|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why you will continue to loose people like myself from your "society".
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I dislike these types of comments. It is just as likely that having consistent rules that are not subjected to GM "whim" will attract RPG'ers from other systems.
Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinions and to play/not play PFS. But, to threaten to quit because of a rule and exclaim on your way out so everyone can hear is just silly, IMO.
I understand the urge for GM's to deviate from printed material to do what they think is right to improve the enjoyment of the game. However, in an OP environment, where wealth, etc can be largely impacted by the GM's actions, we need to stay the line.
When I want to play in a completely free-form game where the GM can do whatever and allow the players the same flexibility, I play in a home-style game. I think we all love the Adventure Paths and those are a great venue for experimentation and house rules.
In most cases, the players and GM can make adjustments, within the rules, to improve their level of enjoyment whether that be playing up/down, increasing/decreasing the number of players at the table, a better mix of classes, etc. There really are a ton of "legal" options.
|
|
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I dislike these types of comments. It is just as likely that having consistent rules that are not subjected to GM "whim" will attract RPG'ers from other systems.
Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinions and to play/not play PFS. But, to threaten to quit because of a rule and exclaim on your way out so everyone can hear is just silly, IMO.
I understand the urge for GM's to deviate from printed material to do what they think is right to improve the enjoyment of the game. However, in an OP environment, where wealth, etc can be largely impacted by the GM's actions, we need to stay the line.
When I want to play in a completely free-form game where the GM can do whatever and allow the players the same flexibility, I play in a home-style game. I think we all love the Adventure Paths and those are a great venue for experimentation and house rules.
In most cases, the players and GM can make adjustments, within the rules, to improve their level of enjoyment whether that be playing up/down, increasing/decreasing the number of players at the table, a better mix of classes, etc. There really are a ton of "legal" options.
Thank you Bob, you said what I was trying to put into words in a much nicer way :)
There are limitations to OP that everyone should understand when they get involved in this kind of campaign. It's about giving everyone as fair and as equal an experience as possible.
I love discussing the mods I've played with people from around the globe and discovering how they handle this or that scene. It gives me a feeling of comraderie with them. On occasion, though, I find someone who can't even recognize the description of a mod due to 'DM fiat'. Not saying their DM did a bad job, just perhaps did them a disservice.
Altering a mod responsibly is a lot harder than most people think it is. The number of GMs that can do it right are vastly smaller than the number of GMs who think they can do it right. Please, err on the side of caution.
|
I can't say I disagree with the last few posts, but I feel I still want to reiterate a problem that I am perceiving.
When someone of Mark's postion of authority uses the absolute, it better be very well thought out.
So does his verbage of "GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written" now mean that the "Reward Creative Solutions" section of the PFS OP Field Guide is now obsolete?
I'm sure that's not what he meant but it's what he said ;)
|
|
I can't say I disagree with the last few posts, but I feel I still want to reiterate a problem that I am perceiving.
When someone of Mark's postion of authority uses the absolute, it better be very well thought out.
So does his verbage of "GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written" now mean that the "Reward Creative Solutions" section of the PFS OP Field Guide is now obsolete?
I'm sure that's not what he meant but it's what he said ;)
The two arent quite the same. There's a difference between thinking away around the nasty cave troll so you don't have to fight it and doubling the number of the cave troll because the judge thinks the party has had too easy a time with it.
One is rewarding the party for their creative solutions while the other is possibly causing a TPK.
Basically, the PCs get to figure out creative ways around things, the GM gets the mod.
|
To clarify:
Is it that you'd consider quitting due to having to run an adventure as written, or that you'd consider quitting rather than try to wrangle up enough GMs to afford smaller tables? Both were referenced in Mark's post, so I just wanted to check which you were replying to (or both).
Look, I don't fault the expressions and exhortations of trying to deal with the matter by running more tables or seating fewer players. Those are nice things to be able to do. They are, without a doubt, the preferred solution.
That does not mean that such exhortations are at all realistic in the circumstances.
I've started PFS in Toronto in late July. We are not yet 3 months old. We are running in two stores, one weekly, the other store every other week.
Given attendance so far, we regularly have 10-13 players show up for each event, 65% of the time. The other 35% of the time, it's weird. Sometimes we have 10 reserve spots and 14 have shown up; at another time, 12 book and 9 show up. It's mostly predictable -- which is another way of saying, sometimes it's not predictable at all.
In order to run these 12 tables a month, I need to find GMs to do it. I'm good for four of em, and another GM is good for another 2. That leaves us with six slots to fill. There are BARELY enough players suitable as GMs in our area willing to GM PFS to do the task right now. This problem is exacerbated by living in a very large city with long travel times. Weekend play is not an option in Toronto and getting downtown by 6:00 p.m. is extremely hard for a lot of GMs.
So, while it's all well and good to urge me (or somebody else) to just "find more GMs" -- dude -- I'm trying as hard as I can and double shifting between both stores to cover those sessions, too. I got a VC who lives too far away to help and works nights anyways.
So I've been double shifting it and trying to cover both stores where I need to and I am only JUST NOW this past week getting to the point where I have those other six slots covered.
I am trying to GROW the event so that I can have 15 or so people show up regularly AND have 3 GMs per store. Then, I'll grow it to 20-24 players. Those are my plans.
Meanwhile, please choose which of the OH SO ATTRACTIVE options I should exercise:
1 - Turn away players from an event that is not established, thereby taking a significant risk of losing the player for good;
OR
2- Magic up a third GM when I can barely find enough to cover the slots I have.
OR
3 - Call such exhortations and well-intended comments that they are, but admit that reality is the rift that exists between what is said and what people WISH were true.
That's where I am right now.
I expect in another 3 to 6 months or so we will be in a position to add a third GM to one of those stores weekly and try to expand further. But the process is an organic one and no amount of pious posting and theoretical exhortations can conjure up GMs out of thin air. Is conjuring up AC out of "thin air" more realistic and infinitely easier to achieve than that feat?
