|
first and foremost:
you as a gm are there to make the game fun for YOU and your PLAYERS!!!
if your players hate negative levels, and you dont really care about playing as written, change negative levels into ability damage or some other thing you think would be fair.
i change monster skins, abilities and DR's all the time on my players. they still seem to be having fun.
|
|
you never try to change people, you only get to either roll with the punches or get a new relationship. by relation ship i mean friends, girlfriend, wife, gaming group etc...
so keep that in mind, take negative levels out of your game, live with their hatred of negative levels and let them reroll, OR find a new group.
*edit*
after seeing your edit to your last post my advice is to let them reroll. you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink. this is true in pathfinder as well.
honestly if rerolling is going to ruin your story arc then you will need to make sure they understand "if you reroll mid dungeon you may need to wait 5 sessions until you guys are out to get your new character into the story." that alone is a major reason for them to suck it up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that yes, this qualifies as "player entitlement".
The question to ask is "where does it stop?"
Can you use combat manoeuvres against them?
Stun them?
Poison them?
Infect them with disease?
Because that little non-exhaustive list of conditions and afflictions prevents them from "being at their best" all the time. And have they never heard of Death Ward?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would call that a little bit of both player entitlement and lack of immersion, and a lot of 'player-gm miscommunication.' What I recommend is sitting down and talking with your players to find out if they are even interested in the possibility of losing. If all they want is to crash through dungeons with no worry about losing, let them do it on a trial basis. After a few sessions of them not being challenged, talk to them again. They will probably see how bored they are, and you can give them the old "I told you so." Just don't be a jerk about it. If, after a few sessions, they are loving the game being on easy or 'god mode' then just go with it. However, if YOU are not having fun with it, talk to them about it again. Honestly, talking to your players will solve almost any GM's problems. I feel for both the players and you, because nobody likes when their characters become disabled, and nobody likes when their players aren't enjoying the games or looking for 'the easy way out.'
What NOT to do: Become a draconian GM that will not allow them to re-roll and force 'status effects' on players, put them into constant situations that keep them from doing what they do best, and never give them a chance to shine.
All in all, give them some spotlight time where they get to do anything they want, and mix it up with the occasional challenge. Just don't go killing all the players. (even if you really want to, and you think they deserve it)
Well, maybe if they REALLY deserve it.
I can help somewhat with this. First off, point out that even if the PC's are too low level to cast the removal spells on their own, they CAN go to a city and pay a NPC to do it for them.
Second, point out that if they blow feats on upping their poor saves, they won't have problems like this. Heck, most of those drain effects are dependent on Fortitude saves. If they really don't like the idea, throw some feat slots at it.
Third, point out that terrain changes and societal laws make for a more interesting game, but if they don't like it, they can simply move to a different area, or try to defy the law etc.
Fourth, this might help to take the sting out of losing a level. Assign average hp rolls if the players lose levels. For example, say a 4th level Rogue loses 2 levels. He'd rolled poorly on the last 2 level ups for hp. Grant exactly average hp when he levels again (assuming he didn't get a spell cast to nullify the negative levels), so he'd get 4 and 5 hp respectively, not counting Constitution or favored class bonus.
Fifth, level and attribute drainers are easily the most feared beasties in the game, with the possible exception of a rust monster. It's not like they can't take their PC's and run to a different area in game.
Sixth, how about using the casting plaster found in Ultimate Equipment as a way to restore drained attributes like Con and Dexterity? The only catch is, they have to wait for real world heal times: http://www.doctorsecrets.com/your-bones/time-to-heal-broken-bone.htm
Seventh, try having really interesting NPC's in the game. Losing those relationships will definitely make them less likely to want to replace the party PC's wholesale. To do so, try a combination of the core rulebook, the gamemastery guide (npc stats), and a book I found a little while ago. It's called Masks, by Engine Publishing. Worth the money, even if it doesn't look like it on first blush. Great way to create personable NPC's in a flash.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you should have a frank and open discussion with your players about what kind of game you're going to play. Keep in mind that there's no wrong answers to that question, but rather that you'll have more fun if you're all on the same page.
For example, you might enjoy playing PF as a tactical game with epic combats; in that case it makes more sense to treat negative levels and such as status effects; setbacks that can be cured (pretty much everything can be cured), but curing them does cost money; it's something you want to avoid happening as a PC. PC death isn't a disaster either; you can swap in a new PC fairly easily. This is not a deep-immersion style of play; there's plot and setting, but they're more like stage decoration that spice things up, they're not the main attraction. This is more like the action-movie kind of game; it's okay if the plot and acting are weak, as long as the explosions and fights are awesome.
