a) that's pretty subjective and often the monsters aren't picked out of a hat like you make it seem.The enemies aren't "optimized".I've certainly found encounters that have been optimized by (a) picking a tough monster of a given CR rather than a weaker one, or (b) adding environmental factors and then not including those in the encounter CR, or (c) all of the above.
Huh? I'm talking about the opposite of picking a monster at random -- specifically choosing monster A over monster B because A is tougher (even though they're the same CR).
I've seen far more non-optimized class based NPCs than strong-for-their-CR monsters.
I wasn't trying to imply that writers making killer encounters is a common thing. My apologies if that's how you read it. It still happens though; as you yourself note, there are some that can be described as "a very difficult and potentially deadly scenario even when not playing up".
b) If the environmental factors aren't included in the CR of the encounter then it's the wrong CR.
No arguments here!
|
Example: Iron Cobra. It's been in at least 3 scenarios/ modules that I can think of. It's a low tier type monster that has decently high AC for it's CR, decent HP, DR/ immunities thanks to being a construct. That combination of defenses makes it a difficult fight for a lot of parties. However when you combine that with it's relatively low attack, low damage, and a weak save dc poison (with limited uses), what you wind up with is an encounter that takes a long time for the players to overcome cause of the good defenses, though they have little to worry about cause the thing cant do very much to them. BORING!!!
I disagree here. I've run scenarios with the Iron Cobra and my newbs not knowing what it was freaked when someone rolled well and missed. The ability damage also worried them. In the end, it was a memorable encounter for each group.
So, your POV makes me feel you're jaded when you've identified a monster and know what it can do based on it's stat block. Going in blind it is a much more entertaining fight from what I've seen from newbs because you just don't know.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I disagree here. I've run scenarios with the Iron Cobra and my newbs not knowing what it was freaked when someone rolled well and missed. The ability damage also worried them. In the end, it was a memorable encounter for each group.
So, your POV makes me feel you're jaded when you've identified a monster and know what it can do based on it's stat block. Going in blind it is a much more entertaining fight from what I've seen from newbs because you just don't know.
I think that's not quite what he's meaning.
When Mr. Fighter (or whoever is front-lining) goes toe to toe with the Iron Cobra, you sit there trading blows... forever. The Cobra has a +3 to hit at CR 2, so he'll be missing constantly. Meanwhile, Mr. Fighter's also missing more than normal and doing reduced damage to boot. It might be scary for the first couple of rounds, but then you realize that you're just flailing ineffectually at each other round after round, hoping to get a few points through every once in a while.
It becomes utter tedium instead of an actual fight. You start to realize that you're obviously going to win, but that it's going to be in about 7-10 rounds and there's no way to fast-forward.
When Mr. Fighter (or whoever is front-lining) goes toe to toe with the Iron Cobra, you sit there trading blows... forever. The Cobra has a +3 to hit at CR 2, so he'll be missing constantly. Meanwhile, Mr. Fighter's also missing more than normal and doing reduced damage to boot. It might be scary for the first couple of rounds, but then you realize that you're just flailing ineffectually at each other round after round, hoping to get a few points through every once in a while.
It becomes utter tedium instead of an actual fight. You start to realize that you're obviously going to win, but that it's going to be in about 7-10 rounds and there's no way to fast-forward.
I haven't seen any iron cobras yet, but I've seen this happen with animated objects.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've fought a trio of Adamantine Cobras (same as Iron Cobra, but with more natural armor and DR 10/- instead of DR 5/-) with my fighter. I was the only front-line guy there. I was level 6, and these guys have a +3 to hit. Needless to say, they needed 20s. Meanwhile, I would hit a little over half the time for 1d8+8 and have that reduced by 10.
So the three of them hit me once about every 6-7 rounds, and then they deal minimal damage and throw an easy save at me.
In that same length of time, I would hit them maybe 4-5 times, each time doing (after DR) 1d8-2 damage. Absolute max was 6 damage, average of 2.5 per hit. Which means I need about six hits to get through one Cobra's 15 HP.
With three of them, that means I'm standing there swinging for about 25 rounds or so.
Thank goodness for magic missile, eh?
|
|
Jiggy is spot on with what I was meaning. It's not that I dont like the concept of the monster, its just that they can be such a tedious fight that they get boring.
Fighting onf of those, unless someone gets a lucky crit or something, feels like the scenario author couldnt think of how to fill the time, so a fight with one of those in to use up some time while still counting as one of your encounters.
The Penumbral Accords (iron)
Wonders in the Weave 2- Snakes in the Fold (adamantine)
The Godsmouth Heresy (dont remember which)
|
To add to this discussion, I'm under the impression that most (but clearly not all) scenarios are considered a little too easy?
