Changing the location of the last encounter in a scenario


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Jessex wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?

This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.

I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

Either English isn't your first language or you are not describing what happened very clearly. Are you trying to say that the GM swapped the entire flow of the scenario around so it ran backwards or are you saying that he put the entire scenario in the entry?

Either one is a problem but neither is as bad as you seem to think. Yes you didn't get to play the scenario as intended which kind of sucks for you ad your table mates but stuff happens. However as long as no characters died and no fights were harder than intended then no harm no foul.

Spoiler:
From what I understand of it, the final encounter comes in waves and is supposed to take place in a large room at the end of the dungeon. But the GM placed the encounter at the entrance to the dungeon as the PCs were leaving (correct timing, wrong location), did not have the encounter come in waves and essentially set it up as an ambush rather than an assault.
Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

You believe that none of the party's actions influenced the change. That's impossible for us to judge here. The GM may have been interpreting something which you didn't hear, note got passed, something he understood a player to mean that differs from what you thought they meant, have been dealing with not enough time to redraw (though I have a problem with that given the two-encounters-in-area-c nature of Scions 3), or some other externality that I am not prepared to guess at.

In policy terms, no, we don't move encounters around without text in the scenario or player actions determining "to where" and "why" aspects.

If it becomes obvious when you're running that the players aren't going to ever see the encounter, but should, and it can make any sense... sometimes you move the encounter into their path, sometimes they miss an encounter.

A few highlights:

Spoiler:

I've had: Refuge of Time, party ends up waiting for the group inside to come outside. Stacks encounters badly for the party.

King of Storval Stairs: party scouts in a fashion that triggers encounter 3 at the location of encounter 1. Had another one where they went "actively looking" for the last encounter instead of waiting for it to come to them.

Jester's Fraud: the whole universe can dogpile the party if things go awry in the wrong way. Where the dogpile occurs depends on what happens. We would've LIKED to negotiate (though I had a train to catch)....

Red Harvest: the sandbox can turn into a mudpit of blood depending on how murderhobo the party gets. The number of encounters which can wind up stacking if they get too aggressive is notable.

Different scenarios are different. Different tables are different. We aren't constrained about everything, and that is how we get into it with the fun of different tables bringing different results despite RAW.

1/5

Jessex wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?

This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.

I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

Either English isn't your first language or you are not describing what happened very clearly. Are you trying to say that the GM swapped the entire flow of the scenario around so it ran backwards or are you saying that he put the entire scenario in the entry?

Either one is a problem but neither is as bad as you seem to think. Yes you didn't get to play the scenario as intended which kind of sucks for you and your table mates but stuff happens. However as long as no characters died and no fights were harder than intended then no harm no foul.

I sorry if my learning disability makes things harder for to understand. I was quite clear in the spoiler section that the GM moved the final encounter to another area instead of the one it is suppose to start in. This change of location of the final encounter changes what the scenario could of been, and changes how that encounter flows. This also (in my opinion) changes the feeling of the entire scenario. I reposted the question trying to simplify for everyone.

1/5

trollbill wrote:
Jessex wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?

This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.

I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

Either English isn't your first language or you are not describing what happened very clearly. Are you trying to say that the GM swapped the entire flow of the scenario around so it ran backwards or are you saying that he put the entire scenario in the entry?

Either one is a problem but neither is as bad as you seem to think. Yes you didn't get to play the scenario as intended which kind of sucks for you ad your table mates but stuff happens. However as long as no characters died and no fights were harder than intended then no harm no foul.

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

The thing is I've run that scenario fairly recently and it is very linear. The party couldn't still be in the entry, area A, for the final encounter. They have to leave the area and move through another area to get to the final encounter. So he's leaving some detail out. And that detail would tell us something important. Did the party refuse to enter area C or did they leave area C so the GM had no choice but to move the final encounter or did he reverse the map which is entirely possible and it was a simple screw up by a GM?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Second-guessing GMs is the worst thing that has become part of this game. Monday morning GMs are the biggest impediment to recruiting new GMs.

I agree with this.

I have seen several threads on these boards, my primary reaction to which is, "Wow, I hope I never have that player at one of the tables I'm GMing".

(This thread, reading some of the follow-ups from the OP, has turned into one of those.)

4/5 *

Sorry, was in a meeting and just got back.

Quote:
I did take insult. If the term was meant as something other than I took it then the commenter should explain the term instead assuming I knew what he/she was saying. I am still insulted.

