So I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and she specifically asked if I had fun when we gamed. The obvious answer was yes. I wouldn't play if I wasn't having a good time. But another question was asked that got me thinking. Do you have more fun when you are really beating up the party? I thought about it for a second and I had to say yes. If the party is face-rolling an encounter I feel like it is more of a grind. I like to make the party feel frantic, as though they really have to fight for their life. In my opinion, a tense, frantic game is more enjoyable for everyone. Does anyone else feel this way? What makes you have fun as a DM?
|
I mostly have fun when everybody is having fun. Sometimes, it involves the players finding an encounter challenging or sometime, its that moment when players realize that everything is connected or get surprised by a plot twist. You know that moment when players have this look in their eyes, that they just figure out what was going on.
I have the most fun when people have to deal with unusual things in general, whether this be, everyone almost dying or they're trying to capture an enemy who is fighting to the death, or the party face is trying to convince a noble for support, etc.
I also like it when people do unusual things too, and react unexpectedly.
Like Eltacolibre, I enjoy those moments when the pieces of my plot start clicking into place in the player's mind. "Oohhhh! That's why that was there! That's why that guy did that thing when we were...!"
And like you, TrustNo1, it's when you have that balance between threat and success - when the players realize that this battle could go terribly, terribly wrong, and become more invested (and creative) and manage to survive! TPK are not my goal, nor much fun. Nor are "give-away" shows where the players dominate everything.
Sadly (and I confess one of my flaws as a GM here): I don't enjoy it when the players do something too unusual or unexpected. Often it is due to some exploit, or some synergy I didn't see, and then I have to try to patch things up on the fly to prevent the game from becoming trivialized. Yes - kudos to them for figuring out a creative solution. But not when it is due to an oversight or by gaming the system.
What is a ST?
"Storyteller"
"Storyteller"
cool thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to say I have the *least* fun when the players do absolutely no planning at all and the monsters beat them up. When there is plenty of information to be gained and the players don't even attempt to gain it, I get grumpy.
On the flipside, I love well-thought out plans and reward players for good ideas. I don't mind if the evil wizard gets ripped up in one round as long as there was something beyond blind luck that caused it. If it's blind luck, it's just funny.
I personally can't stand face-roll encounters. They become a tedious grind. I'm looking at my watch wondering how long it will take the level 4 characters to blow through the mite lair or goblin lair.
Oh, and I both hate and love murder-hobos.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is best in GMing? Crush the PCs. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their familiars and animal companions.
This is best in GMing.
Hear the lamentations of their familiars and animal companions.
Easy enough, since you voice them.
Do people not handwave away obvious one way encounters?
I enjoy when the players are excited and paying close attention to what ever is happening, games tend to drag whenever people tune out or are just waiting for their turn.
are my players looking forward to and having a blast on my game night y/n
if they are, then I sure as hell am as well
anything else I navel-gaze in regards to my own game derives from this first question
I have the most fun free-form role playing. My biggest strength as a GM is really strong characterizations and they're the most fun when I'm basically improving off of my players. I go into a dialogue with an idea of who the NPC is, what he sounds like and what his main motivations are and then just roll from there.
I like running combats for the most part and pretty much only use published material. But great role play and having interesting NPCs is what motivates me to keep coming back.
|
|
There are a myriad ways to have fun with TTRPGs. As GM I am happiest when I have a session that hits all the right notes. To steal some of the 5E designers "pillars of play" idea, I like to hit all pillars successfully in a session. That means fun exploration, combat, and social interactions.
For combat I go by the old saying sometimes you get the dragon and sometimes the dragon gets you. Sometimes the PCs are well prepared and sometimes they are not. You should try and alleviate too much leaning in either direction, but remember everyone makes mistakes.
Challenging/overwhelming odds can be fun, but I don't want them to be going on all the time. That would make me get habituated to them, and this would make them grow stale and hurt immersion. To make an metaphor, if I really liked pizza, but that was all I ate, I would eventually get tired of it because I wouldn't have anything to differentiate it from. However, if I eat other things, then I can better appreciate what it's like to have a really good slice of pizza or truly harrowing encounter, as the case may be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do people not handwave away obvious one way encounters?
It depends. Sometimes I let them romp easy encounters just so they can be all cinematic in splatting hogtied baby goblins or whatever. My default combat setting is pretty lethal, so every once in a while I think it's fun to let the pressure off and just let the PCs go to town on some easy mooks.
