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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Reporting GMs, both Good and Bad


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

151 to 200 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

By the way everyone, for thoughts on implementing a feedback system, I started a new thread here so that comments of that nature don't get lost in the swirl of tangents and side-topics of this thread.

*

Re: Summoners & Golarion's reality.
@ Walter, et al.

derail:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

RE:

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Summoners are a common class on Golarion.

No, they're not.
James Jacobs said as much.
Or, name one NPC Summoner on Golarion.
PCs, yeah. Population, not so much.
I wrote:
If the summoner class is allowed as PFS legal, then we can assume it is a common PC class in Golarion. Just as NPCs know that people with holy symbols are divine casters, or that people in heavy armor probably aren't casting arcane spells (save those with somatic components), they will know that beasts with glowing runes are summoned pets, and the best way to destroy them is through their master.

The assumption being that if a class is legal, they are not rare. JJ can say they're not common, but as we play in this living campaign, they are becoming more common. Also PCs in PFS make up the population of Golarion. Its not a stagnant number -- you can buy houses in the game dude, settle down and start a family if you want to. There's 10,000? or so registered people now. That's (lowballing hard and assuming only 1 character a person) something like 500 summoners, most of which are well known (see the fame/prestige thing).

Quote:
And I don't think other class skills are obvious, even the dagger hitting for 54 damage. It hits a major organ/vein, and one can likely discern it's precision damage (and part of the attackers abilities if repeated), but to the PC his world is 'real' and it could be a 'lucky hit' to observers in that world.

That may be the case, but any NPC with class levels know what rogues and summoners are. Those NPCs could have even taken a level in those classes, but chose not to. They're aware they exist, and generally understand their abilities. As ALL PCs do. We can always strive for total immersion and whatnot, but even in that world of perfect IC playing, people know that KOing the master poofs the pet when it comes to summoners. Just like people know that disarming a fighter prevents him from attacking with that sword.

I think that summoners...

Note: I'm not heading anywhere with this, just walking where it goes.

Walter, I disagree with some of your suppositions, as they put game before world, while I prefer a Golarion that's bigger than the rules.

PFS is unusual in that all these characters exist (adding to the whole and gaining fame), but many are getting famous for doing the exact same things.
"Oh, you know, that guy who took out Dalsine."
"Umm, I know 500+ people who did that. And 100+ who died in round one."
"Dude, what's a round?"
So, how many of these actually make it into the official timeline?
It's a multitude of blurry, overlapping realities.
Quests and monsters don't reset/respawn here.
(See Rogue Eidolon's post above.)

Somebody did find one NPC Summoner (drat!), but the point was they're rare, not unknown. And while I agree that fame would make Summoners known, when James Jacobs makes a statement about Golarion, I run with it. Especially since he stated it as policy (Summoners take up too much stat space to be feasible without exceptional reasons), not just flavor.
Again, not an argument against them being known or not.
Liches are rare, but likely much talked about. (Often with incorrect notions, I'd think.)
Would Summoners get the same love? I sort of doubt it.

As for knowing any classes abilities, I think mooks, grunts, and savage humanoids wouldn't know by default. I think they'd be subject to as much disinformation as real information about anything outside their sphere. (And I think that would lead to disproportionate fear of spellcasters too.)
I don't think PCs know everything about classes either, I think players play their PCs as if they knew. It's part of the player's skill set I wouldn't ask anyone to give up, but I know of several who do.
One example from the last session I played in.
Player A: "Why didn't you use that weapon that would bypass DR?"
Player B (very experienced): "Because none of your smart characters told my Barbarian what he needed to use."
Player A: "Huh?"
Me: "Doh..." (Checks knowledge skills) "Doh..."

I run my ignorant PCs ignorant, and my brilliant PCs...well, as close as I can get, but still not meta-gamey. I dumb down my monster knowledge, class knowledge, etc. and seldom talk in those terms at the table.

I would not equate 'he's carrying a sword' with 'he has an invisible magical link to that monster which needs him to stay conscious, etc., etc.'
Plenty of people carry holy symbols who don't cast spells. Most are Commoners. (Now silver holy symbols, that'd be the Aristocrats and Experts.)
I don't think NPCs think in terms of leveling, and don't necessarily know all the options out there or have access to Wizard training at a whim or retroactively. IMO. I think they see skill sets they want and train toward those, if they have the aptitude, unknowing of what 'class' they are, moreso in the non-caster classes, of course. But I'm of the belief non-caster classes represent the majority of NPCs with PC classes.
(Background NPCs, and based on old school %s & standard fantasy tropes, not NPCs in adventures nor Paizo statements.)

In other words, I don't see an OotS world, but a thriving fantasy world, not bounded by the rules, but which the rules attempt to describe our sake.
I see the world and its history as its own entity first. Then the game takes place in that world, and tries to capture its spirit and remain a balanced game, and that's where the rules kick in.

This reminds me of some arguments I've seen that assume that all the NPCs MUST have 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 before racial/age modifiers. Handy and balanced, sure, but certainly not true in a world with any verisimilitude. I'll use the 3d6 bell curve, thank you.

Okay, all that said, if an NPC is an 11th level Ranger, he's very likely fought enough PC classes to know common buffs, tactics, etc.
Heck, he might not just hit a downed foe, he might do it and 5' step to block the Cleric from getting a Breath of Life to the PC too.
But a 1st level Ranger? He's probably ecstatic he dropped anybody.

/fun rambling

Edit to add:
Walter, totally siding with you that the GM attacking the Summoner was in the right.
Squishy, flanked beast-riding guy=target. Certainly the villain can assume the rider can do SOMETHING, or why's he riding up into combat?
While it's arguable if he was the better target, there should be zero argument when he's viable.

And therein lies the problem. There IS an argument. And it could lead to a very negative review (with a friend backing his report), while the others backing the GM may not submit anything.
I admit my first response was to side with the OP, until I learned more.
Are there people with the time to filter the anger out of the facts?

