duhtroll's page

You will have to yell much louder, bug your eyes out and try to correct every player about their own character sheets while GMing before you earn the honor being "ranted" about by this random player.

Or waste half the slot auditing PCs at the table with no probable cause, as they say, but that is another story.

duhtroll wrote:

Thanks, but the GM I was referring to in this case was not you

Thanks for the clarification! It sounded so eerily similar to our discussion at the table. I'd prefer to remember the evening in three ways:

1) How 60-ft of movement resulted in the odd circumstance of you getting buried by tons of earth.
2) The "mighty" cleric of Desna standing toe-to-toe with a dragon while the rest of his party fled in terror except for:
3) The fallen Hell Knight who bravely gave his life so the rest of his party could live.

Thanks, but the GM I was referring to in this case was not you, but was the same one who insisted I announce everything beforehand. If I had a name, I could tell you but it has been over a year now.

Andy I didn't accuse you of cheating. I specifically stated then and there that I wasn't accusing you of cheating. You rolled your attack roll and then wanted to choose a bonus from blessing of fervor. I was trying to be consistent to the rules of the game which I admit I'm not always (and I challenge anyone to claim they are). Had you been using the +2 bonus to attack rolls in previous rounds, I would have probably let you keep that going.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to exchange PM's or emails.

If you're aware of a specific scenario being too restrictive, please go to its product page on this site and review it. That's the best way to get feedback to the right people to make future scenarios better. :) If you think it's the GM just not doing enough prep work (or whatever), consider politely asking them about it after the event and giving constructive feedback.

Thanks - I thought of that but it doesn't change anything for the future. I am just asking authors (and editors, TPTB, whoever) to stop saying simply "the mod says so" ESPECIALLY if they are going against game rules. I have two examples in mind of the many I have encountered, but I don't want to get bogged down in specifics.

I suppose it could have been lack of prep work, but in each case I did ask the GM for clarification that the reason for some occurrence was only "the mod says so."

This one really concerns me, as there's nothing in PFS rules requiring that level of scrutiny. It sounds like more of an issue of either a paranoid GM (been taken advantage of one too many times) or vindictive one. In either case, the nice thing about organized play is accountability: if the GM doesn't respond to a polite discussion after the game, you can bring it to the attention of your local VC, or even the campaign coordinator himself if need be. Not in an accusatory manner, of course, but an open discussion about the GM's...

When it is a vindictive GM, I ashamedly admit I enjoy turning it around on them when they forget something at a critical moment, usually as a result of #4, above.

In one case I had forgotten to add a modifier until after a die roll (which had happened to several people during the same game, including the GM) and was subsequently accused of cheating by the same GM -- like I have the time and forethought to be able to do so.

You are right - the problem is mostly people -- not PFS itself, and while I would like to separate them you can see why they must accompany each other.

Don't get me wrong - I have had plenty of fun too. But after rereading what I posted, I can whittle all of that down to one point.

This is a game. Don't take it or yourself too seriously.

Much less time wasted in reading too. :)

wow.

Datroll - sorry to see it, and I am guessing you have gotten some bad games of late. Everything you discribe is there. But you can also find all of it there in home games.

I am resisting the advice bit.

I hope things turn around some for you. Come play with me - we'll have some fun...

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.

Nope, don't ever count on me seeing anything. Still don't know.

duhtroll wrote:

4) What the !@$% are spindowns?

4) What the !@$% are spindowns?

With equal friendly sarcasm in return. :P

Your 55mm Koplow dice are spindown. Take a look at it. You'll see it.

Random thoughts with a heaping dose of sarcasm:

1) I have done the "roll 6 d20s of the same color and used the order of distance from me to determine attack order" thing many times. No one seemed to mind. If someone should take issue with it and tell me one die was closer than another, I would likely roll my eyes at them and say "Whatever, I don't care. You pick."

2) Over time I have seen several threads on what to allow/not allow players to do at tables. I hope they are just joking around. Giving rules for dice rolling? Really? you can't leave them in the middle of the table after rolling but they have to sit there at least 3 seconds? Whose turn is it with the stopwatch?

Is it a regulation stopwatch? Is it clearly legible from across the table? Can I use the stopwatch on my laptop? Or, crap -- does the stopwatch now count as a device that would distract someone from playing the game?

Heck with it. Everyone now has to use Koplow 55mm opaques rolled in this regulation Paizo Plexiglas 20 gallon fish tank I am now taking to all cons and game days. No exceptions.

I think you're going to find that the GMs who have all these little rules are the ones no one wants to play with. This thread kinda makes me want to go find my micro black on smoke crystal dice and use them exclusively. Or buy some of those triumphantly ugly "Elven script" ones.