Plus, lots of times they surprise me with innovative ways of shortcutting clearly below-level encounters. If the PCs want to forcepunch the kobold chief ten feet into the air and tattoo a smiley face into his chest with a dozen arrows before he hits the ground, so as to terrify the rest of his tribe into surrendering, that's way more entertaining for me than handwaving the whole encounter away. I'm a big proponent of the "bonus XP for making the GM laugh" approach.
But then other times, especially when there's something more important or fun that I want to get to, yeah, I'll just fast-forward through an assumed victory.
So I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and she specifically asked if I had fun when we gamed. The obvious answer was yes. I wouldn't play if I wasn't having a good time. But another question was asked that got me thinking. Do you have more fun when you are really beating up the party? I thought about it for a second and I had to say yes. If the party is face-rolling an encounter I feel like it is more of a grind. I like to make the party feel frantic, as though they really have to fight for their life. In my opinion, a tense, frantic game is more enjoyable for everyone. Does anyone else feel this way? What makes you have fun as a DM?
I would say that I think this mindset is greatly related to the other problems you are experiencing in your games (based on your other threads.)
You've got tense, frantic players, who you don't allow to buy the gear they want, and up the CR of encounters; no wonder you've got rules arguments and players complaining about shutting down their characters. You've created a classic example of a player vs DM game.
@BigDTBone
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to disagree.
I have not had any characters who wanted to shut down their characters, ever. One died.
I have had one argumentative player, whom I have talked to out of game in hopes of fixing the situation. He was a player who wants to find loopholes (the mount that can charge while the rider was webbed).
Every DM limits what their players can buy (many even limit crafting). I specifically make my players work for what they want. You cannot buy eastern style armor in a small town that is nowhere near Tian Xia or the crown of the world. You can pay someone to go retrieve that armor, but it is not available in this area.
My players are enjoying the game. Even the player with whom I am having rule debates and arguments with. I poll them after every game and they have given feedback that I have applied and moved forward with. This is clearly not an example of "Player vs DM".
*EDIT* I am not sure that upping the difficulty of any encounter constitutes a "Player vs. DM" mindset. As I said earlier in the thread, a difficult game is more fun (and more rewarding as I up the treasure found) than a pub-stomp encounter that turns into boring combat where no one in the party even gets hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*EDIT* I am not sure that upping the difficulty of any encounter constitutes a "Player vs. DM" mindset. As I said earlier in the thread, a difficult game is more fun (and more rewarding as I up the treasure found) than a pub-stomp encounter that turns into boring combat where no one in the party even gets hit.
A friend of mine recently asked me to provide real world examples of logical fallacies for him. He's trying to understand what they are, and the examples given on a lot of websites aren't really helping him. He wants real world examples to help him understand. So thank you for providing an excellent example of a false dilemma.
In case you're not aware. A false dilemma logical fallacy is where only two choices (or a select limited number of choices) are presented where at least one additional choice is available. You have provided two choices:
1) difficult game encounter where the players are struggling to win
2) "boring" game encounter where no one gets hit
When looking at encounter designs, there is no such thing as a binay decision. Encounters vary upon a sliding scale with the easiest being that no player gets harmed or even uses any of their limited abilities (compared to unlimited abilities) all the way through to encounters where the players have to use every last resource available and even then still might not win (and beyond to where the characters lose no matter what). There are a multitude of choices besides the two you provided.
Here, read this; it may hep with your encounter design and bring about more enjoyment to your table: The Alexandrian, Revisiting Encounter Design.
I say "boring" because I asked my party members which encounters they have enjoyed most and they told me that they had the most fun with the difficult encounters. However, thank you for pointing out that fallacy. I should not have said that it was "boring" combat. This was just the feedback that my group gave me. I agree that every once in a while players should have a chance to feel powerful, but I don't think that is limited to easy encounters.
@BigDTBone
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to disagree.
I have not had any characters who wanted to shut down their characters, ever. One died.
I have had one argumentative player, whom I have talked to out of game in hopes of fixing the situation. He was a player who wants to find loopholes (the mount that can charge while the rider was webbed).
Every DM limits what their players can buy (many even limit crafting). I specifically make my players work for what they want. You cannot buy eastern style armor in a small town that is nowhere near Tian Xia or the crown of the world. You can pay someone to go retrieve that armor, but it is not available in this area.
My players are enjoying the game. Even the player with whom I am having rule debates and arguments with. I poll them after every game and they have given feedback that I have applied and moved forward with. This is clearly not an example of "Player vs DM".
*EDIT* I am not sure that upping the difficulty of any encounter constitutes a "Player vs. DM" mindset. As I said earlier in the thread, a difficult game is more fun (and more rewarding as I up the treasure found) than a pub-stomp encounter that turns into boring combat where no one in the party even gets hit.
