Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories [Archive] - Page 2

Quertus

2019-06-02, 02:42 PM

**: This is a sandbox campaign. 90% of it was designed before I knew who would be playing in it, let alone what character they are playing, so the idea that I am tailoring encounters to screw over one specific player's strategy is kind of ridiculous. It has actually kind of been an ongoing problem for me as the mage has been shapeshifting into an incorporeal creature and then wand-ing the enemies to death meaning that he can solo 90% of the encounters without any risk or resource expenditure.

Even super power gaming such that he can solo 90% of your encounters, *without resource expenditure*, he still ends the adventure with no resources? And you've had to implement "you don't really die" rules to keep from having a TPK more often? And you don't think it possible that anyone could ever enjoy a lower difficulty level? Really?

My recommendation is, run published modules, by the books, no changes.

Alternately, publish your module before they make PCs.

Now, you don't have to show them the module first. You can hand a trusted player the zip files, and, after each encounter, give them the password to unzip it (like "Snuffy, the big nose fairy ogre").

Trust is hard to build. I don't know how to fix such long-term eroded trust other than proving that you're playing fair.

-----

Also,

"never get into an arms race with your players, because they cannot win".

I / my tables agree that consumables are often a waste. Try implementing *strict* WBL, baked into the system. Your body can only power WBL worth of magic items. Further, make consumables replenish - say, 1/2 every time you level. (So, you use a 100 GP consumable, you get 50 GP back each of the next 2 times you level).

Or, make magic items and wealth use different pools. Permanent magic items follow strict WBL, as above. So magic items are free. But consumables allow you to bypass WBL limits, and are something worth spending money on.

Discuss with the players how to get them onboard with a style everyone will enjoy.

Talakeal

2019-06-02, 03:41 PM

So, I had a talk with the player. I apologized for hurting his feelings all those years ago and asked him politely if we could bury the hatchet, and then I told him that it hurts my feelings when he accuses me of cheating the party.

I told him I would do my best to address his concerns rather than dismiss them in the future, and I told him I would really appreciate it if we could work on trust in the future.

Then I explained the economics of the game to him and how it was a sand-box setting which was mostly made before I knew who would be playing or what characters they would make, and about the economics of expected power levels and the pitfalls of spiraling out of control into a Monty Haul campaign or death spirals.

Then I listened to his complains and tried to address rather than dismiss them, and agreed to work harder on battlefield setup in the future. (This party has really low initiative, and we are playing on a small table without any scenery, so he feels that the game is too cramped and that they are often bogged down in combat before getting a chance to react, so I am going to work on that in the future.)

Can you explain the “can’t sell items at full price” thing?

If selling to a shop, it would seem to make sense that you’d sell for less than list price because the shopkeeper would want to make a profit.

Again, there seems to be a lot of presuming that you will and should tailor the difficulty of things to the group (thus never buying consumables, hiring henchmen, etc.)

I’d really recommend going full sandbox. Let them choose what they do and where they go. Get out of that business entirely.

Basically, he wants to sell spellcasting services at the same price that NPCs sell spellcasting to the PCs, ignoring the fact that there is an issue of overhead and supply and demand, and in this case him and the other player, the one who hates asymmetry, agree. As a compromise I let him sell any spell slots he has left over at the end of the adventure for a reduced rate as if it were gear, but I don't let him just sit in town and make infinite money casting all day.

This campaign is already more or less full sandbox.

Even super power gaming such that he can solo 90% of your encounters, *without resource expenditure*, he still ends the adventure with no resources? And you've had to implement "you don't really die" rules to keep from having a TPK more often? And you don't think it possible that anyone could ever enjoy a lower difficulty level? Really?

Can. Not does.

Generally he goes full offense and doesn't bother with any defense, either in the moment or build choices, and then once he starts getting beaten on he turns incorporeal.

90%+ of the time this means the monsters leave him alone and start attacking someone else.

The remaining <10% of the time he goes down too quickly to turn incorporeal or he comes up against something that can hit incorporeal creatures, or he fights something that is immune to his wand, at which point he sulks and accuses me of either being a killer DM or tailor making the encounter specifically to screw him over.

I am really, really, afraid that he will try and just go and solo adventures though, because that will amp this problem up to 11 as it will not only trivialize most encounters, but also leave him without any support when his plan does fail, not to mention the rest of the party feeling bored and useless.

Also, no, I have not had to implement you don't really die rules to reduce the chance of a TPK. I started the campaign stating there would be no permanent deaths because I am running a character driven story in the background of the sandboxy gamist aspect of the game. Not that reducing permanent death would have anything to do with reducing the chances of a TPK as even most "meat-grinder" games allow people to bring in new characters at full power; unless you are just being literal and saying "TPK stands for total party KILL, not total party KNOCKOUT!"

The Glyphstone

2019-06-02, 07:37 PM

kyoryu

2019-06-03, 10:14 AM

Basically, he wants to sell spellcasting services at the same price that NPCs sell spellcasting to the PCs, ignoring the fact that there is an issue of overhead and supply and demand, and in this case him and the other player, the one who hates asymmetry, agree. As a compromise I let him sell any spell slots he has left over at the end of the adventure for a reduced rate as if it were gear, but I don't let him just sit in town and make infinite money casting all day.

In your position I’d de-abstract this a bit. Who are his customers? How does he get them? What do they want? Is there some kind of middle-man involved?

While you don’t necessarily need to play this out, understanding what is happening may help you to reach an agreeable compromise.

This campaign is already more or less full sandbox.

“Sandbox” can mean a lot of things so I’m going to move away from that word.

I do not think you should be coming up with encounters, at least at a planning level. Make regions, maybe some POIs. Populate random encounter charts. Let the players decide where they want to go. Make sure they know what they might find there, to a relatively high degree of accuracy, at least for nearby areas. Make it obvious when they’re going into scary places.

Let the dice determine what they find, and the numbers. And don’t assume “encounter” means “roll initiative”, instead let it mean “first contact” which could be anything from seeing them in the distance to finding tracks or remnants of their stuff, or still could mean running into them if that’s plausible.

But don’t tailor the encounters. Don’t make them tougher or easier. Let the players deal with it, and choose to fight, avoid, or run. Let THEM choose their own difficulty.

Heck, show them this. [/QUOTE]

Talakeal

2019-06-03, 06:55 PM

In your position I’d de-abstract this a bit. Who are his customers? How does he get them? What do they want? Is there some kind of middle-man involved?

While you don’t necessarily need to play this out, understanding what is happening may help you to reach an agreeable compromise.

“Sandbox” can mean a lot of things so I’m going to move away from that word.

I do not think you should be coming up with encounters, at least at a planning level. Make regions, maybe some POIs. Populate random encounter charts. Let the players decide where they want to go. Make sure they know what they might find there, to a relatively high degree of accuracy, at least for nearby areas. Make it obvious when they’re going into scary places.

Let the dice determine what they find, and the numbers. And don’t assume “encounter” means “roll initiative”, instead let it mean “first contact” which could be anything from seeing them in the distance to finding tracks or remnants of their stuff, or still could mean running into them if that’s plausible.

But don’t tailor the encounters. Don’t make them tougher or easier. Let the players deal with it, and choose to fight, avoid, or run. Let THEM choose their own difficulty.

Heck, show them this. [/QUOTE]

Ugh, I so don't want to de-abstract wealth. I really don't want to go back to the days of players spending their downtime grubbing for every copper piece.

Oh no, I just got over a drama storm over random encounters. My players absolutely hate them, any problems they have with the game just seem worse.

Was there any sense of reciprocity from him? Any agreement, or even an impression, that he's going to be less antagonistic to you in the future?

For him, yes. As in he didn't seem grouchy or actively defensive.

Great Dragon

2019-06-03, 07:04 PM

Would doing the random encounters before the game, figure out all pertaining data (stats, AC, HP, etc) and possible motivations be helpful?

Let's you deal with things only as needed.
And doesn't upset Players by seeing/hearing dice rolled for Random Encounters?

Con: does burn DM's Free Time

Max_Killjoy

2019-06-03, 07:15 PM

Talakeal... what the heck is it exactly that your "players" actually like about RPGs?

:smallconfused:

Quertus

2019-06-03, 07:28 PM

Talakeal

2019-06-03, 07:31 PM

Talakeal... what the heck is it exactly that your "players" actually like about RPGs?

:smallconfused:

In Bob's case he likes the "grinding" aspect of the game, mindlessly powering up his character and then discarding it when it hits max level.

Would doing the random encounters before the game, figure out all pertaining data (stats, AC, HP, etc) and possible motivations be helpful?

Let's you deal with things only as needed.
And doesn't upset Players by seeing/hearing dice rolled for Random Encounters?

Con: does burn DM's Free Time

What benefit does that really serve though? I mean, I guess it deflects some blame as I can hide behind the dice when things don't go their way, but I am still the one who chose to generate and run the random encounters knowing that balance was not guaranteed.

Talakeal

2019-06-03, 07:34 PM

@Talakeal, have you given any thought to enforced WBL, or pre publishing your content? Or even to my crazy idea of having *them* make the house rules, and maybe even the rulings?

I do think you should explain "supply and demand", and that you can't just sell your spell slots whenever you have them available.

Thought about it yes, come to any meaningful conclusion no.

If I explains supply and demand to him I am sure he will just flip it around and start using the same logic to explain why he should get a discount from the NPCs.

NichG

2019-06-03, 09:39 PM

I think couching this in terms of the player's understanding is a mistake. The player knows what they want and, either poorly or well, is communicating that. It just turns out that what they want is fundamentally incompatible with the game that Talakeal wants to run. This isn't a case of someone who doesn't get it or needs to be convinced of something. They're simply using logical arguments to try to achieve the end that they want, probably because they believe logical arguments will be effective on Talakeal while saying 'I do not want a challenging game, I just want to feel awesome and show off - and challenge detracts from that for me' probably feels like it wouldn't work (and, honestly, it probably wouldn't work to say that because this is a pretty fundamental incompatibility).

Sandboxing, being transparent, de-abstracting, etc - those are all good suggestions for explaining something to someone where the problem is that they aren't getting it. But they won't change what someone actually fundamentally wants out of play. At best, you might convince them to feel guilt about not having fun - which is a pretty bad outcome.

Great Dragon

2019-06-03, 11:15 PM

What benefit does that really serve though? I mean, I guess it deflects some blame as I can hide behind the dice when things don't go their way, but I am still the one who chose to generate and run the random encounters knowing that balance was not guaranteed.

But… that's the thing.
What I see is that this player has given you a Paradox.

One where, almost no matter what you do, they'll blame you, when anything doesn't go their way.

(1) If you (obviously) use Random Encounters, then they say "no fair, not balanced".

(2) But, if you spend the time making each encounter, even here, victory is not guaranteed (and shouldn't be). Not without novel (and movie) level "PC Plot Armor".

(2a) And, if you do make an Encounter that is designed to actually Challenge the Character, they get even more upset.

(3) Even if you succeed at #2, all that accomplished was to create (for you, at the very least) a type of Railroad Game, one focused on the story about how "Awesome" that PC was.
(I suppose that if everyone is also being Awesome, this can be ok. Viewing it as more of a Freeform Anime story.)

*****
Now, I'm saying that with pre-made "Random Encounters", you still stick to the World being "real/living", as you Envisioned when you made it.

This way, the players can Encounter different things, even in the same "Dungeon" or "Wilderness" Area.

Dungeons - are tricky, here.
Even in Monster/Race specific "Dungeons", there can be unplanned (Random) Encounters.

Making it where there are only Orcs, and all except maybe the Boss "are in 10x10x10 rooms, guarding a chest" (yeah, really old joke, here) with absolutely no Orcs Encountered wandering (patrolling) the hallways: (to me) isn't believable outside of a (cheep) Video Game.

****
Another aspect of the Paradox, is that either way, you end up "hiding behind the dice".

(A) If you make the Encounter where there is a chance to fail, then that happening is "the fault of the dice". (I'm avoiding "Lack of Planning/Tactics", here. And just assuming Bad Rolls.)

(B) But, if you go with "Plot Armor", then rolling the dice is just an illusion, being nothing more than a distraction from the fact that there is no chance of failure. (Which might upset the rest of the Players, if they figure this out)

*****
My suggestion was an attempt to still give some variety to an Area, but not provoke conflict by making the "random" part not so obvious.

Done with enough time, you can even custom make the (Random) "pre-determined" monster to be more Balanced when the Party actually meets it.

*****
Now, I'm not going to say how to "solve" this Paradox, beyond my suggestion/s, since doing so wouldn't really be helpful. (and most likely make me an a***)

You've managed to defuse one problem, and I hope that everyone in the Group (including you) can still have Fun playing the game/s together.

***
Please let me know if anything I suggest is helpful.
I really like sharing the fun of TRPGs.

Kardwill

2019-06-04, 03:59 AM

Ugh, I so don't want to de-abstract wealth. I really don't want to go back to the days of players spending their downtime grubbing for every copper piece.

The reason why I went into games that do a full abstraction of wealth, either by being completely irrelevant (money won't buy you "power"), or by reducing it to a stat (you need to loan a small plane for your expedition, and to bribe an official for the authorisation? Roll "ressource" against a difficulty of 2)

Counting every copper piece and revenue source, spending a entire session on a shopping spree to purchase a "I win" button, or worse, having the "space trader" campaign go completely haywire because the GM made a miscalculation on the revenue of the team, was no fun for me. Not as a GM, and certainly not as a player.

As for your problems : Seems like you have game expectations problems at the table, and those things are HARD to solve, as everybody "knows" how a "normal" game should run but nobody can spell it out loud. Maybe you need to take a break and try something compltely different for a few sessions? (try another game, another world, another power level, switch to low crunch or simulationist or OSR games, change the adventure types from "fantasy dungeon crawl" to "futuristic investigation", change GM for a few games, do collaborative setting creation so that the players can decide themselves what kind of awesome enemies they want to come up against...)

Of course, having a Call of Chtulhu one-shot will not solve your power-player grumpiness ^^. But it could shake the group dynamic. For me, trying new stuff outside my confort zone (like open rolls, new systems, low-fluff settings, etc...) was the only way to avoid GM-burnout after a loooong D&D3 campaign where I was the only GM in our group.

AdAstra

2019-06-04, 05:11 AM

Thought about it yes, come to any meaningful conclusion no.

If I explains supply and demand to him I am sure he will just flip it around and start using the same logic to explain why he should get a discount from the NPCs.

If you don't want him to get excessive wealth, and he doesn't like spending money on things that don't permanently power up his character, like hirelings and consumables, those two things may be related somewhat. Of course, chances are no matter how much money you throw at him he'll probably just spend it on more permanent boosts. Why not offer him an alternative advancement path in exchange for those excess spell slots?

Perhaps no one in town who wants spellcasting really wants to put down the gold, but has plenty of stuff to trade? After all, shopkeeps need to spend their money on other things, but may have plenty of goods to barter instead. Perhaps by lending his services to the local ruler, he can get a retinue of retainers and soldiers? Could allow him to work out deals with the potion sellers, scrollmakers, etc. so that he has a steady influx of consumables, and some contracted hirelings from the local lord(s).

One critical thing, based on what you've said about this guy, I think it may be best to be upfront with your reasoning (in this case wanting him to have access to consumables and hirelings and not just have tons of random wealth). If you don't tell him, he may very well figure it out himself, and feel that you're trying to trick him. Even if he doesn't know exactly why, he may still think you're trying to screw him based on his (perceived) past experiences. And if he thinks you're not being totally honest, he will think you're trying to **** him over. So trying for full transparency might be the best way to go. Then again, you know him better, and it's up to you.

Talakeal

2019-06-04, 08:07 AM

If you don't want him to get excessive wealth, and he doesn't like spending money on things that don't permanently power up his character, like hirelings and consumables, those two things may be related somewhat. Of course, chances are no matter how much money you throw at him he'll probably just spend it on more permanent boosts. Why not offer him an alternative advancement path in exchange for those excess spell slots?

Its a pretty frustrating playstyle for me.

He won't spend money on anything that isn't a permanent offensive upgrade, even utility and defensive items are only purchased if they are trivially inexpensive, and sometimes not even then. He won't purchase hirelings or consumables, and grumbles if the rest of the group purchases them with party funds.

Then, if this results in his character taking damage or being otherwise incapacitated he gets mad at me for being too hard or for tailoring the encounter to screw him.

It won't really matter how much wealth I give him, until he has literally the best offensive gear in the game (i.e. Something that is intended for a character three or four times his actual power level) he won't spend money on anything else AfAICT.

Lorsa

2019-06-04, 08:34 AM

Great Dragon

2019-06-04, 08:40 AM

@Talakeal

The only thing I can think of is to make it where Permanent Magical Items simply can't be bought. (Since being able to is an optional rule)

And make it clear to him that those things can only be found while Adventuring.

Another way, would be to stop giving out loose Treasure; spending the time needed to convert Gems, Art, and Coins into Consumables. Add in more Utility items (especially at low levels), Armor, and Weapons - based on Rarity by Tier.

You can also use desired Items (Magic Armor and Weapons, and powerful Items) as Plot Goals.

Want that +3 Flametongue?
It's located in Baron HateU's Keep.

Want +3 Adamantine Plate?
That's located in the Stone Giant's Fortress.

Want Boots of Speed?
Well, see - there is this Goblin in that forest that thinks he's a Quickling…

Sure, he's going to gripe, but he's doing that anyway. When he does, simply tell him (as nicely as possible) that he has made money (gold) useless, because it only has value when spent.

I like what AdAstra suggests.

Doing that might also encourage more Social and RP games.

I'd have to look up what the costs are for hiring a Spellcaster.... PHB 159.
10-50 gp for a 1st or 2nd level spell.
Anything higher is usually exchanged for a Quest

Since I'm sure you don't really want to do more accounting, simply make selling slots be 25 gp per level.

So, he could get 12 skilled Hirelings for a day, for a 1st level spell.
****
Question: since he's a Spellcaster, do you think he'd be interested in making his own items?

Adventuring to get the components needed, and then spending gold during Downtime to get things he wants? Just skip over that amount of time between sessions, asking the other Players what they want their Characters to do during that time.

AdAstra

2019-06-04, 08:49 AM

Its a pretty frustrating playstyle for me.

He won't spend money on anything that isn't a permanent offensive upgrade, even utility and defensive items are only purchased if they are trivially inexpensive, and sometimes not even then. He won't purchase hirelings or consumables, and grumbles if the rest of the group purchases them with party funds.

Then, if this results in his character taking damage or being otherwise incapacitated he gets mad at me for being too hard or for tailoring the encounter to screw him.

It won't really matter how much wealth I give him, until he has literally the best offensive gear in the game (i.e. Something that is intended for a character three or four times his actual power level) he won't spend money on anything else AfAICT.

Well again, having him trade leftover spellslots for stuff is a good way to deal with that, if he agrees to it. If you just gave him money, he'd spend it on blasty stuff, as you said. But if someone is trading
him things, you can effectively control what he gets. Give him some choices obviously, but you can set limits on stock, declare surpluses to be "discounted" and do other things to round out his inventory better.
Then contracts with local lords to give hirelings, indefinitely so long as he continues to provide services.
That way he gets his money's worth for his unused spell slots, in ways that'll round out his toolset like you want.

Talakeal

2019-06-04, 09:41 AM

Note that I don't have a problem with how he plays his character or how he spends his money. I just get frustrated when he complains to me games difficulty when most of it is self imposed and when he fights with te other players over party expenses.

Well again, having him trade leftover spellslots for stuff is a good way to deal with that, if he agrees to it. If you just gave him money, he'd spend it on blasty stuff, as you said. But if someone is trading
him things, you can effectively control what he gets. Give him some choices obviously, but you can set limits on stock, declare surpluses to be "discounted" and do other things to round out his inventory better.
Then contracts with local lords to give hirelings, indefinitely so long as he continues to provide services.
That way he gets his money's worth for his unused spell slots, in ways that'll round out his toolset like you want.

I think that's more or less what we are going to do, but I a, foreseeing trouble if it is anything other than a 1:1 infinite availability deal that effectively lets him cast any spell in the game while in town.

If I try and constrain it to what I think he needs (like I will trade you a ring of protection plus two in exchange for 100 castings of wall of fire or something) he will probably feel that I am trying to railroad him, and rightly so imo.

So... uh... he wants you to GM Diablo: the RPG for him?

Yes. Although easier / less random as the rare champion monsters that Diablo occasionally spawns are a sepcific example he has mentioned of the type of game he hates.

@Talakeal

The only thing I can think of is to make it where Permanent Magical Items simply can't be bought. (Since being able to is an optional rule)

And make it clear to him that those things can only be found while Adventuring.

Another way, would be to stop giving out loose Treasure; spending the time needed to convert Gems, Art, and Coins into Consumables. Add in more Utility items (especially at low levels), Armor, and Weapons - based on Rarity by Tier.

You can also use desired Items (Magic Armor and Weapons, and powerful Items) as Plot Goals.

Want that +3 Flametongue?
It's located in Baron HateU's Keep.

Want +3 Adamantine Plate?
That's located in the Stone Giant's Fortress.

Want Boots of Speed?
Well, see - there is this Goblin in that forest that thinks he's a Quickling…

Sure, he's going to gripe, but he's doing that anyway. When he does, simply tell him (as nicely as possible) that he has made money (gold) useless, because it only has value when spent.

I like what AdAstra suggests.

Doing that might also encourage more Social and RP games.

I'd have to look up what the costs are for hiring a Spellcaster.... PHB 159.
10-50 gp for a 1st or 2nd level spell.
Anything higher is usually exchanged for a Quest

Since I'm sure you don't really want to do more accounting, simply make selling slots be 25 gp per level.

So, he could get 12 skilled Hirelings for a day, for a 1st level spell.
****
Question: since he's a Spellcaster, do you think he'd be interested in making his own items?

Adventuring to get the components needed, and then spending gold during Downtime to get things he wants? Just skip over that amount of time between sessions, asking the other Players what they want their Characters to do during that time.

I already mostly do that.

Basically I only allow gold to buy items with straight plusses, other powers are found by questing. So, basically, he puts all of his money towards buying a better wand and ignores everything else.

Great Dragon

2019-06-04, 10:25 AM

I already mostly do that.

Basically I only allow gold to buy items with straight plusses, other powers are found by questing. So, basically, he puts all of his money towards buying a better wand and ignores everything else.
All I can say, here - is don't let him make you feel guilty, for things he does to himself.

Just keep doing what you're doing.

Sometimes being consistent earns respect.

So... uh... he wants you to GM Diablo: the RPG for him?

Yes. Although easier / less random as the rare champion monsters that Diablo occasionally spawns are a sepcific example he has mentioned of the type of game he hates.

You would literally have to look up Diablo Dungeon maps (or various Editions of D&D Modules), and either drawing (or printing, if possible) them out:
(Personally I'd consider any time spent actually making Encounter/Dungeon maps by hand a waste of time, with this guy.)
And then pre-placing every Monster (at a CR at least half their Level, with Bosses never more than equal to their level) so that it was "easy" to beat, but still giving full WBL - plus extra for selling leftover spell slots.

Without "peer pressure" from the other Players, things won't change.

Man, I feel for ya.

I'd actually like to know more about your World; and if you're interested share mine.

But, I would not like being a Player in a game with him. I'm sure that he can be a nice guy, and even ok at portraying his PC, but acting like there should never be any real mystery (anything random) in the Game, or challenges to his PC - despite him not getting anything for Defense/Recovery, would just ruin any enjoyment for me.

Friv

2019-06-04, 11:52 AM

Yes. Although easier / less random as the rare champion monsters that Diablo occasionally spawns are a sepcific example he has mentioned of the type of game he hates.

You know, there's an existing D&D 3.0 pair of Diablo sourcebooks, including a pre-written campaign, out there...

*innocent whistling*

Warning: Do not try to run Diablo II: To Hell And Back. Do not try to use classes from Diablo II: Diablerie. The management will not be held responsible for injuries or loss of friendship from interacting with Diablo II sourcebooks. Attempting to use Diablo II sourcebooks may cause all other material to appear balanced and fair by comparison.

Great Dragon

2019-06-04, 01:07 PM

@Friv - Right.

Don't forget AD&D 2e "Diablo II"
The Awakening.
The Secret Cow Level.

More Innocent Whistling...

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 08:07 AM

So, some more issues with "Bob".

First, at this point it is kind of bugging me that he not only doesn't care about RP and lore, now he is kind of showing active contempt for it. There are some mysteries in his backstory and they were talking to an NPC who can shed light onto them, and when I suggested he could ask his response was "If onowing something does't make me more powerful, its not worth wasting game time talking about it."

Second, so I got some more info about his kotivations in the fight he decided to sit out.

Basically It was against a group of elite hobgoblin pirates, and I described them as being "better equipped and trained than the navy of your home kingdom, with gear the is obviously old and threadbare but well maintained, and despite their obvious discipline their morale is clearly hanging by a thread,".

The party got the drop on them while doing drills, and I really hoped the PCs would try diplomacy or stealth as it was a pretty tough fight. The PCs walked right up to them and their commander asked what the PCs wanted.

The party face said "Your bosses head!" At which point the commander ordered them to take battle positions, and I described them spreading out in a semi circle, drawing their weapons, and waiting for the PCs to make the next move, OOC giving them anither chance to try diplomacy.

Instead the party attacked, the melee charging and the mage casting a fireball which caught eight of them, although miraculously all but one of them saved.
On their turn the hobgoblin commander ordered them to "focus fire on the witch," as the sorceress clearly had the lowest defense and highest offense in the party, and the five hobgoblins who were both unengaged and still alive all took a shot, all hit (another amazing roll) and took her down in one volley.

At that point the player went into the next room to take a nap and refused to come back even after being healed and as a result we came within a hair of another TPK.

I asked WHY he was so upset, and the sorceress' player told me it was because I gave them a "free turn" by allowing them to switch from drill formation to combat formation during the dialogue scene, and as a result she was not able to catch all of them with a single fireball, which was perceived as cheating on my part.

In my mind this doesn't seem a reasonable complaint, I allow the PCs to move during dialogue, and the party didn't try and get the drop on them using stealth or the like, so the dojng drills part was mostly just flavor text... BUT I am trying to be more open and less dismissive of my players complaints, so what do you guys think I should nave done / should do in the future?

I'd actually like to know more about your World; and if you're interested share mine.

Always love talking shop with other GMs.

I have a campaign diary written up for my current game, I think maybe I will start posting some of it this weekend.

MrSandman

2019-06-05, 08:34 AM

In my mind this doesn't seem a reasonable complaint, I allow the PCs to move during dialogue, and the party didn't try and get the drop on them using stealth or the like, so the dojng drills part was mostly just flavor text... BUT I am trying to be more open and less midmissive of my players complaints, so what do yuo guys think I should nave done / should do in the future?

I know that you've said repeatedly that you can't kick Bob out of the game and that you'd rather have a bad game than no game, but if so many things were annoying me enough to post them on a forum, I'd just stop playing with Bob.

Short of that, it seems that Bob's preferred playstyle is to have wave after wave of mindless enemies of a CR 3-4 points below the party level that come in handy formations for you to affect them with area spells. The questions to answer now are: 1) What is your preferred playstyle? 2) What is everyone else's preferred playstyle? and 3) How can we all compromise and play a game that we all can enjoy and stop finding fault with it every other day?
You'll notice that for that to work everyone needs to accommodate, including Bob.

I could say something about what you could have done differently in that scene, but I refuse to give any GMing advice that amounts to "treat NPCs as mindless sacks of XP and loot that come in handy formations for you to affect them with area spells."

Quertus

2019-06-05, 09:08 AM

Talakeal, I think, for you, I'm going to go back to my old, extremist stance: most problems in a game are caused when the GM wants something.

No, seriously, think about it: if you hadn't wanted Bob to talk to the NPC, you wouldn't be bothered by his refusal. If you hadn't wanted to give the PCs the chance to talk to the hobgoblin pirates, and had just asked, "what do you do?", and they had responded with "fireball them while they're in a convenient group!", you wouldn't have this issue. If you didn't care about perfectly depleting all their resources in perfect Combat as Sport, you would be better positioned to listen to your players, and find out (and test out) what they want out of a game.

If you can take the Ancient's advice to Doctor Strange, that it's not about you, remove yourself and your wants from the game, and just focus on perfecting the game to their specifications, I think you (and maybe they) would learn a lot.

Yes, most likely, they "don't know what they want" - or, at the very least, cannot articulate it well. But they want something. Run one-shots; change what you're offering to what they *say* that they want, and discuss with the group. Repeat until everyone feels confident that everyone knows what everyone wants. Then discuss whether a game that everyone will enjoy is something that you can deliver.

