I can't get through to my GM in PFS


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 400 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fellow Pathfinders:

This thread has more than run its course. Some here (and it's not necessary to name them, as their posts will more than clearly identify them by their content) have grossly crossed into the realm of personal attacks and insults.

Please, just let this thread die, as it should have a few pages back.

And, failing that, maybe just having the mods either delete the offending posts (some of which I have flagged), or locking this thread altogether would be preferable to what has quickly turned into an unproductive and vitriolic thread.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Ok so I'm late to the thread, but this thing also hits pretty near to home for me, as I've personally encountered something very similar, and this kind of rule-breaking, and GMs negating player build because they don't like it absolutely infuriates me.

My story: I was playing in the Mantis's Prey scenario. My character was a half-orc barbarian built around intimidate and Cornugon smash. Around 20+ intimidate if I remember correctly. Our GM, however, told me to never roll my intimidates because the Mantises, humans with no immunity to fear, wouldn't be intimidated because "some people in this world can't be intimidated." One of the characters at our table literally died because we were in the final fight, I wasn't allowed to intimidate, and in the final round the enemy barely hit the other player for lethal, right before the enemy got killed. A PC literally died because the GM decided to manipulate the rules to fit his own vision of the game.

Now, for the thread. For those of you saying some situations are impossible to occur. The pixie intimidating a dragon, a human intimidating a dragon. You are confining yourselves and the game to your own realities. This isn't real life. This is a game where properly built humans can tear buildings apart, and destroy dragons in less than 6 seconds. Yes, a normal human in our world can't intimidate a dragon. But a PC who has specifically trained in intimidate, and has the bonus? They are beyond what we can imagine. They are simply that scary. Don't say it's not possible, because possibility is to some extent beyond our imagination. If you have the intimidate high enough, a completely unarmed guy in the middle of an enemy camp can intimidate the enemy general? How you ask? Intimidate is more than just threatening. This is about BELIEF. Intimidate is about body language. In this case, it's holding yourself in such a way that the enemy would honestly believe that he is not safe, that even in the middle of the army, this confident man is that threatening. It's not the distinction of empty threats or not. The roll for intimidate is making them believe. The player might not convince you with their attempt at intimidate, but in the game it's not any less true (though I do agree somewhat with the +/-2 for circumstances)

For the whole demanding roleplay. Frankly this is total BS. Yes it's a roleplaying game. Yes it's a social skill. Maybe I'm a bad liar in real life, and I'm completely unbelievable. Does this mean my character isn't? NO. I AM NOT MY CHARACTER. My character has trained to be the scariest person in the world. I would certainly hope he can intimidate a dragon at level 10+. He is already super human, and the very way he carries himself speaks volumes. His body language, his everything. How does my player diplomacy? I may give a general way of how I want the character to go about it, but my character is beyond better than me at diplomacy. They understand the subtleties of socialization. The character is so superior in this aspect, why would you restrict the player to his own world, especially if they use roleplaying games as a way to escape their own realities. At most, what I generally ask for is roleplay attempts AFTER the roll occurs, so they can roleplay the actual result. The player is not the character. Say I attempt to roleplay my diplomacy, and I sound fairly convincing, but I get a one. What the player said does not equal the character. If I get a one on diplomacy, then I attempt to insult the other person or somesuch.

So yes, a player can intimidate a demon if the rules for intimidate are followed, and the player rolls high enough. I don't care if you don't think it's right. The rules say so, so it must be right. That means that your imagination of the game is WRONG. Your image of the character is WRONG. What his roll means is that yes, the player IS scary enough to intimidate the demon. It may be hard for you to comprehend, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Edit: I'm sorry if I came off as overly heated. This is something I do care strongly about, and a lot of what has said, while not personally directed, has personally offended me. I understand how some mechanics can be unfun for other players (ahem slumber hex) but some of these things are unfairly ruled, and that is what enrages me. Again, I'm sorry if I offend, but I truly strongly feel these things are wrong.

1/5

Broken Prince wrote:

@Rapanuii having read the entire thread and being almost wholly in agreement with you I would like to say that I feel you have been impolite and too quick to be dismissive and aggressive to other posters. It is obvious you are trying to be polite, but you quickly seem to become vitriolic. I am not trying to insult you, but to put across how I am perceiving your posts from what I believe is a neutral stand point.

As to the point this being PFS if it is inappropriate for a monster to be subject to the normal rules the Scenario writer will tell you so, it is not your call as a PFS GM.

I could perhaps have a higher threshold, but I certainly don't believe my reaction to people being rude isn't justified. I have experienced bully behavior way too much, and even in the past 2 pages you can see where I'm being subjected to it, so pretty much, I'm not going to just tolerate it and let it continue. I believe my responses back have been very polite and respectful for what they were, and to who they were for given the circumstances.

I would like it if people would be more respectful to others, and took into consideration how they write things. Yes, people make mistakes and things can be misinterpreted, but I try to give the benefit of the doubt, and word what I saw carefully when addressing someone with their possible behavior issue.

