|
This idea occurred to me over this past weekend at a regional convention.
There have been many threads over the past few years arguing where or not a GM can deviate from the written text of a scenario and how far that deviation can go before it crosses some subjective line.
There have been just as many threads about allowing players to be creative in performing their faction missions despite specific completion conditions/skills being written in the text.
So, I ask, if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?
OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
Just wondering how much hypocrisy exists out there...
|
|
I think the "run as written" rule is there to prevent less-experienced GMs from just adding monsters to make it more "fun" and winding up with a few dead PCs. "Reward creative solutions" doesn't really cover the same ground - it is to allow PCs to do something unanticipated by the scenario designer, and still succeed.
Although my opinion on this has turned around in recent months... I've run into a lot more uber-optimized PCs than I have killer GMs. But until Mike changes the policy, run as written it shall be.
|
I think the creative solutions clause was meant more for allowing players to reap the rewards of a scenario despite creatively finding a way not to fight a particular battle.
I would probably tend to run faction missions as written, but I'm fairly liberal in allowing other characters to assist as long as the faction mission doesn't particularly say they must do so secretively.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
This idea occurred to me over this past weekend at a regional convention.
There have been many threads over the past few years arguing where or not a GM can deviate from the written text of a scenario and how far that deviation can go before it crosses some subjective line.
There have been just as many threads about allowing players to be creative in performing their faction missions despite specific completion conditions/skills being written in the text.
So, I ask, if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?
OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
Just wondering how much hypocrisy exists out there...
Hmm I see what you mean....
It was never really establshed wether Gygax ever really said "A DM only rolls dice beause of the noise they make". I'd like to think so 'cause it's wisdom has informed my GMing for years!
In OP though I don't feel free to mess with the mechanics as written. I will try to construe the mechanics as widely as possible. If an NPC is written as unlikely to use a tactic because of e.g. collateral damage but it is clear that the PCs will steam roller the encounter I would allow the NPC to use her initiative when they see how bad their situation is. BUT if the author specifically bars a tactic, then there is no room for discretion.
Personally I really hate faction missions which require not only a result but specify the single mechanic that result requires. Often clever play can bring about significant circumstance bonuses but if it is a skill that cannot be used untrained and there is no one trained in it - the P.C.'s are out of luck.
Adding a little flavour is fine but making stuff up that means that your table faced a different risk for the same level of reward does not belong in OP.
W
|
|
To clarify, I am not asking about how things should be, but I am interested to hear from GM's about what they do at their table. If a scenario says the player must succeed at a specific skill with a predetermined DC in order to complete their mission, do they allow "creative" solutions? If so, does that same GM caveat to deviate from the scenario as written extend to other parts of the adventure, and to what extent. IF you are strict on one, but not the other, how do you reconcile that in your head?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been many threads over the past few years arguing where or not a GM can deviate from the written text of a scenario and how far that deviation can go before it crosses some subjective line.
There have been just as many threads about allowing players to be creative in performing their faction missions despite specific completion conditions/skills being written in the text.
So, I ask, if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?
OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
Just wondering how much hypocrisy exists out there...
Oh Bob...on this and other things (like the PFSGOP), I'm RAI rather than RAW. I will adjust and reward creativity and intelligent/fun play for my playgroup. No doubt.
Of course, I have a set of core tenets that I hold to be paramount, rarely broken.
So, I'll do what is best for my gaming group within the intent of the rules.
The PFSGOP isn't perfect (and neither am I for that matter)...so I understand that local coordinators need flexibility to alter things for their playgroups.
-Pain
|
|
I am firmly in favor of rewarding creative solutions on faction missions.
I have a fighter who has one rank in Disable Device and a set of masterwork lockpicks just so he can take 10 on opening doors to complete faction missions.
He's seriously tempted to pick up a Hat of Disguise to go along with this...
|
|
I am firmly in favor of rewarding creative solutions on faction missions.
Do you also use "creative solutions" as a GM to tailor the scenario to match the skills and abilities (or lack thereof) of the characters? If so, to what extent.
