Bad Manner questions.


Advice


In the past couple of weeks, experiences have led me to ask 2 questions

1. Would it be inappropriate to, when readying actions, simply state "I'm readying an action", then write the readied action and it's triggering action on an index card and place the card face down in front of me until such time as the readied action goes off?

2. If I am GMing how do I avoid avoid letting out of NPC knowledge affect NPC decisions? If a party member (or even the whole party) has a property (defensive or offensive) that an enemy can't perceive (be it due to the nature of the buff or the intellect of the entity) but that I am aware of as GM, should I use tactics invalidated by party members anyway (using black tentacles on a party that all have freedom of movement up, Charm Person on native outsiders disguised as humans, Baleful Polymorph on pcs with Newt Prevention beads, etc)?

Shadow Lodge

1: Not sure what you're trying to accomplish. The GM needs to know what you're doing. Why write it on an index card?

2: If the NPCs haven't used spellcraft or detect magic/spellcraft or whatever's appropriate, they just don't have that knowledge to be able to react to it. Often they won't have any reason to suspect it, just like a player usually wouldn't. So play dumb and throw up your black tentacles.


Keying into the interconnected nature of the questions, knowing what players are about to do is something that can alter decisions. Saying "I ready to cast a spell" then writing "I cast Hold Person on my opponent if they move more than 5 feet in the next round." on a 3x5 and putting it facedown in front of me is equivalent to stating it plainly, with the only exception being that my cleric has NOT loudly declared "I will cast Hold Person on my opponent if they move more than 5 feet in the next round." to everyone, friend or foe, in combat. Some characters might be fine doing this, others won't, and telling the GM "I ready a specific action that, while unknown to you, is unalterable by me" seems legitimate.


I take it you are seeking to limit meta-gaming by anyone at the table including the GM?


technarken wrote:

In the past couple of weeks, experiences have led me to ask 2 questions

1. Would it be inappropriate to, when readying actions, simply state "I'm readying an action", then write the readied action and it's triggering action on an index card and place the card face down in front of me until such time as the readied action goes off?

Yes thats inappropriate. There's the not so subtle accusation of not being able to separate character from player knowledge. (right or wrong the accusation is a pretty big faux pas)

There's also the more legitimate problem that your readied action may not be specific enough.

2.

Quote:
should I use tactics invalidated by party members anyway (using black tentacles on a party that all have freedom of movement up, Charm Person on native outsiders disguised as humans, Baleful Polymorph on pcs with Newt Prevention beads, etc)?

Hell to the yes. The party is being smart thats SUPPOSED to pay off.


Thanks for the input. I shall not do the notecard thing and continue to be baffled at how the second a character got his socketed Clear Spindle nothing ever tries to dominate him.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
Thanks for the input. I shall not do the notecard thing and continue to be baffled at how the second a character got his socketed Clear Spindle nothing ever tries to dominate him.

Well, I guess it's working.

Silver Crusade

Technarken, did stuff try to dominate said character before they got the stone? Also, there could be a number of reasons to not try to dominate a specific person, beginning with whether or not said character is the biggest threat in the group. Stuff with dominate has been fairly rare in my experience, aside from a couple of scenarios with certain types of scenarios.

FWIW, I've thought about doing the notecard thing with readied actions, though mainly as a GM, where I've seen some metagaming. It hasn't been a huge thing, but it happens enough to cause the thought to cross my mind. But, if your GM is regularly metagaming stuff like readied actions you shouldn't feel pressured to keep silent. Bring the issue up in a respectful manner to the GM and go from there. If it's an issue it needs to be addressed.

I like the notecard idea, I'm going to be running a home game soon, and I think I'm going to give it a shot. I'll have both myself and my player's just write down their readied actions, with the instructions to be as clear with their readied actions as they can be. I'm hoping to cut down on situations where people don't try to metagame around readied actions, nor will I (or my players) have to feel obligated to trigger readied actions just because they were readied.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I too like the notecard idea, but it has two big problems:

1. It IS an accusation. Maybe the GM deserves to be accused. I don't know. But it'll cause bitterness for some sensitive types. However, if I initiated it myself when I was GMing, that would be fine.

