| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
While responding to another post on another forum, this topic really crystallized for me.
In the relatively short time that I've been a member of these forums, I've across an underlying attitude that I just flat out disagree with. There seem to be a segment of people who get offended if their GM fudges a dice roll to help a player out. They'll say things like player choices don't matter if there aren't consequences or if there's not a chance of death, the game gets boring. A perfect example is the "instant death on three straight 20's" rule.
Meanwhile, there is a segment of GMs who view themselves as impartial arbiters. They are the judges between the players and the opposing forces. If the opposing force outwits the players, or the dice just flat out dictate the death of a character, then it was simply meant to be. The dice will dictate what the dice will dictate, and GMs are helpless to change that. Today I even learned the phrase "sanctity of the dice," which was certainly a new one on me.
I hear these points of view so often that I honestly feel that I'm in the minority because I disagree with them. Maybe it's a new player thing, and maybe I'll grow out of it, but these views are not fun to me.
There are GMs who view themselves as impartial judges between players and the opposing forces. To those GMs I say impartial? YOU designed the encounter! There are GMs who are helpless to change the dictates of the dice. To those GMs I say helpless? You are the one interpreting the dice. Those random numbers are without meaning or value. YOU give them value. The decision isn't out of your hands. You're the person who is making the decision.
There are players and GMs who think the game isn't fun without a chance of death. To them I say okay, I actually get this one. You've played the epic slayer of dragons and you've gotten bored with it. But I haven't slayed the dragon yet. My character hasn't been the invulnerable superman waltzing effortlessly through tribes of low level kobolds. I'm not bored with it. I'm actually looking forward to it. And meanwhile, having the character that I've lovingly crafted killed because someone got a lucky crit, or some low level peon rolled three 20's ISN'T fun to me. That's not a challenge. That's just cruel.
Am I saying that there should be no death in Pathfinder? No. That would actually be a fairly interesting campaign world, but no. That's not what I'm saying. My problem is with the sheer Randomness of these kinds of death.
A character dies because a player got stupid with them? The player learns better tactics. A character dies because a player didn't take slay living into account when they dumped Wisdom? The player learns how to design characters better. The player improves. The player grows. A character dies because the role playing demanded it? The player gets to tell the story of their character's epic death, or the fitting epilogue matched to their character's personality and choices. And in the end, the player chooses this death. They could have overridden their character's personality long enough to save the character's hide if the player had really wanted to.
A character dies because the bad guy got a critical and one-shotted them? Because the dice rolled a completely random number and the GM chooses to interpret this as "you're instantly dead even though you did nothing wrong"? Because the adventuring party is too low level to cast/purchase a Raise Dead spell?
No.
Just... no.
Please don't punish me for something I can't control. Take my character captive. Find a way to get the character Raised and hit me with some negative levels. Introduce a Deus Ex Machina for a last minute save. Set the character at 1 hp above death and stabilize them. Give me an alternate character to play until mine can get back in the game. Do whatever you have to do, but don't make me take the character that I've spent hours building/creating a backstory for and toss it in the trash.
I don't want to play my game on Hard Mode. It's not fun. It's not entertaining. It's not exciting. It just sucks.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to make my campaigns harder by flipping a coin at the start of the final boss fight. If the flip comes up tails, the PC's are all instantly killed. With this rule, the PC's are less likely to win, which is sort of like the game being more difficult, assuming your definition of difficulty is sufficiently shallow.
It sound stupid when phrased like that, but that's almost literally what the "three 20's = death" rule does.
e: butbutbut it's your own fault for ever letting anything ever make an attack roll against you, if you don't like it you obviously need to go play babby games like chutes and ladders until you grow up
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're speaking to a philosophical divide with a lot of history among gamers. D&D and it's various iterations were in their origins, war games. They were a way to crudely simulate medieval combat with a thin veneer of story pasted on. For many the heart of the game is still a simulation and sometimes in battle (they would say) you just get unlucky (or lucky). For them it is really a game first and roleplaying second.
There are other schools that think that the story is the thing that really drives the whole experience (I am more in this camp - for full disclosure). For them the dice are there to serve the story. It is good to have a bit of suspense and randomness to keep it exciting, but some random results (as you've pointed out) are deeply unsatisfying and should be fudged or ignored in order to serve the story.
For those in the gamist/simulationist camp fudging a die roll breaks the integrity of the game.
For those in the narrativist camp certain random results break the integrity of the story.
