|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy defeating the dragon even if I know the DM is fudging to make it happen.
Because knowing you will is different than knowing how you will.
I enjoy it either way.
But I enjoy it more if I feel like earned it.
It is all cost benefit and personal preference, but I do feel patronized when it is "given" to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 20s = death is a house rule. If your DM does this to a PC he is "cheating" and that does break the integrity of the game. The integrity of the game allows pc's a sense of accomplishment. But the a dm going easy on you isn't the only thing that breaks integrity and kills immersion.
Meanwhile the critical hit aspect is a tactical consideration. Just yesterday I played in a game that had a random encounter with like 4 bugbears and an ogre. Several of the bugbears were wielding longspears and spiked gauntlets, the ogre was wielding a longspear and spiked gauntlets, and some of the bugbears were wielding shields and battle axes.This is a great example of playstyle variety.
For me, I would regard it as super-metagame-tastic to have random ogres (intelligence 6) and bgbears (intelligence 10) employing tactics like reach-weapon+spiked-gauntlets to create a zone of death and would actually find it more tactically interesting to allow my 2nd level PCs the option of getting inside their reach.
Do you have issue with humans and dwarves (Intelligence 10) employing those tactics? Longspears are simple weapons, as are spiked gauntlets.
I'd be curious myself, about these well armed monsters, particularly if the setting was standard PF. I don't know that I'd lose immersion from it though. I'd probably want to investigate who is arming goblinoids and ogres in the area. Are hobgoblins building a fort from which to attack? A new warlord moved in?
Those are where my thoughts would go before I was doubting the possibility of expert monster fighters.
I agree with pretty much all of what you've pointed out to Ashiel, even if I think it is aside from the point. Clearly some people actually just enjoy playing the game, regardless of no challenge. I'm not one of them, and such a game would be very foreign to me...I would probably lose interest. I don't think I agree a single bit with anything the OP said, beyond the fact that triple 20 insta-death is a bad rule. I might have something drastic happen for triple 20 (like an attack that leaves an unhealable scar or such) but immediate death is hardly fun for anyone. That said, I have to scoff at the suggestion that it was invented solely for the purpose of ruining the game for the PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first two campaigns were diametrically opposed campaigns. Both were run by different older brothers of mine. One was a gritty, realistic campaign where you tracked every bit of food, ammunition, spell components, etc. and if you happened to wander into the wrong room and ran across a giant scorpion at level 3, hey, them's the breaks. My first character death occurred from that said scorpion.
The other campaign was one that would be recognized by anyone as a "Monty Haul" campaign. It was virtually impossible to die. One of my characters was literally swept into the "void" by the "deck of many things" and miraculously was saved by divine intervention since we had "done so much for Thor."
I enjoyed both games.
But it would be completely untrue for me to say that I had the same level of appreciation for the wizard who managed to survive that hard-ass campaign with 1/3 the treasure my illusionist from the monty haul campaign ended up with.
There's a sense of accomplishment and a knowledge of how I managed to outfight, outthink and outwit the encounters on multiple occasions that I frankly just don't think you can generate without the actual looming, immediate and constant threat of ultimate death and destruction.
So both are fun. But one, imho, is far more rewarding than the other.
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.
Actually, I think the message boards are populated with a larger percentage of people who are concerned about using all the rules and options to optimise their character and in playing the game semi-competitively within those rules.
And from what I can see the PFS Organised Play rules encourage that. That's cool - it is one way to play. Not my preferred style of play, but it is a legitimate way to play.
IMO - that style became a lot more prevalent with the introduction of the 3.0 rules and the way they introduced feats and 'build' discussions. Again IMO, that was to mimic the style of warhammer and various computer games, to extend the hobby to 'gamers' rather than to 'role players'.
Personally, I prefer more co-operative games, where the party work as a group rather than as individuals. Games where the characters develop in response to events rather than to a pre-planned build. Games where the characters and world mesh into a coherent world - rather than a mish mash of anything, any place, any time.
Different styles for different folks. The important thing is to find a group that you mesh with.
To the OP. Are you even reading this thread anymore? What is your group stance on this? Any reactions to anything anybody has said?
