|
I've been running a PFS Pbp for a while now, without using a battlemat. In running any normal PF game, that's OK, as GMs often play using different methods and house rules. However, in PFS, RAW is law, so a question was raised about whether or not we could continue to play the way I created.
First, here's the core book rule that allows "combat by description" as a valid way to do combat.
"Combat in the Pathfinder RPG can be resolved in one of two ways: you can describe the situation to the characters and allow them to interact based on the description you provide, or you can draw the situation on a piece of paper or a specially made battle mat and allow the characters to move their miniatures around to more accurately represent their position during the battle."
Obviously, as implied, this type of play doesn't allow for the exact positioning of a battle mat, but it is allowed by RAW. Now, we all know that much of the combat game depends on exact positioning. Despite the fact that one of the opening pages allows one to play combat without a mat, there's nearly no support for details on how to go about doing that aside from the GM doing a very good job describing the environments.
I think this opens up a new line of thinking in PFS, specifically Pbp. Without the requirement to somehow represent and maintain battle grids and call out precise movements, running a Pbp because easier and smoother. Obviously, certain aspects of the game such as flanking, AoE attacks and the such have to be addressed. I created some guidelines to handle this (and other guidelines to facilitate the play by post play...which probably need to be changed, but that's neither here nor there). But what do you think? If you were going to play PFS without a battlemat, how would you go about handling some of the more tactical feats, spells, etc of the game?
|
I'm not certain I understand why it's easier and smoother without a battlemat? I in fact find it a fair degree easier in PBP than tabletop.
At present I run three PFS PBP games. It takes little effort to take the map from the PDF, paste it in a google drawing, use token tool to create the minis. Plus with the tools in google drawing, pasting spell effects takes little effort itself, as well as making marks on the map as needed.
Comparing this to tabletop, all I need is a picture of the monster to create a token for it, which means I generally won't have the issue of not having a mini to properly represent my monster. Also I won't have to haul around a box of minis and the maps wherever I go. And no cleaning the marker off the mat, or accidentally drawing something wrong.
Of course just my opinion on this.
|
|
The game is entirely map-dependent
Is it? Again, RAW allows for combat by description. Perhaps we just need to work together creatively as a community to address those challenges.
In my AD&D days, we did a lot of CbD. We just didn't have a lot of tools handy...and when all you have is paper and a pencil, sometimes it really is just easier to describe stuff.
Obviously, in playing that way, there were rules we either ignored, and informal ways to address others. I'm not advocating such an approach in Pbp PFS. In PFS, we want to do RAW as much and as closely as possible. But, this is obviously ground that has not been tread by many in quite some time. So, if any of you do have ideas to address obvious issues, I would love to hear them.
|
There was some recent discussion on this topic that although might not be 100% what you are looking for, there are some good posts that may be relevant to you:
PFS PBP and "house rules"
PFS good Bad
Are you allowed to change any rules for PBP
I (as a GM and player) prefer games with grids, so I can't comment on your specific case.
|
|
I prefer the game with a grid to. Understand, I play a LOT of Pathfinder by grid. I play 1-2 local PFS games/week, and I have two skype/maptool campaigns (Carrion Crown and a lv 16 homebrew that's 18 months old).
However, always looking for more of a good thing, I started Pbp a couple of months ago. However, to make it work with my already busy life, I'm mostly depending on handheld and limited bandwidth technology. In other words, I either do it without the grid, or I don't get my fix!
So, to clarify...
I'm not asking which is easier/preferable (though I did say that CbD can be or is smoother but that's not the topic). Almost everyone agrees grid is preferable for the most part, but that's also is not the topic I've posted. I'd like to know about some good ideas to make CbD on Pbp as close to RAW as possible. Of course it will never be perfect. But, I bet if we apply our experience and creativity, we can come up with some very interesting ideas!
|
|
Wow...Crobledo...two of those threads were about my Pbp deal I'm doing now. It was stated by the one player in my six man group who isn't happy with the way I'm running the session. I didn't even know about one of those threads. Interesting! There's a lot of very interesting conversion on both sides.
A few imply or state that combat without a grid is against RAW. As I show near the top, that is an incorrect assumption. It's on page 8 of the core rulebook. So, with that established, I'm just looking for suggestions. As Painlord said on one of those threads, "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."
