|
Is he immune?She.
She's kept on the edge of death. If anything blows up.. she dies. Not real hard to adjudicate. She's a plot device, nothing more.
Yup, as are almost all NPC's that are not given a stat block. Plot devices can usually only be interacted with in the way that the scenario indicates. Sure, players will always come up with unique ideas, and those ideas need to be weighed against the circumstances and the intent of the plot device.
But if there aren't any stats, you'd be better off banging your head against a brick wall than try to charm it.
Especially if the NPC is a well known name. If Gaspar Desime doesn't have any stats in the scenario, and I'm a GM who doesn't own any other materials that may or may not have his stat block in them (as they aren't part of the core assumption) then as a GM I don't have a right to arbitrarily assign stats to him just so a PC can try a "creative" way around his faction mission.
I like the idea that people without stats cannot die. That would mean I was immortal.
But seriously, versimilitude i.e. that fact that if we are (other than magic) simulating a world that works the same way our world does. If I jump out my fourth story window I will probably die. If you stab someone with a sword, even if they don't have a stat block, they die or at negitive hit points. It's called handwaving.
The only difference between reality and the PFS universe is that in one universe you can walk down street in a major city, start fights and kill people, and not be arrested.
I’m pretty sure Gaspar Desime could wipe the floor with a 5th level party. Should I on the spot make him up to be that powerful? Is that fair if the PCs choose to attack him? Or should I let an obviously inferior combatant just stab him once and he dies or goes unconscious?
Where’s the verisimilitude there?
And what world are you referring to that you can walk down the street and just kill folks and not get arrested?
I’m pretty sure you can’t do that in Golarion or the real world.
|
|
The scenario gives DCs for Intimidate or Diplomacy and Sleight of Hand.Well, yeah. That's the in-game reason for why there's a DC for Sleight of Hand instead of an opposed roll. Intimidate and Diplomacy usually have DCs.
(In case I'm misunderstanding your post and you were replying to the top half, that was the reason why you don't want to make up stats for a NPC. What is some other scenario proves you wrong?)
Sorry, I was agreeing with you.
|
But if there aren't any stats, you'd be better off banging your head against a brick wall than try to charm it.
So far, you've agreed with the idea of finding creative solutions to faction missions, but you don't like spells that do the same thing, anything that's an auto success, anything you can can repeatedly do until you succeed, or any interaction with the NPC that hasn't been pre approved.
Its like saying that you like spiders, but you hate anything with eight legs, that is venomous, or spins webs.
Especially if the NPC is a well known name. If Gaspar Desime doesn't have any stats in the scenario, and I'm a GM who doesn't own any other materials that may or may not have his stat block in them (as they aren't part of the core assumption) then as a GM I don't have a right to arbitrarily assign stats to him just so a PC can try a "creative" way around his faction mission.
So he instead becomes ... what? Some sort of construct that's immune to spells, diplomacy, or a giant bag of gold coins? How is that not even more arbitrary than what you're describing?
|
|
But if there aren't any stats, you'd be better off banging your head against a brick wall than try to charm it.So far, you've agreed with the idea of finding creative solutions to faction missions, but you don't like spells that do the same thing, anything that's an auto success, anything you can can repeatedly do until you succeed, or any interaction with the NPC that hasn't been pre approved.
Its like saying that you like spiders, but you hate anything with eight legs, that is venomous, or spins webs.
Especially if the NPC is a well known name. If Gaspar Desime doesn't have any stats in the scenario, and I'm a GM who doesn't own any other materials that may or may not have his stat block in them (as they aren't part of the core assumption) then as a GM I don't have a right to arbitrarily assign stats to him just so a PC can try a "creative" way around his faction mission.So he instead becomes ... what? Some sort of construct that's immune to spells, diplomacy, or a giant bag of gold coins? How is that not even more arbitrary than what you're describing?
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. You are twisting my words to make them mean what you want them to mean, and you can’t have a meaningful discussion when that’s going on.
|
|
You are twisting my words to make them mean what you want them to mean
I am doing no such thing. I am watching you say you have no problem with creative or appropriate solutions in general, only to see you shoot them down on any number of the specifics. The results are illogical and would make absolutely no sense to the characters involved.
|
|
You are twisting my words to make them mean what you want them to meanI am doing no such thing. I am watching you say you have no problem with creative or appropriate solutions in general, only to see you shoot them down on any number of the specifics. The results are illogical and would make absolutely no sense to the characters involved.