My intention is not to call anyone out or to "gotcha." I am just interested in the dynamic of how GM's apply the topic to their game and if they feel it is hypocrisy or not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Bob,
I wasn't sure where you were going with this, but that last post helps, so here's my response:
I always aim to run a scenario as written, but I like to think I remain fair, flexible and entertaining as a GM and storyteller.
Some specific examples:
Definitely never increase the number of creatures or swap feats/spells, no matter how much of a walk-over I think the encounter will be for a given group - I run as written.
- Players have a right to experience the scenario as written;
- increased challenge requires burning more resources than the same-tier group at another table;
- any unforeseen problems occur, responsibility/blame is directly yours, not the scenario authors/developers/editors;
I played in a scenario in which the GM increased an underwater encounter from one giant squid to two, because he thought it would be a better challenge for our party.
- this spoils my ability to farily and accurately assess scenarios I might want to GM for other players;
- reasons unknowable to the GM - eg, player wanted to leave on-time due to an anniversary dinner, but the final encounter ran over-time due to the increased challenge;
I try to use the tactics provided with each encounter, even if it nerfs the opponent, because there may be good reason to do so, eg the creature may be too powerful at that tier without using sub-par tactics, or there may be story or flavour reasons for the tactics used. However, it's also important to remain flexible and adjust tactics to player actions accordingly.
Tactics are the one area I will adjust to be more forgiving to a group of new players struggling through an encounter, or strictly unforgiving to a group of experienced 7/20-optimised encounter destroyers.
While I don't mess with the stats as written, I do try to breathe personality and life into NPCs, social encounters, and even combats.
- Although I've only played Frostfur Captives, and not yet had the pleasure of GMing it, those crazy little goblins are perhaps the best example of this.
- Opponents should be more than just a statblock, this is a storytelling game, so put yourself in the mind of the creature, consider their goals and motives, and deliver their monologues with heart-felt emotion. I've had players argue with each other while attacking an undead that didn't detect as evil, while pleading for it's life.
Faction missions? I run them by the book. I will reward creative solutions where appropriate, and allow other characters to assist, but I don't indulge players looking to cheat their way around a required skill DC. You don't want players at one table gaining their PA, and those at another table failing theirs, on the whim of a GM.
As a GM, I try to play by the same rules as the players. I roll my dice in the open for all to see, and expect my players to do likewise. I play by the book, whether it be encounters or faction missions, but try to remain flexible to the situation, and reward creativity, as long as the player isn't using it as an excuse to circumvent the rules. I don't think this is being hypocritical.
|
|
Oh, I missed one:
Change the scale of the maps?
If I don't have the map recommended in the scenario, or don't want to print it, but I have a suitable replacement; or I think the Flip-Mat or Gale Force 9 game map I have looks or works better.
Maps are eyecatching when running a game, particularly when running games in public, it's always good to present your best maps.
|
|
In general, I like to be as close to pure RAW as possible, home and PFS. I have played with PFS GMs that increased the hit points of all the monsters because he thought it was too easy and we had several near deaths. I have also had one switch the allegiance of one NPC so we had to fight against him instead of having him on our side. He had some flaming great axe, so needless to say, he almost killed us. I trust the scenario writers and those that review them to provide a fun game experience as written. I would be bothered if I or anyone at a table I was at died because of GM creativity that deviated from the written.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am less inclined to 'help' the uber-optimised bunch
So when you GM, you give free bonuses to people whose playstyle you like, while punishing (via the lack of said freebies) anyone whose playstyle you don't like? Maybe I'll start giving bonuses to people who enhance the game with solid fantasy roleplay (i.e., core classes) and withold those bonuses from people who detract from that with outlandish concepts (i.e., options I don't like - summoners, gunslingers, eastern classes, whatever).
Anyway, in answer to Bob's inquiry:
I'll apply "Reward Creative Solutions" wherever it makes sense for the players. If the players are obviously coming up with interesting ideas to accomplish their goals, I'll let them make the appropriate checks. If they're just trying to make excuses to roll as many different skills as possible until they eventually hit the DC, then not so much.
