|
Hi All.
I've been playing RPGs for years. I started with Fighting Fantasy, moved on to Basic D&D, then Advanced D&D, then designed many systems of my own. I now develop and sell my own RPG as well as GM Dark Heresy. I have a HDD fill of MANY different RPGs.
The reason I love RPGs is because of the story element and the versatility involved. I've been a GM for a REALLY long time.
Now, there was a message on FaceBook asking for GMs for a convention near me. Not knowing anything about PFS I thought it would simply be running some friendly games. So I replied and said I would be happy to.
1) I then got asked to sign up on Paizo and get an ID. Okay. No problem. Done.
2) He then told me to select from the available modules and I asked what about designing my own? He said it's not allowed for PFS. Okay... Picked some adventures that seemed role-play focused.
3) He also told me changes are not allowed and gameplay is very strict and to the book. So I downloaded and looked at the PFS Guild Guide and gave it a read. Okay... Seriously doubting if I want to run any games now...
+++
I'm not sure if I've got the wrong impression, but I'm both a writer and game designer and PFS organized play seems extremely restrictive on creativity and fun. And, to be honest, is really making me doubt whether I would enjoy running games. I get the need to keep everything fair for everyone that plays PFS organized play across the world, but Isn't it supposed to be about fun and adventure?
Am I missing something? Will I even enjoy running PFS games? Am I misunderstanding how PFS works?
Anyways, thanks for any input. Highly appreciated.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Organized play is a different beast than home games. We give up a measure of freedom to ensure a campaign with thousands and thousands of players can run smoothly. It's not for everyone, and no one will think less of you if you do not want to spend your time in PFS. I would recommend playing and/or running at least one session to see if you can put up with the restrictions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The constraint on PFS, as was the case (AIUI) with Living Greyhawk before it, is that you have a very large number of people running, and playing in, the same scenarios, and one of the design goals is that to the extent possible two players who have played the same scenario under different GMs will have had some approximation of the same experience. That drives the restrictions you saw. Lots of people play it and enjoy it--I certainly do, and the majority of players in my PFS games here have come back for more games*--but it's sometimes not easy to run a scenario that you'd really like to mess with because as written it has holes.
*Maybe that's just how desperate they are for GMs?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
You might ask around for scenarios that give more flexibility to the players. I can speak for #7-10, The Consortium Compact. As an evergreen/replay scenario, it is designed to allow the PCs a great deal of choice and creativity in how they tackle their objectives, and even which objectives they seek to complete.
Like most other scenarios, however, there is a set "plot" and you won't have the ability to deviate from that. Rather than say you should give up and run your own non-PFS games, I'd suggest that you take some time and look around at the scenarios available. Given the sheer number of them, there's a high likelihood that you'll find one that fits what you have in mind.
|
|
So what do I do if players rabbit trail? Simply say: "Sorry. This is FPS play. Not allowed." Or do players come in knowing that they will be confined by the scenario?
EDIT: The scenarios I picked were -
#7-14: Faithless and Forgotten, Part 1
#5-02: The Wardstone Patrol
#6-22: Out of Anarchy
(They seemed interesting and came recommended - though I wont get to see them until he adds them to me - and the descriptions on the season scenarios doesn't seem to give that much info...)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what do I do if players rabbit trail?
Tell them what they find. Usually, they find nothing. If they are far afield and run into NPCs, roleplay accordingly. This can eat up a lot of time, but players will usually realize they are not progressing towards their goal. You can also use those NPCs to steer them back to the written parts of the scenario. It's amazing how off script a table can get only to somehow giant-frog themselves right to where they need to be.
For a better idea of how scenarios are written, there is the First Steps series in the Free Products section that you can download without charge.
|
|
So what do I do if players rabbit trail?Tell them what they find. Usually, they find nothing. If they are far afield and run into NPCs, roleplay accordingly. This can eat up a lot of time, but players will usually realize they are not progressing towards their goal. You can also use those NPCs to steer them back to the written parts of the scenario. It's amazing how off script a table can get only to somehow giant-frog themselves right to where they need to be.
For a better idea of how scenarios are written, there is the First Steps series in the Free Products section that you can download without charge.
Thanks Steven. I still don't quite get it though. If I'm not allowed to add items and such things outside of what is offered in the scenario, doesn't that render rabbit-trailing moot?
I mean, I guess it will require all sorts of creative ways to say "no" without actually saying it. But in the end players eventually will realise that they can't do anything outside of the scenario?
It feels like there's no freedom in FPS play and that's the whole reason I enjoy GMing and running RPGs.
I'm not trying to put down PFS play, I'm just trying to decide if it's still something I want to help out with.
I'm also getting the impression that with PFS play the players and GM need to go in with the understanding of the limitations and work with them rather than against them in order to have fun?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a perfectly valid concern. Thanks for taking the inquisitive route rather than the derisive one!
