|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
How much (if any) flexibility is afforded to a GM in enforcing "house rules" in a PFS game?
I'm currently involved in a PbP game and, specifically:
1. There is no "initiative." Players are expected to post their first round actions once combat has been declared. Monsters generally go last. Initiative value does come into play when opposing actions are an issue.
2. If a player doesn't post within a specific amount of time the "lose their turn."
3. There are no combat grids...Characters are considered to be flanking a monster once two separate characters have attacked a single monster for one round (the converse is true, as well).
To say the least...it's not going well. Half the party did not meet the "deadline" and as a result those of us who posted actions are being rendered unconscious because only half of the party is effectively participating in combat.
I just want to make sure I have a leg to stand on before making a formal protest.
|
PbP by its very nature can have some unusual aspects. Without knowing the details of your game, I would initially say that the players have a responsibility to read the thread and post their actions in a timely fashion. If they fail to do that, they cannot complain when their turn is skipped. It's really no different than a player unable to decide on a action at a real table and being skipped. Of course, this assumes that the GM is providing a reasonable amount of time to read/respond.
|
|
In a nutshelll we're expected to post 3x per day (defined as early morning, afternoon and early evening) or we are forced to skip our actions. That notwithstanding the lack of a combat grid and not using initiative for combat order have become particularly tricky...and since they are an essential part of the core rules I'm just curious as to whether or not they can be ignored in favor of what is, in essence, a series of home brewed rules. If the answer is yes then I'll suck it up and deal...if not i need to make a decision about whether or not to continue with the scenario.
|
That sounds like a cranky GM who isn't doing PbP all that well. Head over to My PbP Campaign and take a look how our GM handles it. Maybe your GM just needs a hand in seeing a way to do things a bit better.
|
|
In answer to the first question in the initial post, the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play details all house rules that are required to be used in Pathfinder Society. All other house rules are illegal.
As for the three specific examples you gave, I'd say #1 is clearly illegal. I don't know enough about PbP to know how combat grids usually work in those types of games, so I can't comment on #3.
As for #2, even when playing in person, if someone takes too long on their turn, the GM will often have them delay and move on to the next person while that player thinks about it. That's not a house rule so much as a way to keep things moving. But they can also "un-delay" to jump back into the initiative order at any time, so it's not like they lose their whole turn. They just have to take it a little later.
That said, three times per day seems pretty fast. But again, I've never played PbP. Did everyone agree to that fast timing before the game started?
|
As for #2, even when playing in person, if someone takes too long on their turn, the GM will often have them delay and move on to the next person while that player thinks about it. That's not a house rule so much as a way to keep things moving. But they can also "un-delay" to jump back into the initiative order at any time, so it's not like they lose their whole turn. They just have to take it a little later.
This to me seems like a very reasonable way of handling the issue of someone not posting in time.
As to the OP, did everyone agree to these rules before the game was begun?
|
That said, three times per day seems pretty fast. But again, I've never played PbP. Did everyone agree to that fast timing before the game started?
I have played a few PbP campaigns, mostly being DnD, which still applies to game pace and combat order found in PFS, and have found that the DMs that CLEARLY state their rules and expectations for their campaign usually run successfully. What worries me here is that you are expected to post three times per day. I'm going to assume that your DM probably wants the pace of the game to be quick, because PbP is often slow. I can see how a module, intended to be played in real time can be 4 hours long, but online, with other players, who have their own lives, can play the same module for months. So, to post so many times, I feel, obligates the player to rush decisions when combat isn't completely clear (ie. who's flanking who; do I have the right distance; etc.) which takes away from the tactical element. Also, the whole role play aspect takes a major hit because not all of us can produce quality writing 3 times a day to really make the posts rich and enjoyable to read.
What I have found to be successful are DM/GMs that allow players to post once per day, this is included for combat. Initiative can be by posts first, or by rolls, though the second can be rough as the entire group is waiting for one player to post not knowing that real life issues have come up. Once again, as stated by others here, that player's turn can be skipped for that round. The one post per day is not obligatory, and actually works out well as I have seen PbP campaigns "quicken" with multiple player posts per day for RP portions, and then slow down for tactically rich combat. Everyone at the virtual table understands that this is after all a game, not a job, and once that's known, with sounds rules and expectations, the game plays out smoothly. I hope this makes sense, and feel free to bring this up with your GM. Chances are if you feel this way, maybe other players do too. Hope it helps!
|
|
As to the OP, did everyone agree to these rules before the game was begun?
