If it was six month's ago you should probably just leave it be, it's not going to look very good if you drag it up out of nowhere.
If you feel that it really requires some sort of acknowledgement you could just mention it in the passing, for the sake of future reference. But I really wouldn't do it unless you find yourself in a similar situation again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really would let it go after 6 months. As an aside the bigger issue in my opinion is having level 1 and level 5 PC's in the same adventure. That is normally bound to cause problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Live and learn.
I started playing when I was 5 when a friend's dad DM'ed for us at a birthday. Basic D&D blew me away back then, and I've been hooked ever since.
One time years later, my friend and I were being driven somewhere by his dad. He was a wise fellow. He asked us, "How would you recognize that one of your friends had a problem with the game?" At the time, there were all sorts of fears about people being subverted to satanism or losing themselves to the game, so it was a timely question.
Me being the stupid kid I was back then blurted out, "He would be like running into every room trying to kill everything and everyone!"
My friend thought about it for a moment and said, "I would think he would be afraid of dying to the point where he valued his character's life as much as his own. That could lead to problems with prioritizing real life over the game."
I was taken aback by that. He was right, and I realized how unwise I was... at least for a short while. Then it was right back to being a stupid kid.
Anyway, that lesson stuck with me, and I'll share it with you. Let it go.
Hi, about 6 months ago, I was playing 3-11: On Hostile Watters. While playing, the GM told us that it was a standard action to control the boat.
For the most part, this didn't cause us too much trouble. My character spent most of the time controlling the boat, as she was level 5, with the other players being level 1's.
Well, you see there's your problem. There shoudl never be a game with a 5th and three 1st level PCs.
It's water under the bridge. Move on.
That said, I've got two bits of input...
1} This was relatively minor. A move action versus a standard action isn't trivial, but compared to say... "it turns out that my character was immune to the spell that killed me", it's not a big deal.
2} In this DM's game, controlling the ship was a standard action. Reading the printed material and finding something different was played - unless this is Pathfinder Society - falls under the umbrella of "it's the DM's world". Even if the DM made a mistake. We DM's read a lot of material. Thousands and thousands of words to give you the best game we can. Meh. In this kind of situation, it's best to accept the world you've been presented as reality. Controlling the ship was a standard action because... it was a standard action.
So anyway, we've retconned the occasional mistake a session later, but only when it's something massive. Things where the result couldn't have happened as opposed to shouldn't have happened. "My armor class was actually five higher" doesn't count because frankly the bad guy could've rolled five higher than he did. "We all forgot my character is an elf, so that sleep spell that allowed the coup-de-grace" does count.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, this is PFS. Standard action to cast spell > mishap > boat flings unconscious players into water > 2 dead players.
If it was two dead players, and not just two dead PCs, then you probably should be making a big deal of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, this is PFS. Standard action to cast spell > mishap > boat flings unconscious players into water > 2 dead players.If it was two dead players, and not just two dead PCs, then you probably should be making a big deal of it.
2 dead players > all other concerns.
personally I am BIG on integrity, but in the end, it's a game and you were not running it. If you ever are running where the players go on a ship I would mention that it is a move action to control the ship, if they ask why the change, admit a mistake was made, and move on...
Yes, this is PFS.
Well then...
1} This should get moved to the PFS section.2} Unfortunately I don't know what the policy is for adjudication errors conducted in PFS games, and I especially don't know what the policy is for them half a year later.
Ideally this gets moved to PFS where people more versed in its procedures can chime in, because the advice changes to "do what PFS mandates".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one here wants to bad mouth you, mistakes happen during the game and we understand.
I just found out that I've been GMing with un-fair dice for 6 months, players have been telling me something has been wrong with them for months and I never listened.
I don't know if the OP knew they could take this to the VA/VC. Given that they started posting in the advice forum (and a lot of posts in this thread are from the advice forum) I assumed they didn't know that is something they could or should do. We still think you are a good GM and are grateful that you are running games.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, it is best to let the decision stand. Reversing the call may or may not be a great deal of paperwork and effort if the players are not all still present in the community. primevalivy is welcome to make that call, but it is equally valid to chalk it up as a lesson learned. I personally always revert a death if I realize it was my error that caused it, but usually only while still running the scenario.
(And I am quite impressed that Jinotad came out of Beyond Azlant Ridge beforehand with enough cash to cover two raise deads. Bravo sir.)
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was a race boon or a race that has been recently retired, I am sure I would want some one to raise it for me and graciously accept the offer.
I would more than likely be tempted to buy the player lunch/dinner for it as well, seeing as some races are rarer than others.
