Sheriff Bart's page

I liked the movie. The more I think about it, including points made above, the more I like it. I was a big critic of plot holes, etc. too but there are so few films that can come close to "being accurate" in an explainable way (especially since every year brings new discoveries) that it doesn't seem worth it anymore so I have learned to view movies from ignorance. Its more fun that way.

One thing to add to the nerdgasm here - I don't remember (above) who it was mentioning the "same old themes" but John Williams' score is as much Star Wars as lightsabers are. Star Wars wouldn't be as popular without either one of them.

Even when Williams signs off of writing new SW themes in the very near future, his work will still be there and I will bet my next 10 paychecks the main theme still opens every movie.

You can play that main title in almost any part of the world and have it recognized - often in one chord. Few things are that famous.

My favorite part of the movie was when my childhood intersected with my daughter's childhood. Ain't nothing that will ever replace that. I saw SW at 7 and she is 11.

I had a blast this year also - the pregen specials were fantastic. I had more fun this year than any in recent memory. Mustering was the best I have seen since the old Mecca days. The sound system does need to be better though and the slide show operator needed help, but these are small things.

I did have minor issues with two GMs - one was fairly slow and though we soldiered through this it cost us a prestige point as it was contingent essentially on time/how far we got in the event (that time we lost while the GM couldn't find stat blocks, notes, had to read encounters several times, etc.)

We also lost time for announcements and awards and while I think these are definitely worth doing, it ate into the slots. Those two things combined pushed us from one encounter to another. Well, and the design of the Friday special seemed to be controlled from one table. We would get one round into each combat and the "fast table" in the room would get something solved and pushed every other table to the next thing, destroying any continuity we could have had.

The other GM issue was at the Sunday special. I enjoyed the GM initially but as the slot progressed it was obvious he had somewhere to be. Those who know the event can be as galled as I was with this -- he hand waved the final encounter.

Yeah, that one.

Once the PCs got the upper hand (and we had over an hour left in the slot at this point), he basically dismissed the table and handed out chronicles. The other players we happy we survived. I was miffed we got no opportunity to enjoy the moment.

I think the order of events was appropriate. If you want to play the specials and are too tired on Sunday to enjoy them, thats on you... I'd like to see more people stick around on Sunday but realize that isn't possible for some.

I have shied away from specials in past years due to the tendency of many to be resource burners but if they are going to be of this quality I will be there every chance I get.

Kudos to all the volunteers and staff - a job well done.

I'm happy to keep using HL as a "crutch." ;)

I use an airplane as a crutch sometimes when I don't want to hitch up a covered wagon and travel several years to my destination.

(As an aside, the use of the word crutch is baiting - trying to imply that one is a better person/player than you are if you use HeroLab - which every time I hear/read it I envision a cantankerous old man with a cane stomping in his doorway telling kids to get off'n his lawn and yelling things like "back in MY day...")

I'm bringing a minimum of 3 devices to every table at which I play (laptop, ipad, phone). I can have several sources open at the same time that way in a very small space compared to a stack of books or even printed pdf pages. That way I also have three copies of everything I own. I rarely use all 3 but when things get busy or if I am GMing they are useful to have.

There is simply too much material to remember. No one here knows all of it. Everyone here uses a "crutch" to help them organize the game unless you are using physical copies of every single source, every single time (in which case I pity you - how archaic!)

I also have no problem with people saying "HeroLab said so" because 99.9% of the time, HL is correct. Many of the examples given above have nothing to do with the tool being used. They are also easily corrected by looking at the screen modifiers when they occur.

People showing up without purchased sources has nothing to do with HeroLab, either. The rule is the rule. I've seen people show up without sources of any kind -- same issue but no HL involved.

And as long as we are using personal experiences as a basis for argument (as if it matters to the reader), here's mine. I have been challenged at tables exactly five times on rules / whatnot that appeared in HeroLab while I was using it. All five times the GM was incorrect and HeroLab was right. These included 5-star GMs and GMs who are (very) outspoken that HeroLab is badwrongfun.