Since these sides have very different goals it is hard to have total agreement on this. The best you can hope for is to get your group together and talk it out before you start playing. What are your priorities as a group? What do you find most fun? Establish a group template and a few basic assumptions to ensure maximum buy-in and the most satisfying possible experience playing together.
Incidentally, there are a ton of different games out there that make their assumptions about what type of game (simulationist/narrativist) they are explicit. Pathfinder is the best D&D option, but it's still D&D and D&D at its heart is a tabletop wargame.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL... this might be a fun thread.
I am one of those players who feels that without consequences, achievements don't mean much. I don't want the GM to fudge or go easy on my characters. In fact one of the very, very few disagreements I have with our group's other main GM is that he is too easy on us. Here's a fairly typical exchange:
GM: "The ogre swings his club, what's your AC?"
Me: "21"
GM: "Really, 21?"
Me: "Yep, no time to buff for this fight, so 21."
GM: "How many hit points do you have?"
Me: "More than zero."
GM: "Come on, what do you have?"
Me: "Roll your damage and I'll tell you."
GM: "But I don't want to kill you!"
If my character dies, they die. Doesn't happen much, and I can deal with it when it does.
But I get your point Mystically Inclined. I just think that the right way to deal with it is to manage the encounters more accurately so that you don't have to fudge the dice to keep the characters alive.
Part of that, in my games, is that I consistently remind my players that running away is no shame. Even if they leave a PC behind, it's better than a TPK. But then they all say (whether they truly believe it or not) that they want the game to be real and threats to have teeth.
I think the game is pretty survivable as it is when you give the players the right sort of encounters, or when the players aren't afraid to run.
|
Honestly, if the stars align against a character like that, Fate wants your character dead.
That said, I would never say 3 Nat 20s would instant kill a PC in my games (though it would most certainly hurt!). Maybe a bonus in the amount of damage taken, but not an instant kill. If Fate really wants a character dead, it will have to do it the old fashioned way. ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
sabedoriaclark, I don't agree that the divide between those who are OK with dice fudging and those who aren't is the same divide as between "simulationist" and "narrativist" gamers. I know plenty in both camps who take both sides of the dice rolling argument.
I tend to be one of those who really tries to do both at the same time, both as a player and a GM. But if I had to say where my sense of reality is most affronted by the GM cheating to keep my PC alive, I'd say it's the narrativist part of me that dislikes it most. It is important to my sense of immersion for my characters to have consequences. It's not really that important to my tactical simulations whether the GM cheats or not. I might be annoyed to find that I "won" a battle I should have lost, but the simulationist in me just wants to get into another battle. It's the narrativist in me who now feels like my character has been diminished in some way and I lose interest in playing that character.
I decided to make my campaigns harder by flipping a coin at the start of the final boss fight. If the flip comes up tails, the PC's are all instantly killed. With this rule, the PC's are less likely to win, which is sort of like the game being more difficult, assuming your definition of difficulty is sufficiently shallow.
It sound stupid when phrased like that, but that's almost literally what the "three 20's = death" rule does.
Well kind of but it's more like flipping 60 coins and if all 60 come up heads you die.
I usually throw the rule out there (though it's never come up, so it's more of a joke) just because if something rolls 3 20's against you you were probably going to be hit by lightning today anyway so a little character death won't pile on that much.
That said my idea of "death" from that rule is more like "Instantly taken to 0 HP" instead of "Instantly taken to negative Con". So at the very least you're still a full round action away from being killed should the gods decide to piss on your head that day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well kind of but it's more like flipping 60 coins and if all 60 come up heads you die.
Check your math. 13 coins - much fewer than 60. Actually, it's harder to get heads on 13 coins than it is to get 20's on three d20's.
And a terrible rule that comes up less often is still a terrible rule.
I usually throw the rule out there (though it's never come up, so it's more of a joke) just because if something rolls 3 20's against you you were probably going to be hit by lightning today anyway so a little character death won't pile on that much.
That's a pretty terrible reason to institute a pretty terrible rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a nonissue, in my view. It doesn't matter what we all think is the "ideal". What matters is that the DM runs a game that the players will enjoy and that everyone is clear about the assumptions going in.
Messageboard posts about how to run games are often phrased as "this is best" when they should really be interpreted as "this is how I like it".
Sadly there isn't a single line dividing the groups here. I think I fall closer to Mystically Inclineds way of thinking, but The OP seems to go a bit too far.
Personally, I'm not interested in WINNING THE GAME!!!! Nearly as much as I am in a great story. SOMETIMES, characters die... but not to the extreme that some DMs here seem to want.
DM's come up with a great storyline... and I want to see the end. If there's a chance of a TPK... then something went wrong and the game is over.
