RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
During recent discussions about GMing, rules, and authority; there's been quite a bit of conflict.
Amid said conflict, Mark Moreland and Michael Brock have both stepped forward and - in a united voice - stated the position of PFS... a position not universally liked.
With the outspoken ideas of an over-represented minority seeming to drown out the rest, I've become worried that Mark and Michael might begin to feel that it's them against the world.
Thus, I felt it important that I (and anyone else who feels as I do) step forward and make it known that I not only accept, but also agree with and fully support what M&M are doing with PFS, up to and including the exhortation for GMs to run scenarios as written.
Keep up the good work, guys.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ehn.
I'll throw in.
I accept their rulings, of course.
Agree with and fully support? Well, the latter definately. The former, mostly. The difference between mostly agree and completely agree is literally another thread.
At any rate, what they're doing is an example of good customer service, so that's to be commended.
|
During recent discussions about GMing, rules, and authority; there's been quite a bit of conflict.
Amid said conflict, Mark Moreland and Michael Brock have both stepped forward and - in a united voice - stated the position of PFS... a position not universally liked.
With the outspoken ideas of an over-represented minority seeming to drown out the rest, I've become worried that Mark and Michael might begin to feel that it's them against the world.
Thus, I felt it important that I (and anyone else who feels as I do) step forward and make it known that I not only accept, but also agree with and fully support what M&M are doing with PFS, up to and including the exhortation for GMs to run scenarios as written.
Keep up the good work, guys.
+1
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I, for one, have a massive amount of respect for what they are doing. In the last month I've seen more action on items deserving attention than I had seen in the prior 12 (or more).
Now, do I fully agree with everything? No. But that's the nature of the beast.
You can sure bet I'll fully support it, though.
Yep, I may not agree with every ruling but there has to consistency and that means one GM has to rule them all, or two in this case... :-)
I agree completely that scenarios should be run as written.
The level of communication and transparency going on with these two guys is amazing. You never see that sort of thing in a company. This level of customer service is almost unheard of in this day and age.
Thanks guys for working so hard, and for putting up with so much.
|
I accept their rulings, of course.
Agree with and fully support? Well, the latter definately. The former, mostly. The difference between mostly agree and completely agree is literally another thread.
At any rate, what they're doing is an example of good customer service, so that's to be commended.
Pretty much this.
The level of communication and transparency going on with these two guys is amazing. You never see that sort of thing in a company. This level of customer service is almost unheard of in this day and age.
Thanks guys for working so hard, and for putting up with so much.
And this.
As Mike said in the "PFS too safe" thread, PFS is not for everyone. It's not an MMO version of my home game, where I'm free to cut-and-paste as I see fit.
I personally don't like the hard line, stifling, creativity killing answers, so I can't say I support what's going on.
It's fair to feel that way, but I hope you acknowledge that they are trying to find a good balance. They opened the conversations up to everyone, to get a feel for what the customer base wants, and they made their decisions from there. Even if some people may not like the decisions, they were made in the interest of protecting the integrity of the game. I tend to agree with most decisions made by these guys; on the off chance that I don't, I just couldn't be mad at them for trying to make things better, and would respect their experience-educated and much-considered views. I don't think anything they do is done lightly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I personally don't like the hard line, stifling, creativity killing answers, so I can't say I support what's going on. Sorry.
Sorry, just couldn't resist. ;)
All teasing aside, a certain professional game designer is fond of the saying "restriction breeds creativity". Putting a limit on something actually fosters MORE creativity because the person can no longer just take the obvious/easy/lazy/simple/whatever route that they might otherwise have settled for.
Anyone can make an encounter harder if they're given free reign. But only the creative GMs will be able to keep it interesting while sticking to the scenario as written.
The rule does not kill creativity, as you suggest; rather, it encourages GMs to be creative instead of simply throwing more mooks/HP/AC at people.
