PbP PFS GM school 2024 (Inactive)

Game Master Redelia

I think the number one thing for a GM to do is make it fun. Were playing a Game. Preperation is important but if your preparing things your players don't use then it seems that your unprepared and you may have worked at it for hours which is frustrating. which leads to a frustrated GM making bad deceisions. which sucks for everybody.

I also think that the main job of a GM is to make the game enjoyable for the players. Players who had fun tend to return to the tables. Further, I think that the job of a GM is also inclusion of all kinds of players, ie. people who need more time to understand things, people who prefer to avoid roleplaying (I know it's a RPG, but still, there are people who don't talk much during a game), younger people (no 18+ talking/content in games with kids), some players don't like blood scenes, others don't like horror, etc. It should be fun for everybody, if it is not, the GM should check where the problem is.

Also, in my opinion, preparation is a big part, to a certain extend. Players expect that the GMs know what the plot is about, know the scenes, the characters etc. There is nothing more annoying than a game that pauses every few minutes, because the GM has to look up things in the plot (unless PCs did really unexpected things). Maps and minis (can also be paper minis) make the experience a bit better and show that the GM put some effort into the preparation.

The GM should have the last decision, they should avoid to let other players decide what happens next in a certain situation (unless it's the PCs choice, of course). The final ruling should be done by the GM to keep discussions between players to a minimum.

I believe the role of a GM is to narrate the game as if it were their own, breathe life into NPCs, and ensure that players thoroughly enjoy their gaming experience.

To me the role of a GM is to run the game for the benefit and enjoyment of the entire group, both GM and players. Running the game then involves guiding the shared story telling that is an RPG.

For a prewritten PFS scenario this means:
- Knowing the scenario - the scenes, characters. storyline etc
- Knowing the rules well enough to be able to adjudicate the game
- Presenting the scenario so that the players can visualise what is going on
- Listening to what the players have their characters do and having the world react to that, whether it be interaction with NPCs, travel, combat etc
- Running the game consistently to how it is written
- Keeping track of everyone's involvement and giving time to those who might be quieter/less proactive

I'd say the following would be the core role of the GM, in the sense that if you aren't doing these things, then you aren't actually GMing the game:

- Know the rules of the game and adjudicate those rules in play.
- Run the plot, NPCs, hazards/obstacles, and elements of the world other than the PCs.

I agree with most of what others have said, regarding things like organizing/tracking the players (setting up the boards/VTT for a virtual game, or getting chronicles filled out correctly when the game's over), making sure the presentation of the world is clear and entertaining, know the plotline, etc., but I feel that those are all more specific instances of how the two bullets above are manifesting.

Thanks, understood thr alias thing, probably will borrow some ideas. no body talked though about helping new players set they character up. I know pathfinder 2e but in the forum didn't play and because of that asked a noob question, setting a character in a new system (although it can be personal) can take a lot if time and I think it is the gm job to help and save time.

I think the main job of the GM is to run the game so that the whole group can enjoy it, have the final word on rules questions and usually set up an area to play in.

As mentioned by another member above...

The job of a GM...
To make sure everyone has fun.

To that I would add a two ancillary tasks that each of the group members leave understanding each other and understanding the processes utilized a little better.

I don't have much to add that others haven't already said.

I like to think of the GM as a director in a play with a lot of improv. Organized Play scenarios may have points we need to go through, but other games really allow the party to go in a lot of directions. We just need to make sure that the cast (players) stay within the bounds of what we can do and get away with. Acceptable forms of humor, appropriate limits to zaniness, whathaveyou.

Basically I find that the GM is just the moderator. It's the players who tell the story. The GM is just there to resolve disputes and settle the randomness that comes up.

I'm seeing a lot of different view of what our job as a GM is. I'm seeing some every different views, and also a lot of requirements for the GM.

Maybe some questions to keep the discussion going:

- Is there anything that was said here you strongly agree with? Anything you want to add upon? How are other people's opinions different from your own?

(In case you disagree with someone, please remain respectful, of course)

- What are some of the best examples of a GM doing their job that you have seen? Why did you think this was good?

- I saw an interesting statement from another participant: 'The GM is first and foremost another player at the table'. What do you think about that?

I would encourage you to keep talking with each other about what has been said so far, see if we can get to some more interesting views.

Mentors: Do you have any views to add to this discussion?