I disagree with you on the whole easy mode setting. I as a player perfer to be challenged by the GM. Death should be a real thing that happens. Though death does not has to be the challenged...sometimes getting capture takes a interesting turn of events. One campaign I played in we seemed to get beaten quite often...usualy we end up serrendering or fleeing. We then somehow seized victory from the jaws of defeat. It was fun...but death was always there. If it was not...I probably would not be playing RPGs.
Don't take the wrong way but maybe Pathfinder is not for you.
7th Sea is a very fun game where death is almost immpossible. The challenges usualy come from something else. (unfortunaly it is out of print)
D&D 4th ed is a game where it harder to die in the Pathfinder. As crit effects do less and there are no save or die spells.
Also Table top games might not be for you...video games are very easy now a days.
Also it is kinda funny but I in general feel that there are more 'Easy Mode' games out there....and represented on this boards.
As can be said for 99% of the other threads...
Whatever works for you and your group.
-Vaz
Yep, exactly. If you want to play "Candyland" and call it Pathfinder and your group is happy with that, hey, it's all about your group having the most fun.
Sometimes my group just plays "Twister" and calls it a night. It's all good.
One point upon which we agree. Different strokes for different folks.
Glad I amuse you. You'd still get kicked from the game for acting like that, and I don't care if your 'greater context' displays this is an appropriate social interaction for your group. Your original post displayed a player who refused his DM information to which the DM is entitled. I'm not here commenting on your game, I'm here sharing about mine. That sort of "nuh uh" attitude isn't ok at my table. It's ok at yours, or it's a in-joke at yours, or some other such that makes it acceptable. Fantastic. May sharing our differing experiences and approaches better the gaming community at large.
Even if it's just a few chuckles on your side of the computer.
Edit: Also, I agree with Ashiel. Possibly a first.
You do amuse me. I call total BS on your "I'm a hardass GM and if you don't bow to me I'll kick your ass no matter if you're my own mother" attitude.
You (and many others) make every player/GM interaction seem like Kennedy vs Kruschev. I don't know why you feel a need to act that way on the boards, I have no doubt whatsoever that in actual social situations you actually act like a decent person who can chuckle at a joke now and then, even if its at your expense.
of course I could be wrong. It's possible you do view everything in the manner you suggest here. If so you are right, I sure as heck would not want to be at your table.
|
Meanwhile the critical hit aspect is a tactical consideration. Just yesterday I played in a game that had a random encounter with like 4 bugbears and an ogre. Several of the bugbears were wielding longspears and spiked gauntlets, the ogre was wielding a longspear and spiked gauntlets, and some of the bugbears were wielding shields and battle axes.This is a great example of playstyle variety.
For me, I would regard it as super-metagame-tastic to have random ogres (intelligence 6) and bgbears (intelligence 10) employing tactics like reach-weapon+spiked-gauntlets to create a zone of death and would actually find it more tactically interesting to allow my 2nd level PCs the option of getting inside their reach.
Do you have issue with humans and dwarves (Intelligence 10) employing those tactics? Longspears are simple weapons, as are spiked gauntlets.
I'd be curious myself, about these well armed monsters, particularly if the setting was standard PF. I don't know that I'd lose immersion from it though. I'd probably want to investigate who is arming goblinoids and ogres in the area. Are hobgoblins building a fort from which to attack? A new warlord moved in?
Those are where my thoughts would go before I was doubting the possibility of expert monster fighters.
I agree with pretty much all of what you've pointed out to Ashiel, even if I think it is aside from the point. Clearly some people actually just enjoy playing the game, regardless of no challenge. I'm not one of them, and such a game would be very foreign to me...I would probably lose interest. I don't think I agree a single bit with anything the OP said, beyond the fact that triple 20 insta-death is a bad rule. I might have something drastic happen for triple 20 (like an attack that leaves an unhealable scar or such) but immediate death is hardly fun for anyone. That said, I have to scoff at the suggestion that it was invented solely for the purpose of ruining the game...
I was thinking more from a GM point-of-view.
