| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal preference is not to change what number comes up on a dice roll - i.e a roll of a 4 becomes a 12. We roll roll in the open, unless the roll by necessity needs to be secret - bluff etc.
However it is my belief that it is absolutely the DMs responsibility to adapt written adventures to their individual groups power level. Assuming that an adventure that was designed to apply to thousands of different groups will be one size fits all, is like going into a shop that only has one size suit and expecting a perfect fit.
Adding subtracting/foes, amending stats, adding templates, and adjusting feats/spells/hps is not cheating. It is called adventure writing, the fact that you start with a published adventure as a base is no different! DMs make choices all the time - ghoul or ghast, hobgoblin or bugbear. Two handed weapon or one handed. These are choices DMs make all the time... absolutely not cheating.
Good DMs don't try to get their kicks at the players expense. Bad DMs will continue to do so. Extending combat by a round or two to increase tension and dramatic effect doesn't change that fact. Similarly players don't 'win' pathfinder by killing foes as fast as possible.
|
Being Factually wrong and correcting them is different than saying their Ideas or way of playing is incorrect.Why do you keep inserting "way of playing" as though that's what I was saying was wrong? I already told you that's not what I was commenting on. If you really didn't believe me, you could go back and look at my posts, since they're all right there in writing for you. So why do you keep asserting that I'm speaking out against his preferences/playstyles?
What I actually said ("ideas are incorrect", without your "or way of playing" insertion) is the same as correcting someone who is factually wrong. An incorrect idea is a factually-wrong belief.
The only difference between the two things in that quote box is the difference you created when you put words in my mouth.
You need to stop doing that.
Because neither one of you have actually restated what you are talking about.
I have stated that the primary discussion points in this thread have been personal opinions so i drew the conclusion from you saying his "Ideas were incorrect" to mean his way of playing, not him being factually wrong.
You have stated otherwise, so until someone restates what the actual issue was no more conclusions can be drawn.
|
Where? I'm not seeing it. EDIT: Ah, mentioned in the corebook. Okay, check. See below for my response.GameMastery Guide, page 33 - "Cheating"
So it is. I still maintain that this is a social contract issue rather than one where referring to rulebooks is either necessary or useful.
It's a small section, but it is there. I'm strongly on the side of obscuring rolls outside of combat, and I will admit to secretly changing things on the fly to make a tense situation more tense or ended an encounter quickly when a bad guy is at 7 HP or something. I tend to avoid fudging rolls entirely, but I will fudge with stats/HP/etc. when necessary.
Like, for example, a griffon is attacking the party as they try to escape cultists. They manage to surround the area with difficult terrain and push the griffon back with a big magical blast, the griffon is pushed through the threatened square of a rogue so I let him get the AoO he normally wouldn't have and roll sneak attack in secret when his 4 damage meant the griffon was at 2 HP. It's clearly breaking the rules, but it meant they could all run into the donjon and everything plays out in a more cohesive and pleasing way for everyone.
To reiterate:
I don't care if you fudge rolls. I think that fudging rolls is a fine thing for a GM to do.
I object to running a game where you do so (especially if you do so routinely) while leaving the players with the impression you don't do that. Usually by not telling them that's a thing you might do.
It's not fudging dice rolls that bothers me, it's GMs lying to their players (including by omission) about the nature of the game they are running.
My personal preference is not to change what number comes up on a dice roll - i.e a roll of a 4 becomes a 12. We roll roll in the open, unless the roll by necessity needs to be secret - bluff etc.
However it is my belief that it is absolutely the DMs responsibility to adapt written adventures to their individual groups power level. Assuming that an adventure that was designed to apply to thousands of different groups will be one size fits all, is like going into a shop that only has one size suit and expecting a perfect fit.
Adding subtracting/foes, amending stats, adding templates, and adjusting feats/spells/hps is not cheating. It is called adventure writing, the fact that you start with a published adventure as a base is no different! DMs make choices all the time - ghoul or ghast, hobgoblin or bugbear. Two handed weapon or one handed. These are choices DMs make all the time... absolutely not cheating.
I agree with this entirely, for the record, and wouldn't consider this either fudging or dishonest in the least. At least as long as you aren't billing your adventure as 'precisely as written'...that would run right back into the lying thing.
|
Am I alone on this?When my group changed from core only to PRD, we noticed a definite uptick in the power level of the characters. One player even made the statement: "There is no point in making a character from the book because all of the newer stuff is better."
We tend to play in lower magic campaigns, and at lower levels, and with some serious RP/setting controls on magic though.
For the record, I'm happy to play in a core only game. The one thing I usually like beyond core is additional playable races.
