|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in this case, people were guaranteed going to die the way it was being played. There have been several scenarios I have played and then ran and found out there was a little "creative GMing" when I played it. Not cool.
And if it takes your GM 30 min to parse the grapple rules, you need a GM with better reading comprehension.
An issue I have with sacrificing mechanics for game flow is that I truly believe it is one of the factors that motivates people to bring "battle cattle". If power gamers can dominate the combats completely enough, then it vastly reduces the effects of table variation. Both appropriate and inappropriate table variation.
I can agree that I also prefer a GM with a strong grasp of mechanics. But that being said, what I prefer more is that GM's continue to devote their free time and expend their energy to run games for us. Often times, unless the game mechanic that is being employed incorrectly is going to lead to a PC's untimely demise, I just let is go unless I am specifically asked for clarification or thoughts.
I understand in your example it was leading to a party wipe, so I understand putting the kabosh on that. I think in other situations it's worth relaxing and just enjoying the game, though.
GM's - thanks for running for us. We appreciate it even when we have moments of being a pain in your ass. ;)
|
Well, in this case, people were guaranteed going to die the way it was being played. There have been several scenarios I have played and then ran and found out there was a little "creative GMing" when I played it. Not cool.
And if it takes your GM 30 min to parse the grapple rules, you need a GM with better reading comprehension.
An issue I have with sacrificing mechanics for game flow is that I truly believe it is one of the factors that motivates people to bring "battle cattle". If power gamers can dominate the combats completely enough, then it vastly reduces the effects of table variation. Both appropriate and inappropriate table variation.
I can agree that I also prefer a GM with a strong grasp of mechanics. But that being said, what I prefer more is that GM's continue to devote their free time and expend their energy to run games for us. Often times, unless the game mechanic that is being employed incorrectly is going to lead to a PC's untimely demise, I just let is go unless I am specifically asked for clarification or thoughts.
I understand in your example it was leading to a party wipe, so I understand putting the kabosh on that. I think in other situations it's worth relaxing and just enjoying the game, though.
GM's - thanks for running for us. We appreciate it even when we have moments of being a pain in your ass. ;)
I think an important note on this is that Season 4 is considerably less tolerant of this practice of "on the fly rulings" than seasons 0-2. When GMs misplay mechanics in such a manner as to give NPCs capabilities they normally wouldn't have, this effectively ups the CR.
Again, this isn't an issue very often in seasons 0-2. And I think this is why a lot of GMs don't consider this a big deal. But I feel it is a pretty big deal in Season 4, especially for non-optimized groups. I don't think it takes much to tip a lot of Season 4 battles against a large percentage of parties.
|
|
@Kyle/Amanda: Just curious, do you also observe that most people who don't want a challenge also optimize heavily?
From the people I have talked to who engage in this practice, the big two reasons seem to be a) viewing PFS as some kind of "time trial" and wanting to crush the encounters as quickly as possible and b) not trusting table variation.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Nah, I think Season 4 is about right. I've only seen Season 4 trivialized by really nasty builds.Year 4 can be really nasty on 5 person parties - they should let a 5 person party add a pregren to make a 6 person party - like 3 person groups can add one to get to 4. In my experience, all the major party death games in year 4 have been with 5 person groups.
I would also add to that four-party groups in scenarios when the scaling just doesn't work well; losing two party members in the first round is far more of a problem for a 4-member party than for a 6-member one. If the dice go against you and you lose three of your team (even if only for one or two rounds) it's even worse.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Kyle/Amanda: Just curious, do you also observe that most people who don't want a challenge also optimize heavily?From the people I have talked to who engage in this practice, the big two reasons seem to be a) viewing PFS as some kind of "time trial" and wanting to crush the encounters as quickly as possible and b) not trusting table variation.
