RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@ Mike: Yeah, sure, but with nobody having CLW on their nonexistent spell lists, we couldn't have used that either. ...Alitan, this isn't a critique of your character, rather a suggestion. I too have characters that don't have spells or the "Use Magic Device" skill. For them I try to always put 1 pt into UMD and buy a WCL. That way after combat I can use the wand to restore hit points lost in combat. It isn't any good during combat though.
Since you do not lose a charge if you try to use a WCL and don't succeed, when not in combat, most GMs don't make you sit there and roll until you have a success. They just say during the night you evetually get to use enough charges to full restore the party, make sure you roll for healing and mark the number of charges used.
Even though you don't have to roll for the success, you still have to roll for the number of points healed because that equals number of charges used.
Problem:
If you're trying to UMD a wand, and you roll a 1 and fail, you can't activate that wand again for 24 hours.
|
most GMs don't make you sit there and roll until you have a success
If you're trying to UMD a wand, and you roll a 1 and fail, you can't activate that wand again for 24 hours
Unless the character has at least a +19 to UMD (making it automatic), I expect them to roll. It doesn't have to take more than a few minutes. Just roll the d20 repeatedly and record the number of successes before you roll the nat 1. You have that many to use before you jack the wand. If they have a +19, sometimes I will roll a secret d20 to determine how many times they successfully use the wand before it shuts down, to account for the nat '1'.
If you don't like the meta-game aspect that could occur from that, the GM call roll it secretly and let them use the wand until it fizzles. That's how I do it in my home game. If a player has a wand and wants to use it often, I create a cheat-sheet of pregen UMD rolls to mark off as uses are attempted.
However, I also do not require you to roll the 1d8+1 each time. Just take the average and mark off the charges. YMMV.
|
Problem:
If you're trying to UMD a wand, and you roll a 1 and fail, you can't activate that wand again for 24 hours.
That's why he said the GM will 'probably' let you.
Honestly, if the only healing a party has is a 1 skill rank UMD'er and a wand of cure, I think most GMs would deliberately handwaive the skill-check between combats so as to eliminate the risk of getting a 1 and ending all healing for the remainder of the scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Problem:
If you're trying to UMD a wand, and you roll a 1 and fail, you can't activate that wand again for 24 hours.That's why he said the GM will 'probably' let you.
Honestly, if the only healing a party has is a 1 skill rank UMD'er and a wand of cure, I think most GMs would deliberately handwaive the skill-check between combats so as to eliminate the risk of getting a 1 and ending all healing for the remainder of the scenario.
That's really not fair to the players who see a lack of divine caster and either blow 2PP on a wand of infernal healing for the wizard to activate, or else dump some money into potions and/or use more consumables proactively.
Once again, GMs have a responsibility to all the players, not just the ones at their own table. Giving free stuff to one table is the same as taking it away from every other table.
The Guide says GMs are supposed to provide players with "a fair and fun experience". People are certainly willing to work for the "fun" part, but too many GMs are too ready to ignore the "fair" part.
|
|
The Guide says GMs are supposed to provide players with "a fair and fun experience". People are certainly willing to work for the "fun" part, but too many GMs are too ready to ignore the "fair" part.
Just as too many GMs are too insistent on the "fair" part, at the expense of the "fun" part.
A GM isn't wrong either way. I think it's generally a good practice for most/all PFS characters to have at least 1 rank in UMD, class skill or not.
But is someone Bad/Wrong for not agreeing? Is a whole tableful-1 of people bad/wrong for not agreeing? Is a GM wrong for placing the well-being of the continuity of the scenario.. not to mention the players' fun.. over the importance of making sure the chance of a trainwreck is observed?
It may be PFS but it's still going to have table variation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It may be PFS but it's still going to have table variation.
"Table variation" is when a rule is unclear and different GMs rule it differently.
Having one GM give his players free stuff while other GMs make their players pay for it does not count as "table variation".
@ Mike: Yeah, sure, but with nobody having CLW on their nonexistent spell lists, we couldn't have used that either. ...Alitan, this isn't a critique of your character, rather a suggestion. I too have characters that don't have spells or the "Use Magic Device" skill. For them I try to always put 1 pt into UMD and buy a WCL. That way after combat I can use the wand to restore hit points lost in combat. It isn't any good during combat though.
Since you do not lose a charge if you try to use a WCL and don't succeed, when not in combat, most GMs don't make you sit there and roll until you have a success. They just say during the night you evetually get to use enough charges to full restore the party, make sure you roll for healing and mark the number of charges used.