I am not shooting down all the ideas. Rogue Eidolon had some cool stories. Others have come up with some creative ideas as well. I've giving examples of creative ideas.
But why don't you tell me what a GM is to do with Gaspar Desime should someone want to stab him in the gut, or do some other sort of attack roll or opposed roll against him, when he has no stat block?
|
IMO, if you have someone else solve the part of the mission that is the very reason it has not already been completed prior to your attempts, then that person, not you, is the one gaining the notoriety. If the mission just says recover the mcguffin, no big deal, but if it asks you to use *your* skills, problem solving, etc. to complete it, *you* really need to be the one to complete it to gain the fame.
Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the 10 factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand.
So yes, you can help
I wasn't trying to imply that you cannot get/provide help, just saying that said help, IMO, could void the fame you would have gained for completing certain missions. If you are the quarterback, but your team wins because of a great defense and running back, that does not equate to you being a "star" quarterback. Just because your team (read: party of PC's) completes missions (primary or faction) does not necessarily mean you would gain any increased individual reputation. Sometimes, the team may succeed in spite of your efforts. Most *heroes* are not recognized as such because they rode the coat-tails of someone else.
Of course, this is just my opinion and is not necessarily supported by the PFS guidelines, which usually just require that the mission be completed, somehow, some way, by someone, at the GM's discretion.
I dislike it when a specific skill is referenced for completion conditions. I prefer the goal be stated, perhaps with possible methods for completion and then leave it to the players/GM to adjudicate the "how." Essentially, tell me what you need done and then get out of the way. If you (read: faction leader) want to dictate how the mission is to be completed, then do it yourself. :-)
|
|
I am not shooting down all the ideas.
No auto successes, whether the idea would be an auto success or not
No NPC involvementNo using magic to fix broken items
No keep on trying till you get it right
But why don't you tell me what a GM is to do with Gaspar Desime should someone want to stab him in the gut, or do some other sort of attack roll or opposed roll against him, when he has no stat block?
Oi, you, let me see that phone.
google: Gaspar desime. CN male Chelaxian fighter 6/duelist 1
Take a look at the players roll
See if the the roll is high enough to be a guaranteed success or low enough to be an abject failure. If A or B treat as A or B. If someone tries a stilled silenced charm person or has that bardic performance feat that lets them bury the spellacasting in a song I'll roll a saving throw and see if its even close.
If its somewhere in the middle do some quick math and say yes it works/no it wont.
Not what i want to do, really not what i want to do in an organized game, but at least its aproximating reality for the players rather than chucking it out the window.
|
|
I wasn't trying to imply that you cannot get/provide help, just saying that said help, IMO, could void the fame you would have gained for completing certain missions.
*headscratch* I'm really not seeing the difference there. fail the mission or succeed and not get the PP is pretty close to the same thing.
I don't know what factions it would make sense for either. The silver crusade would probably admire the leadership you showed in steering your companions to do the right thing, Chelaxians would admire your ability to effectively get your pawns to do your work for you, and Andorrans don't always want to know how that prominent person died and had their head set on the fountain *wink wink*.
|
|
*headscratch* I'm really not seeing the difference there. fail the mission or succeed and not get the PP is pretty close to the same thing.
My point is that it depends on the nature of the mission and the faction involved. Getting outside help should not be automatically successful even if the mission is completed. Neither should outside help automatically deny you fame. IMO, it is up to the GM to decide if you (1) completed the mission to the expected level, and (2) the method by which you completed it brought notoriety to your PC in the form of fame. Some factions will applaud using outside resources, while others might feel it cheapens the results. But, as I said, my opinion is just that, and is not necessarily supported by the guidelines.
EDIT--an example from the sport's world would be Trent Dilfer, former quertback of the Baltamore Ravens. A few years back they won the Super Bowl, but most would say it was in spite of him. I tend to believe that if you asked him, he would say he earned little fame/prestige from the general population despite winning a Super Bowl. Sure he has the personal satisfaction, but his peers, and moreso the fans, do not equate him the same level of fame as say a Payton Manning who has also only won one Super Bowl, but was the clear leader and arguably the reason they won.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I am curious as to how it is ruled when 2 (or more) PCs have the same faction. In my experience if 1 of the 2 players succeeds in the mission, both players receive the fame.
