| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So just to clarify -
Due to the player's miscalculation, he became a grumpy gus because he thought the encounter was impossible to beat (and hence felt you were actively trying to kill them, or grossly overestimated what they could do), and you want to find a way to prevent this same thing from happening again? (Because I assume it quickly became unfun for everyone)
I guess you really have two options, more transparency, or less transparency. If you really want to keep things hidden, then yes, things like making them roll heal checks to determine how "beat up" a monster is can be fine. Of course, he's going to keep trying to figure things out, you've already spoke to him about it after all.
The other option is to be more upfront, and when he goes "That guy is doing 1d10+15 damage, that's just not fair," correct him if he's wrong. You don't need to be specific, just let him know. Even a simple, "He does a lot less than that, there are modifiers you're not aware of" can help.
I know personally I let players know if I'm rolling to confirm crits, if I've critted them, etc. We also let people make perception checks to tell if damage is going through or if it's being blocked (like by DR). The stuff I keep secret is AC, HP, Bonus to Hit, things like that.
|
How exactly is he counting the stats? Is it that he sees and monster, has it id'd, then jumps onto a website to cheat and look at it's stats? Or is he just basing it off what others have done to hit/miss it?
Obviously you need to keep your dice rolls hidden so when you call out a "to hit pc" number he doesn't know what the die rolled, just the total. I figure you already do this and hide any stat information from the players, so that probably doesn't help.
Are you telling your players what the enemy HP is at after each attack? I don't ever tell them that. It is pretty much, "You hit them hard, a slash across their chest. They are still standing." Or "Your rapier punches right through them like a rapier through something easy to puncture. They drop to the ground bleeding." Or "Your fireball explodes all around them, clearly striking them with full force. They shrug and say, 'Ahhhhh, just like the baths back home.'"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally don't consider it that much of a problem when my players get some idea of what a creature's AC is, or what its other stats are. These things are largely abstractions, but it can be written off as the player characters making judgment calls based on empirical knowledge. For instance, the fast guy might be hard to hit, or the giant guy with the hammer can probably mess up my brain case pretty easily. Or a sorcerer who drinks a potion without any obvious effect could very well have just made his spells more potent. As long as there's some in game rationale for it, you shouldn't let it bother you too much.
I suppose if you really wanted to obfuscate the numbers, you could deviate from bestiary entries, put individual variances on groups of the same monster, keep most of the dice rolls directed at you through skype, and curtain your own dice rolls.
Some more info would be helpful. Of course if he's just being a grump about things because he thinks the GM is trying to murder him and all his friends, then it sounds like there might be a little bit of a trust problem on his end.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a PC at my table who counts the stats of everything he fights, and does his best to work our their stats, focusing on AC of course. Then he basis combat choices on his results.
Talk to him again. Ask him what a Pit Boss in a Vegas casino would do in your (the GM's) shoes.
Counting AC isn't really bad imo. It's sad that it has a strict number from it you're trying to mine, but fighting an enemy and knowing that they are difficult to hit, primarily because of their agility, is a fair observation.
It just sucks to say, High Ac, high touch! Get rid of that dex bonus and we got 'em.
It's always good to remind players there are modifiers they are unaware of, even when there might not be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To some extent, figuring out the math behind enemy stats is inevitable. If a 16 to-hit misses, but a 17 hits, it's not hard to guess what the bad guy's AC is. Hiding as many rolls as possible only delays the process, and has the risk of making things feel a lot more arbitrary when the random number god decides to show some favor or disfavor.
From an in-universe PoV, it's also not unreasonable that the characters gain some idea of their opponent's capabilities as the battle continues. AC is just an abstraction, but a character could certainly work out things like "It's really hard to hit this guy, we need to aim our swings more carefully (not use power attack) and try to flank him so he'll have a harder time dodging (get a flanking bonus)."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cool with a players trying to guess the AC of a combatant, it makes a big decision on things like power attack. On an obviously low armored character a player may start with power attack, but not so on a heavily armoured character. If they think they are hitting with ease they will, or failing to hit they will switch strategies. This is the tactical combat portion of the game, and a part of the abstraction that we all play within.