I don't understand how that's an answer to my question.
|
|
I don't understand how that's an answer to my question.@Kyle/Amanda: Just curious, do you also observe that most people who don't want a challenge also optimize heavily?From the people I have talked to who engage in this practice, the big two reasons seem to be a) viewing PFS as some kind of "time trial" and wanting to crush the encounters as quickly as possible and b) not trusting table variation.
I guess it isn't. I don't really know who wants a challenge and who doesn't. I suppose from the responses of players of power builds I have solicited they want in the case of a) a different kind of challenge; ie the challenge is crushing the encounter in 2 turns, not 3 turns, or b) they don't want the challenge of table variation.
|
|
David,
I say this in the spirit of friendship and PFS brotherhood: if I were running a table, looking at a critter's stat block, and a player questioned me about how the game mechanics worked with that critter, that would be welcome. (I don't profess to have system mastery over the entire rules system.) I would make a ruling -- based on the rules and FAQ as I understand them, the player's evidence, and the stat block in front of me -- and move on.
If he tried to stop the game to argue about it, and he wouldn't back down, I would ask him to leave. Doesn't matter whether the other players are new or old hands, playing twinked-out characters or pre-gens, walking through an easy opponent or on the ropes.
The more I think about this the more interesting I find it. Obviously your style is significantly different from my style, and you have more GM stars. However, I can't imagine a scenario would I would boot a player for just insisting that the table follow the rules for a non-ambiguous mechanic. Now the whole "does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness" requires a GM call because it is a grey area.
|
|
@Kyle/Amanda: Just curious, do you also observe that most people who don't want a challenge also optimize heavily?
People who "don't want a challenge" are a much more diverse group. Just like optimizers are too diverse to say they do or don't want a challenge. Of course to me, optimization isn't the same as powergaming. In my eyes, powergaming means dominating while optimizing means trying to be the best at a given role. They can both exist together in the same character or not.
The players I'm referring to previously are the types who sit down and say things like, "We're playing up" or "My character has never been challenged" or "PFS is too easy." I generally laugh a little internally and make several assumptions (right or wrong): Their previous GM's didn't focus on providing this player a challenge (this has several reasons behind it, both positive and negative). This player is likely 'mistaken' in regards to how their character is built or functions. This player likely doesn't ACTUALLY want their character to be brought to the brink of death.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about this the more interesting I find it. Obviously your style is significantly different from my style, and you have more GM stars. However, I can't imagine a scenario would I would boot a player for just insisting that the table follow the rules for a non-ambiguous mechanic. Now the whole "does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness" requires a GM call because it is a grey area.
Chris would boot a player for refusing to let an issue go. What you're calling non-ambiguous is confusing to the next person. Just because you believe you perfectly understand how something works and it's perfectly clear to you, doesn't mean your GM will see it that way. If you're the player, try to respectfully argue your point. If the GM doesn't see it that way, shrug it off, play the game, and trust the GM to provide you with a fun experience, even if the rules are slightly "wrong" in your opinion.
|
|
@Kyle/Amanda: Just curious, do you also observe that most people who don't want a challenge also optimize heavily?People who "don't want a challenge" are a much more diverse group. Just like optimizers are too diverse to say they do or don't want a challenge. Of course to me, optimization isn't the same as powergaming. In my eyes, powergaming means dominating while optimizing means trying to be the best at a given role. They can both exist together in the same character or not.
The players I'm referring to previously are the types who sit down and say things like, "We're playing up" or "My character has never been challenged" or "PFS is too easy." I generally laugh a little internally and make several assumptions (right or wrong): Their previous GM's didn't focus on providing this player a challenge (this has several reasons behind it, both positive and negative). This player is likely 'mistaken' in regards to how their character is built or functions. This player likely doesn't ACTUALLY want their character to be brought to the brink of death.
Oh, and now that you mention it, I have saved a few GMs a miserable time by busting players who are "mistaken" about how their PC's mechanics work. So its not like I'm out to hose GMs. The GMs DO get their fair chance to kill everyone. They are just kind of at the whim of the authors as to how possible that is.
