Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[MeimuHakurei]

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]

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

[Kardwill]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: What about Bob?

Show

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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.

[Quertus]

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]

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

[Great Dragon]

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.

[Blue] 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?[/Blue]

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"?

* [Blue] Man, if he was both, think of the money he could make! [/Blue] *

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Maybe once every three sessions. I would say the party is about level 8, but we arent playing straight D&D.

[The Glyphstone]

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]

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]

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.)