| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to run two concurrent campaigns.
The "A-Team" campaign will have optimized PCs, all rolls in the open, hard-mode tactical gaming. Sometimes the BBEG will go down like a chump. Sometimes he'll TPK the party, and I don't shed a tear. PC deaths happen; if yours dies, roll up another one if you can't get resurrected. If the fate of the world is at stake and you screw it up, then that campaign world sufferes the consequences of that failure.
I have to thumbs down your entire statement on the premise that can simply kill off Faceman and Hannibal, or that BA can be killed at all. The A-Team is rife with fudged rolls. And I would definitely shed a tear for Murdock.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There once was a 1st level monk who practiced his meditation by walking in the forest each morning. On one clear crisp morning, the monk heard a rustling in the leaves and looked up to see a large tiger watching him from a distance (random monster encounter). Sensing that the tiger was about to attack, the monk started running as fast as he could, only to come to a clearing and a high cliff. Not seeing any other way to go, the monk grasped a large vine running partly down the side of the cliff, and began to climb down it just as the tiger arrived. So there the monk was hanging, grasping the narrow end of a vine, with a snarling tiger above him, and a long deadly fall beneath him. To make matters worse, a mouse appeared and to began gnaw on the vine, just above him, but out of his reach. Just then, the monk noticed a wild strawberry plant growing from the side of the cliff, with one plump red strawberry on it. He reached out, picked the berry, put it in his mouth and the GM asks for a save vs. poison.
That's a bad GM.
My GM style is pretty much in the mode of Vincent Takeda and Mark Hoover. I try my best to design adventures / encounters to match my PCs' abilities and weaknesses.
I don't play RPGs as a tactical simulation experience. I play RPGs as a collective storytelling experience. As a GM, I set up the challenges, and the players try to resolve them, then I make the story react to their choices, and so on. The rules of the particular RPG we're playing set the framework and let the players know the limitations on what they can do in the world.
A level of randomness is part of what keeps the story interesting: the resolution is not a foregone conclusion, and the input of both the players' choices and the roll of the dice makes my end of the storytelling fresh and exciting.
That said, I always roll behind a screen, mainly because I don't want bad dice rolls to derail a perfectly good story. I also don't want to let bad dice rolls dictate PC death in a manner that doesn't serve the story. To use Roberta Yang's hyperbolic example from up the thread: If my random monster encounter came up "Storm Giants" for a party with an APL of 1, I would re-roll... or I would make it a non-combat roleplaying encounter.
I try my best to pace my games like a genre-appropriate TV series. (It's usually an action series, but sometimes it's a procedural, or a psycho-thriller, or a detective series, or a horror show. I try to avoid comedy, mainly because I'm bad at it.) Ultimately, you want the heroes to win, but temporary setbacks are part of what makes the story exciting-- and the possibility of failure. Occasionally, a spectactular epic failure is indeed a satisfying conclusion. And, yes, a heroic sacrifice really can be high drama.
I like to vary the encounters. Sometimes the PCs can talk their way out. Sometimes, the combat is against APL-3 opponents just to show the players how powerful they really are. It's particularly satisfying for the PCs to waltz through an encounter against opponents that had previously posed a serious challenge.
But the BBEG fights do need to be epic. If I've misjudged the power level of the bad guy, I also adjust the encouter accordingly: wether by varying tactics (improving them or deliberately making sub-optimal choices), having additional bad guys in reserve (or making the existing minions significantly weaker), or adding/subtracting levels or hit dice to the BBEG itself. I want the BBEG fights to be memorable. If the PCs are steamrollering, then I beef up the bad guy; if the PCs are outclassed, I will either make the bad guy take a round to gloat, or give them an escape route... unless the PCs are making terrible decisions. If that's the case, the dice fall where they may.
TL;DR: My GM style is that telling an entertaining story is more important than adherence to the encounter as written or to the dice as rolled. I reserve the right to fudge dice rolls or adjust encounters on the fly to make the story more entertaining for everyone at the table.
Well, mpl, you must have far more time for your GM activities than I do, and I spend a LOT of time on my GM activities. Your approach here implies that you can't have a group of ogres unless you have worked out the entire ogre ecology, otherwise you just have an arbitrary number of ogres somewhere in the world for the players to encounter. You cant have a random manticore flyby unless you have the entire manticore family defined and laid out.I tend to do things fairly similarly to mpl, at least based on the limited descriptions we've had so far.
