I have played a handful of scenerios for PFS, but they have largely felt more like prototypes for video game quests, including a lack foresight for any out-of-the-box, or even inside the box thinking.
Just found out in one module I'm playing in, that the module has the pcs recover a docking certificate from the harbormaster's office. The pcs are going to the office anyway, on official business on behalf of someone with pretty strong pull there. Yet we are denied the option of tricking, diplomancing, or spell-charming the npc to hand over the file, which is easily argued as related to the pc's investigation.
I found this out because I tried to do some slieght of hand with silent image but the gm denied it because it the module required us to search for the file.
No, we are not allowed any of those options, not even the lvl 1 spell. The modules assumes that the players wait till they are alone and search the files, and gives no other way to handle the problem.
Sure, a gm could bend things to account for any conceivable plan the pcs come up with, but there are two problems with this. A) many gms are unwilling to stray from what is written, and B) it is very bad design.
In fact, why are the scenerio writers making assumtions at all about how the pcs solve the various problems, or assuming the course of action the pcs will take?
They treat these things like we are playing video games via text, but the major advantage of pnp with a gm is the lack of restrictions that are imposed by a computer's limitations.
Does no one else see this as a problem? Has the community just joyously accepted this pattern of playing like a video game on paper?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does no one else see this as a problem? Has the community just joyously accepted this pattern of playing like a video game on paper?
Sacrifices are made to make the experience a smooth one.
Sometimes you have the time for the bard to schmooze his way through the enemy complex and talk every agent down diplomatically.
Sometimes you have 4 hours to get through a 5 hour scenario and just need to grind the rails hard and fast.
If you think PFS is a video game, you need to get out and play with other groups.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creative Solutions
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your players might surprise you with a creative solution to an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn’t see coming and that isn’t expressly covered in the scenario.
If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they would have gained had they defeated their opponent in combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same rewards. Additionally, if the PCs miss an NPC who carries a specific potion or scroll that the PCs might be granted access to on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet—instead, allow the PCs to find the item elsewhere as a reward for creatively resolving the encounter without resorting to combat.
The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild never wants to give the impression that the only way to solve a problem is to kill it. Rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only make Society games more fun for the players, but it also gives the GM a level of flexibility in ensuring players receive the rewards they
are due.
The rules explicitly accommodate what you did and require the GM to improvise.
In fact, many scenarios have text similar to the following:
if the PCs call on skills not directly mentioned in the investigation, use the provided skill DCs as a guide.
However, don't forget that casting a spell has a visible and obviously magical manifestation. Slight of Hand + Silent Image does not seem to be an effective way to get a file that you don't know the location of.
|
In my opinion, and as said above, a good GM is willing to think on his feet and improvise. Also players need to accept that the GM has a framework that he needs to keep within. There can be tension between the two.
I have no knowledge of the specifics of this case, and think it is best to discuss matters directly with the GM instead of posting in a separate thread.
|
The less experienced or comfortable a GM is, the more likely it is that they will try to shut down avenues of player interaction that they're not comfortable with. That doesn't mean that's how you're supposed to run it.
That of course doesn't address TOZ's point that sometimes you need to make sacrifices to ensure the game goes smoothly. One of the benefits of organized play is also a drawback. You don't have to schedule time to come back with a group, because when you're done with a slot, you're just done.
|
And if the OP has only played a "handful" of scenarios, that's a single percentage point of the total number available. Some writers are more experienced than others, some plots are more complicated than others, some scenarios are literally cut in half due to word count limitations, and some just have different flavors.
My suggestion would be to get more under your belt. The vast majority of scenarios are really beautiful in myriad ways. But also be sure to embrace them with an open mind. Some people are quick to point out flaws rather than appreciate the strengths.
It isn't the job of the module to make those sacrifices. Modules are used in many cases and situations. It is the gm's job to make things fit the time slot.
Additionally,
The Guide to Organised Play specifically says to allow for players coming up with unexpected solutions to problems.
And similar arguements basically fall under rule 0.
