Hmm at that point do you trust your player to be capable of not metagaming? That is a real challenge right their. That I guess is the point though where characters shouldn't act on player knowledge but is that even possible?
I'm just confused about what sort of terrible metagaming even can happen if you say, "Make a save versus poison."Oh, it's real. Assume for a moment that there's no established way for players to know a thing. Say... a monster with a mind-controlling supernatural aura. Nothing that Spellcraft or Perception can identify, and assume that any Knowledge check failed to inform the players that said aura is on the table.
Here's one version of metagaming...
GM: "Okay, Thog, I need a Will save against a sort of domination effect."
Player1: "Great, I get to use my bonus. I've got... 18."
GM: "You feel like something happened but you shrugged it off."
Player2: "Hey guys, better cast magic circle against evil.""You feel like something tried to thrust itself into your mind but you resisted"
"Hey guys. Something just tried to take over my mind. Crack out the Prot form evil."
Did you go out of your way to remove the part of my post that addressed a DM adding description, or did it just happen accidentally?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just confused about what sort of terrible metagaming even can happen if you say, "Make a save versus poison."Oh, it's real. Assume for a moment that there's no established way for players to know a thing. Say... a monster with a mind-controlling supernatural aura. Nothing that Spellcraft or Perception can identify, and assume that any Knowledge check failed to inform the players that said aura is on the table.
Here's one version of metagaming...
GM: "Okay, Thog, I need a Will save against a sort of domination effect."
Player1: "Great, I get to use my bonus. I've got... 18."
GM: "You feel like something happened but you shrugged it off."
Player2: "Hey guys, better cast magic circle against evil."Basically, it's information the players "shouldn't" have, RAW. Sure, I imagine most of us DMs describe things because... we like to... but it's not in the rules. I know when I ask for poison saves, I describe that the PC can feel something nasty pumping into their bloodstream, but not quite hurting them. And so on. But that's STILL a GM providing information they shouldn't have.
Bottom line, if you know about the nature of an opponent's abilities, you can (possibly) mitigate it. That's metagaming if you don't have the knowledge in-game.
As I said before, learning to recognize it and playing the game as a team works well for us. Nobody in my groups would think to cast a mitigating spell in reaction to "mechanical" knowledge.
If you have so little trust in your players that you cannot work together to make that scenario interesting, then you aren't going to get an interesting or compelling scenario out of leaving them in the dark about it either.
What's more, the characters have way more information than is necessarily conveyed by GM descriptions. They're the ones getting bitten and having the poison in question injected into their veins, after all. Which is a very different question from mind control.
And domination effects are not a card to throw down as a GM without player buy-in. The GM has the entire world to play with. The player only has their character. Rules be damned, that is not something to take away from them lightly or without the player's consent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one version of metagaming...
GM: "Okay, Thog, I need a Will save against a sort of domination effect."
Player1: "Great, I get to use my bonus. I've got... 18."
GM: "You feel like something happened but you shrugged it off."
Player2: "Hey guys, better cast magic circle against evil."Basically, it's information the players "shouldn't" have, RAW.
I think the player (and character) absolutely should have the knowledge that something tried to strip away their will and take control of them but they managed to fight it off.
That's just a more exciting story than "Player rolls a number on a dice and then nothing happens".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as long as the DM will allow a reversal of fortune if it turns out that a bonus to a save would have made a difference, it really doesn't matter. It costs the table 10 extra seconds. No big deal.
If there is something in the game that is verboten, it's up to the person who wants it forbidden to bring that up at the start of the game. The GM cannot read your mind to learn that mental domination upsets you.
While I'm all for open conversation on what does and does not fly in game, domination effects are instantly taking away the literal only thing the player has in the game; their character, and is often looking to the player and saying, "And now, this is the part where you're not allowed to play.
Here's one version of metagaming...
GM: "Okay, Thog, I need a Will save against a sort of domination effect."