Generally speaking, you can add non-mechanical features as needed. Most scenarios that involve investigation include some helpful local personalities as options to enhance the roleplay, but you aren't limited to just those. As long as the party isn't grabbing free magic items that the scenario doesn't have, you should be fine.
As for not being able to do anything outside the scenario, that's not true. The party can go carouse around the town or explore the local crypt all they want. What they can't do is earn any chronicle rewards or substantial loot from it. (Anything they find goes away at the end of the session, after all.) This doesn't mean they can't pickpocket the local merchant, it just means they won't get much out of doing it besides the roleplaying satisfaction.
What, specifically, are you concerned about not being able to do? I think we've covered the generalities, but if those aren't assuaging your doubts, I'm not sure what other advice I can offer.
|
At the beginning of each scenario, there is a section where the players get their mission briefing. Generally it's some muckity-muck from the Pathfinder Society telling the characters "Go to Place A, meet up with Person B, perform tasks C, D, and E, then report back to Person B." A rather clear and definite path for the players to take.
Of course, then you get to Place A and Person B is already in hiding so you have to go to Place R to get the info about sneaking in to Place F to speak to Person Z, whom you have to convince to give up Item Q... and so on and so on.
You have some flexibility with regards to the role play aspect, and if your players find creative solutions to problems most certainly role with it. While the monsters, items, and rewards are pretty set in stone, the PCs can come up with ways around them, or things to bypass them, or any one of a thousand different ways to try to get around it.
|
|
Why don't you play a few games of PFS before GMing? You seem to have a lot of theoretical panic over PFS that would likely be assuaged by simply sitting down and having the practical experience of seeing how the games run.So what do I do if players rabbit trail?Tell them what they find. Usually, they find nothing. If they are far afield and run into NPCs, roleplay accordingly. This can eat up a lot of time, but players will usually realize they are not progressing towards their goal. You can also use those NPCs to steer them back to the written parts of the scenario. It's amazing how off script a table can get only to somehow giant-frog themselves right to where they need to be.
For a better idea of how scenarios are written, there is the First Steps series in the Free Products section that you can download without charge.
Thanks Steven. I still don't quite get it though. If I'm not allowed to add items and such things outside of what is offered in the scenario, doesn't that render rabbit-trailing moot?
I mean, I guess it will require all sorts of creative ways to say "no" without actually saying it. But in the end players eventually will realise that they can't do anything outside of the scenario?
It feels like there's no freedom in FPS play and that's the whole reason I enjoy GMing and running RPGs.
I'm not trying to put down PFS play, I'm just trying to decide if it's still something I want to help out with.
I'm also getting the impression that with PFS play the players and GM need to go in with the understanding of the limitations and work with them rather than against them in order to have fun?
Thanks. It's not really panic, and I've never really enjoyed PCing. I just got a little worried after reading the guild guide and also some stuff I've read from newcomers to FPS play. It made me weary of committing for the convention and being stuck bored.
Though I've also read some good things about FPS and I'm thinking maybe you're right and I'm just over-analysing way too much.
Thanks everyone for the input. :-) Much appreciated.
|
|
It's a perfectly valid concern. Thanks for taking the inquisitive route rather than the derisive one!
Generally speaking, you can add non-mechanical features as needed. Most scenarios that involve investigation include some helpful local personalities as options to enhance the roleplay, but you aren't limited to just those. As long as the party isn't grabbing free magic items that the scenario doesn't have, you should be fine.
As for not being able to do anything outside the scenario, that's not true. The party can go carouse around the town or explore the local crypt all they want. What they can't do is earn any chronicle rewards or substantial loot from it. (Anything they find goes away at the end of the session, after all.) This doesn't mean they can't pickpocket the local merchant, it just means they won't get much out of doing it besides the roleplaying satisfaction.
What, specifically, are you concerned about not being able to do? I think we've covered the generalities, but if those aren't assuaging your doubts, I'm not sure what other advice I can offer.
Thanks again. You've been very helpful and I'm pretty much okay now from your reply.
The thing that was bugging me was that I got the impression that doing things out of scenario were forbidden.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Craig! Hope you have fun at your local Con, and if you have any further questions please shoot them up here.
First of all--you're correct. PFS does limit mechanical changes to scenarios. You cannot add enemies, you cannot add loot. You can change flavor to accommodate storytelling as needed. The reason it does this is because PFS is a massive world-wide organized play community.
And this is because in any organized play environment, not all the GMs are as seasoned as you. Imagine all the people you've ever played an RPG with, all the tropes any RPG GM book points out--the newbie, the stubborn guy, the annoying person, the forceful friend, the powergamer, the brand new GM, etc--they all are PFS participants in one way or another, as are experienced people like you. It's just what happens when you catch such a wide net and include everyone. You get everyone. That's not necessarily bad, mind you, but it is what it is.
