| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules clearly state uninterrupted sleep, and out also states that they need more sleep, if they didn't know it was an option, it can't always be on me to explain how their characters work. I'm not in this to play solitaire, and it is the responsibility of the player to know how his class works. If you are arguing that I need to tell my players on advance that they need to follow the rules, you are probably waving the flash of player entitlement. And I'm not even against the players, MY players specifically in this campaign are trying to get out of having to follow the rules, are making brash, unintelligent decisions, and then blaming me for the consequences. They may be performing well enough to survive agaisnt crappy monsters, but what happens when I throw something not so crappy at them?
The rules state no such thing as pointed out repeatedly. That said, YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO KNOW THE FRAKING RULES. Your an arbiter of the rules so how the heck can you be an arbiter of something you seem to know or care very little about?!? Your suppose to know what your players can do with their characters. It's part of running a game. And I don't see your players trying to get out of a rule in the case of the rest issue...I see you working VERY hard to justify a unwritten houserule (as I assume that you did not tell your players ahead of time that you are houseruling the rest rules as you yourself seem completely unaware of what the actual rest rules were)...and FYI, unwritten houserules are NEVER justified. If you don't tell your players your houserules before hand, then that issue is entirely your fault. Now there is plenty that IS the player's fault...but seriously, you screwed the pooch on the rest rules. Try running the game with the correct rest rules, I bet it will cut down on the whining.
Somebody woke up on the wrong side today. CN, he admitted his mistake on sleep (? I thought?) and it would be an easy one to make. Back in the dark ages (pre 3.x) it required 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep. Period. As in all other things 3.x it got easier for spell casters. So, we are not talking an "oh my God how could you pulled out of thin air hidden house rule of doom", nope just an older rules usage or a misinterpretation of the rules. I gather they have been playing together for quite a while and have previously played casters (if not an all Wizard / Sorcerer party). If they have done this previously they might be expected to know the "house rule" (or rules interpretation) they have been playing with previously. Calm down. Or go get your eight hours of rest / sleep :)
Honestly, after being woken up for combat I would require my players to tell me what they were doing (breaking camp and going on with the day, finishing their rest, etc.). I wouldn't make assumptions for them. If they launched into their day, then they didn't continue their rest.
I'm not saying the OPs point of view is the only one btw, but it's not as rabidly unreasonable as you make it out to be. And these people seem to have made about every mistake they could. The OPs frustration with what are, I gather, fairly experienced players who were briefed on things seems to be reasonable. It's like watching experienced veterans make rooky mistakes in anything. It's frustrating as all get out.
Just to bring something up about MM stating that they should know how to play their characters...
A lot is made about player vs character knowledge. If a PC failed a knowledge check against trolls, but used fire and yelled out to everyone that they regenerate and those with acid should use it, would you be bothered? Do you mind if the player makes decisions on what they know when it is clearly something the character wouldn't know?
If you enforce it one way, you should certainly make it work the other way. If their PCs would know something (like how long they need to sleep to be able to prepare spells), but the players seem to not know or have forgotten, I see it as my job as GM to remind the players of what the characters know.
So unless you're quite happy to let the players meta-game and use their own knowledge rather than their characters', you should play it fairly the other way - if they need to sleep and their characters would know it, you should remind them, just as you would remind them that their character doesn't know about trolls, fire and acid.
Does that sound unreasonable?
In my view, the question you should ask is whether imposing such a strict definition of what "interrupted sleep" means will add to the fun. In our group, we accept that rule but count a wizard who sleeps four hours, then takes his uneventful shift, then sleeps another four hours to have had uninterrupted sleep. (We equally dont make him roll to see if he wakes up to go to the toilet, thus making his eight hours begin again).
We do that because it's more fun for us. If we have a battle in the middle of the night, we generally say it adds a couple of hours to our resting time.
Ultimately though, you need to run the game your players want to play or you'll have arguments/ill feelings on one or both sides of the screen. Either you're misunderstanding what they said they wanted or they're misunderstanding what you said you'd give them. There is no "correct" way to play this game - you and them just need to be playing it the same.
There was combat....
Therefore I ruled it as an interruption.Sure. I thought you said that being on guard would have been another. My bad.
.
Irrespective, my point is that you should be trying to run a game that they enjoy. "Doing it right" is nothing more than doing what increases all of your enjoyment. If they find such things stifling and not fun, why insist on it? I've seen DMs insist on encumbrance calculations (including gold pieces) when players couldnt care less - it's the same thing, in my view. There isnt some platonic ideal of roleplaying experience we're all trying to live up to. Merely a bunch of people sitting around pretending to cast spells.
And it is not an unwritten houserule, there was a time period where they woke up and I said "you didn't get enough sleep and are too tired to prepare spells." None of them even asked about going back to sleep. And I should not have to go step by step and tell you every little rule that is in effect. I rolled to give them a chance to NOT have...
Fair enough, I'm getting slammed in this thread as is, and I may have been a bit hostile at you, and for that I apologize.
Players making assumptions about rules not being in effect without confirming with me, and then complaining when it bites them should not be an issue that I get blamed for. When I play with other groups I always ask "do I have to worry about telling you that I do this?" It isn't that hard to just make sure you aren't making any false assumptions, especially when I told them to be extra careful because they are all playing wizards. The fact that they were warned, and given multiple chances to change their mind (during the fight at night, where their ally decided not to wake his comrades up because he only saw 3 kobolds and thought he could take them, I asked "do you really wanna wake up?") they should have to deal with the consequences of their choices, even if they do not know what those consequences are all the time. For this particular example, they should have known what the consequences were. In fact, the only scenarios where my players complained that I have issue with are the ones where they should have known the consequences. And you are 100% correct when you say that they seemed to play under a certain set of assumptions that I was not playing with. Where those assumptions came from, I do not know, because the previous months of play we played strictly by RAW, down to calculating encumbrance and every last detail of what gear we have or need. They should have been prepared, and they should not make assumptions.
