I am currently running a level 14 game (playing an AP) that seems to have somewhat fallen apart
Due to being far too relaxed with what material I allowed (basically if they can find it on AoN it is fine) a situation has developed where there are a group of very powerful characters
They have grown obsessed with playing by the numbers (there is a Bench Pressing chart somewhere for benchmarks). Things like AC and especially saving throws have got to insane levels. Every possible bonus is searched for meticulously online
As written the enemies from the published content pretty much cannot hit the party and most of the time they fail a save on a 1 only (maybe a slight over exaggeration but 1-3 or something)
It takes an astronomical amount of time to prepare encounters for this level of play only to have creatures basically not be able to do anything. And trying to power them up is fraught with problems as there is always a risk of overdoing it and leading to the players looking even harder to boost their characters. Or it attracts incredulity - such as a monster hits a very high AC character and the comment is “really? Seriously?” - as if to imply ‘this is the best defence I could legitimately obtain why am I still being hit’
I am actually finding it not very fun to GM anymore . Just a big time sink. But there doesn’t seem to be a way of course correcting this as there is no way of balancing the power curve in 1E especially as power level is quite subjective. But I don’t think there is anything to be gained from bringing this up with the players directly - and I would not do such a thing over the internet in these quarantine days
Is this just what happens at high levels ? Am I thinking about this wrong.
I am trying to make it an interesting challenge not a game where rolling the dice is largely irrelevant (which is what it largely would be if I played from the book)
I would appreciate any thoughts but i fear it is too late to do much about it. But i also don’t think I can easily just stop the game and try and suggest a new one after the amount of time invested so far
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This is a simple problem. Increase the CR of enemies they are facing/buff enemies. If they're simply finding bigger bonuses just add bigger bonuses to the NPCs.
The advanced template gives the following:
Quick Rules: +2 on all rolls (including damage rolls) and special ability DCs; +4 to AC and CMD; +2 hp/HD.
If that's not enough I'd keep doubling those bonuses until it reaches the point of challenge you think is appropriate.
When you find the break even point you can explain to your players that you've increased the challenge to where you feel it's appropriate, and if they continue to try to eek out additional bonuses your monsters will get them as well. It's an arms race they can't win, because you don't have to come up with reasons why the monsters are stronger, they just are.
Actually, you might want to explain to your players the problem as you see it. And tell them, not ask them, that you're goal is to provide a challenge, and that having the party steamroll encounters isn't fun and satisfying for you as a GM. So they can leave their characters as is, but you're going to increase the monsters stats until it reaches a point of reasonable challenge.
As a tip for zeroing in on ho much to add, I'd look at something like who has the lowest AC, and increase your monsters attack until they have at least a 50% chance to hit on the first attack. Something similar for saves, who has the weakest save of each category, increase the DC until they have a 50% chance to fail. Don't reveal exactly how you're going to do it to them, but at least then combat becomes a fight.
This can easily happen at high levels, which is why many people like to end games well before level 20.
I know you said you didn't want to do this but what you really need to do is have a heart to heart with your players. Tell them your feelings on the subject and get their honest desires for the game. Maybe they just want to play godmode. Maybe they will be willing to tone things down to accommodate you. It's either that or just scrap the game and start with something else. Everyone needs to enjoy a game for it to be good, and a GM who isn't having fun isn't going to run a good game.
As far as the need to 'git gud', what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players can make OP characters so can you. While making them may be a pain you can easily search for OP builds on Google and use any number of fun builds. Or just use higher CR creatures - taking on things that are ostensibly beyond their abilities and winning seems more impressive than fighting something their own 'level' that has been tweaked to be more powerful.
Honestly? You're better off starting over. Tell them there's a book limitation. We typically play with just Core and APG, sometimes with the ACG as well and Ultimate Equipment. That's it.
Pathfinder's biggest issue is its size - the same things happened to AD&D 2nd and 3rd edition (and other systems, like Rifts). Each writer thinks up a new "thing" but no one has the time before the publication date to scour every possible combination.
Players, OTOH, are legion - and they WILL scour every conceivable combination. That's why limiting the books is in your best interest sometimes. Then, you can restrict even further. Don't like Summoners? Gone. Think the Alchemist is broken? Later.
I don't think you can fix that campaign. You will almost assuredly be homebrewing every monster they fight and that will likely just become exhausting.
