|
When you're invested a significant amount of time into a character, losing them because of bad luck is just unacceptable.
I wouldn't go that far in general. In my experience, most experienced players want some risk and are comfortable with death when the dice go really south.
What I find bugs people much more is when the character loss seems unfair. Many people hate
I'd most certainly fudge to save a new players character, and softball first.
Playing up does change things a bit. I'd REALLY encourage a level 1 to not play in a 4-5, especially a front ranker. And at some point playing up has to have increased risk. At some point (depends a lot on player and circumstances) I'd stop fudging and play hardball.
|
Warn them of the threat. That fighter played. That was her choice to play a character of tier.
You all convince me further that I would still be upset if played at that table. WHy even roll dice? Just describe to my table how we win sign my chronicle and let go home pretending I earned it.
I would have warned the player that I roll on the open table and everyone can see. If you play this adventure you could seriously die. Heck that is not the biggest threat in the adventure means. I would have said there is a noticeable chance these things can kill you in one hit even playing defensive. If all the other characters twice the level were that weak, I honestly think you are lying.
I have run other adventures when I have players unsure what to play or do.
I am sorry it is wrong of me to expect an honest DM. It is wrong of me to want to earn my win.
That is sad.
So, you want an "honest" GM. Define it.
As to your accusation that 4th level PCs can not be weaker than second level PCs, I invite you to consider a table consisiting of:
2nd level Fighter
4th level Wizard
3rd level Cleric
3rd level Rogue
Let's be kind to you and say that they all have at least a 12 Con, the Fighter a 14; and that they all spent their FCB on hit points.
F2: 10+6+2*2+2 = 22 hit points, AC 21-22
W4: 6+4*3+4+4 = 26 hit points, AC 16-17
C3 = 8+2*5+3+3 = 24 hit points, AC 17-18
R3 = 8+2*5+3+3 = 24 hit points, AC 18
That Fighter's hit points are well within the area defined by a fairly weell hit-point-optimized higher level group. And none of the other PCs were that well optimized for hit points, and those were definitely the AC ranges.
Then again, I have almost had a TPK to a swarm, and just killed off two first level PCs, in a sub-tier 1-2 game, because the group didn't have good tactics, and suffered for it. Oh, and one of those two PCs was a new (10 year old) player's PC. Hopefully, he took as well as it appeared he did, and he will be back.
And, yes, I hated having to kill the PC, but the situation made it impossible to avoid. Indeed, I ran the NPC's legal tactics hard to try and avoid the whole thing, but the party just weren't able to handle the combat in a way to prevent the deaths.
Ways a gm can annoy players?
The one that always gets my ire is when the gm assumes a new to the hobby player will "just know" "proper" tactics.
They barely have a grasp on the basics of the game.
Expecting more than basic use of the combat rules is fool hardy at best and elitist at worst.
I am fairly sure that if there wasn't a screen a good percentage of the players would spend most of their time trying to fathom the to hit bonus and the saves of the NPC. Probably missing key part of what is happening.I never use a screen - my rolls are right out in the open. I have yet to experience anyone acting as such.
They tend to do the calculations via mental arithmetic, so you wouldn't notice normally. Consequently, that's what stops them understanding what is going on - too busy keeping numbers in their heads.
You can also do it blindly, without seeing the dice, but it's more difficult, and you need a hacker's mentality to do it systematically.
And for the record, no I don't do this - coz I like story and I like not second-guessing my character's motivations.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
kinevon,
In general, I support your position regarding how hard-core to make a scenario, but in this instance I'm half-way between your position and finlanderboy's. Please take the following notes in the spirit of inquiry rather than accusation.
1) Finlanderboy is right, when he says that a character playing above his tier needs to be ready for whatevern the scenario throws at him. That's exactly the situation where I don't choose to softball encounters. (Probably because I have too much experience with players always wanting to play up out of greed, expecting that I wouldn't want to "wreck the session" by dropping their PCs.)
