|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don’t HAVE to do any of that. Many GMs, myself included abandoned the idea of experience points a long time ago. We keep the levels consistent across all the characters in the group and just have them level up at opportune times, often after accomplishing a significant goal, like defeating a boss enemy. This allows you to much more easily adjust for attendance of the fly.
This isn’t so much an issue with the rules, which are all optional at the discretion of the GM, as it is an issue with your adaptation of the rules to the specifics of your gaming group. One of the fundamental rules of RPG going back to the founder (Gygax) is that your rules should never interfere with telling a good story or enjoying the game. If they do, you need to change or abandon the rules that are causing the problems.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your gaming group is destroying your gaming group.
Having the party level slower doesn't change encounter balance. Not sure what you are looking for there (that was an awful idea in 3.5, 5e and pf1e too, and never what the systems recommended as a balance tool as you were always meant to scale up encounters which had their exp shared... same thing pf2e does just in a different way).
Why in gods name did you give them NPCs if they had characters? Just run it as is and accept it wasn't what you planned, heck throw in some extra mooks or bump some health if you think it is going to be too easy for the tension.
Pro tip, design the encounters for 6 and just note down what can be swapped out / removed to drop the challenge down. Personally I would only bother distinguishing between 4 and 6 players and just go with encounters scaled for 4 for 5 if it was rarer.
A programmer, for a roll20 macro? Why didn't you offer to do it for them when they expressed concern? And if they quit that easily they weren't enjoying other elements. Were they feeling forced into using the elemental weapons?... maybe give them something that was less complex magic weapon wise, or give them a reason to use something else. Heck don't throw things with too mant resistances or just note down which of the dice in order are the elements. E.g a striking longsword with two elemental property runes fire and ice. 4d6, the third d6 is fire the fourth ice. Done you don't have to ask anything, or if it is an person roll and it is causing slowdown just say (this monster is resistant to xxx don't roll your element dice of xxx against it, as at high levels resistance is essentially immunity for most runes)
Gotta say this, and this isn't to defend PF2e, but the multitude of issues presented above suggest you need to talk to your players more and hash out some solutions. A GM to player disconnect issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like a player issue over a game system issue. That whole situation sounds like something I wouldn't even tolerate as a DM. I'd just let whoever wanted to leave, leave, and run with those that will show up on time, ready to play, and not when they feel like it. I don't see how you had trouble calculating damage unless they guy was adding everything together, which is his own fault. He should have a different colored die for each type of damage. If he isn't willing to do that, the he doesn't get to use all those runes. You can't let players run over you trying to max out their damage without applying the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... if a player is making 6 attacks per round, each of which has 4 elemental components, something is either wrong, or the party is level 20.
(It's technically almost doable with a ranger, getting impossible flurry and slapping on some weapon runes - at level 18. No idea where you're getting 4 weapon runes though unless you have some kind of epic-tier artifact. Remember that you can only have as many runes as you have fundamental potency runes AKA the +X)
As for levelling... just have everyone at the same level, and spare yourself from tracking experience if you have a spotty group. 2E has the closest to an exp system I'd actually want to use in any d20 RPG I've ever played - and I still use milestones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have said, you probably made a mistake by giving the two players NPCs to play. Having fun is more important than having a perfect encounter balance; but there may have been other factors at play that we don't know about.
About the damage dealer player, 6+ attacks per turn sound a little strange, just like their reaction to the macro thing.
But in general, I wonder what 'very high level play' would have done to the group in PF1. Talk about the game slowing down...
|
Yeah, this sounds like a player entitlement problem rather than a 2E problem.
Two of your players quit because they wouldn't tell you when they were showing up, which meant you couldn't prepare properly. Then they quit when you tried to solve the problem they caused. Giving the NPC character sheets wasn't the right solution, though.
Then the final player was slowing down gameplay but got angry when you suggested a simple solution (no, you don't need to be a programmer to use a macro.) Although I don't think y'all were playing RAW if he had 6+ attacks per round.
Well technically it's possible to do 6 attacks with Fighter at lvl 14 or 16 I think.
Double Slice + Two Weapon Flurry + Hasted Strike + Desperate Finisher.
But anyway, that looks more like communication problem and players not interested at all in the game at first place.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What system were you playing before that the group suddenly getting 50% larger didn't require you to change anything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you dont have a schedule, or get a sudden free day.
That doesn't excuse the rudeness of showing up unannounced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am saying doing it once, is not something that should cause problems.
If it happens often that is another matter.
