Hi, So I'm GM-ing Jade Regent right now and my players are on Night of Frozen Shadows. I have a player who has been clearly frustrated by this section of the AP and after tonight's session made that known. Essentially the notoriety point system has made him feel as though his enemies vastly out skill and have vastly out maneuvered him at every turn and that makes him feel less heroic and that he shouldn't even bother. He said that his philosophy about gaming is that the players should feel heroic, and that that series of encounters which has things like people sneaking up on him without so much as a roll to spot, people tailing the pc's with ease, people sneaking into his room when he can find no way how they would know where he was staying, ambush attacks in which once the ambusher was cornered they had an invisibility potion which they drank and ran away. He just feels like the game is presenting opponents that are too powerful and overwhelming. He's really frustrated that he is often not allowed checks.
From my perspective (and I'm running these encounters as written) the enemy has a vast network of spies and informants and has been set up in this city for over five decades. They are intelligent and well prepared. I feel as though the party built themselves with several holes which the enemy exploits. I dont know, I guess my impression is that the author wanted to set them up in a scenario where the players felt unsafe, one that built upon dread and intrigue, you don't know who to trust or where to turn to and so the challenge is to take out the mob in a mobbed up city while surviving the fact that you are at a disadvantage.
So I think both perspectives are valid, and I kind of blame myself for him seeing it the way he does instead of the way I do. I'm not sure what I did but the tone of slow mounting dread, of being surrounded and not knowing where to turn has come across as a tone of ultimately they can stat whatever they want and create challenges we can't overcome if they choose so why are we even playing.
I want to turn it around, and since I'm clearly not on the same wavelength I need advice.
I need direction on anything I can do (tonally) to change the feel of the campaign.
I played through night of frozen shadows and some of the
Talking to the player out of game is the only way of getting any kind of long term results to your concerns. When I GM I'm usually very forthright with my players, "Hey guys tonight we're doing a horror theme so try to stay in character as much as possible and put away the electronics", "Alright guys I'm throwing you into a sandbox this time around so plan your characters with some pro-activity and sense of adventure in mind". Even though the characters that your players are role-playing have no way to know this information simply giving it to the players is going a long way towards:
A) Creating the Atmosphere and as you put, tone that you are trying to achieve.
B) Absolving yourself of some of the responsibility as you literally told the players what to expect.
I used to not do any of that and thought that keeping everything a surprise would lead more organic (and therefore in my mind a more enjoyable) story. My fear was that once I told the players what to expect it would cheapen the experience and lead to a boring adventure. However, much to my surprise just the opposite turned out to be true. Telling my players what to expect not only failed to cheapen or "ruin" my game but has actually served to enhance it, and dare I say, build tension as my players know the general tone and feel of the adventure/session, but not how it will be executed; and THAT is what leads to some truly awesome and memorable moments. Conversely, withholding that information from my players has ruined games and led to the death of more than one campaign. In summation, tell your player, and ideally all players at the same time and place, the theme or feel or tone you are trying to go for out of game beforehand, trust me it works wonders.
All that being said, I really do think that Night of Frozen Shadows is kind of a dud.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well to be honest, I have trouble seeing his point of view because when it comes to combat the PC's are beasts. They've had one encounter that threatened them a lot and that was in Brinewall Legacy and was mostly because they wanted to finish the last room of the dungeon without resting. The Sniper ambush they just went through really hurt one PC but he had plenty of HP and in three rounds she was almost dead and had to drink an invis potion to run. The player who I'm at odds with had a dispel magic scroll but failed to make the check and she still barely got away.
He just feels that (to use his words) "The game isn't giving him any of the tools he needs to solve the problems it presents."
They've been murder-mancing their way through two and a half books, sometimes I have to alter stats just so the NPC's have a prayer to hit because frankly I don't see what's fun about "fish in a barrel".
He mostly seems to be upset about encounters triggered by notoriety points. Some blind beggar gives the PC's a death threat and when they question him he tells them he was paid a copper to say the threat to the person who "smells like cabbage" only to discover that someone had rubbed cabbage on his cloak. He was like how could they do that without him noticing? how come he didn't get a roll? I tried to tell him that Kalsgrad is a metropolis and that the streets are packed and he was just mad. Mad that the Raven Wodes found them, mad that people found out where his room was and broke in, mad that the enemy seems one step ahead, mad that when they went to question someone his blood geas killed him.
So I tried to tell him that this book is about a ninja cabal and that they are trying to make these guys live up to their reputation, I tried that, that was an out of game discussion, and his take away was that it was lame that there were times where the npcs could just seem to have foreknowledge or do things without him(or a fellow PC) being allowed an opposed roll.
