How to prevent one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories: PC Edition

[King of Nowhere]

Dumb characters, no. But people who think they are being funny tend to troll the rest of the group, for example alerting enemies with their antics during a stealth attempt or hurling insults and childish names during a tense negotiation.

huh....
how old are your players again?

because that seems like something my 8th grader students would do. and not even most of them, only the dumbest ones.

Eh, I'm on Brian's side on this one.

Think about it. You're running the game for a group of idiots who, last campaign, actively came to blows in character (and nearly out of character, as well).

They clearly need to learn what "cooperative" means. Until they do, and build a party that shows that, you simply refuse to run the game for them.

So, you tell them that it's their job to handle this.

+1 on this.
it's what you should have done yourself when you started DMing for those guys and it became clear they were immature.
if they learn, you'll have done them a favor. if they don't, you'll have done yourself a favor.

[Talakeal]

huh....
how old are your players again?

because that seems like something my 8th grader students would do. and not even most of them, only the dumbest ones.

Currently mid 30s. I have played with people 10-60 over my lifetime, and while "comedy" players are pretty rare, they don't seem confined to any one age bracket.

I remember back in the old days "The Loony" was considered one of the four main types of players (the others being Munckin, RPer, and Hack and Slasher), so it wasn't really something confined to Bizarro World.

For example: https://www.firedrake.org/roger/rpg/munchkin.html

Seems like you may have a DM problem... He demands that the party come up with a reason to be together, and then refuses to allow the reasons the party comes up with.

He also seems to have some Rookie DM issues..

For example, as far as a "Pirate" campaign being too "combat heavy," that is on him more than it is on the characters. Sure, murder-hobos can spend every session killing everything in sight, but as DM you can bring it artificially to an end by saying there is nothing left to kill, or whatever. Or you then them go Leeeroy Jenkins and everyone is rolling up new characters. Whatever.

It is up to him to set the table where your party will be sitting down to dinner. He should have had some idea in Session Zero what the general ideas were for his campaign so that the party could be made with that as a consideration.

Yes, he is a rookie DM, and he is doing a lot of the things that rookie DMs do.

But, given what he has seen, I can't fault him for being overly cautious.

If you needed more evidence of Bizarro World, "your flight and invisibility are a liability your survival" certainly qualifies.

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28

She has no armor and no HP. If we can't find her or can't reach her, we can't help her if she gets in trouble.

[Talakeal]

Update:

Had a session 0.5 this weekend.

Still not quite sure why people are objecting to the pirate campaign, as everything they bring up just sounds like a normal campaign, especially with evil characters, but we did come up with something of a compromise.

I reworked my character as a lightly armored dodge tank, raised my charisma, and took skills in riding, cartography, and calligraphy.

We decided on the following backstory:

I had commandeered a ship to leave flee my homeland and was posing as the captain. The necromancer stowed away on the ship to hide from an angry mob when we stopped to resupply in his homeland.

At some point in the past, the fairy convinced the ogre that she was his parrot and has been guiding him for protection, amusement, and her own inscrutable ends.

Our ship was attacked by the ogre’s pirate crew, and they looted the cargo, killed the crew. They decided my character was more trouble than she was worth and simply damaged the ship and left.

They decided to maroon the ogre at the same tine, as they were tired of his general buffoonery and his tendency to empty out the ships hold when he got hungry.

So, we are alone on the high seas with a damaged ship and no ability to sail it, when the necromancer emerges from hiding and animates the dead sailors as zombies, not great but maybe enough to get us into port.

So, the four of us are alone in the middle of the ocean on a damaged ship with no supplies, but we have enough skills that if we work together we just might survive.

Its not a great loyalty builder, but Brian says he can work with that, and it gives us enough of a bond that we won’t just betray one another.

[zinycor]

Just don't betray each other and everything should be alright

[StevenHay]

Update:

Had a session 0.5 this weekend.

Still not quite sure why people are objecting to the pirate campaign, as everything they bring up just sounds like a normal campaign, especially with evil characters, but we did come up with something of a compromise.

I reworked my character as a lightly armored dodge tank, raised my charisma, and took skills in riding, cartography, and calligraphy.

