>Me: "Are there any kinds of adventures this game will focus on? Wilderness exploration, urban intrigue, dungeon crawling, investigating mysteries? Are there any adventure settings you plan on using often? Will X skill be useful? Basically, if you had to write a 'player's guide' like what Paizo does for its adventure paths, what would you suggest?"
>GM: "I dunno. I like having a mix."
Is it just me, or does this always lead to a case of the GM completely ignoring what the characters specialize in and making no effort at all to accommodate them?
I have witnessed plant-manipulating druids and social-focused bards go through plantless dungeons with completely hostile enemies, with no special amount of flora or social encounters elsewhere.
I have seen martials struggle through adventures heavy on investigation and social dealings with minimal combat, and once those adventures were over, combat would still happen only semi-frequently.
I have experienced rangers never once facing their favored enemies.
I have been in games wherein players max out their skill in "Drive" or the game's "be good at car chases" skill, only for car chases to never become important.
Is this a GM red flag?
Josiah Cruz
As a DM, I assume every DM but me is not very good and go in with relatively unspecialized characters. Flexibility is great.
Zachary Adams
>Is this a GM red flag?
Not really. A good GM will say that and actually have an unpredictable, exciting mix. A bad GM could say anything, and still be bad.
A good GM will occasionally set up a situation where a certain PC's skills get to shine, and occasionally do the opposite, set up a situation where your best skills and abilities don't apply and you have to get creative. And good players will often be able to figure out a way to make the skills they have relevant.
Julian Powell
... I'm not going to lie, only one of these sounds like a GM problem - the ''social vs combat'' divide, because that's a big question of campaign tone, which should be discussed beforehand. But the others?
Plant manipulating Druid? Carry seeds with you to make venomous plants grow anywhere, or have a pet pot-plant with tendrils you use for trip attacks. If your favoured enemy has literally never come up or been mentioned in game, ask your GM if you can switch it to something more relevant to the game setting, if it's legitimately never had an in-game effect, it's a pretty naff GM who won't work around that with you. Maxxed out you drive skill? Car chases don't appear outta thin air, plan to make your getaway by car, make sure you specify who your driver is.
Unless there's more to your complaint that I'm not getting. Can you provided more clear examples of the issue?
Joseph Campbell
I see three causes for that problem: - GM not taking PC capabilities into account when planning content. - Players who overspecialise by choice. - Systems that force PCs to overspecialise. Forcing a player to pick one favoured enemy would be an example of the system forcing it.
A GM who doesn't know what kind of challenges the party will face at the start of the campaign isn't a red flag, because GMs who plan to adjust what the players face to account for their capabilities can't know what the content will be until he knows what the PC capabilities are.
This is the first time I've heard of players guides for adventure paths. I can't think of any way where their existence is a good thing.
Jackson Martin
>I have been in games wherein players max out their skill in "Drive" or the game's "be good at car chases" skill, only for car chases to never become important.
If a player maxed out drive in my game, I might not give them a car chase. But the party would find themselves wanting to travel by vehicle through difficult terrain a lot, so the drive skill will come in handy.
Henry Phillips
Nah, not a red flag.
Just make sure to have a more general character. Good at what their class does but with a bit of different stuff. I prefer these kinds of characters anyway since they are more human.
Ayden Mitchell
Captain Sociable should have duped some mooks to come down into the dungeon with 'em.
And plant manipulating druids should never go anywhere without a little plastic tub of watercress.
Gabriel Parker
Can't blame him for the shitty system that allows people to make useless characters simply by specializing in something that isn't magic.
Kevin Fisher
There is no clearer examples, it's a gaslight thread highlighting issues that don't actually exist. To wit, I look at players who hyper specialize as idiots in the extreme. There is no reason at all to put all your focus to one goal unless you are trying to "win" at that particular goal by rote, and now you are missing the point.
Daniel Wright
This.
If all you have is a hammer then make sure to bring nails.
Aaron Ortiz
I could understand it if the social-focused bard eventually received a whole adventure in a royal court after the dungeon slog.