I find the experience...satisfying when that happens.

HeroLab is more accurate than my CRB. I have the first printing of that and I'm not taking it anywhere anymore. Sure, the pdf is updated but the physical product I purchased from Paizo isn't. HeroLab *keeps* me accurate.

I don't care who you are or how good you think you are. Unless you have that special brand of autism that allows you to remember every single page number and verbatim rules, HeroLab "knows" more rules than you do and HeroLab is more accurate and faster than you are when several modifiers are involved.

Maybe the players people are using in their anecdotal experience are idiots. Maybe they have some form of mental setback like I do (I have eidetic memory for many things but I have every edition of this game rattling around in my head over the last 37 years and at times I remember earlier edition rules in place of current ones, or rulings on the boards that changed 3 times since I read them).

I would love, simply love to sit at a gm's table at a con or public event and have them tell me the use of herolab is invalid and try to remove me from the table.

If questioned about sources, I'm going to show the GM my downloads page that proves I bought the source material and then I am going to use primarily HL until questioned on mechanics, then use the PRD to show that HL is likely again correct. Its faster and easier.

If a GM decides to audit my PC during the slot simply because I am using HeroLab, we'll be having a chat at HQ as to why you think your ego is more important than players' time, because IMO that is all this is about. Any GM who wastes players' time just because they don't like HL shouldn't be a GM at all.

My opinion is the people who don't like HeroLab are not wanting to shell out the cash for it and therefore want others to not do so either. Using the argument that since it is not infallible it should not be used also applies to all humans, which includes character sheets (and chronicles) written by said humans.

"an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name " .... wow.

Sorry - this is kind of like saying

an non-weapon is a weapon by its very name.

Anything wielded as a weapon is a weapon. If I beat you with a table leg, would you say I was unarmed?

Better yet - "butcher knife" doesn't appear anywhere on the weapons list, either, deadly though it can be.

Yet "knife" does - only if it is made of brass? So a butcher can wield a +1 knife, but not a +1 butcher knife?

Pretty thin.

EDIT: There is another argument for improvised weapons being weapons. Characters using improvised weapons do not provoke AoOs like fighting unarmed does. Therefore, IWs do appear to be weapons, even with the applied penalty.

To Matthew - I disagree that there is a consensus.

To Chris - Every chance I have witnessed, the CS refuses to make a ruling until enough players jump onto the bandwagon and essentially force their hands into doing so.

"Expect table variation" appears more often than not.

Requiring such a ruling from campaign leadership is a cop-out. Just take responsibility for the ruling and leave it at that - no one is faulting you for that.

To all: I maintain that an improvised weapon is a weapon by its very name and that fact alone means any argument to the contrary is an attempt at disallowing something via semantics and it is a weak position at best. IMO the entire reason for rough and ready (or catch off guard) is to allow for this type of flavor in the game.

But I am not in charge of every game. Therefore, some GMs will rule it one way and some will rule it another. This will give players like myself an opportunity to find another table when the need arises.

To Jiggy: Stacking the feat/trait and MW/enchantment, as has been used as the primary argument against the whole "MW/enchanted improvised weapon" thing - by Jiggy and others, appeals to game balance. Yet, on previous posts there was a denial that game balance had anything to do with it.

Jiggy: "Power level does not determine legality," etc..

Now that improvised, enchanted weapons have been shown to exist within the rules (the aforementioned enchanted arrows used in melee) we are back to discussing game balance:

Jiggy: "If it were really about roleplaying, you'd be willing to use actual improvised weapons — and all the mechanical drawbacks thereof. The only thing getting shut down here is trying to gain the mechanical benefits of two mutually-exclusive combat methods."

First of all, they are taking a significant drawback mechanically, using feats and traits to do less damage than any real fighter with a real weapon.

