This is exactly the attitude Mike Brock often seemed to fight against, and was part of why he tried very hard not to make rulings unless they absolutely had to be made to keep the community from imploding. Even going so far as to say that if you could not be trusted to use your judgement, he didn't want you GMing.
Will you please link to this? Or provide someway for me to find this Mike Brock quote?
I honestly think that many judges are in first school till you become part of their in crowd then they start act in the second school.
I do admit it might be my area. Just the other day telling my Venture Captain about my brawler who using improved trip, ki throw, and spinning ki throw so I can describe them as Professional wrestling moves. This gimmick isn't meant to be anything but fun, and my VC started trying to figure how to counter it with feather fall. Basically he stop after saw that feather slowed you down after so many feet, and the feats only tripped in moved you 5 feet per 5 over CMD, which would only be 5 to 10 ft on average.
I am confused. How does one low player playing level 7 pregen equal a teir 8-9. The median of the teirs is level 7 not 6.5 therefore all lower players would have to play level 7 pregens not just one. If the example had be a teir 1-2, teir 3-4, and a teir 6-7 then the median between teir 1-2 n 3-4 would be 2.5. Am I missing something here?
6.5 rounds up to 7.
There is no "between tier" with 1-2 and 3-4 subtiers.
Okay but I understand it you aren't suppose to round up when determine APL. If the median is 7 then the group must have an APL of 7, because a level 5 character is very ineffective vs the CR of the encounters in a teir 8-9.
Well according to what is being said an APL of 2.5 could play in a teir 3-4 especially if a APL of 6.5 could play in a teir 8-9. Could someone clarify what is being said.
I am confused. How does one low player playing level 7 pregen equal a teir 8-9. The median of the teirs is level 7 not 6.5 therefore all lower players would have to play level 7 pregens not just one. If the example had be a teir 1-2, teir 3-4, and a teir 6-7 then the median between teir 1-2 n 3-4 would be 2.5. Am I missing something here?
FAQs and errata are specifically created to address errors. I don't expect everything to be error free, but I do expect all tables to observe the same rules. If someone picks up a Trust Buddy and then invests character resources into using it to it's full effect, but is then told it works differently at 1 in 10 tables, something is wrong. I would argue that removing ambiguous cases should be high on the priority list of campaign leadership, assuming they wish to present a similar play experience across the entire campaign.
I thought that when I first came to this community, but have quickly learned it is false.
There is no concern about keeping trust and consistency between the player and the GM.
GMs are given free range to do as they see fit including ignoring RAW or even the written scenario.
You should always warn your players to expect table variation for everything even if it seems black and white.
When this topic comes up, I'll just note for the record:
If you have advance knowledge of elements of the adventure, you're required to let me know. ("I know there's a ghost touch +1 kama in this adventure.")
I'll ask you how you know.
If you say "Because I prepped the scenario to GM it back home last month," or "I've already played this scenario in CORE mode," I'll ask you to keep surprise-y things to yourself and let the other players figure stuff out.
If you say "Because I consulted a database of boons," I consider that cheating. I'll give you a 0 XP Chronicle sheet with the boons crossed off and ask you to leave my table.
Honestly if a player said because I look at database of boons then my response would be, "Hope the other members don't make you miss it". Then I ask them what other scenario have things they like for their characters that I be willing to run for them. That way they felt they could help decide what is ran, so hopefully they run.
My group is small and has few people gming, therefore we must try harder to turn players into GMs. I don't think larger groups suffer from this very much.
Please note I am not saying that chronicle fishing isn't cheating. I am saying that in my opinion I am neutral and wouldn't punish a player for doing so, unless my Venture Captain, Venture Lt., or Coordinator said to do so.
Yet you all aren't suggesting what changes the GM can make to help this murderhobo trend from happening. You all are just putting up to the players being disruptive.
Have you read the thread????
Yes. It changed after I pointed out this fact. Funny I wonder if you actually read the thread??
Go ahead and ignore my comments. Hold high to the belief you are moral superiority, and that someone pointing out your bad behavior is nothing more then them misunderstanding of you privileged position. Feel comfort in your hate of others.
For that is what you are doing. Hating on people you never met in the name of moral superiority.
Feelings nothing more than feelings. From a bigot. I didn't mention myself at all. I said that the community is judging and demonizing people they never met because they belong to a certain group of individuals. That is the definition of racism, sexism, and phobia.
No, they're discussing observed behavior. They only one I see drawing conclusions about individuals (the actual definition of racism, sexism, etc.) is you.
Then again, you're a troll with a victimization complex and an ax to grind. Have fun with that.
No they are talking about imagine behaviors. No one seen this behavior at all. I am actually talking about the behavior on this thread. Thanks again for proving you are bigot.
In a piece of wonderful timing, see jtaylor3003's many posts that went up as I wrote my last two replies for examples of my first post's target audience!
