In another thread I was describing some gaming issue this weekend but I wanted to ask a more general question.
Does the GM have a responsibility to guide players towards effective characters in a campaign? If so, how much?
In brief, I recently spent 15+ hours designing a character for a high level game. I informed the GM of the character concept, including certain combat capabilities (movement, smiting, crit fishing, some ranged attacks) and non-combat capabilities (healing, party face, etc) with the intent of ensuring a balanced team. He gave me feedback along the way and encouraged the build. This occurred weeks before the game.
When we started playing though, it became obvious that none of my combat capabilities would help against the encounters (tight spaces, creatures immune to crits and non-evil alignments). I was reduced to minimal or no damage in all the encounters. As a player of a martial build, that stung a lot.
I believe the GM should have at least alerted me that the dungeon he was putting together would have severely hampered this character. Am I wrong in this belief? When I GM I don't go out of my way to help people shine but any time wants to do something awesome, I will encourage them to give it a shot. But maybe I am too generous. Any thoughts appreciated!
In extreme situations yes they do.
Example: I had a GM that had a great idea for an underwater campaign. He of course could not tell us the story prior to character building. Well the archer, horse master and the tumbling dagger chucker were probably character concepts that could have been avoided. (I played the dagger thrower). It was frustrating because it really was an awesome idea and story, we just had three characters that were totally ill fitted for the majority of his campaign (levels 3 to 8'ish 2nd edition D&D).
The GM could have said "That character might not work well in this campaign." Problem could have been avoided before it became a problem.
However....
Campaigns periodically find characters out of their element. Fish out of water is a normal and healthy trope. This might last one or two adventures; long enough that the table can milk it for all the RP it can but not so long that is grows tiresome.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It all depends on the group and campaign. If the GM presents an undead-focused campaign, and the player shows up with an enchantment-based spellcaster, it would be unfair to blame the GM.
If the GM provides the parameters of the campaign, and the players provide their characters to the GM for approval, then the GM should review and see if anything looks like it will be a problem. If the GM doesn't recognize something that is a problem, he should allow the player to adjust things on the character to compensate.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: Kind of depends on if factors like you describe are a theme of the whole campaign, or just an element of that part. For instance, if the entire theme of the campaign is "War against the fire dudes", then I'd say a GM is being a dick if you talk about building a pyromancer and he says nothing. But if it's a campaign with varied settings and encounter types, where maybe there's like this one subplot where you attack the base camp of a cult of "fire dudes" but there's another area where you have to save a town from the Dried Grass Elemental, then I would see no problem.
In short, I think the GM should warn players of large, campaign-spanning themes that invalidate certain character types, but not necessarily of more short-lived themes where you're down for a while but then you get to shine some other time.
It's definitely a campaign vs. adventure level problem. One adventure where your character doesn't fit I don't see as a problem. One campaign, I definitely do.
Prep time also factors in. If you are throwing together a quick game, and your players have a day to make characters but are only using them for a single adventure, I'd think you'd need to give less warning because there is less time wasted. Whereas if your players have weeks to make characters, there is more at risk and you should be extra careful not to screw them over.
Finally, it isn't just about letting your players know what works and what doesn't. It's also about fitting your game to the characters the players have made. The GM should have fun at the table, but not at the players' expense. (The reverse also holds true.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to suggest to players, especially new players to the group, that certain classes and builds might be more beneficial to them than others based on the setting or the story line I've developed. If they don't follow my advice it's on them, not me.
If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolled up for a high level adventure? Sounds like a one-off type of event. Sometimes having to deal with the unexpected with your assumed hyper effective build is part of learning to adapt and makes you a more rounded player going forwards. Alternately, laugh with it and have a good time anyways.
Nothing said is a snipe or personal attack btw, i just think you have some ruffled feathers and wanted to vent a bit. Which is O.K.!
I once had my players roll up level 7 characters for a one-off dungeon adventure. Didn't tell em the name, but it was caverns of the Ooze Lord. They were taken from left field by the slimes and oozes everywhere dungeon. Yet while not prepped specifically for it, they adapted and made the best of it, and still had a rocking good time.
Sometimes a curve ball is just a curve ball, and not a mean spirited neutering of your character.
Happy gaming!
