For the last year this has been my GM announcement for my game days:
Spoilered for length:
Hello, all,
It is that time, again. I’m looking for GMs for next month’s games at Enchanted Grounds in Highlands Ranch. This is not the open call for those games; that will happen next week after I have all the GM spots full. Watch for it then, if you are not going to GM. If you are interested in GMing for me, read on.
First, I would like to outline the benefits of GMing for Enchanted Grounds:
1. I can get you the module for free. If requested, I will provide a physical copy of it, along with faction missions and chronicle sheets. In certain cases, I can get you an electronic copy, but those cases are necessarily rare and must be discussed.
2. You will earn a $10 gift certificate to the store for each game you GM. This helps offset any cost you incur purchasing the scenario or the supplies to run that scenario.
3. You will be given access to the schedule ahead of the general announcement. For each table you GM I will allow you to take a player seat at another table. This seat is guaranteed, as you will be signing up ahead of the open call.
4. If you GM ten games at the store I will give you an Enchanted Grounds Pathfinder t-shirt.
5. As Phil McMahon once said so well, you "get to play an ass-hat that everyone can't stand for the entire night; one that everyone gets the satisfaction of killing at the end of the game." Don't sell that short. It's an invaluable benefit, and one everyone appreciates.
6. All of the inherent benefits of GMing PFS scenarios (character credit, advancement on the GM "star" tier, access to chronicle boons when made available, etc.).
So, with all that in mind, I would like to ask for GM volunteers for the following dates and scenarios:
Point number 3 is pretty important at my events. They fill up fast, and with GMs getting first crack at the list I have created a lot of demand for players to take turns behind the screen. It also serves as a limiting factor, keeping people from burning out, as they end up GMing twice a month, at most, and then play during the other two game day slots. That works out nicely.
I am about to run out of t-shirts. I'm unsure if I will make more or go the dice bag route.
The $10 gift certificate is generated by charging players $2 to play at each slot. That money is all used to buy the gift certificates. It also gives the games a "value" and thus cuts down on the no-call no-shows, as people won't simply sign up on the off-chance that they'll be able to attend. They actually plan it when it's going to cost them money (even if it's as small an amount as $2).
Everett Morrow (the VL in Colorado Springs) hosts a GM-only scenario once a month. I've thought about doing that as well. My biggest issue is finding a scenario they all will be able to play. I run the newest stuff in the store, and holding one back to give to the GMs would make my player lists difficult to fill (we have a large group, but it's been active for four years, now, so the new scenarios need to be a part of the rotation). How has this been working for you?
I'm also thinking of holding GM "clinics." The GM 101 course is an inspiration for that. And I'd love to see a local version of the "Iron GM" contest I've heard about at GenCon. I think our core GMs would really get behind that.
Except one company makes cards and the other makes books and pdfs. That puts in some clear differences with access to organized play system product rewards.
Are they differences that can be overcome with a calculator and some rigid guidelines? Definitely!
I honestly think the only thing it does is broaden Paizo's options. If you reward a Magic player/judge with anything other than a Magic card, they complain.
Give a PFS player/judge access to an exclusive t-shirt, boon, button, character folio, dice, special avatar on the boards, PDF, book, or even just an autographed picture of Mike Brock holding up a sign that says, "This player gets a free reroll because I say so (once per session)," and I think that guy is stoked.
Paizo has a ton of options. Many of them wouldn't cost them much at all. Many of them could even be PROFITABLE.
Sheesh, we'll help get you that 4th star...so that you have the privelige of running us through even more content! :)
I suppose there's the problem, its 'easy' on paper to get one star, or maybe two, but what percentage of the PFS player base has one or two stars, and if they do have two, how many just keep right on GM'ing onwards? I'd wager that if you spent enough time to go get two, you are probably a committed GM.
Even the one star wont happen by 'accident'.
I would largely agree with this. As best as I can tell, my local lodge has one three star GM, one two star GM (me), and about 5 one-star GMs. Stars aren't as common as they appear to be on the boards.
No, they really aren't.
Locally, we have around 300 players who have participated (at least once) in PFS. Probably half those participate regularly enough for me to recognize.
We have one 5-star GM (JP Chapleau) and two 4-star GMs (me and Dave the Barbarian). I can name three 3-star GMs (Kerney, Everett Morrow - a VL - and Todd Lower). There are likely a few others, but I do not know for sure because I never see them on the boards. There are scads of 2-star and 1-star GMs, and double that who don't have any stars, at all, but do GM occasionally.
To sum up, we're a pretty good area with a very deep GM pool. I see two of us on the boards regularly (though a third has begun nosing his way in, lately), and three more occasionally. The others? Pretty much never.
And I think that sums up PFS players pretty well, by the way. The VAST majority don't touch the boards, much less know where they are.
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...
I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
Why? I think it's already been implemented. I don't know that it's being ACTED ON, however.
The scenarios I listed above all have an element that involves non-combat encounters. If you fail at those encounters, you'll ultimately fail at the mission. If this kind of thing is pushed, characters will have to become more well rounded, less optimized, and more in line with what is viewed as "sub-optimal" merely because they aren't combat machines. If all you do is kill things, and all anyone ever does is kill things, then the scenarios that REQUIRE a social resolution will ultimately be the most impossible scenarios those characters will ever go through. And, yet, no one will die.
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
I think you would be surprised to find out how many people want it to simply be "show up and get my gold/XP/Fame."
Do they want the illusion of difficulty? Yes. But the reality of it brings out the competitive game player in many of them, and they hate losing. Ultimately, not getting your gold/XP/Fame is losing. Never doubt that perception exists and influences peoples' perception of the game.
Having said that, I think the number of people who understand what a role playing game is outnumber the people who simply want to win.
Edit: You, by the way, are among some of the best when it comes to striking the balance between story and challenge. Don't alter what you are doing.
...the GMs that posted said that they were really happy with the changes and that they wouldn't need anything else.
Heh. I remember this, as well. It was when "GM before playing and get credit" was the law of the land. If you played before GMing, you did not get a chronicle for GMing. The hew and cry for change on that was fierce, ending with this statement:
"If you do this, we'll never want for more. We promise."
I may have to go back and find that quote. It'll be worth the time to gain the amusement, I'm sure.
