GM fudging


GM Discussion

5/5

What is the official stance on GM fudging dice rolls in OP?

In my PF campaigns I do it regularly, but have never done it for OP. This has of course lead to a couple of TPKs and I would like to know if I have been unduely harsh.

This far I have thought of it like this: in OP every one has to play by the same standards and the only way to ensure that players in Denmark get the same treatment as players in Seattle is of GMs don't fudge... but am I wrong should GMs in OP fudge on a regular basis?

Dark Archive

Good question...in normal play, do what helps the story the most...TPKs (or even near-TPKs) are unhealthy in the long run, but so is too much fudging. But that's a debate for another time. I'd say stick to the dice in OP.

And "hejsa", Dane :)

Sovereign Court

In OP you shouldn't fudge. The dice need to fall where they may.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Grandfather

Thanks for bringing this up. It would be good to hear opinions as well as the official line.

I just had my first casualty two days ago. While a cleric was at hand to admister healing I just rolled a single point of damage to high to cause him to fall to -15 (with 14 CON). This was for a first time player in the second encounter.

It wasn't as bad as it sounds. It was a home group and time was getting late - so we will reconvene to finish the scenario with the other players only. No need for the player to sit out the rest of the game and watch - actually that was his original intention - just to watch. He only got the rules a day before and while having big plans for a gnome summoner he didnd't manage in time to get one together. This will allow him to start next game with a fresh character which actually will be a character he really wants instead of a pregen.

But at a CON in an early encounter I would feel a lot worse in a situation like that.

Thod

5/5

Thod wrote:
This will allow him to start next game with a fresh character which actually will be a character he really wants instead of a pregen.

If you are playing (continuing) the same scenario next time you play, that player cannot participate. The PFS OP guide states that any player can only play during a scenario with one character. Even for home games.

5/5

The Grandfather wrote:
If you are playing (continuing) the same scenario next time you play, that player cannot participate. The PFS OP guide states that any player can only play during a scenario with one character. Even for home games.

I'm pretty sure he said the player wasn't returning to that game, just creating a gnome to continue playing PFS with.

Personally, I would moderate an extreme case/series of bad luck, given it wasn't caused by bad tactics/role-playing/etc. It needs to be fun, and watching a TPK because the DM rolled max-whatever 7 times in a row... that's not fun.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

The Grandfather wrote:
Thod wrote:
This will allow him to start next game with a fresh character which actually will be a character he really wants instead of a pregen.
If you are playing (continuing) the same scenario next time you play, that player cannot participate. The PFS OP guide states that any player can only play during a scenario with one character. Even for home games.

Sorry if I left this impression. No - he would have to come back next module we play. He would have to pause one evening/afternoon. Alternatives are to be spectator or see question in the other thread in regard to resurrection and come back with the same character but raised.

As I'm tempted to add an extra session to our schedule just to get the module finished he wouldn't even miss any regular play (and giving me more freedom to schedule as the other players are more flexible in timing).

Thod


The problem with everything being equal in OP in regards to any game that uses dice and luck is that it can never be equal. Are you someone that always seems to be lucky with your dice rolls, whether as a player or DM, or do you have a lot of bad luck with rolls? As a DM, if you are at either end of the luck spectrum, then you may need to fudge a roll here or there just to keep the party alive if you have good luck, or if you have bad luck do just the opposite so that the players do not have a cakewalk of a game and get bored or overconfident. I would say in OP that fudging rolls should be kept at a minimum unless your dice rolls as a DM are so amazingly good, or bad, that it is ruining the game.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

What I like about the pathfinder system is, that it is a grown up rule book.
There are a few paragraphs in the GM section that give advice under which circumstances fudging seems to be okay.
Maybe someone could find the passage and add it for the discussion. I don't have access to my rules before Tuesday.
I'm not saying this is the best way to handle it in OP. But I thought I add this here.

OP has the problem that it has to strive to treat everyone fair and the same.

Good GMs will get as close as possible to that ideal. But smetimes even GMs will do mistakes. I surely have done a few I'm aware off and probably more I'm not aware off. While not intentional - effects can be bigger as a fudged roll.

