RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
RDN, start with a Diplomacy or Bluff bonus of +35 and go through The Disappeared, or God's Market Gamble, or Throaty Mermaid. In some of those, there are NPCs with stat blocks that suggest they won't be reasoned with, but let's say the GM changes that to a -20 modifier.
Why would you change it from "impossible" to "-20"?
EDIT: Ninja'd.
|
Andy, if we want to talk about how much is too much (which you said you did), then can we separate it from an assumption of the player being a total d+~$*ead? Because that doesn't really have much bearing on how much of a Perception bonus (or anything else being discussed) is too much.
Let's assume that a player is as pleasant and friendly as anyone else at the table. You're going along having a jolly old time, and the party together decides that a room looks suspicious. The players all agree that they should do a quick scan for a possible ambush (just like Westly slowing down when he reached the rocks where Fezzik was hiding).
You say "Okay, everyone roll Perception."
P1: "Crap, 4."
P2: "Alright, 22 for me!"
P3: "I got an 11."
P4: "Sweet, natural 20! That's a 48!"
The players rejoice communally at the high check result.You look down at the scenario and see that the monsters are hiding, and it says they can be spotted with a DC 30 check.
Does this ruin the encounter? If so, how?
In your example, he could have failed on a 1.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets have a frank discussion about what's too much?This is the wrong discussion to have. You're out of line trying to tell or even suggest to players how to build their characters because you think they are doing it wrong. If you have a problem with how things shake out, then address the rules. We need people to follow the rules. If the rules are broken, then we need to fix them.
Expecting people to adopt your value system and perspective on how the game should be played is antithetical to the spirit of community games.
I'm not expecting anything. Again you are placing intent and words into my mouth.
I think this is exactly the right discussion to have, and this is the right place to have it.
I'm baring my heart on my sleeve here, and I'm explaining to folks what makes a session unfun for me as a GM. I've heard, first hand, other GM's express similar sentiments, so I'm not alone.
What this discussion is doing, is it is sparking discussion. We are theorizing, postulating, philosophizing, etc. To me, this is a philosophical discussion that hopefully will bear some fruit.
What do I hope to get out of this? Maybe, just maybe, one player will decide to show some restraint when building their character. They will be good, even great at some things, but not so great that PFS can present them no challenge.
If not, I guess I will have to be ok with that. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't discuss it and share my feelings on it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
RDN, start with a Diplomacy or Bluff bonus of +35 and go through The Disappeared, or God's Market Gamble, or Throaty Mermaid. In some of those, there are NPCs with stat blocks that suggest they won't be reasoned with, but let's say the GM changes that to a -20 modifier.
Why would you change it from "impossible" to "-20"?
Well, that's fine. But then the player is irritated that he has a +35 Bluff check, or +35 Diplomacy, and the NPC seems immune.
This goes back to nosig's question: how high does the skill check need to be in order to do what the player wants. And you and thejeff are okay saying, in this csse, that the text in the scenario says that the skill won't work; no matter how high it is.
So, if the encounter description says "The monsters ambush..." then the same rule should apply to perception.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In your example, he could have failed on a 1.Andy, if we want to talk about how much is too much (which you said you did), then can we separate it from an assumption of the player being a total d+~$*ead? Because that doesn't really have much bearing on how much of a Perception bonus (or anything else being discussed) is too much.
Let's assume that a player is as pleasant and friendly as anyone else at the table. You're going along having a jolly old time, and the party together decides that a room looks suspicious. The players all agree that they should do a quick scan for a possible ambush (just like Westly slowing down when he reached the rocks where Fezzik was hiding).
You say "Okay, everyone roll Perception."
P1: "Crap, 4."
P2: "Alright, 22 for me!"
P3: "I got an 11."
P4: "Sweet, natural 20! That's a 48!"
The players rejoice communally at the high check result.You look down at the scenario and see that the monsters are hiding, and it says they can be spotted with a DC 30 check.
Does this ruin the encounter? If so, how?
Okay, then pretend he announced a 49 or 50 and therefore couldn't have failed at all, but the story is otherwise the same.
Was the encounter ruined? Why or why not?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
RDN, start with a Diplomacy or Bluff bonus of +35 and go through The Disappeared, or God's Market Gamble, or Throaty Mermaid. In some of those, there are NPCs with stat blocks that suggest they won't be reasoned with, but let's say the GM changes that to a -20 modifier.Why would you change it from "impossible" to "-20"?Well, that's fine. But then the player is irritated that he has a +35 Bluff check, or +35 Diplomacy, and the NPC seems immune.
