Definitely getting creative. The kaukariki were in the book as intelligent animals -- clever and cunning animals, sure, but not capable of understanding or speaking a language, unlike some of the creatures you face in the jungles of Ukulam. They're also at a -2 INT mod, so would be INT 6 at best, not 8. Diplomacy and trade isn't possible with them playing it straight, although if there was a Xenodruid in your group, I could certainly see them being able to work a diplomatic solution since they get the ability to speak with animals. Trade wouldn't really be very feasible, since the kaukariki would have no idea what grenades (or the healing potions they took playing things straight) actually were.
So we just did the part that had the stinger monkeys. We Diplo-ized our way into the monkey's good graces. I went to check out the black monolith that was there. Got snatched by a chameleon starfish tentacular Grappler creature and hauled up 200 feet up the monolith.
He's GMing it kinda loose. He switched the monster that should've been there with something that would show up later on.
The kaukarikis don't have a language, what did you use to befriend them? Survival and the Wildwise augment only work on Int scores of -4 and -5.
And those first 4 are it, the rest of the troop is too scared to come down for a fight.
Not sure why your GMs is changing everything so much, but doesn't seem to be creating a bad experience - but the original encounters are good enough, with the nasty monkey poison and the thing you didn't find.
the thing you didn't find.was the thing some sorta tentacle beast? The fight was entertaining but i did not get to do much. Since i was grappled by some sorta tentacled starfish beast. I was the only one to take damage which is good i am ment to hog the damage.
Not quite, but I better not spoil it - maybe he kicked it ahead to where the flying starfish was supposed to be. I'll just say it has a lot of mouths and was hiding at the base of the obelisk.
Your GM made the kaukariki way smarter than they were supposed to be - he went full planet of the apes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full marks to your DM, in my view. One of the things I can't stand in published adventures is when the PCs try something not contemplated by the writer and the DM tries to shoehorn it into what was pre-written. "fights to the death" and "refuses to negotiate" are two phrases I've seen heavily relied on to stymie creative PC approaches - I'm of the view that restrictive word-count is just as often the motivation for both of those cropping up as the "story reasons" usually cited.
I hate it when GMs change things up too much. It's like, why did we even bother buying a module?
I've had GMs change things up because they thought that the players were reading ahead in the module and wanted to surprise them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate it when GMs change things up too much. It's like, why did we even bother buying a module?Unless you read the module yourself beforehand, how would you even know?
I ALWAYS know. Every GM who has ever done this, in my experience, has either gone so far outside the bounds of the module that it quickly becomes pretty obvious, or they start making mistakes that would be far less likely to happen if you just read the page in front of you, or their lack of confidence begins to show in their mannerisms. Other times, the numbers they're throwing out simply don't add up.
I hate it when GMs change things up too much. It's like, why did we even bother buying a module?
I'll add stuff, specially between books or parts, related to the characters' background, expand the universe and such - but messing up encounters like in this case, it's a recipe for disaster.
I hate it when GMs change things up too much. It's like, why did we even bother buying a module?I'll add stuff, specially between books or parts, related to the characters' background, expand the universe and such - but messing up encounters like in this case, it's a recipe for disaster.
Eh. I'd say it's an opportunity for the players to have an adventure different than what other people who play the same adventure path had. It's not like the AP is holy scripture.
Players are VERY good at blowing through challenges when properly motivated.
As a GM, homebrewing brings me more creative satisfaction, but there are many published adventures I love. All my games are set in one persistent continuity, therefore I often make changes to published material so that it fits. Additionally, I have a pretty good understanding of what my players will and will not enjoy, so I'll make changes as needed for their benefit. Other times I will make changes because I feel like I can make improvements. I think it's well within the spirit of the game to adapt material for your table.
I love creative GMs. Sounds like yours is doing a great job crafting the story with you players.most time no. It is not a good thing. I am pretty sure he added at least 20 extra cultists to an encounter because he thought that it would be fun. We were stuck in a 8 by 10 squire room trying to fight our way to the door so we could make them only come at us two at a time but could not lock that down. The healer went down. And the gm started fudging rolls and actions just to save the party instead of just killing us all. I am all for party wipes means you get to create something new. Anyways i am pretty sure he has no idea on how to balance an encounter properly or just thinks you should balance it like you should in pathfinder. Which was about on par for what we had to face...... massive hordes that would almost kill us all each week. I would rather face one super op monster then a bunch of enemies where thier number make them op.
Last game was great. There is a safe warm fuzzy feeling when your in the AP. But when my gm goes into left field and crafts us an encounter theres the horror of knowing stuff is about to get real....... until the very last moment and the gm swoops in and thanos the bad guys. Taking the coolness out of dieing like a boss and making you into a female dog that can not handle something simple as 40 peasants with class lvls at lvl 2.