I won't apply RCS to my side of the screen (as a GM). Why? Because the players are not obstacles to which I need to find "solutions"! (Creative or otherwise.)
I'd expound more, but I need to get back to work. ;)
|
|
Good stuff so far guys. Thanks, I'd like this thread to keep going so we can get the opinions of as many players/GM's as possible.
Another perspective to help you (read: anyone) understand what I am asking here...it seems the theme is, we are willing to "bend" the rules or deviate from the scenario (calling it creative solutions) when it is in favor of the characters, i.e. deviate to allow them to succeed or make things "easier" on them. Otherwise we call it illegal GM caveat. That "feels" like hypocrisy, but perhaps not.
|
|
I do my best to run modules as written, save when the opponents are actually cheating in some way (possessing a feat without having the pre-requisite feats or stats, and no other way they could have it, for instance) or their tactics as written are actually impossible.
In these cases I make as minimal changes as I can - substitute a legal feat, alter their spell selection slightly to make their tactics possible, and so on. I'd never add opponents or enhance existing opponents to 'make it more challenging' or the like.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another perspective to help you (read: anyone) understand what I am asking here...it seems the theme is, we are willing to "bend" the rules or deviate from the scenario (calling it creative solutions) when it is in favor of the characters, i.e. deviate to allow them to succeed or make things "easier" on them. Otherwise we call it illegal GM caveat. That "feels" like hypocrisy, but perhaps not.
Not quite (at least not for me). I'll go with RCS when that's what the PCs are trying to do, even if I happen to know it'll go very badly for them. If they come up with a "that's so crazy it just might work" scheme to achieve their goals, I'll let them try it - even if failing Step 3b of Phase II.6 of their plan results in someone at the bottom of a pit covered in a swarm of flaming spiders.
----------
Looking back at my own responses to people's stories of what they'll "fudge" as a GM, it seems like most fudging falls into one of the following categories:
1) The GM was looking forward to Challenge X to be hard, and someone has Ability Y for exactly that type of situation, so the GM gets butthurt and adds extra restrictions to force the PCs to engage without Ability Y so that the GM can have the challenge they were looking forward to.
2) The GM thinks (typically erroneously) that a certain class/feat/spell/item/mechanic/etc is overpowered, so they make changes (though they usually use phrases like "this is how I run it..." or "my interpretation is..." because "interpretation" is allowed but "houserule" isn't).
3) The GM thinks one playstyle is better than another, and creates situations or "rules" (in a somewhat informal sense) that will reward their preferred playstyle and hurt (or at least fail to help) others.
4)a) The GM thinks that Challenge X is too easy and that the only way anyone will have fun is if it's harder, so they up the difficulty (in the interest of "fun", of course).
4)b) The GM thinks that Challenge X is too hard and that the only way anyone will have fun is if it's easier, so they reduce the difficulty (in the interest of "fun", of course).
These are all inappropriate.
Number 1 should be obvious: it's cheating.
Number 2 is also cheating, but a lot more GMs think it's appropriate - after all, they're preserving "fun" by not letting one player marginalize the others, right? Except that 95% of the time, when someone (GM or player) thinks X is overpowered, it's either because they don't realize how specific of a situation it requires (giving other PCs plenty of time in the spotlight) or because the GM doesn't know how the rules surrounding it work (so the overpowered part is the GM's peripheral error, not Item X itself).
Number 3 is favoritism, plain and simple. It's kind of like some of the old Jim Crow laws: "Sure, black people are legally allowed to vote; they just have to pay a fee and be a landowner first - not my fault only white people qualify!" Same thing with this type of GMing: "Sure, Option X is legal for play; you just have to jump through these hoops I invented and beat higher DCs than everyone else!"
