RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would connect the Take 20 rules to whether a character can Try Again, Matt. But I haven't looked it up. My gut instinct would be no, because generally speaking you can't tell how successful your Stealth is. The additional time would certainly be worth a +2 modifier, though.
Regarding the -10 Diplomacy modifier,
At Origins, I had a player at my table with a character with a+39 Diplomacy and he was trying to sell the "-10 penalty for rushed Diplomacy" rule to me. I didn't buy it.
I asked around the next evening, and it seems he usually succeeds in convincing his GMs.
Seriously, though: if you look hard and ask around, you'll find that lots of GMs make rules mistakes. I've certainly made my share. Are you seriously suggesting that only rules-perfect GMs have any benefit to experience?
I'm a 5-star GM only by accident. But if you get a chance to play under Doug or Kyle or Bob or Thea, you can see that their experience has really informed their GM style, and their understanding of how PFS stands as a healthy play environment. Would they really need to be rules-perfect for you to permit their opinions to inform this debate?
When airline pilots talk to one another, they ask "how many hours have you flown?" They don't ask "What kinds of problems have you encountered? Turbulence? Mechanical failure?" That's because there's an assumption that if you log enough hours, those problems and more will come to the surface.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* Ate my post.
IIRC, the -10 to quick diplomacy was a 3x rule. It was removed from Pathfinder.
I listen to your opinions. I give them the same weight I give Nosig's, the same weight I give others. To say "I have 100 tables under my belt" then say "Look at all my experience" is arguing that because you've GMed a lot, you should have more weight than people with less experience. So yeah, when someone goes "Look how much experience I have" then flubs a basic knowlege check (like Gnomes having SLAs) I'm going to call 'em on it.
When those 5 star GMs say "Why can't you fail once in a while?" Or "Your perception score is legal but too high!" I'm not going to care if they have 1 table or 1000. I'm going to call them on it. If Mike Brock himself complains about it, I'll call him on it.
Let's not forget, nosig's SOP came about because a GM was neutering his abilities. If you roll to hit, the GM doesn't ask if you're using Tybalt or Cappapero. If you roll a craft (masonry) the GM doesn't ask you to describe the basics of stone work. But if you roll perception, make the DC then get ambushed because 'you didn't say you looked up' (Happened to me once) then you're punishing the player for his character being too good.
(Aside, taking 20 on a perception check by 'standing in the door' likely isn't going to work for me. I'm going to assume at least one of the ambushers is going to get paranoid (if they can see you) and shoot you.) I'm also going to tell a player that if they say their SOP is to do that before the game starts and suggest they take 10.
Again, if a character is (legally) breaking ambushes, breaking grapplers, etc... let him. If you see it's ruining others fun, you can ask him to stop, or hold back, or speak to him after the game.
All comments like "I hate characters that ruin ambushes" or "Witches ruin my fun, because I hate having my monsters shut down." do is make the casual player paranoid. I played a scenario where Ksenia couldn't get anything to fail it's save. Dice happen. But if the GM had been known for griping about slumber hexes, and table after table with him resulted in everyone 'amazingly' making their saves. I'd be paranoid too. Tell me how that grows the hobby?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
*sigh* Ate my post.
IIRC, the -10 to quick diplomacy was a 3x rule. It was removed from Pathfinder.
I listen to your opinions. I give them the same weight I give Nosig's, the same weight I give others. To say "I have 100 tables under my belt" then say "Look at all my experience" is arguing that because you've GMed a lot, you should have more weight than people with less experience.
Again, I didn't bring it up.
However, my friend, we're talking about the real situations that crop up at gaming tables. Nosig and some of his GMs are coming to loggerheads over something. He wants to know how to fix that.
Different experiences provide different expertise. Running a lot of PFS tables may or may not give someone a lot of rules knowledge. (It certainly provides the opportunity for someone to learn the basic Pathfinder rules pretty well. So does playing a lot of games.) But I'll argue that running a lot of tables, particularly at conventions as opposed to home campaigns or game days with a regular crowd, does provide useful intel about what kinds of problems crop up at tables, what triggers those problems, and how one side or another might address them.
Back two years ago, my advice to nosig would be something like "Turn to the rules on Prception,show them to the GM and ask him to follow the Pathfinder rules." These days, that wouldn't be my recommendation.
|
*sigh* Ate my post.
IIRC, the -10 to quick diplomacy was a 3x rule. It was removed from Pathfinder.
I listen to your opinions. I give them the same weight I give Nosig's, the same weight I give others. To say "I have 100 tables under my belt" then say "Look at all my experience" is arguing that because you've GMed a lot, you should have more weight than people with less experience. So yeah, when someone goes "Look how much experience I have" then flubs a basic knowlege check (like Gnomes having SLAs) I'm going to call 'em on it.
