|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless one preferred style of DMing is the railroading kind. It's impossible to always predict what players will do. Eventually for some players a pattern emerges. Others are too unpredictable. Trying to plan for everything a player can and will do is a sire way to DM burnout imo. A good example is a old KODT strip where the DM clearly puts a sign and goes out of his way to say "Insta portal of death do not cross". Yet with the exception of one player all cross it and die. Then accuse the DM of being a killer DM. Granted the players in that comic strip may not be the average player. You can bet thought that at one point a plyer(s) will see a similar portal of death. No matter what you do chances are good at least one will go in. You can try and give hints but if consequences be damned they still want to go through that portal it's on them not you as a DM.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMs aversion to 3pp material. I get if at the very least a DM would read a product. Instead many too many imo simply go by secondhand information. Sure your buddy on the right might think it's broken. It might not be broken for you. So at least read the damn book. One thing that is a sure strike against a DM is the auto "3pp it's broken, unbalanced etc.". Fine then you better not ask to use 3pp as a player then because if it's broken as a DM. It suddenly does not become unbroken as a player. Which has happened also one too many times. They can ban stuff freely. Yet act like kids at a candy store as a player.
Me: I thought you said gunslingers were broken"
DM turned player (looks surprised that I remember he said that "I never said that"
Me: "You kind of did actually and since I don't like how Paizo rules work for firearms no gunslinger"
DM turned player (begins a discussion or rant on why exceptions don't apply to him as a player)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be sure, I agree with you in principle, but I just don't think it's something you can really accurately measure unless you have the exact same group of people come back and measure the comparison over time.
Agreed. But when you have someone say 'it was a great success, we ran 30 tables' and you have watched every convention slot run over, gotten few hours of sleep, and see tired players instead of happy players, it rubs me the wrong way.
Players not emailing me back saying they will or won't make the game. I always have to guess at what type of opposition to throw at them. Players not making the game....It' online so I haven't ever met any of the individuals I play with except for one person.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I post very little these days, but I check in on Paizo and read the message boards everyday.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMs aversion to 3pp material. I get if at the very least a DM would read a product. Instead many too many imo simply go by secondhand information. Sure your buddy on the right might think it's broken. It might not be broken for you. So at least read the damn book. One thing that is a sure strike against a DM is the auto "3pp it's broken, unbalanced etc.". Fine then you better not ask to use 3pp as a player then because if it's broken as a DM. It suddenly does not become unbroken as a player. Which has happened also one too many times. They can ban stuff freely. Yet act like kids at a candy store as a player.
Me: I thought you said gunslingers were broken"
DM turned player (looks surprised that I remember he said that "I never said that"
Me: "You kind of did actually and since I don't like how Paizo rules work for firearms no gunslinger"
DM turned player (begins a discussion or rant on why exceptions don't apply to him as a player)
This seems like two seperate problems. GMs not reading 3pp stuff and player not accepting GM fiat.
Anyway, I don't follow 3pp just because there's SO MUCH even with official Paizo stuff, and it's like 5x as many 3pp, and I don't have time to read EVERYTHING Pathfinder. I would read something a player requested, but frankly, if it can be done with existing official stuff, I'd probably use that just so I don't have to go through all the work of figuring if it is balanced, learning new rules, etc.
Then again, these days I'm playing and GMing more Savage Worlds, and so learning new stuff is way simpler. The most complicated rules I've seen take up less than half a page, and that's the mass combats (which once you get through the first round or two are really intuitive).
But anyway, I'm saying I understand why those GM's don't. GMing requires understanding rules for everything every player can possibly do, everything your baddies will do, and everything in between. It's pretty much a job more than a game with the amount of rules, classes, spells, etc that have come out for PF. Players only need to know what their character will do and can ignore other classes, races, or even their own features they don't feel like using (teamwork abilities of the Cavalier, I'm looking at you), but a GM has to know how to arbitrate over anything that comes up, and with each new book that comes out that can burn you out faster than the one before. Adding 3pp to the mix just multiplies that.