Nice. Very cool.
You can play at my table. :DI guess I do tend to play "Characters" rather than straight numbers on pieces of paper.
For example, my heavy fighter right now is a halfling dog rider.
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making a strong characters doesn't affect how much they can say "I play my characters because I enjoy them. I roleplay them. I have fun with them."
Heck, I had a blast with a dex based halfling fighter. He out DPR the rest of the party and had great AC. But is theme was he wanted to be respected and known. So he needed to be threatening, but his low str means he couldn't rely on that. He showed all those people that thought a halfling fighter would be a push over. If he wasn't effective at what he did then the entire concept would actually fall apart.
EDIT: He had far more personality than the poorly made cavalier or the "thematic heal focused paladin" even though he was far mechanically stronger to them too.
|
|
Your not alone in looking to go back to a CORE only game. Given the problems, some of the new classes have caused at my tables I'm ready for a simpler game. By simpler I want to return to a game space where wonky mechanics and limited resources don't slow down the game to look up or extend the player turns as various abilities are modified.
That said I love a lot of the flavor of the new classes. I think they add to the game in many ways, just that they also can detract if not monitored and accounted for.
I thought I would give this thread a few days to get a large variety of responses I'm only scratching this information that is flooded this thread and can't be more happy about this. A lot of great information and a few ideas that I have attempted in the past with little success but for the most part I do agree with limiting the builds a bit more to slow down the min maxer.
I always suggest to my players to build a character not a stat block someone with personality that if their life is to slip away in the heat of battle it actually chills you. Some of you have seemed confused on how my Mr. MinMax got his STR so high. He did take Angelic Bloodline after dumping his WIS giving an additional 3 pt buy to his already 20. From there he stacked his pt but in STR giving it 18, then angelkin +2, in a campaign setting that is sold on paizo (I forget exactly which book) it gives an addition +2 STR making the a 22. Now that still isn't a 25 however if before you fully apply your point buy and you dump addition stats down to 8 like DEX and CHA then you can apply those points before you assign the +4 STR giving it a total of 24. Now you have the level 4 attribute boost making that now a 25 without superseding your point buy.
So my answer to that will now be these characters will have to be built at the table and all initial bonuses has to be assigned before the point buy is assigned. In short I think not making sure the mechanic is put in properly is what has thrown my problem into the place it is. I'm going to continue reading through these suggestions and overall teachings that you have posted up to better my skilled behind the screen and once again you folks have helped me out tremendously in seeing not only my faults as GM but also shared so great tactics to keep the game fun.
Thanks again you guys are life saves.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.
To quote a humorous KOTOR character...."master you wound me!"
There's no mutual exclusion here. Indeed if anything it's one percieved faction upset that their side isn't catered to. That is, if you have a game wrought with imbalance anyone unconcerned with mechanics can play and be entertained. But the group that does care about balance, efficiency (it's a resource management game after all) or the like will be upset that they're forced to decide between playing their character concept & being a powerful member of the party. With a balanced system, both groups would be happy, because those unconcerned with mechanics don't care, and those that are get a plethora of useful & interesting abilities to choose from.
To rephrase, people concerned with balance aren't necessarily worried about being the best at a thing all the time. But there's a dissonance in the back of your head, always, that says "i like this character concept, but I could be doing the same thing but better, and do more things, were I playing that class, or in that way" AND IT WON'T GO AWAY! You're stuck knowing you could do better but you're comprimising your abilities because you have a character you really want to play and it hurts!
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I do tend to play "Characters" rather than straight numbers on pieces of paper.For example, my heavy fighter right now is a halfling dog rider.
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.
Such a blatant Stormwind Fallacy violation. >.<
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However it is my belief that it is absolutely the DMs responsibility to adapt written adventures to their individual groups power level. Assuming that an adventure that was designed to apply to thousands of different groups will be one size fits all, is like going into a shop that only has one size suit and expecting a perfect fit.
Adding subtracting/foes, amending stats, adding templates, and adjusting feats/spells/hps is not cheating. It is called adventure writing, the fact that you start with a published adventure as a base is no different! DMs make choices all the time - ghoul or ghast, hobgoblin or bugbear. Two handed weapon or one handed. These are choices DMs make all the time... absolutely not cheating.
I don't think that the "adventure writing" type of stuff you're describing here is what people are complaining about (usually).
I think the complaint is more often about GMs like the one I encountered who said (I'm not kidding) "I'm not having fun unless at least one PC goes unconscious in every fight" or (still not kidding) "I will never let the bad guys fail a save in the first three rounds".