If there is any uncertainty in the hierarchy of what it more realistic, let me dispel that uncertainty for you right now.
If my alternative it to turn players away? Screw that, I'm not doing it. I didn't put this effort into building a presence for PFS in this city to then wreck it at such an early juncture. Won't happen. Not at this stage and not on my watch.
So that's the reality I deal with. I'm FAR from the only one. I expect there are dozens of GMs and VLs like me.
Pretending that such fixes as "serve less players/add more GMs" is an easier or even a realistic fix in all of the circumstances to the issue of play balance is, without putting too fine a point on it, insulting.
I don't ask people to accept theory as fact, nor to dress up hopes as reality. I am not suggesting that Mark Moreland did either -- but your posts comes closer to that fantasy.
|
|
The two arent quite the same...
I don't mean to be obstinate.. but I guess I am.
They ARE indeed the same. Both are a deviation, and either you can devitate or you can't. If you can, it should be done responsibly, within the spirit of OP rules, etc etc etc.
But when it's said from on high that you can't deviate.. well you see where I'm going with this?
What of a more complex creative solution? Let's say the party has access to the tools to simply go around the cave troll instead. So by Mark's words, can I or can't I insert a replacement encounter or am I forced to take the RCS suggestion of adding the cave troll's loot to another as-otherwise-written encounter?
That's my point.
|
|
Further to Chris M's post: most of my PC deaths have come from Season 0 and 1 scenarios. I haven't had any in the 5 or so Season 3 sessions I've run.
Deusvult, I often think that "Reward Creative Solutions" is given a much broader scope than the actual wording of the rule in the Guide, much like the former rule that summons Dragnmoon to the discussion. The RCS rule (as written) only ensures that players who roleplay past an encounter (or solve it in another way) still get the treasure they would by defeating it in combat.
Canadian Maplecakes
|
I would like to think that the intent is "run the module as written, don't go changing things".
It is the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate weird situations or rule issues that might come up, but that's all. Player A should not play through a module and have the enemies use completely different tactics/abilities than Player B had to handle. (Unless somehow within the scenario the NPC tactics change, etc, etc)
I know it has been beaten to death in this thread, but I think Mark was just reinforcing the primary concept of the Society - everyone gets to play the same module and have the same experience. It's why going to conventions and talking about how your group handled a module can be so fun!
Just my 2.33 cents!
|
|
The two arent quite the same...I don't mean to be obstinate.. but I guess I am.
They ARE indeed the same. Both are a deviation, and either you can devitate or you can't. If you can, it should be done responsibly, within the spirit of OP rules, etc etc etc.
But when it's said from on high that you can't deviate.. well you see where I'm going with this?
What of a more complex creative solution? Let's say the party has access to the tools to simply go around the cave troll instead. So by Mark's words, can I or can't I insert a replacement encounter or am I forced to take the RCS suggestion of adding the cave troll's loot to another as-otherwise-written encounter?
That's my point.
I get where you are coming from, but, to me, the difference is vast.
Reward the PLAYERS (Reward Creative Solutions)
Don't let the GM change a mod to fit his version of difficulty. (GM altering mods)
Basically, what is the SOURCE of how things may have changed? The players get to be creative, the GM less so.
|
|
It is the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate weird situations or rule issues that might come up, but that's all. Player A should not play through a module and have the enemies use completely different tactics/abilities than Player B had to handle. (Unless somehow within the scenario the NPC tactics change, etc, etc)
I get you, I really do. I feel mebbe I should reiterate that I fully support the view stated by so many that a module shouldn't be rewritten by a GM.
That being said, I believe the role of the GM is to be a presenter of an interactive experience. We're not watching a movie here where it is exactly the same each time you watch it.
We're not even talking about a so-called-RPG on a gaming console.. we're talking about a human-administered experience. What's the point if a GM can't even vary the script a NPC says? Can a GM make up answers to questions not covered in the mod's writing?
Furthermore, even if a combat is run exactly as written, the randomness of dice is going to raise the possibility of giving players at table A a vastly different experience than at table B. For example, if players score a bunch of high init rolls coupled with a string of crits and kill the BBEG before he even goes... is it really such a crime to 'miracle up' enough extra HP for him to at least give the 'written' climax some pizzaz rather than being a non-event? Am I going to have to worry that if I do this, players at my table might compare notes with players from another table and realize THEIR BBEG had more HP?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.
|
|
And for what it's worth, the game I was in yesterday could've been a LOT nastier if it weren't for FOUR FREAKING CRITS at the hands of myself and my local VC (playing, for a change).
There was also luck of positioning in the ally fight; if my mounted character hadn't been at the tail end, it could have easily been two bad guys vs one "squishie" (the wizard or the gunslinger) who drops in one round -- taking out the gunslinger means no 4d12 crit in the next fight, and a classic downhill snowball of disaster ensues with the PCs all taking a bath in the final encounter.
I will say this, however: the notable lack of clerics in the local vicinity is evidence of the weakness (relative to, say, Living Greyhawk) of PFS modules.
Mods should be scary - maybe not at tier 1-2
I disagree; I think it's best when they're scary right up front at 1st level. Players are going to be far more "let down" when their characters are abruptly killed after seventeen creampuff adventures than they are if they gun down in a nail-biter on their first outing.
The infamous (and pantsloads of fun) Shieldlands Scragholm Cave intro was more dangerous than any Tier 3-4 PFS I've played so far: You could drown, fall to your death after your climbing ropes are cut by bad guys, get flanked by four halfling rogues in the dark, get soul-sucked by undead -- yikes!
|
|
No matter what one thinks of Mike and Mark's decision, at least they gave us their opinions and reasoning behind it. It's no small thing really. Look at the customer response to some of their competitors (*cough cough* gamesworkshop *coughcough*) and you'll appreciate what they do.
