Run as Written vs. GM Caveat...Are we being hypocritical?

[deusvult]

Jiggy wrote:

@deusvult:

Wait, so averting death is not sufficient cause to fudge, but jamming a healing wand is?

Is there some way to reconcile those two statements, or are you just backpedaling because you didn't get the support you expected?

As for interpreting your intent to hand out free heals as being more frequent than you meant, perhaps I did overestimate your readiness for it. If so, it would be because in your hypothetical situation, the wand jams and you don't even bother suggesting they buy potions, and instead move straight to free heals. So as presented, you've shown that you would rather give free heals than make your players purchase consumables. Can you see how that would imply an over-readiness to fudge? So if I misunderstood what you meant, it's only because I understood what you said.

The UMD wand is just an example. A truly hypothetical one at that. One of the key parameters in that example is that there is no other healing available. Another is that it's not their fault there is no other healing available. Yes, that's kind of a hard situation to even find a way to be in, but it is possible. I won't bother giving examples because those examples will just go on being attacked and the actually important things I'm trying to say will go on being ignored.

So yes, averting a PC's death isn't by itself sufficient reason to fudge. But if he was killed despite the player doing everything 'right', yes I just might fudge something. The important thing, again, is the bad stuff is not the player's fault. And that whatever fudging DOES happen, is just to avoid the bad stuff. Not be a crutch to walk on.

What I was saying all along is that whether it's PFS or not, the GM has the perogative to 'throw the players a bone' if in his own opinion, it is warranted.

And people are just freaking out about it. "Oh f@ck no, you can't do that, not in PFS!!"

Yes, yes we can.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

This idea occurred to me over this past weekend at a regional convention.

There have been many threads over the past few years arguing where or not a GM can deviate from the written text of a scenario and how far that deviation can go before it crosses some subjective line.

There have been just as many threads about allowing players to be creative in performing their faction missions despite specific completion conditions/skills being written in the text.

So, I ask, if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?

OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?

Just wondering how much hypocrisy exists out there...

we seem to have wondered some from Bob's original post. I figured it would be a good idea to "refresh" his original questions - and what the heck, I'll answer them for myself again.

Original Questions - with my answers:
if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?
actually, I like to think I am on the side of "run as written". That said, I do realize that "the completion criteria as written" can not cover all the possibities that players (bless them) can come up with in their twisted little minds (yep, I'm a player too). That said, let me give an example. Say the 'Completion criteria" for this faction mission says "Locate the anchient Kelish building" and states that the players need a Kn(History) or Kn(Architecure) DC 15 to get it. The PC in question does not have either of these skills, and no other PC in the group has them. BUT, one of the PCs says, "I'll check by the local collage of magic. Perhaps a wizard there has one of these skills and for a small fee I can hire the sage to locate the building for us." I would most likely NOT let the players do the following "hay, I've got Kn(nobility) and I'm Taldan - we used to fight with the Kelish all the time, so I should know what Kelish buildings look like right? I'll roll and get an "18" which is 3 more than the target number, so we find the building right?"

OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
(see the example above - does that mean I allow creativity?)
and the answer to "apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario" I would say sure! and give the following example:
In First steps Part III, the adventure SEEMS to be written so that the players have to fight the Bog Mother. I have/do allow the players to talk their way past the combat. It's hard, and often she ends up fighting them anyway, but it is possible. And if they do, I allow them to "recover" or "find" treasure that they would have looted from her body - in as creative a fashion as I can.

[Dragnmoon]

deusvult wrote:

What I was saying all along is that whether it's PFS or not, the GM has the perogative to 'throw the players a bone' if in his own opinion, it is warranted.

And people are just freaking out about it. "Oh f@ck no, you can't do that, not in PFS!!"

Yes, yes we can.

Sure they can, as long as they don't change or contradict rules, which your wand example does.

Now having them run into a NPC they can higher for healing would be a good example of something a GM could do.

[Jiggy]

I'd be happy to address any/everything you feel has been ignored.

deusvult wrote:

So yes, averting a PC's death isn't by itself sufficient reason to fudge. But if he was killed despite the player doing everything 'right', yes I just might fudge something. The important thing, again, is the bad stuff is not the player's fault. And that whatever fudging DOES happen, is just to avoid the bad stuff. Not be a crutch to walk on.

Okay, so your point is that as long as the player does everything "right" (they're properly prepared, they don't do anything dumb, etc), then it's okay for the GM to fudge things in their favor?

So what about when you crit a first-level character? Or crit at all, for that matter? What if you just have hot dice that day?

The way you've described your position (a rough spot with no player fault), it would include fudging every time the dice land heavily against the PCs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remembered you being vehement about there needing to be that variance, lest this game turn into an MMO.

So either you're going back on your previous position of table variance being a good thing (I recall you even including dice in your description), or your definition of the parameters for fudging being okay (rough spot with no player fault) needs to be rephrased to match your true stance.

Which is it?

[nosig]

deusvult wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

@deusvult:

Wait, so averting death is not sufficient cause to fudge, but jamming a healing wand is?

Is there some way to reconcile those two statements, or are you just backpedaling because you didn't get the support you expected?

As for interpreting your intent to hand out free heals as being more frequent than you meant, perhaps I did overestimate your readiness for it. If so, it would be because in your hypothetical situation, the wand jams and you don't even bother suggesting they buy potions, and instead move straight to free heals. So as presented, you've shown that you would rather give free heals than make your players purchase consumables. Can you see how that would imply an over-readiness to fudge? So if I misunderstood what you meant, it's only because I understood what you said.

The UMD wand is just an example. A truly hypothetical one at that. One of the key parameters in that example is that there is no other healing available. Another is that it's not their fault there is no other healing available. Yes, that's kind of a hard situation to even find a way to be in, but it is possible. I won't bother giving examples because those examples will just go on being attacked and the actually important things I'm trying to say will go on being ignored.

So yes, averting a PC's death isn't by itself sufficient reason to fudge. But if he was killed despite the player doing everything 'right', yes I just might fudge something. The important thing, again, is the bad stuff is not the player's fault. And that whatever fudging DOES happen, is just to avoid the bad stuff. Not be a crutch to walk on.

What I was saying all along is that whether it's PFS or not, the GM has the perogative to 'throw the players a bone' if in his own opinion, it is warranted.

And people are just freaking out about it. "Oh f@ck no, you can't do that, not in PFS!!"

