GMing Demonic NPCs

[N N 959]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

While this may be true, demons are the embodiment of that evil.

I think for this point to be driven home as some unique experience for the PCs, then demon tactics should focus on killing innocents as opposed to focusing on the PC's. Killing innocents in the face of PC aggression, simply because innocents are defenseless and helpless feels far more demonic than stealing someone's sword.

THAT is going to leave an impression on the player about just how cruel these creatures are.

Wardstone Patrol:

This is what was done in 5-02 and I found it to be very compelling for the dretch and Rimorak to sit there coup de gracing the captives rather than come after us. That tactic felt like a demonic thing to do and made us feel helpless when we couldn't stop them at first.

[David Bowles]

"Personally, I don't have a lot of patience with that attitude. PFS overstuffs characters with advantages relative to standard Pathfinder play: 20-point buys, loads of cool stuff to buy with Prestige, and the opportunity to play up a sub-tier every so often and get well ahead of the WBL curve. So there's a cushion, in case you need to pay for a raise dead or two. In case you fail at a mission and don't get any prestige. In case bad things happen, your character is still more than viable."

This is not my experience. Most of my homebrew games have been 25 pt buy. It doesn't matter much in the long run, and makes low level a bit more tolerable. The "cool" stuff to buy with prestige doesn't even begin to make up for losing access to item creation, I think. I feel that my PFS characters are already extremely weak. But that's just my experiences. And that's why I can't use them to judge everyone else on.

[WalterGM]

N N 959 wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

While this may be true, demons are the embodiment of that evil.

I think for this point to be driven home as some unique experience for the PCs, then demon tactics should focus on killing innocents as opposed to focusing on the PC's. Killing innocents in the face of PC aggression, simply because innocents are defenseless and helpless feels far more demonic than stealing someone's sword.

THAT is going to leave an impression on the player about just how cruel these creatures are.

There aren't innocents in a majority of situations involving demons in PFS. Orphan children don't wander into the Worldwound and get exploded by a wayward power word stun. Defenseless men and women aren't accompanying the PCs into the Tomb of Forgotton Terror, where in the Demon King sleeps. Adventuring is left to people with class levels in Golarion. Its left to Pathfinders.

That said, when NPCs are present, you can be sure any demons I'm running will kill them just to watch the paladins cringe.

In the end we're just back to the same place we started. Nothing is outside the realm of possibility when creatures as chaotic and evil as demons hit the field. And since nothing is taboo, everything is permitted.*

*Disclaimer: GMs should always endeavor provide a fun experience for everyone at the table, and keep this mind when deciding what actions their NPCs take. The views expressed in this post are my own personal opinion, and are not necessarily shared by Paizo or its staff. Blah blah blah...

[N N 959]

What's not permitted is stuff that violates "being a jerk." This rule applies to GMs as much as it does to players. GMs who target the player, doing things clearly in attempt to upset the player, cannot hide being the "it's in their nature" excuse. Everything is not on the table in terms of what is acceptable behavior.

To step back a sec, I honestly think this discussion is being held on two different levels. One, is the mindset of players like myself, a few characters, limited opportunity to play. The other is players like you and Kyle and Chris, who has 300 games under his belt and I can only imagine how many GM credit level 1-12's he could pop out on a whim.

I can also imagine you guys are approaching this discussion from a difficulty and intensity needed for you to still enjoy it. The games I play, I'm lucky if I can get someone to not stand in front of my archer during the entire combat, and that's after I tell them I'm an archer.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

But targeting equipment when it makes sense circumstantially to do so, is not being a jerk. Its making the appropriate choices for the NPC based on the circumstances.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

But targeting equipment when it makes sense circumstantially to do so, is not being a jerk. Its making the appropriate choices for the NPC based on the circumstances.

You want to take someone's +10 weapon for the combat or scenario? Sure.

You want to permanently destroy it? Show me where that's a requirement based on the circumstances?

Show me that the GM doesn't have a choice of actions that are arguably just as evil and I'll concede your point. Because otherwise it sounds like the GM coming up with an excuse to metagame and target the player.

[Finlanderboy]

N N 959 wrote:

What's not permitted is stuff that violates "being a jerk." This rule applies to GMs as much as it does to players. GMs who target the player, doing things clearly in attempt to upset the player, cannot hide being the "it's in their nature" excuse. Everything is not on the table in terms of what is acceptable behavior.

I agree DMs and players can both try to use that excuse. A Jerk is a jerk as a jerk is a jerk. In any public play you have jerks. Everyone agrees being a jerk wrecks others fun. The point of this thread though is how to best be a chaotic evil demon, and have players enjoy the game.

In these games you have infinite things you can do. So How do you best represent a being of chaos and evil?

I say not important fluff is an awesome way to do it. Have the Demons wrecking non-important story lines in the game. A friendly GM made PC can be hurt or turned against the PCs. Have the demon demonstrate sacreglious things against the PCs gods. Find elements that the PCs care about and metephorically or literally pee on it.

