Patrick F's page

These maps are really nice. Thank you so much for sharing your hard work!

I ran Day of the Demon this pass weekend this is how it happened.

** spoiler omitted **...

Guess I just needed to feel some justification.

What, that you cared about the feelings of the people at the gaming table and wanted to provide an enjoyable experience for all?

The rules lawyers will hound you mercilessly for fudging some rolls at a session. The socialites will appreciate the chance to shine at a session. From what I've seen, PFS has many types of GMs and players -- conservatives, moderates and liberals if you will.

You are not going to find justification for your actions here friend. In the end, you did what you thought was right at the time as a GM. If everyone is enjoying themselves, smiles are around the gaming table and the products are moving off the shelves at the local game shop, mission accomplished.

Is there any reason to think only humans are Ulfen? Assuming the quoted text above is accurate surely anyone who was born and raised in the Lands of the Luinnorm Kings is someone "hailing from the Lands of the Linnorm Kings".

I'd read the "hailing" clause as defining what Ulfen ethnicity means, you have one or more parents from the right region. Some number of elves, dwarves, half-elves, orcs, horses, pigeons, and linnorms satisfy that requirement.

Stepping away from the text and looking at broader issues, I think we should encourage players to develop backstories and embrace cultures in the setting, regardless of race. It's good for RP and I don't see any mechanical harm.

From a homebrewed game perspective, expanding upon what is written in the campaign source material is creative, innovating and fun. I highly recommend it.

As far as the half-elf is concerned, I think there is enough source material to allow the character as is. I hate to see a player not be able to enjoy a character they really want to play without trying to accommodate their desires. If a GM is really adamant about the issue, perhaps the approach is how can we make this work. Perhaps this particular half-elf was the subject of a reincarnate spell, who was human in previous form.

PFS characters for organized play are held to a somewhat more rigid guidelines. I understand, playing a Ulfen paladin (Sacred Shield). The question arose whether or not Torag or Erastil was a more suitable choice as a deity, based upon different source materials. I just listed both and put the discussion to rest. Simply because both deities are revered in Ulfen culture.

Sometimes its better to compromise your original idea, rather than adversely effect the friendships of the people you game with.

Interesting discussion. Here is how I interpret it. In the Pathfinder Player Companion for People of the North, page 14 talks about Dwarves and Gnomes, then continues with other races and ethnicities. The paragraph states "Human ethnicities make up the remainder of the northern civilizations, with two exceptions: half-elves descended from Snowcaster elves and the half-orcs of the Ironbound Archipelago and the Realm of the Mammoth Lords."

Under the Half-Elf Section "Occasionally, however, such liaisons do occur, though the half-elven progeny of such unions are almost never accepted in Snowcaster society."

So, taking the trait 'Child of Two Peoples' (half-elf, half-orc or human) allows your parents to come from two visibly different cultures that maintain distinct identities regardless of their physical proximity (such as Tians and Ulfen). For a half-elf, taking Child of Two Peoples would have your bases covered. So, they could be raised in the Ulfen culture. Thereby you could be Ulfen and Snowcaster Elf.

For that matter, you could also be Kellid, Tien, Varki or Erutaki, but Jadwiga would be hard to pull off, since its a part of the ranks of Irrisen's aristocracy. However, "The closer their relationship to Baba Yaga, the more unusual their physical characteristics." So with some clever trait selection, you might be able to work around it. Snowcaster elves live in isolated tribal communities, so its possible for the cultural blend to happen more freely amidst the various ethnicities.

Page 23 talks about Beast Wranglers, which can be taken by half-orc or human with ethnicity of 'Kellid'. Therefore, its entirely possible for half-orcs to come from a Kellid background. Since the Ironbound Archipelago is a part of the Lands of the Linnorm Kings, its possible that they could also have a Ulfen, Tien or Varki background. Perhaps even Erutaki, given the right background circumstances for the character. However, they couldn't be a part of the Jadwiga ethnicity -- indigenous to the Irrisen region and wouldn't fit in well.

Being a part of the Ulfen Guard means that you would have to be trained by Ulfen to do so. Hence the need for the ethnicity in the first place. What I would find interesting is the background story of your character. You would be the absolute best person to stand watch at night, given the low light vision and perception bonus.

Gaining respect wouldn't be as much of an issue, as long as your half-elven status remains a secret. You'd probably want to hide your ears behind long hair. As it says on page 10, "Ulfen almost always adopt their forebears' professions, laboring alongside parents, siblings and children. Ulfen traditionalists, marriage is the only legitimate way to change livelihoods, and leaving the family's occupation is otherwise tantamount to abandoning the family, redeemable only through extraordinary success".

Obviously, your biological parents didn't marry. Therefore, you would have to pass as a member of the community in order to receive such prestige training and respect. Let's just hope your pointy ears didn't get clipped by your Ulfen parent at an early age so you could blend in better...

Sometimes women just like to watch and see what's going on first, before committing to a roleplaying session and group of people which lasts over four hours. Bringing alternative forms of entertainment along the way, i.e. kindle, books, beads, needlework, etc. is always possible while surveying a game. No obligations, no strings attached.

Personally, I view a female as no different than a male at the gaming table. I don't see what the big deal is. If a woman wants to participate with guys at a gaming table, then the experience is simply how guys interact with one another in a roleplaying session.

My experience, women strongly dislike men who are disingenuous. Why act one way at a gaming session and a completely different way when a woman is present at the table? Your friends who know you better look at you like your crazy and you end up roleplaying yourself as another person. Makes absolutely no sense.

When delivering the mission in game from a GM perspective, a strong roleplaying reminder that the person is a new member of the Pathfinder Society and everyone should help assist the newcomer might be a good icebreaker, male or female.

You can certainly role-play how much you dislike the other person's actions, as long as you don't end up becoming too disruptive yourself in the process. Trying to control another character's actions, verbal or otherwise, becomes a struggle in and of itself, because they will try to do the same to your character.

Chances are, if the player is being a jerk at the table on more than one occasion -- they are most likely the same way at other open event tables. GMs are like anyone else, they have tolerance levels of how much disruption they are willing to tolerate at a session. Some GMs are more direct and confrontational than others. Pulling people aside in the middle of a session causes overt drama and spoils the mood. Mostly GMs are trying to move the scenario along and hopefully allow everyone to have a good time.

As a player, talking to the GM afterwards in private can help during the next session. Sometimes, the GM may be thinking they are being overtly sensitive to the situation after a long day at work, etc. -- so they might decide to not do anything. Your input to a GM helps tremendously.

You can always contact the Venture Captain or Lieutenant as well to vent your frustrations about a particular player, but its a courtesy at least give the GM a chance to resolve the situation first for next session. Chances are, both GM and VC/L already know there are issues present.