Even though you don't have to roll for the success, you still have to roll for the number of points healed because that equals number of charges used.
I'm kind of a purist when it comes to skill ranks; that is, I'm NOT splitting my progression up; I want everything to be at rank=level. I admit, I hadn't imagined there not being a cleric (until it happened, and even then I didn't grab that pregen). I'm on that ragged edge with Intelligence, where my next boost will get me a new skill... which would have been Use Magic Device ANYWAY, but DEFINITELY with this 'no cleric' issue. I'd have been getting a CLW wand, regardless, as that courtesy issue for what clerics (druids, oracles, etc.) show up. But Use Magic Device was bumped off of my list of skills to make room for core/concept skills that are must haves. Since I'm multiclassing into wizard, Use Magic Device just wasn't high-priority during creation (again, not having foreseen the lack of a healer). Meh. I'll be careful until 4th level, that's all. :)
|
|
It may be PFS but it's still going to have table variation."Table variation" is when a rule is unclear and different GMs rule it differently.
Having one GM give his players free stuff while other GMs make their players pay for it does not count as "table variation".
I think you define 'table variation' as 'table variation that I, Jiggy, who in my own opinion, mirrors perfectly the opinions of Michael Brock and Mark Morland, SAY is legal'
Obviously I disagree ;)
Table variation is a given. 100% guaranteed. Even when all the same rule are applied in all the same way. It is literally impossible to prevent it. Not only will monsters sometimes hit in the first round of combat at one table, but miss in at the other table.. The GMs will have the monsters move differently, which opens up divergent tactical situations, etc etc. And that's even if a scenario is taken to a robotic, perfect extreme to 'Run as Written'.
Now that the immutable truth is out there, it's apparent there are only degrees of how MUCH variation there is between tables. If you think someone's line between fair and fun is closer to fun than yours is, it doesn't mean they're wrong/bad. It doesn't even mean that your line is perfectly laced down the middle ;)
|
|
A situation I don't recall being brought up in the thread is a GM deliberately ruling in such a way to favor the players (or at least their ability to complete the adventure).. especially if he knows/believes the ruling to be incorrect.
Is that wrongbad? I don't do it all the time, but consider it an essential option to have available in the name of Fun. "You know normally, that wouldn't work/you can't do that, but in this case I'll allow it/give you a situational bonus due to your creative roleplaying/idea..."
What about deliberately 'forgetting' rules? Players doing it to benefit themselves is pretty malodorous, but what about a GM seeing that nat 1 on the UMD wand use, and shrugging and holding his tongue and nodding for the player to continue trying again? ;)
|
|
If your definition of table variation includes things like the variability in the dice, then conceptually the gap between us may be so huge, we aren't even speaking the same language and will never reach a compromise on how to deal with, and provide rules for, differences from table to table. I am not saying your view is wrong, just that our perspective is so vastly different, we're not talking about the same thing.
|
|
A situation I don't recall being brought up in the thread is a GM deliberately ruling in such a way to favor the players (or at least their ability to complete the adventure).. especially if he knows/believes the ruling to be incorrect.
I am interested in this as much as the reverse. ANY inconsistency in applying the rules for or against the players could be considered hypocritical. I just wonder how everyone views it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Table variation is a given. 100% guaranteed. Even when all the same rule are applied in all the same way. It is literally impossible to prevent it. Not only will monsters sometimes hit in the first round of combat at one table, but miss in at the other table.. The GMs will have the monsters move differently, which opens up divergent tactical situations, etc etc. And that's even if a scenario is taken to a robotic, perfect extreme to 'Run as Written'.
Now that the immutable truth is out there
So let's review:
Jiggy: "Action X does not fall under Category Y, and should not be done."
Deusvult: "But Category Y can't be avoided! How ludicrous of you to suggest otherwise!"
...what the hell?
|
|
My own apparently alien understanding of 'table variation' is the sum total of the difference in the games as experienced by the players in different runnings of the same scenario. While it can never be reduced to zero, the nature of PFS requires that we tamp it down to a certain degree.
Level of GM perperation, the playstyles of the players themselves.. the composition of the party, the ability of the GM, the presentation by the GM, the list goes on and on before we even talk about what constitues an acceptable deviation from 'run as written'.
|
|
So let's review:Jiggy: "Action X does not fall under Category Y, and should not be done."
Deusvult: "But Category Y can't be avoided! How ludicrous of you to suggest otherwise!"
...what the hell?
I'd say it's really an issue of where does one draw a line between compromising Fair and Fun.