But trying to calculate ECL/APL/CR and then bemoaning that it is too high is a waste of their breath and my time. Even if everything is tuned right, bad rolls or poor tactics can see a TPK on a APL-1 encounter, and the bad guys go down hard on an APL + 3 encounter. That whole section of the Core Rulebook is earmarked as advice more then gospel, and a player should never assume an encounter can or should be fought.
If a player wants to waste the tables time on discussing that, I'd ask them to take it off line for between session chatter. Encounters successful and failed are intended to forward the narrative, and the dynamic elements of success and failure that are these polygons we call dice do not scruple close scrutiny. Last time I tried they came up ones for a week.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counting and figuring out the numbers help immersion IMO. You cannot rely on your GM to always have shelyn-blessed story-telling moments whenever a description is necessary to properly understand what a character is looking at, and knowing (or figuring out) the numbers can help a great deal.
Your GM may describe a monster a huge and musclebound, but unless I decide to ask for more comparisons or further detail, that's what I have to work with. However, if I see my GM pick up 2d8 and roll, and then declare that I get hit by a slam attack for 36 damage, then I know, that at the critter gets between a +20 and +34 to dmg. That means that when I'm in character, I have a clearer image of what I'm fighting.
Knowing DCs can help giving in-character understanding. This is why I urge GMs to go with established DCs if they can, and only wing it when necessary. If I know the normal Climb DCs and I get told that I'm about to climb a standard redstone brick-building, I have a general idea of the DC and an idea of how achievable that is to my character. That means that my character can turn to the party and say "don't worry guys, I got this, I scale harder surfaces than this before breakfast" or I can tell them to get climbing kits out, because this is gonna get difficult.
Just my thoughts, whatever they're worth :)
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To help throw off the "I google the monster" problem I suggest templates, lots of templates.
|
|
Galnörag pegged it very nicely.
I would start with hiding your rolls. If the issue is trust instead of just number crunching then this will certainly show that. Trust is a completely different ballgame than number watching. If he doesn't trust you or is playing with a mindset of player vs. gm, there won't be anything you can do without first changing that mindset.
I would also suggest adding up all the ac modifiers on the roll (cover, in combat, situational, distance, etc...) and telling the player what they are and to subtract them from their roll. If knowing how hard a shot or hit is before they attempt, they may change tactics. Plus then they know pretty much all the modifiers and can't complain afterwards when their 20 (-4 cover, -4 in combat, -2 range) misses the enemy badly. Some of those modifiers boost an enemies AC while others reduce the to hit, so I like to combine them for ease and then list them up front. Other modifiers stay secret unless specifically noticed or observed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big problem here is that your player thinks beating AC is the only way to hurt something. Anyway, short of using unique monsters for everything, rolling in secret, and making players roll in secret from each other, you can't stop his behaviour. Even then, if I only know my rolls, but I know I didn't hit when I rolled a 17, I can infer that the AC is probably fairly high.
I don't think it's particularly meta-gamey, after all, supposedly these adventurers are adventurers for a living, and have been in their fair share of fights. If after having gone a few rounds with an enemy, they figure out some of their capabilities, that's normal. If this is the 30th Giant Rat I've fought in the last 4 days, I probably know a bit about how they fight, and how hard/easy it will be.
As long as they aren't reading the Beastiary entry when you first introduce a new monster,I don't think it's problematic if they try to figure out the enemies strengths and weaknesses during combat. A knowledge check may be able to get the same information on the first round and save you some trouble, where as trying to stat count gets you usable intel after 2,3,4 rounds of fighting, during which time the enemy has had a chance to hurt you or figure out YOUR abilities.
|
|
Oh yeah, forgot to add something. There is nothing wrong with a player figuring out that the enemy is hard to hit or has a high save in something and changing tactics. Sometimes that is just how the fights are set up. Adapting tactics mid-fight is expected from all intelligent players and enemies. But it seems to me that the issue you have is the hissy fit he threw based upon his own bad math. Regardless of what happens, he needs to get his emotions under control and play for fun and for the groups fun. Acting like that is unacceptable.