Or, on a more "macro" level, when a player makes a PC for one campaign who is good at X but not at Y, then makes a PC for another of that GM's campaigns that is the reverse, but has about the same success rate at any given task with both characters.
I think the complaints are more about things like that, than about preparing challenges that are appropriate for the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice. Very cool.
You can play at my table. :DI guess I do tend to play "Characters" rather than straight numbers on pieces of paper.
For example, my heavy fighter right now is a halfling dog rider.
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.
There's nothing mutually exclusive about those two concepts though. Stats, after all, are just a mechanical expression of how a character plays out.
Moreover, balance concerns often are directly related to roleplayability. I want to build a dashing swashbuckler who tumbles and darts around the battlefield like a hummingbird while stabbing and slashing at his foes.
Except Pathfinder makes that increasingly hard to do the higher level my character is because standard action attacks start to fall way behind and einhander combat is one of the worst fighting styles in the game.
Those concerns with balance and playability directly impact how easy it is for me to roleplay my character concept (unless incompetency is part of the character's design).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I do tend to play "Characters" rather than straight numbers on pieces of paper.
For example, my heavy fighter right now is a halfling dog rider.
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Your post is kind of straddling a line here.
On the one hand, it's okay to note what your preferences are (like that you aren't interested in dealing tons of damage or whatever).
On the other hand, it is not okay to insinuate that anybody whose character has bigger numbers than yours must not care about roleplay or is playing "numbers on paper" instead of a "character" or is otherwise inferior in some way.
In our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force."
It is not okay to put people down just for being interested in a part of the game you don't enjoy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I do tend to play "Characters" rather than straight numbers on pieces of paper.
For example, my heavy fighter right now is a halfling dog rider.
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Your post is kind of straddling a line here.
On the one hand, it's okay to note what your preferences are (like that you aren't interested in dealing tons of damage or whatever).
On the other hand, it is not okay to insinuate that anybody whose character has bigger numbers than yours must not care about roleplay or is playing "numbers on paper" instead of a "character" or is otherwise inferior in some way.
Also kind of amusing that the example given is a halfling dog rider, since "small character on a mount" is one of optimized power builds, especially if you go archery.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Now that still isn't a 25 however if before you fully apply your point buy and you dump addition stats down to 8 like DEX and CHA then you can apply those points before you assign the +4 STR giving it a total of 24. Now you have the level 4 attribute boost making that now a 25 without superseding your point buy.
Um, the point-buy system never buys anything higher than an 18. Period. There's no such thing as buying a 20. The only way to get a 20 is if you buy an 18 and your race boosts it to 20. (I also don't understand your comments about the order you do things in; it's always point-buy first, then apply racial adjustments.)
I think you might be well-served for you and your players (perhaps all together) to spend some time re-familiarizing yourselves with the game you're playing, as I suspect some of your issues could be the result of memory lapses and "edition-blur".
It's very saddening to watch someone decline a suggestion of listening to other people because he already knows his impression of them is completely accurate.It's also saddening to assume I haven't already done so. This isn't my first trip to the boards.
And to hear Wraith of all people say someone doesn't know what they're talking about is beyond ironic.
Most things I say can be backed up with some reference if I present them as facts. Do you have any specific examples you want to discuss?
Your not alone in looking to go back to a CORE only game. Given the problems, some of the new classes have caused at my tables I'm ready for a simpler game. By simpler I want to return to a game space where wonky mechanics and limited resources don't slow down the game to look up or extend the player turns as various abilities are modified.
That said I love a lot of the flavor of the new classes. I think they add to the game in many ways, just that they also can detract if not monitored and accounted for.
While partially agreeing i think at least some of those new classes need a session 0 as well, just like you were new to the game at all, where the GM and the players sit down and talk about them and what´s going on there.
So, this is at least partly a player problem.
Now that still isn't a 25 however if before you fully apply your point buy and you dump addition stats down to 8 like DEX and CHA then you can apply those points before you assign the +4 STR giving it a total of 24. Now you have the level 4 attribute boost making that now a 25 without superseding your point buy.Um, the point-buy system never buys anything higher than an 18. Period. There's no such thing as buying a 20. The only way to get a 20 is if you buy an 18 and your race boosts it to 20. (I also don't understand your comments about the order you do things in; it's always point-buy first, then apply racial adjustments.)
I think you might be well-served for you and your players (perhaps all together) to spend some time re-familiarizing yourselves with the game you're playing, as I suspect some of your issues could be the result of memory lapses and "edition-blur".