Yes, yes we can.

picture these settings:

1) PCs are looking up a climb, the adventure requires them to climb a building at this point (pick one of several adventures). No PC has points in Climb, no one has a climbers kit, no PC has rope, all are in heavy armor or have low strengths - the best climb in the group is -2. They have no spells or potions ready to get up the wall (no Spider Climb or Fly etc. - the wizard doesn't even have them in his book) Should the Judge hand wave the problem? "you guys climb the wall", or have a passing Wizard cast Fly on one of them? Or what?

2) The PC are entering a sewer, and discover they have no lights. Again, no sunrods, no torchs, no way to even start a fire, no light spells, nothing to provice light. (And even if they did, no PC is willing to carry the light. I've seen this in a group of PCs - they bought a dog and tied a sun rod to it.). Does the DM just handwave it? "There's glowing fungus growing on the walls."

3) The PCs face a creature they can not damage - perhaps a swarm or a animated stone statue. They have to get past it to finish the adventure. Does the DM just handwave it? "There's six swarm suits in the last room, you put them on and bypass the swarm."

Lack of healing is just another challange. I personally get past this at every one of my tables by ensureing that we have someone who can heal at it. If that means I run a healer - than I do.

What's the problem here? by hand waveing issues, judges teach players that they don't have to "be prepared" - and in fact being Un-prepared is better, as it costs them less in resources to heal up if the Judge covers that for them.

[Jiggy]

@nosig:
deusvult apparently feels that his points are being ignored in favor of nitpicking his examples, so I don't think we'll get anywhere with more examples.

[deusvult]

Jiggy wrote:

Okay, so your point is that as long as the player does everything "right" (they're properly prepared, they don't do anything dumb, etc), then it's okay for the GM to fudge things in their favor?

Potentially, yes. You seem to really like absolutes. If X is ok under Y conditions, it does not mean X is ALWAYS ok under Y conditions. I totally get it that if bad luck just never strikes the game suffers or that if the games are always happy, successful ventures they begin to become less fun for those involved.

Quote:

So what about when you crit a first-level character? Or crit at all, for that matter? What if you just have hot dice that day?

Probably not. That's part of an inherent threat of being youngling PCs. But, potentially, there might be some string of combinations where I'd feel it was deserved, yes. I'd not be inclined in a higher level scenario where a pc fails his save against a save or die spell because that's the nature of the power of the spell. You don't play high level w/o facing high level threats. Pure randomness of dice isn't necessarily a 'get a fudge for free' card.

Quote:

So either you're going back on your previous position of table variance being a good thing (I recall you even including dice in your description), or your definition of the parameters for fudging being okay (rough spot with no player fault) needs to be rephrased to match your true stance.

Which is it?

First of all, I never said table variance was a good thing. I said it is an INEVITABLE thing. Arguing whether that just IS is either good or bad is like arguing whether the sun and air are good or bad. It's there, and we don't discuss PFS without acknowledging its inevitable effect on the games.

Second of all, I'll admit it. I honestly believed you to be a particularly inflexible adherent to robotic conformity. I even imagined that in the event you realized a rule was improperly applied, you'd UNDO everything since and rewind the game to that point and redo it. I'm not using hyperbole, I really thought that's the sort of GM you say you are, and exepct everyone else to be.

When you replied to Kerney I realized you're on the same page as me. You don't want to think of it that way, but you are. "Praise Jesus! HE REALIZES GMs ARE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM THE BLACK AND WHITE OF THE SCENARIO!" I mellowed and tried to re-explain to help dispel misunderstandings you probably have about me, as I had about you.

We like the PFSOP rules being quoted lately. Here's my favorite passage:

Organized Play Rules wrote:

"It is impossible for the campaign management staff to
cover every possible situation or rules interpretation. As
such, you may encounter rules combinations or questions
during the course of a scenario that aren’t covered in this
book or the official Pathfinder Society FAQ. In these cases,
the Game Master has the freedom to adjudicate the rules
as needed to ensure a fun and fair gaming experience is
had by all."

So, whatever. If what I consider 'adjudicating the rules to ensure a fun and fair experience' is wrongbad in your eyes, so what? You can't stop me from doing it, and I don't expect you to do it the way I would, either. Peace, dude.

[deusvult]

Jiggy wrote:

@nosig:

deusvult apparently feels that his points are being ignored in favor of nitpicking his examples, so I don't think we'll get anywhere with more examples.

I don't want to argue over the examples because for it to be 'properly' done, we'd have to do huge walls of text to lay out ALL the relevant factors, and even then they're subjective opinion.

"Given ALL that info, would you or wouldn't you?"

It's purely opinion. And neither answer is wrong. So there's no point belaboring them ;)

[nosig]

deusvult - most of us "particularly inflexible adherent to robotic conformity" players (and I include Judges in the term), are currently seeing your examples as like the school of "rules are just guidelines" school of Judging. Like the Judge who says something like "wow! a nat 20 - that always works! auto success." or a "rolled a '1'? so you hit your friend" or "roll to see if you hit your target with that fireball spell".
If you give an example that brakes a rule - a black and white rule that almost no one questions - you are likely to be lumped into the "rules are just guidelines" school of Judging, along with the "free form players".
If you are not in that school, I apoligize for lumping you in with them.

[Hedgehog]

deusvult wrote:

Absolutes :(

That I might, ever, under any circumstances, give free healing does not mean that I would always, under all circumstances, give free healing.

Hey, if a character dies, that player is not having Fun. Maybe he did right up to the glorious end, but he's not now. Yet it's not Fair to let him live anyway. You balance the two. You strive to have both, but eventually you come to times where you have to choose which to sacrifice in the name of the other. How you make those decisions is what I'm talking about.

And I'll be so bold as to suggest that it appears to me that's what the thread is originally about.

Edit: the '1 on a UMD check' thing: It occurs to me that the forest was missed because of all the trees in the way O.o

That specific example I gave:
1. only 1 player at a table full of PFS players has any ranks in UMD
2. out of all those players, the ONLY source of healing available is a single wand
3. the players were literally brought togther at random and had no way to control who else they'd be gaming with, making a perfect storm of 1 AND 2 happening together possible
4. A '1' comes up on an early UMD check and with my knowledge of the remaining portion of the scenario, they just have NO way to complete the scenario even far enough to recieve a chronicle w/o further healing

Now come on, that's a pretty speficic, and extreme example. I've never seen it. I was saying that if I DID, I'd be amenable to throwing a bone and letting them keep having Fun as opposed to being Fair and watching them go past the event horizon.

I can see how 'RAW BY RAW ALL THE TIME NO DEVIATIONS' can mistake that hypothetical for 'I'd allow free heals on a 1 UMD skill check all the time!'

