|
The gaming community has to be somewhat of a cyclical support system, everyone supports people. Judges support gamedays and conventions by volunteering their time, players can support by stepping up to judge, providing judges bribes (i.e. snacks); even just saying "hey that was a great game, thanks for running" is support.
Players aren't the only ones that "pay good money" to attend conventions. Judges generally pay for their badges, the convention fee as well as spend their time and money prepping multiple scenarios to run for the convention. So colored me a little miffed when you say that paying good money as a player means he shouldn't have to step up and judge, when the judges have probably spent more money to be there and end up with a 7 player table due to no fault of their own.
I just deleted my third attempt to clarify my position and respond to your post(s). Suffice it to say, this is an issue that pushes my buttons. Until I can better figure out what and why, I'm going to let it drop.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If me adding a pair of extra 1HD goblins to make a round actually finish and let players have their fun is such a problem, I'm sorry for you. I'll run PFS to best that I can, for the good of the society. If are more worried about the sanctity of the module being run as written, instead of players having fun and becoming recurring players, well, then yank my GM license.
Were you under the impression he was saying you needed to run the scenario as written instead of making it more fun? I could certainly see why that would ruffle you, but that's not what he was getting at. I believe his intent was more along the lines of you needing to learn how to make it more fun AND run it as written at the same time. No sacrifice whatsoever.
Now, it'll probably take some work and practice to get to the point where you're skilled enough to do that, but hey, nobody's going to begrudge anyone the time it takes to learn. :)
|
I believe his intent was more along the lines of you needing to learn how to make it more fun AND run it as written at the same time. No sacrifice whatsoever.
That's a nice theory, but that's not always possible.
A game can be somewhat fun but still be disappointing in many aspects. Please don't think that just because a player walks away from a table without complaining that they were happy with the game (or all aspects of it).
For example, all NPCs being dead in the 1st round is often disappointing. How are you going to fix that with tactics alone? To make a dramatic change like that, you have to go beyond tactics. If you want to make a large change like that, it has to be significant. Adding mooks will change nothing except perhaps give everyone something to do on round 1-2, the outcome has 0% chance of changing, it just means the players won't go away completely disappointed.
Now, it'll probably take some work and practice to get to the point where you're skilled enough to do that, but hey, nobody's going to begrudge anyone the time it takes to learn. :)
Statements like these aren't needed, even with the smiley face.
|
If me adding a pair of extra 1HD goblins to make a round actually finish and let players have their fun is such a problem, I'm sorry for you. I'll run PFS to best that I can, for the good of the society. If are more worried about the sanctity of the module being run as written, instead of players having fun and becoming recurring players, well, then yank my GM license.
That isn't the issue at all. If it is allowed with a wink and a nod to do this type of small change, even if the intent is for the good of the society and the fun of the players, it starts a slippery slope that can snowball out of control.
What if another GM who isn't as good as you are at adjusting the encounter tries it and TPK's a party? Is that going to be fun or engender recurring play from newbies?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I believe his intent was more along the lines of you needing to learn how to make it more fun AND run it as written at the same time. No sacrifice whatsoever.That's a nice theory, but that's not always possible.
A game can be somewhat fun but still be disappointing in many aspects. Please don't think that just because a player walks away from a table without complaining that they were happy with the game (or all aspects of it).
For example, all NPCs being dead in the 1st round is often disappointing. How are you going to fix that with tactics alone? To make a dramatic change like that, you have to go beyond tactics. If you want to make a large change like that, it has to be significant. Adding mooks will change nothing except perhaps give everyone something to do on round 1-2, the outcome has 0% chance of changing, it just means the players won't go away completely disappointed.
I don't have my first GM star yet, but I have not yet encountered a situation where I had to make the choice between making changes* or sacrificing fun. I have so far always managed to save both the mother and the baby, so to speak.
But I keep hearing the "it's not always possible" from enough people, that I'll tell you what I'll do: the first time that I really do have to make that choice, I'll start a new thread just to announce that you were all correct after all. And I'm not kidding. Did the same thing in a Rules thread once, and ate my words in like an hour. :P I'm willing to do so again.
Now, it'll probably take some work and practice to get to the point where you're skilled enough to do that, but hey, nobody's going to begrudge anyone the time it takes to learn. :)Statements like these aren't needed, even with the smiley face.
