|
At the risk of starting the community's largest flame-war, it has been eluded to on numerous threads that GM's sometimes deviate from the printed scenario. Whether that be an opponent's tactics, number appearing, altering stat blocks, whatever. So, without throwing anyone under the proverbial bus or blasting your recent GM for his "rogue" actions, what is everyone's thoughts on this subject?
I admit that, at times, I make minor adjustments to the mod. This is always done with the intention of increasing the "fun" I hope to provide the players. Most would agree that an under-whelming challenge is just as bad as an over-whelming one. If there is no challenge, what's the point? And if the opponents are too powerful, i.e. you cannot win, then again, what's the point?
Every character death that has occurred at my tables resulted from running the mod as written. Admittedly, when I run outside the printed mod, there are more characters that get incapacitated, but it's rarely the same PC, and it has never resulted in a death. Most of the time, I receive more enthusiastic feedback when I alter the mod, then when running strictly as written.
The vast majority of GM's I have observed or played with are competent and able to assess the abilities of the players at the table. They are clearly capable of making adjustments on the fly and I hope they do so whenever I get to play. I don't want my PC's to die, but neither do I want the mod to be a cake-walk.
I do not really want to see the PFS leadership endorse the wholesale changing of scenarios by the GM, but rather we all admit that, sometimes, it is necessary. One of the core parts of our hobby is cooperative imagination. If the players have the ability to essentially bring any kind of PC to the table with far-reaching skills, abilities, and character, then why wouldn't we want the GM to do it as well, even if only within the limited framework of the scenario? In my home games, we have a term we use, MSU, meaning MAKE SH*T UP.
What are your thoughts? Should the GM have a bit of freedom, even if it's only a small amount? Or should the GM rigidly stick to the mod as written?
|
I try to stick to the module as written whenever possible including combat tactics. Even though the tactics are often suboptimal I try to assume that the author wrote them that way for a reason.
The only adventure I made large changes to was Rescue at Azlant Ridge.
|
The problem with this topic is where it puts Mark and Hyrum. As I see it, they can't endorse free-lancing because for every 10 GMs out there who can make it work, there will be the one who lets it get out of hand. We understand that it does happen, and most of the time it enhances the game, but if the campaign managers give it their tacit approval it leads down a bumpy road with a lot of headaches. TwilightKnight hasn't done anything bad by broaching the topic, he's just pointing out the barn doors are open and some of the horses are missing.
|
|
My question is not directed at Hyrum/Mark. As a matter of fact, I'd rather they not comment. If they agree with the "freelancing" of GM's, it could be mis-interpreted and open the doors for unnecessary, and wanton re-writes of the scenarios. If they were to strictly condone it, GM's might not want to run since it could stifle their imagination and creativity.
My intent is to elicit responses from the community as a whole, both from the perspective of GM's and players. This topic feels like the enormous pink elephant in the room that everyone sees, but no one wants to acknowledge. Personally, I'd like to hear about how others handle this issue and how we, as a community, can use it to improve the quality of play without it becoming rampant or destructive.
|
|
[stands up] Hello. My name is Doug and I am a free-lancer. I started free-lancing back in Season 0. It was just little things at first, but I hit rock-bottom when I let a weak 3-player table recruit the otyugh in "Eye of the Crocodile King" and have it help them finish the scenario. The tactics as written would have ended the game. Sometimes I free-lance without even knowing it. I'm filling out Chronicles and I realize that I basically re-wrote the scenario. I don't even recognize myself when I look in the mirror anymore. I think, "Where's the GM who used to look for the answer in the scenario instead of just making stuff up? I don't even know you." I've been clean for two days. Thanks for listening. [sits down and stares into styrofoam cup]
At the risk of starting the community's largest flame-war, it has been eluded to on numerous threads that GM's sometimes deviate from the printed scenario. Whether that be an opponent's tactics, number appearing, altering stat blocks, whatever. So, without throwing anyone under the proverbial bus or blasting your recent GM for his "rogue" actions, what is everyone's thoughts on this subject?