Table variation. Even applies when the the identity of the GM doesn't change ;)

LOL! You guys are crackin' me up! Last night I played my weird 2nd level barbarian in 0-06 Black Waters. We had 5 players with no healing classes at all. Only my 14 Charisma barbarian with Dangerously Curious (giving him UMD, which I'm going to keep maxed) and a Wand of CLW gained by spending 2 PP could provide healing.

I rolled a d20 for each and every attempt to use that wand! No 1s, thank heavens.

Now, as far as 'creative solutions': The GM basically allowed the sorcerer, playing a brand new 1st level character, to rework his skill choices to take UMD, lest disaster strike. This was technically after the scenario had started, since we were 2 encounters into things. This doesn't touch on faction mission or combat encounter stuff that the OP was talking about, but I agree with the decision because he was a newer player.

[Kerney]

deusvult wrote:

While it's a bad rule (not to mention the source of the hypocrisy Bob references in the OP), it's probably the least bad rule that could be come up with to combat the negative aspects of table variation. I'd be all for a better rule, but I can't think of one, so I'm not kicking and screaming against this one.

I got a better one, which was tested in our local community in season 0-1 when the rules were more fluid we had local 'understanding' that you could change things. However, you could kill anyone if you do. This is a local unoffical rule that people played by and is sometimes still play by. However, as the difficulty of the modules overall have increased, the feeling that there is a legitimate need to tweak to make the modules challenging has decreased.

Needless to say, it built up one of the examples of a PFS community that is held up as a positive example to others.

deusvult wrote:

Just because I insist that it's hogwash to say you must run as written or else you gold-screw someone at your table (or who wasn't at your table ), doesn't mean I don't recognize the rule's necessity or legitimacy. Just that one REASON is hogwash. It's still perfectly valid to worry about integrity of feedback on scenarios, GMs who believe they can tweak responsibly but really can't, etc.

Agreed. As far as the gold screw goes, most players have more than enough that it is not a problem.

deusvult wrote:

In my own personal view, 'deviant GM behavior' is reserved for times where due to no fault of the players, they're getting screwed out of enjoying the scenario AS WRITTEN. It's not as common a circumstance as I'm being made to sound like I claim it is.

I think this is a legitimate viewpoint.

The first job of a GM is to entertain and be entertaining. The second is to be fair. Example, at my table I had a player who was trying to look up every fine detail of a ruling. I made the ruling and then said that every round he kept his book open I would focus my attacks on him. In my DM feedback I was praised for this stand with a known problem player.

And yes, those who claim you never alter the ever, ever, ever, scenario will misrepresent it to high heaven.

Quiet frankly, there are circumstances that call for a bit of hypocrisy and when I see others doing it, unless it's egregious, I turn a blind eye.

I rather do that than deal with 'stick in the mud' who may have not been a problem for Jiggy but have been an occasional problem I've encountered.

[Jiggy]

@deusvult:

Funny how much nicer things can be when you read, isn't it? ;)

Anyway, as I've tried to communicate before, I think the main disagreement is that I think certain types of things are okay to modify/fudge/adjust/whatever while other things are off-limits, and (near as I can tell) you seem to consider some details acceptable that I consider off-limits.

To sum up my position (read carefully!):

1. Anything can be changed IF the change is a means of "Rewarding Creative Solutions" by allowing access to what would have been bypassed by the creative solution the PCs used.

2. Outside of #1, anything hard-coded is off-limits for changing. No changing/ignoring a rule on purpose, no changing stats or number of mooks, etc.

3. "Softer" things (things not covered in rules documents, as Dragnmoon keeps quoting) can be adjusted as the GM sees fit.

A shorter (but less precise) summary would be "I can change anything that's not a rule, and I can Reward Creative Solutions."

So with that in mind, do you or do you not have a different idea of what's acceptable?

[nosig]

deusvult wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

@nosig:

deusvult apparently feels that his points are being ignored in favor of nitpicking his examples, so I don't think we'll get anywhere with more examples.

I don't want to argue over the examples because for it to be 'properly' done, we'd have to do huge walls of text to lay out ALL the relevant factors, and even then they're subjective opinion.

"Given ALL that info, would you or wouldn't you?"

It's purely opinion. And neither answer is wrong. So there's no point belaboring them ;)

Each of my examples were not "walls of text" (IMHO). and each were clearly violations of the rules and spirit of the adventure (again IMHO). I consider each to be challanges to be surmounted by the PCs. just as healing is a challange that needs to be addressed by a party of adventurers. To "handwave" any of those challanges steals from the adventure and teaches bad habbits.

I have seen a PC (played in a game with him last month) who had a wand of CLW for his fighter - and a rank in UMD so he could heal himself. and a CHA of 7. He explained that Judges just hand wave the healing. I was shocked. I had played my bard (who has 2 wands of CLW) so that the party could heal up after a fight and offered to use his wand for him. He explained he didn't need me to. he just UMDed it. and never bothered any of the other players OR THE JUDGE about it.

Why was I playing my bard? ... well, because I felt the party needed a "Face" and I could heal.

[Shar Tahl]

nosig wrote:

picture these settings:

1) PCs are looking up a climb, the adventure requires them to climb a building at this point (pick one of several adventures). No PC has points in Climb, no one has a climbers kit, no PC has rope, all are in heavy armor or have low strengths - the best climb in the group is -2. They have no spells or potions ready to get up the wall (no Spider Climb or Fly etc. - the wizard doesn't even have them in his book) Should the Judge hand wave the problem? "you guys climb the wall", or have a passing Wizard cast Fly on one of them? Or what?

2) The PC are entering a sewer, and discover they have no lights. Again, no sunrods, no torchs, no way to even start a fire, no light spells, nothing to provice light. (And even if they did, no PC is willing to carry the light. I've seen this in a group of PCs - they bought a dog and tied a sun rod to it.). Does the DM just handwave it? "There's glowing fungus growing on the walls."

3) The PCs face a creature they can not damage - perhaps a swarm or a animated stone statue. They have to get past it to finish the adventure. Does the DM just handwave it? "There's six swarm suits in the last room, you put them on and bypass the swarm."

Lack of healing is just another challange. I personally get past this at every one of my tables by ensureing that we have someone who can heal at it. If that means I run a healer - than I do.

What's the problem here? by hand waveing issues, judges teach players that they don't have to "be prepared" - and in fact being Un-prepared is better, as it costs them less in resources to heal up if the Judge covers that for them.

