What happens to Adventurers who don't prepare?

[Shadowborn]

Matthew Downie wrote:

What were they supposed to do if they did know there was a wyvern? Go somewhere else?

Stock up on antitoxin? Make sure they had ranged weapons? Maybe a tanglefoot bag or two?

[MattR1986]

Threads like this I find frustrating. Years of experience != mmo strategists.

Omgz you should know about the fly + haste + passwall + derp combo!

Stuff like this is what kills the creativity of the game and leads to the same boring scenarios and character "optimization" setups. Better have at least x in this stat so dump that one and better make sure 4/5 of your spells are the same fly/haste/dispel/derp combo.

Adjust to your players. Should you go ez mode for them? No. But look at their sheets and figure out what is challenging for them. If they don't have fly sure go ahead and throw one at them for a curveball and maybe they have to run away. Maybe they'll get a scroll or two for it now. Don't just throw apl stuff at them if they aren't built for it and aren't that type of strategist players. Again it just leads to players feeling "forced" to follow the same cliche builds and setups to survive. Stuff like this makes DMs the problem. Not the players.

[Jaelithe]

They find themselves prepared—usually over a low fire.

[Matthew Downie]

Shadowborn wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

What were they supposed to do if they did know there was a wyvern? Go somewhere else?

Stock up on antitoxin? Make sure they had ranged weapons? Maybe a tanglefoot bag or two?

Those are good ideas even if you're not expecting wyverns. Still wouldn't do much to protect three level two characters from a monster that can kill a PC in a single full-round attack and fly faster than they can flee.

[Mark Hoover]

MattR1986 wrote:

Threads like this I find frustrating. Years of experience != mmo strategists.

Omgz you should know about the fly + haste + passwall + derp combo!

Stuff like this is what kills the creativity of the game and leads to the same boring scenarios and character "optimization" setups. Better have at least x in this stat so dump that one and better make sure 4/5 of your spells are the same fly/haste/dispel/derp combo.

Adjust to your players. Should you go ez mode for them? No. But look at their sheets and figure out what is challenging for them. If they don't have fly sure go ahead and throw one at them for a curveball and maybe they have to run away. Maybe they'll get a scroll or two for it now. Don't just throw apl stuff at them if they aren't built for it and aren't that type of strategist players. Again it just leads to players feeling "forced" to follow the same cliche builds and setups to survive. Stuff like this makes DMs the problem. Not the players.

2 things I just want to point out regarding my situation and it may be different for others:

1. my players are very experienced; they've played RPGs and specifically PF for years

2. I'm not suggesting that they metagame this to death with "OMGZ"

non-meta conversation:

Rogue: So, from chatting w/those adventurers over there in the corner they just got back from the Lower Warrens. Man, that place sounds intense.

Cleric: Oh, how so?

Rogue: Well from what I gather it's like roughly 2 square miles of wooded hollow surrounded by these high, cliff walls. Once you're down in there there's nearly a dozen ways into the caverns and dungeons in the area and a lot of those are held down by goblins, aberrant creatures and creepy crawlies like vermin and oozes.

Paladin: Gross! Good thing I was thinking about picking up that swarmsuit! How heavy are the woods though; I wouldn't want to get lost down there before even getting in. We don't have our ranger friend with us or any magic for this either.

Rogue: That's why I had the one guy give me the layout which I took the time to scratch out onto the back of this wood plate. (Paladin gives rogue the stinkeye) Relax big guy; I'll throw the innkeep an extra copper for the tableware. Anyway, the wizard over there told me there's a good landmark at the mouth of the hollow; a big old Bloodoak with all sorts of holes in it called the Whisperwood Tree by the locals. I've got a few other points laid out here. It's rough, but it'll get us through. Hopefully we don't encounter the wyvern though...

Cleric: a WYVERN?

Rogue: I KNOW right? Well I guess these guys spotted it and it's pretty young, just settled in. So long as we stay under cover and don't make too much noise we should be able to stay out of it's way.

Cleric: have you SEEN my armor, or pally's here? I'm not taking any chances. I'll go back to the church, pick up some extra healing potions and some antitoxin. I'll also see if they have a Sanctuary potion for our lumbering friend here. Worse case scenario though, perhaps bringing along some kind of animal might be wise. I know this sounds coarse but, anyone know if wyverns like to eat ponies...