I admit that, at times, I make minor adjustments to the mod. This is always done with the intention of increasing the "fun" I hope to provide the players. Most would agree that an under-whelming challenge is just as bad as an over-whelming one. If there is no challenge, what's the point? And if the opponents are too powerful, i.e. you cannot win, then again, what's the point?
Every character death that has occurred at my tables resulted from running the mod as written. Admittedly, when I run outside the printed mod, there are more characters that get incapacitated, but it's rarely the same PC, and it has never resulted in a death. Most of the time, I receive more enthusiastic feedback when I alter the mod, then when running strictly as written.
The vast majority of GM's I have observed or played with are competent and able to assess the abilities of the players at the table. They are clearly capable of making adjustments on the fly and I hope they do so whenever I get to play. I don't want my PC's to die, but neither do I want the mod to be a cake-walk.
I do not really want to see the PFS leadership endorse the wholesale changing of scenarios by the GM, but rather we all admit that, sometimes, it is necessary. One of the core parts of our hobby is cooperative imagination. If the players have the ability to essentially bring any kind of PC to the table with far-reaching skills, abilities, and character, then why wouldn't we want the GM to do it as well, even if only within the limited framework of the scenario? In my home games, we have a term we use, MSU, meaning MAKE SH*T UP.
What are your thoughts? Should the...
There was a thread on this a few weeks back. Everyone seemed to be fine with the DM changing things unless it was PFS, which was understood. I thought the poster's worries were unfounded, and I asked him for links to these threats which I never saw, but I never received any.
edit:I did not realize this was a society forum, but I don't think DM's in society should be changing the adventure. Everyone is supposed to play the same game, and introducing variables unlevels the playing field. If a player has somehow created super character then I would make a point to try to get a rule in so that super characters of that type can not be made anymore.
|
|
I understand the point you are trying to make, as it is a weird position to be in, but I think I agree with Doug on this. Even without Mark or Hyrum voicing an opinion, ultimately, this thread solves nothing, other than to pit sides, and allow some people to sling insults.
If we come to a 'decision' as a community that you shouldnt tweek, some people still will, and some will go overboard and kill PCs that wouldnt have died otherwise.
if we come to a 'decision' as a community that you should be allowed too, some people wont, and some will go overboard and kill PCs that wouldnt have died otherwise.
In essence, the elephent gets acknowledged and then ignored again.
Basically, 'dont ask, dont tell' to quote Painlord, might be a strange way to go about this, but its likely the best way.
@ Wraithstrike: Read the thread I started about 'Ensuring fun is had by all'. id love your opnion.
@Gallard:
Plus, what kind of sense does it make for there to be 3 champions?
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Back in the early days of Pathfinder, I did some alterations to Season 0 scenarios to bring them in line with the PF rules. Nothing earth-shattering mind you, just little things... I changed the spiked chain in Prince of Augustana to a guisarme to keep the same feel for the encounter as was intended with the old 3.5 rules, I gave the halfling ranger in Stay of Execution the Hunter's Bond ability for his companions in Stay of Execution, and recently I changed the time-line for Murder on the Throaty Mermaid to have the PCs be the replacement pathfinders for the previous crew. None of these truly affected game play, nor did they "juice up" the encounters; they were decisions based on what made for a better story or covered mechanics that had been replaced or enhanced.
I run 98% of all scenarios using the tactics given, and the starting positions of the NPCs when they are given. And to date, I have only "killed" characters when running a scenario with the exact tactics given. Sometimes though an encounter is pulled into another encounter due to the actions of the PCs. The NPCs don't sit in a bubble waiting for their encounter to happen. If anything, this is a weakness of some scenarios. With the addition of the big BOOM of fire arms, stealth goes out the window in a confined area... something that might need addressed in future scenarios.
Do I support some leeway given to GMs when running, Yes. Do I think that idea needs addressed by the writers as they develop the scenario. Also, yes. Do I think that everyone of them needs to be reinterpreted by the GM as he goes into it. Absolutely not. YMMV.
|
|
Wow, I read that completely backwards, lol. So, you gave them more than 1 construct then?
The result was the champion felt much more 'championy'.
Edit: More details
|
|
[stands up] Funny ass stuff! [sits down and stares into styrofoam cup]
DougDoug, you freakin' kill me. Well stated.