On the other end of the spectrum, you can play PF as a heavily story-oriented game. The PCs matter a great deal in the story, and everytime a PC leaves (rerolls, permanent death, retirement etc) a lot of the plot tied to that PC also disappears. In this kind of game it's better to talk about negative levels as "your life energy has been stolen" than "status effect X". Immersion is a big thing in this style of play. This is more like thriller/drama, where the strength of plot and acting are important.
Now it's important to realize that both these are equally legitimate styles of play. Favoring the second type of game doesn't make you a morally superior human being or anything. They both have the potential to be fun, and that's the goal of this game. HOWEVER, as a group you'll probably have more fun if you all agree what style of play you're aiming at. If the GM wants a high-RP game and the players want to fight, both sides will be annoyed and disappointed. If the players are looking for plot-depth and the GM just shoves difficult fights at them, it's also a let-down. But if the players and GM agree what they wanna play, things get a lot better.
Now it sounds to me like your players are more in a tactics/action state of mind. Maybe they've been put into that state of mind by MMORPGS. Doesn't matter really. Talk with them. Explain what kind of games you could be playing, and which ones you're interested in. See if you can get buy-in for that. Players may want to do the high-RP thing, but they just weren't really thinking much about it so they were working along MMORPG-habits. Talking about it may encourage them to stop thinking too much about level drain as status effects and more in terms of loss of vitality, for example.
---
Second point: how to get rid of negative levels. Let's start with a theory:
If level-drain is very special, getting rid of it should be special. If level-drain isn't special, getting rid of it shouldn't be special.
PF is written with the idea that level drain is a nasty attack, but not permanently devastating. If you lose a level, you won't be weaker than the other PCs for the rest of the campaign. That probably wouldn't be very much fun to play.
Overcoming level drain is something clerics can do as a matter of course (Restoration, Lesser Restoration) by the time level drain becomes a monster ability that you run into from time to time (CR 3 undead do temporary negative levels; Lesser Restoration handles those).
If you can run into for example a CR 3 Wight that's got no special story purpose (doesn't have a name or individual story attached), curing the damage should probably be just as non-special.
On the other hand, maybe you do want negative levels to be something special. This is a bit harder, because you're going against the grain of the system. I think it should be a package deal:
1) Negative levels are rare and only happen from non-random monsters. Only monsters with name and story do negative levels.
2) Negative levels require non-standard procedures to remove.
Don't do 2 without 1. It's not really fair.
I think such an imbalance between how easy it is to sustain a permanent injury (such as level drain) versus the difficulty of healing is what will really encourage people to roll up a new character, and with good cause.
If the level-draining was a rare incident, that happens to a character with a lot of plot and RP behind it, then questing for a cure is appealing.
But if level-drain just randomly happens to a PC, and getting a cure is very hard, then it'll encourage the player to reroll.
This is increased by a less-high-RP kind of game, as well. If the player wasn't very attached to the PC in the first place, rerolling is also more appealing.
I was going to chime in with a much longer post, but Ascalaphus pretty much said exactly what I was thinking, although I may have phrased it differently. Here's the nutshell version:
It's all about play style. Sometimes a GM wants to run a different kind of game than his players want to be in, and that's okay, but everyone does have to be on the same page before you play. Try sitting down with your players, explaining to them what kind of game you're trying to run and why occasionally having a handicap is helpful to the game you want to run. Some groups would rather run a combat simulation than a story (SO not my style, but I've seen it work), and in that kind of game, understanding how to get rid of 'status effects' (so to speak) is crucial, because the whys and wherefores don't really matter to that sort of playstyle, just the numbers and what they do.
Also, if your players are experienced gamers, they may remember negative levels as the far worse effect and far more permanent drain that they were in pre-Pathfinder editions. I know I still have a panic reaction in my gut whenever the phrase comes up in one of our games. These days, they're a minor penalty to your rolls and HP until you manage to get rid of them. Not a big deal, really. Just to make sure you know how they work today, here's how.
|
I have several players who've threatened to reroll characters if they get hit by negative levels or level drain. They only changed their minds when they realized there are spells to remove them and they aren't expensive. I remember back when I played with a VERY harsh DM who used to try and debilitate players through a very liberal use of wraiths and vampires against players who at the time thought ability drain was permanent, I remember that even then the thought of rerolling was anathema to me.
