|
If you were playing in a Society Scenario, how would you feel if the DM used the following house rule.
"A circumstance modifier, up to a +2, is available to anyone who describes their character's actions in a manner sufficient enough to give them an advantage. Your opponents have this option available to them as well. If your opponents act in a way that grants them this advantage the only way to counteract it is to descriptively neutralize their advantage. Other than the the modifier to your action, this rule has no other in-game effects."
I.e. The goblin you are attacking is keeping one of the tavern's stools between you and it. The stool hinders your attack enough to grant the goblin a +1 modifier to its AC.
This could be countered by the character kicking the stool out of the way before attacking the goblin.
This rule is not meant to eat up the character's actions but instead to reward desctiptive play. As long as the action only results in the circumstance modifier then it does not use up a move or standard action and is only what I consider a "descriptive action" which is basically a free action.
As a player, how would you feel about this? As a DM, is this something you would use?
Thanks,
Tam
If you were playing in a Society Scenario, how would you feel if the DM used the following house rule.
I'd feel a bit uneasy about a GM making up house rules in a PFS game.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I wouldn't call it a house rule, but rather the mark of a good GM looking to use the rules to support good descriptive role-playing.
There's always the option for a GM to apply a circumstance modifier to an action. Plus-or-minus two is the GM's friend in these situations.
I'd spell it out to the players ahead of time, get their buy-in (you'd have mine, tentatively) and keep it acting mostly in their favor. I wouldn't expect the players to come up with anything off-the-wall.
Diedre brings up a time-crunch factor, and has a point. Pathfinder Society missions can be tight on time, and waiting for even the slowest player to think of how to use the stuff on the boat --what does he see, again?-- to give himself a +2 modifier on his attack, can cost the players the last scene of the adventure. If you feel that things are dragging, I'd push people to think fast if they want to keep all those circumstance bonuses.
There's always the option for a GM to apply a circumstance modifier to an action.
Do you have a page cite? I think they might have dropped that from the PFRPG rules. :-(
|
|
I agree with Chris. It is something that I occasionally do as the GM to reward player ingenuity. The same sort of concept applies to skill checks. I'd be cautious about compartmentalizing it into a rule because shameless players will start using the tactic repetitively and it can get out of hand. I can foresee the player who starts carrying a stool with them to toss between themselves and an attacker whenever they want an AC bonus...
|
The only problem, after time management, is bias.
If I think my description is worthy of the bonus but the DM does not.... Or, if it seems as if the DM is giving the bonus to one Player easily (the cute one -- or the one playing the Dwarf) but rarely gives it to the Player playing the Elf (cuz Evles suck) or the Player running the PC in the Qadira Faction.
Also, what if my PC is hit by the gnoll (next turn in initiative the gnoll dies) because the gnoll made a good "Your Momma" joke and I die as a result. Without the cool +2 the gnoll would have missed and since the gnoll dropped the very next turn in initiative I would have survived. Meanwhile, another Player at another table with another DM did not die because the gnoll didn't get a +2.
. . . .
Lots of DMs do this kinda stuff at home, usually more with Diplomacy or Intimidate or such and it's cool. But in a standardized Pathfinder game, I don't think it's appropriate.
|
|
I posted elsewhere that I thought that these types of circumstance modifiers had been written into the 3.5 but not PFRPG rules.
I really appreciate the feedback. One of the main reasons I would want to do this for a PFS game is that the PFS rules pretty much bar me from rewarding descriptive play and roleplay. I was hoping to find a way to encourage this within the FPS rules.
I looked through the PFS Guide and saw nothing that disallows this.
Tam
|
|
I posted elsewhere that I thought that these types of circumstance modifiers had been written into the 3.5 but not PFRPG rules.
I really appreciate the feedback. One of the main reasons I would want to do this for a PFS game is that the PFS rules pretty much bar me from rewarding descriptive play and roleplay. I was hoping to find a way to encourage this within the FPS rules.
I looked through the PFS Guide and saw nothing that disallows this.
Tam
No Houserules of any kind are allowed in PFS games. The idea is that you can join any PFS game anywhere in the world and know exactly what to expect rules wise. This leaves some room for interpretation of rules, but absolutely no room for adding new ones.