But it sounds like some are saying that the 2nd player who maybe did not complete his mission because player-1 completed it, would not receive the fame because of not showing your faction leader that you can do it yourself.
If this is the case then I may have been awarded PP on various occasions that I really did not deserve.
|
|
BNW you are reading things I'm not writing.
No auto successes, whether the idea would be an auto success or not
I am not shooting down all the ideas.
I never said no auto successes. I said if the faction mission is designed to be a challenge, that side-stepping the challenge is not ok. Perhaps your and my definition of what constitutes side-stepping is where we are disconnecting?
No NPC involvement
Unless it is an NPC that has a stat block within the scenario, this is a completely reasonable thought process. I'll comment on how you are dealing with Gaspar below.
No using magic to fix broken items
I never said no magic. I said no magic spellcasting services. If you or a party member has dimension door then you can get into the narrow area or mend or make whole then you can fix the item. But purchasing spellcasting services to do such goes against the challenge.
No keep on trying till you get it right
If there are reasonable ways to try again, I let the PCs try again. But if it slows down the game, becomes unreasonable, or wastes my time, then no.
But why don't you tell me what a GM is to do with Gaspar Desime should someone want to stab him in the gut, or do some other sort of attack roll or opposed roll against him, when he has no stat block?
Oi, you, let me see that phone.
google: Gaspar desime. CN male Chelaxian fighter 6/duelist 1
Take a look at the players roll
See if the the roll is high enough to be a guaranteed success or low enough to be an abject failure. If A or B treat as A or B. If someone tries a stilled silenced charm person or has that bardic performance feat that lets them bury the spellacasting in a song I'll roll a saving throw and see if its even close.
If its somewhere in the middle do some quick math and say yes it works/no it wont.
Not what i want to do, really not what i want to do in an organized game, but at least its aproximating reality for the players rather than chucking it out the window.
That is actually a completely unacceptable solution. You can't expect every GM to have a smart phone or access to the internet. They are only expected to have 4 resources. Guide (including FAQ and additional resources), CRB, Field Guide, and Bestiary.
And just because you know a level, doesn't mean you know his stats.
Arbitrarily coming up with whether a roll is good enough or not, is beyond the scope of the scenario and/or the faction mission.
As a player, I wouldn't expect you to do that (and would actually choose not to make the roll if you did). But then again I wouldn't choose to make some of these choices that others do, that are obviously not intended to be part of the faction mission game.
|
|
I am curious as to how it is ruled when 2 (or more) PCs have the same faction. In my experience if 1 of the 2 players succeeds in the mission, both players receive the fame.
But it sounds like some are saying that the 2nd player who maybe did not complete his mission because player-1 completed it, would not receive the fame because of not showing your faction leader that you can do it yourself.
If this is the case then I may have been awarded PP on various occasions that I really did not deserve.
If the faction mission is completed, then all of that faction get the PP. This may not be a hard-n-fast rule, as I'm sure there may be some special circumstances that would negate one or another PC from gaining that PP. One such special circumstance may be a paladin refusing to take the PP for an assassination mission.
|
|
BNW, can we put the back and forth to rest here? We aren't going to agree.
I do my best to not speak in absolutes. Nothing I've said above is an absolute for me. I leave things open for the possibility that someone or circumstances may allow for me to change my mind.
I do have a few rules that I try to go by should a player try to be creative. Are they hard-n-fast rules? Not entirely, but they are the guidelines I try to go by.
You don't have to agree with them. But please stop trying to change my mind.
You have every right to rule things your way. I'm merely expressing how I would do it were I the GM at that table.
|
|
I never said no auto successes. I said if the faction mission is designed to be a challenge, that side-stepping the challenge is not ok. Perhaps your and my definition of what constitutes side-stepping is where we are disconnecting?
No, we're disconnecting where you say creative solutions are fine (in theory), but use any and all possible means to disallow them.
To whit, you will make trying 20 times to get something right take too long at the table, and then disallow the solution based on it taking too long. When you create your own problem like that it makes me think you're trying to disallow such solutions. When you call taking 20 attempts cheese i KNOW you are.
