| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I feel like I need to get some other opinions and/or points of view on some things. But mostly I need to get these off my chest in some way before I say something a bit more harsh than it really deserves. No I don't always see a solution to all these, but I still feel the need to mention them.
These may or may not be related in anyway except they have been bugging me.
[rant]
1)
Group makes 90% of their next character decision in isolation from the rest of the group and probably prior to knowing anything about the campaign. You get things like: assassins and paladin’s in the same group, lizard folk swamp druid in courtly intrigue setting, or no casters/support characters.
I actually have no problem with that. It happened all the time in days gone by. But the players and/or player characters were expected to deal with the consequences of their decisions. The assassin and paladin would have to figure out how to deal with each other (or not and death occurs). The druid might have to shape change into something that would be allowed or could sneak into the castle. The PC’s would have to make plans to deal with having no casters or support characters.
Most of the groups I have encountered in the last several years feel it is the GM’s job to take care of all that. The GM is supposed to come up with a plot hook sufficient to keep the assassin and paladin on the same page and at peace. The GM is supposed to change the setting such that the lizard folk is allowed into the castle and treated like everyone else. The GM should provide magic items such that the lack of casters is not a problem or change the opposition such that casting isn’t needed.
This bugs me. Both as a player and as a GM. Where is the risk, challenge, or sense of accomplishment if the GM just changes things until whatever weird whim I have works? Why would bad guys make poor decisions only because the players didn’t bring a caster? And why on earth should the GM be responsible for managing the poor social compatibility of the PC’s the players brought to the table? Back in my earlier gaming days we didn’t construct perfectly compatible parties. But part of the fun was figuring how to make it work. I never wanted the GM to just make all the issues go away.
2)
Huge variations in system mastery, optimization, and/or tactical capability of the players (not the PC’s). Sometimes related to the previous section but often not. This is more related to the constant increase in complexity of the game since early versions. Back in the first versions Every fighter was about like every other fighter. So if you didn’t know the combat system all that well, you were still not much less effective than the anyone else playing the same class. That is clearly not the issue anymore.
My current group has some huge mismatches. One guy is relatively new. His PC’s tend to not be built very optimally and he doesn’t know all the things that are possible or advisable to do with them. We are willing to give some advice, but not everyone likes that kind of advice. Another guy is not very tactical. He can’t seem to get it into his head that immediately charging with the biggest stick is not always the best idea. Another guy doesn’t like to plan his builds very far in advance. He wants to just see what seems to have been needed lately and add that to his characters. Another guy wants to be extremely tactical and have the group function like some sort of trained special ops team.
I understand this is just sort of the nature of gaming today. But again, it bothers me that the GM seems expected to resolve all or at least most of this. The GM is supposed to have encounters that challenge everyone relatively equally and don’t threaten anyone too much. Even if it means the bad guys use stupid tactics. The GM is supposed to see to it that they guy that doesn’t optimize isn’t threatened as much. The guy that doesn’t use tactics is still successful if he does a good job of leading with his chin. The guy that does use tactics should also be able to make that shine.
Again, both as a GM and a player I would prefer it if a group would protect the new guy while he learns (make suggestions and teach him), in character make plans and train the charging guy to work with the tactical guy. Etc…
But that doesn’t seem to be what groups want. They want the GM to ‘make whatever I want to do work out’ for everyone.
Note: I understand and agree with taking it easy on the new guy. But that assumes he’s working at getting better, not that I will be taking it easy on him forever.
A)
Magic and high level characters are a part of the pretend world we have created together. The PC’s are not the only ones. Any intelligent prepared individual should already have planned to deal with that.
If you try to cast charm person on the king, he probably has a ring to block that (or a caster to counter) and archers ready to pin-cushion you for trying. Player characters will have a bunch of gear and plans for various things. But it’s expected that the political leader of a nation will be completely defeated by a 1st level spell. Come on…
B)
This made up world has laws and other people in it. If you break the laws or do bad things to the people in it, bad things might happen to you.
“What do you mean I’m under arrest for murdering the prince? He was a bad guy and I’m a good hero!” Seems to be a pretty common attitude.
