|
I like to know what other GMs opinions are on giving the ability to GMs to change things in a Scenario?
As an example of this I will tell you my experience at the Gen Con 2010 as a player. I am not going to give names and I am going to try to leave it vague also.
I played in a scenario, that I just bought to run this weekend and while reading through it I found out that the GM did some changes. What he did was add traps where there where non and gave a Sorcerer the ability to cast 3rd level spells when she could not *Fireball*, and raised here initiative high enough to beat my initiative of 30!
During the scenario I did not think much of it, because I was not aware he was doing it, though I became a little suspicious when I rolled an initiative of 30 and still did not go first.
My opinion on this, though the changes did not kill us, you are playing with fire when you change a scenario to other then as written, because as written it is made to deal with the characters at tier and if you fool around with it too much you add the chance of a TPK, I know this because at Gen Con 09 all I did was change some tactics around once as a GM to make them smarter Tactics and I ended up with a TPK, I went back to the tactics as written after that.
I am all for giving GM more power with certain things, like enforcing Society rules at the table, but when you add the chance to killing PCs by changing things up I think that can be a dangerous thing!
What do you guys think?
|
I have made small changes (in my opinion) to scenarios before. The only time that I make any sort of significant changes is when there are 7 players at the table and they've got the deck stacked in their favor. I will let them know beforehand that I am taking it up a notch. Typically I will add more mooks, or give the BBEG more hit points so he doesn't die as fast as he should.
I think some GMs just really want to challenge the players, and they don't see their actions as 'cheating'. Sometimes it is because they believe the players have more fun that way. Sometimes they have a chip on their shoulder. And sometimes they just want to be known as a badass so the players fear them.
I will always remember one of the GMs in my area who played in the days of LG. He was very arbitrary and killed a lot of PCs. Players would get a copy of the adventure afterward and discover that he ran the adventure at the higher APL. His excuse would be he didn't realize he did it, he thought that was the right APL. Once a convention organizer gave him an adventure to run, and purposely gave him just the stat block pages for the appropriate APL the table was running at. The GM turned around and doubled the encounters. After enough complaints he was banned from GMing at conventions in the region.
As a player I want to be challenged. But you are right Dragnmoon, it is a slippery slope when you start bumping up the encounters assuming the PCs can handle things. When I play, I enjoy myself the most when there are only four players at the table. I think the six player table is not fun at all. If I want a challenge, I will play with fewer people. That way every action becomes more relevant and the GM can still run the scenario as written.
|
I have found the running 4 player tables in my region is rare. I have made slight changes to things only for dramatic effect. Doug makes a very valid point when it comes to # of players at the table. When yo have seven players split between levels 2-3 and play a 3-4 tier game. Most of the time the game is easy and provides little challenge for the players which is the crime.
I would love to have 4 player tables but alas I need more GM's. Anyone heading to the Norfolk / Virginia Beach area? I will employ you on wed. nights.
|
|
Keep in mind the GM's tactics too. I often get players metagaming vs. the NPCs and run into situations where they don't realize that NPCs may actually use tactics like readying an action or simply delaying. The way to beat a 30 initiative is to be the only character acting in a surprise round and then get last in the normal order (via roll or delay).
There are times I really wish I could change feats or spells prepared... like when they have dodge/mobility/spring attack and are stuck in a 15 x 30 room with 4 PCs.
Normally the only changes I'll make to a scenario involve tactics the "before combat," and "during combat." Sometimes the Morale section just doesn't make sense either Why do mooks always fight to the death?!?!
|
|
Keep in mind the GM's tactics too. I often get players metagaming vs. the NPCs and run into situations where they don't realize that NPCs may actually use tactics like readying an action or simply delaying. The way to beat a 30 initiative is to be the only character acting in a surprise round and then get last in the normal order (via roll or delay).
There are times I really wish I could change feats or spells prepared... like when they have dodge/mobility/spring attack and are stuck in a 15 x 30 room with 4 PCs.
Normally the only changes I'll make to a scenario involve tactics the "before combat," and "during combat." Sometimes the Morale section just doesn't make sense either Why do mooks always fight to the death?!?!
Agreed on the morale issue. I think intelligent creatures that fight to the death do it as a means to move the game along. I tend to have them try to escape and take their treasure with them.
|
I'll speak as both a player and a GM on this issue.