However I don't really prep for games much at all, except for flipping through the books daydreaming about possibly cool ways of using each monster/spell/item/etc or occasionally statting out a particularly relevant NPC.
I just introduce elements into the game as I think of them, I just try to make sure it's internally consistent with everything that's previously been determined in the game. So as long as having some ogres around makes sense in light of everything else, I might throw in some ogres. Then everything else I put in the nearby area will make sense based on having those ogres there, so the next people the PCs meet might be a bunch of NPC giant-hunters looking for the ogres.
That said, while the creative side of my brain is introducing these ideas the more numerical side is calculating them based on suitable challenge, CRs, etc.
I don't adjust anything that's already established, but since I don't have anything pre-prepared there's still plenty of wiggle room for including things the PCs are interested in or to provide more challenge if it looks like they were bored with the encounter.
Interesting. What you describe here sounds more like how I view my gaming than what I understood mpl to be saying. I took mpl to be saying that she didn't have a "goblin encounter" she had an entire goblin lair and how the PCs interacted with the goblin lair was entirely organic and logical based on how the goblin lair was laid out. That implied that if there was an opportunity for the PCs to encounter some ogres, then there was an ogre society in the game and the PCs interacted organically with them, and that would extend to the entire world.
When I run a campaign I work very hard to make it internally consistent. I don't just throw in a group of ogres from out of the blue, if I add some ogres to the game, that will be done in such a way that the ogre's presence "makes sense" to my view of how my world works. But that doesn't mean I have an entire ogre society worked out, I just have the ogres I need for the encounter. As these things happen I update my world's documentation so that if I add ogres to an area, ogres will remain in that area unless they are driven out.
The difference in what you describe and what I am saying seems to be that once you have added the elements of an encounter you don't modify them for the benefit of the players.
But let's pursue that. Let's say that you have laid out an area of your world and decide that there is a family of ogres the party is likely to encounter at some later date in the campaign. But as you play the campaign you realize that the party has been optimized more than you had originally expected and they are just waltzing through your prepared content. Would you then go back and add another ogre to the ogre party, or add some minions or mooks to the ogre encounter so that when the party gets there, it's not a walk in the park? Or do you just write the ogre encounter off as an already created encounter and therefore it's just what it is?
If you DO adjust the encounter at that point, do you see that adjustment as being qualitatively different from adjusting the encounter as the encounter itself is engaged?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a level of GM agency in the creation of e ogre lair in the first place. That's what makes it an ogre lair and not a fire giant lair or a goblin lair.
So, at what point does the encounter building 'finish'? Where is the point where we say 'this encounter is complete and cannot be changed' when we are the people who invented it ?
Here is perhaps a relevant example from the game I am currently running.
The party was sent off on a mission to acquire a specific item that has crucial information about how to resolve the current apocalyptic crisis. This particular mission required them to be sent through my world's version of the "Underdark" to find a secret location and from there to find the item and return with it.
The trip through the underground caverns took the party through a series of encounter, including some Drow, some lizard people (custom creatures of my own design), a fungal realm (again custom creatures of my own design), and a few other encounters. They had to search for clues in the caverns to locate the secret hideout, and then once they found it, they had to either talk their way into retrieving the necessary item, or fight for it.
The "fight for it" encounter is the one I mentioned up-thread where the wizard I had created as the current resident of the secret lair turned out to be too strong, and would have almost certainly TPK'd the party.
I accept full and total responsibility for the wizard having been created incorrectly in the first place. But now, after literally months of real time and weeks of game time, the party was now faced with a TPK that would quite literally have resulted in having to start over from scratch. Had I run the encounter as originally designed, it would have been "game over". I recognized the problem in the first round when the wizard's first spell more or less temporarily disabled half the party.
So, if I were to follow what I understand to be mpl's approach, I would have been committed to TPKing the party and pretty much wiping out months of game progress due to a single miscalculation on my part. By readjusting the wizard's power on the spot, the encounter became what I had originally envisioned it to be, which was a significant sub-boss fight that pushed the party to their limits, but that they could win.
In my mind by adjusting the wizard's power on the spot I was able to have the game continue, give the party a suitable challenge and avoid the potential for ruining five people's fun for weeks.
Am I to understand that in the same situation the "proper" response would have been to say "Oh well, I messed up, but that's the way the cookie crumbles?"
I have to thumbs down your entire statement on the premise that can simply kill off Faceman and Hannibal...
