RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it not only improves the consumer's experience, it's what you're expected to do.
...Except it's not, as has been stated repeatedly by the McDonalds managers (Mike and Mark).
Manager: Stop changing the sauce on the Big Macs.
Deusvult: But I'm not only improving the customer's experience, it's what I'm expected to do!
Manager: You're expected to do the opposite of what your manager tells you?
|
it's what you're expected to do.
If this was the case there wouldn't be post after post of people being told to stop doing this.
If this was the case I wouldn't see complaints from people who had their 4 hours ruined by GM fiat. (Even from people I consider VERY good judges).
It is better to choose not to run a Scenario at all than to make changes to it.
You can't have
everything you want
at Alex's Restaurant...
|
it not only improves the consumer's experience, it's what you're expected to do....Except it's not, as has been stated repeatedly by the McDonalds managers (Mike and Mark).
I see my point was perhaps understandably missed. I meant 'what you're expected to do' as being presenting the best experience for the players you can. NOT to mean that your first and/or only tool in doing so is to deviate from written script.
I understand the rule. Like that McDonald's employee, I have a couple choices. If the manager insists I serve customers burned/stale/etc food, I can:
1. Do so, and advise my friends not to eat here.
2. Disobey occasionally when he's not watching. Worst he can do is fire me, and it's just a burger-flipping job, after all.
3. Quit.
Additionally, in my case there's option 4: Strive to use those OTHER tools mentioned more often and 'picking out the bad fries' less often. Maybe I can do the maintenence myself on the fry machine so that it makes less burned fries.
But even with that approach, it's just simpler and more expedient to just pick out the bad fries now and again. Not to mention, oh lordy the names you get called and gnashing of teeth you cause by trying to fix things the manager (or his lackeys) don't think are broken.
Edit in light of Mark's response:
Even after you tell the manager about the fry machine, until the maintenence guy comes out to fix it, it's still making burned fries in the meantime.
And no, I don't mean to call specific people lackeys. Your analagous counterparts in the McDonald's example are the manager's lackeys, is all ;)
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I've tried to stay out of this to avoid getting sucked away from other pressing work that needs to get done, and so that my words aren't taken out of context and twisted by people on both sides of the debate. But I'm a sucker for a good metaphor, and failed my Will save.
Using the burnt fries as an example, there's a big difference between a burnt black fry and one that's perhaps too salty, or just got pulled out of the oil and is greasier and hotter than you'd prefer. What qualifies as "a problem that needs to be fixed for the customer's benefit" is really subjective. Now, if something is clearly a charred black lump of former fry, then there's likely something wrong with the machinery in the kitchen. In that case, you let the manager know and he takes a look at it. We've gone back and edited (sometimes significantly) scenarios in the past based on issues that were raised after initial release. We can't do it all the time, but if we have released a scenario that simply can't be run without the need for significant alterations, then let us know. We do two of these a month, and there are two chances each month to learn from past mistakes and fix things going forward.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I go to McDonalds with six people from organized play. I offer them a choice: We can eat here, and you know what you will get. Or across the street is this nice diner, where the food will be much better. But it is up to you, we will only get the diner burgers if we all vote to do so.
This is the better analogy. It would be an agreement between consenting adults. At this point it is not legal. But for the sake of many of the older scenarios I hope it eventually becomes legal.
OK, allowing GMs to make any modification that comes to mind is too much, I see the problem. But add one additional mook for each player above four, and use the advanced template for monsters if the group is playing down - rules of this nature would be an easy way to add to difficulty. I would love to see organized play develop rules guidelines of this sort. And if as a GM that is what my players want, I fail to see where there is a problem.
My impression is that Mike and Mark have given this problem plenty of thought, and at this point don't see a good way to create such guidelines, and have plenty of more pressing deadlines to meet. However part of the purpose of the forums is to air issues like this, in the hope that they will pay off in the future.