Not that this is especially overpowering, but as has been already been pointed out it could also cause time issues.
|
|
Not that this is especially overpowering, but as has been already been pointed out it could also cause time issues.
Not sure how this effects time issues, as most players I know describe their characters actions anyway. The bonus would be given for those who go above and beyond the, "I climb the wall. Or, I swim across the pool of water." description. Perhaps someone is ingenuous enough to take a pair of pants, wet them, and tie the leggings closed, and then blow them up with air for a temporary inflatable to help swim. This would gain you a +2 circumstance bonus to your swim check. Would you be able to consider this a swimmers kit?
If we are that worried about time, then I could cut out most of the dialogue in any scenario and replace it with, "you meet the head cheese, he wants you to do A. Do you do A?" "Okay, now you need to roll a diplomacy for talking to NPC1. Congratulations, he tells you everything you need to know to do A."
See, just cut out 15 minutes, or more, of roleplaying. Time is precious, who needs that pesky stuff anyway. ;) tic
However, if I am to quit giving this penalty, I can accept that if it is not allowed as per the rules. Does anyone know if the OP's quote is in the PFRPG?
However, if I am to quit giving this penalty, I can accept that if it is not allowed as per the rules. Does anyone know if the OP's quote is in the PFRPG?
I searched the pdf of the core book for "circumstance modifier" and got no results, then I searched for "circumstance bonus" and got a bunch of specific hits, but nothing about this at all. This does sound like something from back in the 3.5 days, but also sounds like something optional that could be in the Gamemastery Guide when it comes out.
|
|
Not sure how this effects time issues, as most players I know describe their characters actions anyway.
Not that this is especially overpowering, but as has been already been pointed out it could also cause time issues.
Because if you give numerical bonuses for good descriptions, it will encourage people to take time to come up with more creative ways of describing their actions. Which can in turn lead to delaying game-time. I mean, there are already people who take way longer than is really necessary to decide what action they will take, now they will want to decide how to get a bonus doing it as well. I am NOT saying that encouraging Role-Play is a bad thing. But when you are limited to a 4 or 5 hour time slot it has potential to create problems.
|
|
I usually don't let them know they got a +2. While I do encourage players to be creative, most of the time it doesn't happen. (At least not in the way we are discussing it where someone will take minutes to think of an idea.) I might give one bonus out during a scenario. Usually, things are happening quickly enough that unless they think of it right away, things move on before they take too much time. Also, since I usually don't let them know they are getting the bonus, most don't take the extra time to figure something out.
But, this is all moot now, isn't it?
|
I'm sure the players at your table are great with it, but I wonder how fair it is to players who don't have that option. The idea is everyone who plays in PFS should have roughly the same chances of success or failure. Giving circumstance bonuses for creative play gives some players an edge in tough scenarios.
|
|
Giving circumstance bonuses for creative play gives some players an edge in tough scenarios.
The key here is to realize that creative (which often has a prerequisite of outgoing or assertive) is defined by the player. A GM making fair use of this rule should readily award players who *attempt* to be descriptive and/or creative, but because they aren't as practiced at might come up short if you only look at the clumsy delivery.
Body language is useful - I feel like I can tell if they're hopefully presenting a good idea (as they see it) or if they're just trying to juke the system (but even in the case of the jukers, if it really *is* a good idea... +2!).
In general I don't announce when I give a miscellaneous +2. If the "feeling" at the table is camaraderie or excitement, I will, but if players are stressed or whatnot, I just let the successes be their own.
Rarely, if ever, does the NPC/baddie get a creative +2.
|
|
I usually don't let them know they got a +2. While I do encourage players to be creative, most of the time it doesn't happen. (At least not in the way we are discussing it where someone will take minutes to think of an idea.) I might give one bonus out during a scenario. Usually, things are happening quickly enough that unless they think of it right away, things move on before they take too much time. Also, since I usually don't let them know they are getting the bonus, most don't take the extra time to figure something out.
But, this is all moot now, isn't it?
Well, that falls more into the realm of GM fudging or 'nudging'. Not unreasonable if the PCs are in a tough spot and earnestly trying to accomplish something that relies wholly on a successful die roll. Still something to be careful of in PFS games though.
|
|
Rarely, if ever, does the NPC/baddie get a creative +2.
