So...pulling a bit from the current topic of discussion over in Flaxseed Discussion, I'm curious:
Do you folks prefer to know the DCs for skills and such up front or would you prefer them to be 'secret' like they usually are in a F2F game?
When it comes to reactive saving throws that may or may not affect the tide of battle and the actions of others, would you prefer for me to roll them immediately to save time or would you prefer to stick to the current system of rolling them yourselves?
I'm good either way (though secret DCs and rolling some saves for you does make slightly more for me to do when composing) but I'm curious as to your own thoughts on the matter.
|
In PbP, speed and player agency are important.
When it comes to DCs, I'd rather you show the DC so I can just type "The DC is low enough I can't fail" or "The DC is so high I won't bother rolling" so I don't have to type a macro. Usually skills are low risk so it's no big deal if the GM rolls for me.
Meanwhile, saving throws are VERY important, so I'd prefer to roll my own saves unless it significantly changes my turn. Save or Die effects, where the GM needs to know if I made the reflex save to dodge that fireball. I'd rather the GM keep the game moving rather than wait for me to log in and make the roll.
^Those responses are about what I expected. Allowing for player agency is very important to me as a GM so I try to avoid making rolls for PCs outside of botting instructions when possible.
(This is also why I let my players dither around more than most GMs probably do during non-combat sections, because I don't like to assume too much when it comes to PC actions.)
It sounds like, so far, folks would prefer to basically keep to what we've been doing which is fine - though I will take the suggestion re: Save or Die effects into account. Trust level isn't an issue for me; I generally err on the side of trust until people prove I should do otherwise. Even more so for folks I'm familiar with, like you guys :)
|
I guess what sometimes frustrates me is when players who think they can't make a check just don't attempt it. So as a GM, I'm not sure whether if I need to give players time to respond. I always appreciate it when a player lets me know one way or another in a post.
As a player, I usually attempt the skill check, indicating it's untrained, when appropriate. That gives the GM something to work with, if the result is high enough, maybe revealing something. Of course, I wouldn't expect to learn everything that someone trained in the skill might achieve.
Running the next Special during Gameday VIII, I'll look at rolling some skill checks myself to keep things moving quickly. (There's always that one dude who joins your table and then announces he's going to Disneyland for two weeks right in the middle of the con. Never fails.)
Oh yes, as a player I always try to note if a character of mine seriously can't make a skill DC on their own *or* if their modifier is high enough that they auto-succeed on it. Sometimes I forget, but I do try.
At any rate, thanks for humoring me and my questions. I know a lot of players tend to take the attitude of 'GM's table, GM's rules' (within reason) but I like to try and be open to change if there's a good argument for switching up my SOP.
Hey, good to know!
(Starting my update rounds now, so update forthcoming soon~)
^Will do, Jan. I'm working Saturday through Monday night so posting will likely slow down a little anyway during that time period. No holiday plans or trips on the docket though, so I'll be around all week more or less as normal.
Out of time for the moment; will finish writing the next post once I get home from work in a few hours~
Happy 4th of July to my fellow Americans and Happy Thursday/Friday to the rest of the world! :)
I think I might've asked this some months back but given that we're not too far from the official launch of PF2 (and PFS2), what's everyone's current interest level in it? I'm planning to give playing a try and will probably give GMing a whirl too - so it'll make it easier for me to put potential tables together once I have a general idea of who thinks PF2 might be their jam and who thinks it isn't :)
|
|
I'm skeptical about PF2, and still not sure if I'll commit to the new system. I've decided to give it a try, signing up for a session as a player at Dragonflight in mid-August.
Mostly it's annoyance at making obsolete all my considerable investment of time and money in the original system and dread at the looming cost of a whole new system. The most frustrating aspect of the new system was Paizo's corporate decision to not provide a method for transitioning beloved PCs from one system to the next.
But all that said, if you're GMing, you can always count me in.
^Perfectly understandable. I admit I'm not really looking forward to trying to keep up with PF2 product on top of trying to fill in gaps in my PF1 library but since I'm primarily a PDF gal the cost isn't quite as onerous. Not to mention I'm trying to get more Starfinder Society into my life as well so there's that product line to keep track of too. Definitely going to have to pick and choose my purchases carefully.