2. Players SUCK at getting ready actions right. They'll say things like, "I ready to strike when someone is in range," which is sloppy. WHO are you trying to track/strike, and what are you striking with? Bare hand? Weapon? I don't want you conveniently switching weapons based upon who comes by any more than you want the GM to metagame.

Or they'll say, "I ready my spell." OK, what spell? I've had people try to ready Sleep as an action, even though it can't fit in a ready action slot! And what is the trigger?!? People are vague because it's easy, and because if you let them get away with it, it's a huge advantage. Using notecards, these issues can't be fixed until it's too late. The first time a GM says, "That was badly worded and fails," there will be a fight.

On a related note, although a home game and not PFS, I had a player once who took his mini off the battlemat when he went invisible. I objected, but he said that since I hide invisible critters, he must be allowed to do that too, to ensure I don't metagame. I replied, "You do realize that I am the GM, right? This GM screen is here so I can fudge rolls, bluff you, and manipulate the background details in order to keep the game from falling apart or becoming boring. You realize that we do different things, right? You have to follow the rules, I have to break them. If I want to hit your invisible guy, 16 enemies that you don't know about can appear and fill every square with fire. Hiding from me is irrelevant."

Now, I don't actually cheat like that as a GM. I am actually drawn to things like PFS where the GM has rigid confinement. But the point is, you cannot babysit a GM into not metagaming. He controls the game world; he can accomplish whatever he needs to accomplish, no matter how much you monitor him, because that's his job. The game empowers him to do that (although less so in PFS). So if you want to "fix" a GM who is metagaming, you have to speak to him like an adult and simply let him know that the metagaming is making things un-fun. And then, give him time to work through that and improve. And if he doesn't improve, leave the game (or in PFS, report him to the VL or VC). But don't babysit him.

I'm really happy to say that in my region, the GMs and players are all pretty darn good at saying, "I would do that thing, but my character doesn't know about it, so I do this other thing instead." I feel lucky.

Liberty's Edge

aboyd wrote:

I too like the notecard idea, but it has two big problems:

1. It IS an accusation. Maybe the GM deserves to be accused. I don't know. But it'll cause bitterness for some sensitive types. However, if I initiated it myself when I was GMing, that would be fine.

2. Players SUCK at getting ready actions right. They'll say things like, "I ready to strike when someone is in range," which is sloppy. WHO are you trying to track/strike, and what are you striking with? Bare hand? Weapon? I don't want you conveniently switching weapons based upon who comes by any more than you want the GM to metagame.

Or they'll say, "I ready my spell." OK, what spell? I've had people try to ready Sleep as an action, even though it can't fit in a ready action slot! And what is the trigger?!? People are vague because it's easy, and because if you let them get away with it, it's a huge advantage. Using notecards, these issues can't be fixed until it's too late. The first time a GM says, "That was badly worded and fails," there will be a fight.

On a related note, although a home game and not PFS, I had a player once who took his mini off the battlemat when he went invisible. I objected, but he said that since I hide invisible critters, he must be allowed to do that too, to ensure I don't metagame. I replied, "You do realize that I am the GM, right? This GM screen is here so I can fudge rolls, bluff you, and manipulate the background details in order to keep the game from falling apart or becoming boring. You realize that we do different things, right? You have to follow the rules, I have to break them. If I want to hit your invisible guy, 16 enemies that you don't know about can appear and fill every square with fire. Hiding from me is irrelevant."

Now, I don't actually cheat like that as a GM. I am actually drawn to things like PFS where the GM has rigid confinement. But the point is, you cannot babysit a GM into not metagaming. He controls the game world; he...

I couldn't have said this better myself.

Trust is the big thing between players and the GM. It should be a cooperative relationship, not adversarial.

By doing as the OP suggests is basically telling your GMs that you font trust them.

Dark Archive

or you could write it down and offer to the GM to read - thus avoiding the lack of GM trust.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is the issue that you are declaring a readied action and then the GM is changing the enemy tactics so they never trigger your readied action?

If that's true, then look at it this way. You've managed to exercise control over the battlefield with the mere threat of an action.


