RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To complete the quadrilateral symmetry, what are some things that annoy you as a player (or players you've had) that the GM does?
• Wonky idea of how illusions work; I've encountered both "As soon as they see it, that's 'interacting', so they get a save" and a GM waiting for me to announce "I disbelieve" as a character action. Huh?
• The running of the scenario is clearly their first time reading it (unless weird circumstances apply; life happens).
• The GM is pretty sure that their off-the-cuff interpretation of a class ability (or whatever) that they just saw for the first time right now, is more likely to be right than the conclusion the player came to after spending time away from the table studying relevant rules and FAQs. It's different if you're aware of a rule that the player missed, but I'm talking about when the best you've got is "that seems off" or whatever, and you decide to go with your first hunch instead of the fruits of the player's study/research. Trust goes both ways, folks. This goes double for any GM who's ever said "Players need to know how their PCs work, because I can't be expected to know everything!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inconsistent application of the rules, especially of the illusions thing above: His illusions are believed until specifically disbelieved, while the PCs' illusions are disbelieved on sight.
Arbitrarily diverting as many scenes as possible towards combat. The mentality of "if it has a statblock, it must be fought," as if they all had red names and attack on sight, is a pet peeve of mine.
-Matt
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: You enter a room and see a medium humanoid.
Player: Um...what exactly do we see? What does all this look li-
GM: You're in a 20x20 room and see a medium humanoid.
Another player: ....can I do a Knowledge(nature) check to tell what...
GM: It moves to attack. Roll initiative.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player: I finish off the goblin noncombatants.
Another player: Ooh, me too.
Me: Wtf?
GM: What are you doing?
Me: I put myself between the party and the children and try to convince them to not do this.
GM: Okay, your alignment shifts one towards evil.
Me: Wat
GM: You're siding with evil against good. Pay attention.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM dictating how a PC feels, what they think, or what they do regardless of how the player envisioned their character. I've seen this ranging all the way from irritating to outright horrifyingly awful.
Speaking of the latter, GMs that spring obvious triggery material on players without any kind of warning whatsoever.
|
|
Player: I finish off the goblin noncombatants.
Another player: Ooh, me too.
Me: Wtf?
GM: What are you doing?
Me: I put myself between the party and the children and try to convince them to not do this.
GM: Okay, your alignment shifts one towards evil.
Me: Wat
GM: You're siding with evil against good. Pay attention.
Then let me be Evil!
*rolls up Antipaladin*
DMs assisting an 11th level party with epic-level PC mary sue ancient homebrew vampires.
GMs who fudge dice, I cannot trust someone I know will fudge. The exception to this is an old DM of mine who allowed us a fudge bank, essentially both players and DM were allowed 3 fudges per campaign - 3 for the whole party not individually - this meant that getting the DM to "eat fudge" was a real achievement and the BBEG hit with a save or suck could last more than a round. I am aware many people feel differently about this.
|
|
Greetings All,
Happy to be reading this post...being complety new to this game and still trying to understad the dynamics..it gives me a glimpse of WTF yet to come!
Thanks :) Oh, yeah..what a very cool pllace to be! I am looking foward to my first Campain this comming Tues. I'm still creating my character and having a pretty okay go of it.
"Cheers To Fellowship and Betrayal"
Yeah not cool bringing Beer to the game (or alcohol in general). Drunky/Tipsy gamers/gaming is not cool.A Public Con game with people you don't know, I agree. But an After Ours game at a Con with your friends those can be fun.
I did Hall of Drunken Heroes with the Merrymead boon and a selection of fine libations, and it was a lot of fun. Definitely not the sort of thing for a public venue, no, but it can be fun for an occasional night with friends.
I did Hall of Drunken Heroes with the Merrymead boon and a selection of fine libations, and it was a lot of fun. Definitely not the sort of thing for a public venue, no, but it can be fun for an occasional night with friends.Yeah not cool bringing Beer to the game (or alcohol in general). Drunky/Tipsy gamers/gaming is not cool.A Public Con game with people you don't know, I agree. But an After Ours game at a Con with your friends those can be fun.
Well, it was fun until..
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only speak from my experience, but Ive had quite a few problem games in the past with drunk gm's and drunk players or a combination of the two. Things start out okay, but ive had people falling asleep at the table, people not focusing, people having alcohol fueled rules arguments.
As I dont drink myself normally perhaps I have a lesser tolerance to people equating alcohol with fun
But everyone has their own way of gaming. Let it continue!
|
I've got a few gripes with GMs, but what really gets under my skin is when GMs take away the players' agency.
This doesn't usually apply to Society, since the GMs are forced to run the module as written, but it applies to module writers.
What I mean by that is, ideally every player should be able to play their character.