Yes, the best you can do at start is:
Angel-Blooded Aasimar: +2Variant Aasimar Abilities roll of 9 on 100%: +2
Point buy: 18
= 22 max starting strength.
Not sure where xMortal Knightx is finding an extra +2.
However it is my belief that it is absolutely the DMs responsibility to adapt written adventures to their individual groups power level. Assuming that an adventure that was designed to apply to thousands of different groups will be one size fits all, is like going into a shop that only has one size suit and expecting a perfect fit.
Adding subtracting/foes, amending stats, adding templates, and adjusting feats/spells/hps is not cheating. It is called adventure writing, the fact that you start with a published adventure as a base is no different! DMs make choices all the time - ghoul or ghast, hobgoblin or bugbear. Two handed weapon or one handed. These are choices DMs make all the time... absolutely not cheating.
I don't think that the "adventure writing" type of stuff you're describing here is what people are complaining about (usually).
I think the complaint is more often about GMs like the one I encountered who said (I'm not kidding) "I'm not having fun unless at least one PC goes unconscious in every fight" or (still not kidding) "I will never let the bad guys fail a save in the first three rounds".
Or, on a more "macro" level, when a player makes a PC for one campaign who is good at X but not at Y, then makes a PC for another of that GM's campaigns that is the reverse, but has about the same success rate at any given task with both characters.
I think the complaints are more about things like that, than about preparing challenges that are appropriate for the group.
I agree but it is a finer line than It looks. Adding hit points will make enemies last longer, adding feats like iron will etc will mean foes pass saving throws they might otherwise fail or hit with attacks they might otherwise miss. Some of these decisions may well happen at the table and the only thing that can make that process good for DM and Players is trust.
Trust is built over time. DMs need to earn it, and DM's like Jiggy describes will struggle to maintain it. That said I have a lot of attraction for rules like 5th eds legendary creatures which mean important monsters don't fail a save in the first 3 rounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@The Sword: As a data point, in my campaigns I literally make up all the stats for every single enemy my players encounter (partly because I'm running 5E and don't own the Monster Manual). So I'm definitely doing the "create challenges appropriate to the group" thing.
But the players can see my dice (and even the modifiers!), so there's no fudging the saves. I keep a visible tally of damage dealt to each enemy, so there's no fudging HP.
I think those are very different things, you know?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That possibility of death is part of what I enjoy as a player, otherwise it feels too much like video games. Just re-boot from the last place you saved wouldn't be fun for me.
Off-topic, but... this statement makes me want to recommend you play Undertale (a computer game you can buy on Steam). I can't say much because it's a game very sensitive to spoilers, but... let's just say it'll have an effect on you. ;)
@The Sword: As a data point, in my campaigns I literally make up all the stats for every single enemy my players encounter (partly because I'm running 5E and don't own the Monster Manual). So I'm definitely doing the "create challenges appropriate to the group" thing.
But the players can see my dice (and even the modifiers!), so there's no fudging the saves. I keep a visible tally of damage dealt to each enemy, so there's no fudging HP.
I think those are very different things, you know?
They are different, except when they're not lol. But I do agree with you. Brave for letting the PCs see the modifiers but I guess with 5th ed and the biggest difference between the two systems. In pathfinder there are so many modifiers!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...and I had days when I was younger that I played Bard's Tale and Ultima for over whole weekends just stopping to use latrine and pay the pizza delivery man....Best for me to just avoid them :-)
Plus, seriously, it's worth it. It is a work of art. I won't keep pestering you after this post, but I want to make it clear that this game is really something special.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Took me a few days, but I finally caught up (sort of) on this thread. It's an interesting read, as I've had a different experience.
My groups been playing about 15ish (+/- some) years 2nd through Pathfinder with a brief stint in 4th, plus a smattering of other table tops. In that time, up until maybe 2 years ago, we never played by the rules at all. I'm not sure any of us even took the time to understand the rules. Now we've been running Wrath of the Righteous (In Book 3 now), Iron Gods (Just finished Book 2), and Mummy's Mask (Ended this campaign in Book 2), and we decided to try and stick the rules as best we can.
Coming off of 3 sets of 4d6 for stats to a 15-point buy was absolutely massive for us. Not to mention going 2 traits, plus other special traits (we really just winged it), to only the campaign trait, rolled gold vs. max, and countless other house "rules".
On top of that, our rotating group of DMs (myself included), really stuck to goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, giants, trolls, ogres, seeing a trend here?
So for us we're in the midst of gigantic rebalance, and I'll get back to you (the collective you) on whether or not we feel things are nutty or not. For the moment things are working, and working well.