This goes back to nosig's question: how high does the skill check need to be in order to do what the player wants. And you and thejeff are okay saying, in this csse, that the text in the scenario says that the skill won't work; no matter how high it is.
So, if the encounter description says "The monsters ambush..." then the same rule should apply to perception.
Except the skill rules already allow for impossibilities, and we're supposed to follow those rules.
Also, the Guide says to adjust tactics if they're invalidated by PC actions, and we're supposed to follow that rule too.So if one encounter involves an NPC who won't be reasoned with, enforce it. If the next encounter involves a Stealth check that gets obliterated and invalidates the ambush tactic, enforce that as well.
I'm not really seeing a conflict here. Did I miss something you were trying to communicate?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's fine. But then the player is irritated that he has a +35 Bluff check, or +35 Diplomacy, and the NPC seems immune.
So should I be irritated that the undead are immune to my witch's slumber hex? Strangely enough, I just go back to plan B.
Andrew's example, above, specifically gave a high DC to find the hidden creatures,
"Andrew Christian wrote:
If the player smugly says to me, "I take 20 for a 53, so what do I see." And the encounter is set up to be an ambush with DC's ranging from 18 to 30 to see the badguys, then he auto succeeds and ruins the encounter."
Strangely enough, if there's a DC that can be beat, it's a safe assumption that beating it doesn't ruin the encounter.
There's a difference between "The encounter says they start from ambush" and perception not saving you and "There's a really high DC check, you make it and ruin the encounter. Next?"
(All bolding mine)
|
|
In your example, he could have failed on a 1.As a player or GM, I have no issue with skills being high enough to succeed on a 1. So this comes down to you trying to impose your value system on others. You have a unilateral idea of what a player's experience should consist of.
Since you claim that you follow the rules as written and don't use GM fiat to prevent skills from working, I suggest you take it up with Paizo. Send them a detailed explanation of how the current system under the PFS' requirement to honor RAW, is not fun and maybe they'll change the rules so you can use GM fiat in this situation.
BS. Having a discussion in no way shape or form is me trying to "impose" anything on anyone.
Its having an open and frank discussion.
If you don't like having open, frank, and philosophical discussions without getting offended that I might be trying to "impose" something on you, then you can move along and pay attention to a different thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sort of, Jiggy. I apologize for being unclear.
The problem is, whether an encounter challenge is going to be impossible or not.
When a player with a +35 Bluff goes up against an NPC with a human-type mind, she's expecting to be able to use her skills. If she thinks that the NPC has tactics like "he always attacks" then she expects that the GM will revise those tactics based on PC behavior. The GM is expecting that this is one of those "impossible, automatic failure" moments.
(The -20 (on top of hostile modifications for Diplomacy) was the GM trying to meet the player's expectations.) I mean, yeah, once combat starts, Diplomacy is "generally" not going to work. But, come on: bonus of +35.
Likewise, nosig's character has, say, a +35 Perception, going up against an NPC with a physical body that has to occupy some space, make some noises, etc. He's expecting to use his character's skills. If he thinks that the NPC has tactics that say he's well-hidden, then he expects that the GM will revise that text-block based on PC behavior. The GM is expecting to run the encounter as written.
So, you try to reason with the NPC in God's Market Gamble. She's having none of it and shoots you in the face. So the you wonder, "How high does my Diplomacy have to be, anyways?!" and buy a circlet of persuasion.
|
|
In your example, he could have failed on a 1.Andy, if we want to talk about how much is too much (which you said you did), then can we separate it from an assumption of the player being a total d+~$*ead? Because that doesn't really have much bearing on how much of a Perception bonus (or anything else being discussed) is too much.
Let's assume that a player is as pleasant and friendly as anyone else at the table. You're going along having a jolly old time, and the party together decides that a room looks suspicious. The players all agree that they should do a quick scan for a possible ambush (just like Westly slowing down when he reached the rocks where Fezzik was hiding).
You say "Okay, everyone roll Perception."
P1: "Crap, 4."
P2: "Alright, 22 for me!"
P3: "I got an 11."
P4: "Sweet, natural 20! That's a 48!"
The players rejoice communally at the high check result.You look down at the scenario and see that the monsters are hiding, and it says they can be spotted with a DC 30 check.