That doesn't mean every character needs to be useful, if they didn't bring cold iron and the creature has DR a billion/cold iron? Sucks to be that player, guess they won't be damaging the monster, however, they're still fully in control of their character. There are things they could theoretically be doing.
My beef is with confusion, dominate person, deep slumber, color spray, certain fear effects, etc. Things which take control of a character away from their player, or just straight up prevent them from acting.
Pathfinder is a game, and games are only fun if you're allowed to play.
Also, don't ignore the tactics. The final fight in ToEE is hard enough at 1-2, you don't need to pull out all the stops, and ignore the villain's exit strategy. Doing that makes you a dick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give every enemy a surprise round, no matter whether the scenario says to or not. Every enemy uses stealth at all times. Listening at a door always fails to perceive anything no matter what you roll.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player:I listen at the door
DM: Well what are you listening for?
Player: ...sounds?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worst thing I've seen happen from the player perspective is having the GM come to the table with the mentality "If I don't kill a player during this scenario, I will feel like I've failed as a GM", and announce that to the players. Later, there was a brief moment with the BBEG where it was very literally the PCs vs the GM. Also, the GM became very agitated when he didn't kill anyone, which just made things worse.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Making it clear which PCs you personally disapprove of. Maybe you don't like that one of the PCs can take out an enemy in a single round (whether via SoS, pouncing, a keen falcata, whatever), and maybe one or more of the players feels the same way. Maybe nobody likes it and you need to say something to that player about it. But whatever the case, things like rolling your eyes or replacing roleplay opportunities with things like "Fine, whatever, you win" does not help anyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pout when the PCs defeat their opponents earlier than was expected.
This is one of the first things I tell my student GMs in GM 101: "Don't take it personally when the PCs kill the boss before he ever had a chance to act, even if you spent an hour last night prepping his feats, spells, etc. Sometimes that's just how it goes. You've all been on the other side of the screen, too, so congratulate the players and move on with the story."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a few gripes with GMs, but what really gets under my skin is when GMs take away the players' agency.
This doesn't usually apply to Society, since the GMs are forced to run the module as written, but it applies to module writers.
What I mean by that is, ideally every player should be able to play their character.
That doesn't mean every character needs to be useful, if they didn't bring cold iron and the creature has DR a billion/cold iron? Sucks to be that player, guess they won't be damaging the monster, however, they're still fully in control of their character. There are things they could theoretically be doing.My beef is with confusion, dominate person, deep slumber, color spray, certain fear effects, etc. Things which take control of a character away from their player, or just straight up prevent them from acting.
Pathfinder is a game, and games are only fun if you're allowed to play.
Also, don't ignore the tactics. The final fight in ToEE is hard enough at 1-2, you don't need to pull out all the stops, and ignore the villain's exit strategy. Doing that makes you a dick.
Well, yes..all those suck to be on the receiving end of, but it's unreasonable to expect a creature not to use them if it can. You would, if your character had such spells... The thing is,{1} don't take it personally, {2} give the PC every opportunity to make another save, and {3} roll with it. Our group's monk was walked off a cliff by a flock of harpies last session. Her player wasn't happy [BTW, monk survived] but she went with it...because that is what the harpies would have done. Not attack a superior force physically, not run away; they would sing and try to kill us that way. If the sorceror hadn't thrown up a wall of force, 3 other PCs would have taken the fall as well...But the monk had the ability to jump the wall, so the GM had her roll INT to see if she thought of trying while mesmerized. Nat 20 meant she did. The point is, many things take away the player's control...if you don't like it, optimize your saves - but don't complain because the monsters don't play fair.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 started to type up some examples, but realized this would invariably simply lead to people picking the examples apart and missing the overall point.
The point is that the problem is in the announcement made up front in the first place. People don't usually make these announcements unless it is as a warning that they will be on the lookout for players who would violate some stricture of behavior stated in the announcement. This creates a multitude of problems:
1) It demonstrates to players that you do not trust them to behave in what you consider to be a reasonable manner.
2) It immediately puts players on edge as they now become paranoid about unintentionally violating the warning.
3) It tells the players you are sufficiently strict about the behavior that you will not accommodate styles of play that don't fit within that stricture, even if that is the style the player prefers to play in.
4) It tells the players you expect them to adapt to you and that you are unwilling to adapt to them.
All of this can create a negative attitude that puts a damper on everyone's fun and turns the game from, "I'm playing to have fun," to, "I'm playing to avoid the DM's ire."
Again, in home games, especially ones with copious house rules, these warnings may be necessary. But when you have the same GM all of the time you have time to adapt to that GM's personal play style and get comfortable with their personal strictures. In an organized play environment, you may never play with that DM again, so you are likely to never get comfortable with their personal strictures. Which means that such announcements usually come with the unspoken warning that this is going to be an uncomfortable play session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making it clear which PCs you personally disapprove of. Maybe you don't like that one of the PCs can take out an enemy in a single round (whether via SoS, pouncing, a keen falcata, whatever), and maybe one or more of the players feels the same way. Maybe nobody likes it and you need to say something to that player about it. But whatever the case, things like rolling your eyes or replacing roleplay opportunities with things like "Fine, whatever, you win" does not help anyone.