Jiggy, you draw the line way closer to Fair than I would.
I think Fun is at least sometimes more important than Fair, and draw my line closer to Fun than you would.
So, you think you're perfectly down the middle and think I'm too 'loose with the rules'.
I think I'm perfectly down the middle and think you're too close to simulating a MMO. (which in turn simulates a RPG...;)
You're not wrongbad. You just do it different. Which goes back to table variation.. you'd run a game differently than I would.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
On the contrary, it's more that you've got tunnel vision regarding fun. You think as long as the five people in front of you have fun for a few hours, you're done.
You think you're choosing "fun" over "fair" by giving your table free healing. So when your player's buddy from the other table walks over and asks how it went, and he says "Great! He gave us free heals!", and the friend gets upset because he just blew 500gp on potions to cover the lack of other healing options, do you really think you're still prioritizing fun? How much fun is the friend having right now?
Or how about after your group of regulars gets used to your adjustments, fails to tighten up their tactics/preparations/etc because they can get away with stuff, and then goes to a Con and gets ripped to shreds? Are you still providing them with more fun?
So really, I'm prioritizing fun even higher than you are, because I care about more people's fun than you do, and I care about their fun for the long haul instead of just while they're in front of me.
"Fair" and "fun" are not opposite ends of a spectrum. The bully who cuts in line for a carnival ride has increased his own fun (and maybe even that of his buddies that he brought with him!), but because it wasn't fair, he decreased the overall fun of the larger community.
Your decision to boost a handful of people's fun can hurt the fun of the larger community, and your decision to boost fun in the here and now can have repercussions that hurt fun in the long run.
"Fair" is a catalyst for "fun". If you can't manage "fair", then you'll never provide as much fun as those who can do both.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fair" is a catalyst for "fun". If you can't manage "fair", then you'll never provide as much fun as those who can do both.
I wouldn't say never. The perfect definition of fair is that every player has exactly the same experience, meaning that a GM gets replaced with a robot. Meaning creative solutions would have to be banned. Fair also means party make up would need to be the same, since the party with the bleeding edge of legal cheese weasel will have a much easier time than any other group. Perfect fairness and balance is impossible, and isn't to be desired in the first place.
|
|
Absolutes :(
That I might, ever, under any circumstances, give free healing does not mean that I would always, under all circumstances, give free healing.
Hey, if a character dies, that player is not having Fun. Maybe he did right up to the glorious end, but he's not now. Yet it's not Fair to let him live anyway. You balance the two. You strive to have both, but eventually you come to times where you have to choose which to sacrifice in the name of the other. How you make those decisions is what I'm talking about.
And I'll be so bold as to suggest that it appears to me that's what the thread is originally about.
Edit: the '1 on a UMD check' thing: It occurs to me that the forest was missed because of all the trees in the way O.o
That specific example I gave:
1. only 1 player at a table full of PFS players has any ranks in UMD
2. out of all those players, the ONLY source of healing available is a single wand
3. the players were literally brought togther at random and had no way to control who else they'd be gaming with, making a perfect storm of 1 AND 2 happening together possible
4. A '1' comes up on an early UMD check and with my knowledge of the remaining portion of the scenario, they just have NO way to complete the scenario even far enough to recieve a chronicle w/o further healing
Now come on, that's a pretty speficic, and extreme example. I've never seen it. I was saying that if I DID, I'd be amenable to throwing a bone and letting them keep having Fun as opposed to being Fair and watching them go past the event horizon.
I can see how 'RAW BY RAW ALL THE TIME NO DEVIATIONS' can mistake that hypothetical for 'I'd allow free heals on a 1 UMD skill check all the time!'
Table variation. Even applies when the the identity of the GM doesn't change ;)
|
|
that's a pretty specific, and extreme example
It might also provide the players he opportunity to play outside their comfort zone and open them up to new ways of resolving their challenges. Sometimes, unlimited healing, or at least the feeling that it exists can reduce the fun of the table as much as not having it.
The thread was not intended to be a battle ground for what "you" (read: anyone) think of someone else's choices of RAW vs. caveat (although I expected it), more just an opportunity to express your view on how "you" use it and if there is any level of inconsistency or hypocrisy.
|
|
Here's another goodie.
What happens when the GM forgets to even drop the hint that a player's faction mission quest item is to be found within the current encounter? (editorial: the writers should put that UP FRONT, not make you find whether faction X's macguffin is even to be found within the encounter)
Not-so-hypothetical example:
(I won't say whether I was the GM perpetrating or the player experiencing this 'table variation')
Complete an encounter. Player mentions looking for his object in the NEXT encounter, based on something you said that made him think it might be here.