The dmg for 3.x spends lots of text on advising this very sort of thing, but even so, few gms go for it. I never had a gm allow even one of the examples given.
So yea, there are things there, but less than a fifth of all gms I've had could do anything on the order of simply customizing a spell list.
And it seems like the authors of these modules have the same problem.
If you think PFS is a video game, you need to get out and play with other groups.
Truth be told, if had any options what-so-ever, I wouldn't be playing pbp at all. Text as a medium doesn't suit me very well.
I think I know of the scenario the OP is referring to, but Silent Image or Sleight of Hand wouldn't work. That scene calls for an in-depth search of the office and the file cabinets, which takes time.
Why search when I can ask the clerk to get it for me?
On the way there I bought a certificate sized piece of parchment and attached a silent image to it, with the intent of altering the image to match the certificate the clerk brings out once I saw (which isn't noticeable as spellcasting). Swap out the parchment with the image for the real thing and I walk away with the certificate and the clerk knowing they put it back where it belonged.
Given the circumstances, we were on official business and could reasonably expect cooperation from the clerk in this matter.
The only way you can just grab the file is if you know where it is. If you don't, you have to look for it.
That's not bad design, that's a player unwilling to deal with the circumstances present.
Incorrect. I asked an npc, who knows where it is, to show it to me. It is not unreasonable to expect some kind of reaction from the npc, whether they show it to me or not.
------
Besides, that is just an example. Blood Under Absalom is another example of video game writing. The narrative actually includes much wisdom for a warrior beyond simply swinging a sword, yet the behind the scenes mechanics they include actively work against anyone who acts in the wisdom in the narrative itself. Things like knowing the goal of the fight and where the warrior's place in the fight fits with the overall group's attempt to achieve an objective. Eye on the ball type stuff. Easy to find in the narrative, but broken by the mechanics.
When I went straight for the objective, my gm asked for advice on adice on how to handle it and he was basically told to kill me as punishment for not playing right. It was pfs leadership that told him that. All because I actually kept my eye on the ball and went straight for stated objective instead of going "Look! Enemies! Let me kill each and every last one of them!"
It reminds me of Halo game's campaigns. Great story, but you don't actually play the story. The story is nothing more than backdrop, a reason for you to go slaughtering aliens, while the actual gameplay, and entire reason for playing Halo is the slaughtering of aliens and the story is just bonus layer, the paint job.
These pfs scenerios feel very much the same. Like the authors see the story as nothing more than backdrop for the actual gameplay of killing monsters, collecting loot, making skill checks.
If that is all I wanted, I'd go play video games.
So why is this the case? Is everyone really okay with the lack of freedom, with being told that you are only allowed to solve a problem with the popular solution and to [a fiery pit] with creative thinking and problem solving?
My suggestion would be to get more under your belt. The vast majority of scenarios are really beautiful in myriad ways. But also be sure to embrace them with an open mind. Some people are quick to point out flaws rather than appreciate the strengths.
First, if I can't do the one thing I that actually like about pnp that I can't get anywhere else, then I appearently can't get it here either, in which case, why should I bother playing when I can get the same choices with better graphics from a computer game?
That isn't a flaw, that is a fundemental block preventing me from getting the experience I expected and was promised.
In many cases, legend of zelda is more fun, particularly because there is no expectation of being able to creatively solve problems anyway, so the lack of that ability is ok, but also means I'm off trying to find the desired experience elsewhere.
Second, the discussion is to get a better idea of just what the community finds in this. The other players don't seem to care that they aren't allowed to creatively solve problems. In fact I rarely see a player even bother. I hear stories of them doing so on occasion, but rarely see it myself.
It is like pnp's single greatest advantage over computer games is being not only ignored but blockaded, despite being technically allowed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion would be to get more under your belt. The vast majority of scenarios are really beautiful in myriad ways. But also be sure to embrace them with an open mind. Some people are quick to point out flaws rather than appreciate the strengths.