I tried to say well they've been embedded in the core workings of the city for decades, have vast networks of spies and informants, have vast resources. I tried to apologize for a crime syndicate being exactly what it's supposed to be all the while watching the PC's murder hobo through "elite" bodyguards and traps, easily steering them on the path they need to smash the secret ninja hideout. Seriously they're 4th level and one of them has a 34 AC and can hand out +8AC to an adjacent character as an immediate action. Another routinely does 35 damage a round. None of their success bothers me but I just don't understand how someone doing so well can feel like he isn't being given a fair deal.
This players character is a Samsaran, he's the only blue skinned person in the city, he hangs out with a tiefling and a dude with a pet crocodile, how hard could they be to keep tabs on?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are the PC's even supposed to know about notoriety points? Giving the PC's a general idea of what's going on is good but straying into the realm of specifics (i.e. numbers) is just going to result in the players trying to maximize their numbers to be the most favorable to them and justifying the actions to achieve those numbers as an afterthought. This makes sense because for almost every other part of the game this is what the PC's are supposed to be doing, tweaking their numbers to get the best results. So naturally when they are given a number, their first instinct is to immediately focus on and attempt to control that number, treating the scenery, characters and story as secondary features.
It sounds like you've already tried diplomatically approaching the situation without much success. There are a lot of ways to justify the actions of the ninjas in game, many of which you already mentioned, but in game answers are rarely satisfying and don't address underlying issues. Your player(s) made very powerful PC's, in their minds they should be rewarded for that and right now its the opposite, they feel like they are being punished. Explaining to them that that isn't the case might help, but doesn't go about offering any solutions. If your players have a single role-playing bone in their body you could try it from that angle. Something along the lines of,
Ameiko: "I guess sometimes there are no solutions to the problems we face and no matter what we do we're destined to fail. Maybe my family was right to run when they had the chance, leaving Sandpoint was a mistake."
Hopefully, the players will pick up on that and try to convince her otherwise. Then in the near future they just so happen to make a big breakthrough on the task at hand and everyone's faith is renewed.
Seriously they're 4th level and one of them has a 34 AC ...
I'd like to see the numbers behind that, it would hugely surprise me if a player is able to manage that legitimately at level 4. While I'm reticent to throw around the term powergamers, it sounds like you might have a few. At the very least they are heavy optimizers and at the absolute upper end of the power scale for their level. Like 2 standard deviations away, 95th percentile end. Honestly, this is a product of system. A PC is very likely to be killed because a tough monster passed his save against a spell or is left standing with just a couple of hit points. However a player is rarely if ever going to die for failing a diplomacy check or knowledge roll. Even if this were the case a GM is going to be very hesitant to kill that PC in that circumstance because it isn't satisfying for most groups and in many cases feels "cheap". So when it comes down to selecting feats, stats, gear, etc. a PC is more often than not going to cover the combat portions first because that is what is going to kill them 99.9% of the time. Players for the most part work hard on their characters, they care about them, spend hours comparing the various options and combinations and you can bet everything you have that players will do whatever it takes to keep their characters from being killed.
For many people, character death isn't a role-play opportunity, it isn't the result of some freak coincidence of lucky/unlucky rolls and it isn't just "part of the game", to them it's a failure. A lot of times the response that you'll see in response to a character death is that the players crunch numbers harder and optimize more so that they never "fail" again.
It can be exceedingly frustrating to have a PC that shows up who can solo encounters, intended or otherwise. But if the player can't see that sometimes he is going to clean house with enemies and other times he occasionally might be presented with a challenge of some kind and isn't really responding to your attempts to balance those two situations to craft a game that everyone can enjoy, then well ... maybe this isn't the game for him.
Pipedreamsam answered the out of game situation up more eloquently than I could. To be on book three and still be level 4 seems quite strange though?
My specific advice would be to let the PC haves some perception checks to notice things or even flat out give them more clues. Have the player notice that a trader gets jostled into him carrying a tray of cabbages. What are they going to do kill the guy. I guess try and give some clues rather than hand waving stuff. It can also be better to say "you don't know how they managed to know which inn" rather than try and look a reason and then make something up on the fly. I do think if there is someone following them they should get a perception test to notice. You can still make the tail non-threatening. Maybe it's an urchin paid a copper to follow them and see which inn they go to. Maybe it's a vendor who's threatened with having his stall smashed buy a fellow who visits infrequently. In terms of enemies escaping - i think it is possibly the most frustrating thing a DM can do and should be used very carefully.
PCs are never going to start investing in non-combat skills unless you start calling for non-combat roles. I'm currently DMing skull and shackles and Shattered Star and in both campaign I warned the PCs that profession sailor, bluff, knowledge (geography), craft (shipbuilding) / knowledge (history), knowledge (dungeoneering), appraise, would be used - a lot. One of the players didn't take profession (sailor) at first level and soon learnt his lesson. Now he's the Master of Sails of a ship.
good luck, it seems you are almost half way through the campaign. In my experience over powerful players have resulted in more campaigns ending than any other reason. As the DM gets bored setting up challenges that are anything but and the players cake walk everything. I hope you can sort it.