A couple years ago, one of my groups attacked a slave camp and freed the slaves. All well and good. Properly understandable, in-character, and heroic. But they immediately followed that up with going to the constable and telling them all about it.
The players were very upset when I said “The constable is going to try and arrest you now. Roll initiative. What? Why? We stopped a bad thing.”
Note: Slavery was not only legal it was one of the major industries in that nation. So from that constables point of view; they just walked into the Chrysler plant, murdered the workers and managers, in order to steal all the cars.
Not quite murder-hobo, but most of the players I encounter don’t want to have any negative consequences for what they do. When I am a player, I put a fair amount of effort into ensuring I have proof of the crimes for the people I stopped, that no one knows I did it, or some other plan to handle the consequences. Everyone seems to look at me like I’m an idiot for spending time on that stuff. “Who cares? We’re the heroes, so what we do is good.”
C)
Predictable behavior. Players want their tricks to always work. I think it makes sense that other intelligent opposition will adapt.
Last year a group had an archer and fire blasting sorc that were doing most of the killing. Fireball the mooks and pincushion the leader. Over the course of 6 levels (in-game about 2-3 months) they were almost exclusively combating the forces of one single high level, very intelligent, Machiavellian, wizard ruler. They got upset when the hunter groups being sent after them started being equipped with scrolls of mass resist energy fire, obscuring mist, wind wall, alchemical ice, etc… Or that a bunch of invisible guys would try to close with the archer and sorcerer for grapples.
How could anyone possibly expect them to not plan for the PC’s obviously always using the exact same tactics?!?
The players seem to expect the bad guys to never learn from their mistakes/defeats. This feels especially inconsistent when you consider that in 1) the GM is supposed to tailor every encounter just for the PC group.
i)
T-Ball in the major leagues.
“I added a bunch of skeletons and zombies on to the end there just so you could blast them and feel powerful.” Really? I’m supposed to feel good about my 14th level PC using an extra channel to blast apart some level 1 monsters? Especially after you keep telling me you gave me yet another slow pitch for an easy win.
Are you trying to say that’s what you want me to do for you when I’m GM?
ii)
Monty-Haul GM’s giving and/or players expecting hugely powerful weapons.
Ok, now the skill with which I play a character and the time I put into building it are completely irrelevant because any commoner could win when the 2nd level character has a +4 holy avenger with a special purpose, 4 exceptional abilities, and the spirit of a helpful paladin.
Now everything is easy OR the GM scales the encounters up so much to make it a challenge that a single bad roll of the die results in a TPK.
iii)
Incomprehensible Adventurers.
Some players want to bring in PC’s whose personality and or build make no sense in a cooperative team setup (or at least not for that specific campaign/group).
One player brought in a PC that was apathetic. He didn’t care about or want to participate in anything. He expected the rest of the party to constantly cajole and convince him all the time about everything. Then he was irritated when we got tired of it and would just say what we were doing. If he didn’t follow, we’d just leave him behind.
Another had a PC that was “ruled by the Lords of Chance” in all his actions. He constantly rolled a dice to see what his character would do even if it ended up being disastrous to the rest of the group.
If we were really playing in-character we would have kicked both of those guys out of the team. You couldn’t count on them and they were more trouble than help. But if we said anything about it they got all offended since “I’m just role playing his personality!”
“Yeah and I’m role playing my PC’s personality which is not to put up with that bull carp any longer.”
iv)
Specialized to the nth degree. {{ I am aware this is personal preference, yet it bugs me so I’m putting it in the list. }}
Some PC’s are so unbelievably specialized that they are boring and or nearly unplayable.
Ex: Couple of weeks ago I was at a table with a guy that has played his wizard up through 10th level. A wizard is arguably the most versatile class in the game due to its truly monstrous spell possibilities. Other than 1 spell slot left open at each level, every prepared spell was scorching ray with some sort of meta magic to fill in the higher levels. All of his meta magics (including the rods), feats, traits, and class abilities were just for more fire damage with scorching ray.
