There are a lot of ways to get around, over, under and through a wall besides climbing it. Taking 10 is always an option unless guards are attempting to riddle the climbers with arrows or lob grenades on the climber's buddies milling around at the base of a wall. Sneaky types can infiltrate the building the wall surrounds. Social skills and/or magic can distract, lull, pacify or remove guards from the gate so that they can just walk in instead of climbing the wall. Unless the wall in question features specific narrative elements of real importance (which is more likely to be inside of a large, hollow wall than painted, engraved or etched upon the wall's outer surface), it should seldom be absolutely necessary that the One Way In be via climbing a wall. Ascending a cliff face to reach a cave entrance without access to levitate, fly and more powerful effects is another matter, of course.
Unlike a video game with 1, 2 or a very few approaches to (location X), a ttrpg requires a bit greater visualization of the environment the characters are operating in. They need to access, let's say, Lord Derpestein's Manor House to get the Macguffin that gets the rest of the campaign underway.
What's going on at the manor right now and in the near future? Architecture of the manor? Social events? Is Lord Derpestein disinclined to be subtle, or does he wallow in pretenses of innuendo and grandeur?
|
Maybe you need to reformulate the challenge.
It's not "can you climb this wall at all", but "can you climb this wall before the next guard patrol comes by and notices you". Or "can you make it to the top, without losing your grip halfway and falling, taking falling damage".
If there's no time pressure on something, and no penalty for failure, sure, people can try again and again. Time pressure is basically another failure condition: "if you don't make it up the cliff and into the cave before the storm hits, you won't be able to get in until the storm passes, but by then the cultists will have completed their ritual".
Also, not everything that looks like a challenge has to be a challenge, to serve a purpose in your story. If there's a wall the players need to cross, and there's no time pressure, they'll eventually get across it. Which is fine: you weren't counting on that wall to be the real challenge, but it's a reminder to your players that the Climb skill exists and maybe they should put points in it in case they run into a more important and difficult climbing problem later.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One big difference between video games and regular RPG’s is that players often come up with things you did not think about. In a video game you can only do what the programmer allows you to do. This is not true with a game like pathfinder. In a video game the only way into the castle may be to climb the wall. In pathfinder there are probably quite a few more ways in. With things like spells of levitation, or potions of flight there are a lot more ways in than simply climbing the wall. Even having a character with a good climb skill climb to the top and drop a rope for the others can significantly alter your planed encounter.
If I have learned one thing from my years of playing and running games, it is that the players will always come up with something the GM did not think about. They also often fail to figure out what you think is the obvious solution to a problem, no matter how simple it seems. A good GM will design an obstacle but not rely on the players overcoming it the way he thinks they will. In your example the challenge is not climbing the wall, it is getting into the castle. Be prepared for your players to do some very unexpected things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you create real challenges in a narrative focused campaign? Challenges with outcomes that are not pre-determined? I would love to hear different opinions on this.
The true goal in a narrative focused campaign is to create narrative. Think of a fantasy series, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Most of the story is about relationships.
Mysterious Stranger is absolutely correct that if your campaign has plausible challenges then the players will find their own solutions that are often wildly different from what the module or GM envisioned. See my Jade Regent campaign (Amaya of Westcrown) or Iron Gods campaign (Iron Gods among Scientists and Inconspicuous PCs Unmotivated in Palace of Fallen Stars).
Another option is success through teamwork, which makes great narrative. Imagine that everyone in the party fails to climb the cliff except for the rogue. The rogue then reaches into his backpack, pulls out a rope, secures it to a large boulder, and lowers it for the rest of the party to follow. But wait, even with a knotted rope to help, the fighter cannot climb the cliff. So the fighter ties the rope around his plate armor and the party combines their strength (Aid Another) to haul him up. Instead of demonstrating their ability to climb, they demonstrate their ability to solve problems.
Which success makes a better story: "I slipped down the cliff the first time, shrugged off the damage, and tried again," or "Old Clanker here in his plate armor could not climb an easy rope. We had to haul him up."? Which one creates a relationship and reveals the human (and elven and dwarven, etc.) condition?
