Except we don't know it was just scenery. It could very well be a clue.
|
I think this was one of the first ideas thrown out. I, as someone who has GMed many games for the better part of two decades sometimes may want to throw something in the game that defies normal rules.Another hypothesis that I haven't quite seen mentioned: GM rudely surprised by an ability has a knee-jerk reaction.
I was trying to emphasize the ways in which PF sometimes takes fantasy tropes of things that are thought to be difficult (spotting magic traps, water in the desert, ancient runes) and provides absolutely-effective low-level solutions.
It's one thing to intentionally put something in that isn't solved so easily. But you better have a good story for why the normal rules don't apply. Don't go back on your earlier "promise" of things (saying "we use the normal rules") unless you're actually prepared to make a plot point of it.
If you're going to tell a player "your sure-fire spell didn't work", and the player quotes the rules at you, you should be ready to say "yes, I know, and there's a good reason why this time it didn't work. I didn't forget the rule, there's a reason."
Instead of getting whiny about it, perhaps the reaction should be more along the lines of "Wow. So this is gonna take more than a low level spell to solve.
Thing is, from what the OP gave us, it doesn't sound like a GM with some deep plan, but rather a knee-jerk reaction. As a player you don't have to be awe-struck by those.
Sounds like the DM is railroading and can't come up with an in game reason why this doesn't work when their are plenty of reasons they could have used for why it doesn't. Also the player either has this as one of their permanent spells known in which case saying no because reasons is yet more annoying or they had the presence of mind to memorize it before going into the area. Isn't having presence of mind and forward planning supposed to be rewarded? Not just results in resources being burnt needlessly because railroad. If I was playing with a group that either always had this spell handy then if I didn't want then reading the thing I would put it in a code or protect it some other way the game provides us with ways to do that besides NO BECAUSE I'M DM AND THIS IS ABOUT MY STORY NOT YOUR FUN and if the player subverts those things they should be rewarded. If they happened to memorize the spell (which means again I should know they have it available) and I overlooked this then again they should be rewarded. If I as GM am dumb enough to put something campaign breaking on a wall and then not protect it at all thats my own fault and the player is well within their rights to be annoyed. If its just a case of you had a way you wanted them to decipher this besides a spell and they did it with a spell then tough, this is a game you're running for them to have fun in. Not your novel with your characters, your way may have been fun but it won't be if you just railroad players out of using their powers and force them to do it your way. It will just make people bitter.
Don't understand why people are acting as if the player is being whiny or difficult, they used a spell specifically for what the spell is for the DM said 'no because I don't want it to'. If someone tried to disintegrate a mundane stone wall to get into a room and the DM said 'no because old mundane stone' no-one would think the player was being unreasonable to find this annoying.
I would be disappointed too.
Even if the DM didn't want you to understand the text, she could have given you something to reward your idea of casting the spell. This is less about rules (for me) and more about DM skills.
As a DM, I try to say "yes, and..." to my players as much as possible. That is, I let their ideas work and if needed I limit / complicate it somehow. I was to reward clever thinking.
|
|
Thing is, from what the OP gave us, it doesn't sound like a GM with some deep plan, but rather a knee-jerk reaction. As a player you don't have to be awe-struck by those.
What the OP gave us was a 1 sided rendition, and in the end I read it as a bitter 1 sided rendition.
He asked ooc and was given an answer...and then after thinking about some more he was bitter about it.
So he came to the boards to drum up support as to how is GM is making badwrongfungame.
|
|
I would be disappointed too.
Even if the DM didn't want you to understand the text, she could have given you something to reward your idea of casting the spell. This is less about rules (for me) and more about DM skills.
As a DM, I try to say "yes, and..." to my players as much as possible. That is, I let their ideas work and if needed I limit / complicate it somehow. I was to reward clever thinking.
I get what you are saying, and if you actually do that, then good for you.
Some don't work as well coming up with tangents off the cuff.
But I don't really see what the player was doing as overly clever. He only cast a Comp Lang in response to unknown writing. Now if he had some creative plan as to how he can learn what it said, then yes, he deserves to be rewarded.
Doesn't sound like he did have such a creative plan.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone who is saying that the GM made a poor call, because it was. But, the way forward isn't to get bitter and twisted and consider the game to be a competition between the GM and the players - that leaves to an 'unfun' time for all concerned and a premature end to the campaign.