Side note to #2: I used to play ICE Rolemaster at Gen Con each year c.early 90s. They hired some "professional" GMs to run their events. One guy would not even let you roll your own dice. He insisted that you set them in front of you, not touch them, and tell him when to roll your dice for you. This was one of many such idiotic things he required, which resulted in my leaving his table eventually. OK not so much eventually as during the first combat.

Funny story - he was so worried about cheating he wanted to keep my dice for investigation after he had rolled a consecutive 96, 99 and 100 with them against his first BBEG in the event. I laughed, and left.

3) Truth : I once went an entire Gen Con - 11 consecutive game slots -- without rolling a single successful attack roll or skill check. Not one. Anyone gonna tell me I can't throw my dice into the upper level of the Arena during this streak? Better do so from behind me and out of the line of fire. Speaking of fire, I lit some of them on fire. Maybe that should be in the rules.

4) What the !@$% are spindowns?

5) Computer die rollers may not be random, but neither are my Dwarven Stone hematites, but dangit they cost over $100 for the number of sets I got and I'm gonna use them occasionally, too. Is it really that much of a problem?

Then again, none of your dice are truly random either if you really wanna be nitpicky about it.

I really hope that no one honestly gets bent out of shape over the perceived randomness of a die roller or set of dice. Stress is a nasty way to kill yourself via eventual aneurysm.

And if you really think they are hacking the die roller, don't play with that player. There will be more issues than just that.

6) It is really easy to know if someone is cheating regularly on their die rolls. Or maybe I read people better than others. If that is their way of having fun and no one is going to call them on it, I'm not starting the fight during the slot.

+ whatever number we are at now.

I have documented this many times over the 6-7 living campaigns I have played in. You guys call it power creep. I call it the "arms race."

While I agree with Bob in theory, in practice it is not going to stop happening. In our local area we don't have many powergamers and I like that. So it is not a "monkey see, monkey do" type of thing.

However, every campaign I have played in at some point releases scenarios that completely waste a table of "average" characters (interpret "average" as you will - I mean it that we build via flavor and combat equally).

Then the discussions start among the players whereupon they attempt to be more powerful in order to survive the next meat grinder.

My conclusion over the last 17 years or so of LC play is that, eventually every PC must be a power PC in order to survive. The evidence is there in all of the major LCs I have played.

I can say with only slightly biased honesty that personally, my power creeping is a direct result of scenarios like The Dalsine Affair (which again, the build is not the problem necessarily, but the scripted tactics...see above point). That is not the only scenario of course - just one that I know will be a good example. In PFS I have had several GMs, prior to the game, tell me just how difficult the event was going to be and that I had better have some sort of death remedy or plan at hand.

Sometimes, if I know the GM, I know it is just fun foreshadowing but in other cases I have to wonder - especially since one said "this mod screws over the PCs, just be ready."

Yeah, as a GM he prolly shouldn't have said that, but he was in essence correct when he explained the encounter setup after the event.

I start each living campaign making a more or less basic PC, making choices based upon style. I end every one "optimizing the living crap" out of the higher level PCs so I don't have to worry about filling out unrecoverable death paperwork.

YMMV

Kyle Baird wrote:

Eaghen- wrote:

I would suggest that "game-breaking" is not because of how a character is optimized, but how it is played.

This.

+1.

Changing the boon cert template seems pretty easy to me. It won't fix what is out there, but it would certainly help with future boons.

Given that every con that wants boons has to change the cert for their own use, it certainly does not seem to be resource intensive. We had custom certs at our local con just last weekend, right?

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.

PP could be included for purchases, as could the cost tables, since PA awards are already included.

If the aforementioned certification or stamp were on the sheet, it would indicate that no custom rule sets were being used and no banned items are selected.

Lone Wolf does such a good job configuring the program it would seem this could be done without too much hassle.

EDIT: Of course if one were to hack the software to cheat, they are going well beyond what a "normal" cheater does, but I see that as being extremely rare.

I should add that in HeroLab the GM can look at the gold total of all equipment right at the top of the screen, in addition to looking for the red and gold exclamation point at the top or description of errors at the bottom of the screen. This step, plus clicking on the "adjustments" tab (to make sure there haven't been a bunch of custom adjustments added to make it seem legal on the front page) would ensure that in 10-15 seconds a GM can know if a PC is within normal guidelines.

If TPTB could publish an "expected" gold range for PCs of every level (if it hasn't been done somewhere already), then seeing gold totals outside that range would be an immediate red flag, in addition to the *actual* red flag HeroLab uses for character discrepancies.

I know this sounds like an ad for the software, but if everyone used it (you're buying books anyway, which are more expensive than the software) we could handle auditing in seconds. Anyone going to Gen Con or any of the larger cons shells out more than the cost of the software, including all expansions, in just one weekend trip.