I can see where the player is coming from, though I don't think it's your fault at all. I never got this far in Jade Regent, my group got TPK'd early on (quite hilariously I might add) but I find when I play a game and am faced with opponents that outclass me so easily I feel like my actions don't matter. I am being railroaded to do what these powerful people want so screw it what is the point? I can choose to die or follow the railroad (death seems kinda promising). If I don't get a roll to even try it just irks me. I am not power gamer at all but doing well in combat and doing well in social interactions are completely different and just because a player dominates in one doesn't mean that want to be useless in the other. The problem to me, seems to be the social encounter design. It just seems bad (mind you I havn't read the book)and should be balanced. which is a lot harder to do than balance combat encounters, but I suggest balancing it all the same. It isn't as simple as changing to hit values or hp but give the players a chance to shine and make choices outside of combat. It differs for every group and its a lot of work, but thats the curse we DM's suffer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why AREN'T your players getting checks to notice any of this stuff? If a beggar could notice the smell of cabbage to know who to threaten, why didn't the PC get a perception check notice the smell, or to notice the cabbaging when it happened? If they were tracked to their inn, where's the knowledge local or diplomacy checks to gather information about how they were found? If they're being followed, where is the perception check to spot the tail?
If your answers to any of this is "Because I/the GM/the book says so, then basically you ARE telling your players that nothing they do matters, their fates are completely subjective to the whims of the GM. As far as they are concerned, you are basically telling them "rocks fall, you die" without giving them a chance. Because they are not given the opportunity to interact with what was going on, in their minds, they may as well just sit back and not do anything, because the GM is going to do whatever they have planned anyway.
This can be easily mitigated by simply giving them checks. They can be hard checks, the kind of check where they need roll well to succeed, but checks nonetheless. That way when they are told they were assaulted by stealth cabbage, they remember back to the perception check they rolled which you answered with "Oh, ok, you don't notice anything," and think that they had a chance, and simply were failed by their dice. And then they get mad at their dice, not you or the storyline.
Just because the checks aren't included in the book doesn't mean you can't put them in. You can alter the story to better suit your players.
Well let me first respond to several assumptions:
role v roll play: My players are both good roleplayers and good optimizers and our troupe does not truck with that premise that you must be one or the other.
combat v non-combat rolls: my players character's have plenty of non combat rolls, one even has skill focus diplomacy. I just mention their combat efficacy because I have trouble understanding how he has a feeling of "there's nothing I can do" when they smash any threat they come across. I don't have a problem with them being so victorious, far from it, but if I were so capable I would feel very much in control.
"rail-roading" v not: This adventure is actually very non linear and point of fact my players have approached the encounters in a different order than the book expected and altering it to meet that path was fairly easy and straight forward.I have also added a bunch of side encounters that aren't even in the book just to flesh out the city.
Now that I've done that I will say that I did make them aware of notoriety points and that was perhaps a bad idea but I figured it would make it easier to track them. Once the players tracking them realized they triggered bad things they started to question why they were getting them and perhaps out of cowardice or more so they would know I wasn't trying to screw them over I would read the NP reward paragraph to explain why they got what they got. This was perhaps a horrid mistake, I personally think the awards all make sense but I digress.
As for why they occasionally don't get checks and the loss of control- Let's take the now lauded "stealth cabbage" example, here's it as presented:
Event 4(12 NP)Anonymous Threat; As the PC's pass a blind and crippled beggar on the street, he mumbles, "They know who you are and are coming for you." If questioned, the beggar states only that he was given a pair of copper pennies to say that phrase when a group that smelled of boiled cabbage walked past him. A DC10 Perception check is enough to realize that boiled cabbage has been rubbed on one of the PC's cloaks- something that could have easily occurred as the PC's rubbed shoulders with passersby and street vendors alike through the crowded streets of Kalsgrad. If the PC's examine the copper coins given to the beggar(they didn't), a DC 15 Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (local) check identifies them as Minkai coins.
So the encounter doesn't call for a check until after the threat. Should I have altered it? Maybe but that ship has sailed.
I could tell that he was getting frustrated over the past few sessions which is why we talked about it out of game, the "triggering" event this session being a sniper attack, which came the day after the players broke into the Rimerunners guild and let two guards escape. So to me there's nothing unfair about that, two guys got away and told their boss who hired a hitwoman.
