Do you mean that we have to create a PbP campaign for the single quest we're running?
New assignment? About the previous one, handouts are text wall that need to copy and important mpc images/tokens?Handouts are labeled as handouts in the adventure.
Probably missed, will check again.
Assignment #7: create your game threads and campaign.
Step by step instructions for creating your campaign, when you don't need a recruitment thread:
(these directions start on this very page)
Go up to the top of the page, to where it says Paizo/Messageboards/Online Campaigns. Right click on Online Campaigns, and select Open in New Tab.Click on the new tab that just opened. Scroll down to where it says Play by Post Online Campaigns as a section title, and click on the words Play by Post.
Now find the words Add New thread near but not at the top and click on them. This will create a new gameplay thread. Put in the title I indicated earlier, and include some text. Then hit submit. DO NOT DELETE THIS FIRST POST!
The website will ask if you want to create a campaign, and tell it yes. You can then put in the title for your campaign.
Now click on the discussion tab, and it will give you a chance to create a new discussion thread. Again, put in some text, give it your title, and click submit.
When your campaign is created, please post a link to it in your mentor's game's discussion thread.
Let me know if you need any questions answered or further instructions on any part of this.
(See text in bold above.) Can you remind us about the title you indicated, or point us to the post? I scrolled back a ways and didn't see it, though I've missed things before.
|
(See text in bold above.) Can you remind us about the title you indicated, or point us to the post? I scrolled back a ways and didn't see it, though I've missed things before.
I am not assigning a particular title for your campaigns and threads. What you noticed was a copy and paste error from a previous session of GM school. I thought I had caught and edited out all those references, but it looks like I missed one.
Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
OK, looks like all student campaigns are created. Nice job.
Assignment #8: Maps
The next assignment is the final preparation one: Create your map deck in google slides and link it in your campaign.
How elaborate your map deck is is up to you. Some GMs have fancy title pages and things like that. I tend to have the first page be rolling macros for me to use for perception and initiative, the second page be any NPC portraits, then the maps, one per page, and finally any handouts. Please make sure to mask off the maps and NPCs before posting your map; it's important that things players should not see be hidden.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask here or in your mentor's discussion thread.
Mentors, please leave your campaign active after your game is completed so that your students can still use your discussion thread.
Wow, we are getting close, I will do what I can, how to mask off please, place a blank rectangular above?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, we are getting close, I will do what I can, how to mask off please, place a blank rectangular above?
That's how I usually do it, yes.
|
|
Questions for discussion:
What do you guys think is the right balance of how much the GM should 'take control of characters' to keep things moving? Obviously, a little bit is sometimes required, and also can feel really bad to the players if it's overdone.
Some examples:
-botting players who have not posted in a while
-rolling perceptions checks for everyone in a block when they enter a new room
-rolling initiative for everyone
-rolling saves for your players
-rolling AoOs for players
I really don't like botting other players. I have had to do it sometimes and I am always really nervous about it the entire time.
An alternative that I have seen used (though not in a PFS game) is to delay the character for a block step or two first. Then only bot them if it would cause them to miss an entire turn.
-----
From a player standpoint instead of a GM: I don't have a problem with the GM rolling things for my character especially if there is not any character choice in the matter. The dice are the dice and it doesn't really matter which account is rolling them.
So that would be things like a perception check that every character gets when entering a particular room, initiative (though the player should be able to specify the skill used - though that would need to be done before combat breaks out), and even rolling saves against an enemy effect.
-----
Reactions are a bit tricky. One thing that I have done that works well, but is a bit difficult to do in complicated scenarios is to post the reaction I expect to use, as part of my combat post.
So I would post my turn in combat (for example)
Then post my expected reactions
It becomes a bit of a mini-bot instruction to the GM that they can use to avoid having to retcon a bunch of stuff, or having to wait for me to post a reaction.
Delaying or bottling players is never something I prefer to do (as I commented earlier) but it does sometimes need to be done to keep the game flowing and not have everyone else lose interest or get frustrated. I have seen players get frustrated if done too quickly though. However most sign-ups will include a policy, as we have discussed, so everyone is on the same page.
——
I’ll often roll passive checks like perception or even some knowledge checks as soon as they are encountered and give the results in spoilers. This is what I have most often experienced as a player and have found it reasonable and helpful. Where there is an action involved though I’ll let the players do it.