For better or for worse, I find the players that are *really* good at power gaming don't make such mistakes. It's all the poseur power gamers that want to be badasses but can't come up with legitimate builds that accomplish that.
|
|
The more I think about this the more interesting I find it. Obviously your style is significantly different from my style, and you have more GM stars. However, I can't imagine a scenario would I would boot a player for just insisting that the table follow the rules for a non-ambiguous mechanic. Now the whole "does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness" requires a GM call because it is a grey area.Chris would boot a player for refusing to let an issue go. What you're calling non-ambiguous is confusing to the next person. Just because you believe you perfectly understand how something works and it's perfectly clear to you, doesn't mean your GM will see it that way. If you're the player, try to respectfully argue your point. If the GM doesn't see it that way, shrug it off, play the game, and trust the GM to provide you with a fun experience, even if the rules are slightly "wrong" in your opinion.
For your "grey area" it's really more black and white (or darkness and light? ha!):
...Darkness: Can adding additional sunrods to the area of the spell increase the light level?
No, sunrods can never increase the light level of an area of darkness because they are not magical sources of light. In such an area, it automatically defaults to the ambient natural light level (the light level from natural sources, such as the sun, moon, and stars—not torches, campfires, light spells, and so on), and then reduces it one step.—Jason Bulmahn, 10/21/10 Back to Top
Darkness: Can a nonmagical light source increase the light level within the area of darkness if the light source is outside the spell's area?
No. Nonmagical light sources do not increase the light level within the spell's area, regardless of whether the light source is in the area or outside the area.—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13 Back to Top
Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?
No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in
The issue I used as an example is not addressed by these FAQs. I have these FAQs memorized at this point.
"does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness"
Daylight is not mentioned anywhere in the FAQs. It remains a grey area, as does order of lighting operations. I do ask GMs when I sit down how they intend to run that so I can buy appropriate consumables. Buying inappropriate consumables can cause TPKs. I've seen it happen.
|
|
The more I think about this the more interesting I find it. Obviously your style is significantly different from my style, and you have more GM stars. However, I can't imagine a scenario would I would boot a player for just insisting that the table follow the rules for a non-ambiguous mechanic. Now the whole "does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness" requires a GM call because it is a grey area.Chris would boot a player for refusing to let an issue go. What you're calling non-ambiguous is confusing to the next person. Just because you believe you perfectly understand how something works and it's perfectly clear to you, doesn't mean your GM will see it that way. If you're the player, try to respectfully argue your point. If the GM doesn't see it that way, shrug it off, play the game, and trust the GM to provide you with a fun experience, even if the rules are slightly "wrong" in your opinion.
As I mentioned for season 4, it stops being fun real fast when players are coughing up 16PP for rezzes. Also, one the ugliest incidents I've even seen in this game was when a couple of players found out that they died after the game due to a GM "not seeing it that way", when it was in black and white the whole time.
Also as I said, it was easy to keep this to a minimum (okay, never) in the earlier seasons. There was no possible GM mistake that was going to let that single level 7 wizard beat 5 level 4/5 PCs. But Season 4 really did a good job of upping the ante.
|
|
The more I think about this the more interesting I find it. Obviously your style is significantly different from my style, and you have more GM stars. However, I can't imagine a scenario would I would boot a player for just insisting that the table follow the rules for a non-ambiguous mechanic. Now the whole "does sunrods work where daylight overlaps [/i]darkness[/i]" requires a GM call because it is a grey area.David,
I say this in the spirit of friendship and PFS brotherhood: if I were running a table, looking at a critter's stat block, and a player questioned me about how the game mechanics worked with that critter, that would be welcome. (I don't profess to have system mastery over the entire rules system.) I would make a ruling -- based on the rules and FAQ as I understand them, the player's evidence, and the stat block in front of me -- and move on.