We decided on the following backstory:

I had commandeered a ship to leave flee my homeland and was posing as the captain. The necromancer stowed away on the ship to hide from an angry mob when we stopped to resupply in his homeland.

At some point in the past, the fairy convinced the ogre that she was his parrot and has been guiding him for protection, amusement, and her own inscrutable ends.

Our ship was attacked by the ogre’s pirate crew, and they looted the cargo, killed the crew. They decided my character was more trouble than she was worth and simply damaged the ship and left.

They decided to shanghai the ogre at the same tine, as they were tired of his general buffoonery and his tendency to empty out the ships hold when he got hungry.

So, we are alone on the high seas with a damaged ship and no ability to sail it, when the necromancer emerges from hiding and animates the dead sailors as zombies, not great but maybe enough to get us into port.

So, the four of us are alone in the middle of the ocean on a damaged ship with no supplies, but we have enough skills that if we work together we just might survive.

Its not a great loyalty builder, but Brian says he can work with that, and it gives us enough of a bond that we won’t just betray one another.

Very good update, i like!

[Quertus]

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28

She has no armor and no HP. If we can't find her or can't reach her, we can't help her if she gets in trouble.

So, her lack of armor and HP are a weakness.

Her tendency to separate from the party is an issue.

Y'all's inability to find / get to (?) her is problematic.

Her flight and invisibility are assets.

Which of the problems would you like to try to address?

[Talakeal]

So, her lack of armor and HP are a weakness.

Her tendency to separate from the party is an issue.

Y'all's inability to find / get to (?) her is problematic.

Her flight and invisibility are assets.

Which of the problems would you like to try to address?

A fast car is an asset, driving at 200 miles an hour down the freeway is a problem.

I can’t fly, and I can’t make the spot check to locate her. She plans on being flying and invisible all the time. If we meet an enemy who can fly and / or make the spot check to locate her, she is dead meat and I can’t do anything sbout it. Lack of armor and HP are just the icing on the cake.

[zinycor]

A fast car is an asset, driving at 200 miles an hour down the freeway is a problem.

I can’t fly, and I can’t make the spot check to locate her. She plans on being flying and invisible all the time. If we meet an enemy who can fly and / or make the spot check to locate her, she is dead meat and I can’t do anything sbout it. Lack of armor and HP are just the icing on the cake.

Aren't you the developer of this game? Why do you have the option for players to play such characters?

[Talakeal]

Aren't you the developer of this game? Why do you have the option for players to play such characters?

I try not to stifle player freedom or creativity.

It isn’t really a bad character per se, just lacking in party synergy.

[Lord of Shadows]

I reworked my character as a lightly armored dodge tank, raised my charisma, and took skills in riding, cartography, and calligraphy.

We decided on the following backstory:

I had commandeered a ship to leave flee my homeland and was posing as the captain.

The necromancer stowed away on the ship to hide from an angry mob when we stopped to resupply in his homeland.

At some point in the past, the fairy convinced the ogre that she was his parrot and has been guiding him for protection, amusement, and her own inscrutable ends.

Our ship was attacked by the ogre’s pirate crew, and they looted the cargo [and] killed the crew. They decided my character was more trouble than she was worth and simply damaged the ship and left.

They decided to shanghai the ogre at the same tine, as they were tired of his general buffoonery and his tendency to empty out the ships hold when he got hungry.

So, we are alone on the high seas with a damaged ship and no ability to sail it, when the necromancer emerges from hiding and animates the dead sailors as zombies, not great but maybe enough to get us into port.

So, the four of us are alone in the middle of the ocean on a damaged ship with no supplies, but we have enough skills that if we work together we just might survive.

Its not a great loyalty builder, but Brian says he can work with that, and it gives us enough of a bond that we won’t just betray one another.

I think you mean "maroon" the Ogre, shanghai would mean they took him...

And the necromancer could have taken the fancy tank to his "secret hiding spot," to explain their survival.

But, overall, that is a positive outcome. The necromancer can animate a ship's crew, the Ogre can help out on the ship, the charismatic tank with the fancy handwriting can navigate the ship, and - perhaps best of all - the fairy can go on scouting missions looking for supplies/ports of call.