"A-Team" in the original sense, not the '80s TV show.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a level of GM agency in the creation of e ogre lair in the first place. That's what makes it an ogre lair and not a fire giant lair or a goblin lair. So, at what point does the encounter building 'finish'? Where is the point where we say 'this encounter is complete and cannot be changed' when we are the people who invented it ?
Flip that around -- at what point does character building finish? I mean, no one gets to undo their last level advancement and redo it mid-encounter, right? So, as DM, I hold myself to pretty much the same rules. When I design a challenging encounter, I do it fairly (i.e., the PCs have a chance to survive unless they're stupid about it) and to the best of my ability (and I follow all the rules, down to the number of followers the bad guy has being determined by his/her leadership score). Once the game is actually in play, that encounter is set, in the same way the PCs are set. After the game, players are welcome to audit my adventure notes for inconsistencies (no one has taken me up on that, but I'd totally do it).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, why do you feel it is important for the GM to be held to the same standards as the players when it comes to running an encounter? Is it because you feel that if the GM adjusts something on the fly, but the characters can't that is somehow an unfair advantage that the GM is taking advantage of?
If I viewed my role as GM to be creating "fair fights" and running them "by the book" so that they could be audited after the fact for accuracy and appropriateness, I might agree with your approach.
But I don't view my GM role that way. My role as the GM is not to "fight fair" but to create an environment for the PCs to shine and give the players a few hours of fun by immersing them in an imaginary environment where they can be what they can't be in real life. As has been said up-thread, to me it is the story that is important, not the mechanics.
I'm really not interested in proving how well I followed the game rules to run an encounter. The rules are there to provide a framework for the story, and that's how I treat them.
Keep in mind that making adjustments as I have described in this thread is a rare thing for me. The wizard encounter is the first time I had to make that sort of adjustment in months. All of the other encounters in the caverns went as I expected them to, and needed no adjustment. So we are talking about edge cases here, not every encounter. Or at least in my case that is.
I acknowledge that I am not perfect and make mistakes. Fixing mistakes on the fly is, I think, an important skill for a GM to have. For me to TPK a party because of a mistake I made and then claim "my hands were tied dudes, look, here's the wizard's specs, it's not my fault you couldn't beat him" seems to me to be the antithesis of good story telling.
I'm not in competition with the players. I am providing a stage for them to shine.
I have to thumbs down your entire statement on the premise that can simply kill off Faceman and Hannibal..."A-Team" in the original sense, not the '80s TV show.
whoosh!
But I don't view my GM role that way. My role as the GM is not to "fight fair" but to create an environment for the PCs to shine and give the players a few hours of fun by immersing them in an imaginary environment where they can be what they can't be in real life. As has been said up-thread, to me it is the story that is important, not the mechanics.
I'm really not interested in proving how well I followed the game rules to run an encounter. The rules are there to provide a framework for the story, and that's how I treat them.
Hear, hear!
Kirth, why do you feel it is important for the GM to be held to the same standards as the players when it comes to running an encounter?
A couple of reasons. One is that I feel the game is better if the DM is impartial; and since that's hard to be, the way to come closer is to set rules for yourself to help ensure it. Another is pure personal preference; it offends my sense of tradecraft to have to "cheat" or resort to ad-libbing, because those imply that I failed in my prep. Finally, it has something to do with my sense that the hard line we draw between DM and players is slightly absurd and sometimes better smudged -- I'm all in favor of selective player entitlement and/or DM abrogation of powers to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shin, PCs die in my campaigns. They also sometimes run away and hide.
If my goal was to create a challenging encounter that might push the party to their limits, I am accepting the risk that a PC could die. Maybe two, but two dead PCs better be major boss fight.
I agree that an RPG is different than a book or movie. In my mind an RPG is at its best when it feels like a collaborative story telling session where the players have the ability and opportunity to make the story their own. I work hard to give them that opportunity.
In my mind if I make a mistake and create an encounter that is clearly going to TPK the party, running that encounter to its inevitable conclusion just because "that's what I wrote down a month ago" is far more of a GM controlling the story than it is for me to adjust the encounter to it's intended threat level and allow the players to continue to add to the story.
What I find interesting is that in our group I am considered the "hard-ass" GM because I DO kill PCs on occasion. But that's because I try to provide some very challenging situations, which can sometimes walk a fine line between just powerful enough, and too powerful. All I'm trying to do is keep as close to that line as possible to create the most thrilling and exciting environment for the players.
