Ive been GMing for almost 35 years but am new to Pathfinder/3.5.
In the past when an element of the game (NPC, magical effect, location or whatever) was not directly opposed to the characters I would simply play it out - lets say "threatrically" rather than build the encounter according to the system rules.
I get the feeling that such a practice would be viewed as cheating in Pathfinder as everything seems to be alloted a statblock, rule etc. (Open a module and the Innkeeper is listed as an NPC class with skills etc.)
This seems like a complete waste to me but Id like you veteran's opinion.
For example;
The characters stop in a small village during an adventure. I plan an encounter with a local fortune teller. (the typical gypsy variety in a shack on the edge of town)
In the past would simply play out the encounter "threatrically" not generating a single stat or skill, but simply having the NPC act like I want them to, demonstate the type of magical effecs I think would be neat (Perhaps summoning some strange lights as she performs the reading) and generally conduct the encounter in a free form manner, after all its not combat.
I find that from the way Pathfinder seems to work and the examples from published sources and forum threads here I would be expected to actually generate an NPC (Adept 3rd level or something) complete with spell list, skills, a statted familiar and what have you.
All for a little bit of color in the adventure.
Do you guys actually play this way? Equating every event or circumstance in your game in Game terms?
|
Do you guys actually play this way? Equating every event or circumstance in your game in Game terms?
Nah.
I mean, I might write up a little bit to justify the NPCs abilities and maintain internal consistency, but I usually just wing it. There are so many variables I can tweak that I can justify most any stat I pick out of the air as needed.
Kind of a 'well she'd need to be a 3rd level adept to use that spell, and her stat would have to be about this, so the bonus is that, and her HP is between X and Y' kind of thing.
Obviously more permanent NPCs that the party will be seeing a lot of get more work to pin down what they can and can't do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing the rules really well is a tremendously useful thing because of this specific issue.
I will do exactly what you are suggesting you do, and then, if the gypsy you used in your example were to get attacked or the PCs ask her for a specific spell or something like that, I can just generate her stats on the fly because I know the rules so well.
If you can't seemlessly translate from improv to rules, I think you're asking for trouble unless your PCs are very obedient rail-riders.
I see but even your flippant approach seems overdone in a way. Why do I need to know what level she is, or that she needs to use a cerain "spell", or what a given stat is, or a bonus etc.
hmm, I want her to whistle and summon a bird from the trees nearby. Do I really have to look up a spell that allows her to do that? Why not just let her do it?
I want a hush to fall over the room, all exterior sound shut out. Must I find a spell effect than can do that? What does it hurt just to do it?
One of my characters tries to bluff her. Why not just give her a stat off the cuff (hmm, lets say +6) and move on. Does it really have to be.. well.. fair/consistent/legal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We play the same way you do and it works fine provided the players are of the same mindset. In our case, if I say an NPC casts fireball, nobody is going to know what level they "must be" without looking up the book. As such, making stuff up as you do works fine for us - any inconsistency with what would have happened as-per-the-rules will be invisible so wont get in anyone's way of picturing the world (if I later on decide the NPC only has three hit points or something, nobody is going to cry foul).
I think the problem you'll have is if one or more of your players develop solid system mastery. Then they might start noticing inconsistencies and (worse) bringing them up or asking questions to understand what's going on. With a player who thinks of the rules as the physics of the gameworld (rather than as a tool for telling a story with randomly determined elements), I think winging it is going to damage their immersion in the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
rgrove, your approach is similar to what I have seen frequently described as RPG "theater of the mind." I don't have any problem with that approach, and it is quite similar to how I used to GM way back in the day.
But I'm a numbers sort of guy. I have a physics degree for a reason. I like math. I like the application of rules. Much like mpl above, I can "wing it" the same way you do, but do so with NPCs and monsters that I create on the fly while staying completely consistent with the rules.
If I want to do something really special and have some absolutely unique challenge, I'll stat out my custom monster or NPC in advance, but to me that's just part of the story prep.
It has been my experience that if a GM can run a "theater of the mind" game in such a way that I feel like the world maintains internal consistency and narrative structure, that's generally a fun game to be in.
But it has also been my experience that if a GM specs out every monster, every NPC, every trap and every encounter, that's a GM that is rarely, if ever, unprepared and that's also generally a fun game to be in.
I tend to be somewhere in between. And I think that's fine too.
I see but even your flippant approach seems overdone in a way. Why do I need to know what level she is, or that she needs to use a cerain "spell", or what a given stat is, or a bonus etc.
The easy answer is that you don't need to know that stuff...until you do.