When those 5 star GMs say "Why can't you fail once in a while?" Or "Your perception score is legal but too high!" I'm not going to care if they have 1 table or 1000. I'm going to call them on it. If Mike Brock himself complains about it, I'll call him on it.
Let's not forget, nosig's SOP came about because a GM was neutering his abilities. If you roll to hit, the GM doesn't ask if you're using Tybalt or Cappapero. If you roll a craft (masonry) the GM doesn't ask you to describe the basics of stone work. But if you roll perception, make the DC then get ambushed because 'you didn't say you looked up' (Happened to me once) then you're punishing the player for his character being too good.
(Aside, taking 20 on a perception check by 'standing in the door' likely isn't going to work for me. I'm going to assume at least one of the ambushers is going to get paranoid (if they can see you) and shoot you.) I'm also going to tell a player that if they say their SOP is to do that before the game starts and suggest they take 10.
Again, if a character is (legally) breaking ambushes, breaking grapplers, etc... let him. If you see it's ruining others fun, you can ask him to stop, or hold back, or speak to him after the game.
All comments like "I hate characters that ruin ambushes" or "Witches ruin my fun, because I hate having my monsters shut down." do is make the casual player paranoid. I played a scenario where Ksenia couldn't get anything to fail...
So what you are saying is, when someone brings up anecdotal or experiential evidence that you would give someone whose run 100 scenarios the same weight as someone who’s run 1? How does that make any sense?
And to all those who say that they’ve run hundreds of games in home campaigns as well, I understand that sentiment. And to some degree, GM experience for 30 years does carry weight.
But organized play is a completely different environment, so while 30 years of non organized play experience does hold some weight, GM experience within a specific organized play environment has to hold some weight on certain topics. Why?
Because more experience breeds more knowledge on certain things. I’m not talking rules knowledge, although anecdotally, I know the rules much, much better both having been very active on the boards, and being a very active organized play GM (as opposed to a very active home game GM). But to discount experience on witnessing patterns, tropes, pitfalls, how better to prep, problems that keep arrising and what not, is like telling Jack Nicholson or Robert De Niro that their experience in acting holds the same weight as Haley Joel Osmond or Dakota Fanning.
If you are treating comments all as opinion, sure, give them all the same weight. But if it is experience that is being relayed, to trivialize that experience just because you haven’t experienced the same things, is straight up insulting.
|
|
Oh, I don't know. Outside of the CON, when there is more time to interact with someone in person, I'm sure we (judges) could have a wonderful discussion and perhaps everyone would alter thier play style a little. Though I am not sure I could ever "ask him to follow the Pathfinder rules". That would be a bit to confrontational to me. I know I, myself, am going to have to start looking at encounters in a different light, and perhaps jot a note or two on the write-up about...*sigh* Ate my post.
IIRC, the -10 to quick diplomacy was a 3x rule. It was removed from Pathfinder.
I listen to your opinions. I give them the same weight I give Nosig's, the same weight I give others. To say "I have 100 tables under my belt" then say "Look at all my experience" is arguing that because you've GMed a lot, you should have more weight than people with less experience.
Again, I didn't bring it up.
However, my friend, we're talking about the real situations that crop up at gaming tables. Nosig and some of his GMs are coming to loggerheads over something. He wants to know how to fix that.
Different experiences provide different expertise. Running a lot of PFS tables may or may not give someone a lot of rules knowledge. (It certainly provides the opportunity for someone to learn the basic Pathfinder rules pretty well. So does playing a lot of games.) But I'll argue that running a lot of tables, particularly at conventions as opposed to home campaigns or game days with a regular crowd, does provide useful intel about what kinds of problems crop up at tables, what triggers those problems, and how one side or another might address them.
Back two years ago, my advice to nosig would be something like "Turn to the rules on Prception,show them to the GM and ask him to follow the Pathfinder rules." These days, that wouldn't be my recommendation.
That's actually not a bad idea for prep. If the scenario calls out for a surprise round or an ambush, it really behooves you to be prepared for that. Good idea Nosig. I will take note of this as I prep things from now on. I often am not too bad at figuring that stuff out on the fly, but having it pre-prepped makes me more efficient at the table.
One thing you can do after the session is over is say, "Hey, I noticed you had a little bit of an issue with the Perception rules at the ambush encounter. What I do to help myself out, because I have trouble with perception rules on the fly too, is while prepping, if I note an encounter is supposed to be an ambush, I note the perception DC's required to figure it out."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[In any case, "appeal to authority" is a fallacy, and I don't think it's a fallacious distinction. (If you want to ask people about making hamburgers, it's not an appeal to authority to ask hamburger cooks. It's an appeal to experience.)
