When a DM Starts the Campaign off on the Wrong Foot

[amerigoV]

I agree with others about the reboot/learn from it. That said:

I know how to counteract the characters in combat. I just don't know if I should do so.

Nothing wrong with pointing out a few weakenesses. You don't have to be a dick about it (ie, every encounter with a rust monster/water), but putting a scare into them so they have to think a bit is always good.

I know I could also have everyone in the city throw up their hands and say "we're not helping you anymore." Again, I just don't know if I should do so.

In a city campaign, there should always be repercussions. Taking a job and renigging on it will rapidly get around "the business." If they take a job and it turns out to be more "unsavory" than they planned, well, that group will likely "clean up the mess", including trying to elminate the PCs. It will really help bring the campaign to life.

On the player that picked a test class, I would put it heavily back on them. Say up front that if as the GM you have to make a ruling, it will be conservative since the class is not fully tested (ie, if it seems like a PC should not be able to do that at that level, then the answer is "no", end of discussion.). While this goes against a good GMing rule of saying "yes" and making it work, the player needs to bear responsibility for introducing an potentially unbalancing PC.

 

[Janx]

Before you ditch pathfinder, you should figure out for sure if its the system, or the situation that you really don't like.

I'm not familiar with pathfinder, but it was my understanding, that it was based off d20, so Paizo could continue supporting the 3.x chain. If that's relatively true, than it's not the rule system, because your just playing D&D3.x with some adjustments. I do realize that PF did do some funky things, but still...

it sounds to me like the PCs have made some dumb choices, and you're not letting the consequences self-correct the situation.

NPCs wouldn't be hiring the PCs to do a job, if they could handle it and clean-up after themselves. Therefore, a probable result of mission abandonment is mission failure. Bad stuff happens. People blame the PCs.

You already want to end the campaign, let it end itself by bringing it down on the PCs for their lack of committment.

It also sounds like you may have made some poor allowances. As a general rule, on a new game system, only allow content from the core rules. Don't bring in extra stuff on the first batch of PCs. Let the world reveal and expand its extra rules and books. When a player needs to make a replacement PC, that's when you allow a new race or class that you've already revealed its existance in the game.

When I make a campaign world, I figure out where every race and class fits into the world. Anything I don't see fitting in, isn't allowed.

For your next party, consider the following requirement:
The PCs generated must be such that they would be accepted and "hired" by the rest of the party, since by meta-game social contract they effectively will be. Furthermore, the PCs must fit into the campaign's style type. If the game is Ptolus, a great big city and dungeon crawl, building PCs that can't or won't work in that framework is not allowed.

 

[Lanefan]

For your next party, consider the following requirement:
The PCs generated must be such that they would be accepted and "hired" by the rest of the party, since by meta-game social contract they effectively will be. Furthermore, the PCs must fit into the campaign's style type. If the game is Ptolus, a great big city and dungeon crawl, building PCs that can't or won't work in that framework is not allowed.

Though I understand the theory behind this, I disagree with it in practice.

Tell the players what system you're running and what books you'll allow. Within that and any cultural restrictions you're setting (e.g. you're in a Dwarven nation so you'll all start with Dwarves), let 'em roll up what they want as far as the dice will take 'em. It's down to you as DM to figure out how these guys are going to end up as a party, and after that if the PCs don't get along: well hey, that's reality. They'll either have to roleplay their way through it, throw down on each other, or whatever...and if one or more PCs do end up leaving the party, keep in mind they're still going to be out there for later reference; your world just gained some depth.

Lanefan

 

[delericho]

My gut reaction in planning this week's session is to 1) send rust monsters and gray oozes to destroy a lot of their equipment;

Under no circumstances should you do this, especially if you have new players. Firstly, it's an in-game solution to an out-of-game problem, but secondly there are few things that players hate more than to lose their stuff (especially arbitrarily). You may well lose one or more players over this.

4) I don't care for the system. Not knocking Pathfinder - I just don't like DMing it. I'd rather be running or playing a different system.

I agree with others here - if you don't care for the system, then don't run it. I would recommend continuing the game to the end of the current story arc/adventure, and then simply explain to the players that it isn't working for you, and that you'd prefer a reboot.

3) As a connected problem to #2, the party is too well equipped. They can buy any armor or weapons they want. They have AC 23 at 3rd level, and nothing can touch them except on a Natural 20. (I'm afraid that if I work too hard to bypass their armor with spells, touch attacks, etc., that they will complain.)