We figure out AC fairly quickly - it actually speeds up play when we know what we need to roll against. However, we don't generally talk in terms of numbers when referring to stats, preferring to couch them in more descriptive terms.
AC is not really a stat than can be described 'descriptively'. Certainly it can be high or low, but it isn't quite like STR or CHA or whatever, which can almost be described within the story. You can talk about a monster comprehensively covered with metallic scales, but Pathfinder might use metallic scales for any AC from +3 to +40.
The problem here is that the player is playing to his assumptions and not to the game. He decides the AC is too high and sulked as a player - that's what I'd have problems with.
I agree with alot of whats been said above, a player figuringout an oppenents AC is fine, anyone in a fight is going to size up his oppenent and learn about him.
your player just needs to have faith that you are telling a story together and not out to kill him. my players know that if i through a fight at them that they are ment to flee from it becomes clear very fast. the mentality that everything you can fight you can kill is probly a huge source of issues for alot of people i think.
We figure out AC fairly quickly - it actually speeds up play when we know what we need to roll against. However, we don't generally talk in terms of numbers when referring to stats, preferring to couch them in more descriptive terms.
Yep as soon as we hit, our DM just announced the AC. Then we can roll, do calcs, etc and just tell him how much damage. HWAAAAAY faster than ..."A 19, does that hit? No...Wait, no, that was a 20- does that hit? No. A 21 with bless? Yes. OK, then that's 3d6, makes that 11, plus 12, oh and Bard adds....."
Instead:
"2 hits and one miss for a total of 35 pts."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have a player that doesn't trust you to create a fair encounter and/or not target him specifically. Your first instinct to deal with this problem is to figure out ways to hide information from him.
Think about that.
I think honestly the problem here is not that player can figure out the AC of the monster (it is neither especially difficult, nor especially advantageous to do this) but that the player, for whatever reason, does not trust the GM enough to believe that the GM is not assuming an adversarial role trying to "get" or "beat" the PCs.
I don't know if this is warranted or not, but if the PC thinks the fight against the red dragon is too difficult, you should point out that the GM's job is to walk to fine line between "not so easy as to remove all drama" and "not so hard as to be impossible or unfun" and that for an iconic big scary monster like the Red Dragon, the GM should err towards the "hard" side of the equation just to do justice to the monster. After all, if the iconic scary monsters are too easy, you're limiting your design space for hard encounters.
At least he's not counting hit dice and reverse engineering ability scores to make sure you're not cheating with ability DC's. That's literally the worst thing ever.
So I have a few questions:
1) Is this an issue other DM's bother to deal with?
2) What options do I have for making the stats untrackable by observation? (outside of spellcasting/potions)
3) Should I begin concealing damage information, and taking the results of their hits through Skype? (Revealing only Bloodied, near death, injured etc...)
1. No. I don't think it's a problem at all.
2. Why?3. Hell no.
So long as he doesn't look up the stats in a book, and deduces them himself, I don't care. It's pretty logical for someone who's basically a professional soldier/adventurer/whatever to be able to gauge an opponent's overall skill level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fine for him to do that. It's also fine for you to encourage, discourage, or ignore this behavior.
The problem isn't whether you hide the math or not, the problems are that he has expectations different from you and that he was wrong and is taking it out on you.
For the first, it helps if you and the players publicly talk about, agree on, and set some ground rules.
The easiest solution for the second is to straight up tell him that his math was wrong. Give him the number, point out his mistake, and move on. Remind him that you are not responsible for him being correct in his math and that he may end up getting himself in a load of trouble by doing it. He can either get better at it, or let go of the need of having a Scouter on all the time and just enjoy the game.
Since you asked about the game...