@AD, your input is not lost on me, I appreciate the notion that you try and remind your players of their options, and it's fantastic that you and your players have that kind of relationship. My players will never have that sense of honor and cooperation, and they will always be trying to cheese their way into getting away with murder. For real, one of these players once played a LG cleric who went on a murderous rampage for revenge (his target for revenge was not amongst his victims btw) and still tried to maintain to the DM his LG alignment. While offering my players options before the game even began and trying to offer advice about building the party, it became clear that they wouldn't have listened to me anyway. I would love nothing more than to have a group that would cooperate with me and not try to fight every single contingency that comes their way by blaming me for their problems in game rather than their own irresponsibility. Again, I tried to help them, and they refused. I cannot feel bad for them in this scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well MM, I've said many, many times that I thank the Gaming Gods for the players I've gamed with over my gaming career.
I really do. And they don't even read these boards so they'll never know how much I brag on them. Oh well...
Fair enough, I'm getting slammed in this thread as is, and I may have been a bit hostile at you, and for that I apologize.
No worries - the internet is the internet, pretty easy to misunderstand one another. The upside of me not really having an agenda is that I dont really care if what I say makes you cross. :p
Players making assumptions about rules not being in effect without confirming with me, and then complaining when it bites them should not be an issue that I get blamed for. When I play with other groups I always ask "do I have to worry about telling you that I do this?" It isn't that hard to just make sure you aren't making any false assumptions, especially when I told them to be extra careful because they are all playing wizards. The fact that they were warned, and given multiple chances to change their mind (during the fight at night, where their ally decided not to wake his comrades up because he only saw 3 kobolds and thought he could take them, I asked "do you really wanna wake up?") they should have to deal with the consequences of their choices, even if they do not know what those consequences are all the time. For this particular example, they should have known what the consequences were. In fact, the only scenarios where my players complained that I have issue with are the ones where they should have known the consequences. And you are 100% correct when you say that they seemed to play under a certain set of assumptions that I was not playing with. Where those assumptions came from, I do not know, because the previous months of play we played strictly by RAW, down to calculating encumbrance and every last detail of what gear we have or need. They should have been prepared, and they should not make assumptions.
I dont have much more to add really - talk it through with them and see what they really want (maybe part of their 'let's all play wizards!' schtick was 'let's have a lighthearted break from the usual and take things a little more relaxed and gung-ho!').
.I'm in a similar boat to Adamantine Dragon - our group is so undysfunctional* compared with the groups that get talked about on the internet. The whole "player entitlement vs GM rules" thing doesnt really ring true with me - when we have some kind of rule issue we all talk it through, the DM at the time makes a rule and we'll generally all stick to the same rule interpretation when it comes our turn to run a game.
Unfortunately, my players have turned the game into a player vs. DM scenario. It becomes very difficult to compromise on things when I know they are just going to try and undermine anything I try and come up with. Sadly this is a group of my friends, and the ones that I learned to play the game with, and I have come to realize that they are a terrible play group as I have played with other groups and had a lot more fun and gotten much more enjoyment out of other games.
There is one player with the same mindset as me when it comes to the game. He used to be our DM and I his player, and when we had that dynamic we managed to maintain a very good player with DM thing going, but now his voice is overshadowed by my more petulant players.
It also makes me sad that so many people on this forum jumped to the defense of my players so quickly, as if I had actually been trying to hinder and punish my players and was complaining about player entitlement.
Personally, I like seeing powerful characters, and I like seeing my players be successful, but I don't like rewarding stupidity and giving them things for free, I'll let them cheese their way into getting a discount, sure. I'll let you break the rules about starting ages so you can cheese your wizard's INT into being a 22, sure. Again, it isn't like I'm being unreasonable and I am trying to let them build the characters that they want to play and let them have fun with it. But when those characters can't defeat the challenges I place before them, especially such simple and weak challenges for a low level party such as plain locked doors and some kobolds, it becomes less and less easy to have sympathy for them.
they at one point planned on having one of the wizards put his 18 in STR, his 16 in INT (so it would be an 18 with race) and have him play an elf so he gets weapon familiarity and can use longswords without using a feat, and still has his good wizard status
This is what happens when you don't insist from the start that the campaign has rules for character creation, and those are that someone, you don't care who, has to fulfill certain roles. For the traditional campaign, that's the divine healer, scout, warrior, and arcane caster.
I have learned that when I let people make their own characters, they do NOT want to change them after they are made. Nor do they like restrictions that they hadn't heard of before they made their choice.
Plus, most players aren't bright enough to coordinate their PC choices, not just in class but also skills. You have to control them when they first make characters, and then when leveling up you eliminate that control entirely, at most warning them that certain features of their PC's are lacking.
Someone mentioned it before, but your tone in the first couple of posts was pretty hostile, so a lot of the responses responded in kind.
As for something else other people have mentioned, absolutely nothing will get resolved if you or your players don't try communicating.
And saying this without knowing the players, if you go into a game thinking that they're going to try to undermine you then things that might not actually be undermining will seem like it. This is more of a perception thing, tho, kind of how having something hyped up can ruin what would have otherwise been a decent or good experience/product for people.
On a side note, how does one undermine the DM? My friends and I pretty much ignored a whole spy subplot that the DM had in favor of our plan (the spy had ruined the previous one, so this was a new secret one); would that be undermining the GM? Cause he didn't mind (he was actually amused, and dangled the fact that his punishment at the end was out of our hands).
Someone mentioned it before, but your tone in the first couple of posts was pretty hostile, so a lot of the responses responded in kind.