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with anyone who is saying that the GM made a poor call, because it was. But, the way forward isn't to get bitter and twisted and consider the game to be a competition between the GM and the players - that leaves to an 'unfun' time for all concerned and a premature end to the campaign.
This I agree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be disappointed too.
Even if the DM didn't want you to understand the text, she could have given you something to reward your idea of casting the spell. This is less about rules (for me) and more about DM skills.
As a DM, I try to say "yes, and..." to my players as much as possible. That is, I let their ideas work and if needed I limit / complicate it somehow. I was to reward clever thinking.
I get what you are saying, and if you actually do that, then good for you.
Some don't work as well coming up with tangents off the cuff.
But I don't really see what the player was doing as overly clever. He only cast a Comp Lang in response to unknown writing. Now if he had some creative plan as to how he can learn what it said, then yes, he deserves to be rewarded.
Doesn't sound like he did have such a creative plan.
Not for you or I (as DM) to judge, I'd argue.
He used precious resources; give him something for it. He also used a slot for a not-always-useful spell.
Like you and the other said above, you don't want to create a DM-vs-player mentality. It is (almost) entirely the DM's responsibility to foster that sense of mutual enjoyment.
"Some don't work as well coming up with tangents off the cuff."
I'd argue that the DM should work on coming up with tangents. I think it's an essential skill of a DM who can keep players immersed and entertained. I think it comes with years of practice. But it's pretty awesome when the players hit you with a surprise tangent and you can roll with it so well that they think it's all part of your plan.
To each their own though; for me, improvising and supporting players' actions are some of the most enjoyable aspects of DM-ing.
There's a thing in stand-up improv. (Which I've never done) and collaborative idea generation (which I do for a living) where you never want to 'block'. Blocking is when someone suggests something and you say 'no'. It's incredible how quickly that will shut down even the liveliest thinker. In a game where I want to encourage excited and invested role-players, I do my best not to block.
It does come down to style, I suppose; but check out Chris Perkins (Aquisitions Incorporated) and the Critical Role DM. They are so good at saying 'yes', or 'yes, and...'
It's one big reason why their games flow amazingly and are so entertaining that tens of thousands of people watch their games on YouTube.
I get that PF is a more crunchy game, though. I understand that a fair number of players (especially the PFS crowd) might be more into a play-by-the-rules-except-rule-zero type cut-and dry game.. My style ain't that. Just putting it out there why I can understand the OP's frustration.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
More reasons for Comp. Languages to 'fail':
1.) The text contains concepts you cannot comprehend, like 6 dimensional geometry, or concepts only understood if you have multiple brains or could smell color.
2.) The text contains concepts your language does not have (but could comprehend with sufficient exposure), like emotions that humans don't have, or 15 kinds of genders.
3.) The text is insane gibberish written by insane people. More common than you might like.
4.) The text is not text, but a device such as a printed circuit or magical 'conduit'.
5.) The text is not text, but art that might be confused with text, like a decorative hem on a cloak.
6.) The text is not text, but a creature or part of a creature that mimics text as a disguise.
7.) The text was designed, from the ground up, to foil Comprehend Languages. Not sure if this is possible - as opposed to just coding the language - but if it was possible, you can send coded messages without the messy necessity of code, and only those that could read your language would understand.
8.) The text is incomplete or obscured in some manner - for example, half the lettering is present, or can only be read at the right time of day when the shadows are correct.
9.) The text must be spoken aloud to have any meaning or use - Comprehend Languages doesn't instruct how to pronounce the text, so a gibberish word that would serve as a command phrase for a nearby device would be unintelligible.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone who is saying that the GM made a poor call, because it was. But, the way forward isn't to get bitter and twisted and consider the game to be a competition between the GM and the players - that leaves to an 'unfun' time for all concerned and a premature end to the campaign.
If the GM is just going to hand wave player abilities then this will be the inevitable conclusion in my experience.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe that this is an issue at all. Should the DM provide all the monster stats, and puzzles so the player can have a satisfactory explanation on why they beat the challenge is three turns instead of two. The DM doesn't owe anyone any explanation. If this question came up in my game my answer would have been "Hmm, yes it didn't work, strange huh?" You aren't entitled to any explanation. If it bothers your character, have him take a rubbing and try to find out why. Then the DM can make it part of the game. If it bothers you a a player, well, then be bothered.
I give the DM props for trying to give you an explanation that you had no right to, even if it was clumsy.