Do I want the bad guys to 'never' hurt us or kill us iwth a lucky crit? Not a chance. I want some challenge and some accomplishment.
If the game is about to derail and the DM can save with a little fudging of the dice... Go for it! KEEP the GAME... GOING!!!
Fun is the most important thing here. If nobody is attached to their characters because its the 4th one this campaign... then that isn't fun.
No math, just random numbers.
And it's not a terrible rule, it's just amazingly chance based. I'm a big fan of high risk:reward chance effects, and I always give my players the option to chuck it out at the start of the game, and they have yet to do so (not one person has objected as of yet).
|
|
I think a player who wants to play with kid gloves should.let thegm know privately. I would not want others feeling unchallenged. Nor would I want them to begin to take advantage of such by doing stuff like telling that player to take point to spring traps or suck up AoO figuring they might get knocked out but not outright killed.
Couple things:
1) there is no triple 20 = death rule in Pathfinder. Not as a core rule anyway. It is an optional rule at best. (Note: I cannot find it, but I am not saying it doesn't exist.)
2) Death in pathfinder is not much worse than a bad hair day. It really is. Spend your money and you are not dead.
Back in 3.5 and its predecessors death actually had some bite. The earlier you go in D&D editions the more 'deadly' death actually was.
Now, it is a 7000gp speed bump in your road to getting rich. Does the speed bump suck? Yup. Does it make a difference in the long run? Nope. Especially if it comes out of the group share.
- Gauss
I get where the op is coming from being admittedly new.
I personally disagree, I would prefer extra hard mode.
I think when you've playd a few characters to level 20(+) you don't need every character you make to survive.
Knowing death is a real possibility makes me a better player I think. I mean why bother making a real effort if you can just coast through a campaign.
The triple natural 20=death is certainly a house rule. We used to do just double 20+confirm roll=death, but we do't use this rule anymore. And good riddance.
Death effects however, fail a save=instant death I really do like. Magic should be dangerous, and the saves should matter imo.
I don't usually see a conflict between going with the dice and roleplaying.
The battle going south and somebody dying is not random, it's likely because that battle was meant to be a challenge to begin with.
Even a slight challenge should have that whiff of danger, otherwise it's just not a real combat challenge.
This isn't about the GM arbitrarily deciding the earth opens open and swallows your character for no reason,
if you have roleplay buy-in, then your character is putting themselves in dangerous situations FOR A REASON,
and character death itself can be a meaningful, memorable event, where dead PCs are remembered in the world. (literally, and/or things important to them play out, etc)
I feel like when you play with a real sense of danger, you treat every encounter more seriously, and tend to play with more of a sense of self-protection with more defensive measures, more attention to having backup plans and escape plans, etc.
(and of course there is always getting rez'd or reincarnated - it's not D&D without those, and you don't do that without dying)
That said, I'm not some 'the dice may never ever be messed with' absolutist
(it's not just about dice themself, the dice can be kept but the stats arbitrarily modified, or NPC plans/tactics changed for that matter)
but it most often is a band-aid for a GM who didn't gage things perfectly, or made the plot overly dependent on something, etc - which is OK, because nobody's perfect and simply ruling out such measures doesn't necessarily improve the game once those mistakes have been made.
I just don't expect that to be done, don't think it usually needs to be done, and am happy with games that may end up with some occasional PC deaths or, heaven forbid, a TPK if that's how things turn out, and those things can come and go, happen when they may, that is part of the drama. It does kind of does ruin some of the feeling if you know that the GM is just fixing the dice result, so if it has to be done I don't usually want to know, and that usually means it can't really be a regular thing. Basically, it's not something I /want/ to happen or really /advocate/, but it can be a last resort for the GM making other screw-ups, which hopefully they learn from and don't always need to rely on fixing the dice.
As well, there are plenty of situations where there isn't a combat challenge, there isn't a threat to the PCs lives from the situation, it's just roleplaying. That is already a part of the game, where PCs lives are not in danger. When we enter combat or other life threatening situations, that life is in danger is usually the point, so having that outcome happen sometimes is just part of the territory. When possible/the situation calls for it, I try to help make any death as cinematic and memorable as possible. The PC died, not you, or your dog, it's not a real personal loss, so 'getting in the spirit of things' and embracing PC death, even 'sudden, out of the blue, getting ganked by a mook death' is part of the co-created dramatic experience of the game, IMHO.