Am I absolutely correct with all my interpretations with how people mean to be perceived? Of course not, and I'm sure I like I just wrote, could improve. I do respect your post and in the future will try and be more tactful. Killing with kindness can have it's rewards too, but I don't feel everyone deserves me to put forth all my personal efforts when it is them who cannot have a minimal amount of respect for others.


Yes I can certainly see where you were coming from, I just think it always makes you look better if you are unfailingly polite. Personally if my post is heated I like to walk away without posting and come back to it, I find I end up deleting fairly often. Thank you for taking that the right way :)

1/5

Overall, I don't think I got the information that I seeked, or the wisdom that i was hoping for from this originally being in the advice thread, and I really wasn't expecting people to argue things that I feel shouldn't have been argued, for just that reason. The boards seem to be a bad experience where people act in a very inconsiderate manner, and most of the people I know except for 1 person besides me, can tolerate the boards, because of just how they view things. I do see positivies and try and tell people to just ignore the bad, but it honestly happens too much.

Now I'm on my soapbox talking about the boards, but I'm going to do it anyways. People just repeating the same thing over and over, and I'm not even talking about helpful information, but stating the obvious repeatedly, or condescendingly lecturing people about common sense, even if the original post already covered it to hope and avoid it. People choose to selectively read, and they over step their bounds in terms of their behavior, or asserting their position without being assured they are indeed correct.

So I spent this thread trying to in almost this exact order, explain the situation, continue to point out things about the situation that I already addressed, argue the rules, have people question my GM beyond what I wrote, telling me that I can just leave the game (most generic response), being personally attacked, being personally attacked with groos misunderstandings, having to continuously explain everything again, to finally finding rational people to finally discuss the rules and situation.

I did learn some stuff, but the downside is I most likely have more people against me than ever on the boards, and they'll show up in a thread in a the future and take it out on me there.

I plan to invest a lot of time with this gm, and I do hope we can become good buddies. I need to figure out when it is a good time to attempt to converse with him again to see if at all possible anything can be done. A great idea I had was talking to someone beforehand about their perspective, and maybe having them if I feel they're trusted enough between us both to be a mediator. I would have arguments ready that are fair and true, while also having the PFS rules about expectations for the game. Again, my worst fears are that this guy gets offended and stops playing his games in the way he makes them so much fun to participate in, becomes passive aggressive (I don't think he will though), stops participating in PFS, or doesn't want to be my friend at all.

I do feel this is important not only for myself and other players, but for him as well.

Thank you to all that had the best intention regardless if I disagreed with you or not.

1/5

@Kiinyan, I understand, hahaha, and I think most people just need to experience it to fully appreciate it. You have no idea how much I appreciate you sharing, especially because it can possibly show others that I'm not crazy in my position, or that I'm a selfish jerk that they somehow came to the conclusion of. Usually people think I'm a nut job, and by the end of the thread I'm seen as a completely sane person, but I will have to wait to see how things turn out this time.

@Broken prince, I've dealt with being the ultimate nice guy who just bears and grins it to the max, and it feels horrible to keep it all inside. I don't have anger issues at all, but to just be bullied and walked all over is something I can't allow. I'll give the benefit of the doubt most the time, but I can't tolerate that behavior. Specifically if someone comes to a PFS game, I don't care if the person being picked on is someone I don't particularly like, I will be an advocate for them, because I wouldn't want someone to allow someone else to treat me like that, nor do I feel the person is justified in doing so to the other person.

I understand how if you're already on the other side of the argument, and you see the guy being absolutely a jerk, you tend to let it go, and when the person fights back regardless of how tactfully they did it, the people just turn you into a monster, and that's that. If people want to be ignorant unfair jerks and judge me like that, then they're not worth my time, and I'll be sure to reflect my lack of respect for them to the absolute minimal levels that I give to anyone.

Prince, I too appreciate what you wrote, and understand that you have my best interests in mind with your wisdom. Thanks.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel you bro, it can be infuriating when people bring their prejudices to the table and stop thinking entirely. Add to that the very low reading comprehension sometimes found in these threads(not being facetious, go check the back'n'forth in almost any a thread over 3 pages long) and sometimes you wonder why anyone even bothers to bring their issues up.

Heh, guess I'm prejudiced!

Anyway, this thread has been very informative and somewhat confirms my hunch that most gm's abhor, as is their right, it when dramatic moments backpedal.

This reinforces my decision to avoid using Intimidate outside of combat other than as a Day Job check. I built a character to try out the Shatter Defenses feat tree, but, demoralize dc's being so high these days with all the angels and demons we're facing, focusing on it has absolutely bloated my bonus (+25 on lvl 9 and that's without investing in magic items) so against regular humans, orcs, etc the skill will always auto-succeed. That's scenario-breaking material there.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chevalier83 wrote:

Fine, if you want to talk rules, let's talk rules:

Quote:

The leadership of this organized play community

assumes that you will use common sense in your
interpretation of the rules. This includes being
courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in
playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions.
While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the
others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them
from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.
Quote:

It is impossible for the campaign management staff to

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

A Game Master (GM) is the person who adjudicates the

rules and controls all of the elements of the story and world
that the players explore. A GM’s duty is to provide a fair
and fun game.