I said no magic spellcasting services. If you or a party member has dimension door then you can get into the narrow area or mend or make whole then you can fix the item. But purchasing spellcasting services to do such goes against the challenge.
It treats the module like a level on a videogame instead of people in a living, breathing world they can interact with. Imagine people in a movie or novel trudging through town struggling to deal with a broken radiator they can't fix. The solution to their problem is so mind numbingly obvious that they would have to hold not only the idiot ball but the idiot moon not to think of hiring a mechanic.
I don't know what the DC to shoe a horse is and i don't know what the blacksmiths + is but if the party needs a horse shod I don't think i'm going to cause a cosmic rift saying that someone in Absalom knows how to shoe a damned horse
That is actually a completely unacceptable solution.
No, whats completely unacceptable is treating NPCs like static background characters in a videogame. You can't kill them, you can't hurt them, and you can't use the spell or skill on them unless the game says you can. You stab a PERSON and... they just stand there? WTH? How do the characters possibly justify something like that to the characters?
Avoiding being stuck to the rails is half the point of playing an RPG instead of against the computer. I don't know the climb DC of every inch of the dungeon but if someone suddenly needs to climb up the wall i can use by best judgement to pick one off the list. I don't think the hitpoints of a cart or the thickness of a ships walls are listed in any of the required resources but if for some reason the party is taking axes to one coming up with a number isn't that hard. Any reasonable approximation of an NPC's abilities is both closer to ideal and LESS arbitrary than saying sorry he has no stats, he can't be interacted with.
|
|
I am curious as to how it is ruled when 2 (or more) PCs have the same faction. In my experience if 1 of the 2 players succeeds in the mission, both players receive the fame.
But it sounds like some are saying that the 2nd player who maybe did not complete his mission because player-1 completed it, would not receive the fame because of not showing your faction leader that you can do it yourself.
If this is the case then I may have been awarded PP on various occasions that I really did not deserve.
According to current rules, all PC's of a faction receive the prestige/fame if anyone, including other non-affiliated PC's, or even NPC's complete said mission unless there is specific language in the mission that indicated otherwise. For example, if your faction mission were to say to plant a secret message for an NPC, but don't let any Cheliax PC's see you do it, having a Cheliax PC plant the the note would be a failure.
I suppose it is theoretically possible for an unconscious PC to receive prestige/fame credit if someone else completes their mission for them. But, I would leave that type of adjudication to the table GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you or a party member has ... mend or make whole then you can fix the item. But purchasing spellcasting services to do such goes against the challenge.
Wait, what? So if your faction head wants Item X, and it breaks, you can have a party member fix it for free but paying gold to have an NPC do the exact same thing "goes against the challenge"?
Huh?
|
|
@ Andrew & BigNorseWolf...it feels like you two are having a private conversation in the presence of everyone. If both of you are attending GenCon in a few weeks, maybe you could discuss this further face-to-face. It might allow for less misunderstanding. Perhaps, over a beer? I recommend Scotty's Brewhouse. I understand there is a pre-con PFS EVENT there or something on Wednesday :-)
|
|
Wait, what? So if your faction head wants Item X, and it breaks, you can have a party member fix it for free but paying gold to have an NPC do the exact same thing "goes against the challenge"?
Huh?
I suppose it goes to the intent of the recovery. If your faction head is testing your skill or something, then breaking it, regardless of who tries to fix it, would negate the fame. However, I agree that if it would be acceptable for another PC to mend the item, it would be odd if the same didn't apply to an NPC.
|
|
@ Andrew & BigNorseWolf...it feels like you two are having a private conversation in the presence of everyone.
Its an Irish brawl. Anyone's welcome to hop in... :)
If both of you are attending GenCon in a few weeks, maybe you could discuss this further face-to-face.It might allow for less misunderstanding. Perhaps, over a beer?
Distance and finances unfortunately don't allow that.