All feat descriptions and items grant descriptions upon a single click, so there is no problem with ambiguity.

Maybe Lone Wolf techs could have a printable character sheet in the software with a stamp on the page denoting status as within expected parameters or something. Given cooperation with Paizo this seems like it would be an easy addition. If the stamp appears on your printed character sheet, the only ambiguity could be in item access.

Just a thought.

IMO, audits are a royal pain and should be used only if a character shows discrepancies that the player cannot answer for. As a GM I would only do it if I suspected something and as a player I hate waiting around for it to be done to others' PCs.

As a GM, I expect the players to handle their PCs and I handle the event. If there is a question, I will simply ask "tell me how that works" or "tell me what that does." If needed, other players at the table chime in to help and the situation is almost always resolved on the spot.

The only excuse for auditing a PC at the *table* is if letting that PC continue detracts from the rest of the players' experience.

Take the PC's sheet and glance at it for 30 seconds per PC at the beginning of each slot. If something catches your eye, ask about it. The answer should tell you if you need to audit the PC.

When I am asked, I hand the GM my netbook or tablet with herolab on it, where it is immediately recognizable if there are any errors.

That said, there are many reasons why a player cannot answer a question immediately -- for example, not having played that particular PC in over a year and not expecting to play it at that table, but making a last minute change for the sake of the table.

IIRC one of the reasons we now have 3 game slots instead of four at most con days, is because of the need for a bit of extra time for record keeping. If auditing is to happen, I say only between slots unless not doing so would ruin the game.

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.

Yes, but the party in question played up with 2 rogues and 2 clerics.

The deaths were a result of one player - the one who decided the table should play up. The inexperienced player was not about to speak up and challenge him.

This is where you as GM should have stepped in and said "no."

Just my $0.02.

Joseph Caubo wrote:

PFS is not the cake walk it used to be. There has been a decent increase of the difficulties of scenarios, starting with Season 2.

For what it's worth, I GMed a TPK this weekend with a Season 1 scenario. (And that was after deciding that the scenario as written was wrong, and that natural attacks shouldn't get iteratives for high BAB.)

This. vvv

I think an OP campaign that strives for a relatively high level of player character death will quickly drive off the casual players.

If we expect people to invest time, money and effort into supporting a campaign, deaths should be rare. I agree with death being the reward for stupidity, but I also don't want to remove the "death from huge BBEG crit" -- they happen.

It is when they are designed to happen (and written into the event for the purpose OF killing PCs in one-shots) that it is a blatant disregard for player fun in lieu of "look how clever I, as your author, can be!"

And forgive the generalization, but people on this board are not the casual gamers. People who spend more time optimizing/learning rules will find the games less of a challenge.

I don't think easy events are the problem as much as the vast disparity between one event and another. If a new player plays 4 "normal" (read: easy) events in a row, then one of the more difficult ones right after that, with no explanation or warning prior? Frustration.

Assuming they don't have the audible keyboard on their phone set to 50 dB while texting (ergo, it is not noisy), if the other 4 are distracted by watching the texter, then they should be paying more attention to the game.

Question: If four out of five people at the table are distracted from game by what the 5th is doing, is it the responsibility of the four that are distracted to ignore the 5th, or the responsibility of the 5th to be considerate of his fellow players and edit his behavior?

I hypothesize that the division line responses to this question will fall along the same lines as the pro/anti texting stand.

Prove me wrong?

This other behavior has already been answered in this thread. I could stab you at a game table too, were we using outlandish and silly examples solely for argument.

Texting ain't the source of the distraction. If you are that worried about what another player is doing, it won't matter if they are texting or picking their nose. And I put in the "quietly" reference because the person whom I quoted made the distinction.

duhtroll wrote:

Wait a sec -

The texting player(s) are not responsible for your distraction. If they are *quietly* typing or reading on their phone, they aren't distracting you. You are distracted.

I notice you put the *quietly* qualifier there. Suppose he was noisily texting? Would my distraction still be my responsibility? How about if he were braying like a foghorn? Whose responsibility would it be? Does assigning responsibility depend on being quiet? Suppose the player across the table were quietly flashing her breasts at me? Am I still entirely responsible for my distraction or does she share some culpability? Suppose it were a guy flashing his man-boobs at me?

I think there's a whole lot of gray area here. Wouldn't it be a simpler solution for the distracting texter to actually, you know, pay attention to the game or step away from the table to do his texting?

Wait a sec -

The texting player(s) are not responsible for your distraction. If they are *quietly* typing or reading on their phone, they aren't distracting you. You are distracted.

Our game store has a pizza place next door. It distracts me because I looooove cheese garlic bread. Whose fault is it that I am distracted?