And for those of you arguing that PFS should be like fast food, ie of dependably mediocre quality, is that truly all you want for the society? I find it unlikely, and I suggest that there is perhaps a middle position in between the chaos of unlawful, rule breaking GMs and the rigidity of zero flexibility.
|
|
Even after you tell the manager about the fry machine, until the maintenence guy comes out to fix it, it's still making burned fries in the meantime.
To be fair, Mark has responded very quickly to well thought out and vocalized scenario feedback, especially (or specifically?) when something is in obvious error.
Two examples are Parts 2 & 3 of Heresy of Man which were changed within days after I ran them at a convention and reported issues with certain parts of the scenario.
If there are issues you see in a scenario, send Mark an email or perhaps better yet, start a thread in the GM section here and see if other GMs see the same problem.
|
|
And for those of you arguing that PFS should be like fast food, ie of dependably mediocre quality, is that truly all you want for the society? I find it unlikely, and I suggest that there is perhaps a middle position in between the chaos of unlawful, rule breaking GMs and the rigidity of zero flexibility.
Indeed. The rule about not altering anything is in actuality 'Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do.'
The arguments that come up in threads such as this one boil down to differing opinions about just what would Mark and/or Mike not do. The obvious stuff is easy.. and rare. Stuff so obviously an issue/potentially an issue won't make it into publication. Stuff that wasn't spotted ahead of time is quickly fixed, as Kyle pointed out.
Going back to the fry example.. when the fry machine is making fries that are only slightly burned.. enough (in your perception) to be noticable but not so much as being 'out of guidelines' and the manager doesn't want to pay to fix it.. those gray areas make for the disagreements.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gah.
I had this pre-typed, but I'm loathe to post on the PFS forums right now (I probably feel as some of you do).
However, the analogy for the restaurant is pretty fun/interesting (especially for a random forum thread) for PFS and I failed my will save vs. 'intellectual' exercise.
Remember, this thread is to discuss the policy and whether it should exist...so with the spirit of the OP in mind....
The following spoiler is meant for discussion and thought only.
I think the restaurant analogy is a neat one.
Suppose the no-change policy as it stands now, didn't exist.
And suppose we wanted to both protect the integrity of our trademark and franchised restaurants (aka Paizo & PFS) *and* also create as many happy, returning, satisfied customers through our franchises (local PFS 'lodges') as possible. Maybe pretend we're a hamburger chain (ala In-N-Orc or 5Gnomes or Burglar King or Head-in-a-Box) with many local, smaller franchises.
In terms of customer satisfaction (happy PFSers, motivated local coordinators), I think a combination of both having common guidelines for each franchise (the PFSGtOP) that defines the basics (2 buns, +1 meat feat, + 1 cheese trait etc.) and defines the common eating experience AND giving local managers the ability to cater to their customer base is the best.
If fact, most (if not all) franchises have a certain amount of leeway in terms of promotions and customization in dealing with their customers. Managers are empowered to allow their local cooks to prepare "off menu" and tailor to their customers needs and wants. It's still Burglar King, but customers can have it their way. It *is* possible to have a customized eating experience but still eat an In-N-Orc harpyburger with extra gremlinchins.
Businesses know that the ability for some customization is essential to serving the customer well. I believe (but certainly don't know) that most headquarters have a certain amount of trust for local managers to do the best for themselves while, at the same time, protecting the interests of the headquarters.
I don't think that PFS should be any different if we want to serve our players better.
My main point: I'm terrible at analogies.
My other main point: I think customization is a better long term practice than "just say no" as is proven in the restaurant business. Now, we can discuss who should decide what changes to make and how they should be changed at a later time...but for the point of this thread: I believe there should be some customization available and each franchise should be allowed to work within guidelines for those changes.
My other other main point: I know that some people see PFS as 'just' an OP campaign that is inherently limited by X, Y, or Z. And I just don't. I choose to see PFS as something that we, the community, can work on with PFS management and change for the better, everyday. While I accept certain things in his campaign, I don't agree in catering to the lowest common denominator when we should instead be aspiring to be find ways to allow everyone to be great.
