Hello, im recently a new GM/DM. For the past year ive been hosting games for 5 players recently we lost a member to school and work and ive recently added a new player. The first couple sessions went by smoothly and everyone had a blast. Our last game caused a bit of disturbance. Before I begin let me explain how I run games. Im really laid back and a lot of things involving rules ill let slide if it has something to do with role playing. The group im hosting hasn't been playing as long as me with the exception of two members who have been playing since a young age. I try to explain to my players to come up with a concept of a character instead of worrying about what's on their paper in the end in my opinion making a character everyone will love to see is a lot better then how many enemy's they can kill (in my opinion). But I leave it all to the players how they go about creating. Last session I split the party (it was a caravan three of the pcs got excepted and two pcs were denied by a paladin who was running the caravan) which ik the golden rule don't split the party but I left it two the last two players to either go a separate path or maybe sneak onto the caravan I left the choice to them. In the end the two left behind pcs took a different quest. They traveled to a different town for work which on the way they ran into some wolves which had just made a fresh kill. The wolves protecting their kill attacked the pcs and this is were the trouble began. The two pcs killed two of the three wolves and the last had dragged one of the pcs to the ground. The last wolf was focusing on the pc on the ground until the pc still standing attacked it. After the attack I said the wolf turns his attention to the pc left standing and attacks. Out of no were the newest player begins chiming in interrupting that the wolf wouldn't have done that and if it was the last one it would simply run away. I responded politely that this was how I saw the wolf acting. Needless to say the pcs defeated the wolf and continued. Later after the caravan started with the two old players and the newest member the troubles did not stop. The caravan was attacked by goblins. The newest player and one of the old members stayed inside a wagon and shot crossbows at the attackers. The crossbows they found in the wagon. Only the new player had a bow of his own. The last pc stayed on the roof with his sword waiting to make sure non of the attackers made it to the roof. The two players inside the wagon kept berating the pc on the roof to get off the wagon and kill the attackers. Note this wasn't role playing or in character talk. The players inside the wagon was calling the pc on the roof several names and used several comments that I can not repeat in this post. At the end of combat the new player continued berating the pc on the roof to why he didn't have a bow and how it was "stupid not to have a range weapons". Now if it was me yes id try to give my character a ranged weapon IF that's how I saw the character I created. This pc did not give his character a range weapon simply because he didn't want his character to have one it was not what he envisioned his character doing or using. I feel that what the new player did was rude and very disruptive to the game. I feel that instead of berating the character he should have approached the pc who didn't have a bow and either offered him his, found him one or offered him the one within the wagon instead of interrupting the game to say how stupid he was. Now in regards of the older player that was also chiming in with the out of character taunts and degrading language, I have warned him once of his behavior already. The vote of the other players is to remove them from our group immediately and I agreed. Im just wondering if their is anything I should do or anyone's opinions first before I make the final decision.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You got 3 min to put that into paragraphs.....
You got 3 min to put that into paragraphs.....
ya sorry about that lol, I also see this is the wrong forum for this subject. Is thier anyway I could remove it?
ya sorry about that lol, I also see this is the wrong forum for this subject. Is thier anyway I could remove it?
You have a few options...
You could flag the post, and select "wrong forum".You could PM one of the moderators.
You could just leave it be, and if it gets moved, it gets moved.
Just a quick thought about your original post. Without being there myself, I can't really judge how much animosity there was, or if it was just a lack of social skills on the part of the new player. I have found that when a guy is new to a group, he will often try to show how much he knows, or what skills he has, rather then just hanging back and learning what the expectations are. I would not be inclined to boot a player who was simply not familiar with the kind of game you are accustomed to, but I would boot a belligerent jerk without a second thought.
I would also just point out that not having a ranged weapon is kind of a trope, and could be a sore spot for some gamers. (It is for me)
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of all the poor, poor eyes reading your post...
Hello, I'm recently a new GM/DM. For the past year I've been hosting games for 5 players recently. We lost a member to school and work and I've recently added a new player. The first couple of sessions went by smoothly and everyone had a blast. Our last game caused a bit of disturbance.
Before I begin let me explain how I run games. I'm really laid back and a lot of things involving rules i'll let slide if it has something to do with role playing. The group I'm hosting hasn't been playing as long as me, with the exception of two members who have been playing since a young age. I try to explain to my players to come up with a concept of a character instead of worrying about what's on their paper. In the end making a character everyone will love to see is a lot better then how many enemies they can kill (in my opinion). But I leave it all to the players how they go about creating.