If he tried to stop the game to argue about it, and he wouldn't back down, I would ask him to leave. Doesn't matter whether the other players are new or old hands, playing twinked-out characters or pre-gens, walking through an easy opponent or on the ropes.
david here's an example.
Last CON, I was running a Scout in a game with a judge still running Perception with the 3.5 scearch rules. Once I realized this, I pointed out that this is not the way the rules on perception actually work ("search every 5' square"). The judge did not want to take the time to research this at that point, so works fine with me, I just adapted my play to fit her way, and after the game suggested (NOICELY! in a friendly fashion) that she check the perception rules and maybe the boards to see if she might be doing it wrong. No loss of gaming, and once I realized how the rules worked at that table, no real issue.
I guess I'm just different then, because I always ask the table if they want me to look something like that up. If there is interest, I look it up. Of course, I also read VERY fast. So that probably helps my style.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GMs DO get their fair chance to kill everyone. They are just kind of at the whim of the authors as to how possible that is.
For better or for worse, I find the players that are *really* good at power gaming don't make such mistakes. It's all the poseur power gamers that want to be badasses but can't come up with legitimate builds that accomplish that.
It's this kind of talk that makes me take breaks from GM'ing.
1) GM's could kill any player at any time if they really wanted to. That's not the point. GM's shouldn't be out to kill players (except Caubo). If it's a GM that thinks this way, they need to stop an reevaluate why they're GM'ing. If it's a player's point of view (the GM's job is to try to kill characters), then I feel extremely sorry for that player. This game is not about GM vs. Player.
2) Talk about being the "best" or "real" power gamers. There is more, MUCH more to this game than DPS or never failing a saving throw. This game is a SOCIAL EXPERIENCE. It's a chance to interact with 6 other people and be the central figures of a story. If you just want to WIN by killing all the bad guys or recovering the MacGuffin. Play a video game. If you just want to WIN and you want to dominate the game, play a video game with GOD MODE enabled.
|
|
The issue I used as an example is not addressed by these FAQs. I have these FAQs memorized at this point.
"does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness"
Daylight is not mentioned anywhere in the FAQs. It remains a grey area, as does order of lighting operations. I do ask GMs when I sit down how they intend to run that so I can buy appropriate consumables. Buying inappropriate consumables can cause TPKs. I've seen it happen.
How were you seeing things before deeper darkness and daylight were both cast? When they overlap, that's how you see things. It's really simple.
|
|
As I mentioned for season 4, it stops being fun real fast when players are coughing up 16PP for rezzes. Also, one the ugliest incidents I've even seen in this game was when a couple of players found out that they died after the game due to a GM "not seeing it that way", when it was in black and white the whole time.
Also as I said, it was easy to keep this to a minimum (okay, never) in the earlier seasons. There was no possible GM mistake that was going to let that single level 7 wizard beat 5 level 4/5 PCs. But Season 4 really did a good job of upping the ante.
Why does every rules disagreement have to end with a PC death? That makes no sense.
If you can't trust the GM to make the experience enjoyable for you (regardless of rules), then don't play with that GM. If you feel like it's every GM that's out to get you, then by all means stop playing.
|
|
How were you seeing things before deeper darkness and daylight were both cast? When they overlap, that's how you see things. It's really simple.The issue I used as an example is not addressed by these FAQs. I have these FAQs memorized at this point.
"does sunrods work where daylight overlaps darkness"
Daylight is not mentioned anywhere in the FAQs. It remains a grey area, as does order of lighting operations. I do ask GMs when I sit down how they intend to run that so I can buy appropriate consumables. Buying inappropriate consumables can cause TPKs. I've seen it happen.
That is my understanding as well. Deeper Darkness + Daylight = the natural lighting of your current environment.
Example: You are in a dark, lightless cavern. Your party cleric casts daylight for light. Those sneaky drow cast deeper darkness before they engage you. You are now back to a dark, lightless cavern again (and still boned without darkvision).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
David,
This post will be in two parts:
1) Let's use grapple as an example,
2) Going beyond the example.