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 09:20 AM

Segev

2019-06-05, 09:48 AM

I might be willing to do that IF the players were a unanimous block. The problem is that what 3/4 of them want is to explore a compelling fictional reality which I literally can't create without also forming my own prejudices and expectations.

Is the sorceress the party face? That wasn't clear one way or the other from the description. I assume Bob plays the sorceress.

At this point, just ignore Bob. I don't mean that in a mean, shunning way. I mean, don't plan for Bob to be anything but a beatstick. He's not interested - he's told and demonstrated to you that he's not interested - in anything but things that make his PC better able to defeat enemies. Let him play on his phone or whatever until a fight breaks out, and then let him get in on things. I would normally tell you to point out that nothing stopped him from fireballing the hobgoblins while they were drilling, but a) you said that's "cheating" in your mind (why?) and b) that would only encourage him to deny other players the opportunity to do things you claim they want to do (by starting fights with every creature they come across in an attempt to catch them off-guard).

I'm also not convinced of your claim that they're not a unanimous block, unless the face is the sorceress is Bob. If the face is the sorceress is Bob, CHANGE THAT. Bob doesn't want to play a Face. And if he claims to want to, it's only to be a jerk to the others by denying them options other than his preferred "fight fight fight fight." There's nothing wrong with just being there for the fighting, as a player, but there is something wrong with forcing it on others who would prefer to try nonviolent solutions where possible.

Can you give us examples of the other players' preferences in play? How did the other players react to the insistence on picking this fight, when you were giving them opportunity to engage in RP? Are you sure they weren't also eager for this fight?

And, in the future, remember the phrase: "Are you sure?" When they approached without trying to sneak, etc. etc., you were surprised. If they take an action you find surprising because you think it tactically unwise, ask them why they're doing it and what they expect to happen. Point out any flaws you think obvious that a character who is living and breathing in the world, rather than seeing it only through the words you're choosing (and what of those they catch), would probably be able to tell. Ask them their goals before you start a scene, and point out anything they're doing that goes counter to them in your mind.

Let them proceed regardless if they don't change their minds, but if you'd asked, "Okay, so you just walk up openly to them? What do you want to achieve with this?" and they'd said "we're going to jump them and kill them," you could have pointed out that they're all clumped up in drill formation right now, and don't know you're there yet, and that walking up to them would forego any element of surprise and give them a chance to ready for battle.

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 10:03 AM

@Segev:

No, I don't consider it cheating. Bob said he considers it cheating for the NPCs to move during negotiations.

Bob is not the party face, but he does complain if the party face (or any other player) talks too long and will sometimes sabotage negotiations by simply attacking while the rest of the group is talking either because it gives him a tactical advantage or because he just got bored.

Great Dragon

2019-06-05, 10:07 AM

Edit: Quertus - the series of "one shot" games might be best for awhile.

I asked WHY he was so upset, and the sorceress' player told me it was because I gave them a "free turn" by allowing them to switch from drill formation to combat formation during the dialogue scene, and as a result she was not able to catch all of them with a single fireball, which was perceived as cheating on my part.

In my mind this doesn't seem a reasonable complaint, I allow the PCs to move during dialogue, and the party didn't try and get the drop on them using stealth or the like, so the dojng drills part was mostly just flavor text... BUT I am trying to be more open and less midmissive of my players complaints, so what do yuo guys think I should nave done / should do in the future?

Ok. To me, this is just another aspect of the Paradox I mentioned before.

The Sorceress' Player wanted to just Fireball nuke everyone, "instant win", and just "walk away". I also agree with you, Talakeal, in that this Player wanted a tactical advantage and also gets bored too easily.

Q: Seriously, why isn't he playing an Assassin Rogue? (This seems to be his Style) All the Sorceress has are AoE with Slightly better damage, if the Targets fail their saves.

***
Q: does anyone in the Party have either the Alert or the Observant feats?

If so, you could just "use Passive Insight" for the Group, with +5 for the Observant PC, to tell the group the basic intention of foes. Maybe at least a clue about how powerful/tough they are?

When the Hobs started to shift to Combat Formation you could have had the Alert PC roll initiative first. Perhaps using the "Passive Insight" (rolling might be better, here) for everyone, if no one has that feat. Then roll for initiative for those that respond. This would make it very obvious that combat was about to happen.

(Personally, I think that having people roll, but unable to act that round, is frustrating for the Players. But, with this guy, you're most likely going to have to do the Everyone Roll, so that he at least feels like he did something.)

***
The things that I can suggest trying in the future, is

(1) Stop giving this Player information about the Game World. Make notes when the PC actually affects something in the Game (more notes for those actually involved), and then figure out what changes - away from the Table.

Simply give information to those that ask.
Since this can be a change in Style, I'd print out at least an overview of the World, and the Region they are in (with maps), and give that to each Player. Saying to everyone: "If you want more information, just ask." With no distinguishments on if that's IC or OoC, since either can be handled.

(2) Don't make Encounters that depend on him being involved. If he is, ok - deal with that. This way, the other Players don't have to worry about a TPK if he storms off.

(2a) Don't stop play when he leaves.
(I'd actually not give him any Exp for missed RP and Encounters. YMMV.)

(3) Put in more Spellcasters.
(And other "Classed" NPCs)
I use them whenever possible.

Counterspell could have stopped the use of the Fireball spell for more "you really want to talk with these people."

Now, the drawback for you is that this will cause this Player to cry "no fair". So, you'll have to decide how likely (and how often) a Spellcaster (including Divine) is to happen in each Group Encountered.

While it might not help, I'd go ahead and have notes "proving" that I didn't just Add the Caster (with spells) at the last moment.

(I can understand your desire to Play, since I was very similar. However, I forced myself to be more "dedicated to the fun of the group", and try to treat everyone equally. As such, I am less forgiving to people with this guy's attitude.
But then, I can accept not being able to play for awhile.)

Always love talking shop with other GMs.

I have a campaign diary written up for my current game, I think maybe I will start posting some of it this weekend.

I'd recommend using the World Building subforum.

Just send me a PM to let me know, with at least the title (or link) for ease of finding.

Segev

2019-06-05, 10:16 AM

kyoryu

2019-06-05, 01:23 PM

Not caring about things can be because someone doesn’t care - it can also be a learned reaction when people realize or believe that they have no control over the situation.

I can conceive of a situation here where Bob feels that potions/etc are pointless, because that is a learned response.

You’ve said outright that you rebalance encounters based on party condition. That could end up playing like this, whether it’s real or not:

“Okay, I bought a bunch of potions.... and now I go into the next fight and of course he made it tougher since we were in great shape. So why did I bother buying potions? I should have kept the cash, and then if we were weaker he would just rebalance the encounter anyway. “

It sounds, to me, like whether you believe you are running a sandbox or not you are strongly prescribing outcomes of events, or at least giving that impression. In your description of the encounter you describe a whole sequence of events that you presume will happen, and don’t allow players to react to events that occur. That would frustrate me.

If you really want help, I’d get one of your players on here so that maybe we could see the story from other perspectives. I think that would be extremely valuable.

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 03:10 PM

. You’ve said outright that you rebalance encounters based on party condition. That could end up playing like this, whether it’s real or not:

Hold up here.

No, I would never rebalance or change an encounter mid session for any reason short of a legitimate mistake.

What I said is that when I am creating new content I try and keep it within the difficulty that the players can meaningfully interact with it, whether that is based on character level, player experiance, or party composition.

I also said that when I am RPing a monster and am presented with several equally valid decisions I will often pick the one that means the more fun game, which sometimes means playing a smart monster slightly dumber if the party is struggling and vice versa.

“Okay, I bought a bunch of potions.... and now I go into the next fight and of course he made it tougher since we were in great shape. So why did I bother buying potions? I should have kept the cash, and then if we were weaker he would just rebalance the encounter anyway.

That may be what he believes. Its not correct, but as we have stablished he doesn't trust me at all.

sounds, to me, like whether you believe you are running a sandbox or not you are strongly prescribing outcomes of events, or at least giving that impression. In your description of the encounter you describe a whole sequence of events that you presume will happen, and don’t allow players to react to events that occur. That would frustrate me.

Can you give me an example of that?

Generally I have a basic idea of the encounters personality, motives, and prefered tactics, but it is all pretty vague and mostly boils down to how much comvincing it will take to make an ally of it.

Would you consider followjng the preffered tactics listed in a D&D monster manual to be a whole sequence of expected events? Because those are way more detailed than anything I ever plan out.

Quertus

2019-06-05, 04:07 PM

I might be willing to do that IF the players were a unanimous block. The problem is that what 3/4 of them want is to explore a compelling fictional reality which I literally can't create without also forming my own prejudices and expectations.

Segev said about half my response to this already. In short, it would be difficult for you to more efficiently convince me that one-shots are the answer than to say the above.

For each one-shot, you tailor it to one or more players' current stated preferences.

So, suppose that, between your 4 players, they describe 6 elements that they prefer. You then prepare 3 one-shots that, between them, encompass those 6 preferences. Then, after those 3 one-shots, you ask them if you delivered*, and if they wish to refine their preferences. If they have a new list of 6 preferences, run another 3 one-shots - or, even if it's the same ones, or if there's similarities or some that remained, make sure to mix them up, and not just run functionally the same combinations again and again.

Then, once everyone agrees that everyone understands what everyone wants, discuss things that are various types of incompatible, or that you don't know how to run together, and see if they have any ideas.

IMO, "style-sharing" is much like "spotlight sharing". One player wants lore and interaction and "talky bits", while another wants combat. Seems incompatible, yet creatures can talk in combat (at tables that aren't yours, at least), or there can be a mix of combat and "talky" encounters, or Sherlock Holmes can gather lore off their cold dead bodies, or… there are *lots* of ways to handle this.

The point is, *ask your players* how *they* would like to handle this.

Another handy technique is to discuss scenes that were really good - or really bad. Obviously, Bob will say that the fairy ogre was really bad, because it felt like you were cheating just to beat him.

So, getting that old list, then repeating this just with the one-shots, so that you know how they took your more recent work, will also help you see what they do and don't like, and whether discussions or your new styles of running the game are changing anything.

* The fail case, where you know there was a disconnect, is if they have to ask, "which one had X?"

Edit: Quertus - the series of "one shot" games might be best for awhile.

Probably. Currently, it feels like there's too many things getting in the way of experimenting to find the problem / to find solutions, and "the game's momentum" is one of them.

No, I don't consider it cheating. Bob said he considers it cheating for the NPCs to move during negotiations.

I agree with Bob.

That is, it's perfectly fine for the hobgoblins to react to the party's words by moving into attack formation. It makes perfect sense. However, it also makes sense for the party to react to the hobgoblins attempting to move by attempting to fireball them while they still have the tactical advantage. Depending on the scenario, it could be treated as a held action, or as time for initiative. Whereas the way you are describing it, it sounds like cut scene movement to railroad your agenda (which is how I imagine it comes off to Bob).

Quertus

2019-06-05, 04:47 PM

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 05:04 PM

And what if the entire group's preferance is "no one shots?"

I agree with Bob.

That is, it's perfectly fine for the hobgoblins to react to the party's words by moving into attack formation. It makes perfect sense. However, it also makes sense for the party to react to the hobgoblins attempting to move by attempting to fireball them while they still have the tactical advantage. Depending on the scenario, it could be treated as a held action, or as time for initiative. Whereas the way you are describing it, it sounds like cut scene movement to railroad your agenda (which is how I imagine it comes off to Bob).

Might I ask why?

I am assuming you don't prefer a game world were everyone who isnt currently fighting is frozen and the PCs have to slap the barmaid aroind before she can deliver their drinks.

Do you think I am running a "simon says" game where the PCs aren't allowed to take actions before I give them permission? If Bob had asked to interrupt their movement he could have attempted it, "cut-scene" or not.

zinycor

2019-06-05, 05:30 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, am only answering to the beggining.

In my opinion, Legendary actions and lair actions are something very rare, not many monsters have it, In my experience, only big, big bad bosses hace access to it.

Now, that's most certainly not the crux of the problem, but the fact that your player doesn't trust you. In that case I would talk to this player, try to reach an agreement, make him see that the game isn't rigged or anything like that.

If that doesn't work, just kick him out.

Great Dragon

2019-06-05, 05:34 PM

And what if the entire group's preferance is "no one shots?"

In that case, all you can do is keep trying to portray the World (as you envision it) with the challenge that you made; and hope that at least some of the problems will work themselves out.

Edit

You've been flying blind for, what, over a decade now?

For such a group, I would ask them how *they* purpose fixing things. <Snip>

I would, I really would. This might be the "best" way to save the game.

Quertus

2019-06-05, 05:50 PM

And what if the entire group's preferance is "no one shots?"

You've been flying blind for, what, over a decade now? A group willing to put that much time and effort into Bizarro World gaming, but unwilling to take the steps best designed to make things better? It's like wanting to drive across country, but not wanting to pay for gas.

For such a group, I would ask them how *they* purpose fixing things. And, tbh, depending on my mood, I might be more prepared to laugh at them than to actually listen to the merits of their ideas.

And that's what I'm trying to avoid.

That's *why* I'm recommending so hard that you remove your own ego, remove the notion of this being a game, and set about making a series of "unimportant" one-shots, designed to optimize the facilitation of the healing process, designed to optimize everyone's ability to examine their beliefs, and to hear the beliefs of others.

If Bob had asked to interrupt their movement he could have attempted it, "cut-scene" or not.

Does Bob know that? Or does he feel that you are going to get bent out of shape, like when he(?) interrupted you "monologuing"?

Social dynamics are complex beasts. Not being there, not having talked with Bob, I can only make guesses about possible things that could be going through his head, based on other players I've played with.

kyoryu

2019-06-05, 08:05 PM

Hold up here.

No, I would never rebalance or change an encounter mid session for any reason short of a legitimate mistake.

What I said is that when I am creating new content I try and keep it within the difficulty that the players can meaningfully interact with it, whether that is based on character level, player experiance, or party composition.

I also said that when I am RPing a monster and am presented with several equally valid decisions I will often pick the one that means the more fun game, which sometimes means playing a smart monster slightly dumber if the party is struggling and vice versa.

Yeah, that's right...

I have a question for people.

Earlier we were talking about PCs acting differently based on the needs of the game.

Do you think it is bad for DM's to do the same? Because I have said that when designing an adventure I try and keep the relevant NPCs as close to the PCs level as is plausible without breaking the setting, and that I tend to play my NPCs "smarter" if the PCs are doing well and "dumber" if the PCs are struggling, although obviously within the bounds of what is reasonable for their character.

That's still making the encounters harder if the party is doing well, and easier if they're doing poorly. Even if you're not modifying the encounter's numbers, you're modifying the difficulty.

IOW, if they use their consumables, the game is going to be harder than if they didn't. And vice versa.

That may be what he believes. Its not correct, but as we have stablished he doesn't trust me at all.

Clearly. But "no, you're dumb and wrong" doesn't fix that.

I don't think you're doing a very good job of listening to the other players - and frankly, that's based on your behavior here, where you just counter the easy things to counter without addressing the more salient or hard to dismiss points. You come across as wanting to defend rather than understand. That's not conducive to solving this type of issue.

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 08:07 PM

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 08:26 PM

Yeah, that's right...

That's still making the encounters harder if the party is doing well, and easier if they're doing poorly. Even if you're not modifying the encounter's numbers, you're modifying the difficulty.

IOW, if they use their consumables, the game is going to be harder than if they didn't. And vice versa.

Clearly. But "no, you're dumb and wrong" doesn't fix that.

I don't think you're doing a very good job of listening to the other players - and frankly, that's based on your behavior here, where you just counter the easy things to counter without addressing the more salient or hard to dismiss points. You come across as wanting to defend rather than understand. That's not conducive to solving this type of issue.

Ok, if you wanted to have a deeper and more difficulty discussion about things, why throw in a bunch of provocative and easy to counter half truths? I am not quite sure what the deeper issue even is; I already admitted that I need to be less dismissive of my players and am working on steps to communicate and build trust.

The last couple of pages of this thread just feels really bizarre to me. Normally I get advice like "You need to be more flexible and less concerned about balance. Start fudging rolls! Realize that people's enjoyment is more important than setting consistency!"

But in this thread its all like "OMG you sometimes actually base NPC decisions on what you think would be the most fun for the party rather than what is tactically optimal? RAILROADING OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!"

Now, I do agree that a DM letting you win is condescending and dumb, and I would prefer if the DM never adjusted the difficulty, but I really don't think my players (or the majority of gamers) feel the same. Likewise, the idea that I have the ability or the desire to simply swap between difficulty settings is a bit much. I wouldn't say consumables make the game harder, quite the opposite, at best they may have diminishing returns. (E.G. get absolutely destroyed and suffer a crushing defeat to a dumb dragon who outclasses you in every way, vs. achieve a solid victory against an intelligent dragon whom you outclass in every way).

Cluedrew

2019-06-05, 08:38 PM

Talakeal, I think, for you, I'm going to go back to my old, extremist stance: most problems in a game are caused when the GM wants something.

No, seriously, think about it: if you hadn't wanted Bob to talk to the NPC, you wouldn't be bothered by his refusal.OK, this is approaching a "abandon hope so you can't be disappointed" mindset. While it may be true I think the GM has as much right to enjoy the game as any other player at the table. In fact, the best way to avoid conflict between players is to just not play a game. So Quertus I have the solution for all your RPG problems: quit.

But that misses the point doesn't it. The point is that we are all here to have fun and just saying someone can't have fun is counter productive. Especially (assuming Talakeal is telling the truth, etc.) since you are not saying that to the one who is in conflict with the rest of the table.

kyoryu

2019-06-05, 08:49 PM

Ok, if you wanted to have a deeper and more difficulty discussion about things, why throw in a bunch of provocative and easy to counter half truths? I am not quite sure what the deeper issue even is; I already admitted that I need to be less dismissive of my players and am working on steps to communicate and build trust.

... and case in point. Instead of going "huh, does he have something here?" you choose to react in a defensive way and try to defend rather than understand.

I wish you the best of luck, truly. Though you may think otherwise, I have absolutely zero animosity towards you.

But I don't think I can productively engage in this conversation any more.

OldTrees1

2019-06-05, 08:59 PM

The last couple of pages of this thread just feels really bizarre to me. Normally I get advice like "You need to be more flexible and less concerned about balance. Start fudging rolls! Realize that people's enjoyment is more important than setting consistency!"

But in this thread its all like "OMG you sometimes actually base NPC decisions on what you think would be the most fun for the party rather than what is tactically optimal? RAILROADING OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!"

Talakeal, in a thread you will get feedback and critique based on the flaws you demonstrate in that thread (whether they be your flaws, or flaws of your group that you can act upon). In this thread you demonstrated that there is some communication issues between you and the Players AND you have demonstrated that the players are having issues with trusting you.

So you get feedback and critique addressing those flaws. If a player prefers a different difficulty and you are dismissing their concern, that dismissal gets pointed out. If a player distrusts your dynamic difficulty (especially if it is enough to be called an 8 year grudge) then the distrust will be pointed out and the dynamic difficulty mentioned as a culprit. If you demonstrate a grudge over a player not buying consumables, then you will be explained why they might not buy consumables. Etc Etc Etc.

The constructive feedback you get is a function of which flaws you are brave enough to expose to the forum. That is how all critiquing works. We cannot see your world except through your words.

Quertus

2019-06-05, 09:01 PM

@Talakeal - your CaS adjusting and sandbox are traditionally mutually exclusive, of that helps.

Heck, my hypersensitive ears hear "railroad" when you talk about adjusting tactics to make things the "right" level of challenging…

Question; who is that actually fun for?

Like, weren't people arguing that I was too hard several pages ago? And even I think a DM who goes all out and plays as hard as they can without giving a struggling party a break sounds like a bit of a buzzkill.

I imagine there would be significantly more bitching on the part of my players if I did that, not less.

There is a difference between a *fair* challenge, and an *unfair* challenge.

Now, "Bob" might not be reasonable. And, if not, that's on him. But, if he's being honest about what bothers him about the way (he believes) that you've run games, he should be much happier with difficult but fair encounters than with always* difficult and often seemingly unfair encounters.

Further, if you aren't constantly customizing the difficulty (CaS), then they have new CaW minigames to play and master. And, once they do, you have less to worry about regarding being too hard.

Or, as I like to put it, I just make the world. Choosing their battles, and surviving the challenge, is on the players.

* Heck, as it stands, you've told him that you will make sure that encounters are *always* going to be tougher than (he thinks) he wants, *and there's nothing he can do about it*.

Yes, of course he knows it. He and other players have interrupted dialogue at many times.

Now, by "bent out of shape by" do you mean baffled by how someone could consider a 9 second quip to be a monologue?

Well, yes. I mean, you polled the players, you posted on the Playground about it. You clearly had a reaction. And he almost certainly noticed.

How he interpreted it, well, just look at your history… I think "bent out of shape" is well within the realm of possibilities here.

Also - you say he's interrupted dialog. Great, but that's not what I was asking. Has he interpreted *movement*?

Talakeal

2019-06-05, 09:15 PM

... and case in point. Instead of going "huh, does he have something here?" you choose to react in a defensive way and try to defend rather than understand.

I wish you the best of luck, truly. Though you may think otherwise, I have absolutely zero animosity towards you.

But I don't think I can productively engage in this conversation any more.

You do realize that this whole post is just making excuses to do exactly what you are accusing me of doing, right?

Well, yes. I mean, you polled the players, you posted on the Playground about it. You clearly had a reaction. And he almost certainly noticed.

How he interpreted it, well, just look at your history… I think "bent out of shape" is well within the realm of possibilities here.

Also - you say he's interrupted dialog. Great, but that's not what I was asking. Has he interpreted *movement*?

The reason I took a poll was in response to his statement "Everybody hates dialogue in combat," not that act of attacking the enemy.

I cannot recall him specifically interrupting movement, but they can interrupt anything.

Quertus

2019-06-05, 09:20 PM

OK, this is approaching a "abandon hope so you can't be disappointed" mindset. While it may be true I think the GM has as much right to enjoy the game as any other player at the table. In fact, the best way to avoid conflict between players is to just not play a game. So Quertus I have the solution for all your RPG problems: quit.

But that misses the point doesn't it. The point is that we are all here to have fun and just saying someone can't have fun is counter productive. Especially (assuming Talakeal is telling the truth, etc.) since you are not saying that to the one who is in conflict with the rest of the table.

Usually, I'm the one missing context; this time, I'm apparently not communicating it.

This is in the context of *diagnosing* and *fixing* decade(s) old malignant player mistrust, and Bizarro World gaming stories.

I'm not actually advocating mindless robot gaming (although it might be an improvement over some horror stories) - I'm advocating taking "Talakeal" out of Talakeal's evaluation of the game. I'm advocating listening, really *listening* to the players, in a way that, from here, sounds difficult for Talakeal (which, honestly, is a *good* sign, because it's bloody difficult for *most* people, and Talakeal is honest enough that we can brutally poke our friend In the right(ish) directions).

So, it's not "abandon hope" - it's "there is hope, but the 'easiest' path is the hardest - it's the Strange path of learning that it's not about you".

Agree or not, is that at least clearer and saner?

Also, I'm not just addressing the one player. There seem to be numerous variables to tweak to optimize the experience for all involved. Like how apparently multiple people hate "monologuing" :smallconfused:

RedWarlock

2019-06-05, 11:59 PM

Nope, Talakeal, GTFO.

Your gamers are, in fact, the worst, and I think this is the one exception to the concept of "no gaming is worse than bad gaming". Everything you've said, especially about this Bob, is indicating they are toxic as radioactive waste, and I think you should run far and fast and either find new players, or find a new hobby, because these people (at least, if toxic-Bob is so central that kicking him out would destroy the group) are not worth the trouble.

Quertus, you are trying to be rational with an irrational situation, and I don't think you trying to patiently apply your principles secondhand will work here, especially when Tal doesn't share your viewpoint on the structure of the game and the role of the GM.

Talakeal, I honestly feel for you, man, because I don't see a way out of the scenario you've shown us. It is as barking into the void, expecting it to echo poetry.

Great Dragon

2019-06-06, 01:51 AM

Nope, Talakeal, GTFO.

Your gamers are, in fact, the worst, and I think this is the one exception to the concept of "no gaming is worse than bad gaming".

Talakeal, I honestly feel for you, man, because I don't see a way out of the scenario you've shown us. It is as barking into the void, expecting it to echo poetry.

Bolded = Hilarious!!

Sadly, I tend to agree.

"Bob" controls the game more than you, The DM. By using your desire to play, and the Peer Pressure ("Don't kick him out") from the Group, against you.

The others have expressed an Interest in Exploring and Social/RP situations, but don't ever say anything to "Bob" when he ruins every attempt at it. (Hence my comment about Peer Pressure, it works in all directions.)
*************
Even going out and finding a second group would give you some breathing room.

(I know overcoming "Shyness" is hard, but only by confronting that "fear", can you really overcome it.
I'm glad that you are able to at least post online.
Small steps are just fine.)

*****
I'm really not sure what more to say, that won't cause you more "Grief".
My methods of GM-ing might not be acceptable to you.
***********
I'll keep checking this tread, and make comments if I think of anything that might help.

MeimuHakurei

2019-06-06, 02:55 AM

Bolded = Hilarious!!

Sadly, I tend to agree.

"Bob" controls the game more than you, The DM. By using your desire to play, and the Peer Pressure ("Don't kick him out") from the Group, against you.

The others have expressed an Interest in Exploring and Social/RP situations, but don't ever say anything to "Bob" when he ruins every attempt at it. (Hence my comment about Peer Pressure, it works in all directions.)
*************
Even going out and finding a second group would give you some breathing room.

(I know overcoming "Shyness" is hard, but only by confronting that "fear", can you really overcome it.
I'm glad that you are able to at least post online.
Small steps are just fine.)

*****
I'm really not sure what more to say, that won't cause you more "Grief".
My methods of GM-ing might not be acceptable to you.
***********
I'll keep checking this tread, and make comments if I think of anything that might help.

That's what I've been suspecting all this time - "Bob" isn't simply being disgruntled or mistrusting, he's actively gaslighting Talakeal into running the game exactly the way he wants. He absolutely needs to get rid of him because controlling what he does is what "Bob" is trying to do.

Know what else you can do? Drive up his discontent up to 11. Make him feel he's not welcome to your table. Let him see you will not give in to his abuse tactics. Incentivize the social players to turn in "Bob"'s character's head as a peace offer. Sunder his "permanent" magic weapons. If he's just going to run off whenever things don't go his way, drive him off of the table right away and then run the session as if he didn't exist.

Kardwill

2019-06-06, 03:58 AM

And what if the entire group's preferance is "no one shots?"

Might I ask why?

I am assuming you don't prefer a game world were everyone who isnt currently fighting is frozen and the PCs have to slap the barmaid aroind before she can deliver their drinks.

Do you think I am running a "simon says" game where the PCs aren't allowed to take actions before I give them permission? If Bob had asked to interrupt their movement he could have attempted it, "cut-scene" or not.

Well, it depends heavily on how you described the scene. If you say something to the extent of "While he's talking, you notice his men are moving, trying to encircle you", it will feel natural for the player to interupt it, bark a warning, throw a fireball, anything (and it will give the talk a more "living" feel). If you do it in a more rushed manner, like "When he hears your reply, he barks "kill them!" His men move to encircle you and attack", it will feel like a videogame cinematic, like you're setting the initial state of the fight, and players will feel less free to interupt what is happening. That "videogame setup feel" can be especially strong if you're setting up a battlemap at the start of combat.

Communication is complicated. The more explicit you are, the lessimplicit expectations will shoot you in the back :smallsmile:

Kardwill

2019-06-06, 04:12 AM

Know what else you can do? Drive up his discontent up to 11. Make him feel he's not welcome to your table. Let him see you will not give in to his abuse tactics. Incentivize the social players to turn in "Bob"'s character's head as a peace offer. Sunder his "permanent" magic weapons. If he's just going to run off whenever things don't go his way, drive him off of the table right away and then run the session as if he didn't exist.

Err, just no! If you want to kick a player out, kick him out. If you want him to "adapt or die", GM your way and let him choose wether he wants to leave. But victimizing a player because you have a feud with him? Horrible idea.

Great Dragon

2019-06-06, 08:35 AM

Err, just no! If you want to kick a player out, kick him out. If you want him to "adapt or die", GM your way and let him choose wether he wants to leave. But victimizing a player because you have a feud with him? Horrible idea.