Tell them that you will handwave encounters, if you don't think they will pose a threat. Just tell them to subtrakt a relevant number of hitpoints and spell slots and move on with the story.
That can save you a lot of preperation and just play out the relevant fights.
If they dont want that kind of play, then talk about how much extra work you need to make to change the APP for their power level.
I think Claxon has the simplest approach to correct the issue. Just give all enemies a static boost to hit, AC, dmg, HP and skill checks. Whatever is needed to keep them challenging. You could have a short list of notes to remind yourself what boosts are in place for the monsters. If you want some variation you could use one set of boosts for "bosses" and another set for "minions".
IMO There's little need to bring it up to the players unless you feel you need to. If everyone is having fun that's what's important. Re-writing an AP is a lot of work and unless you're having fun re-writing it, this isn't an approach I would recommend.
If it weren't an AP, then it's easier to address by simply adjusting the effective level of the party and building the adventures, encounters, etc. around their new escalated level.
Well, it is Mathfinder. I'm curious, What AP, what are the characters and what parts are so OP?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
You didn't mention it, but what sort of ability score generation method/total did they start with? One thing to keep in mind is that the entire CR system is based on 4 PCs using 15 point buy and only moderately optimized. If the PCs are generated using higher point buys (or the equivalent through rolling) and heavily optimized, then they will find "standard" encounters much easier than the game is designed for.
Also, you may want to periodically audit their gear against the expected wealth by level. You don't need to have them be exactly at the WBL value, but 1) the PCs' gear has a large impact on their "power" as it interacts with the CR system and 2) it will inform you on whether you need to add or remove some treasure (or even change the type of treasure) from the next adventure(s) so that they are relatively close to the system baseline. As well as the total value, you may want to check that their gear is close to the "balanced" distribution guidelines (about "25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins"; "weapons" should include offensive magic items such as rods and staves, crown of blasting, etc.).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add that this is all supposed to be as fun for you as for the rest of the party, and you said it isn't anymore. It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign.
I like Claxon's approach with the advanced template, too, but I'd modify it a bit:
1) Start with an "advanced counter" of 1. That's how often you apply the template to any encounter. Each time they win a serious encounter without any effort, increase the counter by 1. If they get into real trouble (closing to TPK) in one encounter, instead decrease it by 1.
2) Openly tell the players about your plans and about the current state of the "advanced counter". You basically negate their optimization efforts (which were many hours of work on their part), so they should get something as compensation: The satisfication that they beat the AP on steroids.
I have a similar situation where my party is far stronger than the AP clearly expects. So it doesn’t seem unusual
In my case the use of ABP has left the party far wealthier than I believe is intended as all I did was remove items that don’t exist due to ABP. I kept weapons as is as I don’t think the ABP rules solve the “problem” they intended to in that area. But that means picking up stacks of enemy magic weapons and selling them on top of “free” items
Also ABP frees up some slots that vastly increase the utility of characters without giving up the numbers
Add in that Hells Rebels gives out free feats including one of the saving throw boosters that has been used by all my players (unsurprisingly) to patch up their weakest saving throw
I have :
- made liberal use of the advanced template (but not multiple times)
- sometimes started adding class templates as they can be fun
- re-written lots of NPCs when their fights are important : Paizo really write them for flavour rather than power
It is a tricky balancing act as some fights are supposed to be easy and I unintentionally made a big dungeon into a real meat grinder
The advancement counter seems interesting .
A CR 14 monster typically has 200 HP, an AC of 29, a +23 to hit with it's best attack, and deals on average 65 HP in a full attack round. Honestly, outside of restricting my players to ONLY using a 15 point buy and the Core Book I have no idea how to make that an "average" fight for a group of APL adventurers.
Think about it: the above benchmarks would make for an "average" fight if, using little-to-no resources, the party's melee martial type was attacking with a +21 attack and dealing 50 average damage on a full attack round. Starting Str 18, WBL by level 14 allows for a +4 strength belt, a +3 weapon and at least 2 of their attribute bonuses every four levels dedicated to Str means that this martial is sitting at +20 to hit, perhaps using a greatsword to deal 2d6 +10 per hit before feats, so if they hit with all three of their attacks (unlikely) they've dealt 51 damage.
