|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 31, 2018 23:03:02 GMT -6
If you read nothing else, please read this:I am looking for feedback on both the campaign as well as my GMing. What do you like, what do you want more of. If you don’t tell me what you’d like to see more of or improved on, I can’t fix it - and I want the game to be fun for all. So, please, post, even if through PMs, on what can be done.
About the game on 17 Aug:
So, we ended 17 Aug on, we’ll call it an awkward end. I was very frustrated with the table for, what I felt, was constantly questioning anything I did - it felt like there was a lot of lack of trust in me as a GM and that I was trying to “get away with something”. This behavior isn’t just from 17 Aug (though it was the most obvious), but had been increasingly common the last few months. This was especially true when we had what I felt was going to be a very interesting “hostage” situation, yet people became impatient and kept trying to essentially skip the enemies turn and just kill him. I don’t care if you guys punk the big bad or anyone, as I have no “plans” for them to reoccur or “get away” unless they have a very lucky opportunity and are intelligent enough to try and take it - so when the situation presented the enemy to have a hostage, he took it, and this seemed to upset the players. I don’t care if you defeat the big bad in one round with a lucky crit or if it becomes a fight to the last hitpoint on the last PC, both can be memorable - I’m not cheating or trying to thwart you, I’m cheering for the PC’s at the end of the day. If I forget to say something it is because I’m typically keeping a lot in my head and trying to keep the combat moving, but if you want I can slow down, let each person get a perception/spellcraft check at each spell and litigate what each character knows is happening. In the case of Vortakai, he had 3 pre-combat spells already running and a lesser rod of metamagic (quicken) so he was able to toss some defensive spells on when he felt more threatened. I do have to rebalance each encounter as the module isn’t built for six PCs, so it is a difficult balancing act that I’ve never had to do before - typically it comes in the form of extra HP or AC, but this dungeon was especially difficult to balance, especially with some urgency added. It feels to me like people just aren’t enjoying combat, and I don’t know if that is because you’re sick of it, you don’t like the real possibility of dying, or what. I get that sometimes it is no fun if you are constantly missing and not feeling as though you’re effective in combat - but lately you guys have been really crushing the combats, especially compared to earlier. So I don’t know what it is, but it has felt that over the last few combats there has been a lot of frustration towards anything going perfect in a fight. Should I take death off the table? What can I do so that combats are fun? Is the behavior described above being caused by something I am doing? Is the campaign no longer fun? I don’t want to make people play a campaign they are “done with” and I’ll gladly end it and work on other things if y’all would prefer that?
Onto my recap and feelings on things:Overall, I was relatively happy with the chapter, though “by the book” it was easily the most directionless we’ve seen so far. I tried fixing it, giving more direction, but I may have accidentally made it feel more of a “ride” than I intended with the PC’s going from Varnhold -> Nomen -> Vortakai with minimal breaks in between. I thought, at least in the early parts, as though the kingdom centered more into the game, but it quickly was out on the back burner when the A plot started going. Not optimal, but I need some time (and input) as to how to fix it. The starting and stopping between game sessions became annoying, most of this was on me due to school so I couldn’t do much about it, but I felt it may have wrecked some of the pacing. Towards the end of the chapter, the game titled too much towards Tess’ NPCs. Part of this is because two PCs were new and hadn’t had time to build up relations, and the other tends to be a loner. I need to do more to put more opportunities for the PCs to interact and form relationships with NPCs, be it allies or enemies or in between. I also need to figure out a way to include Liliya in more scenes for Andrei, but it is difficult when the most obvious way to do so is through one on one “dates” and I don’t think that would be fun for many people (however, I am now imagining The Little Mermaid scene where Tess, Melikova, Walker, Walays, and J’Varis are singing “Kiss The Girl” while Andrei and Liliya are on a romantic boat ride in the harbor). Regardless, I think I need to bring more NPCs and their relationships out so the world feels more alive, but not to the point where y’all need to spend an hour in real game time chatting up the local fletcher when you just wanted to buy 10 freaking arrows. I constantly feel as though I’m not describing things well or clearly in scenes. Part of the problem is because my vocabulary is quite limited and even more limited for terms in a fantasy setting - and prewriting my descriptions feels uneven to me, though I have relied on it a bit more during the Vortakai dungeon delve - I don’t know if anyone has noticed any difference? Part of the problem is because I worry too much about bogging things down with too much description and people checking out. I like to (generally) keep things snappy and the nervous energy I feel each time I GM may make me too impatient, but I’m not particularly good at determining where things bog or go too fast vs a good down scene or a solid action packed scene. Another smaller note: six players is definitely more “cat-herding” than five. The jump from four to five wasn’t too terrible, but the jump from five to six felt like a much larger amount of work to balance as well as getting everyone involved and interested. Not sure if that is normal, but I can’t imagine getting into the 7+ area.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Sept 1, 2018 10:11:43 GMT -6
I am looking for feedback on both the campaign as well as my GMing. What do you like, what do you want more of. If you don’t tell me what you’d like to see more of or improved on, I can’t fix it - and I want the game to be fun for all. So, please, post, even if through PMs, on what can be done.
