|
So I'm about to start DM'ing some official Society sessions at my local hobby shop, and I was just wondering about improvisation in games; how much leeway do I have? Obviously, I can't just start changing treasure tables and whatnot. But anybody who's ever DM'ed will know that no player worth their salt will stick to the script, and I really hate being the guy that just goes "No, it doesn't say anything about that in here, get back on the rails."
So, how much improv can I use in sessions? How closely am I required to stick to what's written? Obviously, no changing the base story or anything... but how far can I go when they do something unexpected?
The generally agreed upon leeway is with tactics the bad guys use.
That said the best games I have played in go completely off track. The good GM's get you back on track without you realizing it.
From page 27 of the PFS Guide:
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your
players might surprise you with a creative solution to
an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn’t see
coming and that isn’t expressly covered in the scenario.
If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their
way through a combat and successfully accomplish the
goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist,
do not punish the PCs for their creativity. If that scene
specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards
based on the gear collected from the combatants, instead
allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something
similar) that gives them the same rewards. Additionally,
if they roleplayed past a bad guy who carries a specific
potion or scroll they might be able to later purchase off
their chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet—
instead, allow them to find it elsewhere as a reward for
creatively solving the encounter without resorting to
combat. Pathfinder Society Organized Play never wants to
give the impression that the only way to solve a problem is
to kill it—rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplay
not only makes Society games that much more fun for the
players, but it gives you, the GM, a level of flexibility in
ensuring your players receive the rewards they are due.
|
I love the Jackie Chan style of game play. If a player tells me they are doing a double back flip while firing their bow and are just totally awesome - well I can see no way that cannot work. I mean, if there is no real benefit or negative or something - but it sounds real cool then I don't see the need to implement a negative modifier or even a acrobatics check. If they're doing something that is trying to give a bonus from a backflip (say, higher ground from being in the air), well it still really sounds cool so I might allow it, but they'd have to succeed on an acrobatics check.
To me if it sounds cool - I'm cool with it. Especially in certain modules - like Midnight Mauler where the chase scene is concerned. Or Bar Fights. Plus if I begin to exaggerate - like I did at GameX telling the PC's that they were fighting a bad guy that had a +12 Battle Axe of I Destroy the World and then describing the same weapon as a +24 Battle Axe of Evil of Domination of the Wold of Evil Death Ray of Kill the Wold of Destruction. I think that might have been the exact description in the module. But when I do that, its time for the players to do the same.
For other improvisation - the idea is that overall the PC's should have the same basic experience as other players - it has to be either minor or have no real game changing aspect. No matter what you should encounter the Midnight Mauler (it is the title) and a couple of the other encounters. How each is played out is dependent upon the GM. One encounter can be roll played while that same uses some diplomacy by others. Although diplomacy cannot be used in combat, I often allow it to be used right up until d20's are rolled.
Keep the same basic encounters (even if you have some dude tripping all your humans, you cannot change them to dwarves) and keep yourself happy so that you can keep the players happy.
If it's not Jackie Chan, make it some other Ong Bak style show!
Be Well. Be Well Improvised.
Theocrat Issak
|
|
I'm going to be the Downer here, and tell you to exercise extreme caution when improvising. If you do a search on the PFS forums, you will find extensive discussions about this (try "Freelancing").
Obviously, you must be prepared for your players to go off track. Happens all of the time. But there is not a lot of wiggle room for them to complete some of the scenarios within the time limit as they stand, so don't go too far away from script.
Summarizing some of my posts in other threads:
Realize that Org Play is meant to be a balanced experience. The more you veer from script, the greater the imbalance will be between your group and others who have gone thru the identical scenarios (in terms of PA gained/spent, consumables used, wealth, etc)
Even altering written tactics has resulted in TPKs.
The scenarios are designed to have set challenges relative to the Tier they are written for.
Not every PA will be gained by every character. Some PA are meant to be there for skill-based characters to get a leg up.
|
Though, what happens when the PC's save the Venture-Captain who was suppose to be held up by city guards, and the V-C comes with them. He is a V-C and is expected to be all decked-out with high level of PFS stuff, yet he doesn't assist in any fights or even have anything telling the GM what he can do. (Dalsine Affair)
|
|
I'm a VC and I don't have any power either. I'm a Theocrat for Theocracy's sake. Plus, having just seen ep. 7 of Game of Thrones, I can totally see how a 'mere' Venture-Captain could be caught.