First, if I can't do the one thing I that actually like about pnp that I can't get anywhere else, then I appearently can't get it here either, in which case, why should I bother playing when I can get the same choices with better graphics from a computer game?
That isn't a flaw, that is a fundemental block preventing me from getting the experience I expected and was promised.
In many cases, legend of zelda is more fun, particularly because there is no expectation of being able to creatively solve problems anyway, so the lack of that ability is ok, but also means I'm off trying to find the desired experience elsewhere.
Second, the discussion is to get a better idea of just what the community finds in this. The other players don't seem to care that they aren't allowed to creatively solve problems. In fact I rarely see a player even bother. I hear stories of them doing so on occasion, but rarely see it myself.
It is like pnp's single greatest advantage over computer games is being not only ignored but blockaded, despite being technically allowed.
There is a difference between creative problem solving and expecting that a creative idea should have traction in every circumstance. There is often a lot of information the players are unaware of that defines the world the characters exist in. Sometimes to find the most appropriate creative solution, one must first sit back, observe, listen, and fully understand the situation.
Finally, actions have consequences. Expecting to be able to cast spells willy nilly in front of regular people will at the least get you tossed out of their establishment on your ear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was expecting a lot more fun times when I joined the Service back in the early '90's.
The promise didn't *quite* live up to the hype.
In many cases, military service is more fun, because there is no expectation to do anything other than blindly follow orders anyway, so the lack of that ability is okay, but it also means that creative minds go elsewhere.
The discussion provides a clearer idea of what some players think are creative solutions that are actually addressed in the scenario specifically and implicitly and indeed may have dire repercussions for given participating characters.
Life experience has taught me that a wide-open and woolly campaign like some folks seem to be wanting lately is best reserved for a home group.
After having far too many of my GMing decisions overturned by armchair quarterbacks and folks who had never even 'seen the elephant' in other campaigns I burnt out HARD.
The rules are there not to RESTRICT characters, but to PROTECT them from 'overzealous GMs'. If one would prefer to not have that protection, there are a few groups out there that play PFS HARD MODE that might be up one's alley.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why is this the case? Is everyone really okay with the lack of freedom, with being told that you are only allowed to solve a problem with the popular solution and to [a fiery pit] with creative thinking and problem solving?
Most of us don't see a lack of freedom, and have used creative thinking and problem solving to make GMs have to improvise.
However, not every creative solution will actually work.
|
|
I can see both sides of this, on one hand creativity certain has worked out in a few instances, and short doesn't just mean linear.
On the other hand, I just played a scenario where at the beginning the VC and faction leader tell expressly tell you, "don't break the law," and yet, it seemed the only way we could progress was to steal something. That really made me feel like I was on a rail.
That said, the best part of PFS isn't the scenarios themselves, it's the kooks you play with. That's what makes the game memorable.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Silent Image is duration: concentration. So had that been the intent, you would have been concentrating on the image on the page the entire time, which would rather preclude doing things like slight of hand.
I've run Blood under Absolom. There is one point at the end, where they are trying to coordinate a lot of tables converging on an objective, and there are some very powerful spell effects trying to prevent you from going straight for the objective. Other than that, you can really creatively break a lot of that scenario. (I GMed the 10-11 table. They finished one section in 10 minutes by using creativity to avoid the fight in it entirely.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets see...
I've had to do a scenario backwards because the party waited for a bit, hopped into an exhibition that was supposed to be foreshadowing and fought the boss at the start.
We had a pro reptile group (Nagaji bard, Saurian Shaman, and a dinosaur themed ranger) talk a kobold into a deal rather than a fight.
Once talked the end boss into killing himself.
The party talked their way past a monster, who wound up throwing the party treasure at their head with instructions to "learn to pick up after yourselves"
Talked down an end boss who respected you if you ride a horse. because we were riding a giant horse that was being carried by a friendly gargantuan pteranadon we met along the way.
Settled an encounter with a deadly doll by using profession bartender to throw a tea party (my adorable bundle of fluffy death will charge head first into the maw of the dragon. He will not take the ribbon off because the doll told him not to)
Found an invisible critter through the use of paraballa arcs and a game of ups a baby
Solved multiple encounters with a 3 gp pig.