Last session I split the party. It was a caravan - three of the PCs got accepted and two PCs were denied by a paladin who was running the caravan. I know the golden rule is "don't split the party" but I left it up to the last two players to either go a separate path or maybe sneak onto the caravan. In the end, the two left behind PCs took a different quest. They traveled to a different town for work. On the way they ran into some wolves which had just made a fresh kill. The wolves protecting their kill attacked the PCs and this is where the trouble began.
The two PCs killed two of the three wolves and the last one had dragged one of the PCs to the ground. The last wolf was focusing on the PC on the ground until the PC still standing attacked it. After the attack I said the wolf turns his attention to the PC left standing and attacks. Out of nowhere the newest player begins chiming in, interrupting that the wolf wouldn't have done that and if it was the last one it would simply run away. I responded politely that this was how I saw the wolf acting. Needless to say the PCs defeated the wolf and continued.
Later after the caravan started with the two old players and the newest member the troubles did not stop. The caravan was attacked by goblins. The newest player and one of the old members stayed inside a wagon and shot crossbows at the attackers. The crossbows they found in the wagon. Only the new player had a bow of his own. The last PC stayed on the roof with his sword waiting to make sure non of the attackers made it to the roof. The two players inside the wagon kept berating the PC on the roof to get off the wagon and kill the attackers. Note that this wasn't role playing or in-character talk. The players inside the wagon was calling the PC on the roof several names and used several comments that I can not repeat in this post. At the end of combat the new player continued berating the PC on the roof about why he didn't have a bow and how it was "stupid not to have a ranged weapons".
Now if it was me yes I'd try to give my character a ranged weapon IF that's how I saw the character I created. This PC did not give his character a range weapon simply because he didn't want his character to have one. It was not what he envisioned his character doing or using. I feel that what the new player did was rude and very disruptive to the game. I feel that instead of berating the character, he should have approached the PC who didn't have a bow and either offered him his, found him one or offered him the one within the wagon instead of interrupting the game to say how stupid he was.
Now in regards of the older player that was also chiming in with the out of character taunts and degrading language, I have warned him once about his behavior already. The vote of the other players is to remove them from our group immediately and I agreed. I'm just wondering if their is anything I should do or anyone's opinions first before I make the final decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last session I split the party.
I think we've found your problem.
You, as the GM, should not split the party. You can allow player actions to result in a split party, but forcing a split party will cause resentment and trouble.
If your method of propelling the narrative consists of having the party be caravan guards, then have the party be caravan guards. If the leader of the caravan is a Paladin and would know that, for example, one of your PCs is a LN cleric of an evil deity, and you can't justify that, then change the paladin to a LG Cavalier or something without detect evil at will.
Last session I split the party.I think we've found your problem.
You, as the GM, should not split the party. You can allow player actions to result in a split party, but forcing a split party will cause resentment and trouble.
If your method of propelling the narrative consists of having the party be caravan guards, then have the party be caravan guards. If the leader of the caravan is a Paladin and would know that, for example, one of your PCs is a LN cleric of an evil deity, and you can't justify that, then change the paladin to a LG Cavalier or something without detect evil at will.
It sounds like he has several problems, actually. But I am not quite sure which ones in particular, because his post isn't exactly an in-depth account (sorry, but there is only so much I can do with a quote - I'm a forum-goer, not a miracle worker).
EDIT: It definitely sounds like the OP (for whatever reason) willfully created internal conflict in a party that lacks cohesion between the PCs and between the players. Naturally, the entire thing went to hell, the party fractured, and the players stopped acting like friends at the gaming table. The only question is whether or not the player conflict was inevitable, because his players don't sound like a perfect bunch either. I couldn't really guess the answer to that without more information.
I have some questions I'd like clarification on.
1:The character with no ranged weapon, why didn't he just engage the enemy in melee?
2:Also what was happening to the rest of the caravan, were people getting injured/dead?
3:Why were they on the roof of the wagon, and how was the thin fabric supporting their weight?
4:Also you mentioned that there were ranged weapons in the caravan, why didn't the melee character pick one up if he wasn't going to engage in melee?
5:What level is everyone? I don't really need classes, but I'm guessing nobody is a caster, or at least they aren't primarily so.
6:What were you trying to accomplish exactly by splitting the party, and by allowing two separate quests to be pursued?
7:Have you already kicked they guy out, or have you just decided to? Because if you already did, this whole thread is moot, he won't come back.
I should mention that a lot of these questions I'm merely asking to get some context for what happened.
I have some questions I'd like clarification on.
1:The character with no ranged weapon, why didn't he just engage the enemy in melee?
2:Also what was happening to the rest of the caravan, were people getting injured/dead?