The rules for grapple have changed over the last three years. There's an FAQ entry about some of the clarifications, and there are a handful of more recent FAQ posts on the forums. Do the rules require a spellcaster to make a Concentration check if she attempts to cast while grappled? One part of the rules is unambiguous: no. Another part is also unambiguous: yes. Can a grappled character make a full attack? The Core Rulebook says no. The FAQ says yes.
Moreover, the critter gnawing on the PCs may not need to obey the same rules that the PCs do. Gibbering Mouthers and Mi-go don't grapple the way humans do. The GM is looking at the monster's stat block and seeing what sort of extraordinary abilities it has. The player is not.
More generally, role-playing games have to operate on a level of trust. The players have to trust that the GM is presenting the world accurately, even when he lies. ("The room is 20 foot deep by 30 foot wide. In the center of the room is a dark wooden chest, overbrimming with gold coins.") The players have to trust that the GM is running the combats fairly, even when he's obviously breaking the rules. ("Your axe strikes true, but your blow seems to do no damage whatsoever." or "A 19 would normally threaten a critical hit with that sword, yes, but in this case it does not.") When the player refuses to let the GM's ruling stand, he turns aside the essence of that GM/player bond. He is, in effect saying "I do not trust you." Okay, then. We're done.
If you sit at my table, and you think that I'm running something wonky, please mention it. I make lots of mistakes, and I'm happy to be corrected when I'm wrong. But maybe I've read a recent FAQ post that corrects your assertion. Or maybe I know that this monster has a special ability that trumps your concern. Or maybe I've already done my homework and I know that you're only quoting part of the rules. Or you might be mis-remembering a 3.5 rule. There's lots of reasons that I might disagree with your objection.
If we're sitting in a bar, I'll be happy to turn the conversation into a stupid rules debate; those can be fun. But that's not often the case when we're in the middle of a game. Everybody else wants to loot the bad guy and see what he knows about his evil master. If one guy still insists on discussing Concentration checks, I'll invite him to have that conversation with someone else.
|
|
@Kyle/Amanda: Just curious, do you also observe that most people who don't want a challenge also optimize heavily?
I am certainly going to ramble a bit. I apologize for that but will try to answer the question the best that I can.
I have seen people who are very worried about just how tough the challenge will be. They tend to have solidly built characters, but they don't have a ton of tricks up their sleeves to counter every single situation. They are probably the baseline that a lot of the older adventures are written to accommodate. They want to make sure there is a cleric for in combat healing and probably a turtled up fighter with high AC and a truck load of hit points. Players with "under optimized", at least the ones I have seen, really don't appreciate how dangerous things are going to get. They learn tough lessons after the encounter is over.
I often find players with what I'll call "hyper optimized" characters have absolutely no desire to be challenge. Their thrill is ending the encounter as quickly as possible. First encounter is great, but the first action of the first encounter is even better. They don't even want the BBEG to have a chance to do anything that might have a whiff of challenge. I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.
I personally like to play in the middle ground I guess. There is nothing worse than basically sitting for 4-5 hours watching someone else being all the awesome. Worse still when they try to ruffle your hair and throw you bones. "Hey buddy. You look pretty strong. Won't you be a sport and move that big rock out of the way. That way I can murder that platoon of bugbears by myself." "Oh kitten. You're pretty. Go talk to that merchant while I do the important stuff."
Maybe this just happens to me a lot but I hear the same argument a lot. If there isn't an encounter flattening PC in the party then everyone will die. I enjoy the fight that goes on (for lets say) 7 or 8 rounds. It's tough but I feel pretty triumphant when it's done. We survived and we won and we're awesome.
|
|
I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.
This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
|
|
His concern is what if the party has a torch in a dim light cavern. Then Mr. Stalker casts DD. Then Ms. Sun Cleric uses here Daylight ability. Does the torch provide light where the two effects overlap? Yep. Both effects are "temporarily negated."
