Smart lairs

[Mark Hoover 330]

I am NOT looking for Tucker's Kobolds. Let me be clear about that up front. Also while I understand there is something called "lair actions" in D&D 5e I'm not looking for ways to necessarily weaponize the environment as a separate entity or initiative in combat.

Is it a "killer GM" thing to make "smart" lairs? To define the term, a "smart" lair has been reasoned out and constructed in a way that is mostly advantageous to the residents, depending on time and resources. By "advantageous" I'm not saying make it a murder gauntlet, like Tucker's Kobolds, but rather playing to the strengths or nature of the residents.

Some examples might be having a creature with Scent find a way to manipulate air currents through the lair so that they've got the best possible range of detection, or liberal use of Charm Animal and the Handle Animal skill to surround the lair with animal scouts that warn residents of trespassers in the general area. Undead with no need to breathe might make a lair around toxic fumes; Aberrant creatures with a Climb speed would likely think as much vertically as they would horizontally. NPC leaders with spells and enough Downtime might not just sit around on thrones scheming but instead may be using those spells a couple times/week to improve the defenses.

Also, I'm not just talking magic here. Look at the base creature the lair is designed around. What's their Int score? What skills do they have? What technology level do they have access to? How long have they been in this lair?

I just feel like encountering a handful of monsters randomly should feel a lot different than those same creatures inside the walls of their own established lairs. What do you all think?

[Claxon]

Honestly, I've always thought that anyone that has a lair should probably have several permanent alarms and a teleport available if they have the magic.

I don't know why the bad buys always get caught and actually decide to stick around and fight.

[ErichAD]

In some ways I agree, but it depends on what the lair is for, and how entertaining the environmental change is going to be. Yes the liches undead infested lab should be full of poison gas pockets, and the halfling burrow town should have the party squeezing in private residences, but the vampire's castle shouldn't reject all hallways in favor of gaseous form tubes.

[Claxon]

But it wouldn't be unreasonable for the vampire to have a room that was magically excavated with only only being enough openings for gas, and only enough room inside for their coffin.

This would prevent people from teleporting inside (maybe) unless they're cool with being stuck in the coffin and provide a safe haven to regenerate. Definitely preventing some low level adventurer from staking you through the heart.

[ErichAD]

Certainly, a safe room makes sense, but doing that to every room makes it less fun to play in and less useful for the vampire. Having said that, an adventure where everyone has to polymorph into tiny creatures to search through a maze of pipes for the real coffin could be fun if done right, but it would be at least a little silly.

[yukongil]

interesting lairs/locales are a must. It is the spice of an encounter, adding context and differentiating it from others of its kind.

Always try to have some sort of interesting design element in the terrain and then let your mind run free on how it got there, who or what made it, why they did so, etc...

I find that "reverse-engineering" things like this can help me come up with enemies or NPCs I might not otherwise have thought of, as I match them up to the terrain or environment they operate in.

[Mark Hoover 330]

No, I agree w/you THERE E-Dawg; don't sacrifice theme, setting and gravitas for the sake of playing to the strengths of your villain. By the same token though, small nods in the vampire's castle could be fun:

1. Every single door is locked and there are no keys

2. All windows feature broken glass

3. The only way down into the collapsed wine cellar (where the coffin has been secured) is down a Diminutive sized chimney opening; all other passages down are filled with tons of rubble

Tatzlwyrms are described as builders of simple snare and pit traps even though they're Int 5 snakes with T-Rex arms. 20 mites are individually CR 1/4 but they have no limit to the vermin they can empathize with and train as draft animals, and their leader might be a level 4 spellcaster. Marsh giants are described as "simple" but then make alliances with boggards (who wear armor and craft martial weapons) to have in their lairs.

There's no reason I can think of, other than not making things TOO hard on the characters, why these creatures and others would have a lair that amounts to "kick open the door... surprise round... PCs get initiative... fight over. Here's the loot..."

[Claxon]

To be honest, as a GM (for strong parties) I had no qualms with setting up the terrain to be disadvantageous to the party to amp up the difficulty of an encounter.

You enter into the necromancers lair to find...an odd entry way. Row after row of portcullis. There appear to arrow slits everywhere. You hear what sound like bones rattling behind the walls, but you can't see through the slits well. As you enter the portcullis slam shut and the skeletons start firing arrows at you. They're not very accurate, but there are dozens of them coming at you. The room begins to fill with some sort of gas/smoke. You have to hold your breath or become nauseated (chance to save). And the floor is actually made of very unstable rock. Some patches collapse at your touch (into a pit).

Now that sort of challenge can really get players out of their comfort space and make them feel a real challenge.

[Speaker for the Dead]

When designing an encounter, make sure to adjust the CR based on the ‘environment’ or the deadliness of the lair. The adjusted CR of the encounter then reflects both the difficulty of the encounter and experience rewards.