I recommend Scotty's Brewhouse. I understand there is a pre-con PFS EVENT there or something on Wednesday :-)
If i hit the lotto i'll be there.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I suppose it goes to the intent of the recovery. If your faction head is testing your skill or something, then breaking it, regardless of who tries to fix it, would negate the fame. However, I agree that if it would be acceptable for another PC to mend the item, it would be odd if the same didn't apply to an NPC.Wait, what? So if your faction head wants Item X, and it breaks, you can have a party member fix it for free but paying gold to have an NPC do the exact same thing "goes against the challenge"?
Huh?
My thoughts exactly. In a situation where the goal is to not break the item in the first place, then any break-then-mend event is going to be unacceptable, regardless of whether the mender is a PC or NPC. In a situation where the item merely needs to be delivered, then repairs should be valid regardless of whether the mender is a PC or NPC.
It seems especially silly to claim that the more expensive of two otherwise-identical courses of action "goes against the challenge".
|
|
I'm with BNW on this one. Even in PFS, where it is slightly more acceptable to cause the players to smack into the area boundaries of the scenario due to the nature or OP, the DM has a duty to try to expand the gaming experience beyond the computer-like experience described above where anything without explicit stats cannot be interacted with.
I would allow pretty much any of these solutions mentioned because I try to shy away from table logic which is too gamist.
|
|
@ Andrew & BigNorseWolf...it feels like you two are having a private conversation in the presence of everyone. If both of you are attending GenCon in a few weeks, maybe you could discuss this further face-to-face. It might allow for less misunderstanding. Perhaps, over a beer? I recommend Scotty's Brewhouse. I understand there is a pre-con PFS EVENT there or something on Wednesday :-)there are a few others of us with an interest in this. So it's not really a private conversation. feel free to continue.
Nah, BNW and I just agree to disagree at this point I think.
I've stated my opinion. It is what it is. I don't feel I'm black and white disallowing everything. Yet somehow that's what he's reading into what I'm saying.
I do disallow certain things, and its based on each circumstance individually and based on trying to maintain the integrity of the faction mission system as I have interpreted it (been explained to me by others).
Apparently my mistake was trying to give a system of general guidelines to what is essentially circumstantial judgement calls.
|
|
I would be interested in peoples opinion on getting another party member to complete the Faction Mission, who then uses a different skill to complete it. for example.
Faction Mission - get item X from NPC. (normally a slight of hand check). The Faction player has no Slight of Hand skill, so appeals to the another party member who has stated a willingness to aid.
Requests aid from the Bard ("Lady of the Evening"), who is a different faction. "I need you to get something from this guy." "Sure - does he have it on him? don't tell me what it is." the challenge becomes a diplomacy check (seduction). Bard player (already rented a hotel suite) takes 10 to handle getting the target separated from his clothing and distracted, and meets the Faction player several hours later in the hotel bar.
Possible problems -
1) did a faction mission for someone else.
2) used a skill different from what the challange called for.
3) T10 to do a faction mission.
4) The Bard has no idea what the Faction Mission target was, and even offered to have Modify Memory cast to insure she had no memory of it. Was this a Secret Mission?so - does the Faction Player get the PP? if not, why not?
This largely depends on the circumstances.
See, it is very circumstantial. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with the Bard helping, nor would I mind the Bard being creative to try a different skill. But it would all have to make sense within the context of the faction mission, the scenario, the NPC as defined by the scenario, and the roleplay involved.
|
|
when the above came up in a game, the objection was #3. That judge doesn't allow you to T10 on faction missions - "too stressful". I had hoped to use the T10 as my PC was not the one actually "lifting" the item, just the distraction.If those are all the details, then sure, they get it.
But examples are at this point (IMO) not helpful as circumstances can vary soooo widely with the alteration of even a single detail.
Well, Take 10 does indicate that the GM gets to determine what is and is not too stressful.
Although I would likely allow it under many circumstances. Some would likely not be ok (like trying a slight of hand while in the middle of a dalliance).
This would likely be a situation in which Table Variance would apply though.
|
|
- to allow for the fact that the players are going to find the "odd way out of the room". Don't stare at the players and say "you can't do that, 'cause the NPC doesn't have stats!"
maybe you should say, "He turns your blow easily... and in fact laughs about it." or something... even just look at the players and say, "guys, the scenarios not build for you to wack the VC - let's try to stay with inside the game a bit ok?".
chuckle... Ok, I think I understand where BNW may be coming from now.
A huge assumption is being made. One I can forgive, as I didn't elaborate on my GM style.
