Basically 1st level, 1st adventure, players don't want to think, use skills or do anything overly hard. They want the combat intro, they want to explode into violence and see what their party is made of in a softball encounter so they can gauge how well their powers work together.
There is a reason for the convention that most 1st level encounters are softballs. 1st level characters are exceptionally fragile. A single critical hit from a bow can outright kill some characters at first level, from full health to -con in one shot. They also have far fewer resources to undo what is done to them. Where a cure light wounds spell is hardly a worry at say 3rd level. At 1st level that might be one of two spells the divine caster can cast that day.
So yes, tactically complex encounters at 1st level are fairly rare. That is, with the assumption that you DONT want characters do die. If character death is a non-issue, then no big deal. But for many, that want a coherent story with character development, and intertwining plots, you need consistent characters. Given how easy it is for 1st level characters to die, it makes sense to employ softball encounters in the beggining.
Stupid mistakes or forgetting something can turn softballl encounters into challenging ones and challenging ones into deadly ones.
I recently played a 1st level PFS scenario where we
Basically 1st level, 1st adventure, players don't want to think, use skills or do anything overly hard. They want the combat intro, they want to explode into violence and see what their party is made of in a softball encounter so they can gauge how well their powers work together.
There is a reason for the convention that most 1st level encounters are softballs. 1st level characters are exceptionally fragile. A single critical hit from a bow can outright kill some characters at first level, from full health to -con in one shot. They also have far fewer resources to undo what is done to them. Where a cure light wounds spell is hardly a worry at say 3rd level. At 1st level that might be one of two spells the divine caster can cast that day.
So yes, tactically complex encounters at 1st level are fairly rare. That is, with the assumption that you DONT want characters do die. If character death is a non-issue, then no big deal. But for many, that want a coherent story with character development, and intertwining plots, you need consistent characters. Given how easy it is for 1st level characters to die, it makes sense to employ softball encounters in the beggining.
Ok, I get the fragility of 1st level PCs. I will also say that a crit at this level is likely a 10% chance, then it's gotta do that much damage lowering the insta-kill chance more, but still, I get where you're going.
Consider though that 1st level is hardly resource constrained. Got a 1st level spellcaster? They start with anywhere from 20-900 GP. Depending on their class/archetype they might not even need that much starting gear. What to do with the extra cash? Scrolls and other consumables. If they begin with either Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion, half cost; if you're using the Ultimate Campaign Downtime rules they're even cheaper.
I had a wizard that was allowed in my game to begin with 16 scrolls for the cost of 100 GP using all of the above. Since he began with a background of knowing the cleric ahead of time they began with 8 Cure Light Wounds spells. Those scrolls, plus daily spells, cantrips and a bit of resource management carried them through all of level 1.
But whatever I get the point; they're squishy.
The other point with my post though is that 1st level, adventure 1, no one seems to want to use their skills. I mostly see Perception and Survival being used. I had a GM almost pop a blood vessel when, on a first level exploration adventure I asked if I could use Profession: Trapper plus Knowledge: Local to gauge the activity of small game in the hinterlands. There were rumors of goblins in the woods and I wanted us to avoid an ambush so, to double down on our Perception rolls I figured if I could get a handle on where the woodland creatures were being driven into hiding or otherwise disappearing this might be a good indicator of potential danger.
GM mind blown
I'd argue that 1st - 3rd level are the BEST time to use skills. All your skills, even the untrained ones you don't have ranks in. After 3rd you've got minor divinations that you can throw on scrolls that start to obsolete or super enhance some of them.
But yet in my games the first run out players want a toe-to-toe fight with 3 goblin warrior 1. They don't want to reason out why a "monster" is being nice to them and leading them somewhere, they don't want to try and figure how an area of "forest" is suddenly "Marsh" terrain, they don't care about the history of a town, etc.
For example: how many GMs put together a stat block for their settlements? If your player starts in a settlement, do you show them the statblock? For me and mine I don't reveal the full statblock but I play up the Qualities and list off the pro's and con's like "in this town searching for Lore is easier because they do more rumormongering than fishmongering, however it's fairly lawless so calling for the Law or getting them on your side is pretty tough."
Never once, in all the time I've bothered to make a statblock for a town, has anyone ever done any major research in town. Not just starting out mind you. Once they have a handle on who their villain is or what plot hook they're hunting up they MIGHT look for something in town, but more likely unless they have to talk with the NPCs in the settlement they'll go right after the hook trusting their own Knowledge checks unaided along the way.
Why even BOTHER to write up a town?
