Top products from r/TheGlassCannonPodcast

My first comment was more about "rants" in the show, but I also wanted to answer some of your other points.

First of all, on having to improvise or "help, my party killed the encounter I prepped for two hours":

I would be lying if I said, that I was never miffed when my players destroyed an encounter too quickly, or found a solution that invalidated what I had prepared. However, to be honest, it bothers me less and less. There are two reasons: One, I do not prepare as much, or as strictly, as I used to, because you simply cannot prepare how things play out at the table, and two, I got more relaxed when improvising, and that improved my improvising skills.

What I learned in my time as a GM, is that you should never prepare for a certain outcome or development of an encounter. As a GM I only provide a problem, and while I think about possible solutions, I let my players choose their approach. That simple frame of mind is often enough to change my attitude from sad/angry, because I don't get to show my planned encounter, to ecstatic that my players found a solution I did not anticipate. And by communicating this to my players (being exited and/or complimenting them on their solution), I make them feel better about themselves and maybe that will please them enough to overlook my so-so approach at improvising. ;)

I understand that improvisation can be a very daunting task, especially to newer GMs, but that problem can't be solved by being properly/better prepared (per definition improvising is what you do, when you've got nothing prepared for the situation). Instead you can only get better by practicing. And by being thrown into the cold water.

When I was in high school I was rather shy and conscious about speaking in front of people. Nowadays I have no problems with improvising a lecture provided I know what I'm talking about. That change did not happen over night. It happened because I was repeatedly forced to give presentations in front of ever bigger audiences.

I hated it. I had stage fright, I was shaking and sometimes felt downright sick. But that was what I needed to experience in order to get better. The important thing was not getting better at making presentations or taking classes on rhetoric. No, I just needed to get used to the feeling of standing in front of people to be able to relax. As soon as you're relaxed, your brain starts working again. And that, to me, is the essence of improvising: Pushing aside the anxiousness, relaxing and then just talking/reacting to what your players give you.

So my tip would be to ignore the inner voice that says that you can't do it, or that compares you to someone like Skid, who is really great at improvising, and to remember, that, hey, you're here with friends and to have fun, not to win the world championship of improvisation. ;)

Another thing, I learned from the book "Playing Unsafe" is that when people try to improvise "well", that will often result in "bad" scenes ("The harder you try, the more you fail."). If, instead they focus on making an average scene, the scenes tend to become great ("When you try to be average, that's when you're good.").


Secondly, the importance of combats:

I agree that combats can be very fun and enjoyable, but sometimes get a bad wrap. I believe this is due to either GMs having too many combats in a row or not varied enough combats.

Also, there is the issue that the narrative can easily be lost when initiative is rolled and the players and GM enter "tactical mode". I think that a good GM can counter that quite easily, but I know that it can be hard, as a player, especially if your party is in a terrible situation.

The lack of variance of combats is partly on the GM, if they do not offer the party any reason or possibility to change tactics, and combat after combat plays out exactly the same. And partly it is on the designers of adventure modules, who sometimes fill dungeons with a lot of combat without any significance or uniqueness, that only drain the party's resources.

For example take a look at the recent encounter on the stone bridge. The combat described in the module was more or less boring and has no real significance to the story (unless Troy thinks of something). While the designers added the tactic of bull rushing PCs off the bridge, they did not even give the giants the necessary feat. As such it was unlikely to play a large part in the combat and became or more or less a standard battle against two large, strong melee creatures.

I once ran an encounter from a module which was designed similarly, but much better. The PCs are on a bridge full of commoners, trying to enter a city, when suddenly the sky darkens and a squad of riders on flying dragon-winged rams descend and begin attacking indiscriminately. Part of their tactic was also to push PCs off the bridge using their mounts (who had improved bull rush).

These "Doomguides" could, on their mounts, position themselves more or less anywhere on or near the bridge which allowed them to actually bull rush every turn, if they wanted to. But the bull rush was only part of their tactic, they also had the Spirited Charge and Ride-By-Attack feat and Smite Good, so they were capable, yet elusive enemies due to their flying mounts.