Circumvented an encounter by interrupting a dramatic speech with the lipstich spell, tossed the ally into the bag of holding and ran out of the bar.
Disguised myself as a rival and hired ladies of the evening for someone that really. really didn't appreciate it.
Got passed an encounter by killing a troll, debonning it, and having the NPC wear the troll skin like an edgar suit to walk past a guard.
Circumvented an encounter largely because one of the PCs was a white tengu going into a town named white rook. And then got another encounter by buying spiked beer till everyone passed out.
The idea that you can't have creative solutions in PFS is theorycrafting that goes against observable evidence to the contrary. When theory meets observation and they disagree, there is something wrong with the theory.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I have had no issues with using creative solutions, provided that the GM feels that they can work within the given circumstances. Even if you are not casting silent image in front of the harbor master, you still need to convince him to show you a document. You suggested that you are on official business for someone with strong pull there, but my recollection of the situation you are describing is different. Keep in mind that while the Pathfinder Society does have some pull in some cities, even where it is welcome, it is far from being any kind of officially recognized authority. If you are being asked to act on behalf of someone with actual government authority, more times that not, you are being asked to do so because they are trying to keep it on the down low, so invoking their authority by proxy is probably a bad idea. Even if you do have a writ, you would still need to convince the harbor master that it is legitimate and that you have a legitimate reason to view the document in question. If you had presented this solution with me as your GM, I would ask for clarification on what exactly you were saying to the harbor master to convince him to show you the document and then have you make a bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate check based on the approach you describe. If you have some official documentation of authority, you would get a circumstance bonus to the check. If it works, he shows you to the document. That said, the description of the Sleight of Hand skill suggests that you would need to wait until he put the document down before you could try to pull a swap (it only works on unattended objects). Given that the scenario suggests that the document is not located in plain sight, I don't think that you could use Sleight of Hand once it is put away. In any case, the silent image is really not going to contribute much to the situation. So while creative solutions should be possible, they need to work within the constraints both of the rules regarding the skills or spells you are using and of the situation as presented.
@ pete
What you suggest is what I would expect from a gm at the very least. An acknowledgement of what I'm trying to do, and coming up with a way to handle it.
But appearently the scenerio only gives instructions on stealing the item without the harbormaster or clerk being in the room. The problem is that the scenerio is making an assumption, which is a very bad one to begin with, and then expects rule 0 to compensate, yet for all the players and folks who promote rule 0, it is still uncommon to get a gm willing to use it.
In the case that prompted my post, the gm didn't even acknowledge my attempt. He just read the box text about how the clerk left the room and asked for perception checks to find the document. Part of this is clearly that the gm is not particularly experienced yet (presumably), but a large part was that the gm wanted to stick to the material as closely as possible, and therefore couldn't allow something that wasn't in the material. (which is sadly a common state of affairs. Perhaps more sad in my opinion, is how rare players run into it as an issue. A bit like everyone driving on roads so much that they never consider offroading anymore and therefore don't complain when offroading is made illegal.)
The fact that the material is making such a fundamentally wrong assumption is something I consider a problem. Rule 0 has it's place, but scenerios need to be something other than a railroad plot expecting rule 0 to fix everything. (honestly, I'd consider good scenerios to be designed around situations, not plots anyway. Thd Alexandrian has a good article on the actually)
Using rule 0 well is one of the more difficult things for a gm to get right. A scenerio should not rely on it.
More than that though, those assumptions reveal much of how the authors see the game. I don't think their view is very flexible, nor does it seem to accept the biggest advantage over computers, a lack of programming restrictions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The deal is that they need to provide a way for someone with no experience to be able to GM successfull. This coupled with the fact that they have scenarios fit within a certain page count AND be ran in certain time constraints means the writers are limited in how much they can put in it. Thus they can't give all the possible ways to deal with it, so they pick the one they think will be the most common. And from the sounds of it from everyone saying that they don't run into this like you do, are getting it right.