Like Doug-Doug I think the scenarios are best written for four or maybe five players. Our home game has six, and frankly the modules at times feel easy (and that's with half the group being a full level below the rest). The seven player tables at Gen Con 2010 were far too easy at times. I can appreciate the frustration of GMs to this issue.
While I appreciate that some GMs like to make their games more "fun", I also appreciate that many GMs are not qualified to do so. Fun for some might be running groups to a TPK (difficult when playing with seven players). Others might want to make sure the players always win without breaking a sweat. And yet others might the kinds that fudge encounters (both up and down) to keep the players in the fight at near zero hit points. Playing at a convention with this mentality is difficult because all of these play styles are subjective interpretations of "fun". In the OP setting, more than ever, it's the GM's job to make sure all the players are having their own brands of fun, not the GM's interpretation of what fun should be. Unfortunately, this means interpreting far less "out of the box" than you might in a home game.
In a home-play environment I'm far more qualified to determine what's "fun" for the group though, and yes I regularly adapt things to function better with the six people I regularly play with. Some of the season 0 adventures have had moderate to significant changes to boost CRs to where they should be under PFS. I've modified encounters to maintain the spirit of the combat rather than do a strict adjustment per the rules (again with season 0 updates). I'll adjust tactics since I know the players I play with are a lot smarter than I'd like. But again, this has only happened when we're playing with a close knit group where all the GMs understand what kind of play the players expect. Never though have I, or would I, reduce a difficulty in home-play.
But therein lies the problem. While I would make major adjustments if needed in a home game, I would never make anything other than very minor adjustments to a game in a convention environment. Doug Doug's suggested changes to The City of Strangers Part 1 is a great example of "minor" adjustments that drive the story and the player's involvement without adjusting the combat encounters significantly. Other changes such as adjusting tactics slightly after the major NPC takes half hit points of damage one hit so they don't cast grease at the second round of combat when they have invisibility instead is a very different beast than adding in six more mooks. Deciding that the initiative bonus of an NPC is beginning to walk a line, and that's a difficult line to judge since there is no written definition of what "too much" is. Another one that bugs me is when GMs decide to arbitrarily adjust treasure by having NPCs run or have the treasure destroyed because of acid/fire/etc.; since treasure is such a measured and integral part of society play (Josh has stated so on many occasions and the rules even say to give players other opportunities to get missed treasure), adjusting things to reduce treasure can really hurt players in the long run. It's not our job to determine if this should be happening.
So what's the point? I guess I'd like to see convention GMs be consistent. Without pointing fingers, because it's equally fair a finger could be pointed squarely at me, I saw plenty of less-than-legal thins occuring at Gen Con: GMs not reading their modules and missing critical elements (the Bloodcove Disguise's Awareness system for example), GMs fudging rolls (we ran Bloodcove Disguise locally and discovered the initiative rolls being rolled by the GM in several encounters were impossible), GMs ignoring the tier system and running things on tier 3-4 for players while giving them the 6-7 rewards. I'm sure there were more. The problem is, where does it stop? Are we really qualified to determine if our "changes" are legal? My guess is that Josh were here he'd give a qualified "no", but I'm not Josh and the OP isn't my baby, I just want to make sure it's a success, because being a success means better games for all of us.
|
Hi all - I run a lot of the PFS games here in Vegas - and from last year when it was me ditching the one player to play Marvel Super Heroes, we now have two tables of seven people each session.
With larger groups, the APL/Tier is typically increased from 1-2 to 3-4 for most groups, depending on the various levels, but not to the 6-7 tier.
A Bit of Spoilers for Decline of Glory Follow -
In last night's Decline of Glory Vegas Game Day Special, we had 7 players. I had already prepared the module - it's OGL so I had made sure the bad guy was a PF Fighter 1 / Monk 1 instead of 3.5. Very minor adjustments. Same with the other soldiers. Again, raising the tier from 1-2 to 3-4 because of the party levels (one was lvl 4, a couple were level 3 and 2 and only one was level 1). So fighting PF Rangers with Riding Dogs instead of guard dogs really didn't make a difference in the beginning nor in the end at the final battle.