-Pain
P.S. Brother Mortimer, I like what you said...and I had already typed up something similar in the spoiler above.
|
|
Nosig your analogy is an example of a script change that was obviously botched, which everyone agrees is Not Good.
I would be interested to hear what you think that burgerflipper should do when the fries are only slightly burned, and the manager says serve them anyway.
I'd be even more interested to see discussion on another thought from earlier in the thread. Something completely different than the restaraunt analogy.
If you KNOW a player is improperly acting on foreknowledge of a scenario, obviously you may kick him off your table.
What if you only SUSPECT a player is acting on foreknowledge? Is it acceptable to change things solely for that reason, or is your only option to kick him off your table for mere suspicion of impropriety?
|
I think people on both sides of the issue are in agreement with nosig - Drastic changes should not be made.
My interest is in allowing carefully thought out pre-approved (make some guidelines) MINOR adjustments to scenarios by Judges at the table.
Things like adding the advanced template to critters. Adding 2 more first level mooks to that final battle at high tier. Even easing up a little on the final battle to avoid killing that brand new pathfinder playing his first game.
The restaurant analogy is OK as far as it goes, but let's not get stuck arguing over the analogy and losing sight of the policy.
YES we need to allow judges more leeway to change scenarios. YES, we need to severely limit what can and should be changed. That's my view anyway.
We already allow them to change fluff and add role-play elements. I suggest extending that carefully - if only because your judges out there already are and in some cases doing it badly by going too far.
And yes we need more BACON!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, I have a restaurant analogy...
You go into a restaurant and order some food. The size of the portion you get varies with the number of people who have ordered that meal today (the more it has been ordered the smaller portion you get). Yet you still pay the same price for that meal regardless of the portion size served.
Would you go back to that restaurant?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.
I'd also like for everyone to put your powergamer hats on tight and try to find examples in existing scenarios where the proposed changes could have unforseen or nonstandard effects.
I'm not saying we'll take any of the given proposals or even that we'll be issuing any sort of policy allowing for GM fiat, but I would like to see what balance issues the community can find with the sorts of things some other members of the community are proposing. I want the advocates for GM fiat to be your own devil's advocates.
Keep it civil, and for those proposing ideas, don't take it personally if someone punches holes in your suggestions.
Also, when citing specific examples from existing scenarios, please use spoiler tags.
|
|
Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.
Because I vocally stick to my side of 'the line' doesn't mean I think the as-is PFS rule needs to be replaced. I've said it before, I think it is worth repeating again. The current rule is the least bad approach. It may be bad, but everything else that comes to my mind is even worse.
One example of tweaking that I think is perfectly fine under certain circumstances, making clear that I don't mean all the time
Hypothetical scenario X features yet another solo BBEG. Lo and behold, like so many other times, he's geting destroyed without putting up any challenge. In fact, looks like he'll be dead before he even gets to his first attack. I fudge his HP total so that he lives to his initiative turn to make one glorious attack before death. I rewrote the script, is another way to say it.
Maybe I shouldn't have. Maybe my threshhold for changing things was too sensitive. Maybe in that one glorious attack he shouldn't have had, he kills someone. OTOH, maybe the players get a thrill out of seeing what creation the writer was able to come up with. Maybe they enjoy seeing a solo BBEG that 'for once' was more than a punching bag.
How can you make comprehensive rules for when that's appropriate and when it isn't? Even if you could, it'd be paragraphs in length. Not to mention the forum discussions that any one such rule might be obsessed over.
And that's one example of how a GM might deviate, there's literally infinite others.
Honestly, 'Don't do anything *I* wouldn't do..' has its issues as a rule, namely the disagreements over what is and what isn't kosher, but the alternative is a massive increase in the overhead of the PFS ruleset.