——
On initiative there seems to be a cultural difference between forum and discord games, or at least all I have played. All the forum games have had the GM roll initiative, but on discord the usual is to get players to roll. With pings and overlapping time zones it can be quick in discord, but can easily take a day or two in forums. So as a player I actually prefer to have the GM roll initiative. Exploration actions in both cases need to be declared up front.
——
I haven’t rolled saves for PCs - but flag it to be done before their next move. It might be needed if they ignore the instruction through and take their turn without doing the save first. This approach might be more disruptive at higher levels (>4) though?
——
I like GM Lantern’s approach - it is easy for the GM to forget which reactions each character has, so players listing them in their turn is very helpful. My biggest stumble on my first PBP GMing game was handling reactions (sorry GM Tiger).
Bot we already discussed, there should be a bot policy to keep the game moving although some don't like botting, the option to delay is good and I experienced it being used once, perception and initiative are pretty acceptable to roll automatically, I suppose it should be noted in the gm philosophy.
Saves and reactions can take away player agency, especially in a dramatic roll (death save..). About reaction, the player can choose not to take it to save reaction to something else (shield block I guess) so a good or nice GM can note them about it, It pretty a lot to worry about but you seem to do it regardless, maybe reaction usage should be left to the players only?
Now that I think about it, we can bot players like friendly NPCs I guess.
OK, so botted players can feel bad but delaying too much will leave everyone feeling bad so need to balance?
Saves and reactions can take away player agency, especially in a dramatic roll (death save..).
Question on this: Is "agency" the right word for what you are meaning? Especially regarding saves.
My understanding of the word "agency" is that it means that the player has decision making control over their character's choices.
When an enemy attacks my character with an effect that needs a save, what choices do I have?
I think that doing all those tasks except for AoO makes sense, but not using up any consumable items or using any risky plays.
Saves and reactions can take away player agency, especially in a dramatic roll (death save..).Question on this: Is "agency" the right word for what you are meaning? Especially regarding saves.
My understanding of the word "agency" is that it means that the player has decision making control over their character's choices.
When an enemy attacks my character with an effect that needs a save, what choices do I have?
Maybe Agency is not the right word, They may not like this or like it less if we roll for them, Also perhaps they have some resistance or ability that helps with the save?
Regarding players who haven't posted within a reasonable period of time, I think delaying them or having them take actions that won't use up consumables or put them in unreasonable danger is fair. (Aid actions, cantrips, etc.)
I exclusively play on the Forums, where GMs rolling initiative is the most efficient method. It also makes sense for automatic, universal Perception checks.
As a player, I feel left out when the GM rolls my saves for me. In combat, usually the GM's combat tracker will state what save(s) I need to make at the start of my turn. The only way that could be improved is if the post where my PC took the damage is linked, since sometimes multiple GM posts occur before my turn. The only exception I can think of is if massive damage is done to the party, which would trigger rolling initiative. The players at the beginning of initiative would probably want to know the results of the saves before acting.
For AOOs and any other reactions, I think that if the players don't provide explicit instructions/permission for the GM to do so, then it is up to the players to handle it. I'm generally in favor of allowing players to play their own characters.
As a player, I feel left out when the GM rolls my saves for me. In combat, usually the GM's combat tracker will state what save(s) I need to make at the start of my turn. The only way that could be improved is if the post where my PC took the damage is linked, since sometimes multiple GM posts occur before my turn. The only exception I can think of is if massive damage is done to the party, which would trigger rolling initiative. The players at the beginning of initiative would probably want to know the results of the saves before acting.
Some of what you said related to forum management(?) Wasn't clear to me, maybe to someone more experienced it is clearer, though to give feedback about that. I think that I understand now, we need a save roll to end turn and if ìt take a lot of time it is a problem and then why not to roll for the player to speed things up. A little similar to reaction I guess, we can wait a little but if turn ended and didn't get any feedback can be angry at us. I guess there is not any definite answer only balance..
|
|
This topic contains a lot of questions about which GMs (and players) will differ, and that's OK. It's a good idea to make sure you tell players a bit about how you do this stuff in your profile, in case it bothers them enough they would rather find a different game.
To give you an example, I really believe botting is always better than delaying. Most GMs who sometimes delay rather than bot I choose not to play with, but there are one or maybe two that are so good I put up with the delay to be part of their games.