I've never played with any 'extra' death rules like this 3x20 thing, which I don't even really understand, I presume 3 attack rolls in a row? Except half the stuff that can kill you doesn't even use attack rolls, anyways...? I guess I have played with the massive damage rule, but I'm not really attached to that one way or the other, if the game is a harder-than-average one, the massive damage rule perhaps seems un-necessary, although it swings both ways in my experience (NPC vs. PC)
- another one of those 'reasonable' a@!+!%#s who refuses to take sides
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I typically use the Hero Point system to negate some of the randomness to dice rolls. Players can burn a point to change the course of something going dreadfully wrong.
Last sunday our group would have had two deaths (instead of one 'sorta' death) if it were not for Hero Points. One of the players burned a hero point to take an action out of turn and disarmed the big nasty BBEG archer before he could turn the almost dead cleric into a pincushion.
- Gauss
In my opinion:
As a DM you have to walk the thin line between being cruel and making it to easy.
If you always obey the dices you let some epic moments pass by or let a PC being killed in a barfight/meaningless fight.
But if you have to fudge the dices (HP etc.) don#t show it to the players (this is where most new DMs fail).
Example from our last adventure (we were level 4):
We encountered an evil Wizard with 7 guards (4 longspears, 3 bows). The fighter charged into the guard to deny their reach attack. The fight goes on and the wizard cast scorching ray on our wizard but hits two mirror images. The fighter decided to get to the EW to deny his casts. One enemy was already down and some out of combat (hypnotic pattern), so no AoO. The fighter makes his way to the EW and tripped him. Then he get two crit hits and goes down.
Two rounds later the witch managed to cast CMW (~ 10 hp) on him and he got up again.
Next Round the fighter stand up again (already low HP) and the enemys attack him (AC 26, no crit) > two hits and of cours fighter dead.
After this the enemies (still 5 guards alive) didn't hit at all anymore (even the wizard with AC11) and the EW flew.
Also the (new) DM was a little bit irritated that the figther is down/killed and appologize again and again.
For the players this looks like the DM saw this would be a TPK and fudged the dices/changed the encounter so everyone else will survive, no matter what they do.
Do the PCs get the benefit of nat 1s and 20s? well, then I will give them the negatives as well. My suggestion, is that if someone wants to play on easy mode, then they can have easy mode.
In easy mode, nat 1, doesn't mean anything. Nat 20? that would be a crit for sure, but not some kind of super special attack that or super awesome skill use.
Other then that, fudging dice just sucks. I mean really, how terrible is it when you find out that you worked hard on a test, and the teacher just says, meh, whatever, everyone passes. you would be pissed at the teacher. Or think of the spoiled child that cries every time they don't get their way, do you think it better to simply give into the child's wants? No, that only leads to the spoiled child being spoiled all their life.
I understand having fun with role playing the same character for long periods of time, but honestly their are great things about losing a character, like building a new one! What better way for a new player then to spend time looking in the books!
You become a stronger player with every character you make. I was terrible at making characters at first. Not only did I make bad "roll" mistakes, I made worse "role" mistakes. Without the death that my characters, I would not have been able to make the totally fun characters since.
Through the failures I have become stronger. The Failures have also made my victories that much sweeter, oh so much sweeter. Any time that I have recognized a DM cheat (fudge) the rolls, I have felt cheated out of the could have beens. It could have been that I would have survived. It could have been that it compelled my fellows in a new direction. It could have been... ANYTHING other then cheated.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...And in the end, the player chooses this death. They could have overridden their character's personality long enough to save the character's hide if the player had really wanted to...
A player chooses, a slave obeys?
...And in the end, the player chooses this death. They could have overridden their character's personality long enough to save the character's hide if the player had really wanted to...A player chooses, a slave obeys?
Yeah, that line bugged me as well
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Death in pathfinder is not much worse than a bad hair day. It really is. Spend your money and you are not dead.
Now, it is a 7000gp speed bump in your road to getting rich. Does the speed bump suck? Yup. Does it make a difference in the long run? Nope. Especially if it comes out of the group share.
- Gauss
Honestly, THIS is my biggest issue with Death in Pathfinder. It doesn't really MEAN much....I played serpent Skull and died at least 3 times... Each ressurection dropped the thrill of the character's life.
If coming back from the dead is so easy... why should the DM kill at all? Nothing makes a game less challenging and death more pointless then infinite continues.
Phantom1592, I didnt state I liked what death became in PF. I just stated what it is. :)
But, people can houserule it back into the earlier methods of death if they wish. I would suggest such people agree as a group though. Might have unhappy players.