This is just one encounter and there are a few others that try to present the same theme, that theme being "You aren't in control, we are ninja, we are in every shadow, we are coming for you." This is a long con intimidation. It is meant to make the PC's feel threatened, it is meant for them to not feel in control. I mean during the cabbage incident all the Frozen Shadows know about the PC's is that they are strangers who are walking around the city the shadows are guarding after they have been put on high alert that the Seal of Amatatsu has been loosed. The Frozen Shadows are messing with every group of well armed new comers at this point because they are trying to determine who is working with the new heir. The PC's then started to directly interefere with the Rimerunners and Frozen Shadows operations so gradually more and more of the guilds attention is focused on them which accounts for the escalating encounters.
So the PC's want to feel in control, I get that, but this AP is one long escort mission. They are not quested with going to slay a dragon, they are quested with protecting a person until she can go to a place. They are on defense, that's the theme. Defense can still be heroic.
I researched AP's before I started running this and many many people on these boards say that this is their favorite and through Brinewall Legacy my Players seemed to really like it, now it's like a 180. Which is funny because Brinewall to me is a boring book long introduction to the real AP. I like the NP system, I was excited about using it, and now I feel like if I don't run adventures where the PC's constantly steer I will piss them off.
So I guess I'm looking for advice on how to give them their feeling of control while still keeping an aura of mystery and menace for the villains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which people have given. You need to at least let them have the ILLUSION of control.
Let's take the stealth cabbage again. They get cabbaged by an uber ninja, ask them to roll perception. If they get a 30 or higher, they notice the man bumping past them with a boiled cabbage. If they get a 10 or higher you just tell them "For some reason, you smell boiled cabbage." and if they stop and take 20 or something, they pinpoint the smell coming from one party member.
Does this effect the beggar threatening them in any way? Nope, it still happens, because they smell like cabbage. But now they were able to interact with the acquisition of cabbage smell, so they don't feel like their agency has been taken away. The ILLUSION of control is maintained. This can also be used to make the MORE paranoid. Ask them to roll checks when NOTHING is going on. And when they roll high, toss out nonsensical things they notice. A child watching them (why wouldn't a kid watch them, they look funny), something moving where something shouldn't be (just a rat), a pile of dig poop they're about to walk into.
The characters do not have control of the events around them, nor the ninja guild or anything else. But the PLAYERS feel like they do. That's what's important. You need to make sure you differentiate between the two.
A LOT of players HATE when agency is taken away from them, so it's no surprise that at least one member of your group has reacted this way. If you feel that the lack of PLAYER control, as opposed to a lack of character control, is too important to the campaign you are running and you have to keep it, they be aware that at least one of your players hates it and is not having fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
basically
let him catch a Ninja
let that lead to a nest of ninjas
dead ninjas everywhere
And remeber the Inverse Ninja law
Lots of Ninjas= fodder
1 Ninja alone = god o' death
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, your first mistake is making this you vs. him as far as who is right or wrong. The bottom line is that this player is not having fun, and from experience I can tell it is likely that if one player ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. I'm sure you have spent a lot of time and energy on the game, and it hurts to not feel appreciated for that kind of effort, but you have to get past that and with the problem in an effective manner.
So this is a 'real' issue and one that you have to address. There are a lot of potential solutions out there, and which one will work best will depend greatly on you and your group. The best course would be to ask the player who is having a problem as well as the other players what they think should be done. They know how they feel about the game and what they like better than any of us here do, and if they help come up with a solution they are a whole lot more likely to be invested in making it work.
Obviously, this solution has to be one that works for you. If they think you should redo this entire section of the path but you don't have time for then obviously that isn't a realistic solution, but hopefully you can come up with something that works reasonable well for everyone.
Should that fair you are probably left with the choices of a different game, no game at all, or the player who isn't happy not joining in for a while. For me those would all be pretty drastic options, but better than continuing something that is making everyone unhappy and angry at each other.
I am the kind of GM who treats a random encounter table as a list for deciding on encounters in advance. I did the same thing with the Notoriety Point encounters in Night of Frozen Shadows. Besides, I could not play it straight, because two players joined the party so late that I made them residents of Kalsgard. They were already notorious! My account of that campaign is at this link here.
This is just one encounter and there are a few others that try to present the same theme, that theme being "You aren't in control, we are ninja, we are in every shadow, we are coming for you." This is a long con intimidation. It is meant to make the PC's feel threatened, it is meant for them to not feel in control. I mean during the cabbage incident all the Frozen Shadows know about the PC's is that they are strangers who are walking around the city the shadows are guarding after they have been put on high alert that the Seal of Amatatsu has been loosed. The Frozen Shadows are messing with every group of well armed new comers at this point because they are trying to determine who is working with the new heir. The PC's then started to directly interefere with the Rimerunners and Frozen Shadows operations so gradually more and more of the guilds attention is focused on them which accounts for the escalating encounters.