It being a random-encounter, that way of constructing a few wandering monsters would seem a little over-planned. And, my style would be that low level humans or dwarves would probably have a secondary weapon (like a shortsword) rather than wearing spiked gauntlets. The militaristic bent of hobgoblin would probably lead me in that way for them as well.
I would completely agree from a player point-of-view. Most of my characters would see those as clues to pick up on.
I just think it is always important to take account of playstyle and different group expectations.
The OP was talking about their taste and experience. I think that is worth recognising.
To me, the OP came across mostly as a plea for people on the forum to respect that their playstyle might be too hardcore for others.
It is very easy, especially online, to talk about your experience as the experience: I know I've done it enough times...
does anyone out there actually use this triple 20 rule? if so, why? this rule just has me flabbergasted. why on earth would this cause death? i picture a fighter just wailing on an enemy, having the best fight of his/her life, and suddenly dropping dead from a massive brain aneurysm... this seems right up there with "a meteorite hits you for no reason and you die" type gming.
personally, i prefer a deadlier game, but not deadly because of rules like that one. poor tactics = dead. back-talked the ancient red dragon = dead. didn't check for traps = dead. raise dead type magic = very rare. getting really lucky on your rolls = congratulations.
A great post
I agree with you completely.
I'd like to add that it's not just new gamers who feel the way you do. Many gamers have different preferences, and here's one useful theories about those differences in preference, GNS Theory. It sounds like you are more of a narrativist than the posts you disagree with.
|
|
A GM should be willing to step in where an event would end up ruining the game for their players. It's a judgement call, no rules, no appeals to Paizo for an 'official ruling', just GM intuition. That is the skill of being a good GM. Anyone can use the rules as written and make a so called 'fair encounter' but only once the encounter is actually being played does it matter. S+%&e happens and a GM is the only individual with the power of "thumbs up or down" at the table. A good GM has to be able to read their players. Some want to know the dice killed them others like the OP don't. All these play styles can exist at one table and a GM has to make judgement calls based on these.
Being a GM isn't easy. However, it is really rewarding. I have GM'd since the early 80's and prefer GMing much more than playing. Players create a character, I create a world - I win :)
|
A GM should be willing to step in where an event would end up ruining the game for their players. It's a judgement call, no rules, no appeals to Paizo for an 'official ruling', just GM intuition. That is the skill of being a good GM. Anyone can use the rules as written and make a so called 'fair encounter' but only once the encounter is actually being played does it matter. S*!#e happens and a GM is the only individual with the power of "thumbs up or down" at the table. A good GM has to be able to read their players. Some want to know the dice killed them others like the OP don't. All these play styles can exist at one table and a GM has to make judgement calls based on these.
Being a GM isn't easy. However, it is really rewarding. I have GM'd since the early 80's and prefer GMing much more than playing. Players create a character, I create a world - I win :)
I have found that stepping in can cause problems because once you start fudging and stepping in then they expect it more and more to the point where they claim it's not fun if they die or don't accomplish the goal. I keep it fair for all by relying on the dice and what happens happens.
Everyone's tastes aren't the same in a group so I keep the the default rule of dice rolling and accepting where they fall because you can't argue against the dice and you can't cheat anyone with the dice. Some may get lucky yes but that's just how the game is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone's tastes aren't the same in a group so I keep the the default rule of dice rolling and accepting where they fall because you can't argue against the dice and you can't cheat anyone with the dice. Some may get lucky yes but that's just how the game is.
But the OP suggested that "20 --> 20 --> 20 --> you're dead" would ruin the game for them. So those who think that is fine to live and die strictly by the roll of the dice are to be valued more at the table? Conversely should players get a free pass when the die roll says they died?
I would say no one can tell a GM when and where and how to apply or not apply any rule. The only metric is, are the players (as individuals) having fun. No rulebook can determine that.
I have yet to get a group of more than one person :) who had exactly the same goals and desires out of playing any RPG I have run. I don't think I am exceeding unlucky, I think it's human nature.
GMing isn't a skill it is an art. GM's may obviously step in, others may do it covertly, and some not at all. None are wrong or bad if the end result is that the players are engaged and looking forward to the next session.