Like I'm hesitant to allow wandering since my store has a 4 hour slot to fit any scenario, so if you wander for some time it could mean you don't finish. So I tend to not allow wandering to make sure we finish in time.
Now there are lots of GMs that are afraid of messing up so they'll stick to the material as closely as possible to not make mistakes.
So hey, if you feel PFS isn't for you and doesn't provide you fun then don't play. Your complaint has been heard and you've been told that things aren't likely to be changing.
EDIT:
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to dismiss or want you to leave. If you're having fun for the most part I'm glad. It's just that I'm not sure what more you're hoping to get from this thread that you continue to rant in. And sometimes it takes someone suggesting leaving for a person to realise that they actually aren't having fun anymore.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you have to run with the railroad. Sometimes you can work around it. Remember, the GM has to get the game finished in 4-5 hours, and sometimes "creative solutions" can be time consuming.
Again, in the particular situation referenced, you are talking to a halfling woman who is obviously an underling. Your "official business" is a request by a powerful ally to the Society, which she happily helps with. However, this is literally all of the authority that a Pathfinder PC holds in this situation.
As a GM, I would not have the clerk produce the document just because she is asked to do so. At best this would require a pretty high DC bluff or diplomacy check, since this is not something that she would be asked to do in the course of her normal business. Also note, that this is a faction mission, not the main mission of the plot. The main mission is to get the clerk to get you the pilot and rowboat.
It is also pretty clear that there are a lot of things in that office
Would I be willing to allow something more "creative" solution to this? Sure... but it has to make sense! You could use the sift spell, for example, to search the documents faster, for example.
However, as Thomas stated above, some folks just don't care for Organized Play in general, or PFS in specifics. That's cool, too. I know I haven't liked every scenario that I've played or run, but I've enjoyed most of them. Sometimes, I've had to bite the bullet and go along with the plot on rails. I am cool with that, but I can see how others might not like that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But appearently the scenerio only gives instructions on stealing the item without the harbormaster or clerk being in the room. The problem is that the scenerio is making an assumption...
Which is entirely valid given that the clerk isn't likely to give you the documents and they are not openly visible for you to stealthily appropriate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ pete
What you suggest is what I would expect from a gm at the very least. An acknowledgement of what I'm trying to do, and coming up with a way to handle it.
But appearently the scenerio only gives instructions on stealing the item without the harbormaster or clerk being in the room. The problem is that the scenerio is making an assumption, which is a very bad one to begin with, and then expects rule 0 to compensate, yet for all the players and folks who promote rule 0, it is still uncommon to get a gm willing to use it.
In the case that prompted my post, the gm didn't even acknowledge my attempt. He just read the box text about how the clerk left the room and asked for perception checks to find the document. Part of this is clearly that the gm is not particularly experienced yet (presumably), but a large part was that the gm wanted to stick to the material as closely as possible, and therefore couldn't allow something that wasn't in the material. (which is sadly a common state of affairs. Perhaps more sad in my opinion, is how rare players run into it as an issue. A bit like everyone driving on roads so much that they never consider offroading anymore and therefore don't complain when offroading is made illegal.)
The fact that the material is making such a fundamentally wrong assumption is something I consider a problem. Rule 0 has it's place, but scenerios need to be something other than a railroad plot expecting rule 0 to fix everything. (honestly, I'd consider good scenerios to be designed around situations, not plots anyway. Thd Alexandrian has a good article on the actually)
Using rule 0 well is one of the more difficult things for a gm to get right. A scenerio should not rely on it.
More than that though, those assumptions reveal much of how the authors see the game. I don't think their view is very flexible, nor does it seem to accept the biggest advantage over computers, a lack of programming restrictions.
