where), and an underground queen who was literally unable to communicate with anything she'd sent to spy on us/check us out or anything. Who had lost three of her most powerful servants (as well as the half-dozen or so moderately capable ones we'd taken out on the way to this point). Anyway, eventually, they sent an ambassador to figure out just what the heck was going on and forge a temporary truce with us (and, I found out later, originally to negotiate for the release of the prisoners, except she noticed the lack of prisoners, which was cause for more confusion, though the NPC covered it well). It was really, really funny from that side of the screen.
^ This was before the PF template existed. We were around sixth level, they were around seventeen hit dice.
^^ Sorry, this is the best I could find.
I personally do have an issue with that sort of playstyle (that is where NPC's can do things that Players can not). It was one of the major things about 4E I did not like, as the game was designed to have monsters and players use different rules.Note that there's a big difference between a game where all NPCs/monsters play by different rules, and one where a significant villain has powers that nobody else in the world has.
True.
Should Gandalf or Galadriel be able to learn how forge an item comparable to The One Ring, or be able to acquire other powers that Sauron has?
Yes... if they had his power, they should, in many worlds and game styles. The difference is, of course, that the didn't have his power. They were of a lower level (and weren't interested in doing what he did). And in Tolkien Galadriel literally didn't have the ability to get as powerful as Sauron, because Sauron was a race literally made out of divine power; theoretically Gandalf, being a wizard, and thus also a Maia could, but funnily enough he had an aversion to sticking the greater portion of his essence in little rings in order to trick people into putting them on to rule them and instead wanted to spend a simpler, happier immortal life with friends he loved. Odd, that one.
In other words, Gandalf did, in fact, have the potential to become another Sauron... he just wasn't likely to for a large number of reasons, not the least of which was that "he wasn't interested".
If every goblin or city guard can do things with a sword that no PC can ever learn, that's annoying. But if a major villain can do it, it's part of the plot. Personally I feel it's perfectly okay if powerful magic users and demons violate all the rules, and can do things that are not in any book.
There is a difficult balance beam to cross here. But really, if "the plot" doesn't make sense in the world... why have it in that world?
If I'm going to play in Forgotten Realms, but have a super-villain who will kill of both Shar and Mystra so that no one has magic but him, and he somehow has magic... that's... dumb.^^
Now, as you note...
Of course such powers should be limited somehow. If the PCs are supposed to do something about it, there has to be something they can do about it, and they should be able to figure out what it is.
... but the example you used above is really stretching this. "Limited", technically, but Sauron's power was of a great enough scope to literally threaten the whole world, and, technically, the hero failed (it was an ancillary villain^^^ who destroyed the major one by foolishly accidentally dancing right off the edge of a cliff).
But also in many games, maybe, given enough time, energy, and resources, they, too, can gain similar powers (though most of 'em probably don't want it, as I noted with Gandalf above).
The rule sets are only effective if both parties follow the rules.There is no "both parties". There's only one party.
You've never played in a game where there's two parties, then! It's actually really entertaining, if the GM can pull it off. :) ()
Well, it depends on taste, I guess. You could play it as an antagonistic GM vs players wargame, and apparently some people like that, but that's hardly the only way to play.
See, this line right here makes everything that you said that previously sounded reasonable sound unreasonable. This one line makes this post terrible, because it implies - even if that's not what you meant - that people who "play by the rules" are antagonistic and have a GM v. PC wargame mentality.
The point of the previous post, though I can see how it is taken the way, you seem to, was pretty clearly, to me, saying that if one entity (the GM) utilizes their ability to bend or break the rules, it inherently becomes unfair and often quickly less pleasant or fun.
The fact is, some groups enjoy that dynamic, and more power to them. Some groups enjoy the other dynamic and, shockingly, still aren't playing a wargame. Both are fully in the right, and both can be playing role playing games. 4E can offer an excellent platform to role playing, even though it's extremely gamist in nature and its internal world-consistency is awful, and isn't necessarily a tactical wargame.
What's more, tactical wargaming isn't even opposed to role playing (as your posts imply). People have been playing role playing games while playing war games since a strange guy named Gygax had a really silly (but awesome) idea to turn a catapult into a wizard, and have little soldier pieces represent individual entities instead of entire units.
Anyway, the point isn't that there is something wrong with either. The point is your post is coming off like there is something wrong with the kind you don't like.
^^Yeah I know that basically happened in 4E.
^^^ That's actually a recurring theme in Tolkien's books. The heroes work really hard, sacrifice much, and go through much turmoil, only to have an ancillary villain who technically had the ability to do so all along finish their work for them. Tolkien: what an excellent troll against his own characters. I love those books.
Anyway, the TL;DR version is: gaming styles are their own things, and everyone's got a different one, and should enjoy them. If a GM's style is unfun for their player, though, sometimes pulling back the curtain and giving out of character knowledge, and sometimes changing the GM style are important things to do in order to keep the fun.
Bonus points conversation (aka, personal preference):
* If the GM has special goodies only for NPCs... it seems (to me) like a harsher style that I, personally, wouldn't like. But since I'm not everyone, game away, and enjoy the way you like!
* In the games I GM, I'll still be making sure that the players can, in theory, have access to all the things the villains can (given the appropriate expenditure of time, energy, and resources).