I hide my attack rolls and saving throws for the monsters, unless it's a '1' or '20', in which case I show them. I rarely do monsters with increased critical threat ranges (purposefully removing feats and abilities that do so) unless they are NPC's with character class levels and are designed to Crit Fish.
Damage rolls are shown. Yes, usually players figure out the math. When that big guy rolls a D10, gets a '5', and the player takes 13 damage, they can usually figure out it's serious business. This has occasionally resulted in them abandoning a challenging fight, and that's fine.
When it comes to encounter levels, yes, there are some fights that they are not meant to engage in (I call them 'optional mini bosses'), and they are given ample warning to avoid them. I practice the 'three strikes' rule, where there are usually two warnings that are relatively obvious stating the challenge rating is way above them, with the third being the ever ominous "Are you sure you want to do this?" If they continue, it's on them. That's the only time they will fight threats that are potential TPK's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I play I generally try to deduce the monster's stats based on observed die results. After a few rounds of combat I have a decent idea of the monster's BAB, Strength, damage dice, reach, AC and monster type. Based on that I can guess within say, 20% how many HP it's likely to have, and what it's saving throws are going to be like. (This is mostly based on size, BAB and type.)
I don't think that's a bad thing. When your character is a professional monster slayer, he's probably had to learn to see which monster is in his league, and when he's being outclassed.
Your character's also had several rounds to observe the monster; to see that your flawless-technique-lucky-hit barely managed to scratch him (high AC) or that even the party idiot's random third-iterative attack hit him (ooze AC). So characters do get some idea of what a monster's AC is. Not an exact number of course, but a general idea of "very hard, hard, doable, easy, very easy to hit".
In addition, it's often observable what the monster's main source of AC is. If it's relying on Dex/Dodge, then it's moving fast to avoid hits. If it's relying on armor or natural armor, that's visible too. It got hit but the blow didn't get through it's carapace. And if it's Deflection for example, the attack bounced off inches before actually touching it.
---
I don't think making these observations is bad behavior. IC your character is paying attention to his opponent. OOC that's simulated by paying attention to your opponent's stats.
I think trying to obfuscate these things is a bad move. A lot of it is just observable.
In addition, you complain about the player not trusting you. But if you're going to be more secretive, then that player will just trust you even less.
Me personally, I have difficulty trusting a GM who rolls a lot behind the screen. I always wonder if he really rolled that hit or made that save. Somehow I always feel that GMs that roll behind a screen are cheating the players. I doesn't have to be true; that's just how it makes me feel. I prefer it if the GM rolls those critical threats where everyone can see them.
---
There's also a certain drama factor to being transparent. If a group of level 3 characters encounters a monster that hits AC 20 on a 7, the players seeing those dice and doing the math suddenly realize they're in deep trouble.
---
There might be a different issue at work here. Some people prefer to play the game where anyone presented as "your current BBEG" is someone you can beat in a tough fight, every time. Other people prefer the "realistic" setting where sometimes you just need to run and come back in a few levels.
Neither of these is "wrong".
However, if you and the player aren't on the same page about which one you're playing, that can lead to some irritation. For example: you think that the players should run from X. But the players think that since they face X, that X is probably just on the high end of what they should be able to defeat. And so the PCs get TPKed. Not a happy ending.
HOW TO DISSUADE PC STAT COUNTING AS A GM?
In addition, you complain about the player not trusting you. But if you're going to be more secretive, then that player will just trust you even less.
Me personally, I have difficulty trusting a GM who rolls a lot behind the screen. I always wonder if he really rolled that hit or made that save. Somehow I always feel that GMs that roll behind a screen are cheating the players. I doesn't have to be true; that's just how it makes me feel. I prefer it if the GM rolls those critical threats where everyone can see them.
Definitely have to second this point. If trust between the GM and player is already shaky, hiding rolls is likely to just make things worse. Any time the rolls go against the player, they'll wonder if the GM is singling them out.
If the monster rolls an 18, 19, and 20 on three saving throws in a row against the same PC, but all those rolls are out in the open, everyone will laugh about how lucky the monster is and/or how the player has offended the Random Number God. If all those rolls are done behind the screen, the player might well be suspicious about the monster always saving against his abilities.
