|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I care that I have fun and that the players have fun. I can't stand it when my NPCs die in the first round of combat four fights in a row - I want them to terrify the players, then die. I exult when the players win by a hair's breadth. The most fun experiences for me as a player are when I am sure I am going to die and then I win anyway, and the most fun experiences for me as a GM are when I give the players the same experience.
Killing peoples' characters puts me in a bad mood unless they're somewhere they can get resurrected before the next fight. I hate making people unable to play.
If they're in Absalom in a not-time-limited scenario, though, the kid gloves come off. *Wicked Grin*
|
Yeah, I don't really care if they crush the scenario. It's certainly better than spending a half-hour in the boss fight biting my fingernails and searching for a way to avoid killing them.
Oh, I don't do that, either. I just kill the PCs if they can't handle the BBEG. PFS BBEG's aren't usually that hot.
|
|
I care that I have fun and that the players have fun. I can't stand it when my NPCs die in the first round of combat four fights in a row - I want them to terrify the players, then die. I exult when the players win by a hair's breadth. The most fun experiences for me as a player are when I am sure I am going to die and then I win anyway, and the most fun experiences for me as a GM are when I give the players the same experience.
Killing peoples' characters puts me in a bad mood unless they're somewhere they can get resurrected before the next fight. I hate making people unable to play.
I get that, but the authors set the difficulty, not the GM. You can only work with what you are given. If the PCs can kill all the NPCs in the first round, more power to them.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't really care if they crush the scenario. It's certainly better than spending a half-hour in the boss fight biting my fingernails and searching for a way to avoid killing them.Oh, I don't do that, either. I just kill the PCs if they can't handle the BBEG. PFS BBEG's aren't usually that hot.
Well, these days my wife is usually playing at my table. And "Angry Wife" is a condition that you'd better make sure is cleared by the end of the scenario...
|
|
Well, these days my wife is usually playing at my table. And "Angry Wife" is a condition that you'd better make sure is cleared by the end of the scenario...Yeah, I don't really care if they crush the scenario. It's certainly better than spending a half-hour in the boss fight biting my fingernails and searching for a way to avoid killing them.Oh, I don't do that, either. I just kill the PCs if they can't handle the BBEG. PFS BBEG's aren't usually that hot.
Meh. People at my tables know the risks. SO or not.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this came up in another thread. How many GMs out there care if the PCs thoroughly crush the NPCs?
I don't. But I don't like it when the PCs crush the NPCs before the first round is over, and some PCs don't get to act. Especially when it is the same PC multiple times.
The Bloodcove Disguise was pretty boring Monday night.
|
My goal as a GM is to make each scenario as difficult and yet non-lethal as possible for my players, while giving them an enjoyable role playing experience. In most cases it's irrelevant, and they can easily handle themselves against whatever is thrown at them which is fine by me. In a few scenarios - Risen from the Sands, Traitor's Lodge, Emerald Spire: Level 5 come to mind, there are spots where if I wanted to as a GM I easily could have killed PCs, but would have prevented people from playing a significant amount more, so to me there was no point. Things like that which pop up occasionally where I can knock people down, but not kill them are sufficient to hold up the challenge of the many easier scenarios.
|
|
Deaths become far more common as individual NPC attacks are able to bring PCs from single digit hps down to below CON. Especially PCs built with 8,10, or even 12 CON.
I also have had certain NPCs attack PCs who are down once the PCs display healing capability, particularly channels. The NPCs deserve at least a chance to win.
|
|
I only care if only 1 or a few PCs crush encounters and leave other PCs feeling useless. If everyone feels they contributed to a encounter curb stomp, I'm happy as a GM as everyone's having a decent time. If some people feel left out on the fun, I feel I'm not doing enough as a GM. I know that's irrational, as the scenarios are pre-written, and it's more the fault of some PCs annihilating challenges. That's why I make sure to ask everyone what they wanna be doing, even to make something up if not listed on the scenario and I'll adjucate accordingly.