This is what I don't understand about the expressed need to "hand-wave" things if the party is not prepared to deal with multiple situations. These characters are created as professional adventurers in a society of treasure hunters and problem solvers. If they start an adventure and do not have a healer or someone with UMD, then they buy potions or they suffer for their lack of preparedness. As a Player, I would take full responsibility for all items I failed to bring. I don't need the GM to gift me things because I am a dork and forgot to buy something. My characters even carry minimal water and rations, even though I have never encountered a need in a scenario. As a GM, I make sure the players have an opportunity to purchase items before the adventure starts. If they had enough to buy a CLW wand without enough ranks to use it moderately well or at all, then they had enough to buy potions and chose not to.

[nosig]

Kerney - This statement "...then said that every round he kept his book open I would focus my attacks on him. ..." I find shocking.

You sir, have gotten a very knee-jerk response from me. If you were to do this to a player at a game I was in I would leave the table. And never return. Just because the Player is a Jerk, is no reason threaten him in game. Boost him out of your game if he's a jerk.

Perhaps I am over reacting. I hope I am. but knee-jerk responses often are over reactions.

[Hedgehog]

nosig wrote:

"I have seen a PC (played in a game with him last month) who had a wand of CLW for his fighter - and a rank in UMD so he could heal himself. and a CHA of 7. He explained that Judges just hand wave the healing. I was shocked. I had played my bard (who has 2 wands of CLW) so that the party could heal up after a fight and offered to use his wand for him. He explained he didn't need me to. he just UMDed it. and never bothered any of the other players OR THE JUDGE about it."

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. It really grates on my nerves to think that a GM would hand wave that Cha 7 Fighter character and his use of UMD.That example has spiraled way out of the 'creative solution' galaxy into a whole other kind of universe, in my opinion.

nosig wrote:
"why was I playing my bard? ... well, because I felt the party needed a "Face" and I could heal."

Really, these are the types of players that I actually want to play with and GM for, and see rewarded for creative solutions. If I NEVER see someone like the Cha 7 UMD Fighter at my table, it would be great...I occasionally daydream about an anti-min/maxer stasis ray that I could shoot from my eyes, it would hurt anyone, just freeze them for 4 hours while I had fun playing PFSOP.

[Jiggy]

Kerney wrote:

As far as the gold screw goes, most players have more than enough that it is not a problem.

Maybe not a problem mechanically, but it can sure feel like a slight to the player who paid for stuff. Somebody once broke into my car (and smashed the window to do it). He probably needed the money from the stuff he stole more than I did, and the cost of replacing the window wasn't enough to make me miss my rent payment or anything. But I was still upset about having to pay for it (and I don't think unreasonably so).

In the same way, if Player A gets a little free stuff and Player B pays his own way, the gold itself might not end up mattering mechanically, but Player B would still be within his rights to be pissed about it. And failing to care about Player B's fun just because he's from someone else's table seems pretty hypocritical from anyone who claims to prioritize fun.

I believe in fun for as many players as possible, not just the handful at my table.

[nosig]

Shar Tahl wrote:

nosig wrote:

picture these settings:

1) PCs are looking up a climb, the adventure requires them to climb a building at this point (pick one of several adventures). No PC has points in Climb, no one has a climbers kit, no PC has rope, all are in heavy armor or have low strengths - the best climb in the group is -2. They have no spells or potions ready to get up the wall (no Spider Climb or Fly etc. - the wizard doesn't even have them in his book) Should the Judge hand wave the problem? "you guys climb the wall", or have a passing Wizard cast Fly on one of them? Or what?

2) The PC are entering a sewer, and discover they have no lights. Again, no sunrods, no torchs, no way to even start a fire, no light spells, nothing to provice light. (And even if they did, no PC is willing to carry the light. I've seen this in a group of PCs - they bought a dog and tied a sun rod to it.). Does the DM just handwave it? "There's glowing fungus growing on the walls."

3) The PCs face a creature they can not damage - perhaps a swarm or a animated stone statue. They have to get past it to finish the adventure. Does the DM just handwave it? "There's six swarm suits in the last room, you put them on and bypass the swarm."

Lack of healing is just another challange. I personally get past this at every one of my tables by ensureing that we have someone who can heal at it. If that means I run a healer - than I do.

What's the problem here? by hand waveing issues, judges teach players that they don't have to "be prepared" - and in fact being Un-prepared is better, as it costs them less in resources to heal up if the Judge covers that for them.

This is what I don't understand about the expressed need to "hand-wave" things if the party is not prepared to deal with multiple situations. These characters are created as professional adventurers in a society of treasure hunters and problem solvers. If they start an adventure and do not have a healer or someone with UMD, then they buy potions or they suffer for...

THanks Shar!

and on your note "My characters even carry minimal water and rations, even though I have never encountered a need in a scenario."
In a game this weekend that I was judgeing, the players were attacked by a Big monster and cast Hypnotize.... a pause in the fight. They concluded that the monster was REALLY hungry - so everyone pitched in thier rations and the moster went back to it's lair. And I rewarded the "creativity" by letting them "find" loot later in the adventure that they would have gotten from the monsters lair. Partly, because they had rations with them. (and the one guy that didn't will most likely have them by his next adventure - he learned).

[deusvult]

Nosig wrote:

Each of my examples were not "walls of text" (IMHO). and each were clearly violations of the rules and spirit of the adventure (again IMHO).

I didn't intend to dismiss your examples as being unworthy of discussion. I meant that in order to have the discussion, hypothetical arguments (meaning more the wand/UMD one that just kept being gone back to) would have to have the situation spelled out nearly in book form in order to have ALL information available. Because some GMs might do X, some might feel that's too much and would do Y instead, some might do X but only IF Z were also in play, etc.

Jiggy wrote:

@deusvult:

Funny how much nicer things can be when you read, isn't it? ;)

You see, one tries to offer an olive branch, and some just won't accept a gracious way to end an argument.

Here. Nazis!

I brought them up first, you win, right?

You play your game, I play mine, let's both have fun? You're not the Paizo Police, you don't get to tell me how to run my game any more than I do yours.

[Jiggy]

And that is a perfect example of RCS in action. The PCs overcome an obstacle in a way that would bypass the loot, they find the loot anyway. Downright textbook.

EDIT: Ninja'd. This was to nosig. Replying to deusvult in a second.

[Hedgehog]

Jiggy wrote:

Kerney wrote:

As far as the gold screw goes, most players have more than enough that it is not a problem.

Maybe not a problem mechanically, but it can sure feel like a slight to the player who paid for stuff. Somebody once broke into my car (and smashed the window to do it). He probably needed the money from the stuff he stole more than I did, and the cost of replacing the window wasn't enough to make me miss my rent payment or anything. But I was still upset about having to pay for it (and I don't think unreasonably so).