At risk of tooting my own horn, I think I'm pretty darn good and savvy at improvising and roleplay. And that in most cases, the way in which I adjudicate a game and/or situation the players would have no idea whether the NPC had stats or whether they were going off script or not.
I would never say, "Sorry, can't do that, he doesn't have stats."
I'm all about doing my best to keep things in character with those sorts of situations. And if something doesn't work, it is likely going to be a saving throw roll made behind my GM screen, "Yup, he made it, sorry" or devising situations so that the players don't have the opportunity to carry out their plan.
Wanna follow the NPC and waylay him in the alley? If he's important and part of the V-C briefing, likely he has a carriage outside. And it takes him directly to his house or embassy or whatever. And now they have to infiltrate an entire estate filled with danger for a faction mission? It will become fairly evident that they are way off track, and that's when I will remind them that their boat is leaving in about 20 minutes and it will take them 19 to get to the docks if they run the whole way.
The guidelines are how I logically think while running a scenario, when determining if something will work or not. How I portray my decision is a completely different matter.
And I think I'm actually quite liberal on rewarding creativity, regardless of what seem like a strict set of guidelines.
I will even go so far as to say, "well you don't think you are having the effect you desired, but roll a sense motive. Ah, a 20? Well you saw his eyes quirk up when you mentioned something about Head Cheese, perhaps focus on that?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think I'm actually quite liberal on rewarding creativity, regardless of what seem like a strict set of guidelines.
See, here's where i see that not being the case
___I would probably even give a reasonable bonus to a slight of hand check to the Bard for “distracting” Gaspar with her wiles.
nor would I mind the Bard being creative to try a different skill.
___
In your example you have made the decision that he doesn't take the locket off.. ever, and seem (to me) to be trying to steer things back to a sleight of hand check. Its a trained only skill, and a VERY situational one at that, and precisely the sort of thing parties will try to avoid with a creative solution. (such as blatantly ripping his clothes off, throwing them in the corner, and then blatantly ripping the necklace off to toss on top)
If you put him in a carriage, people will throw on disguises and rob it, cast warp wood on the axle, run ahead use their hats of disguises to pose as workmen and set up a detour into a back ally, have the barbarian with a fly spell swoop in and snag the driver, become a stand in for the horse, disintegrate the hitch, Throw on a black cloak summon in some demons in front of the wagon and cackle manically in the marketplace and challenge a hero to face him... and by having the carriage there you're sending a signal for them to do this. They're not trying to send anything off the rails they THINK they're looking at the train.
And now they have to infiltrate an entire estate filled with danger for a faction mission?
No. As a matter of pride. As a matter of winning. As a matter of accepting anything less than perfect at something a lot of us consider ourselves good at.
It doesn't matter if its a faction mission or the main macguffin of the entire quest: the fact is that to the players a goal is a goal. You've put a goal in front of them and they're going to try to reach it, quite often with a pitbull like tenacity . Compared to the murder grave robbing, sewer diving, carrying around severed heads and exploring the digestive contents of many a monster some quickie B&E doesn't register as a blip on the radar.
Making the NPC de facto immune to anything the PC's want to do to him that doesn't have stats can get very frustrating. If a dwarf with a +16 fort save vs alcohol can't win a drinking contest the bard talked Gaspar into getting into, they're going to notice that something is up.
|
|
And I think I'm actually quite liberal on rewarding creativity, regardless of what seem like a strict set of guidelines.See, here's where i see that not being the case
___I would probably even give a reasonable bonus to a slight of hand check to the Bard for “distracting” Gaspar with her wiles.
nor would I mind the Bard being creative to try a different skill.
___In your example you have made the decision that he doesn't take the locket off.. ever, and seem (to me) to be trying to steer things back to a sleight of hand check. Its a trained only skill, and a VERY situational one at that, and precisely the sort of thing parties will try to avoid with a creative solution. (such as blatantly ripping his clothes off, throwing them in the corner, and then blatantly ripping the necklace off to toss on top)
If you put him in a carriage, people will throw on disguises and rob it, cast warp wood on the axle, run ahead use their hats of disguises to pose as workmen and set up a detour into a back ally, have the barbarian with a fly spell swoop in and snag the driver, become a stand in for the horse, disintegrate the hitch, Throw on a black cloak summon in some demons in front of the wagon and cackle manically in the marketplace and challenge a hero to face him... and by having the carriage there you're sending a signal for them to do this. They're not trying to send anything off the rails they THINK they're looking at the train.