Yes...with the caveat that they were a work in progress.
In all honesty it was working OK; if a bit clunky (ie since all PCs are "on the front line" during combat you can't step back to make the best use of a reach weapon) but things came to a head yesterday when half the party didn't post in time (with some missing two posts); effectively leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
I have also noticed that the NPCs don't lose their turn when the GM is late in posting...but that's probably just me being bitter. 8-D
Now that I've has a night to sleep on it I've decided to just suck it up and deal with it; I certainly wouldn't want to let down the other party members by bailing mid scenario. But I do consider it a lesson learned.
|
House rules are not legal in PFS.
That is why they are called "table variation".
While that is true I would expect some "differences" in pbp games. They are by their very nature more difficult to manage than if you sat down with the other players.
But you are right, by RAW house rules (especially when you play face to face) are strictly forbidden.
|
|
I'm running an AP for >1 year - probably 4000 posts in total. And I'm now on my second PFS game. I only ever lost 2 players in this time - the first because of 'too fast posting' and the second due to presonal reasons (well - he might even show up one day again ...).
Moving the game along in PBP is a major challenge. One of the most difficult parts is to have the whole group post approximately as often as each other.
As such - the rules - at first sight - seem to look fine. It is an attempt to fix the issue to get the game moving smoothly. But it seems from your post - it isn't working.
3 posts a day is 'ambitious' to say the least. I was in the top 5% of fast running PBP here on these boards at times. But while I clocked up an average of >>20 posts / day for an adventure - but I only expected each player to post once per day.
There is also the convention season. I just have one PFS PBP (I'm playing) on hold for the extended weekend as a majority of players is away for conventions.
So on the good side I see a GM trying to offer a service and to move a game quickly along.
On the bad side - as GM you need to be flexible. The rules - sensible as they might have seemed first - now threaten a TPK. So they seem not to work right now.
Don't you use the discussion thread for issues like this? That should be the place to voice if you are away / miss deadline that way, to tell the GM what is working - and what isn't.
I put forward first 'what is working' as it truly helps the GM. You don't know what is happening, if a player is happy with your style, what he likes, etc. And it helps to build trust and confidence.
And then yes - you also need to voice early when you seem to run into problems. Use the discussion thread to discuss it with the GM and other players.
Not much else I can say to help from here. Try communication with the GM - and yes - this can be more difficult on-line as in a F2F environment.
Edit: Deane - you seemed familiar but I didn't realize you are one of my players ... Should have checked your aliases.
|
|
Thod...thank you for your insight. Needless to say I find you to be an extraordinary GM and your input is valuable to me.
I did bring this up in the Discussion thread of the game and was pretty much shot down. The GM clearly wants us to take 2-3 turns per day. I'm actually OK with that as I have enough flexibility in my schedule to post frequently. But clearly there are those in the group for whom this has become a problem. Half of the party hasn't even entered the room where the combat is taking place; which makes the rest of us into punching bags for the bad guys.
I'm certainly less frustrated this morning than I was last night and as I said I won't let the rest of the group down by dropping out. I'll continue to address my concerns directly with the GM...and I've accepted the fact that my character is going to die. I haven't had a PFS character die yet....it might be nice to get it out of the way now so I won't be so anxious about it in the future!
|
|
Deane
I've had a closer look at the game and the discussion. My advice would be - keep it calm for a day or two and I think it should work out.
This is a classical breakdown of communication
Lets try to summarize the situation how I see it.
Situation ahead of combat:
The group is a group of 6 and you seem to have a strong mix of characters as well as at least 3 level 2 characters in a tier 1-2.
The GM has some rather below average combatants against you with the only advantage of positioning / being aware of you.
He takes full advantage of this in the suprise round. Actually he is doing this here as it should be. I don't think he deliberately is out to kill you - but he tries to give you a challenge with a poor hand of cards.
Suprise round: Justified and also as written in the scenario.
Two minor issues in the actions by the GM - he could have added flanking bonus from his description (+2 to hit) that he missed. He shouldn't have used flurry of blows. Flurry is a full round action. 3 attacks are weak but he compensates with a critical.
As it appears from the point of the GM: I have weak opponents, there is a good chance they don't last to even land a single hit. Great - I managed at least to hit one of them.