So, the fox, that's what I'm asking. You've observed that some of us with 100+ tables under our belts, see a potential for a problem when players build characters with extreme builds, which circumnavigate some elements of the game, and we recommend against playing that way. Why do you think that is?
** spoiler omitted **
True. though again, when I can't find rules in Pathfinder for the -10 to diplomacy as a full round action. Or Venture Captains are arguing that Gnomes don't have spell like abilities. I'll hold the 'hundreds of tables of experience' in the same level I hold my two passes through the superstar hopper. Not worth very much.
Aside... can you 'take 20' on stealth if you're not being observed when you do it? i.e. setting up for an ambush?
It seems that stealth is rolled opposed at the time of observation, not at the time of setting up the hiding, so generally no, unless you have the Freeze universal monster ability. If you allow taking 20 on stealth any time, then the Freeze universal monster ability does nothing.
If you are wrecking entire scenarios (not just encounters) because your Perception, Sense Motive, or whatever skill is so high, that you can't fail no matter what you roll, and you refuse to stop investing in that skill, then you are going overboard.
Interesting point of view. In my opinion, if a scenario is wrecked when the PCs avoid a certain ambush or trap, then that's a weakness with the scenario, not a weakness with the PCs.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, that's fine, hogarth. I don't think we have a lot of scenarios where sky-high Perception wrecks them.
But let's say that a healthy number of scenarios can be broken the same way. (And these days, I'm thinking about the deeper darkness spamming Tiefling rogues, who who routinely create a condition thait shuts down both their colleagues and the opposition.)
In a home campaign, that's not a problem. The GM either says "not in this home campaign, Buppy," or else starts throwing a bunch of deeper-darkness-friendly opponents at the party.
So, this is the environment we have. Don't bring a gun to a knife fight.
|
|
If you are wrecking entire scenarios (not just encounters) because your Perception, Sense Motive, or whatever skill is so high, that you can't fail no matter what you roll, and you refuse to stop investing in that skill, then you are going overboard.Interesting point of view. In my opinion, if a scenario is wrecked when the PCs avoid a certain ambush or trap, then that's a weakness with the scenario, not a weakness with the PCs.
If you read some of my other posts, you’ll note that I’m not talking about an isolated incident in a single scenario. You’ll note that I’m referring to a cumulative affect over not just one or two encounters or even scenarios, but many scenarios across several sub-tiers.
The nature of organized play is not conducive to extreme builds. And if you take that as me saying some people are playing wrong, or are having badwrongfun, so be it. I can’t change how people interpret what I write and I’m tired of trying to explain that I’m not doing those things only to have people ignore the explanation.
But whether it offends folks or not, the truth of the matter is, that organized play is not conducive to play stiles that include extreme builds (whether its extreme on the uber end, or on the under end.)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But let's say that a healthy number of scenarios can be broken the same way. (And these days, I'm thinking about the deeper darkness spamming Tiefling rogues, who who routinely create a condition thait shuts down both their colleagues and the opposition.)
If someone is shutting down their allies, regardless of whether it's with Deeper Darkness or a sky-high skill or even a really weak PC who gets in the way of others' efforts, then the GM needs to inform them that they can either play socially or leave the table.
And that, to me, is a separate issue from the "if you never fail, you're ruining the GM's fun" issue.
Personally, I'm more curious in exploring that one - why is PC failure a requirement for some GMs' fun? If we leave out all the anti-social behavior that gets smooshed together with it in people's examples, so the only variable we're examining is the frequency of success in a given task, why is it that some GMs' stomach turns at that lack of failure?
Is it that consistent success in a given field tells a different genre of story (or describes a different kind of protagonist) than the GM prefers?
Is it that the GM actually has trouble separating the successes from the anti-social behavior (i.e., the GM is used to them going together, so just seeing the one triggers the displeasure associated with the other)?
Is it something else I haven't guessed?
And whatever the reason, is that reason valid/appropriate for a PFS GM? If so, how can we make it more palatable to players or help players be more okay with it? Or if it's not, then what can GMs do to improve their own behavior and mindsets?
I think that's the direction we need to go if we want this discussion to bear any worthwhile fruit.
|
|
But let's say that a healthy number of scenarios can be broken the same way. (And these days, I'm thinking about the deeper darkness spamming Tiefling rogues, who who routinely create a condition thait shuts down both their colleagues and the opposition.)If someone is shutting down their allies, regardless of whether it's with Deeper Darkness or a sky-high skill or even a really weak PC who gets in the way of others' efforts, then the GM needs to inform them that they can either play socially or leave the table.
And that, to me, is a separate issue from the "if you never fail, you're ruining the GM's fun" issue.