As for something else other people have mentioned, absolutely nothing will get resolved if you or your players don't try communicating.
And saying this without knowing the players, if you go into a game thinking that they're going to try to undermine you then things that might not actually be undermining will seem like it. This is more of a perception thing, tho, kind of how having something hyped up can ruin what would have otherwise been a decent or good experience/product for people.
On a side note, how does one undermine the DM? My friends and I pretty much ignored a whole spy subplot that the DM had in favor of our plan (the spy had ruined the previous one, so this was a new secret one); would that be undermining the GM? Cause he didn't mind (he was actually amused, and dangled the fact that his punishment at the end was out of our hands).
things like not listening to exposition about the setting, then complaining about not knowing what to do
trying repeatedly to buy things that aren't available, or expecting to get 10 potions brewed in 5 minutes
not listening to me warn them about needing certain things like saddles or backpacks
at one point they tried making their back story so that they were in charge of the library in the city and thus would have access to all of the spells in the game for free. Whether serious or not about it, it wasted time and really got annoying for me to have to deal with players just messing with me, and not in good fun
I did talk to one of my players tonight and he asked me about a redo so he could play his barbarian. I'm considering it, but I think I would rather have them sleep in the bed that they made. If their characters die, I'm okay with them making new ones and looting the bodies of their old ones, making it a lot easier for me not to have to come up with appropriate treasure, and making the world whole and giving consequences for actions.
@piccolo, I understand where you are coming from, but for the most part I want the players to own the characters, and feel like they have complete control and freedom with them, and forcing them into party roles by DM mandate is not what I want to do. In fact, I purposely created multiple ways to complete the tasks I created in case they didn't have all the 'necessary' party roles filled.
Also apologies if anyone itt felt I was being intentionally hostile towards you, I assure you my hostility is towards the attitudes of my players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did talk to one of my players tonight and he asked me about a redo so he could play his barbarian. I'm considering it, but I think I would rather have them sleep in the bed that they made.
I'm again offering this as friendly advice and nothing more, but I would strongly recommend you take him up on this offer.
.It sounds to me like you talked, he listened and now he's ready to compromise - if your response to that is to punish him it sounds to me like thumbing your nose at his willingness to adress the issue.
This campaign got off on the wrong foot. It's an excellent idea to make a clean break, start over, wear some verisimilitudinal jarring (I never know when to stop with that word) and get on with enjoying yourselves.
I wouldn't go back and redo the senerio letting him play the barbarian instead, but I'd let him play the next session with his barbarian suddenly coming out of nowhere to save the day (as his caster gets knocked out off or something).
|
There was combat....
Therefore I ruled it as an interruption.And it is not an unwritten houserule, there was a time period where they woke up and I said "you didn't get enough sleep and are too tired to prepare spells." None of them even asked about going back to sleep. And I should not have to go step by step and tell you every little rule that is in effect. I rolled to give them a chance to NOT have to go back to sleep. I gave them a chance to not have to do something, and that makes me a bad DM? You are the player, this is a new campaign. Unless I otherwise say something does not apply, you should assume all rules are in effect. What about the rest of the party? There was a wizard who didn't cast any spells in the mid-night conflict. Choosing to move forward with the spells you have was just that, a choice. Had my players asked if there was anyway to get enough rest to prepare their spells, i would have said "yes."
It is not my job as DM to spell out every single option my players have. If that's what you want, go play a video game.
There was combat...so yes that is an interruption.
Did you advise the players of what they needed to get their spells back? It sounds like a no from your response. And you TOLD the party that they are too tired and they can't get their spells back. That is DM fiat. You know what I hear when a DM says that? The DM is ignoring the resting rules and by fiat decided to screw the casters. Seriously, your tone on the forum is confrontational at best...if that is how you communicate in real life, it is pretty easy to understand why the player would see your comment as a DM fiat comment and react in a confrontational manner. Yeah the players frakked things up royal all on their own...but as soon as you did that, I bet that made them go into ballistic mode.
And it's not the DM's job to communicate with your players? No you don't have to tell them every single actions, but it is your FRAKING JOB TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PLAYERS. Seriously, if you don't wanna learn the rules to arbitrate or communicate with your players about what is happening in the world, why the hell are you even being a DM? Seriously, you have some MAJOR misconception of what it means to actually run a game. This is a GAME...not story time.
I wouldn't go back and redo the senerio letting him play the barbarian instead, but I'd let him play the next session with his barbarian suddenly coming out of nowhere to save the day (as his caster gets knocked out off or something).
Yeah, that's what I meant. Maybe I misunderstood what a 'redo' is, but I'd let him switch out his character abruptly and put up with the moderate continuity jolt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was combat...so yes that is an interruption.
Did you advise the players of what they needed to get their spells back? It sounds like a no from your response. And you TOLD the party that they are too tired and they can't get their spells back. That is DM fiat. You know what I hear when a DM says that? The DM is ignoring the resting rules and by fiat decided to screw the casters. Seriously, your tone on the forum is confrontational at best...if that is how you communicate in real life, it is pretty easy to understand why the player would see your comment as a DM fiat comment and react in a confrontational manner. Yeah the players frakked things up royal all on their own...but as soon as you did that, I bet that made them go into ballistic mode.
And it's not the DM's job to communicate with your players? No you don't have to tell them every single actions, but it is your FRAKING JOB TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PLAYERS. Seriously, if you don't wanna learn the rules to arbitrate or communicate with your players about what is happening in the world, why the hell are you even being a DM? Seriously, you have some MAJOR misconception of what it means to actually run a game. This is a GAME...not story time.
Why would a GM have to advise spell casters they needed to get their spells back? Should also tell an Archer that he needs to buy arrows?
