Stereotypically, this topic comes up when someone's significant other joins the game. You'll also see it with best friends, longtime partymates vs. newcomers, or old GMs with younger players "ruining" their table. Either someone is getting preferential treatment, or someone else is getting the shaft.
It doesn't have to be heavy-handed "rocks fall and you die" type stuff either. Close rules calls might always go well for one player and not another. Prerequisites might get ignored one way and stringently enforced for someone else. It can even be something as simple as monsters that just happen to attack the disfavored player first.
My question to the board is this: When you encounter GM favoritism out in the wild, how do you deal with it as a player? How do you know if it's "real" or just in your head? And if you're a GM who's been accused of this, what's the best way to respond?
|
It partially boils down to how strong the player is vs the rest of the party.
For example a wizard starting with 20 int is still an amazing option, even without access to the spell blood money, or the feat Varisian tattoo, or wayang spell hunter. Because they don't know any runelords, aren't from varisia, and especially not from the region for that trait.
Maybe the not min maxed rogue could take a religion trait for something it normally shouldn't. like Lessons of Chaldira, despite worshiping something else.
Sometimes it comes down to inter-party balance and keeping 1 person from outshining the rest of the group.
Sometimes it's for the GMs own sanity.
Abusing animate dead to make cr11 monsters at 7th level because of artifical caster level shenanigans, probably isn't fun for anyone else at the table
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lampshade it mercilessly. Make a joke of it. Point it out every time it happens and laugh about it. They'll figure it out, especially if you constantly point out how implausible something is.
Knowing it's real? System mastery and the ability to recognize patterns. Like if random thug #569483 who tried to rob the party would rather try to stab someone on the ground instead of fleeing when he is low on HP. Or animals/mindless creatures using advanced tactics.
As a GM? I've never been accused of favoritism but I would address it and ask for the group's opinion on how to do better.
For example a wizard starting with 20 int is still an amazing option, even without access to the spell blood money, or the feat Varisian tattoo, or wayang spell hunter. Because they don't know any runelords, aren't from varisia, and especially not from the region for that trait.Maybe the not min maxed rogue could take a religion trait for something it normally shouldn't. like Lessons of Chaldira, despite worshiping something else.
No offence meant, but stuff like this really grinds my gears. Rules should always be applied equally and houserules should always be upfront. If there is a rules judication then that's the way it should be if it comes up again for everyone.
"Flavor" is no metric for balance. It's also really really really stupid. It assumes that despite all the cultural crosspollination that none of it has occurred. It assumes that there is no simultaneous invention. Literally the justification for Wayang Spellhunter is "You used magic a lot while hunting." WOW SUCH FLAVOR. Nobody else in the whole world uses magic to fight/hunt/kill regularly! Blood Money is one of the oldest story tropes known to man. Blood sacrifice as a component.
Ban problematic stuff if you need to like Blood Money, but don't pretend it's for flavor.
My most recent encounter with this was husband GM (veteran)/wife player (newish.)
It was him allowing her to make overtly heroic skill checks, attack tactics & maneuvers that should have taken levels, feats and pretty damn high DC's. He'd not deny her because by her logic, her PC *should be able to do this* and he'd (long before I got there) gave up trying to set standards to prevent arguing because she would not relent.
"Happy wife, happy life."
My response to GM favoritism has been to run experiments in the game to see if the favoritism is real, then treat the favoritism as a real in world effect if it exists.
The only time I ever really had a problem with it was when it was irregular. A DM who isn't part of our regular group singled out a party member for either extremely lenient or extremely strict rules decisions based on how he was feeling at the moment. One session the player could ignore negative modifiers and have access to abilities that were usually locked behind feats, and the next game she'd lose access to class abilities that had worked fine before because now they didn't make sense. My character and her character had substantial overlap in abilities so it was obvious when the DM flipped the switch.
More typically favoritism results in my characters having superstitious beliefs about how things should be done. I had a DM who had it out for one of the other players, and this meant my spells were much more effective if they hurt him. The DM would boost the DC or give damage bonuses explaining that the room was too small to successfully save or that water became electrically charged or something similar. This resulted in my character believing that the other PC was some sort of magical conduit and referring to him as such. It's also been fairly frequent that a DM will only allow successful social skill checks from certain players, or from NPCs, but you just learn who is "good" at those checks and push them to the front of the group.