I could understand it if the warrior-type was given a string of battles after an adventure heavy on social encounters and investigation.
I could understand it if the rangers finally saw their favored enemies after a long drought.
I could understand understand if the player who took high Drive finally got to see a Fury Road-like sequence.
But they never do.
>Plant manipulating Druid? Carry seeds with you to make venomous plants grow anywhere, or have a pet pot-plant with tendrils you use for trip attacks. Entangle does not work this way.
Paizo and Pathfinder are both terrible, but player's guides are a great idea. They outright say the tone and themes of the adventure, what you can expect to do without giving spoilers, what skills are recommended, and what will be useless.
Jeremiah Reed
>Entangle does not work this way.
Doesn't Entangle make it's own plants?
If it doesn't why doesn't the Druid bring those plants?
>I could understand it if the social-focused bard eventually received a whole adventure in a royal court after the dungeon slog.
Why didn't the Bard use his social skills to get henchmen?
>I could understand it if the warrior-type was given a string of battles after an adventure heavy on social encounters and investigation.
Why didn't the warror-type bash some heads or do back-alley interrogation?
>I could understand it if the rangers finally saw their favored enemies after a long drought.
Eh, this one is more rough. Favored Enemy is a shit concept IMO.
>I could understand understand if the player who took high Drive finally got to see a Fury Road-like sequence.
The only time I see Drive as an option to pimp-out is in a setting full of vehicles. You can always work a vehicle into a plan.
Kevin Ross
Because in all of the instances you brought up, it stops being a group game and becomes a single player event. That is not how games should be run.
Adam Morris
>Doesn't Entangle make it's own plants? No.
>Why didn't the Bard use his social skills to get henchmen? Because running for so many NPCs is hell.
>Why didn't the warror-type bash some heads or do back-alley interrogation? Intimidation is not something warrior-types are good at in the terrible games I have to play (d20 systems).
Hunter Ross
>No.
Way to ignore the follow up.
>Because running for so many NPCs is hell.
Make em one big stat block. Make it one super-NPC.
> (d20 systems).
Last I checked you can pick up Intimidation in all the D&D/PF as a Fighter. Also the case can always be made to use Str as an option for Intimidation.
Alexander Collins
>Way to ignore the follow up. Entangle needs multiple plants to work. One potted plant will not do.
>Make em one big stat block. Make it one super-NPC. This is even worse and makes the adventure about leading around the NPC-blob on a leash.
>Last I checked you can pick up Intimidation in all the D&D/PF as a Fighter. Also the case can always be made to use Str as an option for Intimidation. Variant rule. Not default.
Blake Jenkins
>Entangle needs multiple plants to work
Congratulations on answering your own question.
>This is even worse and makes the adventure about leading around the NPC-blob on a leash.
Not at all. Try being more creative.
>Variant rule. Not default.
RAW ain't LAW. Also by definition having points in a skill makes a character not shit at it. This also doesn't rule out other characters using the Fighter as a springboard for their own threats (with the Fighter making Athletics roles to aide) or the Fighter beating up guards while someone else breaks into a room.
Aiden Long
>Congratulations on answering your own question.
Great, let's haul around garden's worth of plants to make our spells work!
Lincoln Reyes
>Year 20XX
>Making a character who is only good at one thing, then bitching at GM when he doesn't make an entire session around your narrow skillset
William Ward
>playing D&D
>making a character who is only good at one thing
Even those "jack of all trades" bards usually have to pick a build to specialize in, or suck.
Jordan Nguyen
On the same note: >Year 20XX >playing a system where it's not trivially easy to be good at multiple things
Gabriel Lopez
>Entangle does not work this way. And it's a shame that nothing does. I'm reminded of a certain xanth character with a similar gimmick and it seems like it'd be great fun. But of course, xanths variety of pun based flora helped with that alot.
Asher Morris
A big problem here is game systems that allow players to hyper-specialize to the point of being useless outside very narrow circumstances, or refusing to recognize their glaring weaknesses.