If a DM tells me that I haven't had sufficient sleep to regain spells, my first question is "How much more time do I need?" Not "Oh well I guess I don't have any spells today." The players need to use their brains, and not rely on the DM to tell them everything they need to do.
Yes it is a game, and he is letting the players decide what to do, not dictating everything they do. He didn't tell them they couldn't rest more, they decided that. He didn't tell them to wake all the Kobolds up, they decided that.
It seems to me that the players decided to make their characters and not coordinate anything.
Why would a GM have to advise spell casters they needed to get their spells back? Should also tell an Archer that he needs to buy arrows?
Because the players haven't spent the last seven years mastering magic? Their characters have, sure, but it's actually quite possible (particularly with an inexperienced player) for there to be vital bits of information that the player just wouldn't think of.
The same way, if a player of mine was playing an experienced fighter I'd be chipping in pieces of tactical information any time I described a battle scene to them: "You see a small overhang to the left - good spot for archers to fire from - and a gully that might let a small squad sneak up undetected." And if they were an archer then I'd describe distances according to bow range.
Player is not character. Particularly in a situation where mental stats or experience is completely different.
Why would a GM have to advise spell casters they needed to get their spells back? Should also tell an Archer that he needs to buy arrows?
If a DM tells me that I haven't had sufficient sleep to regain spells, my first question is "How much more time do I need?" Not "Oh well I guess I don't have any spells today." The players need to use their brains, and not rely on the DM to tell them everything they need to do.
hence solitaire
my players knew the rule, I hinted during the nightly conflict that they shouldn't want to wake up, and in the morning when I dropped the rule on them one of my players (the former DM) acknowledged that the rule is right. It isn't like I didn't give the players a chance to not deal with the consequences, and I should not tell them in advance what their decisions are going to lead to. THAT is pure metagaming.
|
I don't understand why the pcs woke up at the originally planned time anyway, a spellcaster would have slept for the extra hour or so without waking up and saying "I can't prep spells unless I have one more hour of sleep". A DM should say "you wake in the morning, not at the crack of dawn as intended but perhaps a bit more than an hour later, covers pulled over your heads trying to keep out the light, as you rest up from a hard day and the labors of the night....You spend the next XXX amount of time prepping your daily spells and eating a flavourless breakfast of rations".
I don't usually wake up at the time intended unless I have an alarm set. If I don't need to go to work at a set time I sleep until I am rested. Why would PCs who rely on sleeping a set amount of time wake up before they were rested? Because the DM said "do you wake up at normal time" or "you wake up at normal time but need another hour of sleep or you can't regain spells". Either is ridiculous.
tonight we started our 'new' age of DnD/Pathfinder playing
i had always been a player, i had DMed one campaign back in 3.5 and it wasnt really an exploration kind of thing, it was a combat a rival party and confront them without doing much exploring, kind of thing
my criticism was that there needed to be more exploring, more dungeons, more puzzles, and more role playing, and i took that to heart
i created and fleshed out a campaign setting
i created a large city, with several developed NPCs with careers, and roles both for the mechanics of the game, and for the purposes of lives within the game worldneed a 'magic shop'? what do you need? i have a wizard who works in the college district of town who has access to any scroll you can think of
need potions? i have an alchemist who owns the brewery in town who loves having someone buy something other than booze for a change
need weapons or armor? i have a blacksmith who is bored of making tools
need clothing, or jewelry made to later be turned into wondrous items? theres both a jeweler and a tailor in town
there are thrift stores and pawn shops everywhere that might have the neat minor items that you want, no there isnt a handy haversack yet, you knew that already.... when i set the rules for this a month ago
and thats just the start
they all have roles in the city, and they all have reasons to be visited by my players
i had purposely set aside useful items and starter kits and had them all easily copied and pasted into our groups facebook forum for easy look-up
i did weights and encumbrances for everyone
then, to avoid my players having unbalanced stats, and to avoid the terror that is min-maxing in a point-buy system, i gave my players the following stat array, to be placed wherever they liked
18 16 15 13 12 10the only thing i banned was firearms and gunslingers, because firearms dont fit into the campaign setting
all races were legal, all variants were legal
3.5 source...
Wizards are all that, fantastic, great after a few pairs of levels; when protected by less fragile characters.
For more proof, pit wizards against barbarians in dungeons. Hilarious. The kobold story was a laugh riot.
I liked your post.
|
|
So basically to me it is more of Metagaming to tell the PCs they wake up at normal time but would need more sleep to prep spells. They would have just slept through until rested, not woke up and said "Oh, dang. Still sleepy, should I rest and be able to regain spells?"
The metagame part was the DM waking them at normal time. Unless attacked they would have just slept, not woken to decide if they would sleep. Being a stickler for rules is OK, but this is more of being a rules dick.
the fox: It sounds at first read that it's less a matter of an all wizard party, and more the players being idiots. I could be wrong however, and shall retreat before champions of player entitlement pitch their tents in the thread.thats exactly the issue, i know that a party of all wizards can work, but you cant be stupid about it
they were, and they blamed me for it, like im supposed to make everything easy for them
if thats the kind of game they want thats fine, but they told me they wanted more story, more exploring, more skills
they told me to give them a better campaign, where little mechanics like getting a full nights sleep mattered
they changed their minds after they fact i guess
Just tell them "this isn't skyrim where whatever your focus, you can take everything without much effort. Or you reload and try again. If you all die, game over."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically to me it is more of Metagaming to tell the PCs they wake up at normal time but would need more sleep to prep spells. They would have just slept through until rested, not woke up and said "Oh, dang. Still sleepy, should I rest and be able to regain spells?"
The metagame part was the DM waking them at normal time. Unless attacked they would have just slept, not woken to decide if they would sleep. Being a stickler for rules is OK, but this is more of being a rules dick.