@MeimuHakurei: Sorry, but I agree with Kardwell

(If I understand correctly) Talakeal isn't looking to destroy a 10+ year friendship over a Game.

My comment was just me pointing out a possible (underlying) Problem. One that "Bob" wouldn't ever admit, and might not be obvious.

Now, I've had bad Players before.
(See "One Race and Class" Player comment)

But, from what I've read (so far) if Talakeal made a monster smart, but things are going against the Party, he feels that he (suddenly) has to start playing the Monster "Dumb". (Because of "Bob")

Quertus

2019-06-06, 09:08 AM

Quertus, you are trying to be rational with an irrational situation,

Well, yes. That is my nature. And that is why, most people's "problem players", I've got no problem with. I'm just like, "I've played with that guy. He's fine. You've just got to…".

Really, I don't understand why people feel the need to make unnecessary problems out of situations that could be so easy to resolve well.

Quertus, you are trying to be rational with an irrational situation, and I don't think you trying to patiently apply your principles secondhand will work here, especially when Tal doesn't share your viewpoint on the structure of the game and the role of the GM.

Fun is everyone's responsibility, not just the GM's. But the GM can be the biggest hindrance to fun, and to the healing process.

I am advocating to Talakeal (and to anyone else who will listen) the Strange path, the method that afaict is the most effective at making the GM not hinder the process of optimizing / fixing fun.

Max_Killjoy

2019-06-06, 09:31 AM

"Bob" doesn't sound like much of a friend.

Rather, the "Bob" presented in this thread sounds like someone it's better off to not concern yourself with.

Quertus

2019-06-06, 09:51 AM

"Bob" doesn't sound like much of a friend.

Rather, the "Bob" presented in this thread sounds like someone it's better off to not concern yourself with.

I mean, if Bob were writing his Talakeal horror stories, how Talakeal makes fairytale Ogres and space-controlling demigods just to **** him over? How Talakeal monologues, moves enemies without the opportunity to respond? How Talakeal constantly ups the challenge to within a hair's breath of defeat - or sometimes past that to TPK land - and, when presented with this fact, and requested that he tone things back a bit, blithely ignored Bob, saying, "yeah, I did good, didn't I?"? Talakeal doesn't sound like much of a friend, does he?

Depending on the people, friendships can be maintained through a lot - including such breaches as stealing another's SO, or liking <insert politician here>. Talakeal wants to keep his friendship? That's his good. Talakeal wants to keep the friendship, and the game, but wants to do so without being willing to do what's necessary to accomplish that? That's a bit more puzzling, IMO.

Anachronity

2019-06-06, 09:57 AM

I have a lot of gripes about 5e monster design. It feels like they take the most direct route to challenging the players without ever considering the 'game feel' of the mechanics.

A bandit leader with 60 hitpoints and a comparatively flimsy single 1d8+4 damage attack doesn't feel human, even if it nominally is. This is because the player characters are presumably all human(oid), and they don't work anything like that. It makes the bandit leader feel off somehow, like he's a sandbag masquerading as a human.

Similarly, legendary actions are WotC's response to the action economy advantage of the PCs. A single enemy with a single turn of actions doesn't play nicely with a full party of characters with several times as many actions; either each of the enemy's actions is overwhelmingly powerful and unfun, or the fight is a cakewalk because the PCs can spend an action or two countering what the monster did and then have several turns to spare.

The solution?
I always design 'boss' enemies with a unique way to swing the action economy back in their direction that feels in-line with their theme. Or else make the boss relatively weaker but with a few very credibly-threatening mooks.

- Evil Merchant-Lord: In addition to being a decent (but not fantastic) swordsman, has several powerful and unquestioningly loyal undead guards which he purchased from the black market with his immeasurable wealth, as well as a slightly-less-loyal spellcaster minion. In this circumstance legendary actions for the merchant would feel asinine, because he's canonically not supposed to be more talented or 'special' than any one of the PCs, and in fact is probably less so aside from his wealth.

- Big Nasty Sea Monster: Gave it some tentacles and a notoriously powerful ability to regenerate. The tentacles each act independently of the main monster, but at a very definite initiative. Downing one only keeps it down for so long on account of the regeneration. Easy.

- Cursed Painting: A semi-artifact painting whose depicted subject varies with the one looking upon it. When the PCs try to destroy it, it splits into several manifestations of the PCs fears/vices, one per PC. Each PC has only a limited ability to interact with the manifestations other than their own.

- Martial Artist Possessed By An Ancient God: He gets two turns, each at specific initiatives. One is the martial artist who does kung-fu stuff, the other is the ancient god inside him which mostly summons elementals for additional action economy. Neither can take the actions of the other. If the PCs don't deal with the elementals in a timely fashion, they'll eventually combine their actions and consume all the elementals to perform a raid-boss-esque super attack that does lots of damage and inflicts all sorts of nasty statuses.

- Crazed Astronomer: Lures the party to a field at a particular time, where he has foreseen in the stars that a meteor storm would take place. Lair actions are limited to meteors, while the astronomer is a strong spellcaster (but without legendary actions).

- Robot Dragon: As an attack, the dragon releases an assorted army of drones and sub-robots, which collectively act as a form of Lair action. The dragon itself has some scary attacks and some radiation breath, but no legendary actions despite being a dragon. It's also a fast flyer, and so is elusive enough to shift between making itself the focus and forcing the PCs to deal with its robo-army.

Now I'll admit I didn't read much of the intervening nine pages between here and the initial post, so I can't make much of a judgement call on the particular player's attitude. But a lot of these scenarios should end up feeling more fair to the players because A: they're justified (enemies aren't superpowered solely because they're on team-Monster, but because it's part of their lore), and B: they act at definite points in the initiative order, so they don't get to constantly pull trump cards on-the-fly against any strategy the players can conceive of.

In summary, I really don't like legendary actions because they feel like the quick-and-lazy way to make a boss challenging, but accordingly feel quick-and-lazy from the player perspective.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-06-06, 10:13 AM

I have a lot of gripes about 5e monster design. It feels like they take the most direct route to challenging the players without ever considering the 'game feel' of the mechanics.

In summary, I really don't like legendary actions because they feel like the quick-and-lazy way to make a boss challenging, but accordingly feel quick-and-lazy from the player perspective.

As a note--you've made a common mistake here. You're confusing boss and challenging with should be fought solo.

Legendary actions are specifically for those cases where you can't, in keeping with the fiction, use minions. Which is what you've done in all your "special" cases--you've used minions to fix the action economy, even if they're not standard ones.

Legendary actions are for things that can't be phrased that way. A dragon living alone. A lich in his lair. Things like that. Not all bosses, not most bosses, not all challenging fights, not most challenging fights. In my experience, legendary action fights tend to be weaker than a well-constructed boss+minions, but are necessary thematically for certain cases.

Great Dragon

2019-06-06, 10:18 AM

Fun is everyone's responsibility, not just the GM's. But the GM can be the biggest hindrance to fun, and to the healing process.

I am advocating to Talakeal (and to anyone else who will listen) the Strange path, the method that afaict is the most effective at making the GM not hinder the process of optimizing / fixing fun.

I'm... Kinda at a loss here.

See, I simply can't Play (and especially not Run) any tRPG and be "Zen". (Not be yourself, while also not losing yourself) Since, you know, actually Roleplaying requires me to put "a piece of myself" into the Character (including BBEGs) I'm pretending to be.

I can be a little more "Zen" out of game, since I can suspend my "Ego" and do my best to actually understand the other person's view/s. But, see - there is a limit: since I've decided that I'm not going to "sacrifice myself" for the game; anymore than I expect anyone in the Game to "sacrifice" their Character for the Plot.

I've already decided how I'm going to run my games, and (usually) only change things after they have been tested with that group.

However, in "Zen" fashion, this isn't about me.

****
But, see - Talakeal has already done this "Zen" (to the point where he felt the only way to "talk about it" was on a Forum, since AFaiCT he feels no real support from the other Players); he has realized some of his mistakes; and done his best to make amends with Bob. Only time will tell tell how that works out.

*****
As for the GM being a "hindrance"...
What has your gaming Experience been?
One where the GM "enforced" his views and style on everyone, and refused to change when asked?

I'd leave so fast, they would think I was using a Flux Capacitor!

Talakeal

2019-06-06, 11:03 AM

I am not at a point in my life were running s bunch of experimental one shots is really feasible. I only get to game every two weeks as is and am about 2/3 of the way thriugh a campaign. I have no desire to run one shots, and I feel that my players are as likely to be alienated by them as we are to walk away with any useful feedback. If I was still in college gaming every other day sure. Maybe when this campaign is over though.

My players think that my game is too hard. The idea that I should stop going a bit easier on them when they are getting their butts handed to them seems very counter intuitive.

So I talked some more with the player who originally inspired me to post this thread. Basically, he wants me to put a lot more work into tailoring the world for the party, not less, and wants me to prioritize well balanced and fun fights over world building or setting consistency.

Specifically he wants me to make sure that I track all of the NPCs resources even if they never come up in game and he wants me to find an excuse to add a bunch of easy melee mooks for him to beat up anytime they fight a monster that flies, kites, swims, is ethereal, or is otherwise resistant to mindlessly running up and punching it in the face.

"Bob" doesn't sound like much of a friend.

Rather, the "Bob" presented in this thread sounds like someone it's better off to not concern yourself with.

He is a friend. I have known and gamed with him for almost twenty years now.

He has always been grumpy and a munchkin player. He was getting a lot better about it, in the game I ran from 2014-2016 he was actually probably the least disruptive and most supportive member of the group, but recently he has backslid a bit. There are probably life issues that are putting him under outside stress and I think he may be bringing a lot of that to the table.

I do a lot of homebrewing and playtesting, and Bob is really good at the crunch aspect of the game and how to break it. He is a great playtester, and was even employed as a proffesional video game tester for a time.

Right now he is renting a room from the couple who host the game, and he was actually the one who formed the current gaming group, so kicking him out really isnt an option.

In addition we arent allowed to recruit more players as the last guy we recruited turned out to be a legitimate lunatic, and they are scared of inviting anymore strangers into their home, and they have small kids they can't game at anyone elses house for a few years.

Edit: Oh, and the other players also agree that Bob has weaponized whining, essentially making a character with no in character defenses because he knows I will simply avoid targetting him if he bitches hard enough out of character anytime something bad happens to his PC.

MeimuHakurei

2019-06-06, 12:40 PM

I'm still not entirely convinced of this not being an abusive relationship (these things can be quite long-term), but a softer way of dealing with it probably is just a general suspension of the game. Say that you want to take a few sessions off (maybe 2-3) in order to have a more quality game session to prepare.

But really, with your last paragraph, the best thing you can do is simply to stop caring for what Bob wants in the game. No amount of your supposed abuse/cheating has dissuaded him from joining your sessions and no amount of trying to reason with him made his behavior any better. So if he shows up and whines no matter what you do, simply ignore him until he learns he can't always get anything from being a complainer.

Segev

2019-06-06, 01:29 PM

Edit: Oh, and the other players also agree that Bob has weaponized whining, essentially making a character with no in character defenses because he knows I will simply avoid targetting him if he bitches hard enough out of character anytime something bad happens to his PC.

Then don't. Whining to get your way is a learned behavior, and one that can be unlearned at any stage in life. If he feels personally targeted, you can say you're sorry that he feels that way, but you're not doing so intentionally, and won't deliberately avoid targeting him, either. If he whines about always going for his weaknesses, point out that he knew better than you did where those weaknesses lay, and can build differently to close them up. It's all about opportunity cost.

Talakeal

2019-06-06, 01:46 PM

[QUOTE=Segev;23957389 If he whines about always going for his weaknesses, point out that he knew better than you did where those weaknesses lay, and can build differently to close them up. It's all about opportunity cost.[/QUOTE]

Well... to play Devil's Advocate, he does believe that I am retconning the NPCs abilities on the fly to screw him over, so that might appear more difficult to him than it does to the rest of us.

Segev

2019-06-06, 02:06 PM

Well... to play Devil's Advocate, he does believe that I am retconning the NPCs abilities on the fly to screw him over, so that might appear more difficult to him than it does to the rest of us.

All you can do is tell him you're not. Well, and be sure you're not. He won't believe you, and you can just tell him that you're not retconning them to avoid screwing him over, either, and to deal with it. IF he stalks off, keep running the game.

The other major problem posed is that his leaving leads to TPKs, because you've calibrated difficulty with the idea he'll be participating in mind. Either stop doing that, and tolerate that he'll make things too easy for the party if he doesn't leave to sulk elsewhere (this may actually not bother the players), or make a little more work for yourself and make versions of encounters geared for him being present and not being present, and have ways to "patch" between them if he leaves in the middle.

To deal with his refusal to let others even roll for his PC in combat, introduce a formal variation on a semi-joke rule: black-and-white disease. Whenever a player's character is present and the player is not, the character has black-and-white disease. This makes him black-and-white, and kind-of fade into the background. Like a familiar that the wizard usually forgets about until it's relevant. As such, he takes whatever actions are deemed necessary to avoid failure to believe he's actually present, but otherwise doesn't do much. This will allow you to not roll for him or anything, but narrate that he and some portion of a fight are keeping each other occupied, and the result of his fight is dictated by the result of the rest of the fight. i.e., if the PCs are captured, his foes capture him, too; if they win, he wins; if they die, he dies.

This will not be personal, and will be used universally when a player makes it clear he's not going to be present no matter how reasonably long you wait for him. Anybody who doesn't like it had best be present or find a way to write their own PC off-screen where he won't be "needed" to keep the game going.

Anachronity

2019-06-06, 03:07 PM

As a note--you've made a common mistake here. You're confusing boss and challenging with should be fought solo.

Legendary actions are specifically for those cases where you can't, in keeping with the fiction, use minions. Which is what you've done in all your "special" cases--you've used minions to fix the action economy, even if they're not standard ones.

Legendary actions are for things that can't be phrased that way. A dragon living alone. A lich in his lair. Things like that. Not all bosses, not most bosses, not all challenging fights, not most challenging fights. In my experience, legendary action fights tend to be weaker than a well-constructed boss+minions, but are necessary thematically for certain cases.

All of my examples but the merchant and probably the dragon are solo encounters. They may mechanically involve multiple 'creatures', but in effect they're just constituent parts of a single creature.

You can argue that this is somehow cheating by secretly turning a solo encounter into a boss+minions encounter, but legendary actions are also a cheat by making a single monster act like multiple monsters. So really it's a matter of preference at that point, and I maintain that legendary actions are the worse choice.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-06-06, 03:43 PM

All of my examples but the merchant and probably the dragon are solo encounters. They may mechanically involve multiple 'creatures', but in effect they're just constituent parts of a single creature.

You can argue that this is somehow cheating by secretly turning a solo encounter into a boss+minions encounter, but legendary actions are also a cheat by making a single monster act like multiple monsters. So really it's a matter of preference at that point, and I maintain that legendary actions are the worse choice.

No, you're really doing minions. If it can be killed separately, it's a separate creature and should be treated as such, at least mechanically. And that's important. It doesn't solve the same problem as legendary actions, really.

Doing that with a dragon...more difficult. A tool for every occasion. The big mistake is in doing a constant diet of such encounters, especially once per working day. Once in a while, it doesn't really matter either way.

Truth be told, I don't use legendary creatures much. But that's because I tend to run mostly lower-level games where "challenging combat" is not a high priority.

Quertus

2019-06-06, 07:10 PM

I'm... Kinda at a loss here.

I'll see what I can do.

See, I simply can't Play (and especially not Run) any tRPG and be "Zen". (Not be yourself, while also not losing yourself) Since, you know, actually Roleplaying requires me to put "a piece of myself" into the Character (including BBEGs) I'm pretending to be.

Easily solved with non-sentient foes, and non-foe obstacles.

I can be a little more "Zen" out of game, since I can suspend my "Ego" and do my best to actually understand the other person's view/s. But, see - there is a limit: since I've decided that I'm not going to "sacrifice myself" for the game; anymore than I expect anyone in the Game to "sacrifice" their Character for the Plot.

I've already decided how I'm going to run my games, and (usually) only change things after they have been tested with that group.

However, in "Zen" fashion, this isn't about me.

If you've already decided to stab yourself in the face, I cannot help you learn to eat. If you want to learn to eat, I suggest you stop stabbing yourself in the face.

Here, admittedly, Talakeal is more stabbing himself in the foot, but I hope that the metaphor is still close enough.

****
But, see - Talakeal has already done this "Zen" (to the point where he felt the only way to "talk about it" was on a Forum, since AFaiCT he feels no real support from the other Players); he has realized some of his mistakes; and done his best to make amends with Bob. Only time will tell tell how that works out.

No. He's taken a very, very wrong path that he and you may have mistaken for "Zen" / what I am aiming for. It is not.

"Support from the players" is part of what I'm discussing building. (Fixing broken behaviors is another; improving and practicing communication is a third, etc etc)

*****
As for the GM being a "hindrance"...
What has your gaming Experience been?
One where the GM "enforced" his views and style on everyone, and refused to change when asked?

I'd leave so fast, they would think I was using a Flux Capacitor!

The blind man who forces everyone down the wrong path is just as bad as the man with no rudder who lets everyone get swept down the wrong path. They both end up in the wrong place. I want Talakeal (and his players) to build the skills to correctly predict the effect of changes to the campaign - like some of what I say below.

I am not at a point in my life were running s bunch of experimental one shots is really feasible. I only get to game every two weeks as is and am about 2/3 of the way thriugh a campaign. I have no desire to run one shots, and I feel that my players are as likely to be alienated by them as we are to walk away with any useful feedback. If I was still in college gaming every other day sure. Maybe when this campaign is over though.

That is about the right pacing for the one-shots, and removing this "the campaign must go on" is another reason. So, again, you're telling me exactly why you should do it.

My players think that my game is too hard. The idea that I should stop going a bit easier on them when they are getting their butts handed to them seems very counter intuitive.

You should never get into that situation in the first place.

Alternately, *they* should learn to deal with it when it happens by having tricks, consumables, etc to pull out to prevent the TPK.

So I talked some more with the player who originally inspired me to post this thread. Basically, he wants me to put a lot more work into tailoring the world for the party, not less, and wants me to prioritize well balanced and fun fights over world building or setting consistency.

That would be "never get into that scenario". Going pure CaS, every problem is your fault.

Specifically he wants me to make sure that I track all of the NPCs resources even if they never come up in game

Sounds dumb, even if I get where he is coming from. Inform him that that is inappropriate for pure CaS, and ask him which he wants: perfectly balanced encounters, or realistically tracked encounters.

and he wants me to find an excuse to add a bunch of easy melee mooks for him to beat up anytime they fight a monster that flies, kites, swims, is ethereal, or is otherwise resistant to mindlessly running up and punching it in the face.

So, "I want to shine in every encounter. If you realize that you've built an encounter where I won't shine, change it so that I do."? That's… sounding like a lot of samey and boring encounters.

Worse, if the party divides the encounter "wrong", it could easily spell TPK, given how incredibly tight you like to make the challenges in the first place.

Explain this to him, and ask if he really wants "read this encounter right, or you're all dead".

Edit: Oh, and the other players also agree that Bob has weaponized whining, essentially making a character with no in character defenses because he knows I will simply avoid targetting him if he bitches hard enough out of character anytime something bad happens to his PC.

This is the result of how you have dealt with him wrong. This is one of the things that the one-shots could fix. What is your plan to fix this?

Then don't. Whining to get your way is a learned behavior, and one that can be unlearned at any stage in life. If he feels personally targeted, you can say you're sorry that he feels that way, but you're not doing so intentionally, and won't deliberately avoid targeting him, either. If he whines about always going for his weaknesses, point out that he knew better than you did where those weaknesses lay, and can build differently to close them up. It's all about opportunity cost.

I'll reiterate that pre publishing the campaign, and giving out encounter passwords at the end of sessions could have solved this, and still could solve it for a new campaign.

However, this player ("Bob") feels that Talakeal pulls everything out his backside anyway, so he (Talakeal) may as well be taught how to build "good" encounters on the fly - ones that let Bob's character shine, rather than feel targeted.

It's not insane, but, as I've explained above, it won't get Bob what he wants / what he thinks it will.

And, when it doesn't, he'll blame Talakeal.

Just telling him "I'm not targeting you" is unlikely to help, and will instead feel like just sweeping his concerns under the rug.

Saying "fix your build, noob"… could work, if said by someone other than Talakeal. But I don't think that the group has any other minmaxers whose opinion Bob would respect here.

In short, although what you've said is really reasonable, and it should work at many tables, if Bob is as I read him, your advice will at best do nothing, and might actually be detrimental for Talakeal.

That said, your advice, combined with other tactics Talakeal is either unlikely to take or to implement well, could actually work. But I wouldn't advise the one, and (I and/or others) have already advised the other, so, unless the unlikely happens, I wouldn't advise "but I'm not", no matter how sincere.

1337 b4k4

2019-06-06, 09:15 PM

Talakeal,

Operating on the assumption that you are correct that Bob is normally an OK person and player, and doesn't represent a constant through your history of disruptive / unhappy gaming experiences, and further operating on the assumption that the fact that Bob appears to want to play a completely separate game from both you and the other players is not as big a deal as it appears*, then my recommendation is the following:

1) Read the GMing advice in Dungeon World (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/gm.html). Specifically pay attention to the principles and the moves. Now obviously GMing in D&D doesn't mechanically work the same way that it does in Dungeon World so the moves don't translate 1:1, but think about how often and in what mix you're doing the D&D equivalent of those moves. In particular too, notice that "use a monster move" is only one very small part of this. As a GM you know that you should be describing what the players see and hear in the environment, but you should also be describing things that others do that they characters would see and may or may not react to. In particular, looking at you "NPCs moved during dialog" example, you could have "shown signs of an approaching threat" by noting that while they were speaking the other NPCs were moving out of their drill formations to encircle the players. Give them that explicit opportunity to react BEFORE the move itself has been committed.

2) Ask your players more about what they are going to do about an impending danger. This gets into some of what others have touched on where players aren't matching your general expectations. Always asking "are you sure" might come across as condescending, so to take another page out of Dungeon World, ask your players every time they should see a threat what they're doing about it. "The soldiers are starting to encircle you and are readying their weapons, in a moment they will be two far apart to hit with a single AOE, but you might still be able to talk your way out of this. What do you do?" / "The king is really pissed at you, the guards are closing in at your back, and the king's evil advisor is about to back out the door. What do you do?" / "The dragon seems to be storing up energy, like its not putting all of its effort into the last attack. What do you do?"

Yes it's might sometimes feel like you're telegraphing / dropping clue hammers but that's ok. What's important is that you're ratcheting up the tension while being explicit about the things they need to address that will otherwise turn into "very bad things" in the near future.

3) Recognize that Bob is playing a tactical board game to win. As has been made clear, he's not interested in the talky / diplomacy / investigation parts of the game. Which means if you want to keep him as a player you need to

A) ensure there's at least a little spotlight time in each session where he can shine. I would suggest for sessions that will be heavily exploration / talky, give him throw away encounters where he can be a true "mook bashing badass" and save the carefully designed resource depleting encounters for sessions where they're going to be more front and center.

B) Always give him an opportunity to react (within the rules) to anything that changes the "board position" of the characters. Going back to your example again, any time your NPCs take an "interruptible" action, be explicit about looking for a reaction. And it's ok if there is none, but always ask anyway.

C) Accept that the rest of the time, he'll be checked out of the game

In all I still think you need to get some better degree of control over your group, and I still think the main underlying issue is they don't trust you to be fair. But since you can't force them to trust you, and you're either unable or unwilling to change the group makup itself, then the only thing you can do is make changes to how you behave. And I don't think your game design or general goals are wrong, but maybe a style change will let you still have the sort of game you want, and give your players more confidence that you're playing above board.

RedWarlock

2019-06-06, 09:39 PM

Quertus

2019-06-06, 10:11 PM

Honestly, if Bob is being seen as a problematic element even by the other players, then the burden of the problem shouldn't be entirely on Talakeal's shoulders.

Talk to the other players, too, and ask them if THEY feel Bob is being disruptive. See if they have any ideas for how to repair the situation, and maybe ask if they can speak to your defense on the fairness of the situation. Ask them to talk to Bob, as well, so it's not just GM-vs-player, which Bob obvious feels is antagonistic, but if his playstyle is making the game un-fun for them, too, then maybe a word from their end will help Bob to realize he's the one being the problem.

Lemme explain why I consider this suboptimal advice.

See, this is adversarial, trying to frame Bob as "the enemy".

Better to frame "the way we play the game" or "differences in expectations" or some other impersonal as "the enemy".

Get all the players - including Bob - on board with fighting "the enemy".

This will produce much better results than alienating Bob.

Even if Bob wants something different than the rest of the group.

Safeguarding fun should be everyone's responsibility. The optimal path involves - and IME starts with - getting everyone inboard with that.

zinycor

2019-06-06, 10:48 PM

So Talakeal, how often do these legendary enemies appear? and what level are these PCs?

Great Dragon

2019-06-07, 01:28 AM

I really am trying to help you, Talakeal.

Quertus: I'm reading too many mixed signals, Dude.

Easily solved with non-sentient foes, and non-foe obstacles.

So, now you're advocating that Talakeal
should run his game like the original Smash (Mario) Brothers Video Game?
(Actually in the sewers, and the monsters never got "smarter" than when they first appeared, only faster?)

Or, at best, Super Mario Bros, where obstacles were just as much of a threat, since they could move and "retreating" wasn't allowed?

Or, to put it in D&D terms, sticking to Monsters with <5 Int, and CR 1/8 and 1/4 until third level, CR 1/2 at third and fourth, CR 1 at fifth, etc.
With physical "Tricks/Puzzles" blocking progress (or lots more "Traps", if he doesn't want to sit and wait hours while they try to figure out what to do.)

And "Boss" Encounters being super predictable?
(Or maybe just infinite PC lives?)

When Talakeal was trying to shoot for Super Mario World, maybe mixed with Mario Cart/s.

Or, more like - Final Fantasy (combining 1-8?), Where each built upon the last, but with more of the World being changed by the Player's Actions.

(At least FF was how I was seeing what his World goal was, but only Talakeal can confirm)

If you've already decided to stab yourself in the face, I cannot help you learn to eat. If you want to learn to eat, I suggest you stop stabbing yourself in the face.

Here, admittedly, Talakeal is more stabbing himself in the foot, but I hope that the metaphor is still close enough.

So, with that "Logic", if I put food on the fork, and get it into my mouth, it's because I failed to stab myself in the face?

No. He's taken a very, very wrong path that he and you may have mistaken for "Zen" / what I am aiming for. It is not.

Perhaps a better explanation of your "Zen"?
Beyond "Be/Not Be yourself" ?

Because, if "Bob" had his way, Talakeal would be little more than a really "smart" S/AI robot.

"Support from the players" is part of what I'm discussing building.

This is something that I have suggested.
*Possible others, as well, but I can't reread the entire thread to confirm at the moment.*

(Fixing broken behaviors is another,

What, Talakeal is supposed to be a Master Phycologist? And maybe a "True Psychic"?

* Man, if he was both, think of the money he could make! *

improving and practicing communication is a third,

"When everyone refuses to listen, shouting only hurts your throat".

removing this "the campaign must go on" is another reason

(1) Talakeal has stated that he doesn't want to change the game.

(2) He has stated that he was willing to try one shots after.

So, again, you're telling me exactly why you should do it.

And your saying: "Kill the campaign".
And also "Accept being a robot" at the same time.

That the "Fun of the Game" For the Group is far more important than the desire to make and show his own world, and the (interesting) "Smart" People/Creatures in it. (Because of Bob)

Because this is what I'm getting from your "Remove Self from situation" message.

Sure, I can be wrong, but you really haven't given anything to work with.

And I'd be interested in what Talakeal thought about my comments.

Alternately, *they* should learn to deal with it when it happens by having tricks, consumables, etc to pull out to prevent the TPK.

But, see - they do have the chance to get those things, by buying Consumables, Armor, Weapons, and Equipment they think they need. Talakeal has said there are in game ways to do so.
But, it's *their* choice, and responsibly, to get - and use - them. Bob refuses, and then whines when he sees that those things could have helped his Character.

I will agree with you, that Talakeal should not take Bob's PC into the "balance" of the Encounters, and accept that when Bob is there, the Party "wins" faster.

<Snip>
ask him which he wants: perfectly balanced encounters, or realistically tracked encounters.
Now, this I can agree with.
A firm choice, and sticking with it.

