|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that difference is my point. Some players feel punished when the dice kill their character. Some players feel punished because the enemy they are facing is able to exploit weaknesses they have.
Because you feel punished doesn't mean the GM is out to get you. Because if the GM is out to get you, they can do it at any time unless you walk away from the table. But because on a given night you personally didn't have the most fun possible, or something bad happened, doesn't mean it wasn't a good session.
By some people's logic, Game of Thrones readers are constantly "punished" and yet they love the books and the show.
Your GM is selling a product. The game they are running. Every session you are either buying that product by showing up, or you aren't by not showing up.
If the GM doesn't treat the customer right, he'll lose customers. It really is that simple. That is the motivation for the GM not to be a jerk to players, lest they have no players left. A good GM will generally find themselves with too many players and not enough time.
On the other hand, if you have been kicked out of all the good GM "stores" because the GM would rather have someone else (or worse an empty seat) than you in that chair, you may find yourself having to get your fix in some shady tables in the gaming world.
It is a market economy.
So did you push someone's limit over the holiday? Or is this another bid for attention?
It's neither.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players forget that fighting isn't the only option - or that they can retreat if needed, depending on the foe.
There's another thread floating around here somewhere that aptly describes why running away is almost NEVER a viable option in Pathfinder.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
Running away is generally an option. But all options have outcomes. Some positive some negative.
If you rally the village and the mites eat the people, your party traded an easier safer battle for the lives of some villagers.
That isn't the GM punishing the players. That is the circumstances dictating the outcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...all options have outcomes. Some positive some negative.
If you rally the village and the mites eat the people, your party traded an easier safer battle for the lives of some villagers.
That isn't the GM punishing the players. That is the circumstances dictating the outcome.
Agreed.
|
|
You are assuming the mites are too strong to handle if the party had played well. Or that there isn't a way to deal with the problem other than charging in and getting TPKed.
I am wondering why the party burned all the resources to the point they have to rest before facing the mites. Why they weren't properly prepared. Or perhaps is there another way to deal with the mites, a trap they can set, using the element of surprise...can the party do nothing but charge blindly into combat when they see any enemy appear?
As a GM you should never make something impossible. But at he same time, when players play poorly, or the dice gods are cruel, sometimes tough choices happen.
That is why the thrill of victory is better when the agony of defeat is a possibility.
If you set up impossible quests, you'll lose players. If you set up challenging quests where failure has a consequence, you aren't punishing players.
500 a week is more than 60 dollars a day for food. That is 3 meals of 20 dollars each...
Closer to $16 a day. But better than $17 in February...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that difference is my point. Some players feel punished when the dice kill their character. Some players feel punished because the enemy they are facing is able to exploit weaknesses they have.
Because you feel punished doesn't mean the GM is out to get you. Because if the GM is out to get you, they can do it at any time unless you walk away from the table. But because on a given night you personally didn't have the most fun possible, or something bad happened, doesn't mean it wasn't a good session.
By some people's logic, Game of Thrones readers are constantly "punished" and yet they love the books and the show.
Your GM is selling a product. The game they are running. Every session you are either buying that product by showing up, or you aren't by not showing up.
If the GM doesn't treat the customer right, he'll lose customers. It really is that simple. That is the motivation for the GM not to be a jerk to players, lest they have no players left. A good GM will generally find themselves with too many players and not enough time.
On the other hand, if you have been kicked out of all the good GM "stores" because the GM would rather have someone else (or worse an empty seat) than you in that chair, you may find yourself having to get your fix in some shady tables in the gaming world.
It is a market economy.
Yeah, I agree with your post. Some people are really attached to their build and the character's capabilities, so when they get countered or killed they fume. This attitude is behind all the threads on how great spellcasters are. Yes, they are good, unless your weakness is exploited. Which of course many spellcaster players will insist never can happen and never has happened.
When it does though, some players hurt bad, rage, insist they are being punished.
Players forget that fighting isn't the only option - or that they can retreat if needed, depending on the foe.
There's another thread floating around here somewhere that aptly describes why running away is almost NEVER a viable option in Pathfinder.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
Running away is generally an option. But all options have outcomes. Some positive some negative.
If you rally the village and the mites eat the people, your party traded an easier safer battle for the lives of some villagers.
