*sigh* players that expect 'fairness' in campaigns and such. how do I deal with them?


Advice

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Okay, so I GM a new pathfinder group, and I'm also new to the game myself. As a GM, I've noticed that I tend to go more for hard monster fights and strange locations and situations than anything else.

So one of my players called me on skype. We talked for about a half an hour, but the jist of his complaint was that he's a bard, next to useless in combat, and I'm currently running the party through an underground city filled with automatons. (no mind effecting stuff for him to manipulate). For some reason, his bard is a one trick pony, and his lack of usefulness is aggravating him.

Our party is...amusing, but by no means optimized. We've got a monk (our primary damager) a dwarf drunk fighter (tank) a tinker with a dual flail wielding automaton, an elf ranger (secondary damager), a fairly well optimized magus, and my GMNPCs. One is an Aasimar cleric (because nobody in our group is a healer) and the other is a robot we ran into last session which can make potions and otherwise serves no purpose. We've been fighting CR 6-9 encounters at level 6, and to be honest, most party members aren't up to the fight. Against one clockwork wizard, we almost lost both our ranger and our monk, despite the fact that the monk was really minmaxy(my fault, I made the character for him).

What I'm trying to get at here is this: How do I explain to my buddies that sometimes (as a GM) I'm going to throw curveballs at them? I'm going to throw encounters at them that they cannot overcome by 'zerg rushing', and campaigns where cities are hard to come by?

My bardic friend's complaint was twofold: One, that he's basically useless right now, and two: That I didn't give them time to shop in the new city before I had an enemy organization take it over.

(I mean, the Dark summoners weren't LOOKING for them, so they could've just ignored the whole thing, but they're good chars, and so they took the paladin's advice and ran away with the NPCs.

Yours in wonderland
Wildfire heart


Stop hitting Submit! You have about 6 copies of this thread already.


oops, sorry


Context to your question? I don't see an OP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes... add an example or two so people can offer some advise. Otherwise its going to be very generic like... Talk to all of your players and tell them before the campaign starts what style you have or are aiming for.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Talk to them like adults, giving details and examples, and really voicing exactly what's bothering you and why.

You know, just like this thread.

Silver Crusade

What Duiker said...and do it before you start a campaign.


Wildfire Heart wrote:

oops, sorry

That's alright. I think most of us have double-posted. I just wanted to make you aware that you were doing it. :)

And for some reason, your initial post has disappeared. Strange.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You could try something crazy, like running the game in a fair and even handed manner.

Without more context, that's the best I got.


Murder.

Wait, that's illegal.

How about...candy. Try candy.

Or both.

Candy and murder in equal parts. Yes, that is Dr. Cursor's solution: Apply Murder and Candy in equal parts until the game is slightly more fair, experiencing insulin shock, or until everyone is permanently dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the erased OP, I thought this was a joke thread mocking people who post topics here expecting to be vindicated in enforcing incredibly unfair rules on their players.

"Stop posting topics like this! We have a ton already!"

And now I'm genuinely curious about what the OP is actually asking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One time I responded to the original post of a thread that took me about 10 to 15 minutes to type out. By the time I hit submit the original poster had deleted the thread. I was searching various forums for five minutes before I figured out why I didn't see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
One time I responded to the original post of a thread that took me about 10 to 15 minutes to type out. By the time I hit submit the original poster had deleted the thread. I was searching various forums for five minutes before I figured out why I didn't see it.

I once posted a response on a thread, and when the page refreshed, my post wasn't there. Not unheard of, I know. The weird part is that it is in my post list on my profile...


ok, my party bard was complaining to me. His character is a one trick pony, and he was annoyed for a few reasons.

1) that his character is basically useless. we're running a construct themed dungeon of my own creation, which basically means he can't use his mind manipulation spells. Considering that his bard is mainly built for manipulation, he's understandably annoyed at his own uselessness.

2) that the last city we visited was torched before the party could do anything. (basically, as we got there after almost a week's forced march [an army of kobolds was chasing the party], the BBEG's organization attacked. The party fought off some automatons and ran to the docks, where warships were waiting to evacuate.)

ok, so to put it in perspective: We're a new group, and I am the GM right now. Our party consists of a powerful Oread monk (main damager), a dwarf fighter (drunkard), an elf ranger, a human magus, a gnomish tinker and two GMNPCs. One is a cleric named Isaala (because nobody in the party took healing spells or anything) and a little robot that we found in the city last session. (She's a potion maker). Our builds (with the exception of the monk, the magus and the cleric, which I actually built for players with their permission) are suboptimal at best, but they have flavour.

Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining. As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless, that's your job, and I try to make my games as realistic as possible. I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

My cleric is an archer/mounted combat/healer build. She has a nice enchanted bow, 12 uses of channel pos energy, and is generally a lesser CoDzilla build. Her two domains are weather and healing. For the sake of not outshining the players, I've relegated her to only healing during combat.

But the group in general has been zerg rushing everything, and not using combat maneuvers and such.

In one example, a single clockwork wizard (evocation) was waiting in ambush. It nailed both the monk and the ranger with a 10D6 fireball, almost downing both in one turn. If it wasn't for our trusty cleric, both would've likely died. Our warrior closed with the mage, then we eventually hacked it down. Personally, I love those kinds of combat. Hard enough that you have to watch yourself, but not insane.