It can be exciting and fun for the players to get through an encounter with a PC killed off. It is almost never exciting and fun for the players to suffer a total party kill. At least that's been my experience. It's part of my job to do what I can to avoid a TPK, while still making the game feel dangerous and exciting. Or that's how I see it.
Kirth, why do you feel it is important for the GM to be held to the same standards as the players when it comes to running an encounter?A couple of reasons. One is that I feel the game is better if the DM is impartial; and since that's hard to be, the way to come closer is to set rules for yourself to help ensure it. Another is pure personal preference; it offends my sense of tradecraft to have to "cheat" or resort to ad-libbing, because those imply that I failed in my prep. Finally, it has something to do with my sense that the hard line we draw between DM and players is slightly absurd and sometimes better smudged -- I'm all in favor of selective player entitlement and/or DM abrogation of powers to do that.
Kirth, I have made it clear that in this case my GM prep failed. I admit it, with humility and a certain amount of damage to my pride as a GM. But there it is. I created a too powerful wizard for my players to succeed against.
Having admitted and acknowledged that, what is better for the group overall once I, as the GM, realize in game that I made a game prep mistake? Is it better for the group overall for me to say "oh well, that sucks" and TPK the group exactly by the book than it is for me to make an easy and reasonable power adjustment to tweak the encounter back to its intended purpose?
You say that the GM should be "impartial". What exactly does that mean? Are you impartial when you are doing your game prep? Or do you construct your encounters to be appropriate to the party you are hosting?
I am not impartial as a GM. I admit it. I am a player advocate as a GM. Pure and simple. I want the players to feel challenged and sometimes have a little fear of god put into them, but that's because I think that makes for a better story.
But impartial? Not even close.
While I see the value of limited prep, my own experience as a player (and limited experience as GM) has shown me that minimal prep is best; because player creativity can make it meaningless. I dont discount it's value, but I know that I will never be able to account for all players actions, so creating a perfectly balanced encounter in advance is difficult (if not impossible). I will definitly prepare, but it will be in a more general way (IE a grab bag of encounters that can be re-skinned, be they combat or other). Would definitly put more effort into pre-planned events the PCs where expecting though.
I like the A-team vs B-team comparison, and I prefer the B-team in play, and it's what I want to GM. In an a-team situation I cant help but think I'll fall back into optimizing mode and simply treat my PC as a puppet.
Right, DM's are there to tell a cool story and be part of a Fun Game. Altho certainly they should not be biased, they need to lean towards Fun and away from any idea of "impartial".
D&D is a Game. Games should be Fun.
Having a beloved PC die as the DM screwed up when designing a scenario is pretty much the definition of "not fun".
The scenario is what YOU control as the DM, it's not something you construct then let it get out of control. Sure, let the dice fall where they may- don't fudge rolls. But do nudge a scenario when you have to. Don't be locked into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D is a Game. Games should be Fun.
Not everyone's idea of what's "Fun" is the same, so maybe a lower-case "fun" would be a lot more appropriate. For example: For you it's "not fun" if your beloved PC dies. For me, the game actually loses most of its fun if my PC has no chance of dying.
Trying to make blanket statements about what's Fun and what's badwrongfun isn't a really useful pastime. What's more helpful, to me, is making sure that the people you're playing with are all together on their opinion, or at least know which way you lean and are on board with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am, generally, a player friendly GM. By that I mean that if my players want something in game, I am pretty flexible with what is allowed. When it comes to encounters I let the die fall where they may. If it means the group breezes through an encounter that was designed to be challenging or get their butts handed to them in an encounter that is supposed to be a walk-through, that's just how things end up. One thing I am very unforgiving towards is the attitude that just because you're an adventurer does NOT instantly validate a character as a hero amdtherefore should be able to emerge victorious from every encounter just because. Success in games I run are earned, never given...which by no means indicates that the same is not true for anyone else. If my group makes a stupid decision or the die are being unkind to them, that's just the way it is. I've been running games for the better part of the last 23 years, with various groups and have never had anyone complain...at least nothing has been brought to my attention.
I don't "fudge dice". But that's mostly because I want to respect the die's randomness as providing its own story element.
The wizard example above is really the only example I can think of where I flat out modified an existing NPC's power level on the fly.
There are lots of ways to nudge the threat level of an encounter as the GM. The most common situation that comes up is probably the opportunity an NPC or monster might have to coup de grace a helpless PC. I know that many players feel that opting to perform the coup de grace is frequently considered a "dick move" by the GM. But it's clearly an option that is on the table.