That's all very minor use of WBL, all CRB, and starting with a 15 Pt buy where the PC dedicated the most of their starting points to Str with the intent of playing a Str based martial type with full BAB. It doesn't factor in other build elements, class abilities, feats or other magic items and already we've hit the very basic attack benchmarks for defeating a CR 14 monster.
So, taking this 15 pt buy/CRB build and snap on, say, a core fighter you're looking at Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, the Greater version of both of those, Power Attack, and Weapon Training, all from core, for a full attack (with Power Attack added) of +3 Greatsword +21/+16/+11 (2d6 +29). Now, I don't know magic items very well but there might be some to shore up their accuracy, but on the very rare instance that this core, 15 point buy fighter actually hits with all 3 attacks in a full attack at this point she deals an average of 108 damage. Just hitting with their first attack is an average of 36 damage.
You might say a CR 14 monster can fly; there's wings of flying or boots of flying I think in the CRB for that. Maybe they have DR; a fighter likely has a weapon made of a material to cut through that by this point. My PC here isn't even that fully built yet and already he's holding his own.
Add in a blaster type arcane caster that by level 14 has a couple 10d6 area damage spells with a DC 22 Ref save, a low save for a lot of monster types even at this level which means the monster has a +13 on their save, meaning they only save half the time so this blaster, with NO effort put into their build other than taking 2 feats to make their DCs harder and the same guidelines for Int or Cha as for the Str on the build above.
Tack on 2 other PCs, secondary weapon-based attackers with 3/4 BAB and MAD builds from Core and you can easily see this group of poorly made, core PCs hitting the benchmarks for a CR14 monster.
Then you figure in non-core.
Just moving from a 15 point buy to a 20 point buy is huge. Dump in the crazy levels of optimization you can heap on, say, a warpriest who by level 14 is nearly as dangerous with their primary weapon as a Full BAB fighter, except that this warpriest is also Swift actioning some crazy buffs on themselves every round; the kinds of insane level 14 Wizard builds you can get to; magic items, feats and class abilities that let you spend a Move action to teleport wherever you need to be on the map and STILL get your extremely potent main attack off on a Standard action...
Trying to keep pace with that as a GM is soul-fatiguing. As a player you have to be an expert in one build and not miss a single number, a single defense, a single combat trick for 14 levels. As a GM you have to know ALL the builds. It's exhausting.
My advice would be threefold: one, if you're intent on keeping the AP going, rather than jamming on random +2's until your head explodes, create a handful of optimized, level 14 NPCs - I know, this is time consuming but stick with me. Make a few of these NPCs, then swap in their stat blocks for CR14 monsters where needed. Feel free when designing these NPCs to use all the same material that your players used to make their characters, just from the "starting line" of NPC stats, WBL, etc.
Second, for tougher fights you tailor some of the NPCs specifically to the PCs in the game. I have 2 of the four PCs in my high level game who have put all their eggs into the basket of adding Acid damage to their attacks and having a LOT of attacks. Take a monster, give it DR and immunity to Acid; suddenly these 2 PCs are no longer turning foes into a Pink Mist in a round.
Finally... start planning an exit strategy. If the first 2 points fill you with existential dread at the thought of dragging out an AP and campaign you're no longer having fun running, think about how to end this all in a blaze of glory and what you'll do next.
Honestly, running PF at levels higher than level 8 has, in my experience, become a chore as a GM. It's one I still kind of enjoy but my burnout rate got a lot faster after single PCs started one-round defeating CR 6 monsters with no resources spent. As I said above, now with level 9 PCs in one game and level 10 in another I need to be an expert on EVERY type of build optimization I can.
I know, this sounds a lot like I'm trying to defeat the PCs, like I'm gunning for them, but I'm not.
Combat should be fun, entertaining an a bit of a challenge to the players' brain cells. Unfortunately by level 8... 10... 14 it's more like a spreadsheet; a set of pre-planned inevitabilities with perhaps a little bit of randomness left in the way from the dice. This is simply the way the game is designed. The only way I've found to keep up with it is to put as much effort into optimizing my monsters and NPCs as the players put into their characters.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add that this is all supposed to be as fun for you as for the rest of the party, and you said it isn't anymore. It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign. This is the worst advice. Do not do this. If you're not having fun that's fine. Be an adult about it.
Cavall wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add that this is all supposed to be as fun for you as for the rest of the party, and you said it isn't anymore. It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign. This is the worst advice. Do not do this. If you're not having fun that's fine. Be an adult about it. I don't WANNA! *picks up books and knocks over folding table* Rocks fall, you all die... I'm going HOME!