[Talakeal]

I think you mean "maroon" the Ogre, shanghai would mean they took him.

Good catch! Fixed.

[Excession]

I can’t fly, and I can’t make the spot check to locate her. She plans on being flying and invisible all the time. If we meet an enemy who can fly and / or make the spot check to locate her, she is dead meat and I can’t do anything sbout it. Lack of armor and HP are just the icing on the cake.

In character, that's the fairy's problem. Your character's long term goals don't require a pixie, and as you said, there's nothing she can do, so why worry about it? Out of character, just mention to whoever is playing the fairy that your character can't defend them if they're invisible and distant. Don't make a big thing out of it, because so long as they know then it's not your problem. You should still have a backup source of healing, but hey, potions always work.

Needing a spot check to locate your own party members seems weird though. I would recommend removing that from your system in the future. Forget realism, it's annoying to need to metagame in order to know where an ally is.

[GrayDeath]

Needing a spot check to locate your own party members seems weird though. I would recommend removing that from your system in the future. Forget realism, it's annoying to need to metagame in order to know where an ally is.

But not unheard of.

In our longest running 3.5 Game of the last....5 years or so, we all have stealth mods of at least +33, while our best perception basis was +21. So unless we plan ahead well (which by now, we do^^) its pretty easy to think oneself alone, just to have the petal land on your shoulder, or the DarkW arforged to drop his HIPS and say are we gonna do something, or not?" ^^

[Talakeal]

In character, that's the fairy's problem. Your character's long term goals don't require a pixie, and as you said, there's nothing she can do, so why worry about it? Out of character, just mention to whoever is playing the fairy that your character can't defend them if they're invisible and distant. Don't make a big thing out of it, because so long as they know then it's not your problem. You should still have a backup source of healing, but hey, potions always work.

Needing a spot check to locate your own party members seems weird though. I would recommend removing that from your system in the future. Forget realism, it's annoying to need to metagame in order to know where an ally is.

That seems reasonable.

How do other fames handle it? I legitimately can’t remember if D&D (or other RPGs) allows allies to ignore hiding / invisibility.

It seems kind of weird from a verisimilitude perspective that allies could always keep track of someone who is darting around invisible in combat, but from an ease of play perspective I see where you are coming from.

I will give the stealth rules a lookover.

[Lord of Shadows]

How do other fames handle it? I legitimately can’t remember if D&D (or other RPGs) allows allies to ignore hiding / invisibility.

It seems kind of weird from a verisimilitude perspective that allies could always keep track of someone who is darting around invisible in combat, but from an ease of play perspective I see where you are coming from.

It's a house rule here, but if a group has been adventuring together for a while (and certainly if they have been together from 1st level all the way to the point of having invisibility available most of the time), I give party members a bonus on their Spot/Perception check to locate an invisible ally. This is based on the presumption that a party that has been together a while has a general idea of each other's tactics, and those tactics don't change a whole lot by being invisible.

If I have also been DMing (or playing in) the same group I should be able to evaluate whether an invisible ally is using expected tactics, or is doing something completely different. Which does happen... Being invisible is like a shiny new toy, some PC's just can't help taking off and running with it. Pointing out that the healer can't save their ass if they can't be found usually brings them back to reality. Er, fantasy.

[NichG]

That seems reasonable.

How do other fames handle it? I legitimately can’t remember if D&D (or other RPGs) allows allies to ignore hiding / invisibility.

It seems kind of weird from a verisimilitude perspective that allies could always keep track of someone who is darting around invisible in combat, but from an ease of play perspective I see where you are coming from.

I will give the stealth rules a lookover.

It's not explicitly in the rules this way, but D&D 3.5's perception rules lead to pretty strange results if you require a Spot check in cases where the thing you're checking against isn't actually trying to hide from you (such as not being able to see the sun due to distance penalties, etc). So one could conclude that an ally who is hiding, especially one who is using skill to do it, is specifically trying to hide from e.g. 'characters over in that direction' and need not also be hidden from their own party. This would get a bit more fraught in cases where the major contribution to stealth is from a passive effect, or from cases where e.g. allies and enemies are pretty thoroughly mixed together. But that kind of thing isn't really the level of granularity that the rules tend to be written for.