Your first post proves that many this community feels it is okay to hate on people they never met just because they belong to a certain sub group. There is no evidence that any thing that blackbloodtroll described happen. The problem is blackbloodtroll took offense to imagined slights, and you are personally saying that is okay. Not only are you saying it is okay to become offended from an imagined slight, which most people would associate with a psychopath, but you then defend a course action to shame and bully the other players. Understand that the problem is not the supposedly frostiness of the players, but the direct actions of blackbloodtroll and the community. Judging and demonizing people who aren't here to defend themselves is what being bigot is.
No they are talking about imagine behaviors. No one seen this behavior at all. I am actually talking about the behavior on this thread. Thanks again for proving you are bigot.
Feelings nothing more than feelings. From a bigot. I didn't mention myself at all. I said that the community is judging and demonizing people they never met because they belong to a certain group of individuals. That is the definition of racism, sexism, and phobia.
No, they're discussing observed behavior. They only one I see drawing conclusions about individuals (the actual definition of racism, sexism, etc.) is you.
Then again, you're a troll with a victimization complex and an ax to grind. Have fun with that.
No they are talking about imagine behaviors. No one seen this behavior at all. I am actually talking about the behavior on this thread. Thanks again for proving you are bigot.
Ah yes the hypocrisy of those who claim to be progressive. You can't discriminate against white straight males because they are white straight males even while calling every minor thing a sign of discrimination.
Blackbloodtroll is bullying because blackbloodtroll purposefully label the other players as white straight males so demonization is easier. Blackblootroll wants to feel comfortable calling out their so called bad behavior, and wants permission from the community to call out their so called bad behavior. Blackbloodtroll wants to bully them into changing their behavior that blackbloodtroll dislikes with the consent of the community.
If blackbloodtroll was trying forcibility change a parties behavior for any other reason instead of so called sexism, racism, or homophobia what would you call it?
Right...sure thing, pal. You're the victim here... :P
Feelings nothing more than feelings. From a bigot. I didn't mention myself at all. I said that the community is judging and demonizing people they never met because they belong to a certain group of individuals. That is the definition of racism, sexism, and phobia.
]Ah yes, the venerable "people who notice racism, sexism or homophobia are the truly prejudiced ones" trope. One of my favorites in these arguments.
No one here, even blackbloodtroll is demonizing these players. He referred to it as "subtle" in the thread title. He admits to being unsure, how much it was real. He says nothing about "sounding display of hate" or about hating these players.
Just some concern about what, if anything, he should do about what he'd noticed.
How did he "bully" anyone? Is coming to a separate forum and asking about it, being careful not to identify anyone, "bullying"? What has he done that's so horrible?
Ah yes the hypocrisy of those who claim to be progressive. You can't discriminate against white straight males because they are white straight males even while calling every minor thing a sign of discrimination.
Blackbloodtroll is bullying because blackbloodtroll purposefully label the other players as white straight males so demonization is easier. Blackblootroll wants to feel comfortable calling out their so called bad behavior, and wants permission from the community to call out their so called bad behavior. Blackbloodtroll wants to bully them into changing their behavior that blackbloodtroll dislikes with the consent of the community.
If blackbloodtroll was trying forcibility change a parties behavior for any other reason instead of so called sexism, racism, or homophobia what would you call it?
I am highly dismayed at the amount of individuals jumping on the bandwagon to hate on a group of people they never met. Let me remind you again that none of you have ever met any of these people, and we only have blackbloodtroll vague account to go on. To assume these people did something racist, sexist, or homophobiac on such minor details is horrifying to me.
Blackbloodtroll the only person who actions state that they hold sexist, racist, or phobiac tendencies is you. You started this thread by labeling these player as white straight males. You then proceeding to demonize there behavior even the most minor shrug became a sounding display of hate. You then use victimhood to get others to join in on this demonization. You are projecting. You need to reexamine your own view of the world, and learn to not hate others for what they are on the outside.
You are not brave. You only came here to feel just in your decision to bully others. The others who are condone this, and even joining in on this bullying are wrong.
To those who tried politely to point out to blackbloodtroll that things aren't as black and white as blackbloodtroll is making out to be. I thank you, but being kind to someone who hate others only goes so far. That is why I am calling out blackbloodtroll's actions and those who would support and promote those actions.
jtaylor73003, I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't want to speak about particular individuals. I don't want them here, defending themselves. (Indeed, I'm not presuming that the incidents that the OP describes are the result of a single player.)
Rather, I would like to speak of classes of actions, taken as a whole. "I have a problem when people do this kind of thing... how should I handle it the next time it comes around?" rather than "I had a problem when this one person did this thing ... what should I do about that situation now?"
Do you see the difference?
Yet you all aren't suggesting what changes the GM can make to help this murderhobo trend from happening. You all are just putting up to the players being disruptive. These players op talks about aren't here to protect themselves or even to tell why they did what they did. That is what I am pointing out. Go ahead and inform the GM how they could change the way they do things, but it isn't right to just assume that the players are being jerks.