This holds especially true of Gridless Pbp. It's allowed and legal...but doing that in a way that holds up every other RAW just isn't possible (That doesn't even happen at tables with grids). I would like to work with others though to discuss how we can make CbD closer to RAI in PFS Pbp.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
FWIW, the only reference in the Guide to PFS Organised Play as to how combat is run is as follows:
Miniature: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game uses a standard 1-inch grid to determine movement and tactical positioning in combat. Accordingly, you need a way to represent your character on the grid.
It's not a direct reference, rather an indirect one in the section talking about having a miniature to represent your character. However, it does make it sound like this is the only way Pathfinder combat in PFS works. Anything more than that will require Mike to come out and say whether it's legal or not.
|
|
Again, that's not the question I'm asking. The legality is right there in the core rule book and there's nothing in PFS that directly strikes it off as a valid method of play. And, I do not believe that having it officially taken off the books as an option is the right decision. We want MORE people to play PFS, and we don't do that by taking away valid options. Keep in mind, there are GMs who do run gridless combat here and there even at the table (especially for faster encounters). Do we really want to remove that as a GM tool? Do we want to burden our GMs by taking away valid tools and options for smooth gameplay, or create ideas and solutions to help them make those encounters run closer to RAW and RAI?
We all recognize there are inherent challenges with combat by description. What are some great ideas we can come up with as a group to run a CbD that holds closely to RAI as we can get?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Sure. It just seems to me that you're taking the ball and running with it in a somewhat wrong direction. Mike Brock stated one of the threads that CRobledo linked that PBP games are not allowed any greater variation than an in-person game, and you're not allowed to change rules for PBP play.
I highly doubt that Paizo would implement a second set of rules for CbD for PBP play, and presenting "guidelines" that change actual game mechanics definitely falls under the umbrella of changing rules.
|
|
I'm not changing the rules. CbD is legal way to play. I'm asking for advice on how to play CbD as close to RAW/RAI as possible.
No table runs completely by RAW. Concession are made by GMs every week when time, space (can't get a battle grid big enough to accurately represent the encounter), limited resources, etc are an issue. In those cases, the GM is expected to do the best he can. He can't check every roll for accuracy, and may not play the goblin exactly as written, but if he does the best he can, and his players have a good time in the process, he's a good GM.
When a GM does that, does that make the game invalid? Does it DQ it from PFS play? Of course not. Especially since PF core rule book states CbD is a legal way to do combat.
With that being said, do we want GM's throwing all rules out the window in the name of convenience? Dislike? Make new rules just cuz he likes them better? Of course not. That's house-ruling and its a bad thing in PFS. These are all things we agree on.
The GM has the responsibility to run a PFS game smoothly while following RAW/RAI as closely as possible while maintaining a spirit for excitement and fun given the constraints of time, the medium, etc., etc.
On those posts you point out, a number of players critiqued my approach to attempt to run a Pbp CbD as close to RAI as I felt the medium and legal combat method allowed. I'm not asking for a second set of rules. There is only one set of rules. I'm asking for tips and guidance to best reach the goal of running RAW as the medium (Pbp) and legal method of combat (CbD) allow. If you can come up with 'guidelines' that keep the game mechanics while allowing CbD (which is legal), then I would rather play with those, of course than 'guidelines that change actual game mechanics'
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration and future suggestions! :)
|
Wow...Crobledo...two of those threads were about my Pbp deal I'm doing now. It was stated by the one player in my six man group who isn't happy with the way I'm running the session.
That's not true and it makes the player in your game sounds like a complainer, which he isn't.
I started the thread where it was re-stated by Campaign management that removing core rules isn't allowed.
|
|
You're right. One other player did complain, but he was happy with my proposed solution.
Fact: five of the six players are staying on board for another round, Sveden. I would say that five of the six are therefore happy.
I'm not removing ccre rules, Svenden. I'm doing my best to work them all in given the limitations of the media, the natural constraints of time and the legal method of resolving combat, "Combat by Description" that we use. Rather than spending so much time trying to tell me reasons why I should be allowed to run/play PFS, perhaps you could help me come up with suggestion to run closer to RAI given the above limitations I have.
|
|
Sveden, do you feel the same way about tables that run without a combat grid? What about those that just don't do encumberance.... or round off coins to the nearest Gold? And what about tables where the GM doesn't enforce ration tracking and travel cost. Those are clearly removing core concepts of PFRPG. Do you feel that they are invalid for PFS play as well?