Each demon is a unique and devestationg creature with unique abilities take that into account.

There are ways to make players feel these are the epitome of choas and evil and have them enjoy it.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Fighting a Balor on a bridge over lava.

Paladin is handing it to the Balor with his +3 Evil Outsider Bane Holy Greatsword.

Balor disarms Paladin, and then grapples him, subsequently pinning him (with the -20 because he doesn't want to have the grappled condition) and proceeds to destroy the rest of the party with the Paladin's sword as the Paladin gets to watch.

Then, staring into the Paladin's Eyes, the Balor sneers and drops the sword into the Lava right before biting his face off.

[Chris Mortika]

N N 959 wrote:

What's not permitted is stuff that violates "being a jerk." This rule applies to GMs as much as it does to players. GMs who target the player, doing things clearly in attempt to upset the player, cannot hide being the "it's in their nature" excuse. Everything is not on the table in terms of what is acceptable behavior.

I agree. I'm just trying to figure out where to draw the line.

There are some people, like Avatar-1, who are upset with stated demon tactics from Siege of the Diamond City. Other players might be upset if a demon kills their characters when they don't have enough prestige to come back, or if it continues to attack that player's character instead of spreading out the damage.

After a point, "don't do things that upset the player" becomes a reward for players who get upset. I don't think you're advocating that thresh-hold.

Warning, trigger language under cut:

And I'm sure that we agree that actions like making tieflings with the PC of a player who has suffered abuse, are unacceptable, even if they would be in character for a succubus.

So, how do we make demonic foes memorable and thrilling, without stepping over the line?

[David Bowles]

Make recurring named demons appear in the scenarios. I think you are trying too hard to make Babau_001 something it just isn't.

GMs aren't responsible in any way if the written tactic states to focus down PCs one at a time until they are *dead*. I still, however, find permanent equipment removal to be excessive unless indicated by the author.

[Avatar-1]

Andrew Christian wrote:

But targeting equipment when it makes sense circumstantially to do so, is not being a jerk. Its making the appropriate choices for the NPC based on the circumstances.

I wasn't going to get into the jerk argument, but this is important to note on the whole topic:

It's very subjective. Sometimes even if you're actually not being a jerk, you can get so wrapped up in the game that the player will feel like you're being a jerk.

It's exacerbated if the book doesn't explicitly tell the GM to follow those brutal tactics, and different players will find different levels of brutality acceptable. This is where hardcore/softcore mode (official or improvised) comes into play.

It's very easy for a player to think you're being a jerk if you cross those boundaries, and you might still think you're just "doing what they'd do". Food for thought.

[David Bowles]

It's also very easy for players to go back and look at what the NPC tactics were *supposed* to have been.

[Matthew Trent]

Kyle Baird wrote:

So stop doing this? I'm not forcing you or anyone to take my opinion for more than what it is, one person's opinion. If you want to place more weight on it, go ahead, but don't try to vilify me because you don't agree with my position.

Yet not just a couple pages earlier in the comments he was all like.. well I'll quote it for you.

Kyle Baird wrote:

It's funny that the person has the most combined games played and games GM'd finds it fun (often) when their PC dies.

If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what is.

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree. I'm just trying to figure out where to draw the line.

I think this goes to what Walter says: it's going to be very circumstantial. If a player has as much GM credit as four and five star GMs, I can imagine he/she wouldn't give a rat's rump about any individual items, and probably wouldn't care if you CDG one of their characters so long as it seemed appropriate. If this is someone's first character, and you have no experience with that player, then you're probably going to come off as being a jerk using the same ruthlessness.

It's like any ethics professor will tell you, if you have to ask about whether your actions are ethical (in the context of the rules), then you probably shouldn't be doing them. I don't think a GM should endeavor to tip-toe along the DBAJ line.

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, how do we make demonic foes memorable and thrilling, without stepping over the line?

One route:

You do things that are illogical to conventional thought but still cruel. Mortals think about the here and now. Demons aren't worried about the here and now, they are in this for the long haul. They want to shock and awe you, they could care less about winning any individual combat.

Stealing my sword sounds like the GM wanting to win the scenario. Teleporting out and coming back with some helpless NPC and murdering them "to make the paladin cringe" is memorable. Making me chase a demon through the streets while they murder innocents is memorable and makes the players feel inadequate. Having those victims families ask for monetary handouts, tugs on the player's sense of accountability. You want to suck up 18k of my wealth? Then do it by making me voluntarily pay for damage I couldn't prevent, but should have.

[John Compton]

I'll offer this in elaboration of what I believe Chris, Kyle, and Walter are getting at.