Now there is an idea I can't see going over well.
DM: 14, he hits you.
Player: Wait he didn't hit with a 14 last round.
D: Yeah, but I described it much cooler this time. He also got a +1 on damage because I used the phrase "He eviscerates you"
|
|
Now there is an idea I can't see going over well.
DM: 14, he hits you.
Player: Wait he didn't hit with a 14 last round.
D: Yeah, but I described it much cooler this time. He also got a +1 on damage because I used the phrase "He eviscerates you"
Ha!
The one time I ever gave an NPC a fiat +2 was in response to a player's in-character actions (which in turn were a response to an NPC's assault). Long story short, the character was suddenly a coward for witnessing an attack that was (at least mechanically) no more furious than from an orc distractedly guarding a pie. Judging by the table's response (including the player), (much amusement!) it was an acceptable use of the rule. Though I'll admit, if the +2 had resulted in anything other than a prone character, it might not have gone over as well.
I'd be hard-pressed to come up with another situation where I thought it would be appropriate.
|
Who says this isn't covered by the rules?
Page 196: if a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, it's cover bonus is reduced to +2 to AC and +1 bonus on reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GMs discretion.
Surely this is a pretty loose definition of cover and RAW you could argue it should have been +2 or nothing - but there are a few areas that give the GM discretion.
You could argue in Cavour of the GM by actively trying to use the stool as cover in describing it he grants it while someone just randomly behind a stool wouldn't get the bonus.
You also need to take into account the goblin is a small creature. Assuming it is a human bar stool it might work better for him as cover. Also - if you read the low obstacle rule - the importance is if the goblin or the attacker are closer for the cover to count.
A five foot increment can't solve this but you could argue that by actively using the stool in the descriptive text that the cover counts while it won't count if the attacker tries to counter it.
An example would be to move to the stool and hit him from above or other flavour text.
So in my mind rules wise you could find an argument both ways.
Thod
PS: the point I'm trying to make is - if a player uses a good description why a possible circumstance bonus which is up for GM discretion should be used Then I regard it as okay to look more favourably to the situation granting it. If there is a grey area in the rule, then a description could sway me one way or another. But it needs to be related to some real rule for OP.
The above example stretches it but I could be okay with it.
One of the main reasons I would want to do this for a PFS game is that the PFS rules pretty much bar me from rewarding descriptive play and roleplay. I was hoping to find a way to encourage this within the FPS rules.
I looked through the PFS Guide and saw nothing that disallows this.
Emphasis mine.
Take a look at Chapter 12 of v2.2 of the Guide to PFSOP. "Reward Creative Solutions" seems to cover this element. I would only use it in extreme cases, and then not let the PCs know how the numbers are working for them. I'd never use it for NPCs or monsters. Just because something isn't strictly disallowed, though, doesn't make it a great idea in all situations.
|
|
If the description happens to be "I attack him and use the table/ wall/ barrel/ whatever for cover" or some variant of that then sure.
Ogre
In an ideal world I would like to agree with you. So cover is okay if this word is used in the description while a more imprecise description wouldn't cover it (pun intended).
Unfortunately the more rule lawyer type players tend to play less descriptive. They probably would use the right key phrase and in addition correct the GM that he should grant a +2 bonus as RAW.
This would then disadvantage the less rules savvy player as he might act in the right way but might describe it wrongly.
So going back to where it started. I don't think a GM should not come up with novel bonuses thanks to nice description. This is a dangerous path to follow in OP.
At the same time I think a good GM should listen and should interpret descriptive text favourably if he thinks it's covered by the rules even if the player doesn't uses the correct phrase.
My son irritated the GM a little in the last game as he used charge into battle synonymous with going into battle and smashing the monster hard. This would be the opposite of using a phrase when. It shouldn't be used.
I hope this helps to explain where I'm coming from.
There is also the issue when the GM isn't sure. How do you go ahead if you think this could grant a bonus - but it would mean to look into the small print of a skill or action to know it's covered or not.
With some good descriptive text in such a situation I would grant it if in doubt and look it up after the game to be sure next time how to handle it correctly. A plus or minus 1 shouldn't destroy a whole game - at least not more as 10 minutes pause to read the. Rules. At least not if it isn't done in disfavour of the players.