If you discover one of those tables, do you approach the GM and tell him that he needs to enforce all those rules? If he says that's overwhelming to him or that it would slow down his table too much, do you inform him that his table is ineligable for PFS credit? Do you then ask for his name and PFS# and report it to Paizo staff and/or post on official forums about that session in an attempt to have it invalidated and/or force the GM to your way of thinging in regards to the importance of strict enforcement of RAW at the table? If you do, do you honestly feel that such approach helps PFS as a method of organized play to grow and florish? Does it help to address the issue of the fact there are too few GMs because many players feel that GM'ing is too intimidating?
|
|
Sveden, do you feel the same way about tables that run without a combat grid? What about those that just don't do encumberance.... or round off coins to the nearest Gold? And what about tables where the GM doesn't enforce ration tracking and travel cost. Those are clearly removing core concepts of PFRPG. Do you feel that they are invalid for PFS play as well?
If you discover one of those tables, do you approach the GM and tell him that he needs to enforce all those rules? If he says that's overwhelming to him or that it would slow down his table too much, do you inform him that his table is ineligable for PFS credit? Do you then ask for his name and PFS# and report it to Paizo staff and/or post on official forums about that session in an attempt to have it invalidated and/or force the GM to your way of thinging in regards to the importance of strict enforcement of RAW at the table? If you do, do you honestly feel that such approach helps PFS as a method of organized play to grow and florish? Does it help to address the issue of the fact there are too few GMs because many players feel that GM'ing is too intimidating?
I'm not talking about a theoretical table's rules. I'm talking about the rules you used in your game. Those are the ones that I disagree with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not theoretical. I can pull up Pbp games that do these things, as well as have players I know attest to it from PFS games I've played. You don't want to answer the questions? Why is that?
I guess your last two lines makes it pretty clear it's a personal thing. That's cool. So do you feel that every table that drops clear cut RAW (or otherwise marganlize those rules) in a way you don't personally agree with is invalid for PFS play?
|
|
And if you can go around and make those types of judgements (whether or not they are binding), why can't I? Or other GMs? Is PFS best served by having GM's hold each other accountable by their individual understanding of RAW, and which areas they feel is most important? Is initiative tracking more important than rations or encumberance tracking? Is it then best served when we, as GMs, organizers, VCs, etc make that our focus?
Or is it best served by working together, as a community, to discuss ways to best support one another in our differences? Perhaps a measure of understanding and working together to discuss issues and work on solutations together rather than finger pointing and saying "That's not a valid game!" would help encourage more GMs to step up, and in turn, help PFS to grow?
I'm legitimately asking for help and suggestions from the community, given my constraints, on this thread, partially because you were concerned enough about how I run my game to cry "Foul" Fair enough. But, right now, all I hear from you is "I don't like the way you run the table. Others may ignore/marganilized rules, but you have gone too far. Your games should not count for credit." Sveden, that approach does NOT help PFS as a method of organized play to grow. It does NOT encourage other players to step up to GM.
Whether you like it or not, Pbp and CbD are valid methods of play per the PFS guide and Core Rulebook respectively. We all recognize that CbD makes it impossible to fully implement many of the more tactical rules of combat RAW. When rules in core rulebook seem to clash with each other, and a FAQ doesn't address it, the GM is permitted and expected to improvise and/or address those situations in their group(s) with the express purpose of staying as close to RAI as possible. That's exactly what I've done with my guidelines that you repeatedly state you have a concern with.
You don't like them? You don't think they're legal for play? That's fine. Then instead of trying to kick my group and I out of the PFS by declaring our game "illegal", or trying to force us to playing the game the way you want (which we cannot do because of constraints mentioned), why don't you work with me, as one GM to another, to address concerns.
|
So do you feel that every table that drops clear cut RAW (or otherwise marganlize those rules) is invalid for PFS play?
Probably?
My outlook on living campaigns is pretty simple. These are games designed to run as close to RAW as possible, official campaign management should ban, errata, or simply "rule" on unclear things.
I get that you want to run gridless, or CBD; HOWEVER making "rules" for how AoEs hit targets and such is purely against the rules of table variation for PFS play. I think you can do it better.
*Note: I actually like your rules for PBP and would play under them, but they simply don't follow PFS guidelines.
I'm going to use first steps as an example for how I would run combat by description for the first fight in First Steps part 1
*box text* You enter a warehouse along a 15 foot wall which faces south, 15' across from the door is a 65' wall that extends into the majority of the warehouse opening up a 65' by 50' space the majority of it filled with crates and boxes, maneuvering is possible, though slightly difficult; Much of the area is difficult ground and finding a charge lane would be difficult.
I think that does a reasonable job of describing the space.