A GM has to find a balance between fair and fun. If he thinks, that a player is exploiting a rule beyond common sense, he may interprete the rule otherwise. He has the freedom to adjudicate the rules as needed to ensure that everyone has a fun and fair gaming experience.

From a RAW perspective the intimidation was perfectly legit. However your GM took his freedom to adjudicate the rules as he felt this was needed to ensure the fun of the rest of the group. Is this unfair to you? Probably! Would every GM have done this? Probably not.

guide wrote:


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think my advice would be to ask your GM if he would contact the Venture Officer for clarification. That way you let him know you are serious let him state his position to the VO as a query rather than it feeling like tattling.

"Sorry to be a pain, but this is quite a big deal for me could you please check with the VO - here is his/her contact information. I believe that the consensus on the PFS boards was that you cannot alter the rules for intimidate like that, and I cannot legitimately alter my character in PFS so I would really appreciate it if you would check on this matter."

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rapanuii wrote:
Anthony DiDomenico wrote:

I beg your pardon but it seems like you are the one with the apparent "attitude". I have displayed no ill will up until now and you seem to be flying off the handle at other people besides me.

I am bowing out of this thread as it seems it's going nowhere and has now turned into flaming.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel this about me, and I admit people are flaming, but I don't understand why you'd imply that from me.

As BNW has pointed out, people have turned this into a ballroom blitz, and I rather have a civil discussion, instead of people being disrespectful to one another.

EDIT: It's too bad you couldn't just address things that I wrote to you properly, and admitted to your faults. If I have faults you feel should be addressed then by all means use the private message feature or point them on here, but do it respectfully. You told me I was putting words into your mouth when as I just explained and pointed out that I did no such thing at all. I don't enjoy being called out like that when it's not true.

I cannot see how this thread is going to change the GM's mind in question unless you plan to point him/her to it and say see - at which point I think the goodwill you hope to save by not going to a VO might go away - there are so many posts I don't see how someone would get a conclusion other than many people disagree. If I was the GM I would likely stop GMing for you or that group of people for a while.

I certainly disagree that you can call some part of the rules as fluff and ignore it. Or that you can ignore context to show points.

Your real options were listed about three digits of posts above

1) Contact a venture officer about the person's action with the understanding that either nothing will happen or the person will stop GMing for you or anyone (likely a loss for the region if otherwise the GM is a good one) - a venture officer can't force someone to change - at best they can stop them from GMing for anyone - and there has to be a due process thing involved.

2) Play a different character.

3) Play the character under the GM with his/her limitation with the hope that the situation may change.

4) Play the character with a different GM - with the understanding the same ruling might occur

--
I had a slumber witch where I was told by more than one GM to not use my hex except on mooks (but determining what was a mook is not always clear). One of those GMs has reconsidered and apologized (and has an officer position) and I didn't run the witch with the others (mostly I don't run the witch now because he is now 15th level).

1/5

Broken Prince wrote:

I think my advice would be to ask your GM if he would contact the Venture Officer for clarification. That way you let him know you are serious let him state his position to the VO as a query rather than it feeling like tattling.

"Sorry to be a pain, but this is quite a big deal for me could you please check with the VO - here is his/her contact information. I believe that the consensus on the PFS boards was that you cannot alter the rules for intimidate like that, and I cannot legitimately alter my character in PFS so I would really appreciate it if you would check on this matter."

I'm pretty sure that tons of alterations happen in game by me thinking back on stuff, and I feel sick to my stomach that I already e-mailed the guy and will be seeing him tomorrow. Pretty much, I'm worried that he will just be crushed and not want to play the game anymore if he can't get any bit of his style into the game. I really do like he will be loose with some things, like adding in more creatures so everyone has a chance to have fun, but I understand how if people want strict RAW how that might have to certainly go due to it being an exception.

I just feel terrible that this is possibly putting things at jeopardy not only for me, for his game experience too.


He really is not allowed to add creatures in PFS that is a big no. If he wants to play PFS he has to abide by the rules, if he feels people are having too easy a time advise him to run smaller groups for the earlier season scenarios and try to run more of the recent scenarios which cope better with current power levels. If someone looses a long term character because of his changes they would be right to be aggrieved, I certainly hope he has not been adding treasure to make up for the extra creatures. I think you need to get him to read the GMing section of the PFS guide, he either needs to abide by the rules or GM homebrew.

Here's hoping it turns out for the best!

1/5

I should definitely amend my pretty sure, to just saying, I feel that sometimes there were exceptions. I think what I wrote before is too unfair for me to say.

Broken Prince, your advice to have him discuss it alone definitely seems like a great idea so I won't have to get involved in further fallout.