I personally do not feel that any decision on "generic" or repeat chronicles for GMs will impact how many people are GMing. I think new GMs get involved for their own reasons - whether it is to further their game days, to get credit for a character, or to get cash from their game store, I'm sure it is as different for each new GM as it was for each of the GMs currently debating in this thread. I think Redward is most accurate when saying that, to recruit newer GMs, it is most necessary to make them feel comfortable and assure them that vast knowledge of the rules set is NOT the most important factor in whether you're any good at GMing; that people are there to help with that, and you just need to present a fun story.
I really feel the reason you're seeing most people argue one side or the other on this is the same reason you see people argue one side or the other on replay. It's a contentious topic that brings out a lot of strong feelings on both sides. The proponents of re-GM credits (just going to coin that phrase, right now) are running into the "NO REPLAY!" wall due to the similar feel of the two situations. The arguments have, so far, felt very much the same: "You're playing for the wrong reasons." "Stop telling me what's right and wrong." "You don't understand what you're saying." "How I have my fun has no impact on your fun." Etcetera.
Graypark and I touched on that back a little bit in this thread. I encourage you to read those links if you are wondering how heated those debates can get. And, for reference, a new one started up in just the last 24 hours (though it is, so far, very civil).
Now, having pointed that out, please take a moment to look at this objectively:
If re-GM credit is allowed, I guarantee that players will come along and point at that fact as justification that replay should also be allowed. That is a thing that the campaign leadership is not going to allow. That is a thing that many of us "veterans" who have been around since this campaign first started up are vehemently opposed to (as I pointed out three paragraphs up). It is a thing that can generate far more antagonism than you are seeing in this thread.
Personally, the "who GMs for what reasons" debate is a moot point compared to that.
And, for the record, I am opposed to any kind of repeat credit for GMing. Not because it would attract the wrong kind of GMs (I don't believe that, just as I don't believe that the "right" kind are attracted by the current setup). I am opposed to it because I don't want the replay door cracked open even the tiniest bit more than it already is.
Now, getting back to the idea of a "generic" credit that can be applied independent of XP, PP, or gold? THAT I like. I wish that were being explored more in this thread than the idea of re-GM credit.
I think that the scaling for 4 characters still needs to be looked at better, because I've seen some odd ones (really? Giving an alchemist "sickened" hurts him that much?) Sometimes the earlier fights are not scaled, and are tougher than the BBEG.
I very much agree with this. Some of the scaling takes the threat level down to non-existent, while other scaling seems to be a non-issue.
Silbeg wrote:
I'd say that many of the scenarios from season 4 have been more interesting than some of the older ones (The Disappeared comes forefront in my mind). I like the idea of having different challenges, more than just hack and slash. It is this sort of thing that promotes more balanced characters, promotes people to build characters that are something other than combat monsters!
I'm plucking this out because I REALLY want to highlight this. We've touched on it a couple times in this thread, that more balanced characters are more enjoyable to play and to play with (and to GM for). Promoting it via this method is an absolute must. And, having seen this scenario (along with Blakros Matrimony and Fortress of the Nail) come up largely in positive ways in a lot of threads, I don't think this is an isolated comment.
Authors and developers reading this thread, please take note.
As I read this thread more, I'm starting to agree that as we get more "expansion" type books and people make more specialist characters, combat exposes more "exploitable" holes.
Rowe is spot on that you should think about your goals and find ways to avoid TPKs, and combining that with Painlord's rules about having a viable character for combat AND skills should help:
I'm just going to hold up a little "Stop" sign here, if it's okay.
The base goal of an encounter should not be Kill The Party. Hell, the base goal of an encounter shouldn't even be Kill A Character.
No one should be forced to build their characters and adjust their thinking in such a way that they approach every single encounter as a death trap that needs to be avoided. I think that is what Mike is talking about.
So, an addendum to my "Stop" sign: this thread should not be about coaching people on how to avoid dying. This thread should be merely exploring whether Mike is right about it being more dangerous. Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?
I have yet to see a solution to the wealth by level thing that wouldn't be worse than a problem you'd need half an hour and an excel sheet to really pin down.
People not getting to play is bad. People not getting to play their characters is bad. Even with twice WBL is a character really going to ruin the game worse than a slumber hex happy witch?
I very much agree with this, as well.
I have to say, I'd rather see no change to this rule. I don't think the problems the new proposal creates being worth the one problem that is (not really) solved.
Frankly, I am disappointed at all of the talk about pregens. One of the big selling points for PFS has always been "You can go to a convention and play *your own* character!" If we're telling people to use pregens so much, then it really guts that argument. It undermines character attachment and investment. It's simply not a realistic option.
This.
Pregens have their place, and most people will end up playing one at some point, but any solution that encourages more playing of pregens and less playing of a character legal for the scenario is creating a bigger problem than it's solving, in my opinion.
I consider myself a very reasonable person. I really hope no one thinks I haven't done anything for my local PFS community, either.
I won't play a pre-gen. Nor do I encourage anyone to. I work very hard to be sure that the only pre-gens played in my store are by new 1st level characters. In all the years I've been coordinating, I can only think of twice that a player has been forced to play a pre-gen when he has a stable of characters available to him from regular play.
Pre-gens aren't my character. I have no interest in playing them. I don't think that makes me selfish.
Huh... Can someone explain to me how now making playing down cause irreparable damage to your wealth based level is going to stop players from bullying others to play up? That seems like an incentive to do so if you have a higher level player.
The podcast was neat no doubt...but I think bugley has a point on it not being exactly the best method for dissemination of information.
As was mentioned in the podcast, there will be follow up blogs to the various topics. We thought this was a neat way to give a sneak peak to the audience in advance of announcing changes on a blog. Apparently, we failed in some people's opinions and will try to do better next time.
This method has generated more discussion in my area than anything you've ever done before. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and hope you do more of the same in the future.
I do have a question, however (which I'm sure was answered somewhere in these hundreds of posts, but I am feeling lazy and on a time crunch, which is a bad combination for searching for things like this).