In any case, however, you certainly don't have to like it. And please understand that I think no less of you (or anyone else) on grounds of not liking the "run it as written" directive. Different strokes, and all that.
|
|
Putting a limit on something actually fosters MORE creativity because the person can no longer just take the obvious/easy/lazy/simple/whatever route that they might otherwise have settled for.
Sure, I agree, and the limit is the framework and spirit of the scenario.
I'm just curious, as a player, are you satisfied if you just smash every encounter in a scenario, knowing that 50%+ of the party doesn't even need to be there? Do you like it when an encounter is over in 1 round and most of the party hasn't even acted yet? I'm just curious.
Anyone can make an encounter harder if they're given free reign. But only the creative GMs will be able to keep it interesting while sticking to the scenario as written.
I've 'played up' most of the time recently and we still stomped everything, sometimes embarassingly. In your statement above, you're basically (unfairly) calling those GMs uncreative, because not only did we play up, we did it with ease. I don't feel they were uncreative, I feel like they played the scenario by the book, and that was the result. Mediocre gaming. I WISH they made changes, maybe my review would have been different, but at least I would have had a lot more fun.
My point is, if a GM can't change anything, there's only so much he can do. You can't have both consistency and inconsistency at the same time.
Sorry, just couldn't resist. ;)
I think your statement above is not very fair as well as not being very nice. Any GM that makes changes does it for the players, for their enjoyment. If I'm not making my players happy, I'm not happy.
While I'm glad you liked my previous quote enough to remember it, quite frankly I'm just tired of the entire re-skinning debate and I just want it to be over. Clearly I'm in favor of re-skinning, I strongly prefer creativity.
The rule does not kill creativity, as you suggest; rather, it encourages GMs to be creative instead of simply throwing more mooks/HP/AC at people.
Well, it kind of does. I personally never add mooks, hp, AC, but I do make changes. 95% of the time, for the better. Small changes that keep the spirit of the scenario enhance it, they don't detract.
I guess to each their own, but the lack of creative input into scenarios account for all of the mediocre experiences I've had in PFS.
As a GM, I don't want to be a robot that recites the scenario, and I don't want that from my GMs either.
I don't necessarily need 100% consistency between GMs for a scenario to be interesting, I'd rather assume each session has it's own FLAVOR (and hopefully it's not bland!). This isn't a job and this is supposed to be a creative game, for everyone. I'm actually very shocked that most GMs would prefer to be robots, but this explains a lot I suppose.
Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.
|
|
During recent discussions about GMing, rules, and authority; there's been quite a bit of conflict.
Amid said conflict, Mark Moreland and Michael Brock have both stepped forward and - in a united voice - stated the position of PFS... a position not universally liked.
With the outspoken ideas of an over-represented minority seeming to drown out the rest, I've become worried that Mark and Michael might begin to feel that it's them against the world.
Thus, I felt it important that I (and anyone else who feels as I do) step forward and make it known that I not only accept, but also agree with and fully support what M&M are doing with PFS, up to and including the exhortation for GMs to run scenarios as written.
Keep up the good work, guys.
+1
I'm not going to lie; I like the way PFS has "perked up" recently, and I support what is coming down from the top. No question, when I'm running a scenario as written and the Pathfinders are pounding encounters out of the park with little effort, it can be disheartening. But that is the organized part of Organized Play; all else being equal, each player should get the same experience from a given scenario.
Because of things like OGL vs PFRPG scenarios and the like, there are going to be imbalances that crop up. If you are a GM/organizer, really the best thing to do is report anything you consider to be a true imbalance. Then trust Mark/Mike to do what needs to be done. Things can't change overnight, so give them room to work!
|
|
I respect the decisions passed down from TPTB, even if I may not like each individual ruling, because I trust that they know what they are doing and have the greater good of the campaign in mind.
Side note: Is there a particular thread(s) that this thread is a response to? If so, can someone give me a link?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Putting a limit on something actually fosters MORE creativity because the person can no longer just take the obvious/easy/lazy/simple/whatever route that they might otherwise have settled for.Sure, I agree, and the limit is the framework and spirit of the scenario.