S.
does anyone out there actually use this triple 20 rule? if so, why? this rule just has me flabbergasted. why on earth would this cause death? i picture a fighter just wailing on an enemy, having the best fight of his/her life, and suddenly dropping dead from a massive brain aneurysm... this seems right up there with "a meteorite hits you for no reason and you die" type gming.
That's probably because you're looking at it backwards.
It's a Natural 20 crit against you, confirmed with another Natural 20, which confirms with another Natural 20, resulting in an Uber-Crit.
Though there is another variant where you kill YOURSELF if you roll 3 Natural 1s in a row.
|
|
Everyone's tastes aren't the same in a group so I keep the the default rule of dice rolling and accepting where they fall because you can't argue against the dice and you can't cheat anyone with the dice. Some may get lucky yes but that's just how the game is.But the OP suggested that "20 --> 20 --> 20 --> you're dead" would ruin the game for them. So those who think that is fine to live and die strictly by the roll of the dice are to be valued more at the table? Conversely should players get a free pass when the die roll says they died?
I would say no one can tell a GM when and where and how to apply or not apply any rule. The only metric is, are the players (as individuals) having fun. No rulebook can determine that.
I have yet to get a group of more than one person :) who had exactly the same goals and desires out of playing any RPG I have run. I don't think I am exceeding unlucky, I think it's human nature.
GMing isn't a skill it is an art. GM's may obviously step in, others may do it covertly, and some not at all. None are wrong or bad if the end result is that the players are engaged and looking forward to the next session.
S.
But three strikes your dead isn't a default rule so my issue isn't with that.
|
|
A GM should be willing to step in where an event would end up ruining the game for their players. It's a judgement call, no rules, no appeals to Paizo for an 'official ruling', just GM intuition. That is the skill of being a good GM. Anyone can use the rules as written and make a so called 'fair encounter' but only once the encounter is actually being played does it matter. S*!#e happens and a GM is the only individual with the power of "thumbs up or down" at the table. A good GM has to be able to read their players. Some want to know the dice killed them others like the OP don't. All these play styles can exist at one table and a GM has to make judgement calls based on these.
Being a GM isn't easy. However, it is really rewarding. I have GM'd since the early 80's and prefer GMing much more than playing. Players create a character, I create a world - I win :)
I have found that stepping in can cause problems because once you start fudging and stepping in then they expect it more and more to the point where they claim it's not fun if they die or don't accomplish the goal. I keep it fair for all by relying on the dice and what happens happens.
Everyone's tastes aren't the same in a group so I keep the the default rule of dice rolling and accepting where they fall because you can't argue against the dice and you can't cheat anyone with the dice. Some may get lucky yes but that's just how the game is.
Again, this seems like a distrustful environment in which players are keeping tabs on the GM and looking out for things like fudging.
I wouldn't know if my GM was fudging. I'm not watching her like a hawk.
The thing is, you're 'stepping in' the moment you volunteer to GM. You may let the dice fall as they may but you are still controlling events. Even if you run high-quality published adventures like the APs, you are still interpreting them and presenting them in a certain way which affects your players.
The moment you tell your players which character creation method to use you start interfering in ways which affect whether or not the PCs can survive an encounter.
That's probably because you're looking at it backwards.
It's a Natural 20 crit against you, confirmed with another Natural 20, which confirms with another Natural 20, resulting in an Uber-Crit.
Though there is another variant where you kill YOURSELF if you roll 3 Natural 1s in a row.
oh, got ya. i misunderstood.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP. Are you even reading this thread anymore? What is your group stance on this? Any reactions to anything anybody has said?
I disagree with you on the whole easy mode setting. I as a player perfer to be challenged by the GM. Death should be a real thing that happens. Though death does not has to be the challenged...sometimes getting capture takes a interesting turn of events. One campaign I played in we seemed to get beaten quite often...usualy we end up serrendering or fleeing. We then somehow seized victory from the jaws of defeat. It was fun...but death was always there. If it was not...I probably would not be playing RPGs.
Don't take the wrong way but maybe Pathfinder is not for you.
7th Sea is a very fun game where death is almost immpossible. The challenges usualy come from something else. (unfortunaly it is out of print)
D&D 4th ed is a game where it harder to die in the Pathfinder. As crit effects do less and there are no save or die spells.