...and MANY players will not join up if you ditch books. Trust me. I was one of them, once upon a time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I'm not saying allow every book 3pp or official to the current gaming table. It's just that even with a small amount of material allowed by a DM they won't even look at 3pp. It's not even a matter of having to read it. It's the auto-immune response of "It's broken, overpowered etc". Being both a DM and player I can sympathize with having to read extra material. As long as it's a small amount I can't see it being that much a extra thing to read imo. What gets me and it has happened twice. Is that a DM complains no one will take fighters. The players give their reasons about why the core rules are not enough. Suggest 3pp get told it's broken then play something else.
One can't expect players at the table to play a current class they won't enjoy. They offer a solution, the dm turns it down. Wonder and complain why that class is almost never played at the table. One can't have it both ways imo. It's the same reason when I played 2E I would ask if a DM played with racial limits with demi-humans they said yes. I played human even if I was bored to death. I disliked and still dislike level limits put with a good dm I'm willing to overlook it. But at the end one can't lament that no one wants to play demi-humans in 2E. Those damn level limit hurt.
I'm upfront with what I allow as a DM. I will ask a DM what he allows. Just tell me that as a DM one does not want the extra work. If a player leaves the leave. If a DM leaves they leave. One should not be forced to run or play at a table they don't want to.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dms who refuse to accept that sometimes real life can interfere in a game session. I used to work with the public. I also used to be more out of shape. Many times I would get sick. I could show up to the table with a gastro or a flu. Considering how both are contagious you think that a DM being told that you stay home would appreciate it. Instead no some get mad. When I'm sick enough that I can't get out of bed I'm not coming to game session. Not for the DM, nor the players or anyone. period.
Or when given plenty of notice about a important social event forget about it or worse think that your still going to showup. No I'm sorry if my younger brother is getting married I'm not coming after the ceremony. Fortunately these instances of been very rare.
Players who refuse to commit to coming to the game. Are told before characters are made that their will be a certain amount of commit on their part to show up. Then don't. Then get angry when they are asked to no longer show up at the game. A word of advice if you don't want to show up to a particular session just simply tell the DM. Telling the DM you have to work or are not feeling well. Then go on Facebook and are pretty much are doing something else and lying that you are sick or working. Well your not scoring points with the DM or even your players. Yes it's your life to do as you please. But you know what. Just like your time is precious so is ours so don't waste our time either. If you cannot or will not commit a certain amount of time to a gaming table. Don't bother joining one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suffer from chronic pain, severe anxiety, and times (sometimes weeks) of deep depression. There are times, and they are more frequent than I like and I've had to either cancel a game at the last minute or just end one suddenly because things got too much to bear. The anxiety attacks sometimes escalate into full scale panic attacks and I freak out. I've been playing with most of my players for nearly 30 years at this point and I should be totally at ease with them, but my problems are relatively recent (beginning about 8 years ago) and they are understanding, though I'm sure they're often quite frustrated by my wacky antics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hokay, I'll bite.
Group A is awesome people whom I enjoy hanging with in and out of game...but they never start on time, they frequently cancel, and they go on wild OOC tangents during games.
That describes my F2F gaming group (which includes my older brother and my husband) perfectly. Our games are great for the social factor, not always so much on actually gaming and getting stuff done though.
And, partially stemming from all that is my next whine of sorts:
I both love PbP. I love it because I can actually experience RPing on a level that rarely happens in my F2F games, I can (more or less) post and respond as it's convenient for me and I get to play PF at least a little bit nearly every day. And yet I feel guilty for growing to prefer PbP over my F2F games, even though I love hanging out with my friends.
Other complaints:
(1) That one person that is both a really great RPer and good at building mechanically sound characters, then has to humblebrag about 'letting' other PCs shine from time to time.
(2) Somewhat, but not always, related to the first point: games that end up feeling like the 'The Story of <PC>' with everyone else as the supporting cast.