Now I'm not saying this is EXACTLY what I was expecting nor am I saying this would be ideal. But at least it would show they were trying to roleplay guys who don't want to die instead of just shrugging and going "hey, I've got armor and a melee weapon; what else could I possibly need?"

[DM Under The Bridge]

By the rules wearing armour without any clothes underneath is just fine. The melee weapon if a sword, doesn't even need a scabbard.

Don't even need it. Rock on.

[Graywolf777]

Reminds me of a conversation in a game I once played in...

GM: All right, so what kind of clothes are you wearing?

Paladin: Chainmail.

GM: No, your clothes not your armor.

Paladin: I'm not wearing clothes. That's why I have armor.

GM: Now let me get this straight, your not just wearing armor, with nothing on underneath, but you wearing chainmail?

Paladin: Yeah...

Me: That seems like that would chafe...

[Sissyl]

Chain mail is the ultimate test of manliness for anyone with a truly hairy chest...

[MattR1986]

Chuck Norris' chest hair IS chainmail.

[Aranna]

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare? They have difficult adventures and they learn how to do things better next time.

[Damon Griffin]

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare? They receive Darwin Awards...which are looted by the survivors along with the rest of their gear, as the players of the fallen cry "Killer DM!"

[TriOmegaZero]

Unprepared adventurers become object lessons for future adventurers.

[strayshift]

I play with very experienced players but sometimes their level of co-operation is not that great. A few weeks back none of them had any rope in a 1st level adventure that called for a small amount of climbing, and guess what, none of them had climb skill either (they were all absolute killers though, just killers who could not climb very well...)

And this is with them knowing my DM'ing style which involves varied challenges and opportunities to use skills. I blame optimisation guides. :-P

[Te'Shen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Unprepared adventurers become object lessons for future adventurers.

Yes. If you cannot be a role model, be a cautionary tale.

[Kthulhu]

Of course, those adventurers who over-prepare often find that they are just as dead when things don't go exactly how they planned.

[Orfamay Quest]

Mark Hoover wrote:

I've only played a couple games of PFS, but one of the things I got out of it was that at a certain level, everyone in the party should be prepared to deal with darkness; another level, invisibility; another level swarms; and so on. None of my current players play PFS regularly, so I just told them.

I'd be interested in seeing that list, because sometimes my regular group seems surprised to learn that enemy spellcasters can cast spells, too.

[FuelDrop]

MattR1986 wrote:

Chuck Norris' chest hair IS chainmail.

Mr T's chest is Plate Armor.

Leaving aside dueling memes for the moment, we just had a session where we had to retrieve a relic from a dungeon full of skeletons. Because we knew in advance what we were getting into we made sure everyone had clubs, my enchantress grabbed detect undead (so we had an undead radar), protection from evil (to buff our rogue's ac) and identify (to make sure that we got the right artifact), while the cleric prepared hide from undead. Between being completely undetectable to the vast majority of the dungeon (there was one intelligent undead in the whole place. poor sod was bored out of his mind) and knowing where the enemy was ahead of time, we got through without any difficulty.

If we hadn't planned ahead the knife nut rogue would have been all but useless against skeletons, my enchantress would have been, well, a wizard without evocation or necromancy vs undead... and the cleric would have curb stomped most of the skeletons without our help.

[Burma "The Tusk"]

They find out the boss is a Ghost and because they didn't do any research they have to kill him all over again.

[Tcho Tcho]

Today I found out that players who don't prepare just have their GM make sheets with exacly what their attack rolls / damage rolls are when power attacking / not power attacking , in rage/ out rage. Same idea for the witch with tables about her spells per day/ the dc's and hex dc's and what they do. Offcourse making the stats updatable when they level up because . . .

The players that do prepare will quit if nothing changes because they are now officially bored with waiting every time an unprepared player attempts to makes a move.
(I prepared this spell and i have no idea what it does or what the stats are, please explain again)

So there, I gave the worst answer possible.

[strayshift]

But a relevant one.