As it appears from the players: Damn - we where careful, looked out and still got surprised. And we even got decent stealth and fantastic perception checks.
Issues leading to this:
Your stealths rolls would have been several rounds ahead of the actual attack. And it is the lowest in the group that gives the enemy time to prepare.
Perception truly is only important for the one in the lead / maybe the one next. Both these rolls had been not good. This leads to the unfortunate situation that a rolled 17 (your character) and a rolled 19 (the half-orc ranger) get ignored - including a 29 total for the ranger. This leaves the aftertaste - why do we roll ??
Off course it would have been difficult to only have the first character down roll in a PBP and have everyone else pause and wait for him/her.
Round 1:
Only 3 members in the group post. Character 2 moves in, one sling shot hits one of the enemies (badly wounded) and you channel to heal the front person who got ambushed badly (on the other hand - he is lvl 2 with enough HP as he posted before the fight).
The GM gets lucky. He scores 2 hits. Especially the hit against the tin box is against the odds. To add salt into the wounds - he maxes out on damage which is enough to get the rogue down and to have the tin box just standing.
As it appears from the players:
Damn - we are threatened. This is going badly. The level 2 is down, the tin box nearly down and we have hardly made any damage.
As it appears from the GM:
Great - this walk-over encounter for this group turns out to be more challenging as hoped.
Round 2:
5 members of the group post actions.
The healer maxes out on healing and the rogue is well into the positives again.
2 hits are ruled out because you can't reach. Actually this is first pointed out by a player.
Mistake from the Rogue on the floor - he should have applied a -4 penalty for being prone. No change in outcome as he rolled badly. But I thought I mention it to show both sides.
The GM waits a few hours and then posts.
A few comments to this posting:
a) the GM could have AoO on the healer and prevented the +9 HP healing.
b) the GM could have AoO on the rogue recovering his weapon and taking advantage of the -4 AC for prone
2 AoO on the third character down. No hits.
4 attacks on the healer. The second two attacks miss the +2 for flanking - wouldn't make a difference. They score 1 hit - damage roll is near max - and the healer is out.
As it appears from the players:
There is a cricital (your character) and it gets outruled. This is never good to feel fairly treated.
As it appears from the GM:
Survived another round and even took out the tin box.
I have to add at this stage - the GM is pretty much following instructions and isn't even optimizing. He does have above average rolls - especially with damage - and benefits from your confusion of the situation that helps him.
Round 3:
Every player posts.
The sorceress enters the fray (don't think at this stage this is a good move as she gets 2 AoO with nothing to show for it).
Your crit from the last round isn't carrying over. You are asked to re-roll and instead decide to channel - and roll a measly 1 instead.
This isn't enough for the healer to act - not that I think it would be wise to cast CLW while prone and in range of AoO.
The druid first decides to heal then attacks as she sees your channel. Another tough decision for the GM to rule on.
The rogue - forgets again to apply -4 for being prone (I haven't seen him stepping up) lands a critical and confirm. Not that the -4 changes anything.
I'm not taking away how successfull the group has been. The half-orc monks anyhow should have at least 1 round of ferocity left in them no matter what.
As it appears from the players:
You seem gutted - first a crit ruled out, then the channel instead if just doing a measly single HP healing.
As I see it:
The GM tries hard to make it challenging with the mediocre stats he has to work with. He manages to turn the fight into an astounding thread - thanks to non optimal tactics on your side, missed actions (actually - only 4 in total from 3 rounds = 18 possible).
But something else is happening - you feel singled out. To be fair - you are hit hardest in regard to dice rolls and decisions. You have a good perception before the fight that seems for naught and can't prevent the suprise (it shouldn't - but there isn't enough info / scenry to make this clear).
Your one great action to shine - a critical - gets ruled out. This is a tough one - but I would have ruled the same way. I can tell you the reasoning after the fight but don't want to spoil it right now.
The other action instead - the channel - just heals a single HP and leaves a bad taste.
The whole situation looks like it could go TPK any moment and that just feels wrong as you played as well as you could and it just wouldn't be fair.
My advice:
Trust your GM - he knows what he is doing in this fight. I know you have been on the receiving end in this fight. But all the GM tries to do is playing fair and make it challenging.
And yes - there are a few more tough calls to make in this round - like allowing the druid to attack (?) and how to handle the orc ranger. Without a map it becomes very difficult to rule on cover.
