Dude, how am I the bad guy here?


Advice

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not a fan of even mild PvP.


Ravingdork wrote:
At what point do you consider a character's turn completed? When they finish declaring their 3 actions? When they take their hand off the mini? When they say they're done? Where that line is drawn can really matter.

Our group usually has a "loss of reality" rule, i.e. moves can easily be taken back by both players and GM as long as they can be reset without changing any outcome. On special occasion even allow reseting more than the current players turn!

1. No taking back after an element of chance has been used by either player or GM (drawing of cards, rolling dice, tossing coins).

2. No taking back after the known situation has become a new situation (detection of additional enemies while walking round a corner, triggering of traps or attacks of opportunity).

We always allow back-tracking after obvious errors, i.e. when something would not have been mechanically possible, even if there would be some sort of loss of reality.

Player 1: I move and cast Spiritual Weapon. Attack roll misses though.
GM: Monster 1 moves and casts 2-action Magic Missile for 7 damage.
Player 2: Aren't we still in an anti-magic zone?
Player 1 and GM: Uh oh...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
What I do... is... Ask My Player.

That's what I do as well. It's also what the GM does in a game where I am a player. It seems the polite thing to do in a turn-based game, not to mention feeling completely natural. It's also a sign to the player that there's no issue if they need to get up to go to the bathroom or something since their immediate input is no longer needed.


Sounds like you have a tendency to decide for the group on when to barge into a unlikely to survive scenario in hopes for a heroic moment but more often than not you end up dead or someone else.

Unless I missed the part where the rest of the party agreed to the suicide mission, in Wich case the fighter is the odd one out on these tactics as he is the one that spoke out in complaint of them.

Either way the DM isn't giving you your hero moments just because your brave in the face of danger. I can only assume he wants you to earn it instead.

This is just what I can gather from the main post.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm not a fan of even mild PvP.

Neither am I, but inevitably a situation is going to come up where two PCs want different things, and you have to be prepared to resolve it somehow.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Unless I missed the part where the rest of the party agreed to the suicide mission, in Wich case the fighter is the odd one out on these tactics as he is the one that spoke out in complaint of them.

I don't recall there being universal agreement. I remember one or two people agreeing and everyone else staying silent/neutral. I took that as acceptance. It wasn't until we started to move forward with the plan that the GM objected. I suspect the fighter wouldn't have objected at all if we hadn't been taking so long (he was likely wanting back in the game).


Ravingdork wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Unless I missed the part where the rest of the party agreed to the suicide mission, in Wich case the fighter is the odd one out on these tactics as he is the one that spoke out in complaint of them.
I don't recall there being universal agreement. I remember one or two people agreeing and everyone else staying silent/neutral. I took that as acceptance. It wasn't until we started to move forward with the plan that the GM objected. I suspect the fighter wouldn't have objected at all if we hadn't been taking so long (he was likely wanting back in the game).

Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.

Easy to have miscommunication in those medium's. Best I can suggest is hold off until everyone has a vote in unless the DM is actively pressing you for time


It reads like the GM was working really hard to not allow a player based rescue at all. It seems artificially forced to disallow the party to coordinate opening a door and a fast mover to run in and attempt the rescue and flee. Then he gives the guy a super hand wavey continual recovery yourself while entombed in a crypt and run out solo?

I'd be feeling off about it too.

To those saying no take backs, and really mean it to the point of before moving a mini or dice rolled..... seriously what? I get saying keep free action speech short, but "stop", "don't do that again", etc all are well within this realm.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.

Nope. This was a live play session done in person, around a real table.


Ravingdork wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.
Nope. This was a live play session done in person, around a real table.

Weird that they would be silent.

I guess best suggestion I have is make sure everyone voice's their opinion before such actions in the future and make sure they say something.

As for the DM, only thought I have is maybe ask what kind of campaign he expects so you know how to taper your actions accordingly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


As a monk, I'm fast. If I can have someone open the door for me, then I can dash in, snatch up the fighter, and dash out again before the enemy can react. The group seemed to be in agreement with the plan.

However, nobody opened the door for me. The GM also reminded me that, as an elf, I could not see in the dark. So I moved up to the door, pulled off my backpack, and got out a sunrod. All out of actions. Since I'm next to the door in a 5-foot wide hallway, with a closed door in front of me, and the GM ruled we never left initiative (he's secretly tracking how far away the undead have dragged our companion) nobody can get to the door to open it (as I'm occupying the space and per the rules, you can't normally stop in an allies space in encounter mode).