It states that they need extra sleep to be able to prepare spells,
implying that they would be rested enough for the day, but not to prepare spells.It sounds to me like a lot of players itt would be upset if any DM dropped this on them because you have simply ignored the rule in your past experiences, since everyone is fighting so desperately to get me to just say "this rule doesn't matter" in some sense. You want your spells back, and you want little to no consequence for not getting enough sleep. Sounds just like my players. If you are unaware of the rule, and make a decision that screws you, it cannot be on me to always inform you of the consequences of your choices.
It cannot always be on me to explain and spell out every option your character has.
It cannot be on me to, after explaining and spelling out every option your character has, tell you what the best decision is.
It cannot be on me to, after you have made your decision, come up with some out of context explanation so you can dodge adhering to the rules as I have interpreted them.
I am not writing a novel, and if I am the one doing all the thinking and decision making for the players, then what choices are my players making? Are they even players at that point? Are they just there to roll dice and give me the numbers as I fully choreograph the events that unfold? Because it sounds like that is what people are asking me to do.
well I shall defend you anyway...kind of.
Rule number 1 for a GM...The players will ALWAYS do what you least expect and have a habit of wrecking you're best made plans.
I think it all went wrong when you designed the adventure setting, spending ages getting every detail right for the kind of game YOU would love to play in. Along come the players...we DON'T want to play that kind of game, we have our own ideas what we want to play..
Game goes downhill VERY quickly, players get bored, GM gets frustrated and angry even though he tries to help them as much as possible.
4 solutions spring to mind.
1) Give up
2) Try to salvage the mess
3) Try a module or AP
or 4) I think looking at things this is maybe what you should have done...
Hey guys, I want to run a Pathfinder game, I have a few ideas but I need you're help, first off do you want to make you're caharcters up or give me an idea what you want to play?
Then when you have the players ideas of what they want to play you can then decide on the game world and the adventure.
In other words it sounds like you had the right intenstions but went round it the wrong way with the group of players you have.
Treat it as a learnign experinence. It sounds like you can create an awesome world and adventure so don't beat yourself up about it.
well I shall defend you anyway...kind of.
Rule number 1 for a GM...The players will ALWAYS do what you least expect and have a habit of wrecking you're best made plans.
I think it all went wrong when you designed the adventure setting, spending ages getting every detail right for the kind of game YOU would love to play in. Along come the players...we DON'T want to play that kind of game, we have our own ideas what we want to play..
Game goes downhill VERY quickly, players get bored, GM gets frustrated and angry even though he tries to help them as much as possible.
4 solutions spring to mind.
1) Give up
2) Try to salvage the mess
3) Try a module or AP
or 4) I think looking at things this is maybe what you should have done...Hey guys, I want to run a Pathfinder game, I have a few ideas but I need you're help, first off do you want to make you're caharcters up or give me an idea what you want to play?
Then when you have the players ideas of what they want to play you can then decide on the game world and the adventure.
In other words it sounds like you had the right intenstions but went round it the wrong way with the group of players you have.
Treat it as a learnign experinence. It sounds like you can create an awesome world and adventure so don't beat yourself up about it.
solid advice, tho I am unsure if this outcome was unavoidable. My player's decision to play all wizards was quite literally at the last second, like I said he had a barbarian already made and ready to play.
I did my best to come up with a vanilla campaign with several possible outcomes and that had no real restrictions on player choices. The party could have done a lot better, they know it, and they have admitted it. All but one at the time if this post. I think the bidder problem here isn't the campaign itself, but that I am playing by the rules of pathfinder and not, as others have put it, skyrim on paper.
If you are unaware of the rule, and make a decision that screws you, it cannot be on me to always inform you of the consequences of your choices.
Look MM, I've read quite a few of your posts in other threads, and I generally find you to be very intelligent and reasonable. But the above quote is the thing (the only thing, really) that I totally disagree with, and...
I think was a pretty unreasonable and uncool thing to do as a GM. I can kind of understand it, because you were obviously pretty frustrated by then, and I know some times when I get frustrated, I can react with "Well, f%#+ you" too.
But it's quite obvious that's what it was - a "f*## you".
Having said that, we all lose our s!+& from time to time. But I think it's pretty important to realise it, and learn from it. If you bust that sleep rule move on anyone that's unaware of it, or has forgotten it, they're gonna feel like they're being punished.
You don't need to punish your players for not knowing, or just forgetting, a rule. You can do it, because you're the GM and you can play it to the letter of the law and not offer helpful suggestions, but it never feels nice when you're on the receiving end, and all it does is provoke people.
There is absolutely no good reason for you no to have said, "You're not gonna rest for another hour or two so you can prepare your spells?".
I understand you're perfectly within your rights not to, but there's no benefit to anyone for exercising that right. If I walk past a guy that's fallen off his bike and injured himself, I don't have to help him. I may even say to myself, "Picking yourself up after a fall builds character and self-reliance," which is true - just as true as saying, "If I let them suffer the consequences of their lack of rules knowledge, they'll learn from it". Those statements are both true, but in both situations it's also true that you haven't acted as a gracious and empathic human being.
Like I said, I've gotten the impression from your posting on other threads that you're a good dude. I don't mean to offend you with this post - in fact, if you were just like some of the other juvenile, argumentative and obnoxious posters on here, I wouldn't have bothered. I would have just poked fun at you and left.
You didn't do much wrong in what you described to us, and your players sound a bit frustrating, but in the particular instance of the sleep thing, you kinda gave into your frustration.
Any how, good luck with the game, man.
In my experience players make horrible decisions most of the time. Then again it is your job as a DM to help them make better choices with descriptions.
4 Wizards wouldn't be bad at level 3, if they were mostly Gishes (Fighter[Unbreakable] 1/Wizard 2), (Wizard 3), (Paladin 2/Sorc 1), (Fighter 1[Unbreakable], Witch 2) they could survive quite well.