JMK

Grand Lodge *****

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
No of course not! even suggesting such about such an honorable lady is an insult! Besides none are as worthy as myself for Lady Foxglove's attractions, it preposterous to think otherwise!

You dishonor her with such blatant lies, and as a gentlemen I must protect her honor.

I will let you decide the weapon of choice. I will have my seneschal contact you with the normal rules for a gentlemen's dual. Good day to you sir!

Dark Archive **** Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Actually, James seems to have a dislike for the class for both the policy reason and personal ones. Since he's in charge of creative, it stunts Summoners in Golarion.

James' statements don't carry weight (but can inform judgment calls) in PFS, M&M's do.


I know this is PFS only, but I want to report my GM.

The Exchange ****

I try to play my characters to their knowledge as well. I do specifically make note that my Summoner and his Eidolon wear hoods that cover their marks.

However, he's going to instantly assume that he should use silver agains that bearded devil. He's now fought two of them, and both times the smart wizardy type has told him that silver is effective against it. hopefully he wouldn't forget that. "Ahh a devil thing, hit it with a silver thing"

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Benrislove wrote:

I was also denied a "take 20" after all enemies had been vanquished and there was no time constraint or danger.

Is take 20 disallowed for faction missions when normally allowed by the rules?

As it's been explained to me, you can't take 20 on a faction mission because there is a penalty for failure.

EDIT: Otherwise, I'd totally take 20 on my Sleight of Hand faction missions, getting well into the 30's every time and never risking failure. Faction missions aren't supposed to be easy, so taking 10 or 20 isn't allowed because otherwise then you could just waltz right on in and just take 20 every time and always get your Prestige. You're expected to fail every so often.

Yes, you can take 10 or take 20 on faction-related skill checks in any circumstance in which the Core Rules would normally allow it. Based on your comment in your edit, though, I have a feeling you might be a bit rusty on what that means.

I'm well aware of how taking 20 works, thank you very much. I was simply giving an example of why it would be a little ridiculous for folks to be taking 20's on faction missions. Unfortunately, this means that some factions will be more heavily favored by this taking 20 allowance and it's a little aggravating that the guy who only has a 5 mod on his faction mission skill can take 20 and get their mission no muss no fuss, where I worked to get my modifier up to 20, and because I roll a 3 since I can't take 20 on a knowledge check, I fail.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
I'm well aware of how taking 20 works, thank you very much. I was simply giving an example of why it would be a little ridiculous for folks to be taking 20's on faction missions.

It sounded like you thought that a PC could T20 in any situation (such as with Sleight of Hand) and therefore it was an unbalanced mechanic to apply to faction missions. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Quote:
Unfortunately, this means that some factions will be more heavily favored by this taking 20 allowance and it's a little aggravating that the guy who only has a 5 mod on his faction mission skill can take 20 and get their mission no muss no fuss, where I worked to get my modifier up to 20, and because I roll a 3 since I can't take 20 on a knowledge check, I fail.

Some missions will involve something where you can easily take 20 (like finding an object, when you have plenty of time to search a room) and others will not (like needing to deliver a code message and using Sense Motive to assess their response). Some missions will be harder than others. This is not bad, and is also not a reason to deviate from Core Rules regarding T20 (or T10, for that matter).


Saint Caleth wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
I'm pretty sure that IC when NPCs level up they don't get a menu of classes to choose from. They merely continue their training, whether formal for wizards, fighters, etc. or self taught in the case of rogues.
What about when they chose their first level?

That is between a character and their backstory, but I suspect that it does not involve a drop down menu containing all possible character options. It is silly to think so.

Saint Caleth wrote:
It is absolutely possible that NPC would be unaware of certain character options that they don't hav, such as the exact mechanics of Eidolons. That is what Knowledge(Arcana) is for.
No, that's what Knowledge (planes) could be for.
I was thinking Knowledge(Arcana) to identify the relevant mechanics of an arcane spellcasting class, but my point is that an NPC needs a knowledge check to know to knock out the summoner to poof the eidolon.

Using knowledge skill to know class abilities is nowhere in the rules book. It varies from GM to GM at home games, depending on how common the PC classses are. For PFS it is really up to GM discretion until something official comes out.

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
I'm well aware of how taking 20 works, thank you very much. I was simply giving an example of why it would be a little ridiculous for folks to be taking 20's on faction missions.

It sounded like you thought that a PC could T20 in any situation (such as with Sleight of Hand) and therefore it was an unbalanced mechanic to apply to faction missions. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Quote:
Unfortunately, this means that some factions will be more heavily favored by this taking 20 allowance and it's a little aggravating that the guy who only has a 5 mod on his faction mission skill can take 20 and get their mission no muss no fuss, where I worked to get my modifier up to 20, and because I roll a 3 since I can't take 20 on a knowledge check, I fail.
Some missions will involve something where you can easily take 20 (like finding an object, when you have plenty of time to search a room) and others will not (like needing to deliver a code message and using Sense Motive to assess their response). Some missions will be harder than others. This is not bad, and is also not a reason to deviate from Core Rules regarding T20 (or T10, for that matter).

S'fine, mate. Text on the internet is hard to interpret sarcasm over.

As for taking 20 on faction missions, I really hope they more evenly balance those options between the factions. Because if we're allowed to take 20 to really thoroughly search for something, copy something, or appraise something, it had better be something I can do as any faction when we're not under threat/urgency restrictions and not just the faction(s) that use those skills the most and give you plenty of time to do it.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Don't forget that there are even faction missions that require no check at all, and I've never heard of anyone thinking Prestige availability was unbalanced as a result. So I imagine you've got nothing to worry about. :)

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Don't forget that there are even faction missions that require no check at all, and I've never heard of anyone thinking Prestige availability was unbalanced as a result. So I imagine you've got nothing to worry about. :)

To be honest, I'd love to see more of those (and I'm hoping with season 4 we will) because there really should be a better balance of ROLLplaying and ROLEplaying. I understand not everyone's comfortable with RP, but I'd like to have more opportunities to enjoy roleplaying through a situation considering my dice hate me. All of them. Not kidding.