Player1: "Great, I get to use my bonus. I've got... 18."
GM: "You feel like something happened but you shrugged it off."
Player2: "Hey guys, better cast magic circle against evil."Basically, it's information the players "shouldn't" have, RAW.
I think the player (and character) absolutely should have the knowledge that something tried to strip away their will and take control of them but they managed to fight it off.
That's just a more exciting story than "Player rolls a number on a dice and then nothing happens".
Pst. I didn't say that.
Here's one version of metagaming...
GM: "Okay, Thog, I need a Will save against a sort of domination effect."
Player1: "Great, I get to use my bonus. I've got... 18."
GM: "You feel like something happened but you shrugged it off."
Player2: "Hey guys, better cast magic circle against evil."Basically, it's information the players "shouldn't" have, RAW.
I think the player (and character) absolutely should have the knowledge that something tried to strip away their will and take control of them but they managed to fight it off.
That's just a more exciting story than "Player rolls a number on a dice and then nothing happens".
Per the rules, you absolutely do know every time you make a Will save.
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
There's even a feat to keep people from noticing you're digging around in their brains.
We've always done Domination effects as "okay, now you get to roleplay someone who is enthralled by the villain" so it's fun to fail a save against a domination effect- you get to betray your allies with a built-in "I'm really sorry about that, but you know how vampires are" apology.
|
Edit: Yes, I also tell the player "you are dominated and your master has commanded you to do X". So the player still gets to play, just for the other team for once.
While I'm all for open conversation on what does and does not fly in game, domination effects are instantly taking away the literal only thing the player has in the game; their character, and is often looking to the player and saying, "And now, this is the part where you're not allowed to play.
There are plenty of effects that do that. Death is a big one. "Sorry the game just started and your character just got rended in half by a troll. Sit there and wait until we can get you a new one/rez the old."
Stinking cloud will take you completely out of the fight for a large chunk of it. Move actions are something, but until they made an item that could be used as a move action, you were stuck running around the battle with no way to contribute.
Hideous laughter means you don't get to play any more until the duration is up, if you biff your saves. They adjusted hold person to be less of a "now you have a timeout" than in 3.5 where it was one and done, but two and done isn't much better.
Domination is just another corner case of loss of agency. If that one is a deal breaker and the rest aren't, you need to talk to your GM about it. Because they aren't going to know.
(Plus domination is hard as hell to get off with the 1 round casting time and common defenses against it.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't know he has a bonus vs. poison, and he doesn't know if the PC is saving against poison, how is the player supposed to get the saving throw number right? Just announce that it's a Fort save vs. poison, because if he failed or succeeded he'd know that it has a poison bite under the rules of the game.In my view, if a player who has a plus vs poison is bit by something, it’s not unreasonable to expect him to announce “16 or 20 if it’s vs poison”. Obviously if a player is new to the game my expectations will differ. This way if he passes you don’t have to give him any information other than “you’re ok”
Let's make an example: a big dragon like creature with a liquid falling from its fang bite you. You have to make a fortitude save.
It can be against poison: my druid is immune
It can be against disease (think the Komodo dragon): my druid has a periapt of health
It can be against extra acid damage: my druid can have energy resistance active
It cam be against level drain and totally unrelated to the liquid: my druid can have Death ward active
It is a fey? my druid has a +4 against that and against spell and effects that utilize and target plants.
It can be against some effect recently added to the game, like injecting nanites. No idea if any of my powers or magic items do anything against that.
Exactly how many conditional modifier should the player recite? How much time is lost doing that against saying "it is a poison/disease/curse/etc. effect"?
I don't see an advantage in losing time reciting conditional modifiers against giving out a bit more information.
|
|
This seems like silly petulance from the player. What difference does it make if you told him before or after the roll that it was poison when the added bonus would not have changed the result of the roll? “It’s poison so I rolled a 17” is absolutely no different than “I rolled a 15 or a 17 if it’s poison” when the character needs a 20 to succeed.