3:Why were they on the roof of the wagon, and how was the thin fabric supporting their weight?
4:Also you mentioned that there were ranged weapons in the caravan, why didn't the melee character pick one up if he wasn't going to engage in melee?
5:What level is everyone? I don't really need classes, but I'm guessing nobody is a caster, or at least they aren't primarily so.
6:What were you trying to accomplish exactly by splitting the party, and by allowing two separate quests to be pursued?
7:Have you already kicked they guy out, or have you just decided to? Because if you already did, this whole thread is moot, he won't come back.
I should mention that a lot of these questions I'm merely asking to get some context for what happened.
1. The player didnt want to engage in melee. The setting was foggy so their was no idea of how many enemys thier was. He wanted to wait until the enemys apeared before making a decision that could end up ending his life.
2. With the poor visibility the rest of the caravan activities was unkown. In this encounter everyone made it through with minimum damage.3. The wagons were basicly created to be mid evil armored cars so thief was no cloth roof it was wooden.
4.Yes their was two crossbows on each side of the wagon. But they was apart of the wagon and could not be moved from thier position. They was mounted on a pedestal of sorts out looking a window.
5.Low levels no spell casters, one player was LV 3 the second Lv2 the new guys was lv1.
6.Nothing was planned for a separate quests. I leave my players to thief freedom as to how thier charecters would react and do at certain situations. The two players that went thier seperate ways chose to go that way instead. I left it up to them if they saw thier characters joining or not and they chose a different path (wich did nothing to inturupt the story or campaign.)
7. No both players have not been asked to leave as of yet.That why I made this post I'm just wanting to know if I'm doing the right thing?
I think asking people to not come back to play after one incident is a complete overreaction.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of no were the newest player begins chiming in interrupting that the wolf wouldn't have done that and if it was the last one it would simply run away.
There were a lot of thing that could have been done better, but I will give advice on this. My answer when someone comments on the actions of my monsters or npcs is "You would think that huh? hmm..." And they leave it at that. You don't need to explain. If their character thinks its strange or they should have acted differently, let them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Splitting the party has nothing to do with the problem.
While there was another problem with the specific player berating the GM for playing out a wolf not according to how the player thought a wolf would behave, the main issue can be summarized as follows.
Three of my players were in a wagon and I waylaid them with an unknown number of goblins under the cover of fog. Two of the PCs used two of four of the wagon's built in crossbows (like a mounted turret-type thing) while the the third PC got a better vantage point from the top of the wagon to wait and see if any of the goblins made it close enough to engage in melee. While he was delaying/readying until a goblin came close enough, the two PCs using the turrets berated him both in and out of game for 1) not having a ranged weapon and 2) not using the wagon's defenses and instead waiting for his melee-oriented character to get a chance to engage in melee.
That's basically the whole issue.
I don't see any issues with this scenario (not the bad behavior, but the melee guy wanting to be melee) because the two PCs were aptly able to thwart the goblins with ranged weapons before they got close. The wagon was never really in danger and if it had been close, the third PC was there ready to engage any that made it passed the crossbow bolts.
In short, there was absolutely no reason for those two player to berate the third player for him wanting to play his character how he wanted to play him.
p.s. As the GM, you should strive to keep all of your PCs the same level. Having disparate levels in the group is an antiquated form from passed d20 systems. There's really no reason to do it in Pathfinder. It also makes it harder for you as a GM because you have to balance encounters around it.
Well now that I have a better idea of exactly what went on, (also thank you Snow blind for paragraphing, much appreciated) I feel more comfortable giving my opinion.
You won't repeat the vocabulary used, nor the comments, fine. However from everything you have written I'm inclined to believe you to be over-sensitive. I'm sure the players acted poorly. No doubt. However one of your points that you brought up was that the 'problem' player objected to an action an NPC made. For some reason that was somehow a point of contrition for you, if he had made a big deal about it you would have mentioned it, but you felt it necessary to put it in. If it wasn't something significant to you you could have just completely bypassed the anecdote, but you didn't. So you can't take so much as commentary at your table. This is deeply troubling, and puts the rest of your story into question.
This brings me back to the two players berating another for what they perceived as a tactical error. They were almost certainly in the wrong. However your first reaction is to talk to all the other players and agree to kick out two players one of them without warning.
From your commentary you take stylistic preferences very seriously. This means you take the game very seriously. That's fine, however your new player may not have figured this out yet.