Best examples I've seen:

a. A GM taking the time to research a rule nuance that a player brought up. The situation was a bit obscure but the GM took the time anyway.

b. A GM being objective and walking back a statement they made. IIRC they ruled that esoteric lore cannot be used as downtime. The objectivity part is that the GM had a conflict with the player (i.e. they didn't like their attitude at the table) and could have kept quiet. (Totally earned my respect... I would play under a GM like that any day)

- I saw an interesting statement from another participant: 'The GM is first and foremost another player at the table'. What do you think about that?

I absolutely agree with that. The GM is playing to enjoy their time too just as much as any of the other people at the table are.

I have also heard a couple of my GMs mention that they really enjoy the opportunity to RP and play various characters - whether that is an interesting NPC ally in town, or a campaign antagonist or villain that the other player characters are interacting with.

- Is there anything that was said here you strongly agree with? Anything you want to add upon? How are other people's opinions different from your own?

I'm not sure about strongly disagree. But one thing I would add on to is the idea that it should be the PCs telling the story and the GM is just the moderator. I have seen that taken too far. Especially in PbP.

What I have experienced in one of my games is a PbP that nearly shut down because the GM would wait around expecting the players to do something. Myself and the other players didn't know what to do. There weren't any clear paths forward - nothing but the fog of the unknown.

In an in-person game, the GM and other players can have a quick back and forth throwing around of ideas and suggestions and can fairly quickly come to a plan of what to do to move the plot forward. If done well, that is fantastic. If not done well, it feels like the players are doing the Clever Hans trick with the GM.

That absolutely does not work in a PbP game for two reasons. One is that there is almost no way of getting that quick back and forth negotiating of ideas. A back and forth takes between 24 and 48 hours. And that is for one question or proposal, and one answer or response. So a negotiation of which door do go through can take IRL weeks.

The other problem with PbP is that there is no non-verbal communication. You can't do the Clever Hans trick. Everything that is communicated has to be written out explicitly.

The reasoning that the GM gave for doing this lack of instruction and guidance and the desire of having the players lead the plot was, "I don't want to be the type of GM to railroad the players."

Certainly, having the GM make all of the major decisions of the game is not any fun. But especially in a PbP game, only the GM can lead the plot into the future. The other characters are mostly interacting with things that have been presented as happening in the recent past.

The players should be making informed decisions, and then the GM should lead the story forward.

Kludde wrote:

- I saw an interesting statement from another participant: 'The GM is first and foremost another player at the table'. What do you think about that?

I absolutely agree with that. The GM is playing to enjoy their time too just as much as any of the other people at the table are.

Agreed on that point. I used to run games where I had a PC that was part of the party, and I don't particularly do that anymore. Instead I basically just have a lot of NPCs around, offering to help as needed, treating them as hirelings and contacts for the PCs, and I get my enjoyment out of that rather than finding cool equipment or levelling them up.

Kludde wrote:

- Is there anything that was said here you strongly agree with? Anything you want to add upon? How are other people's opinions different from your own?

I'm not sure about strongly disagree. But one thing I would add on to is the idea that it should be the PCs telling the story and the GM is just the moderator. I have seen that taken too far. Especially in PbP.

Agreed on this. In a pbp, in particular, it's an ad-hoc group that comes together for a specific adventure/story, so moving through the storyline is more essential than the group dynamic that comes out in an in-person game. I have sat through an in-person game where we've "played" for four hours, progressed the plot hardly at all, but had a fun time doing it. In a pbp, I would really be frustrated as a player if anything spun its wheels for that long.

On the other hand, I've also been in games where the GM really railroaded the plot, having things spontaneously happen that didn't make sense, and that none of the players agreed to, just to push us along to the next step in the pre-written adventure. "Oh, it's morning, and you've now set up an ambush for the head of the thief's guild. Roll initiative and put your tokens in the starting position." Everyone is perplexed as to why we're doing it, what our plan is, and whether this approach is particularly in-character for our group to have decided on. So it can be a balancing act.

I wouldn't say I disagree with anyone else's assertion; it's more of a "this and" situation, and each GM will prioritize and juggle the different aspects according to their style and preferences.

Pacing is essential in PbP. Too slow and everyone forgets what's going on. Too fast and the players who can't check their games multiple times per day get excluded. The GM has a lot of control over the pace of progression. They can set expectations during recruitment and/or the group can come to an agreement in the Discussion tab before the game starts.

When things crawl to a halt, the GM can post: "This is what's going on now. Here are the options for moving forward that you've discovered. There may be more if you ask more questions/keep looking." Or "Where to next: Door A, B, or C? First consensus of X votes wins."