This is key information. (It is also funny in contract, because my Jade Regent party contained a better ninja than the Frozen Shadows and she kept criticizing them as amateurs.) You need to have them bump into one of those other groups of newcomers and compare notes.
Send the message, "You aren't in control," to an adventuring party and their natural reaction is to grab some kind of control. Your players are looking for hooks, yet you are giving them only the railroad that the module set up of them. They can't plan for Notoriety Point encounters, so they are still not in control. Let them break out of the module's plan. Let them counterambush some ninjas. If they don't have a rogue, ninja, or investigator of their own, let one of the other newcomers be one, "I spotted one of them. I will signal you next time I see him up to something." He can warn them of Event 9 or Event 10. The blood geas from Oathtaker prevents a captured ninja from revealing anything, so the encounter won't derail the plot. That helpful newcomer can later be the murder victim for Event 7, A Fatal Warning, if you skipped that one.
Besides, it would be good preparation for Tide of Honor and The Empty Throne to warn them that sometimes they have to keep below their enemies' radar.
And an important question is coming up: if the Frozen Shadows are all=powerful, why don't they kill Ameiko? A chance of being a lost Amatatsu heir with access to the Amatatsu Seal is sufficient reason for a death sentence. It is possible that the Frozen Shadows are running scared. They intimidate newcomers because they are not strong enough to kill all the newcomers that could be associated with the Amatatsu Seal. Another possibility is that Kimandatsu wants to capture the Amatatsu heir alive, and deliver her to the Five Storms in a play for more power, but first she needs to figure out whether the heir is any of the visitors to Kalsgard.
Players love to whine when things don't go their way. I like to remind them when they get whiny. Tell him to suck it up and be a hero. That means persevering through those moments when the entire game doesn't lay down and roll over for them.
Players love to whine when things don't go their way. I like to remind them when they get whiny. Tell him to suck it up and be a hero. That means persevering through those moments when the entire game doesn't lay down and roll over for them.
Players also love to have the 'illusion of choice' that was mentioned earlier up-thread.
There's whining because well, the GM is doing their job, but then there's also the other 'whining' which is more indicative of a communications breakdown between GM and players.
And one of those kinds of breakdowns is the sort of thing that can lead to table-flipping and assault charges, depending on circumstances.
Please note: I am not advocating violence here, nor am I advocating for 'soft' GM play-style.
Well, this is a game, not a story. Try to emphasize more gameplay and less authoring. Just because the written module is written one way, that doesn't mean it was written in the way to maximize the fun of your players. If your players aren't having fun, they probably will stop playing your game.
I am advocating a long bamboo stick with which to hit whiny players upon the head. All it takes is a swift "whack" and a reminder. "Stop whining and be more creative."
Well, this is a game, not a story. Try to emphasize more gameplay and less authoring. Just because the written module is written one way, that doesn't mean it was written in the way to maximize the fun of your players. If your players aren't having fun, they probably will stop playing your game.
In our group, that is usually about the time we let that person run the game. 1) It lets us see what they consider a "good" game. 2) Others tend to appreciate the break, and if it falls on it's face they can see firsthand just what it is like to be on the other side of the screen. Sometimes we need reminding (on both sides of the screen).
I will say, I don't think I've ever been one of those players who plays the game "because of the game". It has always been a social thing, we play with friends and that is why we are there. The game is secondary, at best. Not to say we haven't had great games, but the reality was we were there to enjoy each others company. So maybe we are a little more forgiving on when things don't meet expectations or something like that.
It is good that you are trying to figure out how to make it better, but there exists the possibility that there isn't anything you can do as well. Maybe your games aren't the right fit for that person. Who knows, maybe it would be better off they did decide to stop playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players needs the illusion of choice. End of discussion. Give them perception checks. Doesn't matter if the check is a 30 and they will only make it on a 17, give them that choice. It is absolutely crucial. There is nothing more irritating as a PC than things happening out of your control when you were never even given the chance of gaining it in the first place.
Not granting checks is akin to railroading. Of course your PC is irritated.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm with your player on this one.
There is a VERY, VERRRRRY big difference between "This enemy is better than you" and "I GM Fiat'd his success".
If the ninja has +26 Stealth vs your PC's +18 Perception, there's always a chance your ninja rolls low, your PC rolls high, or both.
"Things happened, deal with it" really does make you feel like everything your character does and could do is worthless. If the enemy can just succeed without you even getting a chance to notice they did something until after the fact, much less notice while they're doing it, that's frankly bullshit.
It's honestly, bad writing. It's not really your fault if you're following the AP as written, but your player does have a point. Assign some DCs, stat up some of these ninjas and have them make the proper checks (even as simple as having them Take 10 on Stealth and having that be the Perception DC to spot them).