So my advice is twofold: 1 Understand that you are a very sensitive person, think twice before deciding that someone has said something unacceptable. 2 Once you have decided that they have, well instead of avoiding confrontation and utterly destroying a friendship, make it clear that their language and conduct is unacceptable, and that they will be kicked if they continue, then if they continue kick them. Not before you have very clearly warned them, some people need that warning to realize that they are offending others.
Unless you give us a better indication of what was actually said speculation is the best anyone can do. Also resorting to kicking someone as your first option is... sad.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I checked on this thread because I initially thought it would be more in the vein of "general bull session on the general phenomenon of problem players," but since it isn't, what I have to say is less worthwhile. Instead I find I have something else to say:
Stop treating so-called "walls of text" like they're a crime against Humanity. OP was not trying to write a novel, work of journalism or scholarship, or official document, so kindly take their minor imperfection in stride and don't pick on them for it. Seriously. I agree that breaking it into paragraphs makes it easier to read, but your precious, precious eyes are perfectly capable of working through the same text in a somewhat denser format. You may certainly request he reformat it, but a polite request is what it must be, not a cheap mean joke or condescending belittlement.
Picking on people's formatting seems to be a kind of Internet phenomenon where people think they can bully others and/or fallaciously tear down an argument in a manner that makes them appear sophisticated and mature, and is especially obnoxious when it's in the same milieu as where the term "grammar Nazi" appears to generally be considered acceptable and not astonishingly insulting on a massive scale, or where "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is the subtext of many an argument, and far more vitriol is directed toward "elitists" than "the LCD".
Yes. Remove them. Especially if the rest of the group has voted in favor of that. It will be looked back on as the best thing you ever did.
Yeah, you broke the golden rule, and frustrating game sessions are often on the GM, but that's not the issue here. All of those things, while they can definitely get players visually upset, do not warrant name calling and berating. (In case you're wondering, nothing at a game table ever does).
I've been in several gaming groups over the years, and the ones I was happiest to leave or disband were the ones with the exact examples of players you have given. Complaining about actions that the enemies take, and much worse, berating players for not doing what they would do. Some players feel they have a "right" to a specific gaming experience. They don't.
And, just like you said, the problem sometimes does take a few sessions before it shows itself.
I've just...seen it so many times. You are not being too sensitive. Don't let them drag you into their world.
Boot them. Be happy. The berating players are going to be unhappy either way, so set them free to be unhappy somewhere that isn't at your game table. And don't let them talk you into staying (from what you said, they will immediately try to make it sound like you're the problem, and talk about everything except their own unacceptable behavior).
This kind of behavior - also known as childish and disrespectful - was often an indication of insecurities or issues within the berating player(s). Those players need to work out their issues, not you.
I checked on this thread because I initially thought it would be more in the vein of "general bull session on the general phenomenon of problem players," but since it isn't, what I have to say is less worthwhile. Instead I find I have something else to say:
Stop treating so-called "walls of text" like they're a crime against Humanity. OP was not trying to write a novel, work of journalism or scholarship, or official document, so kindly take their minor imperfection in stride and don't pick on them for it. Seriously. I agree that breaking it into paragraphs makes it easier to read, but your precious, precious eyes are perfectly capable of working through the same text in a somewhat denser format. You may certainly request he reformat it, but a polite request is what it must be, not a cheap mean joke or condescending belittlement.
Picking on people's formatting seems to be a kind of Internet phenomenon where people think they can bully others and/or fallaciously tear down an argument in a manner that makes them appear sophisticated and mature, and is especially obnoxious when it's in the same milieu as where the term "grammar Nazi" appears to generally be considered acceptable and not astonishingly insulting on a massive scale, or where "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is the subtext of many an argument, and far more vitriol is directed toward "elitists" than "the LCD".
When you ask for help, common courtesy dictates you put your request in an easily readable format. Non formatted posts are the text equivalent of frantically babbling at someone and hoping they'll understand you. Yes, it's technically understandable, but making things harder on the person you're asking for help from doesn't incline them to be helpful.
This is not asking for much. Nobody is saying every post needs to be in proper Oxford English and MLA formatted, but basic punctuation and paragraph formatting that everyone learns in 3rd grade aren't out of the bounds of reason here.
|
@SilentMonk
I am really unsure how your players really play, act and socialize. While your players probably did some mistakes to, here is a few that I believe that you did which caused trouble.
About the new player
Your new player is level 1 while old players are level 3. This reason alone is sufficient for him to hide behind wagon and not come out. Not only that a new player sometimes acts cautiously until he realizes how the game flows. I have seen behavior before and it all boils down to the fact that he is new to the game. If he doesn't know something, teach him. Don't crucify him for his bad mistakes.