That being said, I do need to whip this horse before I appear to be sucking up.
What I take from Michael's post is that the reasoning behind a change differentiates what is allowed and what is not. If the change is in presentation only, it's allowed. For example:
Player: I wanna hide behind a tapestry, preferably a dark one that matches closely with my black boots.
GM: Hrm, well the mod doesn't say much about the room's decor, definately doesn't say what color the tapestries are.. and I'm not allowed to change anything, so just think of something else to try so I don't possibly say the tapestry is a color different than someone else might see at another table...
Is NOT what they're talking about.
On the other hand: If the change alters the difficulty of the encounter, it's NOT allowed. If, for example, a priorty must be made between risk/reward and experiencing a fun climax, the fun is sacrificed for a risk/reward identical to other tables. Not trying to be judgemental, just making sure I fully understand all the implications of a rule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the main point. Why GM for PFS? At this point you have made it a job. One no one is getting paid for, well with some possible exceptions I did see a place in Denver that charges 2 bucks to give the GM, but besides an arrangment like that you have really taken out any of the fun out of GMing by this dogma.
As has been said on numerous occasions in the past, Pathfinder Society is not for everyone. If you feel that GMing a scenario as written is not for you, and is more of a job than pleasure, I encourage you to seek out a home game that better fits your gaming needs. It is why I have my own home game of Pathfinder. Because I follow the rules for PFS like everyone else and run the scenario as written. But, when I want a more creative effort as a GM, I will let go in my home game.
|
|
Deusvult, I often think that "Reward Creative Solutions" is given a much broader scope than the actual wording of the rule in the Guide, much like the former rule that summons Dragnmoon to the discussion. The RCS rule (as written) only ensures that players who roleplay past an encounter (or solve it in another way) still get the treasure they would by defeating it in combat.
This rule has been so much misquoted as of late, I think it will start an auto summon of me as well.
What Neil said, that is all the rule is there for, nothing more.
|
Here is the main point. Why GM for PFS? At this point you have made it a job. One no one is getting paid for, well with some possible exceptions I did see a place in Denver that charges 2 bucks to give the GM, but besides an arrangment like that you have really taken out any of the fun out of GMing by this dogma.
As has been said on numerous occasions in the past, Pathfinder Society is not for everyone. If you feel that GMing a scenario as written is not for you, I encourage you to seek out a home game that better fits your gaming needs.
Ya, it is apparent it is not for everyone. Why I can not get anyone at the college to play it. Some of the suggestions made would make it more appealing to that crowd I think. Thanks for your input though, I'll be sure to share it.
|
|
Of the 15ish sessions I've run, I've TPK'ed a single table (the cleric channeling negative energy in Shipyard Rats). Other than that, no deaths, though I drop characters into the negatives fairly often. I roll all combat rolls in the open, and play enemies as smart as stats allow. I also don't go out of my way to kill characters (once they are down, I generally leave them alone -- unless they've already come back once and are fighting someone both ruthless and smart).
|
|
Of the 15ish sessions I've run, I've TPK'ed a single table (the cleric channeling negative energy in Shipyard Rats). Other than that, no deaths, though I drop characters into the negatives fairly often. I roll all combat rolls in the open, and play enemies as smart as stats allow. I also don't go out of my way to kill characters (once they are down, I generally leave them alone -- unless they've already come back once and are fighting someone both ruthless and smart).
GenCon season 0. I was running at the table near you and had the samething happen. If they just chose a different way out, or not hidden below decks.
Good times, good times...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lots of stuff
I see that I'm quoted at the start of your post... So was that supposed to be a reply to me asking Nimon for clarification on his response to Mark? Because I'm not sure how your post is related to what you quoted from me. Did you mean to quote someone else?
On the other hand: If the change alters the difficulty of the encounter, it's NOT allowed. If, for example, a priorty must be made between risk/reward and experiencing a fun climax, the fun is sacrificed for a risk/reward identical to other tables. Not trying to be judgemental, just making sure I fully understand all the implications of a rule.
Though I'm willing to believe you're not trying to be judgmental, do note that your question bases itself on a false assumption you've made: that you can't have fun without changing things.
When you're able to see that fun and rules do not oppose each other, your questions will answer themselves. Prior to that time, your questions will never be answered to your satisfaction.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The chances that a single method of scaling encounters will ever be both simple and comprehensive enough to do justice to what is a complex rules set and a campaign shared by tens of thousands of players is very low. No matter what method were employed, someone would feel it didn't meet their specific needs; it's a rabbit hole of back and forth adjustments to try to eventually, maybe, hopefully someday, find the right solution.
I get that people want more control as GMs, and we'll continue to look for ways to stretch what the campaign permits. Antagonism and ultimatums don't help make a strong case, however, and actually make it less likely that we devote our valuable time to reading such comments. Any change or policy we do institute won't just be a knee-jerk reaction to a few vocal posters claiming that PFS can never be any good unless we do a specific thing. As I said upthread, the best way to see change applied to the campaign it by reviewing scenarios and pointing out places where things worked and where they didn't.
But consider that when we release a scenario it's gone through an extensive development process to try to get the balance right for as many types (and sizes) of groups as possible before anyone sees it. That's much of what my job is. There will always be outliers, but that doesn't mean we can't head off a lot of issues in the scenarios themselves, and feedback on specific situations that were and weren't problem areas is incredibly valuable.