There are errors on both sites with modifiers forgotten (I might have applied flanking more often. If they 5 foot step to flank after the attack, then they would have been flanking before) and flurry in the suprise round.
But apart of the flurry all these are in benefit of the players.
I hope this helps to put a perscpective on it. The advantage (disadvantage?) of an online game is - you can analyse it in detail.
I don't think any of both sides is wrong - there is just a miscommunication and break down in trust happening.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
sveden,
1) What makes you think this isn't a legitimate PFS scenario?
Granted, during the early part of Season 0, play-by-post games weren't considered real PFS games, but we're four years out of that now.
Or are you considering a game with any any rules errors to be not-a-legal-game? If so, I think I have GMed about fifteen legal (that is to say, rules-flawless) PFS games.
2) What do you think gives you the right to make that kind of a call?
|
|
I, personally, would find any PFS scenario that attempted to run without a tactical grid during combat to be so far out of "RAW" that I'd be reporting the GM to a VC and dropping immediately.
I would regard this stance as quite extreme. Deane - the OP - is right now in a PFS PBP with a different character that I GM and as it happens - we are in a 'fight' and yes - I spend a lot of time answering here and didn't draw up any grid.
Deane described me just a few posts ago as an 'extraordinary GM'. According to your logic I should be rather reported to my VC instead of lauded for my GM style.
I fully admit that the occasional lack of a grided combat in my PBP is a weakness of mine. I tried different ways to do that but none so far truly worked. If I check posts 6:45 ahead of breakfast on my iPhone or iPad then this just doesn't work.
I'm not keen to use the maps and pictures available in the scenario and post them online due to copyright issues. And I tried to build up combats and make photos - but while they are well received - I realize quickly that I have problems updating them.
A game with the occasional lack of a grid in combat does work - provided there is trust between players and GM. And yes - this was the reason for my long post to Deane - it is the breakdown in this trust that lead him to post here.
|
|
I don't play PbP either, largely due to the length of time it would take to complete a game. I've read a few PbP threads here and it just takes too long for my taste. It *is* legal for Society play, however, and that means that the people participating in it have to understand the limitations of playing in that format.
|
|
Deane, I wouldn't worry about your character dying. This doesn't sound like a PFS game to me. Just consider this practice. Whatever you gain or lose in this PBP scenario won't affect your PC.
The rules the GM has changed are reason enough to negate the whole shooting match.
I just want to give an update - fight is over - monsters defeated.
Yes - the 'killer GM' misses his opportunity to hit out a last time - orc ferocity.
So in total we had:
1 surprise round and 3 rounds of fighting. Due to the ruling that the enemies go last (and that ferocity wasn't taken into account) they didn't attack in round 3 anymore.
Character 1 - going unconsious once and being healed up - still prone on the floor at end of fight but delivering the final blow via a critical - never taking the -4 for attacks into account (which wouldn't have altered his crit).
Character 2 - going unconsious - stabilized thanks to a channel but not back up again as the channel only heals 1 HP.
4 out of 6 characters are not even hurt a single time.
I hope this puts it a little bit into prespective.
Deane's character got the short end of it for some rulings and dice rolling - see my write up. But I don't think the alternative - the whole group steamrolls the encounter in round 1 and just dispatches the enemies - would have made for better gaming.
Could it been done better?
I think the Stealth / Perception rolls and the order started it off. As GM and knowing the scenario / reading it up again - I do understand why the GM acted the way he did. This was not apparent for the players. So they could feel that good dice rolling got ignored.
Use of terrain. This is difficult in a PBP where the terrain advantage is all that you have as GM in an encounter. If trust is eroded before - and some posting of the GM gets missed - leading to a critical being cancelled - then this leads to an erosion of trust.
Add to it some luck from the GM and a situation that looks really bad for the players (while actually the GM just hangs on with the enemy) as well as the fact that the bad rolls do count - and you have the perfect storm.
Let's wait for Deane to post back. I do understand his grief - and as I said - he was the one most affected. But I also see why the GM acted the way he did.
And no - I don't think that at any time that the group was in true danger. But yes - they did expend more resources as needed for this 'simple' encounter.