About your GMing
You need to understand that GM is a neutral entity and a judge, but before the game itself, he is a friend. You cannot be a neutral judge when new players pop in. Instead, you softball the game a bit in order for them to grasp the game and rules better. A maximum dose of patience, commending them when they learn something new and acting as a helpful guide by the side is your responsibility also.
Adam
|
|
When you ask for help, common courtesy dictates you put your request in an easily readable format. Non formatted posts are the text equivalent of frantically babbling at someone and hoping they'll understand you. Yes, it's technically understandable, but making things harder on the person you're asking for help from doesn't incline them to be helpful.
This is not asking for much. Nobody is saying every post needs to be in proper Oxford English and MLA formatted, but basic punctuation and paragraph formatting that everyone learns in 3rd grade aren't out...
I could read it just fine - paragraphs made it a bit easier, but that's all, a bit. It's nothing worth complaining about, let alone be flat-out mean to people for. You realize what you're implicitly defending is FAR worse (and far broader than this one instance, as it happpens) than what I'm telling people to, as the cool kids say, "chill the f+#! out about," don't you? If somebody's too lazy to read a very large paragraph, there's something fishy about them NOT being too lazy to post a pointlessly disrespectful reply - the line "tl;dr" being the halcyon/nadir of this attitude. You're trying to make it sound like a response grounded in reason, fairness, and principle - but it just looks to me like another specimen of bad behavior made to seem "okay" by mindless groupthink.
Last session I split the party
Ah, I see, you are running two Pathfinder games (that take place in the same world and time) at the same time, at the same table, with a sub-optimal number of players in each "game," and it is your fault.
Good Job.
Basically you need to remind your players that Pathfinder is a group game. If someone doesn't have a ranged weapon, it shouldn't matter unless you're fighting creatures that can stay out of reach and deal continuous damage (See Harpies, they're probably one of Paizo's crappiest designed creatures that I heartily encourage GMs to never use).
I typically remind players in an extremely sarcastic manner, "Hey guys, I have a secret for you: Pathfinder is a *air quotes* "Team Game" */air quotes*, and you should play it as such. Your characters don't have to like each other, but you guys have to at least get along a little bit. To that end, please don't be complete a*+#*#*%s to one another.
I will echo what Malag is saying about not being a jerk to new players: they don't know what they're doing, and it is your job to help them learn.
I'll give you an example:
Most veteran pathfinder players who play a melee class will show up with at least one weapon for every damage type, then they will specialize into a single weapon. They will have a Silver and a Cold Iron version of that weapon just in case. If they use a bow, they will probably have both blunt and piercing arrows. They will most likely also have a cestus since it is always equipped.
A new player will usually pick a single melee or ranged weapon depending on what they see the character doing. They build what they see in their heads as opposed to what makes mechanical sense within the game's system.
Also, I have an important news flash for you: it is ~almost always~ better to keep all of your players the same level than to have them scattered around.
Remember that players tend to be jerks to one another when they are stressed out about something that you're doing. If that something is intentional, great, but if it is not intentional then you're making mistakes. Most players wont attack or criticize the GM, so they take out their frustrations on their fellow players. Recognize their actions for what they are and resolve the core problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Elevating talk of "this is a team activity" into an ideology rather than routine unspoken pragmatism tends to make people bridle, and not without reason. Threatening a person's autonomy can lead to a "Devil V Deep Blue Sea" situation, suddenly lending a degree of legitimacy to choices people otherwise wouldn't have made.
The real issue, it turns out, is so much simpler in all respects, and is better put this way: Don't be stupid. You know better.
but it just looks to me like another specimen of bad behavior made to seem "okay" by mindless groupthink.
You'll forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt considering I've seen you use almost this exact sequence of words to describe dozens of different things.
Lots of problems here, but everyone has pretty much covered the issues that caused them to surface.
There was one that particularly stuck out to me, though, and that was the level disparity at your table.
Putting your new player a full 2 levels behind your veteran players is absolutely going to create drama and strife.
The new player is going to be stressed by being thrust into situations above their ability, and the veteran players are going to feel like they're playing a video game escort mission. An extremely crappy escort mission where they get less xp and less gear as a result. Yeah, I'll bet they want this player gone.
Please don't do this.
|
|
but it just looks to me like another specimen of bad behavior made to seem "okay" by mindless groupthink.You'll forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt considering I've seen you use almost this exact sequence of words to describe dozens of different things.
No reason you should; it's a woefully common phenomenon, and the root of much of what's wrong with the world, so the fact that I use it a lot should be helping call your attention to the scope of the problem, not undermining it somehow.