I have no real complaints ultimately. Chapter 3 did feel very disconnected, however, which I mostly placed the blame on the erratic schedule which you acknowledged later sort of messed with the pacing - I experienced the exact same thing with "Red Sky," especially with the 3rd adventure which never had two back-to-back sessions, but were instead separated by at least one week. That definitely messes with the pacing. Of late, It probably (definitely?) didn't help that we sort of pushed GM duties onto you since no one else was ready or willing to run, despite knowing you were going to be in school. Ultimately, I wonder if it would not have been less stressful for you if we'd just paused the campaign until you were ready to pick it back up? Huh. I hadn't noticed that. In this case, knowing that you're running off an adventure path, if I question stuff, I tend to question the adventure path, not the GM. Having played in a couple (as well as read through a couple more), I've definitely noticed their tendency to inject weird stuff just because and that weird stuff is not always properly balanced... A couple of things: first, to me, that felt more like a bunch of miscommunication rather than an intentional effort to go all murder-hobo on the dude. As a player, I failed to comprehend (for far too long, TBH) that the undead wizard dude was going into a Wait or Ready or whichever one it was, then I failed to grok who he was actually threatening - if you recall, I think it took you spelling it out in little letters (not quite with crayons) that he was intending on blasting J’Varis. (Which, as it turned out, wouldn't have done anything since he was going to use magic missile and J’Varis has that brooch of shielding ... although none of us knew that.) So because I was completely ignorant of the fact that the dude had a Ready active, I think my lack of understanding of that fact spread around the rest of the table since I handle the combat tracker. Second, the hostage situation didn't really make a lot of sense in his position - based on the loot, he's a wizard so he would have recognized that fact so that "huh? That doesn't make sense" on my part may have contributed to my inability to fully grok what was going on. As to why the hostage situation doesn't work, we entered upon observing him and the cyclops with him murdering some innocent villagers and eating their brains; we'd previously discovered the other centaur in a torture chamber (probably tortured by this dude?) and had fought a fricking demon or devil or daemon depending on alignment. That firmly puts this guy as Evil. It would have made more sense, IMO, if the bad guy had cackled about his master destroying these fools then dimension doored out of the room. YMMV, of course. Something to keep in mind - and this only occurred to me after the fact - but that rod of lessen quicken? It has to be in his hand for him to use it, AFAIK. You can't have it tucked in your belt and use its benefits. To be fair, we were also running close to empty with regards to abilities and spells in the last couple of fights, which turns normally super effective characters (read: spellcasters) into essentially bystanders which is never that much fun. While I actually liked the sense of urgency we had - the ticking clock element was well done - at the same time, it ended up essentially sidelining Walker, for example, who basically let his wolf do all of the fighting because he was out of spells, or J'Varis who was also running really low (or the Big Bad happened to be immune to what he had). Having a character who basically isn't doing anything or is incapable of actually participating for whatever reason is a downer. So I think that frustration showed and that's what you were observing. Honestly, that's the big advantage of being a non-caster type, I think... As stated above, the introduction of the "ticking clock" lent a sense of urgency that worked very nicely. Unfortunately, I think it may have worked too well which resulted in us pushing forward more aggressively that was wise. TBH, we were damn lucky that Tess' Dispel Magic worked because dominated Andrei could still hit the PCs pretty damned hard - not as hard as Vordekai since that Smite Evil only works on the target - so my "evil" plan was not to target Melikova since she was right next to Vordekai and I figured he could handle her, but to engage either Tess or (ideally) J'Varis (because magic missile fraking sucks to a fighter.) He would have known that Walker was mostly tapped out in terms of spells and Walays would have probably disappeared (and possibly bailed) when things went south ... The lack of exploration of the hexes between the Shield Lands and Varnhold is an issue that Andrei would have liked to resolve. Having our scouts and soldiers check them out is the obvious solution so, with Walker's assistance, that's going to be the plan, I think. Question: how was this chapter any more directionless than the first two? Both of them basically had the PCs wandering around, exploring and the like. Is it just because they're actively in charge now? Yeah, I would have liked to done more with the kingdom stuff. TBH, I think I'd like for more than just a couple of months to pass between this adventure and the next if possible so we can deal with that a bit more. Enough time to actually grow the realm a bit. Unfortunately, I think that I'm actually the only one who really likes that part of the game so ... we may need to take that part to the boards? No worries. In the Saturday fantasy game that Mark is running, the last two sessions have basically been the Rigil Show which has been making me uncomfortable. In this case, it just played out that way. What? You're not going to just fridge her so Andrei has some angst? LOL. Six players is difficult and the players (myself included) definitely need to do a better job of staying focused. And less loud.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 1, 2018 11:25:49 GMT -6
Another smaller note: six players is definitely more “cat-herding” than five. The jump from four to five wasn’t too terrible, but the jump from five to six felt like a much larger amount of work to balance as well as getting everyone involved and interested. Not sure if that is normal, but I can’t imagine getting into the 7+ area. We had six players with ChrisIV and it wasn't so bad. But Mark is a much larger presence at the table, so it's more like 7-8 now I constantly feel as though I’m not describing things well or clearly in scenes. ~30 years and I don't know a GM that doesn't still struggle with this. Some random points: - This whole chapter featured some major changes to the PC group, and I think a lot of the awkwardness of the chapter stemmed from that
- I don't think the GM did anything really "wrong" throughout, including the countdown—I think that was necessary—excepting the "hostage thing" which got really tangled up; wrong thing at the wrong time, IMO
- I think I agree that it seems to be better overall when we're back at the fort than in the field. Could just be my character, though
- Combat is suffering somewhat, but I couldn't say from what at the moment. Will continue to ponder that…
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 4, 2018 14:09:58 GMT -6
Huh. I hadn't noticed that. In this case, knowing that you're running off an adventure path, if I question stuff, I tend to question the adventure path, not the GM. Having played in a couple (as well as read through a couple more), I've definitely noticed their tendency to inject weird stuff just because and that weird stuff is not always properly balanced... Most of the sentiment I'm talking about is more with rule decisions, especially in combat. However, even in the case of the adventure path itself, I've had to adjust it to the point where it is a basic skeleton and I've tried to add some more of the meat to it. I actually don't mind people saying "that doesn't make sense" - and even want to hear more of it - so I can improve as a GM. So if something doesn't make sense, tell me, if it is during the game, I'll have to make a call on the fly and it may be the wrong one, but we can re-approach the issue on the boards where I can think about it better. If it isn't a snap judgement of a rule and instead a story element, it can help me figure out if (and what) I did wrong with the story, whether it be making invalid assumptions, poorly explaining things, etc. Second, the hostage situation didn't really make a lot of sense in his position - based on the loot, he's a wizard so he would have recognized that fact so that "huh? That doesn't make sense" on my part may have contributed to my inability to fully grok what was going on. As to why the hostage situation doesn't work, we entered upon observing him and the cyclops with him murdering some innocent villagers and eating their brains; we'd previously discovered the other centaur in a torture chamber (probably tortured by this dude?) and had fought a fricking demon or devil or daemon depending on alignment. That firmly puts this guy as Evil. It would have made more sense, IMO, if the bad guy had cackled about his master destroying these fools then dimension doored out of the room. YMMV, of course. I don't want to re-litigate that particular fight, as it may have been where the stop happened, but it was just a part of a similar vector I had noticed. In this case, yes, the undead wizard is Evil (though he only brought people in to be eaten and attacked intruders into their lair, so not as simple as just saying he's Evil, but I hate the alignment system and definitely do not want to litigate that). He did not have dimension door slotted (or any other useful retreat ability) and had no way to flee outside of running away. He then used J'varis' life as a hostage to be allowed to flee. Because I am trying to be keep things open and fair, I don't want to "invent" a way for him to escape that he did not have the ability to do - even if the PC's didn't know he didn't have that ability. While I think a good GM can "cheat" a NPC out of a situation, I think it is very dangerous and have avoided using it. Something to keep in mind - and this only occurred to me after the fact - but that rod of lessen quicken? It has to be in his hand for him to use it, AFAIK. You can't have it tucked in your belt and use its benefits. Yeah, he would have pulled it out at the start of the fight, I completely forgot to mention that because he was never going to use it as a "weapon" and failing to properly describe the scene properly - it was out in my head, but that doesn't help you guys know what's going on. TBH, we were damn lucky that Tess' Dispel Magic worked because dominated Andrei could still hit the PCs pretty damned hard - not as hard as Vordekai since that Smite Evil only works on the target - so my "evil" plan was not to target Melikova since she was right next to Vordekai and I figured he could handle her, but to engage either Tess or (ideally) J'Varis (because magic missile fraking sucks to a fighter.) He would have known that Walker was mostly tapped out in terms of spells and Walays would have probably disappeared (and possibly bailed) when things went south ... Had you have done that, I would have been mildly annoyed. Andrei was under mind control and you making him attack the strategically best target for the PC's side is frustrating because I don't think Andrei would (or should) have the ability to make those decisions. I misread this. Please ignore. Question: how was this chapter any more directionless than the first two? Both of them basically had the PCs wandering around, exploring and the like. Is it just because they're actively in charge now? So, originally this chapter's BBEG had no connection to the BBEG of the campaign in general. Furthermore, there is no reason to explore the Varnhold if you follow the most likely method of discovering the reason behind the Varnhold Vanishing. For whatever reason it seems perfectly clear that Varnhold->Nomen->Vordakai would be the way the vast majority of players would go about this and very few reasons the PC's would stop or slow down from this obvious threat. I couldn't fix it, but I don't know why this glaring hole was not fixed by the adventure path writers themselves as it seems like a glaring issue that professionals should have spotted a mile away. Yeah, I would have liked to done more with the kingdom stuff. TBH, I think I'd like for more than just a couple of months to pass between this adventure and the next if possible so we can deal with that a bit more. Enough time to actually grow the realm a bit. Unfortunately, I think that I'm actually the only one who really likes that part of the game so ... we may need to take that part to the boards? I don't know but I agree that I'd like to see more of the Kingmaker stuff - I don't know if the boards is the best way as it may leave some out, but I don't know if a "Kingdom Building Session" would be fun for the whole group either....