That isn't the GM punishing the players. That is the circumstances dictating the outcome.
I remember rise of the runelords, I had a melee char, and given how much wealth sandpoint had, we wanted to bunker down, train and equip the locals, and hold off the waves of goblins there. Attacking their keep, seemed suicide (and it did lead to a tpk later--harsh dm).
The dm wouldn't allow it though, he wouldn't allow a Seven Samurai or encircle the wagons situation. Now it it had gone ahead, the settlement would have paid a high price, but hopefully the players could mop up. I think it is a real flaw in the adventure that the option of digging in is not given much thought--it seemed really obvious to two of the players. We had to go in, that is how the adventure was meant to go. The dm also punished us for exploring the region and not going in immediately.
You are assuming the mites are too strong to handle if the party had played well. Or that there isn't a way to deal with the problem other than charging in and getting TPKed.
I am wondering why the party burned all the resources to the point they have to rest before facing the mites. Why they weren't properly prepared. Or perhaps is there another way to deal with the mites, a trap they can set, using the element of surprise...can the party do nothing but charge blindly into combat when they see any enemy appear?
As a GM you should never make something impossible. But at he same time, when players play poorly, or the dice gods are cruel, sometimes tough choices happen.
That is why the thrill of victory is better when the agony of defeat is a possibility.
If you set up impossible quests, you'll lose players. If you set up challenging quests where failure has a consequence, you aren't punishing players.
In a game I ran with a small number of players, they recruited npcs to help them, beef out their abilities and what they could take. Their best choice was a defensive hobgoblin melee char, a real blocker. This meant the pcs could really shine as they let this big target take a lot of the hits. Just stealing/soaking the enemy action economy is a great spot for an npc, or a pc that wants to fill this role.
If spellcasters, high save monk to the front! Or use a pally that way.
If things are shaping up to be too hard, try to get mercenaries, hirelings or npc heroes to tag along on this great quest.
Basically a troop transport. Over 100 troops vs a handful of boarders, none of which were level 9. Their crew took heavy casualties from ranged before they boarded. Explained they were elite. Even if the Chel marines were level 1, they still wouldn't have won, too overwhelmed in the action economy, too much armour, too many attacks.
A boat larger than yours, filled with more soldiers than yours, with superior ranged and melee capabilities, is not something you take with a rapier charge by a few heroes.
No, I disagree.
Level 1's with level 1 wealth no matter the number are easily slaughtered by level 9's.
Level 9 Wealth (46K gp) lets the PC get AC of +1 Mithral Kikko (+5 [6], Dex Max +6, ACP 0, cost 4030 gp), +2 NA (8K) amulet, +2 Deflect ring (8K), +4 Dex Belt(16K) about 10+ 5 Dex (assuming 16 starting) +6 Armor + 2 Deflect + 2 NA= 25 AC (still have 10K left for weapon or fun stuff).
So the soldiers need a 20 to hit you (assuming they have +5 hit assuming +1 BAB, Weapon Focus, 16 Str).
They only have a chance if grapplers and you have low CMD (listed guy has 10 +5 Dex +2 Deflect + Str=17 + Str so even then it would be hard).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are really attached to their build and the character's capabilities, so when they get countered or killed they fume.
I think it is important to also note that some fume and fuss and then get over it. While many people like being challenged, nobody likes losing. If you're not somewhat upset then you're probably not invested in the game.
500 a week is more than 60 dollars a day for food. That is 3 meals of 20 dollars each...Closer to $16 a day. But better than $17 in February...
500/7=71 and some change.
71/3=23 and a lot of change.That says $500 a week, not month.
Basically a troop transport. Over 100 troops vs a handful of boarders, none of which were level 9. Their crew took heavy casualties from ranged before they boarded. Explained they were elite. Even if the Chel marines were level 1, they still wouldn't have won, too overwhelmed in the action economy, too much armour, too many attacks.
A boat larger than yours, filled with more soldiers than yours, with superior ranged and melee capabilities, is not something you take with a rapier charge by a few heroes.
No, I disagree.
Level 1's with level 1 wealth no matter the number are easily slaughtered by level 9's.