Ok, rant over. This is all anecdotal and pertains only to my games/players. Your games are probably all much different. Getting back to my point I still stand by my assessment that, 1st level/1st adventure players don't want to do that much thinking/planning. They're eager to get adventuring, they want action, and they want to see how their PCs function together. The best way to test all that is a straight up fight, so that's what they're jonesing for.
Cuup you missed my post. Here it is againAnyone in my Tuesday Campaign in Cohoes, please do not read this thread - it contains spoilers.** spoiler omitted **...What hints did you drop and how did you lay out that it would be "this" type of campaign to the players. Maybe they did not get it. As a GM there were times when I thought I was being absolutely clear, but the players did not get it. Also how much of a departure from your normal GM'ing style is this? Maybe you said this would be a dangerous campaign, but sometimes players don't understand something until the experience it.
With the GM's I have had I never would have followed some random creature anywhere without asking questions first, but they not have had the experiences I have had.
Sorry about that.
This was basically a flip-flop from the first session of my last campaign, where the PC's killed a Ratfolk NPC that was sent to parley with them. That was mildly understandable, though - he was quite a sketchy fellow. But there we go: my players have, on many occasions, refused to trust NPC's that don't appear trustworthy in the past. And they've also left their trust in sneaky NPC's who end up stabbing them in the back. Social misunderstandings are in no way unheard of in my campaigns, and we always embrace them. I thought I was fairly clear in previous posts, but I just want to take this opportunity to spell this out: I'm not upset at how events unfolded. I've had to build story hooks out of the ashes of failed ones in the past (the Ratfolk NPC's employer managed to replace him with one of the more naive PC's using a contract with a hidden Gaes Spell), and I'll certainly do it again. I may have come off as flustered in my original post simply because I was just SO confused as to their behavior. Thanks to this thread, though, some of the light has been shed.I believe I answered your second question, so I'll try to answer your first one now. The last campaign was Gestalt/Mythic. Book-keeping suuuuuucked! It was a pretty big oversight that it would be so hard for everyone to keep track of themselves, but it was also very fun, so we decided to stay with it. Toward the end, many minor inconveniences like looking up the exact DC for certain skills, making sure you didn't get lost, etc. took a back seat in light of "we're freaking demigods". In addition, my campaigns have never stressed carrying capacities, food rations, etc. When planning this campaign, I figured that if we could book-keep Gestalt/Mythic, then going straight up PFS should be a breeze. With the new strictness of rules, I figured I should make the world at large tougher too, and warned the PC's that "being unprepared for common obstacles could very well result in death, as well as not thinking clearly. Chasing down a man who mugged you and murdering him in the street would likely get you jail time, if not worse, depending on other circumstances. Having no way to deal with a flying enemy by even second level will most likely result in a forced retreat. I'm here to help tell your story, and I won't hand out free passes unless they are well deserved." That is the type of campaign they knew they were going into.
|
This is a great story in trying to teach newbies to learn to use Sense Motive. It tends to be a very underrated skill; newer players simply don't think to use it. Even experienced players can forget about it since it has to be something they proactively think about using.
Players should be suspicious during conversations with NPCs.
If they are new players, it's worth asking them all to roll sense motive to see if they passively "feel something might be off". Train them into thinking they should be more aware of potentially dangerous situations or bad decisions.
Train them into asking you for those rolls, rather than waiting for you to help them get lucky enough to notice something might be wrong.
|
True, but often thats worse than being a murder-hobo. They don't follow the quest hook, they don't murder the npc...in fact, nothing much happens at all except a lot of arguing about whether they should trust the NPC or not.
For many years before I became a DM I saw a lot of this kind of behavior. The Cleric doesn't trust the NPC, the Fighter and Barbarian want to kill it on the spot but the Paladin keeps arguing with them about his code while the Rogue and the Ranger sneak off following the NPC's tracks back to the dark cave where they loot and murder the whole place by themselves.
Of course the Rogue and the Ranger catch flak from the rest of the group for going off to get all the treasure and XP while the rest of the group stood around doing a dress rehearsal for ethics 101, save for the paladin who simply threatens to lock them up for drawing their weapons. Later that night the Ranger murders the Paladin in his sleep and runs off into the night while the Wizard, who hasn't said a word the whole time, turns out to be the Paladins best friend, starts raining down flame strikes in the darkness. The Rogue takes advantage of the distraction to slip the Paladins big magic sword into his bag so he can hock it later when they get back to town.
Sigh...when I started to DM I very carefully examined what was at the root of these kinds of dynamics, and it usually boiled down the DM being unclear, or just a lack of communication between the DM and the players overall. Thats one reason I say drop certainties, not hints.