Personally, I am looking forward to GMing a death campaign again. I got Rappan Athuk for Xmas and I hope it lives up to the hype. :)
- Gauss
Phantom1592, I didnt state I liked what death became in PF. I just stated what it is. :)
But, people can houserule it back into the earlier methods of death if they wish. I would suggest such people agree as a group though. Might have unhappy players.
Personally, I am looking forward to GMing a death campaign again. I got Rappan Athuk for Xmas and I hope it lives up to the hype. :)
- Gauss
Perma death death? cause that is the only way to play the game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a huge, glaring problem with the whole "I haven't slain the dragon yet" line of reasoning.
Slaying dragons is not inherently fun. Dragons can be meaningless mooks if fighting them gets safe enough. It has to be an achievement to be placed on that high pedestal. If you make slaying dragons easy because you haven't done it yet, you will never really do it at all.
Really, there is no point in an encounter if it's a foregone conclusion. It becomes boring. There has to be some danger of something other than a flat out perfect victory or you aren't fighting, you're executing things.
This can of course be taken too far and different people have different tastes, but there has to be a point where you say "No. Stop. This isn't an adventure any more."
|
It's been years since I've seen a resurrection: combination of plenty of low-level adventuring and players not having a resrurection-assumption.
Last time a mid-level character died in a game I was GMing the adventurers built a grave out in the wilderness where the death happened and mourned their fallen foe. After the adventure they returned (along with their new friend) and transported the remains back to the dead PC's homeland.
The whole resurrection-is-super-common view is heavily influenced by playstyle.
What's common for your group might not be common for others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion:
As a DM you have to walk the thin line between being cruel and making it to easy.
If you always obey the dices you let some epic moments pass by or let a PC being killed in a barfight/meaningless fight.
But if you have to fudge the dices (HP etc.) don#t show it to the players (this is where most new DMs fail).
I got into trouble with this once. One of my players accused me of cheating, when what I was trying to do is change the battlefield to a more open area so that they could maneuver and thus make the final battle with Strahd more exciting. Never gave me a chance to explain.
If a player keeps rolling critical fumbles in a row, then I for one am inclined to claim a sudden bout of Old Man Blindness, and want a reroll. Then again, if a player crits on a boss battle and ends it in just a small handful of rounds, that's really anticlimactic and no fun either.
What I hate is when a DM makes the game really easy, and the villains are idiots or just can't fight worth a damn. I want a challenge, I want to have to scheme to win, dammit! Make me sweat, instead of giving me this really easy game where I don't have to think fast or expend any effort on winning.
So I can't agree with the OP. I want satisfying battles and challenges, and that means I want the DM to work hard with what he's alotted himself for the level appropriate encounter to kill my PC. If I have to, I will run, but I know darned well I am gonna give it my all. If we are going to fight some epic battle with a boss that we've spent a whole summer building up to, it had better be something we win by the proverbial skin of our teeth, barring some brilliant solution.
Our group is contemplating this very issue right now. We've been playing EASY MODE under an unusually benevolent GM for about 5 years from now, and the new GMs that have popped up out of the group (Myself included, ~2 years ago) have followed suit.
However, I'm considering something like a 2 shot campaign on HARD MODE. Not to force players into becoming victims of the vicissitudes of fate, but just so they know that there is another side to Pathfinder. Although HARD MODE to me isn't 20, 20, 20 you're dead. HARD MODE is a lot of other things my players aren't used to:
15 point buy (We have ~42 point buy?)
Difficult terrain/weather
Some traps
Fudging exists, but is reserved to the GM (Right now a non-GM player will advise his friend: "Eh, interference; roll that again")
Smarter enemies
Players can die (At least, monsters will not go out of their way to not kill you, which is the current policy that guides monster behavior)
I like EASY MODE, so do my friends, but I think trying this out will at least be an interesting experience, but then we can go back to our family friendly adventuring. (Unless people really dig it!)
TL;DR: Enjoy the game how you want to! Our group loves EASY MODE and that's fine. Just don't be afraid to try out HARD MODE someday, as long as everyone is willing to give it a shot!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually in the other camp than the OP but I do reserve a special hatred for the optional "two 20's in a row and a confirm= instant death" rule. I'm not even exaggerating when I say that if I had enforced that over the past several years of DMing, i'd have murdered a full HP character once every couple of sessions on average.
Essentially, in my mind, without the feel of risk there is very little achievement.
And if I'm playing "easy mode", it's probably APL-1 for a standard encounter, or APL for a "hard" encounter. If I'm playing normal mode, it'll break down as listed in the book.