1a) Did the party discuss letting that player run a pre-gen, maybe Valeros, and apply the credit to the 2nd-level PC when he reached 4th level?
2) Were other characters helping to take blows from the monster? Were casters summoning in meat shields for him?
In any case, the character was in a tight position, and a critical blow would have cost him his life. Were the other players likely to pay for that character's raise dead? If so, it might have been a great PFS experience for the new guy, to realize that, in terrible circumstances, the party would have his back and make sure he'd be ready to advanture another day.
But, in the end, you know what? I wasn't there. I wasn't reading the players' attitudes. You were, you made a call, and I'm not going to try to second guess you.
I am sorry it is wrong of me to expect an honest DM. It is wrong of me to want to earn my win.
As someone who does more than their fair share of GMing, I find this statement more than disingenuous, it's rather insulting. As I take it from your argument, you're saying that you want the dice to rule the situation, no matter what. You seem to also be saying that unless the GM throws everything they have at you, it's not an enjoyable game for you. Allow me to offer the following different perspective to you:
Which game would you prefer:
The game in which the GM occasionally flubs things without mentioning them to the party, to ensure that everyone has a good time and feels like they've accomplished something (i.e. letting the player who has consistently missed throughout the entire night get a hit on the monster by giving them a +2 so that they can feel like they have done *something* and get some enjoyment out of the game that they drove 2 hours to play in) OR
The game in which the GM kills off the party through attrition, by attacking the weakest members first (whether because they are lower level, or less strong) without mercy, focusing on either optimizing tactics or setting up situations that force the PCs into suboptimal situations all the time (i.e. where each encounter focused on either eliminating the party's strengths: "everyone in the party flies, so let's do dungeons with 10' high ceilings" or "I make CR appropriate encounters, and then put the combats in rooms filled with lava pools which have fire elementals in them, and effects in the room that suppress immunity or resistance to fire for the party").
I don't always do my best (because life is a thing, and I'm not immune to it's ebbs and flows), but I always try to ensure that the players have a good time. Even if that means I have to "cheat".
I'd also posit that, if you were to think about the most awesome thing you've ever done in a roleplaying game, at some point during it, the GM "cheated", or "softballed" in such a way that you had a memorable experience that you still think about today.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So we have one person saying they've had fun when the GM did X, and therefore that's what GMs should do because no one has fun in any other circumstance. Then we have another person saying they've had fun when the GM did Y, and therefore that's what GMs should do because no one has fun in any other circumstance. And neither person can tell that this is the conversation that's happening.
Yeah, this will end well.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal preferences are objective reality!
|
|
Perhaps announcing your play style at the very start of the game is not optimal, but it is important to discuss it before the start of the game. Some of the worst times I have had as a player or a GM have come from conflicting play styles, even with well-meaning people.
One thing that annoys me is DMs who make announcements about their DMing style when you sit down at the table. Such announcements invariably end up being some warning to the players about how the DM strictly adheres to something. In theory, the DM is being polite by making this announcement. In practice he is making all the players paranoid about their behavior and I do not find paranoia conducive to fun. Strictly adhering to something in a home game where everyone is on the same page is fine. But in organized play, where there is a huge variety of play styles, strictly adhering to anything to the point you feel it is necessary to make an announcement is bound to drive players away, or at the very least, make them feel uncomfortable.I find this very interesting. I'm one of those GMs who announces stuff before hand. I honestly can't see where anything I say would cause paranoia, but obviously I'm biased.
Could you please give some concrete examples of "bad" things GMs say?
I have never had a GM make such announcements and thought anything but "Great. One of -these- guys." It really doesn't matter what is being said. The mere fact that the GM feels the need to warn the players (and it's always a warning, veiled or not) takes the fun right out of the game. Now it's not a bunch of gamers, it's an authority figure and the lucky recipients of his wisdom and time.
Perhaps it isn't always that way, but it usually is, and that's enough to color the perceptions every time a game starts with the announcement. Just play the game, please. We're all there to have fun.