If you're a player suffering from the GM favouring other players in the group and it is adversely affecting your enjoyment of the game then I suggest you take it up privately out of session with the GM. Be courteous and back your arguments up with examples and listen to the GM's explanation. Chances are they may not realise they are doing it or they may think he is giving everyone breaks, or is trying to even up a mismatched group. In any event it is important that you don't put the GM on the defensive and make them feel they have to justify themselves to you and the other players; you don't want a bad vibe at the table.
Hopefully, the conversation will have been constructive and you no longer feel frustrated by favouritism, real or perceived. But if it continues then you can graciously leave the group having already aired your grievances in a non-destructive manner.
For example a wizard starting with 20 int is still an amazing option, even without access to the spell blood money, or the feat Varisian tattoo, or wayang spell hunter. Because they don't know any runelords, aren't from varisia, and especially not from the region for that trait.Maybe the not min maxed rogue could take a religion trait for something it normally shouldn't. like Lessons of Chaldira, despite worshiping something else.
No offence meant, but stuff like this really grinds my gears. Rules should always be applied equally and houserules should always be upfront. If there is a rules judication then that's the way it should be if it comes up again for everyone.
"Flavor" is no metric for balance. It's also really really really stupid. It assumes that despite all the cultural crosspollination that none of it has occurred. It assumes that there is no simultaneous invention. Literally the justification for Wayang Spellhunter is "You used magic a lot while hunting." WOW SUCH FLAVOR. Nobody else in the whole world uses magic to fight/hunt/kill regularly! Blood Money is one of the oldest story tropes known to man. Blood sacrifice as a component.
Ban problematic stuff if you need to like Blood Money, but don't pretend it's for flavor.
Hm, I suppose cultural cross pollination is a decent reason to explain why a first level character has a) a unique spell developed by a powerful wizard from a long lost, essentially unknown civilization b) a very significant tattoo from a insular culture c) experience with the methods of a exceptionally rare and insular ancestry (race) all at 1st level. Despite having zero connection or exposure to any of said cultures. This isn't even about balance - it's about making a character not a carbon copy of some guide on the forums.
, but what was really stupid again? :)
|
I have one player who is convinced my dice hate him and that they more frequently roll higher against him than against anyone else at the table.
On that aside topic. I have a problem with anyone trying to enforce setting restrictions on game options like that. Let other players write their own stories please, don't try to force your own interpretation of the lore on someone else.
On that aside topic. I have a problem with anyone trying to enforce setting restrictions on game options like that. Let other players write their own stories please, don't try to force your own interpretation of the lore on someone else.
K, gonna take Aboleth's Lung for my human sorcerer who has never seen or even heard of an Aboleth, has no connection to Aboleth or Gillmen, and just want the spell because it's OP.
Because telling me I can't is "just your interpretation of the lore, man" and "restricting options". I don't care that it's an uncommon racial spell.
I'm also gonna take Deific Obedience and be an atheist.
Sounds fun, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who believes my dice have it in for him. Actually, I think most of the gaming group we both belong to thinks that. I dont believe they think I personally have a grudge against this player's characters, but they definitely are superstitious about the dice. I can even see where they are coming from. His PCs do seem to soak up a lot of the crits and do seem to be more often than random chance would allow the targets of dangerous attacks on those infrequent occasions when the targets are randomly determined between two or more party members.
From my point of view, what the players miss is that this particular gamer, when not playing an arcane caster, not only has a predilection for making PCs with high AC values that can very often only be hit on a crit (he gets missed far more often than he gets hit) or a successful grapple attempt by a grapplemonster (some APs are full of them), but is the guy who often acts as the party tank, thus putting his characters in the chaos of frontline melee combat far more than most of the others. Add to that a desire to be the character who is taking the lead or sometimes even scouting ahead and a disinclination to "play it safe", and there is no need for my dice to be imbued with a grudge. A player who puts his PC in harm's way will occasionally get harmed.
