| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outshyn, when people say the OP isn't doing anything wrong, they aren't trying to spare him any heartache. It's their opinion. They may be wrong, but it's a little bit rude to dismiss their points of view as a mere inability to criticize.
I'm trying to help the OP to get some quality advice. I stand by my opinion that telling him "doing good, continue as normal" while players are quitting en masse is doing him/her no favors. Also this:
dismiss their points of view as a mere inability to criticize.
Isn't anything I wrote. It's simply not in my post. I didn't mean to imply it, didn't write that, nor did I wish to have readers infer it.
My belief is not that posters have an "inability to criticize." It is that people believe that the OP needs an ego boost after this devastating turn of events. I believe people think they are being good-hearted when they try to shore up his self-esteem. And I agree that they are being good hearted when they do that. However, I am suggesting that it's also not useful and even counter-productive. I believe that OP has strong enough character to power through some criticism, and even needs that criticism to get to his goal of running better games. So the truly "good person" thing to do here is help the OP get to his goal, which cannot be reached by telling him "they're nuts, you're cool" as everyone quits his games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You call it an attempt at ego-boosting. I call it an expression of honest opinions. For my part, I believe the onus is in equal parts on highly unreasonable players and some understandable but major errors on the GM's side of the screen. Your point about the twenty monsters, for instance, is a good one.
The original poster has already stated he thinks he is doing things wrong and is asking for help. He came to the forms specifically to seek advice about how to improve his game. There is no one right way to run a game. Each group and even campaigns with the same group has its own style. If everyone including the GM is having fun than the GM is doing a good job no matter what he is doing. Obviously this is not what is happening.
The most important thing a GM can do is to listen to his players. He may have a really cool idea for a campaign he thinks would be really fun to run, but if the players don’t want to play that type of a campaign no one is going to have any fun. The absolutely least fun thing for a GM is when his players are b*@%!ing and complaining about how bad he is. It turns all the fun of planning and creating a game into sheer miserly. This seems to be what is happening with the original poster.
Telling him that he is right and your group loves this type of stuff misses the point. His group does not like what he is doing. His choices are simple change or find a new group. It seems pretty clear which choice he is making.
The best advice I can give to any GM is to listen to your players. Communication is a two way street. If you ignore your players for whatever reason don’t be surprised when they do the same to you. While as a GM your word is finial don’t abuse this.
When changing a rule you have to be careful that you are not invalidating characters abilities. The example you gave of the horde of zombies is a perfect example. Using channel energy to attack undead is usually a pretty ineffective strategy. About the only time it really works is in a situation like you described. Now instead of the paladin having his moment of glory he kind of fizzled out. So now the archer lets lose a couple of arrows that somehow manage to slay 50 creatures at once. If I were playing the paladin I would have been pretty upset about that. Creating unique abilities for monsters is usually ok but changing the rules without considering their impact is where the problems usually occur. Taking things from other games or editions is usually the worst.
Regarding 7, I've actually seen a monster similar to that on d20pfsrd - the Zombie Horde. It sounds like the OP used a smaller Zombie Horde, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to help the OP to get some quality advice. I stand by my opinion that telling him "doing good, continue as normal" while players are quitting en masse is doing him/her no favors. Also this:
dismiss their points of view as a mere inability to criticize.Isn't anything I wrote. It's simply not in my post. I didn't mean to imply it, didn't write that, nor did I wish to have readers infer it.
My belief is not that posters have an "inability to criticize." It is that people believe that the OP needs an ego boost after this devastating turn of events. I believe people think they are being good-hearted when they try to shore up his self-esteem. And I agree that they are being good hearted when they do that. However, I am suggesting that it's also not useful and even counter-productive. I believe that OP has strong enough character to power through some criticism, and even needs that criticism to get to his goal of running better games. So the truly "good person" thing to do here is help the OP get to his goal, which cannot be reached by telling him "they're nuts, you're cool" as everyone quits his games.
So you're being dismissive for a different reason, but still dismissive. I stated my opinion based on the info I had. I don't think the OP needs a boost because they are having a hard time, and I don't resume to know how good the poster's self esteem is based on one post. I think that they are being too hard on themselves and said so, but also offered my opinion on what could be done differently. Maybe the OP is misrepresenting things, but I can't comment on that because i have no knowledge of that.
The OP says they had a group of players quit due to difficulty. on an AP. How is this an indication that the OP is doing things to make them quit? And unless I'm missing something, this is the only time that they have mentioned people leaving, though there is one player extremely disruptive unsatisfied with this group, they have not left as far as we have been informed.
The player complaints, as stated, are largely unreasonable, and those that are can and should be fixed, perhaps by the methods that people have been suggesting. (seriously, have you read the responses? Plenty of people have said X.Y. or Z is a problem and offered solutions. In no way, shape, or form has this thread just been a back patting session for the OP)
You call it an attempt at ego-boosting. I call it an expression of honest opinions. For my part, I believe the onus is in equal parts on highly unreasonable players and some understandable but major errors on the GM's side of the screen. Your point about the twenty monsters, for instance, is a good one.Let's be honest though we can't control the DM's players none of them are here asking if there is something they could do to improve their game. Telling the OP he's doing fine really can't help. If doing what he's doing was going to fix the problem, it would have already.
Many who've criticized the players have gone on to give suggestions such as "Talk to them and explain why their requests are unreasonable." I really don't get the point of this line of criticism.
OP-
I don't think you should get down on yourself, after all GMing is the hard job and sometimes you're not going to do the hard job as well as you'd like; that is, after all, why it's the hard job. There are two things you should focus on when you're GMing above everything else-
1) Are the players having fun?
2) Are you having fun?