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 4, 2018 14:21:43 GMT -6
We had six players with ChrisIV and it wasn't so bad. But Mark is a much larger presence at the table, so it's more like 7-8 now Well, it was a bigger deal for me - and a learning experience, that's for sure. ~30 years and I don't know a GM that doesn't still struggle with this. I don't expect to ever be perfect with this problem, but as far as I can tell from self-reflection, it is easily my weakest part of GMing (unless y'all have a different opinion?) and the one I desperately want to improve more. Part of the problem is my vocabulary is quite limited as well, making it even more difficult to describe things well.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 4, 2018 14:22:15 GMT -6
Two down, four to go.
Magman, CommJunkie, XenoCore, LabRat.... what say you?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Sept 4, 2018 14:39:20 GMT -6
TBH, we were damn lucky that Tess' Dispel Magic worked because dominated Andrei could still hit the PCs pretty damned hard - not as hard as Vordekai since that Smite Evil only works on the target - so my "evil" plan was not to target Melikova since she was right next to Vordekai and I figured he could handle her, but to engage either Tess or (ideally) J'Varis (because magic missile fraking sucks to a fighter.) He would have known that Walker was mostly tapped out in terms of spells and Walays would have probably disappeared (and possibly bailed) when things went south ... Had you have done that, I would have been mildly annoyed. Andrei was under mind control and you making him attack the strategically best target for the PC's side is frustrating because I don't think Andrei would (or should) have the ability to make those decisions. Okay, I'm a little confused here. How would potentially killing the only wizard we have on our side or hitting the only healer the best option for the PCs? What was the spell, specifically? Andrei is still fairly tactically minded in that sort of case so unless it strips him of his common sense like those shadow things (which totally sucked), engaging those that he considers the biggest threats seems logical. Actually, now that I think about it, Tess, Walays or Walker would have been the target simply based on "kill your friends" as Andrei barely knows J'Varis and Melikova has made a conscious effort to remain something of a loner. So she's an associate at best. Tess was the closest "friend" so Andrei should have targeted her.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 4, 2018 15:22:07 GMT -6
Ah, roj roj - completely misread - please ignore that... sorry. Edit: The spell was " Dominate Person"
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Sept 4, 2018 15:35:02 GMT -6
Ah. With Dominate Person, he could have had Andrei attack Melikova first if he so desired.
Note that Andrei would have received the +2 bonus to resist because attacking his friends and allies is definitely against his normal instincts ... not that it would have mattered in this case since I failed the Will save by a lot more than 2...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 4, 2018 15:37:06 GMT -6
He could have, but Andrei was making the correct choice by who he went after - it was me that misread who and why you were going after other PCs.
And yes, you would have received the bonus.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Sept 5, 2018 11:28:04 GMT -6
I haven’t read any responses so far so if there are repeats, then I guess take that into consideration when going over our critiques.
I think for this one there was a lot going on that wasn’t in the GMs favor. I’m sure the shuffling of new/old players messed things up a bit, as well as the schedule you had to keep regarding your school work. Plus we are getting into higher levels so the difficulty of managing several higher levels characters is something that could potentially be a challenge and require more work from the GM. I can’t remember half the things that Tess is capable of (and I know Rigil does the same thing from time to time) and we are playing a single character that we know more intimately than you would with your flavor of the week BB. So I think that this time around you were pretty overloaded with managing everything
Chapter 3 was just a weird chapter. I don’t really felt like it “fit” in with the previous two (but maybe fits in better with 4-6? Don’t know until we experience it). If this is more of a stand alone, I can only assume the devs decided that maybe this was a way for player to secure more land/allies in case certain campaigns weren’t really pursuing the whole managing and growing a kingdom. Maybe it sets us up for a future chapter? Not really sure, of course, but the awkwardness of it showed and probably contributed to the overall feeling of the campaign.
I agree that your biggest downfall is the relaying of information. There were many times where things weren’t really clear or you assumed that we knew something that we either didn’t know or we had forgotten due to this campaign stretching out over months. I think that maybe writing out some things beforehand may seem unnatural but at least you can make some notes about the things that you for sure what to convey to the players. Plus making notes will help to ease the burden of being a GM so you don’t have to constantly remember 50 details over a series of hours or even sessions.
I did miss the kingdom building/interactions that this chapter didn’t really provide. Plus it gives more time for the social characters to do their thing and so they feel like they have more value in the campaign. I would definitely recommend taking a session or so to focus on NPCs/Kingdom shenanigans that would draw in the players and make them feel like they have more agency.