The problem is that several of the current players are heavy into tactical RPGs and insist on calling this stuff 'status effects' which is annoying me to no end. Wanting to get rid of these disabilities is normal, but I have a feeling that they're not really understanding that this isn't a simple -status effect-, but a very real disability the character is suffering from. I'm thinking I'm going to treat curing this as taking them to do quests for different individuals rather than a quick visit to ye old cleric. Problem is, if it persists long enough or requires too much work, they may simply get fed up and reroll. I was additionally thinking of giving them cities (not a frequent thing, just occasionally) where weapons aren't allowed (or at least not in all districts), where they'd have to rely on improvised weapons and hand-to-hand like most of the young gangs in the area, yet even then they'd whine about not being given full access to what they're trained for. I'm not entirely sure if this is what some people here on the board have called player entitlement or simply the players not being interested in immersion.
This is all fixed by one house rule:
Re-rolled characters receive no wealth by level and are one level lower than your current character's level.
You need to scrub the tactical tendacies out of them. Nothing blows immersion like numbers. Inform them that they are at a penalty (When it occurs), but do NOT define the penalty in mechanical terms, only in terms of what their character can percieve and attempt. When they make their rolls do not have them include their penalties or circumstantial modifiers. Apply them yourself. Silently. DO NOT ANNOUNCE THE TOTALS! Only describe the results.
Seriously, stop giving them the totals, stop telling them exactly what condition they have picked up, just describe the dilemma from the characters point of view. PUSH that Character point-of-view and force them to make decisions based on what the characters know instead of constantly metagaming.
FAIR WARNING: Most tactical-heavy, wargaming experienced players are going to hate this. But it sounds to me like you want to run an RPG and they want to play Warhammer 30K. I will let you in on a little secret. The best roleplaying opportunities arise from a characters failures, not his successes...perfect characters who never fail are like boring cardboard cutout standees. On the other hand, a character who can fail is mortal, fallible and imperfect...see, starting to sound more like a real person already...and a lot more fun to play.
Just an idea, but what about having everything they want unavailable to enemies, will be unavailable to them.
Everything they want available to them, you make available to enemies.
New player recently joined our game with an arcane trickster and was trying to learn spells from my wiard's spellbook.
Him: "How come you don't know Feeblemind or Mage's Disjunction? They're really good spells! You also don't seem to have much for save-or-dies...."
Me: "Because as long as we don't use it on the NPCs, the DM won't use it on *us*"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to scrub the tactical tendacies out of them. Nothing blows immersion like numbers. Inform them that they are at a penalty (When it occurs), but do NOT define the penalty in mechanical terms, only in terms of what their character can percieve and attempt. When they make their rolls do not have them include their penalties or circumstantial modifiers. Apply them yourself. Silently. DO NOT ANNOUNCE THE TOTALS! Only describe the results.
Seriously, stop giving them the totals, stop telling them exactly what condition they have picked up, just describe the dilemma from the characters point of view. PUSH that Character point-of-view and force them to make decisions based on what the characters know instead of constantly metagaming.
FAIR WARNING: Most tactical-heavy, wargaming experienced players are going to hate this. But it sounds to me like you want to run an RPG and they want to play Warhammer 30K. I will let you in on a little secret. The best roleplaying opportunities arise from a characters failures, not his successes...perfect characters who never fail are like boring cardboard cutout standees. On the other hand, a character who can fail is mortal, fallible and imperfect...see, starting to sound more like a real person already...and a lot more fun to play.
I know you're trying to make the game better, but I think your approach will backfire.
This kind of GM secretiveness won't look like RP or immersion. It'll look like the GM being arbitrary, or plain cheating.
You can't just force people to be immersed. If they're not willingly participating, it won't work. You should talk with the players about how you want them to play more immersed - don't talk about it OOC, try to find IC language. Instead of saying OOC "I got negative levels", say IC "The monster sapped my life energy. It's weakened me."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAIR WARNING: Most tactical-heavy, wargaming experienced players are going to hate this.
So... why are you advising him to adopt a GMing style that you believe his group will hate?
This is part of the danger when fighting undead or other creatures. Why not just get rid of everything they do not like and give them whatever they do?
In all fairness, he doesn't know my group and the warning was probably more of a 'just in case your group is like this, you should know this'. He doesn't believe they'll hate it, he's just giving fair warning in case they're that type of gamers/RPers.FAIR WARNING: Most tactical-heavy, wargaming experienced players are going to hate this.So... why are you advising him to adopt a GMing style that you believe his group will hate?