If either are not true, something needs to change. If both are true, then whatever's going wrong can't be too bad. The only reliable advice I can give you is talk to your players in a context that makes it really clear this is not an adversarial relationship. After all, this is a cooperative game, both the players cooperating with each other, and the players and the GM cooperating together to tell a story they all enjoy together. So acknowledge that you're going to mess up and forget a bonus from time to time, but remind the players that keeping track of this sort of thing not only helps them but also helps you, so you appreciate it and it's something they should be paying attention to. After all, they should know their characters better than you know them (they're responsible for one person each, you're responsible for literally everyone else.) Ask them what sort of things they really enjoy doing or most want to do, and if it's the sort of thing that takes a disproportionate amount of time to play through relative to the amount of time it takes you to put together, you should probably explain that to them. Things like "a player doesn't listen" or "a player won't tell you their AC" are things that players should police each other about, since these are completely avoidable things that slow down the game for everybody. After all, if players B and C have to wait around for their turn to do something because player A isn't on the ball, they're having less fun because of player A not because of the GM (I mean, the game's less fun when you're not doing anything.)
It's possible that as level 14 characters who are really powerful, they are approaching that part of the game where "fighting stuff" ought not be the entirety of the point. At the point where the PCs can trivially obliterate all but the most powerful of adversaries, the campaign probably needs to consider who are these adversaries that are worthy of the PCs and what reason do they have to oppose each other, and how can we bring them together. Nothing makes encounters more exciting than context, after all. I mean, in the history of D&D (and associated games) the overwhelming majority of modules have been for players at the low or middle levels. Paizo's own "Adventure Finder" has 574 products for levels 1-5, 378 products for levels 6-10, and 51 products for levels 11+; the game is easier to write, easier to run, and all in all kind of works better before your players are super-powerful (when the Fighter's making 6 attacks per round, just rolling that much takes a while.) I mean, Gary Gygax considered levels 4-7 ideal for tournament modules, and that was forever ago but I think he's probably right.
What I've always done with my group (and we recently sunsetted a custom campaign setting that had been worked on collaboratively since 2001, so it's seen a few editions of this) is when the ratio of "how much work the GM has to do" to "how quickly the players can solve any problem the GM puts in front of them" starts getting out of whack, you work to set up something really cool and something really important for the PCs to do as the capstone for their story, and then at the end the PCs (whichever survive) become important NPCs in the setting, then someone else takes over the GM duties and everybody makes new stories (in the same setting, so the next person to take over can do some fanservice by doing justice to the former PCs being awesome or important.) If nothing else, having everybody in the group GM some of the time let's everyone understand that it's the hard job, but it's easiest when everyone's working together to make the game run smoothly, and everyone has the most fun that way.
2. I need to be constantly reminded of PC abilities.
The paladin emits a consecrate field but I almost always forget to reduce attacks, saves, and damage on undead. This also includes activated spells or effects they put on enemies. like when I forget that the cleric blinded enemy b.
Something I have learned from PFS, is when PCs have auras / buffs that they use a lot, ask the players to create a mini table tent that they can put up when the abilities are active. That way you can do a quick visual scan for things you need to apply, and the bard won't have to remind the others that they got an extra +1 on that roll.
For specific debuffs on opponents like blinded - I track initiative and hp on a spare corner of the battlemat, so can just write the word next to the monster's record It isn't elegant, but it is in your face as a reminder.
|
Just my 2 Cents on Open Rolling and not telling Numbers.
I highly recommend open rolling but don't tell them the Numbers of the Enemy Stats! For example you just roll for yourself but not behind a wall and tell them does a 24 hit? They don't need to see the number of the dice etc but get a feeling you are with them.
Personally hate when someone Rolls hidden except for specific reasons like Perception (Stealth etc) and if they stand up to look at the dice you know there is tension in the air because its a hard fights etc and they get nervous.
Why PCs (except highly experienced) need Numbers is to measure Strength without visual recognition.
A 30 to hit represent an highly trained accurate and well trained fighter and a high skill if the Fighter hits regulary in these numbers.
If the fighter only gets 10-15 it could just be a regular bandit.
You don't tell them what rolls you made and both rolls could be the same person with either bad or good rolls but the people get a feeling what they are against.
You tell them how many Dmg the attack does and not "you are serverly wounded" is the same concept.
The Numbers you should tell are the ones that effect the players.
IF an NPC cast defensifly and fails it the players doesn't care but if the palyers get hit and hit again without knowing anything it gets frustrating
one other issue that I just remembered is the idea that knowledge means nothing. I had this random artifact play a large part in the game, I found it in some random adventure and used it. The "problem" player actually took to the internet to learn its powers because I would not tell him, a 38 knowledge check is not high enough to know the powers of this artifact that has never seen the light of the sun. (it was made by drow). he still didn't find anything. yet whenever a monster comes up I pretty much tell them everything. DR means nothing they always bypass it because they know everything, just not EVERYTHING.and in the realm of knowledge when I say they have DR would I say 15/magic and bludgeoning? or just that magic and bludgeoning bypasses it? same with resist energy would I say resist 10 against acid cold fire or just that they resist those elements, and spell resistance do I just tell them they have it or would they know an exact number.
That sounds to me like this guy's trying to metagame. That plus refusing to tell you his AC sets off my "problem player" alarm bells. He shouldn't be using knowledge his character doesn't know, even if he personally knows it (like monster abilities).
Usually with knowledge checks, I have them roll the appropriate knowledge check to identify the monster. For every 5 they beat the DC by, they get to ask one question (plus they know basic info about the monster, e.g. they're undead). They could ask about things like weakness (which would be vulnerabilities and that sort of thing), resistances/immunities (which would include DR), special abilities, or whatever else they want to know. I don't usually tell them the amount of DR, just that they have it and what gets through it, but that's up to you.