When you agree to GM a game, or when you sit down to play, you're accepting a set of unspoken tenets of playing in an organized play program—the honor system. One of those is that you'll do your best to provide a good time without severely altering the scenario. Can a GM change things at his table and never "get caught" for doing so? Sure. But it's a violation of the honor system that holds any RPG campaign together. In a home game that honor system takes the form of players agreeing not to lie about their dice rolls or not buying their own copy of the AP and reading ahead; in PFS, that means you agree to try to operate within the rules of the campaign as closely as possible, including running scenarios as written. If that's not part of the honor system you want to agree to, then you are welcome to find a campaign that is a better fit.
|
|
I see that I'm quoted at the start of your post... So was that supposed to be a reply to me asking Nimon for clarification on his response to Mark? Because I'm not sure how your post is related to what you quoted from me. Did you mean to quote someone else?
No, I quoted you and I meant to.
Your suggestion in response to a poster who expressed a view I don't support (I am, however, sympathetic to some of his objections) was your saying "or that you'd consider quitting rather than try to wrangle up enough GMs to afford smaller tables?"
This appeared blithely cavalier to me and seemed to suggest that the poster was just going to "quit" rather than "try [harder]". Subtext: try hard enough.
Some of us are trying pretty damned hard, ok?
I do wish to make it clear that I don't rewrite modules on the fly and I run them as they are written.
I have still experienced a significant amount of poor play balance as a result of running tables of six players (or 7, yuck)-- every single time I have run a PFS scenario for six players, actually. I can do the underlying arithmetic as well as anybody else. I am well able to understand the balance problem and why it happens.
While I am also sympathetic to the idea of not letting GMs make ad hoc changes on the fly, if there were official rules to address the imbalance caused by too many players at the table, then it wouldn't be arbitrary GM discretion: it would be running the module by the book. While such an approach isn't a magic wand, it would go a long way towards addressing the situation in an objective manner.
Right now, there seems to be little interest in addressing this issue at an official level.
|
|
Right now, there seems to be little interest in addressing this issue at an official level.
So, I guess you missed the 225 post thread were this very thing was addressed HERE and the large outcry was that people didn't want seven player tables banned.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, I quoted you and I meant to.I see that I'm quoted at the start of your post... So was that supposed to be a reply to me asking Nimon for clarification on his response to Mark? Because I'm not sure how your post is related to what you quoted from me. Did you mean to quote someone else?
Ah, I see what you're saying now. I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood my question to Nimon. I wasn't commenting on what anyone should or should not or is or is not or could or could not be doing.
I saw Mark make say thing A and thing B, and Nimon said "which is why..."
I was merely asking whether the "which" referred to A, B, or both.
That's all. A simple matter of linguistic clarification. No response, implicit or otherwise, was intended. And I definitely was not saying that anyone's not trying hard enough to get GMs.
Merely clarifying pronouns. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
As one of Steel_Wind’s players, I have to applaud his sterling success in never turning anyone away. On the other hand, in the ten sessions I have played, I have twice been at tables of seven. Tables of seven produce very slow games, even if the optional encounter is dropped. The players may be able to swarm the monsters but the deliberations, the declarations of actions and the need to carry out game mechanics really slow things down. What can be done?
First, more people should become GMs. I vaguely expressed a willingness to GM. I guess tomorrow I will remind Steel_Wind of my offer. I much prefer to play but running 6-12 sessions a year would hardly be onerous.
Second, every monster could be given stats like these: hp 6 [8] (d10+1). The hit points in square brackets are for parties of six or seven.
Third, a certain amount of hand waving should be allowed to speed things up. In The Frost Fur Captives,
Fourth, why not have seven players play the next tier up? I once saw a GM (not Steel_Wind) do this and everyone managed to survive. Of course, the players were mostly second level and one was third.
@ Michael Brock
Steel_Wind seemed to be decrying the lack of official interest in scalability. I don’t think he was suggesting banning tables of seven.
So, yes, parties of seven are not much fun but they do reduce player deaths.
Thanks,
Kodger
|
|
So, I guess you missed the 225 post thread were this very thing was addressed HERE and the large outcry was that people didn't want seven player tables banned.
No, I read that at the time Michael. I don't want them banned either.
Don't get me wrong. I'm *not* a fan of seven player tables. I dislike them for balance reasons and like them even less for the slow pace of play they bring to a session. In the grand pecking order of PFS sessions, seven player tables are just about the stinkiest sessions there are.
That said, despite the fact that they are often loathsome to run, I recognize that they are a necessary evil at times from an organizational point of view. I HATE turning players away for any reason. I want people to play. Yes, even if that means (rarely, please!) GMing a seven player table.
The problem with seven player tables which recur as a default model for organizational planning -- as opposed to the emergency band-aid status that they are supposed to have -- could well be a problem. I haven't had that emerge at our stores and I'll be DAMNED if I will let it happen here, too. If it is happening as a default organizational plan in some locales, I can see the impetus to just ban them outright.
The "no interest at an official level" I was referring to was in relation to providing an across the board objective increase to monsters in a module dependent upon the size of the party.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "no interest at an official level" I was referring to was in relation to providing an across the board objective increase to monsters in a module dependent upon the size of the party.
Just because we currently have other things taking higher priority than this issue does not mean there is no interest in looking into possible solutions. Making this sort of additional rule would have sweeping consequences that all need to be looked into from a design and development standpoint before we do anything, and we aren't likely to talk publicly about anything we're doing until we're sure we're at least mostly on the right track.
As Mike has indicated in his month on the job, when we implement or change campaign rules, we will try to include the community as much as possible. But that doesn't mean we'll address every issue immediately when someone calls for a revisit or revamp of a particular element of the campaign.
Feedback is welcome, but patience is appreciated even more.
Fourth, why not have seven players play the next tier up?
This kind of seems the solution that is already waiting to be used... But it seems reasonable to CODIFY it, i.e. require it.
The current system cares about Average Party Level, but doesn`t care about Party Size... i.e. ignores half of the CR vs. APL equation. Why not institutionalize the other half of that equation?