As a DM, this is where it went south for me. There is absolutely no benefit for being so strict with the rules as to disallow something like this. 5' is easily wide enough for two people to stand side-by-side. It is easily enough space for two people to coordinate someone opening the door just in time for another to burst through. Enforcing initiative order and grid-spacing for no good reason is poor DM'ing, IMO.

If I were you in another situation like this, I would simply tell the DM that you were going to do whatever you needed to do to make initiative order work out so that you could have someone open the door right ahead of you. Either let him tell you how it could work, or ask to wait until you're out of initiative. You shouldn't have to "solve" an initiative order puzzle. That just gets in the way of the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Play by post or discord? Sounds like some kind of online session the way your just described things.
Nope. This was a live play session done in person, around a real table.

Weird that they would be silent.

I guess best suggestion I have is make sure everyone voice's their opinion before such actions in the future and make sure they say something.

As for the DM, only thought I have is maybe ask what kind of campaign he expects so you know how to taper your actions accordingly.

I don't have input on the main thread but uggghhh I have to vent, my group has ridiculously heavy diffusion of responsibility and it leads to this kind of silence all the time.

Basically, a large portion of the group is either tuning out the game, or wants to let other people take the responsibility of deciding what should be done- but only tacitly. The talkative people who are normally willing to drive the party forward don't want to over-dominate, so you often get awkward silences where nobody wants to speak up until one of the active people basically makes the decision on their own, and no one wants to question it because eh.

Some of those people are bad enough that you can address them directly, and they'll still try to shrug it off onto someone else.

Like in my case, its exacerbated by the fact that we play online, but I have no trouble believing their description of events as involving a silence where no one else wanted to make a decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Schmoe wrote:

As a DM, this is where it went south for me. There is absolutely no benefit for being so strict with the rules as to disallow something like this. 5' is easily wide enough for two people to stand side-by-side. It is easily enough space for two people to coordinate someone opening the door just in time for another to burst through. Enforcing initiative order and grid-spacing for no good reason is poor DM'ing, IMO.

If I were you in another situation like this, I would simply tell the DM that you were going to do whatever you needed to do to make initiative order work out so that you could have someone open the door right ahead of you. Either let him tell you how it could work, or ask to wait until you're out of initiative. You shouldn't have to "solve" an initiative order puzzle. That just gets in the way of the game.

The benefit was the GM knew how far the fighter got dragged away before we re-entered. That was pretty much the whole reason for him running it the way he did.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I don't have input on the main thread but uggghhh I have to vent, my group has ridiculously heavy diffusion of responsibility and it leads to this kind of silence all the time.

Basically, a large portion of the group is either tuning out the game, or wants to let other people take the responsibility of deciding what should be done- but only tacitly. The talkative people who are normally willing to drive the party forward don't want to over-dominate, so you often get awkward silences where nobody wants to speak up until one of the active people basically makes the decision on their own, and no one wants to question it because eh.

Some of those people are bad enough that you can address them directly, and they'll still try to shrug it off onto someone else.

Like in my case, its exacerbated by the fact that we play online, but I have no trouble believing their description of events as involving a silence where no one else wanted to make a decision.

That sounds about right for my group as well.

The GM's wife (the cleric) often sits quietly as she doodles and generally needs to be poked before realizing its her turn. The fighter player's brother (the ranger) is diabetic and often has no energy. The fighter is surprisingly attentive considering he is always on his phone playing unrelated games, but is quick to anger (particularly at me). I'm the guy who fills the silence and ends up saying things he probably shouldn't. From time to time the GM hears what he wants to hear rather than what was actually said (and actually, I probably do too, but for different reasons).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh man seems you really need a no phones rule at your table or some other way of increasing player engagement.

I'll echo my style that people think is harsh but it really does keep people engaged and let's those weaker players flourish. When it's your turn it is only your turn and you have 30s to start doing things (which is 5x longer than the character would have) otherwise your action is "attack the nearest target."

I mean to be brutally honest board or card games might work better for the group because if 50%+ of the people at the table are serially disengaged there is something wrong.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
I'll echo my style that people think is harsh but it really does keep people engaged and let's those weaker players flourish. When it's your turn it is only your turn and you have 30s to start doing things (which is 5x longer than the character would have) otherwise your action is "attack the nearest target."