I'm one of those players who prepares and whilst our group is one of experienced players, one player just wants to play on the level of 'run up to it and hit it' with no thought, real role-playing or preparation work done. His age and health also impact on his ability to concentrate and work out the variables and so the DM of the game tends to assist there but that is to enable his participation. It's his escapism so who am I to judge it? He's earned his support over the years.

That said, if we had to incorporate another 2-3 players like that then we'd struggle and it would impact on the enjoyment of the game.

[Peet]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing that list, because sometimes my regular group seems surprised to learn that enemy spellcasters can cast spells, too.

Here's a good one:

Painlords-What-to-Expect-at-a-PFS-Table

Keep in mind that this is for PFS and a home game is a bit different. But overall it is pretty valid.

[Aranna]

Sheesh Peet there IS such a thing as being over prepared.

Just remain flexible in your approach to solving situations and above all help each other and you will do just fine.

Although, one trick ponies are actually an asset to any group that can cover the areas the one trick pony is weak in. They sort of become an easy button for any encounter not specifically designed to counter their trick.

Remember the best possible preparation you can have is excellent teamwork.

[Mark Hoover]

@ P-town: thanks for posting that link. That is what I was referring to upthread. @ A-bomb: I agree that you can be over prepared (thinks of scene from Platoon where Elias is emptying Charlie Sheen's backpack of things he doesn't need) but at the same time there's definitely some gear and knowledge needed to be "flexible" as you put it.

- do some research: know what the adventure is about. If the GM says through the voice of an NPC that you're going to a ruined tower, ask questions like "where is it?", "who/what lives there or thereabouts?" and "Why are we going?". Otherwise, when you get there, scout the area at least. I'm not saying you have to make a 3 hour bio-pic out of it, just a little research is all.

- have a couple different combat options: on every character I make from level 1 I try to have a splash weapon, a ranged weapon and a melee weapon, even wizards. Now that doesn't feel over prepared to me; that seems like I'm ready to adapt to my enemies. I had a monk with a sling and a flask of acid who was caught in front when a bunch of Beheaded (flying, biting skulls) attacked. Her normal schtick was attacking with a scimitar; instead she flurried, backed up, and started using the sling. It took the fighter3 rounds to get to the fight with his melee weapon. Once there the player looked at his character sheet and finally realized "oh, that's right; I have throwing hammers." Meanwhile my poor monk was nearly dead.

If you simply coupled these 2 points together you could pull off some pretty impressive flexibility in my opinion. I know gamers though, experienced ones even, who don't do one or even both in some adventures. It could be they're overconfident, bored, or just don't care. But then later, when they're dying I as the GM don't want to get blamed or called out for being a "killer GM."

[mswbear]

I travel back to the town my parents live in once a month to visit them and some of my old friends and recently they have shown interest in PFS. They just started last month and really enjoyed it but to be honest this is the same group I TPKd half way through book two of RotRL. I'm nervous that they will end up getting killed in a scenario because they are notoriously bad at preparing for a variety of situations and then complain that "they can’t do anything".

We are eventually going to rotate GMs and I'm hoping that my character can kind of shed light on things they should be doing to prepare effectively.

[Tormsskull]

Mark Hoover wrote:

But then later, when they're dying I as the GM don't want to get blamed or called out for being a "killer GM."

This is a topic that deserves its own thread. I find the competing issues of fun and challenging often clash. I ran a campaign in the past that was heavy undead. The PCs were members of an organization dedicated to fighting undead.

I made special items/weapons/armor/feats/spells available to the PCs as members of that organization, and to give them a focus on fighting undead. I mentioned that it would be incredibly helpful to have a cleric or paladin in the group, for obvious reasons.

Most of the players ignored these options, deeming them as not powerful or not useful. Instead of taking a feat that would allow a person to fairly easily restore stats lost due to undead, the players wanted more traditional feats such as power attack, cleave, etc.

Instead of purchasing preventative or restorative items, the players sold all temporary magic items in order to get +1 or better weapons/armor/rings.

Unsurprisingly, they got their butts handed to them due to energy drain, stat drain, etc. When that happened, they called foul, saying they didn't like stat-reducing monsters or level-draining monsters.