You absolutely should stick to your guns on this one. Explain that you're not interested in playing the game in "God mode", and that you will provide a range of encounters, some of which they won't be well-equipped to deal with.

(However, it's also worth noting that there should be some rewards for investing so heavily in that sort of defense - many times, they should be facing opponents who can't bypass their armour. But not every time.)

To be fair, the PCs bought their equipment based on the standard wealth levels in the PF Core Rules. They just spent the majority of their wealth allowance on +1 full plate (I have 3 out of 6 characters wearing it in the group.) They are very, very tooled out for defense.

It's been a while since I read Pathfinder, but I seem to recall that the advice is no longer than "in a town of size X, you can buy any item of up to value Y" - the DM is supposed to roll on the treasure tables a few times to generate a number of items that are available to buy. This of course makes a big difference, as it's likely that they wouldn't find three suits of full plate +1 even in Ptolus.

On a personal note, I've concluded that the unrestricted buying of magic items is a bad thing. In my future campaigns, I'm strongly considering moving to a model of "you can sell any magic items, but you can only buy (or make) potions, scrolls or wands".

I know I could also have everyone in the city throw up their hands and say "we're not helping you anymore." Again, I just don't know if I should do so.

Every time they need help, there should be consequences. Sure, their friend will bail them out (once), but he'll expect a favour in return. If they abandon a mission midway through, then that employer will never hire them again, and neither will anyone he associates with. And so on. The PCs are free to make those choices, of course, but there have to be consequences.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

To be fair, the PCs bought their equipment based on the standard wealth levels in the PF Core Rules. They just spent the majority of their wealth allowance on +1 full plate (I have 3 out of 6 characters wearing it in the group.) They are very, very tooled out for defense.

Retreater

From Page 400 of the Pathfinder Core RuleBook:
"Table 12–4 can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters
should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on
other magic items and disposable items."

For 3rd level characters they should start with 3,000gp.
25% of that is 750gp
So that's 750gp for weapons, 750gp for armor and protective devices, 750gp for magic items, 450gp on disposable items and 300gp on ordinary coins and gear.

+1 armor base price =1000gp, full plate = 1500gp. That's 2500gp for +1 Full Plate armor.

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't cost the same price for +1 studded armor as it does for +1 Full Plate. The cost for the actual armor is added to the base cost of the +1 version of it.

So I think, unless you allowed them to spend over their limit, they have overspent for thier armor by a gross amount.

I'm not pointing fingers or laying blame, I'm just saying that there may have been some miscalculation on the part of your players. Or maybe you allowed them to spend how they wanted. Either way if they were going by the book they couldnt have spent that much loot on +1 Full Plate.

 

[billd91]

I generally agree, if you're not liking the rules, they aren't the rules you should run. It's why I wouldn't run 4e, for example, though I will play it.

That said, PCs overbuying on armor won't be much of a long-term problem. Sure, some of your monsters have trouble hitting now, but when they notice that, try working on them disengaging and running away. Now, suddenly, that heavy armor that's protecting the PCs will be slowing their ability to pursue.

Other enemies they may fight could see that they're in heavy armor and rather than engaging right up in melee decided that hit and run tactics are better. Before long, some of the players may start to feel like spending a lot on heavy armor has become a bit of an albatross around the neck.

An important consideration in all of this is balance. The PCs are a bit out of it because of their own choices. They've undermined their offense to improve defense and they should be shown the consequences of that from time to time. It shouldn't be constantly frustrating (after all, what semi-intelligent monster will recognize heavy armor) but it should crop up when opponents are smart enough to understand what heavy armor implies and may have ways to undermine its advantages. As long as they realize that they need to work on their weaknesses and take steps to do so, they'll work the problem out by themselves (which is ideal).

 

[Retreater]

For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins.

Looks like I broke the system. Thanks for the explanation. I have to admit that I didn't read the PF Core Rules from cover-to-cover, somewhat expecting it to fall in line more with standard 3.5 D&D.

The problem is that according to the Ptolus campaign guide, the armor and magic items are there. It is a very high magic setting. The PCs saved up their money (from 1st level) and purchased the armor on their own. If the shop keeper had said "you can only spend 25% of your money here" for a metagame reason, I think that would have made some in the group unhappy.

