| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my area, there's a semi-orgainized play campaign going on. I am not in it due to inability to provide an adequate backstory, but I know what happens from one of my friends who is in it. Recently, the party was knocked/poisoned unconscious and left on an island without gear. Since any sort of rolling was bypassed, I couldn't believe that the GM would take away all the gear (effectively destroying several interesting builds)simply because plot. However, everybody I asked about is saying that I'm a bad player for asking the DM to be as bound by the rules as the players. What is so wrong about wanting to try out interesting mechanics, and having them not arbitrarily lost? Especially since the characters were without their main gear for around 20% of the campaign length? (It's five day long sessions, at levels, 4,8,12,16,20)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the players and the GM are perfectly fine with it, I'd be fine with it. I'd probably adjust the CR, and as a player I would be annoyed, but it seems like these guys are fine.
Too Much Roleplaying is when it interferes with the fun of the GM and the Players. If they still have fun it isn't a problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever considered just straight wargaming?
Have you ever considered just straight wargaming?
While I'm currently learning Infinity, I love the sheer number of options PF has.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my area, there's a semi-orgainized play campaign going on. I am not in it due to inability to provide an adequate backstory, but I know what happens from one of my friends who is in it. Recently, the party was knocked/poisoned unconscious and left on an island without gear. Since any sort of rolling was bypassed, I couldn't believe that the GM would take away all the gear (effectively destroying several interesting builds)simply because plot.
In and of itself, this isn't a problem if all the players are OK with it. It is essentially blatant railroading, but the issue with railroading is that it negates player agency. If the players are all OK with having their agency taken away for a bit while the GM forwards their plot then there isn't anything bad going on.
However, everybody I asked about is saying that I'm a bad player for asking the DM to be as bound by the rules as the players.If your representation of their response is fair, then that is a strong warning sign to stay away from those people when it comes to RPGs. There isn't a problem with expecting the GM to abide by the rules when reasonable. There also isn't a problem with expecting the GM to throw the rules to the wind whenever it suits their fancy. Its personal preference. There is a problem when you label a player as "bad" when their preferences don't line up closely with yours. It reeks of one-way-ism, and it suggests that you are going to be a self-righteous &$^hole whenever you get into a disagreement with someone.
What is so wrong about wanting to try out interesting mechanics, and having them not arbitrarily lost? Especially since the characters were without their main gear for around 20% of the campaign length? (It's five day long sessions, at levels, 4,8,12,16,20)
There isn't. This is the sort of thing that you would need to work out with your group and establish as against the social contract. It is fundamentally a question of group preference.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some APs you REALLY start without your gear, no rolls required. If that's one of those cases, I would ask the GM to warn me at character creation, but nothing more.
Think we're talking about Serpent Skull AP in question. Yeah, sux to be without gear, but that's the way the AP is written in question. It doesn't work without that Railroad. If I were GMing that one, I would run it the same way, but warn players that there's no magic mart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a too much roleplaying problem, that's a too much railroading problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will argue in this case, the GM had no choice, because the Adventure Path in question said so. The only choice he had was not to run that particular Adventure Path.
Way of the wicked is another Adventure Path you start without gear. But still its awesomely fun. Except I don't really make very good evil villian material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was the idea that they would get it back? That's a pretty classic storyline. As long as it wasn't just screwing everyone out of their appropriate wealth by level and whatnot.
Because of the long advancement gaps, all characters start a session at exactly WBL.
@mort, it's a homebrew setting, and the gear was removed during the lvl8 session, imo when gear-focused builds begin functioning (e.g. an agile AoMF is too expensive for early levels)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are the players complaining? It sounds like you like more mechanics based games, but all the other people are more story based.
YMMV
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Do your thing without your best gear" is a long established trope of D&D and co. The understanding is that if you lose all your gear because of plot, you get it back later.
This is the sort of plot device that's best suited for games where "the players win in the end" is not so much in question as what happens on the way to getting there. As an inveterate storygamer, personally I would have no problem with this sort of thing.
Also I don't get this "the GM is bound by the rules" thing. Rule Zero is essentially that the GM is not bound by the rules. I mean, what's the difference between the GM saying "the DC for the fort save from the poison gas is 60" and knocking the players out, and just saying "y'all pass unconscious from the gas." Sure, either way you're forcing the players down a specific path, but every group has a different tolerance for railroading and some folks enjoy quite a bit of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep.
That's the point of being an interactive role playing game, that the story may go wide and varied and you need to be prepared for that. Your build might be mechanically interesting to you, but that isn't really a storyline consideration.