Although I currently still think a GM need not make the above choice, you're right to call me out - my statement was unnecessary and passive-aggressive. Thanks for bringing it up.
I'm sorry, Alexander. I hope you'll forgive me.
|
|
Additionally, there are ways to make encounters more difficult, and last longer, without going outside of the way the encounter is written.
It isn't that adding 1 or 2 1HD mooks could overwhelm the characters.
But, that means that group will potentially expend more consumables than necessary, and for future encounters they will potentially be 300gp behind other characters that ran the scenario as written.
|
|
Note that I do not believe the rules/Guide prohibit all changes/adjustments. Only ones that directly contradict clear, hard-coded rules (such as mook stats, etc). Running the less specific stuff organically is totally fine; you and I might be more in agreement than you think. :)
Number of Mooks is a hard coded number.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Note that I do not believe the rules/Guide prohibit all changes/adjustments. Only ones that directly contradict clear, hard-coded rules (such as mook stats, etc). Running the less specific stuff organically is totally fine; you and I might be more in agreement than you think. :)Number of Mooks is a hard coded number.
Agreed.
|
Now, it'll probably take some work and practice to get to the point where you're skilled enough to do that, but hey, nobody's going to begrudge anyone the time it takes to learn. :)Although I currently still think a GM need not make the above choice, you're right to call me out - my statement was unnecessary and passive-aggressive. Thanks for bringing it up.
I'm sorry, Alexander. I hope you'll forgive me.
Consider my feathers ruffled and de-ruffled. In the case where I added the extra goblins, the players loved it, as everyone got in a kill, learned a few valuable lessons on Pathfinder combat, and had a blast. I rarely, *rarely* do anything to a module.
I think the only other time I can recall doing any sort of change-up was I had a group with a well optimized zen-archer monk (who also had sorcerer, for gravity bow and mage armor....) playing through the Shades of Ice trilogy. When it came to the final fight of the Third scenario, I was quite underwhelmed at how it ended. I asked the group if they wanted a bit of a challenge, to make the end of the series feel more climactic. The party universally said yes (wrote down answer on a piece of paper, folded it, and passed it to me). The combat lasted all of 3 rounds anyways. However, it meant that someone other than the Archer-monk was able to act. No extra expendables, but fun was increased, at the request of the players.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: Can you trust your GM's? If you can't, then no amount of rules legislating will fix that, as they'll fudge misses into hits, magically cause crits to occur, etc. If you do trust your GM's, let them have that slight amount of wiggle room.
One of the things I keep seeing in these discussions is the "but if they use more consumables, they'll be (x)gp behind other characters" or the reverse "that will put them (x)gp ahead of other characters."
This seems (a) more than a little nitpicky and (b) marginal in the first place. Being (x)gp ahead or behind some "average" wealth level just can't -- in my opinion, to me as a player -- matter that much.
For one thing, we're supposed to be cooperating with the other players (until Aspis Organized Play sets in, and even then I imagine cooperation will be embedded in the tenets) not competing with them. "Oh, yeah, well I'VE got 1500 more gold than you, so I win." Wait, what?!
Yes, I can see that characters need to be *roughly* equivalent at any given level, to help assure a *similar* play experience in any given scenario. BUT, consider the varying play styles, too: I know some people who are going to "top off" their hit points (with wands, potions, or spells) at the end of EVERY encounter, regardless of how little damage they've taken. Likewise, I know some people who will wait until they are (imo) dangerously low on hit points before they start healing up. This is going to lead to differences in how much they spend, if not how much they have to spend.
The point I'm trying to make is that, unless we're in a video game, nobody is going to end up with exactly the same rewards-to-expenditures ratio anyway. What about the party that misses picking up some of the swag, and gets (x) less gp at the end of a scenario than the party that Greyhawks the place? Should the first party be handed the gp to make sure they aren't behind the curve?
Yes, a consistent difference in gp could make a difference in how well someone is equipped vs. other players... but how consistent IS the GM/player matchup anyway? And PFSOP is PRACTICALLY free, it's not like people are somehow getting "cheated" by ANY treasure accumulation or lack thereof.
Frankly, if someone showed up to a table at which I was playing with gobs of gear -- yeah, I'd be envious -- but mostly I'd be glad my latest companion was heftily-equipped, making my run with them a little easier.
