DM Voomer's Age of Ashes

Game Master Voomer

I have been analyzing and pondering on this as well as reading through what the other people are saying. I have come to the conclusion that the terms 'metagaming' and 'railroading' have way more of a negative connotation than they deserve.

Because both are actually required in order for the game to work and be successful.

Bear with me, and let me explain.

A TTRPG is a form of cooperative story telling. That is only going to work if the story has a reasonably unified plot among the people doing the story telling. So basically we are all on the same train. We get to choose collectively where to lay the tracks, but we can really only have one set of rails. Trying to have the plot going in multiple different directions at the same time is not going to work.

And how do we get all six of us to be unified on what the plot of our story should be...? Metagaming.

Consider: Without any metagaming, Caiten would have woken up in the morning quite certain that the entire party was either killed like Dario or beaten unconscious and captured like himself, Oren, and Cevendyll. And since Cevendyll was removed, never to be seen again, there is no reason not to assume that he was interrogated and then executed. Also safe to assume that same fate for Yasami, Lisi, and Catalina as well. So with no hope of rescue, there is no reason to not try and immediately escape - even though the chances of success are dismally low and the likely result is death.

But that isn't what I chose for the actions of Caiten. Why? Blatant metagaming - that suicidal escape attempt isn't the plot that we were trying to go with for the story.

So it seems really strange to me that we should desperately avoid metagaming for one half of the party (NotEspi, Feyrial, and Axolotl don't get to know what choices Caiten and Oren are making because it might affect what Yasami, Catalina, and Lisi choose) but it is just fine for the other half (Caiten and Oren don't need to panic and do something crazy because breithauptclan and Chuck8 know that help is on the way).

In short, I think that a lot of the problems that we are experiencing are due to a lack of healthy metagaming.

Which circles back to the topic of why the words 'metagaming' and 'railroading' get such a bad emotional response.

Unhealthy metagaming is where players use metagame knowledge in order to try and game the game and get some advantage in the challenges.

And Unhealthy railroading is where the GM is the only one who is allowed to choose where the plot goes, and the other players have no actual choice in the matter.

But healthy metagaming and railroading is critically necessary and is usually done instinctively, silently, and automatically. So we only talk about the unhealthy metagaming and railroading.

Normally, that is done through the nonverbal communication that people naturally do (well, most people, lol). When someone proposes a plan that someone else doesn't like, they see it expressed on their face and body language. So, fairly quickly as people throw out their ideas and get feedback from the other players, the group comes to a consensus about a plot that the group as a whole is good with.

But I feel like a broken record by saying it again - that natural process doesn't work in play-by-post. We can't rely on that instinctive, silent, automatic communication between the players. We have to explicitly metagame in order to get everyone in the group on the same railroad track.

And I probably didn't say this very well the first time. I am not intending to rake anyone over the coals and I apologize that that is what it sounds like. I like this group and these characters.

But I am struggling at the moment and I am trying to figure out what to do to fix that. I still think the best way to try and express the specific problem that I am running into is: If there is a right answer to this challenge, I don't know what it is.

And that is making it really hard for me to play my character. I know I need to create my own script, and I am fine with that. But I do need to know what the plot is - at least in a general sense. Otherwise my script isn't going to mesh well with the script that the other players and the GM are creating.

I fell asleep early last night because I was on muscle relaxers due to a sciatic flare-up.

I wholeheartedly agree with Caiten here. A fixation on the idea of metagaming and GM spoilers and whatnot is definitely because of the negative connotations and the overwhelming majority only experiencing/dealing with unhealthy metagaming and railroading.

It's also another new thing with trying out a new GM. Fern didn't care about all of that as long as we didn't use the knowledge as characters. Now, several thousand posts in (for everyone except me), we have a wrench being thrown in that.

I can respect, even if I don't understand, the desire to put your foot down about spoilers. Just understand where we're coming from when we are challenging that desire--especially when it went unspoken and disrupted a game that was already on the rocks. And yes, I saw Lisi already doesn't do that, but his example is a personal philosophy rather than something that was ever required in this game before.

Anyway, I do want to see what you have to offer as a GM. There are going to be growing pains, especially since you are new to PBP gaming, but if everyone is willing to discuss -- like we all are willing to! -- and everyone is understanding that we will have to revisit these things as we all get used to each other, then it will go a lot smoother.