Firstly agreed completely with mysterious stranger
Another from video games is the ability to fail. Unlike most media which in american style the hero will always succeed somehow(*for the most part), the players have a definite chance at failure. The story is whatever happens, successes and failures, not some predetermined storyline
Suggestions
1. Allow them to fail. Preferably don't kill them(most of the time) but allowing them to fail makes their successes that much more cherished
2. Go along with PC ideas. Most of the time they require only the slightest changes to work with if any
3. Add tough decisions. Not necessarily lose lose but not a win/not a win definitely works
How do you create real challenges in a narrative focused campaign? Challenges with outcomes that are not pre-determined? I would love to hear different opinions on this.The true goal in a narrative focused campaign is to create narrative. Think of a fantasy series, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Most of the story is about relationships.
Mysterious Stranger is absolutely correct that if your campaign has plausible challenges then the players will find their own solutions that are often wildly different from what the module or GM envisioned. See my Jade Regent campaign (Amaya of Westcrown) or Iron Gods campaign (Iron Gods among Scientists and Inconspicuous PCs Unmotivated in Palace of Fallen Stars).
Another option is success through teamwork, which makes great narrative. Imagine that everyone in the party fails to climb the cliff except for the rogue. The rogue then reaches into his backpack, pulls out a rope, secures it to a large boulder, and lowers it for the rest of the party to follow. But wait, even with a knotted rope to help, the fighter cannot climb the cliff. So the fighter ties the rope around his plate armor and the party combines their strength (Aid Another) to haul him up. Instead of demonstrating their ability to climb, they demonstrate their ability to solve problems.
Which success makes a better story: "I slipped down the cliff the first time, shrugged off the damage, and tried again," or "Old Clanker here in his plate armor could not climb an easy rope. We had to haul him up."? Which one creates a relationship and reveals the human (and elven and dwarven, etc.) condition?
"I cannot jump the distance, you'll have to toss me.
. . . Don't tell the elf."
Seriously, what this chap said. Always design at least three ways to progress, then marvel at the myriad ways the party manages to take a fourth option.
The issue you're running into is your setup is what's forcing the game feel. You're "requiring" the players to succeed a certain way, your story requires it, and there's no way for them to fail. So YES, if it's story, then there's no reason to make checks or having it take time other than to say it happens, it's story time party.
But the real issue is, you shouldn't have a story for the players to go through, but a world, tell the players they need to get into the castle, and don't have a set plan how they do it.
Options are climb the wall, bluff/diplomacy a guard to let them in for some reason, disguise that you're a worker at the castle, sneak into the castle, etc.
now skill checks matter, does their plan work or not? OOPS, the fighter was too clanky and got the party caught, but hey, then when you tried disguises everything worked okay and now you're in. No story mode needed.
So if the point is making it a challenge to get into don't have a set plan and force success, this is meant to be an important part that they have to overcome. If the point is that they get into it no problem and the challenge is in the castle then storymode the way in and get to the important parts.
But have you ever GM'd a game where the PC's simply were not able to overcome a challenge that you set forth for them? Have you had to introduce "cheats" in order for them to progress?
Oh good Lord, yes. You see it in published adventures too, when the story is to take down some monstrous evil but they're simply not going to attain anywhere close to the necessary by-the-rules powers/abilities to do so. Thus, situational bonuses crop up. The premiere example of this in a published adventure that I remember is during the Age of Worms adventure path when the characters are getting ready to deal with an infamous dragon from White Plume Mountain.
As the dragon was written there was no way in Hell PCs of even 20th level stood much of a chance against it, let alone the 15th level-ish PCs that had to face the dragon in combat. So the authors added in assorted dooflichies that would grant them massive bonuses against that foe alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's something that is REQUIRED for them to succeed to move the plot forward then it's not a challenge but story and should be treated as such.