Once it becomes important (i.e. maybe the PCs attack her?), then it's really important and it's a good idea to be able to judge her level (based on special abilities you've demonstrated "theatrically").
hmm, I want her to whistle and summon a bird from the trees nearby. Do I really have to look up a spell that allows her to do that? Why not just let her do it?
Call Animal, Animal Messenger, Charm Animal, Speak with Animals/several ways to acquire it as an SLA or SU ability, it's a familiar, Wild Empathy, the Transcendental Bond mystery...
There are so many ways this could happen, I wouldn't worry about this specific thing.
I want a hush to fall over the room, all exterior sound shut out. Must I find a spell effect than can do that? What does it hurt just to do it?
It hurts only because of player expectations--in general, there are basically three kinds of abilities:
1) Class abilities
2) Spells/SLAs
3) Unique monster powers
In general, players (though by no means all players) will generally believe NPCs that are a PC race only have access to #1 and #2. They will also generally feel that #1 and #2 are accessible to them--only #3 requires no explanation and is not normally attainable unless you are the specific type of creature with that power.
So, when your human gypsy causes a hush to fall over the room and shuts out all exterior sound, many (again, though, not all) players will ask for a Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana check to find out what's going on. Many, especially Wizards, might ask how she did that and try to figure out if it's a spell they can learn. Another player might, totally out of game, think it was cool and ask you how she did it so that their next character might duplicate the feat.
It's just the nature of things in a game with total transparency when it comes to rules and character options. If you play, say, 4e, where PC and NPC abilities have nothing to do with each other, or AD&D in which the implication was that the players had no rules knowledge beyond what they absolutely required to play (hell, they didn't even have access to their saving throw chart), then you won't have this issue, but Pathfinder is a different kind of game.
One of my characters tries to bluff her. Why not just give her a stat off the cuff (hmm, lets say +6) and move on. Does it really have to be.. well.. fair/consistent/legal?
To some players, yes, it does have to be fair/consistent/legal or else they're just playing, "GM, may I?" To others, making up a number is fine. Know your audience.
That said, if you give her a +15 on the fly and then gets into a conflict, you better not make her level 1 (since +15 would be impossible at that point).
I tend to fall in between myself. The nice thing about my desire not only to play and run games but to write them gives me a slight edge in this philosophy in that I'm not afraid to simply write up the things that I need to accomplish the effect desired.
Having a simple mechanical explanation isn't very hard. If a girl calls a bird from the trees their are any number of reasons why that bird would come. If it's a pet trained with handle animal to come at that whistle she may have taught herself how to do it with a perform check. She may be a druid using wild empathy. The bird itself may be her familiar and the whistle is just her way of calling it to her. The actual mechanics behind it can help you build a world that's more "real" to the players. Yes it is theater but it's theater that the characters explore, touch, feel, if it's something they cannot do they will often wonder why and if you don't have a good answer for them they'll either drop the subject like you hope or explore the possibilities. And the thing is you don't have to write this out. Simply having a solid grasp of the mechanics allows you the convenience of simply calling up the knowledge when the time requires.
Ive been GMing for almost 35 years but am new to Pathfinder/3.5.
In the past when an element of the game (NPC, magical effect, location or whatever) was not directly opposed to the characters I would simply play it out - lets say "threatrically" rather than build the encounter according to the system rules.
I get the feeling that such a practice would be viewed as cheating in Pathfinder as everything seems to be alloted a statblock, rule etc. (Open a module and the Innkeeper is listed as an NPC class with skills etc.)
This seems like a complete waste to me but Id like you veteran's opinion.
For example;
The characters stop in a small village during an adventure. I plan an encounter with a local fortune teller. (the typical gypsy variety in a shack on the edge of town)
In the past would simply play out the encounter "threatrically" not generating a single stat or skill, but simply having the NPC act like I want them to, demonstate the type of magical effecs I think would be neat (Perhaps summoning some strange lights as she performs the reading) and generally conduct the encounter in a free form manner, after all its not combat.
I find that from the way Pathfinder seems to work and the examples from published sources and forum threads here I would be expected to actually generate an NPC (Adept 3rd level or something) complete with spell list, skills, a statted familiar and what have you.
All for a little bit of color in the adventure.
Do you guys actually play this way? Equating every event or circumstance in your game in Game terms?
You're basically doing it exactly like I did it when I GMd. One difference, though, is that I'd make sure that IF a character had more than a cursory role, I'd give him or her a statblock.
For someone like your fortune teller I'd make no statblock. If she had to use skills, or were attacked, I'd make up the stats on the fly.
A good thing, btw, is to use character generation tools. I have made a bunch of low-level characters I use as NPCs in my campaigns so when I need a lower level cleric with actual stats, I bring it out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see but even your flippant approach seems overdone in a way. Why do I need to know what level she is, or that she needs to use a cerain "spell", or what a given stat is, or a bonus etc.