Interesting.
In my general experience it boils down to "We roll some Sense Motive checks and ask it some questions" not "We all murder each other" but maybe my experience is atypical.
Any other fine folks who have binary games where the alternative to "Follow everything that even vaguely looks like a plot hook without question" is "Game collapses on itself instantly" every time?
It took me about 20 games of GMing to drill it into players that they'll have more fun if they cooperate with each other.
Once you get past that first long bumpy stretch though, they learn quickly, and I can now safely put my PCs in the same house as the Lawful Evil ruler of a city without them either falling wholeheartedly for traps or trying to kill the Level 12+ wizard with Level 10 guards that said ruler is.
It never ceases to amaze me. Why is it that every player expects their first level 1 adventure to be nothing more provocative than 4 goblins ambushing a caravan? In my experience it doesn't matter if they're seasoned players or not. Its like we GMs are expected to provide a refresher course in the absolute basics of straight up combat and nothing else for the first adventure.
Recently I had a new campaign start. I warned of dragons, gave dragon details in the backstory, and even worked a dragon attack into one guy's backstory with his permission. I also let everyone know there'd be kobolds who've existed here for centuries.
First off the PCs meet their new contact in town: Rowana Thrune, a mousy human female wizard on the small size for her race. She invites them in, casual get-to-know-you in the parlor, then she continues into her hall. Said chamber is bedecked to the nines with all manner of food, wine, beer, etc.
Rowana goes as nuts as the barbarian. We chat, crack some jokes but the players seemed to want to gloss over it so I just narrated. Not a one stopped to quetion how a woman, 98 pounds wet and looking to be in her early 40's was able to put away half a honeyed ham, a loin of lamb, and several other foodstuffs washing it down with an entire cask of beer.
So then on to the adventure. They head to the site, find shriekers lining the shore of a murky bog from the middle of which rises a cliff-lined islet. Theres a narrow landing and a steep rise between the cliffs atop which is the ruin they need to explore. Again, they've been warned of kobolds with lots of history in the area.
What follows was a tactical nightmare for the PCs. Sparing you the details the end result was that three kobold warrior 2 snipers are behind some boulders peppering the party with ranged fire while an adept 3 supports/buffs them. 2 guys not built for range attacking from the shrieker shore, one guy dies getting to the islet, and the last 2 PCs finally make it into melee where the kobolds die like kobolds should....
Actually, in many ways you are. The first couple of encounters in a campaign, at any level, should be refresher courses. The players are not used to how their character operates either alone or with the group as a whole. A couple of encounters that serve as warm-up exercises are usually a good idea.
I hate murderhobos. I find the label utterly hilarious and, sadly, perfectly fitting in far too many situations, though. I wish PCs would put more thought into their actions. Generally, though, they don't.
I've had PCs attack a tribe of lizardfolk who were out bathing and doing their daily chores because they were in front of a cave that purportedly contained a dragon. Poor lizardfolk fled for their lives back into the cave, but most didn't make it. The lizardfolk weren't doing anything wrong, hadn't hurt anyone, and weren't even affiliated with the dragon. They had lived in the cave complex for a long while (more than one generation). They were neutral. The characters never gave them a second glance.
I've been a player in games where we invaded places just on rumors and when the inhabitants defended themselves we took them out. In most cases I try to play my character and I'm not averse to protesting actions or even abstaining when it makes sense. It can lead to conflict between players at the table, though, and that's no fun, so many times I just give in and do as the group does.
But I hate murderhobos (both as a player and a GM).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the new strictness of rules, I figured I should make the world at large tougher too, and warned the PC's that "being unprepared for common obstacles could very well result in death, as well as not thinking clearly. Chasing down a man who mugged you and murdering him in the street would likely get you jail time, if not worse, depending on other circumstances. Having no way to deal with a flying enemy by even second level will most likely result in a forced retreat. I'm here to help tell your story, and I won't hand out free passes unless they are well deserved." That is the type of campaign they knew they were going into.
That might have gotten them thinking more about tactical/survival situations than social investigation - and by talking about not being able to murder a mugger without consequences you might have primed them to look for nonviolent solutions.
So I'll try to be as clear as possible. The narrow question you are posing here is only a symptom of why your game 'flopped' as you put it, and is not addressing the cause. Personally I wouldn't say your game went that badly, seemed fine for the most part, but if you want to know why your players did not pick up on or react in the manner you expected it is because you did not provide clear guidance, not necessarily because of a lack of hints or skill checks. Now I'd say in the circumstance you outlined it was a fairly minor communication gap that would be pretty easy to fix, but you have to understand the principles at work in order to do that, which could save you from bungling something big later. I'm not the only one trying to point this out to you either, there are at least 3 others who have echoed the same sentiments.