Also Table top games might not be for you...video games are very easy now a days.
Also it is kinda funny but I in general feel that there are more 'Easy Mode' games out there....and represented on this boards.
Or, you know, Pathfinder. It turns out you can run it all kinds of different ways.
The game you described sounds like a hopeless grind against always superior foes. That sounds like the worst kind drudgery to me. Fortunately, I don't have to play that way. Nobody does. They can choose to, or not to.
I can only assume that the "Death must be an ever present fear" types must hate comics and action movies. Although there's the vague possibility, you generally know that the hero will survive, somehow, and win. Even in cases where the hero does die, it's never due to some random lucky shot, it's always a noble sacrifice, or fight to the last against impossible odds, in other words a meaningful death. In Die Hard (for example) it would have been pretty lame if the first random unnamed terrorist that McClane runs into headshots him from across the room with a pistol.
I would posit that if you want the grim reaper peering over your shoulder in ever ready glee, Pathfinder might not be the game for you. My Pathfinder at least. Just as your Pathfinder is no place for people who want to be the chosen one, or the world saving heroes.
|
3 20s = death is a house rule. If your DM does this to a PC he is "cheating" and that does break the integrity of the game.
Using a house rule isn't cheating. And it doesn't break the integrity of the game at all, in my opinion. It allows for closer to realistic combat, where sometimes the less skilled combatant can get in a lucky lethal hit.
|
|
A GM should be willing to step in where an event would end up ruining the game for their players. It's a judgement call, no rules, no appeals to Paizo for an 'official ruling', just GM intuition. That is the skill of being a good GM. Anyone can use the rules as written and make a so called 'fair encounter' but only once the encounter is actually being played does it matter. S*!#e happens and a GM is the only individual with the power of "thumbs up or down" at the table. A good GM has to be able to read their players. Some want to know the dice killed them others like the OP don't. All these play styles can exist at one table and a GM has to make judgement calls based on these.
Being a GM isn't easy. However, it is really rewarding. I have GM'd since the early 80's and prefer GMing much more than playing. Players create a character, I create a world - I win :)
I have found that stepping in can cause problems because once you start fudging and stepping in then they expect it more and more to the point where they claim it's not fun if they die or don't accomplish the goal. I keep it fair for all by relying on the dice and what happens happens.
Everyone's tastes aren't the same in a group so I keep the the default rule of dice rolling and accepting where they fall because you can't argue against the dice and you can't cheat anyone with the dice. Some may get lucky yes but that's just how the game is.
Again, this seems like a distrustful environment in which players are keeping tabs on the GM and looking out for things like fudging.
I wouldn't know if my GM was fudging. I'm not watching her like a hawk.
The thing is, you're 'stepping in' the moment you volunteer to GM. You may let the dice fall as they may but you are still controlling events. Even if you run high-quality published adventures like the APs, you are still interpreting them and presenting them in a certain way which affects your players.
The moment you tell...
I roll all my dice in front of the lads so there is no questions. What you see is what you get, that also applies to the player's as well.
Now I may not always tell them what I'm rolling for, surprise Perception check, but I always roll in the open.
You do amuse me. I call total BS on your "I'm a hardass GM and if you don't bow to me I'll kick your ass no matter if you're my own mother" attitude.
You (and many others) make every player/GM interaction seem like Kennedy vs Kruschev. I don't know why you feel a need to act that way on the boards, I have no doubt whatsoever that in actual social situations you actually act like a decent person who can chuckle at a joke now and then, even if its at your expense.
of course I could be wrong. It's possible you do view everything in the manner you suggest here. If so you are right, I sure as heck would not want to be at your table.
Probably somewhere in between. I'm known as a hardass and a joker, and it frankly varies from situation to situation. No doubt you have shades as well. My players have commented on my DMing before, on these boards, and I don't find their opinions off base.
One thing I don't have time for though, is disrupting the game. Withholding information from me at any time that I asked for it would be a disruption. Doing so because it was assumed that the player knew better than the DM how to use that information properly would be grounds for ejection. To me, that's just as disruptive as someone who flicks the dice before someone can see what they rolled, or who throws them trying to knock over minis. Since I am an old softie these days, I'd explain my position to a new player who was unfamiliar with that expectation, if it came up in game. But the position itself wouldn't be changing.