I haven't run many high level games. I will say however though that as a player in and a GM of more than a few level 1-6 level Pathfinder games I'd say the GM has at least an equal stake in character success in those games to the players.
The easiest way I can break it down to the folks in my own group is through numbers and mechanics.
4 level PCs need to be optimized enough to manage a villain in a fight. Said villain can be expected to have an average AC, HP total, and at least one good attack as per the Beastiary. I try to tell my players before the first session how closely I'll be sticking to that on most fights. If I know I'm going to make a really hard game I'll tell them to optimize for combat hardcore, give a few examples of creatures they might encounter in the first game and ask that they bring their A-game for combat tactics.
If on the other hand I'm just pulling base monsters out of the Beastiaries I'll throw a out a couple examples and tell the players to make up what they want.
The final touches are always mine to make, but I have an spoken contract with my players up front: I'm actively asking for character info, backstory and player feedback. I wouldn't ask if I wasn't going to use it. Whatever you provide then I'll consider when adding those last flourishes.
In other words If I'm planning a game that starts at sea, continues onto a desert island devoid of plant life and ends with a tight, twisting dungeon delve I'll pull a sidebar with the guy that wants to run a warhorse-mounted cavalier. Between the two of us we've got some re-writing to do.
In my opinion GMs should consider their players AND their PCs before running a given adventure, especially one they're making up. If you think the PCs are optimized for combat at APL 1 that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY entitle you to replace 3 goblins with, say, 3 spriggans on the fly.
All of the above being said, I will say that many players I have are very self-centered. By this I mean these players have a vision of what they want to play. Regardless of what I tell them about the pending campaign they still make the PC. I TOLD you it'd be a primarily megadungeon campaign with a lot of Downtime for crafting; why then do I have a party consisting of a horse-riding cavalier, a druid and a desert-focused ranger? Yes, they're really cool but still.
Bottom line: all parties, players and GM, need to be respectful of one another AND the shared narrative they're creating. They all have input so they all have an equal share in making it fun and engaging in the project. The game is a collaboration; everyone should be collaborating.
|
I believe the GM should have at least alerted me that the dungeon he was putting together would have severely hampered this character. Am I wrong in this belief?
I think you are wrong in this belief.
You made a very specialized character that couldn't deal with contingencies and variable challenges of play.As Rathendar stated - this doesn't sound like a campaign but more of a one off, which can be it's own type of fun depending on the group. Ex: make up 8th level characters with full gear only to start off imprisoned with nothing. Players may be surprised and balk at first, but if its a well written and run scenario the PCs will probably be into some of their selected gear halfway through it.
And - if your GM ran a scenario with undead and evil outsiders with some good rp opportunities in between you wouldn't be posting here. IMO (without seeing the write up) it sounds like you made a narrow character.
When I GM I don't go out of my way to help people shine but any time wants to do something awesome, I will encourage them to give it a shot. But maybe I am too generous. Any thoughts appreciated!
I write in sections and challenges for different types of characters to shine - combat, non-combat, stealth/recon, rp, etc, without knowing the composition of the party in advance. Oftentimes a problem/challenge I expect to be solved one way (combat or puzzle) is solved in a totally unexpected or bizarre fashion (stealth, creative use of gear, etc).
So I don't require specific play or character types to deal with the challenges - some types may have it easier for a specific problem as it's encountered, but the challenges are written (I hope at least) that allows for creative players who may not have the exact specific resources or specialization to still find a solution.
As the GM, I take on the responsibility of ensuring that the players are prepared for their campaign. At our first session, I showed the players the various modules that would comprise our campaign and gave them a basic descriptor for each whether it was "dungeon crawl", "undead", "demon hunting", "wilderness exploration", or "dragon slaying" so they would get an idea of the amount of time they would spend in each.
This gives them the opportunity to think about the campaign with regards to their character. If they clued into the fact that there might be more demon hunting than they expected, then they might focus on being prepared for those instances by grabbing demon hunting feats. Others may have picked up on the dungeon delving or wilderness exploration.
I do believe it is important to have PCs that are prepared for their adventures so they feel involved. They will be challenged by the scenarios whether they are optimized for them or not, so I much prefer that they be prepared and feel empowered to take on their campaign.
