|
In scenarios, are we allowed to award creative solutions to problems presented? I.e. modify the ‘requires a DC # [Skill] check’ in a game.
This question comes from a scenario I am running that has a task in it that requires a DC 30 Escape Artist check. Aside from my thoughts on the ridiculously high DC, there is no one in the party who can make that, even on roll of 20. So, do I move on and say “oh well, sucks to be you” or if the players devise another solution that requires a different skill check, do I allow them to do it?
|
My short answer is yes.
As long as it is within reason and the players make a cool suggestion and are able to pull off the task with a similar difficult DC. If it is a faction mission, I may stick to the actual skill check a little closer. The game really should reward creativity so I would tend to let them be creative and as long as it is not meta-gaming style suggestions to simply get past the fact that none of the players bothered to take any skills, then let it fly. Make them earn it though. We encountered some of this during a chase scene in a scenario and as long as they could explain / roleplay out their new choice, I let some of those ideas fly.
|
I have not GM'd for any PFS scenarios yet, but I did just get back from the Con and all I played were PFS games. I might have had the scenario that GM Brute Squad is talking about. I play a rogue and obviously I did not know the DC check before hand, but I role-played my actions and made the roll. Natural 20 with an escape artist mod of +7, but because of the roll and the actions that I did leading up to the roll, I succeeded and got the lovely shiny object which I reluctantly handed over to the person that apparently needed it for their mission.
All that being said, I do like to reward players with some minor bonus if they roleplay the action well and put some thought into what their character would actually do in that situation.
My 2 cents.
|
|
The thing about rewarding creativity is that it should not involve you doing anything in advance. If they come up with something on their own, that you think is a good idea, you may give them a circumstance bonus.
I guess my point is, don't wrack your brain figuring out a way for them to get past the obstacle, just keep the handy circumstance bonus on the side in case they come up with a good idea.
|
|
If this is what I think it is, then:
|
The thing about rewarding creativity is that it should not involve you doing anything in advance. If they come up with something on their own, that you think is a good idea, you may give them a circumstance bonus.
I guess my point is, don't wrack your brain figuring out a way for them to get past the obstacle, just keep the handy circumstance bonus on the side in case they come up with a good idea.
This right here!
Rewarding creativity is also not about lowering the target number, it is about giving bonuses and allowing other skills to be used in unique ways, though be careful on the last and make sure the skill is being used the way it is meant to.
|
|
You can come up with a different skill check, or even no check. If its what andrew christian thinks it is you can
- Intimidate/Diplomacy/stuff the Gnome down the hole since the dc is easier for him
- Have an unseen servant retrieve the item
- Summon a monster to get the item
- Cast reduce person on a party member
- Shapeshift into something smaller
- Spend a few days with a pick and a shovel digging to the item once you've defeated the demon and are running around playing librarian and gardener
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I reward creativity by putting notations on the Chronicle Sheet:
"Newspaper entry for 'Gnome Throwing Champion'"
"Patent application for 'Goblin Restraint Barrel'"
That sort of thing.. some little nothing that begs to be explained (in hilarious detail) later.
|
I reward creativity by putting notations on the Chronicle Sheet:
"Newspaper entry for 'Gnome Throwing Champion'"
"Patent application for 'Goblin Restraint Barrel'"That sort of thing.. some little nothing that begs to be explained (in hilarious detail) later.
This little tip has been the most popular thing EVAR at my tables. Players love the personalized note that references something they did in the scenario, especially if it was creative.
As long as you are presenting the scenarios as written and then responding to what the players do, rewarding creativity is what makes it interesting.
The trap is in adding or altering stuff before it is presented to the party because you *think* it will be more interesting. That way lies madness...
|
|
Cross posted from another thread, but I think it's more appropriate to this thread.
In fact, to NOT reward a creative solution is just as much "cheating" as rewarding the lack of a creative solution would be.
In fact, this is not a fact. With the difficulty distinguishing what is and is not allowed by PFS rules, perhaps we should work on developing guidelines?
For a lot of older faction missions (and some newer ones), a single trained-only skill check was required for a faction mission. This was the mechanic to make it "difficult." Allowing another skill to be used at the same DC is against the rules whether or not the player is being creative (this is starting to sound like Play, Play, Play! *summons Dragnmoon*).