Level 9 Wealth (46K gp) lets the PC get AC of +1 Mithral Kikko (+5 [6], Dex Max +6, ACP 0, cost 4030 gp), +2 NA (8K) amulet, +2 Deflect ring (8K), +4 Dex Belt(16K) about 10+ 5 Dex (assuming 16 starting) +6 Armor + 2 Deflect + 2 NA= 25 AC (still have 10K left for weapon or fun stuff).
So the soldiers need a 20 to hit you (assuming they have +5 hit assuming +1 BAB, Weapon Focus, 16 Str).
They only have a chance if grapplers and you have low CMD (listed guy has 10 +5 Dex +2 Deflect + Str=17 + Str so even then it would be hard).
It was a low magic game with no magic wall mart. So level 9 doesn't mean you just take a warship.
There are a lot more important factors than the magic item too, like how many rounds do you and your crew take being shot, while you are closing and boarding.
It was an awful decision, one guy thought he could take it, some of the party survived and escaped.
|
|
Players forget that fighting isn't the only option - or that they can retreat if needed, depending on the foe.
There's another thread floating around here somewhere that aptly describes why running away is almost NEVER a viable option in Pathfinder.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
Running away is generally an option. But all options have outcomes. Some positive some negative.
If you rally the village and the mites eat the people, your party traded an easier safer battle for the lives of some villagers.
That isn't the GM punishing the players. That is the circumstances dictating the outcome.
I remember rise of the runelords, I had a melee char, and given how much wealth sandpoint had, we wanted to bunker down, train and equip the locals, and hold off the waves of goblins there. Attacking their keep, seemed suicide (and it did lead to a tpk later--harsh dm).
The dm wouldn't allow it though, he wouldn't allow a Seven Samurai or encircle the wagons situation. Now it it had gone ahead, the settlement would have paid a high price, but hopefully the players could mop up. I think it is a real flaw in the adventure that the option of digging in is not given much thought--it seemed really obvious to two of the players. We had to go in, that is how the adventure was meant to go. The dm also punished us for exploring the region and not going in immediately.
Well...(Rise of the Runelords 1st book spoiler)
You were told that they were trying to find a powerful demon to help with the invasion, which is why you had to go attack rather than entrench.
So I don't think it is fair to say they didn't address the issue of digging in. Digging it just isn't a very good plan given the information the players have.
Assuming the GM properly explained the circumstances.
|
|
I'm not assuming anything. You seem to be assuming the GM set up a perfectly balanced adventure and if anything went wrong it's because the players didn't play well/weren't properly prepared/charged blindly in/etc.
I'm reading what you described. It's your scenario.
I am assuming the GM set up a winnable scenario. Because if they didn't, the party gets TPKed, the game ends, and if it was unfair and first level, who is going to give that guy the GM stick again?
If I am 1st level and I see something I don't think the party can handle, I look for options other than charging in. The GM should hint at the time constraints the party is under, and as a GM I personally make sure I can think of several ways to solve any problem I put in front of a group I am running for.
And good groups often come up with ways I haven't considered.
But if as players you keep charging into things without considering if maybe it is out of your league...sorry, that isn't the GM punishing you. That is you playing poorly.
Basically a troop transport. Over 100 troops vs a handful of boarders, none of which were level 9. Their crew took heavy casualties from ranged before they boarded. Explained they were elite. Even if the Chel marines were level 1, they still wouldn't have won, too overwhelmed in the action economy, too much armour, too many attacks.
A boat larger than yours, filled with more soldiers than yours, with superior ranged and melee capabilities, is not something you take with a rapier charge by a few heroes.
No, I disagree.
Level 1's with level 1 wealth no matter the number are easily slaughtered by level 9's.
Level 9 Wealth (46K gp) lets the PC get AC of +1 Mithral Kikko (+5 [6], Dex Max +6, ACP 0, cost 4030 gp), +2 NA (8K) amulet, +2 Deflect ring (8K), +4 Dex Belt(16K) about 10+ 5 Dex (assuming 16 starting) +6 Armor + 2 Deflect + 2 NA= 25 AC (still have 10K left for weapon or fun stuff).
So the soldiers need a 20 to hit you (assuming they have +5 hit assuming +1 BAB, Weapon Focus, 16 Str).
They only have a chance if grapplers and you have low CMD (listed guy has 10 +5 Dex +2 Deflect + Str=17 + Str so even then it would be hard).