Does this ruin the encounter? If so, how?
Okay, then pretend he announced a 49 or 50 and therefore couldn't have failed at all, but the story is otherwise the same.
Was the encounter ruined? Why or why not?
The example is actually a poor one, that’s my bad.
And it typically is not just a single instance. It is more a cumulative affect of seeing the same player, or even different players, all overcoming the challenge of an encounter, automatically.
If the automatic success only mitigates some (or even all) of the challenge for that one player, then I usually don’t worry too much about it. Because I can focus on the other 2 to 5 players at the table and provide fun and challenge for them (that is at least somewhat reduced by uber-guy.) In the example above, it is likely that his auto success only allows him to act in the surprise round, and everyone else gets surprised. Encounter is not ruined.
But, if after the 5th full scenario I’ve run for the same player (maybe same character, maybe different at different tiers), and they always automatically succeed at the pertinent rolls of the various encounters, and it completely negates the challenge for everyone else playing at that table then at some point, wouldn’t you think it would become boring?
I find so many cool things in so many scenarios that I read as I prep to run them. By and Large, they pretty much are entertaining, and the players seem to be challenged and have a good time. But it seems that the same players tend to create uber-builds, that I actually cringe a bit when I have to run them at my table. And it isn’t the combat intensive uber-builds that bother me. If you don’t want combat to last long, fine. Whatever. That’s your thing. But when they have all these little spells and tricks and familiars and abilities that no matter the challenge, they negate it entirely, what’s the point of even playing the game? Seriously.
So it is a cumulative effect, of the same few players, who constantly auto-succeed at almost everything, that has really set me off on this mini-rant.
For the most part, most players I run into, show some restraint. Yes, every once in awhile, you’ll find them with a ridiculous score in something, and they are uber successful, but its fleeting. It happens once in awhile that its that useful. But some players do their best to game the system to eke out every last drop of bonus for one or two or even three skills, and then try to dominate every scenario they play with those two or three skills.
If they showed some restraint, they could still be a star more often than not, but at least everyone else would get to enjoy the scenario too.
|
|
In your example, he could have failed on a 1.Andy, if we want to talk about how much is too much (which you said you did), then can we separate it from an assumption of the player being a total d+~$*ead? Because that doesn't really have much bearing on how much of a Perception bonus (or anything else being discussed) is too much.
Let's assume that a player is as pleasant and friendly as anyone else at the table. You're going along having a jolly old time, and the party together decides that a room looks suspicious. The players all agree that they should do a quick scan for a possible ambush (just like Westly slowing down when he reached the rocks where Fezzik was hiding).
You say "Okay, everyone roll Perception."
P1: "Crap, 4."
P2: "Alright, 22 for me!"
P3: "I got an 11."
P4: "Sweet, natural 20! That's a 48!"
The players rejoice communally at the high check result.You look down at the scenario and see that the monsters are hiding, and it says they can be spotted with a DC 30 check.
Does this ruin the encounter? If so, how?
Okay, then pretend he announced a 49 or 50 and therefore couldn't have failed at all, but the story is otherwise the same.
Was the encounter ruined? Why or why not?
wait... I am not currently experiencing this.
it's going more like this...
the players are as pleasant and friendly as anyone else at the CON, and they know and like the judge. You're going along having a jolly old time, and the party together decides that a room ahead looks suspicious. The players all agree that they should do a quick scan for a possible ambush (this was actually established at the start of the game, as an SOP for the adventuring group. "The scout does a Perception check for dangers, traps, ambushes etc. and when an area is 'clear' we'll move ahead. If she detects anything we'll switch over to combat mod as needed." ).
Judge says: "as you enter the room, place the lead PC here and...
@ Nosig: Perhaps there is a regional or even experiential difference. But frankly if you give me a list of things your character does as SOP (basically a CYA list), it would annoy me greatly. Especially if it was longer than one or two things. Why?
Because, I like my players to just trust me, that I’m not going to screw them over. I also have more than enough to worry about in a scenario than having to keep track of 6 players’ lists of SOPs.