I try to learn and do better next time. As such to GM the same scenario multiPle times does help. And this is a reason I like the GM star system. Multi-Star GM should do better On average.

Thod the half-star GM (still working towards my full star)

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
... your dice rolls as a DM are so amazingly bad that it is ruining the game.

That pretty much sums up my GMing. "The vampire rolled a 2?!? What the hell! Never mind, he doesn't suck your blood!"

The Exchange 3/5

I'm probably a big freakin' cheater. But only the good fun sense, in my point of view.

I judged last Monday, a table of 6 of mostly 2s and 3s, but one first level, first time PFS player. So this new player played his new mod at a 3-4 subtier.

The mod, now retired, has a particularly nasty surprise awaiting at the back door. Though I hinted my best at going through the front door, this party decided the back door was best.

Sadly, the new level one/new PFS player was eventually entangled and met the green meanie in person.

A level one halfling rogue isn't going to last long against that beastie...let alone when my openly rolled die comes up a natural '20' on his first combat ever in his first mod ever.

Nope, I quickly and hastily 'rolled' (abracadabra!) to confirm and it didn't.

He spent the first combat bleeding a lot and then some more, but did survive the combat and the module.

-Pain

5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson

Instead of fudging rolls, sometimes suboptimal tactics are more appropriate. Foes may make plans based on personal issues or confused perceptions, rather than choosing the most effective strategies.

Murder on the Silken Caravan Spoiler:

Spoiler:
In one encounter in MotSC, the party faces a formidable force of goblins and hobgoblins. These foes can be quite lethal if run ruthlessly. When I've run the adventure for parties of 1st level PCs, I've emphasized the goblins scatterbrained combat tactics, as some stop to loot saddlebags or start leading away recalcitrant camels while their fellows continue to fight. After being bitten by an annoyed camel, one might start attacking the poor beast. Meanwhile, the poor hobgoblin leaders are struggling to be heard over the howling storm winds, their voices muffled by the full helmets meant to protect them from blowing sand. They can't even see what's going on halfway across the battlefield, so there's no way they could coordinate their actions well.

If things look dire, don't forget that villains may choose to keep enemies alive to ransom them back later (or sell into slavery). Others might not want to antagonize the Society by slaughtering their men needlessly: After all, many of the Pathfinders' recruits are clearly paid muscle, brought along to protect the more scholarly adventurers. If it chose to, the Society could probably put together a massive force of armed adventurers to take out some pirate or bandit that interfered with its plans.


*places fingers in ears*

LALALALALAALALALALALAALALALALALA!

5/5

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

*places fingers in ears*

LALALALALAALALALALALAALALALALALA!

What is your stance on fudging in OP, Joshua?


*places fingers in ears*

LALALALALAALALALALALAALALALALALA!

Sovereign Court

The Grandfather wrote:
Joshua J. Frost wrote:

*places fingers in ears*

LALALALALAALALALALALAALALALALALA!

What is your stance on fudging in OP, Joshua?

Spoiler:
I believe that translates to: "What I don't know doesn't hurt me. So long as people are enjoying the game."
5/5

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

*places fingers in ears*

LALALALALAALALALALALAALALALALALA!

OK :)


Sometimes things are best left unsaid and left to the discretion of the individual GM who can make decisions based on the specific situation at hand.

As for the experience being the same across games, that is hard to accomplish regardless of some fudging a GM may do. Just the tactics a DM chooses can greatly alter how an encounter plays out for one group versus another group. Or possibly how strongly a DM hints to one path over another or how easily they have NPCs provide information.

Standards of organized play certainly help try to establish a consistent play experience, in the end the GM will be a great factor in what the player's experience is really like.

I think there have been some good options made about how to handle situations going poorly for the PCs. Especially the ones that suggest possibly altering the tactics being used by the opposing side. Sir_Wulf makes some great suggestions here with how altering tactics can greatly change the outcome of the encounter without necessarily tainting the play experience.

The Exchange 1/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

It wouldn't be that hard to create a consistent OP experience. But what it would do is take all the life out of the game: all text would be prepared, all actions programmed within fairly tight constraints. Basically, you'd have to turn into something other than an RPG to accomplish it.