On a different note, the most engaging GMs I've played with have made a priority of integrating the PCs into the narrative and making sure the world and the NPCs respond realistically. I had one GM delve into my other PCs and have NPCs make offhand comments about them.

'The GM is first and foremost another player at the table.' -- Valid point. For most of us, this is another way for us to play. We're not paid, so if it's not fulfilling to us there's less incentive to continue. I think taking my own turn at the wheel will help me be a more understanding player.

A GM also need to have fun so I guess if he think that a player is not a good fit for the table he can refuse to accept him to the table.
I don't remember gm or players that helped me with rule related things, I remember table or scenarios that I had fun, so if the gm is having fun it means that he is doing his/her "job" and most of the other players are having fun.

Hope I'm ok in my opinion, but how to do it I still don't know.

I have a question for the rest of the group. What do you think of players using very off-the-rails tactics? Things like burning down the adventure location in order to kill the enemies inside since they don't have hostages or a fragile macguffin. Do you like this because it can create an interesting battle, or hate this because it ruins the hard work you put in building the adventure location?

I have a question for the rest of the group. What do you think of players using very off-the-rails tactics? Things like burning down the adventure location in order to kill the enemies inside since they don't have hostages or a fragile macguffin. Do you like this because it can create an interesting battle, or hate this because it ruins the hard work you put in building the adventure location?

I haven't experienced something disruptive like this first hand as either a player or a GM. So keep that in mind as I put my thoughts out here.

off-the-rails content can be some of the best content. We had a wedding between two of the PCs in Fall of Plaguestone. We were between PFS scenario adventures in a longer running group (waiting for one of the players to free up a character that they wanted to switch to), and improvised a social meeting in a Pathfinder lodge between a few of the PCs.

It can also be some of the worst content. Like what you are describing where a PC or two decide to do something unexpected that will change the plot of the campaign.

And I think that the difference is that 'unexpected' part. If players are springing surprises on the GM that are going to invalidate a lot of preparation, then that is just disruptive. If the players and the GM get together aside from the game and decide on a new plan and a new plot, then that is great.

So if one player proposes doing something disruptive, the GM should feel free to call a meeting of players - mid-game even - and put the proposal to the group to decide on. If everyone (including the GM, of course) negotiates an agreement for this plot-disrupting idea, then the GM can run with that. And may have to do some new preparations. Maybe even ending that session early (in an in-person game) in order to re-prepare.

I have a question for the rest of the group. What do you think of players using very off-the-rails tactics? Things like burning down the adventure location in order to kill the enemies inside since they don't have hostages or a fragile macguffin. Do you like this because it can create an interesting battle, or hate this because it ruins the hard work you put in building the adventure location?

If this happens in a PFS scenario, I would reminds then that arson is a criminal offense and ask them to reconsider the consequence of their action. If they insist on doing so, for a Society game I would charge them 5pp per body recovery to represent the effort the Society go through to fish them out of the jail.

If the players come up with something creative to solve a problem that might be outsite the limit of the scenario, but within the limit of Pathfinder rule set, I would allow them to do so as long as it's not something destructive or harmful to the general public like setting the whole house on fire. I like to reward players who can think outside the box, and I would like to work with the player to make such action enjoyable for everyone (except their enemies I guess)

I have a question for the rest of the group. What do you think of players using very off-the-rails tactics? Things like burning down the adventure location in order to kill the enemies inside since they don't have hostages or a fragile macguffin. Do you like this because it can create an interesting battle, or hate this because it ruins the hard work you put in building the adventure location?

I would agree with GM Lantern: pause the game and discuss ramifications with the players, including the possibility of stopping early so the GM can make new preparations, as well as the in-game affects of those choices in and on the world.

One of my kids is in DnD club at their middle school, and their group is a bunch of chaotic murder hobos who destroy things (and people) a lot. Their GM seems to think it's hilarious. So I guess it depends on the group and the goals. PFS does require that no one be outright evil, so PFS characters should behave appropriately. Having a Session 0 could be really useful for setting expectations and negotiating how much chaos the GM can/is willing to handle.

The GM is first and foremost another player at the table'. What do you think about that?

Never thought of it like this, but seriously they are a player at the table. The better they are engaged, the better the game.

I have a question for the rest of the group. What do you think of players using very off-the-rails tactics? Things like burning down the adventure location in order to kill the enemies inside since they don't have hostages or a fragile macguffin. Do you like this because it can create an interesting battle, or hate this because it ruins the hard work you put in building the adventure location?