In the same way, if Player A gets a little free stuff and Player B pays his own way, the gold itself might not end up mattering mechanically, but Player B would still be within his rights to be pissed about it. And failing to care about Player B's fun just because he's from someone else's table seems pretty hypocritical from anyone who claims to prioritize fun.

I believe in fun for as many players as possible, not just the handful at my table.

This is a really good point, I think. The larger responsibility GMs have towards everyone that plays in Sociey should be a part of how every Society scenario is run. I think mabye the OP was trying to lift the veil on GMs "tweaking" things during a game to get a sense of what is actually happening out there in Society play.

It's sounding to me like some 'hypocrisy' in judging is almost intended by certain sections of the GPSOP.

[deusvult]

nosig wrote:

Kerney - This statement "...then said that every round he kept his book open I would focus my attacks on him. ..." I find shocking.

You sir, have gotten a very knee-jerk response from me. If you were to do this to a player at a game I was in I would leave the table. And never return. Just because the Player is a Jerk, is no reason threaten him in game. Boost him out of your game if he's a jerk.

Perhaps I am over reacting. I hope I am. but knee-jerk responses often are over reactions.

I've seen something done exactly like this at a con this past weekend and have the opposite reaction. Bravo, Sir Judge!

Handling a disruptive player is a RESPONSIBILITY of the GM. You don't argue back and forth at a table like we do in threads here on the forums. The player says his side, and shuts up and colors if the GM doesn't agree. If he keeps going on, the GM must end it for the benefit of the game that ALL the players are trying to enjoy.

That situation seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially having BEEN a player watching a rules-argument that the other player just wouldn't drop and held up the game over.

Here's another one I saw:
Player took a cell phone call at a game. Came to his turn. Yak yak yak. Had to be told again. Yak yak yak. Fine you pass. Next player!

Is that equally distasteful? I say no. Er, actually, yes. Equally distasteful, in that they're both Not At All.

[nosig]

Hedgehog wrote:

nosig wrote:

"I have seen a PC (played in a game with him last month) who had a wand of CLW for his fighter - and a rank in UMD so he could heal himself. and a CHA of 7. He explained that Judges just hand wave the healing. I was shocked. I had played my bard (who has 2 wands of CLW) so that the party could heal up after a fight and offered to use his wand for him. He explained he didn't need me to. he just UMDed it. and never bothered any of the other players OR THE JUDGE about it."

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. It really grates on my nerves to think that a GM would hand wave that Cha 7 Fighter character and his use of UMD.That example has spiraled way out of the 'creative solution' galaxy into a whole other kind of universe, in my opinion.

nosig wrote:
"why was I playing my bard? ... well, because I felt the party needed a "Face" and I could heal."

Really, these are the types of players that I actually want to play with and GM for, and see rewarded for creative solutions. If I NEVER see someone like the Cha 7 UMD Fighter at my table, it would be great...I occasionally daydream about an anti-min/maxer stasis ray that I could shoot from my eyes, it would hurt anyone, just freeze them for 4 hours while I had fun playing PFSOP.

I don't mind the "min-max" fighter witht he CHA 7. He's as much a part of the Fantasy Setting as my Harlot Bard. In fact, I enjoy and expect to have them at the table and sorely miss them if they are not there. When I'm decideing what to play, one of the things I check to make sure is there is a Max Damage guy. And a healer, and a face, and someone for traps. Each of these can be 'min-max'ed to an extream. the problem comes about when we don't have one, or when we loose one in play.

so - please don't critisize the min-maxers to much. being one myself, I can assure you we are not all the jerks some would have you think we are.

[nosig]

deusvult wrote:

nosig wrote:

Kerney - This statement "...then said that every round he kept his book open I would focus my attacks on him. ..." I find shocking.

You sir, have gotten a very knee-jerk response from me. If you were to do this to a player at a game I was in I would leave the table. And never return. Just because the Player is a Jerk, is no reason threaten him in game. Boost him out of your game if he's a jerk.

Perhaps I am over reacting. I hope I am. but knee-jerk responses often are over reactions.

I've seen something done exactly like this at a con this past weekend and have the opposite reaction. Bravo, Sir Judge!

Handling a disruptive player is a RESPONSIBILITY of the GM. You don't argue back and forth at a table like we do in threads here on the forums. The player says his side, and shuts up and colors if the GM doesn't agree. If he keeps going on, the GM must end it for the benefit of the game that ALL the players are trying to enjoy.

That situation seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially having BEEN a player watching a rules-argument that the other player just wouldn't drop and held up the game over.

Here's another one I saw:
Player took a cell phone call at a game. Came to his turn. Yak yak yak. Had to be told again. Yak yak yak. Fine you pass. Next player!

Is that equally distasteful? I say no. Er, actually, yes. Equally distasteful, in that they're both Not At All.

as I said - "Boost him out of your game if he's a jerk."

the statement "...I would focus my attacks on him...." is the part that got my knee-jerk response, and would cause me to leave the table if any judge threatened a player that way at a table I was at.

The Judge rules and goes on. Player shuts up and plays or you punt him from the game. Put him out. Send him to the organizer. You don't say - make a Fort save, DC 40, and take a 2d6 damage every round you don't shut up.

[WalterGM]

nosig wrote:

so - please don't critisize the min-maxers to much. being one myself, I can assure you we are not all the jerks some would have you think we are.

Well, some of us are. I'm a pretty big jerk... :(

And in response to the "what to do with disruptive/rude players" here's my take. Everyone there (players and GM) are trying to have a good time - adventure, tell a story, roleplay, whatever it might be - and if there's someone there whos only intent is to ruin the experience of others, they have no place at the table. If, however, the personality of the person in question is such that they grate with other players or the GM, second guess rulings, or try to micromanage fights, I think it is everyone's responsibility to be mature, and tell the offender that "hey, action X isn't ok with us. here's why..." rather than leave it all up to the GM.

I feel like as a GM I already have enough on my plate without having to babysit. That said, if no one else at the table feels comfortable confronting the problem, I'm more than happy to do it. I asked someone on the phone to take it out of the room because it was disruptive, they realized it was rude and apologized before scurrying off. Problem solved.

[Jiggy]

deusvult wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

@deusvult:

Funny how much nicer things can be when you read, isn't it? ;)

You see, one tries to offer an olive branch, and some just won't accept a gracious way to end an argument.

The little smiley was supposed to communicate that I was just joshing you. Lighten up!

Quote:

Here. Nazis!

I brought them up first, you win, right?

I brought them up in an unrelated thread earlier today. Does that make it a tie? ;) <--- Note the smiley of good-naturedness!