And I, as a GM and a host, am saying that doing it even once causes problems and is rude.
Whether or not you believe it "should" cause problems, is irrelevant. Your fantasy world where it 'shouldn't' cause problems collides with the reality that it does. And reality wins.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Under what circumstances would you not know until the very start of the game that you can attend? Even half an hour is enough time to notify the GM you will attend. I’ve seen people sitting down to play and suddenly get called away because of an unforeseen emergency, but rarely in the reverse. There is an almost zero chance that you cannot provide some advance notice and if it happens more than once (especially frequently) then you are not respecting the GM or other players. Most people don’t have the time or interest in dealing with disrespectful players
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested by the claim it doesn't. The idea is that if the PCs are levelling more slowly, they will eventually be facing encounters meant for PCs of higher level (this is assuming they're playing APs) which will be harder, to counter the substantial advantage of having more PCs and more actions per round.
I have never been the GM of our group, but I can tell you that this assumption does not work.
A writer will design encounters with abilities in mind, that a properly levelled party ought to have. An under-levelled party won't have the feats or spells required and the extra man-power isn't going to fix that.
It is much easier to beef up encounters by adding extra mooks and/or making the existing encounter stronger by adding some extra HP. Although that does not make up for the shift in action economy.
Because the interaction of those PCs with the others was much more complex than could be resolved by that. Simply adding extra mooks tended to just result in the party tank going down more often rather than the extra PCs being affected.
There is a limit to how many attackers can pile onto a single combatant, at least if your players are smart about staying in formation. Plus, dealing with large(r) numbers of mooks is what arcane casters excell at. Fireball away!
If the tank goes down, but the extra PCs are not affected, how come? Do the mooks not busy wailing on the tank twiddle their thumbs? Maybe let them throw some spears at the 2nd line casters for a change. Spread the love (and the damage!) around a bit. Also vindicates the casters actually casting Mage Armour and Shield.
... he wasn't necessarily enjoying just ending every encounter anyway.
Yeah but seriously, that guy brought it upon himself. First he totally twinks out his damage, and then he complains that he can just 'end encounters'? Talk about self-defeating optimisation! If he wants fights to be not boring, maybe tune it down with the damage a notch or three. Sounds like a problem player to me, honestly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(It's technically almost doable with a ranger, getting impossible flurry and slapping on some weapon runes - at level 18. No idea where you're getting 4 weapon runes though unless you have some kind of epic-tier artifact. Remember that you can only have as many runes as you have fundamental potency runes AKA the +X)
Orichalcum weapons have an extra rune slot, but that would mean the player in question is at least level 18.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of my groups, in both PF1 and 2, and even in other systems we play, have used milestone leveling for many years now. It saves on time and effort to figure out exact XP totals based on the number of PCs vs the number of enemies. Just use the current level you are on until the GM says "Ok, you've reached a good point in the adventure/killed enough enemies, so come to the next game with your characters leveled up. Email me or call me if you want to do something out of the ordinary."If the party has a regular member that missed the session where the level up announcement was made, but was with the party for most of the rest of the sessions, the GM can call/email them with the same message.
I'm interested by the claim it doesn't. The idea is that if the PCs are levelling more slowly, they will eventually be facing encounters meant for PCs of higher level (this is assuming they're playing APs) which will be harder, to counter the substantial advantage of having more PCs and more actions per round.
Because the balance will only shift every time the characters level, and outside of that they will still run into issues when the party is only four players in size. So say there is a group of 6 for three sessions and then they level up, then there is a group of 4 for another 4 weeks after that. They will run into the issue where when they are a group of 4 they will be lower level because of the period they played with 6 players. This issue becomes worse and worse with time.
Running an adventure path you will also have issues where characters are expected to have certain abilities and the adventure will be awarding items of a higher level than they would normally have access to. Creating an awful balance in all three editions I mentioned.
Again, 3.x/pf1e systems and even 5e give scaling encounters as their guidelines, neither recommend the hands off approach you wanted to take. Although both tabletop systems allow for more cheese and game breaking elements than PF2e does so an optimised character can more easily carry with that approach.
Because the interaction of those PCs with the others was much more complex than could be resolved by that. Simply adding extra mooks tended to just result in the party tank going down more often rather than the extra PCs being affected.
Don't have them focus on the tank? also there is near no reason that additional level -3 and level -4 mooks would result in THAT much more of a negative experience other than some extra bodies to soak up divided hits and target other characters.
