Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

GM's Approval


Pathfinder Society GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I am a new GM to PFS, I decided to wait until season 3 so that everything would be current. One thing I have came across a lot on these boards has to do with what does GM's Approval mean for PFS. This is a phrase found at least once in almost all the books for Pathfinder, and for those of us that run house game's it is a simple concept, but what does it mean in PFS?

After reading the new field guide and the society guide, I did not find a simple answer to this. So I will pose it to the boards and I am sure I will get varied answers, but any and all will help.

What rules/regulations does the GM have any say in changing or adjusting in PFS?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

Thraxital wrote:
What rules/regulations does the GM have any say in changing or adjusting in PFS?

As a table GM you are subordinate to the decisions made by the campaign staff, as given out in the campaign documents. You can't change any of the core rules (like suddenly deciding that CG Paladins are ok), or the mechanics of how grapple works, or allowing characters to apply their Wisdom modifier to Intimidate checks. You can't violate any of the rules documented in the campaign documents.

Anything not covered in that is somewhat "fuzzy". You're expected to scale the adventure up or down if the party is having too easy or too hard a time. You're expected to seat a group of 3 or 7 players if that's what it takes to make the game happen, even though the rules say minimum 4 and maximum 6. You're not expected to change the black dragon in the module into a gold dragon, but if you have a child at the table, changing the ... "working girl" into a "merchant" is expected.

Alignment issues and reskinning (changing the appearance of something in the game without changing the mechanics) are hotly debated topics at the moment.

As far as GM Approval for classes, feats, equipment, etc -- what's in the Guide is the law of the campaign.

Hope that clarifies things.


That is a nice clarification. It is about what I expected, though I do wish there was more on the issues you mentioned(the reskinning, alignments).

I also found the rewarding creative decisions part kind of flat(reward them with... what they would have already gotten!) I am looking forward to having more experiance with the rules, but they really take any of the creativity out of being a GM(other then funny NPC voices I guess).

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In the old RPGA days the campaign was considered the GM for most of the ask-your-GM type questions, GMs were considered judges. Sometimes it does help to look at that way. The campaign decides the various house rules while the GM is there to adjudicate the results.

Thraxital wrote:


That is a nice clarification. It is about what I expected, though I do wish there was more on the issues you mentioned(the reskinning, alignments).

As you can tell from those threads they are very contentious issues. There is no handling that everyone can agree upon. Even the various camps have arguments over where to draw the line on a particular issue.

Thraxital wrote:
I also found the rewarding creative decisions part kind of flat(reward them with... what they would have already gotten!)

Well, unfortunately, some wrongheaded GMs would deny them any rewards because they didn't solve a problem the way the module expected, so the players must be punished.

Thraxital wrote:
I am looking forward to having more experiance with the rules, but they really take any of the creativity out of being a GM(other then funny NPC voices I guess).

It is a different beast. You need to focus your creativity on roleplaying and enriching gameplay rather than the monkeying with the rules. To me that is a whole lot of freedom.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

Thraxital wrote:
...but they really take any of the creativity out of being a GM(other then funny NPC voices I guess).

It's a matter of dealing with a really large campaign with literally thousands of players and GMs. You *have* to sacrifice some of the individuality behind the screen so that players can have a reasonable amount of certainty on what's going to be allowed and what's not going to be allowed when they sit down at the table. In fact, a lack of that predictability and/or transparency... really, a lack of *consistency* in the campaign (rather than with an individual GM) due to the variance in GMs is really the source of the current hotly debated and somewhat contentious debates raging over in the other threads.

If you're looking for more of a creative outlet in the campaign, I'd suggest submitting some scenario ideas. If the Paizo staff like it and decide they want you to write a mod for the campaign, I think they may even pay you for your efforts.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Captain aka AZhobbit

Here is an example of this. I recently ran Black Water for four players who were novice pathfinders. During the party with the Chelaxian noblewoman they did an increadible job of roleplaying and really had a great time with it. The actual delve was very difficult and two of the PC's contracted ghoul fever, a very horrible disease at low levels and would have cost them all their gold or all their earned PA to cure. Because of the great role play they did and the care they took when returning the woman's daughter, I decided to have her pay for the curing of the disease.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Thraxital wrote:


I also found the rewarding creative decisions part kind of flat(reward them with... what they would have already gotten!) I am looking forward to having more experiance with the rules, but they really take any of the creativity out of being a GM(other then funny NPC voices I guess).