[marcryser]

5' wide passages and 10' tall ceilings is a (medium) humanoid convention that should be all but absent in many lairs. Natural caves have narrow spots, squeezing, and openings that aren't 'doors.' Just the idea of a ladder that can be pulled up into the next higher room is an example of how somebody who lived in a cave system would handle basic security. Including things like that is absolutely fair game for a GM.

[Quixote]

Speaker for the Dead wrote:

When designing an encounter, make sure to adjust the CR based on the ‘environment’ or the deadliness of the lair.

I would agree to a point; having the party encounter some orcs on a plain is one thing. Some orcs armed with bows and flaming casks of oil on a cliff while the party is trying to cross a rickety rope bridge over a 100ft-fall is another.

However, a monster's CR assumes that monster is encountered in it's natural environment.
A giant squid's CR assumes it's in the water, not stranded on the beach. I'd say orcs and goblins being found in lightness caverns and tigers in tall grass are the same deal.

[Claxon]

To be honest, accounting for the CR of the environment ultimately doesn't matter too much, IMO.

I mean, I want to make sure my party doesn't die to the encounter but usually (for PF1) encounters as written tend to be on the weak side compared to a party the optimizes. So I always just considered the environment to be leveling the playing field.

And I switched to leveling by story, rather than worrying about XP so it doesn't figure in there either.

[Mark Hoover 330]

So there's nothing wrong with making a monster's lair an even tougher environment than a typical challenging environment? My players would vehemently disagree.

A long while ago I gave kobolds a lair that wasn't theirs, so the tunnels were mostly Medium sized, but I gave them Small sized niches with ladders bolted to the walls and irregular stonework so the kobolds in the niches had Cover. This was a fight the PCs undertook at APL 1 so it was a very hard fight they had to run away from and return to later, so I DID award lots of extra XP there.

On the other hand I ran a game for a group this weekend, APL 6. The Foes they fought individually were CR 1-3 but there were a few of them. However, to add to the toughness I ALSO gave the enemy raised platforms with cover on the walls that the PCs weren't expecting. The foes on the platforms, in the bestiary are portrayed as using claw/claw/bite and wearing no armor. However their creature type suggests they're proficient with all Simple weapons and they have a 13 Int so I armed the ones on the platforms with mundane slings and gave them leather armor.

There was a mighty HUE and CRY when I handed out XP and one of the players figured out I only counted the fight as CR 7. Based on the number of monsters, that CR would be what the monsters are worth with no ADDED XP for the difficulty of the environment. When the player complained I almost laughed.

These PCs just got done with nearly 2 weeks Downtime. The Wizard has Scribe Scroll and Craft Wondrous Item; the combat NPC they pay handsomely to accompany them has Craft Wand. Between the 2 of them there are a LOT of consumable magic items in the party.

One PC is a wizard; another is a paladin. Both of these PCs can and do make use of these consumables in combat. Then there's the u-rogue who has her Use Magic Device pumped as high as possible so she can use wands. ALSO they rolled stats when making these characters; the u-monk has a stat array that borders on a nearly 40 point buy.

So when a monster that normally has a 12 AC gets to use Cover and some armor to get to a 18 AC, only to be targeted by charges of an expensive but nonetheless fully charged Wand of Magic Missile CL3, chakrams hit with a scroll of Magic Weapon that are all totaled +9 to hit and a rogue with Expeditious Retreat from a wand letting her dart all around he room, take cover, then use an SA at one point from range with a freaking LONGBOW... I'm not upping the CR with a +1 for those defenses.

[*Thelith]

You could adjust it based on how much of their resources they used. There are written expectations of resource use vs APL +/- if it ended up being a hard fight, add some exp, if it ended up being an easy slaughter subtract some exp.

[Quixote]

Mark, I have to say: I don't know how you handle those players. Players who go all-out to get every advantage they can could be tactically satisfying or extremely tedious, depending. But the whinging every time things aren't perfectly squared off by the RAW on top of it? Ouphe, I say. Ouphe.

In my last face-to-face game, the first combat involved finding a bandit camp. They found it...but it was just a decoy that the bandits set up to draw anyone looking for them to an area they had eyes on and that was far enough away for the actual camp to make preparations.

The party walked into the trap in the dark, in the rain, in the woods, holding torches and approaching a band of outlaws sitting behind impromptu barricades that outnumbered them 2:1. And when they finally got close enough to charge the camp, the party found three of the biggest, bullies of the bandits lying in wait, covered in leaves and underbrush with the readied action to butcher anyone who got within range.

It was a bitter and bloody exchange of arrows and darts under the dripping eaves in the hours before dawn. And no one complained or cried about how hard it was or how they didn't get enough loot or whatever.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I've run PF1E for over 10 years now. My current players have been with me about half that time. I've joked about how obsessed with RAW they can be and usually I can laugh it off, but I really think it's getting to me.

