The entirety of this post will be pretty scattered, since I have so much on my mind that I'm having trouble keeping it all together. So I guess I'll try to number some of the points of concern I have.
Before I start, here is some background on my players and the campaign.
(YOU CAN SKIP THIS PART, ITS JUST ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN SETTING)
I've created my entire world from scratch. The players come from the city of Machina, an ancient city built on strange, self-sustaining technology that provides power to city, as well as sustenance chambers that provide it's citizens with nourishment through energy instead of food consumption. The city was built ages ago, and the present inhabitants have no idea how the city works or how to manipulate the technology. All that is certain is that the city itself is draining the life force from the planet. However, it's estimated that it will take millions of years for this to occur. Presently, there is a 20 mile radius around the city called 'the blight' where nature can not survive due to the drain. Gozreh, the God of Nature, is highly displeased with this and his most powerful followers encase the city in massive, crushing vines that are slowly disabling the city without harming it's inhabitants. The players, all hailing from the city, have set out to destroy the power sources the druids have created and scattered that regenerate the vines.
(THIS PART IS RELEVANT, ITS ABOUT THE PLAYERS)
My players have a bit of the entitlement problem. They feel that it is necessary to have straight 18's to build characters. I got tired of letting them roll, because two of them always seemed to have really great stats, so I put them on a 20 point buy system. Of course everyone but the gnome sorcerer has a 7 charisma. Presently, my group fluctuates between 4 and 6 people, with real life circumstances dictating who shows up. The group is level 12 and consists of:
Gertrude: the 30 str raging, flying, pouncing, monstrous barbarian with saves out the yin-yang due to rage power selection and a cloak res +5.
Zen: a monk who has, through some cleric spell, MADE himself a masterwork weapon and enchanted himself with all sorts of abilities. He flips through combat intentionally provoking attacks of opportunities so that he can counter strike the enemy. I think he recently made a jump check of 50 something?
PeakPeek- at level 12 I believe he's dropping 29 will saves on charm/compulsion effects.
Quagmire- A 2h paladin. Not as munchkiny as the rest.
Talrunya- a rogue super charged at finding all traps that come even close to the party cr, as well as optimized for 2w fighting and drawing out a crapton of sneak attacks.
Rumplestilskin- a summoner who ...well, he's just annoying.
Kaylee - bandaid cleric
(NOW ON TO THE ISSUES)
I hate, and enjoy, the abundance of rules. While I like that the massive amount of rules presented gives some structure to the world, I despise how players flaunt them in my face like it's some "Bill of Rights" that I have to respect at all times. Two of the biggest issues I have with this are wealth by level and CR. I've stated earlier that the group is pretty munch...err....optimized, so in order to present them with something that even resembles a challenge, I find myself having to modify and advance every single monster or NPC I throw at them. This brings immediate cries of "you can't make us fight that, it's 3 levels higher than our group." Yet, there has only been one character death in our five month long campaign, and that was due to a very nasty crit. My argument would be that if the party is challenged, FEARS death, but is ultimately victorious, then I've created an appropriate encounter! The best way I tell them is that optimized players should expect optimized enemies. Since they were so optimized at first level, I decided to put them on the fast track exp to get to more challenging encounters. Higher levels would help balance out the absurd stats on them. The result is that their wealth is significantly lower than what the book says they should have. So I constantly hear complaints about how they need more and better loot.
Next issue. The players get upset when I create encounters that deny them of their strongest abilities. Take for example their last combat:
The group moved into a very large room 50 ft x 50 ft with a 'cracked stone floor.' From the door on one side, they could see very small runes etched onto the wall on the other. The party moved into the room to cast 'read magic' on the runes, triggering a trap that broke apart the cracked floor and dropped them 50 feet onto a a room full of zombies with antimagic fields attached to them. On a ledge 30 feet above them, a four armed, musket dual wielding gunslinger sat in a cove 10 feet away from another antimagic source. The gunslinger proceeded to open fire on the party while they were stuck 30 feet below, having to kill enough zombies to get away from the anti magic to fly up to the next ledge. The monk burned a hero point to make two jump checks to run up the wall (which was pretty cool, so I allowed.) The gunslinger would step out of the aura to attack with his bonuses, then step back in. Or at least, that was the plan until the monk got up there and started disarming him.