|
|
As a GM I do care if the players smash their way through encounters. The problem with PFS is that it draws power gamers / over-optimizers in such a way that many adventures just aren't capable of handling it. I want the players to have a challenge and potentially fear for their lives even if the encounter isn't that hard.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I've found that a substantial number of the easiest fights in PFS can be made much, much more memorable through the creative use of tactics. If the players are tearing through a scenario, I'll often use better tactics. For example, in my capstone scenario, Encounter at the Drowning Stones, there's a phenomenal bottleneck that just doesn't get used properly in the written tactics. Making use of that bottleneck changes the encounter dramatically.
|
I try my best to craft the experience with tactics, vivid descriptions, snark from the NPCs, letting the PCs snark back, and making sure that I build something that makes the heroes feel like they have truly overcome something important and powerful.
Naturally all of this can be difficult if the PCs look at their numbers and shrug at whatever stands before them as a talking armor class with hit points, but not all players are like that.
|
|
I get that, but the authors set the difficulty, not the GM. You can only work with what you are given. If the PCs can kill all the NPCs in the first round, more power to them.
And since the authors often set the difficulty very low, certain groups aren't fun to GM for because there's never any combat, just "did Sarah roll a natural 1 for initiative, or did the fight end in the surprise round?"
|
I absolutely do not care if PCs crush encounters.
At lower levels, I try to have fun with NPC tactics or dialogue during combat (which players love throwing back in the NPCs' faces, all in good fun).
At high levels (9+ and especially 12+), I absolutely welcome PCs flexing their muscles and rolling over encounters when they can. I love seeing the things they can do...and at that level, I'd rather get the speedbump encounters out of the way in a round or two, leaving more time for RP or the tricky fights with weird mechanics/tons of mobs.
|
|
I do care when the PCs stomp the scenario, and it often isn't fun for me, for a couple of reasons.
First, I'm GMing because I enjoy being the storyteller, and immersing and engaging players in Golarion. It seems that in PFS, some players feel that a bad guy speaking is nothing more than an excuse to attack first while he's flatfooted. I also put a lot of prep into my games, building 3D terrain and custom maps and handouts in addition to knowing the story and encounters. Having none of that matter to the players is definitely not fun for me.
(And not everyone is motivated by table credit and 100% Chronicle sheets. I'm not against that outlook, but I don't share it. Perhaps if I did, I might be fine having a game end 3 hours early because the PCs stomped everything and didn't want to roleplay.)
Despite this, I love the tactical players who plan things out. Partially because they are then working as a team, which is the basis of the game, and partially because it removes the spotlight hogging that can go on with over-optimized PCs. To me, PCs winning because of smart tactics is great. PCs winning because they found a winning combination to destroy every scenario is not.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My satisfaction comes from seeing the players enjoy themselves. If that means they barely make it out alive but found it thrilling, great! If instead it means they roflstomp everything, then that's great too because it'll make the next near-death experience actually mean something.
EDIT: By the way, who's starting the "Player Fulfillment" thread?
|
|
Roleplaying can be a double-edged sword when you are up against a time slot. The biggest dangers are scenarios that are heavy potential roleplay up front with a ton of combat on the back end.
By the way, this thread is very much why I don't build world-killer PCs, even though I know all the math. I build PCs whose maximum effectiveness still leaves room for others.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the players' side of the GM screen, I don't have any fun at all when combats are a DPR contest between players rather than a true test of survival between the players and the NPCs. Rape is a harsh word to throw out there, but it does have an accepted definition as:
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
"the rape of the countryside."
Looking at rape in that usage, I don't have fun (on either side of the GM screen) when the players rape the combat encounters. Or to take that potentially triggering word out of the discussion, I don't have fun (even as a player) when the players roflstomp the opposition.
The players don't have to feel a mortal threat for their PCs in EVERY encounter, sure. But neither should, IMO, any combat last less than 3 rounds. Especially BBEG fights. When you're creaming the opposition in 1 or 2 rounds, what fun is being had besides showing off one's skill at munchkining? Being a munchkin is one kind of fun, and PFS GMs aren't there to judge one kind of fun as being more valid than others. But the problem with munchkins is their fun necessarily impacts other kinds of fun in a negative way.