It can go either way. My experience is limited and from a long time ago, but some players like to disrupt, and it can be a challenge for GMs, but it can also make it an enjoyable experience for others at the table. I think its YMMV.

Hi, everyone! I've been sick, but am back. It will take me a day or so to carefully read through your responses so far, but please keep talking while I do so.

(and thanks, Kludde, for taking over for a bit)

I have a question for the rest of the group. What do you think of players using very off-the-rails tactics? Things like burning down the adventure location in order to kill the enemies inside since they don't have hostages or a fragile macguffin. Do you like this because it can create an interesting battle, or hate this because it ruins the hard work you put in building the adventure location?

I have typically run PFS scenarios where there is set mechanism to handle this type of thing. However, should a group of PCs decide to pursue a course like the one described above - burning down a building to destroy a group of enemy NPCs - I would offer them the opportunity to design and detail such a plan.

Working with them I would point out areas where the plan could fail and leave them with a destroyed building, but very alive and very mad enemies. If they wish to further improve the plan, I set a time limit for the plan in game terms (i.e. how long their window of opportunity is within the context of the campaign/adventure)

If they make it through to a final plan, I would then explain "tit for tat" and upon receiving agreement that what is fine for the NPCs is also fine for PCs allow them to execute the plan. I would then shortly afterward execute a similar plan against the PCs undertaken with the same depth and level of precision.

I don't know if this makes me "like this because it creates unique and interesting situations" or if "it ruins my wonderful plans". It does reinforce the natural consequences of escalations and demonstrates checks and balances to the PCs.

What is disruptive? Doing things that the GM didn't expect or weren't prepared for? Acting evil? Trying to go off the rail? One is not accepted or not fun, the other is a discussion about railroading vs. sandbox. I understand that we are mostly railroading in society, right?

What is disruptive?

You have heard of "don't split the party", yes? The bad type of disruptive is when you split the players. Where something significant and potentially campaign changing is being done, but only agreed to by a few of the players and the GM isn't one of them.

Significant and potentially campaign changing being things like

* harming the reputation of the party with the NPC allies:
** stealing from shop keepers,
** deliberately causing damage to the town,
** declining to go on missions.

* causing conflict with other player characters:
** flirting,
** causing damage - deliberately not excluding allies from AoE damage or even doing PvP attacks,
** being unhelpful.

* changing the plot:
** destroying, selling, or deliberately losing plot-important items,
** killing NPC allies - especially plot-relevant ones,
** leaving the location where plot events are happening.

And like I said, any of these are fine as long as you have agreement from everyone at the table.

** being unhelpful.

If everyone is fine with your character being a loner edgelord that snarks at the NPCs, or charges into the middle of a group of enemies while everyone else is still scouting and planning - that is just part of your character and the team synergy being that part of the rest of the party's characters are going to compensate for that... then that could be a very interesting team and party dynamic.

But if you are simply deciding on your own to lie, cheat, and steal from NPCs and causing those NPCs to view the party badly, or Leroy Jenkins into a crowd of enemies and expect the party to bail you out at the cost of a great many resources... then you are being disruptive. Because you don't have agreement from the other players at the table. Even though the actions of the character are nearly identical.

It is that agreement that is the difference between being disruptive and being interesting.

The points GM Lantern posted in his last post are very interesting. In non-PFS games, as long as all players are ok with that, I usually let them do most of the things on the list.

Stealing from shopkeepers? Why not, but don't get caught or face the consequences. When it comes to killing allies or leaving locations where events are happening, I usually tell them that it's the case and they consider an alternative plan. I ran only PFS scenarios or Adventure Pahths so far, so the players know that there is prepared a plot with certain milestones.

Long story short: as long as there is an agreement between players that this is ok, then it shall be. Although, I never had a disruptive player at one of my tables.

Just from games that I have been in:

We had three characters get into a shouting match with each other in a pub - while the players were in the discussion thread laughing and memeing it up and thoroughly enjoying the character drama.

We had the two characters I mentioned previously that were romantically involved and got married in-game.

We had one character get booted from a game for their character being snarky and critical of other character decisions.

We had one character leave a game because of unwanted flirting.

The agreement between players is what is the difference.

(In case you disagree with someone, please remain respectful, of course)

- What are some of the best examples of a GM doing their job that you have seen? Why did you think this was good?