There's something in Spot about 'some things are just inherently difficult to see, and therefore call for a spot check'. One example is an inanimate invisible object in the nearby environment. So that's pretty clear cut for e.g. the case of a unconscious pixie.

So based on that I would tend to rule that if someone hiding wanted to specifically make sure a particular ally was able to keep eyes on them, that's something they could just say that they do as part of their action (would entail some kind of signalling, but I wouldn't want to nitpick that and assign small penalties to their Hide on the basis of it). Whereas for something passively difficult to see, I would generally say that a check is called for, but that check would only be against those passive factors and wouldn't have the d20 roll or the skill modifier included. So being aware that their invisible party member is still nearby would be a DC 20 Spot check in 3.5 and locating their precise position would be DC 40. Since the party member wouldn't be actively hiding, that actually means that size modifiers wouldn't apply (because of the way it's set up, those apply to Hide checks when someone actively hides, not to Spot checks to see something passively difficult to see).

[Lord of Shadows]

It's not explicitly in the rules this way, but D&D 3.5's perception rules lead to pretty strange results if you require a Spot check in cases where the thing you're checking against isn't actually trying to hide from you (such as not being able to see the sun due to distance penalties, etc). So one could conclude that an ally who is hiding, especially one who is using skill to do it, is specifically trying to hide from e.g. 'characters over in that direction' and need not also be hidden from their own party. This would get a bit more fraught in cases where the major contribution to stealth is from a passive effect, or from cases where e.g. allies and enemies are pretty thoroughly mixed together. But that kind of thing isn't really the level of granularity that the rules tend to be written for.

There's something in Spot about 'some things are just inherently difficult to see, and therefore call for a spot check'. One example is an inanimate invisible object in the nearby environment. So that's pretty clear cut for e.g. the case of a unconscious pixie.

So based on that I would tend to rule that if someone hiding wanted to specifically make sure a particular ally was able to keep eyes on them, that's something they could just say that they do as part of their action (would entail some kind of signalling, but I wouldn't want to nitpick that and assign small penalties to their Hide on the basis of it). Whereas for something passively difficult to see, I would generally say that a check is called for, but that check would only be against those passive factors and wouldn't have the d20 roll or the skill modifier included. So being aware that their invisible party member is still nearby would be a DC 20 Spot check in 3.5 and locating their precise position would be DC 40. Since the party member wouldn't be actively hiding, that actually means that size modifiers wouldn't apply (because of the way it's set up, those apply to Hide checks when someone actively hides, not to Spot checks to see something passively difficult to see).

Kind of the same thing here for Hiding/Stealth, which we treat as different than Invisible. Invisible applies to viewers in all directions, while someone who is Hiding from enemies or being Stealthy could still be seen by allies unless circumstances prevent it. Also, if the Hide/Stealth DC is being boosted by magic, that magic doesn't separate friend from foe and the bonus applies to allies as well as enemies. This leads to allies and enemies having different DC's (normal for enemies, just the bonus for allies, whose Spot/Perception ranks usually exceed most bonuses anyway) to see who is Hidden/Stealthy.

[Excession]

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28

She has no armor and no HP. If we can't find her or can't reach her, we can't help her if she gets in trouble.

The skeet thing only really applies in systems where cover matters. If you're close enough to D&D that half cover gives a paltry -2 to ranged attack rolls then it doesn't matter much at all. Being permanently out of range of melee enemies is much better in D&D-like systems.

In 4e at least, attacking targets you can't see is a -5 to melee and ranged the attack rolls. That's after you manage to detect the target with perception. If the enemy is at the point of "there might be an invisible pixie in the room" that pixie is going to be just fine. AoE's are more of a problem, but for those it's mostly saves that matter and not AC. Different vision modes are another weakness, but the most common I think is tremor-sense and that is negated by flight. So in most D&D systems flight plus invisibility really does replace the need for AC and HP, and maybe the player assumes it will here as well.

[Talakeal]

The skeet thing only really applies in systems where cover matters. If you're close enough to D&D that half cover gives a paltry -2 to ranged attack rolls then it doesn't matter much at all. Being permanently out of range of melee enemies is much better in D&D-like systems.