...

Unless I'm GMing. Then they're nice to me (not so much the players).

The Exchange ****

Jiggy wrote:
Jack-of-Blades wrote:
I'm well aware of how taking 20 works, thank you very much. I was simply giving an example of why it would be a little ridiculous for folks to be taking 20's on faction missions.

It sounded like you thought that a PC could T20 in any situation (such as with Sleight of Hand) and therefore it was an unbalanced mechanic to apply to faction missions. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Quote:
Unfortunately, this means that some factions will be more heavily favored by this taking 20 allowance and it's a little aggravating that the guy who only has a 5 mod on his faction mission skill can take 20 and get their mission no muss no fuss, where I worked to get my modifier up to 20, and because I roll a 3 since I can't take 20 on a knowledge check, I fail.
Some missions will involve something where you can easily take 20 (like finding an object, when you have plenty of time to search a room) and others will not (like needing to deliver a code message and using Sense Motive to assess their response). Some missions will be harder than others. This is not bad, and is also not a reason to deviate from Core Rules regarding T20 (or T10, for that matter).

+1

I have had to appraise things on the spot, use Disable Device to remove a fragile object from a location, make a few different diplomacy checks, succeed in 3 separate knowledge local checks to find contacts (gather wasn't allowed for some reason) none of these are at all take 20-able. When I get an easy one, I kinda want to take 20 on it :-p

I had to make a diplomacy check to be allowed to BUY something for one mission.

If I can describe my action, and it's a to the letter example of taking 20, denying me that take 20 seems fairly bogus :D

Many faction missions I have seen require no check at all. You killed the final boss dude, he's got a book on him that fits what you're looking for. "oh cool" or "gain knowledge from this tome" I go up and read it, poof faction mission complete no dice at all.

I'm not trying to metagame out how to take 20. Smokestick + bluff = passed slight of hand check :D "uh I dropped it and it went off, no that inventory ledger wasn't on the counter"

**** Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Philadelphia

I would just like to add a few things.

First is that it seems that this story is that a GM had the enemy target a character riding a translucent dragon-like creature with a glowing rune on the creature's forehead instead of targeting the creature.

I think that is perfectly valid. A GM should be able to target a rider rather than a mount no matter what the mounted creature looks like. I also don't think that a GM should be given grief over that fact. In fact I find it in really poor taste to do so. Especially since the recounted facts actually state that the GM didn't go after the second summoner who was hiding in the back.

Second I would like to mention that Pathfinder does not currently have an explicit rule that allows people to figure out what a PC is capable of. It would have to default to one of the knowledge skills and the 10/15/20/30 DC scale. At which point I would find it rather hard to believe that a base class would be anything but DC 10. Which would be an take 10 auto success for any creature without a Int penalty.

And the only way the summoner DC could be higher is if you think that figuring out Sneak Attack would be a higher DC then 10 as well because they are all just simple class abilities.

The last thing I would like to add is that if we are going to go through the trouble of having a GM rating system we should also have a player rating system. Players determine as much, if not more of the fun at the table then the GM's do that we would be rather remiss if we didn't grade them as well.

Of course Pathfinder could go to a test based GM system like the RPGA used for 3.5, but frankly at that point I would probably lose all my GM's because I'm running a rather new chapter for Pathfinder, plus I value GM's who try to make sure the players have fun and most of my GM's have almost no experience with Pathfinder. A Test or rating system would cost me some good quality RP judges all for the sake of not knowing every rule. That would suck.


Jeffrey Fox wrote:

I would just like to add a few things.

First is that it seems that this story is that a GM had the enemy target a character riding a translucent dragon-like creature with a glowing rune on the creature's forehead instead of targeting the creature.

I think that is perfectly valid. A GM should be able to target a rider rather than a mount no matter what the mounted creature looks like. I also don't think that a GM should be given grief over that fact. In fact I find it in really poor taste to do so. Especially since the recounted facts actually state that the GM didn't go after the second summoner who was hiding in the back.

Second I would like to mention that Pathfinder does not currently have an explicit rule that allows people to figure out what a PC is capable of. It would have to default to one of the knowledge skills and the 10/15/20/30 DC scale. At which point I would find it rather hard to believe that a base class would be anything but DC 10. Which would be an take 10 auto success for any creature without a Int penalty.

And the only way the summoner DC could be higher is if you think that figuring out Sneak Attack would be a higher DC then 10 as well because they are all just simple class abilities.

The last thing I would like to add is that if we are going to go through the trouble of having a GM rating system we should also have a player rating system. Players determine as much, if not more of the fun at the table then the GM's do that we would be rather remiss if we didn't grade them as well.

Of course Pathfinder could go to a test based GM system like the RPGA used for 3.5, but frankly at that point I would probably lose all my GM's because I'm running a rather new chapter for Pathfinder, plus I value GM's who try to make sure the players have fun and most of my GM's have almost no experience with Pathfinder. A Test or rating system would cost me some good quality RP judges all for the sake of not knowing every rule. That would suck.

I think a test based system is ok for promotions or for help to evaluate who should get promoted, but not for acceptance as a GM. I learned the rules side of the screen a lot faster than I picked up on the other qualities that make for a good GM. I figure if you are bad enough as a GM PFS won't have to unseat you, players just won't come to your table.

* Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Meanwhile, if my GM gets a rule obviously wrong (possibly even after being shown the rule in question) and my VC happens to be walking by, what do you imagine happens if I take 30 seconds to "appeal" the error to my VC? Do you think he's willing to contradict the GM? Do you think the GM would accept such a contradiction? Do you think I, the player, would be encouraged that I did the right thing? Do you think the GM would refrain from taking offense?

I just want to comment on this. We have a culture in PFS where I sincerely feel many GMs are not open to feedback or even simple disagreements on rules. Maybe 50% are ok with it, the other 50% are openly aggressive/hostile when there's a disagreement.

I think we should have more of a teacher mentality and less of a military/"god"/dictator mentality. It's a shared game afterall and you're a guide for the players.

