5e GMs - Why or Why Not Wandering Treasure?

[pemerton]

Only time I've fought a 1 hp minion-11 ogre, our 4e PCs were 2nd level!

Yeah that GM was not the best...

More a thought triggered by your post than a meaningful reply:

I don't get the idea of running a system that has pretty clear advice on how it's meant to work, and then just ignoring that advice. Is it some sort of "dare" to the designers? Look what I can do that you said I can't!

A 2nd level solo ogre doesn't seem that hard to design:

defences as appropriate for a level 2 brute; 176 hp; threatening reach; ogrish smash (melee 2, +7 vs AC for 2d6+7 and dazed til EnT); ogrish anger: make 2 smashes; ogrish fury: when bloodied, make 3 smashes; minor action, 1x/enc, recharge when bloodied, fearsome glare (1 target in close burst 5, +5 vs Will, -2 to attack and defence (SE)); immediate reaction, if successful on an opportunity attack: fling away, +5 vs Fort, push 3 sq and knock prone).​

That thing's not going to die if it gets pushed down a 10' pit!

 

[S'mon]

More a thought triggered by your post than a meaningful reply:

I don't get the idea of running a system that has pretty clear advice on how it's meant to work, and then just ignoring that advice. Is it some sort of "dare" to the designers? Look what I can do that you said I can't!

The DM did seem happy at our gobsmacked looks when this giant ogre dropped to the first arrow...

 

[pemerton]

The DM did seem happy at our gobsmacked looks when this giant ogre dropped to the first arrow...

This belongs in the "what DM flaw has made you walk away?" thread . . .

 

[S'mon]

This belongs in the "what DM flaw has made you walk away?" thread . . .

I didn't walk away for that - his group of overpowered monsters vs our level one PCs, who then stood there taking no actions so they wouldn't kill us, had been a lot more annoying. But when he kept cancelling game sessions without notice, I took over the group and GM'd my 5.5 year level 1-29 4e Loudwater campaign.

 

[pemerton]

when he kept cancelling game sessions without notice, I took over the group and GM'd my 5.5 year level 1-29 4e Loudwater campaign.

Inferring from my past behaviiour, I might have gone for a more active coup! Still, all's well that ends well.

I didn't walk away for that - his group of overpowered monsters vs our level one PCs, who then stood there taking no actions so they wouldn't kill us, had been a lot more annoying.

This is beyond my comprehension - I mean, I can read your words and make sense of them as a sentence of English, but I can't understand the GM psychology. Is that sort of thing common, in your experience? It sounds as bad as, if not worse than, the three occasions I listed in that other thread.

 

[S'mon]

This is beyond my comprehension - I mean, I can read your words and make sense of them as a sentence of English, but I can't understand the GM psychology. Is that sort of thing common, in your experience? It sounds as bad as, if not worse than, the three occasions I listed in that other thread.

I've occasionally seen milder forms, where a GM thinks the adventure as written isn't challenging enough, or the PCs won too easily, so for drama they throw in tons more enemies, then realise they've screwed up and have the monsters behave sub-optimally to avoid TPK. Better GMs realise they've screwed up and learn from their mistake.

A lot of published GM advice legitimises fudging, and so they don't necessarily think they're doing anything wrong. It would be better IMO if they got used to running status-quo encounters and let PCs earn their victories, so they get a feel for how that works before they try adjusting stuff.

 

[pemerton]

I've occasionally seen milder forms, where a GM thinks the adventure as written isn't challenging enough, or the PCs won too easily, so for drama they throw in tons more enemies, then realise they've screwed up and have the monsters behave sub-optimally to avoid TPK. Better GMs realise they've screwed up and learn from their mistake.

A lot of published GM advice legitimises fudging, and so they don't necessarily think they're doing anything wrong. It would be better IMO if they got used to running status-quo encounters and let PCs earn their victories, so they get a feel for how that works before they try adjusting stuff.

I would want them (1) to learn how to do some basic maths (especially in a system like 4e, where the low-level encounter maths is pretty transparent), and (2) to learn to accept consequences (whether easy victory, or - having decided to introduce more opposition - PC defeat). The urge to railroading is what needs to be unlearned!

 

[Sadras]

The urge to railroading is what needs to be unlearned!

How is this related to railroading? The dude messes up on encounter math or the basic understanding of attrition of resources and somehow this is a railroad issue.

 

[pemerton]

How is this related to railroading? The dude messes up on encounter math or the basic understanding of attrition of resources and somehow this is a railroad issue.

This is the post I was responding to:

a GM thinks the adventure as written isn't challenging enough, or the PCs won too easily, so for drama they throw in tons more enemies, then realise they've screwed up and have the monsters behave sub-optimally to avoid TPK.

The GM doesn't like how the PCs won, and so changes the outcome. The GM doesn't like how the PCs are losing, and so changes the outcome. The GM wants to control the outcome regardless of the actions declared by the players are the way these resolve.

That's railroading.

 

[5ekyu]

This is the post I was responding to:

​

The GM doesn't like how the PCs won, and so changes the outcome. The GM doesn't like how the PCs are losing, and so changes the outcome. The GM wants to control the outcome regardless of the actions declared by the players are the way these resolve.

That's railroading.

To be fair that comment quoted mentioned what seemed to be changing an adventure he did not think was challenging enough and also adjusting in the fly based on in play results and those are two different things as far as "control the outcome" goes.

If I choose to adjust a module written for 4th level characters to fit the same powerblevrl as my 8th levrl pcs, I am actually changing it to place the outcome more in doubt and more determined by player character choices than if I threw the 4th at them as is and we all saw a fait acompli played out in slow motion where my choice to use a 4th level module decided the outcome.

Not the same thing as changing things in play to change the outcome that was decided by the players.

But again, railroading such s meaningless amorphic term anymore.