FWIW, we tend to roll and then list all the bonuses that would alter the roll. Knowing it’s a fort save doesn’t necessarily tell you what specific type of fort save you were rolling against. There are other mechanics to give you that information, a heal check or spellcraft check, that sort of thing. Just giving the information out whenever a saving throw is rolled devalues those other skills for those that have invested in them and discourages future investment. It could even encourage metagaming, something rookies often struggle greatly with and even veteran players must remain vigilant against at all times.
Most of the time I don't give a player the DC of the save, so they don't know if that +2 make a difference.
And the venom of a Linnorm is pretty nasty, so saving or not make a difference. Like having an idea if taking an antitoxin to get a bonus to the next save can be useful or a waste of time.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is meant to be descriptive.
Poison burns in your veins.
Tendrils of darkness invade your mind as you feel your will being crushed and replaced by another’s.
It is not meant to be “Bad guy does something. Nothing happens.”
Unless there is a specific -in game- reason why the effect is being hidden, it shouldn’t be hidden.
This is a ROLE playing game. Tell the story. Be descriptive. When the players are talking to npcs around a campfire, dim the lights.. (Trust me, it adds to the experience!)
Now, if that is not what your players want, that is fine. To each their own. But the game is NOT Players vs DM. It is cooperative storytelling.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as long as the DM will allow a reversal of fortune if it turns out that a bonus to a save would have made a difference, it really doesn't matter. It costs the table 10 extra seconds. No big deal.
Twenty minutes down the line, when several rounds of a battle have happened?
"What, that -1 to hit, damage and saves is a fear effect? We have a Paladin, he is immune and those near him have a +4 to the save. We thought it was some kind of curse."Unless the GM do extremely detailed descriptions of every effect, it is hard to guess what kind of effect is applied. Sometime guessing wrong can enhance the game, but when it is something that will be evident if you where in that situation or that is automatically defended it become a major problem.
If it makes a difference this was a PFS scenario with a player I have never GMd for. The correct result was achieved. The biggest issue for me was the player interrupting combat to argue GM style when no mistakes were made, argue to the point that I needed to shut down the conversation and move on and told the player we could talk about it after the session if he wanted.
My point in posting here was to see if there was a general consensus that I was unaware of after well over 100 tables of PFS play. How I handled it was how I have seen it run as a player. Again my thoughts are that as long as the correct result is achieved it might not be all that important how you get there.
As the GM, your words (and props) are your players only information about the world. The more information you communicate, the more tools their imagination has.
If you have so little trust in your players that you cannot work together to make that scenario interesting, then you aren't going to get an interesting or compelling scenario out of leaving them in the dark about it either.
{and other stuff}
Just letting you know... I'm an advocate of telling the players stuff. I was just answering the question of how metagaming could be involved.
I think the player (and character) absolutely should have the knowledge that something tried to strip away their will and take control of them but they managed to fight it off.
That's just a more exciting story than "Player rolls a number on a dice and then nothing happens".
Me too. But description of the effect isn't RAW. Again, just answering a question. At my table, players roll their saves, and DMs (myself included) describe effects "your skin starts to harden as if turning to stone, but you hold it together and remain flesh."
Our party has two characters with Flame Tongues, and they always ask if they need to declare fire damage separately as a courtesy to the DM. The DM tells us what kind of damage his monsters are inflicting, so we can apply any applicable resistances.
You can't apply a circumstantial bonus if you don't know there is a special circumstance happening! It's the job of the GM to tell the players if there is a special circumstance and describe every other aspect of the gaming the world.
There are plenty of effects that do that. Death is a big one. "Sorry the game just started and your character just got rended in half by a troll. Sit there and wait until we can get you a new one/rez the old."
Stinking cloud will take you completely out of the fight for a large chunk of it. Move actions are something, but until they made an item that could be used as a move action, you were stuck running around the battle with no way to contribute.