Similarly, most monsters or NPCs have multiple attack options. GMs can easily adjust the encounter by choosing less optimal attacks or less optimal spells to use against the party. Then there are tactical options that can be used or not used.
Is it the opinion of the "impartial GM" advocates here that choosing a less optimal attack, spell, or tactical option is just as bad as modifying the power level of an NPC? Does that sort of GM play their NPCs and monsters as lethally as they possibly can? Including all coup de grace opportunities?
|
I tend to be a coddler, since I don't like seeing players die. It all depends on how much the GM wants to enforce consequences for the decisions of the party. All the other people that GM in our game group are of the school "Your character makes a poor decision, there could be fatal consequences." My girlfriend is one of those and uses NPCs to their optimal potential when attacking the party and has no pity for punishing characters for bad decisions.
It all comes down to the expectations of how well the characters should move through the adventure. It is no fun to GM a group of bumbling Inspector Gadgets when you are trying to run a serious campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D is a Game. Games should be Fun.Not everyone's idea of what's "Fun" is the same, so maybe a lower-case "fun" would be a lot more appropriate. For example: For you it's "not fun" if your beloved PC dies. For me, the game actually loses most of its fun if my PC has no chance of dying.
You need to read more carefully. I said "Having a beloved PC die as the DM screwed up when designing a scenario " is not Fun.
I did say the a lucky crit that kills a PC is one of the things that happens, and needs to be accepted.
So- having my beloved PC die as *I* screwed up or the DM got a lucky roll? Sure, part of the game. Danger is part of the fun.
But having my PC die as the DM screwed up when designing a scenario, and then is so hidebound he won't admit it as of course he's perfect and can't make mistakes or admit it? Not Fun for anyone.
And you misuse "badwrongfun". "Badwrongfun" is when someone IS having fun but another poster else steps in and sez they're doing it all wrong, the fun they are having is wrong. If you are NOT having fun, then "badwrongfun" doesn't enter into it.
Is it the opinion of the "impartial GM" advocates here that choosing a less optimal attack, spell, or tactical option is just as bad as modifying the power level of an NPC? Does that sort of GM play their NPCs and monsters as lethally as they possibly can? Including all coup de grace opportunities?
To me, it means playing the bad guys as they supposedly are. Mindless creatures I try to play as being mindless. Enemies who have more important concerns than the PCs will stop and listen if they offer something more valuable than themselves. A cunning, ruthless enemy might coup de grace PCs who threaten to destroy his/her plans and/or kill him or her. Etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The longer this thread goes, the more I am feeling like I have been too soft as a GM for too long. I haven't killed a PC in months. And the last best chance I had to do a TPK, I totally wussed out and downgraded an NPC instead of just letting it happen.
I'm probably losing my cachet as a hard-ass GM. It's probably time to do something to remind my group that I am one.
1. But having my PC die as the DM screwed up when designing a scenario, and then is so hidebound he won't admit it as of course he's perfect and can't make mistakes or admit it? Not Fun for anyone.
2. And you misuse "badwrongfun". "Badwrongfun" is when someone IS having fun but another poster else steps in and sez they're doing it all wrong, the fun they are having is wrong. If you are NOT having fun, then "badwrongfun" doesn't enter into it.
1. Overall, of course, we should strive not to make those mistakes up front. That said, if during the course of play I realize that the enemy I've been playing with X set of stats is too tough for the PCs, I don't suddenly switch him out for his dumber kid brother; instead, I prefer to warn the group using various in-game clues that he's maybe too tough for them -- in other words, maintain consistency, even if it means they need to think twice before just kicking his door in. I also use hero points, in case they miss the clues and/or just don't care. If they burst in anyway, maybe they carry the day through sheer luck (highly memorable), or maybe they use all their hero points and still die a hideous death (also highly memorable at times, if you ask houstonderek about the end of their Museum Heist adventure!)
2. No, I used it exactly correctly. What's "not fun" for you is often fun for me, so when you claim it's "badwrongfun," that's what you're doing -- telling me I'm doing it wrong. Especially when you start spouting about (capital) Fun in exactly the way that religious fanatics spout about (capital) Truth, forgetting that every other sect has a different idea of what that actually is.
The longer this thread goes, the more I am feeling like I have been too soft as a GM for too long. I haven't killed a PC in months. And the last best chance I had to do a TPK, I totally wussed out and downgraded an NPC instead of just letting it happen.