The bard char used it as an example of an "epic level encounter" because the clockwork mage was CR 9 and the party is level 6. I reminded him that because we have so many players, our party's effective CR is 7, not 6.

But where in the rules does it state that I have to give you level appropriate encounters? As a player, I'd rather see encounters where we have to run, or sneak occasionally. Seriously, not every problem can be solved with swords and magic.

Anywho, thanks for your posts

Wildfire heart

EDIT: the clockwork ambushed our ranger and monk when they were trying to sneak into the room where the clockwork was.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Try creating encounters where he can actually make use of his abilities?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Level apropiate encounters... Let me smile at that.

Back in 2nd edition the "level apropiate" was not an existing term. If the battle is fun and memorable, you did an apropiate encounter, regarless of levels, no matters if was a cr15 dragon or a bunch of cr 1 orcs.

Yes, I made a CR 15 dragon pursue a group of players in middle of a sieged city (Red Hand Horde anyone?) and they where like CR6... they runned for they lives, made increible actions to try to evade their pursuer, and finally, burned wounded and exausted, they found shelter in the sewers. For a while.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

your player should note that actual games dont just send a parade of CR-appropriate enemies until you reach the next tier of CR-appropriateness--enemy strength is going to fluctuate, and for a properly designed encounter for a semi-optimized party (CR + ~4) is actually the 'boss/challenging but doable' mark, with beyond that going into 'okay maybe we should run'.

naturally there's some leeway needed on the GMs part for less optimized groups, tailoring to/against party weaknesses, thematics for setting, etc.

i do note a lot of constructs and stuff that, so perhaps let him hae an encounter or two to shine (even going with the theme)--maybe the clockwork folks have a human engineer with them for maintenance, etc.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Try creating encounters where he can actually make use of his abilities?

this, someone has to keep all those automatons up and running, send some actual things at the party he can work with.

and TBH, if you as the GM saw my manipulator bard build, KNEW what type of game you were running and KNEW I would be useless vs 90% of the enemies and DIDN'T warn me (or just say "it won't work in this campaign") against it, I would be upset too. at this point I'd probably ask for a new character. It isn't fun to be useless. at this point I would say, "I perform inspire courage once every 3 rounds" (assuming I had the lingering performance ability). Then go off and look at my phone or something during combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wildfire Heart wrote:

ok, my party bard was complaining to me. His character is a one trick pony, and he was annoyed for a few reasons.

1) that his character is basically useless. we're running a construct themed dungeon of my own creation, which basically means he can't use his mind manipulation spells. Considering that his bard is mainly built for manipulation, he's understandably annoyed at his own uselessness.

2) that the last city we visited was torched before the party could do anything. (basically, as we got there after almost a week's forced march [an army of kobolds was chasing the party], the BBEG's organization attacked. The party fought off some automatons and ran to the docks, where warships were waiting to evacuate.)

ok, so to put it in perspective: We're a new group, and I am the GM right now. Our party consists of a powerful Oread monk (main damager), a dwarf fighter (drunkard), an elf ranger, a human magus, a gnomish tinker and two GMNPCs. One is a cleric named Isaala (because nobody in the party took healing spells or anything) and a little robot that we found in the city last session. (She's a potion maker). Our builds (with the exception of the monk, the magus and the cleric, which I actually built for players with their permission) are suboptimal at best, but they have flavour.

Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining. As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless, that's your job, and I try to make my games as realistic as possible. I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

My cleric is an archer/mounted combat/healer build. She has a nice enchanted bow, 12 uses of channel pos energy, and is generally a lesser CoDzilla build. Her two domains are weather and healing. For the sake of not outshining the players, I've relegated her to only healing during combat.

But the group in general has been zerg rushing everything, and not using...

Ah, an actual post with content. Yay.

As far as the bard goes, it's usually considered a good idea to give players a heads-up about what kind of things they're going to be facing, especially if it really is overwhelmingly going to be one kind of enemy. This may let some characters be overpowered by being the right kind of one-trick pony, but it prevents someone being entirely useless. This isn't really relevant if you're going to be dealing with a broad range of enemies, which is a more common approach. Some adventures where the character is useless aren't a big deal, but a campaign is a problem.
The alternative I suppose is just to warn your players against any one-trick ponies. Still best done up front, rather than teaching them a lesson by putting them through a game that isn't any fun.

Also, due to different perspectives and levels of information, "those kinds of combat" may appear completely different to players than they do to the GM. What looks to you like "hard but not insane", might look to them like "We should have died but got lucky".

CR is an approximation at best. I also wouldn't count your cleric (and probably the robot potion maker) as full PCs if she's just combat healing. That helps, but isn't as effective, particularly if the build isn't focused on it.

Teaching players it's ok to run is hard. Just killing them if they don't doesn't work. Throwing too hard fights at them and then not killing them doesn't work either. Flat out telling them there are times they should just run can work, especially if you add a "and this might be one of those times", at least at first. Obviously completely overwhelming opponents or opponents who casually slaughter creatures they'd had troubles with can start to get them in the habit.

On the larger scale, the game isn't supposed to be fair. It's supposed to be fun. If they players aren't having fun, that means it isn't working, regardless of how you can justify it.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wildfire Heart wrote:
ok...

There are a couple points I'd like to make about GM'ing in general.

When you're GM'ing a game, short-term or long, it's considered polite to give the players a general heads-up if they make a character that isn't appropriate to the theme. That one action avoids the entire argument. Going into a new game, the players only know what you tell them. Tell them nothing and they just end up making random characters that may or may not be fun to play in that particular game. Don't blame them for their lack of foreknowledge.