Why do the players need to know what level their character is, or use a certain spell to accomplish something? Why can't they just 'do it'?
hmm, I want her to whistle and summon a bird from the trees nearby. Do I really have to look up a spell that allows her to do that? Why not just let her do it?
I want a hush to fall over the room, all exterior sound shut out. Must I find a spell effect than can do that? What does it hurt just to do it?
One of my characters tries to bluff her. Why not just give her a stat off the cuff (hmm, lets say +6) and move on. Does it really have to be.. well.. fair/consistent/legal?
Because how something happens tells the characters something about the world and those in it.
If someone hits you with a Power Word, you know they are a powerful being. If a warrior crushes an adamantine object with one hand, you know they are mighty indeed.
Unexplained phenomena are perfectly reasonable and valuable parts of the game. But an undercurrent of consistency draws players in and increases immersion. If things 'just happen' at random, there isn't anything for them to latch onto in the world.
1) Class abilities
2) Spells/SLAs
3) Unique monster powers
Don't forget skills and just plain dumb magic tricks. Or just plain description. A hush might fall over the room because the gypsy captures everyones attention. No spell required it's just a basic tenant of showmansip. All sound shut out? The workers dropped curtains over the doors and windows to muffle exterior sound so the performance can go uninterrupted by the sounds of city life.
These aren't magical these are just tricks of the trade for any theater magician.
|
The other day one of my players visited an ancient witch that lives in their kingdom looking for information.
That particular player's character has the soul of one of the campaign's BBEGs residing in his head.
The old witch: "You are quite welcome in my home Councillor Zool, but your passenger must remain outside.""I understand, but you see she appears to be quite attached to me."
"Hmmph," replied the Old Beldame, she walks over to you and pulls a stake from her garden and pins it to your shadow, "come in M'lord."
When you take a step you have a disconcerting feeling in your gut, like the feeling you get of falling just before falling a sleep. When you glance behind you, you realize that you have become detached from your shadow. You also no longer hear the whispers just at the edge of your hearing.
Is there any way to do that within the rules?
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. If a character asked for a spellcraft check, I'd probably tell them that it's a unique spell, it appears to be equivalent to a 7th level spell effect, they are free to ask the Old Beldame more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see but even your flippant approach seems overdone in a way. Why do I need to know what level she is, or that she needs to use a cerain "spell", or what a given stat is, or a bonus etc.
hmm, I want her to whistle and summon a bird from the trees nearby. Do I really have to look up a spell that allows her to do that? Why not just let her do it?
I want a hush to fall over the room, all exterior sound shut out. Must I find a spell effect than can do that? What does it hurt just to do it?
One of my characters tries to bluff her. Why not just give her a stat off the cuff (hmm, lets say +6) and move on. Does it really have to be.. well.. fair/consistent/legal?
The answer is that not everyone enjoys a rules-light game where the universe exists solely at the whim of the DM. Some of us prefer a rules-heavy system where all participants are playing by the SAME rules. The player understands the universe their PC exists in and can know that their abilities can be relied on to perform consistently.
It's not for everyone, and that's why rules-light systems still exist.
Summon a bird from a tree? Sounds like Handle Animal, or a familiar. The rules support that, so why not use them?
Make things silent? The silence spell does that. If the DM's storytelling works outside the rules, all of the rules that apply to PCs are restrictions. "Oh, if I want things to go quiet, I have to use the silence spell, but other entities in this universe can just do... um... DM-says-so."
Character wants to Bluff? DM makes up a stat on the fly that means 100% that the DM has decided "this will or won't work". Some people don't LIKE that. If the DM plays by the same rules the players do, either luck plays into failure (a bad roll) or something level-inappropriate has been thrown on the table.
Look, when a player buys an adamantine sword, they know that sword bypasses hardness less than 20. They know that iron has hardness 10. They therefore know that their sword can cut through an iron door or an iron wall, or an iron ANYTHING given enough time. They know a 2 inch thick iron door has 60 hit points. They know that they deal roughly 20 hit points of damage on a Power Attack. They therefore know that they can punch through said door in about three attacks. So. When the DM just "decides" that the 2 inch tick iron door they just described isn't SUPPOSED to be cut through, and says "no, see, this door is just resisting your sword, it's weird", that can really, really be off-putting to some players. We KNOW what you did there. You substituted YOUR reality in place of the one the rule-book says WE are playing in.
In short, Pathfinder is a rules-heavy system, for people who like lots of rules to USE. A DM who doesn't use those rules is making the player's use of those rules less... consistent. Rules-light systems may be for you.
Don't forget skills and just plain dumb magic tricks.
Which are also things the PCs have access to and might want to know how it was done.