Number 4a is a little more understandable. I mean, everyone likes a challenge, right? Problem is, you're assuming people have the same definition of "fun" as you - maybe some of your players enjoy a relaxing cakewalk. Additionally, by making things harder, you force players to expend more resources. Over time, they'll fall behind the curve and not be able to get through later challenges (several levels down the road). Does your decision still sound like more "fun" then?
Number 4b is even more subtle: you may never see the ramifications of it. But when your players don't have to expend as many resources (due to free potions or taking less damage or whatever), you're cheating the other X thousand players who were at OTHER tables. Our responsibility as GMs is to EVERY player, not just to our own.
|
Personally, I've only GMed twice in PFS so far, but I've read these forums a lot and played a bunch over the last few months. I'd say the big difference between varying from RAW being considered acceptable or not seems to be that fights should be run as written, but obscure skill checks should allow creative solutions. This seems to be what some others here are saying, and it's my interpretation, too.
For instance, one adventure I ran for low level players required a very specific, tough DC knowledge check for a faction mission, with no other possible solutions seemingly allowed under RAW. The character came up with a creative way around having to make such a tough roll, and I let him go with it.
But I've always run all combats exactly as written, with no changes to the NPC/monster stats or tactics.
|
|
Does it result in more fun, and more roleplaying opportunities, for everyone at the table? If so, allow the clever solution.
Does it allow one player to grant another player a Crowning Moment of Awesome? If so, allow the clever solution.
Does it allow one player to hit the "I WIN" button in every single encounter? Allow it once, tell the player it's only going to be allowed once and move on.
Does it result in players getting fewer rewards (or spending more for the same rewards) as the expected amount for that encounter? Do it judiciously, or not at all.
Your job, first and foremost, is to make a fun, enjoyable game for all the players.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crowning Moment of Awesome?
I allowed this at last weekend's con. Was running a scenario with a flying sorcerer reining death down on the PC's from 60ft up. The monk jump 25ft to the roof of the nearest building and then roughly 45ft through the air to attempt to grapple. It was soo cool, I had to let him try, and set the DC to a reachable, albeit still a staunch number. He beat it and then succeeded on the grapple with a circumstance penalty.
When the sorcerer could not break out of the grapple and knew he was hosed, decided to drop the fly and fall. Unknown to the player, the sorcerer had feather fall and hoped the monk would release his grip so he could slowfall using the building to prevent 6d6 falling damage. The monk said screw it, and maintained the grapple anyway and they both crashed to the ground...with the grapple maintained.
The table was cheering him on. How could I deny a player that moment of awesome?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Crowning Moment of Awesome?I allowed this at last weekend's con. Was running a scenario with a flying sorcerer reining death down on the PC's from 60ft up. The monk jump 25ft to the roof of the nearest building and then roughly 45ft through the air to attempt to grapple. It was soo cool, I had to let him try, and set the DC to a reachable, albeit still a staunch number. He beat it and then succeeded on the grapple with a circumstance penalty.
When the sorcerer could not break out of the grapple and knew he was hosed, decided to drop the fly and fall. Unknown to the player, the sorcerer had feather fall and hoped the monk would release his grip so he could slowfall using the building to prevent 6d6 falling damage. The monk said screw it, and maintained the grapple anyway and they both crashed to the ground...with the grapple maintained.
The table was cheering him on. How could I deny a player that moment of awesome?
Wow, my brother tried pretty much the same thing with his 1st-level monk in a session I was GMing. Except he failed miserably, took an AoO to the face, and fell ten feet to faceplant in the dirt.
Nice to know that in an alternate universe his plan worked! ;)
|
I'm a bit of a hard-*** all around. I only allow 'creative' solutions to gaining prestige if they make sense. You might be able to use bluff instead of stealth or hire a spellcaster to cast make whole on the broken china, but it is never a hand out. I suspect people fail at their prestige missions at my table far closer to the 50% of the time which is intended than at the typical table.
I almost never change scenarios beyond altering NPC tactics and even then it's usually not going entirely off script so much as responding to a different situation than the writer expected*. I do run creatures as tough as I possibly can while being fair to the characters.
