RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
From time to time, in any tabletop RPG, players do things unexpected. Attack a non-combatant NPC, fail to arrive at a location on time, enter a room without opening the front door, etc. This causes the GM some difficulty. That's not bad mind you, just difficult in the sense of more work needing to be done on their part to ensure that the game makes sense. This is as true in PFS as it is in any other system. However, PFS has a specific way that it deals with the changes that need to happen "behind the screen." These sorts of changes are mentioned in the Guide as Table Variation.
Often, GMs changing tactics gets a really bad rap in PFS. "My character died because my GM did X different than the scenario says." Occasionally, these changes are unwarranted and are in fact GM error. Most of the time, however, they fall neatly under the clause of table variation. So, what is table variation?
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.
It goes on to list various changes that aren't allowed, which I have removed to keep this post relatively short. Things listed are things like altering the number, strength, or abilities of enemies, changing trap DCs -- things like that. However, we can and "should consider" changing the tactics if it would "provide a more enjoyable play experience." In a basic sense, this means not having your spellcaster cast SM3 if he's standing between a pair of rogues with readied actions. But in a deeper sense, this can take your game to a whole new level. Permit me to illustrate with an example: The Sarkorian Prophecy
The overall story of The Sarkorian Prophecy is as follows. The group is inside the Worldwound, chasing after a MacGuffin. Unbeknownst to them, a rival group of Shadow Lodge ex-Pathfinders (this is a Season 2 scenario, mind you) have beaten them to the punch. Their leader, the notorious and corrupt Caggrigar has diverged from the team, and effectively is the final encounter. The remaining NPCs serve as both an encounter and a plot device, intended to direct the PCs toward said final encounter.
Regarding the Shadow Lodge ex-pathfinders, here is the information provided in the scenario.
Embla Clefthelm, a tall Ulfen woman with a long, blonde ponytail pulled through a ring in the top of her helmet, is a former Ulfen Guard of Taldor who turned her back on her duty to join the Pathfinder Society. When she was horribly scarred on a Pathfinder mission to retrieve an artifact that was immediately locked away in the Grand Lodge’s vaults, she again turned her back on her organization. Feeling that her sacrifice was for naught, she has dedicated her training to dismembering the Decemvirate one piece at a time.
The tengu known as Graukur was recruited in distant Tian Xia and made the journey over the Crown of the World to receive training in Absalom. During the course of his time in the Grand Lodge, Graukur continually felt out of place, like an exotic oddity on display. Tired of being more a trophy for the Society’s sense of diversity than an equal member of the organization, he hopes to get in on the ground level of the Shadow Lodge, where he’ll be known for his talents and not for his beak and feathers.
Rovald Orlovski, an exiled Brevic noble with the power to charm, rounds out the Shadow Lodge Pathfinders assembled by Caggrigar. After using his gods-given gifts of enchantment on one too many serving maids, noble peers, and powerful enemies, Rovald found himself shipped south from Brevoy to Absalom for a “corrective” stint in the Grand Lodge. Frustrated with the tendency of his fellow Pathfinders to ignore even his most convincing arguments, Rovald hopes that he can gain more personal power by allying with the Shadow Lodge.
So essentially, we have three disillusioned persons that have joined up with the Shadow Lodge for one reason or another. Embla is just your standard unappreciated fighter. She, not unlike GMT, has been "burned once" by the Society, and is too wary to be burned again. Graukur is your token "strange race" party member, and is tired of just being "that tengu" in the Society. And lastly, Rovald is just an alcoholic womanizer, that uses his magical powers in various, "legally ambiguous" ways. Without knowing their alignment or any context of the game, you might believe these three descriptions to be those of PCs with pretty well thought out backstories. Speaking of alignments -- only Rovald is evil. The other two are just neutral. So a majority of them aren't really "bad guys," they're just on the wrong side of the line when the PCs arrive.
That said, here's what is listed as their tactics.
If the rivals discover the PCs’ affiliation with the true Pathfinder Society, or if the PCs indicate that they’re on to the Shadow agents’ ploy, they immediately attack.
Well, that's lame. From what we'd read, this was shaping up to be a pretty cool RP encounter. But don't worry just yet -- luckily, we have Table Variation. The following is what happened at a table I ran of The Sarkorian Prophecy. I changed the written tactics by following the rules for Table Variation, and in doing so, provided a richer game experience for my players.