But 4 pure wizards are just screwed due to spell dependency.
I have no sympathy for foolish choices made on part of the players. If the character dies, then he dies. If everyone wipes then everyone wipes. This more often than not ends up with people asking what they are going to make, and then someone making a super-tank Fullplate+Towershield defensive monster of combat maneuvers and door-blocking.
In one of my games the party was comprised of all Gishes, and they beat the crap out of everything under the sun. In another game the party was comprised of a balanced traditional party of Tank fighter, healer cleric, sneaky rogue, and evoker Wizard, and they beat the crap out of everything under the sun.
The only time there is ever any problem is when everyone wants to play classes that are useless at their current level. A party of 4 wizards would be amazingly awesome at level 7 if they can take leadership to get a tank ally. They could summon monsters of awesome, and/or use magical items that allow them to succeed where they might otherwise fail (Ring of Invisibility comes to mind).
The bottom line is that if your players are making decisions that are terrible, that you cannot do anything beyond watch. If you "recommend" them to make different choices then they think you're an a@%**+!, if you try to "tweak" their class or give them unique specials that help to balance then they think that you're showing favoritism because someone got a specific special that helps him in a specific way that you did not foresee.
Some classes are great with 4 of them: Summoners, Bards, Clerics, and Paladins to name a few, but wizards are just too damn squishy.
My players recently went up against Kobold werewolves with ACs of 24-28, and they are only level 3. I must admit that I might be calculating the Kobolds wrong since I make the kobold to get it to the same CR as a "wolf" and then add the lycanthrope template to bring it to CR 2, but in the end everything works out.
So basically to me it is more of Metagaming to tell the PCs they wake up at normal time but would need more sleep to prep spells. They would have just slept through until rested, not woke up and said "Oh, dang. Still sleepy, should I rest and be able to regain spells?"
The metagame part was the DM waking them at normal time. Unless attacked they would have just slept, not woken to decide if they would sleep. Being a stickler for rules is OK, but this is more of being a rules dick.
It states that they need extra sleep to be able to prepare spells,
implying that they would be rested enough for the day, but not to prepare spells.It sounds to me like a lot of players itt would be upset if any DM dropped this on them because you have simply ignored the rule in your past experiences, since everyone is fighting so desperately to get me to just say "this rule doesn't matter" in some sense. You want your spells back, and you want little to no consequence for not getting enough sleep. Sounds just like my players. If you are unaware of the rule, and make a decision that screws you, it cannot be on me to always inform you of the consequences of your choices.
It cannot always be on me to explain and spell out every option your character has.
It cannot be on me to, after explaining and spelling out every option your character has, tell you what the best decision is.
It cannot be on me to, after you have made your decision, come up with some out of context explanation so you can dodge adhering to the rules as I have interpreted them.I am not writing a novel, and if I am the one doing all the thinking and decision making for the players, then what choices are my players making? Are they even players at that point? Are they just there to roll dice and give me the numbers as I fully choreograph the events that unfold? Because it sounds like that is what people are asking me to do.
Like others said, this is probably a player versus character knowledge issue. Sure, they should have known to sleep an extra hour. Maybe they forgot. But how did you tell them? Did you say "You woke up. Since you didn't sleep long enough, you can't reprepare your spells today."? Because worded like that it doesn't sound like they can sleep one more hour to get their spells back. Would they have had to say "Ok, I sleep another hour" right after being told they didn't have spells? Because that seems a bit like confronting the DM.
Yeah, the DM shouldn't have to remind the players of every little thing like this. And it does seem like things got off on the wrong foot with the players trying to get extra stuff in the beginning. But in the end, the game isn't as fun if it's players versus DM, and it doesn't hurt to at least give them intelligence rolls or something to show them things the characters may have known that the players missed.
I think I'm going to start a thread on how different GMs treat their players when players are ignorant of, confused by, or uncaring about, certain rules...
I tend to just give them reminders, suggestions, hints, or in some cases just outright tell them "you know, your character would probably do X here, is there a reason they aren't?"
Nah, on second thought, I won't bother. It'll just get moved to Gamer Talk and I rarely check that section of the boards...
If you are unaware of the rule, and make a decision that screws you, it cannot be on me to always inform you of the consequences of your choices.Look MM, I've read quite a few of your posts in other threads, and I generally find you to be very intelligent and reasonable. But the above quote is the thing (the only thing, really) that I totally disagree with, and...
** spoiler omitted **...
Yeah, had the group had been different and had different attitudes towards me and the rules, I may have been easier going on them, for sure. It's a working relationship, and if my players treat me like dirt and don't listen to my advice, I won't be doing them any favors when it bites them. That's the entire reason I started the thread.
|
Yeah, had the group had been different and had different attitudes towards me and the rules, I may have been easier going on them, for sure. It's a working relationship, and if my players treat me like dirt and don't listen to my advice, I won't be doing them any favors when it bites them. That's the entire reason I started the thread.
It is remarkable how the avatars affect my interpretation of forum posts. Or is it that avatars reflect posters' personalities?
Yeah, had the group had been different and had different attitudes towards me and the rules, I may have been easier going on them, for sure. It's a working relationship, and if my players treat me like dirt and don't listen to my advice, I won't be doing them any favors when it bites them. That's the entire reason I started the thread.If you are unaware of the rule, and make a decision that screws you, it cannot be on me to always inform you of the consequences of your choices.Look MM, I've read quite a few of your posts in other threads, and I generally find you to be very intelligent and reasonable. But the above quote is the thing (the only thing, really) that I totally disagree with, and...
** spoiler omitted **...
If that's the case, then this seems to be "The PCs didn't respect the DM, so the DM didn't respect the PCs."