A hush might fall over the room because the gypsy captures everyones attention.
Many PCs would not like being told how they react to NPC actions (i.e. "You are silenced in awe") without supernatural backing.
No spell required it's just a basic tenant of showmansip. All sound shut out? The workers dropped curtains over the doors and windows to muffle exterior sound so the performance can go uninterrupted by the sounds of city life.
These aren't magical these are just tricks of the trade for any theater magician.
Then a Perception check should let the PCs see what happened--or at the very least, Profession (Magician) or Sleight of Hand or something similar.
The only unique, unexplained abilities the PCs have no access to are monsters' racial abilities. Spells can be researched, skills can be learned, class abilities can be acquired, etc. It's just the way the game was designed. Just about anything the NPCs can do, the PCs can/should be able to do as well.
Don't forget skills and just plain dumb magic tricks.Which are also things the PCs have access to and might want to know how it was done.
A hush might fall over the room because the gypsy captures everyones attention.Many PCs would not like being told how they react to NPC actions (i.e. "You are silenced in awe") without supernatural backing.
But the statement isn't "you are silenced into awe" it's "A hush fals over the room." if a pc starts wondering about any supernatural effects they might feel a bit dumb when they start yammering on about powerful magic when the guy next to them turns and shushes them for being rude.
Like I said it's nothing magical its just basic human behavior. IF you're in the royal court and the big trumpets start playing and you see everyone move off the big red carpet by the throne do the pc's stupid stand on it while the royal guard and courtiers start giving ugly looks? No, it's jsut etiquette at work. I'm not going to play "gotcha" with my pc's by having them stand there to look like buffoons. So they just move as well as anythign else is just wasting time. If a player goes "no wait I stand on the carpet until the last second to get a good view of who comes in" that's perfectly alright. I rarely get a player whose annoyed because I gave them the benefit of acknowledging basic protocol their character would already know.
EDIT: and the thing is I'm not going to make my players roll every little skill roll or perception check just to see nonsense unless they ask.
Good stuff guys. I appreciate the feedback. Im not trying to slack on prep work, Im a prep junkie! I just wonder at times if some of that work is a bit ridiculous (Like statting the innkeeper). I mean sure, I suppose the guy could tick off the grumpy dwarf and he could attack him but come on, really?
That old gypsy is in no way to going to present a threat. My players aren't psychos.
As far as everything being consistent, Im not sure that a good thing. I mean its age of wonder and magic. Surely everyone doesn't learn magic the exact same way, any more than fighting styles are the same, yet the rules sort of blend them together. I don't think there is a problem at all with an NPC acting in a way that the PCs don't have access to. Its quite possible that NPC cant do some of the stuff the PCs do.
At any rate, I think Im hearing that there is room for a bit of what Im suggesting, only that most of you would attempt to keep it at least in the realm of Rule Possibility and make sure it is at least in the neighborhood of consistency. I get that. Its a bit more work but does lend an air of authenticity to the game for sure.
Good stuff guys. I appreciate the feedback. Im not trying to slack on prep work, Im a prep junkie!
Really? That's interesting. As a GM who does basically zero prep, I'm curious what you're prepping. It's apparently not stat blocks, so, what are you spending time on?
As far as everything being consistent, Im not sure that a good thing. I mean its age of wonder and magic.
I'd love it if the rules reflected that, but they far more reflect an age of magic with no wonder, since magic is totally consistent and predictable (short of the optional Primal Magic rules, there's no chance that anything happens other than the spell effect when a caster casts).
Surely everyone doesn't learn magic the exact same way,
Again, as much as I'd like that to be true, the magic rules contradict this.
I don't think there is a problem at all with an NPC acting in a way that the PCs don't have access to. Its quite possible that NPC cant do some of the stuff the PCs do.
It's not about doing something the PCs can't currently do, it's about doing something the PCs can never do.
At any rate, I think Im hearing that there is room for a bit of what Im suggesting, only that most of you would attempt to keep it at least in the realm of Rule Possibility and make sure it is at least in the neighborhood of consistency. I get that. Its a bit more work but does lend an air of authenticity to the game for sure.
Ultimately, if you and your players enjoy it, I don't see anything wrong with what you're doing. However, I don't think the game is set up for it at all. I like the world you want (i.e. where magic is actually wondrous and mysterious), but it's not Pathfinder's world. You would have a much easier time, I think, running the game you want with a different system--that's what I do when I want that kind of world.
|
To the OP:
They way you play, your current style, everything you know about GMing (and I bet you're great at it), is fully compatible with Pathfinder RPG. The resources available such as the NPC Codex just help the GM grab-and-go in case stats are needed. Continue to use your flare, creativity, and spontaneity. No worries.