Edit: And I hope should the GM read my analysis he doesn't mind me diseccting his game. There is the danger to step between the lines here. It is likely that I also did some mistakes writing this up and I'm not keen to have my own games looked at in detail as I'm sure my number of flawless games is even lower as the ones by Chris Mortika.
|
|
Sveden
It was your first sentence - 'I wouldn't worry about dying' - then carrying on to suggest that the whole game should be canceled.
The OP - at no stage of the fight - was in any even remote danger to die. He wasn't even attacked a single time. And as far as I can see it - the GM is following the scenario.
At no time was any of the other characters in true danger to die. I probably should have just quoted the first sentence as that was what got me quoting you.
I felt your first sentence just added fuel to the fire and further cemented the problem of trust between player and GM while I felt actually if you look up the game and the discussion thread - what they need is a better understanding where is of them comes from - as each has valid reasons to act as they do.
Sorry - I didn't want to single you out here. As you see - communication online is easily misunderstood.
|
|
OK cool. I guess I'll just go ahead and change a bunch of stuff about the rules tomorrow at my game day. No initiative will be the first change. It'll be just like 1st edition! Yay!
Do you feel a comment like the above is in any way constructive when there is an issue between a player and GM and what they need is rather abitration as cheering them on.
We are a community here. We should try to find ways to work together and not try to put a wedge between players and GMs.
Next time it could be you who gets accused on these boards for some decision at the table - and I would still try to see your point of view and to build bridges between you and the player and to defend you as well.
|
|
OK cool. I guess I'll just go ahead and change a bunch of stuff about the rules tomorrow at my game day. No initiative will be the first change. It'll be just like 1st edition! Yay!Do you feel a comment like the above is in any way constructive when there is an issue between a player and GM and what they need is rather abitration as cheering them on.
We are a community here. We should try to find ways to work together and not try to put a wedge between players and GMs.
Next time it could be you who gets accused on these boards for some decision at the table - and I would still try to see your point of view and to build bridges between you and the player and to defend you as well.
Yes.
|
|
I have run a PBP without maps, largely because I took over a group from another GM and that is what the players were used too. It was a dungeon crawl, but it still ran smoothly. I have also run a PBP with maps. That went fine as well.
Unless you have a character/situation that has a lot of tactical setup needed, I don’t think having maps or not changes the experience of the game all that much. And as has already been stated, maps are a pain in the PBP format.
Initiative becomes a little dicier. When you have the entire party taking actions and trading off with all the enemies, this can become a problem for one of the sides fairly quickly, and might lead to the death of a combatant that may have been otherwise prevented if the initiative order was followed. It is also disappointing for the character that has spent Feats/Traits/Class Abilities on improving his initiative. Personally, I would not run this way.
As for the OP, I say live and learn. Have fun with this PBP, and make sure any future ones you join are run in a way you can accept. If you really think something needs to be changed, bring it up in the OOC thread. Any good GM will work with you or at least explain himself.
Oh and don’t mind Sveden, he’s just jaded about PBPs in general. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
sveden, how much experience do you have with Play-by-post games?
I've run a couple of long games. One of them, set in "Slumbering Tsar" was explicitly esigned to learn the Pathfinder rules, so we were trying to be rules-sticklers as much as possible.
There are good mapping programs, and there are GMs who put in the time to create professional-looking maps with tokens for each of the PCs. I don't have any of that, so we were calling out coordinates like Battleship (I'm at B-9. I use my glaive to strike at an enemy at C-11.) I tried to keep track of things on an Excel spreadsheet.
|
|
Combat going poorly for the PCs can happen even under the best of gaming circumstances. (A large table in a well it room with plenty of snacks...) Bad rolls and bad luck are part of the game.
However when combat going poorly has more to do with players X, Y and Z not posting their actions in time and being skipped completely? That's some pretty rough punishment for the players who showed up to the field on time and dressed to play.
I agreed to the 3x a day posting rule because I knew that I could maintain it...but I guess I didn't think of the consequences if other players couldn't do so. I'm still not sure if ignoring the CRB by foregoing initiative and redefining flanking is allowed under PFS rules; but I guess I'll learn to live with those consequences as well.
|
|
OK cool. I guess I'll just go ahead and change a bunch of stuff about the rules tomorrow at my game day. No initiative will be the first change. It'll be just like 1st edition! Yay!