As with any relationship, communication - from all sides - is key.

Complete agreement with Caiten's last post. Healthy, "story-appropriate" metagaming is great. After all, Age of Ashes isn't a West Marches or sandbox game. If we aren't going the right way, GM Voomer, I'm perfectly fine if you nudge us all in the Discussion thread. :)

My solution to the spoilers conundrum is, for separate scenes--don't use spoiler tags. Only use spoilers for, like, a dream someone has that they can then relate to others, or GM rolls. I hope I didn't come across as anti-GM nudges or anything. I'm a nudger myself in the games I run.

also yay sciatica :( Hope you feel better, Catalina.

Quick note - looks like folks in round 1 missed that Caiten cast Stoke the Heart on Lisi for +3 damage. Caiten does that a lot - using Stoke - so be aware of it, y'all.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I agree with most of what you all wrote, and certainly the fundamental notion that some metagaming and some railroading is an inherent part of TTRPGs and the question is finding the balance/avoiding bad versions of those things.

GM tabs

I think my only real point of disagreement is on a limited kind of GM tabs, and I do think it was a mistake for me to accept others saying they would not respect my spoiler tags with respect to Caiten and Oren's situation in the bunkhouse. If I had proceeded as I wanted, we would have had those players be engaged all along. From my perspective, it wasn't just about metagaming -- it was also about having the suspense and the mystery. I couldn't really have mystery for Caiten and Oren, since the players KNEW the other characters didn't die. But I could maintain mystery for the others by them not knowing the location or condition of Caiten and Oren, and I think it's totally my prerogative to have the suspense of the narrative unfold how I want it to. In a real life game no one would tell a GM they couldn't go to another room to have a conversation with a player. As Caiten rightly observes, there's a lot that can't be replicated in PbP, but the separate scenes can be, if spoiler tags are respected. So, going forward I reserve the right to request that certain separate scenes spoiler tags be respected. I think it will be very rare because there are not that many separate scenes and among those only a limited subset would be significant enough to justify maintaining secrecy.

As for the routine "GM rolls" spoiler tags, I assume you won't overly metagame with the information about the foes, so I don't mind from that perspective. But you do have to realize that makes it almost impossible for me to fudge rolls in your favor. I might be inclined to ignore a critcal hit or something in a dire moment, but it is very difficult to do so if I feel like you all are going to know -- fudging, if it happens, should be a secret. For the record, I would never fudge a roll NOT in your favor. Anyhow, I guess you all just need to decide whether you would rather have the ability to look at GM rolls, or rather let me have that ability to fudge at times. I'm not trying to be a pain; I'm just trying to communicate an actual dilemma I have had because you look at GM rolls.

It's no problem at all looking under tabs just conveying information to players about the results of knowledge rolls and that kind of thing. And I will do routine separate scenes in the open, as Lisi suggests.

I'm sorry if all that is such a big change from GM Fern. It seems to me that it shouldn't make such a big difference in your play experience, especially since secret separate scenes will be so rare.

Communicating plans

As to Caiten's concern about plans, I think Yasami has articulated the current plan in game, which, as I understand it, is to stick to the treeline so you can't be surrounded and can escape easily if need be. I think her suggestion was also that the group would be taking pot shots at the cultists to wear them down. I think the slightly larger plot at the moment is to kill/scare off the cultists, retrieve your equipment, and then assess the situation. Hezle hinted to Yasami that the totems will need to come down before you take on Belmazog at her fortresss (all that will be addressed more later), so you do think eventually you will need to head down into the mine, but that can be after getting rid of the cultists and resting.

I'm a big fan of PCs talking to each other in game, and I encourage you to do that, and to read carefully enough to notice when your character is being spoken to. For example, Caiten gave Lisi a suggestion about a fireball, and Lisi never responded. That was a great way to suggest a plan/tactic in game, and I think Lisi should have given some response, or expressly stated that their character was too distracted. (I'm sorry to pick on Lisi here, but I'm friends with the player so I think they can take it from me, and they have had a TON going on IRL, so I'm not so much faulting them for this instance as much as using the example to highlight how these exchanges can usefully happen in game)

More could be said, but that is enough for the moment I think... I'm perfectly fine with this in depth discussion. I think it is interesting and useful. I hope everyone else feels ok about it too.

I can live with keeping those specific scenes unread when specified.