Hideous laughter means you don't get to play any more until the duration is up, if you biff your saves. They adjusted hold person to be less of a "now you have a timeout" than in 3.5 where it was one and done, but two and done isn't much better.
Domination is just another corner case of loss of agency. If that one is a deal breaker and the rest aren't, you need to talk to your GM about it. Because they aren't going to know.
(Plus domination is hard as hell to get off with the 1 round casting time and common defenses against it.)
There is a big difference between a control effect rendering you ineffective for a couple rounds and a domination effect that controls you for a week at the baseline, and you generally have way more say in the process of your character dying than failing one will save. There are good reasons every iteration of the game has been getting further and further from the notion of instant death effects, and death by random orc crit is a definitive design flaw.
|
Some old school players learned to play, making saves against specifics, like 'Save vs Poison', 'Save vs Petrification', rather than having broad groups of effects that came under Fort/Ref/Will.
So, depending on the age of the player, that may be a contributory factor.
(Though I think he should have adapted by now).
|
|
There is a big difference between a control effect rendering you ineffective for a couple rounds and a domination effect that controls you for a week at the baseline...
...if your party fails to stop the BBEG that dominated you.
Which still does not change the fact that this is something you need to bring to the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some old school players learned to play, making saves against specifics, like 'Save vs Poison', 'Save vs Petrification', rather than having broad groups of effects that came under Fort/Ref/Will.
We see echoes about this in all sorts of places (like how dwarves have a bonus save against poison) and I think that "Save vs. petrification" existing in the foundational layer of fantasy roleplaying means that it's really not that big of a deal if players know the fort save they're rolling is against a petrification effect. After all, 20 years ago if they were fighting a Basilisk I would have to just say "save vs. petrification" and the game would continue apace.
So if it didn't cause problems then, why would it cause problems now?
If it makes a difference this was a PFS scenario with a player I have never GMd for. The correct result was achieved. The biggest issue for me was the player interrupting combat to argue GM style when no mistakes were made, argue to the point that I needed to shut down the conversation and move on and told the player we could talk about it after the session if he wanted.
My point in posting here was to see if there was a general consensus that I was unaware of after well over 100 tables of PFS play. How I handled it was how I have seen it run as a player. Again my thoughts are that as long as the correct result is achieved it might not be all that important how you get there.
It's also very possible that particular player had characters burned by this issue in the past making them more sensitive to it. I know I've had a PC with a bonus on save from fey creatures not get it when a hidden fey cast a spell and one with a hex nail not get to apply it until it was revealed the source was a witch.
|
|
If it makes a difference this was a PFS scenario with a player I have never GMd for. The correct result was achieved. The biggest issue for me was the player interrupting combat to argue GM style when no mistakes were made, argue to the point that I needed to shut down the conversation and move on and told the player we could talk about it after the session if he wanted.
My point in posting here was to see if there was a general consensus that I was unaware of after well over 100 tables of PFS play. How I handled it was how I have seen it run as a player. Again my thoughts are that as long as the correct result is achieved it might not be all that important how you get there.
As it was PFS the onus was on you. You don't know the player level of experience, you don't know well the characters abilities and the players usual playstile, so you, as the GM, need to be more informative, not less.
Sure, the player disrupting the game was a problem, but saying "i will do that the next time" wouldn't have stopped the arguing?
Sorry, but from the tone of your first post I don't get the impression that you did your best to stop the argument. It sound like your reply was on the tune of "No, I have no obligation to say against what kind of attack you have to save."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as long as the DM will allow a reversal of fortune if it turns out that a bonus to a save would have made a difference, it really doesn't matter. It costs the table 10 extra seconds. No big deal.Twenty minutes down the line, when several rounds of a battle have happened?
"What, that -1 to hit, damage and saves is a fear effect? We have a Paladin, he is immune and those near him have a +4 to the save. We thought it was some kind of curse."