Anyways, we may have thought ourselves veterans, but it seems like we're only just getting introduced to the game. Since we've been a fairly closed static group for those 15ish years, I can only wonder what other groups may be like and if any of them were/are like us.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Took me a few days, but I finally caught up (sort of) on this thread. It's an interesting read, as I've had a different experience.
My groups been playing about 15ish (+/- some) years 2nd through Pathfinder with a brief stint in 4th, plus a smattering of other table tops. In that time, up until maybe 2 years ago, we never played by the rules at all. I'm not sure any of us even took the time to understand the rules. Now we've been running Wrath of the Righteous (In Book 3 now), Iron Gods (Just finished Book 2), and Mummy's Mask (Ended this campaign in Book 2), and we decided to try and stick the rules as best we can.
Coming off of 3 sets of 4d6 for stats to a 15-point buy was absolutely massive for us. Not to mention going 2 traits, plus other special traits (we really just winged it), to only the campaign trait, rolled gold vs. max, and countless other house "rules".
On top of that, our rotating group of DMs (myself included), really stuck to goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, giants, trolls, ogres, seeing a trend here?
So for us we're in the midst of gigantic rebalance, and I'll get back to you (the collective you) on whether or not we feel things are nutty or not. For the moment things are working, and working well.
Anyways, we may have thought ourselves veterans, but it seems like we're only just getting introduced to the game. Since we've been a fairly closed static group for those 15ish years, I can only wonder what other groups may be like and if any of them were/are like us.
I find your level of self- and group-awareness impressive and refreshing. :)
I have often been in discussions with people about balance or other topics relating to "what Pathfinder is like" and begun to get the impression that one or more of the participants has spent their gaming career much as you have spent yours, but were less self-aware than you and thought that the type of experience you describe is the "default" of Pathfinder. (Unfortunately, asking people for details about their games and then contrasting those details with "by the book" Pathfinder often gets people to claim I'm telling them they're playing the game wrong, or gets them to tell me I'm playing the game wrong, or both at once.)
Best of luck with your experiment, and if what's best for your group turns out to be to go straight back to your fuzzy-edges homebrew, perhaps you'll enjoy it all the more for knowing it's yours. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everybody has their own play style I suppose. I just far prefer the Roleplayers to the Rollplayers.
Thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.
Most people dont fit into a category of only caring about RP or only caring about mechanics. If that isn't what you meant then feel free to explain.
I was once unbalanced when I was trying to walk a tight rope.
No you weren't! The problem was clearly the rope! ;-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course what makes no sense is I'm also career military - which as you can imagine is not exactly a place for individual creativity to flourish and "rules as a guideline" is much frowned upon.
My time taught me the complete opposite. Maybe it was just the view from below, but as long as no rules were obviously broken and the job got done, commanders were given great leeway to improvise in accomplishing the mission. Maybe the military has better written rules that don't need interpreting as much. :)
Or, on a more "macro" level, when a player makes a PC for one campaign who is good at X but not at Y, then makes a PC for another of that GM's campaigns that is the reverse, but has about the same success rate at any given task with both characters.
Reminds me of one of the worst GMs I ever had to play with. Along with the railroading and terrible encounter design, he tended to just flat-out ignore everything but the dice roll. Made it so there was pretty much no point in having any stats other than hit points, since all your d20 rolls were "Succeed on a roll of 11+, fail on 10 or lower" (with the scale shifted depending on how hard the GM thought it should be).
Ultimately, fudging is another one of those GM tools where a lot depends on how you use it. I've fudged when the random number god was in an especially cruel mood, because I didn't think it would make the game more fun to roll so many crits against the fighter that he would die before his first turn in initiative even came up.
Honestly, that's the most important rule of fudging (or any aspect of GMing, really). Only fudge rolls when it'd make the game more fun for everyone at the table. There's a huge difference between the GM who tweaks a roll or two to make the combat more exciting, and the GM who fudges to make sure their pet NPC gets to be the star of the show or because they're power-tripping.
Took me a few days, but I finally caught up (sort of) on this thread. It's an interesting read, as I've had a different experience.
My groups been playing about 15ish (+/- some) years 2nd through Pathfinder with a brief stint in 4th, plus a smattering of other table tops. In that time, up until maybe 2 years ago, we never played by the rules at all. I'm not sure any of us even took the time to understand the rules. Now we've been running Wrath of the Righteous (In Book 3 now), Iron Gods (Just finished Book 2), and Mummy's Mask (Ended this campaign in Book 2), and we decided to try and stick the rules as best we can.