Much like mass-produced food, aiming for consistency creates a bland product :)

5/5

The PRPG rules actually addresses the issue of fudging.
Since PFS OP is PRPG I guess we should default to that.


IronWolf wrote:

Sir_Wulf makes some great suggestions here with how altering tactics can greatly change the outcome of the encounter without necessarily tainting the play experience.

What's interesting to me is the number of times I've heard someone complain of a TPK and they list tactics XYZ of the monster as the reason the party died. Then I go back into the PDF, read the encounter, and remember that I specifically put tactics ABC for that creature to specifically avoid XYZ which I felt would lead to a TPK. So, sometimes, the GM should follow the tactics because the author and developers made those decisions/changes to keep the players alive. :-)


Joshua J. Frost wrote:


What's interesting to me is the number of times I've heard someone complain of a TPK and they list tactics XYZ of the monster as the reason the party died. Then I go back into the PDF, read the encounter, and remember that I specifically put tactics ABC for that creature to specifically avoid XYZ which I felt would lead to a TPK. So, sometimes, the GM should follow the tactics because the author and developers made those decisions/changes to keep the players alive. :-)

Yes, I guess that would be the flip side of the coin as well. :) Changing published tactics to the other direction making encounters more difficult than they were originally intended.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
What's interesting to me is the number of times I've heard someone complain of a TPK and they list tactics XYZ of the monster as the reason the party died. Then I go back into the PDF, read the encounter, and remember that I specifically put tactics ABC for that creature to specifically avoid XYZ which I felt would lead to a TPK. So, sometimes, the GM should follow the tactics because the author and developers made those decisions/changes to keep the players alive. :-)

Yeah, we had that happen to us, recently. We went into the last encounter and the baddy started tearing us apart. It was all we could do to survive, much less put up a fight. The DM shrugged after a little while and "called" it, due to time running out on the slot. He made sure to point out that he wasn't even doing everything available to him and showed me the stat block, revealing that he wasn't lying.

Later, however, I read the module, and it's pretty explicitly stated that the bad guy is not prepared to meet the party, and goes from surprised to overconfident, only starting to use all the tactics available to it after being shown that the party is something to be reckoned with. At which point, of course, the party should be in great position to put it down.

Rather than fudging his rolls/tactics, and ultimately calling the fight, I wish he'd just paid attention to the adventure as it was written...

Lantern Lodge 4/5

I'm a game or two away from my third star, so I've GMed quite a few, and played a few too.

I (nearly) always roll GM dice out in the open, except in cases where the players shouldn't know the result of those rolls. I've had the unfortunate situation where by day-two of a convention it became suspicious that a player might be cheating his rolls at the table, and by day-three it became too obvious to be co-incidence. Once this was called out to the the player, the GM response was "all the other players roll their dice in the open, the GM rolls his dice in the open, if you roll your dice out in the open no one will be pointing fingers, and everyone can get back to enjoying the game". I think rolling GM dice in the open sets trust between players and GM, and sets a clear example for other players to follow.

I think there is some leniency in the rules for fudged DCs for skill checks, because players never know what those DCs are without reading the scenario, because sometimes if every player at the table fails a knowledge, perception or sense motive check, the result is the game is slowed down with aimless meandering between encounters, which is counter-productive in a time-limited convention session. If someone failed the check by only 1 or 2, the GM could grant a +2 situational or role-playing modifier, or point them in the right direction and let them figure the rest out themselves.

During combat can be a more serious situation, because the result can be character death or even TPK.

I had a situation last weekend where we were fighting enlarged creatures with big weapons. My character cast Ray of Enfeeblement at one of them, who targeted my character in the next round with a x3 Critical. My poor 2nd level Witch dropped like a sack of potatoes. I was completely ready to accept my fate, as it was only 2nd level, and I could re-build my character at 1st level without too much consequence. But then I asked the GM "did you factor the reduced strength in that hit?" He hadn't, so he recalculated the damage, leaving my character unconscious but one point from death! Someone rushed to stabilise me during the next round - Madusha lives to hex another day!