So in a nutshell, I try to stick to the script as much as possible, but the players tend to ignore the script and do their own thing so you have to be able to flex to accomodate them.
I don't consider this going off script unless the players are sticking to the script.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it result in more fun, and more roleplaying opportunities, for everyone at the table? If so, allow the clever solution.
Does it allow one player to grant another player a Crowning Moment of Awesome? If so, allow the clever solution.
Does it allow one player to hit the "I WIN" button in every single encounter? Allow it once, tell the player it's only going to be allowed once and move on.
Does it result in players getting fewer rewards (or spending more for the same rewards) as the expected amount for that encounter? Do it judiciously, or not at all.
Your job, first and foremost, is to make a fun, enjoyable game for all the players.
So this is my little rant about the "More Fun" mentality.
It's always more fun to win than it is to lose. Every time.
That said, if there is no prospect of losing then all tension is removed from the game. So while it is always more fun to win, losing is what makes winning sweet. The GMs who roll over on encounters and hand out prestige like candy because it's 'more fun', are watering down the value of success. Not only that, it discourages the people who play smart because while they are putting efforts into winning prestige honestly, others are gaining prestige by ill thought out GM charity.
The only way the game can have crowning moments, is if there is the very real possibility of crushing defeats.
|
|
I certainly try to encourage creative out of the box thinking at my table.. my table is generally an "out of the box" table anyway. But at the same time the end result of the faction mission should be as intended (i.e. in secret if stated).
Examples
In one scenario, the faction mission was to collect a tea set, by the tea set happened to be a large ice golem. The level 1-3 pcs were a little frightened of the golem -- creative solution: summon mage hand to dump flasks of acid and flasks of oil on the golem -- enter spark to ignite the oil... then while the ice golem is burning/melting... mage hand the individual pieces of a tea set away. I ruled that there were 24 pieces to the tea set so the player had to make 24 reflex saves; he ended up getting about 20 of the pieces and then realized that he could get a whole tea set once the golem was melted. Faction mission ding
In another scenario, the faction mission was to sneak away from a party and collect evidence of a missing pathfinder. The pc failed his original diplo role to get past the guard to the roped of stairway. Decided to go out, stealth and then walk back into a brightly lit dining room with several people ... stealth up the staircase -- rolled poorly and tripped on a wrinkle in the carpet and tumbled back down the stairs. Faction non-ding.
When it comes to the running of the scenario I try to run as close to written as possible, however, I also feed off the players and will generally makes quick adjustments as needed to keep the track of the scenario in place -- in the end the adjustments are not scenario breaking and the players generally have a really good time.
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Lafayette
|
Lots of good stuff here, glad that the thread was started.
Because PFS is an organized play format where I understand the overall goal is to provide a balanced and similar experience for all players no matter where they play or who GMs them, I attempt to stick to the Scenarios as they are written.
NPC Tactics: I try to follow them as written to the fullest extent possible. Occasionally a group of characters does the unexpected and if the NPC doesn't change tactics the encounter doesn't make sense. I have not had this happen to a memorable extent often enough to provide an example herein.
Faction Missions: Most of the time I adhere to what is written and allow players to assist one another. Although I think that at times the skill required vs. the task at hand are not a good match. Secret mission are a bit of a bother and are usually the one's that fail because assistance is usually not available or the skill required is an odd one for the characters at hand.
Adjusting Encounters: I have very rarely (like 4 times) adjusted an encounter and only during Scenarios with a larger player group. In these cases I added a couple mooks or let the BBEG last a round or two past his expiration date. My though at the time was that it gave each player an opportunity to 'do something' during the encounter. These times were early in my career as a PFS GM and I don't recall doing it in the last year.
As a player my most disappointing experience happened while playing a barbarian who failed to get into combat multiple timers because the other character were very good at Diplomatic Solutions. The Scenario was heavy on roleplaying and overall very enjoyable. When we got to the BBEG and the party was maneuvering for a glorious combat, while the BBEG monologued one of the party cast the Slumber Hex on him. Before combat started the Scenario was over. Great for that character, but the rest of the table was a bit down trodden.