Let's put it this way...if a ninja can sneak up to you while carrying a stinky cabbage, that you miraculously cannot smell until after he both rubs it all over you, leaves, and you walk several blocks to some beggar (for that matter, this is f$~*ing stupid anyway unless NOBODY ELSE IN THE CITY EVER EATS OR OTHERWISE COMES NEAR A CABBAGE), what's stopping the ninja from just killing you in your sleep since he's clearly undetectable?
The answer is, of course, "the book doesn't say he does", which destroys both verisimilitude and any investment in the story altogether. You fail because the book says you does. By extension, you succeed because the books says you can this time, arbitrarily.
Why are you even playing then?
As others have said, illusion of choice is important. Having them roll checks at times, even for unimportant things, is very useful, and keeps them from thinking "I just failed a perception check, something bad must be happening" (or at least quickly breaks that behavior).
I just want to add that you should have tidbits of information planned to give them even if they fail. The only time you should say, "You notice nothing odd" is if they roll terribly. That's another step that helps prevent metagaming.
Alternatively, get a reasonably up-to-date copy of their character sheets for your own reference (you should probably have one of these anyway, just to keep track of their abilities and knowing their modifiers). That way, you can roll for them to see if they notice things/fail saves against subtle effects/etc. (Roll it away from the table, before the game, unless there's a reason for them to see you rolling). You could also assume that they're taking 10 on perception checks if they aren't actively looking for something. If you do that, let them know that you're pre-rolling these types of things for them. -- It'd be good to combine this with my last suggestion so that they can see this 'mechanic' being used and not ignored.
You could also assume that they're taking 10 on perception checks if they aren't actively looking for something. If you do that, let them know that you're pre-rolling these types of things for them. -- It'd be good to combine this with my last suggestion so that they can see this 'mechanic' being used and not ignored.
The other benefit for this is if you're the flavorful sort of GM, you can add in 'local flavor' to your descriptions based on their rolls, and make the environment 'live' a little bit better. It's not for every GM, but sometimes it's a neat thing.
I am the kind of GM who treats a random encounter table as a list for deciding on encounters in advance. I did the same thing with the Notoriety Point encounters in Night of Frozen Shadows. Besides, I could not play it straight, because two players joined the party so late that I made them residents of Kalsgard. They were already notorious! My account of that campaign is at this link here.
Send the message, "You aren't in control," to an adventuring party and their natural reaction is to grab some kind of control. Your players are looking for hooks, yet you are giving them only the railroad that the module set up of them. They can't plan for Notoriety Point encounters, so they are still not in control. Let them break out of...
Thanks Mathmuse your advice is really good. To answer your question about Ameiko my players hate tag along NPC's so once Sandru said he knew some varisians he Ameiko and Koya could hide with the PC's leapt at the chance to be a smokescreen. So essentially the Frozen Shadows aren't tracking three people who haven't done anything drink by a caravan. They know where Ravenscraeg is now so there might be narrative time left but I might try to squeeze in othe adventurers who were also being followed.
Look, I love running games from published materials. I probably would have never DMed (or, these days, have the time for DMing) if it weren't for all the wonderful people out there who publish adventures/ modules/ etc.
That being said, running a game from published materials is a very different animal from running a totally reactive game. The players don't really have free will. However, you really have to give them the illusion of free will. That means you have to persuade them to do what you want them to do. You have to let them think they have the opportunity to foil your evil plans.
Honestly, the players should be getting perception checks for some of these things. They should be getting perception checks to see if they're followed by urchins as opposed to just being followed. The difference is that they are receiving the information as opposed to being told the information.
Going back to the beggar/ cabbage opportunity, I would have role played out someone with cabbage bumping into them. I might have even asked them to roll a perception check to notice someone putting cabbage on them. If the players make the roll, role play from there. ("What are you doing?" Cabbage vendor, awkwardly, "Oh, sorry, sir, I was, uh, trying to wipe this cabbage off of you." "No, you weren't, you were putting it on me! It's a poison! (player rolls some sort of check to identify that it is in fact, cabbage) "Why are you doing this?" (player rolls an intimidate check. If they make the check, they get basically the same information they would have gotten from the bum.)
You can't run every encounter exactly as written. You have to figure out what the take away is (in this case, the take away is that someone is stalking them and investing money into messing with their heads). Does it have the same dramatic effect as being accosted by the beggar bum? Maybe not, but, it lets players interact more with the scene than being plotted at. The end result is still the same.
The thing with perception checks is that sometimes you can't really straight up ask for a perception check without tipping your hand that there is something to be perceived. So ask them to roll a straight D20. You should have a copy of everyone's character sheet, so you can apply the modifiers. Sometimes, I ask my players to roll random dice just to keep them on their toes.