This isn’t really directed towards you per se but we really need to figure out something about people talking all at once when things get tense. I think that it builds upon itself and people get frustrated in the long run. I’m not saying we have to resort to pass the conch but I think it’s okay for the GM to tell everyone to shut up and then take a few seconds to focus on a single player in terms of what they want to do before moving to the next player. I know people are going to say it bogs down the game, but we really spend a lot of time talking over each other so I don’t think we are going to lose efficiency if we take some time to simmer down a focus for a bit.
This leads me to another issue of GM management of the players and not characters. I mean we are all adults here, we are all here to have fun, but I’m having a hard time deciding where that line is where a GM becomes a manager of a game and a babysitter. We all had issues with not paying attention, having extraneous conversation, not being engaged, etc. So as a GM, what can you do? Should you call them out on it, ignore it and potentially let the problem potentially fester, or maybe skip their turn if they aren’t paying attention as a “punishment” of sorts? I only ask this because most of the time our GMs are nice guys and typically let things slide, but I don’t think that’s helping them with their internal frustrations. On the other hand, we are always saying that players need to be better at x,y, and z, but it doesn’t seem like we ever improve. I’m merely asking because if things were handled differently, could the session on the 17th potentially be avoided if you felt like you had the ability to speak up when things were frustrating for you?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 5, 2018 12:11:25 GMT -6
I did miss the kingdom building/interactions that this chapter didn’t really provide. Plus it gives more time for the social characters to do their thing and so they feel like they have more value in the campaign. I would definitely recommend taking a session or so to focus on NPCs/Kingdom shenanigans that would draw in the players and make them feel like they have more agency. I was gonna add that we should go back to the "officers' monthly report" format. It was kinda fun, and got the point(s) across, and made the die-rolls make a sort of sense. I mean we are all adults here, we are all here to have fun, but I’m having a hard time deciding where that line is where a GM becomes a manager of a game and a babysitter. I waffle on this one from time to time. But I can't recall anyone ever implementing any sort of table-rules that didn't fizzle soon after. We just don't grant each other that level of authority, and as my former tendency to give out homework has taught me, nobody wants to turn Fri night into a "job." I think the best we can do is individually determine to be better players, and be gracious in the face of being told to STFU for a minute (or whatever other correction is needed).
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 5, 2018 14:07:32 GMT -6
I did miss the kingdom building/interactions that this chapter didn’t really provide. Plus it gives more time for the social characters to do their thing and so they feel like they have more value in the campaign. I would definitely recommend taking a session or so to focus on NPCs/Kingdom shenanigans that would draw in the players and make them feel like they have more agency. Definitely something I will add back in. I didn't mean to get away from it, but it just happened as the chapter began avalanching. I’m having a hard time deciding where that line is where a GM becomes a manager of a game and a babysitter. We all had issues with not paying attention, having extraneous conversation, not being engaged, etc. So as a GM, what can you do? Should you call them out on it, ignore it and potentially let the problem potentially fester, or maybe skip their turn if they aren’t paying attention as a “punishment” of sorts? To a point, it does rely on the GM. I know it isn't all on the GM and everyone needs to chip in - but to a point the buck stops with me. I will need to be a bit more foreceful about people paying attention, though, most folks are reasonably good about it. I also don't want to make things not fun (as Giger mentioned) - but it is of course disrespectful if you keep having to have the current situation described because you're too busy on your laptop/cell phone. What is difficult is to know where to say something. I don't want to nag, I don't want to make things not fun. I'm not innocent - I get distracted when I'm a player - though I am fairly decent at dual tasking and paying enough attention to know what is going on and knowing what I need to do... I also like people making their case as to why X rule is being forgotten or misinterpreted by me, so I don't want to stop that. It is the griping over every time a bad guy hits or why X is stupid that does frustrate me, because I feel like there is a lack of trust in me as a GM to be fair to the players. I don't know if this comes from a time before I was in gaming where GM's were commonly more adversarial or what... I just don't know how to fix it without coming off as an asshole now and again - and I don't want to do that for fear of making the game much less fun.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 5, 2018 14:24:13 GMT -6
What is difficult is to know where to say something. SOP is to just forget about it and move on, unless you just can't for some reason. Maybe that's good enough—or it wouldn't be the SOP for the last 20+ years. We could, as a group, agree to "See something, say something"—on both sides of the screen—and just live with the consequences. But everyone's gonna get irritated at having the Finger of Shame pointed at them sooner or later. OTOH, things might change for the better as a result, so maybe it'd be worth it? Hard to say. I suspect it'd last for a month or so and then the old SOP would return, because it's just easier. I've always had a peeve about people doing "other things" at the table, regardless of who or why, or which side of the screen I'm on at the moment. If you're doing two things at once, neither of them are getting 100% of your effort/attention. Someone who habitually does other things at the table really needs to evaluate why they're at the table in the first place, IMO. But finger-pointing and shaming is not something I want to become a part of my gaming experience, so I just won't. (Except for the rare stealth-strike like this one.)
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 5, 2018 17:49:19 GMT -6
SOP is to just forget about it and move on, unless you just can't for some reason. Maybe that's good enough—or it wouldn't be the SOP for the last 20+ years.... I've always had a peeve about people doing "other things" at the table, regardless of who or why, or which side of the screen I'm on at the moment. If you're doing two things at once, neither of them are getting 100% of your effort/attention. I guess then I may become a bit more willing to "call out" particularly egregious behavior - as someone would call out a rule mistake or something not making sense within the campaign, be it not paying attention, backbiting, etc. If that makes me a less fun GM, I'm sorry, but (as everyone here knows) GMing isn't easy and if people cannot have the respect enough to behave like adults, I'll gladly let other GMs run who can absorb that bad behavior more easily. In general, I personally have a reasonably high tolerance for "dual tasking" as long as you are not distracting other players, following along, interjecting your character where it makes sense, and understand what is going on during the game. If (royal) you feel as though you can do this, go nuts, but if I come to a place for your character to be involved and have to prompt you or re-explain things, then the party will have to deal with whatever the consequences of you failing to be paying attention. Thanks to Giger, Rigil and Labrat for the great responses. Still waiting on Xeno, Comm, and Magman................
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Sept 6, 2018 11:47:34 GMT -6
Hey, I'm just waiting for XP and loot.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Sept 6, 2018 13:10:15 GMT -6
Hey, I'm just waiting for XP and loot. We have plenty of time. Not like we are coming back to this before the next year
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Sept 6, 2018 13:21:09 GMT -6
Bah!