And really, so long as we're all adults about differences in opinion about what is or is not allowed in the form of tweaking/deviating/fudging/improving.. and importantly that the GMs are keeping the players' interest in mind, what's the harm if everyone is having fun? Obviously, incompetant GMing will drive away players, whether they run strictly, robotically by the script or not.
Mark, I'm not sure whether I detect a whiff of passive-agressiveness or not from your post. I'll assume it's not, and I wish to stress that I don't intend to give off that aroma, myself.
I think your recent announcement that 4th season scenarios will start assuming 6 players in the writing will be a huge improvement and cut down rather often on what I was perceiving as 'slightly burned fries'.
|
|
My secondary concern is lacking the flexibility to balance combats.
My primary concern is not being allowed to streamline or cut short encounters when running in a short slot. So if you are running in a 3.5 hour slot at conventions, the official approach is clearly to let the scenario time out and "call it" which is unsatisfying all round - and not a good first time experience for new players. When you could streamline an encounter and finish the scenario - and still have played exactly the same amount of encounter time that would fit into the slot.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Mark, I'm not sure whether I detect a whiff of passive-agressiveness or not from your post. I'll assume it's not, and I wish to stress that I don't intend to give off that aroma, myself.
No passive-aggression intended. I get what folks are asking for, and as the person who is most directly responsible—along with Mike—for the rules of the campaign, ultimately it falls to me to craft or vet any rule we put out. Since there are varying levels to which different people are requesting leniency, I am curious to see, concretely, what rules those asking for them would propose. And because I have scenarios and modules to develop, I thought having the community sort of do my job for me to point out aspects of different rules that the proposers may not have considered could be a valuable exercise, not only for the advocates for change, but also for those who may, for the first time, really be looking at rules critically to find the loopholes and cut them off preemptively.
To be completely honest, there's something I'd rather see instead of a discussions of campaign rules and what changes need to be made to them. I'd be much more interested in knowing what encounters GMs feel always need to be adjusted and why. The solo monster BBEG is a great example. What can I, as a developer often working with new designers and authors, do to guide Pathfinder Society scenario writers to craft better scenarios that won't need as much adjustment? In the end, that's my primary goal, because a good encounter is a good encounter, regardless of whether it's in an organized play environment or not.
|
|
Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.
Example: There are 4 skeletons and an evil cleric. If you have a party larger than 4, increase the number of skeletons so it is equal to the party size. With a table size of 6 or 7, provide the evil cleric with maximum hp.
Example 2: If you have a party larger than 5, increase the archer's strength by 2, the strength rating and magical bonus on their bows each by one.
Example 3: If you have a party larger than 5, the BBG has already buffed and goes right to tactic _____________ (better, more effective tactic for large group).
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
|
Please no. I have been at many tables where there was no DPR at the table. Increasing the HP will only extend the combats, something that already takes the lions share of the gaming time.
It shouldn't be any worse as you have more action economy with more players.
Though that does raise the general point that more players equals longer scenario running time, meaning it is more likely to have to call it or cut short encounters in general (in a fixed time game slot).
Echoes of the Overwatched ** spoiler omitted **
That is a problem with that particular scenario which I would submit calls for a change to that scenario regardless of anything here - as commented on in the scenario thread. (I have played and am currently prepping to GM this scenario in a short slot).
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Swiftbrook, note that this is a method to scale up one specific encounter. This sort of alteration is likely how we will handle scaling down to 4-person tables in season 4. What I'm looking for is a single rule a few sentences long that could appear in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play to cover as many possible situations in which a GM might wish to alter the statistics of an encounter.
|
|
Mark, I don't think you'll be able to get such verbage unless you're also prepared to state that in PFS play that GMs may or may not fudge dice rolls, for example.
Once you start going into detail, you need to keep going into ever more detail. It's like the coastline paradox- the more finely you define things, the more you the need to define more acutely.
I'm switching from Asmodean-style 'devil's advocate' to 'manager's lackey' here.. but I hope that the new assumption you have for writing PFS scenarios is going to fix alot of issues. Yes, season 0-3 won't directly benefit, but once you have a working, better system for season 4 it's easier to just chalk up any issues in 0-3 as relics of an inferior system and more easily accepted- since we know the new ones 'won't have those issues'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.