Of course, there is a reason he tends to play more martial characters than not these days. One of the events pointed to as proof of the "dice curse" happened years ago when he was not playing a martial character, but instead a fragile wizard whose brains were dashed out by a bugbear warband leader. However, in that game, he unfortunately could not count on the high AC martial characters in his party (some played by people still in our gaming circle) to even attempt to stand between him and the enemy. It is all too easy to land a critical hit on an unarmored mage. He lost faith in the ability/desire of the other players to defend him. He does still enjoy playing PCs who aren't frontline combatants, but nowadays tends to do so more often in games in which I myself am playing and am playing a martial.
So we all laugh about the dice curse (even though they genuinely believe in it to some degree) and I am careful to be very open about all my rolls (in these COVID days all done virtually via roll20), but ultimately this perception of dice bias is a result of player gaming style and intraparty dynamics. At least, I think so. My big black d20, "The Ebon Hammer", does have an undeniable history with that guy...
On that aside topic. I have a problem with anyone trying to enforce setting restrictions on game options like that. Let other players write their own stories please, don't try to force your own interpretation of the lore on someone else.K, gonna take Aboleth's Lung for my human sorcerer who has never seen or even heard of an Aboleth, has no connection to Aboleth or Gillmen, and just want the spell because it's OP.
Because telling me I can't is "just your interpretation of the lore, man" and "restricting options". I don't care that it's an uncommon racial spell.
I'm also gonna take Deific Obedience and be an atheist.
Sounds fun, right?
I'm not sure if you're actually looking for a discussion on the topic since your response doesn't actually address any points, but...
Aboleth's Lung could have been developed by any coastal people who need to go spelunking frequently. It could've just been made by any wizard who wanted to kill people via suffocation. There's no lore actually provided for "Aboleth's Lung" aside from..."Gillmen have access to this spell." What makes even less sense is it's on the divine list...so technically all the gods can provide this spell but only provide it to Gillmen?
Deific Obedience on the other hand is intrinsically tied to the Golarion gods. Could you call yourself an atheist but still follow all the tenets and requirements to get the boons of a particular god? It's kind of more work than it's worth but I wouldn't be automatically opposed to it. It helps that Deific Obedience is extremely weak. A better conversation would be allowing a conceptual cleric who idealizes Mercy to take Deific Obedience for Sarenrae.
Don't get me started on Favored Class Bonuses and how arbitrary those are. Urgh, this is giving me Warpriest playtest conniptions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See I hate when things have specific lore, or are from specific things, only for people to try to be a special snowflake and go "but anyone could have made it".
When I gm, usually things like racial restrictive rules matter. Not any random river bordering people created Aboleths lung, but a very specific one. Are you them? Spells and items only found in a specific AP stay there. I don't let gear only found in the Giantslayer AP pop up in RotRl or Strange Aeons. If you have a regional trait that says you grew up in a place, you had to grow up there.
On that aside topic. I have a problem with anyone trying to enforce setting restrictions on game options like that. Let other players write their own stories please, don't try to force your own interpretation of the lore on someone else.K, gonna take Aboleth's Lung for my human sorcerer who has never seen or even heard of an Aboleth, has no connection to Aboleth or Gillmen, and just want the spell because it's OP.
Because telling me I can't is "just your interpretation of the lore, man" and "restricting options". I don't care that it's an uncommon racial spell.
I'm also gonna take Deific Obedience and be an atheist.
Sounds fun, right?
I'm not sure if you're actually looking for a discussion on the topic since your response doesn't actually address any points, but...
Aboleth's Lung could have been developed by any coastal people who need to go spelunking frequently. It could've just been made by any wizard who wanted to kill people via suffocation. There's no lore actually provided for "Aboleth's Lung" aside from..."Gillmen have access to this spell." What makes even less sense is it's on the divine list...so technically all the gods can provide this spell but only provide it to Gillmen?
Deific Obedience on the other hand is intrinsically tied to the Golarion gods. Could you call yourself an atheist but still follow all the tenets and requirements to get the boons of a particular god? It's kind of more work than it's worth but I wouldn't be automatically opposed to it. It helps that Deific Obedience is extremely weak. A better conversation would be allowing a conceptual cleric who idealizes Mercy to take Deific Obedience for Sarenrae.