Also, if you get the chance to look at some of the VC's listed in Seeker of Secrets, a couple aren't even all that high of a level. I haven't yet played or read Dalsine -but as a TALDORAN! I'm looking forward to it. If the Baron is in it, he's not a VC (again, if you're referencing someone else, who is a VC and not him, then it could be back to my original paragraph.).
With what VC Neil said, and what Josh Frost said during year one was that often there are tactics listed for an enemy - and they might be lame - and that is part of the module. Ad-libing or modifying the tactics could change the game. However, part of the GM's job is to recognize something and recognize the skill level of the party (the players) as well as the classes involved. Four 3rd level characters from players that are on their 12th module are completely different from 5th or 6th listed characters that are on their 12th module from players that have played or GM'd a great many modules. Same goes in regards to the classes. At GameX I realized that there was little potential harm, roleplay, rollplay or challenge to some of the listed encounters. So they were beefed to the next tier. But in doing so I/you must be fair to the players and the game. If you've upped the game and not given the players either the notice or the ability to combat something because you've increased the level of difficulty, that's not fair. Upping the difficulty isn't always related to combat either. By making a person more ornery than required that too could come into play with either a lack of skills by the character or even an inability by the actual players to overcome the 'new' challenge. All must be dealt with as benefiting the entire group as a whole. It is one of the greatest challenges of being the GM. And also the hardest. Each group is unique and not all players fit to the GM's focus. As such, that GM needs to fit into that tables (often playing for the first or second time together) play style as well as their own take.
In the end, be fair.
Or be a captured Venture-Captain.
Be ready for some Jackie Chan / Ong Bak style of kickassery at GenCon at my tables.
Theocrat Issak
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
The official stance for the organized play campaign is that one should avoid "freelancing" games, only improvising when things have somehow gone completely off-plot. Such situations are the reason we play with a GM: Sometimes a bit of creativity is needed to make a game work.
On the other hand, many GMs like to adjust scenarios to make their challenge match the party's abilities, develop roleplaying opportunities, adjust for an idiosyncratic party makeup, or add variety.
I've been known to adjust quite a bit at my tables, but I've learned that it's very easy to overestimate the abilities of gamers you don't know. Improvise and adapt to make your games as much fun as possible, but if there's even a hint that your players want the game run "straight", stick to the scenario as it was written.
Some changes may also alter how long it takes to run a scenario: Make sure that you have time to wrap things up satisfactorily.
(For an example of wild DM Improv, ask me sometime about the all-barbarian Living Greyhawk group whose utter lack of social skills led to their arrest mid-adventure. Forced to puzzle out a murder mystery while in Greyhawk City's hoosegow, we found that we weren't very effective investigators, but functioned well as a prison gang...)
In summary:
- Make sure the players have NO objections.
- Go ahead: Make the adventure memorable and cool.
- Don't overestimate your players' abilities.
|
|
I wasn't going to chime in but I feel I must. I like changing scenarios. There, I said it.
In every scenario I've ever GMed, I change the some of the fluff (without changing the mechanics) for roleplaying reasons because quite frankly, I think I do a good job of it.
The odd time I'll make some non-minor changes if I feel the scenario needs it. I had a little fine tuning to do in Mermaid and "The Darkest Vengence". I want to run the DV final encounter how the author intended, but it needs adjustments to work cinematically.
Adjustments I won't make are:
1) Increasing/decreasing encounter power: It's too unpredictable, it only takes a few good/bad dice rolls to have a completely different encounter. Decreasing the power means they don't work for their XP, increasing the power can make them use more resources than intended, leaving them depleted for the final encounter.
2) Fudging in favor of the NPCs: See above. One missed grapple might mean the boss doesn't get clobbered, but it can mean the death of another PC (wink wink) and potential TPK.
3) Tactics: Changing tactics or playing mobs more intelligently than they should be capable, can lead to TPKs and it seems like a lot of TPKs happen because of this.
4) Spell Selections: The spells that are selected for some spellcasters in scenarios are quite bad at times. While it's tempting to fiddle and make the NPC more optimal, it can easily lead to a TPK as well.
In general, I don't think you want to lose the essence of the scenario, but if you make small changes (to enchance or fix the scenario or to make things make sense) are probably quite welcome by your players.