So, "I want to shine in every encounter. If you realize that you've built an encounter where I won't shine, change it so that I do."? That's… sounding like a lot of samey and boring encounters.
Here is the mixed message.

By first saying "sacrifice yourself, for the Fun of the group", you were seeming to be on Bob's side.

Edit: I agree with RedWarlock that his attitude has made Bob the "enemy".

Since Bob was the only one that wanted things to change; the other Players didn't seem to care.

Worse, if the party divides the encounter "wrong", it could easily spell TPK, given how incredibly tight you like to make the challenges in the first place.

Explain this to him, and ask if he really wants "read this encounter right, or you're all dead".

Frankly, I'm seeing that Bob doesn't care (at all) about what happens to the group.
Once he's no longer "The Star" he just leaves, and if a TPK happens "oh, well".

I'll reiterate that pre publishing the campaign, and giving out encounter passwords at the end of sessions could have solved this, and still could solve it for a new campaign.

However, this player ("Bob") feels that Talakeal pulls everything out his backside anyway, so he (Talakeal) may as well be taught how to build "good" encounters on the fly - ones that let Bob's character shine, rather than feel targeted.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not going to do both pre-planned and "on the fly" games.

I mean, I'll do prepared Encounters, and use Improve for when the Players do unexpected things.

But, if I know that any premade material will either be ignored, or all Plots (deliberately) destroyed, I'll just switch to "on the fly" and save my "premade" ideas for a group that cares.

Saying "fix your build, noob"… could work, if said by someone other than Talakeal. But I don't think that the group has any other minmaxers whose opinion Bob would respect here.

I'd say that Bob would need an Experienced Gamer, that he respected, to say that.

Just telling him "I'm not targeting you" is unlikely to help, and will instead feel like just sweeping his concerns under the rug.
<Snip>
unless the unlikely happens, I wouldn't advise "but I'm not", no matter how sincere

Actually agree.

The only way to "prove that" would be to have one of the Players knowing everything Talakeal planned in advance, not use that knowledge In Game, and verify that what was done, really was what had been planned.
And Bob actually trusting that Person enough to believe.

A very unlikely situation.

RedWarlock

2019-06-07, 01:34 AM

Lemme explain why I consider this suboptimal advice.

See, this is adversarial, trying to frame Bob as "the enemy".

I have done no such thing, thank you very much for your strawmanning. The rest of your statement is entirely semantics, saying the same thing as as my statement under slight rephrasing.

Bob is not the enemy of Talakeal, but Bob obviously believes Talakeal to be his enemy, from his adversarial attitude. Bringing the other players into the conversation is meant to show that Bob is being defensive because "The GM" is attacking him, whereas if the others also speak to Tal's defense, then maybe Bob's choices in playstyle are more the source of conflict than the GMing being attempted.

Personally, I think Bob is being a jerk (or rather, a title I'd rather not filter), and sometimes there's no saving jerks. But I'm trying to be generous in my advice. Bob needs to readjust his perspective, because he IS making himself "the enemy" in his actions. He needs his "Are we the baddies?" moment, and getting both an "enemy" (the GM) and an "ally" (the other players) to say the same thing might shake his perspective a bit.

Segev

2019-06-07, 09:57 AM

Just telling him "I'm not targeting you" is unlikely to help, and will instead feel like just sweeping his concerns under the rug.In a sense, I am suggesting Talekeal do just that. It's reached a point where Bob is using his "concerns" as a bludgeon to bully people into doing things his way. Dismissing them is the best way to handle this. Certainly, listen to see if he has a point any given time, but if he's just accusing you of targeting him, dismiss it. Don't be mean about it, but be firm. "I'm sorry you feel that way; I am not targeting you. You do have these weaknesses, and sometimes they'll come up, unless I deliberately strive to avoid them. Which I won't do. I don't tailor encounters for any of your abilities; I trust you to use your abilities to overcome the encounters, whatever they are."

In short, although what you've said is really reasonable, and it should work at many tables, if Bob is as I read him, your advice will at best do nothing, and might actually be detrimental for Talakeal.I don't see how it can be worse than the current situation. The worst Bob can do is storm off in a huff...again...and more often. But if Bob is as I'm second-hand reading him, and really is just using a learned behavior of "weaponized whining," finding his weapon of choice neutered will force him to either rethink his social strategy, or make him quit. If Bob is the good friend Talekeal believes him to be, who does like the mechanics and crunch, he'll come around. If he isn't...well, allowing him to keep bullying the whole group isn't doing anybody any favors.

Quertus

2019-06-07, 10:16 AM

I have done no such thing,

Bob is not the enemy

Honestly, if Bob is being seen as a problematic element even by the other players,

Bob is being disruptive.

help Bob to realize he's the one being the problem.

Sounds that way to me.

Don't make Bob the problem - make mismatched expectations & behaviors the problem to be solved.

Quertus: I'm reading too many mixed signals, Dude.

That is because you do not see the elephant.

In fact, most of your post does not even indicate an understanding of the shape of the individual pieces of the elephant. You are likely too prejudiced in some preexisting belief regarding the elephant, or I'm just broadcasting on the wrong frequency for you to receive the message. So really, there seems little point in engaging your response beyond, "um, no - wrong on every count".

I will say this: I'm saying nothing about how Talakeal should run his games. I am, however, instructing him how to run his diagnostics.

He's spent years performing diagnostics on his groups by posting to forums. As much as we'd love to help him (I love that about this community!) we're not there, "on the ground". He is. I'm trying to teach him how to ask the right questions, and how to listen, actually *listen*, to the answers.

If I gave my opinion of Bob, as his friend, Talakeal would be forced to defend him. If I seem "on Bob's side", it is because I'm on the side of fun, for everyone at the table.

If there is anything about my position you still do not understand, and would like to have a serious conversation about, let me know. But that last post was too far off the path to use as a starting point.

Talakeal

2019-06-07, 10:30 AM

The Glyphstone

2019-06-07, 11:42 AM

So I was thinking. Maybe the reason Bob didn't want to interrupt the dislogue with a fireball is that he, like me, hoped the party would still try and work out a diplomatic solution.

.

How does that square with any of his previous behaviors, when he's outright disinterested in any sort of gameplay outside of the murderfacing?

Talakeal

2019-06-07, 11:47 AM

How does that square with any of his previous behaviors, when he's outright disinterested in any sort of gameplay outside of the murderfacing?

Perhaps, and this is only speculation, In his mind he was being nice and letting the talky people have their moment, and then he was "punished" for it by losing his opportunity to fireball the enemies and getting shot full of holes.

Quertus

2019-06-07, 12:39 PM

So I was thinking. Maybe the reason Bob didn't want to interrupt the dislogue with a fireball is that he, like me, hoped the party would still try and work out a diplomatic solution.

Not that he really wanted a diplomatic solution mind you, but I imagine the other players would have been pretty cheesed off at him.

@Quertus: The whole "zen" mindset always seems a little too close to nihilism for my taste, as it essentially boils down to removing all pleasure from your life for the sake of avoiding pain.

Aside from an occasional grumpy outburst by two of my players, my current game is fine and fun, I am not going to kill it prematurely for the sake of a hypotheticl future, but when the campaign wraps up this Fall I am open to the iea and we can talk again.

So… you do you. I think calling what I'm advocating "Zen" is missing the point; but, then, "Zen and the art of motorcycle repair" is big in QA circles, so maybe not.

The easiest way for you to see would be what you are calling Zen diagnostics. It is the easiest path, but not the only one. Have you given any thought to the second path I outlined, where I told you what Bob's ideas would produce? Clearly, you've made advances in more epimethian methods, of looking back on past failures, and interpreting them differently. That is one of the harder, longer paths, but if it's the only way you care to move forward, well, you do you.

Just understand that, as we are not there, "on the ground", many people's advice will just lead you further astray, and potentially make the situation worse come fall, when you are ready to discuss evaluating it.

(Note that Bob's advice will also lead you astray / is also a recipe for failure. But ignoring Bob is also bad. And you seem to pick the bad parts of both directions.)

Fable Wright

2019-06-07, 02:05 PM

This thread has certainly gone in a bizarre direction. :smallconfused:

For my two cents, Bob's player presents a beautiful opportunity. He's a known factor with clear motives and constantly throws unexpected hiccups in the party's direction. When he has a mood, they're either without spell support, or in a situation where diplomatic relations could go downhill in an instant. It's a source of challenge the asymmetry guy can't complain about, that the party has to compensate for. It's a prime hook for drama, challenge, daring feats and everything else you look for in an epic narrative.

All you need to do is start looking at Bob's antagonistic behavior as a feature, not a bug, and you get unscripted moments of glorious opportunity to generate fresh material on the fly. Keeps it fresh for players and GM alike. Just keep in mind the question of what to do if the jenga tower falls during a particular encounter when designing them, and you'll never be too far at a loss for how to proceed.

Catering to Bob AND the other players seems mutually exclusive, Takaleal prefers the roleplay of the other players, and Bob's not gonna quit while he is less than max level, so...

Great Dragon

2019-06-07, 02:20 PM

Talakeal

2019-06-07, 02:33 PM

But, even with Talakeal working things out with Bob, things didn't improve.

To clarify, we haven't gamed again since Bob and I had our talk about trust and listening, somI don't yet know if itmhas improved or not. I am sure you guys will hear all about it one way or the other next weekend :smallbiggrin:

geppetto

2019-06-07, 03:09 PM

Just because the guys a roommate doesnt mean you cant boot him. Nor does being old friends. Sometimes people change over time and the same old things just dont work anymore, adapt or die.

I would sit Bob down with everyone and explain exactly what the problem is from YOUR point of view. Make the other players speak up and say their piece too and tell him he needs to shape up his behavior or ship out.

If he's actually a friend or even a decent roommate he will see he's causing stress and make some compromises. If not, well then you have your answer dont you? If he's not willing to budge an inch to work on problems that everyone is bothered by then why should you care what he thinks?

Friendship is a two way street and right now he's being a craptastic friend. Its not all on you to make things work. He's got to bend too.

When it comes to the trust, its like any other relationship that had trust broken. Doesnt matter if it was justified or not, one party feels it was broken so its broken. That only takes 1 to party.

As part of that conversation say you understand that he thinks he cant trust you, dont get into reasons, just acknowledge the idea. Then tell him the same thing you would tell a SO, coworker or anyone else "I apologize for that situation, I will not do it again. But YOU need to either move on and forgive me and drop it or we need to go our separate ways. Because you cannot keep punishing me forever for something in the past and think this is going to work. I dont deserve that and I wont live with it".

And the ball is entirely in his court. He's been made aware of the issues and knows what his choices are. He will decide what to do and you guys only need to react appropriately.

OldTrees1

2019-06-07, 03:58 PM

@Quertus
Maybe I'm missing the Elephant because you're keeping it in the dark?

Perhaps I can shed some light on it.

1) Talakeal's group has some problems.
2) Those problems involve issues with communication.
3) So perhaps better communication can help diagnose how to move forward.
4) The best way to listen to Jane is often to have Jane start talking and Jacob stop talking.

So Quertus was suggesting doing a diagnostic. Several one shots based on what the players said they wanted and then checking back in with them at the end of those one shots. This is about everyone in the group learning what the players would enjoy. I say everyone because Talakeal already knows what Talakeal enjoys and doubts the players know what they will enjoy. So the diagnostic Quertus describes focuses on the players communicating to themselves, eachother, and to Talakeal, what they find enjoyable BUT in a manner than can confirm the veracity of those statements to get past Talakeal's doubts about the player's self examination abilities.

After this exercise, Talakeal will know everyone's preferences (including Talakeal's because Talakeal can read Talakeal's mind) and know the players know their own preferences. Aka a perfect foundation for designing how the game will run forward. With a bonus of maybe repairing some of the distrust sown by past actions / interactions.

---End of Description---

You will note, that diagnostic plan said nothing about how DMs should run campaigns.
You will note, that diagnostic plan suggests something for Talakeal to do, because Talakeal is the one here. If Bob were here instead the advice would focus on what Bob could do to improve communication. Same goes for other people. The person we have access to is the one we will suggest do something.

Personally, I think it is a plausible diagnostic. It gets the players to communicate their preferences. It lets Talakeal update any misconceptions Talakeal has about the Players's preferences. It lets the players update any misconceptions they have about what they want vs what they actually enjoy.

---End of Explanation---

Quertus

2019-06-07, 06:06 PM

@Quertus
Maybe I'm missing the Elephant because you're keeping it in the dark?

Things so far:

(1) Complaint about Legendary Actions.

Suggestions:
(A) explaining them to group.
Including their use, and limits,
step-by-step.

(B) (Temporarily) Remove L.A.s from games.

Talakeal was not happy with either, as near I can tell.

Bob
I'm not going to rewrite everything on this.

But, even with Talakeal working things out with Bob, things didn't improve.

Talakeal says "Game otherwise ok." and good enough to continue playing current campaign.

*****
Miss-matched expectations can be solved.
But not in game. This require everyone to be willing to sit down and actually know what their desires are, and be willing to make adjustments on other peoples behalf.

Changing Behavior/s are an even harder problem, because this can get very personal, and most people (including me) would rather adjust to accept that, or decide if I should leave the group.

****
Quertus, I am trying to understand what, exactly, your trying to get across, here.

The DM should always believe they are to blame? Doing their best to not get "Personally" involved?

The DM should make even more personal sacrifices? And keep doing so, until "everyone" is happy / having fun?
******
If not, can you explain how your "Zen" is different?

So, again, you need to throw away just about everything you've just said in order to see what I'm saying.

So, clear your mind of everything you think you know about the problem. Because that has roughly nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Ready?

-----

So, someone (mostly Bob) has claimed that there is a problem. Bob has made many claims about what would "fix" the game. To paraphrase another Playgrounder, Bob is probably right about there being a problem, but wrong about the nature of the problem and/or about the solution.

Talakeal had made numerous changes in his game. Many have failed, some rather predictably so. Bob has suggested changes to the game. Many would fail, often predictably so.

-----

But that's not what I'm saying. That's just the *foundation* you need to start with, that what I'm actually saying gets built upon.

When your head is in that space, let me know what parts of what I'm saying you still need explained.

EDIT: or just listen to the much better communicator right above me. Thanks, OldTrees1!

Great Dragon

2019-06-07, 06:18 PM

Perhaps I can shed some light on it.

Yes, indeed.

I can at least see the shape of an Elephant.

Very much appreciated.

*****
Now, maybe for some color:

Talakeal has stated that doing the Diagnosis (series of one shots) is not really something he wants to / can do, right now.

But, was something he was willing to try after the current campaign ended.

****
I can think of several reasons why, but won't speculate.

Which means that now, everyone (including Talakeal), is waiting for feedback from the next game session/s.

Quertus

2019-06-07, 08:02 PM

Yes, indeed.

I can at least see the shape of an Elephant.

Very much appreciated.

*****
Now, maybe for some color:

Talakeal has stated that doing the Diagnosis (series of one shots) is not really something he wants to / can do, right now.

But, was something he was willing to try after the current campaign ended.

****
I can think of several reasons why, but won't speculate.

Which means that now, everyone (including Talakeal), is waiting for feedback from the next game session/s.

Just so we're clear, you have only just walked into the dark cave, felt the tusks / truck / whatever, and declared it the elephant.

That is, the whole of what I am getting at is even bigger than the small piece you're describing. But now, at least, you are in the right cave, and actually have a hand on the elephant!

OldTrees1

2019-06-07, 08:24 PM

Just so we're clear, you have only just walked into the dark cave, felt the tusks / truck / whatever, and declared it the elephant.

That is, the whole of what I am getting at is even bigger than the small piece you're describing. But now, at least, you are in the right cave, and actually have a hand on the elephant!

Great Dragon has a good point about the present irrelevance of this elephant until we get more information and / or Talakeal gets to a position that they feel able / willing to try it.

Plus their concise summary is not indicative of anything. I too increased the conciseness, so Great Dragon might have been following that trajectory.

PS: I would feel better if you both dropped the elephant analogy. It is way too easy to accidentally be insulting (and I don't like risking accidentally insulting someone).

Great Dragon

2019-06-07, 09:27 PM

Plus their concise summary is not indicative of anything. I too increased the conciseness, so Great Dragon might have been following that trajectory. (1)

PS: I would feel better if you both dropped the elephant analogy. (2)
It is way too easy to accidentally be insulting (and I don't like risking accidentally insulting someone).

(1) Yes.

(2) Ok. I'll do my best to do so.

Thanks, again.

Quertus

2019-06-07, 11:02 PM

Great Dragon has a good point about the present irrelevance of this elephant until we get more information and / or Talakeal gets to a position that they feel able / willing to try it.

Plus their concise summary is not indicative of anything. I too increased the conciseness, so Great Dragon might have been following that trajectory.

PS: I would feel better if you both dropped the elephant analogy. It is way too easy to accidentally be insulting (and I don't like risking accidentally insulting someone).

So, here's the thing: only the "trunk" of the elephant is irrelevant at present; the *rest* of the elephant is still relevant. Or, at least, the rest of the elephant as I understand it :smallredface:

And this is why it seems to me a perfect analogy.

So, why do you consider it a dangerous beast? Oh, wait, mixing my metaphors - why is likening the act of understanding my poor description to seeing the elephant vs feeling it in a dark cave "way too easy to accidentally be insulting"? I've been up front about the fact that I'm not showing a picture of an elephant, because… well, aside from the fact that I'm not sure I've seen the *whole* elephant myself, even describing the most relevant parts is… nearly beyond my capabilities.

Now, *using* the elephant, OTOH, is easily within the capabilities of even a "mediocre at best communicator" like myself, so that should tell you something about just how good the elephant is.

What is the elephant? I don't know - I don't have a word for it… or, if I do, I don't relate that word to the elephant.

So, since I don't have a word for it, I could use a different metaphor, and say that I'm trying to explain Inductive Reasoning, and the Dragon has been asking how to alphabetize it. Or I've been trying to explain logic, and the Dragon has been asking what color or what emotion it is. But that feels less useful + potentially more insulting than simply calling it an elephant in a dark cave.

So, OT1, you have done an excellent job of seeing, understanding, explaining & describing the "trunk" - the particular piece / implementation of the "elephant" that I have pushed the hardest / that I think would be most useful/efficient for Talakeal. But how would you recommend I talk about the larger concept, that I don't have a name for, when it's huge (like an elephant), and I only plan on pushing Talakeal in its direction through pieces / individual implementations, rather than by trying to force-feed him the whole elephant?

And, retroactively, how would you recommend I could / should have tried to explain to the Dragon that he was barking up the wrong tree, and everything he said was not only utterly irrelevant but counterproductive to understanding what I was saying?

Because the elephant in a dark cave metaphor, of "it's something really big, and unseen" is by far the best I, personally, can come up with.

Since we've seen the difference between your communication skills and mine, what do you recommend?

OldTrees1

2019-06-08, 12:53 AM

So, why do you consider it a dangerous beast?

The fable juxtaposes two stories. In one layer the blind men are described with a tone indicating they are obviously inferiors (they are blind but the father & son can both see). In the other layer the father is saying "knowing the blind men are a metaphor for yourself" is wisdom that he is giving his son. Likewise it juxtaposes knowledge of an elephant vs the totality of knowledge.

Even kept at these extremes it can be taken as extremely flattering or insulting depending on which layer the person perceives you as meaning. Note that is "their perception" not "your intent". I hope the negative feedback loop of their perception is also self evident.

Then we get the 3rd layer. When applying it to a person and to a concrete missable idea, you insert a 3rd layer. How can one know which of the original 2 layers your 3rd layer will emphasize in the person's perspective?

Summary: It can far too easily be taken as "You are so ___ that you couldn't understand an elephant." or as "You are wise enough to understand the nature of knowledge". I do not trust my ability to reliably communicate tone while using the fable as an analogy for a 3rd layer.

PS: Also I was trying to subtly blunt some of the unintended but apparent abrasiveness of you previous post. In full transparency, all 3 sentences of that post were there to douse what I perceived as a spark that leapt on a dying flame. Please take that kindly.

Your other questions:
1) While concepts are connected in various ways, sometimes the concepts are talked about independently. The diagnostic can stand on its own merits without you needing to connect it to the rest of the concepts.
2) Don't bother to name the nameless. Concepts exist before they have names. You can talk about each concept (when it is the topic at hand) without needing to name it.
3) You will notice my concise summary was concise and a summary. Complex topics are more commonly mistake for each other than simple ones are. Sometimes that alone can cut through miscommunications.
4) When it can't, saying the same thing in another way can. Saying the same thing twice in two equivalent ways worked for the incomprehensible Kant, it can work for you too.
5) For now, we wait to see what Talakeal will do and what the others will do. I really hope they increase the amount of communication because I have my doubts about who knows who knows whose preferences.

Great Dragon

2019-06-08, 01:40 AM

@OldTrees1: very nice.
A lot of what I was thinking, but not sure how best to effectively express.

@Quertus:

I am also not really great at "communication".

First, I tend to be very direct and rather blunt.
I will avoid fancy words, or complicated technical terms, defaulting to their "basic Explanation/s" as best I understand them at that time. (Note that both my understanding and Opinion/s on the subject can be changed)

(Especially in a D&D Debate, defaulting to Rules by looking them up and referring to them, often times either paraphrasing from memory - or I'm assuming that everyone reading already knows what I'm "talking about.")

This can be seen as being a little rude, or condescending. (Not my intention, but can still happen)

Next: I tend to think in what is usually called Linear Logic/thinking.
Fact 1 + Fact 2 (until all Facts are listed) equals Conclusion.

But Quertus (no offense intended, just making an example, here) was more "Starburst" Thinking.
Looking at the same list (possibly seeing more Facts), but jumping to the conclusion instantly, and not "showing the work".

***
Perhaps something like Radio Frequencies would work, instead of the Elephant.

Not only are there Hundreds of Radio Channels, divided between (at least) AM and FM Frequencies (both for Civilian and Military) - plus, there are also lots of TV Channels.

So, in this case, I'm listening on a single channel of, say AM Radio describe the Issue; and Quertus is watching live CNNBC News.

And then trying to explain the Debate to each other via (non-verbal/photo) Cell Phone Texting. Where, neither of us knows the "source" (Radio vs TV) the other is using.

Now, you (OldTrees1) are better at "seeing" the picture, and "Explaining" it to both parties, then either of us.
(Again, greatly appreciated)

****
@Quertus: Now, it is helpful in saying that you are not really able to list all the Facts. (Parts of the Elephant)

But, as OldTrees1 said, don't try naming the nameless, just try to figure out if there is a way to describe what it is about.

However, at least for me, without being able to "see" (even if only in Theater of the Mind) the situation, I'm not able to engage in a Debate about it. Hence my (probably indirect) asking about the Emotional State of Logic, etc.

*****
Ok, so Communication was the first Fact.
Now, this is a two way street.
Requires "taking turns" Talking and Not Talking / Listening.

But, I was seeing a conflict on Bob's part, since his "Spotlight Hogging" combined with his "mistrust of Talakeal" (to me) made the chances of him sitting down and calmly talking his way into a change of "better behavior" was highly unlikely.

The suggestion of Diagnosis of the Group (one-shots to figure out play style and game preference/s) is a possible solution: since that might be the better way to show Bob that Changing his behavior (in such a way that he comes to that conclusion, himself) really is a Good Idea.

It's just as possible that gathering the group around the table and "openly hashing this out" over pizza, will work better.

But, once again, only Talakeal is "on the ground", and might better understand his friend then us.

My, I can be Long-winded!
Hope this helps.

Quertus

2019-06-08, 09:37 AM

So, the exchange between the Dragon and myself is a great metaphor for Talakeal's table. And the intervention of OT1 makes a great metaphor for the underlying concept that I'm pushing.

Now, you could mislabel that concept "diagnostics", or "listening", or "changing your perspective", or "growth", or "breakthrough / eureka / starburst thinking", or any number of other sometimes seemingly unrelated words.

The most concise explanation I can give is, I'm trying to put Talakeal and his table in the best position* from which to understand their problems themselves. Running dedicated diagnostics is the most efficient, effective technique for this, but it is not the only one. I am concerned that Talakeal had rejected or ignored every single suggestion I have put forth to better enable his table to understand themselves. Thus, I feel that sitting down for pizza will be unlikely to produce any better results than the past 8 years, because they're all still on the wrong frequency to hear their problems, let alone the solutions for them. Bob's suggestions for fixing the game being just more evidence of that fact.

Of course, "Eureka!" originated in the bath, so who knows what random stimulus might spark the change Talakeal's table needs to choose a better path.

I might have continued trying to hand Talakeal successively worse torches until he accepted one but, honestly, I'm tired. Talakeal needs to both want to find a better path, and to be able to distinguish better from worse. And my communication skills may simply discourage him, may give him an aversion to what's needed so that he rejects his own Eureka moment, rejects the path if he finds it.

* I couldn't resist the metaphor here - I'm suggesting mapmaking, standing on the mountain, getting closer, stepping back, using color filters. Which may at times sound contradictory, but they're all about changing your vantage point / changing what you are seeing, to try to get a better perspective on the situation.

Great Dragon

2019-06-11, 03:58 PM

Psikerlord

2019-06-11, 07:00 PM

My players absolutely hate it when a monster has an ability that they cannot replicate. If it is an ability out of the monster manual, they will usually grumble and tolerate it, but if it is a custom ability they absolutely read my the riot act. I assume this is just my players being crazy and not normal, right? Anyone else have experience with that?

But one of my players absolutely loathes legendary / lair actions*. He is normally one of my more reasonable players, but every time legendary actions come up in game or merely in discussion he immediately goes into a bad mood and starts grumbling and complaining or quietly sulking.

This came to a head yesterday when they were fighting a dragon. He complained loudly the entire fight about how BS legendary actions were, and at one point there was an unclear rule involving a monster's legendary action and I needed to make a ruling and we were discussing it and the player but in and said, "No point in discussing this. Talakeal always rules in the monster's favor when legendary actions are concerned. We might as well just write a house rule that states: Change description of all legendary actions to "The monster does whatever Talakeal wants it to do."

Then, when his character hit zero HP (not dead, just disabled and fully heal-able) the player got up, pulled out his phone, and went into the other room to surf the net rather than pay attention to the game.

So yeah, for some reason, this player really really hates legendary actions. I try to explain that they are necessary to keep the action moving and to counteract the advantages provided by action economy, but the player simply doesn't see it and just gets mad and turns the discussion into a fight any time I bring it up. At this point I am legitimately considered house ruling legendary actions out of the game and just giving boss monsters extra HP and damage to compensate because I am tired of fighting about it.

Anyone have any advice? Either how to socially disarm the situation or mechanically change the rules? Anyone have any similar opinions or experiences with legendary actions?

*: For anyone not familiar with this concept, it is basically a concept introduced in recent editions of D&D where certain "boss" monsters have a few special abilities that they can only use as bonus actions during the player's turn.

First, your player is a baby. Second, legendary actions arent even strong enough to properly turn your BBEG into a true solo. They need more than that to actually challenge the PCs HP and action pool. Third, just explain to players that boss monsters dont follow the same rules as PCs or most normal mosnters. They are special coz the're bosses. No further explanation required.

Quertus

2019-06-11, 08:38 PM

@Quertus:
Disclaimer: Rudeness not intended.

The "Final Layer" of the "Elephant" story is: Wisdom.

That, no matter how (mis)interpreted - the "Elephant" does not change.
And that it takes Wisdom to "truly understand" Knowledge.

The main thing that I saw OldTrees1 trying to politely convey, was that by using the "Elephant" metaphor, you were placing yourself in at least the "seeing son's" position.
"Noticing how the different parts connected."

If not the position of the "Seeing Father".
"Understanding how all the parts are truly related."

Which could lead to mis-interpreted (insulted) meanings.

******
But - "the Elephant" doesn't really apply to RPGs (and especially not RL relationships) because there are too many variables, and are in motion to boot.

*****

I return to patiently waiting for Talakeal to return with updates.

Oh, I think I get it now! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

So, when I was talking about "seeing the elephant", y'all thought I was talking about Talakeal's game? I wasn't. I was talking about understanding what I was talking about. Which, you know, you'd expect me to have the tone of the one who could see the elephant, because you'd expect me to know what I'm talking about… except I was actually taking the role of a blind man who had been around the cave a few times, and gotten a feel for several pieces of the elephant, even if he wasn't sure how much of the elephant that represented.

For Talakeal's game, my point was that we aren't there, we're just hearing what Talakeal reports. So the "trunk" of the elephant was diagnostics. The elephant itself is, I think, best described by yet another metaphor: "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". Except even that is wrong, as if that's only one side of the elephant, while another side of the elephant is "many hands make light work". Yeah, I still haven't seen the elephant myself.