Nuit wrote:
Although the general concern is there definetly, the first policy of any individual should always be to approach that other individual, or the leader of the group and let them know about your concern.

Some GMs just don't want to hear it, especially in person. And when someone is irritated already, it's not worth correcting them on rules or pushing them too hard on their decisions in a scenario (or anything else for that matter). Doing so would disrupt the table. You can only push so far, and then your only recourse is to call the coordinator or let it go.

As GM, if you're going to correct someone on their PCs abilities, you'd better be sure you're correct about it. Personally if I had a disagreement with a player, I might make them explain or show me, but I wouldn't outright override them without at least showing/teaching them the rules first.

--------------------------------

Having said that, I think GM feedback is a good thing. In my home games, I actually ask for feedback every few sessions. I find it's very hard to get quality feedback, and most of the time that quality feedback comes from other GMs.

Also, I just want to note that I learn something new almost every time I sit at a table with experienced players or GMs. That's one of the things that makes PFS so great, if you're open to it, it helps you learn a lot.

Anyway, for what it's worth.

Shadow Lodge

I have a question for the folks here based on some of the comments made in this thread... what is the role of the Game Master in a PFS game? The term "Table Judge" is sort of troubling to me. It makes the GM's job as one where he is merely executing the adventure and arbitrating the players interactions with it in a clinical manner. As if "FUN" is an after thought to the whole process.

In my mind bad GM's do a disservice to PFS, and Paizo as it turns new and old players away, and that costs $$$.

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

Tetrix wrote:
I have a question for the folks here based on some of the comments made in this thread... what is the role of the Game Master in a PFS game? The term "Table Judge" is sort of troubling to me. It makes the GM's job as one where he is merely executing the adventure and arbitrating the players interactions with it in a clinical manner. As if "FUN" is an after thought to the whole process.

You're creating a false dichotomy. There are great judges who provide a truly fun experience while following the rules.

But think about it for a while. Let's assume that sometimes the rules do act to limit the amount of fun possible. Who is to say how much a judge ahould deviate from the rules to provide a more fun-filled experience? There's only one answer that creates a repeatable experience - don't deviate. That way, when my character from the SF Bay Area and Don's character from Boston end up at the same table at GenCon we each have a reasonably similar interpretation of the rules, and when we each have played a scenario with our home gaming group we will have faced similar challenges.

Fun is important, but fun doesn't trump rules.

**

Jason S wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


I just want to comment on this. We have a culture in PFS where I sincerely feel many GMs are not open to feedback or even simple disagreements on rules. Maybe 50% are ok with it, the other 50% are openly aggressive/hostile when there's I think we should have more of a teacher mentality and less of a military/"god"/dictator mentality. It's a shared game afterall and you're a guide for the players.

Nuit wrote:
Although the general concern is there definetly, the first policy of any individual should always be to approach that other individual, or the leader of the group and let them know about your concern.

Some GMs just don't want to hear it, especially in person. And when someone is irritated already, it's not worth correcting them on rules or pushing them too hard on their decisions in a scenario (or anything else for that matter). Doing so would disrupt the table. You can only push so far, and then your only recourse is to call the coordinator or let it go.

As GM, if you're going to correct someone on their PCs abilities, you'd better be sure you're correct about it. Personally if I had a disagreement with a player, I might make them explain or show me, but I wouldn't outright override them without at least showing/teaching them the rules first.

--------------------------------

Having said that, I think GM feedback is a good thing. In my home games, I actually ask for feedback every few sessions. I find it's very hard to get quality feedback, and most of the time that quality feedback comes from...

Different parts of the country are very different in their cultures. I've ran into "god" dms as well, but the rpga community largely feels like a community. For example, a VO was running recently and used a 3.x rule instead of the pfs rule, which is probably the most common rules mistake. At any rate, the table simply corrected him and within 30 seconds we were moving again. Most mistakes are like that, at least in this area. Typically there are at least 2 other fairly experienced dms at the table as well, and players are well into adulthood so that also may have something to do with it.

Silver Crusade *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:

I foresee several problems with this:

1) You're going to see a lot of negative reviews and very few positives. The title of your post is "...Both Good and Bad", you start off praising some anonymous GMs, but the meat of your post, and your reason for posting in the first place, is that you want to punish the GMs who "ran it wrong." Unless the GM does a transcendant job, people are rarely going to jump online to chip in a positive review.

I do not know that I fully agree with that.When I was GM'ing I did everything from 1st time, low-level players to veteran high-level ones. I also did both prepped scenarios and scenarios we weree literally down-loading on the spot. Yet my tables were filled with wonderful, understanding players who were encouraging in bad situations and attentive in difficult ones. In all my years of playing and GM'ing, this was my first Gencon. I wasn't impressed with much of it, all my anxiety washed away at the PFS HQ and GM'ing became my favorite part of the convention. At every table I ran my players let me know they had a fun wonderful time and onetable even applauded me. TheGM brings a lot to the game, but so does theplayers. Theplayers are every bit as much intregral part to a table's success as the GM. How much you, the player, enjoys the game is also up to you.

By the way, if you do really enjoy a GM, please do tell Mikeorone of the others. They do makesure it gets back to theGM and they do enjoy hearing it. It is not a bother and I can tell you that hearing from one of them that players stopped by to report great GM'ing by you is a fantastic feeling. Players will report the good too. That was the case for me...and that made the whole trip worth it.

Shadow Lodge

JohnF wrote:
Tetrix wrote:
I have a question for the folks here based on some of the comments made in this thread... what is the role of the Game Master in a PFS game? The term "Table Judge" is sort of troubling to me. It makes the GM's job as one where he is merely executing the adventure and arbitrating the players interactions with it in a clinical manner. As if "FUN" is an after thought to the whole process.

You're creating a false dichotomy. There are great judges who provide a truly fun experience while following the rules.