My Shadow Lodge character has played through Eyes of the Ten, and is currently firmly rooted at 13 & 2/3 level. When I GM Rivalry's End, I would love for there to be some mechanic that would allow me to get him to 14th level, and apply the Shadow Lodge boon to him. Especially seeing as his character is going to be absolutely on board with whatever happens (he played through almost all the Season 2 stuff, and ended up going over to Torch at the end of Red Mantis' Prey, which was awesome).
Sex is more of an issue than killing, robbing or torture?
In the US? Have you been here?
"I'm absolutely okay with Timmy decapitating everything in sight and/or blasting away with myriad guns/rockets/whatever. But God help you, Mr. video game designer, if he sees even a hint of nipple."
Indeed, there was another thread (don't recall the title) in which there was a massive derail about how important it is for GMs to be able to "fudge" their way through the first couple of rounds' worth of PC save-or-suck effects.
Weird. That just seems...ill-advised. I guess that's why I don't get involved in those threads. Debating stuff like that just seems like an exercise in self importance for all involved.
All good Drogon. I don't want to push it because it was only what I thought was a good example (and probably not so good now that you've fleshed it out), just want to sort out a standard.
So, I'm judged innocent? Huzzah!
Avatar-1 wrote:
PFCBG - I'll be the first one to say we shouldn't put down rules to the nth degree, but the whole game is rules, and I think this one just hasn't been specific enough. I've seen many different tables that don't run games that don't seem close enough to what's written and I don't think it's GMs abusing the rule, I think it's a misunderstanding of what's expected which is causing that widespread table variation on something that seems straightforward... but maybe isn't.
I hesitate to open this can of worms, but I would like to offer up another theory: individual interpretation of the scenario will differ wildly.
No one ever sets out to specifically do something wrong. It's just not in our nature as human beings to attempt to fail.
However, the way you read and interpret something will be different than the way I read and interpret something. A favorite example of mine is Darkest Vengeance (which I believe you and I have discussed, at least briefly).
Within that scenario is a sidebar explaining the experimental device in the laboratory that the PCs find; there is a long, overly technical explanation of how to run it, and a bunch of stuff about how it ties into what the Ustlavan Venture Captain was doing with the BBEG, and why the BBEG went after him. All this information is drowned out by the "noise" of the block of text. I say "noise" because that block of text is completely meaningless to the mechanics of the game. Ultimately, a linguistics and/or knowledge roll and a subsequent disable device roll are all that's needed to solve the thing without going into explanations. So, I think a lot of GMs simply skim over this part, as it has the feel of reading a math textbook. Now, because they know the story from having read the beginning of the adventure, they don't think to themselves, "How do I make sure to get the story across to the party?"
The result of this? The GM ends up barely covering this during game play. Players therefore have no idea what's going on, have no clue what's ahead of them, and Darkest Vengeance has gained a reputation as a "party killer."
Unfortunately, there is no way to write a rule that says, "Do your job" without making it draconian. GMs feel they ARE doing their jobs. Some may be wrong, but until they get feedback about that they will have no idea. Most, I think, are fine, if not exceptional. But every single one will read different things into different words. That, too, is human nature.
Edit: If you want a good example of how much some scenarios can inspire the cry for "Change it!" you should check out the Shades of Ice series of scenarios. There were a lot of stars discussing a lot of borderline changes to those three scenarios (including me, by the way - though I hope I never crossed the line).
And I "get" what you're doing. The changes suggested in those threads likely went a long way toward making them more fun for players. But that means that reviews that were left for them were not necessarily accurate. So, yeah, it's a good discussion to have. I just don't want to see more rules imposed on this than are already there (and, as I mentioned, they're newly written for this season's Guide).
As a teaser for Season 5, this taught me that I will want to roll a paladin with native darkvision. Which I guess is a good lesson to learn, even if it took a wasted chronicle to do it.
Ugh. The "arms race" begins to heat up, I see. [sarcasm] And, gee, I'm so looking forward to a Season 5 filled with half-orc paladins.[/sarcasm]
Is there a reason we are trying to turn this (or any scenario) into a killer? I know it's possible to make the babaus super-smart, tactical geniuses, but is it necessary?
For instance, if someone had Darkvision cast on them early in the scenario (it lasts a minimum of 5 hours, considering the caster level necessary to cast it), then why is a babau even considering casting Dispel Magic on the person who has it? The easiest reason I can come up with is GM metagaming, which is just as detrimental to the game as player metagaming.
Hey, Drogon, thanks for responding. I'm sorry I inspired such a long post, since I know your time is precious.
It's Sunday; my day off. This is kind of my second job (watching gaming company boards/news). And, I'm long winded. Those three things mean you get long posts when I decide to write one out, so don't worry about sucking up my time. (-:
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
As I remember, though, we didn't have the option of playing down, in fact I remember being specifically annoyed that at least two players at the table had spaced their characters five levels apart, so they had no option but to play 7th level characters, forcing the group up. I remember this because I had two 4th level characters I would have rather brought on this adventure.
As I ran 6 tables of Bone Keep that weekend, my memory is hardly perfect. It's certainly not going to be as good as someone who only played that senario once (and died). So, I'll bow to your recollection, though I'll give a little frowny face, "Hm. I'd swear that it was an option and I gave a vote."
If you were forced to play up, you were at the bare minimum level for that sub-tier (APL 6 in the 6-7 sub-tier). And, with the party composition as it was, that was dicey. I also recall only five players (I don't think the mage I'm remembering was at your table), meaning it was even more dicey. Then the cleric goes down. That should have been the signal to retreat. If I recall, the same player who was saved (and shouldn't have been) wanted you to press on. Someone should have told him to stuff it.
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Anyway, I am glad that I have learned that part of good tactics is to have character options, and hopefully those players have learned the same thing now.
Let me make sure that I'm coming across correctly via ye olde internette: Your character was fine. It was set up to take advantage of others' strengths, and set up to allow others to take advantage of his strengths. The other characters (who were left) were heavily reliant on their own skills, and did not contribute meaningfully to any kind of group play.
Now, had the cleric been still there, I think your opinion of that scenario would be very different. He would have meant a huge difference during that last encounter you played. Obviously, he would have been there to heal everyone; but he was also set to deal with those specific threats, and with your fighter also built for those guys you both would have torn through that encounter, I think. Additionally, he would have contributed blessing of fervor. Seeing as your arcane (and now I'm sure I'm wrong, that mage was at the other high sub-teir table) was not capable of casting haste, that would have been a pretty big deal.