I think there may be a disconnect between what each of us means when we say "player vs DM." It seems that when you say it, you are referring only to combat encounters. When I say it, I am referring to the entire gaming experience, ie, character options (and being allowed to use them), not being criticized for play style (you're charging again?), not creating (HINT: perception is reality here) encounters that shut down a play style you don't like (why is there difficult terrain everywhere all-of-the-sudden?), not argueing about rules that shut down a player character (what do you mean wet grass is difficult terrain?), and not preventing access to the things that would make the game more fun for the player, (what do you mean I can't get Horse galoshes of terrain immunity?), and THEN ALSO combat difficulty (what do you mean that you gave everything max HP and the advanced template?)
I'm saying that those things in total create a DM vs player game; not nessicarily any one of them.
I say "boring" because I asked my party members which encounters they have enjoyed most and they told me that they had the most fun with the difficult encounters. However, thank you for pointing out that fallacy. I should not have said that it was "boring" combat. This was just the feedback that my group gave me. I agree that every once in a while players should have a chance to feel powerful, but I don't think that is limited to easy encounters.
You may want to either reread what I said or look up what a false dilemma is. I say this because your response only served to exemplify the fallacy which was pointed out. Simply removing the word "boring" does not change that you're only presenting two options when there are many options to choose from.
I also strongly recommend you (and everyone!) read the link I posted. It is a very good read and has helped improved my own gameplay. The latter is why I recommend it so strongly.
As long as my players are having fun, I enjoy running the game for them. My favorite moments are when they have those "holy s#(!, that's what that meant!" moments where they realize how pieces of the plot and their actions fit together. I've plotted their campaign through level 20 and my goal is to help them get there alive.
Im not sure where you are getting that I am attempting to counter a specific character. I am running a game straight out of the Kingmaker AP. The only difference is that I occasionally add a monster or the advanced template when characters are progressing too quickly for the game's pacing guide.
Im not sure where you are getting that I am attempting to counter a specific character. I am running a game straight out of the Kingmaker AP. The only difference is that I occasionally add a monster or the advanced template when characters are progressing too quickly for the game's pacing guide.
Perception is reality.
Slapping the Advanced template on a few monsters here and there isn't likely to make a huge difference unless you add it to encounters which are already very difficult. When you start adding new monsters there's clearly a chance of going overboard. If the players are enjoying the game that's great, but I've definitely played in AP based games where the players began to suffer fatigue from the DM limiting the availability of equipment and constantly presenting us with super high CR challenges. I'd imagine that after the fact folks would probably say it was a fun campaign, but over half the players were privately complaining while it was running, and one even left the group never to return (well, at least not yet...)
Across the 3 campaigns I'm currently playing in the least fun one for me is the one where the DM seems to target my PC's weaknesses a lot and use more monsters which deny his strengths than a "typical" boxed adventure would. There's another game which features higher CR encounters which sometimes give the PCs trouble, but that trouble doesn't seem specifically tailored to thwart my PC and hasn't as often resulted in me essentially sitting out several hours of the session unable to control him. The third game serves up a variety of foes susceptible to my PC's shtick along with some who aren't. My PC is the most useful in some fights and the least useful in others, but the CR is generally near the APL, and I'm almost always able to contribute meaningfully.
As a DM I like the idea of having the monsters try as hard as they can to win and failing that to survive (at least in the case of intelligent monsters so inclined). I have a tendency to get a little excited and end up killing PCs though. I try to keep the CR of the encounters in the APL to APL+1 range, but sometimes I might optimize the monsters a little more than needed within those CR boundaries and select grappling monsters a little too often. Most folks say my games are fun, but I know that at least one player didn't much like his PCs dying. I'm hoping to be a kinder, gentler DM in the future. I think it will be interesting to run an AP and see what I can do with the monsters in the book. The idea of playing the monsters in a ruthless, downright murderous manner without having the guilt of killing a PC focused squarely on me seems appealing.
I disallow character options... options that are discussed up front and players are welcome to make reasonable arguments for their inclusion. That doesn't make it a DM vs Players situation. My personal example: a player arguing to allow the summoner, not so he could play one, but so his planned item crafting would be better. Even the other players were voting against him.
I've criticized a playstyle and been criticized for shutting it down. It was used in every single combat for 16 straight sessions. Combats were still challenging where they should be, but he was the dominant combatant in the party. I then created a single encounter that allowed one of the other characters to shine and was called out for shutting down the other character. And yet, nothing in that encounter prevented him from performing his typical routine, but the encounter was not decided by his routine. I criticized the playstyle after the player complained, pointing out he had dominated combat for 16 weeks.