And because of that, the system can't be structured to assume that experienced people are always going to be the GM. Instead, we have the hard and fast rules of "run combats as written," and "follow this guide," so that when people play with rougher GMs or less desirable players, everyone can still have a good experience because the scenarios follow a fairly balanced formula and GMs aren't allowed to adjust that.
It's a difficult balance to maintain, and while no system is perfect this one has developed a massive community of over 100,000 participants or something like that; check your PFS#, then realize all the people that have registered before you. That's a lot of people.
So that does kind of suck for experienced folk like you. I imagine that you can balance fun and difficulty, and were we playing Dark Heresy together I'd allow you--a huge amount of that game relies on the GM to know what they're doing. But we can't assume that in PFS.
The good news though, is that you have a strong background with one of my favorite publishers--Fantasy Flight--and one of my favorite systems--Dark Heresy--so you're well versed in thinking on the fly and presenting information to your players in exciting ways that will get them engaged, even if you know "behind the scenes" that the challenges are nominal. So bring that same heat to the table, even if you are reading from a script.
Even though I'm a dedicated campaign participant and volunteer and have been for about 5 years, I don't believe that PFS should replace all forms of roleplaying or gaming. I do believe that PFS serves as a reliable alternative great for many reasons. It gets people playing RPGs that never have before. It gets people GMing RPGs that never have before (because it's so structured). It's also introduced me to a lot of great individuals (a lot of my close friends now) and allowed me to share in hundreds of different amazing stories. Also every other system or non-PFS Pathfinder game I play these days I play with other PFS participants. We all enjoy PFS, but it's not all we do.
So I hope that you give it a shot, despite your reservations, and give your players those memorable experiences that would honor the God Emperor. Like I said before, if you have any other questions, ask away--we're happy to answer them! :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks again. You've been very helpful and I'm pretty much okay now from your reply.
The thing that was bugging me was that I got the impression that doing things out of scenario were forbidden.
I would say only if those things were deliberately harmful to the table. The 'run as written' rule is in response to GMs who added monsters and traps not in the scenario to 'make it more challenging' and ended up causing a lot of angry players who felt cheated when their characters died and couldn't complete the scenario.
You only get one shot at a fresh adventure, and to learn that you missed out on the finale or other parts because the GM added to it can sting. In a home game, additional rewards can be added to offset that wound, but in organized play we are stuck with a finite amount.
I myself have had to be careful about embellishing the text with further descriptions, as some players will spend finite resources on those additions and reduce their capability to accomplish the actual scenario.
Sometimes, it's a good way to emphasize the resource-management part of the game. Sometimes not. Part of GMing is knowing how to balance that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which leads to a interesting idea I just though of.
Every time I played a scenario that the GM made major changes (against PFS rules) it always took away from the fun as a player when I later found out what was changed. I feel I signed up to play the scenario so that's what I want to play. I know who these GM's who change things are so now I avoid them when possible. There are only a few that I know off who are still active in PFS. A couple change up things up to increase role playing or expand the scenario by adding a lots of information on the location from a different source and inevitably we always run out of time. I have come across GM's who increase the difficultly mainly because they feel they want to kill PC's. These GM's that I know of have either changed there ways or have stopped playing PFS.
But...if I'm replaying the scenario then I gravitate to these GM's due to I know they will inevitably change the scenario is some fashion. which brings up a point, maybe it should be OK to change up the scenario and announce it as "modified". For example 7-10 could be played in core, normal, or modified mode.
|
|
Now, there was a message on FaceBook asking for GMs for a convention near me. Not knowing anything about PFS I thought it would simply be running some friendly games. So I replied and said I would be happy to.
1) I then got asked to sign up on Paizo and get an ID. Okay. No problem. Done.
2) He then told me to select from the available modules and I asked what about designing my own? He said it's not allowed for PFS. Okay... Picked some adventures that seemed role-play focused.
3) He also told me changes are not allowed and gameplay is very strict and to the book. So I downloaded and looked at the PFS Guild Guide and gave it a read. Okay... Seriously doubting if I want to run any games now...
I would advice playing pfs 3-10 times, minimum, before Dming.
Lets say that you make your own adventure. Its fun, exiting, balanced, with good treasure, and fits the lore of golarion and the rules of the campaign. Fine. no problem, nothing bad would come of it...
But how on earth do we know you can do that? How do we determine that for different values of you? Someone could easily
-Rain a million gold pieces on players
-Let the party turn into kender
-Forcibly turn party members into raccoons
-Kill them all by making level 5 characters fight the tarrasque.
-let everyone in the party have vorpal clubs
-Give out 4 levels of experience for killing 3 fluffy bunnies.
And then the players either upset because they all died, or are walking through the other adventures with gamebreaking amounts of loot.