Creative Solutions: I encourage them as best as I can. I have always believed that roleplaying is about being something that you could never ever accomplish on your best day with every aid available and proper planetary alignment. Creative Solutions can break a situation in a Scenario, however I have never seen one break a Scenario. I believe that not acknowledging Creative Solutions damages the table's experience. Like Ogre, they do need to make sense though.
I try to be more 'hard nosed' while running PFSOP because of the understanding that I mentioned initially. To add some perspective on the Home Front Campaign side, I am an 'old school' GM believing that the GM cannot cheat or be wrong about how the rules affect the campaign the GM is running. The players I have had over the 30+ years that I have been running campaigns agree with or accept this philosophy and have always had a good time with success and failure.
I bring this point up only to offer perspective. PFSOP cannot be balanced across the world if GMs incorporated that philosophy.
|
|
So, I ask, if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?
No and no.
Faction missions, I allow alternate ideas, if they make sense. However, in order me to substitute an obscure skill check (Ex. Knowledge-Planes) with a more common skill check (Ex. Perception) or none at all, there better be a helluva good reason/trick. If I allow it at all, it will be at the old skill check DC +5.
Honestly, most players don't try to solve faction missions creatively anyway, so anyone that does, I welcome that.
Most of the time the group has a skill monkey, so it's a moot question, unless the skill monkey doesn't like you (Andoran vs Cheliax).
OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
Yes. I like creativity and crazy ideas. Scenario authors and devs can't think of everything, and even if they could, they couldn't put every possibility into print. Saying "YES" most of the time is a good thing, and can lead to great and memorable moments.
OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
Just wondering how much hypocrisy exists out there...
I don't think this is where the hypocrisy lies. A scenario can't cover every possibility and the players should never feel as though they're on rails, so creativity is a large part of the game. If that means working around certain skills to get something done, or adjusting NPC tactics on the fly, then I'm all for it. That has nothing to do with GMs adjusting power levels though; I don't see any connection between the two.
I think the real question is: if we allow tiers and sub-tiers then why not allow micro-tiers adjusted by the GM to suit the party composition? I don't do this for two reasons:
1. If every fight is adjusted to the same difficulty level then it gets boring and it makes character creation largely pointless.
2. I might get it wrong, either underestimating the monsters or overestimating the characters. I'd rather a mod was too easy than have to use deus ex machina to fix a problem I caused myself.
LFR recommends adding or removing a fixed number of minions depending on the number of players and that usually works pretty well, although it does depend on the monster types. I'd welcome a similar option in PFS.
|
|
A scenario can't cover every possibility and the players should never feel as though they're on rails,
That's the thing though, you ARE on rails. The GM knows it, the players know it. Every scenario is the same formula, and there are very specific paths to take. I know from a metagame standpoint, when I play my caster, I take care to leave some certain spells up because I know that there are still encounters left.
What could be done, building off what you said in 1 and 2, is have a sidebar for each encounter giving optional modifiers for the encounter based on party strength. This would work as long as the GM was good at this assessment and didn't lead the party to a TPK because of optional content.
|
|
I know from a metagame standpoint, when I play my caster, I take care to leave some certain spells up because I know that there are still encounters left.
Right, I'm gonna sumbit a PFS scenario with ONE encounter with ONE goblin, unarmed, holding a dead lizard, just to mess with all you metagamers. Nya!
|
This module takes place in a demi-plane, and one of the faction missions is to bring an egg out of it back to Absolom in the prime material. The scenario says it is a Knowledge/Nature check to safeguard it through the planar transition back.
So to answer your question, of course I'd let that character use a Knowledge/Planes check instead. In this particular case I wouldn't even up the DC.
I used to think it was not only my perogitive but duty to scale up/down the combat challenges to the abilities of the party. I've since changed my mind on that after a lenghthy thread about that very topic.