In terms of rolling for players, I almost always roll initiative, but if I'm waiting for something else each player has to do, like moving tokens on the map, I may give everyone the chance to roll their own. I usually don't roll saves, but may occasionally roll a reflex save when it's just about spell damage. I would never roll a player's will save against confusion or charm or anything like that, because it can really impact the player's experience of the game if they fail.
I do occasionally use players' consumables or limited resources when I bot. In an emergency, I will bot a heal to keep a character alive. I also will sometimes use a low level attack spell for a pure caster, but never the new shiny spell at their current level.
I would never roll a player's will save against confusion or charm or anything like that, because it can really impact the player's experience of the game if they fail.
I am very confused by this.
Unless the player is able to control the outcome of the die roll (which is the very definition of cheating), how would it be any more or less likely for the save to fail if the player rolls it instead of the GM?
There seems to be some sort of emotional effect going on here. An ownership or responsibility of the result that I don't understand. That somehow if you are the one to roll the dice then you are responsible for the outcome ... even if you didn't have any actual control over it.
|
|
Yes, it is illogical, but players want to roll the dice for themselves if the stakes are high. As GMs, we need to be thinking about and interacting with our players as emotional beings as well as logical beings.
And at least in PF1, it's not uncommon for players to have a boon they can apply to a very important save or something like that, so a player being able to have some impact on the die roll is not cheating, it's part of the game rules.
To be clear, Hero Points and boons and such things aren't what I was talking about. I was meaning things like the 'Preview' button and the dice result manipulation that could be done with that.
|
|
To be clear, Hero Points and boons and such things aren't what I was talking about. I was meaning things like the 'Preview' button and the dice result manipulation that could be done with that.
I understand what you meant, but the point I'm making is that there are things that players can legitimately do to change the results of really important saves, and they should be able to do so.
In my games, I handle rolling initiatives for Encounters, while allowing players to roll their saving throws when necessary. It's also advisable for them to include any triggered reactions in their posts, making it easier for me to resolve. Typically, I delay PC actions accordingly. While I don't often request botting instructions, having them provided can be helpful. If a character's profile is complete and easy to read, I'm comfortable botting for them, even though it can be time-consuming to gather necessary information.
When it comes to skill checks, if players are uncertain on what to do during Exploration mode, I typically enclose them under spoilers and permit rolls for relevant skills, provided they are appropriate and justified by roleplay. Additionally, I utilize NPCs to propel PCs into action, to ensure the adventure keeps moving. I also sometimes handwave healing after encounters, especially if there are no time constraints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, just wanna note that I'm pretty enjoying running for now, don't know why I was afraid, guess something like handling the unknown. Will like also to be in a similar experience for starfinder 2e when will be relavent (gm school or gm conversion or something, hope not a charged topic). Also have questions about combat, how to preper, I mean statblock and handling the players actions (some of which I don't know because didn't play an evolotionist for example..)
I'm going to post this here too - just to get the maximum visibility.
I ran into a question from a player that I thought I knew the answer to, but now I can't find it.
In the old PFS guidelines site there was clear ruling that you couldn't have a familiar, animal companion, or Eidolon participating in skill challenges along with the primary character - and thus giving the player two checks per round. I am not seeing this in the new Lorespire PFS guidelines site.
Was that restriction removed, is it still in effect (and just listed somewhere that I am not seeing it), or is it left up to the GM to decide now?
At the beginning of each adventure, you may select one companion creature to be your active pet. This creature may be a class-granted creature, such as an animal companion, familiar, eidolon, or phantom, or it may be a creature that you purchase, such as a combat-trained bison. This creature may participate fully in combat, skill checks, and other challenges in the scenario. In addition to the active pet, you may bring up to two additional creatures. The first is a mount or beast of burden, such as a horse or mule, which may only take move actions. The second is a familiar or mundane pet that does not participate in combat or other challenges. Such familiars grant their basic special ability, such as a bat's +3 bonus on Fly checks, the Alertness feat, and access a witch's spells. They do not grant other bonuses, such as a wysp's resonance ability (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 5 282).
That appears to be for PF1 PFS.
Is that still valid for PF2? Some of the Q/A entries in there make little to no sense in a PF2 context.