A few sessions ago I tried to introduce a rare tatzlwyrm variant. The base DC to ID the creature was 18. the wizard PC clapped eyes on it, rolled a 12 on his D20 and pronounced "Ok, I got check of 27 on any of the 6 monster lore Knowledge skills. Can I identify the thing?"

I don't know Qbert, that moment just kinda… took the wind outta my sails y'know? Like, I know I can just SAY "you don't know what it is, deal with it" but I know playing by RAW is how these players have fun. When I deviate from RAW there's always gotta be some reason, some corner case.

Spoiler:

When it comes to fight scenes... ugh. No one swings on chandeliers or pulls rugs out from under their opponents or otherwise fights "cinematically." My players fight like this is a board or video game. They use Cover and Flanking, manage charging lanes, gang up on foes to ensure one falls every round. Furniture is there for Higher Ground or Cover bonuses. Our fights proceed like we're reading the instructions from an Ikea assembly manual.

And the game itself outside of combat has just become a series of Skill Checks. Last session ended with the PCs visiting their Ratfolk allies in the dungeon. I flat out asked them if they wanted to roleplay this or just handwave it over email, between sessions. They asked to roleplay it.

So I put on my best Female Slavic accent to play the part of the ratfolk matron who greets them warmly at the entry to her clan's den. Her name is Contara and she invites them in, offers them fine cheeses, introduces them to the litter of babies she's just had... and then I just trailed off.

Literally I had 4 people on screen just staring at me. "Ok, and what do you guys say?" I prompted. One of the 4 responds to me saying "we tell her about the fight we just had and ask her if she knows anything about these monsters." I can see just off screen his arm moving, I presume to grab a d20 for a skill check.

No funny voices back to me in response to the NPC, no mention of the food she offered, no mention of the kids she literally JUST HAD a month prior that mama Contara just showed off... just the business at hand. I could've done that in an EMAIL.

I think I need to have a talk with my players. I think I'm getting burnt out. My fun as a GM is in running a game and to be honest I DO enjoy running combats, but there's a whole side of the game, the FANTASTIC side of the game that I feel I'm completely missing out on.

And not just the fantasy, but RP part of TTRPG. I LIKE talking in silly voices, or doing enemy monologues, or pointing out moral ambiguities in the game and I HATE resolving them with a die roll.

Do you know... last game the PCs decided to deal with the remains of an innocent they found upon entering the dungeon. The paladin belongs to one faith, their Cleric NPC another. The paladin player announces "we'll bury them in the manner befitting the local customs" and, in the character of the NPC I point out that his religion and mine do it 2 different ways, and still others locally have their own rites.

I engage the player, looking for some RP around their character's religious practices. He shrugs; "we'll just burn 'em." He said it I think because that was the easiest answer and ended the conversation fastest. I ended the session with the bonfire and the bones clawing their way up out of the pyre as a Burning Bones skeleton. The player liked the ending.

[Quixote]

That is...rough. I'm sorry.

I mean. Okay, not a popular opinion here; I know the wisdom of the "no bad/wrong fun" mantra, but c'mon! TTRPG's offer so much more than the instant gratification video games do.

I feel like the only option there is to drastically change the way you play Pathfinder or, probably the better option, try a different system altogether for a while.
For those players? If they'll go with it (and they'd better be willing to, after all the work you've put into this hobby for them and gotten so little in return), I'd suggest Dread. Though I have no idea how you'd get a Jenga tower to work over a video call.

[Hugo Rune]

If smart lair is defined as one where the occupant's defence is built into the design; then all lairs where attack is possible should be smart.

IRL Nearly every tower with a spiral staircase goes in anticlockwise direction so the right handed defender at the top has cover from the central pillar whilst the normally right handed attacker has to stand exposed on the staircase. Rabbit warrens are designed with multiple exits so the rabbits can escape when the fox enters. Many birds nest in places that can only be accessed by air, preventing predators from reaching them.

In short, designing a lair that maximises the occupant's chances of survival from attack should be standard.

With regard to your other later point regarding the rare creature that the character can identify. If the player has invested in those skills then they should be rewarded. I don't like adjusting the DCs based on the skill scores of the characters, it punishes investment in skills when the character *should* be a superstar. I also find it easier to justify handing out clues to players whose characters have high knowledge scores.

[Mark Hoover 330]

HR Puffinstuff: You're right that build investment should be rewarded and I do. I use the strict RAW that common monsters require a DC of 10 +CR to ID; more rare/unique monsters require a 15 +CR and extremely common monsters such as kobolds or raccoons require a 5 +CR.