Instead of trying "to make [your] games as realistic as possible," you should try making your games fun for all your players. The GM's job, first and foremost, is to facilitate the group having a good time.

GMPCs are a touchy subject. It looks like you have 6 (?) players; the five you listed plus the Bard. With 6 players, I wouldn't run a GMPC (much less 2).

One thing the CR system doesn't account for is tactics. If your players are struggling with encounters, try lowering the challenge a little. The CR/APL numbers are just a rough (very rough) guideline. A GM had to use their judgement when designing and running encounters, sometimes adjusting things on the fly.

The big thing I'd take away from this is that if your players are complaining about the game you're running, you should listen and take their feedback seriously.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Construct-heavy adventuring areas may be thematic, but they can also be monotonous, particularly for PCs geared up for other kinds of enemies. Include a bit more diversity in your encounters.

The only real balance issue with RPGs, as far as I'm concerned, is balancing the focus each PC gets in opportunities to have fun, to hold the spotlight and shine, and be treated as an equal voice in the game. So give the bard something to do that is as worthwhile as fighting constructs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A few thoughts:

1) When you start a campaign, I think it's fair to give your players a general idea what to expect. If you're running Skull & Shackles, then tell them "pirates!" If you're running a political game, tell them it'll be a game of intrigue. If the game is set in a kingdom with particular characteristics (like Geb, Cheliax, or the Elvis Kingdoms), then tell your players these characteristics. If don't give them these bits of info, then, IMO, a player is entirely right to be annoyed.

2) As GM, you ought to make sure your players are having fun. If a player feels useless in encounter after encounter, then he isn't going to have fun ... and you aren't doing your job. So change your plans a little bit. What is the ratio of pure combat encounters to social encounters to skill encounters? If 90 percent or more of encounters fall into only one of these categories, then you're not really running a balanced game where all of your players get a chance to shine.

3) Is your player missing ways for his bard to be useful? If you've put some hooks out for him, but he's not seeing them, you can always take some time between games to talk to the player about ways his bard could have been more useful in the previous session.


Was the player of the bard told that a significant portion of the enemies would be automatons before he made the character?
if no, then I kinda see where he is coming from. I mean yes, the character may not know what is upcoming, but it is usually a good idea to give the player some ideas on the campaign. For ideas look at the players guides for the published AP's. I would also let him rebuild the PC (with the warning that 1 trick ponies often have that problem).
If yes, I have much less sympathy for him. However, I would still let him rebuild the character.

I personally don't like the whole concept of 'level appropriate' encounters. But I do know that currently a significant percentage of the gamers feel it is an expectation. That is something that should be discussed as a group before the campaign even starts.

To be fair, in PF it is often fairly difficult to be able to know that you can not handle an encounter until you have already started the fight and are getting your ash kicked. At that point it is usually very close to impossible to get away (at least without sacrificing several members of the party).

Meh, one fireball should clear out all the lizard folk. There is no way to know that the lizard folk around the leader have 6 levels of barbarian and that the leader is an 11th level druid. Ulp! We should have run.

Also, when designing encounters and portions of a campaign, I am not too worried about level appropriate as much as plot appropriate. However, I do try to put in things for all the different characters to do well. As long as it is also plot appropriate.
So I might put in a situation where the party has a chance to se the guy giving the orders to the robots. The caster could read his mind, charm him, trick him, blackmail him, etc...
The robots are always alert, but a storm has dropped a tree across the open ground. So the rogue has the chance to sneak along its shadow into the complex.
Not all the time, but occasionally I will try to add something like that for each of the PC's.


*heh*

pennywit wrote:
. . . the Elvis Kingdoms

where peanut butter and banana sandwiches are the communion bread and sweat squeezed from the Anointed One's towel is the holy water. Where The King never died, the Elvis Kingdoms.

I would talk to the bard about doing other 'bardy' things. Can't manipulate the bad guys? Focus on inspiring the group. Sing ballads of the heroes' derring-do in the inns, compose epics about the nefarious evils that abound in the land to make the general populace aware. A bard should be able to raise a peasant army fairly quickly. Bardic knowledge to discover/invent/find a 'magical EMP' to take out constructs (sort of a mass hold person that affects constructs).

This is supposed to be a game of imagination, but the bard sounds like he's whining because he can't do the things that are just in the book. The books are a springboard, not a hammock. He should get creative and imagine.

You should help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:
*heh*
Bill Dunn wrote:
. . . the Elvis Kingdoms
where peanut butter and banana sandwiches are the communion bread and sweat squeezed from the Anointed One's towel is the holy water. Where The King never died, the Elvis Kingdoms.

Hey, it's a legitimate setting. And probably one that's perfect for a bard ...


Wildfire Heart wrote:

o Our party consists of a powerful Oread monk (main damager), a dwarf fighter (drunkard), an elf ranger, a human magus, a gnomish tinker and two GMNPCs. One is a cleric named Isaala (because nobody in the party took healing spells or anything) and a little robot that we found in the city last session. (She's a potion maker). Our builds (with the exception of the monk, the magus and the cleric, which I actually built for players with their permission) are suboptimal at best, but they have flavour.

A lot of what I would say has already been said, so i won't repeat.

GMPCs are always a mistake.