On top of that, the bridge was filled with commoners, who panicked and scrambled to reach the city's gate, which created difficult terrain and dealt minor non-lethal damage on anyone not moving with the crowd, so casters had to make concentration checks. Finally, the city's gates were about to be closed, because the guards wanted to protect the city without regard for the people. The PCs could interact with the crowd, or the guards, or disregard all of it and concentrate on the Doomguides.

Now compare that to the stone giants on the bridge who were forced to move up, then around the party to have a chance to bull rush, all while taking attacks of opportunity. And that was the main draw of the combat. The only thing that kept that combat from being boring was the Xorn robe that one giant possessed and the fact that Troy made two encounters in parallel (which was a great idea, by the way!).

Of course, the encounter described above is an extreme example and it was major set piece of the module (though the module also had three(!) more encounters of similar extent), while the stone giants on the bridge are one among many encounters, but it goes to show, what is possible in Pathfinder if you are willing to invest a little time into design.


Thirdly, "encounter killers":

I'll try to keep this point short, but first I have to bluntly ask: What do you expect of your players in combat encounters? (The following is firmly tongue-in-cheek, by the way, so take it with a big grain of salt ;P)

In this Cannon Fodder, you and Troy talk about some spells and effects shutting down encounters hard and "killing" it. You mention Charm Monster, Sleep and Web (which I, personally, find is an odd example for "encounter killers"). In earlier Cannon Fodders (e.g. #44) Troy mentions that he dislikes Grease and Web and similar spells. Also, you talk about how massive damage can take away from the fun (again, #44). That leaves me with the question: Do you allow your players any effective strategy at all?

If I'm not "allowed" to shut down my enemies with save-or-suck effects (e.g. Charm Monster, Sleep), cannot use battlefield control (e.g. Grease, Web) and "should" not do massive damage, what else is left? Should I just twiddle my thumbs and cast healing spells? :P

OK, now somewhat back to a more serious discussion - I know, of course, that a lot of this is just ranting on the players when they got the better of you, not because you really want your players to stop using these strategies. It's only when a player overuses a certain strategy, that it becomes annoying (though non-casters, like Nestor, do not necessarily have alternative strategies as readily available to them).

But you do get my point, right? While playing chess, you wouldn't tell your opponent that the queen is too strong, and that using it would take away from the fun of the game, would you? No, because the queen is part of the game. The same goes for save-or-suck effects, battlefield control and characters who deal a lot of damage in Pathfinder.

In a more recent Cannon Fodder (#65, #66? Somewhere along these lines), Troy mentions that, to him, a good combat in Pathfinder would last about 12 to 15 (!) rounds. I can't think of a more boring thing to do in Pathfinder (no, seriously!). What is supposed to be happening in these dozen rounds? If the PCs are supposed to be hit and get hit every round, they simply cannot last that long, unless either their HP are seriously inflated or their damage is pitiful, and if both sides keep missing, nothing is happening - how is that any fun?!

Personally, I like these controlling spells and shutdown effects, and I like talking about their advantages and disadvantages, how to use them effectively and how to counter them. So if anyone is interested in an actual debate - aside from my ranting above - on certain "encounter killers", like Charm Monster, I'm happy to oblige.

Wow, that got even longer than I thought. To anyone who stuck with this comment until here, thank you very much and I'm interested to hear, what you think.

Have a nice day, everyone and happy gaming!

sure, if you don't mind.

My group and I have been talking about starting our own podcast for a while now (I swear, we've been talking about this since well before we knew that the Glass Cannon Podcast was a thing). For the past year or so we've been recording our sessions using a Blue Yeti in the middle of the table. Just listening to an episode of GCP told me that was not going to work anymore. Just the background noises that I couldn't edit out and the people talking over one another and the difference in natural speaking voices between us all adds up to a nightmare in editing.

Now, we realize this and are looking into equipment to get to address these issues. We already have this mixer. I was pointed towards these microphones as well as pretty good quality mics to start with. I am also of the understanding that this mixer will work with these mics because they are Dynamic mics and don't require phantom power, allowing us to use the 1/4" inputs on the mixer for some of them.

What are your opinions on what we have so far? I know we will need floor/table stands to go with the mics and cords to run to the mixer as well. Are the Amazon Basics cords ok to use, or do you have a better (fairly inexpensive) option?

I appreciate you taking the time.