You look. You don't see it. You remember reading about it. Where IS his macguffin? OH CRAP. It was in the last encounter, and you never even gave him his hint it was there.
Now what. Do you:
1: Do the 'fair' thing. He didn't think to ask despite not being given any reason to look. He shoulda searched everywhere he went.
2: Do the awkward thing. "Hey I forgot, um, it was in the last room. TOTAL SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF BREAKER GUYS.. INITIATE BACK-EDIT!"
3: Do the 'fun' thing. Invent a new reason for the macguffin to be in this room, despite it being completely not 'as written'.
But as for me, it's certainly the sort of game I'd prefer to run.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wouldn't say never.
"Fair" is a catalyst for "fun". If you can't manage "fair", then you'll never provide as much fun as those who can do both.
Okay, poorly phrased on my part: I was including an assumption that the two GMs (the "I must choose where on the 'fair versus fun' continuum I wish to land" GM and the "both can be done at the same time" GM) are of comparable skill. With that in mind, then the one who knows they go hand-in-hand will alw- er, consistently outperform the other in both fairness and fun, no matter where on the alleged spectrum the other chose to place himself.
The perfect definition of fair is that every player has exactly the same experience, meaning that a GM gets replaced with a robot. Meaning creative solutions would have to be banned. Fair also means party make up would need to be the same, since the party with the bleeding edge of legal cheese weasel will have a much easier time than any other group.
None of those things is "fair". You seem to be confusing "fair" with "same". Punishing a guilty man and leaving an innocent man free is fair, not the the same. Imprisoning both is the same, but not fair.
In PFS, "fair" means that you get what you pay for and that you're working within the same framework as (or on a level playing field with) everyone else. If you "pay" for healing (have a level of a class that can activate your wand, pay gold for the potions that deusvult conveniently left out of his "no hope" situation, play a cleric yourself, etc), then you get the healing you paid for, at the expense of other things you didn't pay for (perhaps DPR, social skills, etc).
If instead you "pay" for DPR or skills with your resources (monetary and otherwise), then you get those - and you don't get the healing that you neglected to pay for.
If you have a table full of healers who can't deal more than 1d4+1 damage at a time, do you remove the DR 5/- from the encounter? If you have a table full of CHA-dumping barbarians, do you chop a few points off the Diplomacy DCs? That's the same as giving free heals to the party without a healer.
I'm not going to c**kblock you if you invested in being really good at something, and I'm not going to do the opposite either. That doesn't mean I want to make every game play out the same - in fact, it's deusvult's "fill in the holes" approach that'll do that: if the GM fills in whatever holes the party has, then all the games become the same. Didn't you say that was a bad thing?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That I might, ever, under any circumstances, give free healing does not mean that I would always, under all circumstances, give free healing.
Never said it meant that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Hey, if a character dies, that player is not having Fun.
Not true. I've seen some pretty exhilarated players whose character just died ten seconds ago. There's a local who enjoys talking about how his barbarian's died four times.
But even aside from that, a brief time of pain can contribute to long-term fun. Athletes don't always have fun while training, but they enjoy themselves more overall if they do it anyway.
You need to learn to look past the next two minutes for your "fun equation". What brings a smile right this second might not be what provides the most fun in total.
Edit: the '1 on a UMD check' thing: It occurs to me that the forest was missed because of all the trees in the way O.o
That specific example I gave:
1. only 1 player at a table full of PFS players has any ranks in UMD
2. out of all those players, the ONLY source of healing available is a single wand
What, you don't allow potions at your table?
I can see how 'RAW BY RAW ALL THE TIME NO DEVIATIONS' can mistake that hypothetical for 'I'd allow free heals on a 1 UMD skill check all the time!'
The thinly-veiled namecalling really needs to stop. That's twice in a matter of hours.
|
Just so we are all Aware with the Table Variation part of the Guide...
It does not allow you to Change rules.. If Mike wanted it to allow that he would take that out of the Guide..
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls 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.
A GM can not look to the guide for reasons to change rules, that is a decision they make themselves based on nothing but them to decide to go away from Organized play. There is no RAI on this, it is very clear.
Which we all know my opinion about..;)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a relative newcomer to PFS. But having read through this thread, even with my limited experience, I'd like to throw out a few observations and personal opinions. Ultimately I believe I'm saying pretty much the same thing Deusvult is saying...let me try to say it in another way.