To clarify: Monday morning GMing is not what you are doing, it is what you are asking us to do. Sorry if you aren't familiar with the term. We weren't there, and all we have is your opinion that nothing the players did justified the GM's action - something that you don't get just from reading the scenario. You're asking us to condemn a GM for cheating based on incomplete information. I won't engage in Monday morning GMing.

I'd ask you to consider how you are coming across, before getting upset yourself. Your question has been answered, repeatedly. You don't seem to like the answer, and wish for an absolute black-and-white answer without providing complete information. Then when given the correct answer ("it depends"), you refuse to accept it and want to know if you can call the police on them.

Frankly, even if you read the scenario and ran it a hundred times before, what you think about the players' actions is irrelevant. Only the GM in question knows why they made the change. Perhaps it was a good reason, perhaps not. You may make different choices when you run it; that's the nature of the game. Be a good GM yourself and stop worrying over a minor issue which did not materially affect the game.

Good luck in your games, and thanks for stepping up to be a GM.

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

Jessex wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Jessex wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?

This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.

I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.

Either English isn't your first language or you are not describing what happened very clearly. Are you trying to say that the GM swapped the entire flow of the scenario around so it ran backwards or are you saying that he put the entire scenario in the entry?

Either one is a problem but neither is as bad as you seem to think. Yes you didn't get to play the scenario as intended which kind of sucks for you ad your table mates but stuff happens. However as long as no characters died and no fights were harder than intended then no harm no foul.

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Again, as I understand it, the players proceeded through the linier adventure from Area A, to Area B, to Area C where they triggered the final encounter which is supposed to take place in Area C. Instead, for reasons we don't know, the GM elected to have the final encounter occur in Area A as the party was leaving the dungeon. He also did not have it come in waves and had it set up more as an ambush than an assault.

Note that this is not the first time I have heard of GMs who are supposed to be running an encounter in waves but instead threw everything at the PCs at once. Usually this comes from the GM not reading the encounter thoroughly enough, rather than a deliberate change by the GM.

1/5

@TetsujinOni Thank you for responding.

TetsujinOni wrote:
In policy terms, no, we don't move encounters around without text in the scenario or player actions determining "to where" and "why" aspects.

This is very helpful, and what I am looking for as a general response to my general question. I was hoping to see more general answer like this instead of this thread becoming what it has.

1/5

rknop wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Second-guessing GMs is the worst thing that has become part of this game. Monday morning GMs are the biggest impediment to recruiting new GMs.

I agree with this.

I have seen several threads on these boards, my primary reaction to which is, "Wow, I hope I never have that player at one of the tables I'm GMing".

(This thread, reading some of the follow-ups from the OP, has turned into one of those.)

I hope never to play at you table either, because I would spend most of the time waiting for a meteor from space to come down and total party kill all the players.

(I am sure you didn't mean come across like this, but your lack concern about input from other players/gms shows me that you think of PFS as if it was your home game.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

It's not lack of concern. I'm happy to hear legitimate concerns from players. What I'm afraid of is players who are going to post negative hyperbole to the forums, and who paint their GMs in a wholly negative light without necessarily understanding what was behind the GM's thinking -- and who seem extremely resistant to the idea that it's possible that GMs may have had real reasons for doing the things the players don't like or understand.

To some of us, that's how you're coming across in this thread. You might wish to be aware of it.

1/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Sorry, was in a meeting and just got back.

Quote:
I did take insult. If the term was meant as something other than I took it then the commenter should explain the term instead assuming I knew what he/she was saying. I am still insulted.

To clarify: Monday morning GMing is not what you are doing, it is what you are asking us to do. Sorry if you aren't familiar with the term. We weren't there, and all we have is your opinion that nothing the players did justified the GM's action - something that you don't get just from reading the scenario. You're asking us to condemn a GM for cheating based on incomplete information. I won't engage in Monday morning GMing.

I'd ask you to consider how you are coming across, before getting upset yourself. Your question has been answered, repeatedly. You don't seem to like the answer, and wish for an absolute black-and-white answer without providing complete information. Then when given the correct answer ("it depends"), you refuse to accept it and want to know if you can call the police on them.

Frankly, even if you read the scenario and ran it a hundred times before, what you think about the players' actions is irrelevant. Only the GM in question knows why they made the change. Perhaps it was a good reason, perhaps not. You may make different choices when you run it; that's the nature of the game. Be a good GM yourself and stop worrying over a minor issue which did not materially affect the game.

Good luck in your games, and thanks for stepping up to be a GM.