So yes, I guess I'm hypocritical on the application. I'll run the combats as is but consider the skill challenges/etc to be 'guidelines' that weren't intended to be run solely as is.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't have any opinions on play-style, I reward genuine effort.
If "genuine effort" includes the before-they-get-to-the-table effort of carefully crafting an effective build, then I'll admit I may have misjudged you. Your earlier post sounded like the usual "roleplayers versus dirty munchkins" thing that I see so much on the messageboards. My apologies if I misunderstood. :)
Right, I'm gonna sumbit a PFS scenario with ONE encounter with ONE goblin, unarmed, holding a dead lizard, just to mess with all you metagamers. Nya!
I'd enjoy it!
I'd also like to see a scenario where you have to pay people to quest for you (with a slush fund), then choose how to act based solely on the information they bring back and whether you believe them, whether you believe they did the right things, or believe the answers they were given were genuine. If they don't come back from a task, that's also information - of a sort. :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd also like to see a scenario where you have to pay people to quest for you (with a slush fund), then choose how to act based solely on the information they bring back and whether you believe them, whether you believe they did the right things, or believe the answers they were given were genuine. If they don't come back from a task, that's also information - of a sort. :-)
So... you want to play in a scenario where the PCs are the Venture Captains?
So... you want to play in a scenario where the PCs are the Venture Captains?
There are lots of ways it could be done, but temporary VCs is an option I hadn't considered. A scenario where the VC has disappeared and the PCs have to stand in for him as information comes back from fellow pathfinders. Turns out there may be clues hidden in one or some of their mission briefings, so characters have to debrief them all and send them out to check things whilst handling the info coming in. Then when they think they've figured it out they have to travel to the scene of the mission they think is key and recover the VC.
I know those guys get kidnapped a lot, so it might be something else, such as lost, trapped, run off with the vault's finest treasures etc to spice things up. My primary character is now higher level than most of the VCs anyway, so that level of party might well get trusted with something like this.
|
This idea occurred to me over this past weekend at a regional convention.
There have been many threads over the past few years arguing where or not a GM can deviate from the written text of a scenario and how far that deviation can go before it crosses some subjective line.
There have been just as many threads about allowing players to be creative in performing their faction missions despite specific completion conditions/skills being written in the text.
So, I ask, if you are on the side of "run as written," do you require the players to follow the completion criteria as written?
OTOH, if you allow creativity to complete faction missions, do you apply the same rule of creativity to running the scenario?
Just wondering how much hypocrisy exists out there...
To be clear, the OP is referring to role-playing scenarios (i.e., faction missions). The OP is not referring to combat encounters.
I've played in scenarios in which the DMs did only Run As Written. If we asked anything out of what the author had written, we got nothing. If we were confused on what to do next, we just sat there staring at each other for a while. We couldn't suggest anything creative because we would be too confused over what needed to be done next to accomplish the mission.
I'll give credit to those DMs; they weren't hypocritical.
-Perry
|
|
To be clear, the OP is referring to role-playing scenarios (i.e., faction missions). The OP is not referring to combat encounters.
Actually it's a little of both. I really don't see a difference between altering a skill check (change the skill or adjust the DC) and adjusting combat. Either way, you are deviating from what the scenario intends.
As the GM, if you allow a character to resolve a faction mission requiring a Linguistics check, with another skill say Profession(librarian) or Knowledge(history) is that the same as swapping the BBEG's spell list because there are some that would be more effective against a party built specifically to crush him?
I think we all agree that the tactics are something that is expected to be tailored to the PC's actions, but I am most interested in how many change specific mechanics related to faction missions and if you do the same with other parts of the scenario. If you do one and not the other, do feel any sense of hypocrisy?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because PFS is an organized play format where I understand the overall goal is to provide a balanced and similar experience for all players no matter where they play or who GMs them, I attempt to stick to the Scenarios as they are written.
I just don't know how true this statement is. Or if it's even possible...or even a worthwhile goal. (Not trying to attribute this thought to you Cactus-Jack.) I see it posted here and there and I just don't get it.