*

Mark Stratton wrote:
BaconBastard wrote:

One of the big issues that I've seen with forcing role-playing for social skills is that, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, many people playing these games don't possess these social skills, especially in the same capacity of their characters.

My paladin currently has like +11 to diplomacy, I can say with certainty that he is much more sociable than I am and would be much more articulate in how he talks to npcs than I would be. The roll is to represent how well he did at social interaction, not how well I did.

The same should absolutely be true for intimidating someone to alter their attitude towards you.

I won't speak for other GMs here, but in home games and in public games for PFS, I don't let people generally just make Diplomacy or Intimidate checks without, at the very least, telling me or describing to me what they are attempting to do. I understand that some people may be shy, or not speak well or eloquently or whatever - I won't penalize a person for that. But, I will require a player to do more than tell me "I am making a Diplomacy check." That won't cut it in my game.

And, if what they describe (or if they are good at role-playing and play it well) is particularly creative, novel, etc., I'll likely give them a +2 bonus to boot.

Personally I've always found it interesting that -

"I roll disable device to pick the lock" is usually prefectly acceptable
"I roll diplomacy to change attitude" is not

I've always thought that the best response to a high diplomacy roll is simply 'Ok, they are friendly, now what are you trying to get them to do?'

And for the record I fully support the idea that diplomacy/intimidate/bluff not be used to wreck modules and be used like dominate or charm. A guard will not leave his post because he likes you, and you can't convince someone that a tree is made of cheese.

4/5

Hawktitan wrote:


Personally I've always found it interesting that -

"I roll disable device to pick the lock" is usually prefectly acceptable
"I roll diplomacy to change attitude" is not

Picking a lock is overcoming an obstacle to get to something else. The something else is what is interesting.

Diplomacy is an interaction to achieve something else. The something else is interesting, but the interaction is also a chance to do something interesting. It can give backstory or information, it can set the scene and the mood, and it can be fun all on its own. Yes, the point of sending PCs to a party is to get a widget from Paracountess Dralneen to advance the plot. But chatting up the Paracountess at one of her parties has a good potential to be what people remember of that scenario two years later.

Nobody has ever said that they missed one of my characters because he was good at <mechanic.> I have had people say that they missed one of my characters two years after he died because he was just plain fun to be around. He wouldn't have been memorable if I just said "I roll diplomacy," he was memorable for what he said before the diplomacy check.

That being said, I'm a big proponent of taking the roleplaying as far as the player is comfortable with. If they're playing a Paladin because they want to smash things while being the good guy, and the Paladin is the only character at the table with points in diplomacy, that's fine. Tell me what you want to achieve and make your roll. It would be more fun for me if we bantered back and forth in character a bit, but there are other opportunities. Like letting the gregarious player with a non-charisma based character do most of the talking but get away with just an assist while the shy player with a Cha character makes the main roll.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I don't understand the desire to invalidate PC builds with GM fiat. That's so obviously unnecessary table variation. It's not even clear to me that the rules can even be twisted enough to allow this ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
If it were a level 14 to 20 Tiefling, then the fact they could cause a Huge Red Dragon to flee is credible, as the 14 to 20th level guy is a legitimate threat. Whereas the level 7 guy is typically secondsies and a yawn before the pre-lunch nap.

Dragons do not have an innate ability to tell how many hit dice you have.

You might look like a low-level halfling rogue, but for all the dragon knows you might be friends with one of the world's most powerful wizards, or you might be wearing the world's most powerful magic item. Intimidation skill makes you appear to be more dangerous than you really are.

Also, a shaken character takes a –2 penalty on d20 rolls. That's all. It does not make the dragon run away. It's a pretty pathetic ability considering the resources you have to put into it.

Andrew Christian wrote:
Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner are very interesting characters with lots of back story

Road Runner has a back story?!?


Matthew Downie wrote:
Intimidation skill makes you appear to be more dangerous than you really are.

Arguably, not unless you have the Taunt feat, if you're trying to demoralize.

Trying to lie about your abilities or threat level is more along the lines of Bluff than Intimidate. The existence of the Taunt feat which among other things allows you to Bluff to demoralize would seem to suggest you can NOT do so without the feat.

-j

Liberty's Edge

I think a Demon being much more difficult for a human to intimidate is a perfectly valid house rule.
I also think the Guide to Pathfinder Society tells GMs to play by the rules, not their house rules.


I would just add that the whole point of the constricts of PFS, namely RAW only modified by official PFS rulings, is that mechanics are consistently applied from game to game. Otherwise, this GM could increase the DC by 9, somebody else could leave the DC flat, somebody else could give the PC a +9 bonus. Although the normal game rules contain some lee-way for '+2 for favorable circumstances' at least for some skills/checks (not sure for Intimidate), that should really be used sparingly, and not just thrown in for ANY check that would merely be the normal generic application of the NPC or PC abilities as written. If demons are supposed to have bonuses vs. all Intimidation checks by Humanoids, that should be a Racial ability listed in their stat block because 99% of the opponents they will face in PFS scenarios will be Humanoid PFS agents (the PCs) trying to kill them. Ad-hoc applying some modifier is just grossly modifying the scenario's mechanics.