Assuming that a file you are looking for is hidden inside a filing cabinet will is perfectly reasonable for a scenario to do. That's where the file is. Plenty of novels, movies, etc. all follow this trope. Allowing for creative solutions to both find the file and steal the file are perfectly fine. But assuming that your creative solution will automatically work when you have not taken into account for where the file is, doesn't make sense that then you'd turn around and call the adventure assumption bad writing. Frankly, its bad investigative technique to just assume you can do something without any evidence to show that you could actually do it.
Some GM's don't feel comfortable completely rewriting scenarios or encounters to accommodate crazy (I mean this in a good way--because I make them too) player choices. And this is ok. But scenarios have to be written to be understandable by a majority of GMs that read them and prep them. Leaving a scenario infinitely open ended to accommodate all possible crazy choices is simply impossible. The only way to succeed at this is to write a 2 page outline with some stat blocks and tell the GM to do whatever they want. But there isn't a single published adventure, from any publisher that I'm aware of, that does this.
|
|
Afterall how different does a PC tactic have to be from what is listed before you get to start making things up.
So as a GM, if the players had chosen this route (they did not) I basically would have had to run a completely different adventure than what was written, that would have essentially been a single encounter. I'm pretty experienced, so I was ready to handle this and have fun doing so. Ultimately the players chose not to try that plan. But not all GMs would have been comfortable essentially rewriting the scenario based on such an off-the-rails choice. It would have been perfectly reasonable to say, "There is absolutely no way you are going to track down a ship on the open sea given the ambiguous and short timing of just a few days."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that *HAS* been noticeably improving as the Seasons progress and the campaign learns is that there are more options for 'creative solutions' built into a given scenario's 'hard-coding'.
The front part of the scenario is supposed to be fact-finding/encounter-dealing to get an audience with someone to give you permission to go look in an area, and your opposition is the Aspis Consortium, who has their own resources 'on the ground'.
With our massive numbers (the lowest one was 45, I think) the DM allowed the party to bluff their way into an audience with the person we were supposed to be flailing about looking for a meeting with at the same time an Aspis agent was there.
Instead of falling back in fear that our Bluff had been called, we created an authority called 'The Home Office' that had clearly strings in both the Consortium and the Society, and managed to throw the agent off enough that they thought we were their superiors, checking on the progress of their activity, and would they please keep this on the 'down-low' because we weren't interested in punishing *them* but rather their immediate supervisor for being incompetent.
The GM rolled with it and we had a *blast*.
In fact, we probably would have finished a couple of hours early except we found a devastated camp, and we started 'reading from NPC diaries' and had fun doing that.
Could the GM in that case said "Nope, this is how you gotta do this."?
Yes.
But he didn't.
Unfortunately, due to the way the scenario was designed, there is NO way to do this inside the context of the scenario, despite the best efforts of our characters.
After an hour and a half (yes, we were watching the clock) the GM told us flat-out that no matter what we did, it wasn't going to happen.
We could have the Anti-Rovagug Coalition all speaking on our behalf... and it wouldn't've changed the 'rails' of the scenario.
I had a lot of fun with Sky Key I.
My fun with Red Harvest was hampered.
But it made a certain sort of sense and after playing and then reading it, the GM had actually made significant concessions to our attempts at diplomacy to try and prevent it from being a complete railroad.
I am sorry if the GM and/or the scenario wasn't quite up to par, and I hope that any future experiences you may have are fun for everyone at your table(s).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets see...
And then there is Flutter...
I will note that having the mechanics to back up your clever solutions also helps.
In starfinder, I have had a party that needed a body in a hurry, who remembered a family who they had helped in a previous scenario, who sold them a body at a discount. Later in the scenario, they wound up with an excess of bodies, so they took them back to the family and sold them to get their money back.
Turned what was supposed to be a "Make computers DC ?? or spend 50 credits" into Diplomacy + 30 credits then got the 30 credits back.
|
Venture-Agent, Washington—Bothell
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure I would have helped a family that keeps bodies lying around!!!! What kind of game is Starfinder? I thought it was Pathfinder in space, and that doesn’t — No, actually, that sounds exactly like Pathfinder in space. Carry on.