Now before I start getting replies of "well the spell says" or "You can't arbitrarily change the rule". Yes I can. In fact it is my duty to change things up and make things not work the way you expect. Otherwise you are playing a board game.
|
Comprehend languages is not a bulletproof solution to understanding unknown text. Suck it up, read the description of the spell, and quit whining.
understanding and reading are two different things though. the spell would never fizzle. it could return "AX FDE GEFDSFD SS ASFDE" which would make no sense as it's a code, but it would still return a result.
it allows you to read the writing, not understand the meaning of the writing. so to say that you get "no" result back and the spell does nothing is just lazy GM'ing. even if it was tied to a major plot point or story arc, if a player uses an ability as it's written, hand waving it away is insulting and cheap.
a better way to handle it would be to allow them to read it but either make the sign meaningless ("tavern is one block east") or make it a coded message (so they still need to search for the key). simple.
|
|
so to say that you get "no" result back and the spell does nothing is just lazy GM'ing. even if it was tied to a major plot point or story arc, if a player uses an ability as it's written, hand waving it away is insulting and cheap.
Lazy?!? Well we don't want any lazy DMs, so here is a spell that can be used for this situation.
Confuse Languages
School divination; Level alchemist 1, bard 1, cleric/oracle 1, inquisitor 1, shaman 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1; Domain knowledge 1; Subdomain language 1
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (pinch of soot and salt)
EFFECT
Range touch
Target written text no more than 500 words/level
Duration Permanent
DESCRIPTION
When cast on a an item or area that contains text, the text becomes unreadable to anyone who does not have fluency in that language already. If the text is subject to a comprehend language spell, that spell is automatically countered, providing no result and ends with a "Fizzle" sound. This spell also instantly silences metaphysical voices that complain about their comprehend language spell not working. This spell effect also does not detect as magical under a detect magic spell.
|
|
so to say that you get "no" result back and the spell does nothing is just lazy GM'ing. even if it was tied to a major plot point or story arc, if a player uses an ability as it's written, hand waving it away is insulting and cheap.
Lazy?!? Well we don't want any lazy DMs, so here is a spell that can be used for this situation.
Confuse Languages
<Chopped for Space>
this is brilliant and I would be totally in favor of this. however I was under the assumption that the TC's post said it was non-magical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think how I would react to a situation like this depends on how much I trust my GM. I am the most rules knowledgeable in our group, so situations usually work like this:
Me: I cast acid arrow at the large metal man that I failed to identify!
GM: It slides off the creature as if it were nothing!
Me: You know that golems are only immune to spells that allow spell resistance, right?
GM: ummm... the creature, that is most certainly not a golem, is burned by the acid.
However, I have a lot of trust in that GM, so if he responded to my rules reminder with an "I know." Then I would try to figure out what was different about the situation, or just roll with it. We had a boss fight where the villain had multiple forms. When she transformed, she pushed everyone around her back with no save. My response was "that's pretty weird, there should be a save for things like that. Especially since one of us got pushed into the spiked walls in the room." He just said that this was part of the plan I dropped it, and the fight was really fun.
I've played with another GM where I had a character with scent and he took every opportunity to either deny its usefulness or to shaft me with terrible smells making me nauseated. Predictably I would rarely give him the benefit of the doubt when I thought he was wrong.
Long story short: if you are GMing you have to earn your players trust before you can throw curve-balls like this and not have players get upset.
There are lots of strategies for doing this. First of all, you should know the rules well. Second, don't depart from the rules too often; variety is the spice of life, but not the whole meal. Third, when players are confused about something you could clue them into information their characters know to demonstrate that you are on the ball. Consider the comprehend languages example:
Player: I cast Comprehend Languages.
GM: It fails.
Player: What?
GM: Wally the wizard knows that comprehend languages fails on codes and ciphers. It is not a perfect system, it is only a first level spell after all. There may be other things that can defeat it.
Most importantly, be ready to admit when you make mistakes. This way, when you are setting up a mystery your players will be confident that you are not just being bull-headed and actually have a reason and a plan.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think how I would react to a situation like this depends on how much I trust my GM. I am the most rules knowledgeable in our group, so situations usually work like this:
Me: I cast acid arrow at the large metal man that I failed to identify!
GM: It slides off the creature as if it were nothing!
Me: You know that golems are only immune to spells that allow spell resistance, right?