I'd also like for everyone to put your powergamer hats on tight and try to find examples in existing scenarios where the proposed changes could have unforeseen or nonstandard effects.
I'm not saying we'll take any of the given proposals or even that we'll be issuing any sort of policy allowing for GM fiat, but I would like to see what balance issues the community can find with the sorts of things some other members of the community are proposing. I want the advocates for GM fiat to be your own devil's advocates.
Keep it civil, and for those proposing ideas, don't take it personally if someone punches holes in your suggestions.
Also, when citing specific examples from existing scenarios, please use spoiler tags.
I guess my point of origin on this debate is that the PCs are expected to succeed in the scenarios. I may be wrong, but I can cite another well loved OP campaign that included multiple conclusions, many of which supposed a less than successful adventure.
If PCs are supposed to "win", then the only changes that a GM (I prefer the term judge, personally) should make are those that make the characters feel like there was a challenge to be overcome and that allow all PCs to contribute to the eventual success. Most specifically, a GM should never use the opportunity to alter a scenario as a chance to kill PCs.
I don't know that a set system or real rules can be given for it, other than "if you feel the need to cheat as a GM, you cannot kill a PC in any encounter in which you cheated." I also think the real challenge comes from judges who can properly judge the strength and abilities of a party versus those who cannot (or will not). Because there is the latter group, implementing a system to allow alterations will be problematic.
|
|
I'm switching from Asmodean-style 'devil's advocate' to 'manager's lackey' here.. but I hope that the new assumption you have for writing PFS scenarios is going to fix alot of issues. Yes, season 0-3 won't directly benefit, but once you have a working, better system for season 4 it's easier to just chalk up any issues in 0-3 as relics of an inferior system and more easily accepted- since we know the new ones 'won't have those issues'.
I actually agree with this position. I would prefer not to codify things prematurely because I have faith the switch in writing scenarios for 6 players instead of 4 will resolve a lot of issues. And despite my want to change some elements of scenarios sometimes, I don't think it would be wise to open that Pandora's Box. As time goes on, I assume the older Season scenarios fall out of circulation more and more. But maybe that isn't the case, you guys (M&M) have the data about what is being played.
Mark,
Rather than lose responses to your question in this thread, maybe it would be better to make a new one and have people copy/paste over to it what they have already said here.
|
|
For tables of 6 players, increase all NPC/Monster hit points by 25% rounded up the nearest whole value.Please no. I have been at many tables where there was no DPR at the table. Increasing the HP will only extend the combats, something that already takes the lions share of the gaming time.
A table of 4 players with limited "DPR" (gods I hate that term), is going to have as much trouble with four 6 hit point goblins as 6 players with limited DPR versus four 8 hit point goblins.
The whole point is that 6 players have 33% more actions per round than a table of 4. Often those actions are used to deal damage or enhance damage dealt.
This fix doesn't affect roleplaying encounters, trap DCs or anything else which also usually isn't affected by additional PCs.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
To be completely honest, there's something I'd rather see instead of a discussions of campaign rules and what changes need to be made to them. I'd be much more interested in knowing what encounters GMs feel always need to be adjusted and why.
+1
I was just about to suggest that you change the reporting to allow GMs to rate each encounter Goldilocks-style (too hard/too easy/just right), then I saw this post.
|
|
I was just about to suggest that you change the reporting to allow GMs to rate each encounter Goldilocks-style (too hard/too easy/just right), then I saw this post.
That might be a little too subjective ... a lot of how the scenario goes is largely dependent on the players at the table vs. the scenario itself.
Case in point; with frostfur captives:
I've run it close to 10 times by now; I've had groups that breezed by, groups that were right on target with the scenario and a couple of groups that really struggled with parts of the scenario.