I'm not quite as disappointed about not being able to transition characters from one campaign to the other but I've also only been playing PFS seriously for maybe 2-3 years at most. This also means I still have a fair amount of PFS1 content open to me to play so that makes things easier, too.
(Though I'm kinda bummed that they introduced the Concordance faction for like...a season and 1/2 and now it's presumably gone with all the other PFS1 factions. Did it ever even get a proper conclusion to its plot?)
All that said, I'll hopefully have my books before PbP Gameday, where I'll be playing my first PFS2 game. I am cautiously optimistic!
(Current plan is one player game each of PFS1, PFS2, and SFS for Gameday + the Gallows of Madness module.)
And even if you ultimately decide that PF2 is not for you, I still plan to keep playing and GMing for 1E rather than abandon one to go all-in on the other.
|
First off, I am sorry about not posting yesterday. I am in a pretty remote part of eastern Romanian and when the internet goes down... well it GOES DOWN!
With that said, I am in for PbP now and in the future. I really love the people and groups that Larry has introduced me to. So if you have the room, I would love to join one or two of your scenarios.
No worries Jan, crappy internet happens!
That said, I should probably start being a little more stringent about botting folks at the 24 hr mark (give or take), especially as we start to enter mid-levels where combats get more complex and take longer even on a good day.
Also, glad to hear it re: PF2! I don't know that I'll dive into GMing it right away since everyone and their mother is probably going to be offering games over at Cottonseed once everything goes live. But once I do, I'll be sure to hit some of you guys up first :)
|
|
A construct eh...
Would the shatter spell work vs an animated object? Frankie's caster level would be 4.. so 40lbs..
BOND BREAKER (4+ goals): Once per adventure, you may perform one of two liberating acts. You may cast shatter as a spell-like ability, with a DC equal to 12 plus half the number of goals you have completed (rounded down). Alternatively, you may deal 1d10 additional points of damage on your next attack against a creature or object with hardness. If your weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3 or ×4, you deal 2d10 or 3d10 additional points of damage, respectively.
I'll likely use the ability regardless, but would get more bang for my buck likely with the casting of a 4d6 shatter.
So this is 9 years old but given this statement by James Jacobs I'm going to rule that although it has 'object' in the name, an Animated Object functions as a construct and not as an object. I suspected as much but wanted to make certain.
With that determined, the next question is, 'Does this particular construct qualify as 'crystalline' in nature?'
Crystalline isn't a proper status or a type or a subtype as far as Pathfinder mechanics are concerned, but is merely an adjective. There are a few creatures out there that are described as such or even specifically call out vulnerability to Shatter but the list is small. That said, this sort of thing seems to fall under the realm of 'use one's common sense' to decide.
The bag is described in the scenario as 'a sack of weapons and alchemical equipment'. Seems to me that at least some of the alchemical equipment would certainly be crystalline in nature - glass bottles, vials, etc. So...yes, I'll allow you to use Shatter on this.
All of the above text is written in the spirit of 'showing my work' as a GM fielding a mechanics/rules question :)
______________
Speaking of work, it has been pretty busy tonight so if I don't get an update posted soon I'll get one posted later today at some point.
Yikes, sorry to hear you've been sick but glad you're (presumably) feeling better now!
By the way, if anyone else has any ideas to suggest for adjusting your sequence please do so and don't force poor Laz to come up with all the suggestions ;)
Also I hope I'm more or less making sense to all of you on this puzzle. It's...complicated and I'll explain a little further once we finish the scenario, but you really are on the right track to solving it, I promise.
Okay, so I just wanted to acknowledge:
Yes, that puzzle is very confusing as written in the scenario. Multiple GMs over in the Discussion thread for this scenario had trouble deciphering it. The people that I know who have played this scenario F2F had trouble with it (and eventually found a loophole to brute-force the barrier but that's another story). I read it multiple times and couldn't make a ton of sense of it.
Something got lost in the writing and editing process because the solution a group is expected to reach does not really follow from the handout or the other potential clues that can be given. It's almost as though one person wrote part of the puzzle and a second wrote the other part, but there was no collaboration involved at all between the two.
I tried to do what I could to make things clearer but did not have a lot to go on to make it more comprehensible for a PbP setting. Given the difficulties I had no intention of making you work out each and every little step; once someone hit on the basic gist of the solution I was satisfied to move you forward.