I honestly don't know, I've only read a couple, and it's not always easy to get a feel in the abstract.
To those that have read and played many of them; is that not the case?
Because my current mindset it to write to the CR, and definitely don't undercut it.
The general consensus amongst many who post on the boards is that PFS scenarios, in general, are too easy. (I'm reporting the news, not stating my own viewpoint).
One of the contributing factors to this, six player tables as the norm when adventures are written assuming a 4-PC party, is completely outside of the writer's ability to influence and has been addressed by campaign leadership for Season 4 and beyond.
The other two main contributing factors are more or less also outside of the author's control, if the CR of the encounter was calculated correctly. Often times, GM throw softballs, either because they have not completely read up on the villain's tactics and/or abilities etc or forget a key power in the heat of the moment. That and highly-optimized PCs can make a well-designed encounter mind-bogglingly easy.
Not that optimizing is WrongBadFun or that a GM forgetting that the BBEG has Vital Strike is criminal, but these are factors out of the writer's control. Write to the CR and let the myriad of other variables (hot dice, cold dice, favorable class/challenge matchup, etc) work themselves out.
That being said, adding in terrain, environmental factors, hazards and unexpected surprises (while calculating CR accurately) can make even easier combats fun and memorable. Often times, what we miss is the FEELING of terrible peril, not the actual peril itself. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Often times, what we miss is the FEELING of terrible peril, not the actual peril itself. :)
This is a good point. I remember running a scenario with multiple ambush situations. None of the fights was super-hard, but the surprise round and the first normal round or two was always really scary until the PCs started to get things under control.
That's one of the best types of fights, I think.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair DM's will check the Average Party Level...
I think its a bit of a misnomer to say the GM checked the group before "letting" them play up. IMO, it is completely the player's choice to play up assuming they qualify for the option. In my experience, I have seen too varied levels of player experience/tactics combined with character builds for me, as the GM, to make an accurate decision on whether the players should play up. And even if I think it's a good/bad idea, they often go against advice anyway. So, I have stopped giving advice to up/down. The only thing I look at is whether there are any characters that are sub-tier appropriate for playing up. If not, I recommend playing down 100% of the time.
|
|
Liz Courts owns it. I'm sure if she were asked nicely she'd make it available.Why cant we have an online PFS chat meeting similar to the authors chat?We can always subvert the PaizoChat. Or we could always request a specific time window. There is a general Paizo chat on Tuesday nights where James Jacobs and free-lance authors pop in to discuss Golarion. And there has been times when Monday evening was set aside for tales author chats. I don't see any reason why we couldn't take a few hours during the week and call it "PFS Chat"
Done I'll let you all know if its go/no go.
|
|
I think its a bit of a misnomer to say the GM checked the group before "letting" them play up. IMO, it is completely the player's choice to play up assuming they qualify for the option. In my experience, I have seen too varied levels of player experience/tactics combined with character builds for me, as the GM, to make an accurate decision on whether the players should play up. And even if I think it's a good/bad idea, they often go against advice anyway. So, I have stopped giving advice to up/down. The only thing I look at is whether there are any characters that are sub-tier appropriate for playing up. If not, I recommend playing down 100% of the time.
One of my favorite examples came from Dragon*Con '10.
The first person to sit at the table demanded that they were playing up. I was taken aback a bit, but said, "okay, if your table APL is between 6.5 and 7.5 you'll have that as an option. I really don't recommend playing up in this scenario." The response to that was something to the effect of "we're playing up."
The rest of the players show up, their APL ends up being somewhere around 6.5-7 with 6 players. I once again caution them against playing up. The one person at the table who wasn't "with the group" of players was a 5th level wizard. I talked to him directly and said, you really shouldn't play up in this scenario. He kind of looked around the table and I could tell he was being pressured a bit, but said that death is part of the game and if it happened, so be it.
The scenario was Rebel's Ransom. Guess how it ended.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario was Rebel's Ransom. Guess how it ended.
In a more just world than this one it ends with a bullied 5th lvl wiz saying "screw you guys I'm going home" from 5ft outside the area of a firestom before using his scroll of teleport. Then he asks to make his Day Job roll.
|
|
I think its a bit of a misnomer to say the GM checked the group before "letting" them play up. IMO, it is completely the player's choice to play up assuming they qualify for the option. In my experience, I have seen too varied levels of player experience/tactics combined with character builds for me, as the GM, to make an accurate decision on whether the players should play up. And even if I think it's a good/bad idea, they often go against advice anyway. So, I have stopped giving advice to up/down. The only thing I look at is whether there are any characters that are sub-tier appropriate for playing up. If not, I recommend playing down 100% of the time.One of my favorite examples came from Dragon*Con '10.