While doing nothing else with your entire action.

You're contributing!

Shadow Lodge

In the AP I'm running, I instituted both the 'readied actions go on notecards' thing and the 'invisible PCs get removed from the tabletop' thing.

It's working out fine; it's definitely a faster and more interesting way to run things.

Then again, all of my group has solid system mastery, are generally honest, and has plenty of experience as GMs.

YMMV?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
technarken wrote:


1. Would it be inappropriate to, when readying actions, simply state "I'm readying an action", then write the readied action and it's triggering action on an index card and place the card face down in front of me until such time as the readied action goes off?

It's both inappropriate and rude to your GM. If you ready an action you have to state both the action and the trigger.

2. It's a practised discipline, much on the same level as etiquette. It's bad form to penalise your players for making sound tatical moves.

THAT SAID, if your players telegraph their moves by some means, or by falling under observation, your NPC should adapt their plans accordingly. Many GMs tend to underestimate the ability of the NPC's to find information or simply be alerted when being infiltrated on their home turf.


technarken wrote:
1. Would it be inappropriate to, when readying actions, simply state "I'm readying an action", then write the readied action and it's triggering action on an index card and place the card face down in front of me until such time as the readied action goes off?

I would actually like it if my players did this. While I won't meta-game when I know their plan ahead of time, it just feels so much more fun when they do something unexpected (it's still just within the scope of combat and not a game ruiner).

technarken wrote:
2. If I am GMing how do I avoid avoid letting out of NPC knowledge affect NPC decisions? If a party member (or even the whole party) has a property (defensive or offensive) that an enemy can't perceive (be it due to the nature of the buff or the intellect of the entity) but that I am aware of as GM, should I use tactics invalidated by party members anyway (using black tentacles on a party that all have freedom of movement up, Charm Person on native outsiders disguised as humans, Baleful Polymorph on pcs with Newt Prevention beads, etc)?

Yes, you should let them win if they're prepared and not render all their attempts useless. Though an organized team of enemies should learn from their misstakes (not cast black tentacles if some of the goons escape the fight alive to bring intell, then adjust enemy tactics).


LazarX wrote:


THAT SAID, if your players telegraph their moves by some means, or by falling under observation, your NPC should adapt their plans accordingly. Many GMs tend to underestimate the ability of the NPC's to find information or simply be alerted when being infiltrated on their home turf.

Additionally, if the party has developed a degree of renown and have a typical list of tactics that they follow, it is not unreasonable that an intelligent opponent would be aware of at least some of those tactics. This is especially true if you're involved with a campaign where the enemy is part of an organization opposing the party's actions.


So, as others have said, 1 is a bit of a trust issue. As the GM literally has all the power in the world (just not outside of it), not trusting them with readied actions seems a little silly. Especially if you're at all sloppy with triggers (I've seen "ready to hit when someone comes in range" all the time, I always have to gently remind them they want "when an enemy comes in range"). The GM knowing your readied action should never change their behavior. With that said, the monsters they're controlling might change their behavior because they see you ready an action (since readying is probably visible in some way, what with you not using your standard action). They just won't know the triggers or what it is.

As for 2, it's not that hard. Your monsters and NPCs should have a basic list of tactics and who to use them on. I'll use a wizard. Black tentacles on the lightly armored types, dominate on the heavy armor types unless they have a holy symbol (they got burned by a paladin before) then fireball if that fails. Other wizards get feeblemind (to steal the spellbook) otherwise baleful polymorph or flesh to stone. Many other monsters have a much smaller tactics list (Beat it to death. Is it still moving? Beat it some more). Many defenses (DR, SR, fast healing, regeneration) are visible or noticeable the first time you hit them (my magus player has just started rolling SR on everything, he's so happy when he doesn't have to). Spellcraft can identify spells as they're being cast (for laziness' sake I assume everyone is taking 1 with it, unless they say otherwise). Knowledge (arcana) can identify spell effects in place. Presumably Diplomacy (gather information) can glean information about your opponents. But unless you have the NPC roll some sort of check then just follow the tactical outline (until some visible reason not to appears).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Bad Manner questions. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.