I, way back in a previous age when I first GMed started using them and I think most GMs do.

NPCs should always and for all purposes be NPCs with a personality [of some sort, most are not very detailed] and should never be the GMs PC. Even NPCs that the GM identifies with too much, who are half a GMPC can easily turn into a mistake.

I continue to be amazed by how bad the GM having a PC is, it seems fairly harmless but it always takes away the focus from the PCs and the GM knows all the answers therefore the GMPC does.

Other fatal GM sins are, with more or less the worst first-

1 Competing with players. An idiot idea as a GM is in control of literally everything.

2 Allowing pushy PCs whatever they want as they are trouble when they don't get it.

3 Allowing loud and rude Players to take over from more polite PCs at will [OK a version of 1]

4 Playing favourites among players. To some extent this is inevitable, RPGs are just too complex to be objective all the time, and in the case of couples its also essentially impossible. My moto when a GM plays favourites in a serious way is to stop playing straight away. If its going to start it won't stop, and continued participation is just going to lead to trouble.

Beyond that I tend to be tolerant and not only don't argue with GMs much
I try to get others not to. If I don't like a campaign I just leave, on anything major a GM is unlikley to change.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:

Was the player of the bard told that a significant portion of the enemies would be automatons before he made the character?

if no, then I kinda see where he is coming from. I mean yes, the character may not know what is upcoming, but it is usually a good idea to give the player some ideas on the campaign. For ideas look at the players guides for the published AP's. I would also let him rebuild the PC (with the warning that 1 trick ponies often have that problem).
If yes, I have much less sympathy for him. However, I would still let him rebuild the character.

I completely agree with this. Not only for the fact that it prevents things like an enchanter showing up to a campaign full of mindless creatures, but it also helps players make characters that would naturally be a part of this story. Personal investment in the thing that they will be doing (whatever that might be) can make a big difference in how the campaign will go. For instance you dont want an antigovefnment, loner character showing up to a kingmaker campaign where the whole purpose is to create and rule a kingdom. That sort of information should be passed along prior to character creation. I too would allow a rebuild of the bard character (even to a new class if neccesary).

Quote:

I personally don't like the whole concept of 'level appropriate' encounters. But I do know that currently a significant percentage of the gamers feel it is an expectation. That is something that should be discussed as a group before the campaign even starts.

To be fair, in PF it is often fairly difficult to be able to know that you can not handle an encounter until you have already started the fight and are getting your ash kicked. At that point it is usually very close to impossible to get away (at least without sacrificing several members of the party).

Meh, one fireball should clear out all the lizard folk. There is no way to know that the lizard folk around the leader have 6 levels of barbarian and that the leader is an 11th level druid. Ulp! We should have run.

This is also true. Its not like the look of a thing can tell you how dangerous it is. A kobold with 12 levels of ninja, is way more dangerous then the far more visually imposing CR 3 troll. If you want to include encounters that arent meant to be taken head on, this has to be handled both in and out of game. Out of game, talk to your players about the stlye of campaign they are in for, and let them make characters that fit it. If your campaign requires lots of sneaking, research and careful planning, the dumb raging smash everything barbarian isnt a good fit.

In character you should be giving hints, there should be build up, with possible skill checks (usually knowledge checks) so players have some idea they are approaching encounters not meant to be taken head on. If the only way to know this is when the big monster has already taken out a party member, its too late for them to realistically do anything about it. Running away is actually very hard in pathfinder, theres no simple way to break contact in an encounter. When movement is turn based, and the group doesnt have military style organization so that choice to retreat is universally and simultaneously followed.

Also as to the specific example, I'd like to repeat what would be my signature on these boards if I could have one.

Single enemy encounters are ALWAYS a bad Idea. Any encounter that could be good with one enemy, will be better with many. Its certainly ok to want to challenge your party, but particularly when theres more then 4 of them, the way you do that is with MORE enemies, not one single more powerful enemy.

The reason for this is simple. The game doesnt work that way. Each character gets one set of actions. Until we get boss monster rules or something like that, a single enemy will either be overwhelmed by the action economy of numerous player characters, or, as in the case of an ambush, it will go first, and consequently be a disproportionate threat to any single character. Keep in mind, when I say have more then one enemy, I dont mean to add throwaway minions. You can have those too if it fits, but there should always be more then one enemy in an encounter that is both a threat to the party AND important to whatever if going on. Want the big bad wizard? Sure, go for it, but also have his bad ass leutenant(s) to help him deal with the insuffarable heroes.

Like I said, with effort, environment, good planning, tactics, etc, you can make a signle enemy encounter work. But it would have universally been a better encounter, working better within the pathfinder rules, if you had additional enemies in the mix.

This is seperate from the level appropriate challenge issue. I am talking about when designing an encounter that is meant to be a fight the players partake in. And an ambush certainly is such, they dont have a choice about engaging in it in the first place.