Another one is players doing character creation in such systems in a vacuum, with no communication with the GM and other players, with the intent of maximizing one extremely specific thing to the expense of all else.
A third problem is GMs who don't have the experience, system-mastery, or willingness to look sheets over beforehand to give a sanity-check, pointing out things like >"it looks like your druid is helpless outside natural environments" >"it seems like your bard is only good for maxing social rolls". >"your guy can do a lot of damage, but most enemies can kill him pretty quickly" >are you sure you're willing to deal with this Although the level of knowledge it takes for a GM to always know these things is high enough that it's not reasonable to expect from a new GM, or someone GMing an unfamiliar game system. And many GMs simply aren't told that they should be looking over sheets before the game starts, or have enough trouble wrangling their players that they really can't.
Aiden Richardson
When I GM, I understand that a player investing skill points or other character resources into a particular thing is a way for that player to tell me that they are interested in doing that particular thing.
I always try to incorporate that thing into the game, because that's what the player wants to do.
Elijah Morris
Not OP. Entangle does not work this way because the plants need to be around the enemy for it to entangle them.
Entangle does not make the plants grow. Trying to entangle the enemy with a plastic tub of watercress would be 1: throw watercress at enemy 2: cast entangle 3: watch watercress try to choke a single bitch very weakly.
If the druid could get the plants to be sufficently surrounding the enemy instantly, why not just set up explosives instead?
Luis Cox
It's not even a matter of overspecializing, necessarily. A 3.x druid can hold his own and be useful no matter what the environment or specialization, but it still sucks if you were planning to focus on crowd control spells and never get to use them because the entire game takes place in a city and other environments where 90% of your CC are useless because there are no plants to take advantage of Entangle, no unworked stone to use Transmute Rock to Mud on, etc.
Owen Campbell
>A 3.x druid can hold his own and be useful no matter what the environment or specialization
Pathfinder druids are kinda sucky even as prepared full casters from levels 1 to 3 though.
Definitely not as good as in 3.X.
Tyler Hall
why
are you posting
like this
Luke Wood
why
are you posting
like this
Asher Martin
it's almost like the world doesn't revolve around your characters
Cooper Smith
But the adventure does.
Aiden Edwards
it clearly doesn't.
Adrian Perry
Clearly, the adventurers should seek to carry out the adventure suited for them.
My shadowrunners will only accept jobs that work towards their skills, for example.
Justin Barnes
Doesn't help when the GM throws you into an adventure with bullshit like "Lol, you get shipwrecked and wind up in a barren island full of wild and hostile monsters who don't talk! Sorry bard, guess it's just not your time to shine for this whole adventure!"
Jace Myers
why should anyone's character get to shine? what makes you think you matter?
Andrew Bennett
No, i like GMs not tailoring to suit my PC.
Adam Jones
>playing D&D spotted the problem
William Cook
...
Hudson Phillips
>what makes you think you matter? t. HP Lovecraft
Caleb Sanders
There are other games than 3rd edition D&D.
Even within D&D are about 6-15 distinct games (depending on where you draw the line). It might come as a surprise to you that many of them don't have such extraordinarily busted character options that can do literally everything perfectly all at once. That's to say nothing of other games that attempt to strike a balance between player characters' abilities.
But it's cool. You can keep powerwanking off atrocious design choices made 16 years ago that have been fixed for two editions now, and pretending that this is somehow representative of roleplaying games as a whole.
Carson Stewart
or just anyone who isn't a self-absorbed jackass
Wyatt Reed
no there aren't.
Cooper Wood
...
Grayson Adams
Systems that ensure you aren't overspecialized? FATE, though i am no fan.
Liam Phillips
lmfao kys
Ian Gonzalez
k brb
Oliver King
What makes you think your opinion matters?
Nathan Walker
OD&D, AD&D, BD&D, 3.X, 4.X, 5.
The 15 LBB OD&D, OD&D + Chainmail, OD&D + Supplements, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, AD&D 2e with all the X's Option books (2.5e), 3e, 3.5e, 4e, Essentials, 5e, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI, and RC.