Failure to communicate? Perhaps. But is it fair for a player to say that they don't like debuffs, and thus debuffs should be removed from the game? Nobody "likes" to have their PC get hit by a debuff, but they're part of a fantasy world.

Eventually you just get to the point of saying: Suck it up.

[thejeff]

Tormsskull wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

But then later, when they're dying I as the GM don't want to get blamed or called out for being a "killer GM."

This is a topic that deserves its own thread. I find the competing issues of fun and challenging often clash. I ran a campaign in the past that was heavy undead. The PCs were members of an organization dedicated to fighting undead.

I made special items/weapons/armor/feats/spells available to the PCs as members of that organization, and to give them a focus on fighting undead. I mentioned that it would be incredibly helpful to have a cleric or paladin in the group, for obvious reasons.

Most of the players ignored these options, deeming them as not powerful or not useful. Instead of taking a feat that would allow a person to fairly easily restore stats lost due to undead, the players wanted more traditional feats such as power attack, cleave, etc.

Instead of purchasing preventative or restorative items, the players sold all temporary magic items in order to get +1 or better weapons/armor/rings.

Unsurprisingly, they got their butts handed to them due to energy drain, stat drain, etc. When that happened, they called foul, saying they didn't like stat-reducing monsters or level-draining monsters.

Failure to communicate? Perhaps. But is it fair for a player to say that they don't like debuffs, and thus debuffs should be removed from the game? Nobody "likes" to have their PC get hit by a debuff, but they're part of a fantasy world.

Eventually you just get to the point of saying: Suck it up.

And if the players aren't having fun, they should just "Suck it up" and get back to the serious business of RPGs.

It's a game. The point is to enjoy playing it. Challenge isn't what everyone is looking for. Or maybe not everykind of challenge. Maybe this group would have been happier doing something other than fighting undead.

[Orfamay Quest]

Aranna wrote:

Sheesh Peet there IS such a thing as being over prepared.

Just remain flexible in your approach to solving situations and above all help each other and you will do just fine.

I'm not sure about that. You can't really provide help if you yourself can't do anything. If no one thought to bring scuba gear, my helping you to drown will not really do much.

I agree that the tone of Peet's link is a bit off-putting, but I think it's quite reasonable to say "a lot of the monsters you will see at level 5 or beyond will have the ability to fly and to use flight to their tactical advantage. If you do not have a way to counter this, you will be at a significant tactical disadvantage against these monsters."

Saying "Every character should have the ability to fly" is substantially less verbose and harder to misinterpret.

Similarly, if you think that "I expect you to be able to overcome magical darkness" is an unfortunate way to put it, rephrase it as "Monsters like drow and derro are becoming very likely opponents at this level, and one of their signature abilities is the ability to create magical darkness; if you can't overcome that, they are likely to slaughter you as you stumble helplessly around in the darkness." And then ask yourself why you wanted fifty words instead of ten.

By the way, is Ken Jenks' post still around anywhere? The one that Painlord described as an "epic diatribe"?

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare?

They improvise.

[Tormsskull]

thejeff wrote:

And if the players aren't having fun, they should just "Suck it up" and get back to the serious business of RPGs.

It's a game. The point is to enjoy playing it. Challenge isn't what everyone is looking for. Or maybe not everykind of challenge. Maybe this group would have been happier doing something other than fighting undead.

When you say "Hey, I've got this idea for a campaign. You're all going to be members of the Order of the Silver Flame. Your order is dedicated to seeking out and destroying undead. You will be facing a lot of undead, so you'll want to compensate for energy drain, stat drain, diseases, poisons, etc.

In order to help with this, I've added some feats/spells to protect yourself/remove these conditions. In addition, as members of the order, you'll have access to potions and scrolls at reduced prices."

Then all of the players say "That sounds good. Let's play." There's sort of the expectation that everyone is agreeing to the proposed campaign.

Now, while you've emphasized "game", TTRPGs are clearly not games similar to Monopoly or Euchre where the time invested is null to minimal. These are games where one person spends hours and hours and hours of his/her free time creating things for everyone to enjoy.

Saying "Yeah, that sounds good," but then complaining about something you just agreed to is poor form.

Out of curiosity thejeff, do you ever GM? If so, do you only run APs?