GM: ummm... the creature, that is most certainly not a golem, is burned by the acid.However, I have a lot of trust in that GM, so if he responded to my rules reminder with an "I know." Then I would try to figure out what was different about the situation, or just roll with it. We had a boss fight where the villain had multiple forms. When she transformed, she pushed everyone around her back with no save. My response was "that's pretty weird, there should be a save for things like that. Especially since one of us got pushed into the spiked walls in the room." He just said that this was part of the plan I dropped it, and the fight was really fun.
I've played with another GM where I had a character with scent and he took every opportunity to either deny its usefulness or to shaft me with terrible smells making me nauseated. Predictably I would rarely give him the benefit of the doubt when I thought he was wrong.
Long story short: if you are GMing you have to earn your players trust before you can throw curve-balls like this and not have players get upset.
There are lots of strategies for doing this. First of all, you should know the rules well. Second, don't depart from the rules too often; variety is the spice of life, but not the whole meal. Third, when players are confused about something you could clue them into information their characters know to demonstrate that you are on the ball. Consider the comprehend languages example:
Player: I cast Comprehend Languages.
GM: It fails.
Player: What?
GM: Wally the wizard knows that comprehend languages fails on codes and ciphers. It is not a perfect system, it is...
I agree with this except for one thing. If you are playing in someone's game he should not have to earn your trust first. He is the one going through the time to build the game and run it for you. You should give him the benefit of the doubt, that he knows what he is doing. If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here."
Now if you are playing with a DM who is always making errors on the way things work, then it is time to step in and ask. But if it's a new DM, Start with that trust first. It's only a game after all, no one really gets hurt. If he squanders that trust, oh well, now you know better wjen playing with him later.
I agree with this except for one thing. If you are playing in someone's game he should not have to earn your trust first. He is the one going through the time to build the game and run it for you. You should give him the benefit of the doubt, that he knows what he is doing. If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here."
I totally disagree with this philosophy, as a DM I'm trying to run a game my players enjoy if me handwaving their abilities away impedes that then thats my problem not theirs. They aren't roleplaying characters in my novel, if their character can do something then they can do something simple as that.
Also this logic "If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here." when applied to the scenario the player has described basically equates to. Do your best to enjoy being railroaded.
Now if you are playing with a DM who is always making errors on the way things work, then it is time to step in and ask. But if it's a new DM, Start with that trust first. It's only a game after all, no one really gets hurt. If he squanders that trust, oh well, now you know better wjen playing with him later.
It's a DM's job to make a game fun, not a players job to try and enjoy whatever is thrown at them until they loose their temper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a DM's job to make a game fun, not a players job to try and enjoy whatever is thrown at them until they loose their temper.
Actually this is complete crap. It is everyone's job to make the game an enjoyable experience.
Sure, the DM has the most work in that regard, but being a jerk player, taking offense and throwing a snit every time the DM makes a mistake or even just doesn't do something the way you would is being a bad player, and a bad person.
A good person will indeed try to enjoy something that someone else has spent a lot of time and effort trying to do for them, like running a game. They will appreciate the effort, and if for whatever reason they end up being unable to enjoy the experience, they will do their best to explain why and work to improve the situation without causing offence.
It's a DM's job to make a game fun, not a players job to try and enjoy whatever is thrown at them until they loose their temper.Actually this is complete crap. It is everyone's job to make the game an enjoyable experience.
Sure, the DM has the most work in that regard, but being a jerk player, taking offense and throwing a snit every time the DM makes a mistake or even just doesn't do something the way you would is being a bad player, and a bad person.
A good person will indeed try to enjoy something that someone else has spent a lot of time and effort trying to do for them, like running a game. They will appreciate the effort, and if for whatever reason they end up being unable to enjoy the experience, they will do their best to explain why and work to improve the situation without causing offence.
Well put
|
There's different standards at different groups with regards to unusual rule-breaking challenges. My group does play pretty loose with the rules but GMs usually try to make it obvious when the players encounter something that violates rule expectations (unusual monster, bizarre demiplane, etc) and avoid negating player abilities.
I try to start from a position of trusting the GM, but negating a PC ability without warning would weaken my trust, especially if I don't eventually get a satisfactory reason why the ability didn't work. If it happened repeatedly, I'd have a hard time continuing in that GM's campaign.