I get the need to keep everything fair for everyone that plays PFS organized play across the world, but Isn't it supposed to be about fun and adventure?
You can do a lot within the adventure (especially once the PCs go off the rails.) But the focus for fun and creativity really is on the other 6 people at the table.
Am I missing something? Will I even enjoy running PFS games? Am I misunderstanding how PFS works?
Very likely, which is why you should try to play a little bit first.
|
Which leads to a interesting idea I just though of.
Every time I played a scenario that the GM made major changes (against PFS rules) it always took away from the fun as a player when I later found out what was changed. I feel I signed up to play the scenario so that's what I want to play. I know who these GM's who change things are so now I avoid them when possible. There are only a few that I know off who are still active in PFS. A couple change up things up to increase role playing or expand the scenario by adding a lots of information on the location from a different source and inevitably we always run out of time. I have come across GM's who increase the difficultly mainly because they feel they want to kill PC's. These GM's that I know of have either changed there ways or have stopped playing PFS.
But...if I'm replaying the scenario then I gravitate to these GM's due to I know they will inevitably change the scenario is some fashion. which brings up a point, maybe it should be OK to change up the scenario and announce it as "modified". For example 7-10 could be played in core, normal, or modified mode.
I added to "City of Stranger" by adding some of the city stuff described from the campaign book. Copied pictures and showed them. Than told them about a parade they see go by- half the party followed the parade and I was stuck with getting them back on track before time ran out. Home game I dont worry about how much we get through cause can come back to it next time. Organized play must give up somethings to get other things.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a great example told by Spoony.
He told the tale of him GMing some older form of organized play (maybe LG, maybe something else). I his story he complains how it is not fun, not hard enough et cetera and while the encounter in his story IS kinda laughable, it outlines the problem:
In this scenario the PCs were attacked by 3 wizards. These wizards had all prepped magic missile. In the olden days wizards could (so I've been told) cast one spell per day (thus one magic missile per wizard) and every wizard had 4 hp (these wizards had at least).
Not fun because easy, right?
So he changed the spells to - I'm not sure anymore, but at least one wizard had sleep.
He managed to kill two PCs (and got booted from the event).
While I quite like Spoony's tales, this is the exact reason why PFS is what it is. GMs who take up a "them vs. me" mentality are a problem even now in PFS sometimes - could you imagine how horrible it would become if they had free reign? "Oh, the party is quite strong - I'll just add a second orc" can easily escalate to "Ah well, I'll just double the number of demons, they can handle it."
And then one PCs (or even the whole party) dies.
In a home game you can retcon such a thing easily, or introduce a new character at seventh level, so not much is lost. The show goes on.
In organized play you can't. The dead player has to start from scratch.
That said - I've GMed the same scenarios for multiple partys and you'd be surprised how different they try to solve the problems at hand.
It is true that you cannot get too creative with the scenarios themselves - because as other people said not every GM is created equally and there are far more GMs over- than underestimating their skills. Even if you're a perfect GM there have to be rules in place to prevent the bad GMs from screwing things up too badly.
I myself take my fun not only from running combat (I like the tactical aspect) but also from presenting the scenario in a fun way. Describing the places, getting a bit creative with the NPCs (which sometimes necessitates a "Look, time is running short, could you please go back to fetching the MacGuffin and stop trying to learn everything about this NPCs aunt second grade?") and such things while not really deviating from the scenario at hand.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in most home campaigns the PCs goal is far less clear most of the time - most modules I've read start out with the party figuring out what the hell is going on and what they're supposed to do to fix it. In PFS the PCs are pathfinder agents - they get a mission and they have to solve it. They are quite free in how they do it (going full murderhobo, going the diplomatic route, going the stealthy route) sometimes, but they have a clear goal. That alone limits how far they can "stray from the track" because if the group suddenly decides to take off in the other direction they can do that, but they'll fail the mission.
If you love running freehand, getting creative, making your own adventure up on the fly - that's great too. But PFS is probably not the place where you can do that.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read an article by an artist once, when asked about rigid style guidelines and how they stifled creativity, he replied something along the lines of when given no instructions and he can do what he wants he often does nothing - too many options. Creativity can be found by finding the space within the guidelines to make something uniquely yours.
Heavily paraphrased and horribly mangled - it was many moons ago.
I'm not sure it translates to GMing, or helps everyone(anyone), but it stuck with me nonetheless.
|
|
I added to "City of Stranger" by adding some of the city stuff described from the campaign book. Copied pictures and showed them. Than told them about a parade they see go by- half the party followed the parade and I was stuck with getting them back on track before time ran out. Home game I dont worry about how much we get through cause can come back to it next time. Organized play must give up somethings to get other things.Which leads to a interesting idea I just though of.