[thejeff]

Tormsskull wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And if the players aren't having fun, they should just "Suck it up" and get back to the serious business of RPGs.

It's a game. The point is to enjoy playing it. Challenge isn't what everyone is looking for. Or maybe not everykind of challenge. Maybe this group would have been happier doing something other than fighting undead.

When you say "Hey, I've got this idea for a campaign. You're all going to be members of the Order of the Silver Flame. Your order is dedicated to seeking out and destroying undead. You will be facing a lot of undead, so you'll want to compensate for energy drain, stat drain, diseases, poisons, etc.

In order to help with this, I've added some feats/spells to protect yourself/remove these conditions. In addition, as members of the order, you'll have access to potions and scrolls at reduced prices."

Then all of the players say "That sounds good. Let's play." There's sort of the expectation that everyone is agreeing to the proposed campaign.

Now, while you've emphasized "game", TTRPGs are clearly not games similar to Monopoly or Euchre where the time invested is null to minimal. These are games where one person spends hours and hours and hours of his/her free time creating things for everyone to enjoy.

Saying "Yeah, that sounds good," but then complaining about something you just agreed to is poor form.

Out of curiosity thejeff, do you ever GM? If so, do you only run APs?

I do GM, though I play more often. Almost exclusively home-brewed stuff.

The game still has to be fun for everyone involved. Including the GM, of course. Sometimes despite the buy in at the start, the game doesn't play out the way everyone was expecting. It sucks when you've put work into a campaign and it doesn't work out, but it also sucks trying to slog through a game when you're not enjoying it, either as a player or a GM. Sometimes it's better to change things up or just kill it quickly, even if that means creative work down the tubes.
Your pitch does seem pretty explicit about what to expect and what would be needed. Seems that it would be hard to miss. :)

OTOH, I'm a computer geek. I know full well that the end-users often don't know what they actually want from a tool. Players are often the same way with games. What sounds good in the pitch, isn't always as cool when you're actually playing it.

[Tormsskull]

thejeff wrote:

The game still has to be fun for everyone involved. Including the GM, of course.

I agree that the game must be fun for everyone, but surely there are certain elements of a social game that everyone must accept when they agree to join a campaign. For example, everyone agrees to roll for stats, but then one person rolls poorly and as such they state they're not having fun.

I'm not talking unplayable stats, just lower than the rest of the group. Surely this would be a situation where "Suck it up," is appropriate. Same with the rogue player when he encounters a monster immune to sneak attacks, or the wizard who encounters enemies with spell resistance/spell immunity.

In other words, the game is not always going to be 100% fun to each player at all times of the game. There will be certain situations that occur that you may not enjoy - your character gets killed, or knocked out of a battle from a save or suck, etc.

The appropriate response is to realize that you will have fun again when the immediate situation is resolved. Or even better, learn to enjoy the times when you get walloped (can be difficult, I'd agree.)

[thejeff]

Tormsskull wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The game still has to be fun for everyone involved. Including the GM, of course.

I agree that the game must be fun for everyone, but surely there are certain elements of a social game that everyone must accept when they agree to join a campaign. For example, everyone agrees to roll for stats, but then one person rolls poorly and as such they state they're not having fun.

I'm not talking unplayable stats, just lower than the rest of the group. Surely this would be a situation where "Suck it up," is appropriate. Same with the rogue player when he encounters a monster immune to sneak attacks, or the wizard who encounters enemies with spell resistance/spell immunity.

In other words, the game is not always going to be 100% fun to each player at all times of the game. There will be certain situations that occur that you may not enjoy - your character gets killed, or knocked out of a battle from a save or suck, etc.

The appropriate response is to realize that you will have fun again when the immediate situation is resolved. Or even better, learn to enjoy the times when you get walloped (can be difficult, I'd agree.)

Well, short term not having fun, with the prospect of having more fun soon, is an entirely different situation.

Lots of people find that rolling poorly on stats does remove fun. That's why so many alternate ways to generate characters exist. Because being less effective in a certain situation isn't a big deal. Being less effective for the whole game is very frustrating. Enjoying getting walloped now and then is common. Enjoying being the sidekick all along is a lot harder.

I can see "Suck it up" being fine for a session or two, but for a campaign?