This isnt a matter of 'fairness'. Its a matter of fun. I have been in encounters where there was a single enemy that just crushed someone the oppening turn. And while that can make for a dramatic story, it makes for a lousy game. The person who was taken out (possibly killed) doesnt just get beat down, but is effectively barred from playing in (at least) that encounter. That can be anywhere from minutes to hours of real time the player isn't playing. That is a universally bad thing. That is not to say I somehow thing players should never go down or be killed, but if they are one shot by a foe too powerful for them to defend themselves from, then they never had a reasonable chance, and simply being the first target sealed their fate to do nothing for what might be a large amount of actual time at the table. I dont know anyone who things not playing a game is as much fun as playing a game. Do you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wildfire Heart wrote:
Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining. As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless, that's your job, and I try to make my games as realistic as possible. I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

Honestly, its part of your job as the GM to look at PC builds prior to game start to discover things like: a bard specialized in manipulation spells, especially if the campaign you've prepared involves constructs that minimize the use of manipulation spells. Without revealing to the player that constructs are a major part of the campaign, you need to suggest "maybe you shouldn't be specializing in manipulation, as much of the campaign will counter use of such spells."

When a player, for example, is creating a ranger and is selecting his preferred enemies, I will either offer suggestions for a single preferred enemy (say constructs) or try to insure at least half the selections made are added to the setting, so at least some times the ranger can have the spotlight on their selected skills.

If a PC build is obviously opposite to the threats the party will face, not telling the player that his build is problematic with suggestions as to directions he ought to consider, prior to the game start - you've done something wrong as a GM.

I don't hand-hold my players, but I do try to help them be effective, rather than being ineffective and not telling them until the game begins. To me not being fair in the way you describe is a dick move on your part.

Its your job to insure all players can potentially have fun. Allowing them to use ineffective class builds is not doing your job.

And no, being a good and fair human being to your friends is not in the rules of the game, rather part of the rules of life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wildfire Heart wrote:
Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining. As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless, that's your job, and I try to make my games as realistic as possible. I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

As a GM it is entirely your fault if a character is useless. Were you not there when characters were being created? You could have steered him towards a more effective character. If you did and he still said "screw it, this is what I'm making," then that is a different story.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
But where in the rules does it state that I have to give you level appropriate encounters? As a player, I'd rather see encounters where we have to run, or sneak occasionally. Seriously, not every problem can be solved with swords and magic.

No where in the rules does it say that, but if your players are not having fun then you are doing something wrong. Also, you are not a "player" you the "GM." Sometimes as a GM you have to put aside what you think is fun and focus on what your players think is fun. If you don't and continue to throw stuff at your players that they don't enjoy it won't be long until you don't have players left.


My beef is when the gm creates an unbeatable encounter, and the only outcome is realistic outcome is tpk. Yet somehow a deity intervenes and saves the day. What happens after that we get experience as if we defeated the encounter. Yuck. Its like why am I playing this game.

Sorry off topic.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
For instance you dont want an antigovefnment, loner character showing up to a kingmaker campaign where the whole purpose is to create and rule a kingdom.

Actually, this could be entertaining.

==========
GM: "You are going to be a team of mutants, feared and hunted by the government ... "

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
======

GM: "You are the Praetorians, an elite guard dedicated to defending Empress Lahnsa ... "

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
==========================

GM: "You are members of the magical community, struggling to keep back the tide of the supernatural in a world that does not hear things that go bump in the night."

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
=======================

GM: "The Computer wants all of you to be happy. You must seek out and destroy agents who would oppose the Computer."

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
========================


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A caveat to the NO DMPC's. If you're running a 1-on-1 campaign, a DMPC works very nicely.

In a regular group, npc's traveling with the group should usually be those that the group has recruited/hired/cultivated in-game. Anyone the DM thrusts on the group will usually be viewed with a great deal of suspicion (and, most of the time, let's be honest, their doubts are well founded). And even then, hand the npc's stats over to a player and let them run them. However, let the players know that you, as the DM, retain veto power should the players decide to have the npc do something totally out of their personality.

I've found that getting out in front of loud, rude players can help tremendously. When you're about to turn it over to the group to discuss an action, just pre-empt everyone by saying, "I'd really like to hear what John Polite would like to do."

If Dick Rude beats you to it, just steam-roll right back over him, "Hey, Dick, you've had a lot of good ideas this session, but I'd like to hear what John Polite has to say first because he hasn't said much yet."

A lot of times, people think introverts don't have anything to contribute when actually they have a great deal going on in their head. It just takes someone to draw them out; like a teacher 'calling on them in class.'

If the bard player doesn't want to look for a way to make the bard work (see my post above . . . not the part about the Elvis Kingdoms, below that), you could suggest a character change. Have him make someone that better suits the campaign, who is attracted by an ode the bard recites, who journeys a bit with the group, and then the bard decides to spread the news far and wide, heading off into the sunset and the player can now play this new character.

Or, if they like one of the DMPC's, kill the bard (a heroic death scene would be nice) and let them take that over.


pennywit wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
For instance you dont want an antigovefnment, loner character showing up to a kingmaker campaign where the whole purpose is to create and rule a kingdom.

Actually, this could be entertaining.

==========
GM: "You are going to be a team of mutants, feared and hunted by the government ... "

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
======

GM: "You are the Praetorians, an elite guard dedicated to defending Empress Lahnsa ... "

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
==========================

GM: "You are members of the magical community, struggling to keep back the tide of the supernatural in a world that does not hear things that go bump in the night."

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
=======================

GM: "The Computer wants all of you to be happy. You must seek out and destroy agents who would oppose the Computer."

Player: "I'm Wolverine."
========================

I can make for an entertaining story, but that isn't the same as an entertaining game. Think about how often wolverine derails x-men stories? In an actual rpg session that means that actual people (controling cyclopse, storm, etc) are sitting around twiddling their thumbs for hours of actual time while wolverines player ignores the situation at hand to go chase down sabertooth or some other personal side quest.