Study psychology. Study history. Observe current events. Just plain people-watch. Humans are the opposite of coral - the more glom together, the uglier they get.
"A person is smart. People are stupid." —Some guy, I bet it was richard nixon or a 90s hipster or something
Elevating talk of "this is a team activity" into an ideology rather than routine unspoken pragmatism tends to make people bridle, and not without reason. Threatening a person's autonomy can lead to a "Devil V Deep Blue Sea" situation, suddenly lending a degree of legitimacy to choices people otherwise wouldn't have made.
The real issue, it turns out, is so much simpler in all respects, and is better put this way: Don't be stupid. You know better.
For New GMs, making "don't split the party" into an ideology is actually a pretty good idea until the GM knows how to handle split parties.
It honestly boils down to the age old question with TTRPGs: are you playing in a "game" where all encounters are based around your APL or are you playing in a campaign setting where you could easily run into encounters you couldn't win against?
My experience is that players realize pretty quickly that they can split the party with the "game" version of TTRPGs since the encounters will usually adjust to the number of players. However, when you play in a campaign setting where a split-off PC could easily get jumped by an encounter they'd be screwed against, they tend to hang around together just so they'd have less of a chance of being picked off.
Then again, many GMs get sick of players screwing off in every direction, getting in their own minor battles isolated from one another and all of them running their own RPs with multiple NPCs each.
This is a team game. There is nothing wrong with people working independent of one another to achieve goals, but they should all be oriented towards the same overall goal.
I've always had players who decide to run off on their own and try to go play their own game by themselves. The players tend to either screw off after a few weeks, act anti-social toward the party if it decides to join him or her, or just refuse to act as part of the party. I've seen players start shunning people after a few sessions of this, and offenders tend to either screw off after a few weeks or stop doing these actions. After that, they tend to either want to rebuild or reap the benefits of just so happening to fit into something that is needed.
Sure, there is the argument that the GM should bend over backwards to help the players along, but if the GM isn't having fun then he likely will (and should) abandon the game and problem players. Everyone shows up to a TTRPG to have a good time. Please, for the love of whatever deities or lack thereof, play along with the story the GM is trying to tell and make your character interesting enough to have a good time while doing it.
I've literally had players say, "Oh, we're playing a module today because you were really busy and didn't have time to write out something proper? Ok, I'm going to go explore the forest instead of the scary dungeon we have a quest to go into. What happens?" They tend to either walk into invisible walls (ala video games), run into CR 20 encounters at level 1 (the GM's way of giving them the finger) or spend the session lost in the forest (player exile, since their survival just isn't good enough to find the content again once the real players are enjoying the content).
Does this make me a bad GM? Na, it just means I'm not going to put up with your crap. Does that make me a bad GM? In some people's eyes, most likely, but those same people tend to be the ones who only have a good time if the sessions are utter chaos.
Don't get me wrong, I've written content that revolves around the players doing whatever they want, whenever they want and for whatever their characters have. The story is designed around overall objectives instead of specific events with everything happening organically. These games are fun, but every time I run them, the serious players tend to go to different tables.
If someone is not interested in playing a team game, there is a slew of games that offer a similar experience to TTRPGs.
but it just looks to me like another specimen of bad behavior made to seem "okay" by mindless groupthink.You'll forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt considering I've seen you use almost this exact sequence of words to describe dozens of different things.No reason you should; it's a woefully common phenomenon, and the root of much of what's wrong with the world, so the fact that I use it a lot should be helping call your attention to the scope of the problem, not undermining it somehow.
Study psychology. Study history. Observe current events. Just plain people-watch. Humans are the opposite of coral - the more glom together, the uglier they get.
The problem is that "groupthink" seems to be synonymous with "something I don't like that other people do" in your vernacular. Therefore I don't take it seriously when you say it.
|
|
Elevating talk of "this is a team activity" into an ideology rather than routine unspoken pragmatism tends to make people bridle, and not without reason. Threatening a person's autonomy can lead to a "Devil V Deep Blue Sea" situation, suddenly lending a degree of legitimacy to choices people otherwise wouldn't have made.
The real issue, it turns out, is so much simpler in all respects, and is better put this way: Don't be stupid. You know better.
For New GMs, making "don't split the party" into an ideology is actually a pretty good idea until the GM knows how to handle split parties.
It honestly boils down to the age old question with TTRPGs: are you playing in a "game" where all encounters are based around your APL or are you playing in a campaign setting where you could easily run into encounters you couldn't win against?