As a player I have had that plot line of losing all my gear in the past, as well as countless situations of being sans weapons/armour because of a myriad legit reasons, and I don't expect to be warned up front - overcoming the challenge is part of the fun.
On the other hand, wargaming and the like allowed me to finesse builds and strategies with a fellow audience also appreciative of such things . I never thought to complain there was too much storyline in Car Wars, or the motivation of my Ogre in Bloodbowl.
A basic conceit of the trope too is that if you're stranded on an island and you literally need a bow or a finesseable weapon or something similar to function, you'll find or be able to quickly cobble together out of coconuts, bamboo, and animal skins something that fulfills that requirement.
It won't be your +1 fortuitous adamant rapier, but the swashbuckler will still get something to precise strike with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the Occultist?
You'll hunt around and find at least one thing that can function as an implement before you have to fight anything, and you can change "what physical object" you use as an implement every day as part of your hour-long getting ready routine. I mean, this is a great opportunity to use the fluff for object reading so you can figure out what among the stuff washed up on the beach is of historical significance.
The adventure is the adventure. Sometimes PCs find themselves stuck somewhere without their gear. If you want to play, you have to challenge yourself to deal with it creatively, not by throwing accusations at the GM who is taking a lot of personal time and resources to both prepare for and run the adventure for the players.
At the start of the campaign, there should be a discussion about what sort of adventure to expect. That doesn't mean telling the players that they will lose their gear for an unspecified period of time, but it does mean the GM should tell them that they will be in the wilderness and to build their characters accordingly.
Losing your gear because the story needs it or the GM needs it's bad. Period.
Why is it bad? Imagine all cast party. They would literally laugh having no gear. It impose no threat to them and no slowdown.
Now imagine a martial party. Suddenly they're useless.
Unless it's something super temporary removing gear because *reasons* i's a bad element in my opinion.
If the character attack a civilian place, are evil, or do something that might justify that, I can understand it; but following the normal story and suddenly having no gear is a no no.
I try encourage players to build for more than just being a hyper specialised mode of transport for a very specific weapons platform.
If your whole usefulness is rendered to nil by removing an item or two then you are going to keep hitting problems. That's not very interesting for anybody, including the GM who now has to work out what to do with you?
I try encourage players to build for more than just being a hyper specialised mode of transport for a very specific weapons platform.
If your whole usefulness is rendered to nil by removing an item or two then you are going to keep hitting problems. That's not very interesting for anybody, including the GM who now has to work out what to do with you?
Any character that is NOT a caster depends on a single weapon.
Weapon Focus works for 1 Weapon, it doesn't work for a group, unless fighter.A +3 enhancement from a bow doesn't magically transfer to any other bow because the DM took it away.
A cleric with Heavy Armor Prof doesn't get +8 to AC when using rugs, but he can use spells to achieve similar AC. Meanwhile the fighter is gathering logs hoping they can serve as armor.
Eventually if you have no gear or low gear having a martial character is a slowing mechanic, because you have to waste resources buffing them so they aren't useless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean "you lost all your good stuff, acquire and make do with crappy stuff until you can get your stuff back" isn't really that different from "you're in the middle of nowhere, there's nobody around to sell you new items, you're going to have to make do with what you've got and what you find, and you're probably not going to find a lot of fauchards or diamond dust in loot piles."
It's just a temporary narrative hurdle to take players out of their comfort zone in order to make them think about problems in a different way. Having your character not operate at 100% efficiency all of the time is okay, and can even be a lot of fun. Losing your +3 bow for a bit and making due with a mundane one so it's harder to hit things in archery is actually a lower penalty than "you are fighting in a snow storm".
This is not a good approach if you're playing Pathfinder like it's a board game about beating the monsters in fights, I agree that this is a bad approach. But not everyone plays PF like a board game, and that's great. By all accounts, everybody who is actually in the game is cool with this, and that should be the only thing that matters.
Any character that is NOT a caster depends on a single weapon.
Weapon Focus works for 1 Weapon, it doesn't work for a group, unless fighter.
On a single weapon type, perhaps, but specific item or equipment - that is a problem.
Also, a Fighter can still happily pick up and wield other weapons, a cleric is not powerless if not in plate.
In a heavy combat focused adventure, taking away their gear is probably going to lead to some unhappiness, however given the appropriate adjustments to the storyline, I am sure the Fighter who took a rank or two in craft weapons and the archer who then goes looking for some wood getting together and then MacGuyvering up some basic weapons will no doubt feel a sense of achievement.