Take a look in the CRB at Knowledge: Local. To identify a "hidden organization" such as a group of alchemists plotting to sow chaos in a community (a plot I had running in another game around level 4 of that game) is a DC 20. I was going to lay out clues and build a mystery to this group; much of that was circumvented by this player, running a wizard in that OTHER campaign and having just as high a Knowledge: Local there as he does now.

Now translate this to a lair. A little while ago these PCs came upon an old, obscure ruined temple in the wilderness. There was a mystery that's supposed to tie this place into the larger plot. Characters aren't supposed to know lore about this place unless they make a DC 20 knowledge check; with the wizard, an NPC cleric, a paladin, several Aid Another checks, and a Guidance spell they blew right past that DC with ease.

So the characters knew as they arrived at this mysterious ruin that it belonged to demon worshippers, they were defeated by local soldiers a century ago and that they were known to have a diabolical book. They ALSO scouted with Perception and Knowledge: Engineering, realizing that the staircase down into the rubble was unsafe, the "safe" approach showed tracks, the tracks are humanoid of Medium size and feature boots (a cult recently rediscovered the place).

So the wizard put Vanish on his dragon and sent it in to scout around. The thing returned with evidence of the robed humanoids in a lower chamber, gathered for some kind of ceremony. The party made their way down, avoided traps, killed the guards, and ambushed the cultists. They knew the number of the members assembled, they understood the general nature of what's going on in the ceremony (another Knowledge: Religion check), they didn't trip any alarms, and, b/c of special dispensation I gave the paladin, the Mount he just got has Trample so while the characters focused fire on the elite types the mount ran around destroying the minions.

The entire thing was a foregone conclusion. The players had fun solely because they got to romp on some folks and get loot, but the actual tactical nature of the incursion was boring according to one player - a "necessary step" they had to go through to GET to the fight.

I gave them a cursed item... the wizard's Knowledge and Spellcraft are pumped so high he was able to see that it was cursed. I gave them a rare tapestry - with 2 skill checks they knew its approximate value and historical significance. I gave them extremely descriptive art objects - a Darkwood flatbox carved in a draconic motif with velvet lining (50 GP) containing a mundane torc. The device is double layered and sliver, with each layer inset with 3 then 5 citrines and feature an etched brocade of elven script within vining flourishes. The inscription speak of a woman of exceptional beauty, charm and grace (350 GP).

They took all of those plus other items, returned to town, and sold them all with no further discussion, save for the cursed belt. They tried to remove the curse while preserving the Dex bonus but failed and the device became just a masterwork belt. The PC Wizard took that and made it into a Wondrous Device anyway, saving some money on the construction.

The characters are rewarded in that they get cool stuff. The players are rewarded in that their characters advance in level, they get the thrill of fighting monsters and their characters got loot appropriate to their level. Some of the feedback I'm getting however is that there is some developing frustration in the group about how "stale" some of the game has become and I feel part of this is a side-effect of their overdevelopment of and reliance on skills.

[Quixote]

Yeah. Gonna restate my last point: you need to run a different sort of game.
You could try running a different sort of Pathfinder game; isolate the party and put strict time limitations on them so there's no gathering intel or downtime. Cook up some brand-new sources of conflict so they can't just Knowledge everything into oblivion (can't know much about a one-of-a-kind aberrant fey construct, after all). Stuff like that.

But I really think that running a different system would help you a lot. I'd talk to these fools; sit down with them and be like "hey. I pour so much of myself into these games. And I don't feel like I'm getting much in return. And then I'm given the criticism that it's getting stale. I need a change of pace." --it's not you, it's them. Players that have the dull, thick-headed gall to approach every situation in exactly the same fashion and then complain to the GM that they're bored? Ugh. Those are the worst. Players like that don't know what they want. They just know they want SOMETHING, so they grope about blindly in the dark and they take and take and take and demand that you keep giving until you give them the right thing, but they can't even tell you what it is they want.

I would really, really suggest reading The Angry GM's articles. He knows how to break the game down into its components and get meaningful results.
I've had to beat a reliance on skills out of my players. No one is allowed to say "I roll" at my table. They declare what their character is trying to accomplish and how, and then I decided what sort of roll, if any, is needed. Because that's the way the game is supposed to actually work and it forces players out of their video game/instruction manual mindset.

You deserve to have fun, too. And you do NOT deserve to be critiqued when you're serving up night after night of entertainment for people who don't appreciate it or reciprocate at all.

[Hugo Rune]

I think there are three separate though interrelated issues here:
1. Tactical Issues
2. Use of skills
3. Roleplay styles

With regard to tactical issues, it sounds like the players are using a reconnaissance and strike model, researching before they go and making sure they are prepared, which is all great. I think that you need to ramp up the challenge. You are playing in a game world where magic is a thing. Security posts should routinely counter invisible creatures with net curtains and the like. Airport style narrow corridors with doors either end should be common with guards at both ends. If one end is attacked, the other alerts the stronghold. Also the second post should be out of range of many AoE spells affecting the first post. Traps are intelligently placed where they make sense and may be guard controlled eg poison gas released into the corridor. Quality furniture should be routinely lead lined to stop Detect spells identifying valuable and magic contents. In short, make the reconnaissance far more of a challenge.