I didn't provide advice to the OP because I'm not an expert in PTSD and can't advise him of how to handle his personal situation, so I leave others with much more experience in that topic to provide him better answers than I can. Better to not provide any information than to provide bad information that can make the situation worse.

It is good there is no more confusion and you found your practical solution. Thanks for the feedback. We will consider it when we start making changes in guide 6.0. If you have suggestions on text that would make it less frustrating for you and others, feel free to offer those up. I invite the others in your group that are also frustrated on this topic, to come post here.

I tried to send a PM to address your other points because I don't want to be argumentative on the message boards. I also discussed your problems you've advised were present with your VC, but you don't have PMs activated. I can't send any further message and I choose not to post anything further that would be construed as argumentative or might embarrass you on a public message boards. If you wish me to send an email, I can do so. Otherwise, I consider this matter at an end since you advised you found what you were looking for.

I wasn't aware that my private messages were turned off. They are enabled. You are more than welcome to contact me anytime Mike. I have an open door policy.

Patrick F wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Patrick F wrote:

Then if that's what you want, please modify the text to state more clearly the parameters thereof -- that other source material is limited in scope to fluff. Which means if people want to forage for food in Worldwound in a Pathfinder Society event, then the food and water will not risk being contaminated, etc. because other source material mechanics are unallowable in a Pathfinder Scenario unless expressly written therein.

Thanks for the feedback. We will consider it when we start making changes in guide 6.0. If you have suggestions on text that would clarify it for you and others, feel free to offer those up. You are the first to express confusion with this specific language in the Guide, so unless we find others with the same confusion, it is unlikely to change.

Mike, you marked as favorite BigNorseWolf's comment "I think that intent was pretty clear in what was written" along with the other comment below it. Please don't ask for my opinion on how the text should be worded if you don't intend on using it and its unlikely to change. You could have submitted your comments at any time to clarify the situation, but you decided to wait until the tonality shifted considerably in this thread before doing so.

I'd rather focus my time on the next gaming session I am running, within the new criteria you clarified accordingly.

I ask for opinions because it is how I form decisions on what is best for PFS. Just because people offer up opinions doesn't mean I'm always going to use them. But, I do consider them. I think I've shown a track record of changing things that need to be changed at the behest of the player base when a solid reasoning is given. But, if only one person, out of 65,000, has expressed confusion about one paragraph in the Guide, then it is unlikely to change. If you don't want to provide your opinion, or feel it would be a waste of time, then don't submit it. It's totally up to you.

And for the record, I did submit my comments back on page 3 of this thread. I didn't "wait until the tonality shifted considerably in this thread before doing so."

Your comments weren't directed towards the original poster's issues. I took the time to try and provide a viable solution to the dilemma at the beginning of the thread, amidst the other sarcastic and negative comments. Regardless of whether or not my interpretation of the rules needed clarification, at least I attempted to help rectify the situation at hand. I have more than adequately provided my opinion on the rules in this thread.

You've made it clear that environmental effects cannot be defined by the GM if not specified in the scenario. However, you have yet to provide practical advice to the original poster. I'm excited about the World Cup and I love Manchester United in soccer -- going to the game at the end of July against Inter Milan at FedEx Field. However, when reviewing your recent posts, your focus was on other topics.

You are correct, my experiences with Pathfinder is limited in scope to the beginning scenarios thus far, because that's what the other GMs have been running as of late. They are underpowered by nature. However, like so many others, I have run tables before and have previous experience in 3.5 and so forth.

What I wanted is a practical solution to the problem listed at the beginning of the thread other than 'deal with it'.

Advertising four slots available for earlier scenarios at a table and accommodating more if necessary is the only solution to make the scenarios more challenging as the rules currently stand.

That's the answer I was looking for. I'm not the only frustrated person in our group about this topic, but at least now a workable solution is reached.

notes the tone of the thread has changed to the passive aggressive "fine, if I have to play by the rules then EVERYONE has to play by the rules and now we need some new rules" ... this is when these threads get fun

Passive aggressive? How about practical advice. Nothing says you have to advertise a six person event all the time in the rules at the local gaming store. You can go with a minimum of four people for a legal table of play in Pathfinder Society and accommodate up to seven people at a table for legal play in case others show up unannounced.

Everyone gets EXACTLY what they wanted in this thread. Scenarios run without extra mechanics and the difficulty level increases accordingly.

After all, if the scenario was written for a *minimum* of four people at a table, then that means they were intended to run with a minimum of four players. Not five. Not Six. Not Seven. As far as I know, if you have four people at a table, a scenario doesn't require you to run an NPC to make the party bigger to overcome the challenges.

Why? Because the difficulty was originally intended for four players in the first place.

I'm happy about the positive outcome of this thread. I wouldn't want to break any society rules after all.

Patrick F wrote:

CathalFM wrote:

Patrick F wrote:

We need to stop allowing six people to show up for a table.

Six people is allowed though by the rules of PFS, yes you are entirely welcome to state to your VC your opinion on the matter and that you personally don't want to GM to tables of 6, but I would urge you not to try and impose this on other GMs as this just results in less players getting a game.

The rules also state that four people are allowed at a table for legal play. If other GMs feel the same way that the scenarios are underpowered, why not advertise only four spots available at any given table? If someone shows up unannounced, we make room for a fifth, sixth or even a seventh in extreme cases. We just simply start with four slots available.

I think its a fair compromise and doesn't break society rules, now does it?

I never stated it did, I simply urged you not to "push this" too much. By all means bring it up, just don't try and force the agenda on other GMs who don't feel the same way.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply you would force it, I'm just saying.

Then the title is somewhat fitting to the thread 'Forbidding players from my PFS table'.

As it currently stands, the only way to increase difficulty of a scenario by the Society rules is to advertise four slots available at a gaming table. Then, accommodate any extras that show up to the maximum amount. At least now, there is a viable solution to the GM's dilemma at the beginning of the thread for lopsided scenarios completed as quickly as possible by power gamers.

We could start rotating players every other week I suppose...

Patrick F wrote:

We need to stop allowing six people to show up for a table.

Six people is allowed though by the rules of PFS, yes you are entirely welcome to state to your VC your opinion on the matter and that you personally don't want to GM to tables of 6, but I would urge you not to try and impose this on other GMs as this just results in less players getting a game.

The rules also state that four people are allowed at a table for legal play. If other GMs feel the same way that the scenarios are underpowered, why not advertise only four spots available at any given table? If someone shows up unannounced, we make room for a fifth, sixth or even a seventh in extreme cases. We just simply start with four slots available.

I think its a fair compromise and doesn't break society rules, now does it?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what the solution is. (I'm pretty sure that multiple solutions are required) but i know what the solution isn't: arbitrary and capricious penalties by the dm to ensure their failure or banning people from the table for pretty minor offenses that are going to be found at nearly any table. If you start adding penalties they will just try harder to tack on more bonuses.