Nolan Jones
>There are other games than 3rd edition D&D.
In theory, yes, but in practice two thirds of any given table you sit down at will be 3.5 or 5e.
Unless you're a GM, your games are dictated by what the rest of the group wants to play when you sit down and a vast majority of the games will be D&D, so for all intents and purposes its worth just approaching all roleplaying discussions from the perspective that the players are playing 3.5finder or 5e of D&D.
Aaron Cook
>an example uses 3.x, therefore it's something that happens only in 3.x
Let me guess, you also complain about gendered nouns in RPG books, because your character might have non-binary gender, and therefore none of the rules apply to it?
Carson Lopez
Not that guy but I'm partial to Black Crusade.
Jace Johnson
>confirmed for decent human being
Julian Cox
>In theory, yes, but in practice two thirds of any given table you sit down at will be 3.5 or 5e.
In all my 8 years of gaming, i had only three sessions of D&D (5e).
What am i doing wrong?
Brayden Jenkins
it's not an opinion, i asked you a question. learn to read.
Brody Gutierrez
I'd consider playing very little 5e to be doing it right, not wrong.
I've looked through a good number of games, played most of them, and found it wasn't the case. >shadowrun 5th edition >nWoD >Pendragon >Dungeon World >D&D 5e >Adventurer Conqueror King >RuneQuest 6e/Mythras >Big Eyes Small Mouth
I think it can happen in Mutants and Masterminds or GURPS (haven't read them though), since I've heard complaints about power-level there, but I haven't seen it in any other games. You get a few easily-minmaxed chargen systems, but in most of them players have to pick one thing to be good at, they can't be amazing at everything at once.
Isaac Jones
I use systems were players have a good spread of generalized skills already, and specialized ones just grant them additional abilities and focuses outside of what common sense and general utility gives them.
Also the ability to take some of their skills with them, within reason, like a plant-focused druid having a pouch of seeds he can bring with him to grow his own plants, assuming the system allows for the rapid growth of plants by magic.
Martials might otherwise be given a number of social standing talents which can help them navigate social situations, rather than relying on pure strength and intimidation to get by.
Could the druid call down roots from above? Actually, that might make druids that much more frightening underground when they can strangle people from the roof.
Jose Sanchez
nice
epic
i like it
In SR it's fairly easy to make "jack of some trades, master of one" character. Basic competence in a field doesn't cost too much (with some exceptions, though).
Connor King
>Tells people not to play D&D >Posts not!D&D I really like FC, but that doesn't change matters
Ian Rodriguez
Because the PCs are the only PCs around? And their universe only gets to exist to acommodate them? I mean, sure, your setting should have enough background stuff to make it seem like a compelling world that keeps on existing beyond the PCs. But if they don't matter then why have a game at all?
Like in that greentext where the Players deciding to legalize gay marriage instead of stopping the lich causes said lich to take over. If players didn't matter in said case, then why no one else stopped the lich while the players were having their social justice adventure? If you are running an experimental or contrarian game (Or a CoC game where that's the point) where the PCs aren't the protagonists and their actions aren't the ones that matter the most, then why have PCs at all?
Setting and games are not real life. The moment they stop being played then they stop existing, and if PCs don't matter then why should they bother playing . Otherwise, the GM should just write a book or look for another outlet for his creativity.
Jaxon Smith
>the PCs are the only PCs wrong
>the universe only exists to accommodate them wrong
>if they don't matter why have a game? wow. you really are hopeless.
tell you what, learn something about creating actual, real universes using only the force of your own will and get back to me.
Dominic Martin
>Why didn't the Bard use his social skills to get henchmen? Henchmen don't work for free and you don't need social skills to say "hey work for us and get money"
>Why didn't the warror-type bash some heads or do back-alley interrogation? Intimidation is charisma based. Even if it was based on another ability like strength the fighter still might be just equal to the party bard who has spells to assist in getting information anyway. So yeah, beat up some guy just don't be surprised when you get nothing out of him or his information is unreliable because you don't have spells.