From PFS table to table, there will be wide variances e.g. player/GM experience, what classes in the party, etc... These variances do not (and cannot) foster consistent interpretation of a scenario having so many subjective elements. In any activity where so many people are involved and subjectivity plays such a large part, there will be inconsistencies. It is unavoidable. Even the most even-keeled and RAW-dedicated individual is liable to have his judgement influenced by specific circumstances of a given table.
It is also unavoidable that on the grand scale, this will extend to outright application of the rules a la "normally not allowed but you get a situational bonus for your creativity". I'm not going to bother arguing whether or not it should. The reality is that it will. With all due respect, an egalitarian ideal where all are equal and each rule is completely and consistently applied world-wide sounds great for "the society", but is ultimately naive.
Personally, I don't see inconsistency as a bad thing. There should be variances in interpretation as well as application of the rules. I'm not particularly interested in playing a punch-card game. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a rat's whisker if some guy 7 states away (or next door for that matter) has a +3 sword of kickbutt while I'm still trying to scrape up enough money to buy a masterwork. I'll know when I'm holding that masterwork that I earned it. That's what matters to me. And if I'm ever sitting at the same table with Mr. Kickbutt, it is the GM's job to try to make it interesting for us both.
In my view, that is the essence of a good PFS GM...make the games fun and entertaining for everyone, while trying not to let people die unless they do something really dumb. If the BBEG rolls nat 20's 8 times in a row (or if I do for that matter), I say fudge away...because I like a challenge and I also like this guy and want to play him again tomorrow.
Just the observations and opinions of a new player who likes the game and isn't shy about spending money on it :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thanks for the input, Eaghen. :)
Just to be clear, no one has yet argued that there should not be, as you put it, "wide variances e.g. player/GM experience, what classes in the party, etc", so you needn't worry about that. If you thought that anyone was suggesting such, it's only because some parties tried to paint others as having that view. But rest assured, it's not actually the case. Neither I nor Dragnmoon nor anyone else is against table variance or thinks everyone needs to have the same experience, no matter how many times others try to claim that of us.
Similarly, I am not aware of anyone being against the judicious application (in the sole discretion of the GM) of circumstance bonuses/penalties based on creative (or foolish) player actions. So if you were worried about that, rest easy. :)
Furthermore, "an egalitarian ideal where all are equal and each rule is completely and consistently applied" has been put forth by no one - as a matter of fact, I've already explained in no uncertain terms that fairness requires difference, not "equality" (in the sense to which you were referring). Some posters have reacted as though I and others were arguing for such an idea, but once again, that's in the imagination of those posters and has not actually been advocated by anyone.
Hope that clears things up a bit. :)
|
|
Just so we are all Aware with the Table Variation part of the Guide...
But to be fair, it does go on to say under Creative Solutions,
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your players might surprise you with a creative solution to an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn't see coming and that isn't expressly covered in the scenario...rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only make Society games more fun for the players, but it also gives you, the GM, a level of flexibility in ensuring your players receive the rewards they are due.
While the two rules are not mutually exclusive they do create some level of ambiguity in determining what is/not RAW vs. GM caveat.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just so we are all Aware with the Table Variation part of the Guide...But to be fair, it does go on to say under Creative Solutions,
(snip)While the two rules are not mutually exclusive they do create some level of ambiguity in determining what is/not RAW vs. GM caveat.
Indeed.
And once again, no one in this or any other thread of which I'm aware has ever so much as suggested that all variation and/or ambiguity can/should be eliminated, no matter what some posters pretend their opponents have said.
The issue, really, is when a GM sees "reward creative solutions" - which tells you to find a way to get the existing rewards to the players when they do something creative to earn them - and uses it as license to make changes that have nothing to do with existing rewards or creative solutions.
Most (all?) of the contention-inspiring examples of changes have had nothing to with rewarding creative solutions. When poster after poster after poster states that they'll allow unprescribed checks to achieve faction goals (i.e., granting existing rewards to a player who had a creative solution), people aren't jumping in to correct them.
But when people talk about changes that involve extra rewards (such as free resources), or making things harder/easier, or anything else that is a deviation but has nothing to do with creative solutions, an argument starts. In fact, the most recent example of free healing in certain circumstances actually prevents creative solutions - why would a player bother to get creative if he knows the GM will wipe his a** for him?