Alternatively, use chessboard methods. SW corner is A1 NE corner is (up to) Z27. you enter a 20' by 20' room, you see a ghoul in B4 and another in C3. I am certain that anyone able to play D&D will pick it up quickly, AND players can easily use a chessboard to help them with combat at home, if they want to.
Or something like GM GKs method, but that could be more difficult for people with phones and stuff (though as it's excel it has squares numbered, so there is that.)
|
|
But, right now, all I hear from you is "I don't like the way you run the table. Others may ignore/marganilized rules, but you have gone too far. Your games should not count for credit."
Then instead of trying to kick my group and I out of the PFS by declaring our game "illegal", or trying to force us to playing the game the way you want (which we cannot do because of constraints mentioned), why don't you work with me, as one GM to another, to address concerns.
You are welcome to continue discussing the issue but you are not allowed to attribute quotes to me that I did not say. Stop. Do not sum up my thoughts. Do not put words in my mouth. Stop assuming my stance on theoretical rules you are interjecting.
|
|
I get that you want to run gridless, or CBD; HOWEVER making "rules" for how AoEs hit targets and such is purely against the rules of table variation for PFS play. I think you can do it better
But you see...that's where we start getting all judgemental on each other. What's easy for you might be too hard for me and vice versa. You don't track encumberance? In my games, I have herolabs and we track it to the decimal! You can do better! Go buy herolabs or use a worksheet! Where does it end? And what about our approach?
Maybe, at a convention, I see a GM not enforcing particular rules. I walk up to him and say, "Hey, you need to do encumberance. I do." He replies, "You know, I'm trying to get things flowing, and I'm just not familiar with those rules and it slows down my table. Anyway, the players don't seem to mind." I say, "Man, you can do better. I mean, the way you're doing it now, I just don't thing your sessions should count for PFS credit cuz you're just ignoring or bypassing some rather important rules!"
Do you honestly think as an organizer, VC or even a GM working with other GMs that this approach really helps to encourage others to be involved with PFS?
Now, I know that, with that being said, we don't want people making house rules, and running tables all willy nilly/loose the rules. If some is clearly running doing so, I'm pretty sure most of the players (especially experienced PFS vets) would just leave..and the GM would fall on his own. In those rare cases that it doesn't...if one of us does see that, and try to work with him/her but he's like, "Look, this is my game, and I'll run it with whatever rules I want. I don't care what the book says!" Then, obviously that's a concern. Do we REALLY have a lot of those who totally disregard RAW and RAI in PFS? I don't believe so.
But, we have to be careful, because there's obviously some gray area in betweeen, and if we come down hard on the wrong people, we lose a significant part of our support and PFS community. I dare say, we should error on the part side of caution rather than presume the worse, seeking to kick people out of the PFS who would, with time and encouragement, help our favorite brand of organized play to grow.
Of course, we will never hear anyone form Paizo saying that it's OK in organzied play to ignore *any* of the rules...after all, that's a very slippery slope. But we also all know that it happens in some way, shape and form at every table. House rules, in the way GM's just run their tables, even creep in, believe it or not. I would think, in the interset of growing PFS, we would want to come along the side of those GMs, tell them we appreciate what they are doing (Because GM'ing can be hard), and softly offer suggestions and support, rather than telling them that their method of play is completely invalid to be a part of our expression of PF play.
|
|
You are welcome to continue discussing the issue but you are not allowed to attribute quotes to me that I did not say. Stop. Do not sum up my thoughts. Do not put words in my mouth. Stop assuming my stance on theoretical rules you are interjecting.But, right now, all I hear from you is "I don't like the way you run the table. Others may ignore/marganilized rules, but you have gone too far. Your games should not count for credit."
Then instead of trying to kick my group and I out of the PFS by declaring our game "illegal", or trying to force us to playing the game the way you want (which we cannot do because of constraints mentioned), why don't you work with me, as one GM to another, to address concerns.
My quote above clearly indicates tha that in the first quote, I'm expressing how I feel you are approaching me. The thoughts are mine. I will continue to use quotes on them.
The second quote was for emphesis, not to say you used that term. However, if you want your quotes that led me to put that empesis on there, here they are.
"I started the thread where it was re-stated by Campaign management that removing core rules isn't allowed." And, "It does bother me that you are giving PFS chronicles along with it however as I do not agree with your removal of core rules and core concepts of the PFRPG." You did not use the term 'illegal'. You did not say 'ineligable for credit' exactly. But it's pretty well said with the above statements.
Now, would you please answer my questions?
|
|
I don't think this discussion will resolve anything beyond what Mike said before - we should follow the rules.