Also, I find it difficult to believe you speak for everyone at every table at which you play, unless you play at the same table each and every time and each of those players has authorized that view. And if that is true, it is representative of only one table which is self-contained. If one person in a set group is causing problems with the others, work with them to change it or ask them to find another group.

Texting:

Noisy - whether it's a ringtone or vibrate

The player is often looking at his phone, typing, which even if it doesn't distract him, it distracts ME as a player and as a GM - and the other players.

That said, I'm OK with a text or so; it's understandable. But constantly? I and everyone else at the table get annoyed.

This brings up a related point.

I ask for things to be repeated at virtually every table at which I play. From the spelling of an NPC's name to be remembered while correlating it with a faction mission, to ceiling height, to another run through of the description of the bad guy's clothing and equipment, I am usually asking for clarification if not outright repetition.

It doesn't mean I am not paying attention. It means box text is boring and cluttered, rooms are noisy, and GMs talking behind screens can't be heard very well even if they do enunciate - which many do not. Or I am trying to do two things at once -- like prepare combat actions while listening to additional descriptions/actions during the encounter.

I think at cons the room being noisy is the cause of much of the distractions mentioned, including texting. It is too easy to tune out all noise vs. filter it. Even at game days, I have experienced noise fatigue. I have texted people at the same table so as not to add to the noise, or across the room so as not to disrupt two games in progress.

I get the impression that there are a few people on here (not directed at the person whom I am quoting) who would like to dictate how other people should play.

Well, if other players take their time and are slower at adding up damage dice than you are, tough. If they don't spend 14 hours preparing their PC and memorizing a complex attack scenario, modifiable to every known variable, I am sorry it bothers you. They might be looking stuff up at the table and might forget things from time to time. It doesn't mean their intent is to ruin your fun.

Some people play the game as a diversion from very busy schedules and don't have any desire to pore over things in books and memorize bonuses. They want to show up for a few hours and roleplay, not really caring if the bless spell stacks with prayer.

Perhaps the problem is with the person who gets their undies in a wad when people don't all behave the same way.

I would think the solution would be to work with such a player and help them vs. ridiculing them.

Lets add that one to the list of how to be a good player -- the ability to be tolerant of other play styles and working with your TEAM so that the event is enjoyable for everyone.

Ultradan wrote:

If, when we're playing, I see someone constantly texting or taking ordinary cell calls, then that tells me that you'd rather be somewhere else doing something else, than being here playing with us.

That is an assumption on your part. While I dont generally care for it I don't try to pretend to be a mind reader. Now if he ask me to repeat myself then we have an issue because at that point the bolded area has some merit.

I am 19 does this mean I can keep hating texting while playing. Okay looking up the rules I am fine with. If you are looking up rules I would be definitely okay. Heck It is if off topic activities at the table that can be the problem and keep being distracted. The devices are tools they can be used to help the game or be distractions.

I remember having a gm say that if you end up stacking dice you took that much damage as a player before me was stacking dice and not paying attention from the game. This does not mean dice should be banned from the game.

No one gets to tell you what to like and dislike. I am merely saying good luck trying to keep people from using their phones.

I had a GM at Gen Con try to tell me that my (module pregen) character took damage for listening in on an in-game conversation from a mere 5 feet away. GMs aren't always right.

It has already been pointed out that every single person is guilty of something off topic at a game table. Seems it is less OK when someone else does it in a different way...

That's the important part -- no one gets to tell anyone else how to prepare for their character or their game. Some players are going to take longer than others, experienced or not. Some players are not going to know their own PC's abilities as well as others do.

Then again we have lots of people around who are rules elitists, but it doesn't give them right of control. To be irritated at another player because they only have 15 minutes to make a character while you had three hours (or weeks) is a bit silly. Again I say it is a game and people treat games with different levels of devotion.

I said 6 seconds of in character dialogue in each combat round, but that was just an example of reining in players who were excessively talkative during combat (in order to gain advantage, not just dialogue). That time limit restricts what they can do as far as implementing plans, but does not limit their planning time. They just need to choose carefully what they say so they don't take advantage of the mechanic.

And I am not advocating using a stopwatch -- each GM can easily know if players are taking advantage.

I also think "are we short on time" is not as important as "WHY are we short on time?" Should it be true, that is. If the players don't finish the event because they are talking too much, well that pretty much takes care of itself. Either they will learn or they won't.

As a GM one certainly has the right to enforce time limits. They might do really, really well in the first encounter or two and not finish the event.

If they are very talkative but still finish every event on time, I'd say timing is less of a concern.

To me all of it comes down to a few key things:

1. How new is the player or how new are they to their character?

If new, I tend to let these players take their time. I offer options. I let other players offer options. I explain the mechanics. I also make it very clear that these are only options and the player is very welcome to follow or ignore any of it. Hopefully, this results in a positive experience that speeds up future rounds.