Whilst I agree to a degree with Quixote, from what you've said I can also see your players perspective. I don't allow a player to just roll on a social skill, they have to describe what they want to say and the roll determines how successful they are. But in your case it seems as though the player is saying 'what does my character know about x, I've rolled y' and at this point you blurt everything out. Perhaps you could take an approach similar to the monster knowledge rule. The base DC gives some basic knowledge and every 5 over adds some more clues. You could take some time breaking the knowledge into a series of clues and join the dots between them with increasing DCs and/or prerequisite knowledge, so there is a gradual release of knowledge related information.

With regard to the last part, you seem more interested in the descriptive and immersive aspects of the game, whilst the players are more interested in the tactical elements of the game. Perhaps you could cross the divide by inserting clues into the detailed elements. Eg the tapestry could have a noble at a battle but the knowledge score didn't identify which noble or the battle, but that it looks significant and the heraldry suggests it is from an offshoot of the Dragor family that <insert clue/ red herring>.

Actually, thinking whilst typing, inserting red herrings might be one way to counter the high knowledge skills. The players will need to sort the relevant details from the rich detail of the game world you provide.

[Quixote]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Whilst I agree to a degree with Quixote, from what you've said I can also see your players perspective.

Oh, I can see their perspective, too. It's just not one I would bother indulging. If I spent 10 hours and $100 preparing a nice bolognese, fresh herbs salad and a cheesecake and the people I invite over tell me they really wish I'd serve up some steaks and chocolate tort next time, I'm gonna tell them to eff right off.

In my opinion, it's not even that. It's them asking for Craft Mac n' cheese with cut-up hot dogs. BUT. I'll concede that I value certain aspects of this hobby more than others, and that such is simply my opinion/preference/taste. Still, though. Even if the tactical hack-n'-slash and the storytelling are equal, you don't whine that you didn't get enough of one when your host clearly worked hard to give you both. It's that entitled attitude that makes me say: screw player advocacy. What about the GM? The one who puts in hours and hours of effort before anyone picks up a set of dice? The one who puts themselves in the terribly vulnerable position of "hey, here's this thing I made. What do you think?" No player works that hard. No player risks that much.

And hey. I know not all GM's are equal. But I think, based on what we've read in various posts in various threads, Mark is solidly in the camp I'm talking about.

Anyway. Rune brings up a lot of good options. But I still think this is a situation that needs to be handled out of game. If you're feeling burnt out, say something. If they care, they'll help you. If they don't, then stop giving them your time.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Ok Ed Runey, Donny Q, you've given me a lot to consider/unpack here and this thread is ostensibly about lairs so I'll try to wrangle myself back to that. By way of addressing what I've said about playstyles and skill usage and your responses to those, I very much appreciate the advice and support. Hugo I will consider abbreviating or segmenting the info given in Knowledge checks.

H Bomb makes a solid point about their tactical nature and the response to it in lair building. I DO need to get better at strategic design. For example I get the idea of choke points and use them frequently but not once... in running games for nearly 4 decades now, have I thought of having a hallway with a door or gate or something in the middle of it outside of a castle.

Doors in my dungeons ALWAYS lead to another room or some kind of side hallway. They are rarely monitored. Gates don't exist outside of cities/castles, unless I just want a new way to describe a "door." But duh, if the PCs enter a hall and attack 2 kobolds up front, why not have the other 2 in the back run 40' on their initiative into the next section of hallway while their buddies close the door behind them?

Sometimes folks I feel like a real dunce on these boards!

I don't know that I'm going to lead-line all the furniture but adding redundant systems might help. Like, if there's a trap on a door for example but then on the inside of the door, looking at it is an Alarm spell totally separate from the trap. This IS a game with spells and I need to get tougher on my players and run monsters that have spells with the intellect it took for them to EARN those spells.

[Scavion]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

When it comes to fight scenes... ugh. No one swings on chandeliers or pulls rugs out from under their opponents or otherwise fights "cinematically." My players fight like this is a board or video game. They use Cover and Flanking, manage charging lanes, gang up on foes to ensure one falls every round. Furniture is there for Higher Ground or Cover bonuses. Our fights proceed like we're reading the instructions from an Ikea assembly manual.

Part of the problem is that Pathfinder doesn't really encourage you to fight "cinematically". It's the blessing/curse of simulationist style games. If it's possible in your games due to handwavium or houserules then it's important that it's not only possible but effective. If a compelling argument or good roleplaying obviates the need for a roll or gains a large circumstance bonus that can help as well.