Apologies for the miscommunication, making it sound like I was saying you don't know what's going on in Talakeal's game. Although, technically, I suppose that, independently of this conversation, I *am* actually saying that of all of us, to a degree, as none of us are there. However, with the elephant metaphor, I was only saying, "that's not what *I* am talking about". What I am talking about is (IMO) best instantiated as "diagnostics", but is a… larger underlying philosophy?

I'm a ****, but apologies for coming off as even more of a **** than I am.

Any chance I'm finally barking up the right tree?

OldTrees1

2019-06-11, 10:03 PM

Oh, I think I get it now! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

So, when I was talking about "seeing the elephant", y'all thought I was talking about Talakeal's game?

I'm a ****, but apologies for coming off as even more of a **** than I am.

Any chance I'm finally barking up the right tree?

No. You just got sidetracked.

Great Dragon and I perfectly understood that "the elephant" was being used as a metaphor for "that specific unnamed concept you were trying to communicate".

The reason I want to avoid using "the elephant" is rather simple. Using "the elephant" as a metaphor for a concept you have been trying to explain can result in loudly saying:

"You missed my point and thus must be a blind fool."
I will refer to this usage as "the metaphor" below.

That sentence is not the only intended meaning of the metaphor, but the metaphor allows the other person to infer that meaning even when (especially when) it is not the intended meaning.

Since the metaphor has such a dangerous unintended inference, I do not consider myself skilled enough to use the metaphor without provocation.

Max_Killjoy

2019-06-11, 11:04 PM

No. You just got sidetracked.

Great Dragon and I perfectly understood that "the elephant" was being used as a metaphor for "that specific unnamed concept you were trying to communicate".

The reason I want to avoid using "the elephant" is rather simple. Using "the elephant" as a metaphor for a concept you have been trying to explain can result in loudly saying:

"You missed my point and thus must be a blind fool."
I will refer to this usage as "the metaphor" below.

That sentence is not the only intended meaning of the metaphor, but the metaphor allows the other person to infer that meaning even when (especially when) it is not the intended meaning.

Since the metaphor has such a dangerous unintended inference, I do not consider myself skilled enough to use the metaphor without provocation.

Sort of like how one can use a loaded pistol as a hammer, but it's... contraindicated.

OldTrees1

2019-06-11, 11:32 PM

Sort of like how one can use a loaded pistol as a hammer, but it's... contraindicated.

Either that or the reverse.

I could be using a scrimshaw knife to carve scrimshaw. However a scrimshaw knife can be seen as a dangerous combat knife. Regardless of my intended usage of the scrimshaw knife, I can expect the possibility of someone being terrified. Since I am not able to control that reaction, I don't scrimshaw in public.

(I don't scrimshaw in private either, nor do I own a scrimshaw knife. Examples are sometimes just examples.)

Great Dragon

2019-06-13, 08:43 AM

So, when I was talking about "seeing the elephant", y'all thought I was talking about Talakeal's game? I wasn't. I was talking about understanding what I was talking about. Which, you know, you'd expect me to have the tone of the one who could see the elephant, because you'd expect me to know what I'm talking about… except I was actually taking the role of a blind man who had been around the cave a few times, and gotten a feel for several pieces of the elephant, even if he wasn't sure how much of the elephant that represented.

The elephant itself is, I think, best described by yet another metaphor: "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". Except even that is wrong, as if that's only one side of the elephant, while another side of the elephant is "many hands make light work". Yeah, I still haven't seen the elephant myself.

Couple of things, here.
1) Your advice to Talakeal for a possible solution: "Diagnosis", was something that could have helped. (And still might)

2) Since this Thread was focused on "helping" with Talakeal's request for aid;
Your search to define and overcome "the problem" really should have been put into another Thread. (Most likely here, in the Roleplaying Forum) Stating as much of what you currently understand about "the problem" as possible.

I tend to use references to things that are already established (Like: Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and X-Men: and readers are likely to already know about them, and how they "act") as examples. I do my best to relay that my doing this are only examples.

Talakeal

2019-06-16, 09:38 AM

Well, we played again. Nothing really to report, no conflict over the game, and nobody else had any complaints.

Session went OK, it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.

I think I will start posting my campaign journal either next weekend or the weekend after, so if you are interested keep a lookout for that.

Segev

2019-06-16, 01:14 PM

Glad to hear it went smoothly. That’s always a plus.

Talakeal

2019-06-30, 03:33 PM

Well, we played again, and while the games are going all right, I have to say the level of bitching is really starting to stress me out.

First, they were talking to an NPC sage and "Bob" was bored. I told him that he could talk to, that the sage knew the answers to several mysteries about his own character's personal backstory, and Bob flat-out told me that unless it is going to power up his character it isn't worth his time to care about things like that. So, I guess that's ok for him, but the problem is that I have set up the campaign so that everyone's personal story ties together to form the overall metaplot, which means there are going to be a lot of chunks missing for the other characters.

Now, Bob always plays mages. Long ago he complained that I put too many mage NPCs into my supposedly low-magic world, so he doesn't feel special. So I have made a conscious decision to limit the number of NPC spellcasters they face. As a result, the PCs don't invest heavily into defenses against magic. So this session they came up against an NPC with mind control powers, and the group got its but kicked hard, and then I had to listen to a rant about how its no fair that NPCs can somewhat reliably resist Bobs spells, but his party members rarely resist enemy spells and that I need to tone down my NPCs.

Bob had to leave early, so we were trying to finish before he left, but we didn't quite make it. The party, who was in very bad shape after the previous incident, made their way through the dungeon and encountered the "end boss". He is an intelligent and somewhat sympathetic villain, and there was a decent chance the party could have talked him down without a fight or even recruited him to their side. The group talks to him for about a minute, and then Bob decided to fireball the villain (in accordance with his "no monologues" rule) and then leave.

Now, the party was in a very bad way, but nobody wanted to take control of Bob's PC, even people whose own PCs were unconscious and they had nothing to do, because of how the last time someone played his character (see a previous thread) he got extremely pissed off OOC and threatened them with IC retribution if I didn't retcon it. So, Bob's character, who was down to two spell slots anyway, just sat in the corner. The fight played out and came right down to the wire, with the end boss at only a few HP, but still enough able to TPK the party on his next turn or two. So, I declared that Bob's mage would use his last two spells to nuke the boss. He saved against the first spell, but the second landed and took him down, the enemy was dead, the party was saved, XP for everyone, play again in two weeks.

But, just now, I got a text from Bob saying that he heard about how I "Pissed away all of his character's resources the instant he left," and how he is really pissed off at me about it.

MrSandman

2019-06-30, 03:46 PM

Tell him that if he doesn't like it he can start rolling a new character because his died while he was sitting in a corner.

On a more serious note, if people were talking to the bad guy and Bob literally fireballed him and left, I would just ignore his last action and return to the others actually deciding whether they want to fight the guy or not, instead of letting Bob impose such decision on them.

Max_Killjoy

2019-06-30, 04:08 PM

Either Bob is a total d-bag, and you should not game with him, or there's something about gaming that brings out the very worst in Bob, and you should not game with him.

Every behavior related to gaming that you've related regarding Bob is deeply negative.

Great Dragon

2019-06-30, 04:27 PM

@Talakeal
I'm inclined to agree that you may need to simply stop playing with Bob.

Send him a text (or email) and tell him that you can't run the game both ways, where he leaves the group, but also doesn't want anyone playing his character - or you "wasting" his Resources while he's away, even to make a >big< difference in a Boss fight.

I'd talk to the group when Bob wasn't around, and politely ask them if they would want to keep playing in your game, and if so proceed to find a new Place to have your games.

If not, well - only you can decide if you want to continue letting Bob (seemingly) control your games and effectively run your group.
**********
Maybe now that the Boss is dead, (but, it sounds like the Campaign is still trucking on)
just run Murder-Hobo Dungeon Crawls whenever Bob is in the group.

Bob doesn't care enough to actually participate with the other players?
Take his PC out of the Mega Plot and Adjust the game as needed.

Keep the "Talking RP" (for the rest of group) to when he finally gets bored and storms/wanders off?

Lord of Shadows

2019-06-30, 05:19 PM

But, just now, I got a text from Bob saying that he heard about how I "Pissed away all of his character's resources the instant he left," and how he is really pissed off at me about it.

It's funny Bob would complain about his character insuring the success of the party (and thereby, his character), when all he wants is success for his character... Actually no, it's not funny. It's... strange.

Some points to ponder, Talakeal. No need to answer any of these here, just things for you to think about, long and hard:

After his mage threw the fireball and Bob left, what was the reaction of the other players? Was there a big, collective sigh of relief?
When the idea came up for Bob's character to throw his final spells, was everyone on pins and needles worried what Bob would do when he found out?
How enjoyable was the session without Bob?
How do your other players feel about "Bob"? Have any complained in private?
Has Bob always been like this?

Depending on your answers, maybe you should tell Bob the next session is cancelled, then go ahead with everyone else like normal. Chances are you will have a lot more fun and get alot more accomplished. It may show yourself and the others it's time for Bob to move on. You should have taken advantage of the time together without Bob there to talk to everyone about it, but my guess is that at least some discussion occurred, even if only slightly.

You can bring in an NPC caster if they need one, and even give the NPC the background you gave Bob's character if it's integral to the campaign. I did this once with an NPC Cleric when the party needed help, and everyone's background was woven together. Over the course of the campaign they discovered she was a distant relative of the dead Emperor and next in line for the throne, but had gone into hiding as an "adventurer" to avoid the court intrigue. The session they found that out simply amazed the players. They ended up convincing the NPC to take the crown and helped her get it. Classic swords and sorcery. Plus having an NPC be the plot element prevented the perception of any player being favored over any other. In the end, everyone got a position in the new empire. The campaign took almost 2 years real time.

So, why are you torturing yourself and the others? Players like Bob can destroy everyone's enjoyment of the game, including yours, and is that really worth keeping Bob around? You can try talking to Bob out-of-game, but I doubt it really will go anywhere.

One resource that might help you with this is an old archive at WotC called "Save My Game (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/sg)"

@Talakeal
I'm inclined to agree that you may need to simply stop playing with Bob.

And ditto everything Great Dragon and Max_Killjoy said....
.

Koo Rehtorb

2019-06-30, 06:14 PM

This thread is now twelve pages of you posting stories complaining about how playing with Bob is not fun and getting told that you should stop playing with Bob. What exactly are you looking for here?

Cluedrew

2019-06-30, 07:22 PM

I'm going to say this: If Bob is actually a good friend and we are just seeing a bad side of him because of some various factors, stop playing the game. Finishing this campaign is not worth losing a friend over so just kill it. Play board games (preferably ones without inter-player politics) instead. The way things are going I don't think this is just going to get better so just cut it off and reset.

Elysiume

2019-06-30, 07:28 PM

I can't even imagine playing an entirely cooperative boardgame with someone like Bob. Maybe I've overlooked or missed it but I can't recall a single positive thing that's been said about the way they comport themself while playing a game. Maybe just run Progress Quest on a laptop to entertain Bob while everyone else plays a game?

Great Dragon

2019-06-30, 10:25 PM

OldTrees1

2019-06-30, 10:51 PM

But, just now, I got a text from Bob saying that he heard about how I "Pissed away all of his character's resources the instant he left," and how he is really pissed off at me about it.

I suggest changing your absent player rules.

"When a Player is not present, their character does not exist. When the player returns, their character suffers the same outcome as the party did in the meantime."

With those rules in place you NEVER have to deal with the live-grenade of taking control of someone else's character.

I am shocked you are still having people control each other's characters. I mean, even good players can have strong preferences about other players controlling and mischaracterizing their character. Especially when it is the DM that did so. (See random bad DM thread) And with your players, I think you should have known the outcome was going to be bad feelings all around.

PS: Under those rules, a TPK just happened. Time for a new campaign.

Mr Beer

2019-06-30, 11:19 PM

I had a player who used to regularly send me complaints. I told him more than once that I wasn't changing x, y or z to the way he wanted it and I understood if he didn't want to play any more. It turned out that he did want to continue playing but also had a pathological need to be a whiny little bish at the same time. Anyway it got to a point I told him to stop complaining or I'd uninvite him, a couple of weeks later he was still creating drama so I banned him.

tl;dr instead of enabling Bob, tell him GTFO. I would absolutely retcon the encounter to say Bob died rather than use his spells, the party won anyway, congratulations everyone except Bob.

Segev

2019-06-30, 11:48 PM

At this point, you should simply tell Bob that he can either accept what's going on in the game, or leave, but you have done your best to listen to him, and it has proven impossible for you to accommodate him. So if he is that unhappy with the game, he can stop playing. If he's not, he can accept that things are as they are.

Frankly, I think you should kick him out, but since you feel you cannot, you can simply invite him to leave, making it clear that it's his choice.

If he chooses to stay, however, he is going to have to put up with whatever the game happens to contain, no matter how much he doesn't like it or it disinterests him.

Tajerio

2019-07-01, 08:24 AM

This thread is now twelve pages of you posting stories complaining about how playing with Bob is not fun and getting told that you should stop playing with Bob. What exactly are you looking for here?

This is a point well worth considering. As far as I can tell, nothing ever changes in the dynamic between you and Bob. He plays the way he wants to play, you GM the way you want to GM, and then you come on the boards here and vent about him. New controversies continually emerge as old ones fade, but the source of them--the fact that the two of you play TTRPGs with one another--is never going away.

I know you've said before that for you, bad gaming is better than no gaming. And I'm not going to advise you to question whether that's true. What I would advise is to ask yourself why you believe that to be true. Because if you're going to carry on with something that's supposed to produce fun, but instead produces stress and conflict, you should be very clear with yourself as to the underlying reasons.

Talakeal

2019-07-01, 09:32 AM

This is a point well worth considering. As far as I can tell, nothing ever changes in the dynamic between you and Bob. He plays the way he wants to play, you GM the way you want to GM, and then you come on the boards here and vent about him. New controversies continually emerge as old ones fade, but the source of them--the fact that the two of you play TTRPGs with one another--is never going away.

I know you've said before that for you, bad gaming is better than no gaming. And I'm not going to advise you to question whether that's true. What I would advise is to ask yourself why you believe that to be true. Because if you're going to carry on with something that's supposed to produce fun, but instead produces stress and conflict, you should be very clear with yourself as to the underlying reasons.

As I said, the game is fine, its just that the amount of constant bitching, mostly from "bob", but not exclusively, the op was actually about a different player bitching, is really stressing me out away from the table.

This thread is now twelve pages of you posting stories complaining about how playing with Bob is not fun and getting told that you should stop playing with Bob. What exactly are you looking for here?

At this point I don't know. I had a few people asking for updates so I figured this was as good a place to vent as any.

Great Dragon

2019-07-01, 09:46 AM

At this point I don't know. I had a few people asking for updates so I figured this was as good a place to vent as any.

Having a place to vent can be very stress relieving, so go ahead and do that.

When there's a difference between problems with the game, and for outside it - please let us know. So that we can comment on each, as appropriate.

zinycor

2019-07-01, 01:52 PM

The thing is, besides the problems at the table, are you, overall, enjoying to GM for this group? Has your overall experince with this group been positive? If not, then you should probably leave. If yes, then obviously you shold work on improve it, and take measures in order to do so.

Cikomyr

2019-07-01, 03:14 PM

Can I check something with Talakeal? I skipped about the last third of this thread, and I wanted to know one thing.

1- the problem/resistance you are suffering about Legendary actions, is it the entire group or just 1 player? Because the OP makes it seem that there's only ONE player that is whining about it.

2- Is that player Bob?

GrayDeath

2019-07-01, 03:24 PM

On a more serious note, if people were talking to the bad guy and Bob literally fireballed him and left, I would just ignore his last action and return to the others actually deciding whether they want to fight the guy or not, instead of letting Bob impose such decision on them.

I cannot support THIS too much.

Even if you allow ONE player to simply interrupt what all the other players are doing (which is never a good idea if you want a cooperative game, mind in Paranoia or White WOlf Games this is quite ... fun at times ^^) you dont do so as a "**** you all, I`m off" fit of pique.

General problems with Bobs very... Diablo view on RPG`s aside, any GM worth his salt in D&D in such a situation shoudl say "No, you dont. YOU dont decide that 3 other players and what they are doing are less important than you. Sit down and wait your turn!".
Even if you submit to ONE Players "No Monologue "Rule", this was clearly not a monologue but an interaction of the other Players and your NPC:

postscript: now if it was the plan of the group to distract the "Bad Guy and for "Fire Bob to blast him, disregard the above, then only leaving and bitching were bad form. ;)

Segev

2019-07-01, 03:42 PM

Indeed, if Bob pulls a stunt that ends others' options to do things any way but his and then leaves them to deal with the consequences again, just retcon it. "No, Bob, you don't, because you're leaving now."

Bob's behavior is poor in any event, but it's particularly bad to pull a move designed to force the kind of play he wants and then leave; he's not even participating in the kind of play he wants at that point!

I would also take a note from Bob's constant "it's not important if it's not making my character more powerful." Make sure consequences for his behavior make his character weaker.

Yes, it's spiteful, but you're playing the game the way he said he wants to play it. Additionally or alternatively, when the players other than Bob manage something they and you enjoy in terms of play, and Bob spites it, have something give them rewards for their efforts that make them more powerful in way Bob would appreciate, and specifically exclude him with the direct IC explanation that he picked a fight and the reward-granting thing is rewarding the others for their behavior that was contrary to Bob's.

Note: I'm not really suggesting IC solutions to OOC problems; I'm suggesting you play the game the way he claims to want to. He doesn't trust you, so let him feel justified in his distrust by seeing the punishments for his bad choices.

But I only even suggest the above at all because you're not willing to tell him to stuff it. WHich is what you really should do. "I'm running the game. This is how it's going to be. If you don't like it, you don't have to play." ANd then don't let him kvetch at you. "Bob, you're stressing me out away from the game, and I don't appreciate it. This isn't going to get anywhere. Please stop." And, if he keeps at it, make a point of ignoring him. Don't take this out on him in play. Just ignore him until he stops. Possibly tell him that you're tired of feeling bullied for running the game. Being called a bully may have an impact on him, since I'm pretty sure he's convincing himself that he's "standing up" against a "bully DM."

Talakeal

2019-07-01, 04:34 PM

Fable Wright

2019-07-01, 05:34 PM

zinycor

2019-07-01, 05:38 PM

Questions:

Are you enjoying your game time with this dysfunctional group?
If yes, Then we can continue the talk about to improve the group in order to have the best time.
If not, then go find another group.

Talakeal

2019-07-02, 09:12 AM

Talakeal:

Do you reward full XP if the party reaches a peaceful solution?

The thought occurs that if you give the party full or even bonus XP for noncombat solutions to problems, Bob might be more willing to social through them. After all, he's not going to be as strong as he could be if he's giving up bonus XP...

I use milestone XP. Using diplomacy to deal with a problem rather than violence is fine.

Questions:

Are you enjoying your game time with this dysfunctional group?
If yes, Then we can continue the talk about to improve the group in order to have the best time.
If not, then go find another group.

The game itself is fine. The players arent refusing to go on the adventure, or engaging in PvP, or chewting or exploiting or even powergaming excessively, they aren't just being murder hobos or being otherwise disruptive.

The game is fun, but the bitching that surrounds the game is what is causing me stress.

Talakeal

2019-07-02, 09:18 AM

Even if you submit to ONE Players "No Monologue "Rule", this was clearly not a monologue but an interaction of the other Players and your NPC.)

He doesn't actually know what the word monolgue means, he thinks it means "to receal information through dialogue."

He doesn't like dialogue in any game, in his words "If I wanted dialogue, I would read a book," and is the type of player who skips every cutscene in video games and mutes action scenes because he finds quips in combat to be obnoxious. He has told me flat out that he believes nobody likes dialogue in an RPG and that if someone is speaking they are certainly the only one having any fun.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-02, 09:25 AM

He doesn't actually know what the word monolgue means, he thinks it means "to receal information through dialogue."

He doesn't like dialogue in any game, in his words "If I wanted dialogue, I would read a book," and is the type of player who skips every cutscene in video games and mutes action scenes because he finds quips in combat to be obnoxious. He has told me flat out that he believes nobody likes dialogue in an RPG and that if someone is speaking they are certainly the only one having any fun.

Why is he playing RPGs then... it's right there in the name... "roleplaying games".

PhoenixPhyre

2019-07-02, 09:51 AM

Why is he playing RPGs then... it's right there in the name... "roleplaying games".

Yeah, with those standards, even Diablo has too much talking.

Cluedrew

2019-07-02, 10:38 AM

"If I wanted dialogue, I would read a book,"If I wanted tactical I would play a war-game. I'm not kidding, D&D combat has rarely been half as interesting as combat in an actual war-game. Of course I don't think he is in it for the combat, he appears to be in it for the grinding.

Talakeal

2019-07-02, 10:51 AM

If I wanted tactical I would play a war-game. I'm not kidding, D&D combat has rarely been half as interesting as combat in an actual war-game. Of course I don't think he is in it for the combat, he appears to be in it for the grinding.

Its funny, my old DM used to say that exact thing when we asked to use miniatures to keep track of where everyone was during combat.

But yeah, Bob is totally in it for the grinding (and I suspect a bit of power fantasy) as he doesn't actually like combat if it is the least bit challenging.

RedMage125

2019-07-02, 11:59 AM

I suggest changing your absent player rules.

*snip*

I am shocked you are still having people control each other's characters. I mean, even good players can have strong preferences about other players controlling and mischaracterizing their character. Especially when it is the DM that did so. (See random bad DM thread) And with your players, I think you should have known the outcome was going to be bad feelings all around.

I don't think that this is some kind of "bad policy" in general. I use it. All of my players (I usually have a group of 5 or 6) leave their sheets with me (I would DM in my garage). If we have over half the players able to make it (3/5 or 4/6), we will still have the session, and someone else will play the absent player's character. But this is spelled out for everyone before character creation, even.

I've never had it be an issue like Talakeal has had. There was once where the original player returned last session, and he suggested a retcon which would have been more in keeping with what he would have done (the guy playing his character wasn't as familiar with the minutae of what he could do). It wasn't a huge deal, and it basically gave him one of mid-high level spell slots back. It was a minor change, and I allowed it, and that's the closest I've come to dealing with any kind of problem with that policy.

Talakeal...I'm with everyone else who thinks you need to either sit Bob down and talk to him about his bad behavior, or just kick him out of the group. That "I'm gonna stop a monologue because I hate monologues, and then I'm gonna leave" is BS. You should have retconned that. And you could TRY explaining that you didn't "use all his resources as soon as he left", but I don't think he'll listen.

If you're going to allow people to play others' characters when they leave, your players all need to be on board with that decision. And that's a social contract. Which means it goes both ways. 1)No intentionally suiciding someone else's character, and 2) No complaining about someone using resources like potions or spell slots for your character's benefit.

It sounds like Bob only wants to agree to thing that help him and refuses to extend any similar courtesy to any of his fellow players. This guy is toxic, tell him to kick rocks.

Segev

2019-07-02, 12:50 PM

I honestly think he'd be happier playing a video game in another room while you guys play RPGs.

Great Dragon

2019-07-02, 02:14 PM

Talakeal I'm going to say:
First, Decide on how you want to run the games; consider adding the "Absent Rules" by OldTrees1 in Post #363. As well as any other advice you feel applies.

Inform everyone in the Game of what the Style and Rules are, and stick to them.
Adjust things as you feel needed.

*****

Without going back and reading everything posted, it seemed that you were stuck with:

1) keeping Legendary Actions, and simply tolerating complaints.

2) exchanging LA for more Monsters.
Even if considered part of the BBEG.

3) completely removing LAs, and letting the PCs p'wn your Boss Monsters.

But, that even doing each of those things, did not solve the problem the players had with the Game?

Am I close?
**************
Without knowing a lot more about the other Players, I feel that I can't give any suggestions.
Maybe assign each a Codename - like you did with "Bob" - and specific information on what their Style is (or main complaint about the game)?

****
Seriously, Bob should not be playing any RPGs; not even Video Games, and especially not tRPGs.
Play battle games: Napoleon-based armies like Warhammer 40k, or guerilla-type games: like Star Wars "Armada" or "Car Wars".

Just don't be surprised when Bob gets upset when he loses.

****

I still advocate my suggestion from Post #357.
Talk to the Group, and if they want to keep playing, find a place away from Bob.

If you do keep Bob, let him Storm out of the room - ignore anything that has a negative effect on the other PCs.

****

Hope this helps.

MeeposFire

2019-07-02, 05:23 PM

Frankly he is trying to mess your game up. That fireball he unleashed was by design a way to throw your game into chaos knowing full well that no matter what happens you lose. He knew he was not going to stay and he also knows that you know he will be upset if you use his character and did it anyway. He already knows you are building encounters that will be tough but winnable for the full party and then made sure he started a fight where one full party member was rendered useless by him leaving while also knowing you are not going to change the encounter partly because of him complaining that you would do such a thing.

He is using you and is looking to cause trouble. He is being unreasonable and he knows that you are unwilling to do anything about it because you are convinced you will lose the game.

I am still trying to figure out how your other players do not want to get rid of him. Constantly complaining because people want to actually talk as characters? That would make my wife want to leave right there. Complaining because fights use up your resources even as you survive? Well I would not want to deal with that either. If your players are not saying they are tired of it you may want to talk to them and make sure they are not secretly getting really annoyed by the whole thing because they could be holding that in and it may eventually burst and you could lose all of your fun players thus leaving you only with Bob who will probably leave you too while blaming you for the whole thing.

What you should be doing is be fair and firm and tell them that they need to meet the fairly low standard of just being a decent human being at a gaming table or they can leave. You are all adults (or young adults I do not know how old everybody is) they should be capable of doing that and if they can't they can choose to not be a part of this. That is there choice play together and treat each other with respect or leave the group. Just to show this is not about you being a control freak you can also give a second offer where someone else can choose to DM the group and do things the way they like (unlikely of course).

Also make it clear about expectations about what happens when somebody leaves. As a group you should decide whether the game can continue or not and if it does continue that day then the player leaving needs to be responsible and make sure that if he does not want his character touched while he is gone then he needs to be sure he leaves the character in a situation where him doing nothing is feasible and makes sense. Fire balling an enemy and then leaving while expecting nobody to touch that character would not be responsible and in that situation I think it was unfair to the group to expect that the character would remain unused when he is the whole reason that the encounter took place in the first place. If he does not like it he can run his own game with the group with how he thinks it should be run or he can leave his choice. No anger no malice just a simple choice what does he want. Play with the group in a way that is not unfair to everybody else or not play with the group.

OldTrees1

2019-07-02, 08:13 PM

I don't think that this is some kind of "bad policy" in general.
Agreed.

However in this context, the DM knows that it violates the social contract between them and that player.

We all know that because Talakeal just reminded us that they remember learning about that sore spot.

So in this context, ...

PS: And speaking of context, yeah I agree that the group is dysfunctional based on what we hear. But our best advice was taken off the table by Talakeal.

Sidebar:
I have had good experiences with both "the character leaves" and "the character stays".
Surprise absences change up the party's plans for the day. This can create memorable sessions.
However if the absence would just waste time, I am rather grateful if the character stays around.

And Props! for having that discussion before character generation. I have usually made the decision in the moment due to a lack of foresight (which is not ideal).

zinycor

2019-07-02, 08:18 PM

KICK BOB OUT OF THE GROUP!!!

Seriously, It does't make any sense at all to have him around. As others have said, It would be better to have Bob playing on the X-Box besides the table, than having him playing at your table.

That, or go find another group.

Talakeal

2019-07-19, 08:03 PM

Well, I finally got around to posting the first part of the campaign log on the first page if anyone cares enough to read it.

So, we played again this weekend, and we had one outburst from the player in the OP.

They were fighting a tough monster, and Bob did his usual "turn incorporeal and wand it" gimmick. At this point the monster literally had no targets, and nowhere to run, so it attacked an already downed character, at which point the player threw his dice down, stood up, and shouted "If my character is dead, I am walking home (seven miles), and spending my Saturdays lying in bed instead of coming to your ****ing game ever again."

Great Dragon

2019-07-19, 09:07 PM

Um?..... Crybabies!!

Bob has made it perfectly clear that he wants the Super Easy Video Game, where he never loses.

Now, he's seemingly rubbing off on this other Player, because apparently the baddie is supposed to be a Moron that just stands there and let's Mr I WIN spam that button.
And then this player blames you, and not Bob for their PC getting targeted. Instead of saying: "Hey, Wandman!! - stop for a few seconds and at least use a Healing Potion on a 'friend'!"