If experienced, I take perverse joy offering potentially bad advice, "Sure, you are blind, but you are pretty certain you know where they were. I'll bet you can hit them with a bomb from where you are at now -- blind or not."

2. How short on time are we?

There's nothing worse than feeling rushed. However, occasionally there are hard caps on when a session must end. If I know we are going to bump up against that time, I will appeal to the table to help speed things up a bit.

3. What improves role play and makes things more fun?

I certainly wouldn't implement a limit of six words per round or restrict players to 6 seconds of dialog. I want to encourage good role play and in character dialog.

Why would I want to clamp down on witty (or not so witty) repartee? Why would I want to prevent the player of an insult comic bard from going to town with her performance?

I will step in if a player decides to give a long speech or begins to outline a 23 step plan. In my game, role play is very welcome, but filibustering is not a valid combat tactic.

You're using an extreme example. Extreme examples don't show anything other than that player is a jerk. Take away their phone and I will put money down that they will find another way to be a jerk. The device is incidental to the distracted player, as I said earlier.

Multitasking is a misnomer. The brain still only does one active task at a time and it can only put certain things on autopilot.

And as far as the age difference and perception of common courtesy goes, I'm just going to say once again that phones aren't going anywhere. Kids today communicate more than we did at their age, and it isn't all crap as we would like to think it is. They simply see socializing differently than we do.

Trying to force them into our mold isn't going to work. Call it a lack of courtesy if you like, but I have seen just as many players in their 30s-60s being just as distracting and discourteous as anyone with a cell phone.

At least the kids are quieter.

I have no problem with using devices. I have no problem with using said devices to look up game stuff. I have no trouble with a little non-game table talk (we all do it) and sending an occasional text. But I reject the idea that we have to adapt to someone not paying attention to us because they think they're better at multitasking than they really are (which most studies are showing). If any adapting is necessary, it's the so-called multitasker who needs to adjust to reasonable social expectations and common courtesy.

Since we aren't roleplaying the several hours (or days) on the boat, the time at the inn, the time around the campfire, etc., the sharing of information between players has to happen sometime.

Such items would most likely be mentioned when they become relevant (i.e. in a combat situation). As I said, it is a judgment call.

I have a PC who casts prep spells every time we enter a cave or structure. Why? That is usually when she is ambushed.

Some call it metagaming. One GM said this to me at a game table. I say she is learning from experience, having been attacked every time her party enters a cave for the last 3 years.

Yes, that means on the open road or boat ambushes she doesn't have them up, also (i.e. she is not just casting prep spells when the map appears).

And again, combat occurs very differently than we "play" it, mechanically. PCs do not really "take turns" on the battlemat. It is all happening simultaneously. Allowing people to talk, within reason, makes sense unless there is a reason they can't.

I'd say with each combat round being 6 seconds, they have 6 seconds to speak in character each round. That is, if they are still 6 seconds -- it has been a while since I paid attention to that.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Pickguy,

That's a great idea! But it's easier to implement when you have a regular group of characters who know one another's talents and powers.

It's easy in PRS to assert that, on your two-week trip out to the Mwangi jungle, you and your new best friends discussed tactics and got to know one another's abilities. It's another to spend a half hour going over which PC at the table has what combat feat.

Very true, it really is easiest to manage this with people in in-home PFS games. I typically try to stay out of public games and con games just because it's easier to play with people who have established histories and play styles. Though I have been considering joining some away games just to change things up a bit and enjoy the outside world.

I agree with your point that people should figure their characters know one another. An armed band of warriors would not refuse to discuss tactics together. Players should have a concise description of their battle tactics ready to dish out at the beginning of games with unfamiliar players. Bestiaries and Monster Manuals often do a great job of describing basic tactics, and I try to make sure I can describe my basic strategy in a short way to give people a basic idea and set of expectations. If I build a charging-heavy, impulsive character, I make sure they know that so that we don't have to go through five minutes of people trying to position my charge, encourage me not to so I won't get hit by AoE spells, or encouraging me to charge a target in the back row instead so they get the closer targets.

I don't see how this is even possible. The folding chair should be assigned a damage level of d6 or d8 at most (with a worse crit range) since it is not an actual weapon. The GM decides that.

I haven't built my PC this way, but if I did the whole "raging thrower" heavy build, what does it matter what I am throwing?

If I *could* get the same damage out of thrown chair, who cares? The only difference between that and a greatsword is flavor.

I like the concept, but when your chair is doing more damage than a greatsword (used properly) I start having problems. Improvised weapons should pretty much always be weaker than actual weapons.*

*Solely my own interpretation of the matter

I am guessing the ages of the people on this board. I bet I am not far off.