But think about it for a while. Let's assume that sometimes the rules do act to limit the amount of fun possible. Who is to say how much a judge ahould deviate from the rules to provide a more fun-filled experience? There's only one answer that creates a repeatable experience - don't deviate. That way, when my character from the SF Bay Area and Don's character from Boston end up at the same table at GenCon we each have a reasonably similar interpretation of the rules, and when we each have played a scenario with our home gaming group we will have faced similar challenges.

Fun is important, but fun doesn't trump rules.

Hmm I never said not that the rules should not be followed, but if you are only following the rules and not breathing any life into the game session you are likely to miss out on the fun part of running a PFS event.

I will say this however "Fun is important, but fun doesn't trump rules." is true for PFS games, but I feel completely wrong for your normal home game.

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

Tetrix wrote:
I will say this however "Fun is important, but fun doesn't trump rules." is true for PFS games, but I feel completely wrong for your normal home game.

Absolutely. In fact the normal recommendation is for players to try to find a home game if they find the additional rules for PFS too restrictive.

In my home game, I can allow (or disallow) classes based on my own judgement, adjust encounters (ahead of time or on the fly) to provide a challenge more suited to the party, house-rule away parts of the rules I disagree with, and generally exercise a whole lot more freedom.

But this discussion is taking place in the Pathfinder Society section of the forum. Mike Brock has the authority to decide what parts of the rules are appropriate for PFS play; I'm just supposed to ensure those rules are followed in a fair and equitable fashion, and to occasionally make a ruling if we come across a situation where the rules are unclear. If Mike Brock has one ear telling me how he wants me to judge things, and a player has my other ear asking me do something that would contradict Mike's rulings, that's not really a hard decision for me to make.

In theory I could, while still strictly following Mike's rules, run a table that would be as much fun as if Mike himself were judging it. In practice I rather doubt if I could - although I haven't (yet) had the pleasure of playing at Mike's tables, I know several people who have, and they all seem to have had a memorable and enjoyable time. That tells me that it's not the rules that are preventing people having fun, it's either the judge (which I can do something about), or the player.

Shadow Lodge

I am not even saying that the issue has to do with strict rule following, I am asking what the role of the GM is in PFS.

For example when a GM chooses to have a monster hit an already downed player and stop hitting him when his HP goes below his con score, that has nothing to do with following the rules. The player certainly isn't having fun watching his character being killed off like that, and if your GM finds that behavior enjoyable I would say we have the wrong sort of GM running things. Was killing off that player against the rules? Nope, but it was not in them either, and with other targets available it was basically just a GM vs. Player sort of move. (and in my book a dick move).

So depending on what the role of a PFS GM is supposed to be, the GM in this example either failed because he did things outside of the express rules, succeeded because he didnt break any rules, or horribly failed because he didnt foster fun, or the hobby with a harsh and dickish application of the rules.

Again I have no problem with the rules being followed, but there are so many more things than rules that make a good or bad PFS event. I believe you can follow the rules in PFS and make for either an enjoyable fun session or a game session that is not enjoyable.

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

Tetrix wrote:
I am not even saying that the issue has to do with strict rule following, I am asking what the role of the GM is in PFS.

If, by GM, you mean the guy at the table, that's fairly simple.

Do all the things you would do when trying to GM your own home game, subject to the additional constraint that the rules you follow are the ones Mike Brock has spelled out, not necessarily the ones you would use. That's it.

Rules don't define everything - for example, having the monster continue to hit the downed character, or go after other members of the party, is generally left up to the GM - both would be legal and following the rules.

Good GMs get the players involved, treat them fairly, don't waste their time, and try and make sure everybody has fun. The only place rules come into it is that the GM should know the rules - this comes into both treating players fairly and not wasting their time (by looking up every rule). GMs are allowed to be wrong; unless it's a game-changer it's better to make a ruling (which might be wrong) and keep the game moving. Check after the game (or accept a correction from a player), and next time you won't make the same mistake again.

We're supposed to be working with the players to have a good time. If my players are having fun, I'm having fun. But I'm going to make sure that the fun we have fits inside the rules.

Other posters have provided examples of a situation where it makes sense for the monster to continue to attack the downed PC - in fact the GM of the original table has weighed in. I don't think he was going after the downed character just because he could (which would be a dick move, and bad GMing); he presented a logical reason for that course of behaviour. You might think that going after a downed character is unfair; there are other players who think that stopping just because the character has fallen over is soft-balling the players, and robbing them of a true challenge. I wouldn't fault a GM for making either choice (unless the applicable tactics were specified in the scenario, in which case the GM has less leeway).

Simply following the rules isn't enough - the GM also has to be fair. I haven't seen any evidence presented to show that the GM was acting unfairly. I also don't accept the premise that killing a PC is prima facie evidence of GM vs. Player victimisation. Nor, for that matter, do I see any reason to believe the GM was somehow deriving enjoyment from killing off the character. Simply failing to actively prevent character death is a long way from deliberately seeking it.

And, to reiterate the main point - absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that this is a PFS table, rather than a table in a home game.

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok, just to throw my two cp in on the topic of killing off players' characters, it really is a situational thing.

I've had a GM very willfully and intentionally kill my character before. Here's the hilarious part, though. I wasn't even mad. Of all the times I'd died to poor dice rolls, misfortune by way of AOE spell, or just sheer bad choices, the one time I was purposefully killed by the GM, I felt like I'd done my job.

We'd been fighting the BBEG for six and a half hours real time, starting the fight at 4:30pm and ending at midnight when we were kicked out of the FLGS. Aside from the Boss Dragon in Year of the Shadow Lodge, this was, by far, the nastiest BBEG I've ever had to fight in a tabletop RPG hands-down, period. When I was killed, it was by something that did 12d6 to my character with 2hp and a 10 con. There was literally no way I could survive, and the GM knew it. But by the BBEG's logic, I had been the biggest thorn in that creature's side the entire fight and so when it had knocked me unconscious and saw an ally heal me up to consciousness again, it just went "Oh h*ll NO!" and blasted me straight into Nethys' waiting room. An hour later, when we finally won because we'd whittled the monster down far enough the GM decided we'd won, I felt like I'd done a bloody awesome job. If that monster was so concerned about me that it wasted one of it's last big attacks on me to keep me from re-joining the fight, then I figure I did my fair share.