There will always be discussion what RAW truly is and were a rule is broken or just interpreted.
Strict interpretation of CRB page 8 would result in:
a) A drawing on a piece of paper is legit
b) Use of a battlemap is legit
c) Combat by description is legit (edit: albeit the PFS rules imply miniatures should be used as RAI)
Interestingly CbD is listed but I can't find 3D terrain being listed. Do I change the rule if I use 3D terrain for PFS games? I would feel offended if someone would tell me off for that. But by the strict interpretation of some people here I'm changing the rules.
And NO - 3D terrain is no battle mat. I'm selling Dwarven Forge in Europe and can attest it isn't the same. I openly admit that it alters the play experience.
So lets stop the discussion what RAW is or if RAI should allow a certain GM style and rather focus how we can get together and improve as a community PFS for GMs and players.
|
|
My outlook on living campaigns is pretty simple. These are games designed to run as close to RAW as possible, official campaign management should ban, errata, or simply "rule" on unclear things.
I get that you want to run gridless, or CBD; HOWEVER making "rules" for how AoEs hit targets and such is purely against the rules of table variation for PFS play. I think you can do it better.
*Note: I actually like your rules for PBP and would play under them, but they simply don't follow PFS guidelines.
JC, Ben summed it up for me here. I think your rules for PBP are actually a very good compromise for gridless play, and I myself would have no problem playing under it for non-PFS games.
However, a lot of them are inventions and house rules (aoe targeting for example), which HAS been said are not ok for sanctioned play. What do I do as a GM, when one of your PBP players comes to my game at a convention and wants to cast fireball? I have to explain that his old GM played it wrong? The fundamental goal of organized play is that you can go ANYWHERE and expect things to work a certain way. I don't want to have rules explained to me every time I play due to some variations.
I think you run a skype and maptools game for PFS, which a lot of other people do as well. With full rules and the like. Why not continue that? I for one hope you do, as the more First Steps we run as a community with new players, the more players we will end up having.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
It seems to me like this thread is turning into less of a discussion and more of an "Is not!" "Is too!" argument.
Let's see if we can make some forward progress here:
For the sake of this discussion, until and unless we hear otherwise from the campaign management, let's assume that playing PFS without a grid is legal (assuming you're not breaking any other rules). That being the case, what are some productive ways to make the games as fun as possible without running into rules issues?
A few points I can think of:
- Detailed descriptions: It is really important to describe things well in order to have everyone on the same page
- Images may be helpful. Even if you can't play out the combat tactically on a grid, having images of some kind can help out a lot. Perhaps ASCII art or the like would be an option? When I ran gridless games back in the 3.0 days, I would use a whiteboard to sketch out a little picture of the room -- we didn't use minis, but it got everyone on the same page.
- Player/GM trust: This is the most important thing. A lot of gridless combat comes down to GM adjudication. The players have to trust the GM and the GM has to trust the players. Otherwise, the game simply won't work. You can't be an adversarial GM and run games this way!
- Easy-to-use increments: Since you are restricted from changing the rules, you can't do a lot of changes. But there are things you can do in terms of actions to make things easier. For example, you could always have your monsters move in increments of 30 feet. It may not be tactically optimal, but using consistent units keeps people from getting confused
Any other productive ideas?
Don't let negativity get you down. Remember, the most important thing is to enjoy yourselves. The only way to lose is to fail to have fun!
Good luck and happy gaming!
|
|
Oh, Tamago's post gave me a concrete idea.
What about buying a small whiteboard you can have in your office/backpack/briefcase. Draw the grid there and the characters, then take a picture of it with your mobile device and post it on a service like flickr (assuming you have a smartphone of some kind, since you are posting on forums with it). Simply give all your players the link to the flickr stream and tell them to check it when its their turn.
Heck, if you were doing this from a device like an iPad you could even do the drawings on the tablet itself.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think that part of JCServant's point is that, according to the campaign staff, we are not allowed to handwave any rules, including things like rations and encumbrance.
He has a point. If VC Amara Li sends a party to Tian Xia, we need to arrange for that travel cost. A GM who just says, "After thre months of traveling over the dome of the world, you arrive in Goka" is running an illegal game.
(And sveden, while you didn't use the term "illegal", you did assure JCServant's player that the game didn't count and that he could ignore any Chronicle he would receive.)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
One other thought: it might be a good idea for the GM to keep a map in any case, even if it's just a piece of graph paper with some sketches and initials on it. That way, the GM can be consistent. Even if there's no map posted on the forum/email/whatever, having *a* master map in the GM's possession would help to ensure consistent rulings.