Like I said before, everyone has their own preferences. If your players are in the market for a softball DM, you do them no favors by suddenly starting to TPK them unexpectedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, much like mpl, I think you are making things too binary. There are distinctions in GMing between "hard-ass" and "softball". Not being a complete hard-ass does not mean you are softballing.
In my mind there's some subtlety here. I am feeling that while I still run a highly challenging campaign, there is a real possibility that I have become too reluctant to kill off PCs, and as a result the players have become less effective as an adventuring party. If I had killed off a PC a month or so ago, perhaps when they hit the wizard encounter they would have been more cautious and effective and I wouldn't have been in a position to TPK them so easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked my players if I could run an adventure for them that was very hard and was likely that they would go through 8 to 10 characters each before it was over. I told them it was long and that part of the adventure challenge was that it would not let up. I also said that players should not fall in love with their characters because permanent death is a very real consequence in the game and that every player should come every session with a backup character.
My players grinned and said bring it on.
14 games in we are at 7 character deaths and they are asking me to run extra games. Its all about what the players want and mine are experienced and between 25-35 years old.
When I run a learn Pathfinder day for the club I'm in the players are usually much younger (8 to 15 years) and I go a little easier on them. Ie. I no longer use curse words, the monsters sometimes do silly things, and the worst thing is they probably get "knocked out".
Depends on the audience.
One of the points being bantered back and forth is prep work. I have a month between my adventures. When we actually sit to play, it's usually a 5-hour session. My players are all busy professionals in RL who are taking this time w/me so we can be entertained in a hobby we enjoy.
Now, between games I take that month to plan. Since I homebrew nearly every adventure and often customize villains, I'm tinkering with numbers for probably a full 24 hours stretched through that month. In that time I'm thinking about the game, the adventures before this one and how this adventure will relate to the next one. I'm also thinking about the characters and what their capabilities are. All of this is my job.
My players are not doing any of this.
We sit down to game. I set up the scenario and they say "ok, we go to the dungeon" or some such. Now we're off and running. The players encounter a few fights - they have done JUST enogh scouting and recon to know there's SOMETHING up ahead and chances are it isn't friendly. Finally they encounter my villain; for this example let's say it's a wight. They are APL 1 so this is a rough fight for them.
So should I penalize them for this? Should I shrug and say "you should've KNOWN this guy had a death touch and that he was way more powerful than you are." and then just let the characters go to pot? Maybe THAT'S coddling because my answer is: I don't expect my players, after a month off, to be as immersed/invested in my game as I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The longer this thread goes, the more I am feeling like I have been too soft as a GM for too long. I haven't killed a PC in months. And the last best chance I had to do a TPK, I totally wussed out and downgraded an NPC instead of just letting it happen.
I'm probably losing my cachet as a hard-ass GM. It's probably time to do something to remind my group that I am one.
I personally dont see the value in necessarily being seen as a "hard-ass GM". The point being I have enough to struggle & strive for in RL, why would I want to do the same in fantasy? I can appreciate those who want to be strict & consistent in their world-building, and treat their players as if they where in a pseudo-reality, but I simply dont find that "fun" (although others do). It's the same reason I dont pay videogames at high difficulty levels; I'm not there to struggle every step of the way.
Does that mean I should expect everything on a silver platter? No! But I have no desire that my gaming (fundamentally, entertainment) give me as much if not more stress than my real life. In my current main campaign I'm playing, I would probably quit if my character died (and I'm being careful that they dont). I'm playing with random folks with whom I have no other connection, so I have very few reasons to go back. Yet there's another player (who's friends with the GM) who has already played (and killed off) several characters.
Then again, I wonder how many people are as "extremist" as I am in that regard. I'm not a fan of being killed, and I dont want to go around killing characters people are invested in.
In the end, I think Kirth said it best when he said a GM has to clearly transmit their intent before accepting a player; I know I probably wouldn't want him as a GM (except maybe in the b-team), and I know I wouldn't want mlpindustries as a GM, and that is perfectly fine, we just have play styles that dont concur.
I don't expect my players, after a month off, to be as immersed/invested in my game as I am.
If we go a month between sessions, generally before we start playing everyone says, "So where were we, again?" And everyone pitches in what they remember. And if they're forgetting a clue that they totally caught onto a month ago, that's my chance to remind them of that.