Coming off of 3 sets of 4d6 for stats to a 15-point buy was absolutely massive for us. Not to mention going 2 traits, plus other special traits (we really just winged it), to only the campaign trait, rolled gold vs. max, and countless other house "rules".
On top of that, our rotating group of DMs (myself included), really stuck to goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, giants, trolls, ogres, seeing a trend here?
So for us we're in the midst of gigantic rebalance, and I'll get back to you (the collective you) on whether or not we feel things are nutty or not. For the moment things are working, and working well.
Anyways, we may have thought ourselves veterans, but it seems like we're only just getting introduced to the game. Since we've been a fairly closed static group for those 15ish years, I can only wonder what other groups may be like and if any of them were/are like us.
I find your level of self- and group-awareness impressive and refreshing. :)
I have often been in discussions with people about balance or other topics relating to "what Pathfinder is like" and begun to get the impression that one or more of the participants has spent their gaming career much as you have spent yours, but were less self-aware than you and thought that the type of experience you describe is the "default" of Pathfinder. (Unfortunately, asking people for details about their...
Thanks, but that's largely a credit to everyone here on the forums. Growing up in a smaller town we all largely had our tastes converge, so the anecdotal evidence I did have suggested groups did indeed play like ours. College exposed me briefly to other groups and I didn't enjoy it, and I regret not trying to take the plunge on change then.
So we were stuck in our own echo chamber eventually stagnating before deciding to try an AP. I think that's what eventually led me here, and really opened up my understanding that other groups are different.
Our experiment as you put it, has certainly taught us that there were other ways to play the game. And running an adventure that none of the rotating group of GM's had written was sort of like getting someone else to stand in to run a game for our group. The player's couldn't see our fingerprints so the game has that magic again. Plus as GMs we could focus our energy on other things, like reading the rules for once.
Even still a question like "Is Pathfinder becoming unbalanced?" escapes me. We've yet to really play anything else like we've played Pathfinder, so it is my only valid point of reference. Thankfully in the meantime I can read about all the varying opinions here, so that should I need to deal with such a situation, I'll be all the more prepared. And maybe someone find something useful out of my experiences. =)
Also, I was wondering, since you roll your dice along with modifiers in front of players do you ever have any issues with someone acting on that knowledge?
I ask because as a player I know I wouldn't be able to help but do that. Not maliciously mind you, but I'd worry that those things would start impacting my decisions and I couldn't help but feel guilty about that.
I've certainly wondered from time to time whether or not my GM has fudged a number here or there, so having them rolled out in the open would alleviate that.
Also, what caused you to start doing this?
Exactly this. Cryn summed it up better then I could.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the thing with the "lying". There are times it can cause issues so saying "it is not a problem" is not accurate. "It has never been a problem for me" is accurate.
As an example a PC one-rounding a boss in my games is not a problem for me, but I can't claim it not a problem because if that were true GM's wouldn't fudge to extend a monster's life.
Should you be honest and tell the player up front that you fudge the dice?
That depends on your players. Some will get mad if they figure it out, and will feel like you were cheating against them. Other think they want a challenge, but will become upset or sad if you really test them. At the same time if they find out you fudged for them they will be upset about that also. <---Sometimes the GM just can't win. I've been there.
Some don't care how much you fudge as long as you do it in a way that they don't notice it.
I am pretty sure there are other variants of these also.
I let people know they will live and die by the choices they make the roll of the dice. That helps me to get players who will be a good fit. Sometimes a player is not honest with themselves, but when the party ends up in a bad situation that problem normally takes care of itself.
Some of us play with friends we have known for years, and don't ever play with different groups so that approach may not be an option for many reasons, but I think if you are bringing in new(to your group) players having an open policy is not a bad idea.
Cryn that was a good quote at the end, but it does not really apply to this situation. It would apply if the player had an attitude of not trusting the GM. To answer your question though the player likely does trust you until you do something he does not like or consider to be fair. How to best keep that trust is not something that can be applied across the board. The above paragraphs give examples of that.
Took me a few days, but I finally caught up (sort of) on this thread. It's an interesting read, as I've had a different experience.
My groups been playing about 15ish (+/- some) years 2nd through Pathfinder with a brief stint in 4th, plus a smattering of other table tops. In that time, up until maybe 2 years ago, we never played by the rules at all. I'm not sure any of us even took the time to understand the rules. Now we've been running Wrath of the Righteous (In Book 3 now), Iron Gods (Just finished Book 2), and Mummy's Mask (Ended this campaign in Book 2), and we decided to try and stick the rules as best we can.
Coming off of 3 sets of 4d6 for stats to a 15-point buy was absolutely massive for us. Not to mention going 2 traits, plus other special traits (we really just winged it), to only the campaign trait, rolled gold vs. max, and countless other house "rules".