My point is, removing the threat of death somehow lessens the game. Players should understand that through no fault of their own, sometimes bad things happen to their character - sometimes irreversably bad things! Madusha got lucky that day, and I'm glad for it, I can brag the day I escaped within one point of my life! But equally Madusha was my first Witch, and I was beginning to question whether some of the choices I'd made were good ones? Rebuilding Madusha learning from actual play experience wouldn't have been a bad option.

However, it does feel bad as a GM when a combat goes horribly wrong. I don't fudge dice rolls, but I do make strong tactics suggestions to new players, or a table of players who haven't worked together before and just aren't getting it.

For example:

  • provide each other with flanks, particularly the Rogue, so you can hit more often and score Sneak damage - you'd be surprised how many players miss this one, maybe because they aren't aware your character is a Rogue (eg, game-days and conventions, you game with different players/characters each session)
  • use your animal companions or summoned creatures to provide additional flanking opportunities
  • archers who stand back and fire arrows aren't always effective against some creatures (eg, damage reduction), the archer has effectively removed his substantial hit-point total from the combat, he'll watch as one-by-one all his party-members die while he stands back at a safe distance. The better tactic would be to remain in melee to help distribute the damage more widely among party-members so everyone can stay standing and dealing damage for a few rounds longer
  • the situation I see most often is the impossible combat - the creature's AC is too high, the Fighter is missing more often than he's hitting, and other classes have even less chance! Players think their characters are ineffective in such a combat, so stand back, leaving the Fighter to do it alone. Everyone seems to forget the Aid Another rule in combat:
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook page 197 wrote:

In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.

Wow! +2 untyped bonuses to hit (or to AC) that stack? How many times has a GM asked "you just missed, are you sure you can't pull another +1 from somewhere?" Player looks over character sheet "umm .. nope .. sorry".

Why don't players use Aid Another during combat? Particularly against high AC creatures that prove so difficult to hit and cause so many TPKs? Get those annoying little gnome characters in there waving their arms about insulting their mothers, get those animal companions in there barking and growling, anyone can hit AC 10! against any creature, no matter how high it's actual AC is to assist their heavy-hitters with a better chance to hit. Do anything to create a distraction for your enemies, make them easier targets for your Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues with sneak attack!

My point is, rather than fudging dice rolls, help a struggling group with tactics they may not be familiar with or rules they might have forgotten. Give them some inspiration to pull together as a team, identify their strengths and everyone stacks on.

Of course this doesn't resolve the x3 Critical - that's just unpredictable and largely unavoidable - but offering tactic suggestions to players does help a large number of desperate combat situations players often find themselves in, particularly a table of players at a game-day or convention who have never gamed together before.

5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson

Drogon wrote:
Rather than fudging his rolls/tactics, and ultimately calling the fight, I wish he'd just paid attention to the adventure as it was written...

That sort of thing often results from a GM who just didn't have enough time to prepare properly. A well-meaning volunteer can easily set himself up for failure if he lets himself get talked into running something without adequate time to review the scenario. I was once handed an adventure less than 15 minutes before the slot was scheduled to begin: A couple of GMs couldn't make it, so someone had to step up. Obviously, I'd have delivered a better play experience if I'd had time to properly prepare for the module.

(Note: That wasn't a Pathfinder game... That sort of situation doesn't happen at 'cons where Josh organizes things.)

Liberty's Edge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkWhite wrote:
My point is, rather than fudging dice rolls, help a struggling group with tactics they may not be familiar with or rules they might have forgotten.

Also, this will make them better players in the future ;)

Good post, by the way.

The Exchange 1/5

I haven't fudged rolls but I've moderated enemies actions - ie retreated, escaped, attacked different PCs etc.

In homebrew campaigns I've had enemies take a lot (almost all) of the PCs stuff rather than TPK.
Or, for example, the hungry monster runs off with the nearest body.

Always look at why the PCs and the enemy are in conflict. TPK should only be from mindless/relentless enemies or when the last standing players refuse to surrender!

My playing groups have been made of experienced players who have coached any newbies. DarkWhites post on GMs helping with tactics is a good one (I've had him as a GM at Gencon and he is tops!).

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

RizzotheRat wrote:


My playing groups have been made of experienced players who have coached any newbies. DarkWhites post on GMs helping with tactics is a good one (I've had him as a GM at Gencon and he is tops!).