The player's characters should have a chance to notice what is happening. Get some Perception chances to notice the "reverse cabbage pickpocket", or the being shadowed when moving about in the city, etc..
Also let one of the informants working against them try to double-dip by runnig both sides. Gimme 10 Gold and ill let you know something important. Telling the PCs that they stick out like gaudy dogs in this city. Which makes it quiet easy to keep "some party" interested in them informed of their moves.
-
Why even try clandestine stuff when one of them IS BLUE and the other has a PET CRODODILE?!? Just ask Johnny Everydude if they have seen that crazy circus troupe.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am advocating a long bamboo stick with which to hit whiny players upon the head. All it takes is a swift "whack" and a reminder. "Stop whining and be more creative."
I'm sorry, but we're not dogs that a GM needs to "break". If anyone hit me with a stick and ordered me to "Get more creative" I'd very swiftly convince everyone to leave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally wouldn't be that polite. Get a whack, give a whack has always been my motto.
|
The thing with perception checks is that sometimes you can't really straight up ask for a perception check without tipping your hand that there is something to be perceived. So ask them to roll a straight D20. You should have a copy of everyone's character sheet, so you can apply the modifiers. Sometimes, I ask my players to roll random dice just to keep them on their toes.
One thing that I've done in the past when I didn't want to tip my hand on perception checks is to tell the players that there will be some checks in the near future and have them roll a series of checks that I record and use sequentially later in the session. If they fail a check, they don't know that they have. I simply mark off the rolls on the list as they're used. It's also a good way to deal with sense motive checks because it prevents the problem of players knowing someone is lying or being underhanded even if they fail the check and their characters don't.
I use the pre-rolled checks for passive situations only. I don't use the pre-rolled checks when a player asks to make one. In that case the player makes the role at the time. I also have them roll at the time if they ask a question or take an action that would require the roll.
|
The best way I have experienced to DM reactive checks(if you want suspense rather than just a chill game) is to have all of your players numbers for reactive things(like perception, sense motive, etc.) and have them roll(and you roll) whenever something could be happening. Then they never feel like they aren't given a chance against problems. Also: establish a marching order for each situation, and have them be in that order 100% of the time when it would make sense and 0% of the time when it wouldn't(like if they are attacked while shopping or something). These two things will always make the players feel like they are in control(and if they meta their characters into never leaving the marching formation or etc. then it's a good idea to have NPC's treat them like the paranoid freaks they are.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could assume the passive individual making the perception or sense motive takes 10. Meaning only one person needs to roll. Not practical at all times and it prevents groups of 20 people always spotting the thief sneaking. I.e players is trying to bluff and vendor with sense motive +6 the player needs to raise 17.
Other tip on not tipping your hand as mentioned above is to have innocuous facts ready to go. E.g the streets in this area seem to sloping every so slightly downwards. Or you spot several grills that could lead down to sewers. Only if someone passes the test do you gain the goods.
I'm also trying out degrees of success in my games at the moment to make skills more exciting. Fail by 5 notice nothing; fail by less than five and get an uneasy feeling, succeed to see someone is following you, success by more than five to see that the scrawny man with the moustache has followed you for the last four streets and stops when you stop. It avoids the lack of care about skills form 10 ranks and higher.
I am advocating a long bamboo stick with which to hit whiny players upon the head. All it takes is a swift "whack" and a reminder. "Stop whining and be more creative."
I regularly walk from GMs with that attitude.
I've GMed for this book and after my group's experiences I have to side with the players on this one. I understand that this is a very well-established organization and it makes sense to have them easily attain information about the PCs, locate them, and screw around with them, I think that the encounters this book uses to do so are unfair and that the book attempts to railroad players by making sure that the enemy always gets away and failing to allow the PCs to take actions to fight back.
First off, let's take a look at the Notoriety system. Many of the encounters are designed in such a way that confronting or killing the enemy automatically gives them NP. The players can hardly be expected to go through an entire book trying to resolve encounters with brutal killers by not fighting back, that's silly, but for some reason the book is designed to punish anyone who tries. Second, if you spare anyone and let them live the players gain even more NP than they would have originally. My players captured Helva and were debating on leaving her alive or killing her. One of them killed her without consulting anyone else to speed things up which caused a lot of party conflict, but they didn't know that it saved them from triggering the Sniper event before they reached Level 5. Additionally, once you hit 37 NP it triggers a chain reaction that starts three more events in sequence that the players have no chance to stop. Although there are ways to reduce the amount of NP you will gain throughout this book, many are unavoidable unless you don't fight back against the enemies who are trying to kill you or you slaughter everyone regardless of their pleas for mercy. These are not heroic actions and are designed to make the players feel helpless. That is not a good design.