>Eh, this one is more rough. Favored Enemy is a shit concept IMO. Not really, a ranger is someone who is an expert at tracking, logic dictates that they should be exceedingly good against a certain type of enemy. Honestly I would just look at what their favoured enemy is first and either say "might want to change it because I don't see us fighting many of them" or "I will see if I can fit those in more frequently."
Brayden Jenkins
Was about to write a lengthy post about why i think you are wrong. But re-reading my previous one, some points didn't came up as i would have liked them. And refuting your points would have made it seem like i was going back and forth between ideas.
So, about your >you really are hopeless. Rest assured, most of what i wrote isn't what i really think. Also, it seems we have a different idea of what a campaign or a story should be, i accidentally wrote my post as "This is what it should be in every case without exception", or at least that is how it reads.
Maybe i can reword it this way: I make the universe/setting as a stand alone. People live and die, nations rise and fall, and all that jazz. If the guy who made the steam engine is suddenly killed by time ninjas, then no sweat, someone else will invent it later. But at the same time i make campaigns/stories where the actions of a few, as in the PCs, can influence and change the former in minor and mayor ways, and where they are an important part that no one (Unless plot demands it) can hold as much influence as them (Unless, again, plot demands it) Their actions decide, directly or indirectly, who lives and who dies, which nations rise and which fall, and if an event was inevitable their actions determine HOW said inevitable thing is going to happen.
Their actions matter the most because without players the setting/universe becomes just an idea. Ideas that are not being used in any way are worthless to me.
William Williams
Not him, but
>you don't need social skills to say "hey work for us and get money" But you DO need social skills to say "Hey, work for us to do this dangerous thing that you might not otherwise want to do at wages that I find preferable." Haggling can be a thing, you know. Nobody's saying the henchmen work for free but a preternaturally charming person (like, say, a CHA-focused PC) could probably convince a few enterprising henchmen to join on an adventure of mutual benefit (i.e., convince or contract with them that they'll get a share of the treasures).
I've always thought that you ought to get at least some kind of nominal bonus to Intimidation for being able to flex some actual muscle, or something. I don't know, maybe flexing comes off as really unimpressive if you don't have that spirit. Breaking some fingers/limbs or interrogating somebody right after they just saw you fuck someone else up completely ought to help SOMEHOW, though. If all you have is STR and nothing else, you might be in a pickle, yeah.
Your last solution here is probably the best one, though. Dialogue between players and DMs as to what to expect should always be encouraged.
Jacob Torres
>I've always thought that you ought to get at least some kind of nominal bonus to Intimidation for being able to flex some actual muscle, or something. The issue is that bards have spells and shit to supplement their already high bonuses. Being scary and torturing someone is pretty useless when you could just cast friends on someone or whatever. Either way the person will hate you afterwards.
Honestly what really matters is cooperation, bards make a fine support class but its pretty bland and generalist if you are running a generic dungeon crawl game. Either make your campaign truly inclusive or let players know what they are getting into to begin with. If your campaign is going to be dungeon crawl heavy tell the bard "hey this campaign won't involve much diplomacy, if you pick bard I will do what I can for you but you will mostly just be support." If your campaign is going to be about court politics you might tell the fighter "hey this game won't involve too much fighting, while I am sure you will get things to kill you might prefer another class or a more diplomatic build."
Ryan Ramirez
How do those with at least semi-permanent groups handle this kind of thing? Do you guys build your campaigns around your PC's specialties, just make sure they have a shining moment once in a while, explain that making specialized characters is dumb or something else?
I think I'm going to give my over specialized characters a moment or two, but try and find a theme that all my players share and build around that.
Christian Cox
Why would you bother to answer an obvious troll? He's(?) just trying to be contrarian. A tabletop game may not have to individually cater to the PCs but the game only exists as long as the players continue to play it, and thus without them it ceases to exist even if the setting goes on.