Thod
Just remember that this is not just about the players getting a small bonus for good role-playing, as it has been pointed out that while there is nothing specific for this in the core rules, it is noted in the PFS Guide that this is allowed. The problem comes with the rest of this little rule that the OP's GM came up with. I will repost that here with the bad part highlighted:
"A circumstance modifier, up to a +2, is available to anyone who describes their character's actions in a manner sufficient enough to give them an advantage. Your opponents have this option available to them as well. If your opponents act in a way that grants them this advantage the only way to counteract it is to descriptively neutralize their advantage. Other than the the modifier to your action, this rule has no other in-game effects."
This means the GM can gives npc's and monsters the same bonus if he describes in more detail what they are doing. While that may be alright in a normal game if all the players agree to that house rule, that is a big no-no to give enemies extra bonuses whenever the GM feels like it that are not spelled out in the rules or in the scenario being run.
|
If you were playing in a Society Scenario, how would you feel if the DM used the following house rule.I'd feel a bit uneasy about a GM making up house rules in a PFS game.
it's an interesting concept.....it definately would make the pcs have to use more of their brain trying to come up with more descriptive methods in each encounter......one good thing about playing a home game is you dont' have to be hindered by the book
The "GM's friend" (+2) is not so much a house rule, as an unnamed bonus. How you apply it in game, PFS or not, is a GMs pejorative.
It's the GMs insult?
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
There will always be situations that benefit from the gamemaster using his discretion: That's why we play pen and paper games, rather than computer RPGs.
As a player, I expect the GM to mention factors that might alter characters' odds of success. If he feels that my PC should have a circumstance penalty, he can describe it: "Your size Large bastard sword is awkward in the 4 ft. wide tunnel, but you're not really squeezed: I'd call it a -2 on attacks".
If I disagree, I can explain why and he can fairly decide. I could also try to address his concern: "You have a point there, so I'll grasp my weapon in a half-sword stance and use it to spear rather than cut."
If the party's foes earn bonuses (or suffer penalties), these usually come with descriptive details in which players may also find some advantage: "The troll wrenches the massive door from its hinges and carries it before him, giving himself cover from your missiles as he lumbers closer." "All right, since he can't see through the door, I'll use its cover to keep him from getting an Attack of Opportunity as I trip him!"
Sure, such play takes time, but such discussions don't come up too often. If they happen every round, you're overdoing it.
I also enjoy seeing creative play rewarded in concrete ways. Imagine a scene where the half-elf swashbuckler briefly blinds an enemy by casting a brazier of hot coals into his face, then (next round) yanks the carpet from beneath the feet of two more foes. That's clearly superior to the scenario where he blandly swings his rapier 10 times. Unfortunately, the circumstance penalties for such actions can be so daunting that no one tries them; partially offsetting such penalties by allowing an occasional +2 for well-conceived, creative actions can make such theatrics more reasonable.
|
So to support this rule...this can easily fall under GM Fiat rule. PFRPG CORE pg 402-403
"One handy rule to keep under your belt is the is the Fiat Rule - simply grant a player a +2 or a -2 bonus or penalty to a die role if no one at the table is precisely sure how a situation might be handled by the rules. For example, a character who attempts to trip an Iron Golem in a room there the floor is magnetized could gain a +2 bonus on his attempt at your discretion, since the mafnetic pull exerted by the floor helps pull the golem down."
I see no reason why any DM can't use the Fiat rule to give props to the player for being creative and inventive with his action. I mean the rules don't spell out how to handle those situations. So if a players give me a awesome run down on his actions, I would be more then happy to give him a +2 bonus.
I for one am in great support this and I think it would lend it self to more engaging combats.
This is all about having fun, and this type of idea promotes fun. I mean sure it might make things be a tad longer, as GMs we are supposed to compensate for that. Anyway that my 2 cents.