Personally, I'm more curious in exploring that one - why is PC failure a requirement for some GMs' fun? If we leave out all the anti-social behavior that gets smooshed together with it in people's examples, so the only variable we're examining is the frequency of success in a given task, why is it that some GMs' stomach turns at that lack of failure?
Is it that consistent success in a given field tells a different genre of story (or describes a different kind of protagonist) than the GM prefers?
Is it that the GM actually has trouble separating the successes from the anti-social behavior (i.e., the GM is used to them going together, so just seeing the one triggers the displeasure associated with the other)?
Is it something else I haven't guessed?
And whatever the reason, is that reason valid/appropriate for a PFS GM? If so, how can we make it more palatable to players or help players be more okay with it? Or if it's not, then what can GMs do to improve their own behavior and mindsets?
I think that's the direction we need to go if we want this discussion to bear any worthwhile fruit.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you haven't understood what I'm trying to say yet on the uber-skill ruining my fun, then I'm not sure you are going to no matter how I word it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you haven't understood what I'm trying to say yet on the uber-skill ruining my fun, then I'm not sure you are going to no matter how I word it.
Is that what you have been trying to do all this time?
I thought you just enjoyed ramming your head into a brick wall... ;)|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you haven't understood what I'm trying to say yet on the uber-skill ruining my fun, then I'm not sure you are going to no matter how I word it.
Well, maybe I missed a post somewhere in the last several pages, but what I recall reading from you includes:
A) Examples that combine consistent success at a given skill/ability with jerkish behaviorB) Statements that consistent success ruins your fun, but without explaining the "why" behind that fact
C) Examples that combine consistent success at a given skill/ability with trivializing entire scenarios
Now, A and C tell me that you dislike antisocial behavior and the trivializing of entire scenarios, but neither of those occurrences is the same as being consistently successful at a given skill/ability. But then you cite that consistent success as being what ruins your fun.
So I'm trying to figure out whether it's really the consistent success at a given skill that ruins your fun, or if it's only when they use it (or anything else) as a means of being antisocial or wrecking entire scenarios. Which is it?
You say that consistent success ruins your fun as GM. That would mean that if you GM five scenarios for somebody, and even if they're super nice and only roll a Perception or Diplomacy check when you ask them to, if they always hit 40+ and succeed, your fun is still eventually ruined. But when someone protests this, you point out that you're only talking about extreme behavior. (But you don't quite define whether that means extreme attempts to over-apply an uber-skill, or simply an extremely high skill.)
So you say one thing that throws up red flags for people, then go back and talk about being antisocial or completely wrecking multiple scenarios (beyond what naturally arises from having high skill mods), but then later go back to pointing at big numbers.
So which is it? It sounds like you're saying both, so if you actually think a +40 is fine as long as it isn't used for nefarious ends (such as only making a check when prompted by the GM), then you'll probably want to stop mentioning the big numbers at all, since it just makes it look like you're against PC success regardless of behavior. So if that's not what you mean (and I personally think it's not), you could probably be more clear.
I don't think we have a lot of scenarios where sky-high Perception wrecks them.
But let's say that a healthy number of scenarios can be broken the same way.
I have no idea what this means. I'm assuming there's some subtle difference between "wrecked" and "broken". So I guess I'll add an addendum: if a scenario is broken when the PCs avoid a certain ambush or trap, then that's a weakness with the scenario, not a weakness with the PCs.
|
|
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you haven't understood what I'm trying to say yet on the uber-skill ruining my fun, then I'm not sure you are going to no matter how I word it.Is that what you have been trying to do all this time?
I thought you just enjoyed ramming your head into a brick wall... ;)
chuckle... yes, apparently I do enjoy that.
Mabye if I know I'll be GM'ing for an uber-skiller, I'll just bring a brick wall to the game day with me.
|
|
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you haven't understood what I'm trying to say yet on the uber-skill ruining my fun, then I'm not sure you are going to no matter how I word it.Well, maybe I missed a post somewhere in the last several pages, but what I recall reading from you includes:
A) Examples that combine consistent success at a given skill/ability with jerkish behavior
B) Statements that consistent success ruins your fun, but without explaining the "why" behind that fact
C) Examples that combine consistent success at a given skill/ability with trivializing entire scenariosNow, A and C tell me that you dislike antisocial behavior and the trivializing of entire scenarios, but neither of those occurrences is the same as being consistently successful at a given skill/ability. But then you cite that consistent success as being what ruins your fun.
So I'm trying to figure out whether it's really the consistent success at a given skill that ruins your fun, or if it's only when they use it (or anything else) as a means of being antisocial or wrecking entire scenarios. Which is it?