It's just not possible.
And if it were possible then would really want it?
This this were actually an important tenet to the PFS game then we'd all be playing the same pre-gens, with DougDougBot3000 automated GMing systems installed, and our dice rolls would be scripted. We'd only have 4 player tables too. And encounters wouldn't have different monsters by tier. (Yeah, this is an exaggeration...but the point is the point.)
Luckily, we play in a campaign wherein players have lots of choices and options, wherein there is plenty of tactical and roleplaying ways to handle situations and games can be customized to local playgroups.
I prefer to focus on the story being the same...while the challenges are more varied because only one of the two can actually be somewhat consistent.
-Pain
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's just not possible.
And if it were possible then would really want it?
Depends on whether the "it" you're talking about is the same "it" that people are saying needs to be more standardized.
"Use the listed number of monsters" hardly seems impossible to me, Painlord.
"Fail to have the BBEG sprout a locked gauntlet on his hand in response to a disarm attempt" doesn't seem like something to which we need to respond with "would we really want that?".
"Don't give your table extra potions" seems firmly within the realm of reasonable standardization.
The zero-variable robot game metaphor is nice and all - but it's not relevant to the topic. Nobody's crying out against the type of variance that needs to happen. But there are lots things that get labeled as "table variance" that are really nothing more than a cheating GM. And that needs to stop.
Just because we can't/shouldn't eliminate ALL variance doesn't mean that all variance is appropriate. Some things can and should vary, other things absolutely should not. The idea that we can only go to one extreme or the other (or as is more often brought up, the idea that the only way to curb any variance is to try to eliminate it all) is utter lunacy.
|
|
I'll give credit to those DMs; they weren't hypocritical.
We're getting a little off track here, but I thought I'd respond in general to running as written.
The GM above that can't extrapolate beyond the box text isn't running as written, they're just being a shitty GM with no creativity whatsoever. I think that's really pathetic that anyone would run a game like that. Maybe they're better off playing MMOs.
That was an extreme example, I hope most GMs don't think running raw doesn't mean they can't create anything outside the box text. It makes me laugh a little when I say that.
|
|
I'll give credit to those DMs; they weren't hypocritical.We're getting a little off track here, but I thought I'd respond in general to running as written.
The GM above that can't extrapolate beyond the box text isn't running as written, they're just being a s~~~ty GM with no creativity whatsoever. I think that's really pathetic that anyone would run a game like that. Maybe they're better off playing MMOs.
That was an extreme example, I hope most GMs don't think running raw doesn't mean they can't create anything outside the box text. That makes me laugh a little when I say that.
hehehehehe... snicker ... heheheh... snork... hehehehe
Jason made a funny
*actually it was kinda cute and I smiled ... first one I cracked all day*
So, I'm going out on a limb here... I play my very first PFSO scenario this Thursday. But I've been playing RPGs -- mostly fantasy -- for thirty-one years now, so I've seen quite a bit of adventuring in my days.
I think that the point being made, about the author of a scenario being unable to predict what his NPCs (and traps, layouts, etc.) are going to face is a very important one: if GMs cannot adapt the -AW bits to fit what the PCs bring to the table, either (a) the PCs walk over an encounter or (b) the PCs get hammered because their party is missing [x] factor. Neither one of those is especially fun. Naturally, (a) is more fun than (b), but challengeless encounters really are kinda boring.
We (players, and the PFS membership @ large) rely on GMs to handle everything beyond the PCs; for the most part, they do great jobs. If a GM sees that a scenario is going to tank because as-written it cannot account for what the PCs have/are/do for a living, I'm all for tweaking it. As a player, I'd really rather have a hard-won victory, or even narrow escape-but-failure than a two-round easy walkover-type "win."
When it comes to faction missions, and the hubbub about specific skills vs. creative solutions, I have less to say: haven't seen the situations in question to offer much comment. Aside from the general thought that I do think cleverness deserves reward; I'll come back to this thread after I've gone through a few of these missions with more specific comments.