- I saw an interesting statement from another participant: 'The GM is first and foremost another player at the table'. What do you think about that?

I would encourage you to keep talking with each other about what has been said so far, see if we can get to some more interesting views.

Mentors: Do you have any views to add to this discussion?

I want to respond to this because I think it's important. They most important thing for the players to have fun is that the GM has to have fun. Who in the hell wants to play a game with somebody thats miserable and stressed out. So if the GM is not playing a game why are they there. Are they in some weird parental role making sure the players behave? Sometimes then they have to worry about players going of the rails. (Warning rant mode started) The problem with the 16 PFS2 scenarios that I've ran is that their great stories with great plots and are great reads. They follow some great plot lines like Venture Captain introduces plot hook. Players ask questions, Players recall Knowledge, players receive information and act on it. Most of the scenario I've run use this. What happens Players don't ask right questions or fail their rolls. Scenario choke point. game goes off the rails. What did I do wrong. I'm Stressed and so are the players. Nobody is having fun. The problem with these scenarios is that it assumes what the players are going to do. Their actions are predetermined in these scenarios. In this scenario the GM and players are not playing a game but are merely acting out a play. Now lets say I control the NPC's the Monsters and the setting, but have no idea what the players are going to do. I have my toys and they have their toys the characters. We meet up and play with our toys together.

If your players go off the rails that means they were on a railrod in the first place.

or

why were they on rails in the first place?

why were they on rails in the first place?

If the players are getting together to play a PFS scenario or a publish AP, then they kinda need to agree to play the plot of those adventures. Otherwise, the campaign really isn't going to be aligning with that published AP and the preparation work and plot described in it isn't going to do any good. The GM is going to have to sandbox the campaign instead. And if the GM has to sandbox the campaign, why didn't the players just start with that? Why spend the money on an adventure scenario or AP?

I think 'railroaded' has a worse connotation than it should. People are quick to call things 'railroading' that really aren't.

Sure there is the potential of the GM doing too much railroading - not letting the players make any meaningful choices in the plot.

But there is also the potential of the GM not doing enough railroading. I mentioned this earlier too. The campaign that I am in that nearly collapsed because the GM didn't want to take the lead of the plot and inform the players of what is available to do.

Recently on the rules forum, someone linked to the Three Clue Rule. I think that is a very good thing to be aware of.

And if in PFS the scenario doesn't follow the Three Clue Rule, then the GM needs to recognize that they may have to bash the players over the head with the answers to any uncertainties in the plot.

The players should be able to make meaningful decisions without being disruptive. But it needs to be done within the bounds of the plot. Which means that the players need to know what the plot is. So the GM needs to tell the players what the plot is so that they know where the boundaries of their decision making is.

A GM being mysterious about the plot doesn't lead to good role-playing.

I believe the game master's "job" very much depends upon the game being mastered. The game being mastered is governed by the mechanics and those playing the game, their preferences, abilities, and expectations.

The "job" of a gamemaster running Paranoia is going to be different than a gamemaster running Pathfinder or Star Wars. Those games have different mechanics and different tones.

The "job" of a gamemaster running Dungeons & Dragons for an afterschool club for middle schoolers, who were required to sign-up for some club, is going to be different than a game master running Dungeons & Dragons for a bunch of middle aged drinking buddies. Those groups have different maturity levels, experiences, and interests with regards to entertainment.

The "job" of a gamemaster running Pathfinder for a selected group of friends at home is different than that of gamemaster running an organized play game at a "public" venue such as at a store gameday, at a convention, or on the boards. Games in these venues can be, and often are, viewed, influenced, and impacted by audiences, distractions, time constraints, and additional factors outside of the game.

When considering the "job" of a gamemaster for organized play, one should consider both the nature of the game's mechanics and tone (including the prepublished scenarios) as well as the nature of the players.

The mechanics of organized play for Paizo games focus primarily on combat and skills. The scenarios, which should be considered part of the mechanics for organized play games, PCs are expected to be adventurers and explorers who are dutiful members of a particular organization and will take reasonable steps to complete an assigned mission. PCs are expected not commit evil acts or, under most circumstances, to put themselves in conflict with governmental or other authorities, the general populace, or other major powers.

The players, by their nature, could potentially be just about anybody, with differing ages, cultural backgrounds, personal histories, gaming experience, and/or abilities, whether physical or mental. A GM should be prepared to inform players, teach or, at least, provide reference to basic rules, and provide an enjoyable and welcoming experience.