Like it or not folks, texting/device use is here to stay. It is not the younger players that will need to change. It is us (I am 41).

If we want to keep a player base we will adapt to them, not vice-versa. Ask anyone trying to market products to younger consumers.

Heck even as "old" as I am I run a few PF apps on my droid phone when I am not running HeroLab on my tablet.

One time I even had my netbook, tablet and phone all going at one game. That was a strange situation since I had to keep three things up at once and my books were with another player in the room at the time. But usually I have one device for sure, likely two.

Yes, GMs have had to pull me out of the devices once or twice, because I was looking something up about my character or even for someone else's (something that happens more days than not due to players not having all the books) -- a spell description or what have you. If had been doing so in a book, it would have taken longer so the "distraction" would still have been there.

If GMs complain about my use of devices, I will find other GMs. It is not like I am disrupting the game any more than anyone needing a reference. Quite the opposite. Most times through d2pfsrd I can find information faster than those delving into books or asking what book something appears in.

For gamers that travel, devices will become the norm rather than the exception. It is easier to carry around a tablet and a phone than a bag full of books.

Don't like devices at the table? Fine, ban them. Then watch as younger players stop playing altogether in favor of pastimes where they can use their gadgets.

This isn't school or work. It is a game. As far as texting goes, that text or three keeps me from needing to answer the phone during the game most times. I suppose if you would rather have phone interruptions, so be it.

My devices are silent, with the exception of a deliberate sound effect for game purposes. I agree with the demand that devices should be silent. But trying to legislate how a player divides his or her attention? Good luck with that.

Before phones, distracted players were daydreaming or asking where the Mt. Dew was, not texting. They were still distracted.

Definitely some good points here TK...I think some strategy prep is inevitable, and good, but it can get to be too much. We had a game recently where our whole table was talking about what to do in that round for like 5 minutes....the GM finally looked at us and said, "I'm counting to 5, and if you (looking at the person whose turn it was) haven't given me an action, I'm skipping you."

I hate this tactic and I think some judges use it too often. Sometimes players are metagaming. If that is the case, deal with the metagaming. You could say something like this:

"Hey you, stop metagaming."

However, sometimes player decisions about their PC require looking up an action or spell or asking multiple questions about mechanics, and this takes a heck of a lot more than 5 seconds, especially when their action changes quickly due to something unplanned.

Lets' say the action they planned to do in their turn was just altered by the person before them.

One's character, being vastly more familiar with said action than the player, wouldn't have to look anything up in a book to know what the effect of changing actions would have. Assuming the character has used the ability in the past and lives with the ability every day of their life rather than 4 hours on a Saturday afternoon once per month, it is a credible idea to allow the player some time to catch up.

PC's "witness" events and make actions firsthand, so to speak. Players don't.

Time does not flow in-game and out of game at the same rate. Ever.

If we are going to allow the concept of the bad guy monologue while the PCs are forced to stand motionless and slack jawed, then allowing some time for player decisions about a fantasy game (which should be taking place primarily in one's imagination) a few extra seconds or even minutes.

Combats which last (in game time) only one minute can take an hour or more to describe and complete.

Don't penalize a player who is legitimately trying to plan actions based upon written descriptions, or pausing to ask questions about effects or rules during their turn.

You have to make a judgment call as a GM each time. Is the player trying to gain an unwarranted advantage by talking to everyone at the table before making an action? Are they being abusive of others' time? Or are they asking questions to help better understand a complex series of variables, many of which could affect their own action?

If the players are to be held to the 5-second rule, then the GM should also. And as a fairly experienced GM, I'd say that is a bad idea unless you happen to have eidetic memory.

I have a PFS character that will have +1 equipment items listed in the CRB to be used as improvised weapons. Unless I am told I can't do that, but it would take someone who really doesn't like fun as a concept to be able to deny it.

So far, +1 returning folding chair is my favorite idea. As soon as I can afford it...

Regarding duhtroll's first item, it's kinda dicey. Generally speaking, fights are where Pathfinders find their loot. If I have a few wounded NPCs flee, then I can imagine the hullabaloo when the characters get their chronicle sheets with about a third of the gold awarded.

Wait a sec - that's metagaming. Didn't think we were s'posed ta do that. ;)

Seriously, I was referring to creatures too. A hungry (owl, dire)bear is a hungry bear until it becomes a wounded bear. Then even *it* knows it is doomed and will run. But not in PFS!

Even using metagaming - can players really fault you for having the near-death bad guy attempt to escape? As long as it isn't written in the mod that "he gets away no matter what the PCs do!" (which is another bad one but I have not seen it in PFS so far) then rational players should have no problem with it.

Sometimes survival is more important than gold and item access. The game is supposed to have some chance of failure.