Also, taking away relevant information from the players makes it that much harder for them to make tactical decisions. It's hard to make an informed decision about using power attack, combat expertise, dazing assault, or any other feat that hurts your to-hit chance when you don't know how easy/hard it would be to hit the monster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We figure out AC fairly quickly - it actually speeds up play when we know what we need to roll against. However, we don't generally talk in terms of numbers when referring to stats, preferring to couch them in more descriptive terms.
AC is not really a stat than can be described 'descriptively'. Certainly it can be high or low, but it isn't quite like STR or CHA or whatever, which can almost be described within the story. You can talk about a monster comprehensively covered with metallic scales, but Pathfinder might use metallic scales for any AC from +3 to +40.
I disagree with the statement that AC is not a stat that can be described "descriptively". After the rolls of the PCs trying to hit the creature, I'll routinely give out descriptions. If they are way off the mark for the AC, I'll give a description like; "You move into a position you think is good and make your blow, but the creature manages to move and your blow falls wildly off the mark." Whereas something that is one or two away might get a description like: "You step forward, lunging into your blow, and feel contact, but the blade skitters off the scales with a high pitch screech, and the beast seems unaffected."
The first lets them know, whatever the roll, that they missed by a wide margin. The later lets them know that they were close, but just missed actually doing damage. My players have learned that my descriptions give them the "number", and have changed tactics without ever hitting a creature.
In addition, you complain about the player not trusting you. But if you're going to be more secretive, then that player will just trust you even less.
Me personally, I have difficulty trusting a GM who rolls a lot behind the screen. I always wonder if he really rolled that hit or made that save. Somehow I always feel that GMs that roll behind a screen are cheating the players. I doesn't have to be true; that's just how it makes me feel. I prefer it if the GM rolls those critical threats where everyone can see them.
Definitely have to second this point. If trust between the GM and player is already shaky, hiding rolls is likely to just make things worse. Any time the rolls go against the player, they'll wonder if the GM is singling them out.
If the monster rolls an 18, 19, and 20 on three saving throws in a row against the same PC, but all those rolls are out in the open, everyone will laugh about how lucky the monster is and/or how the player has offended the Random Number God. If all those rolls are done behind the screen, the player might well be suspicious about the monster always saving against his abilities.
Also, taking away relevant information from the players makes it that much harder for them to make tactical decisions. It's hard to make an informed decision about using power attack, combat expertise, dazing assault, or any other feat that hurts your to-hit chance when you don't know how easy/hard it would be to hit the monster.
I waffle on this. I generally make any kind of roll that has immediate impact on a PC (To Hit, damage, NPC Saving throws) out in the open, but rolls that can be used easily to metagame (bluff/sense motive, knowledge rolls) I'll make behind a screen, so that the PCs still have to react. I try to avoid the "the creature rolled high on his bluff, and my sense motive roll was low, so I'm not going to try and bluff past him now." kind of thing. Even so, I try to give some indication of the roll through description, "The card player regards you with a cocky grin, and seems very glib with his answer." Generally indicates that the NPC has achieved a high success roll. It's not a matter of cheating the player in that case, it's more a manner to maintain some mystery in the outcome.
Then again, my players are very aware that even if they do die, if they still want to play that character they're attached to, we'll figure out a way within the story to bring them back. So they trust that I'm not out to kill them arbitrarily.
Don't roll your dice behind a screen like you are ashamed of them. Roll your dice proudly out on the table for all to see and fear! I mean, it's your game, and you can obfuscate all you want, but the groups I play with like to see the dice in all their dread glory.
I'm not sure why the player figuring out an enemy's AC after a few attacks should be a problem. If he can make better decisions about whether or not to use Power Attack that just seems like part of playing the game to me.
Now, if the player starts freaking out and thinking the fight can't be won you can either ridicule him for complaining or just tell him he made a mistake and actually the foe's AC isn't what he thinks...possibly both...