Story: The PCs have just defeated a brutal glabrezu, and decided to advance into the next area. Inside they find Embla, Graukur, and Rovald. Various small talk begins. Almost immediately, the barbarian PC begins speaking to Embla. He remarks at her scar, and as she appears uncomfortable he quickly comments that it makes her look bold. He says that surely, she has took part in some heroics to earn such a badge of honor. Now, as a GM, I have to look at what I know about Embla. Here is a woman that is perpetually crapped on by "the system." She's never been acknowledged, and she's got some pretty low self esteem that feeds right into her hatred of the Grand Lodge. Compliments are like pure pesh to her. She's never had it before, and she wants more. So I start talking up her past deeds, and player of the barbarian gets into it. He starts RPing back at me -- more than me! That's pretty cool.
Meanwhile, Rovald tries to regain attention by striking up conversation with their oracle, who compliments his garb and offers the sorcerer a drink. Some wine, perhaps? Remember that this is Rovald the womanizer. Rovald the selfish, the elite, the one with a "Kolossal Ego." So when a pretty (high CHA) little gnome offers him something to drink and tells him he looks good, what do you think he's going to? Of course he's going to accept! And like that, the he starts flirting with the gnome. While he's at it, he tosses some cheap pickup lines at that other female PC, and, like clockwork, she bites. A few minutes later and the three of them are sitting off to the side around a table as he spins a yarn about his many accomplishments. He doesn't even need to cast any spells to ensorcell these harlots!
As this happens, the tengu inquisitor PC notices the other tengu across the room: Graukur. He starts talking to him and I have Graukur come off as guarded, but open to discussion. I comment about how feels to be a "talking parrot" to all these Pathfinders. Now, right before this, I mentioned the party fought a glabrezu. Well, that demon just outright killed our inquisitor PC. He didn't have enough on hand for a rez, so the party all chipped in to get him up and running. He brings this recent event up as a counter example, and talks about how, honestly, everyone he's partied with has been pretty nice to him. They appreciate his talents and have remarked on his usefulness on more than one occasion. In fact, he just got back from killing a runelord! Graukur is stunned at this. "And you're a Pathfinder?" he asks. And in fact, they are.
Now at this point, if I was forced to rigidly follow the written tactics, combat would start. But let's ask some questions. Would Embla stop swapping war stories with her new buddy, and drive her sword through his chest? Rovald would slip away from the pair of women that are pouring wine down his throat and char their fair skin with some fireballs? Would Graukur attack the only tengu he's seen in a while -- someone that was in the exact same situation as him not a few weeks back? It seems pretty silly to do any of these things now. Especially given the 10-15 minutes of real life time that my players have vested in RPing with these NPCs, and they'd likely be upset if combat just abruptly started.
And this is where table variation comes in. And why it is very important in PFS. It enables GMs to make these sorts of changes. So for this table, since combat would have been pretty absurd at this point, I just had them all keep talking. As discussions continued, everyone at the table got involved. Over the next few minutes at the table, conversation continued, and eventually the group of NPCs had no problem at all with the PCs. They took a moment to the side and discussed their current situation. Should they side with Caggrigar? Who lead them into the middle of a demonic wasteland and has been gone for the last few hours? Or should they work with these Pathfinders, who have been nothing but nice to them since they arrived? Also, is it really that wise to go into a 3v6 match against people that just vanquished a glabrezu? Probably not.
So they didn't. Their tactics changed from starting combat, to sharing information. Since their mechanical purpose in the scenario was to lead the PCs down the track, by simply giving the PCs that information as a reward for engaging in the story with these NPCs, the scenario as a whole isn't compromised. It also lead to a unique experience for the players, one where the players got to enjoy an aspect of the game that would otherwise have been disregarded (there is an opportunity for RP at the start of the scenario, but it is far shorter, and often leads to combat immediately).