I agree that whatever demons can do can also conceivably done by humans (typically of the same alignment). Part of what makes such human(oid) encounters scary is that they represent the normal (human) engaging in extreme taboos (evil). This type of thing can make a very compelling encounter.

redward wrote:

Demons are evil, yes, we get it. Every kid in Golarion knows that demons are evil and will do horrible things to your body. Every kid does not expect that behavior from the old lady across the street (unless she turns out to be a demon:). The world of the Pathfinder is a world constantly confronted with pure evil. It's not like our reality where we are rarely if ever confronted with real evil.

This is what Chris's original post might have been trying to tackle. In a world, setting, and hobby in which the embodiment of pure evil is seemingly commonplace and mundane—heck, you can open up a Bestiary and dissect evil into numerical values—demons risk becoming humdrum and boring. "It's a demon? Oh, yeah, they're evil. I'll smite evil. Whatever." If demons are simply blobs of ballistics gel that have been garishly painted and then lobbed at PCs, demons (and most other outsiders, for that matter) lose part of what makes them a compelling threat.

Many of the evil humanoid enemies that we encounter in PFS are evil but not extremely evil; their evil might be reflected in the willingness to kill out of [not self-defense], destructive self-centeredness, revering an evil deity, or something else that is clearly perceivable as evil but does not reek of evil incarnate. When we have an evil outsider, there's the temptation to make evil...come alive for the players in the same way that a GM running a horror game hopes to make the players feel the creepiness and not just the characters.

Performing the same act of demon-evil (it's a word now, I guess) over and over also risks losing the act's impact, so it's a bit of a challenge for GMs to present demon-evil in a fresh way. From a designer's point of view, child endangerment is not only distasteful but is also a tad trite and isn't really a trope that I feel belongs in a Pathfinder Society scenario except under very particular and well-reasoned circumstances that tie directly to the plot. As a result, we're unlikely to have a spare orphanage nearby for encounters with demons.

With a lot of these discussions of "how evil is too evil" for whatever variation, I have to wear two hats. On one hand I wear the hat of an experienced GM, wherein I know there are some situations—usually fairly corner case—in which sword-melting or coup-de-grace is appropriate and seems practically mandatory. Has the cleric used breath of life and channeling to bring back the fighter from unconsciousness three times in a row in the same fight? My glabrezu is going to CDG the fighter and end the ridiculousness. Would I do that after the first revival? Nah. Would I do it after the second? It would be tempting but would depend on circumstances. If a paladin hit my glabrezu with a holy avenger, I would try to disarm it or the like. If the paladin kept snatching it back (CMB, magic, whatever), my glabrezu might conclude that the only safe place for a holy sword is in a volcano. That said, I prefer actions from which a PC can potentially recover, so I might just sunder it instead (hardness permitting).

While wearing the hat of a developer and campaign leader, I have to recognize that the volcano of sword-eating is not a healthy option as an over-the-counter tactic; while 20% (reasonable yet made-up statistic) of the population might nod in understanding when the demon destroys a valuable item, perhaps 80% would see this as unfair, world-shattering, experience-ruining, and/or "take my ball and go home"-worthy. Even when a tactic makes really good sense to leave in a GM's toolkit like coup-de-grace, Mike and I have to consider the handful or more of GMs who might use it irresponsibly, vindictively, or inappropriately. When our mailbag fills up with missives demanding we slap a GM in a pillory for his perceived abuses of a tactic PCs can throw around left and right, we start to run out of options.

On acceptable actions for PCs vs. NPCs:

I feel it's fair to observe an action type discrepancy between what is perceived as fair for PCs and what is fair for NPCs. If a PC performs a coup-de-grace, I find my tables typically nod in approval or even high-five in jubilation. If an NPC performs a coup-de-grace, I as a GM have committed a crime against humanity. If a PC performs a sunder maneuver, the players fist-bump and get ready to mop up what's left. If an NPC performs a sunder maneuver, she's a jerk. Is it wrong to limit such tactics knowing that they tend to lead to hard feelings? I imagine not. Can it seem distasteful to a GM not to have these tools available when the players are slapping her across the face with the opportunity? Absolutely.

However, so long as there are GMs out there who would abuse those tactics to the detriment of the campaign, I can't in good faith say "yeah, use 'em whenever." Distributing a card to particular GMs saying "The card bearer is certified to use combat maneuvers, coup-de-grace, and other alternate combat tactics when appropriate" would be amusing but would ultimately devolve into favoritism, complaints about stars (and non-PFS experience), etc. As you can tell, I'm not of a mind to provide a clean answer of what can and can't be done, which is one reason I've just been lurking on this thread.

Several posters wrote:

Make the demon(s) do stuff that is harmful to things that are not tied to a character's mechanics.

Yep, those work nicely.

David Bowles wrote:

Make recurring named demons appear in the scenarios.

*Steeples fingers and chuckles* I agree. With no condescension intended, I'm way ahead of you.

[David Bowles]

John Compton wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Make recurring named demons appear in the scenarios.
*Steeples fingers and chuckles* I agree. With no condescension intended, I'm way ahead of you.

I always assume that if I can think of it, others can.