It's not really about kicking asses either. It's about making sure the game runs smoothly so that everyone can have fun. Not much a bigger deal than making sure that people run to first base rather than second or third when they hit the ball.
Or, you know, Pathfinder. It turns out you can run it all kinds of different ways.
Sure all I was suggesting is there are games out there that capture the feel the op desires.
The game you described sounds like a hopeless grind against always superior foes. That sounds like the worst kind drudgery to me. Fortunately, I don't have to play that way. Nobody does. They can choose to, or not to.
And you would be 100% wrong. I said we lost alot...not because there were always superior foes and such. We tend to come out on top because of usualy RPing, cunning, and such. Hardly what I would call a grind. Please don't judge my games till you play in them.
I can only assume that the "Death must be an ever present fear" types must hate comics and action movies. Although there's the vague possibility, you generally know that the hero will survive, somehow, and win. Even in cases where the hero does die, it's never due to some random lucky shot, it's always a noble sacrifice, or fight to the last against impossible odds, in other words a meaningful death. In Die Hard (for example) it would have been pretty lame if the first random unnamed terrorist that McClane runs into headshots him from across the room with a pistol.
Actualy I love action movies...used to like comic books also. That has nothing to do with why I like RPGs though.
I would posit that if you want the grim reaper peering over your shoulder in ever ready glee, Pathfinder might not be the game for you. My Pathfinder at least. Just as your Pathfinder is no place for people who want to be the chosen one, or the world saving heroes.
Sure you can make the game what you want...never said you could not. If you want the enemies to roll over whenever the heroes shows up and such...that is fine if that is what the group wants.
That was my main point though I don't think the OP's problem was what people on the boards think...I think that the OP is in a group that does not share their play style.
All I suggested was looking into games systems that are better to play their playstyle is all. I should have also added the idea of looking for another group as well...but than again if the OP could his/her group interested in 7th Sea for instance...that could work too.
Actually, I have to kind of agree with them here to a degree. It is indeed possible to be impartial. I can play a game of chess with myself and attempt to win on both sides without showing favoritism to either side.
Likewise, I design a lot of encounters. I generally keep them within the expected standards of the game with some few exceptions. I root for the party. I want them to succeed. But I don't engineer it that way. I believe - very firmly - that it is a greater honor to them to not rig the game in their favor.
And that is your interpretation of the rules.
You are interpreting things... Even your definition of 'expected standards of the game' is probably up for debate.
Everyone homebrews.
I think most homebrew but I avoid blanket statements because they are almost always wrong. As to "expected standards" I meant encounter design as it is detailed in the core rulebook. IE - easy, normal, challenging, hard, epic. I also said "generally" and "with some few exceptions".
That may be the only reason you and your group might find dragon-slaying satisfying but... your playstyle is not the playstyle.
I didn't say it was. I simply said that I couldn't get onboard with some of the things mentioned or that I disagreed with them at their root. I never said others were wrong for enjoying a different sort of game. Merely providing a different perspective.
Meanwhile the critical hit aspect is a tactical consideration. Just yesterday I played in a game that had a random encounter with like 4 bugbears and an ogre. Several of the bugbears were wielding longspears and spiked gauntlets, the ogre was wielding a longspear and spiked gauntlets, and some of the bugbears were wielding...This is a great example of playstyle variety.
For me, I would regard it as super-metagame-tastic to have random ogres (intelligence 6) and bgbears (intelligence 10) employing tactics like reach-weapon+spiked-gauntlets to create a zone of death and would actually find it more tactically interesting to allow my 2nd level PCs the option of getting inside their reach.
I'm not sure how sentient creative creatures wielding weapons they are proficient with is metagaming. The enemies were "professional" brigands. They made their ends meet by stealing from travelers. The ogre was the brawn of the operation and the cunning and brutal bugbears were the brains and tacticians of the outfit. Exactly when did human-levels of Intelligence mean "too stupid to function"? *shrugs*
Different strokes I guess. I probably couldn't make a habit of playing at a table where sentient human levels of intelligence "too stupid to function" is a mark of "gameplay style". That doesn't sound like any game I'd want to even watch, let alone be a part of.
