|
You know, I agree in fact...hey...wait...You're just like that other guy! That has nothing to do with this thread. Stop messing with my mind! I'm old and feeble!! It's just wrong...WRONG, I say, to mess with an old man such as I!
|
|
That's cool, Martin.
I was just thinking more about this...but, you know, it's a pretty postive thing to say, "I seek and welcome feedback as GM!" But, you know, what about those GMs that say "I don't want feedback. I run a table a certain way, and that's the way it is."
Is there room for a GM like that in PFS? Or, do we try to chase him out? Obviously some players may or may not like him...but for sake of argument, let's say he's a little rough around the edges, but not a total jerk. He has a falling out with a player here and there, but refuses to recognizes his weaknesses...but, you know, there are players who stick with him. Maybe they don't mind his style, or maybe they just don't have anyone else who is willing to GM (I've seen the latter issue more than once).
The thought of a formal feedback system makes him cranky. He'll go run his homebrew before he runs PFS with such a system. If confronted he'll say, "Hey, I got no shortage of people who want to play (and maybe understandable given the GM:Player ratio).
Is the PFS community served by chasing him and others if his ilk out of PFS? Is the right response to his "Take it or leave it" is to say "No, YOU take it (feedback) or leave PFS"?
Granted, some of those might be some really bad apple GMs...but where do we draw that line? Do we have the right to?
IMHO, we leave it to the players. A maintain that a GM who is a total jerk will quickly find himself without players.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its your job, as GM, to run the game; not teach lessons.
My example had nothing to do with teaching. It is merely a realistic response to the player's actions. If you act like a jerk to someone who you want to provide you a service, they are likely to react negatively in some fashion; charge more, refuse said service, etc. IMO, it is poor GM'ing to ignore in-game actions and blindly stick to the written text. That doesn't mean punish the players, it means apply bonuses/penalties fairly and equally based on the course of play. To say "punish" implies there is an adversarial relationship between the players and the GM. That should not be the case. The GM is supposed to be an impartial judge, a story-teller, etc. applying the game mechanics and adjusting the story as it progresses.
|
|
One of the sources outlined in the Society rules that the GM is allowed to use is the Corerules book. In said book, there are rules for circumstance bonuses that can affect rolls made by a player (or GM).
There are also rules for creating items, but they are not used in the PFS. Reading the Society guidelines helps clarify the specific things that make the PFS work by overriding the general rules.
The core rulebook works for both the PFRPG as a general concept (and game that you play at home with "Rule 0") and the PFS. Just because something is in the core rulebook does not mean you can wantonly apply it to PFS games, or use it as justification for your behavior as GM.
The section of the Society guide that outlines "creative solutions" gives several example on how to deal with situations that deviate from the written word of a scenario. You will notice that none of them impose any additional penalties or work on the players. They accomplish the same thing that happens in the scenario, just with other words. Nothing is added or taken away from a mechanical standpoint (like bonuses or penalties on rolls).
Or maybe I am reading the words of the guide to closely or literally. At least I am reading them, though.
For example, if a player walks up to the ferry man, who normally takes a DC20 Diplomacy to get passage, and sticks a sword through his gut, then the group now probably needs to be able to make a Profession(sailor) check to get across the river/bay they were taking the ferry for. The boat isn't going to move just because they can make a diplomacy check, and the dead ferry man isn't going to be roused to action by one either. There are other ramifications for such a random killing, but trying to keep it simple.
I think a better response that is more along the lines of the Society guidelines is the players can take another boat with another captain, equal in every way mechanically to the one in the scenario.
A poor decision would be making a table of six players, five of which did nothing wrong, make a skill roll in a trained only skill. There is a good chance that the scenario may be over at that point. That does not sound like much fun, at least for the players. But I suppose some GMs are not really concerned with them (especially if they get their GM credit).
|
|
To say "punish" implies there is an adversarial relationship between the players and the GM. That should not be the case. The GM is supposed to be an impartial judge, a story-teller, etc. applying the game mechanics and adjusting the story as it progresses.
I agree wholeheartedly. But adjusting the story does not need to adjust anything mechanically. Imposing unwritten penalties and bonuses affects everyone at the table in uncontrollable ways.
Its a slippery slope when a GM running a PFS game modifies the mechanics of a session. Where is the line? A -2 penalty on a roll? A shift of an attitude in a social situation (a +/- 5 mod to a roll)? What if the players take an extra in-game day to reach their final encounter that the scenario does not account for? Maybe the BBEG should be allowed to scout out the players (using their minions) and modifies the prepared spell list written in the module with different spells (chosen by the GM). Or is that "too extreme"?
Every GM has a different "line" that they draw regarding variance. It is my opinion that when you let it stray from the common denominator (the written word of a scenario) you introduce undue variance. A player should not be "punished" or have a harder time enjoying themselves at a table just because they sat down with GM "X" rather than GM "Y". The only way to ensure that does not happen (or at least limit it as much as possible) is if GM "X" and GM "Y" run the game the same way; by following the written word and mechanics of both the scenario and the society.