Pax (GM since 1982, proud player of the best damn incarnation of dnd yet, Pathfinder RPG)
Grognards remember the occasional crazy innocuous wizard not necessarily an enemy but they are the sage or plot stop point for a little humor and identifying a magic item or whatever. They never made much sense. I remember my friend's half ogre who got a back scratcher from "Max the Argyler" which over time turned a patch of his hairy back an argyle pattern. Or the gnome illusionist who was the only one who could translate the strange language on the tablet. When our own Wizard got snarky he was teleported outside. When the snark continued he was teleported outside with his clothing in a pile next to him. The third time it was as a duck. Good times.
Don't sweat it. There are tons of premade NPC witches or whatever that can be pulled out in a pinch. Or you can always use a random generator if they decide to do something that requires the NPC to have stats.
One reason that I either look for a stat block or random up a NPC is not just for combat or answering spell craft questions but for XP rewards that are not combat. Afterall why do you think they need level 20 commoners.
rgrove, I don't stat out every NPC the players encounter, but I have some handy saved off NPC stats if I need to grab one in a hurry. It just helps the game to move along if I don't have to make up everything on the fly.
That way I can make up what I WANT to make up, not what I HAVE to make up.
Good stuff guys. I appreciate the feedback. Im not trying to slack on prep work, Im a prep junkie!Really? That's interesting. As a GM who does basically zero prep, I'm curious what you're prepping. It's apparently not stat blocks, so, what are you spending time on?
Fleshing out the details in non-rule format. Names, personalities, backgrounds, organizations, histories, maps, ecologies, political details, market items, and so on... everything a world needs but not necessarily with a stat connected to it.. yet.
As far as everything being consistent, Im not sure that a good thing. I mean its age of wonder and magic.I'd love it if the rules reflected that, but they far more reflect an age of magic with no wonder, since magic is totally consistent and predictable (short of the optional Primal Magic rules, there's no chance that anything happens other than the spell effect when a caster casts).
Well for PCs that is. There is nothing to say there are others with different abilities.
Surely everyone doesn't learn magic the exact same way,Again, as much as I'd like that to be true, the magic rules contradict this.
Well again, mechanically yes but the actual IN GAME way they learn could be quite different. Studying from a tome, practicing magical theory, meditating, learning from an instructor, recieving devine favor, etc. We know we get spells when we level but how is left pretty much up to you.
I don't think there is a problem at all with an NPC acting in a way that the PCs don't have access to. Its quite possible that NPC cant do some of the stuff the PCs do.It's not about doing something the PCs can't currently do, it's about doing something the PCs can never do.
Uh, again, so what? Its a BIG world with LOTs of different cultures and societies. Pretty uppity to think you character can reproduce everything he ever encounters. Its a WORLD after all, not a game.. from the PC perspective I mean. The players are there to enjoy and experience it, not manipulate a finite set of variables to oversome opposition only.
At any rate, I think Im hearing that there is room for a bit of what Im suggesting, only that most of you would attempt to keep it at least in the realm of Rule Possibility and make sure it is at least in the neighborhood of consistency. I get that. Its a bit more work but does lend an air of authenticity to the game for sure.Ultimately, if you and your players enjoy it, I don't see anything wrong with what you're doing. However, I don't think the game is set up for it at all. I like the world you want (i.e. where magic is actually wondrous and mysterious), but it's not Pathfinder's world. You would have a much easier time, I think, running the game you want with a different system--that's what I do when I want that kind of world.
I hear you, and you may be right, but Im not willing to give up yet. The rules are there as a framework from which to weave an interactive story between the GM and players. A little deviation cant be a bad thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as everything being consistent, Im not sure that a good thing. I mean its age of wonder and magic. Surely everyone doesn't learn magic the exact same way, any more than fighting styles are the same, yet the rules sort of blend them together. I don't think there is a problem at all with an NPC acting in a way that the PCs don't have access to. Its quite possible that NPC cant do some of the stuff the PCs do.
Some players care about it, others don't. As always, know what your players like.
If your players are the type to go 'whoa, how did he do that? Can I do that? What do I need to do to protect myself against it?' then dissociated mechanics are probably not the way to go.
If your players are the kind to go 'whoa, that was so cool!' and make up their own theatrical flair then go hog wild.
Oh, and by the way, most of the spells some of you suggested that gypsy know are not on the Adept spell list.
IT may sound like Im pushing one way pretty hard but Im really not. Im just trying to figure out the norm here, then I can decide how my game will fit in.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then obviously she is not an Adept. ;)
Or maybe...
A divine spellcaster can also research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless she decides to share it with others.
...not a normal one.
Im just trying to figure out the norm here, then I can decide how my game will fit in.
