Is it possible that the GM has run into situations where players have attempted to end combats with Intimidate before, and perhaps just had a knee-jerk reaction?
I mean, I have in person seen someone ask to make a Intimidate check to cow enemy combatants into immediate submission. And the ugly argument that followed as the GM tried to explain that's not how Intimidate works.
-j
But the OPs situation does not invalidate an encounter right? I would be interested to see where different GMs think the line falls for those sort of alterations and what kind of alterations GM would feel comfortable with, but that probably ought to be a different thread.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
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.
I don't recall saying what you wrote EXCEPT that you had your mind made up, and that was based on the specific point you made, which I quoted earlier and will do so, again:
I beat your dc, I get results. The end.
This sentence conveys that you have, indeed, made up your mind, and quite emphatically adding, "The end" means there is no more discussion. Unless, "The end" doesn't really mean "The end" but that's how it reads (to me, at any rate.)
As to you being "unreasonable, and inconsiderate..." I don't remember saying those things (and I can go back and re-read the thread because it is certainly possible, I just don't remember), but I do remember at some point commenting on how you were reacting to others (I think). That's how your posts came across to me, at any rate, whether or not that's what you had intended. And, honestly, it may just be how your posts come through in writing (versus having a verbal conversation.)
In the end, conversations here should never get like that. People shouldn't be defensive or argumentative or whatever. That's the point I want to make.
As for me being creative, I have posted THREE sections from the guide to organized play - two of them, in some measure, DO support a variance from RAW (that isn't me being creative); the third section I posted could be interpreted to support your argument.
It isn't as black and white or as clear-cut, I don't think, as you see see this issue (or at least, how I perceive you seeing this issue.)
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
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.)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.
The text from the guide you quoted above gives GMs to right to put aside the scenario as written (under heavy constraints). It expressly states GMs don't have the right to put aside RAW.
There are plenty of times in PFS where the rules simply aren't clear and making a judgment on those rules is, in fact, one of the reasons we have GMs. But when you have a GM saying, "I know what RAW is but I am going to ignore it because of X reason," then I think there is a problem.
|
|
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.
From the start I provided everything that was necessary to get an objective answer. The creatures, the fact that it successfully got to the 1 minute mark to make the check and that the check would have normally succeeded. So exactly what didn't I provide? What am I imagining and not writing to help everyone out that makes me seem like a psychopath that cannot have his mind alerted? Constructively tell me how to properly do this and I'll follow the steps to avoid this entire mess in the future. I thought that this wouldn't cause issues by how I did it, but apparently not, although I believe it's others with the issue, and not me. I'm willing to consider otherwise though.
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.
Taking that example, I think all too often the letter of the law allows the wrong thing to occur, and that you do need someone in any system with the ability to go beyond the rules, when necessary, in order to fix loopholes in that system when they're discovered (intentionally or accidently). Obviously you also need oversight to ensure they don't abuse that power.
In the case of PFS, I'd say the system should put GMs in the position of doing just that, with the provisio whenever they do so (or at least, whenever a player objects to that judgement call) it has to be reported upstream so they can be told whether or not it was the correct call, and so that any ongoing rules issues can be more easily highlighted and dealt with at a PFS management level.
If that resulted in an extra workload upstream, that would only indicate there are obviously things that PFS-wide rulings desperately need to be made on. On the other hand, it would likely also cut the number of incidents down to those that truly needed to happen.
|
I have a simple question for you: there is one player trivializing a whole scenario. 4 players and you as a GM don't have fun. You asked the player to stop doing that, but he insists it is his right. His interpretation of the rules is correct. What do you do?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.)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.
The text from the guide you quoted above gives GMs to right to put aside the scenario as written (under heavy constraints). It expressly states GMs don't have the right to put aside RAW.
There are plenty of times in PFS where the rules simply aren't clear and making a judgment on those rules is, in fact, one of the reasons we have GMs. But when you have a GM saying, "I know what RAW is but I am going to ignore it because of X reason," then I think there is a problem.