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Sept 6, 2018 15:43:49 GMT -6
Working on it...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 6, 2018 17:54:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Sept 6, 2018 20:50:41 GMT -6
Just know while I may come across as harsh, I will do my best to give it as a constructive growing opportunity, and provide options that one can take or leave. Please don’t take any of this personally. <So, if one doesn’t feel up to a bit of constructive criticism stop reading here – accept that I had fun, and move on>. Book three did feel like filler. I feel its intent was a chance for the PCs to experience what the other charter groups were experiencing. I also feel it was intended to give the PCs a further chance to expand their kingdom. To look beyond their own blossoming kingdom and get involved with the trials of the other budding kingdoms. I don’t know how much time had passed between books, but I do believe the intent was to have something like six months to a year between books 2 and 3. This could have easily been a reason why this go-round felt rushed, and unfulfilling from a kingdom building standpoint. I realize the GM is putting his own spin and that is cool, more power to ya! I do find when I attempt to put my own spin on a prewritten adventure path I am best prepared by knowing the whole story (details and all), so when I tweak one part I get a feel of how it will affect the remaining story elements. As Mikal will attest, she would rather me try the recipe as written before I try and tweak it, not that I listen to her LOL. -- I will admit, I had some points of contention. Most of which can be attributed to misunderstandings, and miscommunication. RPGs are if nothing else, a test of one’s ability to communicate a story, where in both GM and players make the attempt together. There should be some Q&A on what is really going on (even within combat… a shared mental model), assumptions lead to frustrations, both for the GM and the players. Again, not being one to give criticism without how I would approach the same issue… take the following however one desires. We all look to improve, and I am more than willing to accept counter arguments, or GM ideas as well. --- Regarding the impending military action against us… The area is big, if one recalls a hex on the map takes about a day to traverse. There was this feel that the forces against all of us were HOURS from reaching the home kingdom, when it should have taken DAYS <even an undead army that doesn’t stop to rest>. One also should address how Vort-takai’s forces know the location of our kingdom… it is new (he is working from super ancient knowledge). Even attempting to say one of the brains he sucked for knowledge wouldn’t seem specific enough to make a campaign of the endeavor. If he was THAT intelligent, he would have made a point to gather intelligence prior to taking such, IMHO poorly planned campaign. Against Nomen and Varnhold, sure… he knows the area, and has the knowledge, taken directly from, the peoples of that region, ergo… current and actionable intel. Additionally, HOW many freaking undead cyclopes did he have AND was willing to waste on such a campaign. Sure as undead one doesn’t have much of a supply train to worry about, but even his power and numbers are limited. Classic military blunder is overreach, and he is supposedly intelligent? In short… I felt the whole attacking horde of undead ready to lay waste to OUR kingdom in a matter of hours a bit undercooked. How I would have tweaked it would have been to make the threat just against the Nomen (Varnhold was already fallen). One still gets a reduced timeline to work within, and a more focused target for Vord-a-guy. Only once he establishes his power base again, he would likely reach out against the other regions. -- Regarding ‘misunderstands’… Some of us have been playing some variation of DnD for a long time. Pathfinder has been my go-to game for as many years as it has been available, and 3.5 before that. It is hard to hear some things without doing a double take... 3rd level spell being cast as a 7th for example means 13th level caster. Or the casting scorching ray as an 11th level zombie caster (three beams). Max mirror images being limited to 8, etc. Now, I realize there was bit of information not imparted on the PCs prior to Vord-a-Mort pulling what he did ( displacement casting without announcing it etc...). I admit I called shenanigans, and should have waited till the end to do so. I also admit, that I should have been more forgiving. Saving criticism for afterward. -- ‘Rescue’ of J’varis… I was also annoyed by, what I felt was GM ‘meddling’. Basically I felt the PCs were forced to stop what they were doing and expend limited resources on saving J’varis. Being killed in a game is no big deal for me. Maybe there was a perception I was going to be upset, having been only in the game two sessions? It happens, and it was basically a clean kill (minus the four rays, later corrected). The PCs would have barely even known that something tragic just happened, they were fully engaged in a fight themselves. The casting of magic around them is pretty normal by now. Then the GM’s insistence that they intervene, putting them at risk, and having to ignore whatever threat was immediately in front of them… I didn’t care if I died, I did state that it was OK if I didn’t make it. J’varis was not in his right mind, he took MAJOR risks because of the issues facing his much limited wisdom, and it was a clean kill. So what if the Nomen lose a male… it is a background correction for the GM. The characters showed no love for J’varis, he was a new guy, and still only just getting integrated, then got dumb, and was causing no end of headaches for them, why risk everything for him? And I do not agree that base charisma would have been reason enough for them to outright like him enough to do anything so blatantly risky. Not to mention use the only ‘get out of jail free card’- the gimpy raise dead scroll (more on that later). -- Balancing just how often one wants the dice to screw the PCs… I have found that through the years, when trying to give PCs clues or in-game knowledge that sometimes it is really not worth them rolling for it… unless one just wants them to NOT get the clue. I have found the easiest way to bring a game to a frustrating halt is for a roll, and watch it come up 1’s… I combat this by knowing what the PCs effective skill is, and comparing that to what I feel the difficult is (if arbitrary), or compare against the given DC. In Pathfinder terms if I have a DC 20 knowledge check and the PC has that skill at 10+, I give it to them without a roll… They would have got it on a take 10, or 20. Unless there is something beating at the door, I give the PCs the benefit of the doubt, and assign the take 10/20 rule automatically. For example, the Charon chamber… neither PCs were able to make the required roll, but we were not in an immediate rush. The failure of the dice forced the PCs into acting. YES, we as players KNEW this had to be a trap, and we all wanted desperately not to have to trigger it. I acted J’varis’ part, we failed, J’varis figured (not Mark), “what the hell, it is just a worship chamber, and a door…”. WE knew it was more, but because of the dice, the PCs didn’t know. This happened so many times during the game, that I was frustrated (more at the dice than anyone). As a GM I get scared for my PCs sometimes, I want them to succeed, and I hate when stupid dice force them into ‘forced’ reckless action, or inaction. NOW, assuming for a moment the PCs were against the clock, or wouldn’t have been able to make the roll on a take-10 much less a take-20 then a dice roll would have been appropriate. This is just how I handle such thing, every GM comes up with their own method. -- The hostage attempt… Sorry, I think every GM has issues with this. Trying to make a split second decision to take a hostage is no small feat in an RPG. In my experience, I have found that this works better if the PCs walk in on the situation, or one closes the session with the PCs hopelessly surrounded – read: cliffhanger. One has to assure the PCs one is not out to screw them, but to push a plot device… ask Rigil and Giger about how I took them hostage in traveler… To be brutally honest, it was pure hubris for the baddie to even attempt it. Nothing about his situation made it even a remotely intelligent nor wise attempt. He is an 11th level caster (he cast 4, no 3 scorching rays). Why on earth would he not have just left the fight, he was a wizard and near death. I realize that he had to be tweaked by the GM (11th level), but in such tweaking a contingency spell is not out of the realm of possibilities. Side note: This intelligence thing seems to get thrown in our faces, to such an extent, I felt it got personal at the very end of that evening. Not sure if this was just an individual’s frustration or what, but I was not appreciative. Barring my early criticism of nearly forcing