However, I did make a mistake. In tier 3-4 they fight the violent fungus. It's CR 3. I read the upgrade from 1-2 to 3-4 as to add 3 fungi instead of 3 screamers. They are mega badass. Esp. when one hits the 3rd level Monk PC and he loses all his Str to a 3 and his Con to a 6. However, as I'd realized my mistake that it was to be 3 screamers instead of 3 fungus's a bit too late - so I added in the Shambling Mound. ouch. Well, I gave him 10hp and had it attack the screamer and fungus's (also with reduced HP - so I wouldn't be so deadly). So the Shambling Mound killed 2 of the fungus and the party was able to get rid of the other one. However, not before I rolled several 20's and confirms and seriously injured the 1st level Cleric (there was another cleric/sorcerer and a druid in the party). From there they went to the caves and fought the enemies there - with zero issues because one PC has an AC of 26 (he's their door, he can't be hit, and he can't hit). But with no time to rest from the very first encounter because the party left right after realizing they had the Phalanx surrounding the town and Beecher wasn't around. So the party was exhausted and had used many of their resources. But they got threw the caves just fine vs the ghouls.
Heading into the final battle, they had 1 hour of rest - because it was sunrise and Grald said he was coming in the morning for the deed. For the final battle - they didn't board up the house - they opened the doors and had their 'Door' PC hold the door. After several rounds of fighting - and again I rolled really well against everybody but the 'Door' (I needed confirmed 20's to hit him, but rolled several on many others- never him). After 14 rounds, with ghouls and guards fighting (PC's and each other) things were rather grim. The druid had been down to near is negative Con as did the 1st level Cleric multiple times, with channeling healing staving off death. However, the party's Monk PC was severaly damaged from the Con damage, and after several attacks (including the jumping in between a guard and Grald) he was put down in to negatives. Finally able to be stablized, but with no allies nearby, and Grald's forces actually very close to winning, Grald pulled the Monk into a building and locked themselves both in. After a few more rounds, the Party was able to finsih off the remaining ghouls and one of the guards surrendered (at 1hp).
Grald wanted the deed, so the Party made an agreement - they would exchange the deed for the Monk. But they would use the wizard items and disterlly's office (I figured there'd be some sort of office) they could make a forgery of the deed. Exchaing the deed for the Monk (and other guard) the PC's agreed that the guard would have the deed and bring it to Grald and he would push the Monk out the door. But the Party had other ideas, that they'd cast spells and attack Grald before he had a chance to kill the Monk (because he was stable at one point shy of negative con). After 30min of several options, I have the party a talk though to see if their plan would work. In this first 'not for real' it seemed that Grald would stab the Monk before he'd lose all his hit points. So another discussion requiring potential initiative rolls - and this would be the real way it would go down (as previously it was discussions and potentials to see what might happen) - Grald had second nitiative. So the Archer who won, decides that when Grald pushes the Monk out the door, the archer would run and jump on top of the Monk PC. So the archer provided cover at +4 AC, but the Monk was prone. So Grald stabbed the Monk with his sword, killing him.
However, my concern is that maybe the Monk wouldn't have been so badly damaged if I hadn't mistakenly added 3 fungi. Sure the Monk didn't have to jump between a guard and Grald and get beaten down when he was severely beaten (again with a 3 Str).
So I'm concerned that I've over stepped here - I cheated and a PC got killed. So does that PC stay dead or do I say that it was a GM mistake and not have the PC die?
The Party has the 5000GP to raise him (plus he has money) - but is that required?
I'm running the game again for another group - and this time I'll make sure that I don't add too many fungi (although it is a smaller group and lower level).
Thanks for the advice and suggestions.
Theocrat Issak
|
I ran two games at Paizocon 09 and made several minor changes to both of them, on the fly. In the first one the party -- a bunch of really experienced guys -- were blowing through the encounters so I upped the difficulty to make it more challenging for them. In the second, I amped down a fatal encounter when it looked like Player Fun was being threatened.
my opinion is that a DM should be able to make minor changes, as long as PFS plot or equipment rules aren't being messed with.
In the situation cited in this thread, I think sounds a bit over the top, but within my wiggle room guideline.
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with making the fights a bit tougher or a bit easier, or simply playing the enemies either smarter or dumber. What I do not like and am pretty sure is not allowed is the part where the OP talked about the GM adding in traps that were not there to begin with.
|
|
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with making the fights a bit tougher or a bit easier, or simply playing the enemies either smarter or dumber. What I do not like and am pretty sure is not allowed is the part where the OP talked about the GM adding in traps that were not there to begin with.
I believe that Traps where added just so our Rogues would find traps... I don't think he would have actually had them go off. Though I am just guessing.
|
|
My next question is then...