Every time I played a scenario that the GM made major changes (against PFS rules) it always took away from the fun as a player when I later found out what was changed. I feel I signed up to play the scenario so that's what I want to play. I know who these GM's who change things are so now I avoid them when possible. There are only a few that I know off who are still active in PFS. A couple change up things up to increase role playing or expand the scenario by adding a lots of information on the location from a different source and inevitably we always run out of time. I have come across GM's who increase the difficultly mainly because they feel they want to kill PC's. These GM's that I know of have either changed there ways or have stopped playing PFS.
But...if I'm replaying the scenario then I gravitate to these GM's due to I know they will inevitably change the scenario is some fashion. which brings up a point, maybe it should be OK to change up the scenario and announce it as "modified". For example 7-10 could be played in core, normal, or modified mode.
Adding a little detail is fine but adding entirely new encounter areas even if there is no danger is a limited time slot is what I'm talking about.
Plenty of people—myself included—don't get much out of PFS for exactly the reasons discussed here. What I like about tabletop games is the ability of the GM to adapt and grow away from original plans. There's a feeling of flexibility you simply have to sacrifice for organized play.
Nothing wrong with it. It just doesn't have what I look for in a tabletop RPG.
EDIT: I really, really hesitate to say this, because it's acquired a negative "buzzword" feel I don't like, but: PFSOP is sort of like a video game.
Not in a bad way. It's just that it gives you a preset scenario and there's not much opportunity for deviation from the base rules.
|
|
I read an article by an artist once, when asked about rigid style guidelines and how they stifled creativity, he replied something along the lines of when given no instructions and he can do what he wants he often does nothing - too many options. Creativity can be found by finding the space within the guidelines to make something uniquely yours.
Heavily paraphrased and horribly mangled - it was many moons ago.I'm not sure it translates to GMing, or helps everyone(anyone), but it stuck with me nonetheless.
The Five Obstructions is a documentary that perfectly illustrates that inspiration can spring from restriction.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what do I do if players rabbit trail? Simply say: "Sorry. This is FPS play. Not allowed." Or do players come in knowing that they will be confined by the scenario?
EDIT: The scenarios I picked were -
#7-14: Faithless and Forgotten, Part 1
#5-02: The Wardstone Patrol
#6-22: Out of Anarchy(They seemed interesting and came recommended - though I wont get to see them until he adds them to me - and the descriptions on the season scenarios doesn't seem to give that much info...)
You picked some interesting scenarios...
Faitless and Forgotten 1: Let Bygones Be is a rather simple adventure, but there's a big opportunity there to add Chelaxian flavour. It's all about returning to Cheliax after a long absence. For some players it'll be the first time in the "evil empire". Since the adventure is pretty short, there's also enough time to do that without running beyond the generally preferred length of a game timeslot. I've commented on it extensively in that adventure's GM thread, because I think it's an adventure that stands or falls with the GM "bringing the flavour" quite intentionally.
Wardstone Patrol is another "mood piece" I've GM'ed and the trick to pulling it off is to really get a conversation going with the main NPC. I think that'll work better if you insert a few short non-mechanical scenes where you actually have a discussion between NPC and party about something. When I ran it, that conversation didn't really take off because of going from encounter to encounter. It's also a scenario where the party should be trying to influence him, but as a GM it's important to communicate possibilities the party isn't aware of. It was somewhat tricky to GM because of that.
Out of Anarchy I've only played and as far as I can tell the scenario is a complete mess. It only makes any sense if you've read the background article on the town in Towns (or was it Cities?) of the Inner Sea. Which probably no player has. So the "big reveal" doesn't make any impression and you just want to club that idiot over the head and deport him. I think this adventure went all wrong during writing and should be avoided.
|
|
EDIT: I really, really hesitate to say this, because it's acquired a negative "buzzword" feel I don't like, but: PFSOP is sort of like a video game.
Not in a bad way. It's just that it gives you a preset scenario and there's not much opportunity for deviation from the base rules.
Believe me, you only say this because you've never experienced a player who complains (or tells anecdotes) all the time how this would work in a video game and that you'd only enter the dungeon to kill things and not to discuss anything and that this whole plot is unnecessary and how he'd just replay the scenario to gain the maximum out of it and that he could farm that scenario and how this would work in a video game and how that would work in a video game...
Quite eye-opening in how even PFS is totally not like a video game. ;)
No, I know what you mean. I agree to a certain point. The important words are "sort of", though, because you still have FAR more freedom.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Thanks Steven. I still don't quite get it though. If I'm not allowed to add items and such things outside of what is offered in the scenario, doesn't that render rabbit-trailing moot?
I mean, I guess it will require all sorts of creative ways to say "no" without actually saying it. But in the end players eventually will realise that they can't do anything outside of the scenario?
It feels like there's no freedom in FPS play and that's the whole reason I enjoy GMing and running RPGs.