The bodies are great for the garden; better off than leaving them in the streets.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure I would have helped a family that keeps bodies lying around!!!! What kind of game is Starfinder? I thought it was Pathfinder in space, and that doesn’t — No, actually, that sounds exactly like Pathfinder in space. Carry on.The bodies are great for the garden; better off than leaving them in the streets.
Especially when you are on a self contained system, such as a space station.
Sounds like a crap GM to me. Whether that's more or less likely in a PFS scenario is a discussion that would only end in deleted posts and threadlocks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the way there I bought a certificate sized piece of parchment and attached a silent image to it, with the intent of altering the image to match the certificate the clerk brings out once I saw (which isn't noticeable as spellcasting). Swap out the parchment with the image for the real thing and I walk away with the certificate and the clerk knowing they put it back where it belonged.
That is one of the worst plans I've ever heard. Silent Image is Verbal and Somatic, and while you can move it around you can't change what it looks like after you cast it. So you would have needed to cast it after seeing the paper work.
And then you'd have to take a -20 for trying to sleight of hand as a move action, because your standard is concentrating on the spell. That means you'd need to roll a 40 for you to be able to lift the small object off the person.
Plus this official would get a Perception check to notice what you did against your roll. So even if you fail you're most likely getting caught because of the -20 to your roll.
Which means that most likely your group would at least not get time alone in the room, and potential would have the guards called on them.
So, maybe the GM decided that it was better to not derail the scenario for the other players and ruin their fun by letting you do your idea.
It's just that I'm not sure what more you're hoping to get from this thread that you continue to rant in.
I'm looking to discuss the video gamey focus. Why don't more people have a problem with being railroaded? Am I just unlucky in what groups and gms I get? Does anyone even realize just how much this design philosophy works against the design goals of d20?
And probably plots vs situations as a design methodology.
Oh, and now that it's been brought up, designing to teach new gms how to be more than a computer running a video game.
The case I mentioned was just an example I tried to use as it is quite fresh in mind.
The deal is that they need to provide a way for someone with no experience to be able to GM successfull.
That is worse. A new gm needs more detail on various options, not less. Not giving it to them only reinforces video game type play, and completely fails to teach not only how to be flexible in handling different strategies the players might use, but also teaches to not stray from the written word.
So there I was with a great diplomacy roll but nothing to say.
Why did you even have a roll?
Rolling dice first, then explaining it away is playing like a video game. It is looking first to the mechanics for what can or should be done, which is backwards really.
However, as Thomas stated above, some folks just don't care for Organized Play in general, or PFS in specifics.
A major question is just how infested is pfs with this kind of stuff? It certainly isn't inherent in organized play, but it might be in the design philosophy of paizo.
Leaving a scenario infinitely open ended to accommodate all possible crazy choices is simply impossible.
Not true. Not true at all. It is called prepping situations, not plots.
A plot is a sequence of events. Prepping one requires deciding what the pcs will do ahead of time, which means a problem occurs every time the pcs choose something different.
However, if you prep situations, then you are not relying on what choices the pcs will make, which means no frustrated attempts to get pcs back on track.
An excellent article about this can be found on The Alexandrian titled Don't Prep Plots
Much better than my writing. But he is right. Prepping plots is just bad any time you want the players to have any agency.
Additionally, he has a follow up series on node-based design, which is an excellent way to design scenerios without tracks.
Sounds like a crap GM to me.
Perhaps, but the point isn't about how he handled it, rather the point is that the scenerio is basically teaching him to be a bad gm.
and while you can move it around you can't change what it looks like after you cast it.
Since when? I see nothing in the description that says or even implies that. Might be your choice to limit it so, but it certainly isn't raw.
Additionally, who said I'd be taking off their person? Further, while I may have used the words "sleight of hand" I wasn't referring to the skill.
I made no assumptions about how the gm/clerk was going to act. I did ask for the others to distract the clerk though. Then I'd move forward as needed.