The player controlling the gnome was furious because this was the second encounter that day that was immune to his charms and hold persons/monster, citing that I was intentionally screwing him over. It's partially true, though. With him throwing out will saves at nearly 30, there is very little I have to stop him from just dominating every encounter with ease. I tried to explain that I wanted him to have opportunity to use the power and be successful with it, but not in every single encounter.
Finally, I screw the rules sometimes, and my players get resentful. They recently faced a boss - single npc that would take two turns a round. The NPC operated in a way that made him a lone wolf, and him having minions wouldn't work with him. So, to balance the action economy of six players, I gave him two full rounds in a turn. I suppose I could have easily 'cloned' him and made the party fight two, but I think, personally, in a game *full* of metagaming, it's nice to twist the rules every now and then and make them do that knowledge check.
Either way, should I cater to the complaints of the players? Give them their gold and let them stomp all over the face of anything that looks at them funny and smite end-bosses as if they were insignificant flies?
Let me know how you feel!!!
If they all dump charisma, its perfectly within reason to have charisma defendant situations come up; min maxing should have some price, things that require social graces are not going to cease to exist just because the party chose to be completely unequipped for them.
I've done that, and as much as they do suffer in social situations, the gnome is quite adept at bailing them out.
But again, that brings the complaint that I am specifically bringing up things to exploit their weakness.
Ask them if the world should stop functioning in a normal manner merely because they exist.
^ That was kind of my thought. I just wanted to make sure what I was doing wasn't too unorthodox.
Tell them to grow up.....
The player controlling the gnome was furious because this was the second encounter that day that was immune to his charms and hold persons/monster, citing that I was intentionally screwing him over. It's partially true, though. With him throwing out will saves at nearly 30, there is very little I have to stop him from just dominating every encounter with ease. I tried to explain that I wanted him to have opportunity to use the power and be successful with it, but not in every single encounter.
Start by talking to the gnome about diversifying his power set. At high levels there are ALOT of things that are immune or heavily resistent to mind effecting spells. Tell him to at least get some glamours, or some conjuration spells to deal with some more resistent things. Even talk to him about making changes to the existing character to account for this. He is highly specialized thus when he CAN do his thing its really powerful, but if he cant, he cant to anything. Talk to him about it and see if he cant adjust the character to make it more balacned.
Second, there is a difference between challenging somoenes weaknesses and making it so they cant participate. If all the enemies in an encounter are sitting in an antimagic field, a straight sorceror is very likely to have nothing to do. I'd get frustrated as a player if I had to sit and not play for the duration of what was obviously a complicated (and thus long in real life time) encounter. Thats more or less what happened to the gnome.
I am not saying you should not try to play against the players flaws, but I dont think EVERYTHING in the encounter needed to be in antimagic. Maybe the big bad of the encounter does, but try to make sure each player has some kind of thing to do in a given encounter even if he cant go after the ideal target with his best punch. That I think is where your design was flawed. If you had a few mooks the gnome could have charmed to help fight the zombies in the pit, he probably would have been happy, even if they didnt make a big difference (werent particularly strong).
Finally, I screw the rules sometimes, and my players get resentful. They recently faced a boss - single npc that would take two turns a round. The NPC operated in a way that made him a lone wolf, and him having minions wouldn't work with him. So, to balance the action economy of six players, I gave him two full rounds in a turn. I suppose I could have easily 'cloned' him and made the party fight two, but I think, personally, in a game *full* of metagaming, it's nice to twist the rules every now and then and make them do that knowledge check.