Roleplaying eventually has to give way to the combat engine, if the PC wishes to fight. Being completely helpless against certain types of creatures with DR until you conform to an artificially applied rule (in lieu of official ruling) is not seeking a game advantage. It is a desire to not nerf the PC even *further* by not only having to waste feats, skiil points and traits, but also money in weaponry, both "real" and "improvised."

Secondly, the combat styles are not mutually exclusive. You are *reading* it that way. There is a big difference.

Thirdly, nothing is "shut down here" until we have a campaign ruling. In which case, see above.

I don't even mind "silly" concepts, or outre concepts, or whatever. But I don't believe that the masterwork improvised weapon schtick is supported by the rules.

I'm not proposing to tell you how to rule at your table, Kerney. But at mine, the player will need to provide some evidence that the campaign staff (Mike or Mark) intend to allow for a masterwork potato. Without that, my understanding of the rules stands: he can weild his masterwork / magic potato, he can apply the improvised weapon feats to any actual improvised weapons, but he can't combine the two.

If the players at the table cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for ANY PFS legal PC combo with the help of the GM, I say they are being lazy.

The undead creator/animator looks at the paladin and says "these creatures are serving their punishment in a more positive role than their prior existence before I send them to their eternal rest."

If pressed, the cleric can tell the paladin to take it up with Hanspur. The paladin's player does not need to make it an issue, nor does the paladin PC have to forego the mission because of his distaste.

This isn't that difficult. If you are creative enough to come up with a PC that might be offensive to some other PCs (not players - I think the problem with the fake outrage is that players act like their PCs) then you are certainly creative enough to be able to explain your motivations and role towards the mission and/or greater good to that PCs diametrically opposed alignment, role, whatever.

If catch off guard does not apply to the baker wielding the rolling pin in the dungeon setting (why would he be there in the first place, AND I think the hat would throw people off more than the RP, but I digress) then it shouldn't apply anywhere else.

Obviously there is a reason for the feat. An aberration or outsider may not even know what a rolling pin IS so if we are going to say it doesn't apply for one reason, it certainly shouldn't apply for another. But then any GM could argue it *never* applies for one reason or another.

You're a Pathfinder->Pathfinders are deadly-> sorry I ain't buying that rolling pin gag. No feat for you. And...no one wants to play with me as a GM anymore.

Also, I forget who said it with the rough and ready->profession:soldier->WP: falcata.

That would be using the rules to get a bonus beyond what it is believed to be RAI, i.e. a free exotic weapon proficiency.

Someone taking a penalty for using a club at d6 or even d8 over an allowed greatsword at 2d6 is obviously not meant to abuse the rules in a mechanical way like the falcata example.

An improvised weapon IS a weapon. It even says "weapon" next to "improvised." I don't know how anyone on here or anywhere else is going to be able to successfully argue against that one. It is just a crappy weapon, but a weapon nonetheless.

An IW is not listed on the weapon table. It was not designed for combat, even though it could be optimized and enchanted for combat. That is why a rolling pin will only ever do damage as a club at d6 instead of d10.

I don't understand why this is so difficult. Some read the rules one way, others are obviously reading it another.

Honestly, the problem I thought people would have with the folding chair is that they would say it is technically not a TOOL of a trade. I used profession:fisherman for the use of the stool, but profession:milkmaid and profession:competitive drinker should work well too.

I never thought we would be arguing so much about something that makes so much obvious, logical sense. Some GMs wont allow it. NBD.

I just won't play with GMs who want such specific interpretations on rules that don't matter one whit to game balance or outcome. I won't take it personally and they shouldn't either.

And Jiggy, I hope the "personal attacks" thing wasn't directed at me. I don't do that sort of thing on discussion forums. OK, maybe if they really deserve it... ;) but that was not my intent.

@Todd Morgan - With the caveat that his rolling pin no longer interacts with things like the Catch Off-Guard feat, sounds awesome. :)

Clinging to semantics like you and several others on here do is going to legislate yourselves into a CRB that is 1500 pages long and a GtPFSOP that is even longer.