Public venues, by their nature, can be seen, scrutinized, and judged by those outside of the game. A GM should be mindful of this, too, realizing that their table may be checked for consistence with organized play rules and considered by "others" outside of gaming hobby as being representative of organized play.

Their actions are predetermined in these scenarios. In this scenario the GM and players are not playing a game but are merely acting out a play.

I understand what you are saying, but I'd like to offer a few thoughts.

1. I have played in campaigns where the expectation was the plot was entirely up to the players and "anything could happen". Some of those campaigns have been spectacular. Others quickly fell apart because of the lack of expectation led to sort of a paralysis by a GM/player(s) or proved disappointing to a GM/player(s) when they realized they weren't having fun (usually due to different expectations).

2. Organized play games due to the nature are, and should be, different. There is a need for all to come to the table with common expectations as to the type of story to be told.

3. "Acting out a play" may not necessarily be a bad way to approach playing a table of an organized play game. Audiences flock to see plays that they have seen many times before. They know all of the story beats and the outcome of the play even before they shell out a lot of money for a ticket to see it. Why? Part of it may be nostalgia or appreciation for the familiar. But, most of it, I think, is for the performance and the experience.

Performance and experience are integral to organized play. The "performers" are the players and the GM, as well as the random dice rolls, which differ from table to table and aren't likely to be repeatable. The experience is the social aspect, which also comes from the relationship and interaction between the players and the GM. This, too, makes each table uniquely entertaining.

In that sense, the story told at each table of that scenario will be the "same". However, the specifics of the story: the primary characters involved, the decisions made, and the "performance" of each may be different--even if the final outcome is likely to be the same.

4. Perhaps, a GM running a table of organized play may wish to view the experience as collective storytelling. The GM and the players are telling a story together. By its nature, an organized play table of a Society game is required to run a scenario--an outline of a story. The GM and players should come to the table with a common understanding about what the outline likely includes, how the "story beats" are likely to be reached, and a joint expectation as to the type of story being told.

GM Lantern wrote
if the players are getting together to play a PFS scenario or a publish AP, then they kinda need to agree to play the plot of those adventures. Otherwise, the campaign really isn't going to be aligning with that published AP and the preparation work and plot described in it isn't going to do any good. The GM is going to have to sandbox the campaign instead. And if the GM has to sandbox the campaign, why didn't the players just start with that? Why spend the money on an adventure scenario or AP?

I disagree with this because before I Checked with the message board. I was given a link to the GM duties to run an adventgure https://lorespire.paizo.com/tiki-index.php?page=pfs2guide._.Game-Master-Bas ics

Table Variation
A goal of the Pathfinder Society program is to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs should run Pathfinder Society adventures as-written, which means:

No change to major plot points and interactions
No addition or subtraction to the number of monsters other than scaling directed by the scenario
No changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons
No alteration of mechanics of Player Characters
No banning of legal character options

can I follow the above take the game of the rails. answer yes. How?
what i do is read the scenario completely. then make a cheat sheet for the scenario. make NPC sheets for the characters in the scenario. Ask myself what is the type of scenario that is happening here. What is the author want to happen. incorporate the 3 clue rule so the players are informed and are given prompts. That we they have the information necessary to make their own choices. If I look at the list above the only thing in question above is Major plot points. That is easy because the players are achieving the scenario objectives. Here is the important part their doing it because it made seance for them to do it that way. They choose the path of the scenario I didn't force them to stick to the rails.

none of this is mine it comes from Justin Alexander and his book "So you want to be a Game Master" I got the book and my GMing has gotten better. Google him or go to the Alexandrian https://thealexandrian.net/

another guy I play with takes the scenario and "reads" it at the table. He reads better then I do. But I'm not sure that's great. He always complaining about the "Box Text".

OK, we've gotten into a really interesting discussion here, and one that can be important.

First of all, let's try to avoid using 'railroad,' because it's usually used in a very negative way.

I'll share my perspective here, but please realize this is not meant to be any kind of lesson everyone has to agree with, just my perspective as an experienced GM.

When running a society game, especially a scenario, it's important that everyone has agreed to be trying to play the game as written. The GM should be trying to keep the game following the outline that is provided by the scenario. Players will sometimes do things that go outside that outline, and GMs are empowered to follow the lead of their players a bit, and gently pull them back to the outline. However, if a player is purposely trying to get outside the outline, I consider that player is being disruptive.

What does everyone else think?

to be clear, this is not an official assignment or part of the planned lessons, but I want to spend some time following up the important issue that has come up. We'll get back to the planned lessons in a bit.