6 or 7 characters of the same level as a party of 4 characters should probably ALWAYS `play up` at the next tier. Maybe even a party of 5 if they are all at the high end of their tier... It could even get specific into whether characters are exactly of their level, or have an adventure or two under their belt (i.e. extra wealth) to determine when the Party Size * APL should force the game to the `next Tier`. I don`t know if that would prevent the larger parties whose APL is already at the high end of allowed levels from playing a module... but those seem like the groups for whom large parties are definitely making things too easy.
|
|
On the other hand: If the change alters the difficulty of the encounter, it's NOT allowed. If, for example, a priorty must be made between risk/reward and experiencing a fun climax, the fun is sacrificed for a risk/reward identical to other tables. Not trying to be judgemental, just making sure I fully understand all the implications of a rule.Though I'm willing to believe you're not trying to be judgmental, do note that your question bases itself on a false assumption you've made: that you can't have fun without changing things.
When you're able to see that fun and rules do not oppose each other, your questions will answer themselves. Prior to that time, your questions will never be answered to your satisfaction.
I agree with most everything said, but the one thing I respectfully disagree about is that I feel that there are RARE situations that a GM 'should' be allowed to fudge a scenario if NOT doing so sacrifices fun. (players missing out on the chance to appreciate a mod's capstone encounter/climax because of their own success/lucky dice being an example I provided). A real-to-life example of this is a GM who, after running us through Delerium's Tangle, bemoaned about how when *he* ran it they killed the BBEG in one round and never even knew about all the unique stuff in that encounter until he GM'd it. My position is that his GM shoulda/woulda/coulda preserved the BBEG long enough to give his players a taste of that very unique encounter because they were otherwise denied expieriencing it.
I'm fully aware however that the vagarities of 'rare' and 'should' are words that cannot make a viable rule. I respect that they have to hold the line on their vision of PFS OP. For example, in the real-life version of my example, had that GM preserved the BBEG too long or overly much the PCs had the risk of dying or using up expendables.. and they can't/won't set aside the time to vet GMs who are experienced enough to be trusted with such a call from those who are not. (again, for serious, not being snarky. how could they even run such a process, should they decide they even wanted to?)
So I like everyone else who doesn't like every little thing about this 'new' clarification have some choices.
1. Recognize that only Mike & Mark are Mike & Mark and decide to not dwell on the bad in order to focus on what we DO like about PFS OP.
2. Decide that the bad is just so bad that it's not worth continuing on with OP and stick to home games instead.
Fourth, why not have seven players play the next tier up?This kind of seems the solution that is already waiting to be used... But it seems reasonable to CODIFY it, i.e. require it.
The current system cares about Average Party Level, but doesn`t care about Party Size... i.e. ignores half of the CR vs. APL equation. Why not institutionalize the other half of that equation?
6 or 7 characters of the same level as a party of 4 characters should probably ALWAYS `play up` at the next tier. Maybe even a party of 5 if they are all at the high end of their tier... It could even get specific into whether characters are exactly of their level, or have an adventure or two under their belt (i.e. extra wealth) to determine when the Party Size * APL should force the game to the `next Tier`. I don`t know if that would prevent the larger parties whose APL is already at the high end of allowed levels from playing a module... but those seem like the groups for whom large parties are definitely making things too easy.
Playing up is frequently suicidal. I can think of at least one mod where 3-4 puts a single target in danger, but playing up to 6-7 gets the entire party hit by a 9th level empowered fireball in the surprise round.
Adding mooks for larger party sizes worked in LG and is used in LFR too, but I don't know if there are restrictions on Paizo adopting the same process as a result.
|
|
As some have already said, there are no simple and easy ways of increasing difficulty for those GMs and players who wish that. All the presented methods all have their little problems and it all would just create another topic of how it's screwed up and the game sucks etc.
Before my 2 year hiatus I heavily modified the scenarios out of frustration (lack of quality, mostly). Now however I run them as written and still way too often I feel like I made a mistake; the session's experience is clearly diminished if I run certain parts as written instead of giving it the certain spice I feel is necessary.
I don't think the easiness of the scenarios is the problem, but the inconsistancy of the difficulty. As some have said most are cakewalks but in the midst of these are some like Crypt of Fools, Rules of the Swift, and a load of Season 0 scenarios. Since you never know if a scenario is deadly an experienced player needs to build a character by the highest standard. Afterwards he/she will encounter scenarios where his/her character is overqualified. If all the scenarios would be cakewalks without exception, it'd be easier to build a character and tell other players "Don't powerplay one bit, these scenarios don't need it".
Then again I've met players who absolutely hate to gimp their characters. They don't want to take a lousy feat just to stay in level with the scenarios. I can't blame them, as I too hate to go by the lowest standard.
Very often players under my control wish to play up ... actually nearly always. One particular example is Delirium's Tangle, in which Tier 3-4 is easy even for APL 1-2. They are willing to take the risk and seems like they'd be overjoyed if their characters would die! Go figure. Anyway clearly it's not just a GM issue, it's a player issue.
|
|
I'm sniffing this thread and I'm getting an overwhelming odour of people saying the problem is 'too hard' to solve.
It's not too hard to add minions to fix cakewalk combats. Let's playtest it and find out. Let's ensure Pathfinders aren't adventurers who only fight when the numbers are on their side.
Won't anyone think of the lovingly-crafted yet dead-in-one-round BBEGs?
|
|
Another factor for Michael to consider is faction prestige. If GMs are fair game to be constrained, how about players? What's good for the goose...
I understand the desire to protect players from GMs with ambitions larger than their wisdom/experience can support. I understand how in organized play resources are much more finite than in home games... burning an extra potion of cure medium wounds is 300g out of a hard, measurable maximum gold a character will ever earn. I have to say I empathise with the desire to protect players from having to burn up gold compared to players who don't.. over the course of only a few chronicles it snowballs up to a very distinct advantage/disadvantage.