Incorrect. I am not asking to any of that. I am asking for guidance on how to handle issues that seem to conflict the rules.

"It depends" is the same as I don't know or I don't care. It provides no guidance on how to handle the issue.

All I want is general guidance on how to handle this type of issue. The issue being "Is it okay to move a final encounter that has been spefically written to take place in a certain area or not?"

I would hope to see general answers of "No expect this" therefor guiding me on how I should look at the scenario that I run, or "Yes this is why" therefor guiding me on how much flexibity I have to run a scenario.

The example given was nothing more than example.

1/5

rknop wrote:

It's not lack of concern. I'm happy to hear legitimate concerns from players. What I'm afraid of is players who are going to post negative hyperbole to the forums, and who paint their GMs in a wholly negative light without necessarily understanding what was behind the GM's thinking -- and who seem extremely resistant to the idea that it's possible that GMs may have had real reasons for doing the things the players don't like or understand.

To some of us, that's how you're coming across in this thread. You might wish to be aware of it.

I am aware of what people think. I have posted a few times now that I am only concern about learning how to be a better GM for PFS. The example was vague and without names for that reason. I refused to provide specifics about what happen, because it would be attempting to accuse the GM of cheating.

I will state again. I don't want to report the GM. I don't want to accuse the GM of anything.

If you choose to ignore this statement, and continue to accuse me of thing I will respond appropriately.

If you honor this statement, and provide general guidance to my issue I will respond appropriately. (Which I have.)

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ The OP

I understand your unwillingness to provide details on the example stems from your desire to find guidance without getting bogged down in the example rather than a desire to vilify your GM. However, a reluctance to provide details is a typical characteristic of those who post on these forums who seek to vilify their GMs. Hence the defensive responses.

1/5

trollbill wrote:

@ The OP

I understand your unwillingness to provide details on the example stems from your desire to find guidance without getting bogged down in the example rather than a desire to vilify your GM. However, a reluctance to provide details is a typical characteristic of those who post on these forums who seek to vilify their GMs. Hence the defensive responses.

Thank for that info. I don't know the history of these forums, so I wrote the question as I would to manager at work. The key to me is that the issue came up, and I personally don't know how to handle it so I only wrote what the issue was. I only provided an example so there was an exact physical reference which helps in forming general responses.

I will now in future try to remove any reference to the GM, if at all possible.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:

Incorrect. I am not asking to any of that. I am asking for guidance on how to handle issues that seem to conflict the rules.

"It depends" is the same as I don't know or I don't care. It provides no guidance on how to handle the issue.

All I want is general guidance on how to handle this type of issue. The issue being "Is it okay to move a final encounter that has been spefically written to take place in a certain area or not?"

I would hope to see...

You really seem to be ignoring all of the explaining going on after the 'It depends' answers if you think the people replying 'don't care' or 'don't know'.

As a GM, you get to use Judgement, which is difficult at times. You may get things wrong. Your players might question you. Heck, you may GM a session then see the next day a post on the forums just like this - someone questioning what their GM (you) did without understanding. It's part of the risk and reward of GMing.

So yes - the final answer is, on top of all of the other responses in this thread - It Depends.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:

@TetsujinOni Thank you for responding.

TetsujinOni wrote:
In policy terms, no, we don't move encounters around without text in the scenario or player actions determining "to where" and "why" aspects.
This is very helpful, and what I am looking for as a general response to my general question.

And yet you skipped the other general answer given to you multiple times before that of "talk to the GM in question".

I hope you don't skip that step the next time something like this happens (and I hope you don't choose to solely enforce TetsujinOni's answer, either).

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

@TetsujinOni Thank you for responding.

TetsujinOni wrote:
In policy terms, no, we don't move encounters around without text in the scenario or player actions determining "to where" and "why" aspects.
This is very helpful, and what I am looking for as a general response to my general question.

And yet you skipped the other general answer given to you multiple times before that of "talk to the GM in question".

I hope you don't skip that step the next time something like this happens (and I hope you don't choose to solely enforce TetsujinOni's answer, either).

I explained I can't use the step of talking to the GM, nor would I. If I am GMing why would I talk to myself if I had to make a change. You seem skip the point that this Guidance is for Me as a GM not for Me as a player.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

It's not all that uncommon that somebody posts a thread on these forums describing a disagreement or even conflict with another individual in PFS.