Ugh. Never lose video-gaming mentality; plus
No teamwork; And cursing (or threats to/actually leaving mid-game) at the DM for running the Game anywhere close to what it's supposed to be.

This should be just unacceptable.

Seriously:
End the Game

Inform the players that they no longer need to bother wasting their time coming to your game.

I'd say Stop the Game until they change their expectations, but: It's obvious that their playstyle isn't going to change.

Talakeal, I'm sorry to have to say it:
Find. A. New. Group!!

Even I, who will bend over backwards to help the group have Fun, simply could not tolerate this. It would cause me to pack up my stuff, and go watch YouTube (or whatever), until I found another Group.

If you're still sticking it out, I'm in Awe of your dedication, and except to see you achieve Enlightenment, when it's over.

Your always welcome to come read (and comment on) the Player and Character antics of my various Groups in Ancient Realms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591658-Ancient-Realms) thread (or any other thread of mine that you feel like) in World Building.

MrSandman

2019-07-20, 02:36 AM

They were fighting a tough monster, and Bob did his usual "turn incorporeal and wand it" gimmick. At this point the monster literally had no targets, and nowhere to run, so it attacked an already downed character, at which point the player threw his dice down, stood up, and shouted "If my character is dead, I am walking home (seven miles), and spending my Saturdays lying in bed instead of coming to your ****ing game ever again."

How did you respond to that?

Talakeal

2019-07-20, 09:42 AM

How did you respond to that?

Um?..... Crybabies!!

Bob has made it perfectly clear that he wants the Super Easy Video Game, where he never loses.

Now, he's seemingly rubbing off on this other Player, because apparently the baddie is supposed to be a Moron that just stands there and let's Mr I WIN spam that button.
And then this player blames you, and not Bob for their PC getting targeted. Instead of saying: "Hey, Wandman!! - stop for a few seconds and at least use a Healing Potion on a 'friend'!"

Ugh. Never lose video-gaming mentality; plus
No teamwork; And cursing (or threats to/actually leaving mid-game) at the DM for running the Game anywhere close to what it's supposed to be.

This should be just unacceptable.

Seriously:
End the Game

Inform the players that they no longer need to bother wasting their time coming to your game.

I'd say Stop the Game until they change their expectations, but: It's obvious that their playstyle isn't going to change.

Talakeal, I'm sorry to have to say it:
Find. A. New. Group!!

Even I, who will bend over backwards to help the group have Fun, simply could not tolerate this. It would cause me to pack up my stuff, and go watch YouTube (or whatever), until I found another Group.

If you're still sticking it out, I'm in Awe of your dedication, and except to see you achieve Enlightenment, when it's over.

Your always welcome to come read (and comment on) the Player and Character antics of my various Groups in Ancient Realms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591658-Ancient-Realms) thread (or any other thread of mine that you feel like) in World Building.

The campaign only has a few sessions left. I am going to finish it out, then take the rest of the year off from gaming. Next year we are going to start a new campaign with someone else as the DM and hopefully some different players.

The thing about the other player, let's call him "Brian", is that he is on medication for depression, and one of the side effects is brief flashes of irrational anger. He is generally my best player, but just every few weeks something sets him off, he goes over the deep end for fifteen minutes or so, and is then fine.

The Glyphstone

2019-07-20, 10:25 AM

I thought you were the only one who was willing to DM?

Talakeal

2019-07-20, 10:53 AM

I thought you were the only one who was willing to DM?

Generally yes; I have talked "Brian" into giving it a try on a temporary basis, and we are going to start looking into bringing in some new players (and perhaps perspective DMs) or joining an existing group once the current campaign is done.

Great Dragon

2019-07-20, 11:25 AM

@Talakeal: I look forward to reading the conclusion of the Campaign.

And wish you the best of luck on the next Group.

The Glyphstone

2019-07-20, 02:43 PM

Generally yes; I have talked "Brian" into giving it a try on a temporary basis, and we are going to start looking into bringing in some new players (and perhaps perspective DMs) or joining an existing group once the current campaign is done.

Are you ejecting 'Bob' from a cannon during the transition? Please tell me you are ejecting 'Bob'.

zinycor

2019-07-20, 03:43 PM

Generally yes; I have talked "Brian" into giving it a try on a temporary basis, and we are going to start looking into bringing in some new players (and perhaps perspective DMs) or joining an existing group once the current campaign is done.

Sorry man, but I don't think that's going to solve anything, specially if Brian has irrational outbursts, I doubt he would be composed enough to GM.

Quertus

2019-07-20, 05:24 PM

MeimuHakurei

2019-07-20, 06:40 PM

Yeah, um, "unstable GM" does not a stable game make.

If you're going to have "anger issues" GM, aim for very, very short adventures - 5 sessions tops, and probably more like 2-3 sessions. Anything longer, and it becomes increasingly likely that he'll ruin all that effort at some point.

If the GM has mental health issues of occasional outbursts, it's most likely a good idea to have short breaks from time to time in order to enable stress relief of some sort.

Great Dragon

2019-07-20, 11:19 PM

If the GM has mental health issues of occasional outbursts, it's most likely a good idea to have short breaks from time to time in order to enable stress relief of some sort.

Yeah. Like swapping out GM/s with him, so that he's only GMing twice a month.

Also, you shouldn't go more than 2 hours gaming without a 15-30 min break, just to check to see if he's still ok with continuing.

Vknight

2019-07-21, 12:00 AM

Bing bang bosh i'm just so so confused and i feel bad for you and this argument about mechanics and more.

OldTrees1

2019-07-21, 03:18 AM

Talakeal, I heard you when you told us that these occurrences are rare and that the group generally enjoys the structure of the game.

However, sometimes it is better to structurally address these pain points rather than excuse these outbursts based upon the rest of the time.

Have you seriously considered changing the structure of your game so that it is further away from these pain points even if the result is further from your vision of a perfect session? Aka have good sessions without terrible sessions rather than great sessions with terrible sessions?

For example your perfect session is at this perfect balance point. However we consistently hear complaints about the difficulty being too high. This means you are accepting the players having rare but extreme frustrations with the difficulty as a cost of having the more common sessions where they are okay with the difficulty (and you being very pleased with the difficulty). If you decreased that difficulty the terrible sessions around that pain point will decrease and the quality of your great sessions will only decrease slightly. That might be better than your current system.

This same model can be applied to other pain points too. Including your pain points.

Please consider having a structure that minimizes these outbursts rather than having them as an externality of your other sessions. This might be a necessary evil for DMing for your group (including yourself based upon your own self testimony).

How could you restructure the model so that Brian has fewer outbursts, even at the cost of the other game sessions being good rather than perfect? What are Brian's pain points? In what ways have you created situations that touch on those pain points (you can only control your actions so pretend it is your fault)? What compromises can you make so Brian has fewer terrible sessions, even if you have fewer perfect sessions as a cost?

I had a player like Brian once. When I took the time to reflect on these exact questions, I realized that I had some culpability / power to affect a positive change. I ended up decreasing something I valued as a side effect of decreasing the risk of pain points. That improved the game for that group. (which was all the more important because that player had their own IRL struggles) Unfortunately that player's IRL situation deteriorated to the point that I could not adjust the game enough to accommodate their needs. So they left the group rather than have the group be a negative factor in their life.

Talakeal

2019-07-21, 09:16 AM

How could you restructure the model so that Brian has fewer outbursts, even at the cost of the other game sessions being good rather than perfect? What are Brian's pain points? In what ways have you created situations that touch on those pain points (you can only control your actions so pretend it is your fault)? What compromises can you make so Brian has fewer terrible sessions, even if you have fewer perfect sessions as a cost?

Basically, he gets mad anytime he cannot easily melee an enemy, either because it flies, swims, or climbs, it ethereal / incorporeal, has high regeneration / damage reduction against physical attacks, or uses hit and run / ambush tactics.

He also gets mad if the monster does something that a player simply can't do, such as the legendary actions in the OP.

And finally, he gets mad if his fellow players use tactics that force enemies to attack him, such in the last game where bob turned incorporeal or several times in earlier sessions where he charged in and everyone else decided to either hang back or retreat leading to him getting his butt kicked.

GrayDeath

2019-07-21, 01:43 PM

So he gets mad when his character is insufficiently buffed by your casters to deal with the enemy (a thing that should not happen unless you are ambushed) or when the group leaves him to die.

You dont need anger issues to get angry at those.

And the threat has over a long amount of pages told you how to deal with the "doesnt like assymetry" problem.

So the only thing problematic I see here is "doesnt liek his enemies using smart/fitting tactics".

So, act as the intelligence of the monsters suggests. Few things a melee bruiser SHOULD face directly/Alone are smart enough to use advanced tactics.

And yeah, supporting the "Bobless future" vote here! ^^

The Glyphstone

2019-07-21, 02:36 PM

So that's two players in your group who are violently allergic to anything approaching difficulty or challenge?

Segev

2019-07-22, 10:10 AM

Talakeal

2019-07-22, 10:19 AM

For Brian, I suggest encouraging him to play a gish of some sort, which has options in his own build to fly, go ethereal, etc. You can help, a little, with magic item handouts. A Broom of Flying will let anybody chase down flying foes (unless the foes are too fast).

He is actually playing an alchemist and could easilly make potions to cover those things.

The problem is that the party is in a "play harder not smarter" feedback loop where he is afraid to make anything but healing potions because of the inevitable butt kicking the party gets as a result of repeatedly charging headlong into combat unprepared.

Segev

2019-07-22, 10:57 AM

He is actually playing an alchemist and could easilly make potions to cover those things.

The problem is that the party is in a "play harder not smarter" feedback loop where he is afraid to make anything but healing potions because of the inevitable butt kicking the party gets as a result of repeatedly charging headlong into combat unprepared.

I suggest giving them easier fights, then, for a while. You want "balance" and they want "cakewalks" (according to your perspective), but from their perspective they can't afford to try anything different because they'll die horribly if what they try is even marginally less effective than what they're doing. They're afraid to experiment, so they CAN'T try more optimal strategies.

Bob is a huge contributing factor here; I think the best possibly solution to the problem of Bob "enough talk, have at you!" behavior is for the reputation of the party in the minds of the world to be taht Bob doesn't speak for them. Have the other side of the conflict take down Bob and immediately ask, "Do you want him back? Do you want to fight, too, or can we discuss this like resonable people?"

Bob will whine that he was specifically targeted, yes. Tell him he was specifically targeted because he started the fight and the other side didn't want to fight the whole party if they didn't have to. It will make the rest of the party feel like they are not a speedbump, but a legitimate power in their own right, and it will make Bob's being singled out a consequence of his own choices and actions. If anybody else pulls a Bob, have them treated the same way.

Have planning sessions in-character with NPCs who are sending them on quests. The NPCs have information about the enemy, and give tactical advice. "You'll want a means of flying to deal with the harpies; they sing and use arrows from the air." Things like that.

Lord of Shadows

2019-07-22, 12:02 PM

Next year we are going to start a new campaign with someone else as the DM and hopefully some different players.

...and we are going to start looking into bringing in some new players (and perhaps perspective DMs) or joining an existing group once the current campaign is done.

I certainly hope that "we" does not include Bob (don't let it) and you should think long and hard about including "Brian." You also might consider shortening up the current game just to stop the drama and get a break.

Up to you...

Great Dragon

2019-07-22, 02:36 PM

I certainly hope that "we" does not include Bob (don't let it) and you should think long and hard about including "Brian." You also might consider shortening up the current game just to stop the drama and get a break.

Up to you...

Agree with no-Bob after. He can cuss at Video Games, or whatever.
Still do your best to be his friend. Sounds like he needs as many as he can get.

Brian..... I'd have a long Talk before the next game starts.
See if you can compromise long before the game starts. Especially if he's going to GM.

Talakeal

2019-07-28, 10:22 AM

We had another game.

The game itself more or less went fine; we had no outbursts, just a couple of the usual jabs at me.

First, the party was fighting a group of witch-hunters and one of them used holy water to dispel one of Bob's enchantments (in my system holy water is one of the mundane counters to magic) at which point bob went on a short rant about how literally every NPC has an unlimited supply of holy water, which is ridiculous as, iirc, this is the first time in the entire year long campaign that an NPC has used holy water against them.

Second, Bob had to leave early again, and the rest of the group wanted to spend Bob's share of the treasure on replenishing potions that the party used over the course of the mission and I told them no; that while it might be a reasonable tactical decision, Bob would never agree to it and it is unfair to force him because he wasn't there to stop them. At which point Brian called me "Bob's little toady."

Also, we are having a problem with Brian's dice that may warrant a new thread. He complains that his dice are terrible, and so we did a test of his dice by rolling them a thousand times and recording their results, and while most of the numbers came up right around 5% of the time, 3 came up over 10% of the time and 12 came up less than 2% of the time, which to me indicates a good likelihood that the dice are bad.

After rolling a series of "3"s on several critical rolls, Brian got up and threw his whole set in the garbage and borrowed my dice, but doing so didn't change his luck, and he rarely rolled above a 4 for the entire rest of the session.

I can see why he was in a bad mood about it, and why he wasn't having fun. Is there anything that can be done in a situation like this aside from something that is blatantly unfair to the other players like just giving him a bonus to his rolls?

The Glyphstone

2019-07-28, 10:30 AM

Tell him to grow up and act like an adult?

Great Dragon

2019-07-28, 11:47 AM

@Talakeal: Brian's dice pool should either be increased to give more options of which to try and roll;
Or, if he has Net access, just let him use an online Dice Roller Site/App, and show you the results each time before you determine any outcomes.

But, yeah. I'm having a slight problem with a Player with a similar problem.
So, don't feel alone, there.

Mr Beer

2019-07-28, 06:22 PM

At which point Brian called me "Bob's little toady."

Why do you let people talk to you like that? I'd have told him to go eff himself while giving him a deadeye stare.

Koo Rehtorb

2019-07-28, 06:54 PM

Frankly, at this point it's coming off less like you have gaming problems and more like you have people problems.

zinycor

2019-07-28, 07:53 PM

Frankly, at this point it's coming off less like you have gaming problems and more like you have people problems.

That's exactly the problem, Bob and Brian don't want to play the game, they don't trust each other, or the rest of the party.

Talakeal, Just leave all these people, why do you continue to play with someone that calls you a toady?

Elysiume

2019-07-28, 08:56 PM

It was a few months back but Talakeal said "most people say no gaming is better than bad gaming, but for me it really isn't." There are various layers of friendgroup drama that makes it so kicking Bob out isn't (wasn't?) an option.

While I can see playing in a mediocre game because you really want to play, I'd say the game Talakeal is in rates far, far below mediocre. If I was GMing for a group of players that verbally abused me this much I'd've dropped the campaign after the first session. Bob and Brian sound like entirely toxic people, in or out of the game, and continuing to play with them sounds like it's a continuing detriment to Talakeal's mental health.

I think it's good that Talakeal is planning to take a long break after this campaign ends.

Talakeal

2019-07-29, 07:16 AM

Cikomyr

2019-07-29, 09:13 AM

Great Dragon

2019-07-29, 09:48 AM

You don't have to endure abuse man.

Agreed.
The fact that now two players in the group are 'attacking' you (Talakeal) and none of the rest are in any way standing up for you - much less defending you - would cause me to just tell the group "You win.", Pack up my stuff, and never return.

IC Drama can be dealt with.
Consitant OoC mean-ness shouldn't be tolerated.

Also, when one of these two people confront you:
Most likely Bob since he is your roommate.
When asked "Why did you end the game?"

I look them right in the eye and say:
"Congratulations, you ruined that game for me."

(But, I tend to be rather Bluntly Honest)

Segev

2019-07-29, 10:30 AM

The Glyphstone

2019-07-29, 11:25 AM

This isn't gaming. This is Stockholm Syndrome with dice.

Cikomyr

2019-07-29, 06:33 PM

"Yep, I'm also Brian's little toady; I'm not allowing Bob and the others to force you to spend your share of the loot on potions for the whole party, either. By the by, if you'd like to spend one person's share on that, you're free to spend yours."

This isn't an argument of logic and snark.

This is an argument of basic human decency and friendship.

They are being abusive. Sorry. The line has to be drawn here. This is abusive relationship, Tak, you have to make them understand or you have to remove yourself from it.

Vknight

2019-07-29, 08:46 PM

Whelp this just keeps getting worse doesn't it?

Friv

2019-07-30, 10:22 AM

I tend to agree with the last few posters.

The game itself is going fine, far above mediocre, its just that The nasty OOC comments around the game that are really starting to drag me down.

So I think it really is more of a people problem at this point.

These are not good friends.

I don't know what the surrounding situation is. I don't know if they've just gotten used to negativity, or if they're all being cowed by one abusive person, or if there's a huge rift between Bob and Brian and you're caught in the middle of it, but frankly it doesn't matter. You don't deserve this, and you do deserve to walk away from them and tell them that you're happy to be friends again once they start behaving like grown-ups and not attacking you over a game.

Vknight

2019-07-30, 01:29 PM

These are not good friends.

I don't know what the surrounding situation is. I don't know if they've just gotten used to negativity, or if they're all being cowed by one abusive person, or if there's a huge rift between Bob and Brian and you're caught in the middle of it, but frankly it doesn't matter. You don't deserve this, and you do deserve to walk away from them and tell them that you're happy to be friends again once they start behaving like grown-ups and not attacking you over a game.

100% Agree they are just being the worst.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-30, 01:32 PM

This isn't gaming. This is Stockholm Syndrome with dice.

Talakeal -- heed this comment. Please. It's clear this situation is not good for you. Even if these are normally decent people, it's also clear that gaming brings out the absolute worst in them.

Lacco

2019-07-31, 03:18 AM

"Yep, I'm also Brian's little toady; I'm not allowing Bob and the others to force you to spend your share of the loot on potions for the whole party, either. By the by, if you'd like to spend one person's share on that, you're free to spend yours."

Good way of handling. I'd just add "You understand this sets a precedent... for any of you next time?".

Talakeal -- heed this comment. Please. It's clear this situation is not good for you. Even if these are normally decent people, it's also clear that gaming brings out the absolute worst in them.

But...
:smalleek: ...then where would we - without RL gaming groups - get our fix of drama???

Most of us would have already walked away from such group (actually, I had walked in past, but it was much "lighter" version) - but it seems Talakeal's bizarre universe turns everyone he games with to their worst version.

The advice is here, quite sound, even by people that usually just agree to disagree (or directly disagree). It's just a question of "Will Talakeal follow the advice or decide to provide us with more drama?"

Tune in next thread to find out... :smallwink:

Stupid sarcasm aside: I'm all for joking around and some friendly playful teasing. This is neither if you don't feel comfortable. Stop GMing for them ("Sorry, I don't feel like GMing anymore" is sufficient explanation at this point) or change your approach to the situation.

Kardwill

2019-07-31, 04:47 AM

Okay, apart from the fact that I would bench from my table any player who insulted me this way, there's an interesting info there : It sounds like the entire table is frustrated with Bob. Of course, they're expressing that frustration in the most toxic, immature way possible (screwing his character behind his back) because they're Talakeal's table. But if dropping the entire table isn't an option for some reason, then having a Serious Out Of Game Conversation (tm) with everyone to burst this bad air bubble and discussing expectations becomes a real necessity. Otherwise, the table will implode soon.

Talakeal

2019-07-31, 09:16 AM

I don't think the entire group is fed up with Bob, mostly just Brian.

I actually did leave my gaming group two years ago, so its not like its something I was incapable of, but it was far worse than this one is. The DM was a horrible combination of control freak and pathological liar, which meant he had all sorts of crazy rule for playing at his house, both in and out of game, which would change without warning and then he would gaslight you into saying that those were always the rules if you questioned it. Of course, in that case the actual gaming was no fun, not just people's attitudes, and it did take him threatening to beat me up to get me to leave.

Great Dragon

2019-07-31, 09:36 AM

@Talakeal: man, you have the worst gaming luck. I might have played like three games, and after gaslighting me more than twice, I'd have left. Threats of Physical Attacks will immediately expedite that.

I find it interesting that you get better friendship and support from people you can't even see, and will most likely never meet, than these so-called friends.

You need some real Friends in your life, if not the games.

Talakeal

2019-08-11, 11:44 AM

Another fine game, marred only by Brian's temper.

Bob was actually pretty pleasant, even congratulating me on the RP aspects of the session, which is really out of character for him.

But again, Brian couldn't roll to save his life, and spent half the session in a simmering rage, throwing dice and tossing tokens all over the table, and at one point he exploded at me shouting profanity do to the following situation:

A couple of months ago his character planned to do something, but then he forgot all about it due to his memory problems. When I informed him that he never actually went through with his plans, he exploded at me telling me that I need to assume he does everything he plans to do to compensate for his poor memory. I tried to explain that I can't do that because there are dice rolls and decisions and costs involved in this things that I can't just do for the players even if I wanted to play for them, and that I forget things to so its not like its totally one sided, but he didn't seem placated.

I was seriously tempted to give him the boot then and there, but we both calmed down after that. In the future I am going to let him roll on 3d6 rather than 1d20, hopefully the bell curve will soften his bad luck a bit, but I have no idea what the solution is for his temper (aside from the obvious).

Great Dragon

2019-08-11, 12:51 PM

Another fine game, marred only by Brian's temper.

Bob was actually pretty pleasant, even congratulating me on the RP aspects of the session, which is really out of character for him.

But again, Brian couldn't roll to save his life, and spent half the session in a simmering rage, throwing dice and tossing tokens all over the table, and at one point he exploded at me shouting profanity do to the following situation:

<Memory>

In the future I am going to let him roll on 3d6 rather than 1d20, hopefully the bell curve will soften his bad luck a bit, but I have no idea what the solution is for his temper (aside from the obvious)

<Memory> perhaps insisting that anything that is actually desired to be done be put into an email? This way, both people have access to that information at a later date, and at the next game that it becomes relevant, play out whatever needs to be determined? Dice Rolls; making sure that costs are payed for; any connected RP is handled, etc?

Also, my suggestion would be using Google Docs (i love this!) to keep notes - either during game, if at all possible; or as soon after the game as possible, so that less information on what happened during that session is lost.

**********
I suppose that rolling 3d6 could work, but I'd add two points to the roll;
or maybe a 1d4 rolled along with: subtract 1 and 2 for a minimum of a "Natural 1";
and add +1 for 3, and +2 for 4: so that the effect of a Natural 20 can still be achieved.

Don't let yourself get caught in the 'I can't fail' trap.

Not sure if that really helps, though since the Average Roll/s are between 9 and 15.

**********
No real advice for the temper problem, sorry.

Segev

2019-08-11, 04:04 PM

Talakeal

2019-08-11, 04:22 PM

My suggestion on Brian's plans he "never followed through on" but wanted to assume his PC had followed through on would be to allow him to have attempted the rolls. Unless these are things that have to happen on screen, and have ongoing impact, you can let him background it post hoc as easily as "at the time."

In the future, when he has plans, make sure to write them down. In fact, you may want to make any rolls ahead of time, where possible, and note when they will come up.

I'm not sure what the plans were, though, so I don't know what specific problems there may be with attempting any of this.

Basically, he was under a curse. He met an NPC who said "Come visit my shop sometime and I can sell you a scroll to cure you," and he said "Good idea. I'll be sure to do that."

Three months later, he never did it, and the curse comes up during an important combat and he tells me that he got rid of the curse, and I explain to him that he said he planned to, but he never actually did it and that actually traveling to the guys shop would have taken time as well as risked random encounters and also he never paid the person to buy the scroll.

zinycor

2019-08-11, 05:18 PM

Basically, he was under a curse. He met an NPC who said "Come visit my shop sometime and I can sell you a scroll to cure you," and he said "Good idea. I'll be sure to do that."

Three months later, he never did it, and the curse comes up during an important combat and he tells me that he got rid of the curse, and I explain to him that he said he planned to, but he never actually did it and that actually traveling to the guys shop would have taken time as well as risked random encounters and also he never paid the person to buy the scroll.

Well, in my opinion you should just get rid of any important sub-plots regarding Brian's character, just let him participate in the combats and other people's story, but as long as you keep giving him protagonism he will get more and more frustrated.

Make his sub-plots simple and direct, without so much on the line if he fails, and no long term consequence.

Focus the important plots on the functional player's and let Brian participate.

Now, I realize that this isn't the sort of game you want to run, but sadly, with an unstable player like Brian, you might be better running more low stakes games. Wait for other group to have a sandbox gritty experience.

Talakeal

2019-08-11, 05:30 PM

Well, in my opinion you should just get rid of any important sub-plots regarding Brian's character, just let him participate in the combats and other people's story, but as long as you keep giving him protagonism he will get more and more frustrated.

Make his sub-plots simple and direct, without so much on the line if he fails, and no long term consequence.

Focus the important plots on the functional player's and let Brian participate.

Now, I realize that this isn't the sort of game you want to run, but sadly, with an unstable player like Brian, you might be better running more low stakes games. Wait for other group to have a sandbox gritty experience.

This wasn't actually a plot, this was just him triggering a trap in a dungeon and being cursed by it.

zinycor

2019-08-11, 05:53 PM

This wasn't actually a plot, this was just him triggering a trap in a dungeon and being cursed by it.

Then next time you have such a trap, and he activates it, just change it in the fly to something he would be able to deal with, like points of damage.

Again, this is no optimal solution, But since you are dealing with non-optimal players, is about the best you could do.

Great Dragon

2019-08-11, 06:04 PM

This wasn't actually a plot, this was just him triggering a trap in a dungeon and being cursed by it.

There are a couple of quick solutions, either the Curse wasn't long-lasting, or it is easier to get removed.

Like stated, Brian doesn't seem the type to like dealing with things beyond what actually interests him.

I just dealt with a similar situation.

The 4th level party Encountered a Flaming Skeleton Minotaur, and the Barbarian decides to take it's flaming Greataxe, which is cursed. (I'm sure you can guess who's behind that)

After a couple of sessions of trying to give Clues through other PCs, and the Player's growing frustration, I simply allowed the Curse to be removed by spending 1k gold and a month of Downtime to get rid of it.
(The Baddies in the Dungeon left during this time)

I did give some Plot Hooks to the Barbarian's Player, in the hopes that doing so will increase their involvement in the game beyond "Smash!"

The Glyphstone

2019-08-11, 06:38 PM

Bob must be up to something. That, or he's been replaced by his mirror duplicate from the Not-Bizarro gaming universe.

Talakeal

2019-08-11, 07:11 PM

Bob must be up to something. That, or he's been replaced by his mirror duplicate from the Not-Bizarro gaming universe.

Lol. I actually joked about needing to do a test to see if he had been replaced by a doppleganger at the time.

Excession

2019-08-11, 08:12 PM

Lol. I actually joked about needing to do a test to see if he had been replaced by a doppleganger at the time.

That may not be the best way to reinforce someone's good behaviour if they are trying to change.

Segev

2019-08-12, 09:58 AM

To be fair, in Brian's place? I'd be mad, too.

I'm going to speak as if I were Brian, in his situation in your game, here. I know I'm not Brian, so my thought process probably won't be his, but I hope that illustrating my thought process will help you understand better where he might be coming from, and from that, work out a solution.

I am not my character. I can try my best to get into the game, to play my character to the hilt - and I do - but I am not actually living in the world. I am not experiencing things through his senses. I only have the DM's descriptions filtered through my own imagination's interpretation of what I understand the DM to be saying.

If my PC is suffering an ongoing condition, it impacts his life in ways that it doesn't impact mine. You don't make me tell you every time my PC goes to the bathroom or eats a meal, lest he die of constipation or starve (or die of thirst), despite the fact that every time he goes behind the bushes, he's lowering his trousers and removing parts of his armor and in a position that is far more vulnerable to ambush than normal, and that every meal could be poisoned, have gone bad, or the like. If you need to check on it, you just ask me, "Hey, did you mark off the rations you've been eating for the last week of travel?" and we move on when I mark them off or affirm that I already have.

Brian may not have brought up going to take care of it because he, the player, forgot it was a thing, but Brian's PC certainly would not forget about a curse that he's laboring under. Moreover, if the DM doesn't bring it up and offer an explicit time to do it, but I said my PC wants to take care of that, I may assume that the DM doesn't want to run it, and that it's been dealt with. Pressing DMs on things they don't want to do can derail entire sessions.

Now, maybe Brian should have asked about it, but again, if he forgot because he's not experiencing what his PC is, that's not really fair as the DM to impose.