I assume you are joking. I have read Thod's "house" rules and there really isn't anything against the rules, per say. Sure the posting expectations are harsh, but the players are informed and by choosing to play, they agree to follow those rules. In live gaming, I occasionally see players lose their turn because they were not ready or cannot decide what to do. It's not a regular thing, but it happens. There isn't anything saying a GM cannot impose a "shot clock" during turn-based events like combat. Most players will not react positively to such a "table" rule, so that GM is likely to have a hard time finding players long term. But, it's not a rules violation to impose such a rule.
In general, we all expect initiative to be handled per the rulebook, but due to the nature of PbP and the inability to address each post in real time, some compromises have to be used. Since the enemies are acting last anyway, the players are not being unfairly punished, assuming of course they follow the timely posting expectations.
Personally, would I join this PbP game? No, the expectations are not something I could commit to, but I don't see anything wrong with what is being done. YMMV.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In what may be a shock to some of you: there should never be an expectation of ever getting a RAW game ever. It's just never, ever going to happen.
We really need to stop thinking that RAW is ever going to be attainable, much less a worthwhile goal.
Our new goal should be training our community to work together to put on good PFS games. That is, the best we can ever hope for (and what I pretty much expect) is that you can trust the GM and the rest of your party to work with you on running a good fun game of PFS.
Just like real life, in PbP, if you don't like the PFS game as its being run, get out and set up your own game. There are no guarantees about getting a RAW game.
The thing you should expect (and be willing to deal with) is some variation in every game you play in and be willing to work with others to accommodate everyone as best you can, knowing that it will never be perfect.
I play a lot of PbP and if I ever ran a game, there are some things that I would change to make the game work to the format...because it needs to happen to have the game happen.
To the OP, I support your GM's ability to make reasonable accommodations to keep the game moving and manageable for the PbP medium, RAW be damned.
-Pain
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
sveden,
You will never pin down the Campaign Coordinator of PFS to officially say that any given rule is acceptable for a table judge to change. If that's what you're trying to provoke, it will never happen.
If, however, you're attempting to claim that anybody who changes the rules of the game is running "an illegal session" and that the Chronicles don't matter and session can't be reported, you are simply wrong.
Many, many GMs, for example, don't track supplies and rations that Pathfinders need to get to the adventure site. (Going to Tian Xia? That's at least three months of rations for you and your mounts.) Many GMs don't worry about equipment encumbrance.
Now, Mike and Mark will never announce officially "you don't have to worry about feeding your characters. You don't have to worry if all the treasure your PCs are carrying around will slow them down. And while you're at it, don't worry about counting arrows, either." That's never going to happen. But if you're suggesting that any GM who just hand-waves the time and expense it takes to get from Absalom to, say, the heart of the M'wangi, is somehow running an illegal game that doesn't count, you are simply mistaken.
In the OP's case, the GM went out of his way to outline the reasons the rules were different in his PbP game, and why. That's a lot better than the GMs who surprise players with different rules about Taking 10 or mounted combat.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I understand that PbP presents its own special issues, I'm not sure that this is sufficient justification to allow changes to the rules of the magnitude described by the original poster.
PFS is supposed to present a level playing field - I'm supposed to be able to take my character and play it in any particular instantiation of a given scenario and expect roughly comparable results. That is patently not true in this case (assuming the rules modifications are as posted).
As many of our local PFS colleagues know, my wife and I have a pair of characters that have invested fairly heavily in teamwork feats, good initiative modifiers, acrobatics skills, etc. We can (under ideal circumstances) get a full round of action during the surprise round and set up a flank (including sneak attack damage from the rogue) as the first two attacks in an encounter.
This is all PFS legal. The rules of this PbP game would seem to make that impossible, as we would be denied any sneak attack damage until a round after two attacks have been made, and my monk would also lose the +2 bonus from flanking on his initial attack.
Admittedly this is an extreme case. But it's not a hypothetical, and I would definitely protest any situation that took away so many of the benefits we have worked hard to apply to our characters.
Edit: If there's no battle grid, then what happens about attacks of opportunity? I can get up to six of those a round as well; how do I know which of the enemies I am threatening? Battlefield positioning is important; I can threaten multiple opponents simultaneously, and provide a flank for other attackers, even if I never actually attack.
|
|
While this is not "Paizo Rules" this link is what Table Top Roleplaying games are to me. These 11 "rules" is why this industry continues to grow, and what draws in new players. Specifically #'s 8 and 9:
#8 The Game Master Always works with, not against, the Players.
#9 A Game that is no longer fun is no longer a Game -- It's a Chore.