If it makes sense, and they are about to walk into an ambush, whether they say they are perceiving, or whether they have an SOP or not, I give them a Perception check. Why? Because that’s actually how the rules work. Unless there is some mitigating circumstance (I can think of at least one scenario where no perception to notice the ambush makes sense), you get a chance to notice something before you get jumped.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Chris - Well, personally, I'm okay with some variation regarding whether the not-always-100%-clear scenario text makes something impossible or just lists a default that can be invalidated. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm happy as long as the times that are clear are run impartially. I've run one module where an evil cleric is specifically called out as having certain things be "against her nature" and therefore beyond the scope of certain skills/spells' ability to influence her. I've run another scenario where it just says "these monsters are hiding here, waiting for prey to wander in" and the stat block lists a Stealth score. Though not every scenario will be sufficiently explicit, I'd expect the former to be literally impossible and the latter to be beatable with a sufficiently high check; neither of those two seemed very ambiguous to me at the time I was reading/running them.
Now, if a player thinks that there's no such thing as an impossible check, that's an unfortunate misunderstanding of the rules (just like thinking your halfling bard is automatically proficient with a sling staff, or other common errors). Gotta practice some tough love there for the good of the campaign.
Similarly, if a player is bending over backwards to engineer situations where their skill is the only one that matters (like trying to bypass every encounter with Diplomacy even if it doesn't make sense) and excluding other players, then we have a separate OOC problem that needs to be handled OOC with a polite cautioning about friendly gameplay.
However, within the bounds of what skills can legally accomplish and playing socially, anything that remains achievable with a skill check is, to me, the same shared victory whether the success was with a 20+0 or a 1+19.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To me, showing some restraint is included in the bolded bit above.
However, within the bounds of what skills can legally accomplish and playing socially, anything that remains achievable with a skill check is, to me, the same shared victory whether the success was with a 20+0 or a 1+19.
Restraint in not letting a bonus get too high, or restraint in not trying to twist every obstacle into one to which that high bonus can be applied? I ask because this discussion started with statements of the former, but it's lately been sounding more like the latter, so I want to be clear what we're talking about.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But when they have all these little spells and tricks and familiars and abilities that no matter the challenge, they negate it entirely, what’s the point of even playing the game?
Side note: I actually rather enjoy generalists. In fact, my cleric preps a pretty long list of situational spells (along with some buffs).
But on the other hand, I ended the scenario with lots of never-cast spells like Invisibility Purge and Communal Resist Energy that I also had prepped, but didn't need (or didn't have a good opportunity to use). I prepped a little bit of everything so that whatever came up, I was likely to be able to shut it down. The character is specifically designed to remove whatever special advantages the enemy might have.
So my answer to your question, at least with that character, is "So everyone else can be awesome". :)
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
As a GM, my first thought would be how the rest of the players at the table viewed things.
I don't like min-maxed-to-the-sky characters that can one-shot any encounter rushing in to combat, every time, and killing everything in sight before anybody else even gets to draw a weapon. And if I felt this was spoiling the fun of the other players, I'd ask the player concerned to take a back seat occasionally and let the other players have their moment in the spotlight. But if the zen archer hangs back, picking off mooks, and only unleashes his full capabilities if the BBEG looks to be about to kill a PC, I'm not going to say a thing.
I personally think witches are overpowered. But if I'm playing my (L2) witch, and the party want me to "Misfortune" everybody we meet (and cackle to prolong the duration), that's mostly what I'll do; I've even taken "Accursed Hex" to get a second bite at the cherry. It's not all that much fun for me (and, from experience behind the GM screen, it's not all that much fun for the GM, either), but neither is watching PCs die.
As a GM, I expect to 'lose'. And, usually, I can have fun doing so. But if one person at the table ends up not having fun, it's better if it is me, and not somebody with more on the line.
|
|
@Nosig
As a GM, I allow any creature that may be hiding to be located as long as it is plausible. This means that incorporeal undead hiding in the walls might be undetectable by "normal" means (See: Perception), but there's even a chance of finding invisible creatures.
Scenario 1) Lets say you beat a wizard to within an inch of his life and he casts invisibility. You run to where you think he might be: the next room. If you can pass his Stealth check with the +40 from being invisible and standing still, then you'll detect him. Because you can't see him (and humanoids rely almost entirely on sight), then I'd let you hear heavy breathing somewhere in the room, or the pounding of his heart. You may not be able to spot him, but he's there.
Scenario 2) You creep down a hall and slowly and quietly open a door, trying to see if there are any creatures hiding in that room. You roll your perception of 50+ vs. the DC of 20. Not only do I try and give you a good description of the gremlin, but I might let you know that he's got a scar on his left eye and the tattoo of a leaf on his right arm.