Don't get me started on Favored Class Bonuses and how arbitrary those are. Urgh, this is giving me Warpriest playtest conniptions.
Hey, if that's how you run your homebrew setting, more power to you. There's nothing wrong with houserules. Just don't pretend that it's your "interpretation of the lore", if you ignore the lore (and mechanics too apparently) that's fine but you're not really even playing Pathfinder anymore. :)
I agree with Artofregicide. The GM can define whatever limitations and restrictions they want in their game world. The GM should not feel compelled to add anything outside the CRB that they do not want to.
I'd say it depends on what you're trying to do. If you just want to build a flavorful character, that's one thing. If you're blatantly ignoring racial/regional limitations to make your character more powerful, e.g. by misusing Aboleth's Lung as a cheap save-or-die-spell, that's a different thing.
Of course, "exposed to the culture, people, or lore" doesn't necessarily mean you know all their secrets, especially not secrets that could be used against them. A ball formed of mud is also a much more general and common concept than the excretions of powerful, hostile creatures living "in the darkest reaches of the sea".
|
|
My stance is this (Assuming I am playing a game using their Golarion setting):
I consider there to be a big difference between an option like varisian tattoo and an option like aboleth's lung. The first only has flavor text that attaches it to the setting, so anyone can take that feat. The second has rules text that restricts in to only a specific race can use. So only characters of that race can use that spell. Exceptions should be possible, but would be up to the GM to allow.
Would you tell a player they can't take the magical aptitude feat because they aren't a spellcaster? The flavor text says "you are skilled at spellcasting." Imo, it is a GM's purview to enforce rules text, not flavor text.
I often handwaive racial restrictions on character options. The next sessions will likely see a gnome with Well-Prepared, which should contribute to the overall fun.
That said, a player asking for aboleth's lung would be out of luck, no matter how gilly their PC is. Save or die is already bad game design on its own*, but it gets much worse if one side has to watch their PC / NPC / monster slowly die, with no hope of recovery. Add a player / GM sensitive to the idea of drowning, and it gets worse again.
So the PC could be the most gilly gillman ever, my answer is no. And if someone shows power fantasies of letting creatures slowly die, I will start asking myself whether I want them at my table.
* Well, usually. I see some point in a villain killing NPCs with save or die effects, which is quite effective to show how rotten he / she is.
Flavour is important, it brings the game world to life. As part of that flavour there are certain feats, traits and so on which are mechanically slightly superior. Individually, it is not a problem as the mechanical advantage is minor and typically situational. But it can be unfair to allow a new character whose feats and traits have been selected from across the globe transversing cultural and racial boundaries to do so.
If flavour is ignored in favour of mechanical superiority then the game is reduced to a fairly clunky squad based war game and ultimately just a bunch of people sat round a table seeing who can roll the highest number on a dice. The roleplay element is lost.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If flavour is ignored in favour of mechanical superiority then the game is reduced to a fairly clunky squad based war game and ultimately just a bunch of people sat round a table seeing who can roll the highest number on a dice. The roleplay element is lost.
This reeks of that weird belief that system mastery and role playing are on a sliding scale and people with mechanically sound characters must have sacrificed role playing ability.
Fortunately that's nonsense, and anything can be reflavored. If a GM has an idea about the setting and doesn't want things to be reflavored, that's his/her prerogative. I don't have a problem with sticking to the given flavor, but doing so isn't superior to not doing so, and quality of roleplaying isn't affected.
The problem, as I see it, whilst players believe absolutely in the split between "crunch" and "fuff" if you look at a lot of the stuff that Paizo has written, particularly in the setting books, they don't make that distinction. So there are number of options that are only mechanically powerful if you start from the baseline that you can ignore the flavour text as irrelevant.
the classic example is the Razmiran priest archetype. It gets quoted in various guides as "best archetype" for the class, because people discount the fluff that you have to be an evil Scientologist to take it. But that fluff is what makes the archetype balanced.
It's why I'd love there to be a clearer split between 'setting neutral' and 'Golarion specific' material in places like PFSRD, but that ship has long since sailed.