I'm not trying to put down PFS play, I'm just trying to decide if it's still something I want to help out with.
I'm also getting the impression that with PFS play the players and GM need to go in with the understanding of the limitations and work with them rather than against them in order to have fun?
Let me pitch the flip side of this coin.
I have been playing and GMing almost as long as you have, it sounds like. I often spent upwards of 20 hours a week building background, arranging plots, mapping, and generally developing everything I needed for the game.
Sometimes all that planning then got shoved on the back burner, because someone central to the plot couldn't make it to game, and I had to scramble around what I had left.
And if I got tired of GMing, and needed a break, often the whole game would take a break, and possibly never resume.
On the other hand, with PFS, I can pick up a scenario, spend a couple hours reading, prepping, and making minis, and I am good to go. If I don't feel like GMing, some one else can. If someone doesn't make it, that is fine too. If I am out of town or at a con, I can drop my existing character into a game, and they can make some new friends.
Yeah, it may not be a 4 course meal with 3 different proteins and paired wine, but pizza and beer can be nice too.
Most players are coming into it with the understanding that yeah, this is a shared scenario with limited page count, and if they go too far off script you will nudge them back on. Which isn't saying that they won't come up with some bizarre ways to solve problems.
There was a scenario that is famous for being a bit of a meat grinder, the first fight every time I have seen it run takes from 1 to 1 1/2 hours. (When I played it took nearly 2.) I GMed it, and the players did something unexpected, which essentially resulted in them nuking the fight from orbit, and it was over in half a turn...)
But in the case of blind rabbit holes usually a "okay, you search the basement, but find nothing relevant to your current assignment" usually will get people back on track.
Also, out of anarchy is awesome *if run well.* (If run poorly, it makes absolutely no sense at all.) make sure you read up on the town in question, so that you can help set the action into the context. Of course, it also helps if the PCs have the resources to find out what the heck is going on... But to some extent, that is their problem, not yours :)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
EDIT: I really, really hesitate to say this, because it's acquired a negative "buzzword" feel I don't like, but: PFSOP is sort of like a video game.
I disagree. You cannot *contradict* the rules, but there are wide swaths where the GM can fill in what the rules do not cover, which is very unlike a video game. Further, players are permitted and encouraged to come up with clever solutions outside the scenario, and GMs are instructed to reward that.
I find that most of the people who protest that PFS is mechanistic and videogamy, either are trying to force other people too accept their interpretation of a rule, or trying to get a rule changed because it is "broken" (Which often involves selecting an extreme interpretation of that rule, and then asserting that that interpretation is the only one, and that you are forced to use that interpretation in PFS.)
In fact, very first sentence in the guide regarding table variation is:
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script.
Note *even, balanced* not identical.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I personally also enjoy the somewhat gamey aspect of PFS. There is a definite sense of "winning" a scenario as a player, measured in how much you meet the success conditions. Likewise, the "hoops" you jump through can be a bit formulaic at times, but also fun. If everyone else at the table is groaning because the writer set up some awful situation, it's really sweet to pull a buff spell (fly, dimension door, greater invisibility, freedom of movement) and "free" one of the other PCs to go to town on the opposition.
There are many other fun aspects in PFS, but gameyness isn't all bad either.
|
|
I'll pretty much second what Jared said. PFS doesn't have the freedom of building a campaign (or even an Adventure Path).
But what it does have is a lighter commitment at times. And the possibility of joining games almost anywhere.
I've been playing and GMing since AD&D, I've been in games in AD&D, most of the 3.x, 4.0, Vampires the Masquerade, Changeling and some others. I've played homebrew campaigns using the White Wolf system that were amazing. But I can't count the number of failed campaigns and such I've been a part of because some life event or unreliable person can't do it. Not to mention burn-out, and players not understanding what they had gotten themselves into. PFS gives me an outlet to play and GM when I want (depending on where you are this can be more or less true). I've played an online game run by a guy in Germany. I'm currently playing in a play-by-post run by someone on the West Coast of the U.S., with a player from Australia (IIRC), and a Brazilian. I've gone to major cons for little coast to myself and (hopefully) provided good experiences for players from around the U.S. and further. The 4-5 hour scenario is more like a one-shot game it's what you have to work with and there are some fairly strict limitations to what you can do so that everyone gets a similar experience, but a good GM makes the games their own and much more enjoyable for everyone at the table.
In the end, it's not the only style of play out there, and it doesn't offer everything, but what it does offer it does well (IMO). Not to mention it's a great way to meet people who want to play RPGs and may fit into a home game. In fact, mostly from people I know through PFS I've played in 4 home games (2 Paizo 64 pg. modules, Reign of Winter, and Giantslayer) that have been far more successful than others I tried locally.