Legally speaking, the GM can do nothing. That's on the players if that's how they want to roll. As long as their build can stand up to an audit. You must follow RAW to minimize table variation. The "invalidating tactics" clause is not a license for GM fiat. If the NPCs get owned, they get owned. It's really on the authors' heads to set difficulty in scenarios. It is NOT the GMs place to set the difficulty. That's for home brew.
|
|
Mark, the end means that anyone saying that a gm allows a player to roll, then upon them succeeding just fails it because they think it's unfair isn't allowed. Success was made, and you let the roll happen.before the roll maybe the gm should put more thought in it with what you pointed out, but that's that. My mind is made up but open to listen to reason that would consider changing. Are we good now?
|
|
Legally speaking, the GM can do nothing. That's on the players if that's how they want to roll. As long as their build can stand up to an audit. You must follow RAW to minimize table variation. The "invalidating tactics" clause is not a license for GM fiat. If the NPCs get owned, they get owned. It's really on the authors' heads to set difficulty in scenarios. It is NOT the GMs place to set the difficulty. That's for home brew.So your solution would be to waste 4-5h of time of 5 people plus the preparation time of the GM just so that one person can have his way?
Such is the nature of organized play. It's the risk they all take when they sit down. As a PFS GM, you may not alter the encounters, nor can you magically turn off class features. Trust me, if I could, there'd be no animal companions at my table. Instead, I just let Fido and Fluffy eat the scenarios because I am legally bound to do so. I try to play the NPCs to the best of my ability, but this is often mathematically meaningless in the case of pets. The maths are too much against the NPCs. I see no functional difference between this kind of problem and the case in question here.
The NPCs are going to lose 95%+ of the time. As a GM, get over it. The challenge is codified by the author, NOT the GM.
|
|
The argument that unconditionally that a mechanic cannot work is b&+%@@++.
Deal with your jerk at the table separately, and someone who gets a 20 and beats it by one shouldn't be punished. They did it and it happened. They played their character the way they wanted.
Leave the jerk issue as something else.
Edit
I optimize trip, and to you balor CANNOT BE TRIPPED! HE IS BALOR! Your successful roll now fails.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize my point is not about the NPCs winning? My point is about players exploiting certain game mechanics in a way that is beyond common sense and in a way that ruins the fun for everyone else.
For me as a GM running a scenario is not about winning. If everyone (or let's say the majority) had fun playing a scenario, than I've accomplished my goal. And if that includes closing an exploit by using loopholes myself or ignoring RAW to some extend I will do that.
The most important thing about playing in PFS is: don't be a jerk. And if someone tries to be one, even within RAW, I will not let him.
That's not your call to make. You are bound to follow RAW as a PFS GM. The "don't be a jerk" rule is really a non-rule, since the interpretation of "jerk" varies from person to person. I could just as easily say you are being a jerk for not letting the PC function as clearly allowed by RAW, so you are the jerk.
This is why we follow RAW. If some features are really too powerful, that needs to be addressed by campaign leadership. Like with master summoners.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
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.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.
Except it isn't the only other solution. Some people seem to be under the impression that either the player has to get his way or the GM has to get his way. I don't see a lot of discussion here about compromise. I don't see a lot of discussion here about just sitting down with the player and explaining how his behavior is causing other people to not have fun, so could he please tone it down some.
I have also seen cases where a GM ruled against a player because he thought the player's actions would prevent the table from having fun only to discover later that the only person at the table that had a problem with it was the GM.
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.
I disagree. A judges job is also to uphold justice, not just the law. This is seen more in sentencing than in the trial and it has to take a back seat to the law, but it is still part of their job and is supposed to be how they should be making judgments when it is unclear what the law says.
|
|
From the start I provided everything that was necessary to get an objective answer.The creatures, the fact that it successfully got to the 1 minute mark to make the check and that the check would have normally succeeded. So exactly what didn't I provide?
You didn't list the scenario. For all we know the scenario says "Attempting to intimidate this guy is pointless", or the demon in question has so many hit dice you couldn't have succeeded on a 20 (there's a few scenarios out there where fighting the demon is suicide. Run or die) If you state this (preferably in spoilers) we can see exactly what the situation is.