I'd recommend playing a rules-lite system that encourages creativity on the side and see if any of it carries over into how they play Pathfinder.

[Sysryke]

Quixote wrote:

a bunch of stuff I agree with.

I'm going to jump on this D-rail for a moment, because my heart is kind of breaking for Mark.

Hopefully the people you play with are friends in at least some sense. But, your friends don't seem to be treating you that well right now. I agree with most of Quixote's sentiments.

As an alternative option, you might try a system like World of Darkness, where storytelling is more empahsized and interwoven in the mechanics. I'm also a huge fan of the dicless system of the Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game. It can be adapted to any setting or genre. In MURPG, there are rules for situational modifiers that are essential to most tasks, and the best way to get those modifiers is through role-play and vivid description. Maybe those kinds of mechanics could be a bridge between the number crunching of your players and the flavor you (and maybe they) are so desperately craving.

. . . . . . . .

Oops! Lost track that Mark is both the victim here, and the OP. To his original question. I'm all for smart lairs. Good description, scenery, and story is what I want out of a game, and if a GM's mechanical decisions need any "justification", then that's the way to go about it.

Even if your group doesn't try a new system, I think you could use an infusion of some supplemental or optional rules to breathe new life into the game. Your players probably aren't going to stop approaching every challenge like a math problem for at least a little while, so it seems fair for you to look for a use the rules that put more flavor back into the game.

Edit: Conversation is flowing along while I type. Hugo, made a lot of good points too. I hope something is all of this helps.

[Hugo Rune]

One idea I just had was to make a piece of the sold treasure crucial. Eg the diabolical book is locked in a box, which is extra-dimensional in nature. Unless the box is opened correctly, the contents do not appear. The writing on the lid of the box that was sold actually operates a number of different locks simultaneously, making it nearly impossible to defeat with mundane means, after all even the best rogue cannot defeat 20 devices simultaneously.

The party, investigating the box and with stellar knowledge rolls etc eventually realises that they have sold the key. They contact the buyer, who reveals it was on-sold for a handsome profit. They trace the person who bought it only to find they were a cultist who sacrificed themselves in an acid pit to prevent being caught.

The party now has to prepare for an onslaught when the cultists seek to recover the box. My advice is to let them make the preparations without telling you the detail, just the outline map of the base. You can then play the cultists whilst the players GM the encounter. It might give them some insight into your levels of preparation.

[Hugo Rune]

Just rereading some of your previous post regarding the hidden organisation and again I think you maybe releasing too much information. Taking the Sopranos as a common reference:

Knowledge that there is a branch of the mafia active within New Jersey is DC20. With that comes the knowledge they are Italian-American (being the mafia and not some other gang). Knowing that they masquerade as construction workers, knowing that they operate a waste management company and knowing they are anti-drugs are each +5. Knowing one of their popular haunts is at least DC40 initially. Investigations might bring the DC down, eg Gather Information in the Italian quarter, that such and such a restaurant is popular with wealthy Italian Americans but comes at the risk of being discovered snooping around.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Started a new thread here so that Knowledge checks aren't hijacking this one. I'm specifically giving an example from one of my games and seeing if I give too much info.

HR, I'd invite you and others to head over there, critique my style and give me further pointers.

I think I agree that I overshare often on knowledge checks. On the one hand I'm super jazzed to reveal lore I took the time to generate for my world, but on the other b/c the knowledge checks pump up so high so fast in my games, likely by about level 6 PCs in my games can know just about everything about a specific line of questioning from the way I release info.

I think I've been running knowledge checks poorly for the past decade.

[Thread Necromancers' Guild]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

[Player Issues]

As always, we strongly suggest killing their characters and raising them as undead.

Whether or not this solves your issues, kill the players and raise them as undead. Works every time!

[Artofregicide]

Thread Necromancers' Guild wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

[Player Issues]

As always, we strongly suggest killing their characters and raising them as undead.

Whether or not this solves your issues, kill the players and raise them as undead. Works every time!

In all seriousness, I had two players like this once. I thought they were my friends, played together for about 5 years.

They ragequit not just the game, or the collective gaming group, but also our friendship over an encounter they *won*. Tried to take the rest of the group with them, but everyone else sided with me. I still don't speak to these two. I later tried to amend the relationship even though what happened (my friends agree on this) was in retrospect 100% their doing. I was constantly apologizing and capitulating to their bullying because I genuinely cared about them.

Turns out, them leaving was the best thing that ever happened to me. One of my players had dropped out because of them, and another had a panic attack and stopped GM'ing due to them. And they were literally ruining RPGs for me. Toxic people that I'm glad are out of my life - I'm genuinely happier without them.

I have no idea where you and your group stand. But don't put up with toxic people - it's not worth it. And don't let it boil to a head. Again, I don't know your situation but I know mine.