Invariably, the most level heads in the conversation say:


  • If you're the player and you had an issue with the GM, talk to the GM.
  • If you're not satisfied after that, or your not comfortable with it, talk to your local VL or VC
  • If you're not satisfied after that, then either accept it, or, if you really think it's a big deal, email the campaign coordinator. Be aware that the campaign is huge and there's only one coordinator, so you don't want to overwhelm him with details.

Often posters are frustrated when the others in the thread don't accept their version. This is the nature of the beast. Especially if it's a one-on-one conflict, there are two sides to it, and it's entirely possible that (a) the poster isn't aware of what's on the other side, and (b) the poster is misrepresenting what happened in a way that makes the other side look much worse.

There have been a few cases (including one in which I was involved) where I've had first-hand knowledge of what happened, and knew that (b) was in fact the case.

Sordid personal experience from a couple of years ago:

In one case, a GM and I had a conflict on a PbP game before it started. The GM wasn't letting my character do something according to the rule and was going to charge me much more gold for something than he was supposed to. I said this wasn't the rule, that the GM was actually violating campaign rules, and that I would drop out of the game if he stood on it. The GM started a very sarcastic thread pillorying me without specifics. Lots of others jumped on the opportunity to pillory an anonymous "problem player"... until I jumped in and stated what had actually happened. Not only had the GM misrepresented what I'd said, but also the GM's call was wrong, and people generally recognized that once they found out what the actual rules disagreement was. Then, people started getting annoyed that the GM had suckered them into pillorying somebody with a misrepresentation. Before long, Paizo closed down the thread. None of this should have happened in the first place.

Given this, whenever somebody posts a personal conflict that even a little bit seems to be inviting people to pile upon a second party who isn't present, it's not surprising that many people get cautious, and that doubling down on that tends to reflect more poorly on the original poster than on the person the original poster was complaining about. This is the Internet. These kinds of things need to be approached with care if you don't want them to turn into one of several typical forms of dump-session or flamewar.

If you have a general question, ask a general question without reference to an individual GM you have a complaint about.

If you have a personal problem with another player, deal with it through the standard channels rather than a public forum.

1/5

Keith Apperson wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

Incorrect. I am not asking to any of that. I am asking for guidance on how to handle issues that seem to conflict the rules.

"It depends" is the same as I don't know or I don't care. It provides no guidance on how to handle the issue.

All I want is general guidance on how to handle this type of issue. The issue being "Is it okay to move a final encounter that has been spefically written to take place in a certain area or not?"

I would hope to see...

You really seem to be ignoring all of the explaining going on after the 'It depends' answers if you think the people replying 'don't care' or 'don't know'.

As a GM, you get to use Judgement, which is difficult at times. You may get things wrong. Your players might question you. Heck, you may GM a session then see the next day a post on the forums just like this - someone questioning what their GM (you) did without understanding. It's part of the risk and reward of GMing.

So yes - the final answer is, on top of all of the other responses in this thread - It Depends.

I am not ignoring it. It is leaving more confused than guiding on how to handle the issue. To keep repeating it after I tried to simplify the question shows a "I don't care/I don't know" attitude.

I don't know how you all want me to phase the question so "The Forums" don't feel I am throwing the GM the bus, and are then willing to provide me with the general guidance.

Seems to me "The Forums" needs to create a sticky thread on how they want questions to be phased.

1/5

rknop wrote:

It's not all that uncommon that somebody posts a thread on these forums describing a disagreement or even conflict with another individual in PFS.

Invariably, the most level heads in the conversation say:


  • If you're the player and you had an issue with the GM, talk to the GM.
  • If you're not satisfied after that, or your not comfortable with it, talk to your local VL or VC
  • If you're not satisfied after that, then either accept it, or, if you really think it's a big deal, email the campaign coordinator. Be aware that the campaign is huge and there's only one coordinator, so you don't want to overwhelm him with details.

Often posters are frustrated when the others in the thread don't accept their version. This is the nature of the beast. Especially if it's a one-on-one conflict, there are two sides to it, and it's entirely possible that (a) the poster isn't aware of what's on the other side, and (b) the poster is misrepresenting what happened in a way that makes the other side look much worse.

There have been a few cases (including one in which I was involved) where I've had first-hand knowledge of what happened, and knew that (b) was in fact the case.

** spoiler omitted **...

I thought by not naming names and giving specifics I was doing that. I thought by actually stating that I have no intention of reporting the GM, who made the decision, was so that answer given were only to me and how I should issue. I thought stating that I was not accusing the GM of anything showed that I wasn't concern about the GM's running, but about the issue that came up.

I thought asking a question that didn't accuse of anything nor express any personal feelings would show that all I want is an answer to the question at hand.