[Tormsskull]

thejeff wrote:

Lots of people find that rolling poorly on stats does remove fun.

Sure, and those same people probably don't agree then to rolling for their stats. That seems pretty straight forward. But if you agree to rolling for stats, and then complain after you've rolled less than what you hoped for? Clearly "Suck it Up" territory.

thejeff wrote:

I can see "Suck it up" being fine for a session or two, but for a campaign?

If you agree to the terms of the campaign, but then complain about the campaign, its well within the GM's purview to say "Suck it Up." And the player is free to decide that they don't want to play any more. There's probably a dozen or so compromises in the middle as well.

But getting upset/complaining about something you agreed to doesn't compute with me. It reminds me of going with a group to a casino and then after losing all of your money in the first 10 minutes, you expect everyone else to leave right then.

[thejeff]

Tormsskull wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lots of people find that rolling poorly on stats does remove fun.

Sure, and those same people probably don't agree then to rolling for their stats. That seems pretty straight forward. But if you agree to rolling for stats, and then complain after you've rolled less than what you hoped for? Clearly "Suck it Up" territory.

thejeff wrote:

I can see "Suck it up" being fine for a session or two, but for a campaign?

If you agree to the terms of the campaign, but then complain about the campaign, its well within the GM's purview to say "Suck it Up." And the player is free to decide that they don't want to play any more. There's probably a dozen or so compromises in the middle as well.

But getting upset/complaining about something you agreed to doesn't compute with me. It reminds me of going with a group to a casino and then after losing all of your money in the first 10 minutes, you expect everyone else to leave right then.

You're right. It's within the GM's purview to say it. And the player can leave.

I'd hope most groups would find a better compromise. Especially when it's all the players not liking the way the game is going. "Suck it up" probably kills the game and possibly the group.

[Kthulhu]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Sheesh Peet there IS such a thing as being over prepared.

Just remain flexible in your approach to solving situations and above all help each other and you will do just fine.

I'm not sure about that. You can't really provide help if you yourself can't do anything.

Most of the characters I see on this board who can't do anything are the over-specialized "optimized" characters that so many here love.

Meanwhile, characters who can actually be functional in most situations are usually derided as being non-viable because they fail to hit some arbitrary minimum DRP requirement.

[TriOmegaZero]

Kthulhu wrote:

Of course, those adventurers who over-prepare often find that they are just as dead when things don't go exactly how they planned.

I can't help but feel that you are conflating preparing for eventualities with only planning one course of action.

[Orfamay Quest]

Kthulhu wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Sheesh Peet there IS such a thing as being over prepared.

Just remain flexible in your approach to solving situations and above all help each other and you will do just fine.

I'm not sure about that. You can't really provide help if you yourself can't do anything.

Most of the characters I see on this board who can't do anything are the over-specialized "optimized" characters that so many here love.

You misread. Not being able to do anything is situation specific, as in "what do you mean no one here has a potion of water breathing?" If the treasure chest is 400 feet below you and there's an intelligent Dire Tuna between you and it, all the cooperation in the world won't really help the poor surface dwellers get to it.

What kind of "help" do you expect to provide me in this circumstance?

[FuelDrop]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Sheesh Peet there IS such a thing as being over prepared.

Just remain flexible in your approach to solving situations and above all help each other and you will do just fine.

I'm not sure about that. You can't really provide help if you yourself can't do anything.

Most of the characters I see on this board who can't do anything are the over-specialized "optimized" characters that so many here love.

You misread. Not being able to do anything is situation specific, as in "what do you mean no one here has a potion of water breathing?" If the treasure chest is 400 feet below you and there's an intelligent Dire Tuna between you and it, all the cooperation in the world won't really help the poor surface dwellers get to it.

What kind of "help" do you expect to provide me in this circumstance?

Well, you could convince the intelligent dire tuna to fetch the chest for you...

What do you mean no-one can cast speak with animals?!?

[kyrt-ryder]

Or you could just have sushi.

[strayshift]

As a DM I'm not a huge fan of too many consumables (read Wands of Cure Light Wounds) as some players become over-reliant upon them and stop thinking to some degree about how to overcome a challenge in the 'best' way.