This has been said tons of times by now, but you really should just sit down and talk with them. Complaining here about their behavior when you weren't the model DM either isn't productive.
Yeah, had the group had been different and had different attitudes towards me and the rules, I may have been easier going on them, for sure. It's a working relationship, and if my players treat me like dirt and don't listen to my advice, I won't be doing them any favors when it bites them. That's the entire reason I started the thread.It is remarkable how the avatars affect my interpretation of forum posts. Or is it that avatars reflect posters' personalities?
Lol, narcissist that I am... How does my avatar affect your interpretation of little ol' Hewy?
|
I think I'm going to start a thread on how different GMs treat their players when players are ignorant of, confused by, or uncaring about, certain rules...
I tend to just give them reminders, suggestions, hints, or in some cases just outright tell them "you know, your character would probably do X here, is there a reason they aren't?"
Nah, on second thought, I won't bother. It'll just get moved to Gamer Talk and I rarely check that section of the boards...
New players need training wheels, absolutely. But sometimes players demand handwaves when they aren't, well, entitled to them.
The OP was wrong about the rule, but harrassing casters sleep and spell memorization is a time honored BBEG strategy that is perfectly valid and acceptable if it makes sense in the campaign. It is part of why you post guards at night in the first place.
Yes some GMs are jerks. Stop picking them to be the one to run.
Lol, narcissist that I am... How does my avatar affect your interpretation of little ol' Hewy?It is remarkable how the avatars affect my interpretation of forum posts. Or is it that avatars reflect posters' personalities?
You never lose sight of the fact that this is all supposed to be fun
I also regularly mistake sarcasm for sincerity, and I have twin brother named ywehelttil...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is my roommate and he is the one who had the most issue and frustration with the challenges I placed in the game. Mostly I feel it is because he is unfamiliar with Pathfinder wizards, and found it to be much more different than the 3.5 class he was used to. His character was effective, but he ran completely out of spells before the fight was over. He wanted his character to be DPS, and running out of spells really made him ticked at me. I designed this campaign prior to them deciding to be all wizards, and I truly expected at least one or two different kinds of character classes.
So, he's familiar with 3.5 rules, yet upset that PF wizards are different?
Different, as in 'better in every way'?
Better hp, infinite cantrips, able to cast opposition spells, a free spontaneous spell slot from Arcane Bond, and cheaper spellbook scribing?
He's given an inflated stat array, and agreed with the other players that they'd have three wizards, so they could all start with THREE TIMES the expected number of spells known?
Yes, they're whiners.
If my avatar doesn't communicate sarcastic mirth, it's not doing its job properly.It is remarkable how the avatars affect my interpretation of forum posts. Or is it that avatars reflect posters' personalities?
It does its job perfectly :)
He is my roommate and he is the one who had the most issue and frustration with the challenges I placed in the game. Mostly I feel it is because he is unfamiliar with Pathfinder wizards, and found it to be much more different than the 3.5 class he was used to. His character was effective, but he ran completely out of spells before the fight was over. He wanted his character to be DPS, and running out of spells really made him ticked at me. I designed this campaign prior to them deciding to be all wizards, and I truly expected at least one or two different kinds of character classes.So, he's familiar with 3.5 rules, yet upset that PF wizards are different?
Different, as in 'better in every way'?
Better hp, infinite cantrips, able to cast opposition spells, a free spontaneous spell slot from Arcane Bond, and cheaper spellbook scribing?
He's given an inflated stat array, and agreed with the other players that they'd have three wizards, so they could all start with THREE TIMES the expected number of spells known?
Yes, they're whiners.
And I gave him 10% discount on scrolls because of his back story, which he complained that he should instead get for free
Hello.
I think the GM here did not do very much wrong in terms of rules and such, but really Master Marshmallow, you need to work on the social skills involved with being a GM.
You should never let your annoyance affect how you deal with situations. Even if your players a deliberately trying to destroy you campaign (an assumption that comes from you annoyance I think), you should not respond by being rude back.
That being said, I do not see that being a problem in any of these cases.
The sleep things: they were interupted, and they did not say they were going to change when they woke up. When they woke up, they were told they had not gotten their spells back. They should have been told they could just sleep one more hour. If you did not know at the time, it makes perfect sense, but the way you are presenting it is that you did know the rule, and they did not realize that simply sleeping for one more hour would solve their wizard problems.
When the wizards were at the kobold inn, they were playing very stupidly. They should not have forced all the kobolds to attack them at once. To fault the GM for the players inane strategy is foolish. Going into a small town is a CR enormous fight if the players manage to make all the townsfolk hostile towards them, and yet I would never fault a GM for putting weak players in a town with a lot of people. The players dug their own grave (except they did not) when they invited all the enemies to attack them at once. They should have been reminded of the desk, especially when things began to look dire: a "pysch" style flashback, or a small voice in the back of their heads, or an OOC discussion about how this type of game world was set up, and how problems have many solutions, but might require some (maybe-not-so-)outside thinking. Turn the keys into a teaching moment in game, and then tell them that the next time they will reap what they have sown.