What we could propose, however, is a system that gives GMs some discretion, but still maintains the value of trained skills and respects the author's intent. Here's a proposal (which I basically wrote into a couple of encounters and faction missions in Rats Pt 1):
Players may attempt this check with another appropriate skill (at the GM's discretion), but at a +5 DC.
|
|
In the case of using another skill in place, I would agree with Mr. Baird. But I may also allow certain actions to decrease the DC of the check. Especially if this is plot specific, I might not necessarily do this if it is Faction mission specific, as sometimes it simple falls to a Perception check or some other check that you might not be able to prepare for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reward creativity by putting notations on the Chronicle Sheet:
"Newspaper entry for 'Gnome Throwing Champion'"
"Patent application for 'Goblin Restraint Barrel'"That sort of thing.. some little nothing that begs to be explained (in hilarious detail) later.
This little tip has been the most popular thing EVAR at my tables. Players love the personalized note that references something they did in the scenario, especially if it was creative.
As long as you are presenting the scenarios as written and then responding to what the players do, rewarding creativity is what makes it interesting.
The trap is in adding or altering stuff before it is presented to the party because you *think* it will be more interesting. That way lies madness...
I just ran "First Steps: In Service to Lore" the other night.
The female cleric played along with the Paracountess' monologue:
This was her character sheet reward:
You /have/ to see the looks when she (very proudly) busts out /that/ Chronicle Sheet at the table. HILARIOUS.
|
Cross posted from another thread, but I think it's more appropriate to this thread.
In fact, to NOT reward a creative solution is just as much "cheating" as rewarding the lack of a creative solution would be.In fact, this is not a fact. With the difficulty distinguishing what is and is not allowed by PFS rules, perhaps we should work on developing guidelines?
For a lot of older faction missions (and some newer ones), a single trained-only skill check was required for a faction mission. This was the mechanic to make it "difficult." Allowing another skill to be used at the same DC is against the rules whether or not the player is being creative (this is starting to sound like Play, Play, Play! *summons Dragnmoon*).
Players may attempt this check with another appropriate skill (at the GM's discretion), but at a +5 DC.
I agree with Jiggy. Allowing another skill, provided the player can explain why it applies and perhaps even what they are doing what is different makes it creative in and of itself. Just asking, 'can I use skill x' doesn't quite count in as 'creativity'.
Still, +5 is a good guideline rather than a good hard and fast rule. For example, I was in a game where one player pulled out an obscure profession and asked to apply the skill to a check. The skills and the challenge happened to matched up very well, probably the only time they will in the character's career. Arguably, the player in question was also paying a 'cool character tax' by faithfully putting a point in a 'useless' skill.
The GM let him make the role at the same DC. I think this was the right call. Probably 4 out of 5 times, +5 is about right. But nowhere in the rules should +5 or any other such minutiae be mandated.
GM judgement, with 'reward creative solutions' as a guideline is a part of RAW.
|
|
following kyle next 2 posts Cross posted from another thread, but I think it's more appropriate to this thread.
The section on rewarding Creative Solutions is not about allowing others to get around not having a skill, the section is about finding Creative Solutions on getting around Combat (roleplay their way through a combat) and still getting the reward for it. Rewarding those who find a way of getting around an encounter other then kill it.
Creative Solutions
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your players might surprise you with a creative solution to an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn’t see coming and that isn’t expressly covered in the scenario. If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they would have gained had they defeated their opponent in combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same
rewards. Additionally, if the PCs roleplayed past an NPC who carries a specific potion or scroll that the PCs might be granted access to on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet—instead, allow the PCs to find the item elsewhere as a reward for creatively resolving the encounter without resorting to combat. Pathfinder Society Organized Play never wants to give the impression that the only way to solve a problem is to kill it—does rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only make Society games more fun for the players, but it also gives you, the GM, a level of flexibility in ensuring your players receive the rewards they are due.
|
|
What we could propose, however, is a system that gives GMs some discretion, but still maintains the value of trained skills and respects the author's intent. Here's a proposal (which I basically wrote into a couple of encounters and faction missions in Rats Pt 1):
I think its kind of immersion breaking for something that patently should work to not work just because there's supposed to be a skill check involved. Its like figuring out a solution that the *#(&(#& computer won't let you do because its not programed for it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you remember when you were in grade school, and to some extent college, and they wanted you to show your work for your math homework? “Yeah, I know you can figure it out in your head, and yes, all your answers are correct, but I need you to show me the work.”
Those faction missions that should be doable without making any skill rolls or by going and getting an NPC to make a skill check for a trained-only skill that your character is not trained in, I explain that your faction wants you to show them your work.
To gain the prestige and fame, they want to see that YOU are capable of these things.
It isn't just about completing the task, but doing it yourself and in such a way that proves you are worthy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you remember when you were in grade school, and to some extent college, and they wanted you to show your work for your math homework? “Yeah, I know you can figure it out in your head, and yes, all your answers are correct, but I need you to show me the work.”