Scenario 3) You're traveling through a canyon pass, and as you said are taking 10 on Perception at all times to stay alert of an ambush. There are a set of brigands hiding and waiting for you to come into point blank range for their crossbows. Your take 10 of 50+ is more than what they can do taking 20 for Stealth, but they're at the high end of the canyon and completely out of sight. I'd not let you see them, but maybe hear rocks rustle... they'll still get their surprise round, but I'll let you act in it, in initiative order.
@Chris Mortika
For super diplomacy PCs, some people just can't be reasoned with (like in God's Market Gamble). Also, even if they can be reasoned with, they're unlikely to stop attacking you when they've already made up their mind to do so. It takes time to affect someone with Diplomacy, and that is often time you do not have. The best case scenario is I'd have them say something snarky like, "And I kind of liked you... maybe in another life," right before they bow crit.
@The Fox
I agree, threads like this always raise people's hackles. My opinion is that if a character puts enough points into something, let them succeed and let them feel good about it... just look for other ways to challenge them.
In PFS you can't change the scenarios so you have to work with what has been given, but you can sometimes worry them a bit. The AC 31 fighter cannot be hit and the scenario has all hack and slash monsters? Have them aid another, or make trips (even with AoOs), or start sundering armor... there's always a way.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS you can't change the scenarios so you have to work with what has been given, but you can sometimes worry them a bit. The AC 31 fighter cannot be hit and the scenario has all hack and slash monsters? Have them aid another, or make trips (even with AoOs), or start sundering armor... there's always a way.
Heh, the multi-aid grapple dogpile: not just for PCs anymore! ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread breaks my heart. Honestly.
Four- and five-star GMs are suggesting that when a player invests in something they want their character to be really really good at, it turns their stomach.
It makes me very very sad.
Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table". I don't know whether you've ever played Mutants & Masterminds, but in that version of d20, every aspect of the PC has an upper limit based on level. An armored character can be harder to boot than anybody else, and then A little bit bardeen, but then he hits a hard cap. I think PFS works better when players impose the same kinds of reserve, on a voluntary basis.
But why do you think it's the GMs with a lot of table experience?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".
If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?
|
|
Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?
Chris and Andrew are free to correct me here, since it's not my viewpoint that I'm espousing but rather a differently-worded version of what I've seen them say, but I think the answer to this question for them is that it isn't as simple as the one roll. If there's a scenario that's built for tension of the lurking horrors and has 5 DC 30 ambushes, hoping to put the PCs on edge, the +15 guy is going to be find and stop one or two of them on average, be a hero that time, and make the scenario somewhat easier, highlighting themselves on those high rolls. Getting hit by some ambushes raises the tension and makes the thwarting of others seem more heroic. +30 guy finds all 5 of them, possibly even rolling a 1 or 2 and proving that it was trivial, nobody ever gets ambushed for the raised tension, and it makes the scenario seem more like a joke or a cakewalk than a tense mission.
Again, not my viewpoint that I'm posting in the above paragraph, but I think it's what Chris and Andrew are getting at though, and I see how it can happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, can I ask you "what is the point of playing the game?" For you. As a GM and as a player. What do you enjoy about the game?
Good question.
This has been a hobby of mine since I was 14 back in 1985. Not as long as some, and longer than some of you have been alive.
I’ve gone through my phases of creating the really weird characters (some guys in my home group might say that I haven’t ever gotten that phase out of my system), but then my best friends all think I’m a bit weird anyways.
I’ve also gone through my phases of trying to “win” the game. Basically become so powerful, and use all the rules to my advantage, and find all the loopholes that make me even more uber. When I joined the Army out of High School in 1989, I ran into a group of gamers that were more about roleplay, and I grew out of that phase. I saw the true enjoyment of playing an interesting character, rather than just a powerful one. I still see the draw of wanting to play the characters from the movies and novels that are the “best” at whatever they do (Zorro, Riddick, Ender, Legolas, etc.).
Since I was the one with the books back in 1985, I was a primary GM. So of the 28 years I’ve been gaming, I’ve also been a GM. I’ve grown as a player and a GM since then though. The biggest growth was when I took over coordinating and developing Living Dragonstar from late 2002 to Gen Con 2004. I saw the game from the author/writer/developer/game designer side of things. Believe it or not, just being involved with Organized Play made me a better player and GM, because I saw lots of the pitfalls firsthand of the players who just wanted to be Uber. I twasn’t just my 3 or 4 good friends from High School anymore. I saw how that kind of play and GM’ing (the adversarial kind) could tear apart a table in a heartbeat.