Unless the GM do extremely detailed descriptions of every effect, it is hard to guess what kind of effect is applied. Sometime guessing wrong can enhance the game, but when it is something that will be evident if you where in that situation or that is automatically defended it become a major problem.
I feel like you are arguing against an imaginary scenario, an extreme hyperbole of what occurred. I would assume the discussion went much like this "The dragon bites you, roll a fort save for me. Oh, you got a 15? You did not make the save, you are poisoned. Oh, you have a plus 2 against poison, well sorry 17 doesn't save either."
Now there are certainly instances where, I agree, the information needs to be shared. For instance, say the GM never mentions that it was poison and that if he had the PC would have saved. 15 rounds later the PC asks "hey was that a poison effect, because I'm immune to those." Then as the GM you have to address the mistake you made.
But if like the first instance you tell the player, you are now poisoned immediately after they failed the check and 15 rounds later they realize they are immune to poison that is on them. The GM can't run your character for you and some awareness and intuition is certainly required from the PC's side.
|
|
It's also very possible that particular player had characters burned by this issue in the past making them more sensitive to it. I know I've had a PC with a bonus on save from fey creatures not get it when a hidden fey cast a spell and one with a hex nail not get to apply it until it was revealed the source was a witch.
When you have weird bonuses it kinda falls on you the player to kindly "remind" the GM of those bonuses at the start of the game, perhaps more often if you feel your GM may be a tad forgetful. I know I have a character that can have around a 5 damage per hit swing if the enemy has any form of magic. Unless the GM has used a spell I likely can't infer whether or not I get that bonus.
|
|
I feel like you are arguing against an imaginary scenario, an extreme hyperbole of what occurred. I would assume the discussion went much like this "The dragon bites you, roll a fort save for me. Oh, you got a 15? You did not make the save, you are poisoned. Oh, you have a plus 2 against poison, well sorry 17 doesn't save either."
I am arguing against the scenario that was given us:
"Make your Fort/Ref/Will save. it is your jog to guess if some of your bonus is applicable."Maybe I can guess as soon as the effect is applied, maybe not.
Let's make another example. A ranger attack a "human". In reality it is a devil disguised.
It is the job of the GM to ask or know what are the ranger preferred enemies. not of the ranger to list: "It is a 14, but it become a 16 if he is a evil outsider, a 18 if he is a fey, a 20 if he is a undead."
Sure, asking the Favored Enemies can alert the players about the nature of the enemy, but from the character prospective, even if he don't know that the enemy is an evil outsiders, he know that his fighting patterns are familiar and easy to predict.
Play a battle without a +4 to hit and damage because the fey has a illusion masking him as something different and see if you don't feel a bit bitter when (and if) you discover the truth.
|
|
I am arguing against the scenario that was given us:
"Make your Fort/Ref/Will save. it is your jog to guess if some of your bonus is applicable."
Maybe I can guess as soon as the effect is applied, maybe not.Let's make another example. A ranger attack a "human". In reality it is a devil disguised.
It is the job of the GM to ask or know what are the ranger preferred enemies. not of the ranger to list: "It is a 14, but it become a 16 if he is a evil outsider, a 18 if he is a fey, a 20 if he is a undead."
Sure, asking the Favored Enemies can alert the players about the nature of the enemy, but from the character prospective, even if he don't know that the enemy is an evil outsiders, he know that his fighting patterns are familiar and easy to predict.
See I feel like you are adding things to what was originally said. Your example would only be true to what actually happened if it went like this. I shoot the person, I got a 14. A 14 doesn't meet his AC. Immediately the human sheds its disguise, revealing it to actually be a devil. Oh, I didn't realize it was a devil that attack was actually a 17 to hit, but that still didn't hit.