I don't do the Chores I Have to do, why would I volunteer to waste my time on a Chore I don't have to?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I applaud Painlord and others on their heartfelt explanations of what the game is to them. Bravo for having it all there at your fingertips to unload when required.
But I'm not talking about philosophy. I'm talking about specific things.
Things like doing away with the Initiative system, the combat map, making new rules on reach weapons on the fly, making new rules about flanking, making new rules about Area of Effect templates, etc.
Even more specifically I want to know how to apply the entry below on table variation with a GM who would do the things listed in the entry above.
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the f ly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen. As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com,
but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters, or changes to stats, feats, spells, skills or any other mechanics of the scenario. GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and
the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat. The following sections provide advice on addressing some common table variations you should consider before running a Pathfinder Society game.
|
|
stuff
Your questions are valid and I would recommend you ask the GM if you encounter any of the issues listed by the OP. I always assume the GM is a reasonable person and is running some minor variations for a good reason. Should we ignore the initiative part of the rules? No, but under special circumstances, like PbP, we might have to run them along the fuzzy edges of the game rules to accommodate the venue. And remember, this was made available to the players prior to the game starting. IMO, it is ridiculous to complain about a rule you don't like, but agreed to follow when you joined the game. And if you feel the variation is too extreme, then notify your local Venture-Officer who will investigate the issue and report it to Mike if necessary.
|
|
While this is not "Paizo Rules" this link is what Table Top Roleplaying games are to me. These 11 "rules" is why this industry continues to grow, and what draws in new players.
In general, I agree with the Role-Playing Game Manifesto, but there are a couple of them that don't really apply to society play due to the shared nature of the campaign.
"Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts."
That is a pretty open statement. I follow up 100% in my home games, but you have to be careful with regards to PFS. For example, falling damage is 1d6 per 10ft of distance with a max of 20d6. So it is written, so let it be done. There is no ambiguity in the text. However, in my home games, I am more harsh. Falling is cumulative with no max. So a 40ft fall is 10d6. Does everyone agree with that? No, but it's what I prefer. Do I have the right to use it when I GM PFS? Nope. All I'm saying is that in a world of rules-lawyers, you have to be careful when you pen your 10/11 commandments.
And I personally question,
"If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can."
IMO, this is flawed. In a world with magic, psionics, active gods, etc., the rules cannot come close to covering even a small amount of the possibilities. To say you can do whatever you want outside of the printed rules is a bit over-reaching, IMO. While, thematically, I agree with the statement, the only time I ever see it used is by a player, usually on the fringes of good-play, to try and justify some ridiculous often game-breaking activity, or exploiting some loophole in an under-developed or ambiguous rule.
|
|
So, is it illegal to play PFS without a battlegrid?
Just remember that battlegrids were not a player expectation for the first, maybe twenty years of RPG. Now they are, especially in Pathfinder. Do you have to use them? No, but as a GM, we should strive to give the players what they expect. Many players go great lengths to paint their own mini, or spent lots of money to guy the "perfect" representation. They also buy accessories like combat tiers or Mr. Wizard elevation terrain to help with the visualization of what their PC is doing. The current incarnations of most RPG's have incorporated traditional board game aspects to the once strictly "in your imagination" games.
Now to support your position, there are a few occurrences in scenario where no battle map is provided and perhaps not even suggested. If you feel one is necessary, use whatever is appropriate. If not, then just play it cinematically.
In a nutshell, is it BadWrongFun or illegal not to use a battlegrid? No, but your players do kind of expect it. Keep that in mind when preparing your session.
Explore, Report, Cooperate!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is it illegal to play PFS without a battlegrid? I have ran at least one game off grid, and have run a few "possible" encounters off grid as well. I play a lot online, and prepping for online games takes me between 1-4 hours, not including actually reading the scenario.
While some things going on I may not agree with(mostly just initiative), I don't really see how the grid is needed. If it is by PFS rules, then obviously I am wrong, but I never used a grid for the first 15 years that I gamed, and I still often run encounters (particularly subterfuge, they just work better) off grid. I didn't start using maps until just 4 years ago. I only rarely have had a complaint, and the guy who complained is the biggest rules lawyer I have ever met. Seriously, he knows almost everything about the game.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread, I have just never even thought about playing gridless as PFS illegal, and am trying to clarify so I know for the future.