Well, I assumed he was referring to, or at least had read your OP ("several of the current players are heavy into tactical RPGs ") :p
But yeah. Have a chat with your players again, I would recommend. There are a few possible ways you might approach it: emphasizing that winning despite debilitating conditions is a tactical challenge to overcome much like the monster's HP and AC are, for example, might ring true to your tactical-heavy, wargaming experienced players? Much like nobody is going to be impressed when you beat a video game on Easy mode with no penalties. Or I am sure other suggestions can also be made on that front.
If they have Combat Reflexes then AoO is not a problem.
I think that they need to know the difference between the systems and that there is fun inherent in all of them. They may not like it, but Oh Well. At least the level damage is no longer permanent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is all fixed by one house rule:Re-rolled characters receive no wealth by level and are one level lower than your current character's level.
This house rule is fixed very easily, too:
Step 1: Look for a new GMStep 2: have fun.
Kinda sounds to me like they don't want to play an RPG, they want you to tell them a story where their characters rip through everything around them easily.
+1.
How old are these players? Maybe a better questions is, how mature are they?
The one with the zuvembie was brutal (one character was frightened and the other due to his own reasons wasn't in the combat, leaving only three people to fight the creature, at level 2), and while it was hard earned, the battle turned in their favor (with some nerfing in favor of the players from the DM (I never nerf in favor of the creatures)), the other battle was with a schir.
Doesn't sound that fun of a battle.
Players aren't into being cowards or splitting the party on the enemies choice.Need more details or I say the players were right that this might be a hard fight, but not a fun one.
The battle with the schir amounted to little more than a little stabbing from safety from atop some pillars, and then dropping down and engaging in melee against a party that found cold iron weapons in the area, at which point the schir never had a chance and the players never wasted a single resource (I didn't use his charge ability). They considered the fight with the schir to be a great one, even though there was no struggle whatsoever. They noted that they liked the schir's use of terrain (he only jumped to two seperate pillars before going groundside) and how the battle concluded (again, no struggle), they considered THIS to be the better fight.
Sounds like a funner battle.
See making use of terrain, have a niche defense (DR/cold iron), etc makes it memorable.It was memorable, fun, but you found it not hard.
Combining the encounters design (for later levels) might help it be It was memorable, fun, and hard. This might satisfy you both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everything in an RPG is going to be fun. Some of it should be challenging.
These people sound like they need to grow up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everything in an RPG is going to be fun. Some of it should be challenging.
These people sound like they need to grow up.
People who want to have fun playing a game are doing it wrong!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been skimming a number of these "player entitlement" threads, and discussed them with the two groups I've been playing with, and the consensus from both groups is the same: It's the GM's campaign, the GM sets the guidelines, the players make characters within those guidelines and do the best they can to overcome the obstacles placed before them. Contesting things goes only as far as the GM and the group in general allows for. If you don't like what options are being offered, there's the door, and don't let it hit you in the butt on the way out. If you don't like what happens to you in the game, then find a way within the game rules to circumvent it. All of this whining about the GM not being fair because you can't run the character you want, or because you blew your save and now you have an ability score of 3? Suck it up! Grow a thicker skin! You want an easy game? Go play Chutes and Ladders or Go Fish. This game requires ideas, imagination, problem solving, and a bit of grit. Go whine somewhere else. Thank you for your time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ the OP:
That is not player entitlement. It is just a clash in playstyles. You both might need to find a different group.
OP:
I've played since the days where energy drain and the like were truly permanent.
I've also played in somewhat newer games where they were "effectively" permanent. For example, in a Dragonlance game I once participated in, there was no XP system in place. It had been removed in favor of "leveling up during appropriate points in the storyline." Among other things, that meant that lower level characters couldn't catch up if they fell behind (such as in my case, where I was hit by an undead creature's energy drain attack).
Who the hell places energy drain in a module where it can never be cured, removed, or made up for? I lost four levels in one encounter, and two in another.
IT. TOTALLY. SUCKS.
As such, I can understand where your players are coming from considering their initial impressions of the rules.
I even had one player who wanted to retire a character because he got hit by a bestow curse spell (-4 to all checks) and simply didn't want to wait around for an adventure or two to find a way of removing it. Same player also did retire another character who got hit by a mummy rot curse out in the middle of the ocean with no available cures in sight. Essentially, he said "**** it, my character dies."