I challenge anyone to find me a handful of players who flat out had a crappy time at my table. There is always one or two from time to time, that no matter what you do, will not have a good time. Whether it is personality clash, they are tired, you are tired, whatever. But I challenge you to find people who straight up did not enjoy my table. I think you’ll find that of the over 600 people I’ve GM’d for in PFS, you will find less than 10.
I’m not saying this to brag. I’m saying this, because that’s what I GM for. To provide a good time for my players. I have fun and a good time (usually) if they have a good time. If they walk away laughing and smiling, so do I.
I play and GM this game to have fun. When fun stops, I stop.
But my experience as a player, GM, coordinator, Venture-Officer, Author, campaign coordinator, and campaign developer have all shown me what types of activities cause fun to break down into not so much fun. I choose to share that experience.
People of course are free to ignore what I say. I’m sure many do. They can experience things for themselves and either learn the same lessons I learned, or learn their own lessons that teach them something different. But their free will to have fun in whatever way they like to have fun, is not going to stop me from expressing my feelings and what I like and don’t like.
This isn’t about badwrongfun and more about me just sharing my experiences and philosophies on things.
I follow the rules to the best of my ability and memory of said rules. I also love to improvise and often do so with the roleplaying moments.
On these boards though, my table personality is not apparent for two reasons. 1) I love debate and open discussion (some call it arguing). But I love the debate. But that being said, I feel I have an obligation to most often argue the more conservative side of the debate, to help mitigate any table variation someone might experience that could invalidate their entire character. 2) I spend time to share my experiences, philosophies and feelings. They are mine, and I like sharing them.
At the table, however, I’m a GM, storyteller, arbiter, judge, what have you. I like to weave the tale presented before me, and draw the players in to experience that tale as I weave it.
TL;DR: I play the game to have fun.
|
|
This thread breaks my heart. Honestly.
Four- and five-star GMs are suggesting that when a player invests in something they want their character to be really really good at, it turns their stomach.
It makes me very very sad.
Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table". I don't know whether you've ever played Mutants & Masterminds, but in that version of d20, every aspect of the PC has an upper limit based on level. An armored character can be harder to boot than anybody else, and then A little bit bardeen, but then he hits a hard cap. I think PFS works better when players impose the same kinds of reserve, on a voluntary basis.
But why do you think it's the GMs with a lot of table experience?
so, please making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table"...
what's the brake point?
I know what it is for the players, as the players at the table with me were (for the most part) a team. we play together often. If I'm doing something they don't like they'll let me know. Thus when I miss a trap it's "the look" as they take the damage.
But what's the brake point for the judge? If I sit at your table, where do I need to cap my bonuses (skills/to hit/AC/etc)? And to bring it badk to this thread, where to I cap my perception?
The Break Point:
When you find you are auto-succeeding 90 to 95% of the time on all rolls, stop investing in that skill.
At the table, don't limit what you've already built, that just makes you feel bad and we don't want the player feeling bad for building a legal character in the moment.
But if over continuous time, you find that nothing challenges your "X" skill, stop investing in it.
|
|
Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?Chris and Andrew are free to correct me here, since it's not my viewpoint that I'm espousing but rather a differently-worded version of what I've seen them say, but I think the answer to this question for them is that it isn't as simple as the one roll. If there's a scenario that's built for tension of the lurking horrors and has 5 DC 30 ambushes, hoping to put the PCs on edge, the +15 guy is going to be find and stop one or two of them on average, be a hero that time, and make the scenario somewhat easier, highlighting themselves on those high rolls. Getting hit by some ambushes raises the tension and makes the thwarting of others seem more heroic. +30 guy finds all 5 of them, possibly even rolling a 1 or 2 and proving that it was trivial, nobody ever gets ambushed for the raised tension, and it makes the scenario seem more like a joke or a cakewalk than a tense mission.
Again, not my viewpoint that I'm posting in the above paragraph, but I think it's what Chris and Andrew are getting at though, and I see how it can happen.
Yes, very well put Rogue Eidolon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rogue Eidolon: I can see how that could be an issue, though at that point it's a matter of taste. Personally, I often enjoy seeing tropes subverted like that, where instead of the protagonist always being the underdog or at a disadvantage and succeeding largely because of luck (or the bad guy doing something dumb), they're clearly and solidly beyond the antagonists' abilities in one or more areas.