At the very least this should be an informed and discussed choice that the whole group is aware of. Out of place heroes can make for really great stories, but they can create serious problems in an actual game session.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:


I can make for an entertaining story, but that isn't the same as an entertaining game. Think about how often wolverine derails x-men stories? In an actual rpg session that means that actual people (controling cyclopse, storm, etc) are sitting around twiddling their thumbs for hours of actual time while wolverines player ignores the situation at hand to go chase down sabertooth or some other personal side quest.

Mostly just riffing. I started chuckling to myself when I imagined Wolverine in an RPG based on My Little Pony.


What strikes me reading this over is why did the character make a bard? Did the DM not say what kind of campaign this would be? Or did he just make a bard because he wanted to knowing full well the majority of the foes would be constructs?

My answer depends on those answers. In one, the player is being a jerk for building something that is useless despite knowing what he is getting into then complaining about it. In the other the fault is on the GM for not communicating with the players and not bringing up his character might be suboptimal and not fun in this sort of campaign.

Either way I'd probably offer him a chance to rebuild into something more fitting. The game is about fun for my groups first and foremost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let him reselect his known spells, let him readjust his gear if he bought items to allow specific focus on the mind controlling aspects. Add in a few more human encounters, especially people with key intel so that when he gets them to talk its even more awesome for him.


44 people marked this as a favorite.

Warning: the following is blunt.

I spent an hour typing this up. My opinions are backed up by 4 decades of GMing RPGs since the 70's, but they're still opinions. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure these answers will help the OP find a better balance in his games and resolve his players' issues.

Hopefully the OP (and anyone else) can benefit from what I have to say.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
ok, my party bard was complaining to me. His character is a one trick pony, and he was annoyed for a few reasons.

This should be your first red flag. And that flag is telling you that YOU are the one screwing up here.

It's the job of everyone at the table to make sure you're all having fun, but the GM is way more influential in this role than any player. If a player is "complaining" then he's not having fun.

Fix it.

Specifically, YOU fix it. Not him.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
1) that his character is basically useless. we're running a construct themed dungeon of my own creation, which basically means he can't use his mind manipulation spells. Considering that his bard is mainly built for manipulation, he's understandably annoyed at his own uselessness.

His uselessness is YOUR fault. You let him build a useless character and/or you designed a campaign where his character is useless. Either way, it's YOUR fault.

Stop putting the blame on your player.

But, that being said, you're not expected to throw your whole campaign out the window to please one player. Alter some encounters. Don't make everything a construct. Better yet, have the PCs start finding cyborg constructs where the enemy has been building smarter constructs that actually have living brains (General Grievous). Make them cool and dangerous but, good news for the bard player, they are no longer immune to mind affecting magic.

Wind down the construct part of the story and move on to something that is not construct-oriented. If you want, you could have the big bad boss in the next room; they kill him and they're done with constructs forever. Then they move on to something else where ALL the players can feel like contributors.

But you don't want to do this because of this:

Wildfire Heart wrote:
we're running a construct themed dungeon of my own creation

"We're" not running this dungeon. YOU are. Your players didn't create it. YOU did.

So now you're invested in your beloved creation and it pains you to contemplate the idea of letting a whiny player ruin your work of art.

Too bad. Get over it. Change your creation so that it accommodates EVERY player or else your creation is a failure.

One other option, basically a compromise, would be to work with him to alter his bard's focus. Be more of a buffer for his allies and less of a mind controller, at least for now while the campaign is so construct-oriented. But if he works with you, you still MUST work with him to get this campaign to a point where he can be effective doing what he wants.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
2) that the last city we visited was torched before the party could do anything. (basically, as we got there after almost a week's forced march [an army of kobolds was chasing the party], the BBEG's organization attacked. The party fought off some automatons and ran to the docks, where warships were waiting to evacuate.)

I personally see nothing wrong with this. Sometimes bad things happen. Luke didn't get home in time to save Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, but the story went on.

But, maybe how you handle it could be all the difference.

For example, if you set it up that their goal was to save the city and made them think that they COULD save the city, but then you trashed the city and let them somehow think they failed, or worse, that you robbed them of the chance to succeed, then yes, they will complain about unfairness.

But if you made it clear that they were way too late and that running through the ashes and saving what survivors they could was the only option, that it wasn't their failure, that it was a despicable evil villain who did a terrible thing before the PCs got there, well, then they have nobody to blame but the evil villain and should not feel robbed by your unfairness since it will then be obvious to them that this was just a plot device to characterize the evil villain.

There is a whole separate discussion abut "railroading" the PCs here, and a fine line between plot development and railroading. This is not the thread for it, but you might want to do some Google research on the subject.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
Our builds (with the exception of the monk, the magus and the cleric, which I actually built for players with their permission) are suboptimal at best, but they have flavour.

Sub-optimal flavor builds are perfect for roleplay-heavy games. It sounds like you're running a combat-heavy game so maybe these are not the best builds.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining.

Hopefully you do now.

To reiterate: YOU let him build a mentalist build and then YOU created a story where his only effective abilities are useless and now YOU are telling him it's his fault and that you're not going to help him be more effective in YOUR story.

He should complain.

You should fix it.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless

Yes, it is. It definitely is.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
that's your job,

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The only case where I might blame the player for this is if you told him, clearly and with no uncertainty, that mental abilities would be useless but he still created the character. If you told him, unequivocally, that he was building a useless character and he went ahead with it, then I would agree with you that it was his fault.