On top of that, our rotating group of DMs (myself included), really stuck to goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, giants, trolls, ogres, seeing a trend here?
So for us we're in the midst of gigantic rebalance, and I'll get back to you (the collective you) on whether or not we feel things are nutty or not. For the moment things are working, and working well.
Anyways, we may have thought ourselves veterans, but it seems like we're only just getting introduced to the game. Since we've been a fairly closed static group for those 15ish years, I can only wonder what other groups may be like and if any of them were/are like us.
I find your level of self- and group-awareness impressive and refreshing. :)
I have often been in discussions with people about balance or other topics relating to "what Pathfinder is like" and begun to get the impression that one or more of the participants has spent their gaming career much as you have spent yours, but were less self-aware than you and thought that the type of experience you describe is the "default" of Pathfinder. (Unfortunately, asking people for details about their...
That´s one of the greatest problems i have to deal with where i am, for homegroups and Pathfinder Society!
People play Pathfinder with any number of houserules without bothering to read the actualy rules even once.Often, the GM is also rather new to the game or very opinionated or both, doesn´t know the rules that well either (especially important towards game balance and CR and how difficult things are supposed to be), but still introduces any number of houserules totally messing up balance and sometimes even action economy.
On top of that, people then go 7*4d6 stats leaaving away the worst and some players come to the boards for build guides.
Then try to have a decent conversation with them about how this game is kinda supposed to work better, after you listened to several hours of gripes about the system etc.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider myself an okay GM. Not every game is stellar or top-tier, but I can run a campaign that is interesting enough that people return, and I've introduced a lot of new players to tabletop gaming through a gaming group I run. We have about 20 active players, and over 90 throughout our 5 year history.
I lie. A lot. It is probably the only consistent theme in ALL of my sessions. If you play at my table, I am absolutely going to lie to you about the math at some point during the night. I will adjust the boss's health on the fly as I think it needs, I will lower that crit ratio when you're about to get x4 by a scythe, and if the party is about to fall to a series of lucky rolls on my part? I'm going to pretend it didn't happen. I'll roll at random intervals just to make you wonder what you just triggered. If you roll stealth, I may have a cocky, knowing smile on my face even when you've done everything right and nothing is going to effect you.
And here is the thing: I find it absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of a satisfying session. Maybe its just me sucking at cr, but when your players range from experienced to brand new, or power gamer to roleplayer, CR is a very difficult system to get right on the fly. I am going to adjust the math as we play to make sure you succeed in your efforts, provided you've gone through the effort to try and contribute as best you can. Now, if you challenge something that will likely kill you to a fair fight? Let the dice roll as they may. But if you're petrified at low levels by a save or die that you have no means to heal? Guess what, turns out bathing a statue in the still-warm blood of that creature makes you turn back!
Here's the thing: That all sounds fine. I have no objection to any of it. The only thing I object to is if your players don't know this about you already.
My objection isn't to fudging, as I've said half a dozen times here. My objection is to fudging in a situation where the players have never been informed that something like that might occur.
If the players know that this is something you do? Then great, happy gaming. My objection is purely and entirely to doing this to players who do not know that you might be doing it, and might well object if they did know.
To put it another way: Lying in the course of the game is fine, what I object to is lying about what the nature of the game is going to be.
So running a dungeon crawl is fine if that's what you said you were doing, having allied NPCs betray the party is fine, unless you said during the pitch for the game that something like that would never happen, and fudging rolls is fine, as long as you were clear from the beginning that fudging was a thing that could happen in this game.
But running a dungeon crawl when you said you were gonna do a social game? Having NPCs betray the party when you promised you wouldn't? Or fudging dice rolls when the PCs all think you're doing a 'the dice fall where they may' game? Those I object to.
The question isn't "Is he lying?" Its "Is he adversarial to me?" I'm not. Trust that I'm not. Trust that if the boss manages to survive two rounds when he really shouldn't have, and launches a powerful fireball that chunks the party before his death, I'm doing it because I need you worn down a bit for the next encounter. Trust that I'm trying to enable the narrative you weave as much as my own, and that my ultimate goal is your enjoyment. It may not be perfect, and if I make the wrong decision while lying to you, I understand your frustration. But if you don't trust me to give you a fair shot and a good tale, why are you even at my table?
That's the thing. Trust. How can I trust someone who doesn't accurately describe the type of game they're going to run? Who effectively suckers me into a style of play I may not enjoy?
If you're honest going in that you fudge things, trust is very possible. If not? That's a whole different story.