I liked it when the 9th Doctor told the whole dalek fleet "No", when the 10th Doctor intimidated a sentient flesh-eating swarm by saying "Look me up," and when the 11th Doctor called the defeated and fleeing aliens back to Earth just to basically say "And stay out!" And I imagine that some other players will enjoy that type of thing as well.
To some of us, succeeding based almost as much on luck as on competence; matching our rising bonuses to rising DCs so that we need the same die roll thresholds we've needed since level one, reducing all challenges to identical d20 rolls; having the barbarian strain his back while the frail elf rips the portcullis off the wall because the difference in our abilities is smaller than the die roll's range; to some of us, that doesn't feel very heroic, or very like our PC is any different from the next guy over. Needing to roll a 7 compared to someone else's 13 doesn't feel like being a specialist (at least not to everyone).
And given that that's just as valid as wanting the players to be more challenged, we've got to find a middle ground to work from.
|
|
@Rogue Eidolon: I can see how that could be an issue, though at that point it's a matter of taste. Personally, I often enjoy seeing tropes subverted like that, where instead of the protagonist always being the underdog or at a disadvantage and succeeding largely because of luck (or the bad guy doing something dumb), they're clearly and solidly beyond the antagonists' abilities in one or more areas.
I liked it when the 9th Doctor told the whole dalek fleet "No", when the 10th Doctor intimidated a sentient flesh-eating swarm by saying "Look me up," and when the 11th Doctor called the defeated and fleeing aliens back to Earth just to basically say "And stay out!" And I imagine that some other players will enjoy that type of thing as well.
To some of us, succeeding based almost as much on luck as on competence; matching our rising bonuses to rising DCs so that we need the same die roll thresholds we've needed since level one, reducing all challenges to identical d20 rolls; having the barbarian strain his back while the frail elf rips the portcullis off the wall because the difference in our abilities is smaller than the die roll's range; to some of us, that doesn't feel very heroic, or very like our PC is any different from the next guy over. Needing to roll a 7 compared to someone else's 13 doesn't feel like being a specialist (at least not to everyone).
And given that that's just as valid as wanting the players to be more challenged, we've got to find a middle ground to work from.
I agree with you, Jiggy. I love playing the genre-savvy character who doesn't fall for the obvious ruse and subverting all sorts of tropes.
Heck, I occasionally play an enchantress who truly believes that her connection to the Eldest of the First World makes her enchantment spells have no save. So far, nothing has ever disabused her of that--by which I mean, nothing has ever succeeded on a Will save against any of her enchantment spells. But since I run the scenarios before playing much of the time, I try to pick to play her in scenarios with at least one solid encounter that is immune to mind-affecting or has high SR to spotlight the other characters and leave her with little to do but mild damage spells.
I mean, to go all the way back to Andrew's early example of the two man team of perception character and archer winning everything, my level 12 archer might be his nightmare, since she is both amazing at perception and a high damage archer. The funny thing is, usually giving the whole party a surprise round pushes spotlight off my archer. Why? The casters can still annihilate the enemy team with a standard action, but I can't really do much on a single shot. Also, I chose to keep my archer's initiative pretty low (+2), so in case I do rip through things, everyone else has had a chance to be awesome too (and I'll focus on the ones the melee hasn't engaged yet and the wizard hasn't crowd-controlled if there are several targets).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of these days I'm considering building the world's first team-player summoner. Use just one natural attack on the eidolon (and with low damage!), but load it up with reach, grab, trip, poison... and let my partymates whoop up on the poor sod. :D
|
|
One of these days I'm considering building the world's first team-player summoner. Use just one natural attack on the eidolon (and with low damage!), but load it up with reach, grab, trip, poison... and let my partymates whoop up on the poor sod. :D
Yeah, my enchantress specializes in making the enemy lose their turns for a long time. But she herself couldn't finish anything off, even given all that time. She's great for spotlighting newish players who want to play frontline fighters but sometimes get eaten alive by the enemy's counterattacks. And she generally doesn't like to run out of spells, so with multiple enemies, she'll just be a damage reduction percentage, rather than set it to 0 for a while.
|
Andrew, can I ask you "what is the point of playing the game?" For you. As a GM and as a player. What do you enjoy about the game?Good question.
...
TL;DR: I play the game to have fun.
So do I. So does nosig.
You are telling us, however, that what is fun for him (trying to spot as many traps and ambushes as possible) turns your stomach.