Quote:

You're not the Paizo Police, you don't get to tell me how to run my game any more than I do yours.

Would it help to know that I'm not telling you how to run your games any more than I would allow you to tell me how to run mine? That's what this section of the forums is for: PFS players and GMs can exchange ideas, educate each other, and yes, even correct each other and call each other out. Better here than at the table, right?

When I talk about the importance of "fairness", I'm not just using it as an excuse to call you out. Use it on me too. "Fair" goes both ways - if you hear about me doing something that seems inappropriate, I want you to call me out on it! How can I correct my behavior if no one tells me I'm out of line?

I invite you to tell me how to run my games, deusvult.

I might disagree. I might dismiss a claim that seems to be based on not understanding what I was saying in the first place. I might misunderstand you. But I'll listen. I'll argue for my position for two reasons: so that if I'm right, the other person has a chance to learn, and so that if I'm wrong, I have a chance to learn.

Whatever I throw your way, bring it right back. That's how we both get better at this.

This is why I asked for your opinions on my summary of my position. I'd like us to understand each other better, and see how much of this argument has been real and how much has been misunderstanding. Neither of us is yet as awesome as we could be; it's gonna take work to get there, for both of us.

Handled well, argumentation fosters understanding (not only of the opposition, but also of one's own position). Understanding fosters learning, and learning makes us better GMs and players. I don't intend to give up on that any time soon. :)

[Matthew Morris]

Been an interesting read. Do find an amusing RAW bit for me.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

If they have a +19, sometimes I will roll a secret d20 to determine how many times they successfully use the wand before it shuts down, to account for the nat '1'.

I assume you mean with a +18 you do this. Since with a +19, they can't fail. (skills failing on a nat 1 is a house rule.) :-)

That or I'm completely wrong.

Else yes, I think modules should be ran as written. Maybe a little leeway if you're playing your 'normal' tier, but clearly not if you're playing up-tier. You takes your chances.

[Shar Tahl]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Been an interesting read. Do find an amusing RAW bit for me.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

If they have a +19, sometimes I will roll a secret d20 to determine how many times they successfully use the wand before it shuts down, to account for the nat '1'.

I assume you mean with a +18 you do this. Since with a +19, they can't fail. (skills failing on a nat 1 is a house rule.) :-)

PRD wrote:

Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item.

Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.

Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill. You can't aid another on Use Magic Device checks. Only the user of the item may attempt such a check.

If you have the Magical Aptitude feat, you gain a bonus on Use Magic Device checks (see Feats).

[Matthew Morris]

Shar Tahl wrote:

PRD wrote:

Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item.

Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.

Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill. You can't aid another on Use Magic Device checks. Only the user of the item may attempt such a check.

If you have the Magical Aptitude feat, you gain a bonus on Use Magic Device checks (see Feats).

Note the use of the word "and", 19+1=20 You make the DC to activate the wand, so you didn't fail. Both conditions are not met, so it doesn't shut down the wand.

[Kerney]

nosig wrote:

deusvult wrote:

nosig wrote:

Kerney - This statement "...then said that every round he kept his book open I would focus my attacks on him. ..." I find shocking.

You sir, have gotten a very knee-jerk response from me. If you were to do this to a player at a game I was in I would leave the table. And never return. Just because the Player is a Jerk, is no reason threaten him in game. Boost him out of your game if he's a jerk.

Perhaps I am over reacting. I hope I am. but knee-jerk responses often are over reactions.

I've seen something done exactly like this at a con this past weekend and have the opposite reaction. Bravo, Sir Judge!

Handling a disruptive player is a RESPONSIBILITY of the GM. You don't argue back and forth at a table like we do in threads here on the forums. The player says his side, and shuts up and colors if the GM doesn't agree. If he keeps going on, the GM must end it for the benefit of the game that ALL the players are trying to enjoy.

That situation seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially having BEEN a player watching a rules-argument that the other player just wouldn't drop and held up the game over.

Here's another one I saw:
Player took a cell phone call at a game. Came to his turn. Yak yak yak. Had to be told again. Yak yak yak. Fine you pass. Next player!

Is that equally distasteful? I say no. Er, actually, yes. Equally distasteful, in that they're both Not At All.

as I said - "Boost him out of your game if he's a jerk."

the statement "...I would focus my attacks on him...." is the part that got my knee-jerk response, and would cause me to leave the table if any judge threatened a player that way at a table I was at.

The Judge rules and goes on. Player shuts up and plays or you punt him from the game. Put him out. Send him to the organizer. You don't say - make a Fort save, DC 40, and take a 2d6 damage every round you don't shut up.

First of all, most of my games are at stores. There is no higher authority. True, this is at a Con, there is a Venture Captain, but he has a million headaches, several more serious.

I warn the two players at this point that the argument is over and we need to go on and I tell them to close the books. One does, one doesn't.

So rather than a Fort save DC 40 or anything like that the bad guy concentrates on him and make it plain that I chose him because he couldn't listen to the GM's warning (he is also a creditable threat).
He gets the clue after taking twelve points of damage. His behavior is improves and next round I pick target randomly. He learns a lesson and has another two hours of fun. A federal case is not made of something easily handled. In GM comments two people compliment my handling of said situation.
Later, I take him to the side and give him some some info on where to get help for his untreated learning disabilities, which I suspect is Aspergers (like my brother).

[Hedgehog]

nosig wrote:
so - please don't critisize the min-maxers to much. being one myself, I can assure you we are not all the jerks some would have you think we are.

I believe that I can tie in min-maxing with the original thread idea of "as written vs. GM caveat".

First, Organized Play is set up in such a way that players who want to play PFRPG at a table with balanced, non-optimized, non-min-maxed characters (I’ll use Eando Kline’s build as an example, or Valeros) are completely out of luck. A group with min-maxed characters can swiftly bring what might have been an interesting 3-4 round fight to a boring 1 round conclusion. Essentially anyone wanting to play an actual character will tend to be sidelined by people who would rather play a set of optimized stats. Such is Society play.

The gripe I have is not at all with min-maxing itself (see below). The gripe I have is that if I’m going to attempt to enjoy Society play (as a GM and as a player), I have no choice but to accept min-maxed style characters, and sleepwalk through scenarios when the “as written” is nowhere near robust enough to provide a credible challenge to the roll-players. Their style can be imposed upon me, but I cannot impose my style upon them. I’m not asking for the ‘Waaambulance’ to be called, just pointing out that the situation is inherently one-sided, which tends to generate a bit of cynicism (I know I’m not alone in that).