I'd never heard of an Eidolon so looked them up. There's a PFS note at the top of the page that seems to match what you're saying about choosing one or the other to make the check:
...for Victory Point/success counting systems that allow each PC a limited number of chances to roll, either the summoner or the eidolon can attempt each check.
|
|
New discussion topic: What can we do when the players begin to wander off the path in the adventure?
Here is the relevant text from the 'GM 101' free resource:
"In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, the GM has less freedom to go where the players want to go, leading to “railroaded” scenarios. There are several things that you can do when the players wander off the proverbial path.
Out of Character: “Hey folks, that’s really beyond the scope of this scenario.” Politely ask for your players to get back on track. This is the most straightforward and least time-consuming method, but it breaks verisimilitude.
Improvisation: “Sure, you can do that!” Doing what your players want is encouraged; however, remember to keep an eye on your time, and use the improvisation to lead the players back to the adventure.
Don’t Stagnate: However you choose to handle player choice, remember that the worst thing that can happen is the adventure going nowhere, especially with PFS time constraints. You are in charge of the table; do whatever you have to in order to keep the story moving and to prevent your players from growing bored."
In PbP, we have a bit less time pressure, which makes it more possible to follow where the players want to go, and then find a way to pull them back to the path. The issue is that can still use up resources and leave players confused about what else is supposed to happen.
What do you guys think? Have you faced a situation like this, or been a player in such a situation?
In PbP I have only ever run into the opposite problem: The GM is so afraid of "railroading" that they don't sufficiently advertise what the expected plot is or what is needed in order to make progress in the plot. So none of the characters know what to do or how to do it.
Which may be what leads some players to go off the rails in the first place - just to have something to do.
I would lean toward posting in the discussion tab something like: "We can do that, but it's outside the scope of the scenario. Does the whole party agree to this detour? Let's vote!"
Most people playing PFS via PbP have certain expectations and would appreciate having a say when considering a spontaneous side quest. The tricky part is when the players don't agree on whether to take the detour. I tend to have trouble making things up as I go, so I'd be more likely to steer the group back to the scenario unless every player is all in, and be transparent about my reasons for doing so.
|
|
GMs should never feel like they have to let the party go off the adventure, because that can be a lot of work. It's important that the entire party agree, even if the GM is willing to go off a bit. In general, it's probably better to keep the group in the adventure that is written, though.
If your group misses an important clue or interesting detail, sometimes the adventure provides a different way to give it to them, or sometimes the GM can find some way to do so. Sometimes the adventure just won't make sense if you can't find some way to get the players the info they need.
Hmm, is it about asking what they wanna do to overcome some obstacles? I can give them choices but I think that it is maybe more fun to see what they come up with.
Hmm, is it about asking what they wanna do to overcome some obstacles? I can give them choices but I think that it is maybe more fun to see what they come up with.
While that sounds great in theory (and may work in in-person games among players that know each other fairly well already), what I have seen much more often in PbP is that doing that causes decision paralysis in the players and they end up not posting anything at all.
So if you are going to try that, be sure to be explicit that this is what you are doing - that there is an obstacle that you are expecting them to invent their own way of overcoming; and that you are explicit about what the goal of the overcoming of the obstacle is.
For an example of the vague presentation:
-----
GM:
You follow the trail for almost an hour. Finally you come to a river. There is a rickety and run-down hut on this side of the river with the door hanging ajar.
-----
So... What's the challenge that needs to be overcome?
Crossing the river? Exploring the hut for clues? Floating down the river? Finding/building a boat and paddling up the river?
Also, which one of the players is going to take the lead and decide for the entire group what the group is going to do?
Because remember, this is play-by-post. If it isn't written down, then it doesn't get communicated. You can't rely on non-verbal communication to convey your intent and meaning like you usually can in in-person games. And that goes for the players communicating among themselves and coming to a group decision just as much as it does for the GM presenting the plot of the campaign.
Hmm, if the obstacle description is clear then what is the problem? Do GMs need to provide players with choices and all they need to do is only roll skill checks without roleplay? I guess there is balance and some you can't and shouldn't force but I don't think that asking players what they want to do without presenting the options upfront is bad..
I'm not sure why you think that knowing what the goal of the challenge is or what skill checks are available means that the player doesn't need to do any role play. That doesn't seem related to me.
What I am mentioning is that no one else will ever think that your clear description is as clear as you yourself do. Especially when described over a written format. So be explicit to avoid decision paralysis in your players.
OK, I guess you are talking from experience so will keep that in mind.