Of course, at that point, you could make the argument that you're not really playing gridless, since there *is* a grid, just not one the players can see. But regardless, it would probably make things easier in an online-play environment.
|
|
A GM who just says, "After thre months of traveling over the dome of the world, you arrive in Goka" is running an illegal game.
Unless of course, you would assume (at least I would) that rations and travel expenses would be covered by Amara Li and the Pathfinder society, as your employer would today IRL if you were traveling for work.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I think that part of JCServant's point is that, according to the campaign staff, we are not allowed to handwave any rules, including things like rations and encumbrance.
He has a point. If VC Amara Li sends a party to Tian Xia, we need to arrange for that travel cost. A GM who just says, "After thre months of traveling over the dome of the world, you arrive in Goka" is running an illegal game.
Sorry, I know this is going off-topic, but I've played or GMed over 40 sessions, and I've never once had this come up. I thought it was assumed that the Society picks up the tab for things like travel expenses.
I can definitely see the requirement to track things like arrows and torches, and even food eaten during the adventure, but the above seems to be taking things a bit far. I, for one, wouldn't even know how to *start* calculating the cost for something like that. How long does it take to get from Absalom to Goka? How much does it cost? I've never seen that broken down in any of the books. Heck, it took until last month before we got a breakdown of travel times *in Varisia!*
Not to mention the fact that Pathfinders are spread out all over Golarion. Does my Tengu bard have to spend the same amount to get to the adventure as my Kellid fighter? If so, that's unfair. If not, then it doesn't make any sense!
I think things like this are straying pretty far away from the point of the game. Which, remember, is to *have fun!*
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I apologize for being unclear. I don't expect anybody to organize travel expenses. I expect they are indeed all hand-waved. (In some scenarios, the VCs explain during the briefing that the Society has arranged for travel. Usually not.) My point was that we are all breaking some rules. I regret not making that point more clearly.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I apologize for being unclear. I don't expect anybody to organize travel expenses. I expect they are indeed all hand-waved. (In some scenarios, the VCs explain during the briefing that the Society has arranged for travel. Usually not.) My point was that we are all breaking some rules. I regret not making that point more clearly.
Ah. I apologize for misunderstanding you, and for letting my hackles get raised a bit there. I do agree with you on those points.
Carry on :-)
|
|
I think that part of JCServant's point is that, according to the campaign staff, we are not allowed to handwave any rules, including things like rations and encumbrance. My point was that we are all breaking some rules.
Sorry to cherry pick, but that's exactly what I'm trying to say.
And rather than saying those who do are invalid to play (which would probably mean all of us), or encouraging rampent rule breaking and house ruling (which all of us here really do not want), I'm simply asking for advice on how to do the best I can with what I have. The world (of PFS) is not a perfect place, but if we work together, we can find creative ways to come closer to RAI and RAW as a group without kicking those groups to the side that we, personally, feel have gone a bit too far. (And, if we're really good, we can do it without encouraging outright rule-breaking/houseruling)
I think things like this are straying pretty far away from the point of the game. Which, remember, is to *have fun!*
Exactly. If we're all RAW and no FUN, then we're going to lose precious organizers, GMs and players. If we're all FUN and no RAW then we don't have an organzied experience. I'm hoping that as a group, we are mature enough to find the happy medium between the two as we asking and explore these difficult challenges and questions.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
For the sake of this discussion, until and unless we hear otherwise from the campaign management, let's assume that playing PFS without a grid is legal (assuming you're not breaking any other rules).
I think that's an impossible assumption to make - campaign management have made it pretty clear that this would require too many changes to the rules.
Sure, back in the old days that's how we used to play. But in the old days we didn't have all the rules about flanking, attacks of opportunity, cover, etc. I just said "My wizard (or ranger, once they came along) attacks troll #3", and that was pretty much it. Maybe the DM said I couldn't attack #3 because I couldn't see him; maybe he said a fighter couldn't get past zombie #2 to get to the archer behind him, but that was pretty much it.
Now, though, the game is much more detailed. There are all sorts of feats, abilities, items of equipment, etc. whose operation is defined in terms of a combat grid.
I believe it's possible to run a campaign (PbP or face-to-face) that doesn't use a battlegrid, and doesn't depend on those exact definitions. But that requires characters to be built with a clear understanding of the rules they will be playing under. A PFS character will be built based on the PFS ruleset, and the assumption of PFS is that I will be able to take my character and play him at any PFS table, and have him function in much the same way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think things like this are straying pretty far away from the point of the game. Which, remember, is to *have fun!*Exactly. If we're all RAW and no FUN, then we're going to lose precious organizers, GMs and players. If we're all FUN and no RAW then we don't have an organzied experience. I'm hoping that as a group, we are mature enough to find the happy medium between the two as we asking and explore these difficult challenges and questions.