My experience is that players realize pretty quickly that they can split the party with the "game" version of TTRPGs since the encounters will usually adjust to the number of players. However, when you play in a campaign setting where a split-off PC could easily get jumped by an encounter they'd be screwed against, they tend to hang around together just so they'd have less of a chance of being picked off.
Then again, many GMs get sick of players screwing off in every direction, getting in their own minor battles isolated from one another and all of them running their own RPs with multiple NPCs each.
This is a team game. There is nothing wrong with people working independent of one another to achieve goals, but they should all be oriented towards the same overall goal....
That doesn't contradict or override my point, actually. We're talking along slightly different lines. The fact that PCs are pursuing a common goal, and all that follows from that, should be obvious, and I don't understand why anyone would think or behave otherwise in the first place, which is why I can only conclude it is done because they don't feel they can take their autonomy for granted, because most of what you're talking about would be obviously stupid otherwise (although there are any number of instances where it does make sense to split the party, people keep assuming it's being done in a uniformly-hostile dungeon, which is a place where you shouldn't, so why would anyone even think to do so?).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're talking along slightly different lines.This this this = AThat that that = A
Gotcha.
The fact that PCs are pursuing a common goal, and all that follows from that, should be obvious
You would be amazed at how often this happens. My experience is that it happens most often when the party is filled with duos of characters whom effectively cover the majority of their bases, albeit poorly, to be able to win fights due to optimization. I have three examples here: Inquisitor + Magus, Alchemist + Alchemist with supporting archetype, and a classic: Cleric + Arcane Trickster.
These players tend to be either overly optimized gods of death who view themselves as the "real" PCs with the other players acting as sidekicks, or they just want to hoard XP if the GM is using an XP system where only people present in battles get XP from them. My favorite instance of this was a dungeon I made that basically had a sequence where the PCs could get trapped in the dungeon if they didn't escape quickly enough (think Indiana Jones). The power-duo in that group split off in an actually threatening and deadly dungeon, managed to survive two encounters by themselves (CR+1 and CR+2), used magic to bypass the boss (CR+3) of the dungeon and made a B-line for the exit. The duo escaped with time to spare, but the other PCs (3 of them) ended up getting trapped. The thing is, once the PCs get trapped the monsters basically start wandering the dungeon to create a marathon fight that massacred them with ease. Needless to say, they were not impressed, but the duo found the entire event to be hilarious.
although there are any number of instances where it does make sense to split the party
This is true. If the party is in a relatively safe location, such as a goodly town or location the GM has said is safe.
On the topic of splitting the party - the main issue for me is it's a hassle to manage the table for long. If interaction with one group takes too long, the other group drifts away. It also puts a bigger burden on the GM. But in this case, if you're OK with the hassle, more power (and more ibuprofen for the headaches) to you.
On the topic of a player refusing to have ranged weapons - there's a special place for players like that and it's in the corner with a dunce cap on as far as I'm concerned. There are all sorts of good reasons to not be using one right now but no good reason to completely eschew them. And as a GM, I'm not going to be sympathetic if the dragon isn't stupid enough to land just so you can amble up with your melee weapon. I'll make you pay for it like the RBGM I am. In the case of the goblin raid on the caravan, I can see not using one right then but that's a case-by-case evaluation. If the player continues to avoid ranged weapons for his concept, if I were another player at that table, I'd be getting kind of irritated.
On the topic of voting the players off the island - sounds a bit oversensitive to me. Tempers flare from time to time. You should have told him to stifle the insults and disrespect as soon as it popped up and made sure it was limited to in-character behavior. If you didn't act to correct them, it's poor form to boot the players now. Redemption isn't just for Sarenrae's followers - I always try to give players a chance to fix their screw ups. If they refuse, then it's time for the boot.
|
|
The fact that PCs are pursuing a common goal, and all that follows from that, should be obviousYou would be amazed at how often this happens. My experience is that it happens most often when the party is filled with duos of characters whom effectively cover the majority of their bases, albeit poorly, to be able to win fights due to optimization. I have three examples here: Inquisitor + Magus, Alchemist + Alchemist with supporting archetype, and a classic: Cleric + Arcane Trickster.
These players tend to be either overly optimized gods of death who view themselves as the "real" PCs with the other players acting as sidekicks, or they just want to hoard XP if the GM is using an XP system where only people present in battles get XP from them. My favorite instance of this was a dungeon I made that basically had a sequence where the PCs could get trapped in the dungeon if they didn't escape quickly enough (think Indiana Jones). The power-duo in that group split off in an actually threatening and deadly dungeon, managed to survive two encounters by themselves (CR+1 and CR+2), used magic to bypass the boss (CR+3) of the dungeon and made a B-line for the exit. The duo escaped with time to spare, but the other PCs (3 of them) ended up getting trapped. The thing is, once the PCs get trapped the monsters basically start wandering the dungeon to create a marathon fight that massacred them with ease. Needless to say, they were not impressed, but the duo found the entire event to be hilarious.