In your example, sure, the GM should ask, however vaguely they can, if anyone has any extra bonuses to certain creatures. If you are playing a hunter. I would recommend at the beginning of the game, stating that you have x,y, and z favored enemy bonuses. Thus moving most of any potential blame to the GM.
|
|
When you have weird bonuses it kinda falls on you the player to kindly "remind" the GM of those bonuses at the start of the game, perhaps more often if you feel your GM may be a tad forgetful. I know I have a character that can have around a 5 damage per hit swing if the enemy has any form of magic. Unless the GM has used a spell I likely can't infer whether or not I get that bonus.
It's also very possible that particular player had characters burned by this issue in the past making them more sensitive to it. I know I've had a PC with a bonus on save from fey creatures not get it when a hidden fey cast a spell and one with a hex nail not get to apply it until it was revealed the source was a witch.
PFS, so it is the first time the player and GM have seen each other. If each of my fellow players had to remember the GM every turn of a battle about their attack/damage/AC/Save situational modifiers, immunities and so on, I wold be very vexed in a short time, and we will get nowhere as each round will last 3 time the normal time.
It can work with low level characters, but middle or high level characters can have plenty of situational modifiers.
Add the ability to re-roll a die after it is rolled but before knowing if it is a success or failures (there are several way to achieve that) and it become even more complex.
Sorry, but from the tone of your first post I don't get the impression that you did your best to stop the argument. It sound like your reply was on the tune of "No, I have no obligation to say against what kind of attack you have to save."
It was like a player surmised below. “Make a fort save” “you failed and are poisoned” after it was determined that he he had a bonus to poison and that it was still a failure he wanted to have the conversation, mid combat about how I should have told him in advance that it was poison. Being that it had no bearing on what had transpired and that other players at the table agreed with me (one player agreed with the other player) I said I am not willing to debate it any further as we were in the final combat and approaching time limit. I offered to talk after the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your that worried about it you can make cheat sheets of peoples characters. Barry has +1 reflex versus breath weapons +2 vrs poison etc. maybe total hp and AC. if you want to be stingy with second hand information.
If your that worried about it you can make cheat sheets of peoples characters. Barry has +1 reflex versus breath weapons +2 vrs poison etc. maybe total hp and AC. if you want to be stingy with second hand information.
I was beginning to think I was the only GM who bothered to look at their players' sheets.
|
|
If your that worried about it you can make cheat sheets of peoples characters. Barry has +1 reflex versus breath weapons +2 vrs poison etc. maybe total hp and AC. if you want to be stingy with second hand information.I was beginning to think I was the only GM who bothered to look at their players' sheets.
PFS games. So it is timed events. Take 4+ character sheets of medium level or higher characters and make a note of the conditional modifiers. Half an hour? If the time for the event is tight it can be a problem.
In a home game, sure, the GM should have a decent level of familiarity with the characters abilities.
PFS always causing issues...
If your that worried about it you can make cheat sheets of peoples characters. Barry has +1 reflex versus breath weapons +2 vrs poison etc. maybe total hp and AC. if you want to be stingy with second hand information.I was beginning to think I was the only GM who bothered to look at their players' sheets.PFS games. So it is timed events. Take 4+ character sheets of medium level or higher characters and make a note of the conditional modifiers. Half an hour? If the time for the event is tight it can be a problem.
In a home game, sure, the GM should have a decent level of familiarity with the characters abilities.
My PFS group usually runs late even without checking sheets. Combine this with sometimes players don’t even know what character they’re going to play until after things officially start and a DM can barely memorize the races and classes so there is no chance of memorizing all the bonuses and immunities all their characters have, especially when there are ones like my alchemist with six immunities and the ability to switch between positive and negative energy affinity as a reaction.
And it would quickly become annoying if I were to ask if it was negative energy every time someone hits me with a magic bolt. (And you can’t spell craft all sources of negative energy.)