But then he wouldn't be complaining, would he?

So I'm pretty sure it didn't happen that way, which brings us back to it being your fault.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
and I try to make my games as realistic as possible.

This is fine. I agree with you. I like realism too.

But I suspect that for you, "realism" means "what I want" more often than it means "plausible depiction of reality".

For example:

Does your realism include some encounters that are just easy battles where the PCs simply steamroll over these weaker enemies? Because, realistically, that would happen sometimes.

Does your realism include some encounters with non-constructs? Because, realistically, that would happen sometimes.

Does your realism include the least useful party members finding an occasional magic item that would let them become useful in encounters, perhaps in ways they didn't originally plan? Because, realistically, that would happen sometimes.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

Enemies using normal tactics that "wreck the party" are probably too powerful for the party.

Everything is not a simple formula of CR vs. APL. At nearly any level of APL I can pull out encounters from the bestiaries that would wreck any normal party just by finding the enemies with the right abilities that attack the party's weaknesses while having the right defenses to marginalize the party's strengths.

You have "sub-optimal flavor builds" and at least one character who is useless. Given this, I don't think the party's APL is what you think it is.

It's YOUR job to make sure encounters are a suitable match for your party. Not every time; some should be difficult, some easy, and even a few should be epic. But this is NOT a simple matter of "Well, the CR is right for your APL". It's much bigger than that.

Stop neutering that bard and let him contribute, and the party's APL goes up. Maybe allow a little rework on those sub-optimal characters and help them be more optimal and the party's APL goes up again.

Noe that when I say "the party's APL goes up" I really mean it goes up to what it probably should have been all along - which is to say that right now it is almost certainly one or probably two levels below what it should be.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
My cleric is an archer/mounted combat/healer build. She has a nice enchanted bow, 12 uses of channel pos energy, and is generally a lesser CoDzilla build. Her two domains are weather and healing. For the sake of not outshining the players, I've relegated her to only healing during combat.

Bad, bad, bad.

Very bad.

Get rid of this cleric.

Bards can heal - if your bard player is feeling useless, then let him keep his allies alive with his healing spells. If he has not figured it out yet, then have him meet a fellow bard who sets him on the right path by roleplaying some wise old mentor kind of thing.

Now if that bard learns to buff and heal, he can be VERY valuable in construct encounters. Now that might not be what he set out to do, it's not what he built his mentalist bard to do, so it's incumbent on you to make sure he knows it's temporary and that there is an end in sight to this construct-heavy story arc.

So lose the DMPC. Immediately.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
But the group in general has been zerg rushing everything, and not using combat maneuvers and such.

Then teach them not to. Use terrain, pits, traps, battlefield control, anything you can think of to divide and conquer the PCs who are zerging.

BUT...

Do it with weak encounters so the PCs don't die. Let them see a few encounters that should be easy fights turn into hard fights because of the PCs' bad tactics and they might start using better tactics.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
In one example, a single clockwork wizard (evocation) was waiting in ambush. It nailed both the monk and the ranger with a 10D6 fireball, almost downing both in one turn. If it wasn't for our trusty cleric, both would've likely died. Our warrior closed with the mage, then we eventually hacked it down. Personally, I love those kinds of combat. Hard enough that you have to watch yourself, but not insane.

This sounds like a fun fight. No complaints.

Hard-but-not-insane fights are fun. Shouldn't happen in every encounter, but they're fun to have from time to time. Maybe even half of the time - but that varies from group to group so YOU as the GM have to figure out what your group wants and give them encounters that they enjoy based on their style of play.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
The bard char used it as an example of an "epic level encounter" because the clockwork mage was CR 9 and the party is level 6. I reminded him that because we have so many players, our party's effective CR is 7, not 6.

As mentioned previously, their APL is probably more like 5 due to a useless PC and the other PCs being sub-optimal flavor builds. So maybe this actually was an "epic" encounter (CR = APL + 4).

As I said above, estimating encounter suitability is not a simple matter of a mathematical formula.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
But where in the rules does it state that I have to give you level appropriate encounters?

Nowhere.

You are correct.

But I guarantee you that, at least for most groups, having every encounter over their APL will get tiring and tedious. It will be exhausting and quickly become no fun for them.

So mix it up.

For every APL +x encounter, have an offsetting APL -x encounter. Not back to back; that would be too obvious and unrealistic.

But if the PLAYERS come to realize that sometimes you challenge them with hard encounters, sometimes you let them be superheroes crushing their enemies on the battlefield, and sometimes the encounters fall somewhere in between, then you won't have them complaining about the epic battles any more.

Wildfire Heart wrote:
As a player, I'd rather see encounters where we have to run, or sneak occasionally. Seriously, not every problem can be solved with swords and magic.

I agree.

Have you discussed this with your players?

Do you give them the opportunity to scout ahead (something else the bard might be good at), to diplomatically handle some enemies (something else the bard might be good at), and to find alternatives to combat?

If you are giving them these opportunities, are you doing it in a way that the players know about? Are they deliberately saying "Well, our GM gave us a chance to talk to these guys but let's just crush them anyway."?

If so, why?

In my experience, this usually only happens when a GM has the attitude that he created a combat encounter and forces the players into combat - he punishes them for scouting by hurting/capturing/killing the scout often enough that nobody wants to scout any more, he punishes them for negotiating by roleplaying the encounters as stubborn and unwilling to respond to negotiation, etc.