I absolutely agree - coaching is really important and I only recently have experienced other groups and alternative ways how to solve a problem.

Having said this - the last time I gave a hint to one of my players it backfired badly.

GM to Rogue/Fighter after missed dice role: You are aware that if you just made a free 5-foot step that you would have been flanking the opponent. Might be a good idea for next turn.

Dwarven Fighter - next in initiative round: I take a 5 foot step and flank the Lion (missed dice role) - second missed role (a 1) for perception role.

GM: Ooops - the dwarf just positioned himself in the doorway facing away from it and not noticing the second lion (partner of the first) who now attacks you from the back - flanking you and catching you by suprise.

--------

It wasn't a PFS game - and the dwarf still had loads of HP to survive the onslaught. I could have delayed - allowed the second lion just to growl instead of pouncing.
But I admit I didn't saw it coming as the advice was given for another player. With hindsight - bad timing for giving advice - or advice for players - if you flank - watch your back.

Thod

The Exchange 2/5

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
What's interesting to me is the number of times I've heard someone complain of a TPK and they list tactics XYZ of the monster as the reason the party died. Then I go back into the PDF, read the encounter, and remember that I specifically put tactics ABC for that creature to specifically avoid XYZ which I felt would lead to a TPK. So, sometimes, the GM should follow the tactics because the author and developers made those decisions/changes to keep the players alive. :-)

I believe an example of this is...

Encounter in Citadel of Flame:
I believe a perfect example of this is the fire sorcerer in Citadel of Flame. The tactics say he uses fireball, burning hands, and elemental ray as often as possible. Not to just use fireball until it runs out then burning hands. Which coincidentally will wipe out almost any party of tier 4-5, especially when they group together because they think he's out of fireballs. It's even more deadly when you have already nailed the party with a fireball trap at the dry sauna.

Or any time that an intelligent creatures combat block says to attack nearest creature relentlessly. Instead of using its intelligence to attack the weakest or flank with a fellow member or some other tactic that is better than just attacking nearest.


It's best to remember that not all foes are tactical geniuses like the players and GM are likely to be. The foes make mistakes, they get angry and attack single targets, they sometimes memorize unlikely spell combinations and make poor spell choices. Playing every single monster as a tactical genius is, in my mind, a hold-over of the "GM is playing against us" mentality that I saw a lot in 2E games. As someone who almost exclusively GMs, I love challenging my players and putting their PCs in difficult situations, but outright killing them because I'm playing every foe with a mind for tactics as good as mine just doesn't seem fun to me and I can't imagine it would be fun for them.

Just my two cents.

The Exchange 1/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Just my two cents.

Worth more like a buck fifty in my estimation :)

1/5

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

It's best to remember that not all foes are tactical geniuses like the players and GM are likely to be. The foes make mistakes, they get angry and attack single targets, they sometimes memorize unlikely spell combinations and make poor spell choices. Playing every single monster as a tactical genius is, in my mind, a hold-over of the "GM is playing against us" mentality that I saw a lot in 2E games. As someone who almost exclusively GMs, I love challenging my players and putting their PCs in difficult situations, but outright killing them because I'm playing every foe with a mind for tactics as good as mine just doesn't seem fun to me and I can't imagine it would be fun for them.

Just my two cents.

As the guy with the Contributor tag just said, easily a buck-fifty here. Seriously, can we get some of this added into the next revision of the guide? A lot of GMs I've spoken to either don't read or flatly ignore the Tactics block, stating that they won't play intelligent beings 'stupid.' And in cases where that's intended as a balancing point, wonder why those scenarios end up being so dangerous.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Chris Kenney wrote:


As the guy with the Contributor tag just said, easily a buck-fifty here. Seriously, can we get some of this added into the next revision of the guide? A lot of GMs I've spoken to either don't read or flatly ignore the Tactics block, stating that they won't play intelligent beings 'stupid.' And in cases where that's intended as a balancing point, wonder why those scenarios end up being so dangerous.

