Relmer's page

I am signing this as well. I like running PFS games, but running them can be a chore without proper prep going beyond just "reading though" the scenario. As GM you have to spend the time somewhere; either before the session clock starts or during it. I find players are happier when the game runs smoother due to the prep work being completed ahead of the session.

My usual prep involves lots of highlighting and notes in the margin. Sometimes description text for a room/person/object or important event trigger are buried in the middle of a paragraph. If I dont highlight them I often skip over them. This is especially true for some event triggers that the scenario notes as "If at any time a PC does X, then NPC Y automatically responds with action...". That really seems like the kind of text that should get highlighted or pulled out somehow.

I think players expect a certain format as they go from area to area (Description of the area w/ important details, a chance to roll automatically allowed rolls, automatic text from any present NPCs, automatic rolls in response to the NPC's tirade, etc.) Unfortunately each area of a scenario can have that information spread out in a random order over several pages requiring the GM that runs the scenario to manually stitch together the actual sequence of events in an area.

The same problem (and worse) can occur with encounters. With multiple tiers and templates a GM can use 4 Bestiaries or other resources during the encounters of a scenario (Destiny of the Sands I am looking at you). Even if you dont haul around physical books it can be a chore to switch between PDFs which is why I usually make a supplemental PDF/printout for each scenario with all the monsters/template info compiled so I only have to consult 1 other source when running. The prep work for monsters goes even further if they can cast spells; DCs are given (even though the dont list the TYPE of save) but you still have to calculate durations, ranges, etc. manually.

Scenarios that were more logically laid out and included more essential information would encourage new GMs to run more often, in my experience. I have had GMs only willing to run if I gave them a scenario I already prepped because it still took them at least a few hours to read through and understand it, even if they did not have to dig up and compile all the additional research themselves.

If getting "better" scenarios means moving to PDF only so be it.

Brendan Green wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.....

I thought that was how every generation views the generation that follows them.

Considering he is quoting Socrates, I think that's the point.

But he wasn't.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-children-in-ancient-tim es/

I know I follow my characters' ethos and rules completely.

I DO NOT trust random DMs to decide that I do not follow the rules as MY character understands them.

Pretty much this. My -1 character is a Paladin of Erastil. What does it mean to be a Paladin of Erastil? Depends on which books you have read. Just the CRB? Also Faiths of Purity? Every Pathfinder book that mentions Erastil?

Even before I became a VC I purchased and read a number of books with information on Erastil so that I could better shape my character. Did I have to do that? No. Should I get pats on the back, in the form of signatures on a sheet, for doing so? Probably not as it was my choice and its not required. Does having or not having those signatures make me or my character more/less valid/accurate/justified? Not in the slightest.

People play in PFS for many reasons, not just role-playing. Even if getting a signature lists for characters of only one class is optional its also still more paperwork and more rules. More paperwork and rules, unofficial or otherwise, are, in my opinion, the last thing PFS needs. Being unofficial may even make it worse.

I am truly impressed at how thoroughly this thread got derailed. Kudos to all.

What to do with PP? Double it, like XP and gold.

So, just DOUBLE everything? Isnt that kind of greed the same kind that messed up the WBL curve and caused this whole mess? How about getting an expected reward and picking sessions for reasons other than "extra" reward? That sounds like fun.

Just FYI for everyone who experienced bad GMs at either PaizoCon or Gen Con last year, I wanted to assure you (and everyone who sent me similar emails and PMs), that I still have your letters of concern and some of these GMs will not be invited back for either PaizoCon and Gen Con.

Its always good to know that concerns are heard by leadership. Thanks, Mike.

And still complaining... wow.

<sarcasm> Hi! Welcome to PFS! You must be new here on the message boards. Enjoy your stay! </sarcasm>

The actions of the players have to be viewed by the NPCs they interact with. Some actions might logically automatically fail the task they are engaged in, or at least move the attitude of the person they are talking to away from indifferent. Some actions will give them a bonus to the action they're currently taking. The scenario as written is based on taking a "baseline" path through the adventure; derails can happen in either direction.