I won't say sanctity but I do appreciate the impartial fairness of the dice. I've found fairness is very important in the trust between a player and a GM, and fudging dice leads to mistrust and can lead to hurt or resentful feelings later on (this is especially true if a PC dies and you let them die after fudging for another PC earlier in the campaign, because even if they were "asking for it" {such as a level 3 insisting to find and melee a great wyrm} they'll feel favoritism).I have never experienced this. So, maybe in your group but it is not a universal constant.
The impression given is that your group has distrustful, atagonist GM/PC relationships with competing, fragile egos.
To be honest, my group don't try to figure out if the GM has fudged or not so we'll never know.
I think, if I played a game and a fellow player was second-guessing the GM and trying to figure out if he fudging dice or not... I'd get sick of that player way before I got sick of the GM.
I didn't say it was absolute. Perhaps read what you bolded in my post. I said it can. I've seen it many times and basic principles of fairness and understanding of people make it easy to see why it can lead to poor feelings. For example, I knew a GM who said that he would fudge the dice to prevent a dragon from being turned into a squirrel via baleful polymorph because "a dragon shouldn't get owned like that". Nobody plays with him. Can you guess why?
Likewise, if I fudge to save your character and don't fudge to save another, am I showing favoritism? Will someone else recognize that favoritism? Will they feel that there is favoritism even if you don't? By being impartial you foster trust. This is one of the reasons I roll most non-secret rolls out in the open. There is an air of tension when one of the baddies rolls a natural 20 and held breath when they're making their confirmation rolls. They know that when a creature fails a save against their spell it was legitimate. They know when they succeeded it was as well. This fosters a good relationship between GMs and players because it lets players know that your fate is your own and the GM is neither going to cheat for or against you.
If you disagree with this then that is your prerogative. It is my opinion and what I've found over years of GMing. I was raised to dislike cheating and I quickly become bored with games where characters don't die. I quickly grow weary of playing games with god-mode cheats and find more satisfaction in playing games where you can lose because it makes winning all the sweeter. That is my view. I'm sharing it.
I had a cousin who wanted to play every video game with cheat codes and wouldn't even play a video game unless it had cheats or was so easy he never had to get good at it to play it. I disliked playing games with him and quickly stopped all together. We couldn't play games like Street Fighter which had no cheats without him saying "let me win!". I responded "Just play the game and you get better at it. Practice makes perfect." But my cousin just refused to play any game that he couldn't cheat, godmode, or otherwise cakewalk through.
I'm not going to say my cousin was wrong. Whatever floats his boat. I would probably shoot myself if I had to play a fighting game I simply couldn't lose for hours on end. It made it impossible for the two of us to play any sort of game together that had a risk of failure (and there are few Mario Paint style games to play).
Ironically my body count of players in my own games is exceedingly low. Especially since some of my games have reached epic levels in the past. Of course, I don't use dumb rules like insta-death d20s and critical fumble/hit rules that do things like maim and/or wound you when you're already massively succeeding or failing.
3 20s = death is a house rule. If your DM does this to a PC he is "cheating" and that does break the integrity of the game.Using a house rule isn't cheating. And it doesn't break the integrity of the game at all, in my opinion. It allows for closer to realistic combat, where sometimes the less skilled combatant can get in a lucky lethal hit.
That's why cheating is in quotes. It isn't actually cheating, but it is an unneeded house-rule. You can be really lucky in a fight and win, but there should come a point when the difference is too vast. My lvl 30 Barbarian should be able to fight 1,000 lvl 1 commoners without having to worry about one commoner rolling three 20s in a role when throwing his pitchfork.
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.
Hahahaha. That is made of so much win AD. XD
My lvl 30 Barbarian should be able to fight 1,000 lvl 1 commoners without having to worry about one commoner rolling three 20s in a role when throwing his pitchfork.
Cool. Just so long as you don't expect any XP for it :)
isnt red meat essentially laced with spoiled blood?