Just to be on the up and up, my PCs very rarely use coup-de-grace. At the same time, this might come into play for NPCs when a given tactic is "focus down the PCs one at at time". Sunder, while unpleasant, is a) not often a good option for a given NPC and b) there is a mechanic to get your stuff fixed after the scenario. Getting it smashed for a scenario is a lot different than a one way trip to a volcano.

Dying is still pretty bad at 20 PP a pop.

[Matthew Trent]

John Compton wrote:

If a PC performs a sunder maneuver, the players fist-bump and get ready to mop up what's left. If an NPC performs a sunder maneuver, she's a jerk.

To some extent that's because the game rules make it so penalizing. I run a home game where I wanted to put sundering as a tactic back on the table and after long discussions with my players all I had to do was remove the caster level requirement on make whole. Sadly the nature of PFS makes those sort of solutions at the nuts and bolts level challenging at best.

[Finlanderboy]

In my home game I am so making the volcano of sword eating!

[Avatar-1]

Matthew Trent wrote:

John Compton wrote:

If a PC performs a sunder maneuver, the players fist-bump and get ready to mop up what's left. If an NPC performs a sunder maneuver, she's a jerk.

To some extent that's because the game rules make it so penalizing...

This sort of reminds me of the conundrum of the witch's misfortune and fortune hexes, where misfortune is usually the better of the two. The reason being that you can only use each hex on a given creature once every 24 hours, and you travel with your allies all day and they're required for the game to continue, but the bad guys only last an encounter and are expected to be dispatched.

The differences of a lasting harmful effect (not being able to re-fortune) vs an effect that's happily swept under the rug (not needing to re-misfortune) and discarded. The latter doesn't matter.

[Kyle Baird]

David Bowles wrote:

Make recurring named demons appear in the scenarios.

It exists (devil at least)

[Chris Mortika]

Thanks, John.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Matthew Trent wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

So stop doing this? I'm not forcing you or anyone to take my opinion for more than what it is, one person's opinion. If you want to place more weight on it, go ahead, but don't try to vilify me because you don't agree with my position.

Yet not just a couple pages earlier in the comments he was all like.. well I'll quote it for you.

Kyle Baird wrote:

It's funny that the person has the most combined games played and games GM'd finds it fun (often) when their PC dies.

If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what is.

Incorrect use of this logical fallacy. The appeal to authority is only valid if the authority is invalid. If you are discussing something that specifically pertains to something you have lots of experience in, and its a subjective discussion, then that experience is entirely Germaine.

Please stop using assertions of logical fallacy incorrectly (or at all) please.

[David Bowles]

I think this topic is too subject for there to be legit authority. I think it was an appeal to authority. (His own)

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

He was stating an anecdote from experience. That is not an appeal to authority.

[David Bowles]

Thinking about it, I suppose this is strictly true. The true fallacy at work in this case is most accurately the hasty generalization fallacy. Or, put another way, inductive reasoning is being used from a single data point. Or at least that is what the original statement implies, or why else post it?

The fact that the person with the most games played/Gm'd likes X does not really have any true pertinence for the rest of the population samples.

I think John's off-the-cuff statistics are probably a very good approximation, which means approximately a 4:1 ratio of people who don't find dying in PFS fun. Assuming this statistic to be approximately true, and I have no reason to think that it isn't, I conclude that the above fallacy was indeed relevant.

[Kyle Baird]

David Bowles wrote:

The fact that the person with the most games played/Gm'd likes X does not really have any true pertinence for the rest of the population samples.

1) That person is Doug Miles, not me. 2) If people would stop searching for fallacies, maybe they could realize that a statement is not an argument and my statement does not pretend to represent anything beyond what was stated let alone the entire population of PFS.

[David Bowles]

I think the use and discussion of fallacies is still very important, because it forces people to think about "why do I disagree with this person?" Rather than random flaming.

[WalterGM]

N N 959 wrote:

What's not permitted is stuff that violates "being a jerk." This rule applies to GMs as much as it does to players. GMs who target the player, doing things clearly in attempt to upset the player, cannot hide being the "it's in their nature" excuse. Everything is not on the table in terms of what is acceptable behavior.

To step back a sec, I honestly think this discussion is being held on two different levels. One, is the mindset of players like myself, a few characters, limited opportunity to play. The other is players like you and Kyle and Chris, who has 300 games under his belt and I can only imagine how many GM credit level 1-12's he could pop out on a whim.

I can also imagine you guys are approaching this discussion from a difficulty and intensity needed for you to still enjoy it. The games I play, I'm lucky if I can get someone to not stand in front of my archer during the entire combat, and that's after I tell them I'm an archer.

I see your point, regarding a fairness to players that aren't able to game as much as Kyle and Chris (and myself, I suppose). While we all might be coming off as callous to the new player, I assure you that, from what I've seen of those two at least, they're among the best GMs a new player could hope for. They aren't going to whip out the volcano-weapon-tossing on someone that's still figuring out the rules. The voracity of enemies scales with the skill of the table. The more experienced the players, the more a GM has to work to give them a challenging and fair fight. The less experienced the players, the more the GM has to work to educate them as well as entertain. It's a difficult dance to master, to say the least.