When the entire party subscribes to the munchkin mindset, then that's fine and dandy for the GM to provide monsters to do nothing more than get torn apart like so much wet tissue paper. But how often is that really the case? I know it's never the case when I'm on the players' side of the GM screen. I cannot be convinced that PFS GMs do not have a duty to look out for the non-munchkins who want to do something other than roflstomp every encounter.
|
|
It's amazing how many GMs seem to think that (A) the only time a combat ends in 1-2 rounds is at the hands of a flooglewhump, and that (B) the only player that will ever enjoy such a combat is a flooglewhump.
You said it earlier, I agree but didn't happen to quote it.
My satisfaction comes from seeing the players enjoy themselves. If that means they barely make it out alive but found it thrilling, great! If instead it means they roflstomp everything, then that's great too because it'll make the next near-death experience actually mean something.
That being said, just because fights end quickly doesn't mean it's a bad thing. And that's not what I said.
I said when ALL the fights end quickly, AND there are non-munchkins (or non-flooglewhumps) at the table yawning at the pointlessness having spent the past few hours playing PFS, then that's a bad thing.
Being a munchkin isn't necessarily bad. As I said, that's a way some people like to play. And when everyone is on that page, that's great. But having munchkins and nonmunchkins in the same party is like oil and water... the GM has to balance two incompatible substances into one universally enjoyable play experience.
THAT is a challenge that I rather enjoy as a GM.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I only GMed for the table credit and 100% chronicle sheet I wouldn't care either. Of course, I wouldn't GM then unless I had to because I play PFS for the fun of it and if I am not having fun as a GM, I don't see much point in GMing. Personally, as both a player and a GM, I consider any combat that last less than 2 full rounds to be boring. The only exception to this are combats meant to be nothing more than a speed bump. In which case, the shorter the better. And while it could be argued that a GM's fun should take precedent over any one individual's fun at the table, it should never take precedent over everyone's fun at the table. So if the entire table doesn't mind rofflestomping the monsters before the end of the first round, then who am I to complain? On the other hand, if one player is totaling dominating combat by one-shotting everything in sight, then that is something I think I should be concerned with.
So, I am not against Nukes. But I am against the indiscriminant use of them.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's amazing how many GMs seem to think that (A) the only time a combat ends in 1-2 rounds is at the hands of a flooglewhump, and that (B) the only player that will ever enjoy such a combat is a flooglewhump.You said it earlier, I agree but didn't happen to quote it.
Said what earlier? I don't understand this sentence as a reply to the quote it follows.
That being said, just because fights end quickly doesn't mean it's a bad thing. And that's not what I said.
My satisfaction comes from seeing the players enjoy themselves. If that means they barely make it out alive but found it thrilling, great! If instead it means they roflstomp everything, then that's great too because it'll make the next near-death experience actually mean something.
Then it's a good thing I wasn't claiming it was what you said.
like oil and water...
Use eggs.
|
|
When I GM, I feel fulfiled if the players leave my table having had a good time. While I would like the PC's to feel as if they were being chalenged / threatened, I don't really mind if the PC's thrash the bad guys, so long as the PC's at my table each got to feel as if they contributed to the party's success. I get somewhat annoyed when one PC rolls all of the fights in a scenario before the other PC's get the chance to act. Table credit and GM chronicles are not a big factor at all to me when I choose to run a scenario. I started GM'ing to help share the GM'ing load at the FLGS where I play and run. I run scenarios to help out and hopefully provide an enjoyable experience to the players at my table.
|
Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Sheffield
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
'How' the players curbstomp an encounter matters more than 'if'. If encounters end in the surprise round because a one-trick-pony character uses their schtick for the fourth time, nobody gains anything from that. Watching six players coordinate a one round take-down that involves every character and leaves the villain alive to monologue, is a joy.
|
|
'How' the players curbstomp an encounter matters more than 'if'. If encounters end in the surprise round because a one-trick-pony character uses their schtick for the fourth time, nobody gains anything from that. Watching six players coordinate a one round take-down that involves every character and leaves the villain alive to monologue, is a joy.
+1 to this!