--My 2cp.
|
|
I added to "City of Stranger" by adding some of the city stuff described from the campaign book. Copied pictures and showed them. Than told them about a parade they see go by- half the party followed the parade and I was stuck with getting them back on track before time ran out. Home game I dont worry about how much we get through cause can come back to it next time. Organized play must give up somethings to get other things.
Bolding for emphasis, this is a risk, and one of the reasons for constraint on PFS judges, players come to PFS with an expectation of a fun role playing experience and an opportunity to advanced their characters through personality development, wealth accumulation and experience. They also (through success/failure and reporting) have a chance to have an impact on the over arching campaign. If the judge leads them on a romp that is far a field of the written module, they may enjoy the role playing experience, and they may develop their characters, but your can't reward them with wealth, experience or prestige for objectives of the scenario. They don't contribute to the shared campaign, and you don't get another session next time to get them.
Loss of macro level creative freedom does not prevent your from (nor relieve your from the duty) of creating novel NPC dialog, reacting to the situations the players give you, or breathing your personal creativity into the shared campaign.
In the end it is a concession, both players, and judges make to be a part of something much larger. The role you take as a PFS judge says as much in the name, you are not the game master, but the judge, you judge the rules, while the game master is some conglomeration of the campaign staff and writers. That doesn't make PFS their campaign, any more than being the GM of your local group makes it your campaign, this is OUR campaign, and to make all that work.
This isn't everyones cup of tea, but I recommend trying it, it has a unique flavour.
As for more open ended scenarios:
#7-12 – The Twisted Circle
#6-22 – Out of Anarchy
#4-09 – The Blakros Matrimony
|
|
Plenty of people—myself included—don't get much out of PFS for exactly the reasons discussed here. What I like about tabletop games is the ability of the GM to adapt and grow away from original plans. There's a feeling of flexibility you simply have to sacrifice for organized play.
PC's can and do "break" the scenario all the time. You just can't take that into the next scenario with you to break the campaign.
|
I understand your trepidation, CraigShaw, and it's not completely unfounded. But just like with the rest of the hobby, there are lots of variables in what the GM brings to the show... And, if you try a couple of sessions and determine that PFS is not really grabbing you, you can still use it as a 'dating pool' to meet up with other gamers to start a home game.
Also, I've had lots of success monkey wrenching PFS scenarios into my home campaigns... Need to level your group up before the next AP issue? Use a couple scenarios to give them the extra XP and resources.
The Blackross Museum adventures are a series of great location-centric events.
If you like Varisia, there are several Season 3 mods in particular that could be daisy-chained together pretty easily.
And do yourself a favor and get Season 0's scenario #4 The Frozen Fingers of Midnight. You could pretty much drop it anywhere and the story is loads of fun!
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So what do I do if players rabbit trail? Simply say: "Sorry. This is FPS play. Not allowed." Or do players come in knowing that they will be confined by the scenario?
EDIT: The scenarios I picked were -
#7-14: Faithless and Forgotten, Part 1
#5-02: The Wardstone Patrol
#6-22: Out of Anarchy(They seemed interesting and came recommended - though I wont get to see them until he adds them to me - and the descriptions on the season scenarios doesn't seem to give that much info...)
This is one of my favorite scenarios and I've run it several times. If you run into any questions prepping it, feel free to shoot me a PM or ask your question in this thread.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players are able to drive the plot train right off the tracks and into the wilderness. ... But often it's because the players, bless their little black hearts, come up with "a great idea!". When they do that in PFS, it's the responsibility of the judge to "get the train back on the tracks, so we can get this into the station on time".
I respectfully disagree that you need to get the train back on the tracks.
What you do need to preserve is the encounters and adjust the situation for what has happened. If the players decide to take a pick-axe to the roof of a building and go through the scenario backwards, let them. Just make it clear that this solution will make a lot of noise (everything will know where they are coming in) and then go with the flow.
You do need to be careful that side-tracks don't become mistaken for the main plot, and gently redirect if they go too far afield. If it is just they aren't taking the expected course, try to make it work.
---
I find it very helpful to read the GM threads for any scenario I run. They will often include some interesting role-playing hints as well as problems people have had with the scenario. Then I go over to the PFS prep site for some crunch that may help as well. Sometimes the site has some very useful additions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of my favorite scenarios and I've run it several times. If you run into any questions prepping it, feel free to shoot me a PM or ask your question in this thread.So what do I do if players rabbit trail? Simply say: "Sorry. This is FPS play. Not allowed." Or do players come in knowing that they will be confined by the scenario?
EDIT: The scenarios I picked were -
#7-14: Faithless and Forgotten, Part 1
#5-02: The Wardstone Patrol
#6-22: Out of Anarchy(They seemed interesting and came recommended - though I wont get to see them until he adds them to me - and the descriptions on the season scenarios doesn't seem to give that much info...)