Should players check in with GMs to find out what skills/spells/weapons/races/classes/special abilities/feats/traits/etc. are agreeable to the GM?
I am so tired of reading on these boards that people who optimize their characters in one particular aspect are being selfish or playing the game for the wrong reasons or whatever! It is ludicrous.
A high perception character is not uber, by the way. Even if they can see EVERYTHING. Nor are powerful characters necessarily uninteresting. Nosig chose to play a high perception character because he felt such a character would be fun and interesting to play. Have you ever read Lord of the Rings? There is a similar character in that book; his name is Legolas. Many people find that character to be one of their favorites.
Is it only the Perception skill that irks you? I would want to know before sitting at a table you are running (and I have already acknowledged that you are an excellent GM, by all reports).
If I have a super-high AC, are you going to tell me that is ruining your fun because I never take any damage?
If I have super-high saves, is that ruining your fun?
If I can hit with my ranged weapon every time I fire it, does that ruin it for you?
What things are characters able to excel at when sitting at your table that does not turn your stomach?
Because for me, when I'm playing, I want to play a heroic character who is awesome at something. I don't really care what I am awesome about, so I am asking you. What can my character be awesome at and not turn your stomach?
|
nosig: you're still looking at it the wrong way, I think. It's not about the number it's about differing expectations between you and the GM. There's not some magical perception number that will give you the best chance of seeing the things and be low enough not to have judges ignore it.
There is no magical number that makes this possible.
Your GMs can do better, and it's fair and reasonable of you to expect them to.
Just understand that in some cases you may be pushing their buttons or moving them outside their comfort zone. When you do this you are less likely to have an awesome game.
While I find many of Andrew's posts offensive, including several in this thread, I do agree that any sort of lengthy "SOP" list would not make me happy as a GM. I'm going to try and explain why, but it's a little difficult.
There are several different things it makes me think of, and it's some weird mix between them:
I feel what you're saying is that you want to do something repetitive, time consuming and boring, but you'd like me to handle it on my side of the screen. Which is somewhat useful because it can save table time but annoying because it's one more thing for me to keep track of.
You've said I'm not allowed to ambush you with a,b,c or d because you're carefully checking for those.
You have been scarred by unreasonably harsh GMs who make you hit the floor for failing to spot it or are like "you only looked left and straight and right but not up-left so the gelatinous cube eats your sword" and have a list of things as a defensive measure for an antagonistic environment.
Instead of interacting with the environment you just want your perception to do the work for you. More notes on this in the spoiler:
Here's a random sample boxed text from Thornkeep:
"This long chamber has four alcoves along the western wall. The outer two contain visible statues, and the center two are recessed. Corridors stand opposite the northern and southern statues."
Player 1: I do my SOP, take 10 perception is 32
GM: Just statues, nothing else of interest.
Play 1: Alright lets move in.
GM: Alright stop there, ambush time etc.
Player 2: I take a quick look around the room, take 10 perception gives me a 32, assuming I don't see anything immediately dangerous I will take a peek into the close alcoves.
GM: You don't see anything immediately dangerous but as you approach the alcove you do hear the tell tale sigh of heavy breathing from around the corner and see the top of a goblin spear just sticking out, roll initiative.
I can totally see myself doing this, even if the SOP involved carefully peeking around corners. I probably shouldn't, I'm probably harming the fun of player 1 who is in no way breaking the rules but I can totally see myself doing this, and frustrating player 1 who has reasonably wanted to find things, has come up with a reasonable list of how he does so and has invested in his perception.
Reiterating my point: I think the problem here revolves around the social contract and not about how high the perception score is or taking ten.
I have no real way of telling which of these reasons if any apply, but they probably influence how I run and what things do.
|
|
While I'm sure I would prefer Player 2 over Player 1, I think this is genuinely unfair to players and is an imposition of your values on the game. That having been said, if you tell Player 1 before hand, what you expect, giving him or her a freebie the first time, then I think that's workable.
But essentially you're dictating to the player how they should roleplay and I don't believe that is in the spirit of PFS or any RPG. We don't all think alike. I don't think players who think differently or value different aspects of the game should be penalized for it.
I totally agree, now under the assumption we can't just make every GM perfect, what can player 1 do to help avoid being marginalized? (Other than bringing up the issue in in a civilized way in the forums in an attempt to figure out what's going on in a non-confrontational way.)