Regarding the "being a jerk" rule. I implore you to take the benefit of the doubt with us and other GMs, and assume that we aren't out to "get you" or other players. That getcha attitude isn't me. I recently was at a table where something that illustrates this understanding happened. A spell went off and while the table was confused as to how it could have happened, the GM assured us it was legit. After the fight, the GM explained how it happened, and we were all like "oh, that make sense!" Sometimes, you need to have faith. This is a team game, and believe it or not, everyone is on the same team. One person just volunteers to play as the bad guys for a few hours. I think we forget that too much.

John Compton wrote:

I'll offer this in elaboration of what I believe Chris, Kyle, and Walter are getting at.

[Really in depth, well thought out stuff]

Yup, that sums everything up very nicely. Making demon-evil different from evil-evil is definitely a challenge.

[WalterGM]

N N 959 wrote:

The games I play, I'm lucky if I can get someone to not stand in front of my archer during the entire combat, and that's after I tell them I'm an archer.

When I play low levels, I run into this a lot too. New players don't understand things like cover, AOOs, defensive actions, readying, flanking, etc. So when I play a ranged character and someone steps in the line of fire, I try to stay in character but direct them elsewhere.

"Friend! Move around, else you'll catch one of my arrows mid-flight!!"

Everybody starts with no knowledge of the system, they develop an understanding when other people help explain it to them.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

David Bowles wrote:

I think the use and discussion of fallacies is still very important, because it forces people to think about "why do I disagree with this person?" Rather than random flaming.

This is only germane in situations where the majority of folks understand what the fallacies are, how to use them and when to invoke them. My experience on these boards is that the majority invoking them don't truly understand them and use them as a lazy crutch to try and invalidate someone else's opinion in as few words as possible.

Exploring why someone's post doesn't logically stand up to scrutiny is fine. Do that. But stop invoking logical fallacies. It just straight up makes you look like you are trying to show everyone you are smarter than... Which makes you a jerk.

[N N 959]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I see your point, regarding a fairness to players that aren't able to game as much as Kyle and Chris (and myself, I suppose). While we all might be coming off as callous to the new player, I assure you that, from what I've seen of those two at least, they're among the best GMs a new player could hope for.

Whenever I enter these discussions, it's never about the individuals involved. I'm not concerned with how Kyle GMs. What I am concerned about is what the community thinks is acceptable. I'm concerned that when I roll into my FLGS or muster for my next PbP, some random GM is going to read your comments that everything should be allowed and then make a bad decision in the heat of the moment. John Compton nails it with this statement,

John Compton wrote:

Mike and I have to consider the handful or more of GMs who might use it irresponsibly, vindictively, or inappropriately.

The fact that CDG was taken off the table is proof positive that you can't let GMs have access to every tool in the toolbox. It's proof positive that restrictions are necessary. In fact, I am still reading about people using and justifying the use of CDG on these forums, even when the tactics don't call for it and Mike Brock excluded that tactic by name. Rarely if ever do I see a five star GM say, "Hey, you shouldn't be doing that." I have no doubt that the very suggestion that destroying expensive gear is a viable tactic will lead to forum lurkers employing it without the forethought that perhaps you and Kyle might exercise.

You've never come across as callous or out of touch with the average player. Nor have I notice you ever using bad faith arguments.

I've yet to personally play under a GM who was actually trying to be a jerk (I take that back, one GM in a PbP game). But allowing GMs to go after player gear as an "off-the-shelf" tactic should be recognized as counterproductive in the PFS environment and is not going to be a net positive.

[WalterGM]

N N 959 wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I see your point, regarding a fairness to players that aren't able to game as much as Kyle and Chris (and myself, I suppose). While we all might be coming off as callous to the new player, I assure you that, from what I've seen of those two at least, they're among the best GMs a new player could hope for.

Whenever I enter these discussions, it's never about the individuals involved. I'm not concerned with how Kyle GMs. What I am concerned about is what the community thinks is acceptable. I'm concerned that when I roll into my FLGS or muster for my next PbP, some random GM is going to read your comments that everything should be allowed and then make a bad decision in the heat of the moment.

Well, I can only hope they take the time to read what I'm saying instead of skimming it and taking away from it what they want.

But to clarify to those hypothetical GMs out there: read and abide by the Guide to Organized Play, along with the rulings made by campaign leadership, and ask questions on these forums. Also, don't be a jerk.

[N N 959]

John Compton wrote:

Can it seem distasteful to a GM not to have these tools available when the players are slapping her across the face with the opportunity? Absolutely.