You say that consistent success ruins your fun as GM. That would mean that if you GM five scenarios for somebody, and even if they're super nice and only roll a Perception or Diplomacy check when you ask them to, if they always hit 40+ and succeed, your fun is still eventually ruined. But when someone protests this, you point out that you're only talking about extreme behavior. (But you don't quite define whether that means extreme attempts to over-apply an uber-skill, or simply an extremely high skill.)
So you say one thing that throws up red flags for people, then go back and talk about being antisocial or completely wrecking multiple scenarios (beyond what naturally arises from having high skill mods), but then later go back to pointing at big numbers.
So which is it? It sounds like you're saying both, so if you actually think a +40 is fine as long...
Ok, let me break it down for you, again...
1) I enjoy providing fun and challenge to my players. (Yes, I did say this above.) I think I'm a better GM when I know the players are being challenged.
2) If the cumulative experience with the same player(s) across multiple scenarios and/or tiers shows that they auto-succeed on everything, then I can't provide them with a challenge.
3) If I can't provide them with a challenge, then I don't have fun, and subsequently I'm not as good a GM, and probably the players are not having as much fun either (despite the fact they just sneezed and the scenario was over.)
What you can read into this: Nothing. It is exactly what I just said.
I've heard other GM's complain about this exact same thing, so I know I'm not alone (mabye alone on the feeling I'm a worse GM for it).
And you ask: What's the difference between an auto-succeed and someone with a good skill who rolls well all the time?
Most of the time, it might just be semantics. But every so often, that good skill who rolls well all the time, will roll poorly, and fail.
The illusion that I have a chance to provide a challenge, is incredibly important to me as a GM.
I'd wager that this illusion is as important to most GM's as the illusion is to players that their choices matter.
|
If you do have a sky high perception, all that means to me is that it is unlikely you'll be getting surprised. I've played at several tables where GMs grant foes a surprise round, even when we're aware of them, and aware they might (or do) represent a threat. I've also played at tables where I'm never asked for a perception check, a creature simply attacks. Both of these situations frustrate me and I don't understand why GMs feel they should occur.
To situation 1, this should be a straight initiative roll as soon as either side decides to take an aggressive action (in my mind at least).
To situation 2, the only time the rules support something like this is when a creature has senses which allow it to perceive the party, and the party has NO senses which allow them to perceive the creature.
This. Very much this.
The next time your NPCs or a scenario call for an ambush, try to ask yourself how you would rule it if the PCs were trying that dross.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, let me break it down for you, again...
1) I enjoy providing fun and challenge to my players. (Yes, I did say this above.) I think I'm a better GM when I know the players are being challenged.
2) If the cumulative experience with the same player(s) across multiple scenarios and/or tiers shows that they auto-succeed on everything, then I can't provide them with a challenge.
3) If I can't provide them with a challenge, then I don't have fun, and subsequently I'm not as good a GM, and probably the players are not having as much fun either (despite the fact they just sneezed and the scenario was over.)
1) I enjoy eating steak. I don't always get to eat it. I enjoy GMing, sometimes it's not a challenge to the players characters. Crit happens. Characters are built to one shot opponents. Based on what you've said, I'm not keen to play any caster at your table.
2) Then thank heavens no one has brought up a PC that "shows they auto-succeed on everything."
3) If I don't have fun, I'll speak to the players after the (repeated instance) of not having fun. If it persists, I'll not GM. I do this for fun.
And yes, I take anyone who compares the difference between 5 stars of GMing and 1 scenario of GMing to professional performers that have decades more experience than their counterparts anything but seriously.
Edit: That woul be as silly as adding weight to someone because he has a shiny GM of the year award on his shelf.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you bring a PC into a game with my PC and you drop a deeper darkness that causes my girl a lot of problems... I'm (she's) going to ask you not to do it again. If you continue to do it, she's going to not adventure with your PC again.
I mean really? this is a social game. If you ruin it for the other players, pretty soon they don't play with you.
"routinely create a condition that shuts down" or ruins the game is what griefers do. No one likes playing with these problem children. The way to fix this is the same way we always have. Don't sit with them. Warn your fiends. Play with people who you like to play with.
I'm nodding in agreement, nosig. Two comments:
At conventions, particularly large cons with lots of people from all over, a PFS player can alienate his colleagues over and over again, without facing any repercussions. Especially at a low- to mid-level table.
More seriously, this is why we're advising people not to build those PCs. Most of them represent a cool thought experiement. I suppose there are twinked-out environments and whole-party builds where they might be appropriate. (Bonekeep, I'm looking at you.) But in general, get found.
--
The first line, about run as written, is the one that concerns me the most in this thread. If a character has hyper-specialized something to be good at it, why would you want to deny them a chance to shine with said skill. There are times when something is utterly ineffective, and many skills (diplomacy, bluff, etc) fall under this category. Attempting to GM fiat away a legitimate opportunity to use them seems wrong to me (and in the context of PFS, not running RAW).
