Quindo's page

Quindo wrote:

If the enchantment contributed almost nothing to the session I would just sell it back at 100%. However, if the enchantment saved the group from a TPK that would be a different matter.

If it was just a single session mistake, I'd be a lot more open minded on this situation, as noted above. It'd be an illegal purchase and just sell back at full price.

However, he's said he didn't have 27 fame when he purchased the upgrade, but in another thread he's stated his character is currently at 34 fame. He's gained at least 8 fame since the purchase if both of those statements are correct. That's a minimum of 2 full modules, or 4 full scenarios, at maximum prestige with this "mistake". And some of those would have been played when the purchase would have been a legal option. I'm no longer so open minded in such a situation, as it looks a lot less like a simple mistake than before to me.

Good God Holmes! What does that mean!

If the enchantment contributed almost nothing to the session I would just sell it back at 100%. However, if the enchantment saved the group from a TPK that would be a different matter.

Me and my co-GM have been running a savage world game using a fan made adaption and have run into a bit of a pickle. One of the player characters, john, is attempting to enter a relationship with one of the towns important NPC's, sarah. (The most powerful magic user).

Now, due to the backstory of john and sarah there are several things that will make the relationship not work. But we as GM's are trying to decide how to handle the situation. It has already been established that the group is not going into NSFW stuff, but if we outright say that "Sarah has refused your advances." Then we will look like the dick GM's who will not let him have his meta game, but who will allow other PC's to have home brew drinking contests in game.

Does anyone have a system that can be used to determine if a character would in fact give another character the time of day? If so I would love to steal it just to give a reason behind how we handle the situation.

The mechanic does not have to be from savage world and can be from any system.

I just started playing a few months ago and now all my characters will lose their faction... :(

This might not be what happens, but in my area we will decide before we have any players if the table will be played up or down. If you are not inside of the level range then you can not sign up for the table.

That is the only way I can think of preventing people from getting up and walking away before the table starts when they learn that they will be punished by playing down.

I hope shadow lodge does not get removed because that is what all of my characters are.

I think shadow lodge has some of the more interesting faction missions. They often include things that you have to do outside of the knowledge of the rest of the party. This can create some interesting situations where you show up to an event slightly behind the party and miss some little bit of information.

I would say to go ahead and make the character, but have a secondary character ready to play at any table you bring your necromancer at. Before the start of the game ask all the people playing if them or their characters will have any issue with you playing necro. If anyone does have an issue, play with a different character. The pathfinder society would not pare up a team if they knew half the party would fight with the necro over his 'sinful' ways.

As for Roleplaying conflicts, such as with Andoran's, while in character remind them that you all are currently on a mission, and that you and he shall settle it peacefully later on once the mission is complete.

As long as you roleplay your character in the proper manner for in character conflicts you should have an enjoyable experience.

Myself, I have rolled a lot of tiefling characters of various variants and have roleplayed them in such a way that the party treats them as a bad guy, but while on a mission no one has ever caught him doing anything evil.

So, here's the thing.

Many of you are saying that GM credit encourages people to just run a scenario once without getting to know it. You don't support extra GM credit because you think that will just become more widespread.

But isn't the point of this to encourage people to run a scenario more than once? If the trouble with GMs is they don't get to know the scenarios well, and running a scenario four times is the only way to get good at it, isn't this exactly what we should be doing to encourage that very phenomenon?

It would be interesting if there was a different sheet or check box that you marked each time you run a scenario.

for example, the first time you run a scenario you get normal rewards. The next time you run you get a title or some sort of trinket/RP reward specific to that scenario that you can apply to a character. The third time you get a boon of some kind that has a minor effect. If you run it a fourth time it restarts back at the first reward, except for a different character.

Correct me if I am wrong but you can get repeat credit for any level one or low tier scenario or module as both a player and a GM correct?

Sorry to hear that Cole. I don't quite see where Mike was telling you to leave PFS, from what I read here it sounds more like he was asking for some workable suggestions on the current system. But I haven't been involved in this discussion.

I think that what might have been lost in a lot of the dialogue here is that PFS is still fun. Even though you aren't allowed to add extra NPCs or increase the reward in any given scenario, you can still get a lot of enjoyment out of PFS. It isn't, however, a replacement for a homebrew game in any way, shape, or form. So if, later down the road, you find you need an occasional game every now and then, you should look into PFS. It's easy, quick, and pretty straightforward. And because none of the GMs are allowed to "go off-script" and add a dragon to each fight, you can expect any game, anywhere, to be held to the same standard. At least, that's how I see it.

I have a lot of fun playing PFS, but I still have a weekly game of Rise of the Runelords, which is a different kind of fun.

Anyway, I'm planning to be at SpoCon with a half dozen or so volunteers to GM tables and spread the awesome that is PFS, so if you're going to be there feel free to come by and play at one of our tables. ;)

- Walter

Every Saturday I either play or run a Savage World Of My Little Pony homebrew games. This uses up all my creativity on the weekend and allows me to run as written for PFS and still have a game where I can be as creative and willy nilly as I want as long as the players are enjoying the game. (One of the combats the players have encountered was eating a meal with nobility that they all failed horribly at.)

There is one reason why I play and run PFS, that reason is to meet and play with more people. The reason I play with my set group each weekend is to get all the creative enjoyment of a RPG.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion! It has let me know what few situations I should even consider fudging dice and/or tactics. The rule "Never fudge in favor of the bad guys" is one I will take to heart.

nosig wrote:

there also might be a problem with GETTING a large weapon. Is it on equipment lists? are we allowed to buy large weapons (in PFS?

otherwise this is a cool idea.