If I'm playing hard mode, the average encounter will be APL+1, achieved by using a larger number of baddies. Maybe I'll give them 75% HP instead of the Bestiary standard of 50%.
Our barbarian loves to recount the time he failed a save against Hold Person... while clutching half a stone urn full of magical fire. The guy holding the other side had to run off to help everyone else not die.
So here's a barbarian, frozen in place, with an urn pulling him over into a little triangle, with the floor being the third side. Fortunately, due to a player absence, the barbarian's player was running that player's character. I'd have personally felt horrible if the barbarian had nothing to do the whole time. Because, sure enough, he failed his save, every single round.
This story gets more play-time out of people than any of the half-dozen times the barbarian has one-shot a monster, big, little, or otherwise.
You contradict yourself. The way the game is constructed, your APL is equal to your party's average PC level. That is a standard encounter. Now, you can increase or decrease this level by quite a bit, all the way to +4 or -4 etc. Those are the particularly difficult or easy encounters.
APL+1 is not a hard encounter by any stretch. Sure, someone might get knocked out, but most likely nobody will die, and all upping their potential hp does is make them last a little longer, not enable them to waste the party.
I've seen players take out encounters MUCH higher than their level would suggest, simply through a combination of luck, character design, and time enough to make a good plan. And I have seen players bypass or just plain wipe out my beasties through kickass schemes, and I grant them the XP for that anyway (but not the potential treasure inherent in the encounter). If they don't bother the giant zombie that looks like it's dead, then I still grant them the XP for it.
The guy playing the Barbarian should have made a point of taking Iron Will. If you don't up your crappy saves in your low levels, you deserve every poning you get as a result, and shouldn't be dungeon-crawling in the first place.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note quite random thoughts:
1. I personally like a "comic-book" level of death. It's a risk but rare for the heroes, it does occasionally happen, and resurrection is possible.
2. Some people like a more grim and gritty approach. I don't like it not because it causes character deaths, but because is s-l-o-w-s down the game. I will listen at the big doors of the castle, but I don't want to listen ("everyone makes a perception check") at the door of every water closet on the off chance there is a lich inside.
2. This hobby is based on war games. While Pathfinder isn't as grim and gritty as 1st Ed AD&D, with less save or dies as the best example, it is still a fantasy battle simulation.
3. When I GM'd D&D in junior high (my son tells me its now "middle school"), I would fudge dice. Now, I fudge attitudes and tactics more, and (very) rarely fudge dice. Role too many 20s, and its time to start the NCP monologuing.
4. "[I]f you do decide to fudge rolls for the sake of the game, it’s best done in secret, and as infrequently as possible. And only—only—if it results in more fun for everyone." GameMastery Guide, p. 33.
|
Mystically Inclined,
I don't think I have much to add that hasn't already been said, except that your opinion is a lot more common than you might think it is. Remember that messageboards are populated by a larger percentage of people who are extremely experienced with the game than the general Pathfinder-playing population. And the longer someone has been playing, I would say, the more likely they are to be interested in the "hardcore" approach (both because they might have gotten bored with low-death campaigns, or because they've been playing since the old-school high lethality days of D&D).
So don't feel like you're in the minority just because you see a lot of more "hardcore" attitudes on these boards. Enjoy the game the way that you and your group like to play, and don't worry about what others might think. There is a huge variety of different ways to play Pathfinder (obligatory Penny Arcade), and none of them are wrong. Of course, everyone likes their own way the best, otherwise they'd play differently. :)
I've played both ways hard and soft. I have a friend who GM's most of the time and he plays it hard core, he doesn't fudge anything!
On one hand when we complete a mission I know we earned it and it feels really good. On the other hand I find that being hard core ruins a good story and makes the game seem like a waste of time. One time we played a game where we were all first level and the game was basically a competition . A horse race and a bow shot at different ranges. The guy I faced was level three. The competition ended in a tie with one event left, The combat ( we were both fighters ). Now so far the game is going great everyone at the table is having a great time. Here is were it went south and just made the whole game suck. We rolled int. he won and went first. Mind you I'm 1st level and he is 3rd. GM natural 20 threat next role confirm crit. drops me to negative HP. Game over. It's not that I lost I was expecting to. But I didn't even get to make one swing. I think that he should have fudged the confirm and just do a bunch of DMG and give me at least one swing. To me it just ended on a random roll. To me it made the rest of the game pointless. One of the few times I left at the end of the night disappointed.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to play my game on Hard Mode.
From reading your post, it actually sounds not so much like you don't want to play on "Hard Mode" (i.e., increased challenge), but more like you don't want random risks that are completely separate from the "challenge" or "difficulty".