At the risk of starting the community's largest flame-war, it has been eluded to on numerous threads that GM's sometimes deviate from the printed scenario.
I find it odd that there would even be a flame war about this. 100% of judges alter scenarios in some way...there is an entire forum designed to help judges alter and run mods better because they are so flawed in some way, recognizing that they are pretty good overall, but imperfect and the community at large can offer *great* solutions for making them run smoother.
It's not a big deal to change a scenario. It just isn't.
For me, this is a question of understanding motives and trust.
Look at it this way:
1) I trust Gameday and Convention Coordinators to want to put on the best quality and funnest scenarios on for their players. They want their players to be happy and they want their judges to be happy. They are motivated to make sure their players are happy.
2) I trust those same Coordinators to know their players and play styles better than I do, better than Paizo does, better than you do.
3) I trust those same Coordinators to know which judges within their playgroups are candidates for more freedom when altering or changing scenarios to fit their playgroups. Coordinators are motivated to have active and inspired judges. Allowing judges the freedom to fix and alter scenarios makes judging more fun. Running a bad scenario badly helps no one. I would rather have a motivated and inspired judge than one that feels confined to run a bad scenario with encounters inappropriate to the table.
4) Whether Paizo likes it or not, judges across the Society, will be changing and altering scenarios to fit their groups. I would rather have them doing it correctly and within some guidelines than without.
5) I would argue that the % of bad scenario judges is about the same as bad judges in general...you're going to have the same number of 'rogue' judges regardless of whatever guidelines are set up or not (this is just a fact of life: jerks are jerks), but I trust Coordinators to weed out those judges.
Yes, this entire thing is a bit like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and, like DougDoug, I understand why Hyrum/Mark can't comment upon it.
However, in times like this it's up to the community to lead things. In the end, it's *US* the coordinators who make thing happen in our conventions and in our gamedays and *WE* are responsible for making our players happy.
We shouldn't be fighting about this at all...we should be working on guidelines to make it work.
-Pain
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
A lot of good stuff...
Well said, Painlord! The GM Discussion Boards are where I go to see what "flaws" might be found in a scenario, or post ones I have found. It is a great tool for PFS GMs, especially when prepping for a convention. Many good ideas come out of the community interaction, including the idea presented by Gallard.
Again, I find myself in agreement with Painlord... this must be going on a record for me this month!
|
|
Where I politely disagree with Pain on this:
Local GMs/Coordinators know their local players/PCs. GMs at GenCon (ex) do not. I have seen many character deaths / TPKs / gross expenditures of resources due to a GM tweaking a scenario because they thought the group could handle it.
Regardless of the actual threat level, an inequal opponent means an inequality in terms of expenditure means an inequal character in the long run.
Where I agree:
Local GMS know their local players.
Official guidelines for scaling encounters would be VERY welcome (esp for 6 player groups).
Most GMs tweak things slightly.
Arnim, instead of guisarme for PoA - meteor hammer :)
|
|
100% of judges alter scenarios in some way.
This is actually true, but mostly because everyone makes mistakes and players are unpredictable. No matter how close you try to follow a scenario as written, some things will be misread/misunderstood and some players will throw such a big wrench into things that the scenario as written can't possibly cover what's taking place.
|
|
Where I politely disagree with Pain on this:
Local GMs/Coordinators know their local players/PCs. GMs at GenCon (ex) do not.
Lol, Neil. I'm not sure where we disagree, Neil, unless you're misreading what I said.
I think any Convention Coordinator has the right to tell his judges "no changes at all" or "I trust youse guys to do right". Nowhere did I say "free reign" everyplace, but only that Local Convention and Gameday Coordinators are in a better position to decide than we are (that includes GenCon...I see little difference)..
Of course, I fully expect even under the "don't change things at all mandate" that some Coordinator might want, there will be the sizable number of judges who still change the mods, but would only do so more quietly.