I wonder if they give the same consideration to the behavior of the players themselves.
For example: If players at one table willfully ignore the 'intent' of OP to have secret faction missions and go so far as to actively assist each other in completing them.. these players, over the course of a few chronicles, will accumulate fame/prestige at a marked advantage over those who play 'as intended' and just go ahead and fail missions requiring skills they don't have, etc.
if its the official stance that GMs have to forgo some aspects of personal preference of presentation.. is it also going to be the official stance that Players are going to be banned from assisting 'cross-faction'?
If this is all about an equitable experience, seems to me that a stance must also be taken to ensure everyone acquires fame/prestige (a form of resource in PFS OP) in an equitable way.
|
|
Deusvult, I often think that "Reward Creative Solutions" is given a much broader scope than the actual wording of the rule in the Guide, much like the former rule that summons Dragnmoon to the discussion. The RCS rule (as written) only ensures that players who roleplay past an encounter (or solve it in another way) still get the treasure they would by defeating it in combat.
My mistake. It's not in that 'Eward-ray Reative-cay Olutions-say' section. I was referencing a different section of the rules entirely.
But what if your players accidentally or intentionally
kill an important NPC who was supposed to give them
a crucial piece of information in order for the scenario
to progress? This is a tough one for the GM and requires
improvisation. Don’t decide the scenario is over just
because the old man with the letter was caught in a
magical crossfire and roasted alive, destroying both him
and the important letter. Reveal that the letter survived
by some freakish miracle (it was in a fire-proof pouch in
his pocket) or maybe that the old man had a lackey who
was watching from a nearby alley and knows everything
the old man did, and so on. Improvisation will keep your
scenario moving forward and will help get you around
unforeseen obstacles.
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play
campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to
all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly
the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly
oppressive script. As such, we understand that sometimes
a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the
fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope
with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of
the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society Game Master, you have the
right and responsibility to make such calls as you feel
are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has
a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you
can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this
document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com,
but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases
not covered in these sources.
items in bold=emphasis mine
Even though the Table variation text seems to directly support fudging dice/HP total in order to let a rofl-stomped BBEG live for a round or two to provide something of a capstone to an adventure, I'm chosing to interpret Micheal & Mark's stance that improvosation IS still perfectly legal, as suggested in the PFS OP ruleset itself... barring changes that cause extra expenditures of resource. (their cited reason for restricting GM modification)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why not have seven players play the next tier up?
I want to point at the elephant in the room, and offer a solution: stop letting it in.
I.E., stop scheduling 7 player tables. In two years of PFS at my store, with over 200 tables reported, I can only remember two instances where a 7 player table was put together.
How is that possible, you ask? We schedule in advance. We limit sign-ups to six, and if a seventh goes on the list, he is told he will not be playing unless someone drops from the table by the day before. If that happens, we notify the "alternate" by phone or email and invite him to the store.
Now, I'm sure many of you will say, "Then you're turning players away." No, we're not. We're adhering to a reservation list. We offer the same module multiple times throughout the month, so those players will have plenty of opportunity to play the same module at some other time. In all the time we've been doing this (again, over two years, and over 200 tables), we've turned away players exactly once - three people showed up unannounced, expecting to be able to sit and play Pathfinder, having no idea what PFS was, and our tables were already full. I took them aside, explained the Open Play system, started them building characters, and signed them up for the next "Beginners" game we were running a week later. They were thrilled with the treatment.
Good planning solves many things. Please try that, first, before saying that power level has to be ramped up to accommodate big tables.
[EDIT]
As someone else mentioned, if setting up 7 player tables is becoming the default method of handling "scheduling," then I understand why banning them is being considered. I was originally on the side of not banning them, as they are one more tool in an organizer's arsenal. But, as I mentioned above, it is something that should only need to be used sparingly. If it's becoming the norm, then it needs to go away. I would very likely consider changing my stance, if evidence comes out about this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before my 2 year hiatus I heavily modified the scenarios out of frustration (lack of quality, mostly). Now however I run them as written and still way too often I feel like I made a mistake; the session's experience is clearly diminished if I run certain parts as written instead of giving it the certain spice I feel is necessary.
For the love of whatever God I pray to: Deussu, talk to your local coordinator and see about getting a free hand to run the scenario making the necessary and appropriate adjustments you need to make it fun for the party. I trust you to do it right.
Don't feel the need to adhere to a false ideal and run a bad mod.
Your players only get to play in each scenario once and you should be making the best experience possible. You're doing a disservice to your players otherwise.
Deussu, you and your local coordinator know your players better than I do or anyone else does. You know what your group needs to put on a good table.
I'm not saying rewrite the scenario, change the factions missions, or anything crazy.
But you want to mookify it up or go advanced template on a few, DO IT.
Do it for yourself, for your group, and for the Pathfinder Society.
Don't run badly-fitting mods that make you and your players sad.
Run well tailored mods that challenge and excite your players.
-Pain
PFS is not the cake walk it used to be. There has been a decent increase of the difficulties of scenarios, starting with Season 2.For what it's worth, I GMed a TPK this weekend with a Season 1 scenario. (And that was after deciding that the scenario as written was wrong, and that natural attacks shouldn't get iteratives for high BAB.)
Ugh...that's my least favourite scenario I've played to date.
I actually like challenge variation in scenarios. If you can charge into every fight without worrying then where's the fun in that? Likewise if every single combat is a brutal fight to the death then it can get wearing. A varied world where you never know the difficulty of a fight until you're in it is ideal. Mystery is good.
Spice can be used to add flavour and it can also become so overpowering it kills the dish. Everyone's taste is different and I'd rather see time spent on elaborating details and background than another mook being added to a fight. My response to Deussu therefore depends on what his spice consists of.
|
|
So, I guess you missed the 225 post thread were this very thing was addressed HERE and the large outcry was that people didn't want seven player tables banned.