I don't see how asking a general question on how "the rules" are interpreted and providing an example of why I am asking, means that I am accusing someone of something. To assume that this is what I am doing should reflect poorly on those assuming it not on me for asking.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

If you're solely looking for guidance on what you should do as a GM, then that answer was given long ago.

"It depends".

It's an empowering answer, not a restrictive answer. You have the power to change things if needed.

It sounded as though you were looking for guidance on what to do should another GM run a scenario differently, and so we were answering that question.

And the answer to that is still "Talk to the GM".

You obviously don't like that answer, but it's the answer nonetheless. Walking away with the belief that the GM did something wrong is not the answer.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's rather disappointing to see an honest question result in recriminations and accusations.

@jtaylor73003.

To answer your good faith question, a GM should not change anything in the scenario that may materially affect the outcome without justification. Yes, if your area is giving a GM workshop, this should be discussed. As someone mentioned earlier, there are reasons a GM may change things, but these should generally be objectively verifiable.

I did not read your spoiler as I do not want to spoil the scenario, but if there are no parameters for changing the scenario and no IC basis for changing the scenario, then it should not have been done.

As far as comments by other posters, you're going to find that the majority of people who post on these forums more strongly identify with the GM side of things. As such, they have a communal interest in protecting the rights of GMs and they discourage the practice of questioning GMs. I personally want and encourage players to inform me of my mistakes. I have zero issue with players questioning my interpretation of the rules. Naturally the issue is how one does it, not if one does it.

From my perspective, many of the responses here have simply ignored the basis of your question and focused on their pro-GM advocacy. You'll need to take special care when you ask questions that involve the decisions of GMs as they will solicit the knee-jerk responses that seek to protect the sanctity of the GM's right to make judgment calls. To wit, many of the responses here focus on resolving the issue when it was clear from your responses that you're not trying to resolve anything with said GM nor are you seeking any redress.

I take your question at face value: can the GM change location on a whim? The answer is no.

5/5 *****

N N 959 wrote:
From my perspective, many of the responses here have simplify ignored the basis of your question and focused on their pro-GM advocacy. You'll need to take special care when you ask questions that involve the decisions of GMs as they will solicit the knee-jerk responses that seek to protect the sanctity of the GM's right to make judgment calls. To wit, many of the responses here focus on resolving the issue when it was clear from your responses that you're not trying to resolve anything with said GM nor are you seeking any redress.

If you had actually read the thread rather than engaging in your own tired and repetitive anti GM stance you would realise that multiple people have already given the answer below.

Quote:
I take your question at face value: can the GM change location on a whim? The answer is no.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

If you're solely looking for guidance on what you should do as a GM, then that answer was given long ago.

"It depends".

It's an empowering answer, not a restrictive answer. You have the power to change things if needed.

This makes me wonder why my stating the "it depends, change things if needed, here's the most common causes of need" policy as the guiding policy isn't the policy to apply?

It ignores things outside the appropriate purview of policy of the campaign, like venue emergencies... but those're policy exceptions anyway.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

It's not. We're on the same page here.

jtaylor73003 only quoted a small section of what you stated.

My reply was in regards to that selective reading and the emphasis that was being placed on it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Yeah, not sure why the other 20 times people basically said what nefreet said wasn't good enough. Maybe nefreet said it in a way the OO could understand. And if so. I'm glad he finally understood the answer manybof us already articulated.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's written in my statblock:

Bestiary 5 wrote:

Human commoner 1/expert 1

LN Medium humanoid (Californian)
Init +1; Senses Perception +5
Aura ignore him (10 ft.)

5/5 5/55/55/5

Good reasons to change the location:

The PCs have invalidated the plan and gone off the rails.

Bad reasons to change the location

I want to kill the characters
I want to kill the players.
I want to kill the characters

Its going to happen reasons to change the location

I spent 5 minutes drawing this pretty map and you talked past the encounter. We're fighting the next battle here dammit!

10:30...dammit, store closes at 11. Guess what, this room looks JUST like that one...

The map says you come out at point M and the monster leaves his cave walking west at a steady pace of 30 feet a round. PCs leaving the venture captains office at 10:45 heading east. At what point do the two monsters mee..screw it, you're here.

The map says you're here, the text says you're here,

I got the scenario this morning. you're fighting a shadow in the bungalow...oh no wait, it says you're fighting a shadow and grindylow...

Ok, to draw the next room on the map i need to extend the map onto your core rulebook there.. don't move your elbow the marker will wash out tomorrow, promise..