Success is sometimes the only reward players need, even a chance at success can be a reward.

When a player looks for a fast exit from a window in three story building. Give the player a break: "Sure! There is a cart full of tomatos down there. But it is across the alley. Make an Acrobatics/Jump check [DC 15]".

Reward players by playing along their hair-brained ideas (within the frame os what is plausible).

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Diego Winterborg wrote:


Success is sometimes the only reward players need, even a chance at success can be a reward.

When a player looks for a fast exit from a window in three story building. Give the player a break: "Sure! There is a cart full of tomatos down there. But it is across the alley. Make an Acrobatics/Jump check [DC 15]".

Reward players by playing along their hair-brained ideas (within the frame os what is plausible).

That is the point of that part of the guide, to reward people who come up with creative ways to solve a mission, get out of a jam or save the day.

Edit: Got confused with threads, Thought this was a different One, edited my response

Sovereign Court

Diego Winterborg wrote:
Thraxital wrote:


I also found the rewarding creative decisions part kind of flat(reward them with... what they would have already gotten!) I am looking forward to having more experiance with the rules, but they really take any of the creativity out of being a GM(other then funny NPC voices I guess).

Success is sometimes the only reward players need, even a chance at success can be a reward.

When a player looks for a fast exit from a window in three story building. Give the player a break: "Sure! There is a cart full of tomatos down there. But it is across the alley. Make an Acrobatics/Jump check [DC 15]".

Reward players by playing along their hair-brained ideas (within the frame os what is plausible).

I agree. Rewarding creative play is about "Saying Yes" to the players in terms of trying to reduce obstacles to their creative plans working out.

Over the decades I've seen many GMs that remain in such a simulationist mindset that when someone wants to do something creative or cinematic, the GM might allow for it, but they dump so many modifiers or put such a high DC on the situation "because that would be realistic" that it basically ensures the action isn't going to be successful. Even if the GM isn't intending it, this approach is basically "Saying No" to the players.


Thanks for all of your input, most of it is how I precieved things also. I agree with the points about rewarding characters that do somethig out of the norm, my arguement is that there should be something extra given to those individuals, not that which they would already be getting if they did it the mundane way, even if it was just a one time use boon on a check or something.

I do wish the guides were a bit more specific when it comes to GMing, it would seem that if you wanted to standardize operations that would be the audience to address.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Thraxital wrote:


Thanks for all of your input, most of it is how I precieved things also. I agree with the points about rewarding characters that do somethig out of the norm, my arguement is that there should be something extra given to those individuals, not that which they would already be getting if they did it the mundane way, even if it was just a one time use boon on a check or something.

I do wish the guides were a bit more specific when it comes to GMing, it would seem that if you wanted to standardize operations that would be the audience to address.

As it is it is still the campaign leaderships prrogative to award boons, PA, gold and such.

As GMs we can reward players with good rpg experiences.

The Exchange *** Star Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

Though I am late to the party, I hope you will accept my thoughts here:

Guide to Judging PFS

Thanks for stepping up to contribute and judge, my friend.

You make the entire Society better by agreeing to run.

-Pain


Painlord wrote:

Though I am late to the party, I hope you will accept my thoughts here:

Guide to Judging PFS

Thanks for stepping up to contribute and judge, my friend.

You make the entire Society better by agreeing to run.

-Pain

Thanks, what do you think of season 3 so far? I have to say Frostfur captives caused a lot of issues between the players, almost on the verge of breaking the no PVP rule. The faction missions seem to be geared to pitting the players against eachother in that MOD more then most I have played in the past.

Shadow Lodge ****

Thraxital wrote:
Thanks, what do you think of season 3 so far? I have to say Frostfur captives caused a lot of issues between the players, almost on the verge of breaking the no PVP rule. The faction missions seem to be geared to pitting the players against each other in that MOD more then most I have played in the past.