I am kind of torn about this sort of thing. I have no problem with tweaking the rules, but I dont like rules being tweaked for the sake of rules, and not because they match something in the game world. I like that in pathfinder the same set of rules dictates what everyone in the world is capable of. Its why I really hate single enemy encounters, and if I could have a signature on these boards, I would have a message there about how its almost always a bad idea.
That said, take a look at the mythic playtest rules. I am pretty sure there is a way to take extra actions in there. You might want to break those out next time you want to have something like this, and then you have sensible and rational rules to use to achieve your goals. It would probably help in explaining it to your players. Its an option, I still think its always better to just include more enemies, but at least with actual rueles instead of 'my boss goes twice cuz i said so' it will probably go down easier with your players.
Either way, should I cater to the complaints of the players? Give them their gold and let them stomp all over the face of anything that looks at them funny and smite end-bosses as if they were insignificant flies?
Sit down, have a rational conversation with your players. In theory, these people are your friends. Talk to them and work out the problem, and explain that you are trying to provide a genuine challenge at a difficult point in the game (high levels is kind of a mess). You could offer to switch to a lower level, or even an E6 game if they want to follow strict guidelines (and watch how quickly they work to make you happy if they like high level play) without lots of dm adjustment to make encounters challenging.
I'm not sure what an E6 game is, so I will check up on it. I'm trying to avoid mythic because they players *really* want it and I personally think it's just a little too much.
I understand how the gnome felt, but there were other things for him to do. For instance, he was flying when the floor fell, so he was safe somewhere. From there he could have either:
Held an action to cast on the gunslinger when he stepped out of antimagic to attack.
OR
Flown down to the party and shoot zombies. They only had 3-4 hp each and were there merely to buy the gunslinger some time before the party could get up him and destroy him.
I do understand what you're saying about the rules though. I try *not* to completely crap all over the rules, but sometimes I feel it's necessary to keep game flow instead of: "Wait, why does this guy have so many minions all of a sudden?"
I'm not a fan of high level, myself. Thankfully, this campaign only has another three or four sessions before they wrap it up.
Wrap this one up, and chalk it down as a learning experience.
Then, before the next campaign starts, you need to have a LONG talk about expectations. Mostly, this is to be fair to yourself, but also to them.
Pitch the campaign. "I'd like to run a gritty, low -level campaign where magic is rare", "I'd like to do core-only", "I'd like to do super-heroes".
Doesn't matter what you pick, but pick it in advance. Then talk through the following:
Should encounters be balanced to the game world, or to the party's CR?
If the PCs head to dragon mountain, should there be a high-level dragon there?
Should players ever have to run away?
Should bad things ever happen to players (lose an eye, encased in carbonite,...)
Should players die?
How often?
Is it final?
What are the rules for creating a new character?
What's the overall feel of the campaign?
How does that affect point-buy?
What's banned this game, because it doesn't fit?
And finally: Tell me about the game you're willing to run.
^ what rkraus said. You need to talk to the group seriously and let them know your issues. You have to let them know you're serious and that you have concerns with the game. Sounds to me like you're not having fun with it. I would strongly suggest taking some time off getting one of them to run a few games. Players often change their tunes once they realize what its like to be on the receiving end of this type of behaviour.
I'm not sure what an E6 game is, so I will check up on it. I'm trying to avoid mythic because they players *really* want it and I personally think it's just a little too much.
E6 is a subsystem for 3.5 dnd (and works fine with pathfinder) which caps levels at 6th level. After 6th level you just get feats every 5k xp. It keeps character within the 'normal' range of human ability and keeps a lid on the difficulty of managing the game at high levels.
I understand how the gnome felt, but there were other things for him to do. For instance, he was flying when the floor fell, so he was safe somewhere. From there he could have either:
Held an action to cast on the gunslinger when he stepped out of antimagic to attack.
OR
Flown down to the party and shoot zombies. They only had 3-4 hp each and were there merely to buy the gunslinger some time before the party could get up him and destroy him.