+1. Well stated.
Especially since RAW doesn't exist, we should focus instead as working as a community towards collaboratively running good, fun PFS games.
-Pain
|
|
I believe it's possible to run a campaign (PbP or face-to-face) that doesn't use a battlegrid, and doesn't depend on those exact definitions. But that requires characters to be built with a clear understanding of the rules they will be playing under. A PFS character will be built based on the PFS ruleset, and the assumption of PFS is that I will be able to take my character and play him at any PFS table, and have him function in much the same way.
There's no doubt that when you do CbD that you lose some tactical elements of the game, which in turn makes certain builds feel more or less important. We also agree that by goal and design, organized play is stives to provide a consistant experience across the board.
That's why I feel it is important that if you are doing CbD as a GM that you're upfront about how things will work. One of my players said, "You try to set some standards beforehand to avoid any confusion of the logistics regarding combat by description."
By being upfront, and doing the above, players who approach my table can decide whether or not my style/approach is a good fit for them. Also, I work with players who have those spells/feats/etc to insure that they do get the benefit that they should according to RAW/RAI. After all, the goal of PFSOP is to create experiences that are as consistant with the RAW/RAI as possible while having fun and following the "Play, play play" motto.
There have been players at physical tables that have been surprised (in a negative way) because the PFSGM playes the monsters much more direct and viciously than their normal GM. Variation, even in how monsters are run, vary from GM to GM. To an extent, John, you're always going to have that. At least with my Pbp, you know upfront how my approach may differ from other Pbp GM's style.
And with that being said, I think open discussions between GMs (including my OP) can help reduce that aspect of the game. We can never get rid of it because of different mediums, GM styles, time constraints at tables, etc...but we can work together to get it closer.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
My point was that we are all breaking some rules.
Well, yes. But there's a difference of degree. My guideline, when I'm judging a PFS table, is to try and not do anything I woudn't do if Mike Brock were standing behind me looking over my shoulder. That includes not doing some things that I'd do without hesitation if I were running the same scenario as a home game.
But even given that I wouldn't insist on following every last detail of the rules at all times. I wouldn't insist on accounting down to the last copper piece. Nor (absent specific mention in the scenario) would I check characters had adequate food supplies for a journey, or that they were properly accounting for things like encumbrance or ammunition, unless I had reason to believe they were well outside the bounds of 'reasonable error'.
I also know I'm more of a purist than a lot of the GMs around here. I've talked over a couple of cases where I disagreed with the GM in question (often after I come to run the same scenario myself, and find out that what's written in the description doesn't quite match my recollection of what we encountered).
Fortunately I've never encountered anything at the table that I felt was serious enough to be escalated to the event organiser, let alone to my venture officers or to Paizo.
|
|
Hehehe....Hopefully this doesn't come across as irreverent, but I couldn't help but remember those "WWJD" bracelets from a long time ago...maybe PFS GMs could buy a WWMBD bracelet, hahahahaah.
As far as Mike looking over the sholder...let me tell you as a GM of a Pbp the recently recieved some criticism on a couple of threads, its like having Mike and a dozen VO's *and* GMs looking over your sholder! Talk about pressure! (Seriously...why WOULD anyone want to do Pbp knowing the above? No wonder the player vs GM ratio is so whacked!)
As far as the difference of degrees, obviously that's the thing. What's important to one GM may not be to another, and if we aren't careful, we could spend all day getting into fights over it. That doesn't serve PFSOP as a whole.
Thankfully, as you show in your last line, most of us are 'tolerant' enough to where, even though we observe (or participate) in things that aren't run quite RAW/RAI, we pretty much roll with the punches. Occasionally, we come here to vent, listen and learn. All of that is good. I think we just need to keep in mind that, hey...we're all human. And the vast majority, imperfect as we are, are really GM'ing and organizing (and even doing a few things outside the box) because we really DO love PF, PFS and our players and we do want to see it grow. Let's use our different directions and diversity as a strength even as we come together and discuss things such as rules and consistancy.
I know this does not add a lot (if anything) but Jcservant, for a guy that does not have time to run a game useing a map you sure have a lot of time to post and argue with people.