To some degree, this is actually the point. You are GMing an organized play table where all play styles that are not in violation of the campaign rules are expected to be welcome. If you feel your GMing style is sufficiently restrictive that certain legal styles of play may come into conflict with your personal GMing style to the point that you feel it necessary to make a pre-emptive announcement, then that is a problem in and of itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, the issue of whether to softball or fudge comes down to how much you play Pathfinder as a game versus how much you play Pathfinder to tell a story. I don't believe that's a black and white division, but rather a spectrum.
For me, as a player, I approach Pathfinder as a game, or even a puzzle. We have goals we want to accomplish. How do we work together as a party to achieve them? Whether we look like floundering idiots or shine as epic heroes depends on a combination of our actions and our luck.
I think this is further muddied in that different players and GMs have different ideas as to what makes a Good Story.
Example: I played Waking Rune on Hard Mode. Our party wiped on the first encounter; our four-hour VTT session ended 15 minutes in. I remember every detail of that very short fight, and for me, it's a great story. Someone else might have experienced that as a heart-breaking disappointment.
For me, the Story is the full experience, including the meta of letting the dice land where they may. For others, the Story exists purely in-character, and if everyone dies on the first encounter it's a Bad Story.
I don't think one is right and the other is wrong, but I think a good GM needs to account for all types of players, or at the very least, warn them so they can make an informed decision before they commit their time and character.
To clarify that last bit:
I, as a Player, wish to know if a GM is going to fudge dice rolls. If so, I will probably choose not to sit at that table.
I, as a GM, wish my players to know that I will not be fudging rolls, so that they can choose not to play with me should they prefer that safety net.
What frustrates me to no end is a GM who sees that first statement and thinks, "yeah, he says that, but I know better." One, please don't presume to know how I prefer my Pathfinder. Two, please don't overestimate your ability to cover your tracks. Just because a player has never accused you of fudging doesn't mean they don't suspect you've done it.
|
A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.
This I find really interesting. Back in the day, it was written in the dungeon master guide suggestions on when you the DM should cheat. That's why you had the screen. Part of the DM's job was fudging rolls to make the game more exciting and to keep players from dying to lameness. When I started playing without a screen when 3.0 came out, it was novel and put some people off.
The expectations now seem to have completely flipped itself so that players expect GMs to roll in the open and are put off by GMs using screens and fudging their rolls.
I'm also not sure what is outputting to a GM giving play style preambles. I personally hate being hit with houserules out of the blue and like it when the GM states if he's doing something out of the ordinary. When I first started rolling in the open, I would warn any new players that's how I roll. Telling players is a courtesy. And if its a warning that the player knows they'll hate, it gives them a chance to bail before getting stuck in.
This. I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
This. I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.
A GM that cheats, at all, even for the players. See softballing.
This I find really interesting. Back in the day, it was written in the dungeon master guide suggestions on when you the DM should cheat. That's why you had the screen. Part of the DM's job was fudging rolls to make the game more exciting and to keep players from dying to lameness. When I started playing without a screen when 3.0 came out, it was novel and put some people off.
The expectations now seem to have completely flipped itself so that players expect GMs to roll in the open and are put off by GMs using screens and fudging their rolls.
I'm also not sure what is outputting to a GM giving play style preambles. I personally hate being hit with houserules out of the blue and like it when the GM states if he's doing something out of the ordinary. When I first started rolling in the open, I would warn any new players that's how I roll. Telling players is a courtesy. And if its a warning that the player knows they'll hate, it gives them a chance to bail before getting stuck in.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by trust. I have been playing since the game first came out almost 40 years ago. OE, 1E & 2E mechanics were not laid out in the detail they are in later versions. So the DM had to fill in the gaps. This meant you HAD to trust the DM because the only other option was to walk away from the game. Unfortunately, the more power you give a group of people, the more people in that group will become corrupted by that power. As a result, pre-3E versions of the game gave me a higher level of trust for particular DMs, but a reduced feeling of trust for DMs in general. By the time 2E was near its end I was beginning to wonder if I would have to quit the hobby because I found myself walking away from far too many tables due to an excess of petty tyrants. I was ecstatic when 3E came out and it empowered the players sufficiently that they could stand up to abusive DMs. 3E actually gave me my trust in DMs back because it limited their ability to be abusive.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.