As for the others: I know the archer is now the "standard" archer (it does a ton of damage, and is set to handle multiple styles of threats; i.e., he learned, and he spent his money). The cleric's player knows better than to save someone who shouldn't be saved; I know this because he discussed it with me. The other two? Well, we'll see.
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Drogon, you are an awesome GM and I am sorry we didn't provide you with a team that could handle the adventure.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't think your team was something you should have to apologize for. Unfortunately, you were the victim of "convention table" and suffered the worst possible consequence for it.
I hope you find your way back some day to be able to play with us, again. You'll be missed in this area. So much so that I'm going to make a bard to fill the gap. :-D
To the rest of you reading this: please take the chance to play this scenario if you have it. But, please be sure to take a character who is set up for this kind of challenge, and please be aware that your teamwork will matter, as will your general skill at role playing games. If things look dicey, you're right. Get out of there, and live to tell the tale.
(Edited in an effort to get back on the general Bone Keep discussion...)
1 - Matthew Morris is correct. Most players would rather not have to play through those over and over. It becomes tedious. Additionally, PFS has long fostered a "don't replay scenarios" environment. Most players in my area have taken this to heart and don't replay even those things they *could* replay.
2 - They're a series. Any time part of a series is offered players experience a "barrier" to play. They either feel the need to continue to play the series (if part 1 is offered) and won't sing up unless they think they can commit to parts 2 and 3; or they don't want to play parts 2 or 3 if they have not played one of the early parts.
3 - The "no faction, yet" concept confuses too many players and GMs. Yes, I talk my way through it every time. Yes, I tell them to just pick a faction and we'll roll with it. I shouldn't have to do either of these things.
4 - If Season 4 ends with the elimination of two factions, as has been said all year, then they will be obsolete.
...the ability to have new scenarios that tie into the season theme is a big help with drawing people in.
This is something that shouldn't be overlooked, either, when weighing whether there should be more 1-5 scenarios.
People like playing the "new stuff." Whenever I offer game day schedules, I have one new 1-5 scenario and one old 1-x scenario. Let me lead into this with the fact that I'm pretty cognizant of who has played what, and am certainly aware of whether you are a new player who hasn't played the old stuff. But when players sign up for my games, newer players or older, they jump all over the new scenarios. When I reply to a request to sign up the number one response I am sending (to the point I have a draft that I just copy and paste) is to ask a new player to play the older scenario, first, as it is unlikely to be on the schedule again soon, while the new scenario will be offered several times over the course of the next couple months. Usually they switch. Often enough, they reply with, "I'm interested in the current story, and don't know what was happening in the old scenarios."
Once again, a new 1-5 every month will ease this problem significantly.
Only six tier 1-5 scenarios during Season 4 (one of which was a repeat from Season 3) didn't cut it. Moreover there were long stretches of time without a 1-5 scenario, at all. While it is true that older scenarios can be run for new players, sometimes the number of new players is not enough for "critical mass" (meaning not enough to make up a legal table). Older players need to sit at those tables and fill that role. This season I really struggled with getting a good mix of older and newer scenarios in my store, and had a hard time bringing along new players so they could get into tiers where they could play with older players.
Don't get me wrong: I muddled my way through it and was successful. Barely. But if Season 5 follows in the footsteps of Season 4 and has long runs with no low-tier scenarios, I don't know if I can pull off the same dance again.
So, count me firmly in the camp of More Tier 1-5 Scenarios, please. I'll go so far as to say there should ALWAYS be a new 1-x scenario published each month, with the second scenario alternating between mid and high tier each month.
PS - I will happily jump into the Just Plain Give Me More Scenarios camp, as well. I'd love to see three scenarios a month; one tier 1-5, one tier 3-7 (there are not nearly enough of these) and one tier 5-9 or 7-11.
I run between 16 and 20 tables per month at my store (Enchanted Grounds in Highlands Ranch, Colorado). I announce my entire schedule monthly during the week leading into the month (so April will be announced during the final week of March, etc.). I start out by soliciting for GMs.
This is what I post when I ask for GMs:
Hello, all,
It is that time, again. I’m looking for GMs for next month’s games at Enchanted Grounds in Highlands Ranch. This is not the open call for those games; that will happen next week after I have all the GM spots full. Watch for it then, if you are not going to GM. If you are interested in GMing for me, read on.
First, I would like to outline the benefits of GMing for Enchanted Grounds:
I can get you the module for free. If requested, I will provide a physical copy of it, along with faction missions and chronicle sheets. In certain cases, I can get you an electronic copy, but those cases are necessarily rare and must be discussed.
You will earn a $10 gift certificate to the store for each game you GM. This helps offset any cost you incur purchasing the scenario or the supplies to run that scenario.
You will be given access to the schedule ahead of the general announcement. For each table you GM I will allow you to take a player seat at another table. This seat is guaranteed, as you will be signing up ahead of the open call.
If you GM ten games at the store I will give you an Enchanted Grounds Pathfinder t-shirt.
As Phil McMahon once said so well, you "get to play an ass-hat that everyone can't stand for the entire night; one that everyone gets the satisfaction of killing at the end of the game." Don't sell that short. It's an invaluable benefit, and one everyone appreciates.
All of the inherent benefits of GMing PFS scenarios (character credit, advancement on the GM "star" tier, access to GM boons when made available, etc.).
So, with all that in mind, I would like to ask for GM volunteers for the following dates and scenarios:
Monday, , 6:00 PM:
Saturday, , 9:00 AM:
Saturday, , 2:00 PM:
Monday, , 6:00 PM:
I post the four scenarios I'm going to offer each day, and I will not post an open call for players until I have all the GM spots taken. We charge a mere $2 per player for each game which is what we use to buy the GM gift certificates. Sometimes we end up in the positive. Sometimes we end up in the red. Usually, this balances out. No one ever complains about having to pay $2 for 4+ hours of entertainment.
I have yet to ever have an issue getting hold of GMs for my store's games.
What do we do about areas with no VC or VL? How would those players receive boons if they have no VO to award them one?
Local stores would be a good choice, killing two birds with one stone (I'm referring to the thread asking about support for those stores who run PFS).