The only norm you really need to worry about is the one your players expect.
I once had a jailbreak encounter in which the PCs were trying to stem the tide of chaos in the streets, and they realized the town's famous prisoner was in jeopardy. They rush over to the jail to find two powerful adventurer types breaking him out. One of them grabbed the prisoner and teleported away. One player's immediate response was:
"Well, we know he was at least ninth level."
...which at the time annoyed me just a little, but he's a friend of mine, and I know he loves numbers and lists and logical internal consistencies, and I realized I didn't mind so much that he wanted to translate my Theater of the Mind in that way.
As Adamantine and TriOmega put it, the "internal consistency" is important to many people. The broad term is "verisimilitude", as it is part of the players Willing Suspension of Disbelief: they can believe there is a world of magic swords and terrible dragons and halfling cavaliers riding around on border collies but can a barbarian pick up a log cabin? No way. Don't throw that at the players. Superman can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, but he can't turn back time by flying backwards around the Earth. Audiences don't go for that, and it's sloppy storytelling.
There are so many theatrical possibilities in the game, that you can get away with any Theater of the Mind you want. Just be prepared to laugh and wink when a player demands to know how someone did something. Then be prepared to look it up later and reason it out. Don't sweat all the rules. Just don't cheat the players' expectations with sudden off-the-cuff smoke and mirrors.
I have a homebrew campaign set in Sevenarches, in the River Kingdom. At one point, the PC spent some time in prison, and I knew she'd get to interact with some of the other prisoners during the course of exercise periods in the prison yard. Here are my notes for the other prisoners:
Bellock Jorvundson -- smith, worked in cold iron without license
Captain Fairwind -- caught smuggling bellflower dust, a fey drug
Guthmund Guthmundson -- drunk and disorderly
The Slyhands, Marcus and Rhiannon -- Chelish couple busted for selling pleasure slaves
Jack Stone -- rapist
Martin Scorsi -- inept thief
Violet Twycross -- black widow. Married rich elderly gents & then used mind affecting magic to make them suicide.No stat blocks or anything. In the event that one of these needed to do something that actually might have rule effects, I'd have winged it.
For example, if the PC had asked Violet Twycross for help busting out of prison, I'd have mentally marked her down as a level 1 changeling sorceress with the spells Charm Person and Sow Thought, winged it based on that, and then made up a stat block for her AFTER the session in case she becomes a recurring NPC.
I did have pictures of all of the prisoners, culled from DeviantArt. But that's only because we're using MapTool, and I needed tokens for them. In an actual physical on-the-table-top game, I might have assigned them eye and hair coloring in my notes, but no more than that.
That's exactly what Im talking about. Initial Prep = a name and a few clues to roleplay and that's it. Winging it of course will be tougher as Im new and still learning the system but I can see how one could get there.
I feel after some of these posts that I should make it clear that I would never bend the rules in a major way or simply improvise a major encounter (heck any combat certainly) without paying as close attention to the rules as I can. I realize that Pathfinder is a rules-intensive game and that part of its popularity and value to players is its consistency and depth. (Knowing the options, using them to your advantage is fun in of itself, apart from the roleplaying, especially for some players)
Im talking about purely theatrical encounters, and I believe my players will know the difference, where its more color than substance.
... as you walk the bizarre you notice a footpad stealing a loaf of bread from a nearby stall....
Surely nobody here would stat out the thief, unless he engaged the players. Now I guess if one of them took off after him then Id have to wing it but otherwise no.
... you camp at the edge of the GreatWood and throughout the night those on watch report fleeting shadows back in the trees, never quite coming to the light...
Would I really even have to know what these shadows were in this case, their stealth skill, magical abilities etc. The point is to make the camp that night tense and provide a little spooky drama. I know that they cant engage the things, they are props. I would probably mention the fact in past tense to avoid even the possibility of interaction.
Or do you feel Im still robbing the players of interactive possibilities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what it comes down to in my opinion: Is everyone having fun? Yes? You're doing everything right. That being said, my PC's have trained me to over-prepare, over-prepare, and when I feel like I couldn't possibly be more prepared, over-prepare some more.
There's nothing wrong with a mysterious NPC whistling to call a bird to her hand, or making a hand gesture followed by suffocating silence, all without having a specific spell/class in mind (though the best class/spell combo I can think of off the top of my head is that she's a Witch - the bird was her familiar - and she cast Forced Quiet). However, when one of your PC's casts Detect Magic or rolls a successful Spellcraft check, and you can't tell them exactly what's going on, they will feel cheated because that's why they prepared Detect Magic and why they maxed out their Spellcraft Skill, and yet it was wasted; they should have put that last skill rank into Ride or Bluff instead.