If every GM gets to impose their own circumstances on a session all bets are off for the players. For a structured league like PFS that seems like a poor position to be in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To say "punish" implies there is an adversarial relationship between the players and the GM. That should not be the case. The GM is supposed to be an impartial judge, a story-teller, etc. applying the game mechanics and adjusting the story as it progresses.I agree wholeheartedly. But adjusting the story does not need to adjust anything mechanically. Imposing unwritten penalties and bonuses affects everyone at the table in uncontrollable ways.
I'm an absolute believer in running scenarios RAW, but this is starting to sound like the GM saying "You hit the skeleton and do 3 points of damage to it, but the mod says it has 4hp, so it still has 4hp" and disregarding the actions of the characters. The scenario and all its stats and DCs should be fixed in stone until the PCs start interacting with it, at which point the GM has to adapt and respond accordingly.
If the Diplomacy DC is 20, and the group walk up and start talking to the NPC then the DC should remain 20. There are no modifiers unless the scenario says so. But if they smack the NPC over the head and steal all his stuff, and *then* try to sweet-talk him the DC will go up, a lot! I might allow them to mitigate it by apologising profusely and giving him his stuff back, but otherwise there's no way its DC 20. They've changed the scenario in such a way that Intimidate becomes the necessary skill, not Diplomacy, and the GM is entitled to reflect that.
|
|
If the Diplomacy DC is 20, and the group walk up and start talking to the NPC then the DC should remain 20. There are no modifiers unless the scenario says so. But if they smack the NPC over the head and steal all his stuff, and *then* try to sweet-talk him the DC will go up, a lot! I might allow them to mitigate it by apologising profusely and giving him his stuff back, but otherwise there's no way its DC 20. They've changed the scenario in such a way that Intimidate becomes the necessary skill, not Diplomacy, and the GM is entitled to reflect that.
I think modifying the DC of the Diplomacy roll or changing the roll to Intimidate is a perfectly fine response... in a HOME game.
But we are talking about PFS games defined by the Society guidelines that are more structured and strict than the creative games that we have all run for our home campaigns.
In league play standardization is the goal. Judges dont get to arbitrarily modify rules or the course of play from the prescribed path based on the actions of players (even if what we are all playing is a tabletop RPG that lends itself so well to such actions, due to its very nature).
|
In league play standardization is the goal. Judges dont get to arbitrarily modify rules or the course of play from the prescribed path based on the actions of players (even if what we are all playing is a tabletop RPG that lends itself so well to such actions, due to its very nature).
A +2 circumstance bonus or -2 circumstance penalty is a great option in the GM's toolbox to quickly respond to the actions of the PCs that have an impact on an encounter or task in ways unforeseen by the scenario's author, while also ensuring that the rules for the scenario are followed.
|
|
If the Diplomacy DC is 20, and the group walk up and start talking to the NPC then the DC should remain 20. There are no modifiers unless the scenario says so. But if they smack the NPC over the head and steal all his stuff, and *then* try to sweet-talk him the DC will go up, a lot! I might allow them to mitigate it by apologising profusely and giving him his stuff back, but otherwise there's no way its DC 20. They've changed the scenario in such a way that Intimidate becomes the necessary skill, not Diplomacy, and the GM is entitled to reflect that.I think modifying the DC of the Diplomacy roll or changing the roll to Intimidate is a perfectly fine response... in a HOME game.
But we are talking about PFS games defined by the Society guidelines that are more structured and strict than the creative games that we have all run for our home campaigns.
In league play standardization is the goal. Judges dont get to arbitrarily modify rules or the course of play from the prescribed path based on the actions of players (even if what we are all playing is a tabletop RPG that lends itself so well to such actions, due to its very nature).
Just so I understand, are you saying that you wouldn't change the DC to 25- hostile? Cause I would. Not saying the rest should suffer for the actions of the one, but than it does happen.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +2 circumstance bonus or -2 circumstance penalty is a great option in the GM's toolbox to quickly respond to the actions of the PCs that have an impact on an encounter or task in ways unforeseen by the scenario's author, while also ensuring that the rules for the scenario are followed.
THIS!!!
No one is advocating changing the DC of skill checks. Those are written into the scenario and not subject to change per the RAW rules. However, it is absolutely legal for a GM to impose a -2 (+/-) penalty OR, and this is getting lost in the "punish" the players approach, you can grant a +2 (+/-) bonus. That can account for good role playing or creative solutions which we are supposed to encourage. You cannot have one without the other. It is fair after all.
Judges dont get to arbitrarily modify rules or the course of play from the prescribed path based on the actions of players (even if what we are all playing is a tabletop RPG that lends itself so well to such actions, due to its very nature)
Sorry, but this is where you lose me. No one is saying to change arbitrarily. That would suppose there was no reason for it. We are talking about player's actions triggering a modification. Pathfinder is after all a role playing game. Players can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, to whomever they want and authors cannot possibly write every response into the scenario. I find it ridiculous to think that the GM is completely unable to adjust the reactions of the NPCs based on those actions. It is at the core of the GM's responsibilities to adjust NPC interactions based on player's actions.