Additionally, you already have a built-in method to handle giving out GM rewards: the people who coordinate the games. Yes, often they are one and the same, especially in small areas with no Venture Officer or any local store, but as they are doing the coordinating, it seems like a good point of contact for you.
Create a package that is given to any 1-star GM who qualifies (ran 10 games, got no thread created about how terrible he was) and send that package to any coordinator who asks for it. Ask for the name of the GM it is going to be given to so you can verify his account. Do the same for 2-star, 3-star, etc.
So long as the package is static there is very little extra work on your end. It can be changed yearly to reflect the current story or things that Paizo wants to highlight.
PS - Not to be a downer to everyone who is asking for this, but I'm going to chime in on something. Pathfinder Society gives more to its GMs than any other organized play system I've ever seen (in the form of character credit, alone, but also due to 4-star and 5-star rewards and recognition). When character credit was asked for, everyone said, "That will make us happy and shut us up." Now, five years later, everyone wants more. This is AFTER annual changes that have increased the support given (going from half-credit to full credit, to full PA, to access to all the boons in varying steps until FULL credit was given even on things like Eyes of the Ten or Bonekeep chronicles that are incredibly difficult for players to max out). If Paizo institutes this kind of reward system, you will be getting even MORE than "The Most Credit Given By an OP System." When will it stop?
...recent additions have brought bans because they were obviously overpowered.
I don't think that's the way this stuff should be viewed. The way you should be seeing it is actually the way Magic looks at how they ban a card:
If the card is so good that no deck can afford to either a) not play it, or b) not be prepared to play against it, then the card was obviously an error that should not have been introduced to the metagame.
In Pathfinder Society you are looking at character options, of course. Had Quickrunner's Shirt been left on the list of available options there would not have been very many players who didn't purchase it. I would actually argue that the only people who didn't get it for their characters would have been people who were merely unaware of the option. So, looking at what Kashka said about the bracers you can apply that same idea. Every archer MUST have them, by virtue of the cost for what they provide. If an archer doesn't have it, the player will be told, "You should consider these" by any other player who meets him. Eventually, he'll get it. That's the embodiment of something that shouldn't have been introduced to the game.
Admittedly, +1 weapons go this same route, but that's kind of like saying basic lands should be banned in Magic. Some things have to be a part of the game.
I don't think this answers your question, but I'm going to take a stab at it:
Kick that guy out of your games; he's cheating.
To actually answer your question (without the taint of a cheater influencing the decision), I would propose this:
Do what seems natural. If the bad guy is smart enough to realize his defenses have been breached and he's about to die, why wouldn't he take off? Else, if he's perceptive enough to know they're there and are backing out to rest up, why not follow them and ambush them during their "rest?" Merely sitting there and waiting to die seems silly.
That said, if he's not perceptive, nor intelligent, then there should be no reason for him to leave.
Having played sandbox style adventuring since the early 80s, I can promise you it's not as rough to do as you may think.
I would actually recommend you read all the books. That way, should they ask questions you DO have the answers and will know how to grin mischievously at just the right parts. As a for-instance, someone started a thread about a barbarian character in his group wanting to go check out the local tribes. By having read books four and five, he knows what to introduce to that character and what to hold back. You'll want the same kind of flexibility, otherwise you will run into situations you aren't expecting, and will have to adjust later adventures due to things that you cannot change from the past.
Also, I'd actually recommend letting your players wander wherever they will. The nature of a sandbox is that the stuff close to "home" is safe. I.E., if you only go a few miles from Oleg's Trading Post, you're likely to not run into anything that you can't deal with. If, on the other hand, your group insists on wandering into the territory where the Iron Council was sent (the powerful group that gets sent way to the west with their charter and meets an untimely end), they should very quickly run into things that make them run screaming for "home" again, where it's safer.
By the way, just because they run into it doesn't mean they have to fight it. If they see a massive black dragon roosting on the hill several miles ahead, they may hunker down. Have them roll some stealth rolls. Then, when the beast takes wing and begins flying toward them, one of their horses may bolt (no low level character can make the handle animal check to stop that, but they can try). The beast swoops in, snatches up the running horse and glides away to consume its meal, "unaware" of the party so near by. The party, of course, has just narrowly averted certain death, and decides it is perhaps safer to put some distance between it and the dragon they cannot fight. For now...
The above, of course, counts as "gently guiding them back into the safe zone" but still feels (to them) like they were allowed to go where they want.
As for your prep note: yes. Prepare everything. Be ready with multiple random encounters ready to go. Have lots of wilderness flip maps and map locations so you're not repeatedly fighting on the same blank space. Have a good idea of what kind of environmental flavor you want to introduce. And know your own characters well (the NPCs make this story what it is).
I also strongly recommend reading DM aka Dudemeister's changes to the overall game. They're awesome.
This whole discussion just seems ill-advised, at this point.
I know some excellent players who use laptops and stay very engaged in the game.
I know some lousy players who remain un-involved in the game, even though they are using paper record sheets and only play with core rules.
One of the best PFS players I've ever played with actually hand wrote his whole character sheet, much like I used to do when I was in grade school and couldn't afford to buy the Player Character Record Sheet pack for AD&D. He pointed at it before we started playing and said, "Is this okay?" and I replied with, "Hell, yeah, so long as you know your rules. Brings out the little kid in me to see that."
I've had players blatantly cheat at the table and try to justify it by saying, "Hero Lab allows it, so it must be okay."
I have been able to point at Hero Lab sheets and say, "Look at that line. Do you think they'd print it up that way if it didn't work that way?" and therefore get players to fall in with the correct way to play the rule.
Like everything in life there are two sides to every single one of these arguments, and it ultimately comes down to the players and GM getting along and knowing how to play together. Computer, tablet, printed sheet, hand written sheet, all books present, PRD-only, or whatever. If a GM knows the rules and knows how to administer their table, the details become simple filler. They shouldn't be a bureaucratic nightmare that takes away from the game.
And Seth, Dragnmoon is correct. I'll happily chime in from a store owner's perspective and make an effort to bring that guy into the modern age, if you'd like. His "No PDF" policy is silly and narrow-minded, and will actually cost him more business than it will gain for him.
If you want to know how the Order of the Nail interacts with the region and its governments then you should read about it.