Not being able to fudge a GM roll has been a dilemma with my own PBP GMing as well. Honestly, when it comes down to that, I will sometimes just add a circumstance bonus to tip it in my players' favor. Or, I'll handwave a roll and use the "rule of cool" depending on the situation. I like to look at the rolls to occasionally be like, "How bad did that guy miss, wow?!" but I hardly retain any of the numbers, personally. If you think it would be easier to do the fudging and just let us trust you with the dice rolls, I really have no issue with that. I also have no issue with you being like...here's a random circumstance bonus to boost this roll...without any further explanation.

If I ever miss something in a post, don't be afraid to call me out. I'm dealing with burnt-out teacher brain right now...two more weeks until summer.

I might be inclined to ignore a critcal hit or something in a dire moment, but it is very difficult to do so if I feel like you all are going to know -- fudging, if it happens, should be a secret. For the record, I would never fudge a roll NOT in your favor. Anyhow, so I guess you all just need to decide whether you would rather have the ability to look at GM rolls, or rather let me have that ability to fudge at times. I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to communicate an actual dilemma I have had because you look at GM rolls.

I have a question for you then: up until this moment right now, were you or anyone else aware that I knew that Lisi should have dropped unconscious from the second AoO attack of the Vrock here? With the second AoO and the electricity damage, Caiten couldn't delay both of them.

Meeting the AC hits. I don't know if that was a mistake or a fudge, and I don't care. I'm not going to call it out in either case because I think that either scenario is an acceptable thing to do. Most, if not all of us are also GMs in other games. Fudging rolls may as well be a printed rule as far as I am concerned.

I would much prefer to run the game with GM fudging of rolls on occasion as necessary and desired.

So, like metagaming, we try to keep it behind the scenes as something we know of as players, but not something that comes out in gameplay. And we all willingly suspend disbelief as part of playing the game.

Yeah, I had some awareness of an issue there but let it go and didn't poke at it. I certainly try to avoid fudging but it can have its place, especially in more roleplaying-oriented games like this one, and where the balance of an encounter just ends up being really off and a fudge can avoid a TPK.

Interesting thoughts about random circumstance bonuses, Catalina. I guess that could come into play with some enemy near crits or PC near misses, and it seems like you all are comfortable with me doing a little bit of that on the fly (in your favor of course) if it seems appropriate.

PF2e is pretty challenging for the players by the default rules on encounter design, so I'm going to try to compensate for that in this role-playing/story-oriented game. It will just be a process for me figuring out my approach to that.

If you wanted a story-telling hook for the circumstance bonuses, I think you could get creative with things going on in the setting, etc. (depending on the situation) because the word circumstance is pretty broad and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Sometimes I don't have the energy for creativity, lol :P

Caiten, I actually did know that one - I figured that was one of those fudging situations and just let it go. lol

Caiten, I actually did know that one - I figured that was one of those fudging situations and just let it go. lol

That's the thing though. I didn't know that you had noticed that. Nothing in what you posted in discussion or how your character acted in gameplay gave any indication that you were even aware of it.

So sort of like the question 'if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' If a roll is fudged and no one mentions it, did anyone actually notice?

I mean, to be honest, I didn't really say anything because I didn't want to be like, "Hey, another one bites the dust" in that situation. Haha.

Given the desperate situation the group was in, I'm fine with how that played out.

In response to Caiten's in game question, I believe Lisi has only been hit once for 15 points of damage, right Lisi? You should update your info line when you have a chance.

Oh righty-o--I should be at a different HP.

Does the roll20 map not show the "yellow" charau-ka with an X through it? It does on mine, but if not on yours that is an issue...

I don't know if it did at the time, but it does now! So either slow refresh on Roll20 or PEBCAK.

Hi all!

I was offline for the weekend, but am on my way home now. I'll drop a post in a few hours.

does that make a difference? I'm not sure what feat/ability you're using.

Fascinating Performance or Focused Fascination. The difference that I see between them is that one will target all of the charau-ka but only works on a critical success, and the other targets only one of them but works on a regular success.

The difference is a bit moot because of how temporary the Fascinated condition is during combat.

The point is to gain panache - which increases movement speed among other things.

Got it. Thanks. I'll post for the next round later today. There may be another spider emerging from the mudpit...