That isn't a problem with GM creativity, that's a problem with the GM having no sense of game balance. Seriously, switching around an encounter on an AP is different than spamming you with 40 enemies.
You should have a discussion with the GM about what is fun and what is not fun. If he or she doesn't agree, you can find another GM.
There's definitely different degrees of "acceptable."
Adding a couple extra bodies to team evil to challenge a larger than normal party, or ad hocing a bit to get the players back on course, or continuing the adventure long after the original story has ended...these are all great things, and I encourage them.
Making the module nearly unrecognizable, or changing key components of the story so that it feels like a different story entirely, or just having it no longer make any sense at all, is REALLY annoying!
One example of the latter was a GM who threw a green dragon at us during Kingmaker 2. We had just established a little kingdom, and this dragon-turned-woman literally waltzes into our castle, murders everyone, makes us rulers look like helpless babies, and demands constant tribute for years to come. The entire game stopped being Kingmaker, and all became about the GM's pet NPC, the Dragon Queen, and what we were going to do about her. Every plan we came up with auto-failed, while the GM just steepled his hands and laughed maniacally from behind his screen--right up until we all realized it wasn't part of the module and abandoned his ego-maniacal power game.
What's worse, no other GM will touch us as a result. "Oh, you've played Kingmaker before, well, I prefer to have someone in my group who doesn't know what's going to happen."
Well, WE HAVE NO F+#&ING CLUE WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN CAUSE AN IDIOT GM NEVER REALLY RAN IT FOR US!
*hyperventilates*
*passes out*
*Gets dragged away and eaten by the Dragon Queen*
I hate it when GMs change things up too much. It's like, why did we even bother buying a module?I'll add stuff, specially between books or parts, related to the characters' background, expand the universe and such - but messing up encounters like in this case, it's a recipe for disaster.
Do you feel compelled to follow the tactics of the monsters as written?
That's my pet beef - the adventure writers are understandably pressed for space and "attacks immediately and fights to the death" is much less word count than detailing what the monster wants/will accept and how committed it is to stick around. When our group decides to be more diplomatic/devious than usual it really bugs me when no matter how appealing our offer, the NPC pays no attention because "that's what's in the book".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. I'm not surprised but disappointed in some of the responses here. What a sense of false entitlement.
1) The GM's job is to give the players a fun time. Not "follow the rules" laid out in a module. The module should always be used as a guideline. There is NO WAY to write one with every player shenanigan in mind. Good GMs always adapt things to character choices/behavior.
2) If you were in my game, and I found you posting this kind of nonsense on a forum, I would boot you. Immediately. Frankly, it's none of your business. You're playing. Let the GM run their game and you react/interact with it. I never tell my players a) what's "going on" and b) what rules I used. My job is to give you a good time. NOT to "step in line" with how you want it done.
If you don't like your GM, go run your own game!
3) If you read the book, there are at least 3 references I spotted regarding the authority of the GM. Just because you can buy all the books and learn everything does not mean, at my table you will KNOW everything. I get to change things as I see fit. It sounds like your GM will too. Stop worrying about what your GM is doing. Just get into it and have fun playing.
4) Most GMs are fans of both the players AND the characters. Just because I'm challenging you doesn't mean I want you to fail. Or die. A lot of the hostility towards GMs stems from this idea that they are out to get you. You should get over that. Based on your post, it's obvious your GM is not out to get you.
Finally, you have a great GM. You should be grateful for the time they put in and their willingness to be creative for you.
Trentin, when people play games together there is generally an understanding that everyone will be playing under the same set of rules and expectations. Any GM who goes way off the rails without informing his play group in advance (thereby modifying the social contract as it were) is cheating and is not likely to last long.
If a group invests in a published module, than the common understanding is that, that is what will be run. Not some alien bastardization that barely resembles the intended adventure. If a GM invests in a new module, volunteers to run it, but makes it clear to his group that he will be changing things a bit to better suit the party's composition/playstyle/whatever, then that's totally fine.
In any case, as long as everyone is communicating and generally has the same expectations of one another--and everyone is having fun--then not much else matters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD, I agree on communication, that is key.
In my experience, the GM is buying the bulk of the stuff, including adventures, and running for the love of the game.
In the context of shared resources and groups making an agreement to run an AP "as close to RAW as possible" or something, then I would agree.
I did not get the impression this was the case based on the OP.
I think disclosure is important for the social contract. As such, I always inform my groups that I will be making changes to modules/APs before we begin the adventure. It's satisfying when the players can't tell the difference between what's in the module and what I added to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you feel compelled to follow the tactics of the monsters as written?