What do you do if the Changes you did end up killing a PC or even worse all of them! Do you really want to play with that fire?
You would rather that everyone walk through each module with absolutely no chance of dying or taking significant injury?
While a handful of people might be happy, the vast majority want to be challenged by the module, and want to know they earned their victory. Finishing the last combat with most of the PCs unconscious and the others taking down the bad guys is the epitome of a challenging game and the players will be talking about that game long after they have forgotten the ones which were cakewalks.
|
|
My next question is then...
What do you do if the Changes you did end up killing a PC or even worse all of them! Do you really want to play with that fire?
You would rather that everyone walk through each module with absolutely no chance of dying or taking significant injury?
While a handful of people might be happy, the vast majority want to be challenged by the module, and want to know they earned their victory. Finishing the last combat with most of the PCs unconscious and the others taking down the bad guys is the epitome of a challenging game and the players will be talking about that game long after they have forgotten the ones which were cakewalks.
Oddly enough, you did not mention dying....
I would be very upset if I found out that a Character I made and put a lot of time into got killed because a GM purposely made the Scenario more difficult because he want us to have more of a 'Challenge'.
|
|
Long answer from a couple of days ago eaten by Post Monster.
My problem with changing scenarios at all, even if it is just tactics/morale or number of mooks, is that part of the idea behind playing in an Organized Play setting is that theoretically everyone should be facing equal challenges. Even if you just change the tactics, you are altering the challenge to your group compared to every other group of that tier.
It's not just about character death/TPK, but also about resource expenditure and reward. If Table A has mooks run away because the GM changes their morale/tactics, they get less gold than table B where the GM ran things as written. If table A has to face a BBEG where the GM maximized its tactics, they are likely to go thru more scrolls/plotions than B.
In a home game, or a regular FLGS game, it's not really an issue, but at something like GenCon, where there are many tables of the same scenario, and opportunity to play many sessions, little variations can quickly add up to character imbalance.
Of course, there is also the issue of wildly varying GM judgement. Although most of what people are posting here is logical, and well within the bounds of what is reasonable, it is obvious from the OP that some GM's go outside those bounds when given latitude.
Just opinions, not criticisms of the many fine GMs who run differently.
|
|
Oddly enough, you did not mention dying....
I would be very upset if I found out that a Character I made and put a lot of time into got killed because a GM purposely made the Scenario more difficult because he want us to have more of a 'Challenge'.
+1
More than anything this is what the discussion on changes comes down to. Yes, I want to be challenged, but I think a lot of GMs assume that if you're not struggling through every fight, it's not a challenge. When these GMs start adjusting things, a lot of the time they throw off the balance not just for that fight, but for every subsequent fight and worst off, the climax. Unfortunately every adjustment is cumulative in a lot of cases, and you have to be very careful and really know what you're doing if you're going to risk it.
If I found out that my character died because of an adjustment a GM made because they thought the adventure was "too easy", I would be pretty pissed off. I would also be just as pissed off if I found out that the GM was running the module one tier lower than what we had asked because they felt it "too hard".
|
|
Oddly enough, you did not mention dying....
I would be very upset if I found out that a Character I made and put a lot of time into got killed because a GM purposely made the Scenario more difficult because he want us to have more of a 'Challenge'.
+1
More than anything this is what the discussion on changes comes down to. Yes, I want to be challenged, but I think a lot of GMs assume that if you're not struggling through every fight, it's not a challenge. When these GMs start adjusting things, a lot of the time they throw off the balance not just for that fight, but for every subsequent fight and worst off, the climax. Unfortunately every adjustment is cumulative in a lot of cases, and you have to be very careful and really know what you're doing if you're going to risk it.
If I found out that my character died because of an adjustment a GM made because they thought the adventure was "too easy", I would be pretty pissed off. I would also be just as pissed off if I found out that the GM was running the module one tier lower than what we had asked because they felt it "too hard".
I did on one occasion, after looking at the party and knowing the mod, flat out refuse to run the mod a tier up as the players requested. The last thing I want to do is kill the party and when the only healer is a bard, player the tier 10-11 might not be a good thing lol when the highest party member is level 9.
|
|
I did on one occasion, after looking at the party and knowing the mod, flat out refuse to run the mod a tier up as the players requested. The last thing I want to do is kill the party and when the only healer is a bard, player the tier 10-11 might not be a good thing lol when the highest party member is level 9.