Thanks Walter. I'm still waiting on the VC to get the modules assigned. Once he does, if I have any problems or need some pointers I'll be sure to ask. :-)
On a side note, do you know what's the hardest part of cooking a vegetable? Fitting the golden throne in the oven!
|
|
(IMHO) part of the problem - perhaps most of the issue the OP is encountering is in the use of the term GM. He knows what a GM is, he has his understanding of the duties and powers of the GM... the responsibilities and abilities, etc. of running the game.
In PFS we have given up much of that to the lady/guy running the show... and that is not the person at the head of the physical table when we play.
I use the term "Judge" for the guy (or woman!) running the table I sit at, and save the term GM for the lady/guy running the Campaign. That is the way I learned the terms back in LG days (before that I used the term "DM"). Back in Living Greyhawk days, when I learned them and learned to play in an Organized Play campaign, that is the way the terms were defined. I am sometimes a PFS Judge. In my home game I am the "GM".
Thanks, nosig. I did come to understand this from what everyone has been saying, and the change in perspective with regards to the role of GM vs Judge did change my expectations and idea of approach, making me far more comfortable with the concept now.
Though, while I do see the benefits in the ability to easily pick up and play a game almost anywhere, in the end I think "free" games will always be more my thing.
|
|
I can think of two ideas for a middle ground. One is to play the official way with a closed group. This lets you develop your characters together. Another idea is to run some of the scenarios, but do not worry about the official rules. This will let you see how much you actually would want to alter the scenarios as written and if you actually need to.
|
|
I can think of two ideas for a middle ground. One is to play the official way with a closed group. This lets you develop your characters together. Another idea is to run some of the scenarios, but do not worry about the official rules. This will let you see how much you actually would want to alter the scenarios as written and if you actually need to.
I can think of another way. Play the scenarios as written, but with a home group, so you can ignore the time limitations that a public game is heir to.
With no time limitation, and the same people coming back, you can easily let a scenario expand, role-play wise, into multiple sessions.
I believe PbP already goes in this direction, since they operate under a different constraint system.
Running one of the newer 64 page modules, or an entire AP, in campaign mode, also works a lot more like a home game, even though you can get PFS credit for it.
I find that most of the people who protest that PFS is mechanistic and videogamy, either are trying to force other people too accept their interpretation of a rule, or trying to get a rule changed because it is "broken" (Which often involves selecting an extreme interpretation of that rule, and then asserting that that interpretation is the only one, and that you are forced to use that interpretation in PFS.)
Neither of those conjectures applies to me or is even relevant to this discussion, so there's no good reason to include them. I deliberately tried to distance myself from other talk about "video-gaminess" for that reason. Don't try to drag it back in.
As for not being able to do anything outside the scenario, that's not true. The party can go carouse around the town or explore the local crypt all they want. What they can't do is earn any chronicle rewards or substantial loot from it. (Anything they find goes away at the end of the session, after all.) This doesn't mean they can't pickpocket the local merchant, it just means they won't get much out of doing it besides the roleplaying satisfaction.
So why not allow players to earn extra items / gold, worth up to X gold altogether? With a X clearly defined in the scenario description? The same applies for chronicle rewards.
I mean, players are not guaranteed to get full profit from a scenario either. Maybe PCs had to pay for Raise Dead or they missed a secret stash or whatever. So if it's possible to finish with significantly less rewards, it should also be allowed to finish with slightly more wealth (e.g. 10% or 20%). Especially since such a bonus becomes less important over the course of levels. I don't know chronicle rewards - in case players can fail on getting them, the same applies as for material goods.
|
|
So why not allow players to earn extra items / gold, worth up to X gold altogether? With a X clearly defined in the scenario description? The same applies for chronicle rewards.
Probably because of this statement.
I mean, players are not guaranteed to get full profit from a scenario either
Scenarios need to have a total gold allocation. Why should that total be increased? Especially for such situations where the gold is not guaranteed? Players already get upset when they don't earn full gold. How much worse would it be if they also learn 'you could have gotten more if you used Sleight of Hand or other skullduggery'?
|
|
Am I missing something? Will I even enjoy running PFS games? Am I misunderstanding how PFS works?
I recommend that everyone play PFS as a player before GMing it. There is a lot to learn about the campaign, let alone the rules.
Pathfinder in general is not a system you just pick up and GM, there is work and research involved in making a game run (properly). Even veteran GMs need to review old rules and learn new rules. In home games, often the rules aren't important, you can just add or subtract hit points on the fly, add in new mobs (even in the middle of the encounter), reduce/increase the damage a boss does, but in PFS you play by what is written, which means actually knowing the rules. It's tough for some GMs.
There is lots of creativity involved in PFS as well. You are welcome to change or interpret a lot of the fluff. Sometimes it can make a scenario completely different when GMed by different people. Having said that, you cannot change the mechanics at all. I find that it actually enhances the game and makes it fair.