Under Spoils of War in the Guide on page 23 it says any item on a chronicle sheet can be bought as either small or medium. There have been large items listed on chronicle sheets in the past.

However the Always Available section on page 25 allows mundane gear to be purchased for small, medium or large creatures.

So you can't rely on the chronicle sheet access to bypass fame limits for size large items most of the time.

The Heirloom Weapon (Proficiency) can get around this correct?

This strategy won't work. Enlarge person only works on humanoids, and Tieflings are outsiders.

But you have to look at the last paragraph of the enlarge person spell that Ben qouted. It goes on to say that even if you were holding an item when you enlarge, if the item leaves your possession it returns to the item's original size.

But what about the reverse situation? If you had been disarmed and then enlarged what would happen when you pick up your weapon? You are no longer carrying or wearing it.

In the future you may do better asking such questions in the Rules forum as there's nothing really PFS specific in the question.

I looked for a PFS specific rules forum and could not find one.

This strategy won't work. Enlarge person only works on humanoids, and Tieflings are outsiders.

I learn something new every day. I will need to keep that in mind when the GM tries to use a really bad spell vs me.

I will adjust my strategy so that I will not be breaking any rules.

Here is a question for all those rule lawyers out there.

I am building a character with some back story/RP to it and I need a ruling on something.

The character I am building carries around a large Bastard Sword that he inherited (trait) from the demon side of his family (Oni-Spawn tiefling).

Here is where I need something clarified, If I spike/drop the bastard sword to the ground before drinking a potion of enlarge person would the sword increase in size even though I am no longer holding it?

There are some silly Rp/mechanic things I am thinking about doing with this character. One of them being after he uses all his bombs/needs to help on the front line he pops a few buff spells on himself to boost his str from 10 to 18 (ragecamist + enlarge person) and charges in wielding a huge sword. I need to know if I control if my sword goes up to a huge size or not.

And yes, this is very min/max-y. I apologies for being a newer player/GM and trying different styles of playing.

As a programmer I would not let anyone use an electronic roller at my table.

However, in online VoiP games I would not let anyone use real dice.

Think about that for a second...

For online games I would make sure everyone is using the same electronic roller that outputs to a chatroom of some kind. That way everyone, even the GM, has the same crit/fail luck.

I have joined the Gm pool for my local PFS group and I have heard some talk of GM's fudging rolls. I have not fudged any rolls for players, only some mechanics when the players act in a way not defined in the scenario.

When is a correct time to fudge a roll and how often should it be done? Does anyone have an example of when the GM fudged a roll for them or when they fudged a roll as the GM?

Just remember that PFS scenarios are typically written with the average (or slightly above) party in mind. While a well-built, class ability/feat/skill/etc-synchronous group can be a lot of fun to play, you will more than likely have trouble finding challenging encounters. You could easily increase, though aid/buff effects, your modifiers to +25, +50, even +100% of what is average at your level making mechanical challenges (combat, social, traps, etc) nearly auto-successes. Might not be as fun as you hoped over time.

These groups can always attempt to play high tier to provide more challenge.

Me and a group of other players had just played through gods mouth heresy and BARELY managed to avoid a Party Kill on the last combat. (every one but the cleric and wizard unconscious for 8 rounds or feared for 2 rounds)

However, we decided to play silent tide after we leveled all the characters up. we had 2 lvl threes, 3 lvl twos, and a lvl 1. We played high tier and it was actually challenging due to the time constraints in the combat. But because we all knew the other players styles and mechanics we were able to easily beat it due to it being a season 0.

By playing high tier, provided the PC's do not die, will end up giving the team a even larger advantage once they get to the 9-11 tier. However, if too many of the PC's die then the other characters become weaker.

Quindo wrote:

I adjusted it to throw the correct number of undead at the players for the number of guards that join them after their leader falls. If I had run it as written a good 5 to 6 rounds would have passed before any of the undead started showing up, however because the players 'took care' of what was supposed to happen in those 5 to 6 rounds in a single turn I made adjustments.

Assuming that one-shotting didn't occur after massive damage was dealt to the party, that seems legit. I mean, if they'd needed that time to heal, you should have given it to them, but I doubt it. So instead of making them wait while their buffs ticked down, you just brought in what was going to happen next. I don't see a problem there.

The party had not taken any damage, they killed him as he walked inside the door because they readied actions to attack whatever walked inside the door first.

I ran decline of glory for a table and found myself being forced to not run it as written due to a smart player one shotting someone before he was able to approach an NPC and get the flavor text encounter over with.

I adjusted it to throw the correct number of undead at the players for the number of guards that join them after their leader falls. If I had run it as written a good 5 to 6 rounds would have passed before any of the undead started showing up, however because the players 'took care' of what was supposed to happen in those 5 to 6 rounds in a single turn I made adjustments.

Another example of me having to change how to run it was when the rouge botched his stealth roll and the guard rolled a 20 on his perception. The guards would not leave their campfire and charge the enemy when the enemy is knee deep in a swamp, they would take out their bows and start shooting until the party got closer.

I am a fairly new GM, but I am doing my best to provide the players with an engaging experience. I ran one of the combats as written, and it SUCKED. It was extremely pointless to the extent that all but 1 player put themselves into perma-delay until the combat ended 10 rounds later. Not a single enemy even got an attack off in those 10 rounds of combat.