We figure out AC fairly quickly - it actually speeds up play when we know what we need to roll against. However, we don't generally talk in terms of numbers when referring to stats, preferring to couch them in more descriptive terms.
AC is not really a stat than can be described 'descriptively'. Certainly it can be high or low, but it isn't quite like STR or CHA or whatever, which can almost be described within the story. You can talk about a monster comprehensively covered with metallic scales, but Pathfinder might use metallic scales for any AC from +3 to +40.
I disagree with the statement that AC is not a stat that can be described "descriptively". After the rolls of the PCs trying to hit the creature, I'll routinely give out descriptions. If they are way off the mark for the AC, I'll give a description like; "You move into a position you think is good and make your blow, but the creature manages to move and your blow falls wildly off the mark." Whereas something that is one or two away might get a description like: "You step forward, lunging into your blow, and feel contact, but the blade skitters off the scales with a high pitch screech, and the beast seems unaffected."
The first lets them know, whatever the roll, that they missed by a wide margin. The later lets them know that they were close, but just missed actually doing damage. My players have learned that my descriptions give them the "number", and have changed tactics without ever hitting a creature.
Unfortunately, PF/DnD combat is highly, almost completely, abstract. Loss of Hp does not necessarily require physical damage to be dealt.
stuffUnfortunately, PF/DnD combat is highly, almost completely, abstract. Loss of Hp does not necessarily require physical damage to be dealt.
This.
humans in particular do not get twice as hard to kill via damage when they gain a hitdice. They still have the same flesh and blood, but their skill and reactions have improved to be able to mitigate damage, be less effected by fatigue in battle, and otherwise stay an effective fighter. HP can almost be considered your luck points.
That's why I am sort of annoyed at conditions like fatigued and sickened, because these should be under the purvey of HP. when an enemy hits, they effectively did something to weaken you. They may have hammered a parry you did fatiguing your sword arm, they could have hit you in the gut, but your armor prevented it from being fatal, but you got winded just the same.
when you do multiple hits from a full attack, it doesn't really mean you made separate attacks or an attack at all, you just pressed your advantage further until you could break his defense and end him.
most real life fighting, people get stabbed once and then fall, sometimes if their will is especially strong they can survive multiple hits.
Constitution is linked to surviving fatiguing conditions, this is why it gives you bonus HP, you can survive battle fatigue easier, etc.
I waffle on this. I generally make any kind of roll that has immediate impact on a PC (To Hit, damage, NPC Saving throws) out in the open, but rolls that can be used easily to metagame (bluff/sense motive, knowledge rolls) I'll make behind a screen, so that the PCs still have to react. I try to avoid the "the creature rolled high on his bluff, and my sense motive roll was low, so I'm not going to try and bluff past him now." kind of thing. Even so, I try to give some indication of the roll through description, "The card player regards you with a cocky grin, and seems very glib with his answer." Generally indicates that the NPC has achieved a high success roll. It's not a matter of cheating the player in that case, it's more a manner to maintain some mystery in the outcome.
Then again, my players are very aware that even if they do die, if they still want to play that character they're attached to, we'll figure out a way within the story to bring them back. So they trust that I'm not out to kill them arbitrarily.
Bluff vs. Sense Motive is probably the best time to use secret rolls, since it's hard not to metagame that to some extent. Even a player who's trying to avoid metagaming could easily fall into the trap of overcompensating and going too far the other way. I would say rolling in the open should be the general rule, but like any general rule there will be exceptions to it when there's a good reason.
Of course, like you said, there's a a solid foundation of trust between you and your players. That doesn't seem to be the case for the OP's game.
On a side note, I quite agree with your philosophy on character death. Always giving them an option for survival, but with some kind of story consequences is a lot more fun than just telling them to roll up a new character. "Jim the Wizard survives, but now a demon has a claim on his soul" can be a lot more fun than "Jim the Wizard dies, and is replaced by Bob the Sorcerer."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely have to second this point. If trust between the GM and player is already shaky, hiding rolls is likely to just make things worse. Any time the rolls go against the player, they'll wonder if the GM is singling them out.