I like reading the Pathfinder wiki and getting to share all that sweet lore with players. I enjoy running fair combats where the PC's at least feel like they need to think just a bit. And I really want everyone to have a chance to do something fun.
I also like explaining the rules as I go at low level tables, but I've realized this can make me seem a condescending a$$. So I recommit to trust the players more after every game. I think I'm getting better.
But after just 43 tables I don't always take GM credit, and I like to GM things twice. If I'm not getting to play the character, I might as well just fill out hypothetical sheets on my own.
|
|
I don't really care what happens in the combat or how fast it ends. Truthfully, both as a player and as a GM, I generally find combat in PF to range somewhere between boring, mechanically dull, and/or downright distasteful. I don't play for the extended, number-crunching endless rounds of die-rolling fights, and I admit that as a player I prefer arranging for "shock-and-awe" tactics-- do your planning, set up the enemies well, successfully ambush them and get it over with-- quickly (not because I like munchkining encounters-- but rather, because I as a player just want to get it over with with all of the PCs intact). If you do it right-- then every combat should be over within 1-2 rounds... the hard part should be in the planning, preparation, and set-up; not the actual, brief seconds of shooting. When it gets long and drawn out-- it's probably because the enemy got their ambush on you and you should be feeling very lucky if you escape with your life. Of course, there I go bringing a more modern perspective where combat is not this great, glorious wonderful thing to be admired and held high in countless knightly romantic ballads.... (also, did I remember to mention that I play PFS because that's the only major outlet for RP I currently have, and that I play Pathfinder in general because that's what most of the people I know and game with are playing-- it's actually not my favorite RPG, although I do like Paizo as a game company more than most. The whole hit-dice/hit-points and their contribution to making combat a long-drawn out slugging match that has been a major part of every D&D-descended iteration is one of the prime reasons I'd rather look to other systems).
For GM fulfillment-- why, I get fulfillment when everyone at the table has fun, when we've collectively told a good story that was enjoyed by all, and especially when there was lots of good social role-playing going on at the table throughout the scenario (that's also what I play for). IMO, that doesn't have much to do with rolling the combats-- though it can be aided by how I as GM and the players describe the course of the fight. If the players curb-stomp everything and have a good time, I'm happy. If it so happens that the players do get in some long, drawn out, nearly-lethal battles, but they still enjoyed the game and did enough RP'ing to keep me entertained, I'm happy. I quite enjoy well-written social scenarios with little to no combat involved. But I just don't care at all about the course of combat for its own sake when I GM, only (at least a little) for the sake of how it affects the players' enjoyment.
|
|
Normally, I don't much care as long as the players are having fun. Occasionally, I get my hopes up when I hear that the scenario I'm running is particularly difficult. Then, when my players steamroll that, I get frustrated (but at myself, not them. See my post regarding running Rats of Round Mountain for example).
I have to admit, though. I'm currently running Bloodcove Disguise in a PbP, and there is one front-liner character who (due to bad initiative rolls) has done nothing in either fight so far. I'm not sitting face-to-face with them, so I can't tell if they're all having a grand time or not, but it doesn't seem very exciting to me to not get to play your characters strengths in the almost 4 weeks we've been playing.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I want
1) to have fun
2) for the players to have fun
3) for me to think that it mattered that I was the GM, that MY skills (be it roleplaying, tactical, improv, whatever, actually mattered).
I enjoy very different things with different groups and scenarios. Sometimes I enjoy playing the NPCs, sometimes I enjoy creating an interesting tactical challenge, sometimes I enjoy trying to herd cats without getting scratched (I generally love it when the players go off the rails).
Much of the time I HATE overpowered twinked characters that blow through the scenario, ESPECIALLY when the twink is dominating the table. But not always. Sometimes it can be hilarious, sometimes it means we can get the boring combat stuff out of the way and get onto something interesting. But when the scenario is mostly combat and all the combats end as soon as the twink acts then I quickly get bored.