Do you really think it was worth essentially sidelining the players and have them leave for your ideals? Because as you wrote it doesn't sound like they left because they thought the NPC idea was a great one and worth it.
I did, but we're playing the AoA AP. It's the designers giving those combinations of elemental resistances.
You are the GM, adjust if the player is struggling or find a new player if you refuse to adjust. As I mentioned, there are many solutions to this issue that involve talking with the player if it is that much of an issue for them and the group's pacing.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not normally one to call for threads getting closed, but this is a pretty 'click-bait'y title that has already started to diverge. The idea that the system is destroying OP's game group is clearly hyperbole, and I'm not sure much can be said beyond the fact that this seems like it's born from table issues that need to be resolved between GM and players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who routinely juggles a party from 4-7 players, I have a suggestion. Instead of writing an encounter for X players, and hoping that’s who comes, what you can do (and is recommended in the book) is writing the encounter for the core 4 players, and then each additional player adds XP to the Budget. It doesnt change the encounter XP, just the budget.
For example, a moderate encounter gives 80xp. Regardless of the number of players, it will give 80xp. The core encounter will be two even level PL creatures. Now each additional player adds 20xp to the budget, but that should relate to additional creatures per additional player. So for each player beyond 4, you have 2 PL-4’s or an additional PL-2. It could be a relevant creature or a trap. Alternatively, you can increase the budget by applying the elite template to a creature for an additional player. Same encounter above, except you get 6 players instead of 4 - they’re now the same monster but each is elite. xp remains 80 as the encounter is still moderate. Simple enough :)
This is what I do constantly in my games. Knowing the elite/weak template by heart helps tremendously. In my notes I've gotten to the point where I usually just say "Moderate" or "Severe" and I build it once they get there, depending on who's there.
|
I'm not normally one to call for threads getting closed, but this is a pretty 'click-bait'y title that has already started to diverge. The idea that the system is destroying OP's game group is clearly hyperbole, and I'm not sure much can be said beyond the fact that this seems like it's born from table issues that need to be resolved between GM and players.
I have to agree. I do not see how this is a function of the actual game.
I recommend having a sit down with the players and state what your concerns are up front and then allow all of them to freely speak out there concerns and observations and let them finish before saying anything. Take notes and actively listen. You may not have the answers right then and there but reflective thinking can be a tremendous help. You will need to not be defensive in your responses.
I am a huge fan of 1E and 2E and the flexibility it gives players and GMs.
Your gaming group is destroying your gaming group.
THIS.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the OP is a troll. They have a long history of legitimate posts. Many of which were in book 6 of Age of Ashes, implying they actually are running level 18+ right now.
But I think the OP, like many GMs, has fallen into the trap of posting on the internet when they should be talking to their players. And their players, like many players do, have waited for frustrations to pile up and quit in a huff rather than discuss them with their GM.
COMMUNICATION IS KEY, PEOPLE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play something else.
No game is right for every group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will come off a bit harsh, but I think it's worth being honest here.
Your gaming group is destroying your gaming group.
This isn't a problem of the groups making, it is a problem of the GM's making.
The XP budget issue of having to scale from four players, to six players, and back is amply addressed in the CRB. The guidance needed to, as other people pointed out, quickly update an encounter on the fly is readily available.
The issue was not the inconsistency of those two players presence at game, the issue was the response of hectoring them over whether or not they would be appearing, and not allowing them to play their own characters when they did.
The issue with the damage runes and having to calculate the damage wasn't that you had to slow play down to figure it out, the issue was that the response to having to slow down was to ask the player to take personal responsibility for it an create a macro to speed play back up. Basically saying: "You slowed down play, you fix it." Which is understandably frustrating for the player.
None of the issues described here were player facing, and the players were forced into a position of having to resolve issues they weren't experiencing. The GM saw issues affecting them and responded by trying to mitigate those issues through delegation and directive rather than simply discussing the issues with the players.
My recommendation to the OP is to discuss these concerns with your players and discuss whether the issues they perceived as a problem really were a problem for the players themselves and discuss how to address them as a group.
The thread title changed! ('o')!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will come off a bit harsh, but I think it's worth being honest here.
Your gaming group is destroying your gaming group.This isn't a problem of the groups making, it is a problem of the GM's making.
The XP budget issue of having to scale from four players, to six players, and back is amply addressed in the CRB. The guidance needed to, as other people pointed out, quickly update an encounter on the fly is readily available.
The issue was not the inconsistency of those two players presence at game, the issue was the response of hectoring them over whether or not they would be appearing, and not allowing them to play their own characters when they did.