(3) Also somewhat, but not always, related to the second point: games tailored largely or even specifically to one or two people, usually due to bias on the part of the GM. If it's something spelled out from the get-go, like a recent recruitment thread wherein the GM stated up front that his RL girlfriend would be one of the players and the only player of <X> race, that's fine. If you've got stuff planned for the other PCs on down the line and the game just hasn't gotten to it yet, that's fine. But when it gets to the point that the game and the narrative would basically fall apart without one specific PC that everything has become centered around because they're the GM's best bud or the GM has a crush on the player? Ugh.
(To be fair for #3 I recognize that the other PCs do bear some responsibility as well, because it's much harder for the GM to engage them and plan things for characters if said characters don't give them much to work with.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(2) Somewhat, but not always, related to the first point: games that end up feeling like the 'The Story of <PC>' with everyone else as the supporting cast.
I've had games become this, when there's only one player who is willing to make decisions or take action. A DM can give a character opportunities to shine, but if the player doesn't take those opportunities, there's not much for it.
In order to counter this very problem, my current players have adopted the concept of switching off party leadership roles each game series, or sometimes even every few games. Even still, a difference in capability is apparent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had games become this, when there's only one player who is willing to make decisions or take action. A DM can give a character opportunities to shine, but if the player doesn't take those opportunities, there's not much for it.
Yeah, I do agree that my qualifier about my third complaint can also apply to the second as well. Players definitely do have a responsibility to actually be responsive and contribute to the game.
In order to counter this very problem, my current players have adopted the concept of switching off party leadership roles each game series, or sometimes even every few games. Even still, a difference in capability is apparent.
I do agree that some people are (and play) better leaders than others; for example I'll admit that it's harder for me to play a leader character because that mindset is generally much different from my own personality and is difficult to get into, even for a fun exercise like PF. But just because certain players may tend to naturally fall into a leadership role in their games doesn't always mean that the game and plot end up centered around them, either. Whether it does or doesn't likely varies from player to player and game to game; in this instance I believe it was a result of actual, valid character background and in-game RP backed up by some OOC personal feelings. The game was still fun and it ultimately wasn't a big enough deal to cause a ruckus over but still, bias or even perceived bias is something to be wary of, you know?
Okay. Enough seriousness, time for a lighter grievance :)
I'll start. Our group just started playing through Mummy's Mask, and in our second session one of the characters died. Now that player gets to make a new character, and I'm jealous, even though I've only been playing my character for two weeks! I have way more character concepts than I'll ever get an opportunity to play.
I don't want any of my characters to die, but I'm right there with you on this one. So many concepts, so little time to play them all :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another pain point of mine: Campaigns that end without an official Ending. I like a campaign that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, like a movie or a book. But I've been involved in far too many that were canceled mid-season like Firefly.
I hate those, too, and I've nearly always been the DM. Granted, I had to end one because of health reasons, but others have been cancelled "mid season" (heh) by lack of time to get together, the campaign spiraling out of control, or loss of players. There's been several times I've been a player that someone started a game and we'd get 3 sessions in and they would just stop running. That's even more frustrating.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mad Bombers What Bomb At Midnight (Mostly Alchemists, in personal experience) throwing bombs whenever the party is attempting a non-violent method of approaching a situation.
Also. MBWBAM that don't have Precise Shot and throw willy-nilly into melee.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But baby, I wanna be a baaaaaaaaaad guy! Yeah, baby, yeah!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "accidentally" killing the wizard was the best part about playing a frenzied berserker. I'm pretty sure the same holds true for alchemists without precise bombs. Who's a god, now, you arrogant sweater wearing dick?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I never realized that really bugged me until recently.
In what effectively amounts to an in-game powder keg, be it trying to sneak into the heavily guarded fortress, or trying to diplomacize the warlord that we ran into 10 levels too early into sparing our lives (so that we may come back and slaughter him later), one or all of the players get impatient and try to force something to happen. Which invariably causes it to blow up.