I kicked off Rise of the Runelords with clothing, a club, a sling, and a dog. Best game ever.
Improvise and adapt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I agree with both Shifty and Cabbage.
I'm just saying that certain classes lack the power to shape narrative, while Casters retain it even if naked.
A Figther with 10 INT and only 3 ranks can't do much compared to a Rogue with 8, who could invest in social skills, stealth and others.
A Rogue could even have Survival and Survive on its own, while it's highly unlikely that the fighter had enough skill points to spare.
And a Rogue has no chance against a Wizard with some time to prepare spells, who depending on level can ignore Stealth, swimming, and certain obstacles.
If your build depends on items, it's not your fault, it's the system's fault. Reality is that any martial character will depend on items, and if you take them away it could be frustrating for characters, because it's what they do.
If you the the barbarian the possibility to hit things, what else is she gonna do?
I agree with you there too Letric!
The rogue might have a lot of skills, but wont be as good with a club as his buddy the semi-naked fighter. They might have to (shock horror!) work together as a team, rather than cool individual superheroes that hang out together.
That is what I have noticed in these sort of capers, once you remove the gear, the players start working with each other a lot.
Germany beat Brazil in football. Brazil had the better set of players, but Germany had a better 'team'.
The trope can work well, but does need some crafting and some skill - otherwise it can be heavy handed and unfun, but the Barbarian (who has lots of skill ranks) might prove highly valuable because of their Survival skills and knowledge of nature... who knows?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any character that is NOT a caster depends on a single weapon.
The majority of casters are far more gear-dependent than martials. A level 1 Fighter with 18 Strength can still pick up a rock and kill a goblin. A level 1 Wizard who loses his spellbook, bonded object and component pouch is going to be a lot less helpful.
Also consider that almost every martial has proficiency with all simple and martial weapons means they can fight with just about any weapon they find. Just because they can’t use weapon specific feats does not mean they have to stand around helpless. A paladin can still smite evil with a club, and a ranger still gets his favored enemy bonus no matter what weapon they are using. Even fighters have a lot of feats that do not depend on a specific weapon. Power attack works just fine on any weapon.
As Mattheww Downine pointed out a wizard with no gear is actually almost useless. A cleric is a little better off because they have a better BAB and proficiency with simple weapons. Sorcerers and Monks probably lose the least, but just about any other class will be hurt as much if not more than a marital class.
Also if this is a plot device than any decent GM is going to scale back what you encounter to compensate. So instead of fighting giants you are fighting orcs. Without knowing further details you can’t really complain about how unfair the GM is being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A note for GMs considering this option: I once started an adventure with the whole group failing a save 'because Plot', as the saying would appear to be. However, I also passed each character a poker chip and said, "This represents the save you didn't get to make. At any point in this campaign, you can give me back the chip to automatically make a save." It seemed to go over well. (After all, they might have failed that save anyway.)
That is very similar to how Compels work in the Fate system.
What's the difference between "paladin falls" and "dex monk/Bonded Witch/Cha 11 android psychic/etc falls"? Am I not allowed to have fun making and playing these builds because a GM feels like it?
That's not a too much roleplaying problem, that's a too much railroading problem.
I agree about the wrong subject name for this post. Being knocked unconscious without agency and delivered gearless is not roleplaying, so how can it be too much roleplaying?
Some APs you REALLY start without your gear, no rolls required. If that's one of those cases, I would ask the GM to warn me at character creation, but nothing more.
@mort, it's a homebrew setting, and the gear was removed during the lvl8 session, imo when gear-focused builds begin functioning (e.g. an agile AoMF is too expensive for early levels)
Okay, I agree here, too. If a player was looking forward to the level when his character became fully functional with the right gear, then that was taken away. Even if the character gets his gear back later, he will have missed that one level where he most appreciated it.
I view the GM's role as giving the PCs opportunities to be awesome. Some PCs can be awesome by winning with improvised gear, but this might not have been the right time to try that. The GM has to consider that. If all the players are happy with the new scenario, it was the right time.
Title is incorrect, this has nothing to do with roleplay. Except maybe for the part where you can't/won't produce a backstory for your character.
Gearless situations offer experiences not available with your standard full equipment. The current campaign I'm GMing had my players start with absolutely nothing but a piece of cloth over their bodies. I do not regret it at all, though I probably wouldn't do that every time. It provided experiences this group had never had to that day, and I feel it adds greater feeling of progression. When the first weapon you manage to raid from defeated mooks are rusty bronze daggers, and you barely find any wealth, you can easily progress through multiple weapons before finding the one that's optimal for your build. Makes loot in the first sessions more meaningful than if everyone is already fully equipped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the difference between "paladin falls" and "dex monk/Bonded Witch/Cha 11 android psychic/etc falls"? Am I not allowed to have fun making and playing these builds because a GM feels like it?