If the Pathfinders are going to pursue wounded enemies with the gleam of avarice in their eyes, then it makes sense for NPCs to keep fighting, rather than turn tail and get matching arrow wounds in the back.

Again, metagaming. That is assuming everyone knows the results of every combat and that every party will pursue. Actually, I don't even believe that is the case *knowing* the treasure is running away. If it is a close fight, some parties will just be happy to be alive.

Defeat doesn't mean death. The rules used to say that but I haven't looked it up in the PFCRB.

Regarding your second item, that's more a question to table GMs than module writers. If the players have gone off-script, then the GM shouldn't keep the same pre-programmed enemies enacting the same tableaus.

Which is again why I think tactics should be suggested, not scripted and mandatory. GMs need flexibility to make games fun.

A couple random ones bugging me lately.

1) Stop having all bad guys automatically fight to the death - it changes the dynamics and challenge of the encounters. What kind of idiot (even a semi-intelligent predator creature) stands there and dies just to disable (not even kill) one more PF? This is the most annoying thing to me in living campaigns. Half of the fun in some modules is the chase and recurring villains we get to actually fight.

2) Don't give the bad guys 9 actions in "box text" or multiple rounds of combat prep just to ramp up the encounter. We the party show up 3 days after we were expected at 2AM during the festival of lights only to find the bad guy crouching in a shadowed corner with all his prep spells up.

That means you may want to forego the monologue. I can't think of many evil guy monologues that wouldn't be interrupted by at least a crossbow bolt.

"HAHA! You fools! You have walked right into my-" <schlakt!>

"Ugh. Well, now you've REALLY-" <crackle>

3) Are PFs useless peons or are we useful adventurers? Sometimes we are both in the same event.

"I need you to uncover the plot for x and deliver this item to my brother. This is critical to the survival of the planet but I have better things to do. You trained monkeys go do this for me."

Suspension of disbelief for me would be easier if it weren't for these three things. Thanks for listening.

I was told the same thing at the Paizo booth...

...the first time we went to buy shirts. I bought my goblin shirt and was very happy.

Then a friend went to buy a Paizo shirt and I was told "no, the goblin shirt does NOT count for rerolls."

And I was still very happy with my goblin shirt.

Insert generic snippy response about HQ communications, bah, whatever. But even without the reroll I still would have purchased it. I don't own a faction shirt and the goblin shirt was the first one IMO that had artwork on it that was decent enough to buy. :-P

I guess that doesn't make me much of a powergamer. Waah.

That was more than likely Cosmo and I don't honestly know that there has been to Kuching conversation on which shirts grant bonuses so I will flag this for the FAQ. This might have been a honest mistake or miscommunication. Honesty I'm not sure why any official Paizo shirt wouldn't count. But let's hold on any more speculation until we get a official word

...and in my case, when I build a PC around a "cheesy" mechanic, it is in direct response to running into the same things in events I have played.

(I take issue with the word "cheesy," BTW - something is either legal or not legal. If not legal, smack them. If it is legal, how can people complain when event writers create challenge by the same token? If it is in a gray area, make a ruling and stand by it, then afterward check into it with the rules gurus.)

Which brings me back to my original point. If we don't want game breaking PCs to flourish, stop poking the bear.

We will always have players who seek to push rules limits. But when we have events that offer challenges and tactics that use that type of mentality, we are perpetuating and even increasing the number of broken PCs out there.

I heard a player say (at Gen Con) something to the effect of "well, I guess I don't have one of those uber PCs so I don't have a chance against this thing." This was during an event in which we were told a spell did not work as it was written in the Core Rules because "the mod said so."

There is another thread about challenge level on the GM forums. My take -- How about "lets make things challenging but use the @#$^%& rules correctly and don't deliberately railroad the PCs into an overbalanced combat environment to do it."

And I do think the GM should be allowed to change the event to either ramp up or back away from the challenge levels written, for the exact reasons Chris mentioned. If the tactics are spelled out for each and every round of combat, there is no leeway for the GM to make the game fun in the case of a PC blowout, or save a group of less experienced players in a bad guy rout.

As an author - suggest tactics, fine. But part of that race to 5-star GMing should include a course on judgment and learning what makes a game fun for the players.

It is after all, why we are here.

Let me clarify...building a character around a cheesy mechanic.

I did not say those that do this are playing "wrong" just that their characters in my experience are flat, uninteresting, and tend to "break" games. It is not more 100% than any other method of character creation, but it trends that way.

This is not necessarily true. I am a very active player who would actually prefer to not powergame. As I stated in my first post, my powergaming was learned as a result of my (and other table mates') characters literally being ridiculed at some events because our feat/etc. selection was sub-optimal.