Secondly, there are multiple encounters in this book that are designed to kill someone or severely cripple the party. The Sniper encounter with Hejka is the first - this enemy gets three attacks a round, is guaranteed at least one sneak attack, and if they manage to roll well for initiative can easily kill a player. At least this encounter targets the most heavily-armored character, whose AC and HP are likely to be high enough to have a chance of survival - it still nearly killed my group's Samurai before anyone got a chance to act. Second is Omiyani's Deadly Kiss, an encounter where the party is ambushed by a deadly assassin whose tactics block encourages targeting an archer or spellcaster with a dart laced with Black Lotus Extract, a DC 20 poison that deals 1d6 CON damage for 6 rounds and requires two saves to cure. In my group she successfully poisoned their Sorcerer then ran away, assuming he would die. The players wanted to track her down but there's no skill checks listed or even a description of how she tries to escape. That too is poor design. If I had enforced the pain this book unfairly dishes out he would've died, but I allowed the group to find and buy out every Delay Poison scroll in the city to allow Koya to prepare Neutralize Poison and potentially save his life (she succeeded). Two more encounters on the way up to Ravenscraeg are worth noting - there's a Spider Eater whose poison paralyzes its victim on a failed save for 1d6+5 weeks. Then, there are three ninjas who ambush them on the stairs, and one attempts to trip a PC which has a 50% chance of knocking them off the stairs if it succeeds. The player then has one shot at a DC 17 Reflex save to avoid taking 9d6 fall damage, and after two fights that has the potential to kill someone easily. In our campaign Ameiko went with the PCs and got tripped, barely passing the save and avoiding death. There are a couple dangerous encounters inside but the worst of them (the hellwasp swarm) gives some pretty heavyhanded hints that you should avoid it, so my players left it alone.
Third, the players have very little agency in this book. They will gain NP no matter what they do, and most groups will gain a rather unfair amount. Some of the events have NPCs do things to the players with no chance for them to discover it before it's too late to prevent or track down the culprit (such as that cabbage thing, which isn't even the worst offender). There are too many loose ends and potential actions the players could take that are simply not accounted for, and encounters are designed to prevent players from being able to fight their aggressors. Nobody likes being railroaded, and this book is very blatant about taking away the player's agency. That isn't fun.
Finally, this book's plot has some major holes that make it difficult to believe it's truly a finished product. Upon triggering the Kidnapped! event, one of the NPCs is captured and taken to Ravenscraeg to be locked up. The book suggests taking Ameiko as an option, but if she was captured there would be no realistic reason to not kill her immediately and properly dispose of the body since she is the last remaining Amatatsu. Similarly, at this point the Frozen Shadows know where the caravan's members sleep - why don't they just come in the middle of the night and kill everyone, ensuring their victory? Why does the book include a werebear if it has no intentions of addressing the possibility that a player might actually contract the disease (as my party's Samurai did after somehow failing the initial roll and the reroll)? Why does Kimandatsu casually discard Suishen, the incredibly powerful artifact with powers tailored to fight oni that she had stolen from Fynn Snaevald specifically to keep it away from the PCs, and simply assume that they wouldn't find it rather than taking precautionary measures to ensure it wouldn't be found? Why didn't she just bury it somewhere in the wilderness, knowing they'd have no way to track it down? What happens if the PCs actually do open the box, causing all the oni to know where they are?
All-in-all, the book pretends to be a sandbox-style investigation where player choice matters but through a broken Notoriety system, poor encounter design, railroading, and plot holes it fails to deliver while leaving the players feeling like they were helpless to do anything to impact the scenarios.
|
Well it looks like if they are not ULFEN then being noticed should be pretty easy in this community that they are in, however the encounters should be likely brought up to reflect the Ninja's. when talking about the tight and cramped streets bringing up a perception roll here and there and on the first ones stating.
"Looks like someone might have smeared there food on your cloak as you smell Cabbage as the _______ person continues eating and walking down the street"
Or
"With how crowded the streets are you do notice some people taking notice of the more exotic looking people within the group. Some fascinated others worried and a few of others looking unsure of things about them." - Really good to add fear in such cases of Tieflings :-)
Not sure how many of the NP Encounters you've done yet with the group. But adding a bit of flavor to the world around them and engaging there 'five senses' with a bit of flavor text before an encounter will normally leave them wondering if they should make more perception rolls or sense motive rolls and on who.
If any of the characters are trying for a romance with Ameiko you might have that character and Ameiko attacked when alone for that event instead of hand waving it as going missing.
Despite what Blood Geas does, it might be good to have it make sense also. It says a prisoner will die 1 round after talking but not about what. So my guess would be anything dealing with the Ninja clan that put it on them. Otherwise, the Prisoner can still give FALSE information :3
leading to encounters that the PC's can deal with and feel a bit better that it's not all one sided.