In the case of your example, OP, I do believe the GM should have asked you if you were sure you wanted to run a cavalier when the scenario he was designing would be all underground and effectively handcuff your character for the entirety of its run.
When describing a campaign I think the GM should give the equivalent of a "back of the book" blurb. Roughly 1-2 paragraphs about the campaign that indicates what kind of campaign it will be, without giving away spoilers. For examples, you could literally read the back of the first book of any adventure path.
When getting to character specific stuff, I think the Ranger is a good barometer. If a player makes a Ranger, I work with them on the Favored Enemies. I don't tell the the absolute BEST one to take, but at first level I tell them 4-5 that are going to show up before they get to select their second FE. Then the player gets to choose which one is most appropriate for their character.
I consider the same level of input to be appropriate for other character classes. I'm not going to rate ALL your choices, but I'll tell you if any major choices should be disregarded because of the campaign story/setting.
I think it is the GM's responsibility to ensure that the players have enough information at the start to make an appropriate character.
As a GM, I always take the time to write up a campaign players' guide, somewhat akin to those Paizo makes for their APs. I always let the players know the nature of the campaign, and the general themes and setting, so that they can make reasonably appropriate characters.
So, if the campaign is going to be a high-seas nautical campaign with ship-to-ship combat and island exploration, maybe bringing a heavy cavalry character or a second-story cat burglar isn't such a great idea. For a campaign set on the desert exploring the most tombs of the pharaohs, a sea elf underwater specialist, or an ice witch from the frozen north might not be good choices.
If a player still shows up with an inappropriate character, we'll have an out-of-game chat, and I'll see if the character could be retooled.
As a player, it really, really annoys me when the GM doesn't do that... or pulls a bait-and-switch, making your character extremely ineffective/inappropriate for the campaign.
|
|
I never run "thematic campaigns", I can never say that "this campaign will be one of high seas adventure" or "dungeon exploration". The campaign may start in the city of Greyhawk, but it's just as likely to wind up in the Ruins of Undermountin, or the elemental plane of fire than it is to stay confined within the walls of greyhawk...
And not all of this jumping around is player-driven, and it is never something that I tell or forewarn them about; things like that fog that rolled in from the sea last night... Wasn't normal fog...
Now the campaign has moved to the demi-plane of Ravenloft.
But the one thing that the players are all aware of is the fact that something unknown like that may happen during the course of the campaign.
I do however listen to what the players talk about in-game to see what they want to do and where they'd like to go.
@Digitalelf: Your campaign does have a theme: "Anything goes." If I were a player in your campaign, I would build a generalist character that had a decent shot in any circumstance.
It's my experience that most campaigns have a theme, or a central setting, or some other distinctiveness to which my above advice applies.
In most of the higher level modules that I have lined up, there is invariably always a NPC introduced at the beginning of the module with instructions to the GM to have already introduced the character earlier in the campaign. Now, if I was the sort of GM that just played from one week to the next without an idea of where the campaign was heading then there would be no chance to introduce said NPCs.
However, I am the opposite in that I like to foreshadow events, people and places. Instead of having no idea if I'll be in Ravenloft or Absolam next, I have a good idea of where the campaign is heading to next and can properly set up NPCs that need to be "introduced earlier in the campaign" to set up later events.
Having a plan is not the same as being inflexible or unable to adapt to change as I often search through Pathfinder Society Scenarios to help fill in the blanks in between the modules, or provide another adventure into a certain section of Golarion without having to launch into a much longer module or adventure path.
I am also running this as a mythic campaign so having a clear understanding of the direction of the campaign is of the utmost importance to me. Mythic characters are not supposed to be just another group of murder hobos, but rather a group that grows to become heroes of the realm that influence world events.
So far, it works for me and my players are enjoying being a part of their Golarion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Digitalelf: Your campaign does have a theme: "Anything goes."
I suppose that is technically true; though I've never used those exact words to describe my campaigns.
As for character-making, since I use 2nd edition AD&D, it is much easier to make a generalist character, though I have had players make more "specialized" characters, and those characters still "had a decent shot" (of survival and participation) in my campaigns – though to be fair, 2nd edition does not allow players the ability to customize their characters anywhere near the level in which Pathfinder (or 3rd edition) allows for.