We've one player who would 'just charge in and roll some dice' every time if he could (and yes, he dies the most but he often doesn't care as he got to roll some dice and took some bad guys with him...) As a DM however I am aware that some players like to think and actually care about their character and if I was to adapt every fight to suit him they would get 'samey' very fast and the endless repetition of cure back to full hit points by Wand would become routine.

Preparation should be about more than just combat and that means the DM setting more challenges than just combat. If the players are caught short, see what they can improvise - it is rare that a good group will not have some ideas.

[Mark Hoover]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare?

They improvise.

I heard this as Clint Eastwood in Hamburger Ridge.

[Simon Legrande]

Mark Hoover wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare?

They improvise.

I heard this as Clint Eastwood in Hamburger Ridge.

Heartbreak Ridge?

[Mark Hoover]

strayshift wrote:

As a DM I'm not a huge fan of too many consumables (read Wands of Cure Light Wounds) as some players become over-reliant upon them and stop thinking to some degree about how to overcome a challenge in the 'best' way.

See now, I'm weird because I'm the complete opposite. I don't drop a lot of wands and thankfully my players don't buy a ton of them (we haven't gotten to really high levels like 10+ yet) but nearly every intelligent creature my players face has a potion or a scroll on them. Its just that sometimes it's not a potion or a scroll.

Sometimes it's a knotted chord that, as it's unraveled it releases a spell

Sometimes it's a holy wafer that, when eaten delivers a curative

My point is that I figure these 1-use consumables are everywhere. If, say, 10% of the world is adventurers and another 10% of them are core/base classes who get Brew Potion or Scribe Scroll as a bonus 1st level feat, its a given that 1 out of every 100 folks you run into has a potion or scroll for sale. Now obviously I'm oversimplifying it but in my games at least these 1-use consumables are around constantly.

I think that's why I get so upset when my players DON'T take advantage. I drop a potion of Jump on the players; the second they're back in town they dump it and use the extra cash to help pay for their shiny new masterwork armor. The next session they come to a chasm that the mites use riding spiders to cross so there's no bridge. If only someone had a potion of jump laying around...

Would it have been an auto-win? No, but helpful. Instead my players take 40 minutes realtime to go through their gear, figure out how to get a rope across, tie it off, etc. Meanwhile the mites are circling back and a couple of the PCs take some damage from pock-shots on the other side.

Now that one's situational and can be argued a lot of ways. To me though it's indicative of this larger trend I'm seeing w/my players. Namely the idea that if they crank up their DPR and AC high enough the rest of the game will just magically fall into place. Diplomacy and Perception seem to be the only respected skills; utility spells are never studied and potions/scrolls of them never kept; gear is kept low save for sacks, packs and anything that'll haul loot.

Anyway, rant over.

I think things may get better, at least for my own home game. We were playing in a public venue this whole time but now we'll have a dedicated gaming room in my home and said house is sort of in the middle of everyone. Hopefully this and a more normalized, steady game schedule gives everyone more time/space to think, plan and strategize.

[Mark Hoover]

Simon Legrande wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare?

They improvise.

I heard this as Clint Eastwood in Hamburger Ridge.

Heartbreak Ridge?

There it is. Thanks for the assist Grandey!

"They adapt; they improvise; they overcome..."

[Aranna]

Mark Hoover wrote:

@ P-town: thanks for posting that link. That is what I was referring to upthread. @ A-bomb: I agree that you can be over prepared (thinks of scene from Platoon where Elias is emptying Charlie Sheen's backpack of things he doesn't need) but at the same time there's definitely some gear and knowledge needed to be "flexible" as you put it.

- do some research: know what the adventure is about. If the GM says through the voice of an NPC that you're going to a ruined tower, ask questions like "where is it?", "who/what lives there or thereabouts?" and "Why are we going?". Otherwise, when you get there, scout the area at least. I'm not saying you have to make a 3 hour bio-pic out of it, just a little research is all.