However. That being said, if I was outright killed just because a monster had extra attacks and the GM didn't want to waste them, I might be a wee bit irked. Especially if there were more appealing targets to use them on. However, that would be a matter I would personally bring up with the GM at the end of the session, and if I really felt I was just being dismissed or pushed around, then I'd look into talking to my local VOs about it. But I so rarely see that as the case, that I've not had that issue.

The fact of the matter is, if a GM can reasonably and logically explain why it focused so much energy into killing my character instead of sharing the painful, painful, love, then I can't really argue. If I've been such a damn thorn in that creature's side, and it knows I'm the one that's been causing said thorny discomfort, then I can't really blame 'em for wanting me dealt with in a rather permanent fashion. But that's just me, I guess.

EDIT: All that said, however, as a GM I do try to be fair and logical with how I run things, and I make darn sure to stick with the tactics as written at least as the fight begins.

One thing that I will say is that while I have no qualms about killing a character for their own stupid decisions (Trying to jump the 50' chasm with only a +13 acrobatics, running up to the vampire to blow a raspberry at them and spend the actions to moon them, etc), I try really, really, hard to never kill off a character of someone brand new to the society. Long-standing, experienced, players' characters? Fair game. But the last thing I want to do is give someone that horrible experience of their first game leaving them dead and not wanting to return to the awful organized play society that killed them.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tetrix wrote:
I am asking what the role of the GM is in PFS.

To provide a "fair and fun experience". If the players at your table had fun, and you've simultaneously been fair not only to them but also to the thousands of players who weren't at your table, then you've done your job.

Grand Lodge *

Benrislove wrote:


Then there was the changing encounters. This is PFS as I understand it moving an entire encounter and adding it to another encounter is against the rules. This made for a significantly more dangerous encounter.

I wasn't aware of this rule. I understand that the encounters are designed to give a comparable experience whether you sit down at the Arsenal on Virginia Street or table #65 at Gencon. But is there actually a rule that says all encounters must occur individually? Even when players, for whatever reason, make the encounters overlap? (we've had party members wander off during "boring" fights, or fail to act stealthily, and essentially trigger more than one encounter at once. Is this forbidden somewhere?

edit: fixed quote markers

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Akeela Valerian, the Wolf wrote:
Benrislove wrote:


Then there was the changing encounters. This is PFS as I understand it moving an entire encounter and adding it to another encounter is against the rules. This made for a significantly more dangerous encounter.

I wasn't aware of this rule. I understand that the encounters are designed to give a comparable experience whether you sit down at the Arsenal on Virginia Street or table #65 at Gencon. But is there actually a rule that says all encounters must occur individually? Even when players, for whatever reason, make the encounters overlap? (we've had party members wander off during "boring" fights, or fail to act stealthily, and essentially trigger more than one encounter at once. Is this forbidden somewhere?

edit: fixed quote markers

It's not forbidden to ever have encounters overlap for any reason, but it is forbidden to materially change scenarios, such as by smooshing two encounters together without an in-game reason (which is something that has happened in the past). But I can't say which way Benrislove meant his comment.

Liberty's Edge ****

One thing Ive taken away from going to Cons is the wide variety of GMing styles out there. Ive been lucky to sit at the table of great GMs that fit my gaming style and made the event memorable, Ive also been to a Con where I was lucky enough to sit at a table with a VC... who fell asleep during the game and slapped at peoples hands for moving minis.

I dont think a rating system is such a good idea as what makes a good vs bad GM is so varied on people's perceptions. Best thing Ive taken from cons though is keeping in touch with the ones I enjoyed playing with and learning what dos and donts work so as to improve my own GMing.

The Exchange ****

Jiggy wrote:
Akeela Valerian, the Wolf wrote:
Benrislove wrote:


Then there was the changing encounters. This is PFS as I understand it moving an entire encounter and adding it to another encounter is against the rules. This made for a significantly more dangerous encounter.

I wasn't aware of this rule. I understand that the encounters are designed to give a comparable experience whether you sit down at the Arsenal on Virginia Street or table #65 at Gencon. But is there actually a rule that says all encounters must occur individually? Even when players, for whatever reason, make the encounters overlap? (we've had party members wander off during "boring" fights, or fail to act stealthily, and essentially trigger more than one encounter at once. Is this forbidden somewhere?

edit: fixed quote markers

It's not forbidden to ever have encounters overlap for any reason, but it is forbidden to materially change scenarios, such as by smooshing two encounters together without an in-game reason (which is something that has happened in the past). But I can't say which way Benrislove meant his comment.

there was an entire map/floor that was supposed to have an encounter in it, he removed that encounter entirely, and added all the monster from it to the room where the BBEG was, and placed them (archer rogues, originally designed to fight in a hallway/living chambers) in a giant open space across 2 50ft difficult terrain bridges, where they could launch arrows at people with impunity.

effectively doubling the encounter difficulty of the original, because of the terrain advantage, AND adding it to another encounter which by itself was supposed to be a challenging encounter.

It wasn't something sensible like "oh crap they killed billy, retreat to BBEG we need his help"

potions were used, and one character got to -11 (of 12 con) HP, which certainly wouldn't have happened without 4 extra rogue-archers shooting clothies. since they did almost all the damage to our witch.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Bone wrote:
I dont think a rating system is such a good idea as what makes a good vs bad GM is so varied on people's perceptions.

There are subjective things that are inappropriate to rate, and then there are things that shouldn't be happening at all.

What constitutes an appropriate time for a monster/NPC to splatter a downed PC is subjective. Adding templates to monsters instead of using their provided stats is unacceptable regardless of anyone's taste.

How useful charm person is as a combat spell will vary by GM. Using it to force the barbarian to kill the wizard while the NPC caster is gutting your other allies in plain view is not a judgment call.