If your PC's are OK with being told they can't interact with those fleeting shadows, again, you're doing nothing wrong. If I told MY PC's the same thing, they'd feel like they were no longer in control of their characters' actions. And in any case, for me, being told I can't interact with the fleeting shadows would tell me as a PC that they're no threat, and if they are, the encounter will be purely cinematic - which is fine, but it immediately deflates any tension I initially felt.
If what you've been doing works for you, and works for your PC's, then my advice is keep on truckin. Otherwise, I suggest you start preparing an encounter or two by the books and see how you like it. I personally love designing encounters (in AND out of combat) that way; I like the challenge of keeping myself restricted to specific rules and limits, despite being God. But the most beneficial factor is how much designing such encounters/NPC's allows me to learn. I guarantee that if you start doing that, even if only one NPC/combat per session, you will soon be able to, as a last-minute decision, put those fleeting shadows at the edge of camp, and if a bold PC decides he wants to throw a fireball at one, you'll be able to (despite not properly preparing for such an event) come up with a perfectly acceptable chain of events consistent with the same rules that your PC's need to follow:
(Again, off the top of my head) A band of thieves had their wizard cast Silent Image to make the fleeting shadows in an attempt to lure the adventurers away from their camp so they could steal their gear. The Fireball wakes all the PC's. The thieves see this impressive/intimidating response to mere shadows and decide they're messing with the wrong adventurers. The PC's get a Perception Check to notice the thieves slinking away from their hiding places. There's one Wizard, two Rogues and a Bard. The Wizard is the least stealthy (+4 Stealth), but one of the Rogues has the Improved Dirty Trick feat, and the Bard has Weapon Proficiency (Net). If the PC's run after the Wizard, one will be blinded with Dirty Trick, another will be entangled with a net, and the Wizard will cast Create Pit on a third. Depending on how successful this opening is, the thieves might still run for it, or decide they actually have a decent chance after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel after some of these posts that I should make it clear that I would never bend the rules in a major way or simply improvise a major encounter (heck any combat certainly) without paying as close attention to the rules as I can. I realize that Pathfinder is a rules-intensive game and that part of its popularity and value to players is its consistency and depth. (Knowing the options, using them to your advantage is fun in of itself, apart from the roleplaying, especially for some players)
Im talking about purely theatrical encounters, and I believe my players will know the difference, where its more color than substance.
... as you walk the bizarre you notice a footpad stealing a loaf of bread from a nearby stall....
Surely nobody here would stat out the thief, unless he engaged the players. Now I guess if one of them took off after him then Id have to wing it but otherwise no.
I dont necessarily stat out a character myself, but I do have an idea of what I want him to be in the event that the characters interact with him. Thats what this sort of thing is for, depth. If for instance, I have a lawful character who would chase said footpad, suddenly i need things like AC, hit points, acrobatics, speed etc, for a chase sequence (I like the chase system). Could I just set arbitrary amounts for these? Sure, but for me at least its really important that the whole world fit the same set of rules, and not to have one set of rules for the pcs and one set for everyone else.
So while I dont create a statblock, I will generally pull one from the npc codex or various other sources, even if a npc is relatively unimportant. Because honestly, I NEVER know what my players will take notice of and interact with and what they wont. And when they inevitably do something i dont express, having those stats will make my world feel fuller and more real then if I stumbled over 'winging' it.
... you camp at the edge of the GreatWood and throughout the night those on watch report fleeting shadows back in the trees, never quite coming to the light...
Would I really even have to know what these shadows were in this case, their stealth skill, magical abilities etc. The point is to make the camp that night tense and provide a little spooky drama. I know that they cant engage the things, they are props. I would probably mention the fact in past tense to avoid even the possibility of interaction.
I guess this is a play style thing. In my group, the players on watch would definately use resources to investigate and possibly rouse the others. So if you say, there are fleeting shadows, and the ranger makes a perception check to see clearer, the wizard casts detect magic, the cleric casts true sight, and the monk jumps into trees above the shadows for a better look, then yes I need to know what those things are.
Or do you feel Im still robbing the players of interactive possibilities?
Its not that you are robbing players of interactice possibilities, its that you are robbing them of agency. For me player agency is THE most important element of a game. As a player you should feel like you have influence over the world you are in, even if its limited in scope and span.
If the paladin went after the footpad, and you didnt have stats for him, and just had to make something up to get him away, whether or not your player notices, you have removed the validity of his choice to persue the footpad. Same with the shadows. If the players decide to use abilities and resources to try to investigate and you simply say, oh it was nothing, because it was, then it feels like hitting the world edge in some older video games, looks like something is there to explore, but there isnt anything. "Sorry you have reached the edge of reality, please turn back".