I've had well-planned stealth missions in which our characters were successfully getting into the prince's bedroom to either kill or kidnap him go to s%** because the barbarian player got bored and decided to walk out into the hallway and slaughter the guard standing outside the door. I've been in games where we're trying to talk our way out of a confrontation with Shelyn inquisitors who mistook us for the thieves, and three out of the five players just open fire after they agree to leave us alone. Usually, it's when their characters aren't the ones in the spotlight, excuse me, the politically correct term would be "not doing anything while someone takes care of the situation".
Some days I really just want to play an Orc Wild Rager Barbarian and see what happens when I go ultra-reckless skull-crushing psycho in a game with these people during times when they happen to be in the spotlight.
Petty? Spiteful? Yes... But I feel it'd relieve quite a bit of stress with this kind of situation, lol.
(Edit: wrong archetype)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Artemis: Yes.
Or four of the players have been doing everything sensibly, but in every encounter there's *one* person who just takes the stupid pills, doesn't pay attention to anything that's going on (whether they be texting, reading a sourcebook, narcolepsy, eating lunch, etc) and suddenly does something completely asinine.
And you can tell this is the case because the rest of the party's reaction is...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been that player.
Usually it's because last week everyone stared at me like I was crazy and yawned and zoned out when I tried diplomacy, or passive aggressively ruined my peaceful attempts by muttering under their breath in front of the other party...
...so yeah, I kicked the crap out of the door this week while you were trying to stealthily pick the lock, because that garbage works two ways.
It's not a common practice.
Also I pull it when the other players spend an hour discussing boring minutiae and plans when we only play for four hours. I get it, you don't want to get caught unawares, but I have work in the morning, and I don't want to spend a quarter of the game discussing from which direction we're going to search the throne room for secret doors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been that player.
Usually it's because last week everyone stared at me like I was crazy and yawned and zoned out when I tried diplomacy, or passive aggressively ruined my peaceful attempts by muttering under their breath in front of the other party...
...so yeah, I kicked the crap out of the door this week while you were trying to stealthily pick the lock, because that garbage works two ways.
It's not a common practice.
Also I pull it when the other players spend an hour discussing boring minutiae and plans when we only play for four hours. I get it, you don't want to get caught unawares, but I have work in the morning, and I don't want to spend a quarter of the game discussing from which direction we're going to search the throne room for secret doors.
Wow. I'm kind of a dick.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dms who refuse to do something about a bad player(s) behavior at the table. Simply to keep his gaming going. I get it no one wants their game to end after all the work put into it. Yet doing noting when a player acts up at the table is also a big mistake imo. We have a player who keeps complaining and blaming others for his shortcomings at the table.
WE offer suggestions he keep ignoring them. Gets angry when we do. A good example is that the player decided to multiclass into cavalier. Yet most of the adventure looks to be in dungeons. But when we told him that might be the case. He went ahead and took cavalier anyway. His multiclassing is affecting the progression in his primary class. You can bet it's not his fault. Made worse by the DM not doing anything. Which sets a dangerous precedent because now the problem player know all he has to do is act up at the table to get his way.
Dms who refuse to do something about a bad player(s) behavior at the table. Simply to keep his gaming going. I get it no one wants their game to end after all the work put into it. Yet doing noting when a player acts up at the table is also a big mistake imo. We have a player who keeps complaining and blaming others for his shortcomings at the table.
WE offer suggestions he keep ignoring them. Gets angry when we do. A good example is that the player decided to multiclass into cavalier. Yet most of the adventure looks to be in dungeons. But when we told him that might be the case. He went ahead and took cavalier anyway. His multiclassing is affecting the progression in his primary class. You can bet it's not his fault. Made worse by the DM not doing anything. Which sets a dangerous precedent because now the problem player know all he has to do is act up at the table to get his way.
On this one the group as a whole, not just the GM, needs to act. Or, if the rest of 'em are afraid of the bad player, step up and deal with him yourself.
|
|
It's kind of hard when you have the support of her DM. As it limits what a player can do. The played is not even that bad of a person. If he admits to do things his way and suffer in silence. It's one thing. Another when they are vocal about it. Mind you he kind of put himself in the situation he is in. Taking a class whose primary feature, his mount. Will not fit into most enclosed places. Without the right feats, creature or PC race. Then again when you don't listen to any advice what can you expect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, Bro, compadre.