I don’t dislike optimizing, it’s actually kind of fun. Am I myself a hypocrite? Possibly, since in my homebrew game I essentially allow anyone to min-max if they want to. In that setting, I have all of the freedom I need to make sure that each game session has something for everyone. I can fudge faction missions (I use the outstanding faction rules provided in the Faction Guide), or fudge encounters all that I want.

I do wish I had more leeway in Society scenarios to add or subtract challenge in terms of creature type and creature count, so that I could go in either direction in terms of challenge. I’d feel more incentive to GM in Society if that leeway were possible, whereas now I prefer to save my efforts for home games.

Since I’ll continue to play at the local Society games, and GM there, I find this thread quite interesting. I must admit to having felt sorely tempted to nudge up the challenge while GM-ing Song of the Sea Witch for a min-maxed group of 5. I just felt that the rules of Society play forbade me from adding monsters or changing stats. I believe that everyone’s fun would actually have increased, if there had been more of a challenge.

[nosig]

As I said Kerney - it's a knee-jerk response from me. I do not know all the circumstances, and have to view it from the lens of my own experiences.

I have been very badly abused by a DM in a game resently. When I asked for advice on what I should do about situations like that I recieved the advice on this board to leave the table. Your discriptiong put me back at that table with my Judge shouting at me for 4 hours every time I said anything. I would leave the table. And likely not return.

[WalterGM]

nosig wrote:

...my Judge shouting at me for 4 hours every time I said anything. I would leave the table. And likely not return.

A judge like this is disgusting to me. GMs should educate, adjudicate, inform and make PFS enjoyable for everyone. I have a serious problem with people that form the backbone of PFS being utter tools. I also doubt that anyone that discusses issues on these boards falls into that category, and for that, I am quite grateful.

Nosig, if I ever experienced a judge shouting me down whenever I brought up a question I would leave the table as well, and would never return. It’s sad that for new people especially, this means we might loose another potential PFS enthusiast because of poor judging.

[Matthew Morris]

Kerney wrote:

First of all, most of my games are at stores. There is no higher authority. True, this is at a Con, there is a Venture Captain, but he has a million headaches, several more serious.

Well at least regarding the cell phone bit, if it's his wife, she's the higher authority :P

If it detracts from the game, distractions are bad. For me I have my mini with Rey on it, internet connection, PRD up (to help if need be) usually something else up, and I'm observing the store. Despite all that I still have awareness of the table. I may have no ranks in perception, but I do have multitasking.

[Alitan]

Hedgehog, I love you!

"Waaaaaambulance."

Had to stop reading until my eyes cleared.

Plus cogent argument with good points.

[Jiggy]

Hedgehog wrote:

The gripe I have is not at all with min-maxing itself

Although high levels of optimization do make encounters easier (duh), I've gotta call BS on this. You do have a gripe with min-maxing. If you truly were okay with it, you wouldn't be saying things like "anyone wanting to play an actual character" (implies that anyone else - the optimizers - do not want to play an actual character), or "the roll-players" (an established term used to denote someone who optimizes but does not roleplay). Had you actually believed there was nothing wrong with optimization, you'd have made no comment on roleplaying ability (yes, one can be mentioned without the other).

No, you quite obviously believe that roleplaying and optimization are at opposite ends of a spectrum, and that the roleplaying end is superior.

Whether or not that's correct is a topic for another thread, but it's quite obvious you believe it, so please don't drag that old debate into this already-heated-at-times thread, and PLEASE don't insult the intelligence of every reader here by claiming not to have that view.

[TwilightKnight]

Take it easy there Jiggy, your blood pressure :-)

I know this is your hot-button item, but you have to understand that there are a lot of players who do not, or are not capable of both role-playing and min-max/optimizing at the same time. It is largely an expression of experience.

Now, I totally agree with you that the two should not be mutually exclusive, but if I went off of my extensive experience in D&D/PFRPG, the inability/unwillingness to do both at the same time occurs much more frequently than a marriage of the two.

[Jiggy]

I agree that they get segregated more in practice than is necessary. Just trying to keep it out of this thread is all.

[Dragnmoon]

Look at it another way... Min-Maxers/Optimizers help "Fast-Forward" Combat so they can get to the parts they really enjoy the social interaction and roleplaying!

[JohnF]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I will allow different skills to earn PA, as long as they make sense and the player isn't try to be a munchkin.

In that case you are being unfair to everybody else in the Society.

I just ran in my first PFS events at a local con. I missed out on a PA even though I recognized the situation, and knew what had to be done; as I didn't have the particular skill needed I was unable to fulfill the success conditions spelled out in the scenario (although the actions I took would have achieved the long-term goal of the faction mission).

If you give your players the full PA for that scenario you are robbing me and all other players who ran the scenario as it is written.

[TwilightKnight]

JohnF wrote:

In that case you are being unfair to everybody else in the Society

Perhaps its not that Alexander_Damocles is being unfair so much as your GM didn't reward you for a creative solution. Or perhaps, your solution was not very creative. In cases like this, it is extremely difficult to second guess what a GM decides in the heat of the game.

[Alexander_Damocles]

JohnF wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I will allow different skills to earn PA, as long as they make sense and the player isn't try to be a munchkin.

In that case you are being unfair to everybody else in the Society.

I just ran in my first PFS events at a local con. I missed out on a PA even though I recognized the situation, and knew what had to be done; as I didn't have the particular skill needed I was unable to fulfill the success conditions spelled out in the scenario (although the actions I took would have achieved the long-term goal of the faction mission).

If you give your players the full PA for that scenario you are robbing me and all other players who ran the scenario as it is written.

Alright, one of the situations I allowed a creative solution was a Faction Mission called for a DC 20+ Perform Woodwind instrument check to find a fancy instrument. Really? What are the odds that anyone in the party is going to have that? I allowed appraise to be substituted, as that would also logically allow the party to figure out which piece of wood is worth more than the next. That falls squarely in what is allowed by the Guide. And I can't solve the lack of fun problem throughout society, but I can make sure that the players at my table have a good time. Sorry if that bothers anyone.

[Dragnmoon]

What is with all these GMs equating failure by PCs as = not Fun?

Some of the best times I have had in PFS games have been my Epic Failures!

As a GM you need to learn how to spin the failure to be as epic as the success.

[Alexander_Damocles]

Dragnmoon wrote:

What is with all these GMs equating failure by PCs as = not Fun?

Some of the best times I have had in PFS games have been my Epic Failures!

As a GM you need to learn how to spin the failure to be as epic as the success.