In 4e at least, attacking targets you can't see is a -5 to melee and ranged the attack rolls. That's after you manage to detect the target with perception. If the enemy is at the point of "there might be an invisible pixie in the room" that pixie is going to be just fine. AoE's are more of a problem, but for those it's mostly saves that matter and not AC. Different vision modes are another weakness, but the most common I think is tremor-sense and that is negated by flight. So in most D&D systems flight plus invisibility really does replace the need for AC and HP, and maybe the player assumes it will here as well.

The math is a bit different in my system, closer to 3.5 where cover averages -4. As a "tank fighter" I also have an ability which allows me to protect an ally, giving them +2 AC and allowing me to make an AoO anytime anyone targets them, but to do it I have to be able to both see and reach them. Although I will probably be using that on the necromancer most of the time anyway.

Again, the character isn't terrible, its just against something that can hit a flyer and detect a hidden character we have absolutely no way to help her.

She has never played D&D before, so I don't think she is resting on D&D knowledge.

Yeah, AOEs are actually a big weakness of our entire party.

[zinycor]

The math is a bit different in my system, closer to 3.5 where cover averages -4. As a "tank fighter" I also have an ability which allows me to protect an ally, giving them +2 AC and allowing me to make an AoO anytime anyone targets them, but to do it I have to be able to both see and reach them. Although I will probably be using that on the necromancer most of the time anyway.

Again, the character isn't terrible, its just against something that can hit a flyer and detect a hidden character we have absolutely no way to help her.

She has never played D&D before, so I don't think she is resting on D&D knowledge.

Yeah, AOEs are actually a big weakness of our entire party.

I would't worry too much about mechanics and party synergy. Focus on role-playing your character, making fun comments, interact with the other players, be a team player and everything should be alright.

[Talakeal]

I would't worry too much about mechanics and party synergy. Focus on role-playing your character, making fun comments, interact with the other players, be a team player and everything should be alright.

Even though the rest of the group are all hack and slash players who are extremely focused on winning?

[zinycor]

Even though the rest of the group are all hack and slash players who are extremely focused on winning?

Yes.

You cannot control them, manage YOUR expectations.

besides, until the game starts you won't know for certain what will be the main problems the party will face, once you do, you may adjust your build accordingly. But in the end, even that is secondary to just having a good time.

Again. Focus on having a good time. Enjoy each others company.

[Talakeal]

Yes.

You cannot control them, manage YOUR expectations.

besides, until the game starts you won't know for certain what will be the main problems the party will face, once you do, you may adjust your build accordingly. But in the end, even that is secondary to just having a good time.

Again. Focus on having a good time. Enjoy each others company.

How is focusing on my enjoyment being a good team-player?


As I said, the rest of the group gets really upset when they lose, which means that if I don't cover for their mechanical shortcomings, nobody will have a good time.

[zinycor]

How is focusing on my enjoyment being a good team-player?


As I said, the rest of the group gets really upset when they lose, which means that if I don't cover for their mechanical shortcomings, nobody will have a good time.

Ok then... Is there an option you can pick for your character, that would make your group less vulnerable to AOE? If not, then don't worry about it, if it becomes a problem, come to a solution to it with the other players. As I said before, maybe won't even be so much of a problem, maybe it will be common place. No way of knowing.

What I can tell you is this, you shouldn't waste time trying to come up with the perfect strategy, unless your whole group is into that. If not, on the mechanical side of things, worry about you having a character that is functional and entertaining to you.

But the problems at your table aren't mechanical, are social, therefore I advice you to focus on the people playing with you, and making yours and theirs experience as comfy and entertaining as posible. IME this is achieved by having a positive atittude, playing with the team and treating the game as a game and your friends as friends.

[Friv]

How is focusing on my enjoyment being a good team-player?


As I said, the rest of the group gets really upset when they lose, which means that if I don't cover for their mechanical shortcomings, nobody will have a good time.

I'm going to be honest. I think that this is the crux of the matter, in several ways.

It's not your responsibility to be the only person working to make sure everyone else has a good time. You are not Atlas, and you can't hold up the world. If you try, you are going to be crushed, and then everyone will complain at you.