Agreed. I don't think what's written in the scenarios is so comprehensive that a GM doesn't have any wiggle room left. In fact, depending on what exactly you actually do, you might already be running the scenarios as written. I've noticed since last replying to you that some people are not realizing just how open-ended the scenarios can be and therefore overestimating the impact of the restriction being given. So I can't really say for sure without knowing how your run your games, but you may not even be affected by this.
I'm just curious, as a player, are you satisfied if you just smash every encounter in a scenario, knowing that 50%+ of the party doesn't even need to be there? Do you like it when an encounter is over in 1 round and most of the party hasn't even acted yet? I'm just curious.
If it ever gets to the point that this is always the case, I wouldn't like it. But it's not. Some encounters/scenarios get steamrolled like that. And that's okay. Variety is nice, because it keeps me guessing. Sometimes I'm in a super-team in a scenario that turns out to be kind of soft and I can have fun feeling like a superhero. Other times, I'm in a more "average" team in a harder mod and things get more tense. And even better, sometimes I think it's going to be the former and it turns out to be the latter, and then it gets really exciting!
So far, my experience has been variety, and I'd like it to stay that way.
I've 'played up' most of the time recently and we still stomped everything, sometimes embarassingly. In your statement above, you're basically (unfairly) calling those GMs uncreative, because not only did we play up, we did it with ease. I don't feel they were uncreative, I feel like they played the scenario by the book, and that was the result. Mediocre gaming. I WISH they made changes, maybe my review would have been different, but at least I would have had a lot more fun.
Anyone can make an encounter harder if they're given free reign. But only the creative GMs will be able to keep it interesting while sticking to the scenario as written.
"This scenario was pretty lame and unchallenging" is exactly the type of feedback MMoreland has been asking for in reviews, so that he can make future scenarios more challenging. If people change it themselves, then sure, that table has more fun right then, but then there's no useful feedback and you're right back where you started, having to (or thinking you have to) make that choice again. I'm in favor of looking at long-term scenario quality for everyone. For that, we need accurate feedback, which starts with playing scenarios as written.
I think your statement above is not very fair as well as not being very nice.Sorry, just couldn't resist. ;)
Sorry, that was meant to be playful. Mixing teasing and "serious business" in the same post is risky, I suppose. My apologies.
Any GM that makes changes does it for the players, for their enjoyment. If I'm not making my players happy, I'm not happy.
I'm willing to believe this is true of you. I cannot believe it's true of as many GMs as I'd like. I've seen too many GMs on the messageboards with an attitude of "You mean there's an authority I don't have? RAAAAGE!!!" or "I know what's fun better than my players do" to believe that. Every negative PFS experience I've had has stemmed from a GM changing things to match what he thought was "fun".
I personally never add mooks, hp, AC, but I do make changes. 95% of the time, for the better. Small changes that keep the spirit of the scenario enhance it, they don't detract.
This right here is what makes me think that this decree of "run them as written" might not even affect you. If your changes are small and in the spirit of the scenario, there's a good chance they're not even really deviating - the text typically leaves a good deal unspecified (like placement of mooks, how they'll behave after the first round, etc).
Maybe this rule isn't actually as restrictive as you think it is? In which case, everybody wins! :D (This would also explain your shock at how many GMs are willing to be "robots", in that it would turn out that's not what's going on after all.)
To sum up, you seem like someone who doesn't necessarily need this rule. And again, I encourage you to check and see whether what you normally do might actually be exactly what you're being asked to do. Things might be better than you think!
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I respect the decisions passed down from TPTB, even if I may not like each individual ruling, because I trust that they know what they are doing and have the greater good of the campaign in mind.
Side note: Is there a particular thread(s) that this thread is a response to? If so, can someone give me a link?