If your that worried about it you can make cheat sheets of peoples characters. Barry has +1 reflex versus breath weapons +2 vrs poison etc. maybe total hp and AC. if you want to be stingy with second hand information.I was beginning to think I was the only GM who bothered to look at their players' sheets.PFS games. So it is timed events. Take 4+ character sheets of medium level or higher characters and make a note of the conditional modifiers. Half an hour? If the time for the event is tight it can be a problem.
In a home game, sure, the GM should have a decent level of familiarity with the characters abilities.My PFS group usually runs late even without checking sheets. Combine this with sometimes players don’t even know what character they’re going to play until after things officially start and a DM can barely memorize the races and classes so there is no chance of memorizing all the bonuses and immunities all their characters have, especially when there are ones like my alchemist with six immunities and the ability to switch between positive and negative energy affinity as a reaction.
And it would quickly become annoying if I were to ask if it was negative energy every time someone hits me with a magic bolt. (And you can’t spell craft all sources of negative energy.)
I would not take me more then 5 minutes to make a quick cheat sheet....
|
|
I would not take me more then 5 minutes to make a quick cheat sheet....
For 1 character. A table has a minimum of 4 characters and often 5 or 6. So 20-30 minutes.
And probably that is the cheat sheet of your character or a well know character. Not the cheat sheet of an unknown character.The GM can ask the players to make the cheat sheets and that would reduce the time, but then there are good chances that some of the cheat sheets will be unusable, inaccurate or simply illegible.
I have a player that use a character sheet that he developed. It is a printed sheet, but it is very difficult to read. He has all the different effects pre-calculated but, as his character is a witch with plenty of spells, reading the different values with the possible combo of 5-6 common spells isn't really useful. I spend more time deciphering what spells where considered than doing the calculations by hand.
No its real simple you look at a player and say. whats your hp? whats your save bonuses? then you write them down. If they forgot to include something that is their problem.
I would not take me more then 5 minutes to make a quick cheat sheet....
Ha ha. Among my four players and me, we use six different formats for character sheets. I use stat block text for foes and edittable PDF character sheets for party member NPCs on my laptop, my wife uses the expanded character sheet format on paper, two players each have spreadsheets of their own custom design on their laptops, and the fourth player has a large printout of character abilities designed to help him track changes while he can barely write due to a paralyzed arm. Finding the information on any sheet besides my own would take more than 5 minutes.
As for pogie's original post, I see two issues.
First, a player stopped the game to argue with the GM. That's pretty bad and should be halted with a firm, "We can talk about this after the game session."
Second, pogie kept information from the players with the belief, "Telling him to save versus poison would have given the players knowledge that they dId not possess in game." In the game, some knowledge comes from good Knowledge rolls ("That's a linnorm. They have a venomous bite.") or good Diplomacy rolls ("The folk at the tavern tell about the time the linnorm took down 20 soldiers with its venomous bite."). However, most knowledge comes from direct observation ("As you enter the cavern, you see ..."). Being bitten and poisoned is direct observation. The venomous bite is no longer a secret.
I would not take me more then 5 minutes to make a quick cheat sheet....As for pogie's original post, I see two issues.
First, a player stopped the game to argue with the GM. That's pretty bad and should be halted with a firm, "We can talk about this after the game session."
Second, pogie kept information from the players with the belief, "Telling him to save versus poison would have given the players knowledge that they dId not possess in game." In the game, some knowledge comes from good Knowledge rolls ("That's a linnorm. They have a venomous bite.") or good Diplomacy rolls ("The folk at the tavern tell about the time the linnorm took down 20 soldiers with its venomous bite."). However, most knowledge comes from direct observation ("As you enter the cavern, you see ..."). Being bitten and poisoned is direct observation. The venomous bite is no longer a secret.
I think both your points make sense. As to the first that is what I did but it took a few times saying “let’s move on” leading me to have to be firmer than I would hope to have to be at a table I’m trying to enjoy.
Your second point I agree with as well, although I think I will try to convey the info needed in s little more thematic way.