Hardly! Unless you are playing a specific module/AP (and, thankfully, even then the GM can deviate from the printed rules to provide a different start to the campaign), nothing requires ALL play-groups / GMs to periodically knock people unconscious / separate them from their loots.
I don't see anything that obliges the GM and other players, however, to modify their play style to suit your preferences if you are not a member of this group/campaign.
I've had players that I've politely not invited to particular games I've run because their play style didn't match the campaign's style, and I've refrained from asking to join certain games because I didn't think I'd enjoy the narrative/play style of that particular campaign/game/group or haven't had the time/ability to do it justice (such as becoming familiar enough with the campaign world and inventing a well-fleshed out back story with the time and energy I had available). I may also have been politely and surreptitiously not invited to games that I wouldn't be a good fit for, and that would be fine.
If there is a sudden mid-campaign divergence from player expectations, or if the GM and other players expect you to be a part of the campaign but also do not appear responsive to the elements that you find fun (for example, it sounds as though you enjoy trying out fun/innovative builds and making the most of your resources, including gear, which makes sense), then that is not cool. Part of a healthy group is one that can make time / adjustments to the campaign so that all players regularly have fun.
Screening you out at the 'intake' / backstory stage, however, seems like it was a good thing for both you and them: if this campaign / plot railroading would hamper your fun, or if your playstyle diverged significantly from group expectations, surely it is much better to find out before you spend significant time/effort and have a miserable play experience when the plot unfolds as most other players are comfortable with?
They can play their game; you can find (or run) a campaign that is more suited to your tastes.
Any character that is NOT a caster depends on a single weapon.The majority of casters are far more gear-dependent than martials. A level 1 Fighter with 18 Strength can still pick up a rock and kill a goblin. A level 1 Wizard who loses his spellbook, bonded object and component pouch is going to be a lot less helpful.
I assume a certain level. At level one most of the stuff is decided by Die. A decent Wizard with 14 DEX could use a Crossbow and still do pertinent damage.
Losing a spellbook equals to a Paladin falling.If you're talking +5 level you start seeing DR, possible flying. What can a martial do without items? Not much.
On the other hand Wizard (if spellbook still there) can do so much more. Same for Clerics.
Druid don't even need items at all. Wildshape, some buffs, AC and they're good.
If the story needs it, at least in Pathfinder, it should consider the hindrance and feeling of usefulness characters will have.
As a wizard I don't need my items to play my class, they're just bonuses.
As a martial, well, I kinda need them to be effective, because I have no other things to make up for the loss of them.
To stop a Wizard from just teleporting you need serious investment or Deux Ex Machina. To stop a martial without gear you need a wall.
And on a side note for Wizard: Spell Mastery. It is there, and a paranoid player could take it.
I'm ALL for it for story reasons. But it either needs to be short timed, or a consequence for poor player decisions. Also depends on levels, not the same at level 1, 5 or 9.
Story is the thing the moves forward the Campaign, but it shouldn't be imposed on the players, it should be played. As a player even if I'm being forced into a path I'd like to feel like I've actually chosen it.
Otherwise just cast a Geas for me and we're done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's illustrative how many folks are upset about being denied stuff just when "their build comes online." It's conceivable that the GM has realized that most characters tend to be hyper-specialized and wants to discourage this approach through narrative devices. A lot of players will pay close attention to every single line of text that helps them do the one thing they do the best and ignore the rest of their class features. So when feats have text like "the user can apply the effect of this feat to all weapons in [fighter] weapon group" nobody cares since they're only taking the feat to be good with the composite longbow, or the fauchard, or whatever weapon is best in class.
This is disappointing if you show up in order to flex your character building muscles and show off how much butt you can kick, assuredly, but if you're primarily interested in playing a character that is summed up by more than what they do in fights (I know a lot of TTRPG folks who find combat super tedious and boring), then improvising to get around unexpected challenges is a significant part of the fun.
I think it's illustrative how many folks are upset about being denied stuff just when "their build comes online." It's conceivable that the GM has realized that most characters tend to be hyper-specialized and wants to discourage this approach through narrative devices. A lot of players will pay close attention to every single line of text that helps them do the one thing they do the best and ignore the rest of their class features. So when feats have text like "the user can apply the effect of this feat to all weapons in [fighter] weapon group" nobody cares since they're only taking the feat to be good with the composite longbow, or the fauchard, or whatever weapon is best in class.