The thing is you are saying it is unspoken and subtle. Holding a door open for a woman can be considered sexist by some and polite by others. That is why is called a micro-aggression. No knows they are committing these so called offense, expect the person who takes offense.
If four of the players at the table are saying "we should do it this way, so we complete our mission" and one player is saying "heck with that, fireball"
We don't know that happen. We don't know what happen at all because the player aren't here to defend themselves.
FLite wrote:
Then that is not about the party making the wrong choice, that is about everyone being punished because one person took the choice away from them.
Again we don't know what happen or why. In the first post op seem to be talking about entire party just killing NPC's no matter what. Later posts had examples of one player at odds with another player, but not the party. I seen many times one player make a choice for the party without input for the party, yet I see rarely anyone complaining about that choice.
FLite wrote:
Character death costs 24 PP. I just pointed you at a loss of 30 pp. By your own chosen standard, I have demonstrated harm. One of the characters in the party was forced to pay for a raise dead. Again, by your own standard I have demonstrated harm.
No you didn't. No where did op state that the same player was doing this on multiple tables with the same party. Actually it seems from op posts that many players do this. Again we don't know what really happen or why.
FLite wrote:
I feel like you are still upset because you came to the board with something you felt was a major issue, but everyone else felt it was a minor inconvenience, and now you are trying to trivialize things that do seriously impact other players enjoyment of the game because you couldn't get us to understand that you felt personally hurt by something that most of us have dealt with, and were not unduly bothered by.
I didn't bring up my board. You did. You did so this discredit my opinion without address my opinion. I expect this community to hold consistent values. If we don't judge the GM because we don't know what happen then we can't judge the players without knowing what really happen. You again only bring up my thread because you wish to discredit my statement instead of addressing it.
FLite wrote:
It is not swaying me to reconsider your issue. It is just convincing me that you lack perspective on what things are serious problems, and what things are minor issues that should be avoided where possible but do no lasting harm.
I don't want you to, nor did I bring it up. You did. Losing 1 pp is not an serious issue. Judging people who aren't here to defend themselves, while you weren't at the table to see what happen is.
Lost of possible PP isn't harm. They are choices of the game, many of which the players aren't aware of how to completely fulfill. I seen it discuss many time on these threads that players should expect 1.5 pp per game not 2 pp. If losing even 1 pp is harm then why is the expectation of PP only 1.5 pp per game?
Harm has been seen in many of these boards as death to a character or party death.
Hence every example has been "no harm, no foul". This is of course you are now defining harm differently as anything that negatively impacts the players. A GM who uses blind, and the player has to pay for it to be removed would be consider harm the player, and not just a typical tactic of game play.
The difference is that in your thread, where we refused to condem the GM, no one's character was hurt. In many of the above cases, the other players lost prestige / boons because of one guys actions.
The line we are drawing is "no harm, no foul."
Funny in many of the examples there was "no harm, no foul", yet the players are still being judged. I don't understand how you can judge these players yet tell others not judge a GM. My thread was never to judge the GM, but to find out if the action done could be done. The fact that many people acted like I was judging the GM is why I pointing out that people here are actually judging players who can't defend themselves. That isn't right.
The GM was clearly giving the player an opportunity to change his action. If the player felt that this was metagaming or otherwise unfair, then I'd hope the player would have actually said that, so the response would have been more like "Well, I already said I throw a fireball, so we're stuck with it" than "I waste him with my crossbow!"
As far as the multiattacking bloodrager, I usually suggest that players with multiple attacks roll damage for each attack as it hits rather than roll all the attacks at once. While rolling all the attacks first and then rolling the damage is often suggested as a way of speeding up combat, it locks the player into attacking the same target even if the target drops. First, it encourages the murderhobo attitude, but it also forces players to waste attacks on a downed creature, which is bad strategy--so it's really a lose-lose.
And for what it's worth, I didn't get the impression that the OP felt the players were being disruptive, just that their characters were being needlessly violent and recklessly destructive.
Whatever conclusion you are making about the players still shouldn't be made. Most people committing weren't there, and are judging(by the advice being given) that these players are disruptive. You all wouldn't judge a GM like you are judging these players.
Why is everyone assuming that the players are just being disruptive? I don't think everyone is being fair to these player when they aren't here to tell their side of the story. OP mention that one player constantly to throw a fireball in a room with a NPC being held prisoner. Let look at this from a possible player perspective. The GM describes the scene says there is enemies in the room, and ask what the party is doing. Player decides to launch a fireball. GM calls for many checks to see that some of the enemies are prisoners not combatants.(At this point those checks could been called for before the GM ask what the party actions where.) Player fails a few checks till they finally make one. At this point the player feels it would be meta-gaming to chose another action then what was his first impulse, so he stubbornly stays the course. The player knows they will suffer inconquences for their actions and accepts that.
I don't see an issue here, since the party wasn't killed or even hurt. The player lost the extra pp as punishment for stealing, and might have to learn to be a better pathfinder.