Without the fiat rule, you can can trade good roleplay with more description in regards to the current encounter and/or hints, and if all the players want is to roll and hit things, you can respond with the same. That way they are encouraged to roleplay, if you do the same (they will notice how you react), and let the dice roll as they may.
|
|
Just remember that this is not just about the players getting a small bonus for good role-playing, as it has been pointed out that while there is nothing specific for this in the core rules, it is noted in the PFS Guide that this is allowed. The problem comes with the rest of this little rule that the OP's GM came up with. I will repost that here with the bad part highlighted:
"A circumstance modifier, up to a +2, is available to anyone who describes their character's actions in a manner sufficient enough to give them an advantage. Your opponents have this option available to them as well. If your opponents act in a way that grants them this advantage the only way to counteract it is to descriptively neutralize their advantage. Other than the the modifier to your action, this rule has no other in-game effects."This means the GM can gives npc's and monsters the same bonus if he describes in more detail what they are doing. While that may be alright in a normal game if all the players agree to that house rule, that is a big no-no to give enemies extra bonuses whenever the GM feels like it that are not spelled out in the rules or in the scenario being run.
Plus, the GM has already read the scenario, and had time to think about how the NPCs and monsters will behave. The players have not (unless they are dishonorable cretins) so I think it is somewhat unfair to the players to allow the monsters to have such bonuses.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
[Plus, the GM has already read the scenario, and had time to think about how the NPCs and monsters will behave. The players have not (unless they are dishonorable cretins) so I think it is somewhat unfair to the players to allow the monsters to have such bonuses.
But the players have much greater familiarity with their PCs' abilities and "style" that the GM has for their opponents. In my experience, the PCs tend to benefit most from this style of gamemastery.
|
|
Why does it have to be an all or nothing for NPCs and monsters.
If I feel the players at the table are overwhelming my monsters and just slaugther them - then I feel much more inclined to pull all stops and allow any advantage they can get. After all - the players want to be challenged.
If they are down on their luck, close to a TPK - then adding any additional bonus by acting extra clever with an NPC/Monster would be lunacy.
Does this mean I don't treat every group at my table the same. Yes - it does. Every group is different and needs a different handling. I'm there to give them a challenge and to ensure they have fun. And that's what I try to do.
Thod
|
|
Having played a number of PFS scenarios this weekend at PaizoConUK I can testify that the timeslot limit is a challenge, but a good ref knows how to quickly weave in a description; good players can do the same thing. I routinely use the GM Fiat rule (it is RAW) to give the +2 bonus for clever or appropriate description, as the player is adding to the creativity and overall fun of the game.
The trick is being able to describe quickly. If I'm in an encounter as a player and the referee's dialog is:
"The troll tries to hit you twice; one slam hits, 12 damage, the other misses."
This, to me, just means I am playing the world's most complicated boardgame.
If I get this instead:
"With a snarl, the troll lashes out with two enormous claws; one scrapes across your shield, but the other catches you in the side, ripping chainmail links away and opening up a fresh wound for 12 points of damage!"
Now I'm playing an exciting adventure.
Now this is just the difference between good reffing and mediocre reffing. From the Ref's point of view, they have to know the module, know the monster stats and know the rules in order to free up their cognitive processes enough to roll out good descriptions.
Players need to know their rules in order to do the same. Players also need to be quick; I usually do this:
"I yell, and unleash a powerful set of blows at the Troll - I'm using Power Attack (clatter of dice). 1 hit; and AC 17? (confimed by ref); okay that's a longsword blow for 10 and a shield bash for 7."
Now a mediocre ref simply writes those numbers down and moves on. The good ref actually responds with a quick description - and, critically, feedback on how the monster looks:
"you slice open its shoulder and punch it in the side with your shield, it howls and reels back, it now looks heavily wounded.". This does take up time, but it's well worth it.
I may be teaching people to suck eggs here; but my experience over the last few years at PFS games has been that this sort of exchange is sometimes present, sometimes not.
A good description adds greatly to the overall play experience; if a player intimidates an opponent and roleplays it, honing in on something that the NPC is going to strongly react to, I'd give them that +2 - they've earned it.
Conversely though, a good ref can always describe things well, that's what they should be doing; NPCs and monsters shouldn't then get a bonus because the referee is good at their job. Occasionally a monster or NPC might be able to exploit a situation to get a circumstance bonus.
It's very easy, particularly when faced with a time limit, to fall into a trap of just shouting out numbers - but it doesn't make for a fun game. RAW can be used to support a more rewarding style of play, but I'd say it will be the PCs benefiting mechanically most.