What you call "less trusting and more confrontational", I call "how normal, intelligent people approach playing games with other human beings"—namely that everyone reads/learns the same set of rules, and trusts everyone at the table to play by those rules, because that's how playing games with people normally works (even cooperative ones where you don't have to worry about competitive fairness).
It takes a special kind of person to look at a group of people all mutually assuming that everyone at the table is on the same page so they can all have a smooth and fun afternoon together, and call it "less trusting and more confrontational".
|
They tend to do the calculations via mental arithmetic, so you wouldn't notice normally. Consequently, that's what stops them understanding what is going on - too busy keeping numbers in their heads.
You can also do it blindly, without seeing the dice, but it's more difficult, and you need a hacker's mentality to do it systematically.
And for the record, no I don't do this - coz I like story and I like not second-guessing my character's motivations.
What I meant was if/when some players do that, I have not noticed it change what IC decisions they make or suddenly change tactics. It's not hard to put together that a roll of 12 that equals 29 means +17.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.What you call "less trusting and more confrontational", I call "how normal, intelligent people approach playing games with other human beings"—namely that everyone reads/learns the same set of rules, and trusts everyone at the table to play by those rules, because that's how playing games with people normally works (even cooperative ones where you don't have to worry about competitive fairness).
It takes a special kind of person to look at a group of people all mutually assuming that everyone at the table is on the same page so they can all have a smooth and fun afternoon together, and call it "less trusting and more confrontational".
Yes, perhaps a person who has been lucky enough not to have been subjected to the petty tyrant DM's that it sounds like Troll Bill has had to deal with? Perhaps this person has been blessed with having DM's/GM's that have enough 'system mastery' that they can alter things on the fly (or even pre-planned) creatively so as to make for a more interesting and memorable game? Is it wrong for this person's baseline assumption to be that the DM/GM is there to have fun as well, and that no part of that fun is having an agenda to kill off one or more player characters?
Again, different people, different experiences. Personally, I've had much more grief at my tables (even more so as a player than GM) with players that want to question many of the GM's decisions or ways in which they run a scenario than I have had with GM's that bend things to make life difficult for the players. Again, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killer DMs. You all know them. Or, I hope you don't. The one that relishes in annihilating parties in vastly outmatched encounters and maniacally laughs as he tears apart your character sheets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of preparation. As hard as it is to find the time, the lack of preparation is probably one of the worst session killers of all time. It leads to a legion of other errors.
Too much preparation, And just to clarify, I mean the amount that causes the DM to become stuck on a singular path the party should take and then enforces this religiously like a paladin on a tirade. Free will be damned!!! I planned this!!!
New DMs
Other DMs :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.What you call "less trusting and more confrontational", I call "how normal, intelligent people approach playing games with other human beings"—namely that everyone reads/learns the same set of rules, and trusts everyone at the table to play by those rules, because that's how playing games with people normally works (even cooperative ones where you don't have to worry about competitive fairness).
It takes a special kind of person to look at a group of people all mutually assuming that everyone at the table is on the same page so they can all have a smooth and fun afternoon together, and call it "less trusting and more confrontational".
Yes, perhaps a person who has been lucky enough not to have been subjected to the petty tyrant DM's that it sounds like Troll Bill has had to deal with? Perhaps this person has been blessed with having DM's/GM's that have enough 'system mastery' that they can alter things on the fly (or even pre-planned) creatively so as to make for a more interesting and memorable game? Is it wrong for this person's baseline assumption to be that the DM/GM is there to have fun as well, and that no part of that fun is having an agenda to kill off one or more player characters?