Because of the options provided in table variation, the players had a much richer experience than they otherwise could have. I also got to mark various things on their sheets afterwards like "Added Embla Clefthelm to tribe" and "bedded Rovald." When I told my players post-game that those NPCs were slated to be a combat encounter, they were surprised. Especially given the level of detail that was included into their various motivations (and in scenarios, word count is paramount). Which lead me to this realization: the reason why there is a high level of detail given in various "non-critical" parts of scenarios is to allow for the railroad train-plot to come off the tracks every now and then. It also allows for GMs to really dig into the "behind the scenes" part of a game, and provide the best possible experience they can for their players.
|
That's an awesome story. I think the way you ran the encounter is far more memorable than just another slug-fest of numbers. This is the kind of GMing I look for as a player. You need to think realistically, be prepared to divert from the script and go with your player group's desires.
If anyone ever told you that you ran that encounter wrong, they need their head examined.
|
|
Awesome story, Walter :)
A thought along the lines of "altering tactics": When I ran this scenario, it was with a group of very optimized characters, and with a group that likes the "tough but fair" approach. So I read the tactics for the glabrezu, and then examined its abilities in detail. I didn't change the tactics written for it, but I thought; "if this guy survives untill the tactics are "through", then I know what he'll do...". And then I "continued" his tactics to be something along these lines (reciting from memory here, so mistakes might occur): Teleport away, summon as many vrocks as possible, cast mirror image, all demons teleport back. This tactic would almost assuredly have resulted in a TPK - but luckily for my players, they killed the demon before that (and doing that was quite tough as well).
The point is - if I had changed those tactics the encounter probably wouldn't have been too fun.
...oh, and when my players entered the room with the shadow lodge people, some roleplaying also started - and might well have continued - but then the groups inquisitor almost immedeately activated his "Detect Lies" ability, and said "If any of you bastards are lying, we'll kill you all!" So the NPC's looked at each other, looked at the PC's, and the fight started - sometimes you're left with little room :)
Again: awesome story - thanks for sharing!
|
|
That's a great story, Walter. It brightened my morning.
One thing to note, though: You had excellent players, and you are an excellent GM, and everyone was willing to treat the NPCs as more than just statblocks to be killed. As much as you or I or anyone else might want to create a rich experience, all it takes is one bloodthirsty player like the Inquisitor from Derwalt's table to turn the session into a murderfest.
So, this notion of table variation makes for excellent opportunities, but what's more important is being a part of a table looking for excellent opportunities.
-Matt
|
Walter thank you for sharing that story. I think if presented with a similar situation, I would like to handle it in a similar way.
One time when I ran Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment,
While this doesn't apply to PFS since this was a home game. I was running some of the missions in First steps, for my apprentice level player characters (pre first level) who were pathifnders in training, I ran Auntie Baldwin's Orphanage.
One thing I changed was the knowledge and diplomacy checks. I took the pieces of information they would have learned from those checks and turned them into role playing encounters.
The players lapped it up, talking to the grocer, the neibhors etc, and had lots of fun gathering the bits of information about Auntie Baldwin. Their solution was I thought a wise one.
They decided that Auntie Baldwin
I don't think they would have come to such a conclusion if the information was left to a die roll.
Anyways just some thoughts.
But I agree Walter.....If there is a role playing opportunity or solution to a problem, I'm all for it.
|
The basic situation is that PC actions (encouraged by a GM) have turned a combat encounter into a non combat encounter.
This is fantastic as long as the players are happy.
But some players really WANT to fight.
What I've done in similar situations, especially with players that I don't know well, is to explicitly go up to the meta level. I congratulate them on the fact that they'be finessed an encounter and make it clear that I'm happy (usually very happy:-) ) with that result. I then ask them if they WANT a fight at this point. Usually (but not always) they don't want the fight but its their choice.
|
|
...all it takes is one bloodthirsty player like the Inquisitor from Derwalt's table to turn the session into a murderfest.
The funny thing is - he wasn't really bloodthirsty. The whole scenario the characters had been lied to and cheated with illusion and disguises - he was just trying to not be fooled again. If the NPC's could have "not lied" - bluffed, talked around the subject or something like that, the PC's hadn't necessarily initiated combat. But as the situation turned out - with very anxious characters and an inquisitor shouting that (and I forgot somtehing - he also told them, that he knew if they would lie to him) - then combat was inevitable.
Because of the setup (and tactics and so on), in this instance - there was little room to do anything else.