Confirming: Being Deafened doesn't interfere with spellcasting components including verbal components. The Silence spell does, but the Deafened condition doesn't seem to.

Finally, a chance to geomance!

Didn't deafened have a 20% spell casting failure in PFE1?

*checks PF1 Archives*

Yes. Deafened: 20% failure chance for spells with verbal components.

Which would match a DC 5 flat check. But PF2 doesn't call out spellcasting as being affected.

Will post ASAP. Having a rough week.

Yep. Deafened not the worst of conditions, although it may affect your intra-party communications for the next several rounds.

Sometimes I think I should give Yasami a barbarian archetype just for the rage. Every now and then, she feels like the type.

*Palpatine voice* : do it, Yasami.

Catalina, oof. Solidarity. My weeks have finally emerged from a true Rovagugian roughness.

Caiten: just checking. If Stoke the Heart is not sustained, it's over after one round---is that correct? :)

Caiten: just checking. If Stoke the Heart is not sustained, it's over after one round---is that correct? :)

Yes. Ends at the end of my turn if not sustained.

School year ends May 26. Kids are checked out and being rude and nasty. I'm ready to stick my head in a deep fryer and take a deep breath. :P

Good luck, Catalina! Sounds tough.

Caiten, I'm not going to worry about it for this round, but I'm wondering about firing a ranged attack through three squares of difficult terrain (thick jungle). Do you (or anyone else) have thoughts on how that is modeled in the PF2e rules?

I'm wondering about firing a ranged attack through three squares of difficult terrain (thick jungle). Do you (or anyone else) have thoughts on how that is modeled in the PF2e rules?

Umm... Sort of. There is a thread about it here.

tl;dr: foliage and/or weather might create concealment or impose a circumstance penalty. But it is up to the GM to decide if it does or what value to use.

One thing I thought of in the last 20 minutes or so:

You could piggyback on the Take Cover action. By default, the difficult terrain from the foliage doesn't cause concealment, but someone in the difficult terrain can take an action to tuck themselves behind a big leaf or something like that to lower the enemy's visibility.

Thanks. Yeah, looks like there's no clear rule. Funny that those witch abilities reference ignoring circumstance negative modifiers when there seem to be no express rules for those. It seems like the concealment rules apply here. This is what I'm thinking: If a PC is firing from a square fully covered by foliage, then the PC has concealment, but so does the target of the ranged attack. So that equals a DC 5 flat check. The PC can avoid that by saying they are at the edge of the forest, in which case the PC just has standard cover. But if a PC fires through an additional square of difficult terrain, the foe has concealment AND I will apply a circumstance modifier, probably -2 per square (so, -6 here). Caiten hit easily, so the circumstance modifiers would not be an issue, and I'll just ignore the flat check for your attack.

The foes will be able to target you in the jungle when they become aware of your position, under the same terms (concealment plus possible additional circumstance modifiers).

Does that seem ok? Anybody have any concerns?

Just saw your note about take cover. I think that would only be applicable as to a jungle square right on the edge of the jungle, and I'll have to give it some thought. It might make sense in that situation to use the standard/greater cover rules and no negative to attack if the PC has not taken cover, and no concealment for anyone. But in Caiten's situation, he and the foes are definitely concealed from each other.

Does that seem ok? Anybody have any concerns?

A couple of minor thoughts and suggestions.

A bit odd to suddenly have cover at the edge of the forest, but concealment everywhere else.

The -2 per square is perhaps a bit much. PF1 2 points equates approximately to PF2 1 point. So a -1 penalty may be better.

And circumstance penalty to attack rolls won't affect AoE - but neither will concealment. Just something to be aware of.

I'm not sure I understand the first point. The idea is that in a square at the edge of the jungle you're not really hidden; you just have some cover behind trees -- I think either standard or greater if the PC "takes cover" makes sense. But if a PC is further back in the forest, then the PC and the foes are each going to have a hard time seeing each other at all. Thus, concealment.

Given the thickness of the forest, I do think -2 per square is reasonable. Lesser cover is where there is someone standing in between the attacker and target and that is -1, and it seems reasonable to me that targeting through a full 5 feet of foliage is much more challenging. The PC does have a choice about from how far in the jungle to attack, and both sides incur the same penalties.

And, yeah, right about AoE.

My thought is that cover and concealment are for two different things. And have very different effects.

Cover is for a hard physical object blocking attacks. It gives bonus to AC and reflex saves.