This yahoo would appreciate if this thread stayed spoiler free.

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
AxeMurder0 wrote:
Thraxital wrote:
Thanks, what do you think of season 3 so far? I have to say Frostfur captives caused a lot of issues between the players, almost on the verge of breaking the no PVP rule. The faction missions seem to be geared to pitting the players against each other in that MOD more then most I have played in the past.
This yahoo would appreciate if this thread stayed spoiler free.

This is the PFS GM Forum, If you want Spoiler free do not open anything in this forum.

"This forum is for Pathfinder Society GMs to discuss game play experience and seek clarification on scenarios. Threads in this forum may contain spoilers for players."

** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

GMs are players too, so no GM would ever be able to look at this thread without risking spoilers unless they'd decided never to play another game.

Spoiler tags are always worth using, unless the title of the thread says 'Mod name - spoilers' or the like.

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Then the GM should not look either if they don't want spoilers.

Sorry the forum is not for those that don't want spoilers, stay out if you don't want them. Willpower is good.

That is a big thing about this forum section, spoilers tags are expected not to be used, and that will not and should not change.

Read the warning in the description on this section.

Sovereign Court ****

Dragnmoon wrote:

Then the GM should not look either if they don't want spoilers.

Sorry the forum is not for those that don't want spoilers, stay out if you don't want them. Willpower is good.

That is a big thing about this forum section, spoilers tags are expected not to be used, and that will not and should not change.

Read the warning in the description on this section.

Uuh, although the section of the forums does warn of containing possible spoilers, it doesn't mean you can tell everything about every scenario? Mostly I've seen people put spoiler tags telling what scenario they are giving spoilers about, like this:

S00-01 The Silent Tide:
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!

I'm a GM, and I'm a player. I don't mind spoilers as I can disregard them while playing and not use any metaknowledge.

TL;DR: Using spoiler tags is still a good way to go, especially in a thread that doesn't explicitly state a certain scenario.

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Deussu wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:

Then the GM should not look either if they don't want spoilers.

Sorry the forum is not for those that don't want spoilers, stay out if you don't want them. Willpower is good.

That is a big thing about this forum section, spoilers tags are expected not to be used, and that will not and should not change.

Read the warning in the description on this section.

Uuh, although the section of the forums does warn of containing possible spoilers, it doesn't mean you can tell everything about every scenario? Mostly I've seen people put spoiler tags telling what scenario they are giving spoilers about, like this:

** spoiler omitted **

I'm a GM, and I'm a player. I don't mind spoilers as I can disregard them while playing and not use any metaknowledge.

TL;DR: Using spoiler tags is still a good way to go, especially in a thread that doesn't explicitly state a certain scenario.

But it is not expected or required. So keep out if you do nt want spoilers.

** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So its a GM thread that GMs mustn't look at then?

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Stormfriend wrote:

So its a GM thread that GMs mustn't look at then?

If the GM does not want spoilers.

Spoiler tag are not enforced in this section.

How many times to I have to repeat myself.

If you don't like that all I can say is, oh well, stay out.

Shadow Lodge ****

Dragnmoon, I find your posts here super hostile, I'm sorry I ran over your dog.

I have read the description for this forum and just because some threads may contain spoilers doesn't mean that all threads should contain spoilers.

I'm very curious as to people's opinions on the original question:

What rules/regulations does the GM have any say in changing or adjusting in PFS?

So please let me participate in a discussion on that subject instead of telling me to go away because I politely asked for this particular thread to be spoiler free.

Shadow Lodge ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AxeMurder0 wrote:
So please let me participate in a discussion on that subject instead of telling me to go away because I politely asked for this particular thread to be spoiler free.

AxeMurder0,

While I appreciate your desires, the GM page has a warning about spoilers at the very top.

"GM Forum Tag wrote:
This forum is for Pathfinder Society GMs to discuss game play experience and seek clarification on scenarios. Threads in this forum may contain spoilers for players.

Most if not all of these threads eventually devolve into spoilers, and there is little if anything you will be able to do about it. Complaining won't do much because those who are providing spoilers are in essence following the forum rules. If it bothers you that much, I would suggest asking your non-module questions in another thread which hopefully will not devolve into the discussion about a module with aforementioned spoilers.