I don't know if there is necessarily a good overall way to report on the scenario other than looking at parts of it individually rather than rating the overall scenario as "too easy" or "just right"
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
To be completely honest, there's something I'd rather see instead of a discussions of campaign rules and what changes need to be made to them. I'd be much more interested in knowing what encounters GMs feel always need to be adjusted and why.+1
I was just about to suggest that you change the reporting to allow GMs to rate each encounter Goldilocks-style (too hard/too easy/just right), then I saw this post.
For subjective feedback like this, being able to qualify it is invaluable, making the message boards a much better place for this than the reporting system.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't know if there is necessarily a good overall way to report on the scenario other than looking at parts of it individually rather than rating the overall scenario as "too easy" or "just right"
I was actually suggesting the rating could be at the encounter level, not for the scenario as a whole. But that might be too much paperwork, and Mark M. has already stated he feels forum discussions is a better venue than using the reporting system.
|
Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.
"At the beginning of each scenario, ask the players if they would like the adventure combats to be run as written, stronger than written, or weaker. If all players agree to a weaker or stronger adventure, you may adjust each encounter, stronger or weaker as chosen by the players, by either A) adjusting opponent HP by 25%, or B) in those encounters with 4 or more opponents, adjust the number of the weakest opponent type by 1. Do not make both adjustments in a single encounter."
Rationale:
This allows players to make the choice. This can be important based upon their experience or lack of experience with a given GM. Some GMs are more or less tactically adept, and players are more open to changing adventures when they know the GM.
It provides an opportunity for the adventure to be adjusted either up or down.
It provides options for both adjusting single BBG type encounters or small mixed opponent encounters, as well as adjusting the "wave of mooks" type encounters.
If more flexibility is desired, add additional options to the list. Examples of items that could be changed on a flat +/- 1 or 2 could be opponents' AC, To Hit, SR, etc. Example of something more flexible might be to change out a single spell to another spell from the GM core assumptions.
If adding options, keep in mind that the mere presence of options allows for the possibility of a more optimized encounter.
|
|
For Mark's 'What Should We Change?' Request:
Here's what I've changed when I GM. It's a long one.
1. Older mission, faction mission.
When I run an older season game I do not have the heroes receive a faction mission printout from an opposing faction. Instead I roleplay a secret messenger from the faction pull the hero aside from the group and talk to them. The Silver Crusade has an enormous faceless knight in silver armour, the Shadow Lodge has an army of beggars, the Grand Lodge has Venture Captains, the Sczarni have pickpockets and caravaneers and so on and so on. It takes no time at all, they address the hero by name and one or two questions clears up any understandings.
2. The heroes are known and influential and their exploits matter.
This is the biggest one. I know the favourite heroes of my fellow players. It’s ultra cool when in our PFS campaign, the Venture Captains or the NPCs curse or comment on the deeds or the reputation of adventurers the players have gone with. Wenches ask PFS heroes about the paladin with 20 charisma. For example, if a team of adventurers have competed in the Ruby Phoenix tournament, their names should be mentioned in Wonders of the Weave. If a hero has been rude to Grandmaster Torch, the Grandmaster should remember this and act accordingly.
3. I get to add meta-details to create a feeling of connection of narrative.
I want my adventurers to hear rumours of failed assassination attempts, hear about discovered Shadow Lodge rebels, dragon attacks and the State of Lastwall. I want to add details about ships full of Tengu mooring in Absalom that explains why we have new races in the Society. I can keep this vague as to not spoil modules that the adventurers later go on.
4. 6 Heroes beating on one dude aren’t heroes anymore.
So much argument and discussion about this lately and I’m confident Season 4 will nip this in the bud. When I add to the challenge I only add low level mooks.
5. I get to invent stuff about one dimensional NPCs/locations.
Mercer (Rogue 3) can and should be turned from a plot device to get the adventurers to go to a certain location to anything that the GM desires. For instance, if most of my party have their background in Galt, I should be allowed to have Mercer be a Galt refugee who is delighted to meet good sorts from the ‘old country’ and happily buy them an ale and sing songs of a lost time. This engenders trust and connection between NPCs and the party and stops all those constant sense motive rolls. I know you don’t have the word count for this, so it’s up to the GM to make this stuff up to suit the story.