Just in the few events I have played with the newer optimized PCs, I can already tell people don't like it when they are prepared for a fight and a majority of the encounters are ended with a skill roll or spell save failure in the first round. I have enough experience being a powergamer over the past 4 living campaigns to know that the non-optimizers find us annoying to say the least.

It is simply less fun all the way around when people powergame, unless everyone agrees that is the goal to begin with.

I have no problem with authors optimizing the battle interactives for powerful PCs. Then it can be made very clear what players are getting into.

I would also have no problem with specific events being labeled as more challenging. I might even play some of them. But being blindsided, in a word, sucks.

If you gear most events for the powergamers, soon you will have little else but powergamers in the campaign. Since they are a minority, to do so would be shooting oneself in the foot, so to speak.

However, your most active players will be the powergamers. They're going to play every module including the intros and be demanding more games to play. The "casual" player can choose to skip optimized modules because they aren't going to run out of legal games, they're not that active.

Ultimately the responsibility for the content of any adventure falls to the editors responsible for balance, as well as the author. In this case the chosen environment and written tactics are as much at issue as the build.

Perhaps, where you could place the blame on the publisher is for all of the Magi (Magus-es?) PCs that were created immediately after that scenario ran. That is, IF they turn out to be overpowered at most levels.

Remember the old adage that "if everyone takes it, there's a good chance its broken." Time will tell on that one, but I've seen lotsa Magi started recently. But IMO the 6 rounds of prep had a lot to do with it which PCs just won't get very often.

A wizard or cleric with the same prep time? Even more devastating.

And I agree that BBEGs should be able to compete, but there is a bit of distance between barely competitive and one shots.

The issue here is not the mod, it's the enemy in the mod, specifically the magus.

I-told-ya-so.

The general clamor in this thread is not the fault of the DM that ran it, the player of the one-shotted character, or the mod author. The blame rests solely on Paizo and the designers of the magus. A full attack + a free attack + plus a free quickened spell all using the weapon's crit range is a recipe for disaster.

Alex wrote us a great mod - possibly one of the best mods in PFS thus far. Quit shooting the messenger.

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.

In parts of the midwest, including many colleges, that is traditionally the first week of classes.

And to the previous poster, I don't mind people picking things apart. As far as people sneaking in generics, that would be handled the same way it is handled currently when generics sneak in - they get kicked out. But in this case, all of the mustering happens prior to the slot so the wasted time doesn't occur during time that should be used for playing.

duhtroll wrote:

Unfortunately Gen Con has decided to be stupid and place the dates during the school year again, so I won't be able to find out. :(

I work at a school and August 16–19 2012 fits my schedule perfectly.

Why not run the mustering/place the banners in the hallway? I am certain someone is going to chime in that "Gen Con staff won't like that," but I saw other people/events utilizing hallway space. We are using said space for lines and waiting areas anyway, so it could not be any more crowded than it already is/was.

Mustering area could be listed in the event description, and people could police their own tables for generic tickets and also balance tables prior to the slot start time. Then when the slot starts, the doorkeeper need only let in tables of 6 real tickets to start with, then generics can be added to tables with fewer players.

Tables of 7 should be right out -- yes, I know what "it" says. They are downright annoying most of the time and Gen Con costs a lot of money to be stuffed in "tight pack."

Secondly, foam cubes? Really? Think of the heat and gamer stench. Not even NASA thermal tiles (I hear they have some available) could handle that!

Anything done to lower a ceiling in an area with noise actually amplifies the noise (soundproofing notwithstanding, but then again, the stench...).

I can't see how PF would not be in a larger room next year. Unfortunately Gen Con has decided to be stupid and place the dates during the school year again, so I won't be able to find out. :(

GMs - if you are at a table against a wall, take the seat opposite and facing the wall. It helps. If you are in the middle of the room, bring a bullhorn.

I played at the same Iowa game day, however with Thea as the judge. (next to Chris's table, whom I have not had problems with as a judge - it is certainly in his rights to follow the rules)

At our table, we "re-skinned" a riding dog as a donkey so the player of the halfling cavalier could play the event. I think it was some sort of a donkey costume being given a free pass on the disguise check.

With the way the event unfolded, there were only two combats and the cavalier's mount choice made very little difference.

Notes: I did not know what people were referring to when "re-skinning" was mentioned at the time. Now I do.

Also, I didn't know halfling cavaliers were so popular. /notes

My question -- Why do we have events that unnecessarily restrict certain types of PCs? Simply bringing a dog along does not mean the goblins are going to eat it, nor does it mean you have to kill the goblins to stop them. Of course, I have not read it. If there is such restrictive writing, I can only ask the editors "why?"

And if such restrictions in the writing do not actually exist...

Seems a bit of creativity could have solved the problem "one level up" from requiring the talk of re-skinning in the first place.