I guess in the case of Aboleth's Lung, I might be okay with it on a non-Gilman, but it would need to fit the rest of the character concept. I'd be fine calling it by a different name if it did come from some "random coastal people".
I think it would also help to ask "does it really have to be this option?" Air Bubble or Water Breathing also allow underwater exploration, I'd want to hear why those are out before I'd ever allow Aboleth's Lung. Similarly, I'd ask "why Wayang Spellhunter and not Magical Lineage?", and if the answer is "to get both", I'd shut it down hard.
I do something similar for homebrew setting, too - I want an explanation why some flavor-tied thing makes sense for the character. I'm currently GMing a group of vikings in medieval Scotland, and even though the Shoanti Spirit-singer trait is originally tied to the equivalent of either african tribes or native americans, I think it makes perfect sense on a viking Skald with Spirit Totem and Possessed Hand (the spirit in the hand is flavored as the same that fuels the trait).
That the flavor fits the character is actually more important to me than the intended cultural/racial tie. I think Mudball works perfectly on a Ratfolk, Golarion or otherwise.
I see some point in a villain killing NPCs with save or die effects, which is quite effective to show how rotten he / she is.
Paizo seems to agree, because that's actually the majority of the still existing save-or-die spells. Bloatbomb, Cloudkill, Circle of Death, Explode Head*, Blasphemy et al., Symbol of Death, Death Clutch, and Power Word: Kill all only kill weak targets, making those spells perfect for the bad guy behavior you describe, but not so horribly binary against the PCs.
*) I love this spell so much!
The problem, as I see it, whilst players believe absolutely in the split between "crunch" and "fuff" if you look at a lot of the stuff that Paizo has written, particularly in the setting books, they don't make that distinction. So there are number of options that are only mechanically powerful if you start from the baseline that you can ignore the flavour text as irrelevant.
I hate it when the do that. Hey Paizo, keying something to a specific flavor is not actually balancing!
*) I love this spell so much!
Yeah, Explode Head is among the best ever published IMO. It even introduces its own mini game for players: They can try to actually trigger the explosion, and count how often it worked out. A bit macabre, but that might mesh well with the caster's personality...
If flavour is ignored in favour of mechanical superiority then the game is reduced to a fairly clunky squad based war game and ultimately just a bunch of people sat round a table seeing who can roll the highest number on a dice. The roleplay element is lost.This reeks of that weird belief that system mastery and role playing are on a sliding scale and people with mechanically sound characters must have sacrificed role playing ability.
Fortunately that's nonsense, and anything can be reflavored. If a GM has an idea about the setting and doesn't want things to be reflavored, that's his/her prerogative. I don't have a problem with sticking to the given flavor, but doing so isn't superior to not doing so, and quality of roleplaying isn't affected.
Not at all, in fact rather the opposite. If a 'mechanically sound' character can only be built by cherry picking all the over powered feats and traits that are normally restricted by race, geography or whatever then it smacks rather of munchkinism.
For the record, I GM a campaign in the Greyhawk game world and reflavour plenty of content from Golarion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I'm still unclear on what being a munchkin has to do with one's ability to role play... which is what I was getting at. Like... you can be a munchkin and also want all of those powerful options to fit into a flavorful background that can't be achieved by the rules' default setting but is absolutely conceptually cohesive. As Derklord said, tying things to flavor isn't balancing. A GM should be free to tie things to flavor and lore, but, ideally, the game is balanced from a setting neutral perspective.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players who are going to try to exploit things exist, regardless of the quantity of things you allow them to draw from.
What gets complained about the most in pathfinder? The core rulebook wizard.
There is no correlation between roleplaying and optimization.
Players with a lot of system mastery can make extremely powerful characters regardless of the restrictions you put on them. Just the CRB has plenty of options to make your GM cry OP! I would postulate that the reason for drawing from numerous obscure sources is that such players have been there done that and are looking to play something different.
We really got off on a tangent here.
I have been on the s&#+ side of the favoritism stick before. Played a rogue, and EVERY enemy, even - int enemies, always managed to avoid flanking. I spent levels 1-5 without EVER managing to get a sneak attack off. Tried mentioning it a few times, he always had an excuse, so eventually i just left.