I think the best to handle your parties overall mood would just hinted that those who steal would be punished accordily. I don't see how they could stop said player from doing anything at all. If they chose not to play with said player in the future, then there isn't much you can do about it.
DEFENSE POINTS IN ACTION
The actions that the PCs take during the adventure
substantially influence how prepared they are to face the
Aspis Consortium. Make the following adjustments to the
Aspis Consortium encounters. These adjustments apply to
both Wave 1 and Wave 2.
1–3 Defense Points: No adjustment. The defenses in place
are not sufficient to hamper the Aspis Consortium.
4-5 Defense Points: One of the Aspis agents did not make
it past the traps and kobolds. Remove one Aspis mercenary
from each wave. In addition, Zaril has expended 1 round of
his enlarge ability (in Subtier 4–5, he has also expended 1
round of his bane ability). He expends an additional round
of each ability for every 2 Defense Points beyond 4 that the
PCs acquire.
6–7 Defense Points: The PC’s defenses have injured
the members of the Aspis Consortium. Remove one Aspis
mercenary from each wave, and reduce the starting hit points
of each creature as follows:
Subtier 1–2: Kamektah begins combat with 11 hp, the Aspis
mercenaries with 10 hp, and the hyena with 9 hp. Zaril’s shield
of faith spell has worn off, reducing his AC to 17.
Subtier 4–5: Kamektah begins combat with 26 hp, the Aspis
mercenaries with 20 hp, the advanced leopard with 17 hp.
Zaril’s shield of faith has worn off, reducing his AC to 18.
8-9 Defense Points: The PCs have created a formidable
defense, and the Aspis agents’ resolve is shaken. Remove
one Aspis mercenary from each wave, and apply the injuries
described in the 6–7 Defense Points entry. All creatures except
Zaril are shaken.
10-11 Defense Points: The Aspis agents’ resolve is deeply
shaken. Remove one Aspis mercenary from each wave, and
apply the injuries described in the 6–7 Defense Points entry.
All creatures except Zaril are sickened.
12+ Defense Points: The PCs’ defensive wards give even
the hardened demon worshipper Zaril pause. Remove one
Aspis mercenary from each wave, and apply the injuries
described in the 6–7 Defense Points entry. All creatures in both
waves, including Zaril, are sickened.
As I read it you only apply the highest award, not every award up to that award. Therefore you only remove 1 of the 3 Apis Consortium, and then lower the hp of all others and apply sickness to all combatants.
One should not take a single comment as representative of the community as a whole.
Especially since several posts before this one did answer the question quite succinctly.
At this point, I'm not sure what he wants to hear if he feels we haven't answered his question.
I was responding to that individual who made the post. That comment to reflects on the community.
I tried several times to clarify what I am looking for. If you feel you answered the question, then I haven't argued with you. Again I been only responding to individual posts.
Remember what is clear to you is not clear to everyone. I get to decide when I am clear on how to handle the issue, not you.
Actually, the question is 'May a GM move the final encounter...' ('can' refers to capability while 'may' refers to permission: It's a minor technicality that no one really cares about, but 'can I shoot that man' and 'may I shoot that man' are very different questions)
"Can" is the right question. Due the fact if I can't do it, and I do it then invalidate the session. This is along the lines of a player buying equipment they can't have invalidating their character till they fix it. This is not a "May I" question at all.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Question: May a GM move the final encounter?
Answer: Only if necessary.
Question: What constitutes 'necessary'
Answer: Um, couldn't you just ask about something simple like the meaning of life???
This is confusing.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
As I mentioned in my post, there are judgement calls a GM has to make: Technically, there are a nearly infinite number of ways an adventure can go, and the rules can only cover the most likely scenarios. For all the rest, the GM has to improvise.
This is why I asking the question. To help formulate my judgement as a whole.
If there is an infinite roads I can take that are all the same, then why take any.
Can people drive five miles an hour over the speed limit?
This response shows no relevance to the topic at hand. This response only shows that this community is unwilling to work out issues that come up. This comment also shows that this community is unwilling to clearly support newer people in this community.
This is exclusive behavior hiding behind attempting to be a joke. If you have nothing to add or clarify please refrain from posting.
Remember what is clear to you is not always clear to everyone else.
I admit I had forgotten to address your clarification about changes due to no player input. But you are looking for a simple check the box answer to a question that simply doesn't have one. Then to further get at the simple answer, you've tried to isolate the question to a situation in a vacuum (or made it into a friction-less spherical cow in a vacuum). The only possibility I can come up with off the top of my head that fits your criteria and is going to be at least nearly univerisally accepted is the GM making a mistake (either mis-running something (it happens) or trying to fix a previous error (again it can happen)) . Everything that happens in a scenario is the interaction of player and GM. Player input affects everything. As has been said throughout the other comments, if the GM is making changes for any other reason, it's at best a questionable choice and at worst out right cheating. So no there is no simple answer, the simplest answer is no don't change anything.
Unless you have to
The reason I pulling it into a vacuum is because that is the way the example went down. That partly why I am confused. Many people telling me that context matters, but won't commit when context is removed or fully define that context.