He had the ability to change the energy type, but wouldn’t. Even if a creature was very resistant to fire he would still use fire. He would only switch it if the opposition was completely immune to fire (and he’d still try fire first to make sure it wouldn’t work).
Really? That’s fun for you? Week after week? I’m tired of just being in the party with that PC after just a couple of hours.
We had an even worse problem with a gnome illusionist constantly failing to trick the almost constant undead with his illusions.
v)
Cheating in a cooperative hobby?!?
Really? In this make believe, cooperative, team game you still feel the need to cheat? Whether it’s the pre-rolling until you get a good number, consistent math errors in your favor, always forgetting to mark down that you already used that ability, only reading the part of an ability that works out best for you, etc…
Yes, mistakes happen. I have no problem with that. I sometimes make math errors, forget to draw a line though a cast spell, or misremember the text of a feat. None of us are perfect.
But some of these guys it is such an obvious pattern that there is no way it is an accident. I just don’t get it.
vi)
Last but not least. I'm really getting tired of the people that whine and complain about the people that are willing to GM. But heaven forbid they will ever take a stab at it themselves.
No we are not all equally great. I would rate myself as only middlin good. But if you won't even give it a try, I think you should just keep your mouth shut.
Note: Constructive assistance, especially when requested, is appreciated. B#~+*ing, moaning, and insulting is not.
[/rant]
Ok, thanks for the opportunity to get that out. That was even more than I expected when I started.
If you have any opinions on any of the above or want to add to the list, feel free.
(Steals baseball knocked over fence into my yard)
Right there with ya, man.
|
This is why I screen my players for campaign games. I dont mind occasionally rolling with some joker but I dont want to roll with them every week. I think it helps to remind yourself a few key ideas;
There are many different playstyle preferences, there is no badwrongfun or onetrueway.
When playing organized play you need to temper your expectations.
Instead of leaping into a long term campaign (especially with peeps you dont know) try one shots first to see how well y'all get along.
Your best friends sometimes make the worst gamers. You can lead a gamer to mountaindew but you cant make them drink. You have two choices in this instance, either you refrom with a group with like minded play-styles, or you except a compromise with your current players/friends. Trying to change or make players play a certain way usually leads to failure.
"players just dont play that way anymore" "thats how it is now" "X has ruined table top playing it's a bad influence" are not helpful statments you should re-think them if you are having them.
Ahmen Brother.
Man you hit the nail right on the head there my friend could not agree more with EVERYTHING you said
This is why I screen my players for campaign games. I dont mind occasionally rolling with some joker but I dont want to roll with them every week. I think it helps to remind yourself a few key ideas;
There are many different playstyle preferences, there is no badwrongfun or onetrueway.
When playing organized play you need to temper your expectations.
Instead of leaping into a long term campaign (especially with peeps you dont know) try one shots first to see how well y'all get along.
Your best friends sometimes make the worst gamers. You can lead a gamer to mountaindew but you cant make them drink. You have two choices in this instance, either you refrom with a group with like minded play-styles, or you except a compromise with your current players/friends. Trying to change or make players play a certain way usually leads to failure. ...
I did not start any of the 3 groups I occasionally play with (only a regular game with one of them). I am an add on to existing group when I moved into the area with all 3.
Yes, I don't have nearly as high of standard for PFS play. But I do also use that as a 'interview' to check people out before I suggest them for invitation to the regular home group.
I have been considering starting a new group from scratch. But not sure I have the spare time in my schedule. I'm also at least somewhat concerned that it will generate some bad feelings with the current group. Still thinking about it.
Yes, I know different people like different things. Most of these items are not show stoppers that will make me quit a group. They are more in the nature of minor irritants.
I have been more or less dealing with them within the groups as best I can to comply with the current group expectations. However, that doesn't mean I don't find it bothersome or difficult to understand sometimes.
The only ones I can't really deal with are when the players expect the GM to manage the PC's incompatible social interactions and the cheating. When I am GM, I am very clear at the beginning. You guys have to find a way to work together. When I am player I don't bring something vastly disagreement prone unless I'm sure the other player and I can work it out between us (I don't plan for the GM to handle it). Plus the cheating guy seems to have quit the group more or less permanently (oddly enough he seems to be an ok guy outside of the game).
