Joe Ducey wrote:
If he changed it for the following reasons (probably not exhaustive list) to make the encounter more challenging, he was unprepared, he thought it was more interesting, in your opinion you'd be well within your rights (and maybe even responsibilities) to bring it up to either your VC/VL/GM. In most cases the GM would be the best option, as this was a con the VO is probably a more reasonable one. That said, I would expect a similar outcome to that discussion as with a number of the responses on the board, with that VO also having a talk directly with that GM. (It is less an unwillingness to criticize as an openness to differences happening and an understanding that sometimes s*** happens. As a general rule I will give the benefit of the doubt to the GM over the player (even one who knows the scenario) for a number of reasons)
If he changed it for the following reasons; a player did something that invalidated the tactics/encounter, he misread something, he had a brain fart and mixed up encounters. Then personally I'd leave it alone, no one died, etc. On a side note, Cons are stressful, I've made mistakes with scenarios I've run more than once at cons. Did the scenario work? Did you have fun?
That said, there is a reason a lot of us are hesitant to criticize other GMs beyond what I stated above, number 1 is we would also like the benefit of the doubt if in this situation occurred and we were the GM.
Thanks for the response. This helps guide me in my decision more.