Is there a high chance of failure? Or is it mostly jsut a risk of random encounters killing him on his way? If the latter, my recommendation would have been to say, "Right, you did say you were going to. We'll assume you did, and run that next session as a flashback." Then, run it. If, for some reason, he fails to get the curse lifted in the process, come up with a reason. Maybe he died and got raised and had to spend more money than anticipated to cover that as well as the curse-removal. Maybe he WAS replaced by a doppelganger, and the "un-cursed" PC is not really Brian's PC at all. And, of course, if he succeeds on the quest, he's uncursed just as expected.

But holding Brian responsible for something he said he was going to do but never pressed you to do, despite it being important to his PC, is something I fully understand being angry about.

One of my peeves in a game I'm in is when the DM expects the players to outline exactly how they're going to do something their characters should know how to do, and which the DM has researched, and then tries to tell them that they failed because they (the players) didn't know was a part of it despite it being something the characters should know.

It's also irksome when the DM says the character smashes his face into a closed door because the DM had described it as closed, and the player says, "I go through the door," but doesn't say, "I open the door," first. Remember: the PC isn't the player, and the PC sees things the player only heard described once in what was possibly an infodump he now has to try to remember, while the PC is seeing it right in front of him.

patchyman

2019-08-12, 01:12 PM

Why can't a PC full attack and cast a spell and activate a supernatural power all in the same round?

Why can this monster?

The ability to do so clearly exists - what's a PC gotta do to gain / duplicate that ability?

They can. Most spellcasters can cast shield or counterspell in the same turn they do something else. Eldritch Knights can attack twice, use a cantrip, and cast counterspell on the opponents turn. Anyone complaining about that?

patchyman

2019-08-12, 01:53 PM

Well in that case have you considered making the enemies using the PC rules, judging their CR via the NPC rules, and then treating them as real entities that use some of their resources each day? Maybe notice how few resources the PCs use on their downtime days and apply that as a reasonable attrition to NPCs in the NPC's base. Maybe walk the players through the process once or twice so the players could see how much more effort it is to create a humanoid boss, and then a Dragon using PC rules than it is using NPC rules. Showing them the waste of time might help them empathize with you and suggest better solutions / compromises.

*BEGIN RANT*

To be honest, this does not go far enough. The players want more symmetry, give them what they want!

If they run into soldiers or bandits, the soldiers or bandits should be at least level 10 if not 20. After all, the characters advanced to their current level after a couple of months of adventuring, so NPCs who have been active for years must be correspondingly more powerful.

Dragons and elves who have been active for centuries should have godlike powers.

The players don’t want symmetry or fairness. They want symmetry or fairness only when it benefits them.

*END RANT*

Great Dragon

2019-08-13, 12:58 PM

@patchyman: With the exception of not recalling any Cantrips with a Bonus Action casting time, everything else you posted is true. Edit: Forgot about SCAG: Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are cast during the same attack action.

@Segev. True.
But the inverse also applies, and the player has to have as much sympathy towards the GM.
Because as difficult as it is to remember everything that applies to your PC from session to session, it's several times worse for the GM: with multiple monsters and various NPCs to keep track of.

Both sides must at least agree on a Middle Ground.

**********
There's a reason that I use a pre-made Campaign World for the majority of my Games.
It makes it where if I don't immediately know/remember something that applies can be looked up in a book, or more likely on a wiki site. I can usually remember if I've changed anything. But then, I do use both the Forums of this Site and Google Docs to record things so that they can be referenced quickly.

Right now, everyone is on the Sword Coast, and I'm just fine.
But, them suddenly deciding to go to - say Chult - is also still possible (especially with magic), since I can quickly get that information.

Where maybe in Talakeal's game, the party suddenly deciding to start sailing West might be a problem, since he hasn't made anything for that Region, and doing so before the next Session might not be possible.

*****
Talakeal does his best (as near as I can tell) to be both fair and consistent with how he runs the game.

Bob might have come around (or at least mellowed enough) to not be as much of a problem.
(I really hope so !!)

IDK. Bad rolls happen, but Brian seems unusually unlucky about this, but that's not the only problem with him.

Is there a high chance of failure? Or is it mostly just a risk of random encounters killing him on his way? If the latter, my recommendation would have been to say, "Right, you did say you were going to. We'll assume you did, and run that next session as a flashback." Then, run it. If, for some reason, he fails to get the curse lifted in the process, come up with a reason. Maybe he died and got raised and had to spend more money than anticipated to cover that as well as the curse-removal. Maybe he WAS replaced by a doppelganger, and the "un-cursed" PC is not really Brian's PC at all. And, of course, if he succeeds on the quest, he's uncursed just as expected.

I tend to agree, here.
If the Curse Quest was meant to be challenging, than Brian should have been able to bring the Party with him to help solve it. But, this requires both the Player and the Group being ok with "The Quest to Remove the Curse" Arc of the game.

Otherwise, yeah - just run it as a Flashback.
I'd change it from the next session to arranging a non-game day to meet up and resolve this. Or, if that's not possible, dedicate no more then an hour on game day to solving it.

Personally, I normally don't use long-term Curses (even the Minotaur Curse wasn't meant to last more then three sessions; although if the Group showed interest: it could have led to some interesting Plots/Quests), and getting rid of those Curses is as easy as getting someone to cast Remove Curse. (Hence the month long 1k gold Ritual, since there wasn't any Casters available, or high enough level even if they were there)

King of Nowhere

2019-08-13, 02:50 PM

I actually did leave my gaming group two years ago, so its not like its something I was incapable of, but it was far worse than this one is.
:eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

anyway, regarding the curse, since it's something that should not have taken too much effort, i would have said something along "oh, well, your character would have remembered it. let's assume you paid X money to get a wizard to remove it off-panel"

if instead it was meant to be a major obstacle and plot point, then you should have definitely remembered it

Talakeal

2019-08-17, 12:09 PM

@Zinycor: So apparently the previous version of this thread got restarted and then closed, so maybe we could continue our discussion here?

I am curious about what RPGs you are familiar with. You stated that only a deeply flawed system can produce characters that are of vastly differing power levels, but I honestly can't think of one that doesn't.

:eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

anyway, regarding the curse, since it's something that should not have taken too much effort, i would have said something along "oh, well, your character would have remembered it. let's assume you paid X money to get a wizard to remove it off-panel"

if instead it was meant to be a major obstacle and plot point, then you should have definitely remembered it

The curse was not something that was a daily problem.

Basically, anytime he was in a stressful situation, there was a chance that a nearby mirror would shatter and an evil reflection would attack.

It only happened once every couple of sessions, and while it added a fairly major complication when it happened during an encounter, it wasn't something that would have been constantly on his mind.

It wouldn't have taken a lot of effort, but it is something that would have required a journey through the wilderness to get to the NPC's shop and a fairly sizeable monetary expense which may not have been possible for the generally cash poor party to make at any given time.

Great Dragon

2019-08-17, 02:00 PM

@Zinycor: So apparently the previous version of this thread got restarted and then closed, so maybe we could continue our discussion here?

Be cautious, my friend.
I'm kinda thinking that it was more the Fire then the Necro-ing that caused the other thread to be closed. (Might have been both, not sure.)

To restate my opinion: it's more about the Style of the Group and the Player's attitude and less about optimizing or min/maxing.

zinycor

2019-08-17, 07:03 PM

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 11:08 AM

Mainly DnD (AD&D and 5e), also Werewolf the apocalypse, fate accelerated and currently we are trying out Gurps. And sometimes the difference between characters seems greater than it actually is.

AD&D and 5E are fairly well designed class based systems, so its not surprising you aren't seeing any big discrepancies there, but Werewolf is can be pretty messy mechanically, its odd you haven't run across anything there. Heck, something as simple as making a character who uses guns instead of fighting in close combat can be a huge trap in that game.

Typically classed based games do a lot of the work in character generation for the player, and are thus a lot more balanced than point buy games, the notable exception being D&D 3E, which is simultaneously an overly restrictive class based system and one of the least balanced games of all time.

In more open ended point buy systems, like GURPS or most super hero games you generally have a lot of freedom to make characters, and as a result of that freedom you can make a lot of varying power levels, and generally the group and / or the GM set the expected power level; for example a good super hero game would let you make either The Punisher or Superman, but that doesn't mean you can just throw those two together in your standard beat up the bad guys and save the day style story without power issues arising.

In my experience bad characters come in a few types:

The overspecialized guy who is feels bored and useless when his specialization isn't relevant.
The overgeneralized guy who doesn't actually do anything better than the rest of the party and this feels bored and irrelevant as the specialists handle everything.
The glass cannon who puts all his point into offense but spends most of the fight hiding or unconscious because he can't actually take a hit.
The brick wall who puts all of his points into defense but has so little offense that he just gets ignored.
The guy whose stats don't match up with their skills, for example a D&D mage who puts his highest score into strength or a fighter whose highest score is intelligence.
And of course there are people who, by accident or intentionally, find a broken ability or combination of abilities to exploit a flaw in the game.

And yeah, you can just cover it up with RP, but most groups go into the game with a problem solving mindset, and most people are, in my experiance although I guess not yours, atleast a little bit comepetitive or envious of spotlight time, and this causes problems. I know, for example, that I have tried in several 5E groups to play a pure an academic abjurer with no direct damage spells, and I am fine with playing a character who spends a lot of time in the background, but it seems to really annoy both the other players and the DM that I spend most rounds in combat assisting another or going full defensive because I don't have any blasting cantrips.

NichG

2019-08-18, 11:33 AM

AD&D supports some pretty extreme power disparities even at very low levels, if you know where to look for them. Proper use of hirelings and understanding and exploiting the pummel chart (which basically lets you access a high damage, multiple-attacks-per-round thing that is independent of your character class or level, and gets better the less armor you wear) are both very strong. More than a factor of 4 difference in effective survivability and power, I'd say. Poisons are also a huge deal if you can access and afford them. And certain magic items are total make-or-break checkpoints for certain classes (Boots of Elvenkind for an Assassin for example).

That's not even talking about the very nonlinear return on high Strength scores (nothing up to... 15 I think? And accelerating if you luck into the 18/xx range). And if you pass that pure chance roll at chargen to see if your character is psionic, well...

zinycor

2019-08-18, 11:47 AM

AD&D and 5E are fairly well designed class based systems, so its not surprising you aren't seeing any big discrepancies there, but Werewolf is can be pretty messy mechanically, its odd you haven't run across anything there. Heck, something as simple as making a character who uses guns instead of fighting in close combat can be a huge trap in that game.
.
Well WoD is a piece of **** of a game when it comes to rules. But never found any balancing problems while playing it.

In my experience bad characters come in a few types:

The overspecialized guy who is feels bored and useless when his specialization isn't relevant.
The overgeneralized guy who doesn't actually do anything better than the rest of the party and this feels bored and irrelevant as the specialists handle everything.
The glass cannon who puts all his point into offense but spends most of the fight hiding or unconscious because he can't actually take a hit.
The brick wall who puts all of his points into defense but has so little offense that he just gets ignored.
(...)
And of course there are people who, by accident or intentionally, find a broken ability or combination of abilities to exploit a flaw in the game.

None of those is a bad character at all, In fact quite the opposite, those are great characters that can't solve every problem or situation at a game but can be very important at others. I would argue that these are great characters that promote playing as a team.

The guy whose stats don't match up with their skills, for example a D&D mage who puts his highest score into strength or a fighter whose highest score is intelligence.

This is the only example of a bad character, since it comes from a misunderstanding of the rules of the game.

And yeah, you can just cover it up with RP, but most groups go into the game with a problem solving mindset, and most people are, in my experiance although I guess not yours, atleast a little bit comepetitive or envious of spotlight time, and this causes problems. I know, for example, that I have tried in several 5E groups to play a pure an academic abjurer with no direct damage spells, and I am fine with playing a character who spends a lot of time in the background, but it seems to really annoy both the other players and the DM that I spend most rounds in combat assisting another or going full defensive because I don't have any blasting cantrips.
I have played that sort of character to a great effect. I believe that, as it always is, the problem wasn't on the build of the character, but a player problem.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 12:03 PM

None of those is a bad character at all, In fact quite the opposite, those are great characters that can't solve every problem or situation at a game but can be very important at others. I would argue that these are great characters that promote playing as a team.

How do you define playing as a team then? Because in my view they do the exact opposite.

For example, in combat I would say good team work would be something like the fighter draws the monster's attention, the rogue stabs it in the back, the wizard debuffs it, the cleric heals the fighter, and the bard gives everyone a bonus to their dice rolls.

But if you have an overspecialized character in the group they will either take out the monster solo or sit in the back doing nothing, which in my mind is the opposite of teamwork.

Likewise in an infiltration mission you might have one guy bluff the guards, one guy keep watch, and one guy open the locks. If you have an overgenerilzed guy in this situation, if he volunteers for any of these tasks he is just going to be told "No, let someone with a higher score in the relevant area do it," and thus he will either sit back and do nothing or he will attempt to participate and actively lower the group's chance of success; again not great for teamwork imo.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 12:29 PM

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 12:56 PM

First: if a single character is able to take down an encounter by himself either:
-It was an encounter that was fit for his particular skill set (like a group of monsters being killed by a well placed fireball). In such case is perfectly ok.
- The GM needs to provide different kinds of challenges, that are less fit for this character, or simply up the difficulty.
- The game is utterly flawed and you should either change it or leave it.
- the character is only good at combat and other kind of challenges would allow the other characters to shine.

Second: regarding the infiltration, the party would be underestimating the abilities of a Jack of all trades.

One thing that is important to remember in regards to the spotlight is that the spotlight needs to be shared across the campaign as a whole, is perfectly normal for some characters to shine more in combat,others to shine at infiltration, others at solving supernatural problems, etc. The important is that across the campaign everyone got a chance to shine.

Maybe so, but I don't see how that backs up your claim that overspecialized or overgeneralized characters are great because they promote teammwork.

I also don't see how they are underestimating the Jack of all trades, if he has no (or almost no) abilities that are unique or numbers that are higher than his teammates, why would they ever let him do anything? His only time to shine is when you need a backup because one of his teammates is incapacitated.

Also, I am getting kind of a disconnect between how you view shstems and how you view GMs. You say that any system that allows wildly divergent characters is flawed, but at the same time any DM who tries and restrict players for party cohesion is also flawed. In my mind p the opposite should probably be true.
Say, for example, you were making a Marvel comics RPG. I would think the System would be flawed if it couldnt create characters as imbalanced as, say Thor and Daredevil, but at the same time I would think there would be every expectation that GM would place different limitations on characters in a Defenders game than they would an Avengers game or an X-men game.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 01:18 PM

Maybe so, but I don't see how that backs up your claim that overspecialized or overgeneralized characters are great because they promote teammwork.
I also don't see how they are underestimating the Jack of all trades, if he has no (or almost no) abilities that are unique or numbers that are higher than his teammates, why would they ever let him do anything? His only time to shine is when you need a backup because one of his teammates is incapacitated.

Overspecialized are great for teamwork since you can depend on them to do what they are specialized at while other characters can shine at whatever the Overspecialized character lacks.
Overgeneralized characters can be great whenever you have few PCs and that character allows the other players to build characters as specialized as they want. And more importantly, he can participate at all kinds of quests.

Also, I am getting kind of a disconnect between how you view shstems and how you view GMs. You say that any system that allows wildly divergent characters is flawed, but at the same time any DM who tries and restrict players for party cohesion is also flawed. In my mind p the opposite should probably be true.

Designers and GMs have different responsibilities.

Say, for example, you were making a Marvel comics RPG. I would think the System would be flawed if it couldnt create characters as imbalanced as, say Thor and Daredevil, but at the same time I would think there would be every expectation that GM would place different limitations on characters in a Defenders game than they would an Avengers game or an X-men game.

The game should place those limitations if needed.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 01:39 PM

Overspecialized are great for teamwork since you can depend on them to do what they are specialized at while other characters can shine at whatever the Overspecialized character lacks.
Overgeneralized characters can be great whenever you have few PCs and that character allows the other players to build characters as specialized as they want. And more importantly, he can participate at all kinds of quests.

The key word here is "over". Those are indeed benefits of specialized and generalized characters, but like most things in life, they are only good in moderation, and once you go overboard the group's performance will drastically suffer as a result.

Designers and GMs have different responsibilities.

True, and in my experience deciding what sort of characters are appropriate for the campaign is one of those responsibilities. I am pretty sure most editions of D&D explicitly say as much as the beginning of every book, such as 3.5s infamous and often misquoted "rule zero".

The game should place those limitations if needed.

How would the game go about placing those limitations though? Say the game had different rules for making characters for the Avengers, X-men, and Defenders, someone is still going to have to make the decision about which set of rules to use, and in most groups that is going to be the DM; likewise if someone wants to play out of their league and say, do a crossover where Cyclops teams up with the Avengers, the GM is going to be the one making the call over whether or not that is going to be allowed.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 01:56 PM

The key word here is "over". Those are indeed benefits of specialized and generalized characters, but like most things in life, they are only good in moderation, and once you go overboard the group's performance will drastically suffer as a result.
Then I guess we agree to disagree.

True, and in my experience deciding what sort of characters are appropriate for the campaign is one of those responsibilities. I am pretty sure most editions of D&D explicitly say as much as the beginning of every book, such as 3.5s infamous and often misquoted "rule zero"..
As far as setting goes, of course. But the build of those characters is the player responsibility, not the GM's.

How would the game go about placing those limitations though? Say the game had different rules for making characters for the Avengers, X-men, and Defenders, someone is still going to have to make the decision about which set of rules to use, and in most groups that is going to be the DM; likewise if someone wants to play out of their league and say, do a crossover where Cyclops teams up with the Avengers, the GM is going to be the one making the call over whether or not that is going to be allowed.

Then either crossovers wouldn't be allowed or balance be damned and you allow them.

If a character like Thor is mechanically superior to a character like the punisher, then the rules of the game would state that difference and set rules against having both of them in the same party.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 03:21 PM

Then I guess we agree to disagree.

Not really, no, as I believe the idea that some characters are more effective than others or that there is an optimal level of specialization to be objective and demonstrable facts rather than merely opinions to be agreed upon.

Now, there is a lot of subjectivity there, such as where the sweet spot lies, how much it varies from group to group, whether or not a mechanically weaker / stronger character is actually a bad thing, and what constitutes a deeply flawed rule-set, and for any those I am happy to agree to disagree.

But, if you were simply using "agree to disagree" as shorthand for "I am tired of discussing this, can we please drop it?" as many people do, then sure, I think the conversation has pretty much run its course.

Then either crossovers wouldn't be allowed or balance be damned and you allow them.

If a character like Thor is mechanically superior to a character like the punisher, then the rules of the game would state that difference and set rules against having both of them in the same party.

Yeah, you could do that, but imo you are missing out on a lot of fun scenarios merely due to an apparentl dislike / distrust of GMs.

AD&D supports some pretty extreme power disparities even at very low levels, if you know where to look for them. Proper use of hirelings and understanding and exploiting the pummel chart (which basically lets you access a high damage, multiple-attacks-per-round thing that is independent of your character class or level, and gets better the less armor you wear) are both very strong. More than a factor of 4 difference in effective survivability and power, I'd say. Poisons are also a huge deal if you can access and afford them. And certain magic items are total make-or-break checkpoints for certain classes (Boots of Elvenkind for an Assassin for example).

That's not even talking about the very nonlinear return on high Strength scores (nothing up to... 15 I think? And accelerating if you luck into the 18/xx range). And if you pass that pure chance roll at chargen to see if your character is psionic, well...

Sure, I agree with all of this, except maybe the wacky unarmed rules which never really made sense to me and I lack an opinion on one way or the other.

But when compared to a point buy game or an abomination like 3.X where a T1 character is literally better off soloing the game once he gets past mid levels it is pretty tight, and even perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 03:33 PM

Not really, no, as I believe the idea that some characters are more effective than others or that there is an optimal level of specialization to be objective and demonstrable facts rather than merely opinions to be agreed upon.

... What? I don't follow

EDIT: So... Are you saying that in your game the characters that you made are at the objective pinnacle of optimization and that any modification the player would do to it would result in a substandard character that would diminish the effectiveness of the group?

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 04:51 PM

... What? I don't follow

EDIT: So... Are you saying that in your game the characters that you made are at the objective pinnacle of optimization and that any modification the player would do to it would result in a substandard character that would diminish the effectiveness of the group?

Not at all, no.

I am saying that there is an objective standard for effectiveness which characters can deviate from, and that imbalances in character power are harmful to most definitions of teamwork.

Also, what do you mean by "you made"? I haven't made a character for anything other than a couple of short D&D games and one shots in years, and have never made a character with the goal of making the most optimal party possible.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 05:09 PM

Not at all, no.

I am saying that there is an objective standard for effectiveness which characters can deviate from, and that imbalances in character power are harmful to most definitions of teamwork.

Well I disagree with that

Also, what do you mean by "you made"? I haven't made a character for anything other than a couple of short D&D games and one shots in years, and have never made a character with the goal of making the most optimal party possible.

Didn't you make the characters for the game where one of the players was complaining on the way you made their character?

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 05:53 PM

Well I disagree with that.

And I am saying that is a claim of objective truth, not of subjective opinion, so it is impossible for us to "agree to disagree".

But I do agree that further discussion on the topic is not going to be productive and we might as well drop it.

Didn't you make the characters for the game where one of the players was complaining on the way you made their character?

No. I made the decision to use a point buy system which prohibits extremely high and low stats, which is, iirc, the 5E default.

I did physically fill out the player's character sheets, but I didn't make any of the decisions about the characters.*

*: Well, a couple of the players had a few skill points that I did end up distributing myself, but that was very minor and nobody objected.to be completely transparent,

PhoenixPhyre

2019-08-18, 05:59 PM

Is there a point at which specialization detracts from party success?

Sure: consider a hypothetical character. He can deal infinity+1 damage to anything, as long as they're exactly 20 feet away over open terrain, are wearing a blue shirt and white pants, and have no more than 6 fingers but fewer than 10. On the 2nd Tuesday of Neverember, in years that end in 0. As long as it's not raining or cold and the moon must be at one particular point in the sky. If any of these conditions are not met, he can only do the things a Commoner 1 can do. He has 1 HP and 1 AC, and fails all saves.

This is an absurd situation, to be sure, but it proves the point. Crippling overspecialization is a thing. That character would not promote teamwork, because either he kills it in one shot or he's a burden on the party.

In more realistic scenarios, I've seen characters who put all their eggs in one basket. One who was a great controller, but had effectively zero damage output. Against anything that was immune to his control, he was a waste of space. One who could deal tons of melee damage against a single target...once a day, but sucked at anything else. One whose player insisted on not using 90% of his kit, preferring to try crazy stunts instead.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot less of the "jack of all trades" failure states. Mainly because I play 5e, where you don't need to be the best to contribute meaningfully.

IMO, teamwork is enhanced when
DMs create challenges that require multiple people to solve. Preferably N = number of players in the group. And not just bodies, but different approaches. The strong guy AND the fast guy. The magic guy and the buff dude. The talker and the sneak. Etc.
Players lean into the team. Instead of worrying about how to maximize their own strengths and "do everything", they actively try to work well together. This means tactics, it means knowing what the others can do and being able to rely on them to do their part. It means cross-qualification[1].
Systems don't require massive specialization[2] to contribute. This means lowering the escalation of numbers in some ways and making more than one approach have a chance of success.

[1] There's a reason that special forces teams (which are the best analog I've found for an adventuring party) are all cross-trained in a bunch of things. If the medic goes down, someone else can pick up the slack. They can all contribute to everything, even if each has their own specialty. Instead of being a 10/10 in one area and a 2/10 in others, they're an 8/10 in one area and a 6/10 in the others.
[2] I've been told that some editions of Shadowrun were particularly bad about this siloing process. If you weren't a Decker, you couldn't contribute in cyberspace. If you weren't a Mage, you couldn't contribute against magical threats. And if you weren't a specialized Samurai, you'd get blown out of the proverbial water by someone who was. So everyone stayed in their own lane and spent 1/N of the time actively participating and the rest just sitting around. At best.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 06:00 PM

And I am saying that is a claim of objective truth, not of subjective opinion, so it is impossible for us to "agree to disagree".

But I do agree that further discussion on the topic is not going to be productive and we might as well drop it.

Then, you are wrong in that claim.

BTW: You can't claim an objective truth like that unless you have made an experiment, shared the method and results, and then the community has accepted your conclusions as truth.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 06:11 PM

On the other hand, I've seen a lot less of the "jack of all trades" failure states. Mainly because I play 5e, where you don't need to be the best to contribute meaningfully.

I have seen it a fair bit, normally when someone tries to make a D&D style cleric in a point buy game.

I had a long running campaign where one of the players tried to be a crafter, a priest, a technomancer, and a sharpshooter all at the time time, and he was really good at all of those things. The problem was, he didn't put any points into defenses, and he spent most of the session lying on the floor bleeding out. It wasn't fun for him as he wasn't participating, didn't like the thought of his character as a punching bag, and ended up contributing less to the parties success as he wasn't able to act a lot of the time.

A more recent example was someone who wanted to be a wind mage, a priest, a magical healer, a mundane healer, a martial artist, and the party face all at the same time, and he basically failed roll after roll after roll, to the point where the rest of the party simply discounted him in their plans as his rolls were too low to actually make a difference.

Then, you are wrong in that claim.

I asked you for evidence to back up your claim several posts ago.

I can provide tons of evidence if you would like, although at this point that might not be very productive. Phoenixphyre provided a very good explanation of the situation in the post directly above yours if you would like to dispute it, that way its not just you and me going back and forth.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 06:16 PM

I asked you for evidence to back up your claim several posts ago.

I can provide tons of evidence if you would like, although at this point that might not be very productive.

The one claiming to have an objective truth is you, the burden of proof falls on you.

Phoenixphyre provided a very good explanation of the situation in the post directly above yours if you would like to dispute it, that way its not just you and me going back and forth.

Phoenixpyre even admited that to be his opinion, not a claim of objective truth.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-08-18, 06:20 PM

I have seen it a fair bit, normally when someone tries to make a D&D style cleric in a point buy game.

I had a long running campaign where one of the players tried to be a crafter, a priest, a technomancer, and a sharpshooter all at the time time, and he was really good at all of those things. The problem was, he didn't put any points into defenses, and he spent most of the session lying on the floor bleeding out. It wasn't fun for him as he wasn't participating, didn't like the thought of his character as a punching bag, and ended up contributing less to the parties success as he wasn't able to act a lot of the time.

A more recent example was someone who wanted to be a wind mage, a priest, a magical healer, a mundane healer, a martial artist, and the party face all at the same time, and he basically failed roll after roll after roll, to the point where the rest of the party simply discounted him in their plans as his rolls were too low to actually make a difference.

Yeah. I can see that, especially with open point-buy systems. My experience is more with class-based games, which have the side-effect of making that particular problem less common. And 5e D&D, my preferred game, makes it really hard to have a character incapable of contributing.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 06:45 PM

The one claiming to have an objective truth is you, the burden of proof falls on you.

I can try, the problem is, from my perspective, your statement is so obviously false its like trying to prove that 1 doesn't equal 2. Furthermore, its really hard to actually provide evidence someone will accept online.

I have been running playtests for decades, and I have plenty of data, but without actually being able to invite you to witness / participate those playtests, you are likely to dismiss it as anecdotes.

I can show you mathematical proofs, like that if you want a werewolf with 5s in all his physical stats you will require more XP to do so if you start at 3/3/4 than if you start at 5/4/1, or that an AD&D party where a mage invests in strength based non-weapon proficiences and a fighter who invests in intelligence based proficiencies is mathematically less likely to be able to succeed at a random assortment of tests, but you can just dismiss that as someone "playing the game wrong".

I can show you people who have proved that a 3.5 cleric or druid can do everything a fighter can and more, or the "same game test" where they tried to mathematically quantify the powers of various characters, but you will likely (and rightly) dismiss that as a flawed system.

I can show you scientific studies on cross-training in the work place that lay out the dangers of over-specialization and over-generalization, but you can just say that those principles don't apply to RPGs.

So, before I can down to digging, can you please tell me exactly what claim I am trying to prove and what sort of evidence you will accept?

Phoenixpyre even admited that to be his opinion, not a claim of objective truth.

I am not seeing where he states that it is only his opinion, but even so that doesn't change the quality of his evidence.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-08-18, 06:48 PM

Phoenixpyre even admited that to be his opinion, not a claim of objective truth.