[Mark Hoover 330]

So, several folks have suggested that these gamers may be disingenuous, toxic, or otherwise negative. All due respect to everyone but I don't see it as that. Two of these players are my genuine friends outside of games. We hang together, grab dinners and such (at least, when current events permit). Also, one of the people I'm referring to I recently had to clarify a gray area in the rules.

His PC has special permission to have a mount with Trample. As a houserule I've decided that, when the creature is using Trample, enemies can set spears other weapons with the Brace ability and deal double damage if they hit just as if the mount had made a Charge action. This player was totally on board with it and had zero complaints; he even thanked me for telling him up front before just springing that on him in combat.

What I DO agree with though is that these players all have a completely different playstyle than I do, and I think its finally catching up with me. I tend to be more immersive, put a lot of work into setting and such, and try to add elements of RP to even minions in throw away fights. My players are all very tactical, very numbers based.

For example I use the 5 room dungeon model a lot and room 2 in that formula is "Trick/Trap/Roleplaying Challenge." Often times I just default to some mechanical or magical trap. A riddle will send my players into a rage frenzy. The few times I've had RP challenges, like hostages or innocents in harm's way or something, the players find the PF1 equivalent of shooting the terrorist between the eyes even when they've got a knife to the throat of the hostage.

There's nothing WRONG with this style of play. I fall into it myself during boss fights which is why I'm so bad at having bosses run away. But when I'm running fights I also try to describe the battle, add setting details, have monsters call out taunts or jeers (sometimes with clues for the plot) and just add RP to the combat as much as I can.

My players are "I'm going to move to here and flank with the paladin. That's a +2 to hit right? Ok, I hit... 26 AC. I'm using the Reach part of my chained kama so I deal... 9 damage." No taunts. No descriptions. Just the action and the numbers.

I think, short term, I need to get tougher on my lairs and add some new tactical elements to my game. Long term, you're all right; I need to talk to my crew and tell them what's going on.

Edit: sometimes my players DO say that they want the immersive RP stuff and complain if it's not there, but that seems to be something inconsistent and fairly new. I think it may have more to do with the fact that we're forced to play online instead of meeting at folks' houses. I do appreciate folks calling this out to me in this thread though and just in general I very much appreciate everyone's help here and elsewhere so far!

[yukongil]

as a quick aside, hostage takers should have readied actions, um...ready to slice throats at the first sign of conflict. Just make sure to let the players know the scene is setup thusly, so they know what they are getting into.

This should make the players have to negotiate or think outside of just "shoot em betwixt the eyes" to solve it, even if that is get to the point of roleplaying where they can make a bluff check to distract and then shoot em betwixt the eyes

[marcryser]

yukongil wrote:

as a quick aside, hostage takers should have readied actions, um...ready to slice throats at the first sign of conflict. Just make sure to let the players know the scene is setup thusly, so they know what they are getting into.

This should make the players have to negotiate or think outside of just "shoot em betwixt the eyes" to solve it, even if that is get to the point of roleplaying where they can make a bluff check to distract and then shoot em betwixt the eyes

There's the unfortunate side effect of RAW that you can't prepare a readied action outside of combat. Initiative must be rolled and you have to get to your spot in the order before you can do anything.

You can use a surprise round to ready an action to 'cut the hostage's throat' but the hostage has to be bound, unconscious, held, etc to deliver a coup d' grace. A CDG is, of course a full round action, which is NOT a standard action that CAN be readied.

The rules make 'dagger to the throat' and 'loaded crossbowmen on the ledge' kind of a non-starter even at low levels in this game. Players look at a 'cultist with a hostage and a dagger' as a target of a charge/power attack combo instead of a legitimate threat.

[David knott 242]

Hostage situations only have a chance of working when the victims are 1st level NPCs who could be killed with a single attack. I am pretty sure that is a feature rather than a bug in the rules.

[*Thelith]

Well the victim could be a lvl 20 wizard who has not been allowed to prepare spells and has been beaten to a pulp with 1 hp left.. 1 hit from a level 10 will auto kill him...

The victim just needs to have low HP, not a low level.

[David knott 242]

Good point. But getting a really high level character into that condition is a really tricky thing to accomplish, especially by enemies of lower level.

[Hugo Rune]

I think Marcryser is being a little pedantic. One could treat every 6 seconds of normal movement as a combat round with a move action to move and a perception check to observe the surroundings. The game would move at a glacial rate if played this way so some shortcuts are taken to speed play. It should be perfectly possible for an encounter to start with an opponent holding a dagger to a helpless hostage's throat. The opponent can't react until they are aware of the party and may hesitate, indicated by the surprise round and flat footed condition but after that should be free to act.

[*Thelith]

Well, the hostage taking happens behind the scenes. It's just handwaved.

And yeah.. if the hostage takers are aware of the party before they open the door they can have all sorts of actions readied..