-Smaller tables help. As said above, add 2 players and you probably ~double the parties dps because you don't usually double up on healers and skill types.

-Optimization is like tennis. You need people near your own level. Since thats NOT going to be the scenario for the minmaxers, it has to be other minmaxers. Group them together, and then just accept that your monsters are going to die and let the players compete against each other to see who makes the orcs the crispiest or who lops the etins head off further.

-more hard mode options: possibly announce ahead of time that the scenario WILL be run in hard mode and that signing up is agreeing to go in hard mode.

BNW My own proposed solution earlier in the thread was that to give a "hard mode" that the option should be present (at higher levels at least) for the GM to completely use their own tactics. The benefits in my opinion would be:

- This would allow players who felt they wanted the extra challenge to get that.

- The GM would not feel like they were fighting with one hand tied behind their back (which is usually fine if your players are having fun, but if your players are complaining you arent challenging them then it leads to annoyed GMS!)

- It still limits the game. ie the Tactics can be changed completely, maybe the BB won't cast mage armor when the PCs enter his fortress, maybe he will hide and wait till they enter his actual room, etc. But the details, abilities, monster count won't change so its still going to be a SIMILAR game to most people on regular mode.

- Final point, it is easy to...

Nice suggestions.

Tonight I participated in a scenario where the GM hand waved the last fight, simply because the spell caster was taken out so quickly and the rest were simply armed goons. Same way with the creatures the boss was summoning -- hand wave the combat because he knew the table would wipe them out before the end of the first round.

Great GM, great storytelling capabilities, with the laptop, map, minis and the whole package. By the end of it all, we managed to have some fun, but the fights are so limited. The only reason why we were challenged at all is because the big boss cast charm monster on another player and the player started dealing damage to everyone else!

I need to talk to the Venture Captain in my area about the whole situation. We need to stop allowing six people to show up for a table. Tonight was seven people due to an unannounced guest.

Four people will provide adequate challenge in scenarios. We keep accommodating so many players to a table, just to have the same situation happen time and time again. Space is limited in the gaming stores as to the number of tables we can get in the first place, but there should be more focus on quality and less on quantity.

I may not be able to change the weather, but I can change the number of people at the GM table to increase challenge. Maybe decreasing the number of roleplayers attending events is the best solution overall.

With that said, I don't think GMs should bother to post suggestions for harder scenarios modifications. That's not what the Society wants, obviously.

Patrick F wrote:

Then if that's what you want, please modify the text to state more clearly the parameters thereof -- that other source material is limited in scope to fluff. Which means if people want to forage for food in Worldwound in a Pathfinder Society event, then the food and water will not risk being contaminated, etc. because other source material mechanics are unallowable in a Pathfinder Scenario unless expressly written therein.

Thanks for the feedback. We will consider it when we start making changes in guide 6.0. If you have suggestions on text that would clarify it for you and others, feel free to offer those up. You are the first to express confusion with this specific language in the Guide, so unless we find others with the same confusion, it is unlikely to change.

Mike, you marked as favorite BigNorseWolf's comment "I think that intent was pretty clear in what was written" along with the other comment below it. Please don't ask for my opinion on how the text should be worded if you don't intend on using it and its unlikely to change. You could have submitted your comments at any time to clarify the situation, but you decided to wait until the tonality shifted considerably in this thread before doing so.

I'd rather focus my time on the next gaming session I am running, within the new criteria you clarified accordingly.

If the scenario advises in boxed text or GM notes somewhere, that fog is rolling in, but no mechanical structure is giving for the fog, then the default is to use your best judgement as a GM to use the mechanics involved with fog as described in the CRB if desired.

If the scenario advises it is raining or snowing or whatever other weather, the same applies.

If there is no mention of weather whatsoever, you aren't allowed to just create a weather effect and place it into a scenario, and then start imposing penalties on the characters or NPCs.

We put the line in the Guide that GMs may use other source material so they specifically could enhance roleplay through fluff that has been written about already. This came about mainly because of the lack of description in The Cyphermage Dilemma. People wanted to roleplay up the aspects of Riddleport that were barely called out in the scenario. The line we added is to let people use names of pubs, or organizations, or whatever they came across while running that scenario to add extra flavor. What that line does not allow a GM to do is stretch the meaning to incorporate all manner of mechanical rules crunch into a scenario to make it harder on PCs.

Then if that's what you want, please modify the text to state more clearly the parameters thereof -- that other source material is limited in scope to fluff. Which means if people want to forage for food in Worldwound in a Pathfinder Society event, then the food and water will not risk being contaminated, etc. because other source material mechanics are unallowable in a Pathfinder Scenario unless expressly written therein.

Running a game only for people he enjoys, who likewise enjoy his GMing style is more likely a private game. Pretending to run PFS and supplying another experience is hijacking the game and players who showed up with a given expectation only to find another.

The ones hijacking a GM gaming experience are in this thread. This was supposed to be about coming up with solutions to deal with scenarios that are lopsided and encouraging a GM to continue with the society as a whole. I haven't seen much other than discrediting my explanation by simply stating I am wrong and dropping someone else's name to justify a bias opinion. Basically pretending to have authority through Paizo by utilizing another person's name who didn't give their express opinion on the topic. The amount of negative feedback and unconstructive comments in this thread outweighs any type of useful information directed to help the GM in the thread.

Why not try quoting rules exactly like I did? Simply because you know deep down inside I am right. You know my interpretation of the rules is valid. Maybe you don't like the changes of table variations for 5.0. If so, that's fine, but don't ruin another GM's opportunity to expand upon the scenario as allowed by Pathfinder rules. I will not encourage you to quit simply because you like the old guidelines better.

Does anyone who GM's bother to read about surviving in the Worldwound? There is a constant source of danger, with most food and water sources poisoned per the source guide. Doesn't mean you set the party up for failure, but you make sure that they are well prepared in how to deal with adventuring in such harsh conditions. No one should be foraging from the lands during a journey but have plenty of supplies.

For example, Frostmire in the Worldwound region has cold and windy with snow listed as typical weather and precipitation. Riftshadow is moderate, calm and rain as typical precipitation. The list goes on for the Worldwound Pathfinder Campaign Setting, mostly with rain as precipitation. Yet somehow, the rain is magically supposed to disappear because it was overlooked in a scenario... Now we have clear skies in Worldwound with an ambient temperature of 75 degrees and fluffy clouds floating nearby. Why not set up beach chairs and serve legs of mutton that swarms of demonic whippet dogs steal from the dwarves... Because demonic whippets in Worldwound make about as much sense as a sunny skies in the region.

I can't imagine running an Irrisen scenario without some type of snow, which has effect on movement. Even the Winter Witch pathfinder tales book by Elaine Cunningham depicts a snow storm at the beginning of the book. That's the way its supposed to be run. It's cold. It snows.