- have a couple different combat options: on every character I make from level 1 I try to have a splash weapon, a ranged weapon and a melee weapon, even wizards. Now that doesn't feel over prepared to me; that seems like I'm ready to adapt to my enemies. I had a monk with a sling and a flask of acid who was caught in front when a bunch of Beheaded (flying, biting skulls) attacked. Her normal schtick was attacking with a scimitar; instead she flurried, backed up, and started using the sling. It took the fighter3 rounds to get to the fight with his melee weapon. Once there the player looked at his character sheet and finally realized "oh, that's right; I have throwing hammers." Meanwhile my poor monk was nearly dead.

If you simply coupled these 2 points together you could pull off some pretty impressive flexibility in my opinion. I know gamers though, experienced ones even, who don't do one or even both in some adventures. It could be they're overconfident, bored, or just don't care. But then later, when they're dying I as the GM don't want to get blamed or called out for being a "killer GM."

This IS what I was talking about by saying be flexible. NOT Peets laundry list of counters for every effect you could ever conceivably face in your career.

BUT more than that face these things as a team! It is FAR easier to devote a tiny amount of prep for each team mate and have amazing results against any number of effects than by having a team SO overburdened by cure-alls that they can't manage better than a +1 weapon by mid levels. I have seen a party use teamwork to steam roll encounters much much tougher than APL. Peets link is all about 'who cares about the team' and 'if you can't counter every effect on your own then you deserve to die' to paraphrase his link in my own words. These non-teams tend to under perform and aren't much fun to play with.

[Orfamay Quest]

Aranna wrote:

BUT more than that face these things as a team! It is FAR easier to devote a tiny amount of prep for each team mate and have amazing results against any number of effects than by having a team SO overburdened by cure-alls that they can't manage better than a +1 weapon by mid levels.

Yes, because a potion of water breathing and another of cure light wounds is SO expensive. [rolls eyes]

Bear in mind that in PFS, you can't rely on your teammates to have the abilities to cover for you. If an effect needs to be countered, and you can't counter it yourself, then there's a good chance that the effect will simply not be countered.

So while I love the idea of a party using teamwork, the only party member in PFS you can reliably team with is yourself.

[archmagi1]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

What happens to adventurers who don't prepare?

They improvise.

This is my exact reply. Sunday I had a party improvise against a monster they weren't prepared for, jumping from ledges to try to grapple it, all so that they could drown it.

[strayshift]

Mark Hoover wrote:

strayshift wrote:

As a DM I'm not a huge fan of too many consumables (read Wands of Cure Light Wounds) as some players become over-reliant upon them and stop thinking to some degree about how to overcome a challenge in the 'best' way.

See now, I'm weird because I'm the complete opposite. I don't drop a lot of wands and thankfully my players don't buy a ton of them (we haven't gotten to really high levels like 10+ yet) but nearly every intelligent creature my players face has a potion or a scroll on them. Its just that sometimes it's not a potion or a scroll.

Sometimes it's a knotted chord that, as it's unraveled it releases a spell

Sometimes it's a holy wafer that, when eaten delivers a curative

My point is that I figure these 1-use consumables are everywhere. If, say, 10% of the world is adventurers and another 10% of them are core/base classes who get Brew Potion or Scribe Scroll as a bonus 1st level feat, its a given that 1 out of every 100 folks you run into has a potion or scroll for sale. Now obviously I'm oversimplifying it but in my games at least these 1-use consumables are around constantly.

I think that's why I get so upset when my players DON'T take advantage. I drop a potion of Jump on the players; the second they're back in town they dump it and use the extra cash to help pay for their shiny new masterwork armor. The next session they come to a chasm that the mites use riding spiders to cross so there's no bridge. If only someone had a potion of jump laying around...

Would it have been an auto-win? No, but helpful. Instead my players take 40 minutes realtime to go through their gear, figure out how to get a rope across, tie it off, etc. Meanwhile the mites are circling back and a couple of the PCs take some damage from pock-shots on the other side.

Now that one's situational and can be argued a lot of ways. To me though it's indicative of this larger trend I'm seeing w/my players. Namely the idea that if they crank up their DPR and AC high enough the rest of the...

Sorry should have been clearer - I don't mind 1 use consumables, it's wands specifically that I have issue with.

[Lamontius]

I would be curious to hear, based on a lot of the opinions being thrown around, which ones come from people who regularly play PFS and which ones come from those who do not play much/any PFS

[archmagi1]

I do not play any PFS