As for coming up with even more questions: you're lawyering it. If you want to do that, you're working too hard. Let the players have fun and don't try so hard to poke holes in the game. I'll leave it at that.
I agree that this faction mission is not presented well. The note from Guaril says, "...by any means necessary." That pretty well opens the door to killing him, which is unfortunately at odds with what is written in the scenario and at odds with (admit it) what is morally correct.
The note from Guaril should have been better worded, or some sort of back story given to the player so that he/she would have a frame of reference with which to make the decision.
If I run this again and have a Sczarni at the table I do know how I would approach it, though. I cannot imagine that the Sczarni player wouldn't immediately be asking about Marcus upon getting in the Citadel. I would make sure to respond in such a way that the player was clued in to the fact that he, himself, had been "Disappeared." Once they met him, I would play up Marcus's role as an opportunist and just continue to talk through the entire encounter. I would reference family a lot, and mention how he personally felt that family was more important than the Hellknights, and was therefore willing to trade the secrets. "Have to keep the family happy, you know."
If the decision was made to attempt to kill him instead of leave him in the jail, I would have him call out something to this effect: "Ah-ho! Family is most important to yet another, I see. So important he willfully chooses to commit nefarious murder against an unarmed and broken man." If the player persisted, I would follow up with a gasping and wounded Marcus asking, "Why don't you just leave me to rot, fool? I am under the Spire of the Forgotten and have been disappeared. No one except you will know that I can never get out of here alive." If that didn't make the player realize what he was doing, I think the alignment shift and necessary atonement would be warranted.
Remember: it is up to us to present these things properly to our players so they know what's going on, be it with story or with faction missions.
I ran this today as a “slot zero” for the Genghis Con GMs and thought I would provide a rundown on the game for you all. This will be a long post, so I spoilered a lot of the details to save space.
The PCs:
Omar bin Zayed – 7th level(?) trapper ranger 2hf, Grand Lodge
Milo – 8th level Halfling paladin with a riding dog bonded mount, Silver Crusade
Cailyn – 7th level cleric of Desna, Andoran
Kayla & Fluffy – 9th level summoner (Fluffy’s a rather large and scary teddy bear), Osirion
Ratcliffe – 7th level(?) Inuisitor of (not) Iomadae, Cheliax
After giving out the briefing from VC Heidmarch, I went on to explain that a not-uncommon practice in Cheliax when dealing with sedition is to completely remove the offending party from existence, to give them the condition of “Disappeared.” This further form of punishment will remove the name from any official records, wiping out any possibility that their family or friends will be able to benefit from their former existence. Government officials are instructed to forget about the culprit, and often rituals are invoked to be sure that this "forgetfulness" actually occurs with those who only knew the person in passing or on a professional level. The Society, of course, is not a part of Cheliax, so unaffected by any rituals and instructions, beyond being stymied at every turn by Chelaxian officials when inquiring about Zarta, and was thus interested in getting to the bottom of this mystery, as Zarta is important to Society operations.
I went on to state that a team was sent into the Chelaxian embassy in Absalom to snoop around, and the following evidence brought to light.
Spoiler:
First, the forged letters detailing Zarta’s “meetings” with anti-Thrune parties.
Second, the personal travel log.
Third, depository notes indicating payments made during the various “meetings.”
Of importance is the fact that the travel log’s handwriting and that of the letters do not quite match. Additionally, the travel log indicates that Zarta was called away from Absalom during official business at the last minute right before one of the meetings were to have taken place. With the official seal of Cheliax on those itineraries, the fact that she was not in Absalom at the time of that meeting could not be disputed. As well, the payment she received for the meeting when she was away from Absalom was still deposited while she was away, and the deposit note was noticeably different; it lacked the distinctive lipstick mark that Zarta left on every other deposit note she made (some of which the Society procured from the bank).
Finally, the Society secured an eyewitness account from the banker who took her deposits indicating that Zarta was “not her usual self” on the day she made that deposit. “Specifically, she didn’t, um, make me…squirm…the way she usually does.”
The team also came out of the embassy with Zarta’s location: Citadel Vraid.
Much of this, obviously, was enhanced by me. I made these same enhancements when I ran “The Disappeared,” but they didn’t really come up.
I also made sure to mention that Citadel Vraid is infamous for the myriad prisons, oubliettes, and “reformatories” that the Order of the Nail oversees within its walls. The number is high enough that the outside world actually doesn’t have any good estimate of how many prisoners the Citadel houses, much less the number that it executes or “disappears.” Finally, I made sure to prompt a knowledge local check so that the players were aware of the Order of the Nail’s place in Varisian society and history (which can be found on the wiki, and I won’t go into detail about – but it matters, in my mind, for how the players approach the Order).
When the party asked why the evidence did not exonerate her with Cheliax, I had Heidmarch explain that with as powerful an enemy as she had apparently made (Tancred Desimire), and the subsequent speed with which he was able to conduct her trial, the act of being “disappeared” likely completely removed any possibility that the evidence would be reexamined. When they asked why Citadel Vraid would merely accept the prisoner without proper evidence, I prompted them with the mercenary knowledge. This led them into a discussion in which they concluded that Zarta would have been given over by a lawful government with proper paperwork and instructions, and thus would not have been given second thought, assuming proper payment was also made. I merely had to nod and agree with their discussion.
When the group arrived at the Citadel, I met them with the Field Maralictor, but did not have her know the name of The Disappeared; she knew only that the Society was interested in restoring someone to their former station. I otherwise left her role intact, if a tad more severe than she is presented in the scenario.
Role playing with the Paravicar:
This went extremely well. Again, I removed his knowledge of Zarta’s identity, referring to her only as The Disappeared. The party picked up on the hints of the Paravicar’s interest in station and procedure, and played that to perfection. I asked questions about the validity of the journal, they asked me to verify the official seals within it with written documents of my own from Cheliax. I asked how I could possibly know whether the writing in the journal was actually hers, or whether that was forged, instead. They showed me the (very personalized) deposit slips. I asked about why such an obviously lascivious woman (considering the lipstick marks) would even be worth the effort. They explained the importance of her role in the Society and within Cheliax, itself. With a paladin, a cleric trained in diplomacy, an inquisitor who was spectacular at brown-nosing his Hellknight “heroes” and a sorcerer and summoner trained in linguistics to point out the obvious forgeries, this conversation ended with three successful roles and nary a hitch. He asked for the prisoner’s name, noted it on the writ with his signature, and dismissed them. The party briefly considered giving a false name, but didn’t give in to the temptation (I would have used that against them with the Lictor).