Grand Lodge

I just got done playing at a local con this weekend. Pathfinder Society Scenario #6–16: Scions of the Sky Key, Part 3: The Golden Guardian

I believe we are talking about the same con.

The GM who run it seemed like the kind that would prefer to play than run , but all in all it was very fun game .

Community Manager

Removed a couple of posts. Let's be positive and open-minded folks.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

jtaylor73003 wrote:
but I did prepare to run it so it was fresh in my mind when I played it later in the weekend.

Aside from not knowing the reasons behind the other GM's decision, I think the part above sort of suggests a few reasons he might have 'changed things up'.

Second guessing a GM because you have thoroughly read a scenario in advance is not entirely being supportive of fellow GM's.

Personally I welcome his change.

Doesn't break the scenario, and prevents meta from certain players.

1/5

andreww wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
From my perspective, many of the responses here have simplify ignored the basis of your question and focused on their pro-GM advocacy. You'll need to take special care when you ask questions that involve the decisions of GMs as they will solicit the knee-jerk responses that seek to protect the sanctity of the GM's right to make judgment calls. To wit, many of the responses here focus on resolving the issue when it was clear from your responses that you're not trying to resolve anything with said GM nor are you seeking any redress.

If you had actually read the thread rather than engaging in your own tired and repetitive anti GM stance you would realise that multiple people have already given the answer below.

Quote:
I take your question at face value: can the GM change location on a whim? The answer is no.

Hmm, while correct responses to what was actually being asked can be found in this thread, they are quite heavily buried under all the posts discussing whether and how the GM should "be reported".

Anyway, as andreww has stated, locations of encounters should not be changed. If the players significantly deviate from the path, the best solution is to try to carefully guide them back. If they remain off course, the GM then needs to carefully consider whether any of the encounters can legitimately be shifted, without directly contradicting the scenario and also without changing the difficulty of the encounter.

This should be a last resort and not something done on a whim.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:
If the players significantly deviate from the path, the best solution is to try to carefully guide them back. If they remain off course, the GM then needs to carefully consider whether any of the encounters can legitimately be shifted, without directly contradicting the scenario and also without changing the difficulty of the encounter.

Shrug. This is very dependent on the GM. I am happy to "play the ball where it lies" and let players wander off-book, if that's what they want to do. The PCs' decisions might change encounters ("you want to negotiate safe passage with the lizardfolk?") make encounters more or less difficult (of course, making them less difficult is a character goal...) or even add encounters ("you're drawing steel on the city guard?") IfI can jigger and poke the storyline back into the intended encounters, excellent, but that's not my primary goal. My primary goals are to make sure everybody has fun and to be fair.

4/5 *

With Liz's request to be open-minded, I have changed what I was going to say. (She's a good influence!)

The GM is, like it or not, an ambassador for the entire game for those players at the table. We have rules for ensuring that GMs don't abuse their position of power by trying to "beat" the PCs. As GMs, we also have the responsibility to adapt to what the players do.

If we really wanted everyone to have a perfectly balanced experience, we would remove the dice rolling and give players multiple choice instead of free will. One crit or failed save alters the game balance much more than anything I have ever see a PFS GM do, even when they have crossed the line of what they can legally change.

This is part of the game. If a person doesn't like this aspect of the game, they probably won't enjoy the game, and neither will all of the players who play at their table.

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Byakko wrote:
If the players significantly deviate from the path, the best solution is to try to carefully guide them back. If they remain off course, the GM then needs to carefully consider whether any of the encounters can legitimately be shifted, without directly contradicting the scenario and also without changing the difficulty of the encounter.
Shrug. This is very dependent on the GM. I am happy to "play the ball where it lies" and let players wander off-book, if that's what they want to do. The PCs' decisions might change encounters ("you want to negotiate safe passage with the lizardfolk?") make encounters more or less difficult (of course, making them less difficult is a character goal...) or even add encounters ("you're drawing steel on the city guard?") IfI can jigger and poke the storyline back into the intended encounters, excellent, but that's not my primary goal. My primary goals are to make sure everybody has fun and to be fair.

Don't get me wrong, I totally endorse this sort of thing and love it when players wander and do crazy things. Still, there's only so much flexibility in organized play where if the players decide to travel to a remote place (not even mentioned by the scenario) they're pretty much done with the adventure.