TLDR: No one (that I'm aware of) disagrees with the idea that Reward Creative Solutions trumps Run As Written where it applies. The only issue is when a GM makes a change that one side believes has nothing to do with rewards, creativity, solutions, or any combination thereof; yet the GM believes that it is still appropriate.
|
|
Just so we are all Aware with the Table Variation part of the Guide...But to be fair, it does go on to say under Creative Solutions,
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your players might surprise you with a creative solution to an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn't see coming and that isn't expressly covered in the scenario...rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only make Society games more fun for the players, but it also gives you, the GM, a level of flexibility in ensuring your players receive the rewards they are due.While the two rules are not mutually exclusive they do create some level of ambiguity in determining what is/not RAW vs. GM caveat.
Umm, yes... What does that have to do with contradicting rules or restrictions outlined in the document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com?
Just because a Player found a creative way to solve a situation does not mean he did it by changing a rule.
Table Variation and Creative Solutions are 2 different things.
Creative Solutions allows a GM to let players come up with another way to solve a problem not specified in the scenario *Using different skills in a creative way, talking your way out of a fight as examples*.
Table Variation gives leeway to the GM improvise on how to handle a situation not covered by rules.
Neither actually allow you to Change or contradict rules.
|
|
Giving someone free healing in the form of an NPC rewarding characters for helping them is not breaking the rules, but some would argue it exceeds the GM's proviso. Yet, could clearly be interpreted as rewarding a creative solution.
I'm not advocating either position, just stating that it is not as clearly defined as some tend to believe.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Giving someone free healing in the form of an NPC rewarding characters for helping them is not breaking the rules, but some would argue it exceeds the GM's proviso. Yet, could clearly be interpreted as rewarding a creative solution.
I'm not advocating either position, just stating that it is not as clearly defined as some tend to believe.
I would actually agree that the specific example you give is actually a little fuzzy. For me, it would depend a lot on the specifics:
Were they already supposed to help the NPC and there were established rewards?If so, did they go above and beyond?
Did they help an NPC that they didn't need to?
And so forth.
I might rule one way, another GM might rule another way, and I'd be happy all the while. :)
But if the PCs have done nothing but show up to the table, then handing them extra stuff out of the blue is well outside the realm of RCS. Not even fuzzy.
|
I've been wanting to jump in this discussion for days, but have been limited by need to work, and prepare many tables and run at last weekend's local convention, Genghis Con.
First off obviously there are GMs who will abuse things in such a way that makes the game too easy or too hard if given a chance. As for what is allowable or should be allowable, I think the general rule should be 'we don't initiate the changes, at least intentionally', but we go with changes the players intitiate.
For example: In Silent Tide, there is a point were we have to get a location from Grandmaster Torch. In the mist of role playing out the scene, Torch makes a casual pass at my female Paladin. If my character did what I would have done now but being a newbie at the time didn't do which is
That is the type of creative solution that should be rewarded on the fly.
Simularly, I GMed Frozen Fingers at Midnight with 3 monks, a wizard and a rogue.
The module simply has nothing to cover this option as written. If I were the type of GM that sacrifices 'fair' for 'fun' I would have come up with a million reasons why they couldn't do this. Instead I run this 'on the fly' making several swim, stealth, climb and strength checks
Simularly, in regard to faction missions, a GM should support players who come up with convoluted ways to finish faction missions even if it says 'X skill DC 15' if the players can explain how what they doing will accomplish the goal. Note that it should not always work but it should have a decent shot for said characters to play upon their strengths.
Again, this should be just common sense. However, a certain type of 'stick in mud' style GMs will stiffle any attempt to attempt creative solutions rather than rewarding them.
The 'stick in the mud' is the problem which we should be addressing, by making it clear that the 'DC 15 to accomplish' is usually a guideline and rewarding creative solutions trumps this.
|
|
Giving someone free healing in the form of an NPC rewarding characters for helping them is not breaking the rules, but some would argue it exceeds the GM's proviso. Yet, could clearly be interpreted as rewarding a creative solution.
I'm not advocating either position, just stating that it is not as clearly defined as some tend to believe.
We are talking about 2 different things...
Your example may be pushing what a GM should be allowed to do, but that example is something I think a GM can do if they really wanted, I myself would not because I think it belittles all the effort the players put into the scenario. It has nothing to do with actual "Rules".
What I am talking about is Breaking Rules, Changing a stat block, Adding or removing opponents from an encounter, changing how a Skill works. Actually Changing Rule, that a GM is not allowed to do. Neither Table Variation or Creative Solutions allows you to change rules, though many a GM here quotes them as allowing them do, similar to they used to do with Play, Play, Play!.
|
|
Problem:
If you're trying to UMD a wand, and you roll a 1 and fail, you can't activate that wand again for 24 hours.That's why he said the GM will 'probably' let you.