[Coidzor]

It is generally pretty desirable for challenges to be challenging and interesting.

Good thematics tend to improve the general play experience as well.

There is definitely a point of diminishing returns for building things up, but good worldbuilding tends to pay off.

The main thing to avoid would be adding arbitrary difficulty for the sake of making things more difficult (at least, beyond the ballpark level desired by all parties) or doing things that generally just make things tedious or eat up session time for no real benefit.

[SheepishEidolon]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

My players are "I'm going to move to here and flank with the paladin. That's a +2 to hit right? Ok, I hit... 26 AC. I'm using the Reach part of my chained kama so I deal... 9 damage." No taunts. No descriptions. Just the action and the numbers.

Maybe their mind is just occupied already. When you deal with several rules under time pressure, you don't want anything else on top of it.

If the same questions come up again and again, maybe your players would profit from rule reference cards. Let them create these cards themselves - the more effort they put into it, the more serious they will take them. While it's a bit counterintuitive to help players with the tactical part of the game to make them roleplay more, IMO it should work out.

This 5 room dungeon model sounds interesting, reading up on it now...

[Quixote]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

So, several folks have suggested that these gamers may be disingenuous, toxic, or otherwise negative. All due respect to everyone but I don't see it as that.

Apologies; the besieged GM is a trope I find especially moving. I may have jumped to some conclusions in my haste to defend something that, in this case, did not need to be defended.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

What I DO agree with though is that these players all have a completely different playstyle than I do, and I think its finally catching up with me. I tend to be more immersive, put a lot of work into setting and such, and try to add elements of RP to even minions in throw away fights. My players are all very tactical, very numbers based.

It's a hard line to walk. I love the satisfying crunch that a well-executed plan and some system mastery can provide. But all the crunch in the world can't keep me engaged without a story behind, around and in front of it. For me, it's the difference between immediate and delayed gratification, or appealing to my simpler tastes versus my loftier ones.

Again, I'd suggest the Angry GM. His articles on the pacing of a story and that of a session--because they are very different and both absolutely crucial to any game, be it a hack-n'-slash loot-n'-level fest or a heavily story-driven one--were so valuable to me.
Specifically, you want to add elements of color and description to keep your game engaging. But you don't want to bog down every scene or action with several lines of exposition; that does just as much damage to your suspension of disbelief as no descriptive storytelling elements at all.
One of such articles is called "How to Run Games Like A Mother-F#@&!% Dolphin", I believe.

I hope your friends are receptive to what you want/need out of this hobby. Going off of how much you've apparently given them, I'd say they owe ya'.

[Mudfoot]

Restricting the CdG to a 100% full-round action is a bit harsh. That full-round action is meant to represent stabbing the paralysed cleric in the middle of a melee, where you have to a) bend down, b) turn him over and lift his head to expose his neck, c) move his cravat out of the way, d) get your dagger in the right place and e) cut his throat. All this while f) his minions try to kill you.

In the prepared hostage situation, you've already dealt with steps a-d which leaves just e. f might apply, or not.

You might mitigate it by allowing the victim an Escape Artist roll to foil the CdG if he's not completely helpless.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Good example of a Coup De Grace, mid fight: the Skeksis destroy Kira in the end of The Dark Crystal.

*SKeksis surround Gelfling. Close up on Kira's face* Kira: NO Jen! Heal the Dark Crystal.

*In slowed motion, Gelfling throws shard to Jen seated atop the Dark Crystal. Ritual Master Skeksis behind Kira produces a knife from sleeve; heaves knife overhead and plunges knife into Gelfling's back*

Jen: Kira! *Jen screams, slams shard back into Dark Crystal and is shot from atop the device by a beam of pure energy*

The whole scene takes about, I don't know, a minute or so? The actual act of the Ritual Master Skeksis is slow, heavily telegraphed. You as the audience see every moment of the heartbreaking attack coming.

FYI, that was a tough moment to see as a kid, even if Kira was brought back just a few moments later.

[Hugo Rune]

I agree with Midfoot. It's also worth noting that hearing noises outside the door doesn't automatically mean that the people in the room are ready for an attack. Sure they could get ready, take cover, draw weapons and hold a throat to the hostage's throat, fearing the worst. But until they identify the person coming through the door as friend or foe, they won't act. Imagine how 'annoyed' the BBEG would be if he walked through the door carrying rewards for his team only to find they've killed the hostage and shot him in the shoulder with a crossbow bolt.

There is situational room for a group to both be ready and surprised. A surprise round is really only a moment's hesitation, whilst many rounds can be spent with the opponent unaware. I've often thought that the surprise round might be better simulated with lost actions rather than bonus actions but have never put it into practice.

[Hugo Rune]

*Sorry, Mudfoot not Midfoot. Too much typing on the phone.