Fair warning. I ramble. A lot. Please, even if your handle is mcv, feel free to ignore some of the spoilers and/or don't respond.
I'm going to try, but I don't think I'll be able to respond to it all.
Are people here seriously suggesting that NPCs should not have access to anything players can't do? What kind of crazy attitude is that? Since the dawn of roleplaying, no since the dawn of the fantasy genre itself, have villains had access to unique powers they needed to have for plot reasons.Are you people playing a wargame or an RPG here?
That pretty heavily implies that anything different than that is wrong.
Your post, therefore, implies that people who do have that attitude are "doing it wrong".
I'm telling you that, as a GM, that's how I run things.
Yes, but the attitude of which I'm saying it's "doing it wrong" is the attitude that says the kind of play where villains have access to unique powers is wrong. People are saying that style of play is wrong, and I'm saying it's perfectly valid, and I substantiate it by pointing out it's old and common and successful, and judging it to be wrong is in itself wrong.
I'm not judging a style of play, I'm judging an attitude that judges a style of play. A very old, common and successful style of play at that (though admittedly I shouldn't have to add that).
Nobody is going to knock down your door to berate you for having a villain without unique custom powers. Of course it's perfectly fine to have a relatively mundane villain. But you don't have to.
On your anecdotal story, it sounds like a pretty cool situation that was ruined by ill-matched expectations. It also sounds like the situation is so complex and non-transparent, yet hilarious if you do have all the information, that everybody's enjoyment is greatly enhanced by giving the players an explanation of what's going on behind the scenes.
There is a difficult balance beam to cross here. But really, if "the plot" doesn't make sense in the world... why have it in that world?
If every goblin or city guard can do things with a sword that no PC can ever learn, that's annoying. But if a major villain can do it, it's part of the plot. Personally I feel it's perfectly okay if powerful magic users and demons violate all the rules, and can do things that are not in any book.
Of course the plot should make sense in the world. It just doesn't have to be mechanically supported by the rules of the system. Tons of stuff that characters can do in the game world isn't supported by the rules. Often because it's too trivial or situational to bother, but it can also be because it's too far outside the realm of the PCs that it'd be a lot of unnecessary work to devise mechanics for it. I'm personally strongly against having stats for gods, for example. Should something like the Snarl in OOTS have stats, abilities and mechanics? Its actions are entirely driven by the power of plot.
And personally I love the trope of relatively mundane heroes trying to stop powerful, reckless sorcerers meddling with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. In a case like that, I'm perfectly fine with that sorcerer having powers that no PC could possibly get. And if he really truly wants to, he stops being a PC (and probably still fails).
... but the example you used above is really stretching this. "Limited", technically, but Sauron's power was of a great enough scope to literally threaten the whole world, and, technically, the hero failed (it was an ancillary villain^^^ who destroyed the major one by foolishly accidentally dancing right off the edge of a cliff).
Of course such powers should be limited somehow. If the PCs are supposed to do something about it, there has to be something they can do about it, and they should be able to figure out what it is.
But Sauron's powers were most definitely limited. Great, yes, but with a serious weakness: they were tied to this ring, and that ring could be destroyed. And not because of mechanics, rules and abilities, but because the plot demands it.
And yes, the hero eventually failed and Deus Ex Machina saved the day, but the hero could have succeeded, and he did manage to get right to the point were the plot could be fulfilled.
Had Sauron not had this weakness, there wouldn't have been a story.
You've never played in a game where there's two parties, then! It's actually really entertaining, if the GM can pull it off. :) (Yes, I know what your actual point was. It was a joke.)
There is no "both parties". There's only one party.
The rule sets are only effective if both parties follow the rules.
I've played in a game with about 5 concurrent parties, and as many GMs exchanging notes in code on a big board. It was really awesome, but not exactly the usual way of things.
See, this line right here makes everything that you said that previously sounded reasonable sound unreasonable. This one line makes this post terrible, because it implies - even if that's not what you meant - that people who "play by the rules" are antagonistic and have a GM v. PC wargame mentality.
Well, it depends on taste, I guess. You could play it as an antagonistic GM vs players wargame, and apparently some people like that, but that's hardly the only way to play.
It's easily the harshest thing I've said, but considering the context, I stand by it. If the GM and the players are two different parties at odds with each other and in need rules to keep them both in check, then how is that possibly not GM vs. players? How is that not antagonistic? How is that not edging towards a wargame-like situation?
To me, the big advantage of RPGs, and the big point of having a GM, is that you have someone who's job it is to supersede the rules where necessary, and has a personal responsibility to bring the fun to everybody. If you limit him, you also limit his ability to make the game more fun.
Fortunately not all games need this, which is good, because a lot of GMs may not have the experience, skills, confidence or attitude to do this. But it has always been part of the GM's job.
A GM is not just a player. He is also an ad-hoc game designer. He constantly needs to make new rulings for all sorts of situations.
That is a tremendous responsibility of course, and it requires a lot of trust. If that trust isn't there, then yes, maybe the GM should stick closer to the rules. And even if the trust is there, the GM shouldn't violate rules just because he can. He should only do it when the plot demands it, and only in a way that makes the game more fun and more awesome for everybody.
Because that's what it's all about in the end. Isn't it?