Basing your entire argument on the phrase "not being made for combat" is inherently weak. That could also mean "was never intended for use as a weapon (even though it could function as one)."

People use things for unintended purposes all the time. I just repaired a percussion instrument with my daughter's hair tie. I suppose that ruins the instrument and the performers are now going to take a -4 penalty to play it.

A rolling pin deliberately crafted as a weapon instead of a rolling pin is still not a weapon on the weapon table. That makes it an improvised weapon. And therefore, both qualities which you say cannot exist together. Hence my rock/stick argument. Those are both most certainly weapons and have been used as such, but don't appear on the weapon table. You have even seen it in published events. "The orc children grab sticks (treat as clubs d6)," or somesuch.

Mike Bramnik wrote:

AND can be explained within the rules.

Except for the part where it can't, because the rules define an improvised weapon as being not made for combat. An object can't be simultaneously specialized for combat and not made for combat.

Please excuse the astonishment of this post, but holy frijoles already.

First of all, the way some are describing what a true adventurer/pathfinder would be, Bilbo never woulda gone on that trek to begin with. That means evil wins. Both times, 'cuz Frodo and Sam ain't adventurers either.

The "non-adventurer" is the one who saved the day in both stories.

Secondly, if Farmer Bob is deemed illegal, fine. I have other PCs to play. My problem would be with WHY he is being deemed illegal. It has been explained more than once here how the rules could qualify the use and/or purchase of masterwork and enchanted improvised weapons.

If the OCD committee should win out, it is bad for everyone.

I have gone out of my way to build flavor over optimization. Need I remind people of the complaints about ubermunchkin PCs? Well, I can build those too if that is preferable. My experience has been that people don't like me when I blow combats off the map in one round.

(Sorry for the conceit, but everyone knows that with enough time an effort people can build things that are hard to deal with as a GM). In this case, I have avoided being annoying in favor of being fun. Which incidentally, as most people in our group can tell you -- that is rare.

As far as the basis of the argument goes, this isn't rocket surgery.

One can have an improvised weapon and go to the smith and say "put metal studs on this rolling pin. Better yet, make me a cold iron rolling pin with a hollow core for some quicksilver." (natch!) Still not a weapon according to the weapon table. Still improvised, but those studs are awfully durned nice and ouchy. Now he has a masterwork cold iron mercurial rolling pin. Most fighters would still roll their eyes at you and wonder why you don't use a real weapon. Then the same guy turns to the mage and says "hey, enchant this thing."

For those who are now going to remind me that mages aren't a PC class in PFS, and that mercurial weapons don't exist and were stupid to begin with, please go get some fresh air.

The enchantment is magic - magic can be imaginative. A rock is and has been historically used as a weapon, but I don't see it on the weapon table. No, you ad nauseum picky ones, not a sling stone, a rock. I notice that "pointy stick" and "board with a nail in it" are absent as well. Forgive me if I have missed PF Suplement #326.17a2.0004 and I am incorrect on the rock/stick thing.

I wish I weren't the guy with the PC in question. Then I could freely say, "Seriously? The guy is hurting no one, is having fun, the players like the character, and it isn't over (or under) balancing the game AND can be explained within the rules."

My can of sarcasm was overflowing on the kitchen counter and I had to use some of it before it spoiled. :)

I have seen very few errors on HeroLab. Is it perfect? No, but no one's hand written PCs are either. That is what you get with a complex ruleset.

Quite honestly, if every one of your hand written PCs is perfect, you need to get out more.

The three people (GMs) who have criticized HeroLab as inaccurate in my presence and because of my use have been humbled by its accuracy. HL was correct, they were wrong in each case. There were an abundance of stars behind their names, too. I really wish I could remember all the specifics for the inevitable challenge to that statement.