And now they have to infiltrate an entire estate filled with danger for a faction mission?No. As a matter of pride. As a matter of winning. As a matter of accepting anything less than perfect at something a lot of us consider ourselves good at.
It doesn't matter if its a faction mission or the main macguffin of the entire quest: the fact is that to the players a goal is a goal. You've put a goal in front of them and they're going to try to reach it, quite often with a pitbull like tenacity . Compared...
Ok, now you are just being obtuse. Seriously.
You aren't even reading my reasons for certain decisions.
You aren't reading the fact that I try to look at the entire circumstance.
And a group of pathfinders is going to attack a well respected luminary, in his coach, in the middle of a well traveled Absalom street? Really? Fine, go for it. When the Guards come and arrest or kill everyone, don't say I didn't allow creativity to be tried. If players want to make stupid and immature actions with their characters, they gotta meet the consequences of such.
And if they are more on task to solve one party member's faction mission, than solve the mission the Pathfinder Society sent them on, sure. I'll make up an entire adventure on the spot. It will be fun. They might succeed.
But the chances that they'd be put in jail and removed from the game entirely is possible. And if nothing else, they'd fail the main mission. Of course, that's their choice.
|
|
Ok, now you are just being obtuse. Seriously.
Insulting me is unnecessary, unwarranted, and most of all unhelpful.
You aren't even reading my reasons for certain decisions.
You aren't reading the fact that I try to look at the entire circumstance.
Your 'looking at the entire circumtance' comes back to a round about way of saying no to creative solutions. You will take creative solutions as long as they don't bypass a difficult skill check, take too much time (but you will make sure they take too much time), involve NPCs (no matter how logical their presence), and don't involve interactions with NPCs that don't have stat blocks. Any creative solution is going to run into at least one of those. While you say you are fine with creative solutions you have a de facto no to them because you say no to pretty much any way they can be carried about.
You are not for creative solutions. You no not agree, in general, with my statement. There is no, nadda, zero functional difference between being against creative solutions and being against any and all means by which they might be carried out. There is no difference between the DM putting an outright Kibosh on a charm person spell or coming up with all natural 20's behind the screen.
And a group of pathfinders is going to attack a well respected luminary, in his coach, in the middle of a well traveled Absalom street?
Start the fight, snag the macguffin, don't actually hurt the guy, don't be recognized and be gone before the guards get there. Sounds like a Tuesday.
|
|
Ok, now you are just being obtuse. Seriously.Insulting me is unnecessary, unwarranted, and most of all unhelpful.
You aren't even reading my reasons for certain decisions.
You aren't reading the fact that I try to look at the entire circumstance.Your 'looking at the entire circumtance' comes back to a round about way of saying no to creative solutions. You will take creative solutions as long as they don't bypass a difficult skill check, take too much time (but you will make sure they take too much time), involve NPCs (no matter how logical their presence), and don't involve interactions with NPCs that don't have stat blocks. Any creative solution is going to run into at least one of those. While you say you are fine with creative solutions you have a de facto no to them because you say no to pretty much any way they can be carried about.
You are not for creative solutions. You no not agree, in general, with my statement. There is no, nadda, zero functional difference between being against creative solutions and being against any and all means by which they might be carried out. There is no difference between the DM putting an outright Kibosh on a charm person spell or coming up with all natural 20's behind the screen.
And a group of pathfinders is going to attack a well respected luminary, in his coach, in the middle of a well traveled Absalom street?Start the fight, snag the macguffin, don't actually hurt the guy, don't be recognized and be gone before the guards get there. Sounds like a Tuesday.
You've never played at my table. You've never seen me in action. You have absolutely zero basis for your claims.
I've tried to explain myself, and at every turn you keep telling me I'm full of it.
I am pretty sure that most players who've played at my table would agree that I'm pretty easy going and liberal when it comes to creativity. Until you have anything other than your twisted interpretation of what I write on these boards, please stop telling me what I am and am not.
With that, have fun slashing me to pieces.