Maybe I'm odd. But the "that varies the wealth curve" argument falls flat with me: it doesn't really address the underlying issues of table seating or scenario tweaking. It doesn't, really, MATTER if party A blew three potions while party B didn't use any: those are simply table variations of a kind that will happen EVEN IF EVERYTHING WERE RUN EXACTLY THE SAME, because players have different "twitch levels" about their hit points.
|
|
I still wonder which is more fun - one seven player table, or 2 three player tables?
for me, the 2 threes with an Iconic at each would be more fun (maybe much harder too).
Maybe that's just me.
I would agree, but what happens when a gamestore hits its table capacity? In the the most recent case I ran a 7 player table, the store was full up on players for the night, every table was used. I had a table of 4 brand new players, a guy who had played PFS twice, and a pair of players who had played for awhile but did not yet have a good enough grasp of all the rules to GM. I agree, ideally, split the group into smaller tables, and have a blast. But, that is why 7 player tables are the exception: they exist only when those exceptional circumstances arise.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the only other time I can recall doing any sort of change-up was I had a group with a well optimized zen-archer monk (who also had sorcerer, for gravity bow and mage armor....) playing through the Shades of Ice trilogy. When it came to the final fight of the Third scenario, I was quite underwhelmed at how it ended. I asked the group if they wanted a bit of a challenge, to make the end of the series feel more climactic. The party universally said yes (wrote down answer on a piece of paper, folded it, and passed it to me). The combat lasted all of 3 rounds anyways. However, it meant that someone other than the Archer-monk was able to act. No extra expendables, but fun was increased, at the request of the players.
I once had a situation with a table of 1st-level characters (plus my 3rd level fighter playing down, but he's not really part of this story) in a different scenario. The monk snuck into the final boss's room and got the jump on her. He then won initiative and finished beating her to a pulp before she got to act.
But rather than beef things up at the time, the GM asked if we'd like to try again "off the record". We played it just for fun, with her fully aware and ready. (Comically, she still went down really fast, due to failing a save against a witch's slumber hex while the monk was right next to her.)
So we still got the "fun" option, but without changing things in the scenario. That particular example won't always be an option due to time constraints, but so far there's always been something. Sometimes it's even just a matter of good roleplaying: have the hopelessly outmatched mooks shriek in terror (or express a comical level of bravado as they get their heads handed to them), or have local NPCs fawn over the godlike PCs. Adrenaline isn't the only source of fun, you know?
|
It doesn't really make a difference in my mind, because 6 man table still finish very easily for the most part.
I suggested 5 man table, and 6 as the extra previously, as it would fit better into the fact that scenarios are balanced to 4 player tables.
What bugs me much more is that people will sign up as the 7th, instead of anybody else trying to step up and run a scenario.
|
I am surprised you can even handle that many players... ;)I can't. I prefer 4-5, so I just kill a PC (unrecoverable) in each of the first two encounters and relax a bit ;-)
Now take this statement and have Kyle Baird say it with a few changes.
I am surprised you can even handle that many players... ;)I can't. I prefer 0, so I just kill all the PCs (unrecoverable TPK) in the first encounter and relax a bit ;-)
|
|
Additionally, there are ways to make encounters more difficult, and last longer, without going outside of the way the encounter is written.
** spoiler omitted **
It isn't that adding 1 or 2 1HD mooks could overwhelm the characters.
But, that means that group will potentially expend more consumables than necessary, and for future encounters they will potentially be 300gp behind other characters that ran the scenario as written.
It wasn't a "perfect" session, but I had all the players request me as their GM for the Blood Under Absalom later that night. So, YMMV with 7 player tables. The anti-hype had me dread 7-players but I manned up, checked that I had my pair, and gave it a shot for the good of my/our players. It turned out FAR better than expected, and I would mark that session as an overall positive.
|
|
I'd rather not have a flat ban on 7 person tables. In the rare event that it happens it gives the event organizer a little more flexibility on what to do.
Mike
ok. I'll buy that. I'm all for more flexibility.
(and an ademdem on this. Please do not chase me out to my car, trying to get me to "come back and play", if I decide for some wierd reason to bow out of the game. Not that this has happened in PFSOP yet, it did happen more than once in LG days).