Chris

I don't think that such advice belongs into the PFS guide. This - and a lot more is hopefully in the Game Mastery Guide coming out in June. I'm more than happy if there is a paragraph in the PFS guide towards the Game Mastery Guide in regard to advice of 'being a good and entertaining GM'. But the PFS guide shouldn't tell you how to be a good GM - the same way as general rules questions are moved off these forum.

Don't get me wrong - I do read the tactics block. At the same time I sometime have to adjust to actions of the players. As a GM I like the freedom to decide what I think should happen next if the group doesn't follow the script. Two recent examples are below:

Voices in the Void - following tactics:
The group did encounter the shrieker. Shortly later one of the group got hit by the Brown Mold - causing him to fall to 0 HP (non lethal damage). So they spend 1 hour waiting for him to get back to 1 HP. This caused the final fight to be a lot easier as a) the Mage Armour had worn off that was casted from a scroll after the Shrieker went off and b) allowed suprise as they didn't trigger the stone of Alarm and after one hour of nothing to happen I allowed suprise again.

Shipyard Rats - not following tactics:

Arriving at the ship the group discusses tactics while one player not paying attention just casts light (on herself). The group decides to hide while the cleric causing it 'walks up and down' until the spell wears off. This causes encounter 4 to happen ahead of encounter 3 while the action is now off the ship. This includes the half-orc monk loitering at the plank to the ship and missing his hiding check to be mistaken to be a member of the ship and being send on the ship by the cleric.
This made for some entertaing role play as he first followed her orders - only to later suprise-grapple her from behind and drag her into the water. Shame she hasn't any swim skills and the half plate dragged her down - but only after she and the zombie had taken down two of the group.
As a GM I wasn't forced down this route. It was my decision to let the clock start ticking the moment they arrived at the gang plank and not the moment they started the first fight on the ship. I decided for the first - the rest is then how I interpreted everything else to fit in while making an entertaining but not necessarily deadly encounter.

Thod

1/5

I wasn't really saying GMs should slavishly follow the text to the exlcusion of common sense or adjusting to the PC's actions. I was more pointing out that there's a sub-set of GMs who are flatly ignoring it in favor of assuming the stat blocks are set up the NPCs to try their damndest to create a TPK, then wondering why they're succeeding entirely too well and assuming this is intended. Actually having language in the guide spelling out "Hey, we sometimes tell you to have the NPCs do 'dumb' things for a reason" might curtail some of this.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Chris Kenney wrote:
I wasn't really saying GMs should slavishly follow the text to the exlcusion of common sense or adjusting to the PC's actions. I was more pointing out that there's a sub-set of GMs who are flatly ignoring it in favor of assuming the stat blocks are set up the NPCs to try their damndest to create a TPK, then wondering why they're succeeding entirely too well and assuming this is intended. Actually having language in the guide spelling out "Hey, we sometimes tell you to have the NPCs do 'dumb' things for a reason" might curtail some of this.

Chris

I think we pretty much agree on most issues - we only look at them from a different angle. Sentence 2 of the PFS Guide, What is a GM (p.26) should express your view:

'A GM’s duty is to provide a fair and fun game.'

This should sum it all up. Tactics should help to ensure a fair and fun game. A GM who strives to maximize TPK is unlikely to provide a fun game to his players even if everything he does is RAW.

My main concern with sticking slavishly with tactics is also handled in the 'Reward Creative Solutions'.

Thod

1/5

Thod wrote:


I think we pretty much agree on most issues - we only look at them from a different angle. Sentence 2 of the PFS Guide, What is a GM (p.26) should express your view:

'A GM’s duty is to provide a fair and fun game.'

This should sum it all up. Tactics should help to ensure a fair and fun game. A GM who strives to maximize TPK is unlikely to provide a fun game to his players even if everything he does is RAW.

My main concern with sticking slavishly with tactics is also handled in the 'Reward Creative Solutions'.

Thod

I think we're pretty close, but you're arguing that this stuff is common sense. IME, that isn't the case.

True example, with the specific facts obfuscated because they actually turned out to be incorrect regarding the specific module.

So, let us say, hypothetically, that there is a module featuring an evil cleric. This evil cleric is a little off kilter, and he just loves his children (A horde of mindless undead terrorizing...something.)