I'm not calling them stupid. I'm saying HL is a great resource and sniping at it because some players use it as a time-saver is silly. It has been endorsed by Paizo and LW does a great job with updates and addressing bug fixes.

Will I occasionally do something wrong because of HL? Sure -- maybe. But HL is vastly more accurate than some people's memories who are just "fer danged sure" things work they way they think they do. And since I use it during the game I have HL and the SRD up in front of me all the time so I can cross reference them when necessary. IF needed, I have all the PDFs too. The difference for me will be I don't have to page through books to find anything - I have every feat, item, spell, etc. in handy pull down menus.

Until someone can show me a chargen that runs even close to HL in terms of functionality and expansions/updates, I will continue purchasing every update HL has available.

1) I use my character folio every game...as a coaster, paperweight, advertising for Paizo, and sometimes even as a character sheet folder. Really! If we are going to be anal about specifying HOW the folio is to be used, then people have way too much time on their hands and priorities that are seriously out of whack.

Get your priorities back in whack, please.

2) Really? The shirt can't be worn in any other way but as a shirt? Sorry, the rules don't say that... :P

Just figured as long as these boards are continuously going critical mass with their logic arguments we might as well do so here, too.

Any GM who says my wearing of my goblin shirt as underwear is not allowable for a reroll is not only incorrect by RAW, but they also risk having me remove said shirt.

Yep, I am fully planning on someone chiming in with "...oh but on Sept. 19th at 8:37 PM on the Paizo site it was clarified in the PFS Discussion board that players can only... blah blah blah"

Please tell me that these regulations some of you keep specifying more and more specifically aren't serious. The clown music just keeps getting louder and it needs to stop.

I realize I am late to this, prolly 'cause I only read these forums about once a month or so, but I'm gonna jump in anyway.

Best quality of a GM? Patience, with a heaping dose of "benefit of the doubt."

Maybe it is the somewhat narrowed view of reading the forums and the avg. level of expertise here being much higher than the PFS at large, but please understand players by and large don't intend to cheat. I see lots of references to how to limit player cheating every once in a while. People don't like playing under suspicion.

Sometimes I even *try* to follow the most updated rulings, etc. and I do stuff that is wrong pretty much all the time. I can only imagine the insurmountable mountain of info. a true casual gamer (who doesn't follow all this stuff) is unable to know due to lack of such time investment.

As far as patience, I am referring to personalities. I am really trying to not sound accusatory here, but I am almost certain some are going to get defensive no matter how I word it, so I guess I will just say it.

There are bubbles and cliques in PFS. There are people in those bubbles and cliques telling each other what they want to hear, which does little but reinforce the bubbles. It drives some other players away (the players that don't "fit" in play style or manner). I'm not going to get into a 14 page discussion about it -- I'm only going to say that after almost 35 years of playing some version of this game, everyone needs to step back outside the bubble and look at things objectively once in a while.

Even in my local game group (which has up to ~40 people who could show to play but we average about 1/4-1/3 of that) we have people who won't/don't/can't play with other people in the group because they don't like "their style of play" read: personality.

The PFS is not so large (at least in my area/experience) that we can afford to be exclusionary. I am not referring to the design of the OP campaign as a whole, but rather the cliquish nature of some of the people in it.

(Don't get me wrong, this is likely the best OP gaming experience I have had and it has at its core people who really love the game itself, as opposed to people who just want power and control, so that in itself is refreshing.)

But the larger point I'd like to make is "please give the players the benefit of the doubt."

This applies everywhere. In-scenario situations would be akin to looting every fallen enemy along the way and searching every corner of every room as S.O.P. and then the GM filling out chronicles later telling them,

"You forgot to mention you were searching area 14d, the SOUTH cavern fissure and that is where this glowy was so I am crossing it off."

It is this "gotcha" style of play I would like to see eliminated.