It is not illegal, but it is, given the way many builds can work, ill-advised.
Grids can help make many things a matter of fact, not opinion.
Without a grid, everyione has to agree and understand exactoly where each monster, NPC and PC are exactly located in relation to each other. If you can't do that, for everyone, it will only work when you have very "simple" PCs.
Any PC whose schtick requires knowledge of where everyone is located, or when they go through certain areas, gridless tends to range toward a big fail.
Some schticks that require exact knowledge of placement:
Sneak Attack
Reach weapons
Combat maneuvers, especially with reach weapons
Area of Effect spells
Charge builds
Spells with different ranges (Long is usually fine gridless, medium can be questionable, close is very grid-dependent)
Aura-like effects (Who is within the critical range of the party Paladin to receive the save bonus they give out to nearby party members)
TL;DR - gridless is fine for adjacent melee builds, just stand there and wale away; once you get to more complex builds, exact locations become more important.
Archer: Distance? Within 30' for PBS, within 110' for 1st range increment, etc.?
Whip wielder: Distance? Adjacent (provokes), 10' away (AoO with Improved Whip Mastery), 15' away (attackable, not within AoO range)
10' Reach weapon: Distance? 5' not attackable (except Polearm Masters or users with spiked gauntlets/spiked armor/IUS), 10' optimum range, 15'+ out of range
Spell casters: Melee touch spells, 30' ray/close spells, medium range spells, long range spells, AoE spells (20' radius fireball, 10' radius glitterdust, etc.)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Some schticks that require exact knowledge of placement:
Sneak Attack
Reach weapons
Combat maneuvers, especially with reach weapons
Area of Effect spells
Charge builds
Spells with different ranges (Long is usually fine gridless, medium can be questionable, close is very grid-dependent)
Aura-like effects (Who is within the critical range of the party Paladin to receive the save bonus they give out to nearby party members)
Also:
FlankingAttacks of Opportunity
Teamwork feats.
Other combat feats and abilities involving positioning.
Cover
As all of these are in RAW, so I don't see how running PFS without them is really possible.
I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with gridless combat; I'm just saying that I believe it's crossed over the boundary from PFSOP to a home game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even more specifically I want to know how to apply the entry below on table variation with a GM who would do the things listed in the entry above.
How to apply it? Well, the passage from the guide is intended for the GM. So, if you're GMing, don't implement a rules change unless there's a special circumstance that you believe warrants it.
As a player:
If you're invited to a game, and the GM says that, for reasons he thinks are legitimate, he's adapting the Pathfinder rules in certain ways, either say, ahead of time, "thanks, I'd like to play" or "no thanks, I'd rather not."
As a game-day or convention coordinator:
If one of your GMs explains that, for reasons he thinks are legitimate, he intends to break some rules, you can either say, "Go for it, thanks for GMing" or "No, I'm uncomfortable with that; if you're going to advertise yourself as 'PFS', I want you to play closer to the rules."
Regarding the OP, we are neither players in the game nor organizers in charge of the GM. So, in this case, I don't believe either of us has any standing to apply the guide to somebody else's GMing.
Peace to you in this.
|
|
As a player: If you're invited to a game, and the GM says that, for reasons he thinks are legitimate, he's adapting the Pathfinder rules in certain ways, either say, ahead of time, "thanks, I'd like to play" or "no thanks, I'd rather not."
As a game-day or convention coordinator:
If one of your GMs explains that, for reasons he thinks are legitimate, he intends to break some rules, you can either say, "Go for it, thanks for GMing" or "No, I'm uncomfortable with that; if you're going to advertise yourself as 'PFS', I want you to play closer to the rules."Regarding the OP, we are neither players in the game nor organizers in charge of the GM. So, in this case, I don't believe either of us has any standing to apply the guide to somebody else's GMing.
Peace to you in this.
Great post, Chris.
-Pain
|
|
Viceryx
One of the advantages of PBP is that it doesn't depend on time zones. I do have players from California, Australia and the UK in a single game.
We are 8 hours ahead of California but 8-10 hours behind Australia (don't know which time zone my Australian player is in).
Don't get me wrong - it is a great idea in principle. But it often is hard enough to get postings in 24 hours - assuming you can get the whole group together and at a fixed time ...
In this case you will have to come up with rule whom you want to include in your game to make it happen - and someone else will post here as he feels excluded for not being able to commit.