... "players just dont play that way anymore" "thats how it is now" "X has ruined table top playing it's a bad influence" are not helpful statments you should re-think them if you are having them.
Which is a large part of why I posted them here rather than blowing up at the guys that are irritating me. ;)
Yep, pretty much agree with it all. I have one to add: inexplicable avoidance of technology (by players, not PCs.)
Despite working as an IT professional for many years, I remain a near-Luddite in that I own no "personal devices" (smart phone, tablet, laptop or anything similar), so I have to lug books around to my games. That's fine, I paid for the books, I may as well use them. No point in just letting them collect dust on the shelves.
We have one guy in our group, a long-time D&D/Pathfinder player who recently started GMing Pathfinder as well, that I just don't get. He doesn't have a great job and can't afford to buy all the books as they come out; no problem at all, I'm happy to loan mine as needed. But I've tried a dozen times or more to get him to use the PRD and he just will not remember how to get to it, or that it's even an option.
As a player he likes a lot of the spells outside the core books, and as a GM he generally is fine with us using them, but it irritates me when he sits at the table with his 'Net-capable phone in front of him and asks me "What book is this spell in? I need to check something in its description and it's not in any of the (2 or 3) books I own."
So I'm supposed to page through a dozen print sources to look up something he could pull up on his phone in a few seconds?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the PRD and d20pfsrd.com are your friends. I've banged my head on my desk a thousand times because my group just refuses to use or even look at them.
*SHAKES FIST* Soddin' youngsters! How dare they come up in our GM lawn and expect us to not GM intelligently! I've got something for the little troublemakers...
*READIES CHRISTMAS SHOPPING CART... OF DOOM! YOUNGSTER HEELS BEWARE!* XD
Party imbalance: On the one hand I find this annoying, but on the other hand I find it hillarious... I like the rule of 'play what you think you'll enjoy playing, and my group is always pretty incompatible both in alignment and goals. The campaign world I'm running doesn't change to suit them though so they have to learn to manage that themselves. They are... slow learners... but lead a gamer to mountain dew and he will drink for a day... Teach a player to bring his own mountain dew and he can drink as much as he can afford.
Players that together leave huge gaps in their capabilities on the other hand are my bread and butter. I love showing a party its achillies heel.
I do feel its the gms job to make the campaign as interesting/exciting/funny no matter what the players have chosen, so I do agree that the gm has all the responsibility there. Poor social compatibility is on the players to work out, and if thats a challenge? Well that can be fun! Poorly covering all the tactical/capability bases? Over specialized? Same deal. Being overspecialized is your characters CHOOSING FOR THEMSELVES the FLAVOR of more challenging that they are interested in... Makes it more... FUN! Its not the gm's job to 'solve' that problem... In fact its the gm's job to exploit that situation. Hopefully not in deadly ways but in ways that are exciting and interesting and humorous. Some players will be mega skillmonkeys. They dont want you to escalate and make every skill roll some nigh impossible feat... They chose their abilities because thats the area they don't want their character to ever fail at... They want the challenge to be something else... On the other hand some players will build a mega killer... They arent asking you to escalate and toss them tarrasque after tarrasque... What they're telling you is the challenge they're interested in isnt the one on the battlefield. They're challenging you to make stuff OTHER THAN COMBAT the challenge.
---Sooooo many gms seem to miss this point and go the opposite direction instead. ---
I'm not opposed to characters who try to only do what they specialize in so they succeed at what they're good at most of the time. The gm's job is to make sure they don't always have that option, but at the same time the gm's job is also to give them chances to show that they really are that good at what they've chosen to be good at. It is every bit as important to let them show off their strengths a little bit as it is to show off their weaknesses to them. There should be a balance of both in any 'good' session.