I've had GMs rule otherwise. And that is a point not worth fighting about.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do the rules require a spellcaster to make a Concentration check if she attempts to cast while grappled? One part of the rules is unambiguous: no. Another part is also unambiguous: yes. Can a grappled character make a full attack? The Core Rulebook says no. The FAQ says yes.
As a matter of interest, where can I find the bolded parts? I've checked the two places I know to look (grapple in the Combat chapter, and the grappled condition in the Glossary) and I'm not finding either.
For the first one, the grappled condition explicitly calls for a concentration check, while the Combat chapter refers the reader to the aforementioned text in the sentence immediately following the only mention of casting a spell. Is there some third place that discusses grapples and states that no concentration check is required?
For the second one, the Combat chapter of the CRB explicitly says you can make a full attack as long as it doesn't require both hands, and the grappled condition in the Glossary doesn't say anything one way or the other on full attacks. So where is it the CRB says "no"?
Sorry to derail the topic that grappling was an example for, I just try to investigate whenever someone mentions the rules saying something that I'm not familiar with, in case I've overlooked it. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His concern is what if the party has a torch in a dim light cavern. Then Mr. Stalker casts DD. Then Ms. Sun Cleric uses here Daylight ability. Does the torch provide light where the two effects overlap? Yep. Both effects are "temporarily negated."I've had GMs rule otherwise. And that is a point not worth fighting about.
Nope, the point worth reiterating is that even if you believe with all your heart that it should work like X and the GM says it works like Y, suck it up and play on. You have to TRUST the GM to provide a fun experience. If you can't do that, don't play.
I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
These kinds of actions are actually one of my biggest pet peeves/annoyances, and this is coming from a players perspective. Especially when it turns into a metagame type decision.
The party Fighter: "How did that Wizard cast Magic Missile and Scorching Ray? I thought he was only 7th level, how can he Quicken one, he's not high enough level."
Me: We don't know what the bad guy has, what his class is and what items he may has. Oh, and as for those spells, I missed that Spellcraft check..."
That was just a hypothetical example, but I've seen it happen too many times to count and it really annoys me when people assume and also play out of character. As it's been said more than once in our home game "You don't know!"
|
|
Nope, the point worth reiterating is that even if you believe with all your heart that it should work like X and the GM says it works like Y, suck it up and play on. You have to TRUST the GM to provide a fun experience. If you can't do that, don't play.His concern is what if the party has a torch in a dim light cavern. Then Mr. Stalker casts DD. Then Ms. Sun Cleric uses here Daylight ability. Does the torch provide light where the two effects overlap? Yep. Both effects are "temporarily negated."I've had GMs rule otherwise. And that is a point not worth fighting about.
I find that to be.... rather narrow-minded. But okay.
|
|
I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
Out of curiosity, what the legal methods for targeting through a wall of fire? I mean blasts are obvious. But what about targeted effects?
|
|
His concern is what if the party has a torch in a dim light cavern. Then Mr. Stalker casts DD. Then Ms. Sun Cleric uses here Daylight ability. Does the torch provide light where the two effects overlap? Yep. Both effects are "temporarily negated."Neither continual flame nor light have such a "mutual negation" clause, so unless they're heightened ABOVE the level of deeper darkness, they're useless.
That said, because daylight explicitly states that both spells are "negated" in the overlapping regions, with no stipulations on HOW they are negated, then the provisions of the deeper darkness spell that disable non-magical light sources are ALSO negated for that region, meaning torches/sunrods/that bookcase the mage set on fire will provide light as normal.
Just thought I'd expand on the whole "temporarily negated" logic...
It's not explicitly stated, and I've had GMs who rule that the "normal light doesn't work" clause is NOT negated.
|
|
As I mentioned for season 4, it stops being fun real fast when players are coughing up 16PP for rezzes. Also, one the ugliest incidents I've even seen in this game was when a couple of players found out that they died after the game due to a GM "not seeing it that way", when it was in black and white the whole time.