I suppose I'm upfront about it, but I don't clearly explain that I fudge things I just give a generic blanket statement. I know there are people out there that freak out if a GM varies from listed DCs or fudging rolls, but I'm just not the GM for them and it should be clear very early.
What do you mean by a blanket statement? I'm somewhat confused by your meaning here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I hate it when a GM fudges things for "his story"
Like, why would a GM NEED you worn down a bit for the next encounter? Most players I know of would heal to full after the fight anyways so you're not doing anything but burning gold, but the bigger issue is why does this thing NEED to happen.
Having a plot is awesome. But the dice are where the story should be changing, not the GM changing things to make the story happen.
I've seen so many people stop having fun and zone out when they find out their build choices don't matter because the GM wants things done a certain way.
Yeah, my stealth is in the 40's, I've spent half my wealth boosting it. All enemies in this castle now have tremorsense, lifesense, see invis, and blindsense and auto-succeeding scrying because the GM wanted us to do X rather than just sneak in.
Very soon after you start breaking or changing rules without prior notice I personally will zone out and/or start becoming much more disruptive as a player and purposely try to break your game, which is often resulted by more cheating by the GM.
After a bit I decided that No game was better than a bad game and have since gone and found a new group to game with.
See, I hate it when a GM fudges things for "his story"
Like, why would a GM NEED you worn down a bit for the next encounter? Most players I know of would heal to full after the fight anyways so you're not doing anything but burning gold, but the bigger issue is why does this thing NEED to happen.
Having a plot is awesome. But the dice are where the story should be changing, not the GM changing things to make the story happen.
I've seen so many people stop having fun and zone out when they find out their build choices don't matter because the GM wants things done a certain way.
Yeah, my stealth is in the 40's, I've spent half my wealth boosting it. All enemies in this castle now have tremorsense, lifesense, see invis, and blindsense and auto-succeeding scrying because the GM wanted us to do X rather than just sneak in.
Very soon after you start breaking or changing rules without prior notice I personally will zone out and/or start becoming much more disruptive as a player and purposely try to break your game, which is often resulted by more cheating by the GM.
After a bit I decided that No game was better than a bad game and have since gone and found a new group to game with.
Some players are fine with putting more power to the GM and let the GM "run the story".
For these players, the game might be more fun if they had eaten that fireball. They need to put a lot of trust in their GM to not worry or question these things, but for them it is probably the way they have the most fun.
It can definitely be pulled off poorly. You can definitely end up feeling frustrated and having less fun. That's almost always going to be true though, no matter where the GM falls when it comes to fudging the dice.
Anyways, maybe that was true for your game experience, but from what I've heard I don't think you should really call the game bad. Maybe it was unfun for you (or bad for you), but I think we should all avoid saying a playstyle is wrong or bad. I certainly would be frustrated having all my stealth-efforts thwarted by GM-handwaiving, but not everyone would! Some would see it as a welcome challenge or not even think too much of it at all.
See, I hate it when a GM fudges things for "his story"
I think its like wraithstrike said above - some times the GM just can't win. I've had boss or mini-boss encounters that the PCs have steam rolled, and then the players actually say things like "That was super easy." Or "those guys were terrible, so easy."
So the GM might try to stretch an encounter a bit in order to increase the difficulty so that the players feel like the encounters are a bit more difficult, and thus more fun.
Then players will complain that fudging happens.
Its really all a balancing act. With some players, you simply can't win.
I never say that that way of playing was bad or wrong.
I'm just saying that I personally was really upset at that GM and half the players felt the same way. They also started to do more crazy shenanigans.
The other's weren't very rules savvy so they didn't know that he was doing anything against the rules.
And if the GM is handwaiving your stealth to not work, that's not a challenge, as it's not something you can overcome. It's being lied to by having a false option. It's similar to GM's saying that a witch is fine in their game and then find out while playing that everyone has a blessing to prevent hexes from working on them. I personally feel it's much better to be honest and outright ban the class than nerf it heavily in game.
And in my example. Had the GM told me originally that he wasn't going to follow the rules but go by "the rule of cool" I would have been more accepting of it while playing, since I could tell myself that I knew this was going to happen, and if I noticed I still didn't enjoy the game I could leave sooner, since I would know that I couldn't expect anything different.
I try and set the expectation that if player's want to optimize to the hilt and completely dominate aspects of the game, I'm fine with that. But they should also have the expectation that i'm not going to go out of my way to amp up the difficulty because their character is optimized to do obscene DPR.
If they do complain about it being "too easy" it's because it's the type of game they chose to play.