Aaron Martinez
Generally, I play games where PCs are capable of specializing in more than one thing at once or the characters are so high power that even if their specialty isn't coming up they're still capable of at least holding their own in some area.
Otherwise, I tend to make suggestions at character creation and do character creation all at once in a group so that the characters are at least slightly well rounded, and I tell people up front if some abilities or specializations aren't going to come up. If someone specializes in a niche role, that role will come up more than average, but won't start coming up to the point that it suspends disbelief. Ex: A character is capable of breathing underwater and is a fantastic swimmer and underwater fighter but is otherwise a capable B&E specialist and knife fighter will find that there are a surprising number of places that have watery entrances or things that need to be retrieved underwater, but the rest of the time they'll just be an okay B&E guy/ambusher. It makes people feel good when their specialization comes up, so I try not to go out of my way to deny them any of those opportunities in an entire campaign.
Caleb Scott
As a GM, I usually don't have a response to a question like that, because I don't always know what characters the players are going to make. I play elusively in online games, and so have to plan the campaign out beforehand. Not knowing what characters are going to be made means I got to have a lot of mixed events.
Another reason is that I have to assume the worst for players.
I could create a campaign with a specific type of play in mind, and make sure players create characters to fit that mold, but a lot of players are desperate to play in a game, and many apply for games without even considering if they can make the time commitments, let alone whether they will enjoy that type of playstyle.
I learned the hard way to interview people on Skype before letting them into the game.
Elijah Baker
>And good players will often be able to figure out a way to make the skills they have relevant. This, I hate when players take shit options and whine to make me give them super specific times when their power is obviously key, and i hate when GM's feel the need to structure the game around the abilities of the group like the world magically conforms to us not having a such and such character/
Angel Barnes
Had a game where I went a warrior with axe and shield. Started with cleave, but about level 7 when the goblins were definitely not coming back I asked if there'd be any more swarms. GM replied with 'nah, probably gonna be big things from here on out'. And so it was. Managed to retrain my feats into a shield spec, with arrow deflection and ray shield. Suddenly all ranged creatures dry up.
Joseph Young
Now a wizard. Same guy tends to have the enemies suddenly switch to melee if I ready an action to counterspell.
Angel Adams
Sorry, m8, you've just got a shit GM.
Austin Garcia
I find GMs who have no real plan for a session or explanation of a campaign to be red flags to begin with.
Isaac Stewart
This is why 3.xpf min-maxing is game-killing garbage.
>Why didn't your adventure have more things for my character's outlandish specialization to exploit?
Because I wrote the adventure a week ago and didn't cater it specifically to "what would get user's rocks off" because it wasn't intended to be an adventure where we all sat around and jerked you off for six hours. You fucking asshole.
Blake Richardson
>writing adventure before you know the characters
Shit GM.
Jaxson Rodriguez
Characters should be made at the table, as a group, during the first session. Which is also when the first adventure takes place. Which will be shit if you haven't written it beforehand.
Retarded players, luckily, mostly only do this "sit down with my five page backstory explaining why my character only has cooking and katanas" in 3.xpf.
Elijah Bailey
>not having a session 0
Come on, step up your fucking game.
Aaron Lewis
If we all have time to get together, then we have time to play a game. A "session 0" is a missed opportunity. Sorry: didn't mean to go out there and have a job.
Benjamin Stewart
Myopic as fuck if you want to get in one extra session instead of helping everyone make a cohesive party that makes sense and explaining expectations clearly.
Nolan Phillips
What do you do if you want to write a campaign around your friends' characters, but they all only want to make characters once you already have a campaign ready? I ran into this catch-22 over summer break, wanted to run something for my friends but nobody knew what they wanted so I just procrastinated until it was too late to start anything.
Jace Mitchell
Plsy WoD. >K, you're these things in this city. It'll be vaguely about this thread of the meta. >K, my backgrounds are going to be... >And mine are And that's how you develop a WoD chronicle.
Dominic Perez
>logic dictates that they should be exceedingly good against a certain type of enemy