Thegreensaucegamer is totally cool!
By the way dudeman, opening up my own business Cupcakes I totally didn't f+!+
|
|
Something that just happened to me: just had a player toward the end of my campaign ask if we could wrap it up sooner because another GM was starting his game back up.
On the one hand the other GM set it on the same day and refused the request to do every other week for a bit at the behest of the other players, and this was a game he'd been playing for a year and was really invested in before it was put on hiatus, so I get it, but it still hurt a bit.
Also really wanted to push for my players to pick up subtle pieces of the story at a time and take the clues to put it together on their own ala Dark Souls, but they glossed over the story points (why I take notes every game) and requested an expo dump when they were lost at the end. That is on me - I should know my group better - but I am disappointed that I won't ever get to do that.
Also an grievance from a game I am a player in - a 5E game wherein the GM literally pitted us against 100(!) undead plus 4 leveled bad guys while we were protecting a caravan. Naturally the entire 300 people in the caravan were slaughtered despite our best efforts.
Wow. I'm kind of a dick.I've been that player.
Usually it's because last week everyone stared at me like I was crazy and yawned and zoned out when I tried diplomacy, or passive aggressively ruined my peaceful attempts by muttering under their breath in front of the other party...
...so yeah, I kicked the crap out of the door this week while you were trying to stealthily pick the lock, because that garbage works two ways.
It's not a common practice.
Also I pull it when the other players spend an hour discussing boring minutiae and plans when we only play for four hours. I get it, you don't want to get caught unawares, but I have work in the morning, and I don't want to spend a quarter of the game discussing from which direction we're going to search the throne room for secret doors.
We've been trying to tell you that for a while now.
;)
People have, yes, but I'm told I'm also quite loveable, once you get to know me, especially if you enjoy rants.
...and run on sentences, apparently. Ye demigods, man, get a hold of your thoughts!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That one gamer who maxes out his bluff skill but is totally inept at lying. I don't know what it is with him, but somehow he manages do the exact opposite of bluffing when we need his skills the most. Yes, he tells the truth to everyone at when it's most inconvenient, to say the least.
We might really need his bluff skills tonight, but I don't have high expectations...
Edit: Also, last night I found out my Primal Companion Hunter was nerfed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently had a situation where I was going to play in a friend's homebrew Pathfinder game, however when reading his character creation document (among other things like how all races regardless of how long lived they are, start off at 15) I found that the GM has such a problem with 'metagaming' that if you don't have a 12 Charisma, your character is of average appearance and you must be 15+ to be considered 'beautiful' or 'handsome'
I went on a Facebook Pathfinder fans page and asked some other players what they thought, should appearance be THAT tied to Charisma?
He saw it and sent me a message saying that my intent was to prove myself right and him wrong, I said it was not my intent, my intent was that I was curious what others thought. Nothing more.
He called bull**** (literally, that was his next reply to me. One word, uncensored) and that was the last straw for me. I blocked him on Facebook and I no longer consider him a friend. I can get over most things, but don't call me a liar and tell me what my intentions are.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
That one dick GM who takes his player's inept inability to lie and ignores his character's awesome bluff score, because he thinks player skill should correlate with character skills yet doesn't IQ test his wizard or check his barbarian's dead weight lift max, yet somehow social ineptitude of the player should transfer to the character...
|
|
That one dick GM who takes his player's inept inability to lie and ignores his character's awesome bluff score, because he thinks player skill should correlate with character skills yet doesn't IQ test his wizard or check his barbarian's dead weight lift max, yet somehow social ineptitude of the player should transfer to the character...
Yes! The GM I mentioned above is that way. He didn't care if you UNDERPLAYED an attribute (Why yes I have an 16 Int and 16 Wis because I am a cleric/wizard, but other than that my character is a complete and utter moron) but don't you dare even think about saying you are intelligent/wise/pretty unless your stats back it up (my dwarf is a pretty redhead girl... NO you are UGLY your Charisma is only 8. Stop trying to metagame!)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do the opposite, sort of. I view it as a Powder Keg of Justice situation. If you DO say something really awesome (diplomacy, bluff or intimidate) you get a bonus to your roll. This rewards both the players who invest in Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate and the guys who are good at talking.