I will give my answer with a story. I was running an pfs2 scenario where the PC's were presented with 2 monsters that were attacking each other. stat blocks were given for one. The scenario gave no prompts for the PC's to go by. They were expected to make "the right choice" with no information. I looked at the scenario and asked my self why would the PC attack "the right monster" The Scenario as written gave the PC's no glue as to why they should choose that one. The PC were supposed to save the "right Monster". Ok I ran the adventure the PC's creasted the hill and heard the screaches of the fight. Drew thier weapons and when i described the scene they did not know who to attack. I added 3 clues that weren't in the adventure I did nothing. They looked at the situation disccused it among them selves and choose to save "the right monster" did I run it "as written" strickly no. Did I look at what the scenario author wanted to happen. Did I complete the scenario covering all the mission objectives. yes. i don't know I will leave it up to you. But watching players being engaged in the game and having tools to decide for them selves that I put in their I can not explain how great that was. If players are purposly doing something purposly to screw up the game it's probabley because they are angry about something about the game. If using the term railroad is negative so is complaining about players. if we want to have an honest conversation about being better GM then we need to be honest with ourselves about it and railroading is thing a negative thing. If a player is that distructive to the game why? Does he feel railroaded? If you felt railroaded what would you do in a game. My players need to have a good time or they will stop coming to the game.

I want to make one other important statement that is important to understand about published scenarios or it's going to sound like i'm b*%~+ing about them. there some constrants that the author editor and publisher are under. There may be things that need to be added or were edited out in the proccess that I'm sure that would have given more clarity. When they publish the scenario they may not be intending for you to run exactly as written. Matter of fact it sorta says so in most senarios. Usally after reading it 2 or 3 times I get an idea of what the author is going for. I seriously doubt that they intended on you running it exactly as they wrote it.

Well, it has to be fun -- if it's no longer fun, it becomes a chore and people will find something else to do.

As for running PFS adventures "as written", I guess it's a matter of what you call "as written" -- I mean, we are all allowed to add our personal spin on things to help the players. I'd like to think that "as written" means that you don't change major plot points (if zombies are the main adversary [e.g. Head-Shot the Rot], don't suddenly change them to vampires just because you think it would be a better challenge).

Though I will admit that there are some adventures where it's not clear why something should be done a certain way... I just tell my players that I'll allow certain skills if they can make it fit...

In terms of running a scenario as written, I think players who have experience with society games know what they're signing up for. It becomes an extension of a player's requirement to "bite the hook". Maybe the character would normally make a different choice, but but you have to look for a reason why they'd want to stay on track.

I guess the biggest source of potential friction would be from players new to society play.

On the topic of ensuring that players have fun, society play takes away some of the options that might normally be available. Tailoring the story to highlight PCs' strengths or weaknesses, bringing in NPCs to help reveal the PCs' backstory, etc. And with PbD, I don't think you can assume that a quiet player isn't having fun and needs some prompts and opportunities to join in. They could just be busy.

So I'd be interested to hear about the techniques people are using to help players have fun.

I think a main one is ensuring that you respond to each players actions. If four players post their actions, and one is the "correct" one to move the plot forward, it's probably tempting to latch onto that one. Or if two players attack a creature, but the first attack finishes it off. I think it would be important to show that each player's actions affect the world, even if they didn't affect the story progression.

First I am sorry if my use of the term railroad was offensive, I guess staying on the path or plot sounds better. I was a distributive player I think from the start, perhaps it was because I dipped in Pbta a little (nothing bad to say about it). I think I did it (without murderhubo and being disrespectable of course) because it seemed to me fun, not everyone agreed but I can say it is group and especially gm dependent. I'm still having fun but I think I'm not distributive anymore and I hope I will be able to handle the table because I think I'm ok in roleplay (a gm in a 1-on-1 session told me). I think the discussion is interesting and we get to know each other a little more this way and it is important, especially in a virtual space.

Hmm, in the sense of staying on the plot, I think running games as written is especially valid to new gm, I think more experienced ones know how to be a little more flexible, an I right?

On another note is there a mentor tag? How to distinguish between gm students and mentors?

When running a society game, especially a scenario, it's important that everyone has agreed to be trying to play the game as written. The GM should be trying to keep the game following the outline that is provided by the scenario. Players will sometimes do things that go outside that outline, and GMs are empowered to follow the lead of their players a bit, and gently pull them back to the outline. However, if a player is purposely trying to get outside the outline, I consider that player is being disruptive.