I admit you are one of those trying, but many others aren't willing to for reasons that seem to overshadow getting a true answer.
I used your comment to clearly show how I can be confused about the answers I am being given. I understand that straight up yes or no is hard to come by, but in a general sense I thought that I could get such an answer. I know there is many gray areas while GMing, but I thought there might be certain lines you just don't cross or you lose player trust in the Society.
Understand I didn't walk away with nothing with this whole thread. This weekend I helped , with 2 other GMs, a new GM get some experience running Society, so that he be willing to run on our regular nights. Our regular nights can be very stressful, because we have many new players showing up from around the area. When he asked questions about changing maps, because one was very difficult to draw, I informed him it was okay as long as it didn't unfairly burden the players. I am not sure if that is the correct advice, but seemed so from what I obtained from this thread.
This is where the disconnect from what you are asking and the answer you are being given happens. The answer is highly dependent on context.
Highly dependent on context, but I thought there was rules that stated to run the scenario as written. I am confused, hence I posted my orginal question.
Joe Ducey wrote:
In general as simply stated as possible, no a gm cannot change a scenario. (Unless something is negated/made impossible by player action) In practice, this second part comes up most often for tactics, but quite possibly the location of a fight.
Okay got that. I can't just chose to change the location of encounter in a scenario without input from the players. Right this what you are saying??? So what other context could there be to for me to decide to change the location? Many others said it depends if the GM just messed up or wasn't ready or etc. I am confused about what context am I missing besides player input, hence I clarified my question to exclude player input. Many others are still giving me answers that says it depends then use player input as the example.
Joe Ducey wrote:
I can give an example of one of the few times I've seen this happen. In a scenario, the final set of encounters happens in a house that is the last location you go to investigate. Some investigation happens. There is an encounter on the second floor (meant to be after some other stuff). A large part of the investigation was skipped and entrance was made directly into this rooms encounter (via some fly spells and other things). However, the enemies stats included a very high perception score and notes about them giving warning to other enemies in the area and hiding behind curtains to surprise the players. The creatures made perception check to notice the players (rolling high with high mods helps) so the GM inverted the floors moved the combat to a very similar space on the opposite floor to give the enemy time to follow the written tactics. (On the other hand had the creatures not noticed the players, this would not have happened, the players would have had the advantage of surprise through actually really good planning).
Okay that is example of player input, hence I clarified my question to exclude player input. Are there other reasons why it okay for GM to make this decision? Again you said it was based highly on context, and it others have said the same thing.
Joe Ducey wrote:
Is this following the scenario exactly - no. Is it breaking the rules - I don't think so. This feels to me like a situation of the GM trying to make the scenario fit the unintended actions of the players. I had fun at the table, I think it fit the scenarios feel/intent. I haven't heard any complaints about it including from at least one other player who had prepped the scenario. So as with many things in PFS, YMMV. I am very hesitant to change anything, but there are times where as a GM you are required to use your best judgement. I'm not sure if this helps any but I hope it does.
Does it help? Yes and no. I get that I can change things if players make decisions. I am okay with that as a player and a GM, but again I clarified my question to exclude input from the players because that is what happen in my example. What is this context that GMs can decide to change things by their own decisions?
This why I am confused. You started you statement with it "depends on context" then only give example of player input, which ignores the question I asked which you copied. If the answer to my question is no the GM can't then wouldn't that just be the answer. If the answer to my question it depends then aren't there more reasons then just player input which I have removed when I clarified my question that again you copied.
You believe that changing the location of the final encounter is a significant change. What makes it significant?
Here are some things that might change: moving an encounter from a large room to a small room might interfere with some charge lanes. If the party includes a mounted PC who wants to charge, it's significant.
Moving an encounter from a room with no furniture to a room with a priceless and fragile tapestry might make area-effect fire spells more difficult. If the party includes a fire sorcerer, that might be significant.
Moving an encounter from an area with high winds and rain to an indoor room might make it easier for archers. If the paty has any archery characters, that might be significant.
Moving the encounter from one big room to another big room is probably not significant. Moving an encounter from a hillside to a forest clearing is probably not significant. Moving an encounter from the center of an arena to one end of the same arena is probably not significant.
Hence I said it changes the scenario as a whole. The area written by the writers of the scenario is there for a reason(one would hope). The GM who changes it changes the scenario, again my personal belief. One of the side effects is lost of trust with the players, especially since the rules they follow are set in stone.
The significance is the underlining trust that as GM must attain from the players, so they play by the rules. The "Don't Cheat" rule should go both ways otherwise why even have rules in the first place.
jtaylor, the answer has been given to you several times. You don't seem to be hearing it.
As a GM, you are expected to try to follow all the rules.
But we expect that from time to time, GM's will screw up. And it just isn't a big deal. Try harder next time.
It's a game, we are all here to have fun, and as long as no one lost a character, no one cares enough to worry about sanctioning anyone.