In Tier 1-2, his tactics block is set up so that he will only use Channel Energy to keep his undead minions on their feet, because he just loves them that much. At Tier 4-5, he's willing to show some self-preservation and will blast the PCs. In both cases the PCs begin the encounter boxed in with no room to reach the cleric, yet well within Channel range.

It might sound extreme, yet I've run across the argument - more than once - that the tactics block in this case should be disregarded and the cleric run the same at both tiers. The difference is that, since Tier 4-5 characters have the HP to survive being channeled at multiple times, even with the cleric's level increased, they have a chance, where the low-level PCs in this case are just going to be slaughtered.

They also honestly feel that this IS the "fun session" they're being asked to provide, and that it's the module writer's fault for putting in something too powerful for the PCs to handle. Where if they'd just bothered to read it and run the encounter 'as intended' it would still be difficult but not necessarily deadly.


This kind of situation is where the voice of the players should come in. If there are GM's regularly running scenarios to the extreme and trying to kill off the characters, then the players need to voice their concerns to these GM's and to event coordinators. And if that does not help, just stop playing in the games they run and let other players know which GM's are unfair in their tactics. Now that there is the star system in place and there will be more rewards for GM's, at least some will pay attention and change their ways when they start to have trouble making legal tables for the games they run.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Players can hand-pick which GMs they play under at large events??

(And until that last star, GMs are rated only on how many events they've run and reported.)

The Exchange 2/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Players can hand-pick which GMs they play under at large events??

(And until that last star, GMs are rated only on how many events they've run and reported.)

Not usually, in my experience. But I can definitely think of a couple of GMs that I'd be willing to walk away from a slot I payed to play in rather than spend four hours in one of their games again, so that could be a valid tactic if enough people do it.

I should add...not pathfinder GMs! I haven't had any bad ones, so far.

1/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
This kind of situation is where the voice of the players should come in. If there are GM's regularly running scenarios to the extreme and trying to kill off the characters, then the players need to voice their concerns to these GM's and to event coordinators. And if that does not help, just stop playing in the games they run and let other players know which GM's are unfair in their tactics. Now that there is the star system in place and there will be more rewards for GM's, at least some will pay attention and change their ways when they start to have trouble making legal tables for the games they run.

Hmm...maybe I'm not conveying this clearly. I don't think these GMs are really trying to go all Gygax on tables. I think there's just a disconnect on what the "Tactics" section under monsters is actually there to do and what these GMs believe it is there for.

It's actual purpose is to try to provide table consistency and, occasionally, balance an encounter where an NPC gets a really cool ability they shouldn't have at that CR by limiting how or why they use it. It's a design tool, and a rather potent one (even if it might need to be held in reserve sometimes.) By the way, if I'm wrong about that, feel free to correct me. That's just what Joshua seems to be saying.

What these GMs seem to posit is that it's solely a 'new GMs helper' and that they're well past the need for that kind of hand-holding. They're quite capable of evaluating a stat block and determining the 'best' way to run the encounter from that, thank you very much.

This disconnect is occasionally causing issues, and they're also very often the sort of GMs who will only pay attention to the board for the 'big announcements'. Burying statements about it in threads like this one isn't going to help. Spelling it out somewhere official just might.

5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson

If you're used to playing or running a regular home game, sometimes it can be jarring to deal with the disorganization or lack of communication caused when a group is thrown together at a 'con.

A few months ago, I ran a table that fell apart in its climactic battle because they just didn't go into it the way a more seasoned team would have. A couple of players were well-prepared and tactically savvy, but others just didn't bring their "A" game to the table. Since it was a short table, they needed the whole team to contribute.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Players can hand-pick which GMs they play under at large events??

(And until that last star, GMs are rated only on how many events they've run and reported.)

You can certainly give feedback to the event coordinator(s). And the ability to get up and leave a table is one that every player has everywhere.

The Exchange 1/5

I think reading the Tactics and Morale of each NPC is critical.

I recall one encounter in The Hydra's Fang Incident:

ACT 2 Encounter Spoiler:
If the GM doesn't play the morale of the Sea Cat as written, ie: it flees if it's master dies or flees, then this encounter is pretty tough.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / GM fudging All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in GM Discussion