The various plot threads in my home game were getting complex enough at one point that we took to posting stuff here, just so everyone could chew on it.
So, no, I wouldn't expect anyone to memorize sessions or anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, I think Kirth said it best when he said a GM has to clearly transmit their intent before accepting a player; I know I probably wouldn't want him as a GM (except maybe in the b-team), and I know I wouldn't want mlpindustries as a GM, and that is perfectly fine, we just have play styles that dont concur.
I'll never forget houstonderek's statement, before I DMed for him the first time: "If I do stupid things and my character doesn't die, I'm walking out that door and not coming back."
Contrast that with Mrs Gersen saying, "I just want a pet pony for my gnome, and I don't want things to be too icky or die-y."
The game is big enough for both of them -- just not at the same time, in the same place.
Kirth, much like mpl, I think you are making things too binary. There are distinctions in GMing between "hard-ass" and "softball". Not being a complete hard-ass does not mean you are softballing.
I agree -- I'm using those endpoints because it's easy to contrast them and still demonstrate that BOTH of them can be fun. In point of fact, while my home game is often close to one or the other endpoint, my PBP is pretty well centered.
I don't expect my players, after a month off, to be as immersed/invested in my game as I am.If we go a month between sessions, generally before we start playing everyone says, "So where were we, again?" And everyone pitches in what they remember. And if they're forgetting a clue that they totally caught onto a month ago, that's my chance to remind them of that.
The various plot threads in my home game were getting complex enough at one point that we took to posting stuff here, just so everyone could chew on it.
So, no, I wouldn't expect anyone to memorize sessions or anything.
But no, I'm not just talking plot here. Ever had a player who said "Ok, so where are we going? Barrow of the Black Hand? Ok...what's the 'Black Hand'?" which then sets off an epic hour of RP to determine a wight is running the barrow? Then it doesn't stop there. Our fearless heroes then head to the local church for strategies to defeat the creature and thus learn knowledge like it's thrice as strong as any one of you (3HD) or that it has to touch you to drain your life and therefore they get a bunch of ranged items blessed and holy water super soakers and such.
See, my players ask "Where were we" and I tell them. Then they ask "so, what are we doing now?" and after about 15-20 minutes discussion of current plot hooks they decide and we're off. My players don't obsess over the mechanics of undead, or wights, or whatever. They just figure "we'll burn that bridge when we get to it". That's the prep I do and they don't, and I have no expectation that they would.
Mark, I have a similar situation. I've had players come back to the table after a long lapse between sessions quite sincerely asking "OK, who am I again?"
One of my players is really only interested in getting away from his house for an evening.
We typically spend at least half an hour each session getting the group back up to speed. And I publish campaign notes on my blog that they can read whenever they want.
Mark, I have a similar situation. I've had players come back to the table after a long lapse between sessions quite sincerely asking "OK, who am I again?"
One of my players is really only interested in getting away from his house for an evening.
We typically spend at least half an hour each session getting the group back up to speed. And I publish campaign notes on my blog that they can read whenever they want.
Ok, and do your players, when researching their NEXT adventure, go into what monsters are there down to stat blocks, then plan appropriately? Do they buy new equipment to optimize for their potential encounters? Do they learn all the lore of the place so that they're not surprised by traps, spells cast by the villain or potential environmental hazards?
What about local weather or terrain along the way? How many players get THAT in depth when settling back into the game after being away from the table? In other words: how many players put in as much prep for an upcoming adventure as a GM? In my experience: none, but that might just be me.
Ever had a player who said "Ok, so where are we going? Barrow of the Black Hand? Ok...what's the 'Black Hand'?" which then sets off an epic hour of RP to determine a wight is running the barrow? Then it doesn't stop there. Our fearless heroes then head to the local church for strategies to defeat the creature and thus learn knowledge like it's thrice as strong as any one of you (3HD) or that it has to touch you to drain your life and therefore they get a bunch of ranged items blessed and holy water super soakers and such.
Ideally, that's how all games would be for me. Real life quite often doesn't live up to that, so it's VERY important to me to know in advance how much lower to set my sights.
There are players who think 'challenge' means combat and risk of death. They're really missing out on a lot of cool stuff the game has to offer.
Challenge is fun. Risk of death adds to the spice, methinks. But there’s a difference between:
My favorite character died because I did something dumb or foolhardy.
My favorite character died because the monster got a lucky crit.