The problem is, the system doesn't break down only for 7 player tables, it also breaks down for 6 player tables. It even breaks down when comparing a level 1 party and a level 2 party; a scenario that challenges a level 2 has a good chance of TPKing a level 1 party.
GMs are looking for solutions to the scaling problems that we're having. Telling us that we can't modify scenarios isn't helpful, it's just antagonistic. In addition, it's not even realistic since there's so many missing details that aren't included in the scenarios, GMs make up stuff all the time. You have to.
Also, we need a bit of a reality check, almost every GM has tweaked scenarios from time to time. In my experience, most of my GMs have made tweaks: fluff, stats, added hp, add mooks, etc. Is Mike Brock going to tell me he hasn't done this in the past? Sure he has.
Also, the scenario tweaks I've seen have only made the scenarios better. Have some faith in your GMs.
Anyway, disappointing answers, answers that kill creativity. I think a softer approach such as "we strongly prefer" to be much better (so GMs can make minor adjustments depending on their group), but I suppose you're almost forced to make that your official answer, so I guess I don't blame you.
|
|
Also, we need a bit of a reality check, almost every GM has tweaked scenarios from time to time. In my experience, most of my GMs have made tweaks: fluff, stats, added hp, add mooks, etc. Is Mike Brock going to tell me he hasn't done this in the past? Sure he has.
IMO, this is not a justification for continuing to do it. I admit to having made fundamental changes to encounters in the past, but I no longer do that. I challenge myself to come up with ways to improve the challenges within the scope of what's written and the rules. Am I 100% successful, no. But, I'm not 100% successful with GM caveat either. Fortunately, I have not killed a PC when I was deviating, but I'm sure it was inevitable over time.
Also, the scenario tweaks I've seen have only made the scenarios better. Have some faith in your GMs.
And there are a lot of posters who have experienced the opposite where the "tweaks" resulted in PC deaths or excessive use of resources. Either way, the player can claim they were treated unfairly in comparison to others who played the same scenario.
Anyway, disappointing answers, answers that kill creativity. I think a softer approach such as "we strongly prefer" to be much better (so GMs can make minor adjustments depending on their group), but I suppose you're almost forced to make that your official answer, so I guess I don't blame you.
The former "Play Play Play" demonstrates why there is a hard-line stance on this issue. The society has shown that if you softball the rules, they will be exploited, often to our detriment.
IMO, for the time being, we need to hold to the current rule and avoid making changes to scenarios. I expect that rules for scenario adjustments based on table variation will be examined and implemented if it can be done in a way to improve society gameplay.
|
While I am personally on the side of the fence that - in general - wants more challenge to mods, I also see the purpose in running them as they are written - it standardizes things and levels the playing field, well, at least in theory it does....
Combining that idea with something TK said:
And there are a lot of posters who have experienced the opposite where the "tweaks" resulted in PC deaths or excessive use of resources. Either way, the player can claim they were treated unfairly in comparison to others who played the same scenario.
I still see a problem. For instance...I had a character killed once because the GM messed up the rules, even though he was following tactics, etc. This wasn't found out until much later, and c'est la vie, I had paid my due and didn't really care. I have seen this happen in other ways as well.
My point being that running with "GM Caveat" or having a GM screwing up a mod they are running "as written" or even having a lucky GM can all lead to someone feeling they were treated unfairly.
But you know what? I'm going to go back to something we all forget...that's life, sometimes it's unfair, and so are games.
What I do believe as well though, is that if GMs understand rules and use a little common sense along with running the mods "as written", that many times you can make a great experience for your players and still stay within "the box." It just takes a little appropriate creativity within that box.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My point being that running with "GM Caveat" or having a GM screwing up a mod they are running "as written" or even having a lucky GM can all lead to someone feeling they were treated unfairly.
I would contest the notion of putting those three things on equal footing. Can they all lead to a PC death? Yes. Do they all lead to the same feeling of unfair treatment? No.
I've had lucky GMs crit the snot out of me. I've had GMs get the rules wrong (and I either didn't catch it or didn't push it). I've had GMs make stuff up to make things harder.
And it's only the third item that left me with any sort of sour feelings whatsoever.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
As a frequent PFS GM, I admit, sometimes I look at the stat-block and the tactics and ask "why would they do that?" But the CR is based off of the tactics, wrong or right, clever or insane.
One thing I have noticed it that in most PFS scenarios, the GM is given a lot of leeway depending on the starting position of the BBEG on the map. Just about everyone knows that tactically speaking, position can be everything in a battle! Even something this small can change an encounter.
The GM is asked to run things "by the book"... but there are times when the tactics listed only go so far, dice rolls on both sides require the GM to "think outside the box" as to what to do next. I see more TPKs when THIS occurs than anything else.
|
|
Before my 2 year hiatus I heavily modified the scenarios out of frustration (lack of quality, mostly). Now however I run them as written and still way too often I feel like I made a mistake; the session's experience is clearly diminished if I run certain parts as written instead of giving it the certain spice I feel is necessary.For the love of whatever God I pray to: Deussu, talk to your local coordinator and see about getting a free hand to run the scenario making the necessary and appropriate adjustments you need to make it fun for the party. I trust you to do it right.
Don't feel the need to adhere to a false ideal and run a bad mod.
Your players only get to play in each scenario once and you should be making the best experience possible. You're doing a disservice to your players otherwise.
Deussu, you and your local coordinator know your players better than I do or anyone else does. You know what your group needs to put on a good table.
I'm not saying rewrite the scenario, change the factions missions, or anything crazy.
But you want to mookify it up or go advanced template on a few, DO IT.
Do it for yourself, for your group, and for the Pathfinder Society.
Don't run badly-fitting mods that make you and your players sad.
Run well tailored mods that challenge and excite your players.