This is disappointing if you show up in order to flex your character building muscles and show off how much butt you can kick, assuredly, but if you're primarily interested in playing a character that is summed up by more than what they do in fights (I know a lot of TTRPG folks who find combat super tedious and boring), then improvising to get around unexpected challenges is a significant part of the fun.
But specializing is something only martial do. Casters do not need to specialize, they can basically do everything.
And why wouldn't you specialize? I think it's the right choice to do. If you always fight with a Longsword, there is no reason to take Weapon Focus with a Greataxe, as its something you don't use.Rogue specializes in dealing SA damage.
Barbarian in dealing stupid amounts of damage and surviving the Rage.
Fighters can maybe have more leeway on the matter, or just use feats to compensate for the lack of features.
Unless there's a social contract pre-established with DM/Group, then you can create your character as you wish.
If DM asks something else, then either you abide by her rules or just don't play.
I'm just saying "running scenarios that discourage excessive specialization" is a valid choice for a GM to make. Sure, you might want to let people know beforehand if they're going down a path that isn't going to work well for them, but deciding that the campaign itself will provide an answer to "why wouldn't you specialize" is valid.
This is a failure of communication between the players and the GM. Or in this case, one player. For some players, getting railroaded to lose stuff makes the game less fun. For others, it's a great challenge.
We shouldn't be saying that some people's playstyles are wrong or that they shouldn't feel this way. We should help people to figure out how to run games in the future where people are on board with things.
I'm finishing up playing a Zeitgeist campaign, and I'm planning on turning around and running it for a different group. I've already warned them that there are some parts that have some railroad-y elements. In some cases it's due to NPC's who have information and/or capabilities that the players don't yet have. There are also a couple of limitations on magic in the world. There are specific reasons for this. I have assured them that there's a great storyline behind this and that if anything affects their characters, challenges will be modified.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a failure of communication between the players and the GM. Or in this case, one player.
The person concerned is literally not even in this game. By all reports, the people who are actually in the game are fine with this development. If the OP wanted people to condemn "an action that took place in a game he or she is not part of" they're not going to get that, since barring standards of legality, decency, and morality, literally nothing that the GM does is out of bounds provided that everybody who is actually in the game is enjoying it.
Expecting the GM to come to an understanding regarding expectations with the players in the game? That's reasonable. Expecting the GM to come to an understanding regarding expectations with all people everywhere is not.
|
while i do enjoy role play i do believe there can be way too much of it. my group plays once a week its been ten weeks since we had any plot advancement.
Yeah, there's a balance. PFS seems actively to discourage role play. As far as I can tell, it is all alternating skill check gates with combat. This sometimes frustrates me, because it can feel like any creative solutions are not allowed.
Several years ago, I was in a group that could take 2 hours to open an unlocked- and untrapped- door in a public building, there was so much random chatting going on. This latter also frustrated me, because any new plot came at such a snail's pace.
So I think there is a sweet spot, but it can be hard to find. I do agree that taking away all items by GM fiat can really screw some builds over more than others, and could definitely be frustrating. I would probably be okay with it once, but if the GM fiat kept coming down like that, I'd leave the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS is allowed to let players come up with interesting solutions. Problem is, PFS GMs aren't always the best, it's easy to follow the instructions given, it's much harder to on the spot figure out if a player's creative solution would work and how it fits into the scenario.
If you often like to try creative solutions I suggest figuring and having handy the DCs for stuff and what it can actually accomplish.
Example diplomacy, it's written guards fight on sight, so taking 1 minute to talk isn't written as a viable thing to do. So you'd either need something to explain why they'd break the written tactics. Sometimes I have a NPC and their tactics is only fight if someone pulls out a weapon or threatens them. The players couldn't think of a cool solution and just wanted to beat the guy.
So it largely depends on your GM and group on how well and often creative solutions can be done.
In and of itself, this isn't a problem if all the players are OK with it. It is essentially blatant railroading, but the issue with railroading is that it negates player agency. If the players are all OK with having their agency taken away for a bit while the GM forwards their plot then there isn't anything bad going on.
It's really blatant and a mark of a inexperienced DM. All DMs wanna try this, and few players do. DMs' would you want to play in a game like that?
Magic items and gear are one of the rewards for playing well. Would you just strip the PCs of all their experience because you thought of a great 1st level adventure?
But as Just a Mort pointed out, it's a totally legit way to start a campaign. Just tell the Players to "dont worry about gear, we'll do that in session 1". heheheh.