I have another group, currently, with a husband and wife players, gm'd be another player, that i am a player in. Unforuntaly the gm is very lenient, while he has decent system mastery, he has never experienced hunters or teamwork feats, and they CLEARLY are misplaying their animal companions. They all (hunters an animals) have a mid twenty ac, +10-12 attack, and have saves near double digits, it seems. I have questioned it a few times, but promptly get ignored.
I have tried asking the players directly, as well as the gm. The players tell me "thats what their program says" and wont discuss it further, and the gm doesnt even really respond (we play online as we all live to far away) Its VERY frustrating, as i am a bit of a power gamer, yet, i have downplayed a lot of myself so as to give others a chance, but the other half of the group barely gets to do anything as the hunters basically charge forward and destroy encounters, rarely even letting the poor zen archer fire a shot, the rogue has taken to also charging in just to try and get a hit (and has been knocked on their ass several times as they are stck in the front)
I am actually playing a healing kineticist because of this, because i am fairly certain no one is going to monitor their "burn" appropriately, because and i quote one of the married pair "that doesnt make sense, i am not tracking that) and the gm didnt even chime in. But you know who's burn does count? Yea... mine. BUT i like the rest of the group, so i am still playing, even if i get occassionally pissed off and have to "go deal with the kids" or "go to the bathroom" just so i dont have to listen to some of the sumb shyt that is said.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes we make concessions. As a longtime GM, who knows the rules very well, sometimes I ignore them. Sometimes it's just not worth getting into an argument over something that doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the long run. In the end, we're all just there to relax and enjoy socializing and playing a game. I would prefer if nobody cheated, but it's also a complicated game and if I stopped to point out every time a rule is misinterpreted, misused, forgotten, etc. That would actually detract from, not improve the overall enjoyment of the experience. It's often better to let things flow incorrectly then to halt the game to call out rules.
I don't think my group has a ever had any favoritism going on. There's only 3 of us and each of us takes turns GMing our individual campaigns. I don't think I've ever favored one player over the other. But I am human.
On the topic of flavor vs mechanics. All of us have agreed that flavor means nothing and we can pick any paizo option without needing consent first. The only exception is campaign specific traits. They're still on the table. They just need to be approved or tweaked first
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yikes... I feel for you, Evilserran. I obviously don't have the entire story, but from what you said you've only hoped the GM would say something about other players bending/breaking rules. Have you tried approaching them privately with your concerns? They may think everyone is enjoying themselves.
Nevermind I reread and you have tried. Sorry that's happening.
BUT i like the rest of the group, so i am still playing, even if i get occassionally pissed off
Had this a few years before, too. The conflict between two sides eventually tore the group apart, and we got the only nice fellow player for a different table and for a friendship in general.
Might be worth it to ask the zen archer / rogue players in private how they like the current state.
@Evilserran, I feel with you. I've had something like this a few years ago playing D&D 5e with a group assembled from Meetup. I was playing an Aarakocra (a bird-man), cleric of Osiris, as it made sense in the setting, even encouraged by the G.M. to take the Death domain, normally made for NPCs.
As the game progressed, he kept nerfing my character, race and class. About flight, a first saying I couldn't fly with a backpack on then saying I couldn't fly while encumbered in the slightest then saying I couldn't hover, I had to move while flying or fall. About the Death domain, he only informed me after the game has started that animating the dead was a big no-no to Osiris while Animate Dead is the staple spell of the Death domain and when I've asked to switch it with (Cause?) Fear, a spell of same level which was maintaining the theme, he flat out refused.
Meanwhile, the Wizard was pulling all the O.P. tricks, using the broken spells without any comment from the G.M. and the enemies were conveniently most of the time in Fireball formation.
One day, as I announced I pulled out of my backpack a mundane object that happened to trivially solve a problem in a way the G.M. didn't expect, he told me that I didn't have it because I hadn't provided him with the updated inventory. I pushed back knowing he wouldn't like it that I was still waiting for his rules about encumbrance, as my high-Wisdom character lived in his universe so would know how much would have him encumbered but that in the meanwhile, I was going with the standard rules. He didn't like it, told me I wasn't welcome any longer as he was hosing. This split the table. The Druid and the Ranger didn't stay either, leaving only the Wizard and the Paladin.