I think that Ptolus is more the problem than the Pathfinder system. The setting is far too restrictive in many ways and way too open in other ways. The Chaotic Neutrals in the party are willy-nilly going crazy and associating with thieves and assassins; the Lawful Goods in the party are teaming up with the equivalent of the Inquisition.

It's not going to end well if it follows its natural course.

I wished I'd had more time to prepare the campaign instead of being rushed into things without understanding the rules and having something planned other than "play in the Ptolus sandbox."

I think I will let the group finish up the adventure they are working on, then I'll convert to a new system/campaign setting. Perhaps let them come in with 3rd or 4th level characters in 4E.

And I'll never run in a city like Ptolus again.

Thanks for the advice, everybody.

Retreater

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think that Ptolus is more the problem than the Pathfinder system. The setting is far too restrictive in many ways and way too open in other ways. The Chaotic Neutrals in the party are willy-nilly going crazy and associating with thieves and assassins; the Lawful Goods in the party are teaming up with the equivalent of the Inquisition.

That's just D&D. Or any rpg, in fact. You're always going to have problems when the PCs want to go in very different directions.

Ideally CNs and LGs have some reason to stick together. The traditional one is - the CNs want to get rich, the LGs want to destroy evil. There are some evil monsters with a lot of treasure living in a nearby hole. Result? Everyone goes down the hole. Party sticks together.

Alternatively you ask the players to figure out a reason why they stay together. Perhaps two party members are relatives for example, or a lawful guy feels he owes a chaotic a debt, maybe he owes him his life or something.

Another solution is for a powerful NPC to force the party to work together. I don't particularly like this though, I feel it's intrusive.

 

[Janx]

It's down to you as DM to figure out how these guys are going to end up as a party, and after that if the PCs don't get along: well hey, that's reality. They'll either have to roleplay their way through it, throw down on each other, or whatever...and if one or more PCs do end up leaving the party, keep in mind they're still going to be out there for later reference; your world just gained some depth.

Lanefan

The problem is, it is NOT up to the DM to decide that, though there are things the DM can do to encourage it in game.

In real life, if we were adventurers sitting in bar, looking to add a 5th member, we'd put up a sign, and probably talk to people, and then pick the guy we want to let in.

In D&D, if you make a PC and show up, the players are expected to let the guy in, sans interview, background check or anything. Because there is a social expectation that everybody who sits down to play Monopoly gets handed a token, some money, and eventually they take their turn rolling dice.

There are people who hi-jack that auto-acceptance to smuggle in traitors and sociopaths, and they think they are clever for fooling the party.

So basically, I turn that crap off, and as a GM I tell the players to talk amongst themselves and build a party that they will want to work with. That's me putting the onus on the players to play a group game by planning on playing a group game.

 

[carmachu]

2) The campaign setting is not a good fit for our group's playstyle. I choose Ptolus just because I had spent a lot of money on it. Now the thing is a mess. The group is already being pulled in several different directions with different loyalties, will abandon missions/adventures at the midpoint because it doesn't "fit" their characters, and expect every higher level NPC or organization to bail them out of their trouble.

Welcome to Ptolus. My party has the same issues of divided loyalties. The trick of course, is to give them a focus that most of those groups want done.

And if they keep abandoning missions and advestures, whose to say that those loyalties dont dry up? Who wants quitters assocaited with their names?

Make the higher level ones unavailable. WHile the party is dealing with X problem, the reason for that is their dealing with a greater Y. Or for example, if they have ties to a noble house for example, The house cant interceed becuase if they do, another house or three with come into play with their pawns and players. If the Pale tower sends help, then the Dark Requiry with send a demon.....

3) As a connected problem to #2, the party is too well equipped. They can buy any armor or weapons they want. They have AC 23 at 3rd level, and nothing can touch them except on a Natural 20. (I'm afraid that if I work too hard to bypass their armor with spells, touch attacks, etc., that they will complain.)

Why is it available on demand? Even magic items take time to create. Dont give them the down time to wait for items to become created. Or some items are just not available.

Give them a different challenge. That full plate is great and all, but your slow as crap and cant climb very well. Enemies behind barriers are a bitch for a low level fighter to climb to get at the folks behind them....Water hazards, or the bad guys just run away because their faster then that slow human in plate.