You force characters to perform certain actions? That's abhorrent to me without some in-game reason (domination or such). My solution for hesitant players is that the character's turn is delayed until after whomever is next in initiative order. If this hesitation continues long enough the character's turn may be skipped entirely, but I would never, ever, force them to spend their turn as I see fit (again, without in-game justification).


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'll echo my style that people think is harsh but it really does keep people engaged and let's those weaker players flourish. When it's your turn it is only your turn and you have 30s to start doing things (which is 5x longer than the character would have) otherwise your action is "attack the nearest target."
You force characters to perform certain actions? That's abhorrent to me without some in-game reason (domination or such). My solution for hesitant players is that the character's turn is delayed until after whomever is next in initiative order. If this hesitation continues long enough the character's turn may be skipped entirely, but I would never, ever, force them to spend their turn as I see fit (again, without in-game justification).

You force the engaged players to endure the higher difficulty caused by the dead weight of the unengaged? That's abhorrent to me without some in-game reason (domination or such).

.
.
.

;P


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'll echo my style that people think is harsh but it really does keep people engaged and let's those weaker players flourish. When it's your turn it is only your turn and you have 30s to start doing things (which is 5x longer than the character would have) otherwise your action is "attack the nearest target."
You force characters to perform certain actions? That's abhorrent to me without some in-game reason (domination or such). My solution for hesitant players is that the character's turn is delayed until after whomever is next in initiative order. If this hesitation continues long enough the character's turn may be skipped entirely, but I would never, ever, force them to spend their turn as I see fit (again, without in-game justification).

I've never actually had to do it. 30s of doing nothing makes the game a drag for the other players. If you can't think of anything to do in 30s then in all likely hood you are going to end up just attacking anyway. I, and my players, find this preferable to the idea of a character just standing there doing nothing. I hold myself to the same standard. If I can't think of what an enemy should do swiftly I fall back on a default.

Note I say start doing things, not resolve them. We are well aware that a complicated routine will take longer to resolve.

I'll also note that this is our rule for a table of healthy adults. Children, learning, vision, auditory or attention etc difficulties would warrant more lenient adjustments.


Malk_Content wrote:

Oh man seems you really need a no phones rule at your table or some other way of increasing player engagement.

I'll echo my style that people think is harsh but it really does keep people engaged and let's those weaker players flourish. When it's your turn it is only your turn and you have 30s to start doing things (which is 5x longer than the character would have) otherwise your action is "attack the nearest target."

I mean to be brutally honest board or card games might work better for the group because if 50%+ of the people at the table are serially disengaged there is something wrong.

I like the spirit of this, to encourage some urgency and speed to the game, but I would have the character delay instead. It's a 3e concept that I don't think transferred over to PF2, but it would be easy enough to add it. That basically sends the signal that this combat is moving on without the character, but as soon as they figure it out they can join back in.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I don't have input on the main thread but uggghhh I have to vent, my group has ridiculously heavy diffusion of responsibility and it leads to this kind of silence all the time.

I think your vent is applicable to the main thread.

Whether an action is welcome or unwelcome or problematic or not problematic is very much group-dependent. In a group of people not paying attention - or simply newer players who don't know what all the options are - someone who steps up and maks a decision may be both welcome and not problematic. In a group of active, opinionated participants, the exact same action may be both unwelcome and problematic.

For inexperienced GMs, or GMs whose personalities don't include a lot of sponteneity, what Ravingdork did may very well qualify as unwelcome. The GM had a mental plan of how things was going to go, and maybe even that plan was one that the other players would have found entertaining and fun. For other GMs - experienced GMs who love improvising - what Ravingdork did would have been more than welcome.

As someone posted on the first page, it sounds like the fundamental problem is that the GM expectations and player expectations don't match up. I think that if the expectations matched up, everyone could have a polite OOC conversation about what's fun and what's disruptive and move on to things that everyone agrees is fun.

Shadow Lodge

Also, if it hasn't been said before, if they know you're hard of hearing, the GM and the other players should take that into account. If you missed something important, it'd definitely be a show of good faith to allow take-backsies relating to it.

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Dude, how am I the bad guy here? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.