The fact that the demon can't attack you (it was paralyzed?) didn't come up till the last page or so.
Why exactly it couldn't see you.
What am I imagining and not writing to help everyone out that makes me seem like a psychopath that cannot have his mind alerted?
Your argument, as written is this.
He only needs to hear me to be intimidated.
Nothing prevents me from intimidating him from half a mile away through echoey caverns.
= I can just intimidate people and they must surrender, muahahahah! I am unbeatable!
but apparently not, although I believe it's others with the issue, and not me.
Thats what everyone thinks. Someone has to be wrong. (likely both)
|
|
"use common sense and make the experience good for everyone"
That is for cases not covered in RAW. You can't break RAW using the excuse of "common sense". Common sense is a misnomer anyway, because just like "don't be a jerk" common sense is completely subjective from person to person.
PFS GMs just don't have the power they do in homebrew. That's part of the compact when you sign up to GM PFS. You can't overrule a PC if they have RAW on their side. This comes up a lot when GMs try to get creative with grappling and other mechanics that hose up NPCs. Intimidate is no different than grapple in this respect.
|
|
How often is everyone having fun during a tpk?How is the related to this topic? Are you suggesting that a successful use of Intimidate would prevent a TPK?
nope, some people use everyone should have fun during the game, and if they're not then the gm may disregard all rules to do as they wish. I'm saying that the justification of that is absurd. I do find what others have stated to be reasonable within the rules that pfs has in regards.
|
|
Some people seem to be under the impression that either the player has to get his way or the GM has to get his way. I don't see a lot of discussion here about compromise. I don't see a lot of discussion here about just sitting down with the player and explaining how his behavior is causing other people to not have fun, so could he please tone it down some.I do agree with that statement. Ultimately, a consensus is the way to go. If I understood OP correctly, he and GM talked and they couldn't come to one. Ultimately, after a discussion, if there is no consensus, one has to get his way. And that will always be the GM. The question is whether the GM ignored RAW (which he did) and whether it was justified that he ignored RAW (which is hard to tell, but my impression is no for the demoralization and yes for the shifting alignment part).
GMs should not always or automatically get their way. They are getting guaranteed goodies regardless if the PCs TPK or not. In many cases, the GM can not be relied upon to even be impartial, as they are try to increase the difficulty when they are legally not allowed to do so.
|
|
I can only repeat myself. I have not made the experience, that this is the way Venture Officers enforce the rules. If it was, I'd simply blacklist people."use common sense and make the experience good for everyone"
That is for cases not covered in RAW. You can't break RAW using the excuse of "common sense". Common sense is a misnomer anyway, because just like "don't be a jerk" common sense is completely subjective from person to person.
PFS GMs just don't have the power they do in homebrew. That's part of the compact when you sign up to GM PFS. You can't overrule a PC if they have RAW on their side. This comes up a lot when GMs try to get creative with grappling and other mechanics that hose up NPCs. Intimidate is no different than grapple in this respect.
I'm not quite understanding this. You mean to say that your venture officers are allowing GMs to go against RAW? If so, would I be allowed to drop in some extra NPCs for high-pet parties? That's the "common sense" thing to do, right? You see why this is a bad idea?
|
|
Bnw, the specifics of what happened in game don't matter when the gm says under any circumstance that the demon would unconditionally always react the same. You don't need to know about not able to intimidate rule, or the scenario. I provided what is needed for people to understand the situation, and the situation is not limited to the factors you're saying I didn't provide, understand?
Edited
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I have a simple question for you: there is one player trivializing a whole scenario. 4 players and you as a GM don't have fun. You asked the player to stop doing that, but he insists it is his right. His interpretation of the rules is correct. What do you do?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.)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.
The text from the guide you quoted above gives GMs to right to put aside the scenario as written (under heavy constraints). It expressly states GMs don't have the right to put aside RAW.
There are plenty of times in PFS where the rules simply aren't clear and making a judgment on those rules is, in fact, one of the reasons we have GMs. But when you have a GM saying, "I know what RAW is but I am going to ignore it because of X reason," then I think there is a problem.