Telling the GM "it bothered me the way you handled this particular thing" is not being a jerk player, it's providing feedback on your reactions and expectations. I find that really useful when I'm GMing. Saying there's room for improvement is not the same thing as saying that the GM is incompetent. People aren't perfect. GMing is hard. Not realizing that your players have different preferences or expectations for things like "how strictly should the rules be applied?" only makes it harder.
The OP's post didn't indicate any further interaction with the GM than asking about the reason for the spell failure "later" (ie some time after the spell failure; there may or may not have been an opportunity to investigate in-game) and accepting that ruling while being quietly disappointed. The OP could be a jerk about this, but there isn't any indication this is the case.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree with this philosophy, as a DM I'm trying to run a game my players enjoy if me handwaving their abilities away impedes that then thats my problem not theirs. They aren't roleplaying characters in my novel, if their character can do something then they can do something simple as that.Also this logic "If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here." when applied to the scenario the player has described basically equates to. Do your best to enjoy being railroaded.
It's a DM's job to make a game fun, not a players job to try and enjoy whatever is thrown at them until they loose their temper.
Now if you are playing with a DM who is always making errors on the way things work, then it is time to step in and ask. But if it's a new DM, Start with that trust first. It's only a game after all, no one really gets hurt. If he squanders that trust, oh well, now you know better wjen playing with him later.
Wow, talk about entitlement. So it's the DM's job to plan the game, run the game, handle all the NPCs, know every rule, rearrange the entire story, throwing away all the work he did, if a player feels that he is not having enough fun. Would you like the DM to pick you up, bring you home, provide a meal and pay you $35 a session for the pleasure of running a game for you. Also do you feel this way about just yourself or every player? What if you want to kill the king, and another player want to save him. Is it the GM's job to somehow appease you both, or are you ok with you getting what you want and the other player not having a good time.
Actually please don't answer this. It really isn't a question for you, as going forward I don't see how this attitude will bring any benefit to any conversation. This is more to show anyone else reading how ridicules this is.As was said, it is everyone's job to make the game fun. If having a single first level spell not work ruins the entire game for you, you have to ask yourself if you should really be playing any game where you are not 100% in control. You could instead look at it as an opportunity to add to the story. Let the DM know your character is going to look for reasons why a detect magic spell would not work, and I'll bet you in a few weeks you will get a much better explanation than a hastily thought up reason that you badgered him for at the end of a session.
Something to consider - that aside from the obvious condition where the GM simply doesn't want it to work for story reasons - how do you suspect the Comprehend Languages spell works anyway? I mean, there is no arcane invisible codex that it is somehow looking it up in - and it being a divination spell, I'm thinking if anything, it is connecting to the intent of the speaker, or the writer in the past that created the writing. In this way, it is perfectly plausible that the connection is simply not there anymore, and it cannot be deciphered.
Reminds me of Doctor Who. He's got a universal translator that will decipher every single language in all of space and time.
Except when he doesn't. Every once in a while they'll find some writing or languages that the TARDIS never encountered... and THAT... Shouldn't be POSSIBLE!?!?!!
And there are languages that the TARDIS won't translate... like Gallifreyan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, talk about entitlement.
I'm the DM for my group as I explained in the comment you're quoting so I don't see how this makes me entitled. Refraining from insults would be nice too.
So it's the DM's job to plan the game, run the game, handle all the NPCs, know every rule, rearrange the entire story, throwing away all the work he did, if a player feels that he is not having enough fun. Would you like the DM to pick you up, bring you home, provide a meal and pay you $35 a session for the pleasure of running a game for you. Also do you feel this way about just yourself or every player? What if you want to kill the king, and another player want to save him. Is it the GM's job to somehow appease you both, or are you ok with you getting what you want and the other player not having a good time.
Please don't strawman I'm arguing that handwaving player's abilities because it doesn't fit your plot is lazy DMing, I'm not saying you have to know every rule off by heart nor am I saying your players shouldn't learn the rules. If the players aren't having fun definitly throw out your story, your story is a game they are playing, the point of the game is to have fun if that isn't happening your story failed.
Bold: again I am the DM so you can cut this passive aggressive crap.
if two players what different things to happen in the game they should work it out in character, obviously.
Actually please don't answer this. It really isn't a question for you, as going forward I don't see how this attitude will bring any benefit to any conversation. This is more to show anyone else reading how ridicules this is.
As was said, it is...
Calls me entitled, implies I said a load of stuff I didn't say, constructs a strawman is pasive aggressive and ignores the fact that I am the DM as explained in my comment then tells me to ignore his post. I think not.