I believe this is an issue with the GM in question being unable to distinguish mechanical issues from how he visualizes the scenario. He can very well believe that most Humans cannot Intimidate Demons easily. OK. But if that is the case, it should already be calculated in the Demon's stats, which are designed towards fighting humanoids. Thus there is no need to add a further modifier, the Demon's given stats should reflect everything there is about that Demon. The GM here was essentially diving into monster design which is way beyond the scope of his role in PFS.

If there is a problem with a specific overpowered build (which there is no intimation of in this case), then that is a problem with the build (at least in PFS context) and should be addressed by PFS (such as by banning/modifying the relevant build mechanic), otherwise one GM thinking they "fixed" the problem by breaking the rules is just allowing the actual problem to persist, and other GMs are unlikely to break the rules in exactly the same way. If there is such a problem with a PC build (or NPC build!) the GM should report it to PFS higher ups so it can properly be dealt with.

Dark Archive 1/5

guide wrote:


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.

Fine, let me give an example. I can (did it on herolab) create a PFS legal character that has +56 on bluff when telling a lie (10th level).

Say this character meets a balor with +30 on sense motive. Say this character wears a clown costume and a wooden sword. The Balor for some reason wants to kill the character and the character says:

"I am a time traveler and about to become your father. If you kill me now, you will cease to exist. If you don't obey my command, I will not impregnate your mother and you will cease to exist."

Now this is an impossible lie (modifier -20). Even though, the character would beat the Balor's sense motiv with a 73% possibility, I would not have the Balor believe the lie.

Having said that, the difference between this example and intimidating a demon is only a matter of interpretation.


Chevalier you are being silly, that is not the argument and you are creating a ridiculous extreme to make your unsupported argument appear to hold water - there is a name for that its called the strawman fallacy. If you wish to start a thread to talk about silly extremes of bluff go ahead, it is not relevant here.

Dark Archive 1/5

My point is that social skills can be exploited. Part of a GMs job is, to decide at what point he feels that a skill check should work (given there are no specifics on the roll in the scenario). I also expressed, that I would have been fine with the demoralizing (i.e. applying shaken condition on a drake), but not with the intimidation (change of behaviour) of a demon / devil given the described circumstances. I think however this is a grey area case and GMs will decide differently here.

And the reason for the "ridiculous extreme to make my unsupported argument appear to hold water": people in this thread keep saying, that "it's in the rules so it must work". My +56 Bluff is also in the rules. Should it work? My point is, that whether it should work or not is to be judged by the GM at the table and as long as he is consistent in his decisions that is perfectly fine.

You have however the right to talk to a venture officer about this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You seem to be pretty much admitting that you would be in the wrong to disallow the intimidate on a demon is PFS. You would be wrong to not allow it, you appear to be aware of that but you would do it anyway?

Your example is easily dealt with by a sensible GM, "If that is true then if I kill you I will never have existed to kill you, guess I have nothing to loose ragggghhhh!"

Dark Archive 1/5

Broken Prince wrote:

You seem to be pretty much admitting that you would be in the wrong to disallow the intimidate on a demon is PFS. You would be wrong to not allow it, you appear to be aware of that but you would do it anyway?

Your example is easily dealt with by a sensible GM, "If that is true then if I kill you I will never have existed to kill you, guess I have nothing to loose ragggghhhh!"

No, I do not admit that I'm in the wrong for disallowing. I say, that it is perfectly fine if a GM uses common sense to handle skill checks and that different GMs will judge differently.

By the way: the "dealing by the sensible GM" is exactly what I would have done in my example - not letting the player have an advantage through that skill roll, because it is nuts. However, there seems to be a fraction that claims "I succeeded on my roll, screw the credibility of the world" and that is an attitude I dislike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You simply do not get to ignore the rules in PFS, and you seem to know what the rules are. Its not a grey area, you have the rules outlined for you for how intimidate works therefor you are not entitled to go against them. You can choose to do otherwise, but you are in the wrong by PFS rules.

1/5

Chevalier83 wrote:
guide wrote:


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.

Fine, let me give an example. I can (did it on herolab) create a PFS legal character that has +56 on bluff when telling a lie (10th level).

Say this character meets a balor with +30 on sense motive. Say this character wears a clown costume and a wooden sword. The Balor for some reason wants to kill the character and the character says:

"I am a time traveler and about to become your father. If you kill me now, you will cease to exist. If you don't obey my command, I will not impregnate your mother and you will cease to exist."

Now this is an impossible lie (modifier -20). Even though, the character would beat the Balor's sense motiv with a 73% possibility, I would not have the Balor believe the lie.

Having said that, the difference between this example and intimidating a demon is only a matter of interpretation.

I disagree with your last line. I also disagree that the book calls for you to hand waive numerical values. I don't think it makes sense from an "impossible lie" to be listed at -20, but I also don't have to. I am specifically told that it is not my job to. Just like it is not my job to say the mid level barbarian doing 300 damage a round doesn't feel right to me so I am going to say those numbers don't matter.