-Pain
Point 1: I am the local coordinator. I actually sent a venture-captain application some time ago but didn't get through for whatever the reason.
Point 2: I'd love to adjust the scenarios, really, I wish I'd be allowed. But last time I was rebellious and almost completely disregarded certain rules given by Joshua J. Frost (campaign coordinator at the time). I don't want to disobey the coordinators another time. I prefer to see reviews and pick the best scenarios, but unfortunately the reviews aren't always ... very accurate. Last disappointment was Beggar's Pearl, from Season 1.
Point 3: Even though the scenario might be bad, the players often make the session fun anyway. It might be just me who feels like the scenario lacked stuff; I can't tell from the players' faces outright.
Solution to everything: Add alcohol, it makes all scenarios fun. ;)
|
Before my 2 year hiatus I heavily modified the scenarios out of frustration (lack of quality, mostly). Now however I run them as written and still way too often I feel like I made a mistake; the session's experience is clearly diminished if I run certain parts as written instead of giving it the certain spice I feel is necessary.For the love of whatever God I pray to: Deussu, talk to your local coordinator and see about getting a free hand to run the scenario making the necessary and appropriate adjustments you need to make it fun for the party. I trust you to do it right.
Don't feel the need to adhere to a false ideal and run a bad mod.
Your players only get to play in each scenario once and you should be making the best experience possible. You're doing a disservice to your players otherwise.
Deussu, you and your local coordinator know your players better than I do or anyone else does. You know what your group needs to put on a good table.
I'm not saying rewrite the scenario, change the factions missions, or anything crazy.
But you want to mookify it up or go advanced template on a few, DO IT.
Do it for yourself, for your group, and for the Pathfinder Society.
Don't run badly-fitting mods that make you and your players sad.
Run well tailored mods that challenge and excite your players.
-Pain
While I completely agree with your stance (and have benefitted from it in the past!), Grandmaster Brock's statement also makes it an illegal stance.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I completely agree with your stance (and have benefitted from it in the past!), Grandmaster Brock's statement also makes it an illegal stance.
Yep. I'm a big cheater face. Like many, many, many judges out there who change mods and will continue to change mods.
And I freely admit such because I believe that an open, thoughtful discussion of how and when to change and adjust scenarios properly is better than no discussion at all.
I respect PFS management's position, however, it's not in the best interest of PFS, nor my local players, to continue to pretend there is any value whatever into not giving local coordinators say and control over what happens with their games.
What?
This issue really isn't changing scenarios. It's about the right of local coordinators doing what is best for their gamers and local players within a commonly understood framework.
(Keep in mind my Core Tenets as a reference for these thoughts.)
For the record, my position isn't that people should be allowed to change scenarios all willy-nilly, but that local coordinators should have right to empower their judges to make reasonable and intelligent changes to better suit their local play groups.
If problems arise with a particular game or judge, local players can talk to the local coordinator about a resolution or problems (just like they can/should now if there are rules issues or problems).
In the end, it is always the local coordinator who is responsible for the happiness of their players. I trust them to empower their judges for the best effect of their gamers.
My players are my bosses. I'm responsible to *them* as a collective. They can vote me off the island...or just not come back to game with me. They are my bottom line. And I believe I can run better PFS scenarios for *them* within the framework of the campaign by allowing my judges more freedom with changes in the scenarios.
Your reality may vary. You may be a local coordinator who thinks scenarios should be run exactly as written, no changes. I support that. I trust you to do what is best for your playgroup.
However, I believe my players respond better to intelligent and thoughtful changes (both up *and* down) based on party composition/numbers/power level/experience, etc.
Just to be more clear: I don't change that many scenarios. And when I do, it's just as often to prevent at TPK as it is to make things more challenging. When I'm running a table with 6 or 7 players, there probably will be some extra mooks or Advanced Templating. When I'm playing with 3 newbs and a pregen, sometimes other changes are made.
-Pain
|
|
So, I guess you missed the 225 post thread were this very thing was addressed HERE and the large outcry was that people didn't want seven player tables banned.The problem is, the system doesn't break down only for 7 player tables, it also breaks down for 6 player tables. It even breaks down when comparing a level 1 party and a level 2 party; a scenario that challenges a level 2 has a good chance of TPKing a level 1 party.
GMs are looking for solutions to the scaling problems that we're having. Telling us that we can't modify scenarios isn't helpful, it's just antagonistic. In addition, it's not even realistic since there's so many missing details that aren't included in the scenarios, GMs make up stuff all the time. You have to.
Also, we need a bit of a reality check, almost every GM has tweaked scenarios from time to time. In my experience, most of my GMs have made tweaks: fluff, stats, added hp, add mooks, etc. Is Mike Brock going to tell me he hasn't done this in the past? Sure he has.
Also, the scenario tweaks I've seen have only made the scenarios better. Have some faith in your GMs.
Anyway, disappointing answers, answers that kill creativity. I think a softer approach such as "we strongly prefer" to be much better (so GMs can make minor adjustments depending on their group), but I suppose you're almost forced to make that your official answer, so I guess I don't blame you.
+1
A couple of thoughts:
Before the choir who thinks M&M's posts sound like mana from heaven throw out the PFS OP ruleset.. lets take another look.
As I mentioned previously, the PFS OP rules clearly say improvosation and making minor tweaks is not just a right but a responsibility. Furthermore, I feel I'm completely correct when I point out that the PFS OP ruleset does not include posts in a discussion thread as a valid source of formal rules-changes. Until 'no changes' is in the FAQ, it's not binding.
Thirdly, I bring all this up not to deny M&M's posted statements but to put them in context. I can only assume that they're working on some more formal rules behind their own big GM screen away from our eyes, and they delved into this thread simply to moderate at first, and try to give some direction they plan on going in at some point in the future when they DO have some codified scaling rules they're comfortable with.