I mean how can you eat meat without getting the taste of blood in your mouth?
Maybe it's raw uncooked blood that doesnt taste good?
Hmmmm blood soup anyone?
Nice and frothy.
Dude, blood tastes horrible!
Are you telling me all of those vampires are wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, it's an Evil act, of course it's wrong!
Because one proven way to calm a contentious thread is to introduce alignment into the discussion. Right? :p
Dude, it's an Evil act, of course it's wrong!
Ah rather it is evil or good has nothing do to with the taste.
Also what about all of those leeches, fleas, mosquitos, bats, etc are wrong?
That is billions and billions of creatures.
Yep, and that's why it's okay to smash those bastards into jam!
Well yes....it is a matter of consent.
The game you described sounds like a hopeless grind against always superior foes. That sounds like the worst kind drudgery to me. Fortunately, I don't have to play that way. Nobody does. They can choose to, or not to.And you would be 100% wrong. I said we lost alot...not because there were always superior foes and such. We tend to come out on top because of usualy RPing, cunning, and such. Hardly what I would call a grind. Please don't judge my games till you play in them.
I can only assume that the "Death must be an ever present fear" types must hate comics and action movies. Although there's the vague possibility, you generally know that the hero will survive, somehow, and win. Even in cases where the hero does die, it's never due to some random lucky shot, it's always a noble sacrifice, or fight to the last against impossible odds, in other words a meaningful death. In Die Hard (for example) it would have been pretty lame if the first random unnamed terrorist that McClane runs into headshots him from across the room with a pistol.Actualy I love action movies...used to like comic books also. That has nothing to do with why I like RPGs though.
You make a good point. I don't know what your game is like beyond what you've said. It's not a great idea for me to judge it. Much like it's not a great idea for someone to judge others' games as "easy mode" because they run things another way.
The reasons you like action movies and have liked comics night be different from why you like RPGs, but for many people they're the same. There are people who enjoy playing the action hero types, and and beating the bad guys. Doesn't mean the enemies are "rolling over", it means they want something else from the game than you do. Luckily, it's a big enough system for both types.
Sorry if it seems like I'm argumentative, it's a bit of a peeve of mine when people say "Pathfinder isn't the game fir you, try game X", because to Mr that sounds like "you're playing wrong, go play something else". Which is elitist, and exclusionary. I would like more people to game, not less. Even if they don't play how I do.
Sounds like this is just a difference in gaming philosophy that won't really get anywhere by discussion. Different people enjoy different things and no amount of talking is going to change what you like or dislike.
I like watching action movies because its cool to see the heroes and villains doing awesome stuff. I also like having my characters do awesome stuff in Roleplaying games, but it's only awesome if there's a real challenge to it. As someone posted earlier, you haven't really slain the dragon yet if you just slayed it on easy mode. It's not the same feeling you get as when you defeat a dragon that actually has a good chance of killing everyone.
I play D&D because I like the tactical simulation with a story behind it. If the GM isn't sufficiently challenging us, or if I feel like he's just letting us win every encounter then I get very bored. If I was just interested in story hour I might as well be reading a book by a professional author. When I game I want to be GAMING.
|
|
Sorry if it seems like I'm argumentative, it's a bit of a peeve of mine when people say "Pathfinder isn't the game fir you, try game X", because to Mr that sounds like "you're playing wrong, go play something else". Which is elitist, and exclusionary. I would like more people to game, not less. Even if they don't play how I do.
Then maybe you should extend that definition to include even if they don't play the same game I do. The suggestion usually is given because the person genuinely thinks the alternate system handles X better than Pathfinder/d20 does. And they just might be right. For example, if you plan to run a investigation-heavy game set in outer space, Pathfinder probably isn't the best choice of systems to use (try Ashen Stars instead).
The suggestion isn't usually meant to say you are playing WRONG, only that there might be a way to play that is less work and more enjoyable for everyone.
When I game I want to be GAMING.Are you saying the OP isn't gaming?
Well I really don't know what they are or aren't doing based off of a forum post. But it sounds like she has complaints with the parts of Pathfinder which makes it a game rather than just collaborative storytelling.