There have been enough situations where GMs were doing things that were just plain unacceptable that Mike Brock felt the need to start a thread called "Do Not Encourage Cheating", aimed at GM behavior. And apparently, that behavior has continued consistently enough that now he wants to implement a GM feedback system.

Don't mistake this topic for an instance of "different strokes for different folks".

Scarab Sages *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
There have been enough situations where GMs were doing things that were just plain unacceptable that Mike Brock felt the need to start a thread called "Do Not Encourage Cheating", aimed at GM behavior. And apparently, that behavior has continued consistently enough that now he wants to implement a GM feedback system.

I am not sure there is a link between these 2.

It may be Mike just wants to implement a system to help GMs improve, which may or many not be related to at all to the other subject.

The Exchange Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love to have some sort of GM Ratings/feedback system. Most of them are fantastic and should be applauded, but there are a few who can really ruin it for everyone. ESPECIALLY in a public game where you want to encourage new players to keep coming back.

Everyone already has their PFS games recorded on Paizo.com, so it wouldn't be too hard to add a link to said games in the player profile. This link would go to a simple rating system where the player rates the GMs on several categories (Think Ebay buyer/seller feedback) with 1-5 stars per category and an option to put in some additional feedback. In the game itself, the Gm could hand out a generic slip of paper with a link to the paizo website and the feedback system. This would be for newbies or players who don't know about the website.

I don't think GM feedback should be public, but it should be viewable by the player, Paizo staff, Venture captains, and the Gm in question. You don't want everyone knowing what was said, but I do think it is important for Gms to know (praised/scolded in private)and for Paizo and organizers to know. It's also important for the GM to understand what his players think about him. It might help him tailor his style or point out things that he did not realize were having a negative effect on players. Nobody wants to be a bad GM and everyone has room for improvement.

In my experience 1 out of 6 or so Gms make me almost not want to come back. It's these guys who might need additional help towards becoming the best GM they can be, because we want everyone coming back.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Dragnmoon wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
There have been enough situations where GMs were doing things that were just plain unacceptable that Mike Brock felt the need to start a thread called "Do Not Encourage Cheating", aimed at GM behavior. And apparently, that behavior has continued consistently enough that now he wants to implement a GM feedback system.

I am not sure there is a link between these 2.

It may be Mike just wants to implement a system to help GMs improve, which may or many not be related to at all to the other subject.

Fair enough.

* Star Voter 2013

JohnF wrote:
Fun is important, but fun doesn't trump rules.

I just want to point out that having fun is part of the rules.

Page 31 of OP Guide wrote:
A GM’s duty is to provide a fair and fun game.

If you haven't seen a high star GM ignore the rules to improve fun, you're not paying close enough attention. (Even simple things like allowing a skill check to succeed where it should have failed). That would be ignoring the rules for fun, even if it's small and innocent.

OK, back to theorycraft.

The Exchange ****

wolflord wrote:

...snipping good stuff & good ideas....

In my experience 1 out of 6 or so Gms make me almost not want to come back. It's these guys who might need additional help towards becoming the best GM they can be, because we want everyone coming back.

My sympathy wolflord (I hope the that I'm not that "1 in 6"). I've actually been doing better than that. I'd say it's closer to 1 in 10, or 1 in 20 for me...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just for the record, I have never had a character survive a single session... and I was ok with every death... even the one where I was killed by a buffalo. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i was at the table in question, so i thought i'd throw my two cents into the pot (and while i may be relatively new to pfs, i've been a member of the tabletop and online rpg community for 23 years).

ill_made_knight wrote:
I had a GM run a chase scene but didn't allow us to know the DCs for the options on them, or which option was easier, because that is "meta gaming".

excellent! it IS metagaming, as the definition is, "In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player's character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of." and here's an example: "Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome..."

coastalsoul5 wrote:
the problem is we were fighting a medium goblinoid with weapon display and sneak attack... that knew less then nothing about spellcaster types.

are you sure she didn't? i suppose you've never had a character take ranks in any cross-class skill? ever? interesting...

coastalsoul5 wrote:
I will tell you that the three experienced gamers at the table would disagree with judges call.

and i will tell you that the other three experienced gamers at the table agree with the judge's call.

seraphimpunk wrote:
i think any time you have a mounted rider who's controlling a mount, you want to take out the rider first, its the intelligent one, its the one in control, just by virtue of being the rider.

exactly. why should we as players assume the villains are stupid? where's the fun in simply rolling over the big bads? there's no challenge in it. i'm used to playing with gm's who run intelligent and skilled bad guys.

coastalsoul5 wrote:
of the other three at the table one was barely paying attention and the other two seemed to be very casual players and offered little help in that combat. to be fair i have other ways to avoid damage and i chose not to take them (i was trying to be a hero...

hmm... gnome sorcerer. movement rate of 20, with an effective spell range of 35 feet. as i recall, the room was quite a bit longer than 35 feet, and also as i recall, i was doing something every round. as were the other two players you just insulted. and yes, we saw very clearly what you were trying to be. give it a rest. you have your character back with no level loss, thanks to the other people at the table for whom you have so little regard.

seraphimpunk, again, thank you so very much for running the game; you truly brought it to life. i had a great time playing.

Grand Lodge *** Venture-Captain, Kansas—Kansas City aka coastalsoul5

Mia for clarification....
First, the summoner does NOT control the eilodon like a companion it has an int of 7 there are no handle animal roles. It speaks all the languages I do and it seems like the relationship between beast of burden and loyal friend depends on the summoner. Mine is that of a friend.
Second, I am looking at the stat block for the creature and Inoklar has no ranks in ANY knowledge skills and she is a fighter / rogue (thug). She also has an int of 10 and a wis of 8 sounds like a real cerebral fighter. I would not have been as irritated if the creature would have struck the eidolon and I made a ride check to avoid... but that never happend. My summoner never did any damage to Inoklar.
Third, I was merely trying to do what we were supposed to do... defeat the bad guys. You guys were playing up except for the rogue (if memory serves me) so I was trying to pick up the slack of the level desparity. So I am not sure "what I was trying to be" except participating in a team sport. We all got the same gold.
Fouth, As far as the bringing me back to life... I didnt ask for it. That was something that the others at the table volunteered for. I would have been able to cover the cost on my own which I stated. Not that I didnt appreciate the help... because I did.