The mechanics of an encounter are clearly defined by 5.0 guidelines. Environmental and terrain is not one of them unless specifically written in the scenario. The change in weather is valid for a GM to add flavor to the scenario. It's a table variation.

I see quite a few Pathfinder scenarios run in Worldwound. Again, GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario -- I've talked about this before how weather is defined as flavor of the scenario.

On Page 27 of the Worldwound Campaign Setting, there is a table dedicated to weather conditions in the region -- which is different than the one located on page 439 of the Core Rulebook for random weather.

So, I keep hearing you can't add weather to the scenario? Then are you saying that you should go against the Core Rules and disallow weather in its entirety.

If the weather is listed in the scenario, the weather is played as written. If not, you have options per the rules of the game. Who the heck makes it sunny all the time in Worldwound anyways? What about the Ashstorms, the Heat Waves, the Supernatural Precipitation?

A GM is always prepared to handle unexpected situations. The weather can die down as quickly as it starts into the region if necessary. The player who exclaims, damn, my cloak of resistance is caught in the portal gets the cloak back unharmed obviously...

At least the players at your table are now focused on the adventure. Useful sometimes if you have a teenager or two at your event. I love when fellow GMs sit at my table -- even more fun to weave a story of adventure.

Try reading some of the pathfinder novels to find unique ways to have fun in a campaign setting. You know you can get free benefits for your character if you have a copy of most of the novels. True! True!

GMs have a bit of fun for a change if you like... or run it dry! The controversy continues -- Holy +1 Sword Batman!

P.S. Each time a fellow Pathfinder in this thread tells me to quit PFS, a hungry whippet dog steals a mutton leg from a dwarf...

Patrick F wrote:

The PCs are now actively alert and their attention is focused at the front door, where the liaison and his goons were about to ambush the party as a double crossing measure. The party is underpowered, so the encounter is a little less deadly as the surprise round is automatically spoiled.

So rather than using the rules for determining surprise, you just handwave away the surprise round? And you feel the guide supports this?

As a tactical modification, only in the best interest of the party if underpowered (maybe only three or four showed up to the table during a harder scenario, including one new player to roleplaying). Directing their attention to the door where the liaison and his goons have their swords drawn is pretty obvious to observe. The enemy still needs to be fought with the same feats, equipment, skills and so forth, but enemy isn't getting the surprise round in.

It's no more spoiling than having a party member hiding in front of the shadows of the tavern keeping watch, to see the liaison issue a command to his goons to kill the party members just outside the front door. The player yells and gives a signal to alert the party.

I'm telling you up front, GMs modify tactics all the time in the best interest of the party. There was one big boss I had with Death Knell memorized, which basically allows you the chance to kill off a bleeding player who has -1 or fewer hit points for some added hit points and strength bonus. Now, that will be the *last* spell I'd cast as the GM controlling the enemy at a fallen party member, only after all other spells are exhausted.

Is it evil? Yes. Is it a valid tactical maneuver? Yes. Is it effective against a fallen hero? Yes.

Is it a mean-spirited spell? Of course -- just like instead of targeting a new player with an enemy as GM, you continue to stomp on the one that already fallen and bleeding to death, to make sure they die. Taking away the hope the comrades will come save them. Making them pack up early for the night.

Death will inevitably happen at the game table. The GM doesn't have to actively encourage it -- the critical hits, bleed outs, nasty traps, the failed saving throw, etc. will come on their own.

I like seeing a challenging scenario fold out and the heroes shine. Things were getting rough, but the party managed to work together and pull through it all, amidst roleplaying fun and *occasional* harmless shenanigans.

Harmless shenanigans -- that's right, when the players are not focused on the adventure and they are supposed to go through the magic portal... as they were all talking about the new X-men movie out of character. So, the portal starts to slowly close... everyone roll for initiative! The last person's cape gets stuck in the portal, which turns into a tug of war match.

Even if the cape is lost or torn, the player ends up getting a new cape for free, but they have to fill out a reimbursement form at the Grand Lodge of Absalom (in triplicate) and explain how the cape was lost to the venture-captain in game. The venture-captain in game asks why didn't the character move more quickly through the portal...

Literally, you hand the player a piece of paper and tell them to write the request three times in triplicate! By that time, its close of game and you can expand upon the silliness of it all while you are filling out Chronicle Sheets, how the tailor brings out a cape that is too short comes down to the rump, the next cape drags along the floor, the next one smells like cheese wheels, the next one is big red cape with a big yellow 'S' (superman) on the back of it...

That's why its important for GMs to share their experiences, vent and come up with ways to deal with problem situations. Bringing hate/anger/revenge to the table as a GM makes for a bad roleplaying game. Quitting GMing is just as bad, unless you truly dislike running adventures. Everyone having fun is what its all about!

Threads kind of like beating an undead horse. Again, you can agree to disagree with me. Reiterating your *interpretation* of the rules and quoting the rules in their full context and explaining are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ways to handle a disagreement.

I interpret the terrain and environmental conditions (weather, lighting) as a changeable condition to the GM's discretion, if not expressly written in the scenario. I also interpret invalidated tactics and starting locations, akin to an invalidated argument and can be modified to the GM's discretion. Again, its clear that such modifications were meant to have a fair and fun experience at the table and create a more enjoyable play experience.

If the GM determines that the surprise round could be lethal to a party centered around roleplaying, adjusting the tactics of the encounter might be in order to make the fight more fair and fun. Likewise, if the party is overpowered and can handle combat in less than one round, then having the minions appear in waves, flanking or other tactical strategies and starting locations of minions may be in order to increase the enjoyment of the scenario.

I quote again:

Table Variation

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not
mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in
this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience.

Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and
environmental conditions when those effects have been
written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that
are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have
not been added to the encounters. GMs are always encouraged
to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the
reactions of NPCs or the outcome of in-game encounters.
GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor
to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of
encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are
the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the
encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks
for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill
check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the
listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the
mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter
already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or
hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered
mechanics that may not be altered.

The definition of the *mechanics of the encounter* are clearly defined, i.e. the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter.

If the scenario *already includes* mechanical effects of terrain, weather or hazards, they are also considered mechanics of the encounter that may not be altered. However, if the terrain and environmental conditions aren't described in the first place, they *can* be added as 'flavor to the scenario' to the GM's discretion.

Why? Because the *mechanics of the encounters* were already defined *specifically* in the previous two sentences in the same paragraph. The final sentence is a conditional one which only applies if the terrain, weather or hazards are written in the scenario. In such cases, they are considered mechanics of the encounter. If there are specific mechanics included in the scenario for terrain and environmental conditions, you must run them as indicated. If there are not specific mechanics included in the scenario for terrain and environmental conditions, you *may* or may not include the mechanical effects accordingly. (One of the few instances where Pathfinder Society Organized Play allows you to alter the rules. Technically, you should be running terrain and environmental effects as printed in the scenario regardless of whether or not the mechanics are listed).