The hypothetical is enough to show that there must be such a point. That's not opinion, that's fact. And your standards for "objective truth" seem a little...skewed. Especially since everyone is the judge of their own convictions--you can't force someone else to accept evidence you provide. So there's no conceivable evidence that can do the job.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 06:49 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-08-18, 06:55 PM

Underline mine

Oh, you can have whatever convictions you want, that's perfectly ok, if you claim those to be objective truths then you need to prove it.

That only applies to the parts under it. The discussion above is not opinion, it's observations.

Here's the thing. You can't prove anything. Period. Yes, that includes scientifically. All you can do is increase the weight of evidence in favor of one hypothesis or another.

That's also a horrible attitude to take toward any discussion on the internet. You're basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and nothing you say matters." Which is...rather hostile.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 06:57 PM

I can try, the problem is, from my perspective, your statement is so obviously false its like trying to prove that 1 doesn't equal 2. Furthermore, its really hard to actually provide evidence someone will accept online.

I have been running playtests for decades, and I have plenty of data, but without actually being able to invite you to witness / participate those playtests, you are likely to dismiss it as anecdotes.

I can show you mathematical proofs, like that if you want a werewolf with 5s in all his physical stats you will require more XP to do so if you start at 3/3/4 than if you start at 5/4/1, or that an AD&D party where a mage invests in strength based non-weapon proficiences and a fighter who invests in intelligence based proficiencies is mathematically less likely to be able to succeed at a random assortment of tests, but you can just dismiss that as someone "playing the game wrong".

I can show you people who have proved that a 3.5 cleric or druid can do everything a fighter can and more, or the "same game test" where they tried to mathematically quantify the powers of various characters, but you will likely (and rightly) dismiss that as a flawed system.

I can show you scientific studies on cross-training in the work place that lay out the dangers of over-specialization and over-generalization, but you can just say that those principles don't apply to RPGs.

So, before I can down to digging, can you please tell me exactly what claim I am trying to prove and what sort of evidence you will accept?

I am not seeing where he states that it is only his opinion, but even so that doesn't change the quality of his evidence.

Not up to me to decide how you prove that your statement is an objective truth, that falls on you.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 07:00 PM

That only applies to the parts under it. The discussion above is not opinion, it's observations.

Here's the thing. You can't prove anything. Period. Yes, that includes scientifically. All you can do is increase the weight of evidence in favor of one hypothesis or another.

That's also a horrible attitude to take toward any discussion on the internet. You're basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and nothing you say matters." Which is...rather hostile.

Hey! Am not the one stating my beliefs as a matter of objective truth here. If you are going to claim things as a matter of fact in a discussion then you need to prove it.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 07:11 PM

Ok, so you are asserting that asserting someone is wrong without evidence is the same thing is asserting that there is an objective truth without evidence?

Like, if you said "2+2=5" and I said "There is only one correct answer to 2+2" both of those require equal evidence?

Edit: Because, here's the thing; fundamentally, effectiveness in a dice game like D&D comes down to statistics, which makes it a math problem. And to me, saying that the result of a math problem will always be the same regardless of variables is as objectively false as saying that 2+2=5.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 07:19 PM

Ok, so you are asserting that asserting someone is wrong without evidence is the same thing is asserting that there is an objective truth without evidence?

Like, if you said "2+2=5" and I said "There is only one correct answer to 2+2" both of those require equal evidence?

I am not claiming that you are necessarily wrong (I did have a different opinion, back when we were discussing opinions), am claiming that you haven't proven your statement to be an objective truth.

You either need to prove that your statement is a truth, or that it is considred to be an universal truth and it falls on me to disprove it.

Talakeal

2019-08-18, 07:48 PM

I am not claiming that you are necessarily wrong (I did have a different opinion, back when we were discussing opinions), am claiming that you haven't proven your statement to be an objective truth.

You either need to prove that your statement is a truth, or that it is considred to be an universal truth and it falls on me to disprove it.

A "universal truth" no, but a mathematical truth, yes. It is a fact that games which are resolved by dice rolls are governed by statistics, and it is a mathematical fact that statistics problems with different inputs do not always have the same outcome. Thus it logically follows that different character builds will not always have equal effectiveness. This is a factually sound statement with no opinion involved.

But at this point we really should "agree to disagree", as at this point I am thoroughly convinced that you know that you made an unsupported statement and are just playing sophistic games trying to avoid admitting it.

zinycor

2019-08-18, 07:54 PM

A "universal truth" no, but a mathematical truth, yes. It is a fact that games which are resolved by dice rolls are governed by statistics, and it is a mathematical fact that statistics problems with different inputs do not always have the same outcome. Thus it logically follows that different character builds will not always have equal effectiveness. This is a factually sound statement with no opinion involved.

But at this point we really should "agree to disagree", as at this point I am thoroughly convinced that you know that you made an unsupported statement and are just playing sophistic games trying to avoid admitting it.

As you wish

NichG

2019-08-18, 11:53 PM

Sure, I agree with all of this, except maybe the wacky unarmed rules which never really made sense to me and I lack an opinion on one way or the other.

But when compared to a point buy game or an abomination like 3.X where a T1 character is literally better off soloing the game once he gets past mid levels it is pretty tight, and even perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power.

This is more a point about optimization-blindness, which affects everyone in the hobby including the designers. People develop a mental model of 'what playing X game is like' which includes the options that made sense to them, or which fit their sense of the fiction, or which feel fun, etc, and they tend to not include the esoteric stuff that is in the system but which didn't really make itself a part of their experience.

Then a new player enters the group who has a different mental model, different expectations, etc, and suddenly you've got a 'broken character' to deal with.

Zinycor was saying 'AD&D characters are balanced just fine, and no character is particularly more powerful than another'. But that doesn't have to be because AD&D doesn't support massive imbalances between characters, it can just be because Zinycor's experiences didn't include e.g. a Lv1 wizard exploiting the pummel chart rules to trivially win a 1-on-1 melee brawl with the party fighter (actual event from a campaign I was in).

Similarly, you say 'perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power', but lets look at a Lv3 Fighter for example. They've got, what, THAC0 17 from levels, and something like 1d8 or 1d10 damage from their weapon? ACs around 5 are a good ballpark of what you might be trying to hit, so they hit for 5 damage about half of the time (9/20ths really). They probably have no bonuses from Strength since those don't start until 16 (checked). So that's about 2.25 damage a round that they can personally deliver, roughly. Now take that fighter with 18/00 strength. They have -3 THAC0 and +6 damage. That means now they hit 12/20ths of the time, for 11 damage on a hit. That's 6.6 damage a round, or about triple effectiveness from having one optimal attribute. Optimal constitution, dexterity, and gearing choices may mean they don't drop during that first round and so on, but its harder to figure.

I think the reality is a bit harder to see, which is that: despite playing in systems that allow for factors of 4 or factors of 10 or factors of 100 differences in power and ability, that doesn't actually make the games stop being fun. We might say to ourselves 'balance is important, I had fun, therefore it must have been balanced, right?' and be blind to the crazy stuff that the system actually allows in principle.

That campaign where the wizard pummelled the fighter (and later resulted in the party shedding their armor and weapons and punching out a copper hatchling dragon once the group figured out the cheese) was fun, despite the fact that the game was wildly and crazily unbalanced.

zinycor

2019-08-19, 12:24 AM

This is more a point about optimization-blindness, which affects everyone in the hobby including the designers. People develop a mental model of 'what playing X game is like' which includes the options that made sense to them, or which fit their sense of the fiction, or which feel fun, etc, and they tend to not include the esoteric stuff that is in the system but which didn't really make itself a part of their experience.

Then a new player enters the group who has a different mental model, different expectations, etc, and suddenly you've got a 'broken character' to deal with.

Zinycor was saying 'AD&D characters are balanced just fine, and no character is particularly more powerful than another'. But that doesn't have to be because AD&D doesn't support massive imbalances between characters, it can just be because Zinycor's experiences didn't include e.g. a Lv1 wizard exploiting the pummel chart rules to trivially win a 1-on-1 melee brawl with the party fighter (actual event from a campaign I was in).

Similarly, you say 'perfect ability scores aren't going to more than double a fighter's power', but lets look at a Lv3 Fighter for example. They've got, what, THAC0 17 from levels, and something like 1d8 or 1d10 damage from their weapon? ACs around 5 are a good ballpark of what you might be trying to hit, so they hit for 5 damage about half of the time (9/20ths really). They probably have no bonuses from Strength since those don't start until 16 (checked). So that's about 2.25 damage a round that they can personally deliver, roughly. Now take that fighter with 18/00 strength. They have -3 THAC0 and +6 damage. That means now they hit 12/20ths of the time, for 11 damage on a hit. That's 6.6 damage a round, or about triple effectiveness from having one optimal attribute. Optimal constitution, dexterity, and gearing choices may mean they don't drop during that first round and so on, but its harder to figure.

I think the reality is a bit harder to see, which is that: despite playing in systems that allow for factors of 4 or factors of 10 or factors of 100 differences in power and ability, that doesn't actually make the games stop being fun. We might say to ourselves 'balance is important, I had fun, therefore it must have been balanced, right?' and be blind to the crazy stuff that the system actually allows in principle.

That campaign where the wizard pummelled the fighter (and later resulted in the party shedding their armor and weapons and punching out a copper hatchling dragon once the group figured out the cheese) was fun, despite the fact that the game was wildly and crazily unbalanced.

That's a very good point

drotwaner

2019-08-19, 06:32 AM

Whelp this just keeps getting worse doesn't it?

Talakeal

2019-08-19, 10:14 AM

NichG

2019-08-19, 12:04 PM

AD&D is not perfectly balanced by any means, which was my initial point, but it is a lot better balanced than most systems.

The "more than double" was just a ballpark, I didn't do the math, and could be off, but I think the level 3 fighter with no specializationor any exceptional stats is a bit extreme; once he gets a few levels under him and some magic gear the differences will flatten out.

Honestly, the unarmed rules never made sense and were almost never used, so I can't really say anything about them. My understanding is that they were simply ported over from Boot Hill with no expectations about how they would work in a fantastic game where you had wizards grappling dragons instead of a bunch of cowboys in a barroom brawl.

Edit: Are you sure you are getting the unarmed rules right? I am reading them right now, and while I admit they are pretty wierd and ill balanced, I am not seeing how you are getting the results you are.

Are you looking at 1ed or 2ed? You mentioned specializations which weren't in 1ed D&D yet. The pummel chart was in the version of the DMG with the efreet on the cover (I think perhaps there was an updated one but still before 2ed that didn't have it?). It's under 'non-lethal and weaponless combat' on p72.

The main point about it is that there are several 'strike again' rolls. 1-20 is 'strike again', 41-60 is 'deal damage and strike again', 81-100 is 'deal lots of damage and strike again'. The damage amounts are also generally much higher than you'd get from weapons (81-100 is 8 points of damage + strength bonus, and 41-60 is 4 points of damage + strength bonus). The attack roll/AC comparison also works a bit differently, which gives an advantage to bad THAC0 classes compared to normal attacks.

So you basically have something like a factor of ~x1.5 due to 'strike again' results and your damage is generally equal to or greater than weapon damage (so maybe another ~x1.25 compared to melee). The effect is even bigger if you're a class with a bad THAC0, which doesn't matter for pummeling. So at low levels, punching things is up to something like ~x2 as effective as actually attacking with weapons unless you're specifically attacking a knight who can tick all the boxes for -x% penalties (a dragon may have good AC that should count as chain or banded, but they don't have a helmet). Against the knight, the Grapple chart seems like it would give more advantage since the more armor they have, the easier they are to grapple according to that chart.

Things like 'active defender' are also kind of interesting terms - its a bit unclear whether those defenses apply to someone who isn't also engaging in the pummeling contest and is instead e.g. trying to breathe fire.

Talakeal

2019-08-19, 12:22 PM

Are you looking at 1ed or 2ed? You mentioned specializations which weren't in 1ed D&D yet. The pummel chart was in the version of the DMG with the efreet on the cover (I think perhaps there was an updated one but still before 2ed that didn't have it?). It's under 'non-lethal and weaponless combat' on p72.

The main point about it is that there are several 'strike again' rolls. 1-20 is 'strike again', 41-60 is 'deal damage and strike again', 81-100 is 'deal lots of damage and strike again'. The damage amounts are also generally much higher than you'd get from weapons (81-100 is 8 points of damage + strength bonus, and 41-60 is 4 points of damage + strength bonus). The attack roll/AC comparison also works a bit differently, which gives an advantage to bad THAC0 classes compared to normal attacks.

So you basically have something like a factor of ~x1.5 due to 'strike again' results and your damage is generally equal to or greater than weapon damage (so maybe another ~x1.25 compared to melee). The effect is even bigger if you're a class with a bad THAC0, which doesn't matter for pummeling. So at low levels, punching things is up to something like ~x2 as effective as actually attacking with weapons unless you're specifically attacking a knight who can tick all the boxes for -x% penalties (a dragon may have good AC that should count as chain or banded, but they don't have a helmet). Against the knight, the Grapple chart seems like it would give more advantage since the more armor they have, the easier they are to grapple according to that chart.

Things like 'active defender' are also kind of interesting terms - its a bit unclear whether those defenses apply to someone who isn't also engaging in the pummeling contest and is instead e.g. trying to breathe fire.

Ah, ok. Yeah, 1E was a bit before my time, i was talking about 2E. I dont really have much experiance with 1E, so I will take your word for it.

Friv

2019-08-19, 02:39 PM

Well WoD is a piece of **** of a game when it comes to rules. But never found any balancing problems while playing it.
I take it you never encouraged the "Toreador with a scalpel" problem.

Segev

2019-08-19, 02:58 PM

I take it you never encouraged the "Toreador with a scalpel" problem.

I'm unfamiliar with this particular problem. Could you please elaborate? (I do know what the Toreador Clan is.)

zinycor

2019-08-19, 05:29 PM

I take it you never encouraged the "Toreador with a scalpel" problem.
Not familiar with it, please tell me about it.

King of Nowhere

2019-08-19, 06:39 PM

How do you define playing as a team then? Because in my view they do the exact opposite.

For example, in combat I would say good team work would be something like the fighter draws the monster's attention, the rogue stabs it in the back, the wizard debuffs it, the cleric heals the fighter, and the bard gives everyone a bonus to their dice rolls.

But if you have an overspecialized character in the group they will either take out the monster solo or sit in the back doing nothing, which in my mind is the opposite of teamwork.

Likewise in an infiltration mission you might have one guy bluff the guards, one guy keep watch, and one guy open the locks. If you have an overgenerilzed guy in this situation, if he volunteers for any of these tasks he is just going to be told "No, let someone with a higher score in the relevant area do it," and thus he will either sit back and do nothing or he will attempt to participate and actively lower the group's chance of success; again not great for teamwork imo.

that's a very extreme view of what overspecialized or generalist work. you seem to consider overspecialized as "automatic success in one situation, automatic failure everywhere else", and generalist "there is always someone else in the party that can do it better".
in practice, a specialist can still contribute to other stuff, and a generalist can still help a specialist most of the time.

I can give my party as an example of how we balance and spread the limelight. we are a fighter, a paladin, a monk, two clerics, a wizard.
- the wizard can solve almost any situation with the right spells, but he can't always have the right spells, and he can only do it once per day. he generally casts low level buffs and blasts, or he does out-of-combat utility. he could step vvirtually on anyone's toes, but with limited uses he normally let the rest of us take the lead.
- the fighter deal damage. he's the best at fighting in melee. he's not worth much in social situations, though.
- the paladin fights worse than the fighter and heals worse than the cleric, but a secondary source of melee damage never hurts, and neither does a backup healer. he also has the best social skills
- the monk is specialized in tripping and being difficult to kill. he can neutralize a spellcaster or act as area debuff for the enemies. he also takes over scouting and rogue duties (who needs search and disarm traps when you can run around stomping on tiles and trust your saving throws and general defensive skills to keep you safe?).
- the cleric alternates blasting, healing and buffing. he also has diplomacy.
- the second cleric specialized in item creation

now, in theory we overlap a lot. we have 3 melee attackers and no rogue. but it very rarely happens that a character can alone handle a situation (sometimes the wizard). and even when someone is out of his specialization, they still contribute. the monk is fairly weak against any opponent too big to trip or grapple, and against hordes of mooks, but he can still deal a bit of damage. the paladin is outperformed in a fight by the fighter, but still deals a large chunk of damage. the paladin has more diplomacy than the cleric, but we still split often during downtime, and the cleric had plenty of occasions to use diplomacy while the paladin was taking care of personal missions. the second cleric is happy to buff the rest of the team with stuff and spells. the fighter has no social skills, but he picked up some personal quests. every player participates with ideas anyway.

So, even though we have many character that could count as too generalist, too specialized, or too unbalanced, we never have to sit out and watch someone else have all the fun.

in the end you also have to work to find your role in the party; we all made characters without worrying for what the others would do, and then we all gradually ended discovering how we could contribute best.

Talakeal

2019-08-19, 07:22 PM

that's a very extreme view of what overspecialized or generalist work. you seem to consider overspecialized as "automatic success in one situation, automatic failure everywhere else", and generalist "there is always someone else in the party that can do it better".
in practice, a specialist can still contribute to other stuff, and a generalist can still help a specialist most of the time.

I can give my party as an example of how we balance and spread the limelight. we are a fighter, a paladin, a monk, two clerics, a wizard.
- the wizard can solve almost any situation with the right spells, but he can't always have the right spells, and he can only do it once per day. he generally casts low level buffs and blasts, or he does out-of-combat utility. he could step vvirtually on anyone's toes, but with limited uses he normally let the rest of us take the lead.
- the fighter deal damage. he's the best at fighting in melee. he's not worth much in social situations, though.
- the paladin fights worse than the fighter and heals worse than the cleric, but a secondary source of melee damage never hurts, and neither does a backup healer. he also has the best social skills
- the monk is specialized in tripping and being difficult to kill. he can neutralize a spellcaster or act as area debuff for the enemies. he also takes over scouting and rogue duties (who needs search and disarm traps when you can run around stomping on tiles and trust your saving throws and general defensive skills to keep you safe?).
- the cleric alternates blasting, healing and buffing. he also has diplomacy.
- the second cleric specialized in item creation

now, in theory we overlap a lot. we have 3 melee attackers and no rogue. but it very rarely happens that a character can alone handle a situation (sometimes the wizard). and even when someone is out of his specialization, they still contribute. the monk is fairly weak against any opponent too big to trip or grapple, and against hordes of mooks, but he can still deal a bit of damage. the paladin is outperformed in a fight by the fighter, but still deals a large chunk of damage. the paladin has more diplomacy than the cleric, but we still split often during downtime, and the cleric had plenty of occasions to use diplomacy while the paladin was taking care of personal missions. the second cleric is happy to buff the rest of the team with stuff and spells. the fighter has no social skills, but he picked up some personal quests. every player participates with ideas anyway.

So, even though we have many character that could count as too generalist, too specialized, or too unbalanced, we never have to sit out and watch someone else have all the fun.

in the end you also have to work to find your role in the party; we all made characters without worrying for what the others would do, and then we all gradually ended discovering how we could contribute best.

As I said to Zinycor, the key word is overspecialized / generalized.

Your party sounds pretty normal, and is willing to try and cover for one another. I am also assuming that this is 5E, which really doesn't let characters deviate too far from their class archetype.

If you had someone who was a five way multiclass, or your monk refused to engage in any traditionally rogue abilities because they are "evil" (both real characters I have had in my groups) it might look kind of different.

Keep in mind that the character whom we were discussing that started this issue wanted to play a sorcerer who had no spells other than blasting spells, no ability score that wasn't a 4 or a 20, and no skills / feats / or items that didn't directly revolve around casting direct damage spells. This is after they had already called dibs on the "smart guy with all the knowledge skills" when we were creating characters, and as a result everybody else in the party intentionally avoided those areas so they wouldn't step on his toes.

I take it you never encouraged the "Toreador with a scalpel" problem.

I would also like to here more about this.

King of Nowhere

2019-08-19, 10:27 PM

As I said to Zinycor, the key word is overspecialized / generalized.

If you had someone who was a five way multiclass, or your monk refused to engage in any traditionally rogue abilities because they are "evil" (both real characters I have had in my groups) it might look kind of different.

well, yes, but the point where one becomes overspecialized to the point that one's unable to contribute meaningfully except for a few specific situations is very difficult to achieve. your player is a genius in his own way for having done so :smalleek:

as for being overgeneralized, that can only happen in a very large party, where literally everything is already covered better by someone else. even then, while you may be cut out from most social skills (because someone has a higher modifier, and diplomacy only requires one person rolling), you'll still be able to make yourself count in combat as long as you don't mind being outperformed by someone else. because in combat, every bit adds. even the monk

Your party sounds pretty normal, and is willing to try and cover for one another. I am also assuming that this is 5E, which really doesn't let characters deviate too far from their class archetype.

actually we are playing 3.5, with all the tier imbalances.

but the important difference is that we are reasonable people who actually want to cooperate. we don't have the paladin and the fighter keep track of damage dealt during combat for bragging rights. the monk does not grapple his companions just to show that while he deals less damage in combat, he can still 1v1 anyone. after the wizard does some major blasting, the cleric does not ignore fallen allies to show with a firestorm that he can deal magic damage too.

in fact, we'd have several major reasons for interparty conflict, as some backstories clashes. the wizard is mildly evil and power hungry. the monk lost loved ones to an evil wizard and trained himself specifically to fight evil wizard. the second cleric worship an homebrew deity of luck, whom the rest of the party dislikes because at some point we tried a ritual from said god that could give a random effect, and we were unlucky and we got some minor permanent debuff. the paladin especially has reasons to distrust this cleric because he considers that god an heresy. he's also trying to expand an empire, which clashes with the fighter (also mildly evil) who lost loved ones due to a (different) empire and distrust autorities as a principle.
really, the main cleric is the only one who'd have no reasons to kill anyone else.

but we decided to make it work, and it worked pretty nicely. the wizard is ruthless, but the paladin saw that he can be kept pointed at the bad guys with the proper incentives. the monk saw that the wizard hasn't crossed any major lines, and that they actually have a lot in common (both have a tragic backstory with a motivation of "if I become strong enough, they won't be able to hurt me again"); they developed genuine respect and friendship despite all odds. the second cleric and the paladin have agreed to disagree - though they engage in banter sometimes. the fighter doesn't really care all that much about politics, he's in for money and power and revenge.

that's how party dinamics should be handled. your backstory and personality puts you in conflict with another party member? find an in-character reason for why it doesn't. it's not that difficult

Great Dragon

2019-08-19, 11:33 PM

I actually really liked 3x D&D.

It wasn't until there was a Flood of splat books that deliberately sought out new ways to break the game: Mostly Feats, but a few Classes, that caused me problems.

5e is ok, although I do wish, even as a DM, that they were less vague with the "rules".
Rulings are a lot easier with clearly defined guidelines.

I don't mind doing older versions of D&D, but I do find it harder to remember everything.

that's how party dinamics should be handled. your backstory and personality puts you in conflict with another party member? find an in-character reason for why it doesn't. it's not that difficult

Exactly this.
Every reason from: "Their useful right now."
To actual IC statements of "I'm watching you."

But everyone works to avoid direct PvP conflict.

Minor IC Drama is quite alright.
Anyone feeling that it crosses the Line, speaks up - and those involved quickly hash that out, and move on.

Talakeal

2019-08-19, 11:40 PM

as for being overgeneralized, that can only happen in a very large party, where literally everything is already covered better by someone else. even then, while you may be cut out from most social skills (because someone has a higher modifier, and diplomacy only requires one person rolling), you'll still be able to make yourself count in combat as long as you don't mind being outperformed by someone else. because in combat, every bit adds. even the monk.

Ok, so are you saying that a party which contains a Druid 20, a Psion 20, a Cleric 20, and a Wizard 5 / Cleric 5 / Druid 5 / Psion 5 isn't less effective than one that contains a Wizard 20 in the last slot?

zinycor

2019-08-20, 01:28 AM

Satinavian

2019-08-20, 06:23 AM

Ok, so are you saying that a party which contains a Druid 20, a Psion 20, a Cleric 20, and a Wizard 5 / Cleric 5 / Druid 5 / Psion 5 isn't less effective than one that contains a Wizard 20 in the last slot?
That is specific to 3.x multiclassing rules penalizing caster multiclassing. Just switch to Rogue/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger instead and it is not clear anymore weather the single class group is better off or worse.

In general, there is no objective point, where overspecialization/overgeneraliszion starts. The sweet spot is very much dependant on the rest of the PCs, the kind of challenges that have to be solved and how the groups approach those strategically. Having more than one person who can do X will open new option while the whole group being weak at Y often leads to choosing another option.

OldTrees1

2019-08-20, 06:52 AM

That is specific to 3.x multiclassing rules penalizing caster multiclassing. Just switch to Rogue/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger instead and it is not clear anymore weather the single class group is better off or worse.

In general, there is no objective point, where overspecialization/overgeneraliszion starts. The sweet spot is very much dependant on the rest of the PCs, the kind of challenges that have to be solved and how the groups approach those strategically. Having more than one person who can do X will open new option while the whole group being weak at Y often leads to choosing another option.

The point of over-X is also a bit dependant on what is being asked of the group and the individuals.

I often use the following as a high level example: Fighting a intelligent strafing spellcasting Red Dragon above and inside its own lake of lava.

At high levels any design decisions (on the part of the author[classes] or player[character]) have had time to deviate more.

With such a context a character falls into one of 4 buckets:
They can't engage with the challenge
They can engage with external help from others spending resources
They can engage but cannot enable others to engage
They can engage and can enable others to engage at the cost of resources

In this context, we can see that characters that struggle to be able to engage with an encounter, detract from the group's ability to engage with the encounter. Personally, I don't like category 1. I also want category 2 to be infrequent and paired with category 4. Otherwise the category 2 acts like a category 1.

King of Nowhere

2019-08-20, 07:54 AM

Ok, so are you saying that a party which contains a Druid 20, a Psion 20, a Cleric 20, and a Wizard 5 / Cleric 5 / Druid 5 / Psion 5 isn't less effective than one that contains a Wizard 20 in the last slot?

no, im saying that a party that contains a Druid 20, a Psion 20, a Cleric 20, and a Wizard 5 / Cleric 5 / Druid 5 / Psion 5 is more effective than a 3-people party that contains the first three and not the fourth.

because that's the definition of "contributing": they are better off with you than without you. if we were arguing for "another heavily minmaxed character could do it better", then we should only play tier 1 classes to their fullest power. and that would suck for most of us.

just in case you were going to reply with "there is one more person with whom to split the treasure" or "there will be more monsters": a wise dm will give more treasure, and monsters accordingly.
otherwise, a dm that says, or implies, or even simply not disabuse "you only have a finite amount of treasure in this sandbox, so maybe you should kick away the less useful guy to have less people to share" or "all welcome dave, he wants to join us and learn the game. now, since there's 33% more of you, there will also be 33% more enemies, so if dave isn't pulling his weight from the beginning, he's doing you a disservice", welll, that kind of dm is actively encouraging all the kind of party disfunctionalities that you are describing.

I wonder if you having so many problems with your players is actually a result of your specific mindset and the expectations you create. you're the only one in this thread arguing for that kind of game dynamics, and you're the only one who faces a certain kind of crap on a regular base; maybe the two are related. or maybe not and you're simply adsorbing some of the toxic thinking from your players.

anyway, when i dm it's quite the opposite: my players being more careful, more optimized, more skilled simply makes me ramp up the difficulty. I'm always going to leave a clear way out to a casual party, not so to a more hardened one.

EDIT:

The point of over-X is also a bit dependant on what is being asked of the group and the individuals.

I often use the following as a high level example: Fighting a intelligent strafing spellcasting Red Dragon above and inside its own lake of lava.

At high levels any design decisions (on the part of the author[classes] or player[character]) have had time to deviate more.

With such a context a character falls into one of 4 buckets:
They can't engage with the challenge
They can engage with external help from others spending resources
They can engage but cannot enable others to engage
They can engage and can enable others to engage at the cost of resources

In this context, we can see that characters that struggle to be able to engage with an encounter, detract from the group's ability to engage with the encounter. Personally, I don't like category 1. I also want category 2 to be infrequent and paired with category 4. Otherwise the category 2 acts like a category 1.
In this case, if the party has too many character in category 1 and 2 and not enough in category 4, I'd simply avoid sending them against a strafing spellcasting red dragon above a lake of lava. something which i'd gleefully do to a more optimized party.

so, you can say that from the point of view of chances of success, optimizing is actually detrimental to the group, because the dm will overcompensate by raising the difficulty.