This is why personally, I'm okay with fudging a little bit in favor of a brand-new player in PFS games, but pretty much exclusively to filter out random, meaningless kills.
For instance, a certain halfling barbarian in a certain 1st-level-only PFS scenario only threatens on a natural 20, but a crit would deal 3d10+21 or an average of about 36 damage. Not even a 16 CON barbarian survives that. I will never let that happen to a new player. A player who is just finding out what Pathfinder is and runs into that will decide "Okay, so this Pathfinder thing is a game ultimately you win or lose based on someone else's dice, no matter what you do; no thanks" and they don't come back. They're not going to look at it as the exception, they're going to see it as the norm.
Once they're not "new" anymore, and/or they're higher than level 1 and therefore probably out of "crit = auto-death" range, then it's up to them to keep themselves alive. But as far as random, un-preventable death goes? I'm with you: that's not fun (at least for a beginner) so I won't let that happen. You can't not be squishy at 1st level, so I won't let a newbie get punished for that fact.
In the games I run the usual combat encounter level is APL -3 or so. It depends where the party decides to adventure. I'm not going to change what is where based on the party level. Of course...
...Dice roll is adhered to. (No fudging)
No raising the dead. (yes, perma-death)
New characters start at 1st level.
They adventure in lower level areas, because they got tired of making 1st level characters. (actually, they didn't really, they still like to make 1st level characters).
Edit: If my players found me fudging dice, especially in their favor, They would probably skin me alive (or at least remove me from the GM chair for a while).
They'll say things like player choices don't matter if there aren't consequences or if there's not a chance of death, the game gets boring. A perfect example is the "instant death on three straight 20's" rule.
I think those two statements are unrelated. The three 20's instant death is a common houserule, and is one I hate with a passion. It is not impartial, it heavily screws over the PCs, so I would not consider that to have anything to do with the attitude you're talking about.
There are GMs who view themselves as impartial judges between players and the opposing forces. To those GMs I say impartial? YOU designed the encounter!
As a GM for 20 years, I hate the concept of encounter design. I never "design" encounters. I create the world, and the PCs make the encounters with their decisions on how to interact with the world.
A character dies because a player got stupid with them? The player learns better tactics. A character dies because a player didn't take slay living into account when they dumped Wisdom? The player learns how to design characters better. The player improves. The player grows. A character dies because the role playing demanded it? The player gets to tell the story of their character's epic death, or the fitting epilogue matched to their character's personality and choices. And in the end, the player chooses this death. They could have overridden their character's personality long enough to save the character's hide if the player had really wanted to.
A character dies because the bad guy got a critical and one-shotted them? Because the dice rolled a completely random number and the GM chooses to interpret this as "you're instantly dead even though you did nothing wrong"? Because the adventuring party is too low level to cast/purchase a Raise Dead spell?
So, you learn better tactics if you use stupid tactics, you learn to build your character better if you have too low a save to stop a finger of death, but you learn nothing about the game if you don't account for the possibility of a critical hit at any time?
Critical hits are a part of the game--a part you should be prepared for. The lesson is that combat is dangerous, and you should avoid combat at all costs if you don't think you can survive a crit.
And really, that's the direction us "old-schoolers" are coming from--combat is not something you want. Combat is something you want to avoid because it's dangerous and deadly. It is a last resort. If you get into a fight, you've already made mistakes in my mind.
For reference, I've run games for 20 years or so, I do not allow any kind of Resurrection except for Breath of Life (in the past, I allowed rez within a minute of death only), and I've never had any PC die in a game of D&D (I've had PCs die in L5R and Godlike, though).
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing "hardcore" or even "challenging" about the 3x20=death houserule. It's just arbitrary.
Nor is there anything particularly challenging about dice rolls being adhered to, or perma-death or having new characters start at 1st level. Especially, if the result of that is the players basically always fighting encounters too low-level to provide a serious challenge. Sounds boring to me, actually, but ymmv.
This is a play-style thing and nothing more. Don't let anyone get on any high-horse and claim that they're "experienced" players and therefore they play it more "seriously" to get more of a "challenge". Nonsense. In D&D the GM is basically God. There are so many ways to control the challenge of a particular encounter - number and difficulty of monsters, targeting abilities that the players are either weak or strong against, multiple encounters in succession (ie: resource management), controlling treasure/rewards etc... even the way the GM chooses to interpret rules that allow latitude... basically, the GM is never out of control - even setting aside the fudging of dice.