Again, different people, different experiences. Personally, I've had much more grief at my tables (even more so as a player than GM) with players that want to question many of the GM's decisions or ways in which they run a scenario than I have had with GM's that bend things to make life difficult for the players. Again, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY
I'm glad you've had good experiences with past GMs, but I fail to see what any of that has to do with the post of mine to which you're allegedly replying. Your post reads as though you were replying to an assertion that any GM who would change things is out to get the players, but I made no assertion even remotely close to that.
Calm down, your way of having fun is not under attack; at least not by me, and especially not by that specific post.
What I was challenging was your implication that if a player assumes that everyone at the table is playing by the printed rules then they're being confrontational and untrusting.
In any game in the world other than RPGs, being "trusting" means an assumption that no one's fudging, and trying to correct someone who did something outside the rules would be considered normal social interaction, not being "confrontational". Even if Pathfinder is different than that, it doesn't mean that people unaware of that difference are "less trusting and more confrontational". It means the opposite; they're manifesting trust in the same way they would at a table of any other game, and it just happens to not match your expectations.
Please sub GM for all above DM. Old habits die hard...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM pouts when we ignore what his npc has said we should do
GM sulks because he doesn't realise how versatile and mighty higher level pc's are
GM insists we must do action x because the AP author also failed to realise how mighty and versatile high level pc's are
GM gets upset because no one kissed the blatantly disguised sucubus
GM isn't happy damned pc's are interfering with HIS game
GM insist on playing high level, then does no prep so game becomes no challenge
GM try to put real world physics into pathfinder rules
Many, many, more.....but will end up sounding to whiny!!!!
|
|
I'm glad you've had good experiences with past...I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.What you call "less trusting and more confrontational", I call "how normal, intelligent people approach playing games with other human beings"—namely that everyone reads/learns the same set of rules, and trusts everyone at the table to play by those rules, because that's how playing games with people normally works (even cooperative ones where you don't have to worry about competitive fairness).
It takes a special kind of person to look at a group of people all mutually assuming that everyone at the table is on the same page so they can all have a smooth and fun afternoon together, and call it "less trusting and more confrontational".
Yes, perhaps a person who has been lucky enough not to have been subjected to the petty tyrant DM's that it sounds like Troll Bill has had to deal with? Perhaps this person has been blessed with having DM's/GM's that have enough 'system mastery' that they can alter things on the fly (or even pre-planned) creatively so as to make for a more interesting and memorable game? Is it wrong for this person's baseline assumption to be that the DM/GM is there to have fun as well, and that no part of that fun is having an agenda to kill off one or more player characters?
Again, different people, different experiences. Personally, I've had much more grief at my tables (even more so as a player than GM) with players that want to question many of the GM's decisions or ways in which they run a scenario than I have had with GM's that bend things to make life difficult for the players. Again, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY
Ok, I guess phrases like 'it takes a special kind of person' wind me up. Perhaps like how some might be wound up by assertions that players sometimes evolve from being optimizers and those with rules mastery to look at the cooperative role-playing experience as more story telling and less objective, strictly-by-the-rules tabletop game? It's fun trying to bring into question someone's objectivity by pointing out and/or inferring they are emotional (and therefore non-objective) about something, isn't it?
And we're not talking about the world beyond moderated (with storyteller/GM/DM) roleplaying games, right? I posit that moderated coorperative role-playing games are fundamentally DIFFERENT than other types of games. By design there is a story-telling element as well as a fundamental imbalance in power (the moderator knows many more details of the story/scenario/'gameboard' than the rest of the people at the table).
I think if you're a gamer what was weaned on 1st or 2nd edition D&D, then you tend to give more deference to and have more trust in your GM/DM. From what I've seen, players that were weaned on 3.5 or Pathfinder, or, even more so, collectible card games or MMO's, are far less trusting and more confrontational to GM's. Your mileage may vary.I can't speak for what is typical, but I grew up on 1e, where there was nothing but Rule Zero, and I can't play non-PFS anymore. The problem for me is I don't want to play GM Bob's version of Pathfinder. I want to play the game that's written in the books. I want to play the scenarios as they were written. Why? Because then I can talk with other players and see how I did. I can hear about their choices and learn/enjoy their different outcomes. But if the outcomes are because of the GM screwing with the game/rules, then impact of the choices is skewed.