I'm beginning to think that an internet chat board is not the right medium for subtle distinction.
David, I don't know if anyone has suggested that people not build characters who are good at something, or even great at something. But there's a difference between "a chance to shine"and "a chance to shut down everybody else from shining".
Let me give you another example.
A year ago, one of the popular shut-'em-down builds was the Aasimar Oracle of the Heavens, with the "Awesome Display" mystery power, and an armload of color spray spells. If the PC had a Charisma of 22, she was blasting enemies with color spray and their effective HD was six lower than their actual HD. Over and over again, all the enemies that could see the PC and were subject to color spray were dropping like flies.
Some adventures featured enemies that were immune to mind-effecting spells. A reasonable number of scenarios didn't.
And here's the central point: the job of the GM is to tell a satisfying story, in which the PCs are the protagonists. A satisfying story has the protagonists overcoming obstacles. A CR7 chimera, normally a reasonable obstacle for a 6th-level party, was being blasted by the oracle and needed to make a DC 24 Will save (with a bonus of +6) or be helpless for 1d4+1 rounds.
And that's not an obstacle. So the storyline became unsatisfying for a lot of players (some of whom had things that they wanted to do in combat, too) and the GMs felt like they were not doing their job.
|
|
1) I enjoy providing fun and challenge to my players. (Yes, I did say this above.) I think I'm a better GM when I know the players are being challenged.
2) If the cumulative experience with the same player(s) across multiple scenarios and/or tiers shows that they auto-succeed on everything, then I can't provide them with a challenge.
3) If I can't provide them with a challenge, then I don't have fun, and subsequently I'm not as good a GM, and probably the players are not having as much fun either (despite the fact they just sneezed and the scenario was over.)
So, looking at #2, is it "auto-succeed on everything" that's the problem?
Which seems reasonable.Or is it "auto-succeeds at one thing"? That seems to be what other people are talking about and seems like much less trouble, especially if the "uber-Perception" character, to use the initial example, has weaknesses in other areas.
Typically, and especially for Bards, as they seem built to be able to make 2 or 3 skills work off one, skill monkeys get 2 or 3 skills up very, very high... too high in my opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Chris.
Re Oracles of colour spray. I've seen a couple of those. I think there's a difference in that vs "Sherlock Scan" The only similarity is they both should be discussed.
Skillius Maximus, wherther it be Perception-boy, Diplomancer Dude or Sense Motive Man, *can't* shut down an encounter. Perception boy *can* check for traps, or ruin ambushes. But unless you have "Tons of Traps at Taldor" he's not going to shut down an encounter, the worst he'll do is spot the trap/ambush and the GM will have to adapt. Diplomancer Dude can't charm the zombie, the skeleton, or the guy that the scenario says is immune to diplomancy. Sense Motive Man can't look at mook #1 and completely shut down the scenario. The worst he can do is (maybe) realize an ambush is coming because the guy keeps looking over his shoulder.
(IMHO) A GM's 'job' is to make the material as fun as possible. IF the GM isn't having fun, scenario after scenario, he should re-evaluate why he's GMing for the group. Maybe take a break from GMing and play to shift the burden to someone else. Now I feel part of GMing is also mediating. If Sir-Grabs-A-Lot is hampering the group's fun, then the GM taking a break won't make a difference (unless Sir-Grabs-a-Lot starts GMing)* But talking to the player afterwards (or if need be, during) is something GMs/Players/Persons *can* do, to keep fun for everyone.
*
|
|
1) I enjoy eating steak. I don't always get to eat it. I enjoy GMing, sometimes it's not a challenge to the players characters. Crit happens. Characters are built to one shot opponents. Based on what you've said, I'm not keen to play any caster at your table.
You've never played at my table, so you have no basis to say that. None. You are making a lot of assumptions Matthew, that are all based on your feeling insulted by my expressing how I feel about things.
3) If I don't have fun, I'll speak to the players after the (repeated instance) of not having fun. If it persists, I'll not GM. I do this for fun.
That's pretty much what I'm saying in a nutshell... so why are you busting my chops on this again?
And yes, I take anyone who compares the difference between 5 stars of GMing and 1 scenario of GMing to professional performers that have decades more experience than their counterparts anything but seriously.
You sir, are being silly. 5 stars of GMing is roughly 1200 hours vs. roughly 7 (including prep time). That's .58% difference. Which is actually more of a discrepancy than between Dakota Fanning and Meryl Streep (year to year).
The analogy is sound. You just don't want to give credit where credit is due, to a preponderance of experiential evidence.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Andy - I do recall you saying you like to challenge players, but I thought that was about uber-combat builds and therefore not pertinent to the questions I was asking about skills. Did I misunderstand?