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other factor is for people who dislike low level play. Killing off a 2xp character and replacing it with a 0xp character is setting back by two whole play sessions getting to the level where things get more fun.
This is also true for characters who are of classes that get their basic goodies to function properly at level 2 or 3.
|
|
In addition, there are some who look at the daunting task of GMing *well* and realize the amount of work it entails, and then make the careful and measured assessment that they will not have the time to do a good job of it.
I would much rather have, at this point in my life, someone who treated the scenario they were about to run with the weight and respect that such a duty entails versus some person who's trying to get a free con badge and handwaves half the encounters because they're 'too complicated'.
Good gaming > no gaming > bad gaming.
Sure, GMs that have been doing a lot have a lot more experience to draw upon, but there are also factors of 'burnout' and 'poor skills'.
I wince every time someone goes 'That's what GM credit is for!' or 'Why don't you just GM this?' as if it is some sort of magic bullet that solves everything.
More often than not, it not only *isn't*, it makes the situation worse as untried and horrifically unprepared GMs make calls at their table that ruin the play experience for a whole new crop of players.
Back to the direct question: One should contact VO leadership in one's area, and trace up the chain of command, making sure to involve all facts from all stages, so there is no misrepresentation of what is desired.
May fortune be kind.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey folks,
I'm the local VC for the players and game in question. I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and for the civil discussion (I didn't go full-cringe even once during this thread!) :D
I'm aware of things now so I'll chat with the GM and players, and we'll handle this locally. Thanks very much again for everyone's input.
|
|
Back to the source of the issue around the original question, I can see some possible confusion.
1. Is it a move action to control a boat in both of these specific PFS scenarios?
2. Is it a move action to control a boat in standard Pathfinder? Where is this rule if so?
In the home game I play in, we often have boat action, and Profession Sailor checks, and someone gets stuck using all their actions to control the boat (since we are reading this as requiring a standard action, and the pilot cannot really move from the wheel either). Our general solution is to get some NPC deckhands involved, which is an unlikely answer in PFS.
The Profession section of the PRD does not list an action:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/profession.html
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/usingSkills.html
Skills are only listed once on the combat chart, and it is not under move action.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html
"Use skill that takes 1 action" = standard action
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Back to the source of the issue around the original question, I can see some possible confusion.
1. Is it a move action to control a boat in both of these specific PFS scenarios?
2. Is it a move action to control a boat in standard Pathfinder? Where is this rule if so?In the home game I play in, we often have boat action, and Profession Sailor checks, and someone gets stuck using all their actions to control the boat (since we are reading this as requiring a standard action, and the pilot cannot really move from the wheel either). Our general solution is to get some NPC deckhands involved, which is an unlikely answer in PFS.
The Profession section of the PRD does not list an action:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/profession.html
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/usingSkills.htmlSkills are only listed once on the combat chart, and it is not under move action.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html
"Use skill that takes 1 action" = standard action
It's one of those things that aren't really covered by base rules. Your interpretation looks correct, but makes for a sucky scenario.
So this is one of those cases where a scenario writer realizes it would be lame for one player to be constantly out of the action because he has to hold on to the rudder, and makes up some custom rules for that scenario.
And if they work out well, there's a chance they eventually make their way into the next book with minigames. Half the stuff in Ultimate Intrigue has occurred in PFS scenarios before.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I also think it's quite a stretch to assume that is the GM did it the 'right' way no one would have died. From the description it seemed bad dice rolling and deadly drowning rules were the biggest part of the problem. I cringe every time there is a battle and my PC is standing in more than knee deep water.
That scenario is pretty dam nasty and it's easy enough to see a TPK in it depending on circumstances.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Some should get over the fact that sometimes, they have to fight under very poor conditions. I hear or read too many times some sulk of not being able to use their full abilities. Now nobody can't be prepared for everything, nor the party should be.
The problem is even with the party undoubtely suffered from bad luck and from that error (which added an unwelcome burden), these are not the main cause. Knowing the scenario, to reach a point of near-TPK, something must have been done wrong. On some aspects, part 1 was possibly worse.
You don't remember that scenario at all. I remember that scenario clearly because it sucks out prestige like a industrial vacuum cleaner. Part 1 has the luxury of being able to run away. Part 2 screws you over and gives you absolutely no recourse.
EDIT:Now that I think of it I don't think I've ever seen encounters like that before in PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed this whole series. It's unfortunately that a mistake make things go so horribly wrong, but I'm glad the GM and VO are aware of it now and I'm sure it will get resolved locally.