I don't argue rules during play, with one exception... the rule question might lead to a character death. And yet my list of house rules is at least 50% player-written. All the players know this and they'll give me a lot of crap for what they perceive to be unfair rulings after the fact just like I give a couple of them crap for their creative interpretations of some rules.
While I have delayed access to some desired items, turning their acquisition into full side quests, I've also been accused of giving monsters and NPCs items that don't match their environs or culture. Ogre Hooks are still a running gag in our group.
I've been accused of both upping and lowering combat difficulty... in APs that I run unchanged. I've fielded complaints about boring APs (running mostly as written) for a group that decided to optimize their characters across the board. And when they made a group of unoptimized oddballs, there was the opposite complaint. I've gotten better at re-working things on the fly, but even my players know I don't have time to re-write APs, so the difficulty curve is pretty firmly in their hands. And the group has since found a very comfortable middle-ground for character/group building.
In short, it's not always the DM that creates a DM vs Players environment. In fact, as they often say, it takes two to tango. Happily, simply talking as a group of friends outside the game tends to alleviate or deal with 99% of these issues, at least for us. Your table mileage will almost certainly vary.
I personally have the most fun when my players have that "aha!" moment. I also enjoy when they try ludicrous solutions to problems (I don't shut them down, but going after a dragon by trying to scare him with burning pieces of wood taken from a wagon is ludicrous in my opinion). Or the time one of my players reacted to a flirting npc by flirting back (it just didn't fit the moment), causing me to laugh so hard I nearly fell out of my chair!
Those are the things that give me the most enjoyment.
As long as the players are having fun I'm usually having fun. It sucks when they just blow through what should be a challenging encounter, and can be a bit of a downer for me. I don't mean when they overcome a fight with less difficulty than I thought they would, I'm talking about one hitting the boss of an ap book.
To that end the only fights I really worry about ever making sure live up to what they should be are the ones that are supposed to be challenging. Boss fights should be boss fights, they shouldn't result in character deaths, but they should require strategy and use a good chunk of party resources.
So I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and she specifically asked if I had fun when we gamed. The obvious answer was yes. I wouldn't play if I wasn't having a good time. But another question was asked that got me thinking. Do you have more fun when you are really beating up the party? I thought about it for a second and I had to say yes. If the party is face-rolling an encounter I feel like it is more of a grind. I like to make the party feel frantic, as though they really have to fight for their life. In my opinion, a tense, frantic game is more enjoyable for everyone. Does anyone else feel this way? What makes you have fun as a DM?
As a GM and player I like it but I would not say is more enjoyable for everyone. Posters on these boards have said they like easy games. I mean some posters not all or even most.
I started a similar thread to this one, and got some interesting feedback.
Here is the section on GMing:
GMs enjoy the game for different reasons then players.
As a GM I have fun:
- Presenting a campaign world with locations, encounters, mythos, timeline and NPCs.
- Presenting a wide variety of encounters that engage the players, and encourage them to have fun playing their characters.
- Knowing I have general control of the storyline and timeline, with occasional (sometimes unexpected) exceptions.
- Knowing that players will use wits and creativity to solve encounters, and vary their tactics to fit the situation.
- When everyone at the table participates in the game to the amount they are comfortable with.
- When players are friendly, kind, and enjoy themselves.
- While I decided if a roll is needed and add the modifiers, the dice decide the outcome.*
I like to make the players sweat a little in encounters and feel that their characters are at real risk. If that frost giant crits you with his greataxe, your PC could die! With that said, PC's should be successful in almost all encounters, barring real bad luck, or very bad choices. I like it when the monsters can do their thing, the PCs can use their abilities to the fullest, and the party wins in the end. I generally reserve Epic difficulty encounters for rare occasions, and warn the players beforehand.
|
So I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and she specifically asked if I had fun when we gamed. The obvious answer was yes. I wouldn't play if I wasn't having a good time. But another question was asked that got me thinking. Do you have more fun when you are really beating up the party? I thought about it for a second and I had to say yes. If the party is face-rolling an encounter I feel like it is more of a grind. I like to make the party feel frantic, as though they really have to fight for their life. In my opinion, a tense, frantic game is more enjoyable for everyone. Does anyone else feel this way? What makes you have fun as a DM?
I like to have some tough encounters but indefinitely don't mind smashing enemies or having them smashed.
I have fun when I feel like the party won against an encounter on their own and didn't need help. On the other hand, I dislike it when GMs hand wave things mid combat to stop something from dying (as a player).