I wish there were common sense guidelines that would help them.
|
|
Often the issue is that players create such a variety of characters, many of which are uber-optimized, that some scenarios are just not written for them. Unless the GM tweaks the mod, it is likely that no one will have any, or at least as much, fun. Running a role-play and investigation heavy (knowledge and other trained only skills required) mod with all melee fighter types, is not fun for the players nor the GM. Likewise, a combat heavy mod against a bunch of bards, wizards, and rogues, could easily become a TPK. That is easier to adjust at a local game where everyone knows each other and plays PC's that can mesh well together. It is more problematic at conventions where the players are like a "box of chocolates".
|
|
This is actually true, but mostly because everyone makes mistakes and players are unpredictable. No matter how close you try to follow a scenario as written, some things will be misread/misunderstood and some players will throw such a big wrench into things that the scenario as written can't possibly cover what's taking place.
Like calling the BBEG "Daddy" ???
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Arnim, instead of guisarme for PoA - meteor hammer :)
OOOOOO! I like! But the guisarme does the same effect as a 3.5 spiked chain (reach, trip) and does the same damage as a 3.5 spiked chain as well. The Meteor Hammer only does 1d8 / 1d10. Only the critical range for the three weapons differs, with the guisarme (X3) being slightly better than the Meteor Hammer (19-20 X2) over the Spiked Chain (X2).
The plus to AC is cool though, as well as the ability to make it a double weapon instead (had to look through the errata to find it though).
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
The biggest risk when altering scenarios is judges' tendency to expect players to bring the same abilities to the table that their own home group would. Misjudging their players' skills, a GM who wants to "challenge" his party can easily massacre them. All it takes is one unexpectedly lame player to throw a wrench into even the best plans.
|
I guess I'll join the dissenting voice on this one. I understand that free-lancing happens, especially when you have a creative group of players that like to run off the rails. When I play though, I do not enjoy it when a GM decides to take liberties with the overall feel of the adventure in order to "bring the challenge more in line with the group." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but I'll give up the times it works to bring some consistency to the GMs I play under. A good GM with a group of familiar players might be able to pull it off, but in my experience, in general GMs overestimate their abilities to adapt the game. Once you open that floodgate, you've opened the field to a lot of GMs that frankly do not have the capabilities of modifying a module appropriately, even if they think they do.
In my experience at the major conventions (Gen Con in particular), I can honestly say that my good GM experience is about equal to that of my bad GM experience. Every one of those bad GMs decided to take liberties with the module; one of those GMs I have had the displeasure of playing with twice and both I and two of my friends will walk away from if we're ever put at his table again. For better or worse, allowing this as a de-facto rule in PFS play I believe will open up the system to more harm than good. Sure good GMs are capable, but in my experiences, those good GMs are not as common as you believe.
Developer
|
I, personally, am loath to change anything. Balance in a 3.PF game is easily tipped. The only things I'll freely change are tactics if the listed tactics are impossible, or don't work the way the writer thinks they do - specifically I've often seen night hag tactics that have them going ethereal and casting offensive spells from that plane... a tactic that does a whole lot of nothing. I'll adjust such tactics to the closest thing that makes sense within the rules.
I'll also pull punches if it's a table of newbies in the 1-5 bracket. I won't make anything a cakewalk, but when there's a combination of new blood and low level characters, I may fudge a roll, or change the evoker's tactics so a TPK is less likely. On the other hand, I pull no punches at levels 5 or above... but by then you should know how to play your build.
I'll never alter the number of creatures, or swap spells or the like, though. That's too much, and I risk killing any balance built into the encounter. Sometimes, though, the players come up with an ingenious plan that the writer did not consider, and in those cases I may have to make some stuff up. I try to keep it as close to the writer's intent as possible, though, while maintaining the proper challenge.
Any change from a PFS scenario as written needs to be really, really well thought out. Otherwise you risk tossing balance out the door. This is especially key at cons, where you may have parties missing several roles. Tread carefully down this path. We all do it, but it should be done sparingly.
|
My intent and goal behind every adventure is to make it as fun and enjoyable as possible. I feel the GM should be an enabler, and make the players feel that they've earned every GP they've acquired. I want the players to succeed, and be successful in their endeavors. I am personally reluctant to tweak an adventure, but at the same time I'm not afraid to make a change when I think it's 100% justified and I've thought out every outcome to the best of my abilities.
|
|
I have GMed all of two game, both Fallen Fortress. I had to modify the adventure for one group because of the players actions. The GM will always need to make small changes to keep the game going. If changes didn't need to be made, we wouldn't need a GM just a good computer. A computer can follow the script -- it's program. It take a person to be a good GM. How you make changes, what you do when you make a mistake, what do you do when the party goes off script, how well can you act .... these are the things that make good GMs. If they're good at many of these, they become great GMs.