How would I handle the bluff? If it was at the start of combat, I would probably ask the player to not break the game for everyone else. If he persisted I might deem that the chaotic evil nature of the demon left him just as motivated to kill PC even if he was telling the truth. If this player routinely tried this tactic to invalidate combat, I probably wouldn't sit at his table as a GM or player. If he did it as a last ditch effort when the party was about to wipe, I might roll with it without thinking anything special needed to happen. What I would not do, is say "Numbers don't matter, and because you are at my table your build is wasted."

5/5 5/55/55/5

Broken Prince wrote:
You simply do not get to ignore the rules in PFS, and you seem to know what the rules are. Its not a grey area, you have the rules outlined for you for how intimidate works therefor you are not entitled to go against them. You can choose to do otherwise, but you are in the wrong by PFS rules.

I think its telling that the scenarios themselves alter or even completely nix the way intimidate to change attitude works as a matter of standard opperating procedure.


Agreed, they generally cover things like that and often set absolutes for enemy behaviours that override the skill rules that are eminently sensible. But scenario writers are entitled to change things up, GMs are not.

Dark Archive 1/5

Sitri wrote:


I disagree with your last line. I also disagree that the book calls for you to hand waive numerical values. I don't think it makes sense from an "impossible lie" to be listed at -20, but I also don't have to. I am specifically told that it is not my job to. Just like it is not my job to say the mid level barbarian doing 300 damage a round doesn't feel right to me so I am going to say those numbers don't matter.

How would I handle the bluff? If it was at the start of combat, I would probably ask the player to not break the game for everyone else. If he persisted I might deem that the chaotic evil nature of the demon left him just as motivated to kill PC even if he was telling the truth. If this player routinely tried this tactic to invalidate combat, I probably wouldn't sit at his table as a GM or player. If he did it as a last ditch effort when the party was about to wipe, I might roll with it without thinking anything special needed to happen. What I would not do, is say "Numbers don't matter, and because you are at my table your build is wasted."

Look, when I say "I would not have the Balor believe the lie", I'm not saying that I will say to the player "I don't care". I will look for a solution to ignore the result, without just saying "no", as you describe with the chaotic nature. The result however is the same.

My job as a GM is to make a session fun for everyone. And if I have to use common sense on a design flaw I will do that. If the player thinks, this was unjustified he can talk to my venture captain about that. Ultimately this will most likely result in me not GMing for that player anymore, if I feel that this is a consistent thing. As a GM I too have the right to enjoy running a scenario. This game is about consensus, not about "being right by RAW".

That being said, this is how all GMs I know handle running a scenario. Some will allow more shenanigans than others, but ultimately all will use common sense to stop players from what they feel would destroy a scene.

Sovereign Court

A bit of a derail from the OP, but seeing as how the discussion has veered ...

Just because you can do something according to RAW, does not mean you should do it.

A lot of the rules are fine for a home game where corner cases and extreme caricatures (i.e. - the PC is built to do one thing in an overpowered way while leaving most everything else subpar) can be dealt with via the flexibility of RAI or just straight out home rules and GM common sense interpretation, but they can totally tank a scenario since it is not possible to account for all variants within the 20 some odd pages of a scenario. Couple with that the older scenarios which were created before many of the rules and add on were developed and it holds even more weight.

Now, are these still RAW and legal for play in PFS? Sure. Can they be a benefit to the game? Sure. Can they drain the fun out of a scenario for all the other players and GM? The definitely can.

All this is to say there is no "wrong" way to play a PC, but there are ways that do not lend themselves to Organized Play and can be overly disruptive.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Broken Prince wrote:
Agreed, they generally cover things like that and often set absolutes for enemy behaviours that override the skill rules that are eminently sensible. But scenario writers are entitled to change things up, GMs are not.

No, but DMs can look REAAAALy hard for a loophole and they'll usually find one. He sets you on fire after 30 seconds, the scenario says he fights to the death (ridiculously common), "Friend" does not mean "slave", the monsters only concepts of other beings are food and "mate" and since you just made it friendly...,

Dark Archive 1/5

Broken Prince wrote:
You simply do not get to ignore the rules in PFS, and you seem to know what the rules are. Its not a grey area, you have the rules outlined for you for how intimidate works therefor you are not entitled to go against them. You can choose to do otherwise, but you are in the wrong by PFS rules.

In the example you gave above ("it doesn't matter I just kill you"), you basically ignored the result of the successful bluff check by using a loophole. How is that any different?

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

I had gotten out of this conversation, only to be sucked back in.

GMs and players are not slaves to the rules. The rules are meant to serve the game, the GMs, the players, and the experience of the game, not the other way around. It is to provide a common framework of mechanical expectations that, with little or few exceptions, works the same from table to table.