No its real simple you look at a player and say. whats your hp? whats your save bonuses? then you write them down. If they forgot to include something that is their problem.Then it don't resolve the problem of the conditional modifiers.
The one time I had a PFS GM ask for scores before session start, they handed out short forms to fill out with saving throws and relevant skills like Perception. The forms had blanks for conditional modifiers. It took all of sixty seconds from start to finish, and the game flowed as smoothly as Willy Wonka's chocolate river--nobody had any doubt that the GM factored, e.g., the rogue's trapfinding bonus in when needed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The poison dipping fangs of the beast pierce your skin."
"Make a fortitude save."
I continue to fail to see how removing "poison" from that phrase make a better game. Or a better novel, as that is a a staple phrase of sword and sorcery literature.
I don't see where "You have been bitten, save vs Fortitude." is thematic.
About the player, your "Let's go on, we will speak after the game." is the same as "I will continue to withhold information till the end of the session." I would have agreed with the player.
You were unable to manage the conditional modifiers by yourself and you were unwilling to give the information needed to have the players manage them. You wanted them to recite the conditional modifier for every action, something that is way more game disrupting.
To me that is bad GMing.
|
|
The one time I had a PFS GM ask for scores before session start, they handed out short forms to fill out with saving throws and relevant skills like Perception. The forms had blanks for conditional modifiers. It took all of sixty seconds from start to finish, and the game flowed as smoothly as Willy Wonka's chocolate river--nobody had any doubt that the GM factored, e.g., the rogue's trapfinding bonus in when needed.No its real simple you look at a player and say. whats your hp? whats your save bonuses? then you write them down. If they forgot to include something that is their problem.Then it don't resolve the problem of the conditional modifiers.
Good GM and good players. Sure, it you do that, it will work. But it is not what pogie did.
And it depend on classes, levels and equipment. And races.
The one time I had a PFS GM ask for scores before session start, they handed out short forms to fill out with saving throws and relevant skills like Perception. The forms had blanks for conditional modifiers. It took all of sixty seconds from start to finish, and the game flowed as smoothly as Willy Wonka's chocolate river--nobody had any doubt that the GM factored, e.g., the rogue's trapfinding bonus in when needed.No its real simple you look at a player and say. whats your hp? whats your save bonuses? then you write them down. If they forgot to include something that is their problem.Then it don't resolve the problem of the conditional modifiers.Good GM and good players. Sure, it you do that, it will work. But it is not what pogie did.
And it all depend on classes, levels and equipment. And races.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, there's only so much one can do to get around less experienced/qualified GMs (or players) other than work at getting better.
As for simply telling the player what they're saving against, looks like the pros and cons of that approach have been well covered in this thread. I'm in the camp of "tell them, preferably with flavorful description, unless they wouldn't have any way of knowing something happened at all".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The poison dipping fangs of the beast pierce your skin."
"Make a fortitude save."I continue to fail to see how removing "poison" from that phrase make a better game. Or a better novel, as that is a a staple phrase of sword and sorcery literature.
I don't see where "You have been bitten, save vs Fortitude." is thematic.
About the player, your "Let's go on, we will speak after the game." is the same as "I will continue to withhold information till the end of the session." I would have agreed with the player.
You were unable to manage the conditional modifiers by yourself and you were unwilling to give the information needed to have the players manage them. You wanted them to recite the conditional modifier for every action, something that is way more game disrupting.
To me that is bad GMing.
I was not unable to manage the conditional modifiers. I was refereeing the game in a manner consistent with my experience as a player. You may call that bad GMing fine. The purpose of this post was to learn and become s better GM. If you’ve read any of my posts past the first you’d see that I’ve acknowledged that there is a different way of doing something and I’m willing to change hopefully making a better experience for all involved.
What I won’t do is continuously engage an argumentative player in the middle of the last combat of a scenario with 30 minutes left on the time.