Today, years later, the table that reformed almost right after with the players of the Druid and the Ranger is still active, via the internet nowadays because of distance for some and prophylaxis anyhow but active indeed.
If flavour is ignored in favour of mechanical superiority then the game is reduced to a fairly clunky squad based war game and ultimately just a bunch of people sat round a table seeing who can roll the highest number on a dice. The roleplay element is lost.This reeks of that weird belief that system mastery and role playing are on a sliding scale and people with mechanically sound characters must have sacrificed role playing ability.
Fortunately that's nonsense, and anything can be reflavored. If a GM has an idea about the setting and doesn't want things to be reflavored, that's his/her prerogative. I don't have a problem with sticking to the given flavor, but doing so isn't superior to not doing so, and quality of roleplaying isn't affected.
You seem to be under the impression select, key features picked off of a guide (as the previous post explicitly calls out) equates to system mastery. Anyone can read a guide and copy down cherry picked abilities. System mastery isn't the ability to make something OP by plagiarizing others' work, it's the ability to make something subpar adequate or even ahead of the curve. Allowing a character set in the universe of Golarion to freely pick whatever racial feats/spells/traits/etc. because "my build demands it" is a dumb excuse for a roleplaying game to become a rollplaying game where the characters (if the player bothered to give them a personality) are their own little bubbles with inherently fewer ties to the world. Computers exist if that's what people want.
I suppose I'm still unclear on what being a munchkin has to do with one's ability to role play... which is what I was getting at. Like... you can be a munchkin and also want all of those powerful options to fit into a flavorful background that can't be achieved by the rules' default setting but is absolutely conceptually cohesive. As Derklord said, tying things to flavor isn't balancing. A GM should be free to tie things to flavor and lore, but, ideally, the game is balanced from a setting neutral perspective.
Except the GM isn't the one doing the tying of rules to lore. It's a bad thing they do when the much better alternative is balance to begin with, but it is what it is. And then there's the simple fact that most munchkins can't roleplay, because they are too busy doing other things than learning how to roleplay through their gaming career.
If the GM is a piece of trash then I would leave, the game is less important than my mental health
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a long-term GM I've always tried to be even-handed and pro-player and try to avoid metagaming as much as possible. To that end I've developed a campaign development technique that relies on players disrupting the various (good, neutral and evil) factions' plots rather than following them. Have a rule-of-cool that basically grants players an auto-succeed if they do something innovative that isn't covered by the rules and have taken steps to avoid take 10 perception checks and the like, so I can't predetermine whether or course of action (e.g. an ambush) will succeed or fail.
What I find difficult is avoiding bias when one player is being smart, creative and innovative and really developing the campaign and another is being the wallflower and following. As the creator of the game world, I'm engrossed in where the active player is taking the story and unless I'm careful will unconsciously give that person more time than the others. This, of course, will create a feedback loop that could be perceived as favouritism. To combat this, I try and actively include the wallflower player, but it is not always as easy in practice as it is in theory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get stuck in that same problem. I'll give the players lots of room to make choices, some will do something that moves the story in an interesting direction, others will want to do something that would take months and be essentially meaningless. I've sort of cut into this by promoting delegating certain tasks, and giving my players incentive to hire adventurers when they aren't needed, but I'll still occasionally get someone who wants to go grocery shopping.
I still sit there thinking, from time to time, "what if I think grocery shopping is boring because I have a lower opinion of the person who wants to do this."
The metagaming problem is really weird. I frequently reskin monsters and the players manage to guess a few of their abilities based on their description. If it's regenerating, everyone tries fire, if it's metal people will try electricity, if it's small people will try cold iron. If someone fusses about these things I have to assume they're against the players. I'm always pretty stoked when my players are being smart.
I get stuck in that same problem. I'll give the players lots of room to make choices, some will do something that moves the story in an interesting direction, others will want to do something that would take months and be essentially meaningless. I've sort of cut into this by promoting delegating certain tasks, and giving my players incentive to hire adventurers when they aren't needed, but I'll still occasionally get someone who wants to go grocery shopping.