As for gaps in experience the balance to strike is 'making sure the inexperienced character knows what you expect him to know'... If he already knows it and is choosing to do something else... Let it go. But its absolutely the gaming table's job to create a better informed player. Nothing bugs me as much as a table that expects every new guy who sits down to have mastery. Where do new gamers come from anyway? Do you want your hobby to live or die? Get teachin. The more gamers the better I say. Players and GM's alike should either take time out during the session or after the session to show inexperienced players some other possible avenues they might like better. Don't force a decision on them though. Discovery and experimentation is one of the best parts of gaming, and not everyone wants to be optimized/minmaxed and on the bleeding edge of competence. Some folks want to be unoptimized specifically FOR the added challenge. Role with it.
As a GM again I suppose I do cater to the kind of group the OP is talking about because to a degree I am trying to make it so that a foolish character doesnt DIE every time he makes a bad decision... but by the same token if the dice say he didnt survive his own foolishness then he didn't survive his own foolishness... So be it. Not every foolish decision can be survived. I'd always PREFER the situation ended in interesting or funny or chaos, but the dice are also a player at my table and sometimes they say its time for a character to take a dirt nap.
As for consequences, that's TOTALLY the gm's wheelhouse. The gm has more control over consequences than anyone else... My table knows that its pretty much my mantra as a gm... What would be exciting, what would be interesting, what would be fun/funny, what are the consequences... Pretty much in that order... Nobody at my table thinks their actions will be without consequence, but as much as possible the consequences should be either exciting interesting fun or funny... the 'Deadly' part of consequences is the dice's job. Not the gm's. They know I want the consequence to be interesting and fun first, and only deadly as a last resort, so I do 'cater' to a reckless character's survival a bit... but they know no matter how many chances I give them to get out of a hairy situation, eventually the dice will catch up to them.
TBall in the major leagues? I totally do this. And I agree that gm's should. Every campaign should have a few moments where the characters get a chance to just lay waste to a hoarde or two... I get sick of games quickly where every little thing is some insurmountable task. I remember thinking about the starting stats for warhammer 1e... Functionally your chance of success at any given thing was less than 30%... You had a better chance of failing anything you did than succeeding. Sometimes by a wide margin. I walk down the street. 90% chance of failing... You fall and get run over by a horsecart... I know it wasnt that bad but fuctionally it was very much that silly. GM's these days are far too hung up on making things 'challenging'. Thats one tiny facet of the whole gaming experience and the more time and energy and effort you put into that the less you have to put into the other aspects of gaming... The exciting, fun, funny and interesting parts. If your table 'loves' storming the beaches of normandy with a spoon... well that's fun for them... so making everything challenging IS making it fun for them... They're kinda doing your work for you. But I don't know many tables besides wargamers that love every element of a world to be pushing their needles into the red every 20 seconds.
---More than anything else I see GM's using 'making things challenging' as a crutch to hide the fact that their games arent exciting, interesting, funny or fun.---
Agree with OP wholeheartedly about cheating... A player who cheats doesnt WANT consequences at all. They dont want to be gamers.
I refer to an older posting of mine in a short but sweet old thread about what makes a good game and what doesnt...
A post a little ways down that thread talks about the players i've got at my table and showcases the kind of experience I have with the diversity you're talking about having troubles with.
I was running a rifts campaign and Z was talking to a friend of his about how I'm able to pretty much roll with anything... He's like ok. What if I want my character in this mech heavy storming the citadel kind of campaign to instead be a super intelligent cat (not a catgirl... an actual cat) with superpowers of mind control!?!?! (which was simply the most ludicrous idea he could pull out of his butt at the moment). Z asked me about it. I'm like 'not only am I ok with it, we've actually got page numbers for him to create exactly that... Sure. Have him come by. And we did... And it was exciting and fun and funny to such a degree that the cat player went to one of his buddies and said 'come check this guy out. he said he's able to roll with anything and I tried it and it was pretty damn good'...
So a second new guy showed up and rolled up a mutant that could make toys come to life. And he also found the campaign to be exciting, interesting, fun and funny. Despite these two guys really having very little in common with the machine man black marketeer, coalition soldier, and wolfen quattoria hunting a royal kreeghor that were in the campaign already... That day he said to me he's never met anyone for whom dealing with diverse craziness seemed to come so easily.