I've had incidental npcs turn into major fixtures in my game, not because it was part of my plan, but its what my players chose to focus on, and at least for me thats among the most interesting aspects of the game. Seeing what my players come up with.
ok, I see your point. It is a bit of a change from what Im used to but I can see its merits. Thanks for the help.
ok, I see your point. It is a bit of a change from what Im used to but I can see its merits. Thanks for the help.
You are most welcome. And like I said, 90% of that sort of stuff ends up getting handwaved, but the 10% of the time the characters do want to interact with it, I find it important to have some sort of plan to manage it within the rules (like the npc codex for spur of the moment npcs)
The answer to your question really depends a lot on your players. Are they they the types that would badger you for information about every nitpicky thing like "what magic effect muffled the outside sounds?" Or will they sit back and enjoy the interaction?
For the most part, your methods of GMing don't have to change because of the rule set. They should change according to the style of your players. It can be helpful, however, to define the general level of the NPC involved as well as a few key skills that might be relevant in the expected context of the interaction. If the PCs might be expected to lie, consider recording the NPC's sense motive skill. And so on.
And whenever asked about the source of relatively minor magical effects - prestidigitation is your pal.
rgrove, again, this is why I a handy-dandy set of pre-created stat blocks I can grab simply by clicking my mouse a few times and pulling up the stat block I need.
Combat Manager even has pre-defined NPCs with all stats ready for you, and you can easily build up a bandit raiding party or a hedge wizard or something like that literally just by doing a quick search and select on the NPC menu.
Love Combat Manager. Awesome GM tool/utility.
|
Can players perform these examples as well?I see but even your flippant approach seems overdone in a way. Why do I need to know what level she is, or that she needs to use a cerain "spell", or what a given stat is, or a bonus etc.
hmm, I want her to whistle and summon a bird from the trees nearby. Do I really have to look up a spell that allows her to do that? Why not just let her do it?
I want a hush to fall over the room, all exterior sound shut out. Must I find a spell effect than can do that? What does it hurt just to do it?
Sorry Cpt, but it really isn't a relevant question. If you play by RAW, there are plenty of monster abilities in the rulebook that players will never have access to. A GM can choose to let secret or forbidden magic/abilities remain in the hands of the NPCs and monsters if that is what he wants to do.
Personally, I do not have a problem with the OP's style of GMing. My first GM was the same way and he was the best GM I have ever had the pleasure of gaming with by a long shot. As players, there were many times when we didn't know the exact game mechanic for the magic being used, what monster was in front of us, or what magic item we had found. I believe that this style of play helps to hide the mechanics and give more of an opportunity for the story to come out.
However, I would say that the OPs style of GMing is not something a new GM could pull off. It definitely would take years and years of practice with gaming, storytelling, and player interaction. I just started to do some serious GMing and this is the type of thing I am aiming for, but I know it will be a while before I get there.
Can players perform these examples as well?I see but even your flippant approach seems overdone in a way. Why do I need to know what level she is, or that she needs to use a cerain "spell", or what a given stat is, or a bonus etc.
hmm, I want her to whistle and summon a bird from the trees nearby. Do I really have to look up a spell that allows her to do that? Why not just let her do it?
I want a hush to fall over the room, all exterior sound shut out. Must I find a spell effect than can do that? What does it hurt just to do it?
Sorry Cpt, but it really isn't a relevant question. If you play by RAW, there are plenty of monster abilities in the rulebook that players will never have access to. A GM can choose to let secret or forbidden magic/abilities remain in the hands of the NPCs and monsters if that is what he wants to do.
There is a difference between, pcs dont have access to it, and it doesnt follow the same fundamental rules that the rest of the game does. You could for instance CREATE a spell called 'call birds', could be a cantrip or whatever but that isnt the same as there being NO underlying mechanic. That is the whole point of having a system of rules to work on in the first place.
Personally, I do not have a problem with the OP's style of GMing. My first GM was the same way and he was the best GM I have ever had the pleasure of gaming with by a long shot. As players, there were many times when we didn't know the exact game mechanic for the magic being used, what monster was in front of us, or what magic item we had found. I believe that this style of play helps to hide the mechanics and give more of an opportunity for the story to come out.
The only potential way not having actual mechanics involved in a situation 'allows the story to come out' any more then actually having rules for what is going on, is if the lack of rules prevents the PCs from acting upon that event in the story and thus (as they usually do) mucking it up). Otherwise, its potentially an added amount of prep (finding or making up said spell) but it doesnt make it any more possible for the story to come out. The story happens the same whether the npc casts 'call birds' or 'charm animal' or 'mystical unamable thing that doesnt interact with the actual rules'. The difference is the potential for interaction with the PCs.