Dark Archive

AxeMurder0 wrote:
Thraxital wrote:
Thanks, what do you think of season 3 so far? I have to say Frostfur captives caused a lot of issues between the players, almost on the verge of breaking the no PVP rule. The faction missions seem to be geared to pitting the players against each other in that MOD more then most I have played in the past.
This yahoo would appreciate if this thread stayed spoiler free.

I did not put up a spoiler tag, because that is not much of a spoiler. Faction missions pit players against eachother, hmmm ya that really ruined the mod for you didnt it. Guess can't play it now.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nimon wrote:


I did not put up a spoiler tag, because that is not much of a spoiler. Faction missions pit players against eachother, hmmm ya that really ruined the mod for you didnt it. Guess can't play it now.

That wasn't really a spoiler, what I was hoping was that the thread would stay on the topic of what's ok for a GM to adjust, not what do you think of season 3's faction missions.

Towards that goal:

Here are some things I think the GM cannot do:

Mess with the rewards system, including XP, boons, gold & prestige. Players get what the mod says they earned, no matter how clever the player was in breaking into the vault of infinite cheese, it's all back to normal by the next mod.

Authorize players to use "GM approval required options". Sure it would be cool if the halfling could ride a dinosaur but if it's not listed as an option for PFS it's not usable, even with that other mounts at the GM's discretion clause. The GM for those purposes is Paizo, not the table judge, not the local organizer and not the VC.
---

Here are some things I think they GM can do:

Apply the +2 rule when somebody is being awesome.

Let players complete challenges in ways not foreseen by the mod.

Adjust the flavor to fit the table such as reflavoring the prostitute or I once ran a mod with some spider swarms and had a player literally freaked out, apparently they had a spider phobia, so I swapped the description to some other sort of swarm and everything was fine.

* Star Voter 2013

I have a question regarding "creative solutions" to finishing the faction missions in particular.

I think we all agree that if you have a non-secret faction mission that involves a skill check (a Climb skill check for example) and you convince an NPC to do it for you (through Diplomacy, Intimidation, or spells), that you should get the prestige for finishing the faction mission correct?

In the scenario "The Midnight Mauler"

Spoiler:
The Osirion faction says to get the McGuffin, you have to make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check.

If there are other plausible ways to solve a faction mission than making the skill check specified in the scenario, should the GM allow other skill checks to solve the problem? With the example I provided above:
- Diplomacy

Spoiler:
(because we just saved his life. A reward maybe? Or get his friend to help us out with the negotiation?)

- Diplomacy (seduce lol)
- Stealth (to sneak around while he's distracted and grab it. Or hide in his house.)
- Create a distraction in another room (like a small fire :) ) and grab the McGuffin?

Should a player be able to solve that faction mission in a variety of ways? At Gen Con, I was told no ('no' to Diplomacy in any case even with a 25+ skill check and the conditions mentioned above).

So what's the official stance on skill based checks for faction missions? If one of my players can think of another way to finish the faction mission, should he allow it with another skill check (or maybe only a good plan?). Or should I ask for the skill check and if no one can do it, it’s tough luck?

Silver Crusade **

Jason S wrote:


I have a question regarding "creative solutions" to finishing the faction missions in particular.

I think we all agree that if you have a non-secret faction mission that involves a skill check (a Climb skill check for example) and you convince an NPC to do it for you (through Diplomacy, Intimidation, or spells), that you should get the prestige for finishing the faction mission correct?

In the scenario "The Midnight Mauler"
** spoiler omitted **

If there are other plausible ways to solve a faction mission than making the skill check specified in the scenario, should the GM allow other skill checks to solve the problem? With the example I provided above:
- Diplomacy ** spoiler omitted **
- Diplomacy (seduce lol)
- Stealth (to sneak around while he's distracted and grab it. Or hide in his house.)
- Create a distraction in another room (like a small fire :) ) and grab the McGuffin?

Should a player be able to solve that faction mission in a variety of ways? At Gen Con, I was told no ('no' to Diplomacy in any case even with a 25+ skill check and the conditions mentioned above).