I have actually had something similar to this happen in a home game. And the first thing I would do is actually verify that the other 4 players aren't having fun and that it is not just my personal opinion. After that the answer is that if a player insists of enforcing his right to run his character in a given legal manner, even though he has been repeatedly warned that his behavior is causing problems, and is aware of the consequences of continuing it, then you have no choice than to ban them. But that is your last alternative. And it is also well within the PFS guidelines because a player that knowingly engages in behavior that disrupts the game is in violation of the "Don't be a jerk," clause.
What the rules don't say is that you can change RAW in order to deal with people who insist of violating the "Don't be a jerk," clause. And with good reason. Because someone who insists on their right to be a jerk isn't going to stop just because you changed RAW on him.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Bnw, the specifics of what happened in game don't matter when the gm says under those circumstances that the demon would unconditionally always react the same. You don't need to know about not able to intimidate rule, or the scenario. I provided what is needed for people to understand the situation, and the situation is not limited to the factors you're saying I didn't provide, understand?
We do not know that there aren't other factors involved.
If the scenario says, for example, "Attempts to use intimidate or diplomacy against this target automatically fail," then that, indeed, is material to the conversation. And where might we find such a statement? In the scenario itself. But because you haven't provided the name of the scenario, we can't know.
That's what BNW is saying - there may be other factors at work here, but you haven't given us the information to make that determination. There may be nothing else here other than the GM just, by fiat, saying it does't work (which I don't really support.)
But scenarios often-times do address ways that certain skills interact with NPCs or monsters or whatever.
So, no, I do not understand why you think those things don't matter. I truly don't.
|
|
Maybe they shouldn't, but what do you want to do? Call Mike Brock from your table? And seriously, are you GMing because of the goodies or to "win"? I am not. I am GMing to have a fun time with my players. And usually that will not be the case when a TPK happens. When I GM, I find that I rather will bend the rules to help players in threat of a TPK, for example by not applying the most optimal tactics,
You're not really supposed to do that, either. TPKs are supposed to happen from time to time to keep the threat of failure real. In general, the NPCs are often at a huge disadvantage and it's usually not an issue to be as brutal as possible. Because the druid pet is going to eat them regardless of how brutal you try to be :)
|
|
Wow, I'm annoyed. I am not saying those factors don't matter at all, but when they're irrelevant to what's going on, why do I say them? You want me to provide possibility of what wasn't a factor to you, or will what was suffice?
We discussed in the general situation of given creature, successfully getting the minute off, and then the final results. I'm told that I'm a human, and he is from hell, and thusly, he gets +7.
What else matters there? If you ADD in special circumstances, then yes, it matters, but I provided ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING NEEDED. If you feel I miss something judging it objectively across the board like we set it up with the baseline conditions, then I would love to know so I can make sure everything in the future works or more smoothly.
How often is everyone having fun during a tpk?How is the related to this topic? Are you suggesting that a successful use of Intimidate would prevent a TPK?
How are baby tieflings scaring off giant red dragons related to this conversation?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Wow, I'm annoyed. I am not saying those factors don't matter at all, but when they're irrelevant to what's going on, why do I say them? You want me to provide possibility of what wasn't a factor to you, or will what was suffice?
We discussed in the general situation of given creature, successfully getting the minute off, and then the final results. I'm told that I'm a human, and he is from hell, and thusly, he gets +7.
What else matters there? If you ADD in special circumstances, then yes, it matters, but I provided ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING NEEDED. If you feel I miss something judging it objectively across the board like we set it up with the baseline conditions, then I would love to know so I can make sure everything in the future works or more smoothly.
"I am not saying those factors don't matter at all, but when they're irrelevant to what's going on, why do I say them?"
You do know by saying they are "irrelevant to what's going on" that you are saying "those factors don't matter at all."