Environmental Conditions are found inside the Core Rulebook of Pathfinder, which is considered another Pathfinder RPG Source in order to add flavor to the scenario to the GM discretion. The opening sentence of the paragraph describes terrain and environmental conditions as flavor of the scenario. Weather conditions are a valid option to be added by the GM, if not specifically defined otherwise in the scenario; within the context of prior paragraph for table variations, which encompasses a fair and fun experience at the table and create a more enjoyable play experience.

If Mike Brock and Mark Moreland are concerned, than the language needs to be clear exactly what the 'flavor of the scenario' is defined as and how other source material can be utilized for table variations.

Nothing says you *have* to change anything from the scenario. However, this thread was about power gamers overtaking a table as quickly and lopsidedly as possible and strategies outside of speaking with players that may help as a GM. The goal is to reduce GM frustration so they don't quit the society and decrease the visibility of the roleplaying genre.

With that said, if you have any positive suggestions outside of the 'suck it up GM, that's how the Pathfinder Organized Play Society rolls' attitude, please feel free to share accordingly. I'd like to hear how others handle power gamers, so I can add to my learning experiences and provide an even greater roleplaying experience at the table.

Part of the fun of roleplaying as a GM is coming up with unexpected mundane encounters in a humorous way.

For instance, your party has just ordered food and drink at the local tavern, as they are supposed to meet a liaison to gather information about a known villain for a sum of gold. You casually ask the dwarf warrior what his Combat Maneuver Defense is. The player panics and asks if they can make a perception check, etc. You inform them sadly that you were taken by surprise...

...only to find out that the whippet dog curled up next to the fire described earlier leaped in mid-air and snatched the mutton leg from the dwarf's hand and darted out the open door of the tavern. The barmaid can always bring another mutton leg to the dwarf at no charge... but...

The PCs are now actively alert and their attention is focused at the front door, where the liaison and his goons were about to ambush the party as a double crossing measure. The party is underpowered, so the encounter is a little less deadly as the surprise round is automatically spoiled.

Plus, the whippet gets to make cameo appearances now and again. So, you know what this means right? Whippet. Whippet good!

"Eh, yes, exactly that stuff. It can sound as innocuous as you can make it, and I'm not saying they are bad tactics (for a home game i quite like the multi-key thing), but whether they are bad or not what they definitely ARE is against the rules. You can adapt tactics if they are invalidated, or you can utilise the environment if it is described but not already utilised. You can NOT create weather, or create extra keys, this is just flat out against Mikes post."

I've already explained my interpretation on several occasions of the rules. From my perspective, what I stated is valid and the changes can be made.

Weather is a part of the campaign world. If not specifically stated in the scenario, there is nothing wrong with describing what the weather is like, to the GM's discretion. I quoted the *entire* section where the rules are contained in, because its easy to misinterpret a line or two without the context of the entire paragraph.

When you describe a tavern and offer food, does the scenario contain every item available from the tavern or do you improvise what the barkeep offers? Can the players get drunk? Why did you allow the players to get penalties to their attack rolls because they are intoxicated during the scenario? Isn't that breaking the rules, because the players wouldn't have *died* in the first place if those intoxication penalties weren't imposed? Do you prohibited the PCs from drinking alcohol in the tavern because they are part of the Pathfinder Society? Do you break Pathfinder rules and not allow the intoxication penalties to take effect during the bar brawl? See my point?

The scenario is a part of a simulated world. People have multiple keys which they possess in real life. Again, I don't see what the problem is -- because the GM has a right to expand upon the scenario as a part of the roleplaying experience. I've already quoted that too, the GM can utilize different sources for the flavor of the scenario. I can have a snow shoe merchant in Irrisen if I so desire, because it makes logical sense within a roleplaying setting. I don't need permission from a scenario to have a snow shoe merchant, a fisherman on the docks or a beggar on the corner asking for a coin.

Pathfinder is about the roleplaying experience, socialization and storytelling game, which varies from table to table. MMORPGs video games are constants confined to their programming. Are we running a roleplaying game or not?

I want to make sure that GMs are informed as well of both sides of the argument, before making a final decision. Again, you can agree to disagree with my position, but I have yet to find compelling arguments against it.

Patrick,

Perhaps you should talk to your VO about this approach? Or even contact Mike Brock directly? PFS does have rules and authorities for a reason.

No offense intended. It's just that your interpretation of that guideline seems a lot looser than most others. If you're right, then that should be clarified for everyone. If not, then it's better to get it clarified up front than to wait for someone to complain after losing a character when you, or someone following your lead, boosts an encounter to provide more challenge.

People make so many bias assumptions about others on forums, based on their own personal experiences sitting at someone else's table. Fact of the matter is, GMs have been tweaking tactics in scenarios whether they want to admit it or not to help the players survive a game. Why? Believe it or not, the majority of GM's don't enjoy killing other players off, myself included.

I know many of the people at the gaming table at the local store. Why would I want to hurt my friends? Why would I want to ruin the experience of a new player to the genre, ultimately to kill the hobby I enjoy? If a character unfortunately dies at the table, I always hope it was epic in a grand boss battle.

Personally, I find traps the sucker punch of the roleplaying genre. Rogue fails to find trap, you step in it and die. Alternatively, there are no monsters around, so you get healed by a wand. In my personal opinion, the only trap worthy of being in a game is something that can trigger on a tactical battle map.

However, some people love traps and dedicate their characters to finding them. I have a bias about traps, but I will not modify a scenario to remove the trap or downplay the trap when it triggers. I know that other people like them in a campaign setting.

What have we talked about that's so offensive in this thread? -- having rain fall if the weather is not described in the scenario, having lighting change if not described in the scenario so the players need to find a light source, changing the positioning of enemies within a combat scenario or having them appear in multiple waves, delaying the players entering a room by finding multiple keys or changing tactics that the enemies utilize?

If a player should die during the course of the scenario, what exactly will they complain about? Same content, but the GM added flavor to the scenario as allowed by the 5.0 rules.

Maybe I wanted it to rain, so the players could sneak into the building by giving the enemy outside a negative roll to perception checks and limited visibility or reduce range weapon attack range so that they only take one volley of attacks when storming the castle. Why *assume* that its bad for the players? The changes can be good for the players as well.

The thread started with dealing with power players trying to go through a scenario as quickly and lopsidedly as possible. The suggestions were how to deal with them in a game scenario within the guidelines of 5.0 rules, outside of speaking with the individuals directly.

I guarantee you, the power gamer at your table will *not* be happy with a GM trying to nerf/audit his character or tactics because you can't handle adapting to his build he or she spend hours creating for maximum carnage. Basically, you are distrusting the player coming to the table by alleging that their build is invalid, on top of complaining that they basically created a character that the scenario can't support or shift away from that player's fun to cause maximum damage in combat.