Role playing with the Mistress of Blades:
This was extremely enjoyable. They weren’t expecting a lawful good centaur in full Hellknight plate, and that impressed them a great deal. Again, she did not know Zarta’s identity, only that they wanted one of The Disappeared released. With more forcefulness and blustering than the Paravicar, she asked many of the same questions, but with a specifically placed, “I’m not entirely sure why I should care that some foppish nobility of Cheliax is imprisoned. Convince me this is worth my time.” The paladin offered a deal: if he could defeat her at a joust, she would have to listen. I gleefully improvised a joust between a Halfling mounted on a dog and a massive centaur. He burned his shirt reroll to be sure he hit solidly enough, trading a low roll for a 19, and did particularly well with his nonlethal damage. As he had kept his seat under her onslaught, the Mistress agreed to listen. Again, their collective diplomacy check started at +24, so this was not difficult. Once again, a name was asked, and the writ given over.
By this point, I am proud to say, I had recruited one of the party into becoming a Hellknight Signifier. The Chelaxian sorcerer hadn’t considered the idea ever, but now was making inquiries into joining the ranks and what it took to be a Hellknight. Someone pointed out the vanity, and he ran with it. (-:
They also made a side trip to the library. The trapper and the summoner conspired to steal a book; this ended rather quickly.
Role playing with Lictor DiVitri:
Again, this was a cakewalk for the party, especially considering the fact that they had all the signatures they needed. I asked some of the same questions, of course, but ended with this: “Tell me who would hate Zarta Dralneen enough to raise the ire of The Nail by falsifying evidence such as this.” The party debated for a moment, wondering if they should get involved in government politics, but ultimately gave up Desimire’s name. “You have answered correctly, Pathfinders. Any other name and I would have removed you from the Citadel. As it is his signature all over her dossier, you have earned my trust.” I ended with his speech as written in the scenario. With their diplomacy roll they had succeeded, of course, so I would have improvised some other response if they had lied, likely incorporating his ability to discern lies into the role play to force Desimire’s name from them.
Combat #1:
The party was led to the Spire of the Forgotten. When they presented the writ to Heriphis, I gave a slightly more detailed line before attacking: “She was Disappeared, you know. Not even the Lictor can get her back from where I sent her.” I gave a sense motive to everyone (DC 15), and all but the paladin were able to act in the subsequent surprise round. After some quick positioning on both sides and a couple strikes and spells, we went into full rounds. Heriphis was smiting both Kayla and Fluffy at this point (and was in Fluffy’s grapple). He got off a critical on his first smite hit against Fluffy, putting out 52 damage. He followed up with a not-insignificant amount of damage on the second and third hits (after a brief debate about whether 2wf constituted an action with two hands). Kayla’s player was mildly concerned by this point.
I forgot to bring the cerberi in until the 2nd round. /-:
The cerberi did do a reasonable amount of damage to the sorcerer, but were otherwise ineffective. If I had remembered to bring them in on the surprise round, I think this fight would have been slightly more tense, though the result would have been the same. The paladin, ranger, and eidolon all had ACs in the high 20s and low 30s, and the inquisitor was no slouch at providing damage that compared favorably with those three. Combined with blessing of fervor and prayer, and the group didn’t break much of a sweat after my first hit.
Another couple rounds later, and the stable and unconscious Maralictor was dumped in a cell to be given over to the Hellknights later, and the party was talking to the remaining prisoners. I moved the location of the picture/gate to the wall behind the desk so the prisoners could see what went on. Once they had the story of the Maralictor’s deceit nailed down, and had released Sascha (but not Marcus), I called a bathroom break. Because of this, the party forgot to buff up before going to hell. (-:<
Combat#2:
I had the lava do damage whenever a square they touched was entered, as CRobledo suggested, and this slowed down the party’s advance. The edavagor moved around the corner out line of sight (and out of the paladin’s charge lane) and readied its breath weapon. Which the sorcerer triggered. With his fire resistance and a couple saving throws, he took only a minor amount of damage. He was dropping acid pits on the beast (which always made its save) while the remainder of the group surrounded the creature and the cleric mitigated any damage I was dealing. I used AoOs to trip people whenever possible, and was power attacking every round.
In hindsight, I shouldn’t have, as my dice completely failed me. I needed to roll a 10 or better to hit most of the “big three” while power attacking, and often missed with four out of five attacks. I never landed more than two out of five. At one point in time I had the paladin’s mount lined up to trip, hopefully removing the smiting paladin from the fight for a round. I rolled a high enough hit that the paladin couldn't make the ride check to avoid it. On the subsequent CMB to trip, I rolled a 1. Ugh.
With the paladin’s smite and the high number of attacks the group was able to put on due to blessing of ferver, the edavagor went down after five rounds. I rolled a “4” on the breath weapon recharge, so it never got that off a second time, as it died on the round it would have been able to use it again. I think, had I hit more often, I would have made the group a lot more nervous (and they already were, when I was handing out hit numbers and damage amounts). No one went down, though, nor were they much threatened due to my lousy dice. One full attack saw me roll a 1, 3, 1, 5 and 8. d-:
The paracountess was rescued by teleporting into the cage and teleporting out, triggering the erinyes contingency. But I didn’t run that fight due to time constraints (we ran a four hour slot, as that is what we’ll do at Genghis Con, and with all the role playing, we were already 10 minutes over).
A fun time was had by all, however, and a new respect was earned for the Hellknights. With the added flavor of withholding Zarta’s name, and the additional evidence I added in, we had plenty of talking points, and the group came away with a very good sense of story, I think. I directed them to this thread as part of their prep for the con, so hopefully they’ll chime in with their own observations, should they have some.
Thanks for the time. I hope you enjoyed (and can make use of) the account.
I am always fascinated that, when this stuff comes up, the person playing the good character is the one who is cast in the light of the instigator of pvp.