Frankly, it would be quite odd for the clerk to decide to show us the certificates, but yet decide to hold them instead of laying them on the counter/desk/whatever. The only reason to do so is from suspicion that I might do what I planned on, and if they had that suspicion, then why show them at all?
|
|
the design philosophy of paizo
I mentioned this earlier, but it was likely lost in the conveyor belt of text that this thread is turning into.
I don't have an exact number, but Paizo contracts out and sources their hundreds of scenarios from X number of writers all over the world. Paizo employees also write a handful of scenarios, but there really isn't a "design philosophy of paizo".
Each author has their own story in mind. Rarely will you find two scenarios alike.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gainsaying one's GM in a PFS forum is at the very least poor form and potentially conduct that verges on the edge of breaking Community Guidelines at the logical other end.
More than likely none of the people that have been commenting on the carefully concealed 'gripe against GM call' were participants in said table.
To presume that the GM is wrong is erroneous.
To attempt to take a GM to the 'court of public opinion' is not going to resolve any concerns one may have with said GM, and it does nothing to build the community.
If anything, it is divisive conduct.
Build.
Grow.
Show why one's discussion point, straight-up, is better than the logic the GM is using -- TO ONE'S GM.
Privately.
Explore. Report. COOPERATE.
@wei
The point of the thread has nothing to do with how the gm handled it. No, I don't think he handled it well, but that was never the issue, which is why I didn't talk much about his handling of it. I used it as an example because it was fresh in memory and wss the event that sparked me to start the thread.
To quote from the article I mentioned,
On the other hand, if you have a group that’s used to being shown the Correct Path and then following it, suddenly throwing them into the deep-end of an open-ended scenario may have disastrous results, just like any other sudden shift in the style of play.
I guess I'd just like to know if being shown the Correct Path and following it is more often a preference, or just the only thing many have ever known and thus been accepted as the norm, and either way, is it perhaps how the scenerio authors commonly see it.
And of course, do people perhaps think that having rules means that play should done video game like, with the idea that freeform is somehow the better way to play with true creative freedom?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that your plan had some serious issues and rather than explain them/argue them with you he just decided to say "it won't work" and move on with the scenario.
We've already had multiple people quote the clause from the Guide to Organized Play that explicitly says that creative solutions outside of what is written are allowed. On top of that we've had many people giving actual accounts of times they went wayyyy off script in a scenario. Your insistence that PFS doesn't allow creative solutions just isn't supported by fact.
Your insistence that PFS doesn't allow creative solutions just isn't supported by fact.
There is a difference between allowing and supporting, and a difference between those two and setting up new gms to learn how handle them well.
I never argued that pfs doesn't allow them, only that it seems that pfs is focused on a video game style of play, which includes a relience on rule 0 clauses rather than providing direct support for odd solutions.
Considering that even the 3.x dmg had extensive amounts of encouragement for rule 0, including examples, which went unused in my general experience, means that clearly, having a rulebook somewhere say it is okay, is not enough.
For less experienced gms relying on modules, this makes sense when those modules are not giving any kind of examples, options, nor support for such situations that might need rule 0 handling.
Also, a multitable special is a bad place to go off the rails as timing in those can be critical.
In that special, my issue wasn't about going off rails, it was the direct conflict between the narrative and the mechanics.
For exampld, first fight we need to collect rubies. the players are told that each ruby has a 50% chance of activating. But behind the scenes mechanics doesn't follow the statistics for that.
Then at the end, we have to touch the guru's robes, any real world warrior will tell you to focus on the goal first, and in this case, killjng enemies is not the goal. Touching the robes is. Seems appropriate to me for a martial tourny, but when I actually make it past the guards and touch the robes, my gm calls for help from the people running the scenerio. Turns out, that mechanically, kills count as the victory condition, therefore, even with my touching the guru, a different table wins because they got the kills.
This us directly and explicitly contradictory to the narrative.
Oh, and the venture captain's advice to my gm was to squash me for ruining everyone else's fun and not being a team player.
As a player, running off the narrative makes sense.
If I can't trust to be told the objective, what can I trust? Without that trust, what point is there to the game?