The issue with the damage runes and having to calculate the damage wasn't that you had to slow play down to figure it out, the issue was that the response to having to slow down was to ask the player to take personal responsibility for it an create a macro to speed play back up. Basically saying: "You slowed down play, you fix it." Which is understandably frustrating for the player.
None of the issues described here were player facing, and the players were forced into a position of having to resolve issues they weren't experiencing. The GM saw issues affecting them and responded by trying to mitigate those issues through delegation and directive rather than simply discussing the issues with the players.
My recommendation to the OP is to discuss these concerns with your players and discuss whether the issues they perceived as a problem really were a problem for the players themselves and discuss how to address them as a group.
Gonna disagree on some of this. While I grant you it sounds like the GM probably did a poor job of handling it, neither of their requests are unreasonable. For most social events, being a maybe is socially acceptable. But pathfinder is really something that falls for everyone being on the same page schedule wise. Imagine if this was a standard 4 person group. If two players don't show up, you might as well not play. Even in a larger group, it calls for rebalancing encounters and potentially explaining why a character just popped out of existence.
There's nothing unreasonable about doing a roll call and asking if people will be coming. There are certainly reasons why a player couldn't tell you until the last minute, but we don't actually have any of those reasons mentioned here.
And damage rolling slowing down the game is very much in the player. It may not be a big deal to the other players, but it can drain the energy from a game. And there are some easy ways to help fix this particular problem using different colored dice in real life, and it is basically the default way to do it in roll20.
Now if the player doesn't know how to do that on roll20, you should offer to help or do it for them. But asking the player to figure out a thing isn't a big ask given how much work he GM does.
Gonna disagree on some of this. While I grant you it sounds like the GM probably did a poor job of handling it, neither of their requests are unreasonable. For most social events, being a maybe is socially acceptable. But pathfinder is really something that falls for everyone being on the same page schedule wise. Imagine if this was a standard 4 person group. If two players don't show up, you might as well not play. Even in a larger group, it calls for rebalancing encounters and potentially explaining why a character just popped out of existence.
Your example of a standard four player party where one night two players simply don’t show up is worlds away from the OP’s description of a 6 person group with four consistent players and two intermittent players. OP treats this as an historical condition of their game group because they describe the way they dealt with this issue in multiple other systems before playing a couple dozen levels of PF2.
If you know you have two players who might or might not be available when you begin playing PF2 and you don’t take the time to familiarize yourself with the scalability of encounters in the game so that you can adjust for the nights those players cannot attend - that is on you. Adding insult to injury by forcing the player to play an NPC the night they showed up and you weren’t prepared for them? Come on.
And damage rolling slowing down the game is very much in the player. It may not be a big deal to the other players, but it can drain the energy from a game. And there are some easy ways to help fix this particular problem using different colored dice in real life, and it is basically the default way to do it in roll20.
Now if the player doesn't know how to do that on roll20, you should offer to help or do it for them. But asking the player to figure out a thing isn't a big ask given how much work he GM does.
You talk with the player about the issue and discuss ways to work through it, you don’t ask them to do something that they do not know how to do. The OP’s description of what happened clearly demonstrates that the player was uncomfortable - either by the request itself or the way in which the request was made.
I agree that players have a role in making the game happen as well, I agree that there are expectations all around. I run a weekly PF2 campaign for a large player base, not everyone can always make it, and if there aren’t enough players we don’t play. The difference is I know my group, I build for a baseline encounter and I expand from there if more players end up showing up. I’m ready if someone shows up unexpectedly, because the base guidance in the core book gave me the materials I need to be able to adjust encounters. The Bestiary gave me another series of tools I can use for the same purpose.
OP has access to the same tools.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point I'm making isn't that the GM didn't mess up-- they clearly did. My point is your original post is dismissive of the issues which led to the messing up, issues that are real and on the player. The GM made a really bad decision with assigning those players NPCs, but the players not saying they are coming (given how often they don't) also strikes me as particularly rude. All it really takes is a "omw" text.
It feels much the same as showing up to a dinner party unannounced. Yeah, you can make adjustments to accommodate the person, but now you are scrambling to do at the last minute. That may be easy to do-- if an encounter uses lots of low level minions, for example, or you happened to cook enough food to feed another person. But it also might be hard to do-- if only cooked enough for those that RSVP'ed or you are running a severe solo boss where having minions can't be justified.