Same goes for Perception.
I love that story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raise your hand if you've ever heard/experienced this one before.
GM says:I want to play through my own campaign created from scratch that I've worked on for years and put a huge amount of effort into creating the story, the characters, and much more.
How it turns out: The GM begins the campaign by touring you through his New Zealand sized campaign world, dropping more exposition than an audio book on Moby Dick. All the NPCs are overleveled to the point where mere sneezing in the party's general direction results in a TPK. However the campaign villains are all under leveled goofballs that fold like cardboard when fought. BBEG is also fond of making guest appearances like he owns the campaign world on a silver platter, and any attempt at fighting them early on is shot down either by force or by them teleporting to their cozy siesta on the astral plane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy would fight them.
I get bugged by the words "You can't burn down the inn, its plot important"
Also, the words "You can't play with an INT score of 3. No matter what you rolled. Reroll it."
I was looking forwards to the challenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That one dick GM who takes his player's inept inability to lie and ignores his character's awesome bluff score, because he thinks player skill should correlate with character skills yet doesn't IQ test his wizard or check his barbarian's dead weight lift max, yet somehow social ineptitude of the player should transfer to the character...
That one player who maxes out bluff but wont tell me what he is saying and gets ticked off that I dont make the the fighter bench 400 lbs.
You dont have to be convincing at the table but you have to tell me what you say, your roll determines how well it is received. Just like I dont make the wizard memorize 9 pages of pig latin to cast a spell, but they do have to tell me what spell they cast and where it is targeted. They cant just say, "I roll spellcraft." Just like the fighter has to tell me where they stand, who they attack, and with what weapon. They can't just say, "I roll an attack."
|
|
Just like the fighter has to tell me where they stand, who they attack, and with what weapon. They can't just say, "I roll an attack."
Hmm. Does "That ugly-looking guy who's been beating me with his club for the past two rounds, I hoist my greatsword and attempt to shove it through his face all the way up to the crossguard with Power Attack" suffice? =p
|
|
I get bugged by the words "You can't burn down the inn, its plot important"
Well I would not say plot important. In my games building or at least the ones made out of materials that burn. Are not immune to fire damage. I had a group get ambushed at a inn and a player was tossing 10D6 fireballs. Then was unhappy when the owner of the inn wanted to press charges against the group. In a dungeon, outside or a area owned by no one. Devaste the surrondings to your hearts content. In a city either you tone down the pyrotechnics or one gets fined and/or arrested.
Also, the words "You can't play with an INT score of 3. No matter what you rolled. Reroll it."
I was looking forwards to the challenge.
I can't blame DMs for telling people to reroll. As a 5 in a stat is hard enough to roleplay properly. A 3 means your dumber than a bag full of hammers. I expect a character to roleplay it. Too often players want to ignore the penalty and act like a character with a int of 3 has the same intelligence like that of another player who has a 10. A low stat means a penalty imo. Not taking a low stat ignoring the negatives so that one can get a 20 in another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people using that. Other groups, including mine, avoid such low scores by requiring all 1s be rerolled during character creation until you get something that's not a 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That one dick GM who takes his player's inept inability to lie and ignores his character's awesome bluff score, because he thinks player skill should correlate with character skills yet doesn't IQ test his wizard or check his barbarian's dead weight lift max, yet somehow social ineptitude of the player should transfer to the character...That one player who maxes out bluff but wont tell me what he is saying and gets ticked off that I dont make the the fighter bench 400 lbs.
You dont have to be convincing at the table but you have to tell me what you say, your roll determines how well it is received. Just like I dont make the wizard memorize 9 pages of pig latin to cast a spell, but they do have to tell me what spell they cast and where it is targeted. They cant just say, "I roll spellcraft." Just like the fighter has to tell me where they stand, who they attack, and with what weapon. They can't just say, "I roll an attack."