It was a low magic game with no magic wall mart. So level 9 doesn't mean you just take a warship.
There are a lot more important factors than the magic item too, like how many rounds do you and your crew take being shot, while you are closing and boarding.
It was an awful decision, one guy thought he could take it, some of the party survived and escaped.
Looks like assumption clash to me.
High level characters can wade through piles of mooks. Especially if they've got some magical support to negate that "superior ranged capability". Numbers really don't mean a lot.
Then suddenly, they're not mooks, but elite troops and you're looking at TPK.
Well we don't play very high level, and in the low magic games I run, sure you can kill plenty of mooks, but low level Chelaxian marines are not mooks. If they gang up on you, with boarding pikes (longspears) and crossbow covering fire, it is a whole lot of pain. Since they didn't attack under cover of darkness, or with stealth, the level 4s on the boat were ready for the boarding party when they climbed aboard. Level 2s backing them up, and then of course the players still killed some, but not a whole warship of guys.
So, to sum up, it must be the players fault because if the GM screwed up nobody would let him GM.I'm not assuming anything. You seem to be assuming the GM set up a perfectly balanced adventure and if anything went wrong it's because the players didn't play well/weren't properly prepared/charged blindly in/etc.I'm reading what you described. It's your scenario.
I am assuming the GM set up a winnable scenario. Because if they didn't, the party gets TPKed, the game ends, and if it was unfair and first level, who is going to give that guy the GM stick again?
If I am 1st level and I see something I don't think the party can handle, I look for options other than charging in. The GM should hint at the time constraints the party is under, and as a GM I personally make sure I can think of several ways to solve any problem I put in front of a group I am running for.
And good groups often come up with ways I haven't considered.
But if as players you keep charging into things without considering if maybe it is out of your league...sorry, that isn't the GM punishing you. That is you playing poorly.
And that good players should have thought of a way out of it, otherwise you are playing poorly.
But more seriously, this is the type of scenario that we see frequently on the boards where there can be a disconnect between expectations and play-styles. Or slight errors in communication.
|
|
So, to sum up, it must be the players fault because if the GM screwed up nobody would let him GM.
Again. No one would let them GM again. Because you could go to the movies, or have a Barbecue or do anything else other than gaming with a GM who makes the game not fun.
And hopefully, you know the guy who you decided to invest 4 hours of your life in letting run the game.
If you go to a Michael Bay movie and are upset because you feel like you lost two hours of your life to a Michael Bay movie, who is at fault?
On the other hand, Michael Bay sell a lot of tickets because a lot of people like seeing stuff get blowed up.
If you don't like how your GM runs, why are you sitting at the table instead of doing something else with your time. Like finding a new GM...
The Jeff, upwards of half of my games end with the party losing. I make encounters hard enough that even approached correctly they can lose on dice. I do not think decision making is interesting unless you can pick wrong. I do not think dice are interesting unless you can fail. I will not run a game unless I find it personally engaging. Anyone who doesn't like that is invited not to play.
I know 2 gamers I don't run for anymore because they like stories where they automatically win. They don't like my games but will play anyway.
You can know the difference between a auto kill and a winnable encounter by asking to see stats after it is over and asking the GM what could have been done to win.
As a personal rule for myself, and I can manage this because I don't GM for kids that run psychos, I do not kill pcs with enemies I have not statted up and I roll my dice in the open.
In-game glory and true enjoyment, or thrill, comes from a hard struggle.
Or so I believe... *looks to dead pcs*
And sometimes they're really good at one part of the GM's job, but flawed at others.
And even a good GM can misjudge something. Either encounter strength or miscommunicated plot points that leave the players thinking the situation is more or less urgent than the GM thinks it is - so that they feel forced to push ahead to a TPK or think they can wait and fail at the mission.