Failure can be fun, but only as long as you had an actual chance to succeed. A PA requiring Perform Woodwind instrument? No one is going to have that, I have never seen or heard of a PC with that skill. Failing a perception check, or a bluff check? Sure, those can be roleplayed and can be hilarious. A check you can't even bother making? That is no fun and comes across as a big middle finger to the player.

[WalterGM]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

A PA requiring Perform Woodwind instrument? No one is going to have that, I have never seen or heard of a PC with that skill.

My troll bard has fifteen ranks in Perform (woodwind instruments). I take offense to that sir...

Realistically, I'd have let something else slide if it was creative enough to warrant the "reward creative solutions" clause and made sense. Because, yes, that's a bit absurd. Especially because it is so specific.

[Kerney]

nosig wrote:

As I said Kerney - it's a knee-jerk response from me. I do not know all the circumstances, and have to view it from the lens of my own experiences.

I have been very badly abused by a DM in a game resently. When I asked for advice on what I should do about situations like that I recieved the advice on this board to leave the table. Your discriptiong put me back at that table with my Judge shouting at me for 4 hours every time I said anything. I would leave the table. And likely not return.

I get that, I had a stick in the mud GM recently and it severely lessoned the respect I had for that person.

[E-G]

Jiggy wrote:

I'd be happy to clarify. :)
...

Thanks for the clarification. These reasons make sense. To what extent is this a theoretical problem (i.e., this could potentially happen) vs. an actual one (i.e., we frequently see these negative results)? I'm not in a position to observe the latter and I also notice there is some contradiction in terms of expected outcome. That is, you theorize that players could be systematically weaker or systematically stronger based on GM's upping the difficulty.

By contrast, I've observed several situations where adding a few more HP to the boss would probably benefit everyone at the table.

[nosig]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

What is with all these GMs equating failure by PCs as = not Fun?

Some of the best times I have had in PFS games have been my Epic Failures!

As a GM you need to learn how to spin the failure to be as epic as the success.

Failure can be fun, but only as long as you had an actual chance to succeed. A PA requiring Perform Woodwind instrument? No one is going to have that, I have never seen or heard of a PC with that skill. Failing a perception check, or a bluff check? Sure, those can be roleplayed and can be hilarious. A check you can't even bother making? That is no fun and comes across as a big middle finger to the player.

this is perhaps a silly question, but why didn't you just take 20?

or was it that you were not trained in Perform Woodwind? I'll bet this was an older mod, written for 3.5 when a PC could do a Perform check untrained, and a T20 would have given anyone with a CHA of 10 or higher the "cookie". So a party of low CHA dudes would have been hosed, and in PF looks like we get hosed 'cause Perform is now a trained only skill - except if you have the skill trained, or can hire anyone who does...

DC20 on a skill you can re-try? Piece of Cake.... This is much easier than a DC 15 Knowledge check - where you CAN'T Take 20, and can't do it un-trained either. or a DC 15 Slight of Hand check to steal something (only one try). So it looks to me like this is an easier Faction Mission.

[Jiggy]

E-G wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

I'd be happy to clarify. :)
...

Thanks for the clarification. These reasons make sense.

Way to make me dig back three pages to find which post you're replying to. :P Maybe I talk too much. ;)

Quote:

To what extent is this a theoretical problem (i.e., this could potentially happen) vs. an actual one (i.e., we frequently see these negative results)?

Point #1: Encouraging Optimization

I've seen lots and lots of posts (and heard a few conversations) about how PFS play encourages/promotes hyper-optimized PCs. There have even been discussions and guides written on how to limit one's own optimization. Most complaints come from people who feel sidelined by PCs more optimized than their own.

If someone starts out somewhat optimized and finds fights easy, they might tone it back a bit. If instead you up the ante, they're encouraged to keep optimizing or optimize more. When they later mix with others who didn't play against increased challenges, they make the more moderate characters feel sidelined. So Point #1 is not theoretical.

Point #2: Accurate Feedback on Scenarios
Mark Moreland has said this one himself. If he gets reviews saying "X mooks was too hard/just right/too easy", but he knows there weren't X mooks, he has no real data to go on. Even worse, if the review is simply "it was too hard/just right/too easy" and no details are given, he has no choice but to assume that the player's impression is of the actual scenario instead of the modified scenario, and so he'll make future adjustments based on an incorrect baseline. So Point #2 is not hypothetical.

Point #3: Resource Inequality
The amount of gold may or may not matter in the long run. The real point is that the guy who paid for stuff is going to feel cheated by the GM who gave someone else some free stuff. If the GM's goal really is to make things fun, but that fun comes at someone else's expense (the guy who feels cheated), then that GM is a d*ck. This one's not theoretical either. I've been both players in this situation before.

Point #4: Bad Example for Less Skilled GMs
This one is, from my perspective, theoretical. Makes sense, though.

Point #5: Harder Doesn't Mean Better
There have been plenty of complaints that PFS is too combat focused with not enough RP. But then GMs go around thinking that every combat needs to be challenging. Why can't an easy fight be a plot point instead? If combats are never trivial, then they take center stage, and boom: complaints about PFS being too combat focused. So that one's not really hypothetical either.

Point #6: Punishing Creativity
This is far from theoretical. I've got first-hand experience. Sometimes the encounter would have been challenging, except someone is specialized against that type of situation. Instead of giving that player a moment in the sun, the GM counters that player's strengths "so the fight will be interesting". This makes players feel like anything creative/niche/has strengths other than DPR isn't worth playing because whenever it's your time to shine, the GM will just c*ckblock you and let the DPR guys take over. Again. The DPR builds get enough love already - if someone specializes in something else that happens to shut down an encounter once in a while, let them. It's good for the game.

Point #7: ...okay, in retrospect, this is just the converse of #1. :P

That help?

[Alexander_Damocles]

nosig wrote:

this is perhaps a silly question, but why didn't you just take 20?

or was it that you were not trained in Perform Woodwind? I'll bet this was an older mod, written for 3.5 when a PC could do a Perform check untrained, and a T20 would have given anyone with a CHA of 10 or higher the "cookie". So a party of low CHA dudes would have been hosed, and in PF looks like we get hosed 'cause Perform is now a trained only skill - except if you have the skill trained, or can hire anyone who does...

DC20 on a skill you can re-try? Piece of Cake.... This is much easier than a DC 15 Knowledge check - where you CAN'T Take 20, and can't do it un-trained either. or a DC 15 Slight of Hand check to steal something (only one try). So it looks to me like this is an easier Faction Mission.

No one was trained in it, and the DC was higher than 20 (if I recall). It was also a Season 3 module. And the situation was such that taking 20 would have been illogical.