@Jiggy - I am not saying all powerful characters are twinked out game breakers, but lots of them are. I am firmly of the opinion that overpowered characters played to the hilt are the biggest problem PFS faces. They've come very close to driving me from PFS several times and HAVE caused some local GMs to give up running games.
|
|
I also like explaining the rules as I go at low level tables, but I've realized this can make me seem a condescending a$$. So I recommit to trust the players more after every game. I think I'm getting better.
One thing you can try is making it clear that you will happily explain any rules and invite the players to ask questions. Before the game starts, ask them if they have any questions about their characters, different items, new rules, etc. If you have new players, ask them about their experience and comfort level with the rules.
Then, during the game, if you see a player having some confusion about a rule, explain that rule only.
This can help set you up as helpful resource while letting the players decide whether they need you.
|
|
The most important thing to me as a GM is that everyone has a good time. I prefer to try and ensure that everyone has a chance to shine, and I generally don't mind powerful characters as long as they don't hog all of the spot light. I generally don't mind the NPC's getting crushed, but I do like to occasionally challenge my players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone once told me that they like to play a little game they call "screw you, GM." The objective of this game is to seek out big, bad, scary monsters/encounters and shut them down so fast that the incredible awesomeness of the character builds is underlined. (I'm extrapolating a bit here, but that was my impression.)
My response to such behavior is to say this: it's impossible to grief me as a GM, because I WANT you to win. I will run the tactics as written and - on the few occasions that it happens - I will cheer internally when the bad guys actually get a few good licks in. But ultimately I am on the player's side. If they want to be awesome and totally roll over an encounter, then I will go to great lengths to make that character look awesome. (At the same time, I reserve the right to figure out a way to get the other players in the spotlight. It's their game too.)
So every now and again I will remind my players that they can take the gloves off because it's impossible to grief me. And every time I say it, it is a lie.
The truth is that I honestly don't care if an encounter (or a whole scenario) gets stomped. Most of my fun doesn't come from the combat. What I DO care about is the attitude that this is done with.
I have found there to be two kinds of player in my area who can roll an encounter. The first kind are those who invent unique, charming, INCREDIBLY powerful characters who are also a blast to interact with. The second kind of player either brings a two dimensional set of statistics to the table, or role plays every one of their characters like a badass marine on testosterone shots. I'm being generic here - there are a few 'marine' characters done well, and some of the the players I'm describing don't act like marines per se. However, they all tend to have a few traits in common. They brag about their characters excessively, compare DPR with players who aren't even interested in the comparison, and treat every single encounter as their time to shine. Simply put - they are selfish. These players are not there to have a good time in a group setting. They are there so that they can have a great time while the other people at the table watch.
If the scenario in question were Bonekeep, I'd be cheering them on. That sort of scenario is DESIGNED to be the challenge they are treating it as, and it's also designed so that one character cannot triumph over every encounter solo. But what if we are playing library of the lion? Or murder on the throaty mermaid? Maybe that player puts away his barbarian of awesome and pulls out his diplomancer bard of awesome, but that's not going to make the problem go away. It just means they're going to use a different method of spotlight hogging.
Want to bring an overpowered character who is a blast to interact with? I will be BEGGING you to come play at my table. Want to bring your marine mentality to a table full of marine mentality and take on Bonekeep while using teamwork? Fantastic. I had this happen recently, and it was a blast. This sort of behavior isn't bad on its own. It's bad when your fun gets in the way of everyone else's fun.
So honestly yeah... It IS possible to grief me. Not by ROFLstomping encounters, but while being a selfish player while you do it.
|
|
When playing, if the encounters seem too easy, I tend to Dwarven Door Game. When GMing, if the tactics allow it, I'll do the same. That said, I'm more than happy to let players roll over encounters if they're built to do that.
I just GMed Emerald Spire 1 and 2 on Friday and found plenty of ways to make some encounters difficult while using the listed tactics as well as allowing the players to shine at other points by wiping out some of the more trivial encounters.
Challenge when I can, but if I can't, it's still ok. I'm especially ok with it if a PC takes a risk to make it happen, but if they're just built that way, it's no skin off my nose.
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I view my roll as someone there to tell a good story and make sure my players have fun, so if the players are designed to roll over the encounter but are having fun so be it.