So what's the official stance on skill based checks for faction missions? If one of my players can think of another way to finish the faction mission, should he allow it with another skill check (or maybe only a good plan?). Or should I ask for the skill check and if no one can do it, it’s tough luck?

If you can give me a good reason you should be able to use the skill in this situation, I'll let it slide, but usually at a slightly increased DC. Pathfinder is about *fun*, so in general if the fun quotient outweighs the rule bending, it can happen at my table.

EDIT: But officially, they used the proper skill, as by the rules, you have to.

Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I ran into this issue on my barbarian/oracle when he was asked to bring back a tissue sample. So he bought a case of sample vials before leaving Absalom and ended up taking 20 on the Heal check to get a sample.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

Jason, in the mission you mention, I would not let Diplomacy work during the first meeting. I may during the conclusion of the adventure, but you should be aware there are some very high DC's involved.

What I have done is

Spoiler:
allow them to forego the boon everyone gets for saving him.

I have also had players take a more... aggressive... approach, which resulted in other consequences.

* Star Voter 2013

K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Stuff.

I meant a later meeting of course, otherwise you haven't done anything for him, right? I'm not concerned about my prestige point (what's done is done and it might even say in the scenario that Diplomacy has a 0% of working), it was just an example, I'm more concerned about what you should so, as GM, in a generic case.

It sounds to me, so far, like a GM should be somewhat flexible.

With the Frostfur Captives, almost every mission can be solved in other creative ways other than what's given in the scenario, so I'm wondering how I should handle it. Especially since it's been handled strictly with me when I've been a PC in various scenarios. MM wasn't the first time other solutions weren't allowed.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Dragnmoon wrote:


If the GM does not want spoilers.

Spoiler tag are not enforced in this section.

How many times to I have to repeat myself.

If you don't like that all I can say is, oh well, stay out.

I disagree. I am a GM AND a player. Therefore, I will have cause to enter all the various forums. If the title of a tread is "Scenario X" then I should expect spoilers regarding that scenario.

However, I should not expect that a general or non-specific thread like this one ("GM's Approval) would contain scenario spoiling information. It is just common courtesy to tag text that the reader could not anticipate is a spoiler.

Shadow Lodge **

Jason S wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Stuff.

I meant a later meeting of course, otherwise you haven't done anything for him, right? I'm not concerned about my prestige point (what's done is done and it might even say in the scenario that Diplomacy has a 0% of working), it was just an example, I'm more concerned about what you should so, as GM, in a generic case.

It sounds to me, so far, like a GM should be somewhat flexible.

With the Frostfur Captives, almost every mission can be solved in other creative ways other than what's given in the scenario, so I'm wondering how I should handle it. Especially since it's been handled strictly with me when I've been a PC in various scenarios. MM wasn't the first time other solutions weren't allowed.

I do apologize for the way that table worked out, honestly. As much as I hate to admit it, you guys sorta fell victim to the GM (me, in this case) being crushed by three prior days of pretty much non-stop GMing.

That said, you bring up some very valid points, and I myself have expressed dissatisfaction with how that particular mission works out. I think (in the future, at least for me) some flexibility in that one will definitely be required. Still, all in all, that entire scenario is much better when the one running it has all of their faculties at 100%, lol. And yes, I'm coming down on myself. It was my own failing that day that made the scenario suffer, though it does have its own drawbacks as well (most of which you've already touched on in your reviews of it).

I only wish I'd been able to do it some justice that day.

* Star Voter 2013

Dane Pitchford wrote:
Stuff

No, it was fine Dane, the scenario said to make skill check X, so you played it as written. Anyway, no apology needed and I regret using it as an example. Next time I'll use fake examples. :)

Plus, it's not like I came up with anything more creative myself than asking the Bard negotiate for me, so it's fair game. That's what happens with 3 hours sleep! If I had to do it again, I would have started a small fire in his house to create a distraction, lol.

The point is, I think it would be nice to have an official guideline on how to handle alternate solutions to "skill check missions", for the future, so there's not as much GM fiat.