You and I agree that communication is the real problem here, I think. And we have pretty good evidence the GM struggles with this, based on how misleading their thread title was to their actual content. But communication is a two way street and we don't have any reason to think the players were especially good about it either. The only evidence we have about them either way is 2 suck at communicating their attendance.
But yes, giving those players NPCs was a horrible judgement call.
The point I'm making isn't that the GM didn't mess up-- they clearly did. My point is your original post is dismissive of the issues which led to the messing up issues that are real and on the player. The GM made a really bad decision with assigning those players NPCs, but the players not saying they are coming (given how often they don't) also strikes me as particularly rude. All it really takes is a "omw" text.
Rudeness is not a problem with the game system and it isn't a problem with the encounter adjustments, nor is it the topic of this thread. You may feel it is indecorous of those players to behave that way - but that isn't the topic that the OP addressed or that I replied to.
It feels much the same as showing up to a dinner party unannounced.
No, it actually doesn't. This isn't like the players showing up to a dinner party unannounced and there isn't enough food, this is like there is plenty of food to go around, but because they're unannounced they're forced to sit at the childrens table rather than the empty chairs at the main table. Stop making sympathy for the devil alternate arguments that are apples to the oranges the OP brought us. We don't have to invent alternate versions of the scenario so that everyone gets the finger wagged at them equally.
. But communication is a two way street and we don't have any reason to think the players were especially good about it either. The only evidence we have about them either way is 2 suck at communicating their attendance.
We don't have any reason to think the players were especially bad about it. The OP tells us they worked around this in other systems and because of the challenges in this system (which aren't really challenges) they had to "beg them to find out when they were coming." We're not given a clear idea of what kind of timeline that "begging" was done in. They could mean they had to beg them for a roll call announcement the week of game, or they could mean they had to beg them to try to notify of their entire months availability so the OP could plan ahead. We don't know and we're not given the context clues to do anything but make an inference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also just not make any adjustment. So the severe solo boss is now a bit easier. As long as a good story was told, it's fine. You could even preface things by saying "I wasn't really prepped to run the 6 of you, so we'll just see how this goes." It might even go well, which would take the pressure off the DM for future prep sessions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I can't think of many things that would get you kicked from my table faster than being a no-show without either announcing it in advance or having a seriously good reason. Showing up unannounced is similar - I've never had it happen but it almost seems worse to me.
You may not feel the same way Dirtypool, but I consider it to be one of the most disrespectful and disruptive things a player can possibly do.
As a GM, I can't think of many things that would get you kicked from my table faster than being a no-show without either announcing it in advance or having a seriously good reason.
Sure, but that is not what the OP said happened. The OP said they had a known issue with two players who could only play intermittently and had worked around it before playing Pathfinder 2. It only became an issue to them because of their lack of familiarity with the process of adjusting an encounter.
Let's stop applying our own personal opinions about etiquette to what the OP said and respond the OP's statements at face value because we're given no context from which to draw further information.
You may not feel the same way Dirtypool, but I consider it to be one of the most disrespectful and disruptive things a player can possibly do.
I really don't see how "hey guys, good to see you, turns out I can play after all" is particularly disrespectful. Certainly not "one of the most" disrespectful things someone could do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rudeness is not a problem with the game system and it isn't a problem with the encounter adjustments, nor is it the topic of this thread. You may feel it is indecorous of those players to behave that way - but that isn't the topic that the OP addressed or that I replied to.
I never said it was? But it IS what you accused the OP of when you said: "the issue was the response of hectoring them over whether or not they would be appearing" and "the issue was that the response to having to slow down was to ask the player to take personal responsibility for it an create a macro to speed play back up. Basically saying: "You slowed down play, you fix it." Which is understandably frustrating for the player."
How are those not critiques of etiquette? Serious question.
I never said it was? But it IS what you accused the OP of when you said: "the issue was the response of hectoring them over whether or not they would be appearing" and "the issue was that the response to having to slow down was to ask the player to take personal responsibility for it an create a macro to speed play back up. Basically saying: "You slowed down play, you fix it." Which is understandably frustrating for the player."
How are those not critiques of etiquette? Serious question.
They are, but they are critiques of the GM's etiquette based on the information that the GM gave us. I am not making any judgements about the players etiquette because the GM did not give me enough information to do so.
The rudeness of the players is not the topic at hand, because we don't have enough information to know if they acted rudely. We do have information to know that the GM did.
Making inferences so that we can judge the players against our own personal bugbears over etiquette based solely on the limited information provided is presumptuous, and unfair to people who are not in this forum to defend themselves.