I don't want a GM who just sticks to the script and is unwilling or unable to make changes.
An author can't write for every eventuality. The GM is there to interpret the authors intent and make the game fun for the players.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
|
I have GMed all of two game, both Fallen Fortress. I had to modify the adventure for one group because of the players actions. The GM will always need to make small changes to keep the game going. If changes didn't need to be made, we wouldn't need a GM just a good computer. A computer can follow the script -- it's program. It take a person to be a good GM. How you make changes, what you do when you make a mistake, what do you do when the party goes off script, how well can you act .... these are the things that make good GMs. If they're good at many of these, they become great GMs.
I don't want a GM who just sticks to the script and is unwilling or unable to make changes.
An author can't write for every eventuality. The GM is there to interpret the authors intent and make the game fun for the players.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
I envision a time period when a computer's AI is sophisticated enough to obsolete GM's and then we can ALL be players! All hail our gnomey created lord computers!
|
|
At the end of the day Gming is an art, more then a science. I think K. Neil Shackleton phrased things quite well.
I think where you have a locally run game at a store that meets on a regular basis, where the GMs on the whole know their players, I think a bit of “free lancing”, or tweaking the module to match their players is ok.
I think at a Convention, where the GMs probably don’t know their players, I think they should stay much closer to what is written in the module and keep tweaking to a minimum.
My two coppers
|
|
If it's the 2nd round of combat, and the BBEG hasn't done much but is 10 HP away from going down, I just might increase his health to max.
I know, I know, this change is huge and alters the games way too much. My GM star should probably be revoked.
/Out of the 16 scenarios I've GM'ed, I have yet to kill a player.
|
|
/Out of the 16 scenarios I've GM'ed, I have yet to kill a player.
I've killed one player to date and it was a case of "I get to kill this character, or if I go for the logical choice - the game will result in a TPK." I went for the former. Was it bad tactics? Probably, but I wonder how many people who want to have the capability of making things tougher on the fly would have done that. In fact, without pointing fingers at any of you (because I've seen you all post enough that I'm pretty confident most of you are not like this), how many people want the ability to change things up because they think things are too easy because they're used to seeing deaths in their home environment, but rarely see any in OP.
Just a thought though.
|
|
Another thing to consider when looking at altering scenarios:
they are designed to be relatively more easy at certain tiers.
Do the math on the relative CR in a sub-tier 1/2 in a 1-5 scenario, vs a sub-tier 10/11 in a 7-11 scenario. You will find that the latter has less "easy" and "normal" encounters and more "challenging" ones (as defined in the CRB).
So if you regualarly tweak adventures, be aware that as they increase in level you may be drastically altering the difficulty. And that the low-level gateway scenarios are intended to be less deadly, relatively.
|
|
Another thing to consider when looking at altering scenarios:
they are designed to be relatively more easy at certain tiers.Do the math on the relative CR in a sub-tier 1/2 in a 1-5 scenario, vs a sub-tier 10/11 in a 7-11 scenario. You will find that the latter has less "easy" and "normal" encounters and more "challenging" ones (as defined in the CRB).
So if you regualarly tweak adventures, be aware that as they increase in level you may be drastically altering the difficulty. And that the low-level gateway scenarios are intended to be less deadly, relatively.
Which is why I proposed a change to calculating what subtier a group should be playing at. I even made a spreadsheet to show how my changes, however slight, make a difference. But it went largely unnoticed. :(
|
I would say there are a few different categories of freelancing and/or changes you could make to a scenario. I will list them in order, starting with things I would not hesitate to change and ending with those I would never change myself.