Cavall wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add that this is all supposed to be as fun for you as for the rest of the party, and you said it isn't anymore. It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign. This is the worst advice. Do not do this. If you're not having fun that's fine. Be an adult about it. Agreed. This can end friendships.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I can agree with many posters after running 5 AP's to completion giving PC's a good challenge is a difficult process considering all of the player assets that have been published in the past.
In the past I have taken a few approaches:
1) Change the AP's to slow character advancement in the middle three books so that they gain 1.5 levels. Personally I think PC's at lvl 13 is a sweet spot for me to end the final AP's. I understand in your this is not possible now.
2) The other thing I do is I look over the PC sheets and find a chink in their armor and restat many (not all) of the character/monsters with class levels and archetypes that can create similar shenanigans.
3) The CR system in Pathfinder (1E) has been skewed by the sheer number of options available to PC's. So its no longer as accurate as it would be if it was a Core only group. I reccomend most time a +2 CR bump after level 8 or so when using monsters and NPC's. Use those to your NPC's advantage also, include terrain effects, or monsters that can penetrate their defenses to scare them a bit and make it exciting.
Artofregicide wrote: Cavall wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add that this is all supposed to be as fun for you as for the rest of the party, and you said it isn't anymore. It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign. This is the worst advice. Do not do this. If you're not having fun that's fine. Be an adult about it. Agreed. This can end friendships. I stand by my advice. Ending the campaign by killing the PCs can be a very reasonable thing to do. It gives closure.
I don't definitely think that's what the GM should do. I'm just saying it's an option, especially based on what the OP was saying that the party has been kind of crappy to him: challenging him on his rulings, not roleplaying, and making running the campaign not fun anymore.
The OP is describing friendships he can afford to lose, especially if they're going to walk out on him over that.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Artofregicide wrote: Cavall wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add that this is all supposed to be as fun for you as for the rest of the party, and you said it isn't anymore. It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign. This is the worst advice. Do not do this. If you're not having fun that's fine. Be an adult about it. Agreed. This can end friendships. I stand by my advice. Ending the campaign by killing the PCs can be a very reasonable thing to do. It gives closure.
I don't definitely think that's what the GM should do. I'm just saying it's an option, especially based on what the OP was saying that the party has been kind of crappy to him: challenging him on his rulings, not roleplaying, and making running the campaign not fun anymore.
The OP is describing friendships he can afford to lose, especially if they're going to walk out on him over that. I'll admit that we don't know the full situation, but what you're suggesting is solving out of game problems with in game solutions. This rarely, if ever, works.
If (big if) these are indeed friends you can afford to lose, just tell them like an adult that you aren't enjoying this and that you're not going to be running the campaign. Then let what happens happen.
Otherwise just talk with them like an adult.
The hobby doesn't need more RPG horror stories.
Artofregicide wrote: you're suggesting is solving out of game problems with in game solutions. I guess that's one way to look at it. They way I see it, the OP isn't having fun running anymore, so I'm telling him to think about stopping.
CuriousOctopus wrote: I am actually finding it not very fun to GM anymore. So what was my advice really?
I wrote: To Claxon's excellent advice I'd add For starters, I endorsed Claxon's advice that had lots of practical tips about how to re-balance the OP's campaign. But I'm also considering the possibility that maybe the answer is that he should stop running if it isn't fun anymore.
I wrote: It is perfectly legit for you to make one of them take their turn running your campaign or one of theirs. Or just TPK them an announce the end of your campaign. Here I'm just offering 3 options for stopping running: 1: let one of the other players run his campaign world; 2A: have one of the other players run their own campaign world; and 2B: make that happen by decisively ending your campaign (by killing all the PCs).
And I think all these options are legit depending on the details of the situation.
Actually, I think it's kind of funny that you characterize my advice as solving out-of-game problems with an in-game solution. The problem I'm talking about is purely an in-game problem: the OP isn't having fun, and I'm floating a solution that is also purely in-game: tagging someone else in to take over his campaign or ending ending his campaign.
It's you guys who are suggesting that my in-game solution will create out-of-game problems. Personally, I think maybe he should give that the chance to happen.
Cavall wrote: If you're not having fun that's fine. No sir: that is not fine at all that everyone is having fun at the table at the expense of the OP. The OP has feelings that should be respected.