Similarly, if a room has minimal detail in a module, I should be able to festoon it with toadstools, a colony of frogs and the occasional primitive carving, as long as I don’t go overboard.
6. I get to delete ‘icky’ details as I see fit.
I recently had a GM hand-wave the issues with pregnancy in a recent module and I commend him for doing so. There’s some stuff people at the table don’t see the need for. Similarly, I will never, ever include any details about sexual violence in any games I GM. I’m not saying there are any issues with this in the current mods, but if I don’t feel comfortable with content, I don’t want to be forced to deal with it.
7. I get to reward good roleplayers.
Let’s say I have a player who wants desperately to play a silly old sage. He has used all his gold buying a haversack to fill with all his books. The player roleplays a mumbling old man fantastically, adding comic relief and acting. It’s not about him winning. 10 times out of 10, I will have my npcs reward his roleplaying by building up his rep as ‘The Sage!’ who often will have a tome to help with a knowledge check (+2 bonus). He’ll get more time in the spotlight than the personality-free min-maxer for me every time because he’s adding to the fun and the escapism. This is so important. Let’s reward escapists.
8. I get to hand-wave character edits that benefit the game
If I had a player that had originally chosen to play a min/max enormous strength barbarian/alchemist in a fit of powergaming and now wanted to alter his character to make him reasonable, I'd probably break the rules and let him to do it. If 'Gror the sad advice forum experiment' wants to change into 'Gror the stealthy, religious scholar Spearman with a bad past' I say we let him.
|
|
6. I get to delete ‘icky’ details as I see fit.
I recently had a GM hand-wave the issues with pregnancy in a recent module and I commend him for doing so. There’s some stuff people at the table don’t see the need for. Similarly, I will never, ever include any details about sexual violence in any games I GM. I’m not saying there are any issues with this in the current mods, but if I don’t feel comfortable with content, I don’t want to be forced to deal with it.
I think that all of your points are excellent except for the one above. I really hope that whenever you edit a module for content, you tell your players up front that you have done so and make sure that you are on the same page, just in case they want to play the scenario without it being bawlderized to the DM's standards. This is not something that we should be encouraging or empowering the DM's to do. Paizo's scenarios are all basically PG-13 rated, and if they start publishing more R rated material maybe this rule can be considered. If I were in a game where the DM did this, I would probably be fine with the edit itself, since I assume that it was not central to the story, but I would be annoyed if the DM had done it just assuming that I wouldn't like the "icky" bit. The more appropriate thing to to is probably just to warn the players at sign-up of anything that might be objectionable in the scenario so that they can make the choice to avoid it.
I would similarly be extremely leery of including material related to sexual violence in a game, and whenever I do I make damn sure that all the players are ok with its existence and the way it is portrayed. But I know that if there is a scenario that has material that I find "icky", as you say, I can not play or run it. Fortunately Paizo is good about keeping everything PG-13.
|
My three biggest issues are as follows:
1)
Single BBEG fights. The action economy alone wipes out the boss, and it isn't that climactic. The players don't feel heroic (cause really, 6 of you surrounding a guy and hacking him down? Look at the big tough adventurers, needing a 6-1 ratio before they throw down....). And as a GM, I feel frustrated because I can get *maybe* one or two actions off before he goes down.
2)
Terrible tactics. Let's take the final fight in the Shades of Ice trilogy.
She stands out in the open, in full view of the party, waving around the artifact rumored to kill dragons. Her tactics assume the party races in towards her, so she can use her hand of the acolyte ability. The one with a piss-poor chance to hit. Since she is using it as a *CLERIC*. Seriously? You spend 3 sessions, or 12 hours RL time, to get to a fight that is over in a round or two? Shoot, I'll be honest: I *doubled* her hitpoints. You want to know how much longer the combat lasted? A round. She used her ability once, and it didn't hit. 12 hours, for a combat that had no challenge at all.