As a GM and a venture officer, I would be hard-pressed in most cases to veer from RAW in a public-setting game (PFS in private groups are, I think, somewhat different.) If I am going to veer from RAW, I will not only have a good reason for doing so, I will clearly state why and how. I think, as the one responsible to be sure that the table is having a good, positive, and enjoyable PFS experience, I owe them no less.

Now, players who show up at a table with their one-trick ponies, the characters who do only one thing and do it well, as long as the build is legal, they get to play it. That doesn't mean I am going to let them bowl-over the BBEG or ruin the scenario for everyone else.

In the example of the OP, no, I doubt I would let him use the Intimidate skill to basically shut down the scenario, but might I let it work for a short period (say, maybe less than the full duration, but still for a couple of rounds or what not?) Sure, I'd probably do that. Intimidate doesn't control the target, it doesn't make them obey the character who used the Intimidate skill. Might it make the demon shaken? Sure, I can go with that. If it's immune to fear? Then, no, I wouldn't have the demon be shaken.

People have talked about all this "there's no way a demon would be Intimidated by a gnome!" or whatever. Well, this is a fantasy world. In Season 5, armies of demons are pouring forth from the Worldwound, but these puny gnomes, humans, etc., are doing a decent job of holding their own. Maybe, in Season 5, it's not so unreasonable to think that maybe these puny gnomes aren't so weak. The gist, here, is that, short of something in the write-up of the monster, or in the scenario, adding something like that which effectively neutralizes that character's build is, I think, going well beyond a minor adjustment or interpretation of the rules.

Again, that's just my take. YMMV, of course.

1/5

I wanted information on the location from the creature who wasn't able to attack us... how is that shutting down anything? The bbeg doesn't seem in my book to be in a state of helplessness by the games published rules. I beat your dc, I get results. The end.


I think practically we would handle things in similar ways, but I feel it would be a lot more satisfying to a player to have the GM RP a flabberghasted Balor whose world view is suddenly crumbling and who lashes out than to be simply be told it does not work. Frankly it seems like a wonderful excuse to do Luke Skywalker dialogue in a growly deep Balor voice :)

The trouble with saying I ignore the rules is that you are saying its okay to ignore the rules. I think it better to handle such things with legitimate negative responses that both give you something to RP and hopefully vindicate the players check a bit by making an entertaining situation. I would only advocate the use of such things if the players behaviour is towards a ridiculous extreme like your example, and the OPs demon being intimidated certainly does not seem to fall into that.

While I am rather enjoying the digression my real objection is that you seem to be saying it is okay to stop PCs intimidating demons in PFS. It is not. Your example is not relevant to that as the OPs's behaviour is neither silly nor stretching credulity to anywhere near the same degree.

Sovereign Court

If the creature was paralyzed, as you have stated earlier, it would be unable to tell you anything, barring the use of detect thoughts, telepathy or something similar. In that situation, and barring the limited number of solutions, whether you succeeded or not would be moot.

EDIT: If one of the possible solutions is present, then yeah, I can see the intimidate working in order to gather info.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:
I wanted information on the location from the creature who wasn't able to attack us... how is that shutting down anything? The bbeg doesn't seem in my book to be in a state of helplessness by the games published rules. I beat your dc, I get results. The end.

Well, clearly, you have already made up your mind, and there is no other point of view that will satisfy you unless it agrees with yours. Why do I think that?

Rapanuii wrote:
I beat your dc, I get results. The end.

People here (most of them, anyway) have tried to be reasonable with you, have tried to understand your point of view, have even tried, in some cases, to even be accommodating as to your situation. They have offered you constructive and good, solid advice. Take the advice, don't take it - that's entirely up to you. Do what you will or won't with it.

Good luck.

I'm done here.

Dark Archive 1/5

Given those information, here is what I would have done:

"The demon gives you a location. [Roll covered sense motive check] Unfortunately you cannot determine whether he tells the truth."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Mark Stratton please explain how on earth you managed to construe that the OP was "basically shutting down the scenario". As far as I can discern he was trying to extract information from a foe, if that is shutting down a scenario I think every scenario I have ever played in has been irreparably compromised.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Broken Prince wrote:
@Mark Stratton please explain how on earth you managed to construe that the OP was "basically shutting down the scenario". As far as I can discern he was trying to extract information from a foe, if that is shutting down a scenario I think every scenario I have ever played in has been irreparably compromised.

I went back and read his post, and had conflated that with what the conversation eventually became, that was my fault.

For the record, however, nothing in his original post referenced trying to extract information. It was only about changing the demon's attitude.

"Pretty much this issue is my character using intimidate, and it was specifically on a target that couldn't see me. This wasn't a matter of demoralizing, but rather to take the full minimum 1 minute to convey to the creature that I'm someone they should adjust their attitude with. I was told it automatically doesn't work because the creature cannot see me, and that it wouldn't feel threatened by me anyways because he is a demon, and I'm just a human that isn't even at least holding a knife to it's throat. I am further told that I can only use intimidate if I can make the creature feel like I will kill it, which I tried to explain that isn't necessarily true at all, but was told I was wrong. I tried to after the game, and outside of the game to discuss the matter, and was told that I absolutely need line of sight, due to the skill specifically saying so. I tried to point out that it only applies to demoralize, and the first application of intimidate to change attitudes specifically says that 1 minute of conversation, and was told I wasn't reading correctly."