I have done that on one occasion. In that particular mod, there was a fight with two incorporeal stat-draining creatures and the group had one cleric and one magic weapon.
|
|
Yes, because in 20 odd years of running Living City, Living Greyhawk and the like at conventions and game days, I never killed a character due to changes I made to a module.
Does that include forcing the characters to use extra resources to handle a modified encounter, only to die in a later, non-modified encounter? (when said resources may have saved their life)
|
|
Yes, because in 20 odd years of running Living City, Living Greyhawk and the like at conventions and game days, I never killed a character due to changes I made to a module.Does that include forcing the characters to use extra resources to handle a modified encounter, only to die in a later, non-modified encounter? (when said resources may have saved their life)
Are you talking about later in the same module that I had altered? If so, the answer is no.
If you are talking about in a subsequent module to the one I had altered, not to the best of my knowledge. I tried very hard not to require the use of consumables for just this reason.
|
|
I tried very hard not to require the use of consumables for just this reason.
I wasn't speaking specifically of consumables. Resources can include spells cast, hit points, and limited use special abilities.
One extra mook can cause your cleric to cast an extra spell that could have been later used in an encounter that turned deadly.
|
|
This train of thought seems to indicate that the adventure paths are perfectly balanced for any party!
That is incorrect for example many encounters as written have options
the bandit camp in Kingmaker even lets the GM change the number of bandits there. Anywhere from 4 to 12 depending on circumstances.......
the idea behind playing in an Organized Play setting is that theoretically everyone should be facing equal challenges. Even if you just change the tactics, you are altering the challenge to your group compared to every other group of that tier.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
When running scenarios in a convention or game day setting, gamemasters need to remember that not all gaming groups will resemble the groups in their home games. It's easy to "beef up" an encounter, only to discover that the team isn't nearly as capable as the parties seen in home games. Inexperienced players or poor tactics can place parties in terrible danger.
As a GM, it's vital to discover the players' opinions before making changes to a scenario. If I suspect that some part of an adventure just won't work well for the players, I'll ask whether they would prefer that I adjust things or would rather play the adventure "by the book". Over the years, I've learned that players are reluctant to admit that they don't trust the GM's judgment, so GMs need to be particularly alert for signs of reluctance.
|
|
Hi all -
I'm actually preparing Sir Wulf's Our Lady of Silver module for this weekends Game Day. Because I know the group, the group of players and their play styles - I can realize what might be super-duper easy and what might give them fits. It's PFS - so everything has to be legit and laid out fair, but with that, it still has to be fun. So I might not use the order of spells as presented - I know who to target (Can GM's Metagame?) first.
However, if I run this module at NeonCon - I will run it as presented because it will be all new people (not that this mod is presented for NeonCon but you get the idea) for the most part and I'd have no idea other than as we spend our 4-5hrs together whether or not they'd manage it differently. Something similar happened at Gamex 2010, I was running a module that listed 2 wolves for the lower tier and 3 bears for the higher tier. They were in the middle, with one really powerful character (a halfling fighter type with a roc as a mount). Plus, I'd just bought these two really cool bear mini's - so I replaced the two wolves with two bears. I'd run for the same group two or three times and they'd already asked for me to give max HP and what not. They were happy to find that I had done so, with the exception of one other player. He shouldn't have been looking over my shoulder and GM screen - but table space is at a premium and that happens. Because the one other player didn't want me to upgrade them - so no other encounters were maxed out.
So it has to be as fair as possible, and sometimes you have to take the human element (and non-human) into account.
NeonCon - Nov. 4-7 Tropicana Hotel - Las Vegas, NV
Pathfinder Coordinator
Theocrat Issak
|
I like to know what other GMs opinions are on giving the ability to GMs to change things in a Scenario?
As an example of this I will tell you my experience at the Gen Con 2010 as a player. I am not going to give names and I am going to try to leave it vague also.
I played in a scenario, that I just bought to run this weekend and while reading through it I found out that the GM did some changes. What he did was add traps where there where non and gave a Sorcerer the ability to cast 3rd level spells when she could not *Fireball*, and raised here initiative high enough to beat my initiative of 30!
During the scenario I did not think much of it, because I was not aware he was doing it, though I became a little suspicious when I rolled an initiative of 30 and still did not go first.