If it's something that they ARE ALLOWED TO FAIL then it can be a challenge and they can fail and miss out on something.
Players will get upset or lazy if you make something REQUIRED and place it behind something they can fail, cause when they fail they find out that you give them the info anyways and thus they can stop caring about being good at stuff. (make a DC 20 diplomacy check, I got a 5, well they tell you anyways) leads to (you need to get past the dragon, I'm going to sneak, but you have a -10 to stealth, yeah but the GM wants us to get by unnoticed so he'll have us succeed if we try)
Now having a game with lots of story moments where you accomplish stuff for plot is fine and great, though something to inform your players about. But having story moments that you pretend aren't story moments will lead to problems.
When I run a campaign, I do not even attempt to create things that the PC's will be successful at. I find it is easier if that is their burden to figure out. Rather, I GM from the point of view of the villains and NPC's and how their motivations/aspirations/goals affect the world. The PC's job is to succeed, and they will because they're creative, and the GM's job is to create lasting memories and an atmosphere for fun.
If you design a campaign around what the PC's are doing, they will almost always screw up whatever you have planned for them. So I make stories based on what the villains are trying to accomplish, and the PC's will naturally jack up the villains' plans rather than jacking up the GM's plans.
Once you've effectively created a good villain, create another one, and create another. Eventually, you'll have all kinds of effects on the world, and eventually someone will talk about these things in a pub that the PC's "might" visit. They dictate the pace of the game, and the GM's burden is to describe what happens as a consequence of their actions and the pace they perform at.
I agree with ryze kuja. Play from the perspective of the antagonist. Your goal is to keep the macguffin safe behind the castle walls, what contingencies do you have in place? What bigger bad do you work for? (There is always a bigger bad) The best hooks are when the PCs stumble onto the evil plan already in action, but at a smaller level. Those recent goblin raids point to something more sinister taking place at a larger scale. If the plot is juicy enough, the PCs then have the joy of trying to figure out the plot before they can stop it. So, GMs role=create evil plot, PCs role=stop evil plot
This sort of thing always leads me back to this now-ancient but still relevant article on encounter design. While its original application was for mysteries, it applies equally well to any encounter point you actively want the PCs to reach. In short, if you must have a chokepoint in your adventure (e.g., "The party really, really needs to get into that castle"), explicitly design at least three ways to overcome that chokepoint (e.g., "(1) climb the walls; (2) bribe the guards (3) hide in the daily supply wagon").
After that, leave yourself open to other possibilities, including the possibility that they may never actually try to get through your chokepoint and instead come at your adventure sideways ("Enter the castle? Nah, let's start a riot and see if the local lord comes out to see what's going on!").
But have you ever GM'd a game where the PC's simply were not able to overcome a challenge that you set forth for them? Have you had to introduce "cheats" in order for them to progress?
And yes, this absolutely. This really comes down to poor planning on the part of the PC's or inadequate description of the challenge by the GM (which can LEAD to poor planning by PC's), or sometimes it's just really bad die rolls at the worst possible time. It is your job to "screw with" the PC's, but it is also your job to "unscrew" bad situations too. Nothing can kill the morale of your group's future endeavors than allowing a TPK or a character death, especially if it's unwarranted or the GM's fault for lack of description. Always have a plan that can get them out of a TPK. If an Ancient Wyrm defeats the party, you can throw them in the dragon's prison without any of their gear/items with 1 HP and 1 Con and let them fight their way out. I have actually had to do that once, and after 3 sessions, they were finally out and with all of their gear, and even stole a bunch of gear and gold. But then they had an Ancient Blue Wyrm after them.
Consequences are awesome because even bad things can end up pretty cool :)
Edit: And I don't mean consequences as a bad thing, I simply mean that the PC's actions will always have consequences, whether good or bad is up to how they perceive the consequence. To them, getting stuck in a slave colony and having to break out with nothing but pickaxes and guile and ultimately ending with an Ancient Blue Wyrm chasing them ended up being a pretty memorable experience.