Also, your reply to my post made me think of something - you say "they auto-succeed on everything". When you say "everything", do you mean "every instance of their specialty that comes up" or "every challenge of any sort"? That, to me, makes a big difference.
If someone auto-succeeds (or close to it) on so many things that it's rare for an obstacle to come up that isn't their "specialty" (*cough*summoners*cough*) then it becomes incredibly difficult to not start including those anti-social, tablemate-excluding behaviors that most of us hate. As such, I'm not so invested in digging deeper there.
Unfortunately, I was (unintentionally) making an assumption earlier that we were talking about when a PC ramps up just one skill (maybe two) and consistently succeeds on that, but is pretty normal at everything else. This is what I'm picturing in nosig's original post - someone has one thing they're good at, it doesn't always come up, but when it does, sometimes they're blocked from the payoff of their investment.
If someone who does lots of things really well gets blocked on something, it was probably in the interest in letting the rest of the table play. If someone who has a single chosen specialty gets blocked on that specialty, that's pretty painful for (I imagine) most players.
So is that even what we're talking about here? That is, if someone has a +40 on (say) Perception and Disable Device, but they're pretty much in the background for everything else, does their consistent auto-success on ambushes/traps and nothing else still feel un-fun for you? Or is that outside the scope of what you've been talking about?
|
|
@ Nosig: I’ve noticed you haven’t responded to any of my posts, but here’s hoping you actually read this one as I’d like your thoughts on it.
1) My wife has a trapsmith rogue who’s level 12 now. But at level 7 or 8, she played Rebel’s Ransom at sub-tier 8-9.
Despite her chances being incredibly good that she would not fail, she had a chance, and even did fail once, thus making a huge portion of the scenario at least feel like it was a challenge.
2) 22 is not too high for level 6. 6 ranks + 3 class skill + lets say 3 Wisdom + maybe a Wisdom Headband for +1 more, half-elf with skill focus for +3 more, is 17 without trying. You only need some goggles that give you a +5 or a masterwork tool and something else that gives you a +3. And if you are a rogue, the additional +5 is easy to get for traps.
3) If you find yourself always succeeding at perception checks when you take 10 (as in you never fail), then its too high for that sub-tier. They key word here is always. So I’m not saying you are having badwrongfun or that your character is wrong. My suggestion (which all I’m doing is suggesting) is that you stop investing with that skill, until your level of failure becomes too high for your tastes. But this isn’t really as bad if its just when you take 10. But if you always succeed when rolling the dice (in the times when you can’t take 10 because you are in combat), even on a natural 1, then the situation becomes even more egregious. Again, no need to scrap the character or feel bad. Just stop investing in the skill (get another skill up to a very good spot too), until you reach a level of failure that is unacceptable to you.
4) Those who continue to invest in skills after they always succeed at them, are essentially wasting the skill points and beating a dead horse anyways. And then it just becomes a matter of showing off, “hey look everyone, I can roll an 82 on my skill check, aren’t I awesome!?”
5) I get that some of this might be hard for you to realize (that your skill modifier is too high because you always succeed at it) because your GM’s never really allow you to exercise that skill. So you keep getting it higher in the hopes that it might work for what you want it to work for: scouting and maybe stopping an ambush from being an ambush. This is an entirely different problem, and is more the GM than you.
6) I’d like your thoughts on my post above about how I’d handle the perceiving at the door with a Take 20 situation.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Ok. I get it. This skill is to high.
What's an exceptable number?
How do I figure it?
Would a 22 in another skill be ok?
You keep asking this, and I keep failing to explain that it's the wrong question. There's no correct answer.
Or, there is, for the playstyle in St. Louis. Or for those particular GMs. Or on that particular day. Those particular scenarios and modules. Those particular parties.
The reason I suggested using glitterdust is that it's a resource your PC would be expending. The GM-brain tripwire you're setting off is automatic success with no expenditure. "I'm giving away something (the location of all the bad guys, including the stealthy ones, including the invisible ones, including the ones hidden with earth glide, all their visible equipment) for nothing."
It's that sudden lack of obstacles. Pirate Rob calls it your refusal to play the "look for things" game.
Expend a resource, or roll the d20 to take a chance at rolling low and blowing the check, and you won't trigger that reaction.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And yes, I take anyone who compares the difference between 5 stars of GMing and 1 scenario of GMing to professional performers that have decades more experience than their counterparts anything but seriously.
You sir, are being silly. 5 stars of GMing is roughly 1200 hours vs. roughly 7 (including prep time). That's .58% difference. Which is actually more of a discrepancy than between Dakota Fanning and Meryl Streep (year to year).