I don't know what more to say at this point.
|
|
I'm not quite understanding this. You mean to say that your venture officers are allowing GMs to go against RAW? If so, would I be allowed to drop in some extra NPCs for high-pet parties? That's the "common sense" thing to do, right? You see why this is a bad idea?No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that if you play "The Blakros Matrimony" and your character is coming naked to the ceremony, the guards will throw you out, even though you bluffed them into believing the bride ordered it that way, because that would be common sense in this situation.
That's totally different. That's not a mechanical effect. GMs have total fiat in regards to NPC reacts that aren't scripted by the author. The GM can not prevent the guard from being bluffed, but the reaction in this case is completely appropriate.
But unless there is a *mechanical* reason a medium humanoid can't intimidate a red dragon, the GM can't stop this from happening in PFS. Just as I can't turn off a cat's bite and claws.
|
|
Many encounters have different ways to be played. For example, I can cast silence on a player, allowing him a save DC or I can cast silence on a part of the room, forcing the casters to come to the front-line and get owned by the minions without having the possibility to save. Or I could use another spell this round, for example by deciding the BBEG is rather worried about the brute that seems to cut through his minions than by the casters.Maybe they shouldn't, but what do you want to do? Call Mike Brock from your table? And seriously, are you GMing because of the goodies or to "win"? I am not. I am GMing to have a fun time with my players. And usually that will not be the case when a TPK happens. When I GM, I find that I rather will bend the rules to help players in threat of a TPK, for example by not applying the most optimal tactics,You're not really supposed to do that, either. TPKs are supposed to happen from time to time to keep the threat of failure real. In general, the NPCs are often at a huge disadvantage and it's usually not an issue to be as brutal as possible. Because the druid pet is going to eat them regardless of how brutal you try to be :)
That's also perfectly valid, as long as the author has not provided a scripted spell order *that hasn't been invalidated by PC tactics*. However, when NPCs get invalidated by the PCs, they are usually in a coffin shortly thereafter. Grapple is fun for that.
|
|
Oh right. Like the dragon is gonna care about a -2 to hit when he's got a total bonus of 30+. Hell, PCs fight when intimidated by NPC dazzling display ALL THE TIME. It's just a minor debuff and isn't the most devastating thing a PC can do by any stretch.
Yeah, that guard TOTALLY believes the princess ordered it that way, but there are reasons that the PC still can't get in.
|
|
@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.
For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.
I think this is a case where there is just no possible bluff that's going to work for a naked guest, even though the PC in question can bluff the guy on a nat 1. I haven't actually had too many problems with this kind of thing.
|
|
Wow, I'm annoyed. I am not saying those factors don't matter at all, but when they're irrelevant to what's going on, why do I say them? You want me to provide possibility of what wasn't a factor to you, or will what was suffice?
We discussed in the general situation of given creature, successfully getting the minute off, and then the final results. I'm told that I'm a human, and he is from hell, and thusly, he gets +7.
What else matters there? If you ADD in special circumstances, then yes, it matters, but I provided ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING NEEDED. If you feel I miss something judging it objectively across the board like we set it up with the baseline conditions, then I would love to know so I can make sure everything in the future works or more smoothly.
"I am not saying those factors don't matter at all, but when they're irrelevant to what's going on, why do I say them?"
You do know by saying they are "irrelevant to what's going on" that you are saying "those factors don't matter at all."
I don't know what more to say at this point.
responding like this is what's bothering me.
Player does x to y under normal circumstances = z
X is intimidate to a creature that is a demon, and the answer will always be +7 bonus.
So with this situation it can be objectively viewed. Now let's say you ask, "was the creature affected by the rules saying he was immune, just because I'd like to know" then I'd say yes or no, but in this instance the creature was not, because we're taking about it absolutely succeeding without any other situations.
So, anyone can go, "so the gm will for under the baseline situation, always rule that way. That's not correct."
So again, the stuff you are taking about wasn't relevant for me to add. I gave the necessary information.
Am I saying that the other variables wouldn't matter? Considering that I blatantly repeatedly answered that says that I do consider them relevant when they're applied, but here it doesn't because it diverts things away from what is important.
Please, stop responding to me like I'm some fool, and perhaps apologize.