I only been responding to specific people with questions or discussion. If I haven't responded to you then I not changeling or questioning or refuting or etc anything you posted.
Well fact is that scenario is not your home game, and when you make changes like moving the final encounter to another area then you change how that encounter was suppose to play out therefore you change the scenario as a whole.
jtaylor, it's been a couple weeks since this thread was last visited. How about, with a fresh mind, you reread the comments others made last time. Perhaps the break will prove helpful in trying to understand the points we've been expressing.
You have several experienced, highly regarded GMs all telling you the same thing. Perhaps there's a reason for that.
I did. I responded to those who asked specific question out of sense not to be completely rude. I am not generally responding to post at all hence all my responses have been to specific people.
It stands now that I still confused on what the Society expects out of GM with moving the encounter. Two most answers are it depends but generally it is okay, while the other is it is not okay expect when the players do something.
I personally believe changing the area of a final encounter to be one of those things that aren't inconsequential.
Why?
Well fact is that scenario is not your home game, and when you make changes like moving the final encounter to another area then you change how that encounter was suppose to play out therefore you change the scenario as a whole.
You can also make the encounter harder or easier which according to Paizo changes the CR of the encounter, which would affect both gold and experience awards which the GM isn't allowed to change expect when the players fail.
Then comes the issue of if you change the area, and players fail to defeat or do something that could lower gold rewards, then that is unfair to the players because you changed something not reflected of their actions.
Finally making a major change like this will cause trust issues between the players and the GMs. How can you hold a player to how much Fame they have to get that +2 weapon, when you don't hold the GMs to anything? As a player if I think every GM is changing the scenario to fit their taste, then wondering why the heck am I playing by the rules if they don't matter. Then just start wondering why am I playing. Finally I just quit, because the rules don't matter and there is no trust between me and the GMs. I left many of home games because of this issue.
Yes I get that if the players do something than a GM might need to make a change as a reaction.
That isn't my question, nor has it been.
I not sure how can I make it any clearer, but I will.
Can(defined as able or allowed according to Society rules) a GM move the final encounter from one specific area to another specific area without any input/decisions/etc from the players?
I only used an example as to clarify what I meant moving the final encounter was. I not concern why this GM did it. I am only concern if it can be done or not, so that I know what I can do as a GM.
I don't understand why that's hard. As a player, you have certain responsibilities and duties. As the GM, you have others. One of the jobs of a GM is to give the players a fun time.
Some GMs use their discretion to change inconsequential details to give players a better time. Others don't. Either is correct.
GMs get into trouble when the changes aren't inconsequential.
You don't understand why what is hard??? If I personally don't understand the answers I ask for clarification till I do, and if you are unable to clarify then I will continue to not understand your answer. I tried clarifying the question in previous posts, but wasn't getting many more clearer answers. So I left confused, and mainly upset that I had defend my question instead finding an answer.
I think you are forgetting that one of the Society responsibilities is trust that it creates between GM and Player. I always looked at organize play different from home game in that the GM has to follow a set of rules like the player does. I am quickly learning this isn't so, and beginning to lose trust in the people who run the Society as a whole.
You say that GMs can change inconsequential things, but what is inconsequential to one isn't to another. I personally believe changing the area of a final encounter to be one of those things that aren't inconsequential. I personally would avoid doing so, but I am not Pathfinder Society. I posted this thread to find out if this was just an inconsequential thing or a major "no no", so I could be a better GM. I been left confused.
Finally I ask you this, if player has no knowledge that GM change something and there had been a player death, party death, or party failure how would they know to do anything about it? To them they died at the final encounter because they would falsely believed that they made a mistake. In my personal example one new almost did die a perment death, and I sitting there thinking what do I do if he does die. Do I let the GM continue and give him a chronicle even though the GM change a major part of the game? Do I speak up to the Venture captain, and invalidate 5 hours of gameplay because one player died? Luckily the player didn't, and I left with the "no harm, no foul" statement.
There is a lot trust given to a GM. I just wondering, as GM, what rules the Society expects us to follow to earn that trust.
I like to post again. I am not accusing the GM of doing anything but making a decision. I don't want to accuse the GM of doing anything or report the GM. I am trying to learn how the PFS community sees issues of conflict when their our difference of opinions between GM decisions and/or rules. I want to learn from this, and be a better GM. I would like my VC to address this issue, if it is an issue, to my group when holds the GM workshop to make us all better GMs.
I understand it is hard to form an opinion about an event you weren't at, but I think certain generalities could be formed. I prefer to be proactive instead reactive. I hope this clears up any confusion of what I am ultimately looking for.
Did you do any of the encounters other than the last fight?
Or was your whole scenario just walk into the first room and only fight the last encounter?
Sorry about not responding. I took a break from this thread because felt like I spent more time defending my question instead of getting an answer I could understand.