Shadow Lodge **

Jason S wrote:
Dane Pitchford wrote:
Stuff

No, it was fine Dane, the scenario said to make skill check X, so you played it as written. Anyway, no apology needed and I regret using it as an example. Next time I'll use fake examples. :)

Plus, it's not like I came up with anything more creative myself than asking the Bard negotiate for me, so it's fair game. That's what happens with 3 hours sleep! If I had to do it again, I would have started a small fire in his house to create a distraction, lol.

The point is, I think it would be nice to have an official guideline on how to handle alternate solutions to "skill check missions", for the future, so there's not as much GM fiat.

Heh, exactly. At that point, I was running on 3 hours of sleep...for the last several days in a row, so I was pretty scorched as far as brain functions go :)

Dark Archive

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:


If the GM does not want spoilers.

Spoiler tag are not enforced in this section.

How many times to I have to repeat myself.

If you don't like that all I can say is, oh well, stay out.

I disagree. I am a GM AND a player. Therefore, I will have cause to enter all the various forums. If the title of a tread is "Scenario X" then I should expect spoilers regarding that scenario.

However, I should not expect that a general or non-specific thread like this one ("GM's Approval) would contain scenario spoiling information. It is just common courtesy to tag text that the reader could not anticipate is a spoiler.

Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
Nimon wrote:
Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

Yes, there is at least one un-tagged spoiler in this thread.

While there is a general warning about this section, I think Bob is correct, in a general sense. It is courteous in a thread like this, which is not about a specific scenario, to use spoiler tags.

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Nimon wrote:
Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

Yes, there is at least one un-tagged spoiler in this thread.

While there is a general warning about this section, I think Bob is correct, in a general sense. It is courteous in a thread like this, which is not about a specific scenario, to use spoiler tags.

Pfft when have I ever been courteous?

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:
Pfft when have I ever been courteous?

Its never too late learn, Dragnmoon. <raised finger>

Grand Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

Pssst... Diego... That is not a courteous finger.

;)

Grand Lodge **

Jason S wrote:
The point is, I think it would be nice to have an official guideline on how to handle alternate solutions to "skill check missions", for the future, so there's not as much GM fiat.

This is very tricky for me. On the one hand you have "Reward Creative Solutions." This is very important. Players do things you don't think of, and come up with interesting ideas all the time. Generally they have some kind of rules based rational for what they are trying, so to be a strict interpretationilist for most things seems like a mistake. On another hand you have the Wealth By Level curve which basically assumes you earn 1.5 PP per scenario. 1.5 means that you are going to fail some. Giving you an alternate skill check for any reason may fly in the face of that intention. Now that the design has changed to the faction point truly taking a secondary role to the mission point, it only reinforces the goal to me. Complete your primary mission.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mark Garringer wrote:
Jason S wrote:
The point is, I think it would be nice to have an official guideline on how to handle alternate solutions to "skill check missions", for the future, so there's not as much GM fiat.
This is very tricky for me. On the one hand you have "Reward Creative Solutions." This is very important. Players do things you don't think of, and come up with interesting ideas all the time. Generally they have some kind of rules based rational for what they are trying, so to be a strict interpretationilist for most things seems like a mistake. On another hand you have the Wealth By Level curve which basically assumes you earn 1.5 PP per scenario. 1.5 means that you are going to fail some. Giving you an alternate skill check for any reason may fly in the face of that intention. Now that the design has changed to the faction point truly taking a secondary role to the mission point, it only reinforces the goal to me. Complete your primary mission.

As long as GMs use common sense I think the "Reward Creative Solutions" rule should be used in many of these situations.

The Pallid Plague:
Cheliax faction characters are asigned to stick propaganda on local bulletin boards. By the scenario description that is a Sleight of Hand check. If players are able to do this at a time the area is deserted or are able to create a suitable distraction, the GM could reduce the DC of the Sleight of Hand check or have the skill substituted with Stealth or even Bluff.

If you want a guideline I can offer this.
If a player makes a reasonable argument for why their plan might work, chose a suitable alternate skill, but set the DC to be the same of the original skill checks DC.

Dark Archive

K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Nimon wrote:
Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

Yes, there is at least one un-tagged spoiler in this thread.