the PCs to help J’varis and now able to threaten the wizard… A) He had a WILD animal going all out on him (nothing would have called off that wolf, let’s be semi-realistic), the wolf would have attacked and triggered the waiting spell, B) He was hurt, bad… and the PCs knew it, C) What real reason would Andrei have to save J’varis, the way I perceived Andrei (and the other) is he (they) not really liking/knowing J’varis. Oh! And throw in the ninja that practically threatening J’varis for wanting to save his lover… What reason would Andrei have to risk his true friends for this rash, big mouthed, over-confident centaur (who knew the risks, and verbally accepted them to Andrei’s face). There was a rules issue here as well… The zombie wizard needed to take an official wait action. Call it… make it so, and call it what it is… a wait (triggered by a PC threat of harm)… which would have been triggered almost immediately by the wolf if nothing else. There was no real functional way to pull what was wanted, and even I struggle with it. Once a fight is on, it is really hard to break it off in such a way. Just because one is evil doesn’t mean they are not up to yielding, then planning some elaborate opportunity to escape, and/or take a hostage later… Side-note: I have always played HP based damage pretty close to the chest when I know a PC is nearing 0 or less HPs. I roll the damage, then ask the PC how may HPs they have remaining… If the total dealt would be enough to kill them or drop them I tell the PCs “The lights go out…”. A) The PC doesn’t know if he is dead or not, B) the others don’t know that either, nor do they know just how bad it is if the PC is in the negatives and bleeding out… This adds a sense of urgency to the others actions, and one doesn’t get the “we have time to save him” meta-actions. Also, if one’s attempt wasn’t really to kill the PC one can just fudge the numbers (if one desired it). -- Death… Ok, I think I understand how the feel of this game is intended to go with regards to death and such. If one allows all forms of raise dead etc, then is there really any threat to the PCs? However, removing the possibility can really mess with the feel of a game. I have three feelings on this… - Status-quo - Leave the rules alone: RAW. – Raise dead is not without its limits (neg. levels and potential CON damage).
- No raising the dead, limited only to deities, or super rare cases.
- Increase the requirements to cast raise dead, and/or make it not a guaranteed to function spell. Soul ready for rest, deity unwilling to give up the recently dead…
- Remove raise dead(5th – 9th level caster), and limit only to resurrection(7th – 13 level caster) and/or true resurrection (9th – 17th level caster). Make reincarnate (4th – 6 level caster) a 7th level, spell (13th level caster).
- Increase the spell level for which it is cast. Only the really experience can bring the dead to life.
- Limited to availability to those that adhere to a specific domains eg. Healing, Death, Repose.
What characters really want to be forced to answer, “If you die, do you want to be brought back?” A, “I have paradise awaiting” type may say no, but the, “I am going to oblivion” type would say yes. I get the “I don’t want to have to choose” thought. What if my answer was, “Raise me if I die doing something stupid, but not if I do something heroic…” If raising dead were available, even if restricted, one doesn’t have to really deal with such conundrums. Side-note: Personal feeling… a scroll that only works in the first round of death is not really helpful. As shown, it becomes this ordeal in which players really have to play against their character (and battle rhythm) to make it happen. I think I understand the thought process, but what difference does it make if one can raise dead now (in the next 6 seconds), or later. I guess I am an ‘all or nothing’ type. -- Total player count… The number of players really can be a difficult thing to tackle. How does one balance the spot-light..? I have given up trying to force people into the spotlight, not to say I don’t continue to give the player opportunities, but if they aren’t taking the bait… that becomes their issue. I just give them smaller/less important plot opportunities. When one does take the opportunity, I give more frequent and bigger opportunities. If I am not give an opportunity and I want one, I will try as a player to weave one in... eg. The love affair between J’varis and Xamantha. I (as a GM) had to STOP thinking it was my fault that others were unfocused at the table. I also stopped taking it personal if someone wasn’t focused on me, annoying yes, but not personal. Heck, I am guilty of this more than I intend to be. Also, people derive entertainment from the game how THEY will. The GM is entertained by how the PCs interact with their story, and the PCs are entertained by the elements within the story. One is going to be entertained by combat over RP, and another RP over combat, and yet another by equal part. A story that weaves the elements together works. One might not blow my skirt-up one week, but have me giggling like a school girl the next. Use the round-robin approach to outside actions. Use a talking stick, it is a matter we all can work at if it is felt not everyone is given a chance to ‘speak-up’/interact. Combat should be quicker in DnD than GURPS, I think if people are going to ‘wake-up’ and participate, it should be during the high action portions. Nothing bogs things down more, than getting to someone’s turn and the question is, “What is going on?” Skip-em, they take an arbitrary hold action. They will learn. -- To address the less than veiled remarks directed at me… I am loud. By all means quiet me, Mikal does all the time, not going to hurt my feeling. I do not EVER intend to hog the spotlight, but at the same time if no-one is moving the story along one can bet I will do what I can to, “get on with it.” -- Final parting thought, maybe a step off topic, but maybe a bit of helpful insight into the Marky-verse… One thing I deal poorly with is… shenanigans. I have 20 plus years dealing with adults making stuff up, lying, or bad excuses as to why/why not something is correct or not. I scrutinize a lot of what people say, intentionally or not. I don’t deal with it well, and I called my troops out on it all the time. Making stuff up doesn’t sit well with me, partly because under the circumstance I functioned in there was a lot riding on an individual’s actions. My troops either knew their stuff, or didn’t (and we trained them). But the airmen that made stuff up on the fly were the worst (read dangerous). So, if I react strongly, know it is a MARK/crusty old NCO thing. I need to be reminded that this is a game.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 6, 2018 21:09:45 GMT -6
Really, the "hostage" thing is worthy of its own discussion. So much misunderstanding there…
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 6, 2018 23:49:33 GMT -6
First off, thanks so much for this very in depth reply. I really appreciate it! I like the constructive criticism, though as a warning my answers will be in the same manner. I'd encourage anyone else who has things like this to say them. The books do not give a "x time passes" per-say, though it does say if you'd like to let some kingdom building happen that is fine. I struggled to find a way to make time pass and still use the mechanics of kingdom building in a interesting way, so I avoided it for fear of boredom. Unfortunately, I am not a very quick of voracious reader. If I were to of sat down and read all the kingmaker books in detail enough, we still wouldn't be playing the campaign. I skimmed the books to get the general idea and have made changes based on where the PCs took interest. So far, I don't feel any change I made has been worse than the original proposal by the adventure path. Furthermore, the last 2 chapters have been where I stepped up to run after the table had no games planned and I was in the middle of grad school. So I wasn't nearly as prepared or had nearly the time I needed in order to make everything "just so" as I wish I did. I worked with what I had to keep games going. If there is anything I need to work on most, it is this. I'm just at a loss as to how to best fix it. I need to slow down and maybe make things a little more "boring" (in my mind) in order to better describe the scene - and it may just be me over-anxious and slowing down may make the game flow better... Vordakai had his familiar embedded as a spy within the group as Twig's companion. She was reporting on things, I tipped my hand at this at the close of the last session. Knowledge of the Nomen came from ancient battles as well as more recent updates from the brains he devoured. He was the one who took Varnhold's people in one fell swoop overnight. Most of his zombie force was made of them (the zombie cyclops were the 'generals'). Now, why he couldn't do the same thing to your kingdom he just did to Varnhold is the problem with D&D/Pathfinder - the spells and abilities he'd have access to are likely enough to flatten anyone in his way so you need to have "reasons" he can't or doesn't. In this case, Vordakai may be intelligent, but he is also exceedingly arrogant and impatient, there was also other meddling going on that is yet to be revealed. Possibly the better plan was to take out the Nomen first then swing around, but hey, he had plot powers to take a smaller kingdom in one fell swoop so... I have not. I haven't even played a single game of D&D above ~12th level, let alone run one. So I'm running combat with spells and abilities that are numerous and difficult to manage at the best of times, of which, as mentioned before, it isn't. I typically had 10+ tabs open of rules/spells/whatever trying to keep up. I think the biggest problem is the way in which the objection is raised - it feels as though it is coming from a "well I know everything that is going on and this doesn't make sense to me and you're just cheating". I can tell you everything if you want, in general I (as a player) prefer not knowing so I can avoid constantly worrying about meta-gaming, especially if it is something my character wouldn't have a clue on - or combat is fast and furious enough may miss. Also, I get the rules wrong sometimes. Sometimes I mix up that this spell bumps on every 4th level instead of every 3rd like the last thing I just cast. Or I start counting from 1st level instead of whichever is appropriate. Furthermore, as the above reply, the PC's/players don't know everything that is going on - and assuming they do is completely incorrect. Raising an objection like "Hey, are you sure that's how many scorching rays the wizard can do? Because that would make him X level" would be much more appreciated and informative. If I then look and say "yep, that's correct" - maybe there is something going on the PC is not privy to, mumbling how that is then stupid, unfair, or bullshit is then not helpful. It could be I forgot to describe something or maybe there is just more going on that the player/pc realizes. I guarantee you know the rules better and I don't have that natural "smell test" built up yet if a given spell seems off, so I appreciate you letting me know when a "smell test" is off to you and while in general I dislike "tone policing", sometimes, especially when a GM is doing their damnedest to keep up, the approach matters more than the content. You had, before that session began stated how annoyed you'd be that, right after you paid for a nicely painted mini, have J'varis die. To the point where you said you'd bring his brother "B'varis" in as a replacement. So, while you may have been joking - I'd rather not kill of J'varis to have B'varis show up. Character death is supposed to be meaningful (even if the death itself was "meaningless"), so having a stack of card board cutout characters was not my goal in dropping most resurrection spells. So, sure, I may have let some things slide instead of being a hardass in this case. If I am going to knowingly bend the rules it will be in the players favor - though I can always start playing with all the rules and make you guys come back with wagons to collect the treasure, write exactly who has what equipment and what the encumbrance for that is, roll for random encounters every hour in the wilderness, etc. I agree with this. Sometimes I forget to just automatically apply it and if the PC would have requested a take 10/20, I would have given it to them. So I forgot, and my rules backstop (the players) didn't ask - and thus, failure. So yes, this one is something I normally do, but it slipped through. So this one I may push back on a bit. The party was on a (self-imposed) clock - partly due to my poor relaying as to just how close the zombie horde was (though it is unlikely the PC's would know that well either). I think this one is a borderline case and could be argued either way, but I still liked that J'varis played up his impatience and desire to rescue Xamanthe... Well, I didn't think to slot a contingency spell to escape, and I wasn't going to cheat one in. In the position he was in, what other choice did he have? It wasn't hubris, it was desperation - and desperation doesn't necessarily mean smart. After all the grumbling and sniping I was taking from the players, it was definitely frustration coming out and throwing the sniping back at the players. I guess we both took things personally. They were not forced, they said they felt it was not possible - I saw a way to make it happen and tried to help by giving them a suggested way to do it with (maybe?) some rule bending.[/div] At the moment the exact word for the rule escaped me, but I had felt it was fairly obvious that is what he was doing. It did not help that there was constant barging in by other players demanding to be able to kill them when it wasn't their turn and he was making a quick offer (in rules) to Andrei. Which he would have if he trusted y'all would have kept him alive, something he did not believe would happen (and let's be honest, it wouldn't happen). Fair enough. I have been rolling above board the entire time and have, in general, been avoiding keeping things hidden for sake of being open and honest as far as taking/doing damage. I agree that is a better way for avoiding meta-actions, though it can be abused and is generally not my style of running. I like things like damage out in the open as much as possible - hence why I am not rolling behind a screen, but instead in front of the players where they can see the result. This is entirely a Tess in-character question, nothing to do with me. So, the question was by her, not a world requirement.[/div] Yeah, behind the curtain this was mistake by me not checking the loot from the adventure and giving them the scroll without reading what it did. So I just sucked it up and said "well, this is a super rare and works because they're "mostly dead". I could have just removed the scroll, but it did lead to some good role-playing so... six in one hand... That's great for you because of your personality (and mine), but there are people who are a bit less... boisterous... and need to be given time to shine or it becomes the Rigil and Comm show because they're the loudest people at the table. A good GM realizes this and gives the less aggressive players time and space to enjoy some spotlight instead of saying "screw them". This also comes from experience where the loudest / favorite players of the game become the complete center of attention and everyone else is playing sidekicks to them - it sucks for everyone else but those central PCs. I have not yet been as stick-heavy of a GM. Clearly the carrot has not entirely worked - I can become more stick-heavy, though I'd rather not go too far the other way and make it a lot less fun for everyone. I may need assistance in balancing out the stick to carrot ratio in the future.... This is sometimes the GM's/Players best friend and sometimes the GM's/Players worst enemy... sometimes just moving things forward is what the table needs, other times the murder hobo constantly starting shit and removing the diplomancers ability to weave around combat come into dire conflicts. I've been on the "stop talking to my XP" side of the equation as a diplomancer so I always like to at least give social characters a chance and sometimes one persons "this is taking too long" is a tad to short. This comment is not a veiled statement towards your playing, just a insight into the balancing going on in my GM head. This is puzzling to me a bit. I have not seen you run, but I assume you make up shit all the time or you run the most railroaded game imaginable - I'd guess the former, not the latter. And since I am assuming it is the former, I can imagine you don't consider making things up on the fly is not the worst (or dangerous) in those cases - so I'd expect the same consideration when I have to improvise. I have a good idea of the major players and what each is doing but when the PC's decide to kick down the door of fisherman no-name because "fuck the plot", I can either roll with it, guess at their personality and make shit up (which then, after the game when I have more time to think, incorporate it properly into the game). Furthermore, I don't know every rule of pathfinder (neither do you, I guarantee it) - so we can either stop the game and check each rule we don't know, slamming the game down for X minutes as we look it up and arbitrate or I can guess at a rule I think is fair (always giving the PCs the benefit of the doubt) and continue on without a big break, then fix it later. This came from experience where games were stopped for 10+ minutes as rules were arbitrated, killing the flow of the game as one person flipped through 100 splat books to find a +1 bonus somewhere (and then roll a terrible failure, making it moot to begin with). Personally, I think my way is better (or else I wouldn't be doing it - though I can be convinced otherwise if I see someone perform better in a different style).