As one of the people who echoed some of the same sentiments (namely, StFranciss' concerns about murderhoboing) I disagree.
There are a wide variety of viewpoints on this thread, many of which completely validate Cuup and place the blame on oblivious players. Cuup to his credit is listening to those who say that minor changes to the game - more clues, including skill checks - would probably be sufficient. It is not reasonable to expect that someone should make major changes to their GM style when minor changes may fix the problem.
While others have agreed with you on some points - such as the fact that cooperating with the GM can override better judgment and that it's important not to make your players paranoid - I think you're the only person who has suggested outright telling the party that they're walking into an ambush.
Letting players work things out based on the presented clues works at many tables. The enjoyment of investigation and surprise can outweigh any frustration from unclear clues.
As one of the people who echoed some of the same sentiments (namely, StFranciss' concerns about murderhoboing) I disagree.
There are a wide variety of viewpoints on this thread, many of which completely validate Cuup and place the blame on oblivious players. Cuup to his credit is...
My point wasn't tell the players every time they are wandering into an ambush. I ambush PC's all the time without them knowing.
Cuup seemed perplexed as to why his players didn't pick up on the clues he left for them. My first point was simple, don't leave clues. It leaves too much open to interpretation. Hence the problems that others pointed out with certain types of mystery/investigation games. I also pointed out that he needs to be clear on what the mindset of his players was, why they were following along with the NPCs-ie was it that they did not pick up on the clues or did they just want to see where it was going?
The solution to both of these issues is pretty clear, just talk to the players and find out if they missed the clues or were following along because they wanted to see where it lead. Then just make sure you set basic expectations about the game with them. Clear communication will solve the issue.
If it is a no-holds barred campaign where the NPC's will try to trick and deceive them or stab them in the back...tell them that, that way they still trust you as the DM, just not your NPC's. Otherwise you may start molding a group of paranoid DM-hating murder hobos. It doesn't mean give every secret or hook away, or tell them when they are getting ambushed. The point about clues is to make sure they understand the context and meaning you intend...IF you want them too understand the clues.
I wasn't suggesting Cuup change his DM style, most of this issue could be addressed out of game simply by making sure you lay out the basic expectations for the game.
Anyway, I hope I can lay the confusion over my point to rest now. I wasn't going to respond to this again but I can't let the last word be "you told people to give away when they are being ambushed"...because that is a massive misinterpretation of my post.
Cuup you missed my post. Here it is againAnyone in my Tuesday Campaign in Cohoes, please do not read this thread - it contains spoilers.** spoiler omitted **...What hints did you drop and how did you lay out that it would be "this" type of campaign to the players. Maybe they did not get it. As a GM there were times when I thought I was being absolutely clear, but the players did not get it. Also how much of a departure from your normal GM'ing style is this? Maybe you said this would be a dangerous campaign, but sometimes players don't understand something until the experience it.
With the GM's I have had I never would have followed some random creature anywhere without asking questions first, but they not have had the experiences I have had.
Sorry about that.
This was basically a flip-flop from the first session of my last campaign, where the PC's killed a Ratfolk NPC that was sent to parley with them. That was mildly understandable, though - he was quite a sketchy fellow. But there we go: my players have, on many occasions, refused to trust NPC's that don't appear trustworthy in the past. And they've also left their trust in sneaky NPC's who end up stabbing them in the back. Social misunderstandings are in no way unheard of in my campaigns, and we always embrace them. I thought I was fairly clear in previous posts, but I just want to take this opportunity to spell this out: I'm not upset at how events unfolded. I've had to build story hooks out of the ashes of failed ones in the past (the Ratfolk NPC's employer managed to replace him with one of the more naive PC's using a contract with a hidden Gaes Spell), and I'll certainly do it again. I may have come off as flustered in my original post simply because I was just SO confused as to their behavior. Thanks to this thread, though, some of the light has been shed.I believe I answered your second question, so I'll try to answer your first one now. The last...
Thanks for the reply. The players might just have to learn by experience if this play style is new to them. Sometimes what players expect is not what happens.
It might take your players a few sessions to get used to this new world, and you might want to advise them to invest in sense motive if they have a problem with trusting the wrong people.|
|
Detoxifier, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood what you meant by "give certainties not clues." I would definitely agree that if players do something that confuses you, you should ask for their reasoning - either after the session or even at table if the consequences are serious and immediate (such as a cleric displeasing their deity).