That said...while the way the puzzle plays out in practice is unfortunate, I otherwise really like this scenario. The premise is neat and rather unique among scenarios, I think. We're not quite done yet but we're getting close and I hope your overall impression of the scenario ends up being positive rather than negative once it's all said and done :)
|
|
Ya sorry I wasn't much into the puzzle, been very busy the last few days and Frankie with his poor mental skills isn't the best choice for such things anyhow.
Thanks Laz for figuring it out and dragging our butts through. I've never been a big fan of puzzles in DnD myself. I prefer the RP and adventure to puzzle trickery.
By the way folks, if you care anything about having replays for PFS1, those are now live and can be found under:
My Organized Play --> GM/Event Coordinator
So if you ever wanted a 'do-over' of a particular scenario for whatever reason, you've got your chance now. Or perhaps more chances if you GM a lot and thus recharge those GM Star-Replays :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of puzzles either - at least not in tabletop. That said...
I try very hard not to s#!%-talk any scenario that I happen to be running, even during moments where I'm feeling frustrated with it. This is because I've been at a few F2F tables where the GM has either been obviously frustrated - in an irritated way, not in an amused way - by the scenario or has otherwise flat out talked about how much it sucks or how something is poorly written or whatever. The attitude of the GM feeds into the attitudes of the players at the table and vice versa, so hearing a GM obviously not having fun with the scenario is...well, a buzzkill, to be honest.
This doesn't mean that I don't think a GM should never ever express frustration or vent a little about wonky scenario aspects but it should be done in a manner that's appropriate to the table. I generally don't think it's as much of an issue in PbP where you're lacking the tone and body language to go with the words (usually a barrier to communication but in this case it can be a silver lining) but it's still something to be mindful of.
In other news! As I said the other day we are nearing the end of this scenario, which means I'll need to begin looking to prep the next one. As before, we have a few options based on the PFS Tracker (which I hope you're all keeping updated):
#4-23 Rivalry's End
#8-07 From the Tome of Righteous Repose (Evergreen)
#9-09 Beyond the Halflight Path (Evergreen)
#10-14 Debt to the Quah
I'm game to run any of those, though #4-23 or #10-14 would likely be the most ideal picks since I can see a couple of you have already played the two evergreens at least once. And of course if anyone has a mind to switch out characters after this scenario concludes they will be welcome to do so.
True! If there's a 3-7 scenario that someone would really like to spend a replay on, please feel free to let me know.
|
|
I just played Debt to the Quah at the last gameday, I need to update my tracker I guess. I have played both evergreens but those have different 'paths' right? I'd be happy to play a different path. The other one sounds fine too.
At some point I'd love to do a game with Frankie to complete this:
Defeat a known slaver whose Challenge Rating is at least equal to your character level. For the purposes of this goal, use the definition of slaver from the Freedom Fighter reward.
Fulfill one of the goals above on an Elemental Plane or in pursuit of the freedom of a creature with the air, earth, elemental, fire, or water subtype. Checking one of this goal’s boxes doesn’t prevent you from checking one box for a different goal.
**Oh ya, replays!
|
|
#4-23 Rivalry's End would be great. (I'm signed up to play #10-14 at a local con in mid-August.)
Massee, if you find any scenarios that meet that goal, let us know.
Re your GMing Thought, Kristin, I totally concur. I sometimes like to take on scenarios with bad reviews just for the challenge they pose for the GM to make them work.
PbP is a great platform for doing just that.
Okay, so #4-23 it is! After that we'll look at playing the two 3-7 Evergreens and then play it by ear after that.
Re: Frankie's Request - I'll see what I can do but you/I will have to do some digging since there are many, many, many scenarios out there that I have yet to play or even read :)
Off the top of my head I know there are a few mid-to-high-tier scenarios that take you to different elemental planes so one of them might fit the bill.
No worries Jan, it happens! Just glad to see you check in when you're able :)
|
|
GM Ladile/Frankie,
#10-21 Slaver's End sounds very promising. It's for tiers 5-9.
If Frankie's in a hurry ;-), we could consider playing that next, or maybe consider it as the follow-on scenario after #4-23 Rivalry's End.
What do you think?
I'd be more than happy to add #10-21 to the scenario queue! That said, I think it will have to wait a bit as I believe half the group will still be too low level even after we finish the current scenario :P