My favorite character died because the DM did not design the encounter properly and refused to change it as he was too hidebound and stubborn, not to mention he thinks he is the GawdDM and thus he’s never wrong.
#1 is something we try to avoid, but when it happens, it’s our fault. Or if that's what we wanted, then it's a great heroic death.
#2 is the luck of the roll. We can avert this to some extent by good PC design and good tactics, but it still happens. This adds spice and excitement, I think.
#3 is bad DMing, IMHO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there is the GawdDM that changes rules on the fly to coddle/challenge/grief their players because the DM is never wrong and the GawdDM who is hidebound and stubborn and won't change the rules because the DM is never wrong.
Interesting dichotomy.
On the other hand, one GM I had, claimed that he didn't "coddle" his players, so he would do things like surprise our Level 7 party with a CR 13 Monster in the middle of the night, that had so much stealth that there was no possible way we could notice them, and did a TPK. And the same GM killed us with a CR 16 monster after we all rerolled characters. Needless to say, he delighted very much in the killing of PC's, and always felt that he "won" when we died, and his campaigns never lasted through their first adventures.
By my standards, he lost.
He would have won if the second party of PCs cast speak with dead on their predecessors to learn about the local monsters, then went back to town and prepped accordingly, and set up a proper watch and decoy, and managed to kill the CR 13 thing and, a few levels later, moved in and mopped up the CR 16 one, too. THAT would be a win -- the DM taught the players to exceed their PCs' normal limitations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one essential truth I've found is this:
Be honest with your group up front.If you're going to fudge dice and so on, make that clear at the beginning of the campaign. That way you don't need to mention it whenever you do it, but everyone knows what they're signing up for.
Likewise, if you won't fudge and let them die, make that clear at the outset also.
Lying to your players (even by omission) over something that essential to how the game runs is the absolute worst thing you can do as a DM.
QFT
The most important currency you have a GM is trust. Once you lose that, you lose your group.
I'll toss in another vote for "run the campaign your players want." I've had games where I would be merciless, and games where I would tell the PCs that their characters would never be permanently killed off without having some way out of it.
To be honest, I'm actually rather fond of not killing PCs, but making them suffer in other ways instead. For some campaigns, my rule is that if you 'die' then you won't actually die, you'll just have some very bad things happen to you. Like surviving because you sold your soul to a devil, the dragon spares your character and puts him under a geas, etc. I like to give players who are invested in their characters some way to keep playing their characters if at all possible, but they don't get out of death with no consequences.
One source I read said to make the "standard" fight APL -1 or APL -2. This way PCs manage resources better and are more impressed with beating tougher challenges. I have a game coming up this weekend; I'm going to be employing this methodology.
I probably run a pretty puffball game compared to most in this thread. A couple fights here and there are hard, dark and gritty. Most however are resolved in a couple rounds and don't use up that much in PC resources. I have noticed though that my players generally rest, regardless of remaining spells/powers once the healing runs out. I'm hoping that by lowering the baseline challenges just a bit we have more than 2-4 fights a night.
One other thing the article suggested about lower APL baselines. If you have, say, 12 rooms near one another with a single goblin in each, and the PCs get to one where an alarm is sounded, you can have a few adjoining rooms worth of goblins pile in to make the fight tougher without hedging too much.
I think that's already what some of you have already said, but I figured I'd throw that in.
I will say this: I want to get better as a GM so that I can set the game on autopilot and not worry about my mistakes TPKing a party. I want that, but I don't know if I'll ever get there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a group once that were going to a well known dungeon area. They were riding on a barge they hired from the local Gypsies. One of them started playing with the water and one of the gypsies asked them to stop cause there's water trolls in the area and while the blessing on the boat caused most things to ignore them, they might attack if you attract their attention.
The player ignored him and continued messing with the water. I rolled for encounter and guess what came up... trolls. They attacked the boat and were just looking for a meal. They dragged off several gypsies who were never seen again. The Gypsies informed the PCs that they were heading home and will have to answer for what they did.
Two of the PCs shot one of them full of arrows, but the other got away. The PCs didn't give chase feeling that the boy would fear for his life and keep his mouth shut.
Well, if they are playing foolish AND evil murderhobos, then yes, your style seems effective. My players would listen to the Gypsies. Or if somehow they messed up, they would make it good or atone, not try to kill the witnesses. (Really?!?)
Since my players wouldn’t act like that, I don’t have to assassinate their PC’s ‘for a lesson”. They don't need lessons.