You don't say! And to think people rag on me when I say a word against the "Optimization = Objectively Superior!" mentality. The evidence just keeps mounting up....
You don't say! And to think people rag on me when I say a word against the "Optimization = Objectively Superior!" mentality. The evidence just keeps mounting up....
They rag on you because your whining about anyone who dares enjoy the game differently from you is going to be the death of the hobby really starts to grate after the thirty-seventh go-around.
|
|
They rag on you because your whining about anyone who dares enjoy the game differently from you is going to be the death of the hobby really starts to grate after the thirty-seventh go-around.You don't say! And to think people rag on me when I say a word against the "Optimization = Objectively Superior!" mentality. The evidence just keeps mounting up....
Oh, is that your tolerance threshold? A measly 37? Walk a mile in my shoes, pal. Many others have similar (or worse), the primary difference between myself and them is my naïvely optimistic (and masochistic) faith that the local "Church of Gaming" set can be gotten through to.
No thanks man, I'm pretty sure your shoes wouldn't fit me, I'm only a size 12.
Hey, SilentMonk:
Oh my, that sounds like quite the situation. It's never fun being at the table when the session devolves into an argument between PCs (or PCs and the DM).
From what you've written, this particular session sounds like it was openly hostile. Are you all good friends? I don't mind rule-bickering between PCs or disagreements with my DM rulings every now and again (), but I have zero patience for "taunts and degrading language." I didn't slog through an abusive childhood and adolescence so I could suffer (or watch others suffer) the abuse of ugly language at the gaming table where we go to have fun.
1. This particular player doesn't sound like a friend, and if the other players want him out, then it sounds like the best situation going forward is to either A) speak openly and honestly with this player (especially if he is a preexisting friend with which you have a history) about his divisive actions and how they have hurt certain people at the table, or B) remove this particular player from your campaign. Gaming will only become stressful and tense if that is how he chooses to behave. ()
2. People should be much more patient with a new player at the table! Ah! Of course, if you're introducing a new player to the group, and everyone else is Level 3, I would recommend having that new player be on the exact same page as the others. Have your new player come in at Level 3 as well. A party of vastly different levels will be extremely hard to design fun encounters for that everyone can engage in. Of course a new Level 1 would be apprehensive to wade into a Level 3 fight :D
3. As for your DM-ing, you said that the first couple of sessions went very smoothly and were fun. This may just have been a particularly crummy night (food for thought). In addition, as a DM myself, I highly recommend not splitting the party (especially if there is a newbie at the table). Denying two PCs entrance into the caravan would feel defeating and dismissive to me as a PC (though you presented the option for them to sneak onto the caravan, they might not have been stealthy characters or the type of characters who would defy or challenge the will of a Paladin. If they were caught trying to sneak on there could have been bad consequences, which would have made it worse for them).
SilentMonk: There was a lot to respond to there, Mate, so I know I didn't hit every beat. I hope there were some kernels in what I had to say that resonated or clicked for you. My biggest piece of advice is to be open and honest and considerate with every player at your table, especially since you are the DM. You set the tone at the table, so make sure it's a safe and fun environment where people can dialogue, discuss, and disagree respectfully.
I made this mistake also once I used to be a more hardcore rules lawyer type of person and have lost potentially good players to the "Thou shalt start at level one!" thing. (once my cousin actually)
If you wish to continue with all your current players, you should level up your lower level players after each session... and use a real cheesy line to do it so it is not "serious" gameplay. This might be disheartening for the advanced player to see new guys rank up so fast, especially if your game is of the very serious kind. It is probably best to actually credit the most advanced player. "Guess what guys after watching Bob's totally awesome monster slaying these past few days/weeks you gain a level!" Then if there is dissatisfaction, explain to the players everyone will need to be at the higher level to be competitive with what you have planned.
The bad player thing should be addressed early as soon as it starts to become a thing. You don't have to be an ass about it. Just be like, "Now now we're all friends here." before going to "I don't allow this at my table." and you can always say the enemies hear the yelling and fire arrows in their direction, I have done this before. The person complained and I said Hey if you are mad at Bob then your character is at least twice as mad at Bob... Of course ending the session early has happened a few times also. I highly recommend ending sessions early to stop bad behavior. If a person doesn't want to play nicely then they probably shouldn't be playing.
And Yes! Booting players should be a last resort.