John,

Let me start by stating that I know you "get it." Let me also state that I have a tremendous amount of appreciation for the challenges this game presents for you and the other developers and the gravitas and professionalism with which you guys approach these topics. I can also understand that you are passionate about the art of the game, which is extremely important aspect of what makes PFS appealing. I also get the excitement of trying to convey a whole new level of evil with demons in Season 5. No issues with that.

That having been said, I do not understand the mindset of the quote above. As a GM, I've never thought in terms of what I can and cannot do relative to the PC's. I would never describe PC tactics, no matter how cheesy, as "slapping me across the face." Sure, they might trivialize an encounter or even a whole scenario, but I don't experience that as something being done to me as the GM.

[Kyle Baird]

Reread his quote again.

[redward]

Kyle Baird wrote:

Reread his quote again.

To elaborate, the "...with the opportunity" is what you're missing.

When the PCs leave their down (but not out) Barbarian next to the Demon and continue pelting it with spells and arrows from across the room, it can be very difficult for a GM to not just full attack the body it can reach.

When the high-AC-, low-CMD Cleric keeps lumbering through the Large BBEG's threatened space to draw AoOs, it's very tempting for a GM to sunder that fancy armor, or trip the Cleric, or disarm him of his Holy Warhammer.

etc.

[N N 959]

Red, what I'm asking about is the attitude conveyed in the quote. The use of

"distasteful" and "slapping across the face."

I fully understand that logically NPC's and PCs should be able to do the same thing, but John acknowledges that this is not ideal. But why is it "distasteful?" These words suggest a GM vs Party approach. As I stated, I've never considered restrictions on my actions as a GM, "distasteful." Have you?

[John Compton]

N N 959 wrote:

John Compton wrote:

Can it seem distasteful to a GM not to have these tools available when the players are slapping her across the face with the opportunity? Absolutely.

John,

Let me start by stating that I know you "get it." Let me also state that I have a tremendous amount of appreciation for the challenges this game presents for you and the other developers and the gravitas and professionalism with which you guys approach these topics. I can also understand that you are passionate about the art of the game, which is extremely important aspect of what makes PFS appealing. I also get the excitement of trying to convey a whole new level of evil with demons in Season 5. No issues with that.

That having been said, I do not understand the mindset of the quote above. As a GM, I've never thought in terms of what I can and cannot do relative to the PC's. I would never describe PC tactics, no matter how cheesy, as "slapping me across the face." Sure, they might trivialize an encounter or even a whole scenario, but I don't experience that as something being done to me as the GM.

I'll employ a touch of hypothetical hyperbole, so bear with me for the sake of argument.

The "slapping with opportunity" part of my above quote is related to the PCs' or circumstances' waving an opportunity in front of a GM but the GM not being empowered to take it. In the case of coup-de-grace, this might involve the aforementioned fighter being revived three times while fighting a glabrezu. This super-genius, size Huge bundle of abyssal evil (and by some extension the GM) has a golden coup-de-grace opportunity being waved in front of him when the fighter falls for a fourth time. "OK, I've noticed a really troubling pattern," says the glabrezu. "The fighter falls, he gets healed, he cuts me a lot, he falls, and then it all starts over again. This ends now."

Now, if we go by Mike's clarification that CDG is off the table except where called out, we have effectively allowed the players to dance around the GM chanting "nya nya nya nya nyaaaa—you can't coup-de-grace me," knowing that the GM risks public shaming on the boards and the threat of campaign leadership's intervention. It's akin to how we don't publish (m)any rules about what happens if the PCs tick off the local law enforcement, yet I want to ensure that GMs have some license to have local law enforcement lay down the law if the Pathfinders are *ahem* being more criminal than *cough* usual.

Just as I prefer having PFS scenarios be difficult enough to be challenging without requiring that players optimize their characters (yet reading the messageboards can sometimes express the opposite, especially to new players), I very much prefer that GMs have as much opportunity to creatively pursue their craft within the structures of organized play (even though some spread the reputation that PFS unfairly binds the hands of GMs). That means being able to adapt the tactics of a creature when the PCs significantly break from what those tactics are built around (e.g. a melee threat being peppered with arrows from atop a cliff that it can't reach) among other things.

I would love to think that coup-de-grace and sundering are options that are available to GMs. I know not everyone can use them responsibly, yet I also know that by banning them from anything but prescribed use, we are also taking them away from those GMs I know can apply them responsibly in those rare instances that they are appropriate. As a matter of personal style, if I were to find myself using coup-de-grace more than once in every ten sessions, I would begin analyzing what went wrong; even then I think my actual rate is less than half that. I know of at least one instance in which I as a GM used coup-de-grace in a less than tasteful way, but fortunately we had an old Beginner Box Bash boon on hand to revive that character. I don't think that coup-de-grace or sundering should see regular use, but as a GM I feel a little bit more at ease knowing that I have that option available.

PLUS: I think Redward also does a good job of clarifying my point above.