Honestly, if the only healing a party has is a 1 skill rank UMD'er and a wand of cure, I think most GMs would deliberately handwaive the skill-check between combats so as to eliminate the risk of getting a 1 and ending all healing for the remainder of the scenario.
Truthfully, I don't think most GM's would do so. I do think the perception that they might falls under what might be called regional variation. For example, everyone in one city is rather laid back in their interpretation of the rules while most players in another city are more button down.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Kerney:
I agree that the "stick in the mud" GM is a problem. I don't think I've ever run into one - I can't think of a time when a player had a creative solution for their faction mission and was shut down by the GM (I think my personal record as a GM is allowing four different skill checks in a row, because every single one of them made sense).
In fact, I think everyone in this thread agrees with you. All your spoilered examples of letting the PCs do different things are perfect examples of what RCS really means. Even the loudest voices of run-as-written in this thread (such as myself and Dragnmoon) agree.
Unfortunately, those GMs who would change things without the PCs' involvement (to use your terms, those who would "initiate" the change themselves instead of responding to what the PCs initiate) keep trying to paint any dissenters as allowing the players no creative freedom whatsoever, creating a false dichotomy in which it's them versus some non-existent "stick in the mud" GMs (who want to be robots so they can turn the game into an MMO, apparently) so they can look like they have the moral high ground.
And that's really the only reason there's a debate going on.
|
|
The "initiation" concept can be a slippery slope itself. A GM could easily interpret the players as initiating an increase in combat challenges based on bringing uber-opto characters to the table and cakewalking the first encounter or two. Response, increase the mooks or adjust spells, feats, equipment, etc.
I am enjoying this topic and hope we hear from more GM's.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The "initiation" concept can be a slippery slope itself. A GM could easily interpret the players as initiating an increase in combat challenges based on bringing uber-opto characters to the table and cakewalking the first encounter or two. Response, increase the mooks or adjust spells, feats, equipment, etc.
And if the initiation concept were printed in the rules, I guarantee that's what it'd be used to justify. :P As an informal example, it's much more helpful. :)
|
|
Run a module as close to written as possible. If the module is "too easy" for a certain table, then it's simply too easy for them. There are ways of making a scenario enjoyable w/o it being deadly (and that's coming from ME!).
If a group of players complain that the scenarios are always too easy, then it's not a problem with the scenarios, it's a "problem" with their characters. Of course most players who complain about scenarios being too easy are the first to cry/explode/complain when their character dies, but that's another topic.
|
|
That I might, ever, under any circumstances, give free healing does not mean that I would always, under all circumstances, give free healing.Never said it meant that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
You say you never meant it, but didn't you?
I'm not going to c**kblock you if you invested in being really good at something, and I'm not going to do the opposite either. That doesn't mean I want to make every game play out the same - in fact, it's deusvult's "fill in the holes" approach that'll do that: if the GM fills in whatever holes the party has, then all the games become the same. Didn't you say that was a bad thing?
There, you did it again.
Just because I can think of an extreme example where I MIGHT just go ahead and invoke Rule 0 instead of watch a session go down in flames (especially if the players themselves are not at fault)... I'm handing out free heals and throwing off the precious balance of the organized play scenario?Puh. Leeze. If I'm to pick between:
Give players a sour experience on PFS because I insist that as GM I have no flexibility to compensate for abysmal luck/circumstances.
Tell 'no Rule 0' to talk to the hand and do it anyway, and in so doing allow for the players to INSTEAD enjoy themselves rather than suffer the sour experience.
I'll obviously choose the latter. If one thinks that's wrongbad, too bad for you. It's simply gonna happen. And not just at tables I run, given the other PFS GMs I've observed. The only discussion as to whether this should happen is instead how sensitive the threshhold should be for making the exception.
Let's take specific examples out of the equation. We both agree that deviations from 'run as written' (or due to table variation) are bound to happen. We both agree that they should be exceptions rather than the norm.
Speaking of hypocrisy in how PFS is run, how wrongbad is the GM fudging a die roll? Yes, I just threw THAT into the thread. I don't see it as anathema to fair GMing. Neither do I see throwing a PC a break in other ways, that's what I'm saying.