Yeah i hated those too.
Those faction missions that should be doable without making any skill rolls or by going and getting an NPC to make a skill check for a trained-only skill that your character is not trained in, I explain that your faction wants you to show them your work.
To gain the prestige and fame, they want to see that YOU are capable of these things.
Here's the thing.
Your faction head is saying "Do X" The faction head is NOT saying "do x this way". You're a pathfinder, you're an adult, and ostensibly a well trained one and an expert in your field. You should not be getting micromanaged from home base.
In fact, you are NOT getting micromanaged from home base, because your faction head isn't the one setting one absurdly high DC if you stay inside the box: the scenario (or the DM) is. The faction leader doesn't say to wriggle your fat keister through that tiny little tunnel, they just want whats on the other side. There's often no in game connection between what the faction leader says and the actual skill check:
It isn't just about completing the task, but doing it yourself and in such a way that proves you are worthy.
And for a group of mismatched archeologist grave robbers shouldn't going outside the box for solutions show that you're MORE capable of solving the rather bizarre conundrums pathfinders often walk into?
|
|
If thinking outside the box results in you doing it, or someone you are traveling with doing it yes.
Lying to your faction head about acquiring an object through negotiation when you just killed the guy and stole it… not good enough.
Taking a book to town so an NPC can figure it out, when the faction head told you to figure it out. Not good enough.
Using twine and a fishhook to recover an item instead of having to squeeze your body into a small crevasse. Good enough.
The point is, your faction has a certain agenda. Having hundreds or thousands of experts out in town knowing that agenda, not a good idea.
Your faction also has other things they are concerned about doing. They asked you to do something so they wouldn’t have to. Bringing something back to them, while giving them the info or item they want, won’t get you fame, because they still had to do half the work.
And if you leave the creative ideas to the GM’s discretion, the GM can allow you to think outside the box, yet still set a suitable challenge for the completion of the task.
Thinking outside the box should not negate the challenge, just allow you to redefine what that challenge is.
|
|
If thinking outside the box results in you doing it, or someone you are traveling with doing it yes.
Lying to your faction head about acquiring an object through negotiation when you just killed the guy and stole it… not good enough.
I'm not talking about when they say get it off of him, I'm pointing out that very often there is a discrepancy between WHAT you are told to do and HOW the mod thinks you should go about doing it.
Taking a book to town so an NPC can figure it out, when the faction head told you to figure it out. Not good enough.
The point is, your faction has a certain agenda. Having hundreds or thousands of experts out in town knowing that agenda, not a good idea.
Why not? Certainly there's a translator or two in town more sympathetic to the andoran cause than the chelaxian in your party (who you can turn to for help if you the mission isn't secret and you don't mind a fixed term lease on your soul). Or at least you can carry the obelisk back to town with you and then buy a scroll of comprehend languages if you forgot to bring one.
And if you leave the creative ideas to the GM’s discretion, the GM can allow you to think outside the box, yet still set a suitable challenge for the completion of the task.
Who's elses discretion would they be at?
Thinking outside the box should not negate the challenge, just allow you to redefine what that challenge is.
Thinking outside the box IS meeting the challenge. It just moves the difficulty from the character and a roll of the dice to the player.
|
|
We will just have to agree to disagree then.
I think that player ingenuity should not completely do away with the roll of a dice. That it doesn't matter how creative you are as a player, the bottom line, the roll of a dice should determine faction success (as long as it was originally planned that way).
|
|
I can still T10 right? or do you require "that player ingenuity should not completely do away with the roll of a dice", so no Take 10 on faction missions?
You can do whatever is within the realms of the rules Nosig.
If you choose to ruin the dynamics of chance of catastrophic failure or phenomenal success by having to take 10 on everything you do, then that is of course your choice.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can still T10 right? or do you require "that player ingenuity should not completely do away with the roll of a dice", so no Take 10 on faction missions?You can do whatever is within the realms of the rules Nosig.
If you choose to ruin the dynamics of chance of catastrophic failure or phenomenal success by having to take 10 on everything you do, then that is of course your choice.
Isn't that a bit harsh just for describing someone's preference?
|
|
I can still T10 right? or do you require "that player ingenuity should not completely do away with the roll of a dice", so no Take 10 on faction missions?You can do whatever is within the realms of the rules Nosig.
If you choose to ruin the dynamics of chance of catastrophic failure or phenomenal success by having to take 10 on everything you do, then that is of course your choice.
Isn't that a bit harsh just for describing someone's preference?
Nope. There was no place in this discussion for Take 10. That's been hashed out many other places. No need to even bring it up here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will just have to agree to disagree then.