As long as you give me a reason. There is nothing worse as a organizer than a player unexplainedly getting up and leaving. We can't correct a problem unless we know what the problem is, and if I have to run out to your car because I apparently am slow in figuring out you left. So be it. (I hope I'm actually faster on the uptake and catch you as you are packing up.)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
It's hard to come up with a set of rules that works well under all situations. If you're at a con or some other large event running multiple tables, that's one thing. But there needs to be more flexibility for a small event such as a game store who may well be running only a single table.
It also depends on the level of experience at the table. It might be a reasonable option to ask a player at a mid-tier or high-tier table to volunteer to GM a second table, but there might not be anybody at a low-tier table who would feel comfortable acting as GM. And personally I'd rather play on a 7-player table than play at a table where the GM was uncomfortable.
The one place where the flexibility to seat seven players is absolutely needed is in the First Steps modules. Not only are you far more likely to have no potential GMs among the players, there is no other reasonable alternative for a player turned away from the table. You can only play these scenarios as a first-level character, so playing in a different low-tier module would mean the character would not be able to run all three parts of First Steps.
|
|
The player that walks away made his or her own choice to do so. The person that's sent away isn't being given a choice.Fair enough.
As I asked a couple posts back: What's worse telling a 7th player that they cannot play because the table is full or having a player that was seated walk away when you sit a 7th player down?
They took at least one decision which WAS their choice, whether it was not to sign-up to play on the schedule, or to be a last second walk-in at a fully signed-up game.
I admit that even 6 players at a PFS game can be overkill, depending on experience and optimization, but 7 moves well past my abilities as a GM to handle. It gets contentious, it gets noisy, and it hits too many people's ADD.
I won't lobby to ban them, but you will find that I refuse to run one as GM, and would prefer not to play in another one again.
|
I guess maybe I see it this way:
How fair is it to ask someone who came expecting to play, and then suddenly finds him/herself handed a cold adventure and asked to run?
How fair is it to the responsible GM who then needs to miraculously have a full second copy of the adventure on hand ready to go for the sudden 2nd table?
How fair is it to the table of 3? Who then has a GMNPC....and how fair is it to the GM, who didn't expect to have to run an NPC through the combats and checks?
How fair is it to the store who now has to take up valuable floor space to seat another table? And what if the venue has other events running and doesn't HAVE the floor space to seat another whole table?
I have yet to see an ENTIRE table full of NooBs, and as such there is usually an established group...and now you may need to split that group up, you may have disgruntled players because of it.
How fair is it to the 7th player who suddenly feels placed on the spot because he is the cause of all this sudden upheaval?
Or....and this is a stretch I know...
We could just simply say "Sure! Welcome! Have a seat, make yourself at home, and boy do we have a lot of cool stuff to tell you about how the Society works here at BLAHBLAHBLAH Gaming store!" and we make the guy/gal feel welcome and warm and fuzzy and we suck it up and deal with 1 small issue instead of potentially 5 or 6 issues, and we ingratiate the Society to the other player and don't appear to be giant Bugbears.
But hey...just a thought.
Please keep the possibility of seven people.
It's not my favorite either, but it needs to be there. Here's why.
With six people, you're good. With eight people, you can run two tables. There needs to be a solution for seven, because sometimes you will have seven people there, and what then?
Picking someone out and saying "You, you are the one who must leave" is never going to make Pathfinder or PFS more popular. And don't we want our hobby to grow? If this is such a great hobby, kicking people out isn't a good idea.
It's not a big deal at a BIG convention, where there are people all over. But it -does- really matter at smaller gamedays at stores and homes, which I'm at more often, actually.
|
|
I guess maybe I see it this way:
How fair is it...
The way I see it this is all fine justification for a game shop where there is one table and you have exactly seven people show up. If that were the only time seven player tables happened it would be so rare there wouldn't be complaints.
It's the shops where the organizers see 11-12 people signed up and choose to plan for two tables and wind up with a couple walk ins and end up a seven player table (or two) that bug most people. Organizers should plan around a couple walk ins and be ready for it when they see they are at one of those thresholds. Not too long ago someone was complaining that they had 3 seven player tables on a regular basis.
With 11-12 players signed up, plan on three tables and consolidate if you have to. Similarly 17-18 players tables is far more comfortable with four 4-5 player tables rather than three 6-7 player tables, etc, etc...
If it were only a matter of that one in a hundred day where that seventh player showed up out of the blue, this just wouldn't be an issue. Most people are frustrated by this because of poor planning, not because of random chance.