The power gamer is happy with the build -- they created the character for that sole reason to fight minions mercilessly. So give them a fight worthy of their epic character by employing tactics worthy to challenge them! Why else you think they are at your table?

Until we all develop the ability to perfectly read another's mind, the only way to determine if someone is having fun or if another option would be more fun for them is to ask the explicitly.

Your fun and my fun may come from completely different experiences. Making an assumption about what will be 'more fun' for the table without confirming that this is what the table wants sounds to me like a recipe for low to no fun for the table.

You can't please everyone at the table, no matter how hard you try. Some people will be combat oriented and hate the roleplaying aspects. Others like the roleplaying and hate the combat. Some like a moderation of both. Some just like to socialize with their friends. You can try to balance different gaming elements at the table the best you can to accommodate everyone, so they can have a good time as well.

Fact of the matter is, if you are miserable GMing a table, it doesn't really matter if everyone else is having fun. You are also a participant in the game and not having fun. A GM should never sacrifice their own happiness at the expense of others.

Recognizing that only you can provide for your own happiness and enhancing other people's happiness is the best to hope for.

Patrick, you keep talking about making things more challenging for the enjoyment of the game.

It's been my experience that players who build over-clocked combat monsters like to dominate combat. They like to win, and they like to win fast. People who want a challenging combats play weaker classes, take non-combat roles, or spread out their attributes and skill points to focus on other elements of the game.

If you look at a table of druids, summoners, barbarians, zen archers and tricked out Aasimar wizards with a level of wild-blooded sorcerer, and figure that they're all combat-heavy, how do you determine that ratcheting up the difficulty of the combats is what they want?

Everyone has a bad gaming experience after playing for years. Recognizing the GM is human, was trying their best to entertain others and accepting their offer to rectify the situation at hand if something goes wrong. No GM wants to create a bad experience at the table and every GM has a bad gaming night at some point when running a game. The best you can hope for as a GM is to learn from your mistakes and move on.

Reviewing the character sheets beforehand can give you a sense of what the players are capable of. However, even the best power builds may not be effective if the player doesn't utilize their full potential.
The Pathfinder scenarios usually have at least three different separate combat scenarios involved. The first combat usually is a good indicator of how effective the party is at taking down enemies (or not).

If six characters take 10 rounds to dispatch three guards, might be wiser to hold back on the tactics of the next encounter or even implement poor tactics on behalf of the enemies. The window of time to run a table has to be respected at the gaming store and *everyone* gets combat fatigue as the battle continues on for too long. No one enjoys playing a Pathfinder scenario, only to get a portion of gold or prestige for an incomplete adventure.

On the other hand, if the party can wipe the three guards out in less than 1 round without any critical hit, might want to change the tactics of the next encounter to make it more challenging. Doesn't have to be a major change, but if the six minions are grouped together in one section of the room with the leader on the second combat scenario, might be better to spread them out to different sections of the room and implement waves of minions. You only see three minions in the room during the first round of combat, but the second set of three minions appear from the door in the back of the room on the second round of combat, then the boss appears during the third round of combat.

The fact of the matter is, tactics can change at any given moment. Perhaps during the second round, the three minions flanked and got some lucky critical hits in. Now the heroes are faced with great hardship as two players have fallen. Nothing says the boss has to come out of the back room during the third round of combat. Your tactics change again and the boss waits until the tides of battle change in favor of the heroes before challenging the party or even stays in the room until discovered.

Lighting as an environmental condition is also something to consider, unless the scenario specifically depicts a light source in said room. Nearly all spell casters can easily cast a light spell, which makes them feel important and a part of the combat scenario. Most of the time, once they figure out the areas they are about to enter into is dark, they can cast a light spell just before a combat situation begins.

Sometimes, you can even take prisoners as a tactical maneuver if something unexpected happens at the table. For instance, the enemy spell caster hits the party solid with a fireball and everyone fails their saves. You were so busy tracking the encounter, you didn't realize how low the health was of your players. Next thing you know, half the party is on the floor and the rest are really bad off. The boss could issue the command to take the entire party as prisoners, thereby grappling and subduing the remaining party members and binding them up. Is it really so bad to do so rather than play out the scenario as 'fight to the death'? Then offer the opportunity to utilize escape artist skills, figure out how to escape, recover their belongings and challenge the boss by surprise.

The goal is player involvement from everyone at the table, so that all the characters have the opportunity to shine and be heroic. If one or two power players dominate combat and have all the common utilized skills taken (perception, diplomacy, bluff, etc.), the balance of the table shifts considerably. No one likes sitting at a table where one optimized character has the highest AC, the best combat available and does all the talking with the NPC because they took high ranks in diplomacy or bluff combined with decades of experience as a gamer.

We are Pathfinder Society, the visible presence in community to promote our genre. We fight for table space at the local game shop over Magic the Gathering events, hero clicks, euro games and other gaming diversions. The end goal is simply to make sure everyone has a great time at the table, even on the occasion that someone falls during a heroic moment in combat.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Patrick F, it sounds to me like you don't like that aspect of organized play.

Rather, I get the sense like you want to run a home campaign, where it's the GM's job to modify encounters to provide a fun experience for the players. As GMs we are not allowed to make the kinds of changes you're suggesting. If you insist on doing that, stop running Pathfinder Society games. There's lots of other kinds of fun to be had with the rules system that isn't organized play.

Patrick F wrote:

I do like the organized play aspect of Pathfinder. Simply because I interpret 5.0 guidelines differently doesn't give you the right to place ultimatums over me. 1) You aren't at my table events. 2) You can agree to disagree. 3) Don't make assumptions about me.

Maybe all those stars next to your name have gone to your head. Enough said.

Um, Patrick, ... you do understand that you just (a) personally insulted me, and then (b) insisted we close the topic, right?

Disagree with me, sure. Lots of people do, on a host of issues. You can disagree with CathalFM, and with Blackbot, and with a half-dozen posters upthread as well. We're all telling you the same thing, and you can disagree with all of us.

I've explained my position and interpretation of the rules as written as how I interpret them for table variations. So, again best to agree to disagree on this topic. Telling me to stop running Pathfinder Society games because you don't agree with my interpretation of the rules is an ultimatum which you have absolutely no authority to mandate. Table variation implies that each GM table will be different in Pathfinder society.

The thread is specifically about how to deal with problem players to the point where a GM wants to quit the organized society, which ironically you are actively *advocating* by telling me to quit the society of organized play because *you* don't agree with my interpretation of the rules. Thereby decreasing visibility of the genre and roleplaying game as a whole, affecting the sales of the local hobby store where I run a table and Paizo's profits. You do understand by implying that I don't know how to interpret the rules of the game and to quit running events is insulting, right?