As long as you give the players a bit of advanced notice of what the obstacles are then it is their job to figure out how to overcome them. In the case with the castle wall don’t spring it on them at the last moment. If they have warning they can figure out a way to overcome it. If they know they need to get into the castle then maybe can they spend a few gold on some potions or other ways to get in. Use this for the must pass obstacles not every obstacle.
A few legends and myths the players find out about can cover most of this. The rest can be uncovered by the players researching and scouting. If you players are not even doing basic recon they need to.
A few things to note:
* Always have a plot narrative hook for why you're running a situation. It's not usually "Can the party defeat the spider!?" it's "Can the party find the Item of Stuff in the Dastardly Cave of Explosions and Spiders!?"
Notice that no where in there did I specify exactly how the party should do it. In rare cases you want it to be "can they defeat x" so you can set up the truly spectacular cinematic encounter, but even then, a lot of times having a plot device in the room makes the encounter more cinematic and interesting. "Can they stop the ritual!?" "Can they get the item?" Etc..
* Decide what your hook here is and the approach. It sounds like you'd like them to climb the wall for some reason, so have the approach be something like "You make your way to the castle's edge traveling a backroad. Lo and behold, as you pass through an archway you see a towering wall blocked by a small moat. You notice some guards just walked passed this area so it must be patrolled regularly.
This is how you'd set up *potentially* making climbing the wall more interesting. Your PCs may just go invisible, fly, talk their way in, disguise their way in, or similar, but the approach suggests a path they can take. If they take it, it becomes interesting: "Can the PC's cross the water and climb the wall before the guards see them!?"
Similarly, they may just knock out the guards, bribe them, etc.. THEN take 10 up the wall (unless the water is dangerous enough to them that they can't.)
Notice that the real plot line is "Can the PCs get into the Castle and do X" until you put an obstacle that they decide to overcome in their path. If you think about it that way, you can then decide how to make the obstacle interesting or not.
You're on your way towards good GMing in that you recognize the difficulty shouldn't be "can they roll a bunch of times successfully in a row and climb the thing when they will eventually get it anyway" and oyu should accept they can just "take 10" up the wall. So you want to either accept that this is just free cinematic experience as they climb it freely or you need to make it interesting.
Literally just added guards who pass by every 5 minutes or who are on the wall entirely changes the scene to something potentially engaging and your PCs will come up with something you didn't think of; making both you AND them happy.
Cheers
New players can be just as creative as experienced players. They may not know the game rules but everyone will come up with ideas when confronted with a situation. A new player may need more guidance on how to implement their ideas, but the basic of the idea is already there. They will not know that they need bluff to talk their way past the guards, but they do know it can be done. If you look at the advice given very little of it was game specific maybe about purchasing items.
If you have new players you should spend a little time explaining some basic ideas. Go over the basics of the game paying particular attention to the types of things they can purchase. You don’t need to go into specifics but they should at least be aware they can purchase things like potions, scrolls and other consumable items. They may not know the specific spell they want, but if they know they can purchase potions they at least know enough to ask.
New players are often just as creative, if not moreso, that seasoned veterans. New players haven't been indoctrinated into the Cult of the Feat. They'll come up with something that their fellow players and/or you will provide the mechanics by which they resolve performing (x).
As a first-time group quiet is a reasonable expectation. Everyone has to warm up to each other, you and your GM'ing style. As you are well aware OP, it's all in the presentation.
Yes, they've made some shopping, although nobody had enough left to buy potions, but they are aware of the possibilty.
I am introducing more and more mechanics as we go along.
It's just that right now there's not a lot of role playing going on, and if there is, it's not really in character. That's ok for a combat heavy dungeon-crawler, but could be an issue for a more story-focused, expansive campaign. So we'll see.
Do they have a reason to engage in role playing at the moment? If not, I wouldn't sweat it. These things happen organically or they don't happen much. You may have a beer-n-pretzels group instead of Shakespeare-at-the-Table. ;)
Do they have a reason to engage in role playing at the moment? If not, I wouldn't sweat it. These things happen organically or they don't happen much. You may have a beer-n-pretzels group instead of Shakespeare-at-the-Table. ;)Lol. We do like pretzels.