However, I think we can also agree that what an experienced GM can do with a table of fun and flexible players may be a bit beyond what should be recommended and advocated as general practice considering the PFS guidelines.
For example, I could very easily see the "you're drawing steel on the city guard?" turning into a bad situation if an inexperienced GM decides this gives him free creative license on statting up whatever he likes to kill you with.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "you're drawing steel on the city guard" turned into a bad situation the moment the player drew steel... I'm pretty sure the "run as written" rule does not exempt characters from the consequences of their actions.

1/5

The question then becomes, exactly how strong are the guards in a medium sized town?

Perhaps there's some official guidelines somewhere, but you're liable to experience HUGE table variation ranging all the way from pushover level 2 soldiers up to squads of high level fighters.

Granted, there may be after scenario ramifications for taking out a town's guards, but I could see such a course of action potentially justified in some scenarios, especially if non-lethal force is used.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread and Mike's response in it might give you some insight on this.

Grand Lodge 4/5

trollbill wrote:
This thread and Mike's response in it might give you some insight on this.

In addition, I can think of at least one scenario where you might encounter the town guards, and it explains their stats, and what happens when (not if) the PCs get captured if they don't get out of Dodge quickly. The guard encounters start out fairly easy, but have additional reinforcements coming in every so often, and those reinforcements, IIRC, get tougher each time.

scenario name:
It is one of the Shades of Ice series scenarios, the one where you have to go into Whitethrone. 2-17: Shades of Ice, Part 2: Exiles of Winter.

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
The "you're drawing steel on the city guard" turned into a bad situation the moment the player drew steel... I'm pretty sure the "run as written" rule does not exempt characters from the consequences of their actions.

Or "You're drawing steel on the Chelish embassy guards?"

Yeah, that ended well.

1/5

Many seem to be of the opinion that most towns will have ways of dealing with high level adventurers.

I wonder just how common high level individuals really are in most non-capitol/legendary locations, however. A team of high level (10th+) pathfinders might be extremely rare and powerful. If they decided to go on a rampage, perhaps little could stop them until a special task force is assembled by a major government/organization.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Byakko wrote:

Many seem to be of the opinion that most towns will have ways of dealing with high level adventurers.

I wonder just how common high level individuals really are in most non-capitol/legendary locations, however. A team of high level (10th+) pathfinders might be extremely rare and powerful. If they decided to go on a rampage, perhaps little could stop them until a special task force is assembled by a major government/organization.

If they go on a rampage, it's going to be pretty short. The PC's are going to get mobbed by numbers, regardless of level. If the PC's want to just sit around and fight an endless mob of town guards, then perhaps a home game would be more their speed. Check out Mike Brock's post linked to upthread for a better summary of what should happen.

5/5

UndeadMitch wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Many seem to be of the opinion that most towns will have ways of dealing with high level adventurers.

I wonder just how common high level individuals really are in most non-capitol/legendary locations, however. A team of high level (10th+) pathfinders might be extremely rare and powerful. If they decided to go on a rampage, perhaps little could stop them until a special task force is assembled by a major government/organization.

If they go on a rampage, it's going to be pretty short. The PC's are going to get mobbed by numbers, regardless of level. If the PC's want to just sit around and fight an endless mob of town guards, then perhaps a home game would be more their speed. Check out Mike Brock's post linked to upthread for a better summary of what should happen.

The village rounds up every house cat in a 20 mile radius. The PCs don't stand a chance.

4/5

jtaylor73003 wrote:

I like to post again. I am not accusing the GM of doing anything but making a decision. I don't want to accuse the GM of doing anything or report the GM. I am trying to learn how the PFS community sees issues of conflict when their our difference of opinions between GM decisions and/or rules. I want to learn from this, and be a better GM. I would like my VC to address this issue, if it is an issue, to my group when holds the GM workshop to make us all better GMs.

I understand it is hard to form an opinion about an event you weren't at, but I think certain generalities could be formed. I prefer to be proactive instead reactive. I hope this clears up any confusion of what I am ultimately looking for.

Did you do any of the encounters other than the last fight?

Or was your whole scenario just walk into the first room and only fight the last encounter?

1/5

Mulgar wrote:
jtaylor73003 wrote:

I like to post again. I am not accusing the GM of doing anything but making a decision. I don't want to accuse the GM of doing anything or report the GM. I am trying to learn how the PFS community sees issues of conflict when their our difference of opinions between GM decisions and/or rules. I want to learn from this, and be a better GM. I would like my VC to address this issue, if it is an issue, to my group when holds the GM workshop to make us all better GMs.