It is a little anti-climactic when the BBEG gets charged by a growth domain barbarian wielding a +1 Large Impact Bastard Sword, but that's what happens.
Edit: before anyone asks, the barbarian in question has a 7 wis and a 1 level dip into cleric for the growth domain.
|
|
I view my roll as someone there to tell a good story and make sure my players have fun, so if the players are designed to roll over the encounter but are having fun so be it.
It is a little anti-climactic when the BBEG gets charged by a growth domain barbarian wielding a +1 Large Impact Bastard Sword, but that's what happens.
Or if one PC sleep hexes the BBEG for the rogue to CdG him... I'm not one for anti-climactic endings. The scenario just doesn't feel complete without one. Both as a player and a GM.
I take my GMing roll as one to challenge the players. It is never me who actively sets out to kill a PC. That's all on the dice. But I will use tactics to the best of the scenario's capabilities to try to make the fights a little less than easy. This means luring PC's into traps, using group tactics, and the like, all within the confines of those enemies. Personally, I feel that steamrolling a scenario is no fun for me or anyone (because everyone thinks like me, right? =\ Not serious there, but can't help but feel there's a similar sentiment in most players). So I try to make it challenging but fun.
Many of the best gaming moments spawn from the tense situations adventurers find themselves in and eventually somehow overcome.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most important thing to me as a GM is that everyone has a good time. I prefer to try and ensure that everyone has a chance to shine, and I generally don't mind powerful characters as long as they don't hog all of the spot light. I generally don't mind the NPC's getting crushed, but I do like to occasionally challenge my players.
There are so many reasons I like you.
|
|
I share a similar opinion as many have already stated. As long as the whole table is having fun, then I am likely enjoying myself as well. However the thing I love in my games more than anything is theatrics, if the PCs are in character and making for a good story as they tear apart the NPCs then I am all for it.
|
|
I share a similar opinion as many have already stated. As long as the whole table is having fun, then I am likely enjoying myself as well. However the thing I love in my games more than anything is theatrics, if the PCs are in character and making for a good story as they tear apart the NPCs then I am all for it.
Pretty much this. There's plenty of cool cinema moments of the good guys beating up on hapless henchman. It's all in the presentation IMO. I don't think "challenging" them has anything to do with it. Memorable pfs moments to me have nothing to do with the numbers on combat sheets.
|
Basically, I want
1) to have fun
2) for the players to have fun
3) for me to think that it mattered that I was the GM, that MY skills (be it roleplaying, tactical, improv, whatever, actually mattered).I enjoy very different things with different groups and scenarios...
I can get behind this, except that from my own perspective, I would take our your first point.
If the players are having fun, and I think I helped with that, then I am naturally having fun.
If I challenged them, and they enjoyed it, then great. If my monsters were a cakewalk, but they enjoyed kicking butt, then wonderful. If there was a funny joke made during a RPing scene, and later it kept creeping back into character actions, making the table giggle, then hey...I've done my job to encourage a good time.
Example: during a two-slot gameday, I played a game the first slot, and the second slot I DMed.
In the first game where I was a player, the DM did not allow the PCs a surprise round, even though clearly we deserved one (we'd done everything in our power to make it happen, with an able scout, lots of planning, and a fairly flawless execution). The DM, though did not allow one mainly because 'the boxed text clearly doesn't allow for one'. It was a situation where the DM didn't want to allow a surprise round, because he felt like it would make the final combat too easy for us. We were all somewhat annoyed.
In the second game, where I DMed - with a different table of players - during the middle fight, the main character (a cultist-type) had a fairly long soliloquy about how 'I will feast on the entrails of your friends and loved ones, etc.' (something along those lines) When the group jacked him up the first round, before he had a chance to go (hps at -20 after it was all said and done), I went with it. I then RPed the guy, laying on the ground bleeding out. "But...But...I would have feasted on the entrails of your friends and loved ones. <gurgle>" The players chuckled at the 'delayed boxed text', and it became a running joke with the later fights.
As long as they're having fun, then I'm doing my job, regardless of what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in the game...and therefore, I am enjoying it.