Yes we did all encounters up to the last fight. Hence why I didn't include the info. The GM moved the last fight from one area to another area without the players input at all. That was the GMs decision. I just wanted to know if this decision was allowed compare to what the rules seem to say, and the fact that the rules seem to strictly apply to the players. The post that trollbill links to shows how strict those rules can be on players, to the point of losing their characters. I find it hard as I try to guide newer players and gms when seems like none of the rules truly apply to the GM as a whole.
It's not all that uncommon that somebody posts a thread on these forums describing a disagreement or even conflict with another individual in PFS.
Invariably, the most level heads in the conversation say:
If you're the player and you had an issue with the GM, talk to the GM.
If you're not satisfied after that, or your not comfortable with it, talk to your local VL or VC
If you're not satisfied after that, then either accept it, or, if you really think it's a big deal, email the campaign coordinator. Be aware that the campaign is huge and there's only one coordinator, so you don't want to overwhelm him with details.
Often posters are frustrated when the others in the thread don't accept their version. This is the nature of the beast. Especially if it's a one-on-one conflict, there are two sides to it, and it's entirely possible that (a) the poster isn't aware of what's on the other side, and (b) the poster is misrepresenting what happened in a way that makes the other side look much worse.
There have been a few cases (including one in which I was involved) where I've had first-hand knowledge of what happened, and knew that (b) was in fact the case.
** spoiler omitted **...
I thought by not naming names and giving specifics I was doing that. I thought by actually stating that I have no intention of reporting the GM, who made the decision, was so that answer given were only to me and how I should issue. I thought stating that I was not accusing the GM of anything showed that I wasn't concern about the GM's running, but about the issue that came up.
I thought asking a question that didn't accuse of anything nor express any personal feelings would show that all I want is an answer to the question at hand.
I don't see how asking a general question on how "the rules" are interpreted and providing an example of why I am asking, means that I am accusing someone of something. To assume that this is what I am doing should reflect poorly on those assuming it not on me for asking.
Incorrect. I am not asking to any of that. I am asking for guidance on how to handle issues that seem to conflict the rules.
"It depends" is the same as I don't know or I don't care. It provides no guidance on how to handle the issue.
All I want is general guidance on how to handle this type of issue. The issue being "Is it okay to move a final encounter that has been spefically written to take place in a certain area or not?"
I would hope to see...
You really seem to be ignoring all of the explaining going on after the 'It depends' answers if you think the people replying 'don't care' or 'don't know'.
As a GM, you get to use Judgement, which is difficult at times. You may get things wrong. Your players might question you. Heck, you may GM a session then see the next day a post on the forums just like this - someone questioning what their GM (you) did without understanding. It's part of the risk and reward of GMing.
So yes - the final answer is, on top of all of the other responses in this thread - It Depends.
I am not ignoring it. It is leaving more confused than guiding on how to handle the issue. To keep repeating it after I tried to simplify the question shows a "I don't care/I don't know" attitude.
I don't know how you all want me to phase the question so "The Forums" don't feel I am throwing the GM the bus, and are then willing to provide me with the general guidance.
Seems to me "The Forums" needs to create a sticky thread on how they want questions to be phased.
In policy terms, no, we don't move encounters around without text in the scenario or player actions determining "to where" and "why" aspects.
This is very helpful, and what I am looking for as a general response to my general question.
And yet you skipped the other general answer given to you multiple times before that of "talk to the GM in question".
I hope you don't skip that step the next time something like this happens (and I hope you don't choose to solely enforce TetsujinOni's answer, either).
I explained I can't use the step of talking to the GM, nor would I. If I am GMing why would I talk to myself if I had to make a change. You seem skip the point that this Guidance is for Me as a GM not for Me as a player.
I understand your unwillingness to provide details on the example stems from your desire to find guidance without getting bogged down in the example rather than a desire to vilify your GM. However, a reluctance to provide details is a typical characteristic of those who post on these forums who seek to vilify their GMs. Hence the defensive responses.
Thank for that info. I don't know the history of these forums, so I wrote the question as I would to manager at work. The key to me is that the issue came up, and I personally don't know how to handle it so I only wrote what the issue was. I only provided an example so there was an exact physical reference which helps in forming general responses.
I will now in future try to remove any reference to the GM, if at all possible.
It's not lack of concern. I'm happy to hear legitimate concerns from players. What I'm afraid of is players who are going to post negative hyperbole to the forums, and who paint their GMs in a wholly negative light without necessarily understanding what was behind the GM's thinking -- and who seem extremely resistant to the idea that it's possible that GMs may have had real reasons for doing the things the players don't like or understand.
To some of us, that's how you're coming across in this thread. You might wish to be aware of it.
I am aware of what people think. I have posted a few times now that I am only concern about learning how to be a better GM for PFS. The example was vague and without names for that reason. I refused to provide specifics about what happen, because it would be attempting to accuse the GM of cheating.
I will state again. I don't want to report the GM. I don't want to accuse the GM of anything.
If you choose to ignore this statement, and continue to accuse me of thing I will respond appropriately.