Considering we did have methods of delaying the effects of mummy rot aboard the ship, I was disappointed in both the above instances, much as you are now.
I guess you could say I've seen both sides of the coin.
The important thing to remember is that everyone is playing the game to have fun (including you). Effectively communicating what is and is not fun for all involved is paramount to a good game. Talk to them: Find out how permanent is "too permanent" for their tastes.
I have several players who've threatened to reroll characters if they get hit by negative levels or level drain. They only changed their minds when they realized there are spells to remove them and they aren't expensive.
So they only objected while they thought negative levels worked like losing levels back in AD&D except even worse because you still follow the slower higher-level experience track? Not seeing the problem here - the rules for how level loss worked were changed between editions precisely because the older version was basically awful, and an even harsher version that doesn't even let you catch up by the exponential XP track would be completely awful.
You want an easy game? Go play Chutes and Ladders or Go Fish. This game requires ideas, imagination, problem solving, and a bit of grit. Go whine somewhere else. Thank you for your time.
Did OP's post say that his players wanted an easy game? Or just really hated things like negative levels?
Also, Go Fish might not be the kind of fun that people want. What's wrong with wanting an easy Tabletop Role-Playing Game experience, anyway? Pathfinder and Dungeons and Dragons can be anything you want--from narrative-driven stories, to action-packed hack-and-slash dungeon crawls, from a lethal, highly difficult journey, to a game where the players are strong enough to cut through armies alone.
It sounds like OP and his players might have at least a slight difference in playstyles, and that's a problem. But it's one solved by talking it out, and coming to mutually agreeable decisions--maybe the players suck it up and play in OP's style of game. Maybe the GM sucks it up and gives them the game style they want. Maybe they play one side's style now, then do a game in the other's style later. Maybe they decide to play with other people. Maybe there's options I didn't even think of. But insulting people who don't like their games lethal is NOT the right solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I have no problem with facing tough monsters who can drop my character if it ever gets off a full attack, or have an AC that is very difficult to hit, lots of hardness or DR, ect ... I don't have an issue with enemies who fight smart and use killer tactics.
A lot of my early games as a player were with a GM who liked to throw very difficult encounters at the party and someone lost a character almost every session.
I do have an issue when my character can be made, essentially, useless for a long period of time due to ability damage or level drain, being blinded, cursed, or even worse that I can be forced to lose control of my character due to a Dominate or Fear effect.
If you're not in a situation where the resources to remove those issues are readily available to the party, you're looking at hours or even multiple game sessions of playing a near useless character who can do nothing to contribute.
I don't consider that fun at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running another group instead is not an option -.-'
No gaming is better than bad gaming.
You seem to have two options:
1) Do what your players want, in which case you will be unhappy
or
2) Do what you want, in which case they will be unhappy.
I would add in, compromise, but both sides seem to be entrenched. Gaming should be fun, not tedious.
People who want to have fun playing a game are doing it wrong!
They might be. If they're playing a game that doesn't fit what they actually want to play, they should be looking for a better fit. That could be finding different mechanics (4e already sounds like a better fit) or a different referee, one who will like their style as much as they do. Or both. Persisting with a situation that isn't working isn't doing it right.
Either way, if you aren't having fun, then you are pretty much doing it wrong.
|
|
Re-rolled characters receive no wealth by level and are one level lower than your current character's level.
We had a similar rule from 1e onwards, if you died you took the parties XP average and made your character at whatever level that would be minus one. Mattered when XP tables were different for different classes. In effect dying was a level drain.
Under PF's XP rules for levels just parties current level -1 seems fine. I wouldn't make it accumulative else a death spiral will be created. I would still allow them WBL BUT at the new lower level. You want a penalty not the death sentence.
We found that the loss of an effective level for dying made players less likely to do dumb things. Sure an unavoidable deaths happened but as long as they were due to 'fair' reasons no one really complained.
S.
Not everything in an RPG is going to be fun. Some of it should be challenging.
These people sound like they need to grow up.
No offense dude, just because they don't play like you and don't want to play like you doesn't make them immature.
Seems like you have some growing up to do, especially in the tolerance of different people area.
They are not in my group, Thomas.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, not wrong, just in a way that is not mature. I am going to re-roll a new character if I get a level drain?People who want to have fun playing a game are doing it wrong!Not everything in an RPG is going to be fun. Some of it should be challenging.
These people sound like they need to grow up.
Why not? If I got my life force sucked away by a horrid undead, I might retire from adventuring too!