This is so true. Especially the last sentence.
I've had several GMs do this at a table, and it's disappointing, regardless whether it's directed at me or not. If you have a problem with a player, either pull them aside, or deal with it, but don't go showcasing around that the game that people took time of their day to play is pointless.
|
|
"...not at MY table!..."
I think this one is fine just about all the time (obviously there are exceptions). There are lots of vague rules in this game, and sometimes the GM has to make the call on the fly. So I really dont see what the problem with this would be.
Well, unless you are talking about the way it is being said, and not the words themselves. :/
"...not at MY table!..."I think this one is fine just about all the time (obviously there are exceptions). There are lots of vague rules in this game, and sometimes the GM has to make the call on the fly. So I really dont see what the problem with this would be.
Well, unless you are talking about the way it is being said, and not the words themselves. :/
I think he means the cases where the rules specifically say something and the GM doesn't like it, so it doesn't work that way at their table. :p
|
|
I think he means the cases where the rules specifically say something and the GM doesn't like it, so it doesn't work that way at their table. :p"...not at MY table!..."I think this one is fine just about all the time (obviously there are exceptions). There are lots of vague rules in this game, and sometimes the GM has to make the call on the fly. So I really dont see what the problem with this would be.
Well, unless you are talking about the way it is being said, and not the words themselves. :/
That definitely qualifies as an exception, then. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that the problem is in the announcement made up front in the first place. People don't usually make these announcements unless it is as a warning that they will be on the lookout for players who would violate some stricture of behavior stated in the announcement.
My standard introduction is something along the lines of: "this is PFS, so I play as close to RAW as I can. That said, I do make mistakes and I welcome any and all corrections. If there's a disagreement, we'll try to look up the rule if it can be done quickly, but if things bog down, I'll make a call and we'll move on. I roll my dice in the open, which means I don't fudge rolls. I'm not out to kill PCs, but I do try to play NPCs to the height of their intelligence."
What I don't say, but do, is scale tactics to PC level and/or player experience level. I will also do my best to help a player find every last bonus or reroll if his PC is about to die.
I say the above because I want the players to know the following:
- I'm not going to change rules or the scenario to make it harder (or easier)
- I'm not interested in protracted rules arguments mid-game
- I want the players to be thinking tactically to the best of their ability, but at the same time
- I'm not looking for blood
The only real behavior I'm looking to curtail is extended rules-lawyering. As my presence here will prove, I'm more than happy to debate rules--but not when 3 - 5 other people are caught in the middle.
If you think something like what I'm saying is intimidating to players, I'd genuinely like to know that so I can correct my behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought all players were there to buff my ego and prop up my insecurities? No? Well then, this game is stupid. [/sarcasm
|
|
Speaking towards fudging dice as a GM.
If I am GMing a table and I simply cannot roll over a 5 for the first half of the session, I will more than likely fudge dice minorly to at least give a challenge for the players.
I follow two rules here though, when I fudge I will only choose a number from 11-16 or 17. This lets people who optimized front line damage soakers and opportunity to feel special, but still at risk. I will NEVER fudge a critical/critical threat, and I will NEVER fudge a nat 1.
I feel it is the GM's job to provide a challenge and I will provide. I will not seek player deaths, but I will seek hit points.
To date I have only fudged a few times, I normally roll fairly average.
|
|
Speaking towards fudging dice as a GM.
If I am GMing a table and I simply cannot roll over a 5 for the first half of the session, I will more than likely fudge dice minorly to at least give a challenge for the players.
I follow two rules here though, when I fudge I will only choose a number from 11-16 or 17. This lets people who optimized front line damage soakers and opportunity to feel special, but still at risk. I will NEVER fudge a critical/critical threat, and I will NEVER fudge a nat 1.
I feel it is the GM's job to provide a challenge and I will provide. I will not seek player deaths, but I will seek hit points.
To date I have only fudged a few times, I normally roll fairly average.
when/if I am at your table Mr. Williams, please do not.
It teaches the younger impressionable players (even the older impressionable players) and it's all going to come out even in the end. Your low rolls now will be balanced by high rolls at the next table, and I just might need the resources I spent at yours in the "hit point tax" at the next table.
You do bring up a good point that I have considered before, and think about heavily if I fudge a roll. Which is why I rarely do it and I should have specified, I do not do it on open game days or conventions. If I am at a table in a location such as a convention, or open gaming, I encourage everyone to roll in the open including me.