If you honor this statement, and provide general guidance to my issue I will respond appropriately. (Which I have.)
I did take insult. If the term was meant as something other than I took it then the commenter should explain the term instead assuming I knew what he/she was saying. I am still insulted.
To clarify: Monday morning GMing is not what you are doing, it is what you are asking us to do. Sorry if you aren't familiar with the term. We weren't there, and all we have is your opinion that nothing the players did justified the GM's action - something that you don't get just from reading the scenario. You're asking us to condemn a GM for cheating based on incomplete information. I won't engage in Monday morning GMing.
I'd ask you to consider how you are coming across, before getting upset yourself. Your question has been answered, repeatedly. You don't seem to like the answer, and wish for an absolute black-and-white answer without providing complete information. Then when given the correct answer ("it depends"), you refuse to accept it and want to know if you can call the police on them.
Frankly, even if you read the scenario and ran it a hundred times before, what you think about the players' actions is irrelevant. Only the GM in question knows why they made the change. Perhaps it was a good reason, perhaps not. You may make different choices when you run it; that's the nature of the game. Be a good GM yourself and stop worrying over a minor issue which did not materially affect the game.
Good luck in your games, and thanks for stepping up to be a GM.
Incorrect. I am not asking to any of that. I am asking for guidance on how to handle issues that seem to conflict the rules.
"It depends" is the same as I don't know or I don't care. It provides no guidance on how to handle the issue.
All I want is general guidance on how to handle this type of issue. The issue being "Is it okay to move a final encounter that has been spefically written to take place in a certain area or not?"
I would hope to see general answers of "No expect this" therefor guiding me on how I should look at the scenario that I run, or "Yes this is why" therefor guiding me on how much flexibity I have to run a scenario.
Second-guessing GMs is the worst thing that has become part of this game. Monday morning GMs are the biggest impediment to recruiting new GMs.
I agree with this.
I have seen several threads on these boards, my primary reaction to which is, "Wow, I hope I never have that player at one of the tables I'm GMing".
(This thread, reading some of the follow-ups from the OP, has turned into one of those.)
I hope never to play at you table either, because I would spend most of the time waiting for a meteor from space to come down and total party kill all the players.
(I am sure you didn't mean come across like this, but your lack concern about input from other players/gms shows me that you think of PFS as if it was your home game.)
In policy terms, no, we don't move encounters around without text in the scenario or player actions determining "to where" and "why" aspects.
This is very helpful, and what I am looking for as a general response to my general question. I was hoping to see more general answer like this instead of this thread becoming what it has.
There is no side of the story. Can you change the location of an encounter that is specifically written in the scenario or not?
This is not harping on the GM. This is finding out how PFS as whole sees these events in contrast to the material being put out. I am not concern why the GM did this, which I stated before. I am concern on a whole if it is legal to do so, and if so why.
I apologize if you feel I throwing the GM under the bus, and you feel a need to protect them, but those feelings are on you. Not me. Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done.
Either English isn't your first language or you are not describing what happened very clearly. Are you trying to say that the GM swapped the entire flow of the scenario around so it ran backwards or are you saying that he put the entire scenario in the entry?
Either one is a problem but neither is as bad as you seem to think. Yes you didn't get to play the scenario as intended which kind of sucks for you and your table mates but stuff happens. However as long as no characters died and no fights were harder than intended then no harm no foul.
I sorry if my learning disability makes things harder for to understand. I was quite clear in the spoiler section that the GM moved the final encounter to another area instead of the one it is suppose to start in. This change of location of the final encounter changes what the scenario could of been, and changes how that encounter flows. This also (in my opinion) changes the feeling of the entire scenario. I reposted the question trying to simplify for everyone.
I like to post again. I am not accusing the GM of doing anything but making a decision. I don't want to accuse the GM of doing anything or report the GM. I am trying to learn how the PFS community sees issues of conflict when their our difference of opinions between GM decisions and/or rules. I want to learn from this, and be a better GM. I would like my VC to address this issue, if it is an issue, to my group when holds the GM workshop to make us all better GMs.
I understand it is hard to form an opinion about an event you weren't at, but I think certain generalities could be formed. I prefer to be proactive instead reactive. I hope this clears up any confusion of what I am ultimately looking for.
You are correct about my intent. I am trying to improve how I run overall, and to have this express to others of my group so we present to new players what they would expect if they went to another group of PFS players. "Bad habits are easy to make, but hard to break." I understand that player decisions can change things, but since the players didn't influence this decision I was wondering if it was okay just to do it to do it. Then the normal thing of "if someone dies then bring it" bothers me. If someone is dead, and this decision of the GM caused it where the other players have lose 4+ hours of gaming is it right to only say something then when I could prevented it by saying something earlier.
@all commenters
I do thank people willing to post. I see that the question, while simple to me need to express more so. I will try.
Is it okay to change the final encounter of a scenario without any influence from the players, the same as changing tactics to make it more challenging which some players find more fun, or is it against the rules to do so, which could invalidate all players playing that session?