Yeah, one time I had a GM who a lot of people loved. Guy pre wrote epilogues, wouldn't let me do what I wanted(Kill a villain he wanted to be a repeating villain), let his roommates and friends watch us and tell us what to do and how to play, free rerolls to his roommates, wouldn't let people die(the opposite of forced TPK), and he blalently ignored CR and his only excuse was that he would use deus ex machine to save us. Yay? Anyways, he found other people to play with him. I thought he was a jerk.
|
Ciretose I like your style. Even if your with Andoren faction. The main goal for a GM is that everyone is having fun. If one person is trying is doing something stupid I hold them accountable for their actions in the game. I dont try to do anything to them. They reap what they sow. Also open and clear conversation should be used with all players. If one person is making the game less enjoyable for others we talk to them. If he cant be helped then the player needs to look at himself. Oh and GM is god. However good gods listen to their flocks/minions.
|
|
Of course, we've moved pretty far from your initial contention that it's always the player's fault and thus any consequences are justified.
Citation?
I would rather defend what I said than what people say that I have said. It's much easier to only be held to what I actually said rather than stuff just made up.
Well, I've been attempting to figure out what you mean, by discussing it with you, but that seems to have foundered.You know what happens when you assume...
The important part of the post was "You never actually said it."
I am more than happy to discuss what I write. I'm not particularly interested in discussing what you have decided that I wrote.
Best keep it to personal messages and moderators if it comes to it. Pretty sure this isn't the place for petty differences. We've already gone off topic enough to talk about rent and mortgage somehow...
|
|
Well, I've been attempting to figure out what you mean, by discussing it with you, but that seems to have foundered.You know what happens when you assume...
The important part of the post was "You never actually said it."
I am more than happy to discuss what I write. I'm not particularly interested in discussing what you have decided that I wrote.
I've laid it out many times in many threads. So maybe you can bookmark this one for reference.
Before 4 people let someone GM, they should probably try to get to know them first to make sure they aren't a jackass. Because you are committing to a social contract to put them in charge of between 4 and 6 hours of your life and life is full of other fun things you could be doing.
If the GM turns out to be a jackass, don't come back. Being a GM is a priviledge, not a right. Each and every game you have to earn another 4 to 6 hours of the players time. If you are a jackass, the players stop letting you run the game and go do other things (or put someone else in the GM chair).
If your GM isn't a jackass, talk to them and work it out. Don't post on the forums behind your GM and fellow players backs. Then you are the jackass, not the GM.
Do bad GMs exist? Absolutely. And so do hot stoves.
After the first time, I think it is reasonable to stop blaming the stove for burning my hand, and to start looking for the source of the problem elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just finished a Kingmaker campaign a few days ago.
Did I need to punish my players? No.
Did I insist I am always right? No.
Would I call myself priviledged for having been the DM for this campaign, or any campaign for that matter? No.
|
|
You are correct, not all bad GMs are jackasses. Some are just Bad GMs. I might come back to a Bad GM who I think will get better.
But I'm not coming back to a jackass GM.
You gave an example of an "impossible" fight that cause the players to "have" to leave and come back with help and a GM "punishing" the players by killing prisoners.
I say if a GM is going to create an impossible fight that can only result in failure, he is a jackass, don't come back.
But if a GM creates a hard situation with tough choices, that isn't punishing the players. That is what I look for in a good GM.
So I assume there was a way to do things that would have not resulted in "punishment" or why are you letting that guy take up 4 to 6 hours of your life?
So I assume there was a way to do things that would have not resulted in "punishment" or why are you letting that guy take up 4 to 6 hours of your life?
Because DM Joe has been my friend for 10 years and it was just a stressful day for him? Because its either DM Joe or no one because you live out in the sticks? Because the other 5 players are fine with Joe, and are your friends, so even though Joe doesn't like you suck it up to stick with Anna, Jeff, Caleb, and Janis? Because Joe is usually a great guy? Because Joe decided to talk it out and make amends? Because... because... because. Quiet a few reasons to keep trying right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less black and white, more grey. That's what we need here.
|
|
I have friends I have gamed with for 10 years that I would never let GM for me.
I have friends I've known since Middle school that don't game with me.
If your friend isn't a good GM, that does not mean they aren't a good friend.
But it does mean you shouldn't play in games they run if you want to stay friends.
Also if you are on this messageboard, you have internet access. If you have internet access, you have access to a lot of games if you are willing to be flexible.
If you aren't willing to be flexible...
Are you just going to infer that everyone who isn't you is automatically doing it wrong and deserves to be insulted and berated? Seriously, even when mortgage came up you stroked yourself and said other people were doing it wrong.