When the alternatives consistently fail, players stop looking for them.

If that's not you, then maybe just talk with your players and see if they want to use that "sub-optimal flavor" for handling encounters without combat. If they do, then help them figure out how, but if they don't, then maybe it's time to revisit their character builds.

Hopefully that helps you work this out. I'd love to hear about your successful upcoming game sessions.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wildfire Heart wrote:


Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining. As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless, that's your job, and I try to make my games as realistic as possible. I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

Erick Wujick once said in Amber Diceless. "If your players all bid on Warfare, don't base your campaign on Psyche."

It very much IS your fault as a GM. The realism argument goes out the door with the first magic spell. As a GM you should be looking at the characters the players create, their strengths and weaknesses, and you should be setting up opportunities for each character to have their moment. If you're using a published module, alter it. If you're using your own material... change it.

If the players don't make use of the opportunities you give them, than it's on them. If they can't evolve beyond the zerg-rush mentality, there's not much you can do for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Wildfire Heart wrote:


Personally, I kind of didn't understand why my bard was complaining. As a GM, it's not my fault if your character is useless, that's your job, and I try to make my games as realistic as possible. I've been using crummy tactics for the most part, but when I do use ambush tactics and play the enemies like they should be played, the enemies just wreck the party.

Erick Wujick once said in Amber Diceless. "If your players all bid on Warfare, don't base your campaign on Psyche."

It very much IS your fault as a GM. The realism argument goes out the door with the first magic spell. As a GM you should be looking at the characters the players create, their strengths and weaknesses, and you should be setting up opportunities for each character to have their moment. If you're using a published module, alter it. If you're using your own material... change it.

If the players don't make use of the opportunities you give them, than it's on them.

The flip side to that is, if you already have something you want to run planned, let the players know enough about it that they can make appropriate characters. Or tell you they're not interested in that, if they really don't want to.

Don't all bid on Warfare if the GM's promised a Psyche based game.


DM_Blake wrote:

Warning: the following is blunt.

I spent an hour typing this up. My opinions are backed up by 4 decades of GMing RPGs since the 70's, but they're still opinions. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure these answers will help the OP find a better balance in his games and resolve his players' issues.

Hopefully the OP (and anyone else) can benefit from what I have to say.

Very well spoke. I loved this post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The guy's a bard, there is literally no way he could be useless in an encounter unless he is making a deliberate attempt to do so.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
The guy's a bard, there is literally no way he could be useless in an encounter unless he is making a deliberate attempt to do so.

But that usefulness is probably not related to how the player saw the PC as he was building him and that means the interests he built into that character aren't being served. It's like playing Johnny Storm in a fist-fight. He can do it, but he's the Human Torch, man! If you are denying him any chances to "Flame on!", you're going to make the game suck for him.


Arachnofiend wrote:
The guy's a bard, there is literally no way he could be useless in an encounter unless he is making a deliberate attempt to do so.

I agree with this. Plus the story didnt magically switch to a construct storyline. I'm sure there was some indication of the direction of the story.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with most of the advice here. One thing I find lacking is that they're all telling you to give the Bard encounters he can handle, but aren't giving you many examples.

Assuming for a moment that you're really tied into this all-construct campaign, why not introduce a few third parties? Perhaps the constructs have displaced a tribe of orcs (or goblins, kobolds, lizardmen, bugbears, you get my point). Perhaps there are other adventuring groups wandering around the same dungeons.

These could easily become encounters where a manipulator bard could feel relevant. And if he really wants to be a hero, he could even find a way to sic those third parties on the constructs. There is nothing a manipulator caster likes better than having things fail their will save v. domination. Or having a bluff check believed that sends an enemy into another enemy's mouth.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I know I prefer my games with rock men and small, potion-making robots to be as realistic as possible.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Warning: the following is blunt.

Kudos. That was a work of art.

-Skeld


DM_Blake for the muh'fuggin WIN.

I'm fairly new to the whole DM'ing experience, and the only reason I'm running a DMPC (Goblin Bard) is because it'd otherwise be a party of two and all the encounters would, for the most part, have to be small.

I just hope you take these posts constructively. While it may seem like they're bashing you, trust me when I say you kind of needed it. Everyone at the table should be having fun.

My suggestion is to have the DMPC's get focused on and killed and have the Bard (either immediately or a little later) find/be given a fully-charged wand of cure light wounds. 1d8+5. But definitely also include mobs he can manipulate.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

"My player is not having fun. Tell me how to change my player so he has fun."

There is a problem with this attitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I know I prefer my games with rock men and small, potion-making robots to be as realistic as possible.

TOTALLY UNREALISTIC!

The rock men should have all been killed off by paper men!
Potion-making robots is perfectly normal, though.


It's been said but it bears repeating: there is NO reason to have a GMPC in a group with 6 players. Your Cleric is doing many of the things the Bard could be doing. Your Cleric is directly contributing to the Bard's dissatisfaction. You are making your player unhappy with his character and that is your responsibility as the GM.

Your Bard might still be a disruptive player and he may still be unhappy and there's a possibility he's still going to want a bigger chunk of the limelight but you'll never know these things if you keep playing your completely unnecessary GMPC.

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / *sigh* players that expect 'fairness' in campaigns and such. how do I deal with them? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.