The GM is never FORCED to kill a character and can always easily kill any character they want. The GM is not the player's enemy, nor is the GM a neutral arbiter. The GM is a player who should be on the side of everyone having fun. If the players will have more fun if the GM makes a pretense of neutrality and randomness, so be it. If the players will have more fun in another way, great. The smugness that can infect conversations like this, as if there was a "right" way to play the game is sad.
The only rule is fun. If your group is having fun, then you're doing it right.
Nor is there anything particularly challenging about dice rolls being adhered to, or perma-death or having new characters start at 1st level. Especially, if the result of that is the players basically always fighting encounters too low-level to provide a serious challenge. Sounds boring to me, actually, but ymmv.The only rule is fun. If your group is having fun, then you're doing it right.
This is what my players want. We discussed this. If I don't provide this, I don't get to GM. I'm certainly not "in control" as you say. My only option is to find a different group of players, and that isn't happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I like "hard mode", but that to me is when the GM does not fudge, and plays tactically. However I don't think that is the only way to play the game. Every group should play in a way that makes them happy. The point of the game is to have fun. How you have that fun is up to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever watched a movie where a main character dies? Like not at the end. All of the sudden, BIFF. No Pomp, no circumstance, no side plot?
The most recent version of Red Dawn was like this. IF you weren't paying attention during the movie, you might have thought that the Marine home on leave character (whom I thoight was the stand in for patrick swayze in the original) was THE main character, until like 2/3 through the movie he catches on in the head, bang sniper shot.
I almost dropped my pop corn! It was the best part of the movie!
Why? Because I had made a dozen assumptions.... big name actor = main character, main character = unkillable...etc etc. Kinda like a lot of people thought Star Wars was about Luke Skywalker, when it's not, It's about Anakin Skywalker....
Whatever the big fellows name was, he wasnt more interesting to me than my popcorn until he was dead. Then I was like woah! what are they gonna do now!
In the 80s you can kill off Patrick Swayze, but mowing down marty mcflys mom? no problem. it's all predictable, ho hum.
Success is tasty if you make it through the murder guantlet. Are you seriously gonna cheer and gloat when your basketball team beat the best team in your state 102 to 101 if you had started the game with a 20 point lead?
|
|
I play in a number of systems concurantly. Each I go in with different expectations.
In PFS, I expect a hard game where the GM adheres completely to the module as written and the dice as rolled.
In 7th Sea, I expect a game of high heroics with lots of opportunities to show off. The GM adjusts things as needed. I know that while characters can be KO's or captured, they're not going to die. In fact, typically players sit down with their GM's beforehand to discuss the possible circumstances of their character's death, so it can be as epic as possible.
In oWOD, I expect to make it through the fight with some clever solutions, but have to spend a lot of resources and just barely make it by. GM adjusts a little, but only to keep the story going.
In Leverage, the party will succeed. This is a forgone conclusion. Complications will come up along the way, and characters might need to be rescued, but they will come out on top. The GM must give way to the story, no matter what the dice say.
In Buffy, it's all about the story. Dice get fudged as appropriate, and I'm never sure how things will go - telling an interesting story is the most important part. If the GM needs to declare that to badguys capture you, even though with good rolls you might when the fight, he gives you a plot point and just declares it. Later you might use that plot point to add some interesting item to the scene.
It's all about being on the same page of expectations. This will lead to a happier table for everyone.
|
|
This thread sounds familiar!
Mystic, you may benefit from the Raising The Stakes alternate rules. Specifically, "The Death Flag" rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i dont see the triple critical as screwing over pc's so long as you have a honest DM and the triple critical applies to npc as well as for.
you get unlucky and run into a dragon with your unmagical sword and triple critical it? IT DIED, prepare to level up mofo! granted you just nullified the encounter entirely, but thats the way it goes :P
The difference is that the PC mortality rate is meant to be much lower than the NPC mortality rate. 95% of the time a PC rolls triple-20's, it's against some mook that was going to die anyhow, and you're lucky if it saves you the need to spend one more iterative against it. 100% of the time triple-20's are rolled against a PC, you die, roll a new character.
It's not something you can build to prevent, since it's equally likely regardless of factors like AC, and it's not something you can exploit, since it's way too unreliable to build a strategy around. It doesn't create "challenge" in any meaningful sense because it adds nothing strategic to the game. You can't charge a dragon with an unmagical sword expecting to kill it because you're 8000 times more likely to be ineffective and just die. More likely you happen to roll triple 20's against 1HD goblin #7. Or, equally likely, 1HD goblin #7 rolls triple 20's against you.