Also, the tactics in The Frostfur Captives.
The Goblin Adept is supposed to light a beacon, get down the ladder, and hit the PC's with a spell when they break in the door. Why in the name of Nethys is a caster blitzing into melee?! Secondly, if you check the goblin's move speed, it physically cannot reach the door before a PC would. Why not have said Adept remain at the top of the ladder, and hit the first guy up it with a nice Sleep spell? Or rain ranged attacks onto their face as they climb? Its much better than a melee PC kicking down the door and dropping the Adept like an after thought.
3)
Poor NPC choices. I'm not saying maximize NPC's, but make them challenging. Compare the difference between a Crawling Hand and a Burning Skeleton . One of them provides a challenge. The other is a speed bump. Not every combat needs to be a close call...but when your NPC's are just bumps in the road, its boring for everyone involved. Lets see some serious casters (who have some decent stats. Come on, would it kill ya to give a BBEG a 20 point buy?), who set up terrain to their advantage (Sorc on a walkway. Scroll of shield, precasts mage armor. Rains down spells for a few rounds till someone can get up there to hit him). Or perhaps some two handed fighters. Or something. But when I look at the supposed CR of a fight, it never matches up to what I would expect.
|
|
Yeah, they've been great at keeping it appropriate.
I guess it'd only occur in two scenarios.
a. Sexual violence. None allowed.
b. Younger player at the table. I don't want a 10 year old running back to their parents and tell them how they played Pathfinder where they tortured information out of a thief, they disemboweled a zombie that ate their wizards face off and then met the friendly representatives of Zon-Kuthon and Cheliax who told them far too much details about what's involved in their groups.
A lot of it is about tone. If it's cartoony it's great, darker adult games should be reserved for adults (who think of themselves as dark?)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
For tables of 6 players, increase all NPC/Monster hit points by 25% rounded up the nearest whole value.
TPK Kyle? Didn't you drop a zero there, and mean to suggest 250% ?
Seriously, though - 25% probably isn't going to be enough. Six players are likely, all things being equal, to be doing around 50% more damage per round. And all things aren't going to be equal; with more PCs around there's more of a chance that there will be somebody not in melee combat who can buff the party, heal the tank, or generally affect the flow more effectively than just adding another damage dealer.
Then there's the likelihood that with six players damage will be spread out a bit more between the PCs. But you can't necessarily crank up the DPS of the chief bad guy without the risk of a critical one-shotting a main front-line PC combatant. Similarly, with six players at the table and no other changes the average use of consumables will be reduced simply by the fact that there are more shoulders to bear the burden.
I'm sure all this, and a whole lot more besides, factored into the decision to spec scenarios for 6 players, with explicit instructions on how to adjust for parties of four. Universal rules to scale an encounter probably don't exist.
Fortunately, we don't need universal rules - we just need rules to deal with the existing scenarios. And it may well be possible to come up with a small number of guidelines that would cover almost all of them.
|
|
Swiftbrook, note that this is a method to scale up one specific encounter. This sort of alteration is likely how we will handle scaling down to 4-person tables in season 4. What I'm looking for is a single rule a few sentences long that could appear in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play to cover as many possible situations in which a GM might wish to alter the statistics of an encounter.
How about one which just scales up the number of enemies faced, at the GM's discretion?
For parties of 6-7 PCs where encounters include a number of mechanically identical NPCs, the GM may scale up the number of foes faced according to the following table:
4 PCs --- 6 PCs
1 --------- 1
2 --------- 3
3 --------- 4
4 --------- 6
5 --------- 7
6 --------- 9
7 --------- 10
8 --------- 12
9 --------- 13
10 -------- 15
(basically multiply by x1.5 and round down. There aren't any encounters that go above 10 enemies are there?)