I will fudge for private groups, or know the players well.
To be fair, your GM(s) has/have probably fudged a few rolls here and there. S/He just probably didn't even mention it to you. It's a balancing act between wanting to tell an exciting story and brutally murdering PCs left, right, and center.
Ultimately, it's up to the GM to make a table/adventure/campaign exciting and fun. As long as all players are having a good time, everyone has a chance to contribute, and the DM gets to tell the exciting story they wanted to tell, everyone wins.
And isn't that the point of this whole thing?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The point is that the problem is in the announcement made up front in the first place. People don't usually make these announcements unless it is as a warning that they will be on the lookout for players who would violate some stricture of behavior stated in the announcement.
I think I see where you're coming from, Bill, but I take issue with your interpretation. I'll call out a few of my table rules ahead of time. For example, I require players to write out their prepared spellcasters' spell lists for the day. "Can you change it up? Absolutely! But if you don't tell me otherwise, I'd like to see the default spells your character would have prepared."
I tell players the reason for this is that I want to double-check and make sure I've read up on any unfamiliar spell, but it's also the case that I've run into a phenomenon I call "Schroedinger's Mage" (or "Of course I prepared knock this morning.")
I also run through a very quick list of how I handle some gray areas of the rules. (Spring-loaded wrist sheaths, for example.) I do this because I want my players to know ahead of time how the game is going to function. A tense moment during combat is the wrong time for me to let you know that, no, you cannot have a scroll of breath of life in your spring-loaded wrist sheath, or that, yes, using it does provoke an attack of opportunity.
I want all that out of the way, before Ambrus Valsin storms into the briefing room with a haggard look on his face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, your GM(s) has/have probably fudged a few rolls here and there. S/He just probably didn't even mention it to you. It's a balancing act between wanting to tell an exciting story and brutally murdering PCs left, right, and center.
Ultimately, it's up to the GM to make a table/adventure/campaign exciting and fun. As long as all players are having a good time, everyone has a chance to contribute, and the DM gets to tell the exciting story they wanted to tell, everyone wins.
And isn't that the point of this whole thing?
Personally, I'd much rather see the natural 20 and sweat out the confirmation or see the natural 1 and rejoice in our luck. But I'll readily admit that my approach to PFS is as a game first, a story a close second.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny. I had a conversation with a newer GM about this subject, just this weekend at a convention. I'd spoken with her before, and told her that, when all was said and done, it's the story that's paramount. People will talk about cool stories for years, but they'll forget weird die probabilities within a couple of hours.
Ultimately, it's up to the GM to make a table/adventure/campaign exciting and fun. As long as all players are having a good time, everyone has a chance to contribute, and the DM gets to tell the exciting story they wanted to tell, everyone wins. And isn't that the point of this whole thing?
(I bolded the relevant part of this.)
But, I continued on, the GM doesn't get to determine the story. The GM facilitates the players telling the story.
Here's an example. A couple years ago, during a scenario I'll not mention, a PC at my table saw a warship coming up, fast, on the party's boat. The PCs set sail away from the pursuer, but it was a losing proposition.
So, one PC made short work of things with a spell of invisibility, a potion of levitate and a feather token: anchor. Now, I could have announced, "Fine, but there's another ship coming up, right behind that one." But why do that? Why rob a player of a great story, that we're still telling, years later? Because it wasn't the story I had in front of me?
The problem with the GM fudging die rolls towards the mean is that, in the end, you get average adventures. You get the stories that the scenario authors decided to tell, rather than the stories that the players -- who can take advantage of the GM's low rolls -- want to tell.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it is the GM's job to provide a challenge
I disagree.
I believe it's the GM's job to represent the NPCs and setting in their interactions with the PCs, so that everyone working together creates a series of interactions unique to that particular combination of PCs, NPCs, events, and luck.
The players bring unique PCs, the GM brings a set of NPCs, events, and setting details; they meet, they interact, you mix in the luck of the dice, and you watch what story unfolds.
Sometimes the story that unfolds is a TPK, sometimes it's a cakewalk, sometimes it's somewhere in between. But I believe it's always supposed to be a unique product of that table's mix of PCs, scenario and luck; for the GM to decide ahead of time how he/she wants it to play out and then altering any events that cause it to stray too far from their personal vision, is a very short-sighted idea of what this big beautiful game can be, and is a disservice to everyone at the table—including the GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as all players are having a good time, everyone has a chance to contribute, and the DM gets to tell the exciting story they wanted to tell, everyone wins.
And isn't that the point of this whole thing?
I find that the harder the GM tries to make the second bolded part come true, the less likely it is that the first bolded part is happening.
GMs having a particular story they want to tell and trying to make sure it gets told instead of just seeing what story naturally unfolds, is one of the larger sources of bad games, hurt feelings and general non-fun in this hobby.