Barry VA Cleveland OH 75's page

after I posted that I thought should clarify what I'm talkin about and maybe most people haven't experianced a bad GM. It's more then a few mistakes. You do see horror stories about it on redit and in the comments on youtube. When you experianced it you know it. Just because you don't have great technique dosen't make you a bad GM. It's about the awful felling you have at the table. "like why am I here and what I do wrong" as a player. (this rarley happens) If you are tying to get better at your craft your probely ok. The type of guy i'm talkin about ain't in this class. it's an extreme. If you don't know what I'm talkin about then you haven't experianced it.

The reason I say bad ones is they teach me what not to do. If something feels wrong to me then I say I don't want to be treated that way.

I meant played with. Not on boards or watched their Youtube videos. I mean played with in a game.

This is question I have asked other GMs especially good ones.

Do you learn more on how to be a good GM from good GM's or Bad ones?

They always told me bad ones.

Barry VA Cleveland OH 75 wrote:

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.

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.

Ok Let me get specific and thanks for you comment

My Friday has two players one a serious pfs person and my daughter who could care less about pfs but likes DnD and wants to support me. We play at the game shop across the street from my house. A heavy 5e game house. The owner is very supportive. The clientele wants 5e only. Granted I can be pfs snub but is that good for the game. What happened last night made me see things that I have been trying to say. My daughter got a cold so she could not make the Game. We need two to a run the game. So one of the Dnd 5e GM did me solid and showed so we could play. He rolled up a Dhampir on Pathbuilder. I setup it up so his character would be legal and started to play. He played like an out of control 5e murder hobo. Or so it seemed and the other PFS guy was very put off and made a snide remark. What I eventually figured the problem was communication I wasn't listening to him. I found what his motivations were concerning how he understood to RP his character everything he did made sense. Case in point the scenario said as a clue "smell was coming out of a hut". He immediately ran into the hut right past a guard. I said the guard sees you says "halt". He said "good I want everyone to know since the smell is a dead body". I says "your character a Dhampir right" he says "yes". "it has seen a lot of dead bodies right?" he goes "yes". "Well then your character is sure it is not a dead because it does not smell like one." He says "oh I don't that."

my point is He was not trying to be a murder hobo or destroy the game. It was a case of GM and player communication. My point is about PFS being more important then having fun in concerns "the scenario as written" I don't think is a straw man at all. It comes from experience. Whether it be a snide remark that the other serious PFS player was making. Or it also comes from things on this message board that I have read. So when someone makes that argument that a player who plays a PFS scenario should know what to expect. No. That is a dangerous prejudice on the GM's part that could hurt other GM's like me who are struggling to keep their games together even if it's your PBP game. This is a real life example not a straw man. You want to call that a "Straw man" OK.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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?

(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.

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.