I'm rather ambivalent about banning them, we don't have problems locally because we do plan around them, but there are enough places where people let it slide frequently because it's easy and legal that it's still a frequent complaint. Maybe they should just not let GMs get chronicles if they run seven player tables, then I'm pretty sure most groups would nip it in the bud.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Personally, I prefer two tables of three with a pregen. As a GM, when there are only three players, I ask one of them (or as a group) to run the pregen. Saves me from having to add that to my load of responsibility. YMMV
^^ This is what I do. I make the pregen either fill in a needed class gap for the scenario or let the players choose. A 3 person table +1 pregen is challenging and each play get WAY more facetime with the story and more time to shine.
So far no negative reactions have come from this and most players have preferred the smaller table.
|
|
I really doubt that PFS is going to make a major change in policy because someone started a rant thread on a message board.
I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can go through the messageboards and find several examples where a thread on these boards eventually resulted in a policy change.
|
I really doubt that PFS is going to make a major change in policy because someone started a rant thread on a message board.I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can go through the messageboards and find several examples where a thread on these boards eventually resulted in a policy change.
Like receiving more than 1 GM credit for a module! :)
|
|
I really doubt that PFS is going to make a major change in policy because someone started a rant thread on a message board.I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can go through the messageboards and find several examples where a thread on these boards eventually resulted in a policy change.
Like Play, Play, Play!
Or GM credit
Or Re-Skinning
Or Evil Acts
Or Module Rules
Credit for Replay...Then..
No Credit for replay...
|
|
Not that I like 7-player tables (I loathe them, really), but even if Paizo officially changes the hardcap limit of a table to 6, there will likely be situations where my venue(and I would imagine several others) would still run a 7-8 person table and just report it as more than one table. So really, why bother?
|
|
now, some observations.
I have played at venues that expected to run 7 player tables. that is the way they were forming the tables from the start. 16 players was two 7 player tables... 13 people was a 7 and a 4 player table (there was other social dianamics involved here too, involving players that did not want to play with other players, but still...).
IMHO, the formation of 7 player tables should be the last choice taken.
Is there anyone here who feels that a 7 player table is better than two tables of 3 players +1 Iconic? If so, why do you think that?
It is better if you don't have a second table (space) or if you don't have a second GM willing to run a scenario.
The issue with 7 player tables is - it depends on circumstances.
Example 1:
Here is an example when I GMed a 7-player table at a CON. We only booked 6 people and there was only a single GM (me) as some other Pathfinder GMs did GM/play at an alternate living game (LIHR) that seems to pre-date PFS.
Having 6 players seated I did have a 'walk-in'. A fellow GM who already had valunteered at an earlier slot to GM. There was no free table and he couldn't buy a ticket as it was 'booked out'. I was asked if I was okay with running 7 instead of 6 and I checked with the other players.
Example 2:
A different CON. My wife was on the way directly from work. She was booked at a table but mustering was 15 minutes ahead of the game. 5 minutes before mustering I have her on the phone. I'm lost - the SatNav did lead me to a dead end and I don't know where to go - help me.
By the time she arrived her place was taken and she had been in tears wanting to drive back (all 4 hours).
I'm glad the GM accepted her as a 7th player. Half an hour into the game she had recovered and enjoyed the rest of the CON.
Example 3:
Same CON as above. I had GMed already all 7 available slots at the Convention. Sign-up is during the games - so players nip out to sign up. As GM this is more difficult. So for slot 8 I finally wanted to play. It was a game I really wanted to play as it was part 2 of a 2-parter where I had played already part 1 and didn't wanted to eat part 2 for my home group.
Due to me GMing and paying less attention to sign-up (and likely avoiding many more 7-player tables) every single slot I only ended up as first reserve for that game.
I was glad I was given an exemption and allowed as player 7. Next day I was back and GMed 3 more slots.
These experience of my own is the reason I have been vocal in keeping 7-player tables legal. In every of the above examples I was glad it was allowed.
Sometimes playing with 7 players is the best solution you have. It should never be a preferred option and should be avoided if possible. But sometimes circumstances are not that friendly to you.
Thod
|
|
I have my group's extra GM's always have session prepped and ready to run. So that if we do get swamped, they can run at the drop of a 7th player. We sometimes have 1 table with 3 people, and then the next session we have 15 people not including the GM's...so we learned to prep for the worst, and hope for the best. Which coincidentally can be the same thing. lol