Scarab Sages

My bf/gm loves TPKing lvl 1s (even tho he says he doesnt) He hides behind the "Mike Brock said I have to play as written and cant change the tactics to be less deadly" b/s (nevermind that the Guide to PFS Organized Play says he CAN and SHOULD)
He chooses every 3rd scenario he runs to be the deadliest one he can find just so he can kill them as they are about to level.

And Gods Market Gamble is full of B/S and (b)ickery with that freakin ranger practically one-shotting everyone. He could have simply chosen- (because thats what "tactics" means- a choice of actions in the heat of battle) to only fire one arrow every round instead of 2, and chosen not to poison everybody. Just because you HAVE rapid shot, doesnt mean you HAVE to use it....

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

Sounds like you need a new GM. I don't care what my relationship to the GM is, I wouldn't repeated play under a GM with a tpk wish.

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

Vixeryz wrote:

My bf/gm loves TPKing lvl 1s (even tho he says he doesnt) He hides behind the "Mike Brock said I have to play as written and cant change the tactics to be less deadly" b/s (nevermind that the Guide to PFS Organized Play says he CAN and SHOULD)

He chooses every 3rd scenario he runs to be the deadliest one he can find just so he can kill them as they are about to level.

And Gods Market Gamble is full of B/S and (b)ickery with that freakin ranger practically one-shotting everyone. He could have simply chosen- (because thats what "tactics" means- a choice of actions in the heat of battle) to only fire one arrow every round instead of 2, and chosen not to poison everybody. Just because you HAVE rapid shot, doesnt mean you HAVE to use it....

This is exactly why I don't run RAW. I refuse to kill a party at lvl 1 just because tactics say so. I often change such mods to make those encounters fun learning experiences rather than TPKs.

There is a time and place for running tactics as is, but not every time.

RAW is a myth...and bad for PFS.

-Pain

Sczarni ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Coraith

Vixeryz wrote:

My bf/gm loves TPKing lvl 1s (even tho he says he doesnt) He hides behind the "Mike Brock said I have to play as written and cant change the tactics to be less deadly" b/s (nevermind that the Guide to PFS Organized Play says he CAN and SHOULD)

He chooses every 3rd scenario he runs to be the deadliest one he can find just so he can kill them as they are about to level.

And Gods Market Gamble is full of B/S and (b)ickery with that freakin ranger practically one-shotting everyone. He could have simply chosen- (because thats what "tactics" means- a choice of actions in the heat of battle) to only fire one arrow every round instead of 2, and chosen not to poison everybody. Just because you HAVE rapid shot, doesnt mean you HAVE to use it....

Possible Solutions to this:

1. Talk to them about it, seriously with no jokes or lightheartedness. Express your point of view clearly.
2. If you notice a pattern like this, keep record of it and show them it when they deny TPKing all the time. You will either find they are going out of their way to kill the party, or its happening a lot less frequently then you think.
3. Step up to GM.
4. Stop playing with them when they GM for a little while. I had to decline to play at some tables after getting fed up with a certain GM.

Dark Archive **** Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Coraith's got a great point. Get him out from behind the screen and see how things flow.

The ranger in GMG is pretty darn dangerous, but *is* a tier appropriate enemy and build. Given her motivations, *not* blowing away as many PCs as she can manage, in tactics order would be a pretty poor running of the scenario.

I would have chosen a different scenario for firsties - in fact, I would demand that the next three adventures he runs for level 1 pcs be first steps 1-3, so that the next time you venture out into subtier 1-2, it's with more HP and tools.

Grand Lodge *

hey everyone may i ask why dosn't pathfinder do some period stuff like a new part like set in the 1920's style or just make it where factions matter you know?

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

Blunderbuss Beltin Shane wrote:
hey everyone may i ask why dosn't pathfinder do some period stuff like a new part like set in the 1920's style or just make it where factions matter you know?

The first: that's not really a discussion for the Pathfinder Society forums. Maybe in the Pathfinder RPG General forum or the Paizo General forum?

The second: That's not really on-topic for this thread, which is about GM behavior, how to correct sub-par GMing and reward above-average GMing. Perhaps you should start a separate thread?

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just FYI for everyone who experienced bad GMs at either PaizoCon or Gen Con last year, I wanted to assure you (and everyone who sent me similar emails and PMs), that I still have your letters of concern and some of these GMs will not be invited back for either PaizoCon and Gen Con. As I am about to put the call out for both conventions, I have a list of 18 GMs that I am going to decline if they offer to volunteer.

I strongly believe that GMs are the ambassadors of PFS and even one horrible experience without a reasonable explanation by the GM can taint the view of PFS Organized Play by new players.

I reached out to all 18 of these GMs and they either choose not to reply back or their explanations were not satisfactory to look past their actions.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Wow, 18? That sounds like a lot. Of course, I've never made it to that big of a convention, so maybe that's a small percentage, I dunno.

Anyway, kudos to Mike for making such action visible. I imagine that'll go a long way toward making future rattled newbies feel better. :)

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Jiggy wrote:

Wow, 18? That sounds like a lot. Of course, I've never made it to that big of a convention, so maybe that's a small percentage, I dunno.

Anyway, kudos to Mike for making such action visible. I imagine that'll go a long way toward making future rattled newbies feel better. :)

There were 12 from PaizoCon and Gen Con in 2012. There were 6 that were on the list prior to those shows.

The Exchange ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damn, it's going to be harder to fly under the radar without those worse GMs running interference for me. I'll have to fake an injury if anyone gets too disgruntled. I got lots more uses in my lame GM's bag of excuses ;)

151 to 200 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Reporting GMs, both Good and Bad All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

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