1/5

I just don't see why people argue otherwise. Those are the facts. You allowed the roll to happen, and just because I'm successful you'll then just say I didn't pass? I need to kill everything in the game, and I can't have creative and helpful solutions to problems?

If I tame balor then I did it. I'm the guy as the hero in the story that did the thing. If someone intentionally made a game breaking character that's one thing, but to just deny because you feel it's not realistic isn't fair to everyone who expects to play pfs.

I'm going to be reasonable and objective, just like I've always been. I don't like how you say I have just made up my mind, when it's apparently you that made up yours with me.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Once we are aware of a rule we need to abide by it.

Yes the intimidate rules are exploitable and the ability to resist being intimidated does not scale at the same rate. They are still the rules. Once you know them it is against both the rules and the spirit of the game to break them, ignore them, or change them.

Remember that intimidate can impose the shaken condition or make someone act as friendly for a short (less than 1 hour) time. Without adding in other feats it doesn't do much more than this. Compare it to witches the evil eye hex or a maxed out diplomacy character and its effects are similar.

Perhaps a better approach where a player is obviously impacting the other people at the table's enjoyment of the experience is to call for a who break and have a as private as you can manage conversation with the player who is hogging the spot light and ask them to dial it back.

If you are the only one reacting to this players actions and the rest of the table is obviously having a good time, then I would suggest that you realize that the issue is yours. For me this used to happen when I got an idea stuck in my head about the way the scenario was supposed to play out. Deviating from that script caused part of me to react negatively. I have since realized that both the players and myself having fun is a more important goal than following a script.

Remembering that this is a collaborative shared story game helps me let go of my stuff and relax into the larger and much more satisfying communal event.

Yours for better gaming.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

In furtherance of my comment that the rules serve the GM, players, etc., and not the other way around, here is a bit from page 19 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play:

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

And, from Page 32:
"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
."

And from Page 33 of the same document (and as I read it, a point that would most likely be one in favor of the OP):

"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."

Again, as a general rule, no, such things shouldn't be changed on a whim or without explanation, and @Eric's comment above, I think, is the best course (that is, for the GM to, if possible, take a break and talk with the individual player.)

But some changes or adjudications are allowable, but they ought to be few and far between.

Dark Archive 1/5

@Mark Stratton: I couldn't agree more with that.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Is it okay for a PFS GM to put aside RAW for the sake of fun? That depends. Is it okay for a U.S. Judge to put aside the Constitution for the sake of justice?

I admit that is a bit of an extreme example, but in both case you have someone meant to uphold the rules putting themselves above the rules for what they perceive as the betterment of the society.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

trollbill wrote:

Is it okay for a PFS GM to put aside RAW for the sake of fun? That depends. Is it okay for a U.S. Judge to put aside the Constitution for the sake of justice?

I admit that is a bit of an extreme example, but in both case you have someone meant to uphold the rules putting themselves above the rules for what they perceive as the betterment of the society.

Actually, those are both good questions, but in the case of PFS, the guide itself DOES provide some authority for GMs to do just that (though, the ability to do so is rightfully constrained.)

Dark Archive 1/5

trollbill wrote:

Is it okay for a PFS GM to put aside RAW for the sake of fun? That depends. Is it okay for a U.S. Judge to put aside the Constitution for the sake of justice?

I admit that is a bit of an extreme example, but in both case you have someone meant to uphold the rules putting themselves above the rules for what they perceive as the betterment of the society.

If you say a GM can't than the only solution for a GM would be to ban players he thinks undermine the fun of the table. If that is better from your point of view, that's totally acceptable. That being said, there is one major flaw in your argumentation: a judge's mission is to uphold the law. A GM's mission is to make a session fun for everyone, within the rules. While the Judge has only a single goal, the GM has actually two goals and has to balance both.

1/5

Mark, I just want to make sure about what you wrote to me. You absolutely feel I'm unreasonable, and inconsiderate with how I deal with others that I just have my mind made up and unconditionally won't change? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but asking for clarification. I feel that's really unfair, and what I write is directly proven by the rules. I get you're trying to be creative, but baseline what I write is what it is.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Rapanuii wrote:
Mark, I just want to make sure about what you wrote to me. You absolutely feel I'm unreasonable, and inconsiderate with how I deal with others that I just have my mind made up and unconditionally won't change? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but asking for clarification. I feel that's really unfair, and what I write is directly proven by the rules. I get you're trying to be creative, but baseline what I write is what it is.

What you have in your head when describing the situation isn't necessarily what you type.

What you have in your head for your goals isn't necessarily what you type.

You're reacting as if we know whats in your head rather than what you're saying. Your description of the events is rather incomplete and very piecemeal.

251 to 300 of 400 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / I can't get through to my GM in PFS All Messageboards