The players tend to talk to me instead of to each other. I keep telling them to talk to each other. Don't tell me what you want to do. Tell your your teammates!So after the session today, I received some feedback, which is relevant to the topic of discussion here, I think:
- Too many perception checks. The module states things like "20 DC perception finds a potion/reveals a door/finds a figurine". So the players roll. And roll. And roll. they said it slowed down the game. What prevents them from rolling and rolling until they find the potion? I suggested to them we can either say they find it automatically if they search, or we can limit it to one roll from each PC in the room, no matter it's size. Thoughts?
- a player remarked "there are two many grey areas in the game". Meaning, it seemed to him the rules aren't really rules and can be bent at any moment. He did try something I didn't expect (talking in Draconian with a hostile Troglodyte) and I had to wing the whole thing. This happened in the middle of combat, mind you.
Since looting of rooms is generally done out-of-combat, get the highest Perception bonus from the PCs, assume the rest succeed on Aid checks and take 10 (if they're in a bit of a hurry) or take 20 (if they're not) on their behalf. Let 'em know what they find and move on.
Extensive dialog in-combat does 'break suspension of disbelief' for some. A few words, maybe a short sentence, is about it for them.
Take 10 and Take 20 are life. Live them.
Lol. We do like pretzels.
The players tend to talk to me instead of to each other. I keep telling them to talk to each other. Don't tell me what you want to do. Tell your your teammates!
That's pretty common with newer players. With some encouragement, they should come out of their shells a little bit. Try having some of the NPCs they interact with be more "compatible" with a party member, for example, an NPC with the same religion, or someone from a PC's hometown...stuff like that. Just make sure to rotate it so that one PC isn't in the spotlight the whole time.
Maybe encourage them to think/write up a couple sentences of what their character is like, if they're having difficulty interacting? It doesn't have to be anything long or complicated, could be as simple as a few of their likes and dislikes and why they decided to choose their class and become an adventurer.
I usually run very story-based campaigns instead of sandbox ones (mostly APs these days) and it helps to think of a couple related ways the PCs can accomplish a goal. So, even if they end goal is the same, they can get there any number of ways, which makes them feel like they're making the important choices. And if you want to encourage them to go a certain way, try to set out some hooks that will appeal to their characters.
Example:
Likes: pistachio ice cream, vacationing at the beach, sharpening their favorite knife when mouthy teenagers are making too much noise.
Dislikes: mouthy teenagers, coconut anything, bugs.
Religion: Desna, in no small part due to not wanting to be around mouthy teenagers and coconuts. Especially mouthy teenagers pretending to use coconuts as "horses".
Also, I vastly prefer beer-n-pretzels gaming. I'm no actor and a middling-to-fair GM, so for me pretending to be my character is only going to go so far. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you're just new. I've done a couple of small campaigns but there's a lot to get through. I heavily recommend reading TheAngryGM's board. Basically everything on there is golden, from improvising, to how to manage your players, to how to start a campaign, to how a session should work.
Some general tips from that:
* Combine rolls or use passive perception/knowledge. If it's not interesting then you shouldn't roll, and if you instead want to combine perception/knowledge as "aid another" type tasks, that's an ideal way to cut down on pointless rolling.
* Don't ALLOW your players to do anything other than Ask a Question or Perform an Action. With that, add a caveat that outside of Feats that require naming to understand what you're doing, you can't name a skill or anything in the above statements. They should *describe* what they're doing and you should then say "Ahh that sure sounds like you're jumping over the moat and attempting to grab the wall. Roll and Acrobatics check!"
Don't let them say "I want to roll an acrobatics check to do X" they can not only be wrong, but it takes them out of the game. Make them communicate in RP land.