Table talking during scenarios and time limits on turns is another one. Players are not their PCs. Players do not roleplay the campfire scenes for 2-3 hours before bedtime, nor the 3 days in the caravan or aboard ship where each PC would discuss what they do and where their healing potions are stored, or knowing that a spell caster would like to be reminded when his AoE is going to mess with the Cavalier's charge.

(This is in response to the GMing 101 document rule on "turns by committee.")

Sometimes the only time things like this can be discussed in real time is during the combat. The GM has to give the players the benefit of the doubt that professional adventurers would have discussed these things during the 99%+ of the in game time that we do not roleplay.

There is a difference between telling each other relevant bits of information and abusing the turn sequence. The GM simply must allow that a PC would know instantly what maneuver would work best if something changes a moment before he acts, but the player might take a minute to figure it out, while needing to ask questions of the other players.

Lastly, I am posting this last bit not to start an argument, only to say what my experience has been in some cases.

When the big bad dies, some GMs take it personally. No, I am not going to list names. This has happened enough to be noticeable, yet still in a small minority of games I have played.

Just like the players are not the PCs, the GM is not the NPCs. When a player uses an unexpected "auto win" maneuver and ruins your SUPER ULTRA DEATH COMBO!, as a GM I understand how hard it is to let it go and congratulate the player. I have trouble doing it myself and I have done my share of whining ("but it was gonnna do its big UBER-MASS-, aw, well, you got it") but sometimes that even adds to the players' fun.

Most of the time the GM is *supposed* to "lose." Just because I spent over an hour prepping the final fight at a higher tier and the PCs blasted through it in 4 minutes, it doesn't mean I have to be childish about it or penalize them in their treasure totals later, which I hate to say has also happened to me as a player - I only learned of it after I purchased the scenario and prepped it myself -- the error was obvious at that time and not before which is why I did not bring it up at the table.

Overall, these are fairly minor issues and not system related, but I mention them in the hopes that some might reflect. Back when I was learning to be a DM, one of the persons who taught me (back when GMs were called DMs and were "taught") told me "the Dungeon Master is above all a servant to the players. It is his efforts that determine whether a game is fun or not. Without the players, the DM has no story to tell."

We are GMs now, but the advice still rings true.

PFS has soured a bit for me in the last year+. Take my POV at face value, please. These are not presented in any particular order.

1) There have been too many cases of "the mod says so" for my taste. It seems like in each case there was either lazy writing or someone wrote the encounter(s) in question to thwart tactics observed from a player or group of players the authors (or editors) know. Solution: If you go outside the rules which have been *painstakingly* clarified for the players' use, at least make up a reason why they don't apply in this particular case. When a GM utters "because the mod says so," I get one step closer to other campaigns.

2) The "gotcha" rules - (example) where if you forget to state a particular action (e.g. power attack) prior to each and every use, despite having done so every combat round for 20+ in a row you are penalized. I understand wanting to prevent abuse, but this goes too far. One GM wouldn't even allow me to put it on a tent in front of my character sheet, just in case I forgot -- I had to actually say it every time.

3) There is a smugness among certain GMs RE: PC deaths. Don't brag about them for <insert Deity's name>'s sake. Walking around a con claiming to be the most deadly GM in PFS (or somesuch) is not only annoying and pathetic, but it does nothing to encourage new players to sit at your table.

Related to above, no I have never lost a PC in PFS. But I did witness a new player relating the story of their "first and last" game of PFS for this reason.

4) Similar to #3 - and I can't believe I have to add this one -- not enough distance between the GM and the NPCs/monsters.

I have been in more than one game this past year.5 or so where the GM actually got defensive about the big bad going down. So much so that the rules and procedure for the game changed almost instantly in both cases. GM complaining about how spells are supposed to work, about procedure for adding and removing conditions despite being clearly described in the rules, altering their own clearly established procedures that they have used since the beginning of the event, among others.