[N N 959]

John Compton wrote:

This super-genius, size Huge bundle of abyssal evil (and by some extension the GM) has a golden coup-de-grace opportunity being waved in front of him when the fighter falls for a fourth time. "OK, I've noticed a really troubling pattern," says the glabrezu. "The fighter falls, he gets healed, he cuts me a lot, he falls, and then it all starts over again. This ends now."

To play out the hypothetical, why not go after the cleric doing the rezing? Why not have the demon express gratitude to the Cleric for saving the demon the trouble of reviving Fighter so that the demon can continue to inflict pain on a conscious being?

The need to CDG the fighter comes across as the GM wanting to "win" the battle and beat the PCs. A CDG ends the PC's suffering, it doesn't continue the suffering.

[John Compton]

Relevant Disclaimer:

It is also fair to observe that thus far in this thread I'm in discussion mode. In discussing these issues, I'm not yet intending to lay down any firm rule on how XYZ works. Just as I believe a 5-star GM should be able to discuss topics on equal footing with new players with the former's reputation being wielded against him, my hope is that my musings here are not wielded as absolute proof until I've issued an official statement saying so.

[John Compton]

N N 959 wrote:

John Compton wrote:

This super-genius, size Huge bundle of abyssal evil (and by some extension the GM) has a golden coup-de-grace opportunity being waved in front of him when the fighter falls for a fourth time. "OK, I've noticed a really troubling pattern," says the glabrezu. "The fighter falls, he gets healed, he cuts me a lot, he falls, and then it all starts over again. This ends now."

To play out the hypothetical, why not go after the cleric doing the rezing? Why not have the demon express gratitude to the Cleric for saving the demon the trouble of reviving Fighter so that the demon can continue to inflict pain on a conscious being?

The need to CDG the fighter comes across as the GM wanting to "win" the battle and beat the PCs.

Bashing the cleric to little bits is also within reason. Thanking the cleric for the opportunity to inflict more pain is also reasonable. Mixing and matching those and fighter-death sounds reasonable. Once the demon has taken considerable damage, I start to imagine that it thinks "play time" is over and that the yo-yo fighter is no longer amusing.

Coup-de-grace doesn't have to be the answer, but I see that it can be an answer.

[N N 959]

The problem with it being "an" answer is the consequences of that choice may all seem equally acceptable to the demon, but they aren't to the player or the game. I know you are aware of this. I'm not stating this for your benefit.

But getting back to my original question, why do you state that inability of the GM to CDG should/might be "distasteful?" Yes, I can understand that if we are talking about flanking, or disarming, but I mean that in the context of CDGing or equipment destruction. I don't understand the mindset that my game is less fun as a GM if I can't permanently kill PC's as soon as the opportunity arises?

And as an aside, I've yet to see or hear of someone sundering an NPC's gear or tossing it in a volcano, but that's anecdotal.

[Alexander_Damocles]

I think it is distasteful because the players *know* the logical answer is CDG or sundering, and they also know the GM cannot or will not do so. That they are free to pursue more risky strategies, because the GM cannot fight back at full strength. Their characters would not know the demon can't hit them while they're down, or won't rip their armor apart, or throw their sword into the abyss, so why do the players act as such? Because the players know this, and they act on it.

[N N 959]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I think it is distasteful because the players *know* the logical answer is CDG or sundering, and they also know the GM cannot or will not do so.

Well, I've seen several players and GMs post that they were either CDG'd , or someone CDG'd when the tactics clearly did not call for it. I honestly doubt most players know or are aware of Mike Brock's "GM as written" edict which restricts CDG'ing. So I'm not buying that the typical player is prancing about the room in his undies going "Nyah nyah, you can't CDG us."

I've never seen anyone sunder. Never even seen a character with Improved Sunder. Never had anyone even talk about sundering as a valid tactic. So while I represent a small sample size, if it was some common tactic, I'd have seen it once in some 30 games and probably 100+ combat encounters.

So I'm going to reject that players "know" that they should have been hit with either of these tactics. I avoid using CDG as a player, I find it repulsive even in the context of fantasy game , as silly as that sounds.

More to the point, John Compton in this exercise, just illustrated that there should be at least one if not several options open to a GM for any given situation. All of of them "reasonable" from an IC perspective.

So I ask you, if you are free to choose between three valid choices as a GM, and one of them is arguably socially destructive, why would you chose that one?

But let's set all that aside. I'm going to ask you as a GM, do you feel annoyed that you can't CDG some player? Do you feel cheated, robbed, or frustrated?

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

But let's set all that aside. I'm going to ask you as a GM, do you feel annoyed that you can't CDG some player? Do you feel cheated, robbed, or frustrated?

Not directed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

I don't feel cheated or robbed. I might feel frustrated, if I get the sense (or it is outright stated) that players are meta-gaming the "no-CdG" edict. And I might feel frustrated if it's clearly the most intelligent choice an intelligent enemy could make.

As a player, I lose a bit of investment when it becomes apparent that I'm being handled with kid gloves. I know not every player feels that way, but that personal preference does inform my GM-style.