The analogy is sound. You just don't want to give credit where credit is due, to a preponderance of experiential evidence.
Andy, my advice is to desist; the horse is dead, dismount. You've made your point.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expend a resource, or roll the d20 to take a chance at rolling low and blowing the check, and you won't trigger that reaction.
Interesting!
That might explain why I've sometimes had to bite my tongue to keep from asking a GM "Then can I have my feat back?" or "Then can I refund that purchase?", but I've never thought "Then can I have my spell slot back?"
Good insight.
So, how can we learn to remove that mental tripwire? Perhaps by reminding ourselves that not every resource is X/day?
Any tips?
|
|
And 2 or 3 overly maxed out skills are enough to remove all challenge from most scenarios, in your opinion?Typically, and especially for Bards, as they seem built to be able to make 2 or 3 skills work off one, skill monkeys get 2 or 3 skills up very, very high... too high in my opinion.1) I enjoy providing fun and challenge to my players. (Yes, I did say this above.) I think I'm a better GM when I know the players are being challenged.
2) If the cumulative experience with the same player(s) across multiple scenarios and/or tiers shows that they auto-succeed on everything, then I can't provide them with a challenge.
3) If I can't provide them with a challenge, then I don't have fun, and subsequently I'm not as good a GM, and probably the players are not having as much fun either (despite the fact they just sneezed and the scenario was over.)
So, looking at #2, is it "auto-succeed on everything" that's the problem?
Which seems reasonable.Or is it "auto-succeeds at one thing"? That seems to be what other people are talking about and seems like much less trouble, especially if the "uber-Perception" character, to use the initial example, has weaknesses in other areas.
what are "overly maxed out skills"? How do I tell when my PC is on the border of being "overly maxed out"?
and then the related note...
Is there the reverse? a "overly minimumed out skills" where the PC has to little?
The sentence I keep using is:
“If you always succeed at a skill, even when you roll 1, then its too high. Stop investing in it until you start failing at a rate that’s unacceptable to your tastes.”
|
“If you always succeed at a skill, even when you roll 1, then its too high. Stop investing in it until you start failing at a rate that’s unacceptable to your tastes.”
What if a player thinks it's unacceptable to have any chance of failure on one aspect of their character?
(For example, a player hates traps, so he built his PC to have a high perception score so that he won't ever be surprised by traps. He doesn't read PFS adventures though, so he has no clue what the perception DC of traps is.)
|
|
You sir, are being silly. 5 stars of GMing is roughly 1200 hours vs. roughly 7 (including prep time). That's .58% difference. Which is actually more of a discrepancy than between Dakota Fanning and Meryl Streep (year to year).
The analogy is sound. You just don't want to give credit where credit is due, to a preponderance of experiential evidence.
Experience is ONLY valuable if one can draw the right conclusions from that experience. Just because you've thrown a football 200 times doesn't mean you're automatically better at it than someone who's thrown it twice.
It's a common fallacy that people with experience are more qualified/capable than those without an equal amount of experience. Human Resource departments across America make this mistake day in and day out.
You are correct.
But to discount anecdotal and experiential evidence because you deem experience trivial is kinda silly, don't you agree?
Attack my analysis if you don't agree with it. But don't attack my experience and trivialize the hours and hours I've put into this hobby. That's what's insulting. Not that you might disagree with my conclusions drawn from that evidence.
... I am not sure if I would be comfortable switching back to dice rolls - I guess I could try it. But that means I'll end up going back to pushing up the Perception again. Just to make up the +9 difference...And what does this tell you?
That players who enjoy succeeding most of the time and GMs who enjoy having the players succeed only some of the time make a poor match?
:-)
(It never ceases to amaze me how many threads degenerate into "But you're not supposed to enjoy 'easy mode'!!")
|
|
“If you always succeed at a skill, even when you roll 1, then its too high. Stop investing in it until you start failing at a rate that’s unacceptable to your tastes.”
What if a player thinks it's unacceptable to have any chance of failure on one aspect of their character?
(For example, a player hates traps, so he built his PC to have a high perception score so that he won't ever be surprised by traps. He doesn't read PFS adventures though, so he has no clue what the perception DC of traps is.)
PFS adventures don't typically change the trap DC's from the CR from the back of the Core Rule Book.
In a home game, as a GM, I can always up the trap DC's to make sure that my players have a challenge. That no matter how much super-optimization even in a narrow window or field, they can't negate the danger of adventuring 100%. If I want it to be super tough, I can make it so. If I just want him to have a chance at failure, I can make it so.
In PFS I don't have that luxury. I have to follow the scenarios. As such, is it really fair to the game to make sure you can never fail?
In a home game, if you want to do that, I either up the DC so it is a challenge, or I stop using traps altogether as they would be pointless.