I don't know that I could run a game where I did not trust my players and where they did not trust me. From the start of the game, I have worked very hard to gain the trust of my players. I have told them on several occasions that my role is to be a story teller and rules adjudicator and if any of them ever feel that the game is becoming PC vs GM, then I have done something very wrong. So far, I am quite confident that I have their trust.
When I GM, I roll almost every die behind the screen. That also includes hidden rolls for PCs using stealth, sense motive, knowledge checks, perception checks, etc. I strongly feel that the more you can remove gamespeak (talking numbers, rules, etc), the better the story will be. Generally, the only time I roll in front of players are for crucial moments such as confirming a critical hit or a damage roll on a PC on the brink of death...and even then, it is not to show that I am being honest...it is to add tension to the moment.
As far as 'stat counting', I suggest not worrying about it. Tracking die rolls is the easiest way for players to gauge how they are doing during a battle.
|
|
To clarify my earlier statement: I do roll stealth/perception/bluff/sense motive/disguise in secret now and then. These rolls' whole raison d'être is information control.
However, everything else, in the open whenever possible.
---
@Rub-Eta: whether "all encounters are winnable" or "sometimes you should just run" is the way the game is played differs between groups. I actually like both styles. But it's best if all players know which style is being played right now.
If the player thinks "all encounters are winnable" is the rule, and then runs into an "unwinnable" encounter, it's logical that he'll be upset. He may be wrong, but his reaction makes sense nonetheless.
|
|
I agree that the player hasn't earned any compliments because of this escapade, true enough. Although, to make mistakes is human.
Historically, it's been known to happen that soldiers/officers thought the battle was lost, making them flee the field, while actually they were doing fine; it was just that the enemy looked in better shape/position than they actually were. This can happen to players in RPGs as well.
I suppose that in the heat of the moment, the best thing to do as a GM is to say "I know what I'm doing. But if YOU think you can't beat this monster, you should do the smart thing and get away." Only after the fight is over would you then demonstrate the real math.
Honestly, just have lots of different monsters.
There is no such thing as bloodied, and people are not entitled to information such as Bloodied--for aforementioned reason,--near death, injured, .etc. They are only entitled to know if their attack did anything to the target if it was entirely resisted via DR, Immunity or Resistances.
Just use a wider array of monsters, and don't name them. Monster 1, Monster 2, Monster 3.
A spider-like creature could apply to any of the outsiders that appear spider-esque, but also to spiders themselves since they are, by definition, like themselves if they are the definition.
Using this I've managed to make PCs who were fighting Kobolds think they are fighting kobolds with the Large template when they started fighting lizardmen. No skill check, no information beyond the most basic description possible.
One tip is to apply non-functioning descriptions. Normal Giant spiders can be described as "demonic" or from the "deepest pits of hell" by NPCs who are fleeing from them. These descriptors will then make the PCs act as though the monster is a sort of demonic or diabolical spider.
Remember, PCs are not entitled to the name of a creature even if they beat the identification DC. That offers aspects of the creature, but you never have to provide the name.
|
|
@Taku: I think you should be careful with those things.
It's okay not to give information that players don't have any way of knowing. And you can somewhat mislead players through the NPC descriptions of monsters.
But you shouldn't go too far with intentionally misleading descriptions, particularly first-hand observations by the PCs.
For example, the "demonic" spiders; if an NPC sees a particularly nasty giant spider he might call it a "demon spider". But if a PC who's seen both giant animals and demons sees it, it's better not to use the word "demonic".
The word demonic in everyday English could refer to things being actually demonic, or just being quite monstrous. In the game though, it's also a specific technical term. If you tell a player something is Demonic using your "this is what your character with Knowledge Planes sees" voice, the player will tend to assume that the spider has the [demon] subtype. Trying to fool the player with language games is not fair play, I think.