For the first option, held actions are something that are easy to forget about. And in the moment they are often overlooked. It is easy to think that the player never thought of this, especially if he was frustrated at the time.
For the second option, again there isnt a great chance he would even consider it an option. At the level these characters are at, a caster attacking with a weapon is usually completely pointless. Why would he think the zombies were worth plinking at with his crossbow when most opponents will have alot more hp then he could ever hope to damage with that thing.
I do understand what you're saying about the rules though. I try *not* to completely crap all over the rules, but sometimes I feel it's necessary to keep game flow instead of: "Wait, why does this guy have so many minions all of a sudden?"
I'm not a fan of high level, myself. Thankfully, this campaign only has another three or four sessions before they wrap it up.
If you arent a fan of high levels, seriously look at E6, it helps alot. And its 'rules' which will probably fare better with your group then other methods of keeping the levels low.
I'd like to say that I really do enjoy GM'ing from any perspective.
I'm very adaptable. If the players want to have a game with heavy RP, I love to provide. If the players want to do a small bit of RP mixed with heavy combat, I'm happy to provide. I love custom making combat encounters as much as I do roleplay encounters. The only thing I don't enjoy is when players want to munchkin, then get upset when I do it to their opponents.
@Kolokotroni: I expected held actions from the gnome because he is a seasoned optimizer. Furthermore, I have been, up to this combat, practically *training* them to hold action. For example, they had to mow through a forest of Phase Spiders before getting to the lair. I think it's absurd to hand-feed a party a victory based on the rolls alone instead of thinking a little.
I'm seriously starting to think 90% of the problem is simply stemming from the high point-buy system I allowed. Have any of you GM'd with a 15 point buy and *not* had everyone in the group dump everything not crucial for an 18 stat start (20 with racial) and had success with it?
I recently gave a 25 pt buy to my players and i had my tiefling player dump CHA. Gave it an 8, with his racial bonus it is a 6.
However he RPs it as such, he understands when everyone he meets instantly dislikes him. He is playing an Inquisitor with the archetype that allows you to use Wis instead of Cha on Diplomacy, Intimidate etc.
It has made for some interesting encounters with supposed "friendlies"
I'm seriously starting to think 90% of the problem is simply stemming from the high point-buy system I allowed. Have any of you GM'd with a 15 point buy and *not* had everyone in the group dump everything not crucial for an 18 stat start (20 with racial) and had success with it?
I've moved to a high point buy but low cap. Something like a 25 point buy, but no stat can be higher then a 15 and lower then a 10 before racial mods. Mostly because I like to play characters that tend to be mad and feel the pain at low point buys and hate the way dump stats tend to flow out of point by. Otherwise low point buys penalize certain kinds of characters more then others, the wizard, witch or heavy armor fighter are only minorly affected, but the bard, rogue, and monk suffer.
This gave me an idea that might be interesting to try later: each player chooses either A) 20 point buy, but you can't have less than 10 in any stat before racial modifiers; or B) 15 point buy, no restrictions. Not sure if this'll change anything (point buy is not significant in the long run [Edit: but as someone else mentioned, low is quite inhibiting to certain classes, so I generally prefer 20, and it is nearly equivalent to 4d6b3's average rolled array, though it enables dumping better than 15]), but I like the idea. Maybe.
In any case, I don't think you're doing it wrong. As you say, if the players feel challenged and are afraid of their characters dying, but it doesn't happen often, that's a good place to be. If you occasionally counter a strong ability they have, that's fine. If you always negate it, that's where the line gets crossed, and sounds like you're aware of that.
Things start to get a little crazy around level 12. That's just how it goes. By 15-16, things can get really out of hand. I can't really suggest anything except "experience helps" (I'm learning, myself). Know how the spells work, and don't be afraid to say, "no, that's ridiculous," as long as it's reasonable, of course.