Cavall wrote: Be an adult about it. Maybe the the players at the OPs table can be the adults and recognize and respect the OPs feelings!
Maybe the OP asserting that his feelings deserve respect, too is being an adult.
I guess we can endorse Mark Hoover's counsel:
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: I don't WANNA! *picks up books and knocks over folding table* Rocks fall, you all die... I'm going HOME! The grownup version of Mark Hoover's advice would just be to ghost the group, stop showing up, and if any of them reach out, the OP just says, "Nah, I'm not running anymore: y'all suck."
But I stand by my advice: seek in-game solutions to problems that problems that don't need to escalate out-of-game: fix the campaign with technical solutions like Claxon's or bow out by letting someone else run the same group of characters or making everyone else roll up new characters and make someone else run.
Adults take turns sometimes. In the OP's group, it might be time to have someone else take their turn GMing.
I use Khan's approach for this. Narrate non-threatening encounters and get on with the game. And I start that pretty early, it helps inform the players when an encounter isn't an experience granting encounter, and means I don't need stats for most of the population. You can ask what tactic they plan on using in the encounter if you aren't sure how it will play out.
While this sounds like the sort of thing that wouldn't be fun, my players seem to enjoy being told "Nothing in here seems to present a significant threat to you." They decide how they would win, and we move on. If that means the whole adventure is effectively non-combat, talk them through to the end of the adventure and move on to something that will challenge the party. You could even reference adventure paths that are beneath their power level as something they did during downtime.
All that said, keep in mind that the players actions inform how the plot unfolds. If they do something that's extremely effective, and they leave witnesses, they aught to expect to see their tactics pop up down the line. It may be worth while to have them catch a merchant acting shifty and realize their shopping history is being collected for some organized crime types, then using that as a hook for more targeted attacks against them. Fame is an unfortunate burden for the powerful.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott you seem to be misreading my statement. Or you're working hard to misread it. I'll adjust it.
Allow me to amend it so you can comprehend it better.
Its fine that the OP is not having fun and could end the game. His feelings count.
What is not fine is being a whiny little snot about it and saying "you all die haha the last laughs mine".
Be an adult.
OP, you want to stop? Go ahead. It's fine.
You think your time and the players time is worth more than quitting? Also fine. Even better because it means you're actually invested in not only your feeling but the players as well.
Talk to them and say you're not having fun trying to keep up to a one sided arms race you've no interest in racing in. That if down the road they want to play in a game that does this fine but that's not what this game was ever about.
But DO talk to them. The outcome can only be one of three things. The game ends, they fix it, or they dont fix it. And honestly if the third happens you still can do the first but without the stress of it.
But don't hand wave kill your players like somehow everyone will be ok with it. No one... NO ONE... has ever had a game end like that and said "gosh he was right well lesson learned."
You could end the campaign "early". Have the final boss show up. If you think he is a challenge to the party, fight like normal. If the final boss is too weak, then skip the fight and give the players the option of fighting something appropriate.
"While resting in a road side shrine you sense magic and hear an ominous laugh. As your party looks outside the shrine you can see the Necromancer Nezelbren has appeared 500' away from the shrine with several undead champions surrounding him. Off to the north you can see a skeletal dragon menacing in your direction."
Nezelbren says "Meddling 'heroes', I grow weary of your interference in my affairs. This ends...eh? what? Stop---" as his monologue is suddenly interrupted by the earth shaking and suddenly Nezelbren and his companions are swallowed whole by a massive creature.
Shocked by this sudden occurrence, the party fails to take action before the creature pulls itself from the earth. Some of you have seen drawings of this creature before. It is the legendary Tarrasque. You can all see the Tarrasque eyeing the undead dragon. What do you wish to do?
Cavall wrote: "you all die haha the last laughs mine".
Be an adult.
You're the only one advocating hand-wave-killing the whole party and being a little snot rather than an adult.
I'm saying that drawing the campaign to close by orchestrating a TPK is an option, and that is not at all the same thing as hand-wave-killing the party.
I think maybe it would be a good idea for you to address what I'm really saying instead of making strawmen.
Cavall wrote: But DO talk to them. I didn't think it was necessary to suggest talking. It's a TTRPG. Talking is involved.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: "you all die haha the last laughs mine".
Be an adult.
You're the only one advocating hand-wave-killing the whole party and being a little snot rather than an adult.