Disclaimer: I'm not speaking in absolute. I don't mean all the time. I don't mean as 'quid pro quo' with buddies. I don't mean as randomly done for kicks. Come on now. Under exceptional circumstances, ever. That's what I'm talking about.
|
|
Just because I can think of an extreme example where I MIGHT just go ahead and invoke Rule 0 instead of watch a session go down in flames (especially if the players themselves are not at fault)... I'm handing out free heals and throwing off the precious balance of the organized play scenario?Tell 'no Rule 0' to talk to the hand and do it anyway, and in so doing allow for the players to INSTEAD enjoy themselves rather than suffer the sour experience.
I have no problems you GMing a game as you like as long as you follow this..
There are currently no official methods for adjusting encounters, whether it's by adding extra foes or bumping up people's stats out of thin air. Until such time as rules are put in place to do so*, GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written. If that means that coordinators need to run more tables of fewer players in order to maintain a particular level of difficulty in a scenario, then that falls to those coordinators and the GMs who feel the need to make things harder.
*This is not to be construed as a promise that such rules are forthcoming, nor even that they have been considered.
The scenarios should be run as written without adding or changing the foes.
And This...
Just so we are all Aware with the Table Variation part of the Guide...
It does not allow you to Change rules.. If Mike wanted it to allow that he would take that out of the Guide..
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls 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.A GM can not look to the guide for reasons to change rules, that is a decision they make themselves based on nothing but them to decide to go away from Organized play. There is no RAI on this, it is very clear.
I think part of the problem that many of us don't see the death of a PC as = ruining a players fun.
A scenario can get bad either it being bad party, bad rolling, tough encounters, Some of us see giving the players a freebie, though sure you have the right to do that, as ruining all that hard work they put into the scenario and taking away the Fun.
That is how I would see it as a player, I don't want free hand outs from GMs.
IMO I think as a GM you would be better served by making the PCs death exciting them giving them a freebie and take away the suspense and challenge.
Jiggy, well-balanced?!? You ARE a newcomer
Heh. I suppose, being a newcomer and all, I'm just going to underscore your point... but I have to say, Jiggy's consistency in presentation lends itself to a seeming of balance. It helps that I tend to be in agreement with most of the posts by Jiggy that I see. So naturally I'd hop on the well-balanced bandwagon. Q.E.D
|
|
...no adjusting encounters...
While it's a bad rule (not to mention the source of the hypocrisy Bob references in the OP), it's probably the least bad rule that could be come up with to combat the negative aspects of table variation. I'd be all for a better rule, but I can't think of one, so I'm not kicking and screaming against this one.
Just because I insist that it's hogwash to say you must run as written or else you gold-screw someone at your table (or who wasn't at your table ), doesn't mean I don't recognize the rule's necessity or legitimacy. Just that one REASON is hogwash. It's still perfectly valid to worry about integrity of feedback on scenarios, GMs who believe they can tweak responsibly but really can't, etc.
...no contradicting the rules...
Is it any more or less against the rules to 'interpret' or even flat out forget rules? What if it's done on purpose? O.o To go back to that UMD example, of course you can't go and tell your players "Oh hey by the way, today for the duration of my game, you ignore the fizzles on a nat one! Yay! Merry Christmas!". But that was never the example I used, either.
@
On the topic of averting a character's death:
I'm in total agreement with Dragnmoon. Not only is averting a death NOT an appropriate 'trigger' for going all 'willy nilly' and deviating from RAW, more than a few players would be offended if you did.
As it seems I have the gift to bloviate and make my point hard to see (at least to Jiggy ;) here's another disclaimer:
In my own personal view, 'deviant GM behavior' is reserved for times where due to no fault of the players, they're getting screwed out of enjoying the scenario AS WRITTEN. It's not as common a circumstance as I'm being made to sound like I claim it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@deusvult:
Wait, so averting death is not sufficient cause to fudge, but jamming a healing wand is?
Is there some way to reconcile those two statements, or are you just backpedaling because you didn't get the support you expected?
As for interpreting your intent to hand out free heals as being more frequent than you meant, perhaps I did overestimate your readiness for it. If so, it would be because in your hypothetical situation, the wand jams and you don't even bother suggesting they buy potions, and instead move straight to free heals. So as presented, you've shown that you would rather give free heals than make your players purchase consumables. Can you see how that would imply an over-readiness to fudge? So if I misunderstood what you meant, it's only because I understood what you said.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"doh! what do we do now?!"
GM: "Ever heard of potions?"
It's more like looking down and seeing that the next encounter is with a creature you think the players can't handle, so you just handwave the encounter. That way no one dies, and they don't "stop having fun".
Except he just said that averting death is NOT sufficient cause to fudge. So that can't be it.