1. Flavour Text / Minor Logical Issues
I will not hesitate to change minor stuff like the intro to the Throaty Mermaid by making the pc's a replacement party, or changing the length of the tunnel in Decline of Glory so that players are not sidetracked by a huge inconsistency. I think that fixing such minor but distracting details are one of the primary advantages of a group discussion on the messageboards. I would only change such things if there was no impact on the plot or mission.
I also like to flesh out the minor NPCs to give them more personality on occasion.
2. Number of Minor Combatants
I will admit to adding more mooks when running a big table with 6 or 7 players but I would be way happier if there was an official way to do this. I would only do so if I felt that some of the party would not even get a round of action in a combat for example.
One thing I have learned over the years is that it is okay for some fights to be easy as long as they have a challenge in the big fight later. In running the special a couple of times I was reminded of this by the glee with which they cut down some of the wimpiest of monsters. Sometimes players enjoy the feeling that their characters are heroes. It helps give them a false sense of security of security for later in the adventure. Not EVERY fight needs to be a big challenge.
3. Enemy stats / Tactics
This I don't mess with. I had a 6th level character killed at a con because the gm chose to run undead with Int 0 in the listed tactics (I discovered later) as if they were megamind and friends. Easy come easy go, but some long time PFS players at my table were debating whether they would play again, it was so clear that something fishy was going on. Creating that extra layer of "challenge" that ensured we could not suceed added to no one's enjoyment of the adventure.
Sometimes the authors have listed non-optimal tactics precisely because the party would otherwise have little chance for survival. I don't think you should mess with these sorts of mechanics. If the adventure allows the party to kick butt with sound tactics, so be it.
If it will threaten the PCs resources or possibly cause their death, I would not advocate freelancing in these instances.
My two cents.
|
Yeah I freelance. It is all about maintaining the flow of the scenario and keeping the fun level up without making it unrecognizable.
To me the difference between using published material for a home game and running a PFS scenario is like the difference in buying a car and borrowing one. If you buy a car, you have the right to pimp it in any way you want. But when you borrow your buddies car you can get away with cleaning the floor mats, emptying the ash tray and filling up the tank. However you should probably not paint it pink and throw up in the backseat.
|
|
(Going *somewhat* off topic here, but since I think it's an interesting comparison and thought experiment, I'm gotta do this.)
I think this topic has some interesting parallels to the real-life discussions about teaching sex education in schools.
Yeah, truly.
On one hand, you have people who don't want it (sex ed or how to appropriately change scenarios) taught because it will just lead to more unintended consequences (babies/VDs/dead PCs).
On the other hand, you have those who know that people will do it anyway, and would rather have an open and educational talk/guidelines about the dangers and risks, but teach them to do it safely.
One group thinks that you can shake your fist and say "don't ever change mods" and thinks people will listen.
The other group knows it is going to happen and wants people to be better informed to make good choices.
Neither group wants it happen all that often, but sometimes it does.
We can't control horny teens (or as I call them: "teens") or fun-loving judges (or as I call them: "judges"), but I'd like to have open education about the risks.
No authority is going to want to bless allowing free reign of it, but, in my opinion, it's better to be protected and educated.
-Pain
|
|
Stuff
I disagree. You cannot predict you audience as an author. With the varying degrees of power-creep and PC classes, you almost have to assume the average of 4-5 players with one of each "base" class. If you write it tougher, than it is more likely to be a TPK when you have inexperienced players or a poor character mix. No one wants the moniker of "killer author." It tends to diminish your work prospects.
This is the inherent problem with a strict running of the mods in OP. In a home game, you can take the author's work and tailor it to fit your play style and characters, no restrictions. In OP, you have less freedom. The "fun" of gaming is not simply did you live or die. Occasionally, dying can be fun too :-). But mostly, you want to participate, use most, if not all your cool abilities, demonstrate your schtick, and "win." If the mod, as written, is not doing that, I feel the GM has a responsibility to alter it to improve the "fun" factor.
My two cents: I'm not crazy about "rubber band" difficulty in games. If I build a strong character, it's because I want to reduce my chances of dying; I don't want to have the same chance of dying while fighting tougher enemies.
Having said that, I'm not crazy about tables with 7 players either. But I'm not sure if adding extra mooks would make it better or worse (since a table of 7 is generally slow enough already, IMO).