I understand it is hard to form an opinion about an event you weren't at, but I think certain generalities could be formed. I prefer to be proactive instead reactive. I hope this clears up any confusion of what I am ultimately looking for.

Did you do any of the encounters other than the last fight?

Or was your whole scenario just walk into the first room and only fight the last encounter?

Sorry about not responding. I took a break from this thread because felt like I spent more time defending my question instead of getting an answer I could understand.

Yes we did all encounters up to the last fight. Hence why I didn't include the info. The GM moved the last fight from one area to another area without the players input at all. That was the GMs decision. I just wanted to know if this decision was allowed compare to what the rules seem to say, and the fact that the rules seem to strictly apply to the players. The post that trollbill links to shows how strict those rules can be on players, to the point of losing their characters. I find it hard as I try to guide newer players and gms when seems like none of the rules truly apply to the GM as a whole.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why that's hard. As a player, you have certain responsibilities and duties. As the GM, you have others. One of the jobs of a GM is to give the players a fun time.

Some GMs use their discretion to change inconsequential details to give players a better time. Others don't. Either is correct.

GMs get into trouble when the changes aren't inconsequential.

Shadow Lodge

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Yes we did all encounters up to the last fight. Hence why I didn't include the info. The GM moved the last fight from one area to another area without the players input at all. That was the GMs decision. I just wanted to know if this decision was allowed compare to what the rules seem to say, and the fact that the rules seem to strictly apply to the players. The post that trollbill links to shows how strict those rules can be on players, to the point of losing their characters. I find it hard as I try to guide newer players and gms when seems like none of the rules truly apply to the GM as a whole.
Here's how it is (as stated by several other posts):
  • Generally speaking, you should not change the adventure
  • There are, however, perfectly valid and acceptable reasons for making such a change.
  • Without any input on why your GM changed your adventure, the community can't tell if did so for a valid reason or not.

I am not familiar with the adventure in question, but from what you have posted, it sounds like somebody screwed up and the GM attempted to fix things by moving the final confrontation:

  • Either the GM seriously messed up and didn't trigger the encounter when you entered the right zone, or
  • The players missed the final confrontation zone entirely before deciding to leave.

Now, generally speaking, if you miss the final encounter, your mission is a failure. I presume the GM decided that moving the encounter was preferable to just sending everyone back to the society with (metaphorical) egg on their faces:
  • if you win, then adventure complete! Rewards All Around!
  • If you wipe, he could declare an error on his part and not report the adventure.
  • If you win but lose characters in the process, well, then things get messy again...

Of course, lacking any information from the GM, this is all a complete guess on my part: Maybe he was attempting to salvage an adventure gone wrong, or maybe he just wanted to kill your characters...

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

I don't understand why that's hard. As a player, you have certain responsibilities and duties. As the GM, you have others. One of the jobs of a GM is to give the players a fun time.

Some GMs use their discretion to change inconsequential details to give players a better time. Others don't. Either is correct.

GMs get into trouble when the changes aren't inconsequential.

You don't understand why what is hard??? If I personally don't understand the answers I ask for clarification till I do, and if you are unable to clarify then I will continue to not understand your answer. I tried clarifying the question in previous posts, but wasn't getting many more clearer answers. So I left confused, and mainly upset that I had defend my question instead finding an answer.

I think you are forgetting that one of the Society responsibilities is trust that it creates between GM and Player. I always looked at organize play different from home game in that the GM has to follow a set of rules like the player does. I am quickly learning this isn't so, and beginning to lose trust in the people who run the Society as a whole.

You say that GMs can change inconsequential things, but what is inconsequential to one isn't to another. I personally believe changing the area of a final encounter to be one of those things that aren't inconsequential. I personally would avoid doing so, but I am not Pathfinder Society. I posted this thread to find out if this was just an inconsequential thing or a major "no no", so I could be a better GM. I been left confused.

Finally I ask you this, if player has no knowledge that GM change something and there had been a player death, party death, or party failure how would they know to do anything about it? To them they died at the final encounter because they would falsely believed that they made a mistake. In my personal example one new almost did die a perment death, and I sitting there thinking what do I do if he does die. Do I let the GM continue and give him a chronicle even though the GM change a major part of the game? Do I speak up to the Venture captain, and invalidate 5 hours of gameplay because one player died? Luckily the player didn't, and I left with the "no harm, no foul" statement.

There is a lot trust given to a GM. I just wondering, as GM, what rules the Society expects us to follow to earn that trust.

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Changing the location of the last encounter in a scenario All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.