Because it teaches your players that they have to ask "when you called the spider demonic-looking, did you mean 'scary' or [demon]?" This is the slippery slope towards "gotcha!" gaming, where people are drawing up Wish contracts with ten pages of legalese, reading their trap-searching procedure from a two-page list of precautions for every 10ft they more and so forth. And then when they players forget to do this for one 10ft stretch of dungeon the GM squeals "hah!". Or the "but you didn't ask if there was a dragon in the middle of the room" classic.
That's ridiculous, no fun, and basically an exaggerated parody to illustrate my point.
Remember, PCs are not entitled to the name of a creature even if they beat the identification DC. That offers aspects of the creature, but you never have to provide the name.
This I disagree with. First off it would be rather silly if you happen to beat the DC by miles, get pretty much the entire stat block, but not be able to put a name to the thing you're facing. When people collect knowledge about species of animal, they generally tend to start with saying "black widow spiders are a member of the X family of spiders found in...", not "this is a black spider of X family found in ..., but we don't know what it's called."
Second, you do get the name, but it's somewhat implicit in the skill description.
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
You identify the monster - meaning you get a name for it - AND you get properties.
1) Is this an issue other DM's bother to deal with?
2) What options do I have for making the stats untrackable by observation? (outside of spellcasting/potions)
3) Should I begin concealing damage information, and taking the results of their hits through Skype? (Revealing only Bloodied, near death, injured etc...)
4) I've already spoken to him. Old habits are hard to break.
1: My lovable mr munchkin does this. I actually don't mind it. Though unlike yours mine hasn't been wrong yet about the stats.
2: This would be too much trouble over a non-issue.
3: No.
4: Poor guy hasn't done anything wrong... Even if your playing an immersive game as long as he refrains from telling the stats in character then you shouldn't have any real issues.
I just tell my pc's the monsters AC and hit points. I find that not doing so breaks immersion. The player characters are in that world seeing,smelling,feeling and hearing things the pc's do not. They would be able to tell if that wound they just gave the monster was a bloody gash down its side or a miss that nearly took its head off.
All the monsters and npc's know the parties AC and hit points. Even going so far as sometimes to ignore a heavily armored member in favor of a none armored member,after a few rounds of flailing away.
You know it's kinda funny if you think about it.
Don't tell him what the name of the monster is.
Don't tell him the AC.
Don't tell him the hit points.
Don't tell him the saves.
He is just swinging in the dark! Just swinging in the dark!
I can just hear my player now" Am I even playing right now? Do I need to roll? I'm rolling,My character is swinging for all he is worth! I rolled a 19 and have a +6.Is that anything? Do I need to roll again? I'm rolling again..."
I poke fun!
You know if you don't tell AC and hit points and instead just use GREAT descriptions in game to signify those things,then it doesn't matter.
The issue is I have never sat at a DM's table that did those things every single round.
If nothing else once 37 monsters hit the battlemap and all six players bellied up to the table it became a simple hit or miss with HP deduction thrown in.
If your DMing skills rock on a high enough level that those characters receive all those hundreds of clues to how its doing and how tough it is then who needs AC and hit points? Yeah those would be a distraction!
But for me,I am just not on that level. I don't think I have even used a blood trail in the middle of combat,most of the time I forget to even have the monsters make much in the way of noises in the middle of melee ect..
Yeah I'm not sure where the transgression is insofar as figuring an AC after a couple rounds. Him having that kind of breakdown instead of taking a second look is pretty poor play. But figuring out how difficult it is to do damage to a certain creature, and changing what you do based on that? How is that unacceptable? Why wouldn't trained combatants do that all the time?
If you want AC to be less transparent, roll a d9 - 5 (so use a d10 and reroll any 10s) every time an NPC or a monster is attacked and add the result to the monster's AC, that way every attack goes against a different AC without it having a different average AC than before, you simply have a range that goes from 4 less than normal to 4 more than normal.
If you want it to be less variable, it would also work with a d7 - 4, d5 - 3 or d3 - 2