That's my pet beef - the adventure writers are understandably pressed for space and "attacks immediately and fights to the death" is much less word count than detailing what the monster wants/will accept and how committed it is to stick around. When our group decides to be more diplomatic/devious than usual it really bugs me when no matter how appealing our offer, the NPC pays no attention because "that's what's in the book".
When it's a monster, I usually won't allow any regular shenanigans to just turn them around - they better be packing charm monsters, or some other magical/technological means that will enable them to diffuse a pack of angry poisonous monkeys that have no language.
If it's a rational NPC, sure, there's always a way out - if it's a suicidal cultist, it'll probably involve non-lethal damage, titanium cable and some amazing intimidate rolls.
But killing enemies is usually a less messy way of handling them, for the GM's sake. If the party goes out of their way to buy/convince/recruit every mook they find, they'll end up with an army of sidekicks or hostages following them around.
That might sound funny, but in the long run it'll take time away from the plot. And advancing the main plot always feels more satisfying than clowning around - to me at least.
Personally, I think it goes both ways - I think the DM owes the players the ability to attack the adventure in a variety of ways, depending on their PCs’ style.
I think the players owe the DM the respect of not sabotaging the plot too* horrendously.
(I think sweet-talking an ooze should fail, but even crazed cultists want something - offering them something they desire more than killing you should carry some weight).
Going outside the printed way of running enemies/NPCs during encounters has led to some fabulous, rewarding role play and immeasurable volumes of fun in our games, moments and stories that would have been otherwise lost by adherence to the text. I would bet that almost all the folks involved in producing the adventures we play would be perfectly fine with us taking their creations in different directions than what is suggested on the page. Deviations from the baseline are encouraged and welcome.
I think mismatches like that are best handled explicitly (and out of session). It’s happened to me reasonably often that the DM is running the game they’d like to play in rather than the game their players want.
He’s not going to know you want something else if you never tell him. My advice would be a conversation between sessions with just the two of you involved - mention what you like, then what you don’t like and then try to finish with another positive.
He’s put lots of work into it, so it’s important to respect that even if it’s not to your taste. I’d steer away from interpretations like “shaky” or “no sense of game balance”. He could well be doing everything right and just be aiming for a playstyle you don’t enjoy.
|
What's worse, no other GM will touch us as a result. "Oh, you've played Kingmaker before, well, I prefer to have someone in my group who doesn't know what's going to happen."
That sounds like those other gms are jerks, I had played parts of first book before group went on a perma hiatus and joined another group for no problem. I don't have problem with running game for someone who has runned or played it before if I trust they don't meta either in order to derail stuff
What's worse, no other GM will touch us as a result. "Oh, you've played Kingmaker before, well, I prefer to have someone in my group who doesn't know what's going to happen."That sounds like those other gms are jerks, I had played parts of first book before group went on a perma hiatus and joined another group for no problem. I don't have problem with running game for someone who has runned or played it before if I trust they don't meta either in order to derail stuff
It doesn’t bother me at all as a DM - even if they DO metagame.
In my view, not reading ahead (or replaying) is more a courtesy to the other players, rather than to the DM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's worse, no other GM will touch us as a result. "Oh, you've played Kingmaker before, well, I prefer to have someone in my group who doesn't know what's going to happen."That sounds like those other gms are jerks, I had played parts of first book before group went on a perma hiatus and joined another group for no problem. I don't have problem with running game for someone who has runned or played it before if I trust they don't meta either in order to derail stuffIt doesn’t bother me at all as a DM - even if they DO metagame.
In my view, not reading ahead (or replaying) is more a courtesy to the other players, rather than to the DM.
Yep, that is what I think too. Its kind of like, if one player already knows solution to situation and works on that right away, other players don't have experience and chance to think solution for themselves and pleasure from figuring it out.
And do note, I specified "Metagame to derail the game". Like, you know, going to Thistletop in RotR long before you know you are supposed to go there :P
But yeah, as long they don't do things like "I'm clearly preparing in advance for this one encounter I shouldn't even know about", or "I'm solving this situation in clearly out of character fashion" or "I instantly solve the problem when party starts thinking due to me already knowing answer" I don't really mind metaing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys went off topic without me!
I'm so proud!!
As far as written tactics and morale and such, I view them as more a suggestion then something set in stone.
That said, this particular GM needs to take a tutorial on encounter balance. :-)
The trick is, finding a way to tell them that without making it seem like you're jumping on them, because people usually double down in those situations.
As far as players having previously read or played an AP that doesn't bother me, unless they're sitting there reading while I'm running it. :-)