This is going to sound odd, but when GMs start trying to infuse their own brand of Pathfinder, I lose interest in the game. I find myself asking, "what's the point of playing this game?" I quickly feel like I'm totally wasting my time and become accurately aware of the fact that I could be doing something productive.
To put it another way, I don't have an interest in playing someone's homebrew rules because it makes the game seem arbitrary. When the GM starts screwing with the game, it robs my efforts as a player of any meaning or substance. it undermines my decision making, and once that happens, what purpose do I have? A monkey can roll the dice.
The vast majority of GMs don't get this. Either that, or maybe most people who play RPGs have a very low bar for enjoyment i.e any nonsense the GM throws at them is "fun".
Wow? Really? Are you talking about rules or original concepts thrown into a previously published product? Rules I understand completely. Home-brewed rules or poor interpretations can be a game-killer. However, it sounds like you are also actually complaining about GM's being creative and tossing in some of their own ideas. If that is the case, maybe I can help. GM's vary quite a bit. However, one thing that is similar in pretty much all GMs is their desire to be a creative storyteller. Admittedly, some are better than others. Way better. However, you will NEVER get GMs to see your point of view if you recoil from GMs adding in their own ideas. It's about as fruitful an endeavor as getting Picasso to paint like he wasn't on drugs. Good luck in your attempts. I can understand your plight. However, if you want to play the game "as it was written", then maybe you need to try GMing yourself. By the way, how is it that you are so knowledgeable of the adventure "as it was written"? Are you reading the adventures beforehand? Sounds like you are or you wouldn't feel so empty of "meaning or substance". If you were ignorant of the written adventure, then you wouldn't of known it had ever been tampered with. How about you stop reading the adventures beforehand or after, enjoy the game that someone else poured hours into prepping and stop your complaining.
GM pouts when we ignore what his npc has said we should do
GM sulks because he doesn't realise how versatile and mighty higher level pc's are
GM insists we must do action x because the AP author also failed to realise how mighty and versatile high level pc's are
GM gets upset because no one kissed the blatantly disguised sucubus
GM isn't happy damned pc's are interfering with HIS game
GM insist on playing high level, then does no prep so game becomes no challenge
GM try to put real world physics into pathfinder rulesMany, many, more.....but will end up sounding to whiny!!!!
I love it! Go on, you don't sound whiny!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I posit that moderated coorperative role-playing games are fundamentally DIFFERENT than other types of games.
Sure, I'll grant you that for now.
But might there be a reason for someone to not realize this, other than being untrustful or confrontational? Because that's all I was saying.|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM pouts ...
GM sulks ...
GM insists [his friends have to do something] ...
GM gets upset ...
GM isn't happy ...
GM insist [on privileges] ...
Those sorts of people aren't my favorite for hanging around. Playing RPGs have nothing to do with that distaste.
|
|
I posit that moderated coorperative role-playing games are fundamentally DIFFERENT than other types of games.Sure, I'll grant you that for now.
But might there be a reason for someone to not realize this, other than being untrustful or confrontational? Because that's all I was saying.
For now? <eyes Jiggy> Are you implying that changes are on the way to make this particular moderated cooperative role-playing game fundamentally MORE like other types of games? Who do you know at Paizo? What did they say? /panics (this was tongue-in-cheek paranoia on my part .. no, really ... >.>).