My suggestion - my strongest suggestion, and the one that I really think you need to consider - is that if someone in this group does not ask for your help, you should not go out of your way to give it.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to build a character who fits into the group, or that you should sabotage the game, or anything like that. But you need to focus on your own enjoyment, and your own responsibilities, which are:

1. Being a good player
2. Having fun

Don't worry about anyone else's motivations. Don't worry about being the one setting the strategy or the optimization, unless they specifically ask you to change your strategy or build. Take a step back. Let slip the reins.

[Reversefigure4]

It's also likely with a different GM there may be less focus on all the encounters being extremely challenging, which takes care of the "players don't like high challenges" without you having to alter your character in any way.

[Talakeal]

It's also likely with a different GM there may be less focus on all the encounters being extremely challenging, which takes care of the "players don't like high challenges" without you having to alter your character in any way.

Keep in mind, the forums definition of "extremely challenging" is a fight where there is even a 1% chance of defeat or player death.

Honestly, while Bob might like mindless MMO style grinding, I am going to be bored out of my mind if the campaign doesn't meet that definition of extremely challenging.

[zinycor]

Keep in mind, the forums definition of "extremely challenging" is a fight where there is even a 1% chance of defeat or player death.

Honestly, while Bob might like mindless MMO style grinding, I am going to be bored out of my mind if the campaign doesn't meet that definition of extremely challenging.

Or you could focus on sharing times with your friends and roleplaying. Again, the reasons am being so repetitve here is because you are most likely to find that Brian will not have the same aptitude as you at building encounters right. This due to you being a long time Gm AND designer of the game.

Again, adjust your expectations, find joy on the social aspects of the game, on the story and lore that Brian has there to show.

OR, find a group that suits your gaming needs better.

[Tajerio]

Keep in mind, the forums definition of "extremely challenging" is a fight where there is even a 1% chance of defeat or player death.

Honestly, while Bob might like mindless MMO style grinding, I am going to be bored out of my mind if the campaign doesn't meet that definition of extremely challenging.

That's a wild exaggeration. First, I don't think any of us knows what the forum consensus on the point is, nor is it even clear there would be a consensus, as your previous threads suggest. Second, if there were such a consensus on the meaning of "extremely challenging" I doubt that "1% chance of defeat or player death" would be the benchmark on which it settled. For instance, I don't think I run an especially challenging game, but almost every fight I run has a decent chance of killing at least one PC.

Of course, I also sympathize with your distaste for Bob's power fantasy gaming style. But his style isn't gonna change, and you don't have the right to try to make him change, so the conflict there is inevitable. No game will properly please both of you.

[Talakeal]

That's a wild exaggeration. First, I don't think any of us knows what the forum consensus on the point is, nor is it even clear there would be a consensus, as your previous threads suggest. Second, if there were such a consensus on the meaning of "extremely challenging" I doubt that "1% chance of defeat or player death" would be the benchmark on which it settled. For instance, I don't think I run an especially challenging game, but almost every fight I run has a decent chance of killing at least one PC.

Of course its an exaggeration; I have no idea what the "consensus" is, but it certainly seems to me that the majority of posters agree that I run a very hard game, and even when I back it up with actual data they still say that my rate of ~1% chance per fight of a serious setback (and significantly less than 1% of an actual TPK) is indeed a very hard game.

For example, not how the post I was replying to took it as a given that I "focus on making all encounters extremely challenging".

Or you could focus on sharing times with your friends and roleplaying. Again, the reasons am being so repetitve here is because you are most likely to find that Brian will not have the same aptitude as you at building encounters right. This due to you being a long time Gm AND designer of the game.

Again, adjust your expectations, find joy on the social aspects of the game, on the story and lore that Brian has there to show.

OR, find a group that suits your gaming needs better.

I am sure he won't have as tight a balance point; but I expect that to mean we will have as many too hard encounters as too easy encounters rather than the game turning into a mindless grind like Bob wants.

I love the RPing, story, and lore aspects of the game, significantly more than combat or problem solving, but the rest of the group does not, so I expect we will be spending the majority of our time fighting.

If I enjoyed the social aspects of the game, I can't imagine I would still be gaming; its a lot easier, cheaper, and more rewarding to simply hang out at clubs and whatnot if what you are looking for is social interaction.