I'm saying that drawing the campaign to close by orchestrating a TPK is an option, and that is not at all the same thing as hand-wave-killing the party.
I think maybe it would be a good idea for you to address what I'm really saying instead of making strawmen. Scott Wilhelm wrote: Or just TPK them an(d) announce the end of your campaign. I fail to see the difference. Rocks fall vs. a more protracted but still railroaded TPK is just a matter of dragging it out. Given a choice, I'd pick the former one the latter.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: But DO talk to them. I didn't think it was necessary to suggest talking. It's a TTRPG. Talking is involved.
This is a diversion. No one is confused about what is meant by talking.
Unless you're saying that it's assumed that adult, respectful communication is a part of all TTRPG groups. In which case your naive optimism is admirable but sadly far from the truth.
But to (again) answer the OP:
If you want to continue playing with these people, talk to them about how you feel and work something out (adjust the campaign, change GMs, start a new campaign with less martials available, etc.) or just tell them you're not having fun and just cancel entirely. Don't show up to another session, and definitely don't flip the table like a jerk.
It's very possible that your players don't know how you feel. And if they do know and don't care, then you probably don't want to keep associating with them.
It staggers me how much bad advice can be found on threads like this one.
Artofregicide wrote: I fail to see the difference. Rocks fall vs. a more protracted but still railroaded TPK is just a matter of dragging it out. Given a choice, I'd pick the former one the latter. Suit yourself. I would have the OP do the same.
Artofregicide wrote: This is a diversion. No one is confused about what is meant by talking. Then you agree with me: it didn't need to be said.
Artofregicide wrote: It staggers me how much bad advice can be found on threads like this one. You have to bear in mind that most people who offer advice don't really do a thorough job conveying the real situation. People who relate a conflict can only relate things from their perspective, and the best they can do at being fair is to openly consider the possible ways in which they are being unfair. Some people just want a sympathetic ear and validation for their feelings, and they don't want advice in the classical sense at all.
When I give advice, I try to consider it from multiple angles, including the angle of imperfect reporting from the OP. At the same time, I try to give the best advice to the OP even considering.
In this case, I decided to lay out different options, and you and Cavall for some reason seem to be focusing and dogpiling on a single option that I floated. You also seem to be reading a lot into what I'm saying.
I don't know that that option is the best option. I just think it is a possible and reasonable option given the situation as reported on by the OP. You are leaning in another direction, fine, but I don't see any justification for your certitude.
I wrote: I don't know that that option is the best option. I just think it is a possible and reasonable option given the situation as reported on by the OP. Artofregicide wrote: I fail to see the difference. Rocks fall vs. a more protracted but still railroaded TPK is just a matter of dragging it out. Given a choice, I'd pick the former one the latter. So, given a choice, I'd rather have closure to a campaign than have it just end in mid-adventure. And a TPK can definitely grant closure. Nothing says closure like death. And given a choice, I'd rather have that scene gamed out rather than have the campaign dropped.
Artofregicide wrote: This can end friendships. There is good reason to think it won't do anything of the kind. The OP is describing players that are all about minmaxing and powerbuilding characters and manipulating game mechanics to get higher numbers.
CuriousOctopus wrote: They have grown obsessed with playing by the numbers (there is a Bench Pressing chart somewhere for benchmarks). It sounds to me that these guys are treating their characters like game pieces, and might not be emotionally attached to them at all. Maybe they see encounters as a bunch of tactical puzzles to solve, and so ending the campaign with the GM hitting them with a puzzle they can't solve might be a wonderful experience for them: failure is a better teacher than success.
Or maybe they are just on some kind of childish power-trip using dice as a metaphor for sexual potency or something, in which case there's no reason for the GM not to go out on a power-trip of his own, taking his own turn at winning at D&D, and if the players are like grownups, they should recognize the OP should get a turn at that sometimes. And if they can't, then good riddance.
But again, there is a lot about the OP's situation that we can only conjecture about.
If the GM isn't having fun, it's not a good game. Full stop.
You're the one putting all kinds of work into this. You're the one trying to deal with the complexity of a whole system and the cognative load of a whole reality. Everyone should be having fun, but your fun counts for more. Full stop.
Talk to them. Figure something out, whether it's adjusting the current game, starting a new one or finding a new group.