Also as I said, it was easy to keep this to a minimum (okay, never) in the earlier seasons. There was no possible GM mistake that was going to let that single level 7 wizard beat 5 level 4/5 PCs. But Season 4 really did a good job of upping the ante.
Why does every rules disagreement have to end with a PC death? That makes no sense.
If you can't trust the GM to make the experience enjoyable for you (regardless of rules), then don't play with that GM. If you feel like it's every GM that's out to get you, then by all means stop playing.
That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I think most mechanics mess ups are totally innocent. But that doesn't make them any less lethal in season 4. Also, I'd say that 85-90% of rules mess ups do NOT end in PC death. But those 10-15% are really bad due to the already limited resources of PFS and the cost of rezzing.
|
|
I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
These kinds of actions are actually one of my biggest pet peeves/annoyances, and this is coming from a players perspective. Especially when it turns into a metagame type decision.
The party Fighter: "How did that Wizard cast Magic Missile and Scorching Ray? I thought he was only 7th level, how can he Quicken one, he's not high enough level."
Me: We don't know what the bad guy has, what his class is and what items he may has. Oh, and as for those spells, I missed that Spellcraft check..."
That was just a hypothetical example, but I've seen it happen too many times to count and it really annoys me when people assume and also play out of character. As it's been said more than once in our home game "You don't know!"
Yeah, I had to work hard to pretend to NOT know what was going on with my fighter in a recent session. The arcane guys made all their checks, but neglected to actually inform my character.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You have to TRUST the GM to provide a fun experience.
So, the issue of trust has now come up twice in this thread, once in each direction:
Earlier, there was discussion about banning builds versus waiting for someone to actually use their build disruptively before taking action. GMs talked about having been burned so many times by players using certain builds/tactics to be disruptive that the GMs tend to assume that a player bringing that same build/tactic is going to be disruptive with it. Players responded with an imperative to trust the player until they actually prove themselves guilty (i.e., give them a chance to behave), rather than taking action preemptively (i.e., banning a build).
Now we're talking about settling a rules debate versus accepting a ruling and moving on. Players are talking about having been burned so many times by GMs making incorrect rulings with negative consequences that the players tend to assume that a GM making a similar error is going to cause a negative experience. GMs are responding with an imperative to trust the GM until they actually prove themselves guilty (i.e., give them a chance to provide a fun experience), rather than taking action preemptively (i.e., insisting on resolving the debate).
So we have both players and GMs saying "Don't assume I'm going to cause a problem; you've got to trust me to have everyone's fun in mind." Though apparently, both sides seem a bit hesitant to exercise that level of trust, preferring instead to proactively protect themselves.
I bet a discussion of that phenomenon (along with its sources and ways to deal with it) has the potential to be very fruitful. :)
|
|
Out of curiosity, what the legal methods for targeting through a wall of fire? I mean blasts are obvious. But what about targeted effects?I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
The oracle's Flame mystery's Gaze of Flame revelation allows the oracle to see through fire, among other things.
|
|
Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?
Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?
Oh, want me to stop targeting you with fireballs? Fine.... FIRESTORM!
|
|
Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?
Yes, that's fine. Just some acknowledgement that the GM understands the default situation, and is not giving the NPCs abilities above and beyond the author's intent.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, that's fine. Just some acknowledgement that the GM understands the default situation, and is not giving the NPCs abilities above and beyond the author's intent.Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?
I was GMing a certain scenario that involved some (of the best ever) mooks who could 5ft step through difficult terrain.
One of my players asked for an AoO, and I told him it was a 5ft step. The player questioned that, because of the difficult terrain. I answered that his character was as surprised as he was, and that the NPC was moving very nimbly... his moves could be described as nimble... one might even say "he has Nimble Moves". Then I gave an over-exaggerated wink.
The player seemed satisfied with that answer, despite not getting an AoO. :D