Now the Part that does add something (ok, not really)
I am of the oppinion that a PFS game does require a map, so much of the game is built around the use of a map and minis that it is truly needed.
Now when I say "Map" I am not saying a battle grid. It can be a piece of graph paper with letters and numbers so that each player can keep track of where they are.
"I move from A8 to E17, being sure to go around the gnolls threat, that takes 25' if I go by way of C12"
"I fireball the juncture where A3 and B4 come together, the DC is 16"
Things like that.
Your rules for flanking and AOE are houserules and as such have no place in PFS. IMHO
|
|
I also know I'm more of a purist than a lot of the GMs around here. I've talked over a couple of cases where I disagreed with the GM in question (often after I come to run the same scenario myself, and find out that what's written in the description doesn't quite match my recollection of what we encountered).
Fortunately I've never encountered anything at the table that I felt was serious enough to be escalated to the event organiser, let alone to my venture officers or to Paizo.
Speaking for the conventions that I run for our community, JohnF, I don't think there is much to worry about.
While you might be more on the RAW side, we have many GMs who tend more towards RAI (like myself), and the goal for me as an organizer isn't to enforce RAW (it doesn't exist) or allow RAI but to encourage our community to work together to create fun PFS games.
Whether you are RAW or RAI-focused, I want you to have a place in PFS. We won't grow our community if we divide and exclude GMs or players based on artificial distinctions. Instead, we need to focus on having good fun games.
-Pain
|
|
I know this does not add a lot (if anything) but Jcservant, for a guy that does not have time to run a game useing a map you sure have a lot of time to post and argue with people.
Nice one! It just so happens to be that today I'm not engaged in hard labor :P So, like..you know...step back. LOL.
Your rules for flanking and AOE are houserules and as such have no place in PFS.
Neither does a the fact that a GM doesn't enforce encumberance or ignores the monster's tactics in a module. Perhaps instead of being exclusitory, you could provide alternative ideas to set standards beforehand to avoid any confusion of the logistics regarding combat by description (Which is pretty much what I'm trying to do with my 'rules' on flanking and CbD).
As far as Mike looking over the sholder...let me tell you as a GM of a Pbp the recently recieved some criticism on a couple of threads, its like having Mike and a dozen VO's *and* GMs looking over your sholder! Talk about pressure! (Seriously...why WOULD anyone want to do Pbp knowing the above? No wonder the player vs GM ratio is so whacked!)
You know, in reading some of the threads about my Pbp deal from several weeks back (that I just now discovered), I saw a post or two that went into step by step analysis on how I ran the table, so to speak. It was like those commentators at a football game who use instant replay and slow motion to go back and tear apart how something plays out.
While the comments that I read along those lines were pretty postive, the fact is, as you can imagine...that really can stress any GM to realize that someone is looking over his sholder and evaluating what he/she does. Is that really the type of community we want to foster?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the specifics of what various people are doing in their games, but I'll make these general statements:
There is such a thing as "technically illegal but appropriate for PFS".
There is such a thing as "well-meaning but inappropriate for PFS".
To think one is never labeled as the other is naive. To think only one of them exists (and the other is therefore always a mislabeling of it) is equally naive.
|
|
Indeed. But is it your place or my place to say definatively what those are? Is it in the best interest of PFSOP for this community to seek out and define those definitions? There's no doubt that if were each to take a list of variations and put them into those buckets, each one of us would probably had different breakdowns of what goes into each.
I say we presume, unless explicitly stated in the rules / PFS, that most stuff, in our eyes, goes in the first bucket. We should continue to discuss concerns, of course...and trust that Mike is scanning these pages...and that in his omnipotent wisdom, will directly address things in the 2nd category in a way that best respects the person/group in question and best supports PFSOP as a whole.
Neither does a the fact that a GM doesn't enforce encumberance or ignores the monster's tactics in a module.
On this, you are preaching to the converted.
I do my best to check characters eccumberance, no, not to the pound (damn time constraints) but I do ask anyone with a low strength what they are carrying and how.
Also as shown in MANY threads, not following a mosters tactics are a great way to totally screw up an encounter.
Just look to the thread on first steps part 1 and the
The problem is that by houseruling/handwaving/inserttermhere you screw over the players that actually know and follow the rules.
Don't track weight? I'm sure the guy with muleback cords wants his money back.
Don't track rations? The Verdant bloodline sorcerer would like a word.
Don't track arrows? Glad I preped abundant ammo, or bought the 1800gp quiver.
The list goes on.
You are 100% right on one thing, all the handwaving is the same.
And none of it is correct.