If you stick with exciting, interesting, fun and funny you can't go wrong and suddenly even crazypants character combinations don't 'ruin the game'.
|
|
Which is a large part of why I posted them here rather than blowing up at the guys that are irritating me. ;)
Yeah thats my point ths isnt a place where "just us ol' fellas" hang out. "Dem Y type players, amirite? /wink-nudge. This is a hangout of people of all types of play styles so keeping that in mind keeps the place nicer to be around. which is why I try to look for solutions instead of complaining.
On the other hand, I know its often a cry that "Z has changed TTRPGs in a terrible way. Players just dont know today!!!1!!" For me this is a good thing. Players know what they want and have a easy way to raise a giant redflag that says "dont play with me." Its made forming long lasting cohesive and fun gaming groups so much easier.
I'd also refer you to Dragon Magazine Issue 124: August 1987: Front End Alignments by rich stump
and
Dragon Magazine Issue 144 - Apr 1989: Field guide to game convention ornithology by skip williams
These diverse playstyles have been together for decades. Even in convention play. I'd give you links to these online but i'm not sure thats forum legal... THey're not hard to find.
If you stick with exciting, interesting, fun and funny you can't go wrong and suddenly even crazypants character combinations don't 'ruin the game'.
Yep. This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*lurks on everyone's lawns*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a lot of what has been said. What I really don't care for is people treating this cooperative hobby as something to be competitive with.
We had an even worse problem with a gnome illusionist constantly failing to trick the almost constant undead with his illusions.Could you elaborate on this? From the phrase, "failing to trick", I assume he wasn't hitting them with Color Spray or other patterns/phantasms. What was he/she doing wrong?
It's been a couple of years and I wasn't the GM, so I don't remember exactly what spells he used. I just remember that most of what he tried to do were things undead were immune to. But he just kept trying because ... not sure.
3.5's Undead type traits made them, among other things, pretty much outright immune to illusions of any sort, with extremely few exceptions.
Most of these items are not show stoppers that will make me quit a group.
Heh. Well, you're a better man than I! A few of those things would be show-stoppers for me (and for my friends).
And while there is certainly no "onetrueway" in an objective sense, there sure as hell is a onetrueway for our individual group. Conform, or GTFO. ;)
So I'm supposed to page through a dozen print sources to look up something he could pull up on his phone in a few seconds?
"No. Use your own device right in front of you (beside you) and look it up yourself." ;)
(My friends - and myself - would be pretty intolerant of this kind of thing. Such questions after a couple of times would be summarily ignored.)
i'm kind of a middle ground between old school and new wave. both DM and player. i generally prefer point buy and would rather that the campaign be tailored to goals that each individual player created for their character. more goals meaning more room to expand the campaign.
i give the party more say as a whole than the DM has an individual, by allowing the players to, choose a preferred power level, come up with each individual characters goals, and justify why the party is together as a group. new storylines can be introduced later as submissions, but while i support the new school concept of being able to buy or commission the magic items you need, or to craft pre game for a discount if you have the feats or skills, and can logically take 10. i support the old school idea that WBL is only for equipping new characters and that looted equipment will generally be stuff the NPC had, plus i support allowing NPCs to use both their treasure and their consumables to fight, such as giants drinking potions for example.
i'm also not very by the book on challenge rating to XP, you don't simply get XP for killing things, you get XP or levels or whatever by completing and resolving goals or objectives, by being engaging as a player, or by including hooks in your backstory. backstory won't grant too much power, but a character who accomplished more in their life or took riskier endeavors will be a bit stronger. however, starting a new character at APL requires a level of Reknown and Accomplishment equivalent to what the party has, though enough accomplishment could start you potentially higher. not in things you killed, but in objectives you resolved. some excessively mary sue ish objectives like "killed a god" are off limits as backstory objectives unless the rest of the group is really high level or has mythic tiers.