Concealment is for not being able to see or target accurately. It adds a miss chance.

So while there is no change to AoE between concealment and circumstance penalty, there is a difference when cover gets involved. Having cover only along the edge of the forest but not in the internals would be strange.

Now, if all of the areas in the forest provide cover, that would make sense. Though the -2 circumstance penalty per square would stack with that since one is a penalty to the attacker and the other is a bonus to the defender. But at least then we wouldn't have the strange effect that the charau-ka that chased Lisi into the forest and made it 10 feet inside the forest doesn't have the +2 save bonus from cover against Burning Hands, but the one still only in the 5 foot edge of the forest does.

I think I see where you're coming from. I never meant to suggest there would be no cover inside the forest. In my thinking the cover at the edge of the forest is something that just benefits the defending PC -- any foe not in the forest but attacked from a PC at the edge of the forest would not have cover. But if both the PC and the foe were in the forest they would both have cover. If they were in adjacent squares there would be no concealment or additional -2. If they are both in the forest AND there is a forest square in between them, both the PC and the foe would both have cover, and there would be an additional -2 circumstance penalty. Maybe that's enough and we don't need to mess with concealment too?

Under that formulation, Caiten right now has +2 to AC to cover and the foes would have a -6 if they tried to target him through 3 squares of forest. And Caiten has a -6 to target through 3 squares of forest but foes in the open don't have cover.

Are we on the same page now?

This was fun thinking this through. Thanks!

Others may not need to read all the back and forth but should probably at least read this one and then back as necessary to understand how cover and targeting from within the jungle will work.

Are we on the same page now?

I think I understand what you are having for the mechanics, yes.

Very interesting posts, folks.

My only question, Yasami, is whether your movement would trigger an AoO from the butcher, given that it wasn't the target of the dance and technically you did not "step" even though you only moved 5 feet. Thoughts?

By the way, I really so much appreciate that you give the info about the abilities you are using.

Catalina, who specifically is the target of your devastating attack? I think one of the boggards?

Very interesting posts, folks.

My only question, Yasami, is whether your movement would trigger an AoO from the butcher, given that it wasn't the target of the dance and technically you did not "step" even though you only moved 5 feet. Thoughts?

By the way, I really so much appreciate that you give the info about the abilities you are using.

It does provoke AoO from everyone but the target of Leading Dance. Which I forgot about, but let's leave it as it is for now. I will be wiser next time.

Yeah, I had meant the one who was hurt nearest me was the target. Sorry 'bout that. Your assumptions worked out just fine, lol

If Oren doesn't post fairly soon I will bot him to have him go help out at the main area of battle. But could someone figure out and post here in the discussion thread his current to hit and AC with Lisi's staff and +1 leather armor? And also his current HP (which Caiten calculated back a little way in the thread).

Oren:
HP 95/114
AC 21 10 + 8(T) +1(DEX) +2(+1 leather armor)
AC 20 while Raging

Also, to note. When dealing with enemies that have a higher attack bonus, having a lower AC doesn't increase the chance to get hit. That stays at 50%. What having a lower AC does is increase the chance to get crit by 5% per point.

So the difference between a 23 AC and a 20 AC is a pretty big one.

Post coming. And damn

So the trees are difficult terrain, correct? Because if they are, the only enemy that Oren would take a full round to get to would be the purple boggard, who is either fleeing or about to get deleted by Catalina next round.

I'm not particularly sure how much he can contribute at this moment, aside from flanking support and another bag of HP

I don't want to tell you what to do, but your character knows that even if he can't attack this round, his presence up in the main melee would take pressure off the others and distribute the attacks, especially vis-a-vis Caiten. And then Oren could attack in future rounds.

It sure seems to Oren that Catalina has the situation around her covered.

I'll throw a spear your way once I am done with this butcher?

Oren, you as a player may not realize, but your character realizes that the fight will be over before you can retrieve your maul and return. You are wearing +1 leather armor and wielding Lisi's staff, and you're a barbarian and you hear your friends in trouble to the North. I'll let you change your action if you want.

Sorry to be a bit heavy handed, but I want to make sure you understand what is clear to your character.

I don't really disagree with the choice though. It is a bit of splitting the party rather than abandonment. Both Oren and I are coming off of getting reck'd and Oren is a lot more reliant on equipment than I am.