Per the GtPSOP we are supposed to reward creative solutions, how do you reconcile your limit (i read that as 'eliminate' in context) table variance position with that?

You are correct when you state that an NPC in a scenario views the actions of players. Variance is introduced in how the NPC, as directed by the GM, responds to what was viewed. It is my opinion that the NPC should respond as directed in the writing of the module, not the opinion/feeling of the GM.

Lets give an example. The players in a scenario need to convince a NPC to ferry them to a nearby island. The scenario dictates that a Diplomacy check of DC 20 is needed to convince the NPC (and may even add "variance" such as "A 10gp bribe adds a cumulative +1 to the Diplomacy role"). This is the path the scenario presents to challenge the players; a skill check. All a players needs to do is succeed on a DC 20 check.

Things that the GM should not do to add undue variance that was not written into the module:
1. The player making the roll gets a -2 penalty because he just got out of a long combat a few minutes ago and must be stinky with sweat. I guess the character should have cleaned up first. That will teach him for next time!
2. The player and the NPC are the same race. The player gets a +2 bonus to the role. In fact, make it +4. They served in the same military organization! Why not?
3. The player has his character greet the NPC with "Hey Sailor!" - This NPC considers that rude and his attitude shifts to unfriendly. The DC is increased by 5. Maybe the player should be more conscientious of how their character speaks. People that dont stay "in character" at all times at this table should learn to do so quickly.

Even if a player were to have their character act like a total jerk such that, were they acting like that "in real life," they would never get a ride from the NPC, you as GM should not change the scenario to reflect that. The NPC could respond to poor character actions (like rudeness) in a few ways

1. Have a fit and storm off, thus making all the players fail the scenario because they cannot secure passage.
2. The NPC could shake its head, say "You are a strange one, arent you? You need a ride?" and allow the scenario to continue as written.

One of the above responses follows the Society guidelines and provides a fair, fun experience for the players and one response does not. I know how I would want the GM at my table to respond.

Regarding "creative solutions" I suggest you read that part of the Organized Play guide again. The section you note discusses how a GM should respond to the creative solutions that players come up with to overcome challenges in the scenario. Players get to use creative solutions to solve challenges; not GMs.

A "creative solution" in the above example would be a player saying "I have the perk that gives me my own ship. We take that to the island." A "creative solution" is not the GM saying "You made the NPC mad. I could introduce another NPC and allow you to continue (an actual creative solution as outlined in the guide), but I think I will just fail you here. Next time min-max your rolls better and watch your mouths at the table."

I have to disagree with a number of the posts I see here. When I GM for Paizo at Cons (and this is different than being a GM for a local or home game) I am being compensated to be there, volunteer or not. My job is to run the module I was assigned to the best of my ability; this includes running it as close to the written word as possible.

As a GM you should try to LIMIT table variance, not purposely add it. Increasing the DC of rolls because of the previous actions of players is nothing more than punishment, and often is the action of a power-tripping DM. In my opinion a DC should not be lessened either. The only time a DC should change is if the module itself specifically accounts for variance (i.e. If the players helped character X in Act 1, this DC is lessened by 2). I think this should hold true for all "hard" mechanics/rules; soft fluff that does not effect how the module plays out should be where the variance is (What does your character do at the party? Get drunk and starts a ruckus? Sure, go for it.)

When you are a (compensated) GM your goal is to run the best, fairest, most standardized game for your players. They should have the opportunity for the same fun experience that any other table has playing the same module. As a GM leave your lessons, rules, teaching, childishness, and vindictiveness at the door. Yes you should have fun also, but only after you have met the obligations and responsibilities of your volunteered position. You choose to do this. Act like it and be professional.

If you cant, maybe you should not GM for the Society. I dont think the Society will be any less for losing you as a GM either.