* Don't ALLOW out-of-game speech. What they say is what they say in game, minus some tidbits. They can't say "We should kill that guy!" without the guy hearing them. They can't say Gamespeak because it doesn't make any sense, outside of some feats that require it (power attack, cleave, etc) They can't say "I want to intimidate him" they have to actually say something intimidating and then you say "Ahh, That sounds like you're trying to intimidate him! Roll a d20 intimidate check!"
* All of the stuff I said before
* Plan events and things that your players can interact with, but don't assume you'll figure out how they'll do it. They will always focus on the wrong thing, or come up with ideas that ruin your railroad.
Instead, have an event. "The monster is devouring a corpse in front of you.. what do you do?" The monster is busy, so could be avoided. it is hungry, so satiating it with your own food could be possible. It's a monster, so you can (of course) just hit it a bunch. The point is, you didn't plan "This is so cool cause they'll fight it." you planned "This is cool because they'll have to get around this thing."
Another example: Put a slow mean monster in a cavern. They run into it. They can now either avoid it best as they can while it moves around, they can fight it, etc.. and on top of that, it makes your DMing more interesting, because you'll be thinking about what the monster would do at each point. Does it chase them? Is it smart enough to cut them off? Can the players actually get around it? Can it be lured?
Then it's a game.
All you're trying to do is set the stage and then provide cutscenes in between. Think of Deus Ex: Human Revolution every time you set something up. DE:HR gives you not only a boatload of ways to get through it (stealth mode, climbing, knocking people out, guns blazing, using air ducts, sprinting through and crossing your fingers, etc..) but it works the same too.
You get passed some stuff, see a guy, talk to him, you're now in a conversation cutscene where you can fail (sometimes.) Get to your destination? Cutscene to transition from A to B.
Yeah, you can talk to people, look at the world, listen to the news stations, etc.. this is like interacting with NPCs that aren't part of the story or your descriptions of the world. The parts where they need information or have a conversation that can actually fail, those are the cutscenes or interactive dialogs. Everything else inbetween? Usually it's up to the player how to approach it if it's being done right.
Deus Ex man, Deus Ex.
Two other issues that came up after the last session:
- Loot distribution. One of the players was bothered that another player seems to just take everything he finds without sharing it with the group. How do you deal with this kind of thing in your games? Do you just let everybody carry everything and then at the end of the adventure they just sell it all in town and divide the money? In other words, is it socialism or capitalism?
- I have a player playing a Sorcerer character. He is a bit frustrated. For example, he cast True Strike on himself while throwing a dagger. Yes, the dagger hit automatically, but it only made 1 damage, which prompted the player to say: "Man. My spells aren't worth nothing". Main issue is that he has few spells, and not much else. He doesn't engage in battles directly because he's weak. So he's always trying to do something with his spells. I told him to pick them carefully and use them sparingly, but he seems to want to cast a spell in every combat just so he will have something to do. But by the time they will get to the Big Boss (with nowhere to rest in between), he'll have nothing left. How do I help him feel more satisfied with playing a 1st level Sorcerer? I really don't know what else to do other than giving him the above advice.
Loot distribution is handled by the party rather than the GM, but you can make suggestions.
I once played in a party that treated each other like family. Each magic item went to the person who most needed it. If no-one needed it, the party sold it to buy what was needed.
More typically, the players assign someone to track all the loot discovered. PCs may use newly found items on a most-needed or I-found-it basis during the mission, but once the party has downtime, they sit down, sell unwanted items for cash, and split the loot. I dropped Appraise checks from my game and just tell everyone the value of the items for convenience, because dealing with a false value is a mess. The GM can smooth the process by giving easily-divided loot, because even distribution does not work if the wealth is in one or two big-ticket items. I found that emailing a list (my NPC became the person tracking loot) of all loot to my players reminds them to pick items for themselves. Unpicked items are sold.
My current party does not simply divide the loot between the PCs. They also have a party fund, designed to buy Wands of Cure Light Wounds and other items that benefit the entire party. Alas, one player who wants twice as much treasure as his share keeps suggesting that his desired items be purchased with party funds because they will benefit the entire party in his PC's hands. The others regularly veto this idea. No system is perfect.