The last 100 or so posts of this thread. Along with all the vitriol that has been slung about in the "discussion" threads that were started by Michael Brock regarding proposed changes to PFS rules.
|
|
I've 'played up' most of the time recently and we still stomped everything, sometimes embarassingly. In your statement above, you're basically (unfairly) calling those GMs uncreative, because not only did we play up, we did it with ease. I don't feel they were uncreative, I feel like they played the scenario by the book, and that was the result. Mediocre gaming. I WISH they made changes, maybe my review would have been different, but at least I would have had a lot more fun.My point is, if a GM can't change anything, there's only so much he can do. You can't have both consistency and inconsistency at the same time.
Having GM'd/played in a lot of scenarios and watched dozens of others as a spectator, it is relatively rare that the players cakewalk the game. While I do see some of it on occasion, usually at the lowest tiers, it is the exception not the rule.
I cannot comment without sounding judgmental, that is not what I am trying to do, but if the GM is doing everything in his/her power to provide a challenge within the scope of the material, then perhaps, the players have just over-optimized their characters beyond the scope of what can be provided as a challenge. There is a limit to the author's ability to provide a challenge across all power levels.
Painlord's post GET FOUND explained this concept. In a game that is soo diverse, it is nearly impossible to create all-encompassing challenges that will be adequate for the best of the optimizers, while still be accessible to low-optimizers without a TPK.
In an organized play environment, where the experience level of GM's is also soo diverse, it becomes necessary to have some very specific guidelines. If GM fiat is limitless, the consistency of play becomes too chaotic.
Granted the society can no longer be considered "new," but it is still growing and we now have leadership in place that is addressing all the facets and trying to improve it. If recent events are indicative of what is to come, I'm sure that M&M will, at some point, take a hard look at scenario customization to account for table variation. However, that is likely going to be the most challenging issue to tackle and one that cannot be resolved over night.
For now, there are other, more pressing, things for them to clear from the "to do" list. Until then, please follow the PFS rules and run scenarios as intended by the author/developer. That does not mean that you cannot make adjustments to how a role-playing encounter plays out, or how a creature uses terrain and other features to its advantage in combat. It just means that changing the stat blocks (spells, hit points, gear, adding a template), the number appearing, etc. is not approved. IMO, there is plenty of opportunity to customize how a scenario is presented without making fundamental changes to it. YMMV
|
I don't think what's written in the scenarios is so comprehensive that a GM doesn't have any wiggle room left.
Exactly this.
If as a GM you tell a group of players that they can't go left because the scenario doesn't cover it, then as a GM you are doing a huge disservice to the players, the scenario, and the campaign as a whole. I'm not saying anyone does this.
But no scenario can cover every possible idea a player may have, and so that is when improvisation and creativity can really step to the plate. As long as, as a GM, you stick to the theme of the scenario and don't introduce any new dangers that aren't already written into the scenario, then everything is good.
A scenario may not describe what the city walls are like, but the players may choose to try and climb the walls of Absalom for some stupid reason. Well you gotta come up with what you think the climb DC should be in this situation.
But modifying the existing challenges or adding new unwritten challenges, in my opinion, is a huge no-no.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
We already have a thread discussing making module changes. Can we try to stay on the OP's topic?
For those who are curious and would like to weigh in, that thread can be located here
|
|
For those who are curious and would like to weigh in, that thread can be located hereWe already have a thread discussing making module changes. Can we try to stay on the OP's topic?
Awesome, I should have done that :D
|
Thing is we argued it out. I don't agree with all the rulings but I can live with them. One person stated I was rude in the debate and I thought the same of him. But it's over.
I'm not holding any grudges and I agree it should end here.
I do think the way the OP framed this was less than helpful though. Which side was the 'small minority' sure wasn't clear to me and most of the time I felt I was in the majority. To represent it as such is less than fair. To ask anything more than acceptance is also unfair.
No one has the right to ask more.
Still may design something Llama based. It's close enough to Camel under the new re-skin rules, isn't it.