On the point of level 1s and level 5s at the same table:
Anyway, I hope things work out for the best. I had a similar experience happen when I first started playing PFS. It didn't happen to me, and I didn't realize the error until nearly a year later living in another state when I finally started GMing and prepped the scenario. At that point I wasn't really sure there was anything I could do. There is a tier 1-5 that has a creature that normally has level draining. In the low-tier, that is changed to CON damage, but the GM was running off the Bestiary entry. A 1st level character died as a result. It was unfortunate, but the player seemed fine with it at the time and was a veteran PFS player, so wasn't chased away. It might even have been a brand new character. I'm not sure. Anyway, I was only visiting the area for the Summer, and I didn't know anyone there, so the next year when I figured it out, I didn't think it worthwhile to follow-up on it. Now it's been 4 more years, so there's really no point. If I'd been more experienced with PFS at the time, I might have realized that something was off.
|
|
Vehicle rules are in Ultimate Combat.
Driving Actions: A driver can, at the start of her turn, before taking any other action, take any of the following actions (except the "uncontrolled" action) to control a vehicle. If the driver does not take an action, takes another action, or delays or readies an action, she loses control of the vehicle and the vehicle takes the "uncontrolled" action.
Accelerate (standard action): With a successful driving check, the vehicle's current speed increases up to its acceleration (in 5-foot increments; minimum 5 feet), but no higher than its maximum speed. The vehicle can move forward or forward diagonally. In other words, each time a vehicle enters a new 5-foot square, it can choose any of its forward-facing squares—the ones directly in front or either of the squares directly forward and diagonal. This allows the vehicle to swerve. A driver who fails her driving check can only move into squares directly in front of the vehicle's forward facing.
Decelerate (standard action): With a successful driving check, the vehicle's current speed decreases by a rate up to its acceleration (in 5-foot increments; minimum 5 feet). On a failed check, the vehicle does not decelerate. Either way, the vehicle can move forward diagonally. If deceleration reduces a vehicle's speed to 0, some amount of inertia will continue to move the vehicle forward. The vehicle moves forward (either directly forward or forward diagonally) 1d4 × 5 feet before coming to a complete stop. Having the Expert Driver feat reduces this distance by 10 feet (minimum 0 feet).
Keep It Going (move action): With a successful driving check, the driver can move the vehicle forward on its current facing at its current speed, and it can move forward diagonally. Failing the check keeps the speed constant, but you cannot move the vehicle forward diagonally.
Reverse (standard action): A vehicle may only be moved in reverse if it is at a full stop (movement of 0 feet). On a successful driving check, a vehicle can move backward at half its acceleration, moving either directly backward (the reverse of its forward facing) or backward diagonally. On a failed check, it does not move backward.
Turn (standard action): The driver takes this action to turn a vehicle's forward facing 90 degrees. The vehicle moves its current speed. If a vehicle's current speed is twice its acceleration, the driving check DC increases by 5. If a vehicle's movement is three times its acceleration, the driving check DC increases by 10. If it is four or more times its acceleration, the DC increases by 20. With a successful driving check, the vehicle changes its facing either left or right by 90 degrees at any point during its movement. Do this by pivoting the vehicle so that the left rear or right rear side of the vehicle takes the place of the vehicle's former forward facing side. On a failed check, the vehicle does not turn, but can be moved forward diagonally during its movement.
Uncontrolled (no action): When the driver does nothing or there is no driver, the vehicle is uncontrolled. An uncontrolled vehicle moves forward only (it cannot move forward diagonally). If a vehicle has muscle propulsion, it decelerates a rate equal to its acceleration. If a vehicle is powered by an air current, water current, or some form of weird current, it slows by 10 feet. These decelerations are cumulative. If a vehicle does nothing, it cannot perform vehicular bull rushes, but can still perform a vehicular overrun or a ramming maneuver.
So, some actions are standard actions, and some are move actions. With the 'Keep it going' action (move action), even if you fail the check, the vehicle can continue in the same direction at the same speed. Trying to actively change where the vehicle is going is usually a standard action.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^_^ Thanks for all of the input guys. This topic has taken off with a life of its own when I wasn't watching.
Threads are leftovers in the back of the fridge. Some are still good after a week, some grow and become much larger and more colourful than you left them, some you really regret peaking into just to see what happened.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
^_^ Thanks for all of the input guys. This topic has taken off with a life of its own when I wasn't watching.Threads are leftovers in the back of the fridge. Some are still good after a week, some grow and become much larger and more colourful than you left them, some you really regret peaking into just to see what happened.
This man is a philosopher :)