As for the barbarian, he should be able to come in a replace the appropriate wizard: maybe he witnessed their ineptitude, and is willing to help out for a fair share of loot. The other wizard takes this oportunity to go back to whatever he was doing before, glad to be rid of the silly adventuring life. Easy solution to a not too hard problem.
tonight we started our 'new' age of DnD/Pathfinder playing
i had always been a player, i had DMed one campaign back in 3.5 and it wasnt really an exploration kind of thing, it was a combat a rival party and confront them without doing much exploring, kind of thing
my criticism was that there needed to be more exploring, more dungeons, more puzzles, and more role playing, and i took that to heart
i created and fleshed out a campaign setting
i created a large city, with several developed NPCs with careers, and roles both for the mechanics of the game, and for the purposes of lives within the game worldneed a 'magic shop'? what do you need? i have a wizard who works in the college district of town who has access to any scroll you can think of
need potions? i have an alchemist who owns the brewery in town who loves having someone buy something other than booze for a change
need weapons or armor? i have a blacksmith who is bored of making tools
need clothing, or jewelry made to later be turned into wondrous items? theres both a jeweler and a tailor in town
there are thrift stores and pawn shops everywhere that might have the neat minor items that you want, no there isnt a handy haversack yet, you knew that already.... when i set the rules for this a month ago
and thats just the start
they all have roles in the city, and they all have reasons to be visited by my players
i had purposely set aside useful items and starter kits and had them all easily copied and pasted into our groups facebook forum for easy look-up
i did weights and encumbrances for everyone
then, to avoid my players having unbalanced stats, and to avoid the terror that is min-maxing in a point-buy system, i gave my players the following stat array, to be placed wherever they liked
18 16 15 13 12 10the only thing i banned was firearms and gunslingers, because firearms dont fit into the campaign setting
all races were legal, all variants were legal
3.5 source...
I roleplay only with my friends. When we start a new game we talk togheter to find a game style that could please anyone. Imposing a Gm choice doesn't work for me. As a Gm i create interesting situation. I don't need to prove my players that i can kill them in tricky situation. Nothing can beat a Gm, everyone knows, and its role is not to pown players. I could Gm a campaign made of weak character if everyone wants that, and adventures should be adapt to that.
This is my opinion, our opinion as group. Never had to find confirmation in a forum, if we were not asking help for rules balance or interpretation. I wonder why you made your thread and what you were really searching.As a personal advice, i suggest don't mix rules. A single feat or spell can dramatically change the game. For example, in 3.5 there was a feat that gave rogues backstab damage on every critical hit. Another permit to use sneak attack with every enemy (even if immune) but were energy damage (type chosen with feat) equal to original backstab + 1d6. In PF this would mess up the game, and probably did also in 3.5 :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thread is about my revelation about how annoying and petulant players can be, when anything goes wrong they act like it is always the responsibility of the DM to make sure nothing ever goes wrong for them. In the past I was a player like that, and now I know fully what the other side is like when you have players who insist on playing classes they do not have mastery of, and blame you, or the campaign, or game design. When my players get enjoyment from frustrating me because they know that people will defend them on the internet and other such forums of discussion, simply because they are the player and I'm the big bad DM who punished them. I am no longer on the side of the player when it comes to constantly asking for favors, for explanations, and for special treatment.
Since the sleeping to regain spells seems to be the hot issue, I'm going to weigh in on it with my own opinion. I have a personal policy that I am willing to explain or review a rule to my players the first time it comes up in a given campaign to make sure that we all understand how things work. Sometimes a player plays a cleric for the first time and I have to explain why they might want to use defensive casting on that CLW spell. I quickly explain the rule, the pros and cons, and move on after a reminder that I might not remind them to defensively cast next time (and the possible consequences of them forgetting). It usually works out.
Sometimes I have to explain a rule several times. Like... every session for several months when the new player keeps forgetting what circumstances he is allowed to sneak attack under. "If you move 5 ft to the east you'd have flanking" is an easy reminder and eventually helped him remember to look for flanking himself.
When your other player verified that "Yes, that's how getting interrupted while sleeping works," was he aware that he had the option of sleeping more to fulfill the requirement? Maybe he just remembered half of the rule, since it's not one that comes up often. Everyone will forget things sometimes, and it's unfair to knowingly punish a character for something that they would know but their player forgot.
Also... let the guy change to barbarian.
Since the sleeping to regain spells seems to be the hot issue, I'm going to weigh in on it with my own opinion. I have a personal policy that I am willing to explain or review a rule to my players the first time it comes up in a given campaign to make sure that we all understand how things work. Sometimes a player plays a cleric for the first time and I have to explain why they might want to use defensive casting on that CLW spell. I quickly explain the rule, the pros and cons, and move on after a reminder that I might not remind them to defensively cast next time (and the possible consequences of them forgetting). It usually works out.
Sometimes I have to explain a rule several times. Like... every session for several months when the new player keeps forgetting what circumstances he is allowed to sneak attack under. "If you move 5 ft to the east you'd have flanking" is an easy reminder and eventually helped him remember to look for flanking himself.
When your other player verified that "Yes, that's how getting interrupted while sleeping works," was he aware that he had the option of sleeping more to fulfill the requirement? Maybe he just remembered half of the rule, since it's not one that comes up often. Everyone will forget things sometimes, and it's unfair to knowingly punish a character for something that they would know but their player forgot.
Also... let the guy change to barbarian.
I told them specifically to make sure they were prepared, and knew the rules and mechanics as I would have high expectations of them having the audacity to play an all wizard party.
He had, not an hour before, been reading the detailed description of the class, and in my opinion had no excuse not to at least be aware of the rule, especially when the other players did. My other player who wants to switch to barbarian has even chosen my side in the argument.
I am willing to let him switch, but not mid campaign, we left off in between conflicts in the middle of the dungeon, we are still in turn based combat. I'm still not sure if I'm willing to reward the player by letting him switch to a fully functional, full HP, new character mid dungeon.
I do think that after this experience he is going to switch characters, and the only players I have yet to speak with about the game are my roommate and the sorcerer player; and that is mostly because other things took priority over DnD in our conversations, like rent. Two of the players who I expect to be there most often have accepted the way that the game has played, and have acknowledged their stupidity. I am more than willing to cooperate with these players because they are willing to cooperate with me. I cannot work with a player who won't compromise when he's done something dumb in character, and expects no punishment, blaming my DMing. I think that is what constitutes the player entitlement argument, though I hate to use that phrasing because of the flags it causes to wave.