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 7, 2018 8:26:17 GMT -6
One thing I deal poorly with is… shenanigans. For the record (@n8): I have always expected and (sometimes, begrudgingly) accepted GM shenaniganry/ass-pullery as the GM's natural prerogative. Providing said ass-pulls aren't too stinky—gotta maintain the illusion of verisimilitude (NPC casters' spell-slotting isn't visible to the players, therefore it breaks nothing to change it on the fly, IMO). Bitching about GM shenanigans/ass-pullery in the middle of the game is a breach of Rule Zero. Feel free to say, "Rule Zero. STFU." If you decided to make a level-0 farmer with 100HP, that's fine. If you decided to make an entire village of level-0 farmers with 100 HP (ea), that's fine. Just have a better excuse than, "I don't think the PCs are challenged enough lately." (Which has happened before on Sat, basically.)
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 7, 2018 10:03:54 GMT -6
NPC casters' spell-slotting isn't visible to the players, therefore it breaks nothing to change it on the fly, IMO. While I agree with this in general - I am fundamentally against it when I am GMing. I stick with the spells slotted (even when I am rebalancing, I tend to only remove "save or die" spells and fill in the open slots with duplicates of other spells they have so I do not unfairly tailor the spells to much to countering PCs). It "breaks" nothing, but it does give the GM a temptation to start "saving" his bad guys unfairly and while it doesn't mean a GM will do this... In my mind there becomes some doubt over whether this enemy *should* be dead and was saved by GM fiat - something that can be incredibly frustrating for players. Again, this comes from previous bad experiences - it might be an over-correction, but I'd rather be over corrected this way than the other... so while I may evolve to be less extreme on one side, it will take quite a bit to move me further away from that view.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 7, 2018 10:08:21 GMT -6
While I agree with this in general - I am fundamentally against it when I am GMing. I stick with the spells slotted (even when I am rebalancing, I tend to only remove "save or die" spells and fill in the open slots with duplicates of other spells they have so I do not unfairly tailor the spells to much to countering PCs). It "breaks" nothing, but it does give the GM a temptation to start "saving" his bad guys unfairly and while it doesn't mean a GM will do this... In my mind there becomes some doubt over whether this enemy *should* be dead and was saved by GM fiat - something that can be incredibly frustrating for players. Again, this comes from previous bad experiences - it might be an over-correction, but I'd rather be over corrected this way than the other... so while I may evolve to be less extreme on one side, it will take quite a bit to move me further away from that view. While it may "feel" like cheating, it's really the only way to play a character that's smarter than you. Video games do this all the time. And sometimes, saving a BBEG "by GM fiat" is perfectly fine if you're open about it. "Yeah, I did that on purpose. I needed him to survive." "Ah, okay…"
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 7, 2018 10:40:10 GMT -6
While it may "feel" like cheating, it's really the only way to play a character that's smarter than you. Video games do this all the time. And sometimes, saving a BBEG "by GM fiat" is perfectly fine if you're open about it. "Yeah, I did that on purpose. I needed him to survive." "Ah, okay…" Again, I understand that point of view - but for my style of GMing, it isn't something I want to do. Any NPC I have the PC's interact with must be available to be killed at that moment.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 7, 2018 13:41:08 GMT -6
The area is big, if one recalls a hex on the map takes about a day to traverse. There was this feel that the forces against all of us were HOURS from reaching the home kingdom, when it should have taken DAYS <even an undead army that doesn’t stop to rest>. Relooking at this (twice actually - the first time I thought you were completely correct and I was *way* off) - you had seen the force pass through in (F,3) at night. Assuming it takes ~day to traverse a plains hex (this is my mistake, it takes much less time, not that it changes the math outside of just shortening the "in game time"). They have a total of 5 plains hexes to travel, so ~5 days. The PC's have to go (F,3)->(F,4)->(G,5)->(G,6)->(H,6) = 4 hexes, 3 mountainous and 1 plains. Obviously, y'all stopped and rested each night whereas the undead army did not. Plains hexes take about 5/8 the travel time, but the zombies are also traveling about 3/5th of the speed... so the zombies can travel slightly further in the same time (though not much so let's call it even). So if it (as I incorrectly stated), that it takes a day to cross a hex, that is 3 nights of sleep the zombies have to travel... sleeping 6 hours a night puts the zombies 6 hours away during the night and even closer by the dawn when you guys began the assault on the outside guards. So we're talking a handful of hours from the kingdom. If it takes (as it should), about 5 hours to cross each hex (4*5 = 20 hrs), there is still one night of sleep needed (especially given the phase spider and the waiting for morning before beginning the assault). So during the night they are about 5 hours from the kingdom and even closer by the dawn when you guys began the assault on the outside guards. So we're talking a handful of hours from the kingdom and potentially at the kingdom at this time. Both cases have the zombies exceedingly close to the kingdom and coming "soon"... given the lack of communication between the party and the kingdom proper, it would be very reasonable, using some back of the scroll math, to assume the zombie force is closing in on the kingdom and Vordakai needs to be taken down ASAP. Entering into the crypt, it is completely believable to the PCs that the zombie force could be in the Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Sept 7, 2018 17:00:39 GMT -6
To be honest, I had no freak clue where everything when down. Nor the timeline of events. Seemed vaguely given, but I joined late in the game... so there is that.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 8, 2018 11:34:57 GMT -6
Xenocore... waiting on you bud...
|
|