I think that player ingenuity should not completely do away with the roll of a dice. That it doesn't matter how creative you are as a player, the bottom line, the roll of a dice should determine faction success (as long as it was originally planned that way).
This is going to vary wildly with each faction mission. If you need that DC30 escape artist check, turning yourself into a snake is going to bypass that check without some sort of magical DM force field around the scales. If you need a climb check fly or spiderclimb will do in the roll completely. If you need a diplomacy check on random guard 212 to learn where the prisoner is held detect thoughts, charm person, or dominate person are going to get you the same info. I'm at a loss to think of any explanation for why mending couldn't put the tea set back together as long as every cup was individually wrapped.
Putting the skill check on rails seems to completely ignore the fact that magic exists and most pathfinders have ready access to it.
|
|
We will just have to agree to disagree then.
I think that player ingenuity should not completely do away with the roll of a dice. That it doesn't matter how creative you are as a player, the bottom line, the roll of a dice should determine faction success (as long as it was originally planned that way).
This is going to vary wildly with each faction mission. If you need that DC30 escape artist check, turning yourself into a snake is going to bypass that check without some sort of magical DM force field around the scales. If you need a climb check fly or spiderclimb will do in the roll completely. If you need a diplomacy check on random guard 212 to learn where the prisoner is held detect thoughts, charm person, or dominate person are going to get you the same info. I'm at a loss to think of any explanation for why mending couldn't put the tea set back together as long as every cup was individually wrapped.
Putting the skill check on rails seems to completely ignore the fact that magic exists and most pathfinders have ready access to it.
There is a huge difference in using character mechanics to bypass obstacles, and expecting pure ingenuity to do the same.
Kyle, I will happily start a tit-for-tat argument if Andrew won't.. ^_^
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In scenarios, are we allowed to award creative solutions to problems presented? I.e. modify the ‘requires a DC # [Skill] check’ in a game.
This question comes from a scenario I am running that has a task in it that requires a DC 30 Escape Artist check. Aside from my thoughts on the ridiculously high DC, there is no one in the party who can make that, even on roll of 20. So, do I move on and say “oh well, sucks to be you” or if the players devise another solution that requires a different skill check, do I allow them to do it?
If it's the scenario I think it is, the DC is set by the rules for Escape Artist to squeeze into a tight space (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 96). If the PCs come up with a creative way to get at what's on the other side of the narrow space or to circumvent the choke point with dimension door or whatever, then yes, award them for that creativity, but please don't arbitrarily change skill DCs.
|
|
please don't arbitrarily change skill DCs.
For the love of all that is unholy, this. For creative solutions remember these guidelines directly out of the core rulebook page 403:
One handy rule to keep under your belt is the Fiat Rule—simply grant a player a +2 or a –2 bonus or penalty to a die roll if no one at the table is precisely sure how a situation might be handled by the rules.
If you don't like a faction mission for WHATEVER reason, actually take the time write a thorough and detailed review of the scenario. Make a point to include what you did and didn't like about it, including specific faction missions.
|
|
I want to throw out some in game solutions to problems I've encountered.
Silent Tide
Ghannet Manner Gauntlet
Defenders of Nesting Swallow
Gods Market Gamble
Still, to me, these are logical and reasonable uses of skills that most GM's in my area would allow. There is no changing of the DC's. There is a simple act of the player to try to find a way around the problem. That is the essence of the type of creative solutions that should be rewarded.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing. Yes, these are logical alternative solutions. If you were playing in a home game they would be great. You and your players would deserve praise and admiration for your ingenuity. The problem however is that this is organized play.
1) Creative solutions to encounters are specifically allowed in PFS. Faction missions are encounters.
2) The higher you set the DCs, the more players will feel justified in doing it another way. If you hand me a DC of 30 in a first level mod every geek fiber of my being is screaming at me that you're SUPPOSED to find a way around it. If you want a DC 30 in a slight of hand skill to juggle on the back of the elephant, i'm having the party druid polymorph into the elephant for a smoother ride , casting 6 unseen servants, a telekinesis, and an invisibility on my party members so they can hand me dropping cantaloupes.
3) There is no way the writers are going to write 10 problems with only one solution that creative players won't find a way around, especially with magic involved.
4) Mark Moreland just said to go ahead and dimension door through if that's what it takes.
They don't reflect the true nature of the challenge written and provide bad information to Mark.
They do represent the actual difficulty of the task they were given by their faction head: get the macguffin, found out X, or convince someone to do something. They are not representing the difficulty of the METHOD asked for in the scenario.