Yes, there can be other reasons for people to question the GM/DM than being mistrustful or confrontational. I should have made it clear that what I see more often than fudging GM's is players that will argue with the GM so as to obtain a questionable/dubious advantage for their character or party (or to prevent their character or party from having a disadvantage). Don't get me wrong. Having an excellent master of the extensive rules of Pathfinder at a table can be a very GOOD thing for both players and GM. We want you on that wall. We NEED you on that wall. Many of us really want the game to flow enough so as to feel much like an interactive story we (and our dice) get to tell together - and seem less like a (very) rules intensive semi-cooperative board game. Good (in my mind) rules mastery players do a lot to help facilitate the former - bad ones, on the other hand, do a lot to make the game feel like an excercise in law debate.
Those sorts of people aren't my favorite for hanging around. Playing RPGs have nothing to do with that distaste.GM pouts ...
GM sulks ...
GM insists [his friends have to do something] ...
GM gets upset ...
GM isn't happy ...
GM insist [on privileges] ...
Hmm.ok.maybe I was a little OTT.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I should have made it clear that what I see more often than fudging GM's is players that will argue with the GM so as to obtain a questionable/dubious advantage for their character or party (or to prevent their character or party from having a disadvantage).
Yes, you should have made that clear. You made no mention of the topic of players filibustering to cover their own borderline cheatery, so your confrontational-distrust label was therefore pointing at "people who prefer the GM to not fudge", because that's the conversation you jumped into without providing any new context.
I was ecstatic when 3E came out and it empowered the players sufficiently that they could stand up to abusive DMs. 3E actually gave me my trust in DMs back because it limited their ability to be abusive.Bingo.
That having been said......
The down side with 3.x is that now, there are rules that GMs screw up/don't like. The "Rule Zero" crowd seemed to be more vocal than ever after 3.x because many a GM sees that as their trump card to get rid of rules they don't understand or don't like. The biggest thing I see in the Rules Forum is people who don't get why any particular rule exists or what purpose it serves. What a person typically does is view a rule in a particular context, e.g.
You can't try again using Perception to find traps because you believe there is no trap.
I ran into a GM at Paizocon '13 who used this against the players repeatedly. Everyone of us has some thing about the 3.x/PF rules we think makes no sense and should be changed because the change makes the game "better."
Since I did most of my 3.x gaming PbP, I quickly learned to quiz the GM about house rules before mustering. When I found PFS, it felt like a minor miracle Not only did the games actually finish, but I didn't have suffer from one random house rule to another.
And to be fair, It's not that I feel 3.x GMs were abusive on whole, it's mainly that they just didn't know the rules. 3.x allows me to point out the actual rule, explain it, and in many cases, get the GM to honor the RAW.
Or far more likely. ..they understand the rules and context just fine.
They just do not agree with it.|
|
I should have made it clear that what I see more often than fudging GM's is players that will argue with the GM so as to obtain a questionable/dubious advantage for their character or party (or to prevent their character or party from having a disadvantage).Yes, you should have made that clear. You made no mention of the topic of players filibustering to cover their own borderline cheatery, so your confrontational-distrust label was therefore pointing at "people who prefer the GM to not fudge", because that's the conversation you jumped into without providing any new context.
Yeah, well, what I should have said is that I find players and GM's that clarify rules constantly at the table to make sure they are 'getting it absolutely right' pedantic -- annoyingly so. If it isn't going to make a difference whether or not a character goes unconcious/dies and/or the party succeeds or fails at a mission or sub-mission, then just please let it go. To constantly interrupt any possible flow that the game might achieve makes it seem like drudgery to me and many others I've spoken to about the subject.
Or far more likely. ..they understand the rules and context just fine.
They just do not agree with it.I rarely run into this. Mainly because I screen GMs to make sure they aren't brain dead. When the rules aren't clear, it's GM discretion. When the rules are clear, they are clear. I've run into a VL who thought cover should work a certain way. I explained to him how the rule works and he agreed. No yelling, no screaming, just a discussion.
Take 10 is the textbook example. Players/GMs don't understand it. They think they know how it works, but they often don't. Once you have people actually read the text, it's straight forward.