I quote from the first post "But I've consistently run across a couple players in my area who rob the game of fun for me because they don't seem to be there to HAVE fun. They are there to beat every encounter as fast and lopsidedly as possible. One in particular never smiles, laughs, interacts with other players, and has treated me in a way I feel is disrespectful (he has 30 years experience, I've been playing PFS since August but RPing for 30 years as well) so he likes to roll his eyes at me a lot...The only solution I see is to give up trying to run PFS in my area."

Perhaps the person at the table described at the beginning of the thread who has 30 years of experience should be encouraged to run their own Pathfinder tables, rather than participating with a power build of a character and critiquing the other GM's style by body gestures. Perhaps the person needs encouragement to become a GM, since they appear to be unhappy participating as a player. Maybe they just want to provide feedback to the GM but are poor conversationalists. Perhaps they are simply going through a challenging time in their life. Communicating with that particular player can go along way.

My suggestions were to make the scenarios more challenging within the scope of the rules for 5.0 for the power gamers that are trying to 'beat every encounter as fast and lopsidedly as possible'. If you don't agree with my position or interpretation of the rules, you don't have to take my suggestions. If you do, then implement them accordingly.

Gnaw, they're all getting the lightning bolt.

I'd rather change the tactic as allowed in the 5.0 rules rather than wipe out the entire party or adjust damage dice rolls behind the GM screen. The first is in poor form as a GM and the second is not allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized play.

The opposite side of the scenario is a table of six, with half the party as a group of traveling barbarians. One has smelly feet, one has smelly armpits and one has a smelly rump. All of them are tearing into the enemies like a gamer on a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos. Changing tactics to make play more challenging is definitely in order, again for the enjoyment of the group.

Patrick F wrote:

"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition

or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience."

I interpret the meaning of the word 'invalidate' the provided tactics akin to someone who invalidates an argument. Basically rendering it weak or ineffective. Either you have sound tactics and arguments or you don't. That simple.

So if the written tactics are weak or the starting locations are ineffective, the GM has a right to consider changing them or not to provide a more enjoyable play experience.

Invalidation of anything doesn't make it weak or ineffective it makes it flat out null and void. If the big bad is supposed to throw a lightning down the corridor but only one pc approaches then that is now a weak tactic but it is in no way invalid. If instead the players tunnel around the bb and pop up behind him THAT is invalid because lightning down the corridor would not be targeting anyone, therefore no benefit, therefore NULL (as opposed to weak).

To me (and this is just my opinion) you seem to be trying to stretch the bounds as far as possible on how much you can adapt scenarios and when.

Apologies for any typos my phone doesn't like posting to forums!

The rule specifically states that the "GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience". There is nothing remotely enjoyable about having a spell casting boss sneak up behind the party and sucker punch them from behind with a surprise round lighting bolt.

Again, tactics are similar to arguments. You can invalidate an argument. The argument still exists but would not be considered null and void. You did not eliminate the argument from existence. There may be elements of truth to the argument that was invalidated. There is simply a more favorable argument which takes its place that is stronger and more convincing.

Same way with tactics. The tactics of the module still exist. Often times they may be sound in certain circumstances. However, given the PC actions before or during the encounter, they may not be to the enjoyment of the party. In such instances, the GM has a right to change them.

I'll use your same example. What if the scenario said that the big bad is supposed to throw a lighting bolt down the corridor. You are running a table with only four people -- one of which is a new player to the pathfinder society with a pre-generated character. As a GM, you know that the big bad and his goons are most likely going to destroy the entire party. Three members of the party are not power gamers at all, they are all bards as a part of an entertainment group. One bard sings, one bard dances and one bard plays the tuba. They are making lots of noise during the campaign in good spirit, being bards of course. The enemy knows they are coming. So, you decide to change the tactics and cast Magic Missile at the first party member, which is a valid 1st level spell in the enemy casters memorized spells and lighting bolt one of them when they get into the room.

Case closed.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Mahtobedis wrote:

Last year at Gen Con during one of the few scenarios I got to play due to my table not firing I experienced some GM creativity and admit I was pretty ticked about it.

I hope you emailed mike.brock@paizo.com about this.

... I don't think I did. I forgot to get the GM's name, no one died or had to spend consumables, and it was towards the end of the Con. I also got tied up in moving, school starting, quitting my job, and starting a new one right after Gen Con. If I experience GM "creativity" on this level again I will email Mike.

Changing enemies types, numbers and their respective abilities outside the scope of the scenario is definitely off limits. Spelled out on numerous occasions in Pathfinder Society Rules, so I agree with you there. You have a right to be mad about it.

"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience."

I interpret the meaning of the word 'invalidate' the provided tactics akin to someone who invalidates an argument. Basically rendering it weak or ineffective. Either you have sound tactics and arguments or you don't. That simple.

So if the written tactics are weak or the starting locations are ineffective, the GM has a right to consider changing them or not to provide a more enjoyable play experience.

When I read the paragraph, it specifically spells out the *mechanics of an encounter*, which includes the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter and the information written in the stat blocks for these opponents. Additionally, if an encounter already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather or hazards, they are also considered *mechanics of the encounter*. However, terrain and environmental conditions are also defined as *flavor of a scenario* by the opening paragraph.

Environmental and terrain conditions are effects that are written into the flavor of a scenario that GMs *may* use if the mechanics are not specifically included to run in the scenario. However, please note this sentence also indicates that environmental and terrain conditions are defined and designated as "flavor of a scenario". There may be mechanics involved with environmental and terrain conditions, but still nonetheless they are also considered flavor of a scenario.

The text also states that the GMs may use *other* Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of the encounters as outlined above. Weather and terrain are NOT included on the list unless the scenario specifically includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather or hazards. Therefore, the GM cannot alter the mechanical effect of terrain, weather or hazards if written specifically in the scenario. However, nothing expressly prohibits adding environmental and terrain conditions as "flavor of a scenario".

The argument that environmental and terrain effects can be added to the scenario by the GM is validated by the fact that environmental conditions and terrain are considered flavor of a scenario and the "GM may use *other* Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change mechanics of the encounters." The text specifically defines what "mechanics of an encounters" means. You can add flavor to a scenario by adding environmental and terrain conditions, but you can't alter what was already written in the scenario for environmental and terrain conditions.

Case closed. Just leave the sharknadoes at home. Please.

Pathfinder Society Rules (p. 19)

It is impossible for the campaign management staff to
cover every possible situation or rules interpretation. As such,
you may encounter rules combinations or questions during
the course of a scenario that aren’t covered in this book or
the official Pathfinder Society FAQ. In these cases, the Game
Master has the freedom to adjudicate the rules as needed to
ensure a fun and fair gaming experience is had by all.

Table Variation (p. 32-33)

While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play
campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all
players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the
same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive
script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master
has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with
unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely
unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not
mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in
this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience.

Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and
environmental conditions when those effects have been
written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that
are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have
not been added to the encounters. GMs are always encouraged
to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the
reactions of NPCs or the outcome of in-game encounters.
GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor
to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of
encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are
the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the
encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks
for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill
check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the
listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the
mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter
already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or
hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered
mechanics that may not be altered.

Patrick F, it sounds to me like you don't like that aspect of organized play.

Rather, I get the sense like you want to run a home campaign, where it's the GM's job to modify encounters to provide a fun experience for the players. As GMs we are not allowed to make the kinds of changes you're suggesting. If you insist on doing that, stop running Pathfinder Society games. There's lots of other kinds of fun to be had with the rules system that isn't organized play.

I do like the organized play aspect of Pathfinder. Simply because I interpret 5.0 guidelines differently doesn't give you the right to place ultimatums over me. 1) You aren't at my table events. 2) You can agree to disagree. 3) Don't make assumptions about me.

Maybe all those stars next to your name have gone to your head. Enough said.

I suppose what would be fun and interesting to consider is the alignment of the GM in comparison to the scenario. Tongue in cheek humor.

The old abandoned warehouse with a mere 6 minions and a boss to challenge and several experienced power levelers.

Lawful Good - Make minor tweaks as suggested by 5.0 Guide rules to enhance to challenge experience of everyone. Then be shamed for doing so afterwards by fellow GMs who know the module inside and out!

Lawful Neutral - Run the scenario as printed, no matter what. The typo says Gohuls, so that's what we call them.

Lawful Evil - Earthquake hits the local region! Make reflex saves or take 2d6 points of cheesy damage. There is an old volcano nearby, it could 'technically happen'.

Neutral Good - GM rolls a critical on the beloved cleric and somehow does 3 points of mercy damage...

Neutral - GM makes sure that at least one minion escapes to keep the balance.

Neutral Evil - GM rolls a 2 towards the annoying player at the table and somehow turns into a natural 20.

Chaotic Good - Leaves the Pathfinder Organized play after a session or two and runs a home brewed campaign with multiple changing house rules. Start times will vary.

Chaotic Neutral - Brings a character sheet to the table and thinks someone else should GM tonight. Then whips out a Magic deck and goes to a different part of the gaming store.

Chaotic Evil - Finds new and creative ways to kill the entire party before the night is over. Tries to steal food and dice while you are in the restroom.

A lot of people are unaware that we gave GMs some tools in Guide 5.0. From page 32 of the Guide:

However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.

Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and environmental conditions when those effects have been written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have not been added to the encounters.

Thank you. We are talking about an enjoyable gaming experience. Changing lighting, weather conditions, changing locations or tactics of the enemy forces is within the 5.0 guidelines as indicated above. Having an NPC have a key ring with multiple mundane keys is not beyond the scope of credibility or believability. There are usually chests with treasure in them which the enemies hold.

The object is not to kill the party as a GM, but to provide enough of a challenge so the scenario isn't a walk through in the park either. Reviewing over the characters beforehand will tell you immediately whether or not they can handle the changes or not, along with the first combat of the game. Running at 1-2 level scenario is far different than running a 3-5 level scenario. Experience of the players is another key element.

There are reasons why the word 'consider' was put into place. As GM, you can run the scenario to the letter as written or make minor adjustments to enhance the enjoyment of game play as indicated above. Let the controversy begin, if it must. At least that's more exciting than watching the power levelers wipe out the minions by second round.

Thanks for the feedback from everyone. I've felt the same way before as a GM in dealing with Power Gamers/Rules Lawyer types. Each session gets easier as you learn how to GM better. Make sure you check character sheets as to what each player is playing before the game begins, that way you can be prepared for whatever comes your way.

Fact of the matter is, even the most skilled GMs don't have all the rules memorized for every type of situation. Sometimes the players lose sight of the fact the GM is trying to run a PFS event within a short window of time (4 hours or so). Good player etiquette is knowing exactly how your abilities work for your character.

Sometimes simply reminding everyone to help out and be prepared to answer questions about their abilities at the start of the game can go a long way. As a part of spell preparation for a caster, they should know the range of the spell, the effects and whether the spell gets a saving throw or not and what the save is given their specializations. If not, they go into delay until they have their action ready. If you have a player sundering items -- they should have a reference handy of different types of common items they intend to break. Same with grappling, tripping and other combat maneuvers. No harm in discussing beforehand how exactly a power gamer build works, because the power player is usually eager to tell you how clever their character is built and gives you an opportunity to have some counter measures in place at the start of the scenario.

The scope of the game is severely limited for PFS scenarios at the beginning years (designed for 4 players). Sometimes you are running full table of six requires some very *creative* GMing to make the scenario somewhat challenging. For instance, you can always modify the weather to affect visibility and so forth -- which complies with the PFS rules. Interesting how a thunder storm rolls in when more than four players shows up at the table... just resist the urge to lightning bolt the power gamer.

You can also make some minor situational changes. For instance, when you come up to that old abandoned warehouse with a mere 6 minions and a boss to challenge that the power leveler could wipe out all of them solo, you need to come up with some creative ideas without changing the content of the scenario to make it more challenging.

You could have the boss and two of the minions go out for drinks at the local tavern. Now they return after the second round of combat at the rear of the party. The setting could be at dark, so lighting could be an issue, as the minions firing long range weapons from the shadows. Maybe there is a ship or wagon nearby -- they found out by paid informant that a large group of adventures is looking for them while they were gathering information. The enemy decides to flee -- thus allowing the ranger to help track them and thus starts a chase scene. Who has ride animal, swim or profession sailor? (reviewing characters skills and professions beforehand can allow for some interesting roleplaying opportunities).

Give the boss some extra time to cast preparatory spells by having the players find a *set* of keys (2d4) for the locked door to the warehouse. Which one opens the door? (Try one key per swift action, standard action and movement action per 6 second round). Town guards giving the party a hard time and justifying their actions if they are disruptive in town or start fighting in front of witnesses.

When you run across that player character specialized in trip... sometimes its better to have the enemy fight from the ground at a -4 penalty. If you know that one of the players AC needs a natural 20 to hit, focus your attacks on the rest of the party. Maybe the power gamer has to spend his action binding wounds for a change. Spread your minions out -- don't let them all get caught in the area effect of a spell at once.

Vent to your local venture captain after a bad game is always a good start -- they are experienced and nice folks. They *want* you to keep GMing, so they don't always have to all the time! Plus, they dealt with the same types of players. Posting on forums is nice, but be prepared for a wide variety of feedback, positive and negative. Try not to give up over one player's actions.

As GM, you spend time preparing for the scenario and you want it to be entertaining and challenging at the same time. You will have good and bad sessions. So learn from the bad and remember the good times. Good luck!