What does everyone else think?

I think a great point made earlier was about expectations. A good number of players play Society expecting the game to follow a path, enjoy some good RP, some crunch, and fresh lootz.

A player at the table would be disruptive by trying to break the outline of the adventure, but also try to break the cohesion at the table making it sour for others.

In Education, its call it Constructivism. Essentially we come together and "agree" what we learn, or in this case how we adventure.

Hmm, in the sense of staying on the plot, I think running games as written is especially valid to new gm, I think more experienced ones know how to be a little more flexible, an I right?

I agree 100%. And some great adventuring can be had with a flexible GM.

I agree 100%. And some great adventuring can be had with a flexible GM.

should I concentrate on play as written or can I note how to be a flexible GM in the future? It interests me but maybe wouldn't be able to handle it for now?

In terms of running a scenario as written, I think players who have experience with society games know what they're signing up for. It becomes an extension of a player's requirement to "bite the hook". Maybe the character would normally make a different choice, but but you have to look for a reason why they'd want to stay on track.

I guess the biggest source of potential friction would be from players new to society play.

Agreed! I once had a new player ask me after creating their character if PvP was allowed... to which I answered "Absolutely not!" :)

In one of my games, I made a small addition for a friend. I had recently gotten them a stuffed animal from a trip to Australia. They asked if I can add their stuffed animal to the game (since the game revolved around poppets; and you can pretty much guess what game it is :) ). I did -- totally made my friend's day... but of course, the stuffed animal was just an extra in the "movie", with no major role... I kinda referenced THIS scene in Star Trek: Voyager, where the then-prince on Jordan was given a non-speaking cameo...

Agreed! I once had a new player ask me after creating their character if PvP was allowed... to which I answered "Absolutely not!" :)

I made a mistake when running the first real D&D game with my son and a group of his friends, about 5 ten-year-olds. One of them botched a ranged spell attack roll, and one of the other players was right next to the target, so I just said that blast hit him on accident and he took 1 or 2 points of damage. The kid then turns around, ignoring the person they're fighting against, and decides to attack the fellow player who accidentally grazed him instead. I realized I really hadn't level set, and they were used to playing games like Fortnite, where you just shoot back at anyone you can.

On another note is there a mentor tag? How to distinguish between gm students and mentors?

I don't think that there currently is, and I am not sure that there should be.

Good ideas are good ideas no matter how much experience the speaker has or what checkbox they checked when signing up.

Here is my question to where I see people talking about when "they sign up for a PFS scenerio they know what to expect"
1. Do they?

2. Is society it self more important then the indiviual players.

3. What should the Players except?

I was Playing at a society table were people had gotten into such expections in the game(they had been playing for years I recently joined) What I noticed is they weren't disruptive all because they were on their phones and disinterested. They were uninterested and bored. Now they don't come back.

Here is my question to where I see people talking about when "they sign up for a PFS scenerio they know what to expect"

1. Do they?

2. Is society it self more important then the indiviual players.

3. What should the Players except?

Okay, I'm going to step in here and make a few observations.

1. If the game is a Society scenario/quest/bounty/whatever, then yes, absolutely they should know what to expect. It is one of a Society GM's purpose to explain how Society games are played and what makes them different from Adventure Paths, Modules, One-Shots, or homebrew games.

The goal of this GM School is to help encourage better, more consistent GM practices in our Play by Post lodges, not necessarily specific to Society play. However, we do run a LOT of society play on these lodges, and it is important to keep in mind the differences.

2. That's a straw man argument if I ever heard one. Is Society more important than the players? No. Are players more important than the Society? Also no. What is important is that the GM does what they can to make the game engaging for the players, while still meeting the goals of the table. If the goal is to play a Society scenario for Society credit, then Society rules and guidelines should apply. If the goal is to run a Society Scenario "for funsies" and no credit, then the GM is free to modify the gameplay as they like.

3. I am assuming you meant "expect" there, and will answer accordingly. That's a great question and one which bears discussion. What should players expect? Keeping in the Society theme, when I sign up for a game, I am expecting it to be engaging, allow me to tell my PC's story through roleplay and combat actions, allow me to interact with others in my party with some latitude, and generally enjoy myself. As a GM, I try and foster that in my players.

Again, most of my answers are geared towards Society play, as that is where my interests and focus lies. I assume most, if not all, of the students here are Players also, what do YOU want out of a game?