My issue is with people who know how the rules work and the want them to work differently because they think they are smarter than the people who do this for a living.
you do know there is a good chance they might know what works better? Being a professional does not automatically confer perfection.
That dev may be a recent grad with no design experience vs the amateur designer with 40 years practical experience tinkering with rule systems.
That dev may be a recent grad with no design experience vs the amateur designer with 40 years practical experience tinkering with rule systems.
Like this
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/04/05/5-year-old-finds-flaw-in-xbox -live-security/7338405/
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yeah, well, what I should have said is that I find players and GM's that clarify rules constantly at the table to make sure they are 'getting it absolutely right' pedantic -- annoyingly so. If it isn't going to make a difference whether or not a character goes unconcious/dies and/or the party succeeds or fails at a mission or sub-mission, then just please let it go. To constantly interrupt any possible flow that the game might achieve makes it seem like drudgery to me and many others I've spoken to about the subject.I should have made it clear that what I see more often than fudging GM's is players that will argue with the GM so as to obtain a questionable/dubious advantage for their character or party (or to prevent their character or party from having a disadvantage).Yes, you should have made that clear. You made no mention of the topic of players filibustering to cover their own borderline cheatery, so your confrontational-distrust label was therefore pointing at "people who prefer the GM to not fudge", because that's the conversation you jumped into without providing any new context.
I agree completely - both with your sentiment, and that it's what you should've said (and probably in its own post, instead of as a reply to a completely unrelated ongoing debate). ;)
you do know there is a good chance they might know what works better? Being a professional does not automatically confer perfection.
That dev may be a recent grad with no design experience vs the amateur designer with 40 years practical experience tinkering with rule systems.
Rules tinkering hunh?
An RPG is not a formula, it's a piece of art. It's a piece art that has seen decades worth of crafting and re-crafting and more crafting after that, and they still can't get the surface to be smooth and splinter-free, why? Because they really aren't trying to make a smooth surface, they are trying to make a work of art.
Let's look at the staff of people who contributed to Ultimate Equipment
So while I am sure that many rules are written by an individual, they probably have at least one set of objective eyeballs reviewing them. And while I completely agree with you that anyone can have insight and vision, in practice, they don't. More to the point I read the rules forums and see people's rational for changing x, y, and, z, and in nearly every case it is to solve some local problem. What I don't see is house rule discussions that considers the rule changes in totality i.e. what am I screwing up by doing this? Who/what classes am I screwing over by making this changes? So while in theory, some non-professional could make a change for the better, in practice I've yet to see it. What I do see is is someone wanting to address the things that bug them and then ignore the problems they create by...Lead Designer: Jason Bulmahn
Designers: Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Sean K Reynolds
Authors: Dennis Baker, Jesse Benner, Benjamin Bruck, Ross Byers, Brian J. Cortijo, Ryan Costello, Mike Ferguson, Matt Goetz, Jim Groves, Tracy Hurley, Matt James, Jonathan H. Keith, Michael Kenway, Hal MacLean, Jason Nelson, Tork Shaw, Owen KC Stephens, Russ Taylor, and numerous RPG Superstar contributors (see page 387)
care to guess how they got their start?
Yup...tinkering with the rules long before they ever thought of making a living at it.
being a professional does not make them experts. It just means they paid to do it.
|
|
Or far more likely. ..they understand the rules and context just fine.
They just do not agree with it.I rarely run into this. Mainly because I screen GMs to make sure they aren't brain dead. When the rules aren't clear, it's GM discretion. When the rules are clear, they are clear. I've run into a VL who thought cover should work a certain way. I explained to him how the rule works and he agreed. No yelling, no screaming, just a discussion.
Take 10 is the textbook example. Players/GMs don't understand it. They think they know how it works, but they often don't. Once you have people actually read the text, it's straight forward.
My issue is with people who know how the rules work and the want them to work differently because they think they are smarter than the people who do this for a living.
Sorry. I dont quite understand. Can you say it using smaller words? Maybe I'm brain dead.