And I've said this before elsewhere, but for all my tough talk, on the scale of Care Baird to Kyle Baird, I'm in the back seat of the cloud car. But only because I'm easily overwhelmed by action economy. I do try to give my players a challenge, though.

N N 959 wrote:

I've never seen anyone sunder. Never even seen a character with Improved Sunder.

*Raises hand*

Barbarian with a Large Adamantine Bastard Sword (and Spell Sunder).

[Alexander_Damocles]

N N 959 wrote:

So I ask you, if you are free to choose between three valid choices as a GM, and one of them is arguably socially destructive, why would you chose that one?

But let's set all that aside. I'm going to ask you as a GM, do you feel annoyed that you can't CDG some player? Do you feel cheated, robbed, or frustrated?

Because some times, that one is the most thematically fitting one. Or it is one that most fits the characters. A demon would taunt a cleric, and then rend the body of fallen ally to pieces. Or take a prized possession from a character, and destroy it in front of them, be it a holy symbol, a sword, etc. The problem is that most characters are portrayed as nothing but a bunch of stats and equipment. If I take the time to say "Demon X killed John Bob the Barbarian's family", they won't care. Its just another enemy. Now, if I take that fancy sword of theirs, and chuck it some place (like the hands of BBEG, but lie and say a volcano), suddenly they'll care. They'll care a lot. That fight got personal. I *want* demons to make it personal. But characters who don't exist beyond the character sheet make it very hard to be personal without doing something that affects your character sheet.

[N N 959]

red, I welcome you, Alex, or anyone else offer thoughts on anything I post when the response is offered in good-faith.

redward wrote:

As a player, I lose a bit of investment when it becomes apparent that I'm being handled with kid gloves.

Sure. I feel robbed as a player if the GM softballs.

I think the issue for me is that there are things that can increase the difficulty of the game or the immersion and then there are things that are just the GM wanting to win the combat or tax the character. While I understand John's desire to empower the GM to work his or her magic, a tactic like CDG is tantamount to telling your real estate agent to take a handgun to the closing just so it's there if he needs use it to get the papers signed. It should never be appropriate to CDG players or do things that feel life griefing. For me as a GM, I don't ever want the scenario tactics to put me in that position. So the idea that GMs might be frustrated that they can't CDG players seems fundamentally broken.

As John himself seems to acknowledge, if you as a GM are resorting to the use of a CDG to make the scenario "fun" something has gone wrong. Maybe when I've got 300 games of GM credit under my name, I might view the experience as the player as a long sought after release from a character concept I never really loved, but most players aren't in that boat nor will they ever be.

And while Chris is not specifically asking to put CDGing on the table for Season 5 demons, I think it's clear many GMs might believe it should be along with things like volcano incinerators. As others have said and I think John has seemingly acknowledged in one of his quotes, GMs going after the PC's on a mechanical level is not going to make me, as a player, see the NPC demon as the true source of the evil.

[N N 959]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Now, if I take that fancy sword of theirs, and chuck it some place (like the hands of BBEG, but lie and say a volcano), suddenly they'll care.

I have no issue with doing something like this. I have no issue with a GM disarming a PC and then killing that PC with their own weapon.

I do think PFS should restrict GMs from being able to permanently divest players of massive amounts their wealth at the whim of the GM, regardless of the rationale.

[Iammars]

N N 959 wrote:

It should never be appropriate to CDG players...

I disagree with this statement. Most of the time, it is not appropriate to CDG PCs, but when paralyzing PCs (or otherwise making them helpless), the tactic should still be on the table. Very few things auto paralyze PCs, so most of the time you have a save involved in being paralyzed, and usually there's a second monster who actually does the CDG. It's really no worse than a phantasmal killer, which still seems to be fair game to GMs.

The trick is context. CDG'ing in the context of a monster randomly CDG'ing when it doesn't help him or fit his motivations is something that we should be discouraging. CDG'ing out of natural tactics is something that should be okay, especially that unlike a save-or-die, it's something that the team can help stop.

Spoiler:

Unless you're talking about CDG'ing actual players, in which case I think we all can agree not to kill living human beings...

[N N 959]

James McTeague wrote:

CDG'ing out of natural tactics is something that should be okay

None of these creatures are real, they have no "natural" tactics other than what the author provides them with.

Between every two points there is another point. Every NPC action in a RPG can be justified through some rational. Ergo, it is never necessary to CDG a character. There is always some way to justify not doing it as part of the NPC's motivation or the attendant circumstances. So why does it need to be an option? It doesn't.

More to the point, the net value of that technique and others like it used against players is unquestionably a negative for PFS. If you can choose between three pieces of art to put on your front lawn, and one of them pollutes the environment, choosing that option is socially irresponsible.

Great GMing/authoring is not creating a situation where the players accept a CDG as a logical conclusion, it's in telling the same story where the players feel that a CDG was never an option for the NPC.