WBL is not an entitlement. Generally, loot found should be worth <WBL> at market value, and sold for somewhat less, e.g. 60-75% of market (some of it is gems and art sold at 100%, others are equiment at 50%, other items might be things they just keep, and therefore 100%). That said, very low wealth can be frustrating. If their total equipment value is sitting at around 75% WBL, they are doing pretty well. If they are unhappy because they bought a +5 item, and have no gold left to round out the rest of their gear, that's on them. Incidentally, are you using settlement rules for available magic items, or is everything just available? ((Shameless plug)) If you declare everything just available because you don't want to roll all that stuff, check out my Settlement Item Generator! Further improvements on it are forthcoming (I've not had much time to work on enhancements, but will soon).
When to say "no" is very tricky. I've told my players, after being pitched an idea, "no, that's not the kind of game I want to play," and they half expected that. I am lucky in that they are very reasonable people. As long as you're not being an oppressive dictator, I think you're probably okay. However, there is always a chance of irreconcilable differences. They might just like easy victories and feeling powerful. *shrug*. There ought to be a bunch of easy encounters to fulfull that, and some difficult ones, too, as long as there is no unexpected wall of difficulty to slam into.
@Kolo/Tri0 - Honestly, I don't see our party monk struggling despite the 20 point buy, he has been doing very well. But I still *really* like the idea of removing bonuses for lowering a stat. I'm definitely going to try the 10-15 limit on base stats.
@Rocketman @Stazamos (concerning stats and gritty games)- It's not that I want a gritty game. I ran one of those once and it is a little depressing. However, I want bosses and significant battles to be something they work for. For as much work as I put in to motivating them to kill the bosses, and how integral they all are to the plot of the story, they need to be worth of the PC's mettle. What I find is that over-inflated stats tend to crap on the flow of the game. There is no appropriate challenge in the bestiary to stick to the four player party of:
THok the barbarian with a 22 raging strength crushing everything in his path for 2d6 + 13. You're putting any other level 1 barbarian with the exception of one with great con AND toughness in the negatives with one hit.
Screwu the fey charm person sorc with a 20 cha dropping charms with a DC of 15 at level 1 and dominating every social situation with the roll of a die.
Sneaky the rogue finding every trap in the world because he has a perception of 10 or so. Nevermind a summoner can do the same thing with he eidolon.
The channel smite daze cleric that can daze a will dc 17 at first level seven times a day.
All of these things are mainly possible from bloated stats. It creates an environment where a DM has to literally modify every single challenge. You could send 50 CR 1's a day at that group, and they're not going to tire out. The high numbers foster the situation where players no longer fear any sort of failure. There is no risk because the dice take care of everything and the 'rules' allow them to manipulate the world in a manner where the storyteller no longer really has any say in the story.
@Stazamos - Your settlement Item Generator! is AWESOME. Thank you, I have bookmarked this, and will show it off to my friends. I still think WBL is sort of an entitlement. I think it is a decent guideline to suggest how much total value of items a character should have on them by a certain level, but it doesn't take into account consumable items(wands, scrolls, potions) cost of living and adventuring(inns, whores, mead, horses) or lost, broken, and stolen items. I try to keep them at least 50% of wbl and I try to give them loot relevant to the party, but the way I see it, if they are consistently dealing with challenges 2-3 CR above their level, then they are ok. One of them recently tried to have the CR argument with me and all I said was, "Party level is 12, +1 for being munchkins, +1 for being a group of six instead of 4. Your CR is 14. You can handle 4-5 CR 14's a day. So fighting one CR 15 is not unreasonable."
I've almost been considering dropping them against a single level 12 evocation specialist with a one level dip in a primal/draconic crossblooded sorcerer and seeing how long they can last against empowered heightened fireballs with a maximize rod before the party wizard realizes it's an invisible caster. It's a CR12 and can dish out 100 fire damage a round. Not too shabby for an expendable NPC.