As for the sorcerer, he has grasped some important points, such as, "He doesn't engage in battles directly because he's weak." However, the weakness hurts when throwing a dagger, even if the dagger hits, so True Strike is a bad spell for him. Telling a good spell from a bad spell is difficult for a newbie. Some expert players have written class guides for the newbies, and this forum keeps a list at Guide to the Class Guides.
Reading a guide can be frustrating, because the player has already made some choices that the guide says are bad. Remind the player that the guide is merely one person's opinion.The best guides explain why some spells and feats are good in some circumstance and bad in different circumstances. For example, a blaster sorcerer needs different spells than a buff sorcerer.
"He seems to want to cast a spell in every combat just so he will have something to do." Yes, for some people that is the fun way to play. This was impossible in 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, where 1st-level sorcerers often packed a crossbow. When Paizo modifed 3rd Edition into Pathfinder, they introduced more bloodline powers that gave the sorcerer something magical to do every combat. Cantrips help, too. Instead of using a valuable 1st-level spell and two turns to cast True Strike and throw a dagger for 1 point of damage, he can cast Ray of Frost twice, hit once, and deal 2 damage.
Sorcerers are good for a new player if they want to play a caster, but should be closely overseen by the GM or another experienced player when it comes to spell selection. The first rule for a spontaneous caster is to pick spells that can be useful in more than one way. True Strike is a perfect example of what not to choose. Charm person or Silent Image would have been much better. The second rule is to choose spells that allow you to deal with situations others cannot. Swarms are often difficult to deal with but burning hands works well against them, incorporeal creatures are also difficult but magic missile works great against them. Also make sure to get some consumable magic items as soon as you can. A 1st level wand of magic missiles only cost 750 GP.
I disagree with what Cattleman said about the out of game speech. Players often lack the social skills their characters have so forcing them to “Role Play” often penalizes them. If I am playing the face with social skills far above what I have personally why I am forced to perform these before I can use them. Do you require the scrawny guy playing the barbarian to pick up something heavy when his character does? Don’t get me wrong I think a player should do what Cattleman suggests, but not all players will be comfortable with it. A better way would be to encourage what Cattleman suggests but allow the character to speak out of character. Also allow the rest of the group yourself included to offer suggestion on what is said. Also allow them to rephrase what they said if it does not work well. When you tell a player he can’t do something often it causes the character not to do it. The whole idea is to encourage role playing not to stifle it. This applies to more than just social skill, but the problem is very common with social skills.
One way to handle "face" characters is to ask them for a bit of description and intent as to what they're attempting, then let their check determine the degree of success or failure.
Example:
A less-than-socially-skilled player is running "Da Face", a smooth-talking bard with all of the social skills. Da Face is attempting to gain entry into the nefarious Keep of Maybe Death by way of using their character's sweet social skills. He knows that they ogle Princess Buttercup any chance they get to do so without being caught. He knows that the guards in general are a bit worried about someone smuggling mint into the Keep of Maybe Death. And he knows that they're not always paid on time making life hard for their families.
Bluff: 'Da Face saunters up to the guards with a light grin on his face. WIth a wink and a smile he makes a series of comments regarding Princess Buttercup's better qualities, to suddenly look at a point behind them at a door or gateway or other portal, widen his eyes and exclaim "Is that her?! Wowza!!"
* Successful Bluff to distract: the guards' heads turn on a swivel to try to catch a glimpse of Princess Buttercup. The rest of the group slinks by thanks to the distraction Da Face created.
* Failure: "C'mon man, we're not falling for that old trick."
Diplomacy: Da Face sagely makes sympathetic comments regarding the drudgery of guard duty, acknowledges it is important to prevent the entry of that ghastly mint stuff into the Keep of Maybe Death and that why yes indeed I do have some spare coin to reward the fine men and women protecting Lord Humperdink's derrier from mint-poisoning.