depending on the objectives you complete, you could get different rewards, though "Get Rich" isn't a legitimate objective without a good reason. as an example, "learn to fabricate artificial life" could be a legitimate goal for anyone with craft (Alchemy) or knowledge (Arcana)
the level of optimization you take, the power level of your race choice, how synergistic your starting build is, and how many extra attribute points you choose to take all count against your for creating an XP debt you are saddled with before you can continue to level. while you might be able to start higher level through backstory, that XP debt might slow you, but XP debts can also be taken to gain extra attribute bumps, extra feats, or even extra spells known, which can all also be gained by spending in game downtime training as freebie.
characters can end up wildly different levels, but the high level characters could end up less interactive and the lowbies could surpass them. Absent players also have to trust a priority order of trusted players to NPC their character in their absence, and NPCed characters can still gain XP. which isn't gained by simply killing things. training doesn't require a mentor, but it grants levels over time.
... allowing the players to, choose a preferred power level, come up with each individual characters goals, and justify why the party is together as a group. new storylines can be introduced later as submissions ...
Lordy, but I wish my players would do any of this!
Well, ok in fairness:
I have to say there is one guy that does write out an extensive backstory. However his hand writing, grammer, spelling, and punctuation are so bad I really can't read any of it.
Another guy actually develops a back story but doesn't want to write it out. He wants it to come out in the role play of the character. But he usually plays the stoic silent type and none of us ever figure out any of the backstory.
So to me as a GM those don't help.
I agree with a great deal of this rant. Things described in the OP (among other reasons) have kept me out of many a game. Some days it is just hard to overlook some of these problems, or if you'd rather, personal choices.
Yeah my group is quickly coming around to the idea of XPless play.
Incomprehensible Adventurers.
Some players want to bring in PC’s whose personality and or build make no sense in a cooperative team setup (or at least not for that specific campaign/group).One player brought in a PC that was apathetic. He didn’t care about or want to participate in anything. He expected the rest of the party to constantly cajole and convince him all the time about everything. Then he was irritated when we got tired of it and would just say what we were doing. If he didn’t follow, we’d just leave him behind.
Another had a PC that was “ruled by the Lords of Chance” in all his actions. He constantly rolled a dice to see what his character would do even if it ended up being disastrous to the rest of the group.
If we were really playing in-character we would have kicked both of those guys out of the team. You couldn’t count on them and they were more trouble than help. But if we said anything about it they got all offended since “I’m just role playing his personality!”
“Yeah and I’m role playing my PC’s personality which is not to put up with that bull carp any longer.”
I was actually the PC that got kicked out of the party. I was playing a magic resistant Barbarian who was not allowed to willfully resist a save against magic. And all the saves I made were against my party, including one time when the party was trying to rescue me with a teleport, and i resisted staying right where i was, in harms way (this was the first time that they actually knew something had happened and i'd resisted the spell). Between that and his lack of tactics he was kicked out of the group, and put to work somewhere else in the larger group that the party was working with (thus becoming an NPC).
The dynamic of how the characters played off each other and handled the situation made for great roleplaying (and fun memories).
I think there's a bit of a difference between "this guy just didn't work out with the rest of the party" and "this guy was designed in a way that s/he wouldn't work with any party".
History is the judge. Was the session fun? It was a success. It wasn't fun? Then the combination of character, dynamics, and circumstances was bad.
The best session I played was when a friend's character turned against us shortly before final battle because she choose to follow her dark elf father... She died during the session (killed by her future husband's character by the way) but it lead to the burial scene. GM wanted to end the session and campaign after the end of the battle but was brutally stopped by players who demanded to be allowed to describe preparation they take for the burial and the ceremony itself.
i prefer not to use XP in other systems, otherwise, i use the 3.5 Edition XP charts in combination with XP debts to balance overpowered races. i figured out an XP debt easily balances better than ECL after years of trying.
but it is very rare i play pathfinder, let alone run it. when i do run or play an RPG, it is something like a highly houseruled savage worlds, or something a friend gave me for free online.
i haven't played a full pathfinder game since 2011. except a handful of PBPs that never lasted. i allow extra boons, but the boons have debts.