My opinion on this, though the changes did not kill us, you are playing with fire when you change a scenario to other then as written, because as written it is made to deal with the characters at tier and if you fool around with it too much you add the chance of a TPK, I know this because at Gen Con 09 all I did was change some tactics around once as a GM to make them smarter Tactics and I ended up with a TPK, I went back to the tactics as written after that.
I am all for giving GM more power with certain things, like enforcing Society rules at the table, but when you add the chance to killing PCs by changing things up I think that can be a dangerous thing!
What do you guys think?
I would agree with Doug Doug as well. When I make changes they are done for very specific reasons. Usually to take a circumstance where the game will be boring for all involved and make it challenging. For me this usually happens when the table splits the tiers. Example the table is APL 5 and the tiers are Tier 3-4 or 6-7. When the party decides to play down it is a cake walk and when the party plays up it is a certain TPK. This just recently happened with 2-01. I made no adjustments, they played down, and they cruised through all the encounters. I happen to be an actor by trade so I enjoy rping the villains and so to a degree it was entertaining for all but was it a challenge? No.
I think taking away the GMs right to alter a scenario would effectively turn them into automatons. Part of the incentive to GM is to have fun fleshing out a story for the players while at the same time using there own creative resources where needed. I will repeat...where needed. Now I certainly don't want to say anything disparaging about anyone but occasionally you do have those GMs that approach a scenario from a "me against them" mind set. This is not to say that this is what you experienced but often those types of GMs can alter the perception of what is expected or not expected from GMs as a whole. Those few can make it tough for the many as they say.
|
|
part of the idea behind playing in an Organized Play setting is that theoretically everyone should be facing equal challenges. Even if you just change the tactics, you are altering the challenge to your group compared to every other group of that tier.
If you run a scenario for four players and I run the same scenario, unchanged, for seven, that challenge is already changed considerably. I argue that the GM should make some changes to try to approximate the experience a group of four or five might have.
If you run a scenario for four players and I run the same scenario, unchanged, for seven, that challenge is already changed considerably. I argue that the GM should make some changes to try to approximate the experience a group of four or five might have.
But in your example, the levels of the characters will make a big difference also. Let's say all the characters are level two. A party of four would be APL two and play sub-tier 1-2. A party of seven would be APL three and could choose to play up to sub-tier 4-5. In this situation the GM should encourage them to play up if he feels sub-tier 1-2 would be way too easy for them. Now let's up the character level to three. A party of four would be able to play up to 4-5 or down to 1-2, while that party of seven would be APL 4 and play at 4-5. These examples probably hold true at just about every character level other than one, where they would be in sub-tier 1-2 no matter how many level one characters are playing together.
|
|
part of the idea behind playing in an Organized Play setting is that theoretically everyone should be facing equal challenges. Even if you just change the tactics, you are altering the challenge to your group compared to every other group of that tier.If you run a scenario for four players and I run the same scenario, unchanged, for seven, that challenge is already changed considerably. I argue that the GM should make some changes to try to approximate the experience a group of four or five might have.
Perhaps I should have said that the groups should face the same DC of encounter.
I feel that at a large convention, where GM style and judgement may vary widely, along wtih party strength, that it is better to stick closely to the scenario as written. You are correct that this means a full table will usually have an easier time of it than a minimum table (even with the +1 APL), but I think that is better than a TPK, character death, or some other form of player penalty, caused by someone beefing up encounters or altering tactics.
I know that a total party defeat, with character deaths, happened at GenCon, partly because of the GM altering monster tactics.
Home or FLGS games, where you know the capabilities of your PCs, are different.
However, I would like to see scenarios eventually designed with scaling for large parties. Perhaps as an additional page at the end.
|
I'm GMing a scenerio that I played in two weeks ago and reading the module I know the GM made some alterations. Bluntly, I'm seeing a lot of it I suspect in order to make scenarios tougher.
Personally, I'm in favor of it based off what I'm seeing locally (lots of party walk throughs) and with tacit support of everyone involved. The problem appears when a DM miscalculates. That's easily fixable IMHO with a few goons dying a little early or a trap not going off, or something like that.
Basically, I expect it of my DMS and do the same. I wouldn't do it say, at a Con or with a weak party and would love to see some offical Paizo scaling. I've not encountered any of the horror stories described above. If it ever became a problem, it would end I suspect or the offensive GM would be reigned in (it happened with a local GM who just plain wasn't very good).
But basically, I have no problems with scenarios being tougher with a wink and a nod.