* Success: The guards respond positively, their attention on Da Face instead of the party. They wave the group on in as they pocket their windfall.
* Failure: The guards are offended by Da Face's inadequate bribe. Either Da Face showed copper coins instead of silver or revealed heady amounts of gold, platinum or even the sparkle of jewels.
Intimidate: Da Face marches up like he owns the place, the air of nobility and confidence to the point of arrogance clear in his demeanor and dress. He commands them to let his august personage and retinue pass unmolested or that he shall have them punished severely.
*Success: Thinking themselves dealing with a distant relative of the Baron of Maybe Death, they hurriedly wave Da Face and his buddies through the gate.
* Failure: The guards notice that none of the group have the excessive decorations of nobility about them. They look dangerous ... in the way that intruders always look dangerous. Alarm!
For your sorcerer:
true strike is not a good spell at 1st level unless you're a gunner aboard a pirate ship. Allow him to reconsider and select color spray or sleep instead without mechanical issues. It is a good spell to know in the long run, albeit it is situational. Such as when attempting to fire a loaded ballista at a bad guy/monster. If he wants to use it, advise the player to tote at least a crossbow to take advantage of both its substantial firing range and much higher damage die.
Re: loot division.
Good advice has already been given. With a new group there is usually a period of 'growing pains' as they sort out the teamwork/co-op nature of the game. There is more than just socialism or capitalism for loot distribution, and it is best to let them sort it out. However, as they are brand new to the game, you should suggest a few different methods for them to try out and see what works for them. Your job is to discourage one player from being blatantly greedy about it - and if they keep it up, to be impartial about what happens when the rest of them figure it out and decide to do something about it in-character.
I generally recommend the 'items [character] can use most approach get it right now, sort out the rest later', especially for new players. Early on you'll want to advise them as to which items best suit which character or characters and why. If you're running an AP some of them award large individual items best suited for one character while others generally provide a reasonably equitable series of treasures. Note when they find 'group loot': wands and scrolls of cure spells, restorations and so on. As a new group they're not as aware of the importance of treating these items as 'group items', all they need to know is who is carrying what. Non-casters should generally be carrying the potions of such items. Casters should be carrying the scrolls and wands of such items that they are able to use whether by being able to use them or having at least a chance at it via Use Magic Device.
Dispense with Appraise as previously advised. If you want to be a stickler about it, (a) use the background skills rules from Ultimate Campaign - you can find them on d20pfsrd for free very quickly; then (b) request that at least one of them pick up Appraise so that they can readily meet the basic DCs to handle it out-of-combat (taking 10 or 20 as necessary) and letting you simply describe gp values and hint that certain items are more than they appear, if they didn't already suss those out via detect magic.
I totally forgot that cantrips can be re-used. Last game the Sorcerer cast Flare and True Strike, but he'll be able to use Flare again, which is good.
The player went over the spell list before we started and seemed to be gravitating towards combat spells such as True Strike and Bruning Hands and not showing much interest in more creative schools such as Enchanntment or Illusion. I don't have his spell list in front of me but I think he also has Sleep, Cat's Grace...One fact has never changed: it's very frustrating to play pure spellcasters in low levels. It has always been like that. They have limited numbers of spells, and even when they do cast them, spells can fail. Imagine a player finally getting ready to cast a powerful spell, only to be hit by an enemy, failing the concentration check.
I think I'll just have to reset his spell selection after this introductory adventure and help him pick it much more carefully.As for treasures, same sorcerer, who was at 1 hit point, found a Cure Light Wounds potion and immediatley drank it. On the one hand, yes, he probably needed it the most, but I was like, "dude, you're not even gonna tell your teammates you found a potion?" oh, the duress of battle...
He seems to want to play a 'blaster', which is perfectly valid and can be a lot of fun. As his caster level and spells known grow so too does his firepower in both damage output per spell and the number of spells the sorcerer gets to put down range. Point out blaster-beneficial feats: Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Spell Specialization, Varisian/Mage's Tattoo, Elemental Spell and so forth.