I still sit there thinking, from time to time, "what if I think grocery shopping is boring because I have a lower opinion of the person who wants to do this."
The metagaming problem is really weird. I frequently reskin monsters and the players manage to guess a few of their abilities based on their description. If it's regenerating, everyone tries fire, if it's metal people will try electricity, if it's small people will try cold iron. If someone fusses about these things I have to assume they're against the players. I'm always pretty stoked when my players are being smart.
Haha! Grocery shopping can be fun sometimes though! Especially since it usually fleshes out the town if they are going to be spending a lot of time there. I have a fondness for some time consuming tasks and generally gauge my groups toleration for it. Not to mention some adventures demand parts of it i.e Kingmaker or Book 1 of Ironfang which I would say are good examples. The persona phase stuff being kinda bad examples.
A lot of interesting ideas here. To throw a few points into the pile:
- I would argue that taking steps to prevent metagaming is pointless and have stopped doing it. The troll example above is a perfect one.
- I would say that "roleplaying" is not the same as "acting", and that while everyone does the prior, not all do the latter. And moreover, not all want to do the latter or are comfortable with the latter. Which is fine. Not everyone is an actor. Just like not everyone has innate system mastery over whatever system I'm currently using, not everyone has a good memory for minutae from previous sessions, and not everyone has impeccable penmanship on their character sheets.
Furthermore, not all players want the spotlight. So "favoring" another player more is actually a favor to these folks.
- to address the OP, I don't tend to tolerate it, once I notice it. And if I ever find myself feeling that way, I'll check with the group and make adjustments.
One of the worst games I've ever been in was with a friend from college. He had no idea how to build encounters (against 4 level 6 players, he sent three ogre vampires. In the middle of the night. And they summoned rat swarms. Which he did not understand only took up a 10ft cube each; he thought each swarm covered the campsite. So the party awoke to 6d6 damage and then three ogre vampires). He had a hopelessly rigid and small-minded view of character potential (he assumed my halfling mercenary was a Chaotic-Something thief, and was thus barred from entrance to a temple dedicated to the Lawful Neutral god of retribution. My character was not only LN, but frequently prayed to this god in particular), and favored his BFF far and above the rest of us (he postponed a session when his friend canceled last minute. Then, when two people couldn't make it to the next session because it was scheduled last minute, he went ahead and ran it anyway. And his friend, along with the one other player, earned more than quadruple the xp from that one session than we had all earned in the previous two).
All of that left me wanting to quit. The fact that he started the game off using my homebrewed campaign setting without asking me, then took massive creative license with it was a major issue. As was his ripping off of anything from the game I was running that he deemed cool. Like, whole character concepts, plot arcs, descriptive phrases and everything.
But it was when he asked me, right before the session following the one he ran without most of the group, how I would handle the "corner" he "painted himself into". Namely, that two level 5 characters and two level 6 ones were now, somehow, on a total of three different planes of existence, and had no idea how to get them all back together. I was beside myself at this point. He had been selfish, invasive, irresponsible, obnoxious, inconsiderate and lazy. I told him "I would...just not do that in the first place. Anyway, I don't think I'm going to play anymore, so. Hopefully that simplifies things."
When I mentioned metagaming, I meant GM metagaming rather than player metahaming. A player may have knowledge that their character doesn't have and uses that to their benefit. But a GM has knowledge of the players and their characters and in my particular example has advance knowledge of the outcome of any take 10 result. When building encounters that is impossible to ignore. For example, you are planning an ambush. You know that a DC26 stealth score will beat the passive perception check. Do you a) build the ambush knowing it will fail or b) build the ambush knowing it will succeed c) lie to yourself that the knowledge is not colouringyour judgement. Assuming a, do you grant the party an easy win, pre determine a contingency plan or beef up the encounter. Assuming b, do you go full attack and make a very dangerous encounter, build in a contingency plan in case they are spotted even though you know they won't be or scale back the encounter to make it less dangerous. Assuming c, yeah right.
I find none of those answers satisfying so have created an Excel script to roll perception. I obfuscate it by using my laptop all the time.