(Note to GMs - if you are asking "could that have been me?" it probably wasn't you. If you are saying to yourself "that couldn't *possibly* have been ME," it possibly could have... )

I know these are all individual items or instances/persons and maybe I have just had bad luck recently. But the question was asked and I am answering honestly. I also know I am not the only one who feels this way about PFS play.

The game is about players. Not plots, not combats, not who has the coolest stuff. Keep the players and make them want to show up.

Just one old guy's opinion.

Being a "random player" I'd prefer to not have to worry about someone else's PC or boons. I'd rather have it printed on the boon itself that it isn't for sale. Saves me saying it to five or ten random new players at cons.

http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01/appealing-gifts-for-the-gamer-in-yo ur-life/?hpt=hp_bn8

Scroll down a bit... thought it was a nice recommendation.

I do not lay the blame at Chris's feet either.

I have played this event but have not read it. I did not choose to play up, but our table was nearly wiped out by this encounter. I even had what I thought was a passable defensive build with a decent AC for the tier, only to be crit 2x and never missed.

IMO, the last encounter is unnecessarily overpowered. Our GM made it clear the BBEG had something like 6 rounds of prep - by design in the writing.

I will also reference the author's post here that he specifically referenced his target audience as being powergamers. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that is not how writing should be approached.

Events written for powergamers are just going to irritate the casual gamers. We had two or three players at our small local game day (myself as one of them) express their discontent with this event. One of them will not be returning.

Also, saying "don't blame the author - blame those who allow the material to be published" is a cop out as well. Every author CAN write broken encounters and there are always those seeking out the ahem, "best" build combos.

A small bit about me. I began playing D&D in 1977 and have been in just about every role there is -- casual gamer, powergamer, extreme powergamer (read: pretentious ass), con coordindator, regional coordinator of a living campaign, event author, you name it.

All of the living campaigns I have been in so far experience an "arms race" at some point in their history. It starts with powergamers complaining to judges/GMs about how easy the adventures are. The GMs complain to the con coordinators and/or writers. The writers make more difficult challenges and annihilate the general populace, irritating many and motivating a few. Those few create even *more* SBWs ("Sick, broken, and wrong" characters which are at the limits of rules cheese) and we have a never-ending spiral.

The folks lost in the mix are the regular players, which is the reason the term "softballing" originated.

Even though it is difficult for those who know me to believe, I started each living campaign as a run of the mill casual gamer, until the events started getting tougher and people/GMs started saying things like "people complained things were too easy so now they aren't anymore." This was after the TPK, usually. Each time the judge/GM would shrug and say "It's in the mod -- whaddaya want me to do?"

Sometimes the writers and GMs were even smug about it, having death totals or contests as to who could rack up more PC deaths or TPKs.

As a side note, any judge/GM that wreaks such havoc on a table of players who aren't deliberately asking for it needs some remedial work on the role of the GM RE: "having fun." Saying "sorry, it is what the mod says to do," is a poor excuse for ruining a game session.

It didn't help that I played "Dalsine" just after another event (cannot remember the title offhand) in which the GM for the slot told the entire table "Sorry, this mod is designed to screw the players, so hope you can deal with it."

While I take full responsibility for my actions in becoming a powergamer to the point that few wanted to be at my table, I can also say my transformation took place in each case as a result of adventures like these. I have created two more characters since playing this event and I willingly admit that I am once again making feat/stat/spell/etc. combination choices that would go against my general roleplay/flavor preferences, just to be assured that the PC would survive the next time we run into such a BBEG.

One shot kills can certainly happen, but they appear to have been *designed* to happen in the end of Dalsine. Again, I have not read it but picked up bits of what GMs who have run it have said. I find that discouraging.

I know that statistically these boards are filled with more experienced players -- certainly closer to my level of exp. than to new players and therefore a higher ratio of people seeking more challenge. So, I am ready for the criticisms coming my way.

But appeasing the powergamer crowd? It is a fruitless venture. How about we concern ourselves with bringing in and retaining the new and younger players instead? And one shot kills are not the way to do that.