In our society, if someone decides to pick on the mentally disabled kid, does the person who stands up for that kid get told to shut up? If someone starts cracking rape jokes, is it the person who takes offense to that who is the "problem" in that situation?
I find it bizarre that, when it comes to role playing games, it is, indeed, the morally upstanding person who is told he's going the pvp route. In an effort to "cooperate" that guy just has to sit and let the rape jokes fly while the disabled kid is ridiculed by his small minded peers. This is the one serious flaw I see in PFS.
And, for the record, I have played three different groups through Darkest Vengeance, all at either the low tier (due to being new players) or as a just-barely-qualified high tier; all survived, and loved the scenario. Several of those players went on to GM the scenario themselves, and it is a favorite, locally.
I'd be very interested to be a fly on the wall and see how you run it to make it enjoyable for the newbies.
Simple: I made sure they found and discussed all the clues so that they understood what was going on with the experiments, and how the fact that the upstairs machine was merely a prototype for the downstairs machine. Moreover, the clues made them aware of the bad guy, who they speculated was connected to the guys in the library. So, they went into that last fight with a plan, every time.
From there, if the GM follows the tactics as written, it is an enjoyable and challenging fight with a lot of tension. It only gets deadly if the GM ignores the tactics and doesn't present the story properly to the players.
Hm. I guess I'm not a fan of punishing those who are good at their jobs to compensate for the few who aren't.
And, for the record, I have played three different groups through Darkest Vengeance, all at either the low tier (due to being new players) or as a just-barely-qualified high tier; all survived, and loved the scenario. Several of those players went on to GM the scenario themselves, and it is a favorite, locally.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am no longer surprised that this subject just insists on coming up every six months. I am constantly surprised that it seems like no one ever looks around to see if this has been discussed before.
This thread and this thread have a lot to say on this subject, and we can now add this thread to the debate. All of them should be read, and all the arguments really should be read before anyone tries to rehash them, once again. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I sent you to my post in the second thread to save you time reading everything leading up to it - the LFR debate is still relevant, is essentially what you are referencing, almost always comes up in replay threads, and happened just prior to and after my post. Moreover, many of the arguments for replay are even worse, now that there are two more seasons worth of scenarios.
Now, to put some numbers into perspective:
Currently there are 116 scenarios that can be played, not counting specials that require a 4-star GM or multiple tables to sanction. On top of that, you can play 19 different modules, all of which require two or three sessions to complete and grant 3 XP. Three more modules offer another session and 1 XP each.
By my count, that is 157 sessions (assuming you complete the modules in two sessions), with 176 XP available. That's enough to play for 79 weeks, even if you are playing twice per week, and enough XP to get four characters to retirement (and one of those to near 20th level). After 79 weeks, another 8 modules will have been released, and another 30+ scenarios.
By another count that is 628 hours of playing, not counting the stuff that gets released before you're done. And I'm not counting the fact that Adventure Paths are now sanctioned (which is hundreds more hours and dozens of sessions).
Do we really need replay with all that available? Do you really need replay to stop all your players from "mining" for loot?
Well, rule by committee means the committee needs to rule. Do what you said and chat with your fellow players. If everyone agrees that this guy is a stinker, get him fixed. Sounds like none of you would be willing to hang out with this guy outside of the fact that you have to due to some unwritten rule that organized play is "public." So, don't hang out with him, unless he fixes his attitude.
If you let this behavior continue, you will lose players.
The people who leave won't tell you they're leaving, and they won't tell you why. They will just stop showing up. As your group gets smaller and smaller, you'll wonder why, all the while trying to accommodate this guy. Do yourself and your group a favor and stop trying to figure him out. Just confront him and get it over with.
Mine was trotting this little prop out for three of my Storming the Diamond Gate tables at Tacticon 2012 (don't look at the link if you don't want a spoiler). The reactions from the players were awesome, every time. And the dynamics it added to the combat were really fun.
Thanks to Myron Pauls for the inspiration, and Mike Brock for the encouragement, to give building the terrain a go. It worked out just as they said it would.
This thread makes me sad. I started playing AD&D when I was 8 (White Plume Mountain - I was a halfling thief). By the time I was 10 I was DMing (for my sister, admittedly, who was 7, but it counts, don't it? Please disregard the fact that she hasn't played in almost 30 years, now...). When I was 12 I started writing my own campaign world, and wrote a novel set in that world when I was 17. Because of this influence in my younger life, I am now the owner of a game store, and provide entertainment (by GMing) for three separate home groups plus scores of PFS players.
All of that would have been squished flat if I'd been told I was too young to play that halfling thief.
Then, again, I'm pretty sure I was able to give my attention to my DM in White Plume Mountain for far longer than 4 hours.
You have a very difficult situation on your hands, and I don't envy you your position. The only thing I can offer is the strong advice to look at your own childhood and try to decide how you would have reacted to whatever you plan to say to this child (even if it is said via the father).
From a practical standpoint, is there any chance at all of someone putting together a "Young Adventurers League" that gets run regularly? They could use Beginner Box rules, and run a series of mini-campaigns (like The Shades of Ice series reworked for BB play). Fathers could be invited, and transition plans could be made to work those kids into PFS, eventually, if they show an aptitude and desire to continue.
These are just my thoughts. Good luck with your dilemma.
To solve the teleport problem in my game I'm taking a page from a series of books I read (Terry Goodkind, I think). The players will be able to use teleportation and dimension door style effects, but every time they do, they draw "something" closer to them. I'll give them little hints as they first delve into this new travel mode, but by the fourth or fifth time they use it for long distance travel, I'll hit them with a fey-world assassin that has tracked them through the use of the magic. Narissa, of course, wants to keep her plans from being easily unraveled, and easy movement throughout the Stolen Lands would not be conducive to those goals.
The assassin will have to be something truly scary and bizarre, and something that the players can either drive off or escape without being able to kill it, just yet. But it will definitely be keyed to teleportation magic, and that will be apparent as soon as it attacks the first time. I haven't settled on a "thing" yet (I'm sad that the prior module took away a pretty good idea), so would happily take anyone else's ideas.
This should allow them to actually "bank" the use of teleport. If they really need it, they can use it (at risk of being found), but will absolutely keep them from using it regularly.