I have seen, with at least a 10:1 ratio, that which you say people cannot do is the norm compared to genuine descriptive combat, both in PFS and home tables. Considering the HP system in PF is so ridiculous that you can suffer 99% damage with no negative effects, most GM's I know don't care and only narrate deathblows.
No, it's selective expectation of realism and selective expectation of role play. People, on average with very few exceptions of which you may be one, don't care if any aspect of their characters line up with their stats, except socially speaking.
If "I cast fireball and I center it about here," is suitable instead of "I roll the guano in my fingers and yell 'shabadalaothanai' when tossing it roughly 27 degrees east and ducking as it bursts outward without a sound", then "I tell a lie they probably believe" should be equally acceptable.
They can't just say, "I roll an attack."
Yeah I don't know where you get that, "I attack", sometimes occasionally with "that guy" attached, is pretty much 90% of a fightery-type's combat vocalization in most games I've ever been in.
The only real exception tends to be when someone's playing a Bo9S/PoW fighter-type and their attacks have some more flair to them than "roll 1d20+BAB".
They can't just say, "I roll an attack."Yeah I don't know where you get that, "I attack", sometimes occasionally with "that guy" attached, is pretty much 90% of a fightery-type's combat vocalization in most games I've ever been in.
The only real exception tends to be when someone's playing a Bo9S/PoW fighter-type and their attacks have some more flair to them than "roll 1d20+BAB".
I think he means that the GM needs to know what the fighter is attacking with and who they are attacking. If the fighter attacks with a great-axe every time and they are standing next to one guy then the GM can safely assume that when the fighter says "I full attack", they are attacking the one guy within reach with a great-axe. Implicitly or explicitly, that info needs to be there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can't just say, "I roll an attack."Yeah I don't know where you get that, "I attack", sometimes occasionally with "that guy" attached, is pretty much 90% of a fightery-type's combat vocalization in most games I've ever been in.
The only real exception tends to be when someone's playing a Bo9S/PoW fighter-type and their attacks have some more flair to them than "roll 1d20+BAB".
Yea, you can't play the game like that. You MUST designate a target. You cannot "just attack." You have to tell me which opponent. You have to (be prepared to) tell me what weapon you are attacking with (if I ask). You have to move your character to be within reach of that weapon. You must choose what square you end in. You must designate the route you take to get there.
If you are standing 20' away from 4 baddies with difficult terrain in some places in between and holding a rapier and main gauche you HAVE TO tell me more than "I attack."
Basically you have to make a lot of decisions about the situation beyond "I make a d20 check." I expect the same from someone using the bluff skill. "I bluff," isn't gonna cut it. You need to tell me what you are saying (roughly) so I can determine if your words "reach" them just as I need to know where the fighter is standing so I know if your sword reaches them.
That said, I am the first one to help someone along, remind them of things they know about NPCs, and generally tell them if they are on a good track. If they aren't I will let them reformulate. (Because you know exactly what the reach of your sword is, so I should let you know what the reach of your words are.) But mostly, and particularly with bluff, you have the possibility of being found-out and in order to preserve that possibility I need to know what your lie is.
|
|
That one dick GM who takes his player's inept inability to lie and ignores his character's awesome bluff score, because he thinks player skill should correlate with character skills yet doesn't IQ test his wizard or check his barbarian's dead weight lift max, yet somehow social ineptitude of the player should transfer to the character...
It´s nothing like that, and the GM of this game is not being a dick at all. The player is a nice guy, he's just a bit autistic (Like me, but a bit worse) and not very experienced at lying. Neither am I, but at least I know better than telling the cultist that we're going to sacrifice him to his god before we've drugged him and tied him up.
So it's much more like a fighter with a build for two-handed weapons deciding to throw knives instead, or a rogue going all Leroy Jenkins.Also, if you'd have read what the rules actually say about bluff you'd find that there are circumstantial modifiers based on how believable your lie is.