How I'd handle it: after I talked with everyone and decided we wanted to keep going, I'd throw out the AP and make something myself. After reading up on the more subtle points of encounter design.
There will have to be conjecture as I am not going to go into detailed specifics. As mentioned I have not yet decided how to approach this with my players but suffice it to say them reading about it would not be top of the list
They are attached to their characters but it is not clear how much of that is the longevity of them and how effective they have made them or attached to the actual character and their story. Potentially a mixed bag there
I don't think they are pure min maxed power gamers. They have kind of accidentally stumbled into it and then got a bit hooked on the numbers...!
Thanks for the help so far. A real interesting mix of advice.
I was interested at home many suggest just ending. I don't think the current AP volume really lends itself to that. Some APs have lots of jumping off points that can make sense with minor modding. Not all do
I might reply and address some specific replies. Would probably have to be multiple replies as I do not know how to add multiple quotes to one post
1st level scenarios have a similar problem with an optimized team, but maybe not to the same extreme.
Good plot, interesting NPC’s, and an ambitious goal for the party to accomplish still make for great games. I think the comments above have great advice to achieve each of these as you see the table needs it.
You have been given some good general advice from others. Given the parameters of "no specifics" and "I don't want to just end it" my general advice would be try to rework the AP to skip to the end in as few sessions as possible. Get them fighting into the sections of the AP meant for higher levels and see how they do.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Stop feeding the troll.
That is all.
I have for the most part done home brew and made a mistake once. They PCs ended up being obscenely wealthy could have bought a country with what they had. So magic items was not an issue. Their stats started off high we didn't roll we had stats ranging from 18 on down. Then to make matters worse I screwed up in adding a half fiend template to them. They were becoming devils. For the longest time the party slaughtered everything.
My solution was to talk to my group. They helped since they wanted the campaign to keep going. They had no issue with the monsters being tougher without an increase in treasure or CR. They realized they were powerful and were starting to lose interest in fights. They wanted a challenge themselves. No one argued about it implementing the changes. It took a bit of work but we ended up going to 18th level before retiring. We were mythic by then and did kill a demigod without much trouble.
gnoams wrote: Stop feeding the troll.
That is all.
Sage advice.
Artofregicide wrote: The hobby doesn't need more RPG horror stories. Sure it does. I liked playing in Ravenloft. It doesn't need Player horror stories.
As to the OP, check WBL. At +50%, they are powerful. At +75% ir is probably +1CR. As double, it is probably +2CR.
As stated before, 20-point buy is more powerful than 15=point. I would say +1CR. 25-point buy is probably +2CR or +3CR.
Also, audit how they get their AC, saves, and spell DCs. It is easy to make mistakes here, especially if they are stacking multiple bonuses. There are a lot that don't stack.
/cevah
If it were me I would let my group know I was getting sick of running the game and see if any of the players have any bright ideas on how to make it work for everyone.
If that doesn’t yield a good solution then I would tell them that I’m finishing up early and then skip to the end of the adventure path. I would make sure they get at least one truly epic final battle that was really challenging and then wrap it up.
Go the other way. Apply the young template to everything, or any other weakening template you can, and let the players "win". Make it so the only way anything happens to the PCs is on a nat one or nat twenty, everything else is just the monsters flailing uselessly against their vastly superior stats.
Either the players will enjoy it or they'll get bored of it, but at least you won't have to keep up the arms race, and you can focus on the story elements you enjoy.
Hahaha, I love the above post. Because I think we have a LOT of smart people on the forums, but I'd like to point out that none of us asked the OP what makes the OP excited to GM and what elements of a game he/she likes to focus on.
For me, I DEFINITELY like to tactically challenge my players; but I've also really pushed to create an interesting story with a lot of mystery elements as well as allow the PCs to develop relationships with an array of NPCs. So if the OP is revealing that they like giving challenging combats to the players, then yes pretty much all the above advice applies.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It seems to me the OP doesn’t actually know what they want, if they did the decision would be easy.
They don’t want to stop the game because they have invested too much time in it, but they don’t want to continue because it is getting too hard and therefore not fun. They want to be true to the AP even though that isn’t working. In a nutshell they have painted themselves into a corner where they can’t continue, stop or change.
They have reached this impasse because they are trying to keep their players happy, which is fair enough and I respect that. But now it is time for the players to reciprocate and make it fun for their GM.
My advice to the OP: make this your players problem to solve.
|