While there is a general warning about this section, I think Bob is correct, in a general sense. It is courteous in a thread like this, which is not about a specific scenario, to use spoiler tags.

Are you just assuming there is because everyone is talking about it, or can you find the spoiler in this thread. Saying that faction missions pit characters against each other is a real general statement that could be applied to any scenario. Critical Reading Folks.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Nimon wrote:


Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

I was not implying that there are spoilers in this thread, merely responding to Dragnmoon's insistence that spoiler tags are generally not necessary in the GM discussion threads. I disagree.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
Nimon wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Nimon wrote:
Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

Yes, there is at least one un-tagged spoiler in this thread.

While there is a general warning about this section, I think Bob is correct, in a general sense. It is courteous in a thread like this, which is not about a specific scenario, to use spoiler tags.

Are you just assuming there is because everyone is talking about it, or can you find the spoiler in this thread. Saying that faction missions pit characters against each other is a real general statement that could be applied to any scenario. Critical Reading Folks.

Nope. There is a post with multiple spoilers for a specific scenario.

I did not call it out, to not draw further attention to it.

Regardless, the general statement stands.

Dark Archive

K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Nimon wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:
Nimon wrote:
Is there even one spoiler in this thread? I think most of you like to complain just to complain.

Yes, there is at least one un-tagged spoiler in this thread.

While there is a general warning about this section, I think Bob is correct, in a general sense. It is courteous in a thread like this, which is not about a specific scenario, to use spoiler tags.

Are you just assuming there is because everyone is talking about it, or can you find the spoiler in this thread. Saying that faction missions pit characters against each other is a real general statement that could be applied to any scenario. Critical Reading Folks.

Nope. There is a post with multiple spoilers for a specific scenario.

I did not call it out, to not draw further attention to it.

Regardless, the general statement stands.

You said THIS Thread, you don't even read your own quotes?


Bob Jonquet wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:


If the GM does not want spoilers.

Spoiler tag are not enforced in this section.

How many times to I have to repeat myself.

If you don't like that all I can say is, oh well, stay out.

I disagree. I am a GM AND a player. Therefore, I will have cause to enter all the various forums. If the title of a tread is "Scenario X" then I should expect spoilers regarding that scenario.

However, I should not expect that a general or non-specific thread like this one ("GM's Approval) would contain scenario spoiling information. It is just common courtesy to tag text that the reader could not anticipate is a spoiler.

But now that a scenario can be run and played in either order for credit, more GMs will already have knowledge when playing through scenarios, so to me that means less need for spoiler tags in an area that already has a warning about spoilers. Of course, people could be courteous and do it, but requiring it is not needed.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
But now that a scenario can be run and played in either order for credit, more GMs will already have knowledge when playing through scenarios, so to me that means less need for spoiler tags in an area that already has a warning about spoilers. Of course, people could be courteous and do it, but requiring it is not needed.

That doesn't mean that, as a GM, I must know about a scenario before I play it. Personally, I have very few opportunities to play a scenario before I run it. When I do get the chance, I don't want to have advanced knowledge of the details.

If there is a thread with the scenario name in the title, I will avoid that thread. No spoiler needed. However, if scenario info is leaked in a thread with an unrelated name, it is at least careless to not spoiler the info, and could be considered insulting.

Just more support for my ideal that "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD"

Dark Archive

Cool well we all know what you guys think about spoilers. Has nothing to do with this threads topic, or content of this thread since there is no spoilers here. Thanks for helping me though those of you that actually remained on subject.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

Nimon, this thread spoiler

Spoiler:
there are spoilers for Black Waters

Perhaps you could dial it back a bit.

Shadow Lodge **

Nimon wrote:


Cool well we all know what you guys think about spoilers. Has nothing to do with this threads topic, or content of this thread since there is no spoilers here. Thanks for helping me though those of you that actually remained on subject.

And there's really no need to be so antagonistic. In trying to address your question, they were simply letting you know that there are those that prefer spoilers (whether minor or major) be placed in tags. We're all here to talk about a game we enjoy, so let's stay civil :)

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / Pathfinder Society GM Discussion / GM's Approval All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.