The first person to sit at the table demanded that they were playing up. I was taken aback a bit, but said, "okay, if your table APL is between 6.5 and 7.5 you'll have that as an option. I really don't recommend playing up in this scenario." The response to that was something to the effect of "we're playing up."
The rest of the players show up, their APL ends up being somewhere around 6.5-7 with 6 players. I once again caution them against playing up. The one person at the table who wasn't "with the group" of players was a 5th level wizard. I talked to him directly and said, you really shouldn't play up in this scenario. He kind of looked around the table and I could tell he was being pressured a bit, but said that death is part of the game and if it happened, so be it.
The scenario was Rebel's Ransom. Guess how it ended.
Please tell me it ended with a TPK. That'd teach the others to pressure people to play up.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
There were a couple that would make us restart at level 1 but they would help to make sure you advanced very quickly to even up with the group.
That pretty much happens automatically in D&D (and even in regular Pathfinder) if you award the same XP to all players, but it takes more XP to go up a level at higher levels; the difference in levels becomes compressed as everybody advances. You won't quite catch up, but you'll end up only one level (or perhaps two levels) behind the other party members. The problem is that PFS doesn't work that way - it's 3XP to go up a level every time, so a gap of 15XP means you're always going to be five levels behind.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To comment about all the "playing up and expect the worse" talk, I completely agree. As a GM I ask my players two times before they play up. The first time: "so you guys want to play up?" The second time: "are you sure?" I'm not like Kyle (from what I hear at least), but my players know that I don't soft-ball anything. And my dice love to roll some 20s when people get over confident. I've killed PCs the first time they've been played, and I've killed the same PC multiple times (at least four -- if there was an achievement called the "phoenix" he'd have it). It was said earlier -- adventuring *isn't* easy. But what does this mean for scenario writers?
In any game, when people die or loose or whatever, they're going to complain. Even if it's their own darn fault. Scenarios early on tended to be easy, and some of the newer ones are too, but for the most part they provide my players with a decent challenge. As a writer, I wouldn't worry about micromanaging difficulty. Work on making better stories.
That's the real attraction for me to RPGs. The interactive storytelling. Make your scenario engaging and fun and full of challenges. Make all the players feel like they accomplished something grand, instead of some snatch and grab or dungeon crawl. Awesome fights are awesome (by definition) but games where the players know who they're fighting and why they're fighting them are the ones they'll remember.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The situation with people who always want to play up is just a symptom of the real issue: some scenarios are easy and some scenarios are hard and it's impossible to tell which is which just by reading the title. If my fighter goes from level 5 to level 6, that doesn't magically turn a hard module into an easy module, so it's disingenuous to pretend that the only problem is with people playing up.
That's why having a wide variation in difficulty level is a bad thing.
Improved familiar
I see that familiars from bestiaries 1 & 2 are allowed.....but not 3......was this an accidental over site?? I'm looking to have a Faerie Dragon. Any creators please chime in for me.
well i made a thread and no one answered it, then i saw this thread and another one. this not what its for?? if not im sorry.
|
|
The situation with people who always want to play up is just a symptom of the real issue: some scenarios are easy and some scenarios are hard and it's impossible to tell which is which just by reading the title. If my fighter goes from level 5 to level 6, that doesn't magically turn a hard module into an easy module, so it's disingenuous to pretend that the only problem is with people playing up.
That's why having a wide variation in difficulty level is a bad thing.
Personally, I like the wide variation of difficulty based on the varied factors. Groups that "know" how difficult a scenario would always be become complacent, and thus IMO boring. I like that there are easier scenarios, and harder ones that keep you on your toes.
In another way to look at it, if you're constantly stressed by a scenario, you quickly tire of the game because high stress all the time is not fun, but if you are never challenged then you're bored, but...sometimes it's fun to run away with a scenario and stomp the dirt out of it, and sometimes it's fun to be pushed to your very brink. Variety is the spice of life.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
7. I know this will draw a lot of ire, but I HONESTLY believe it would be a good idea for PFS in general to give a negative penalty to a GM who kills a player, and give huge penalties to GMS who have Total Party Wipes. I don't know what the penalties would be, but I have seen too many gm's in public venues who seem to take pleasure in killing players (sometimes even adding little flags to their GM screens as trophies for player deaths), and even celebrate it and boast about their player deaths to other GMs. I've even seen official Paizo employees do it at PaizoCon. They should be sad when a player dies, because the players put a LOT of real-world time into their characters and are there to have fun. Gm's should be trying to encourage players to have fun, not trying to kill them.
If you want PFS to flourish you need to give GMs the ability to do a little hand waving and bend the rules rather than follow them to the letter and kill players. In the example of the pickup game above, the GM and his fellow gms seemed pretty proud of killing all those players and played the RAW with no hand waving or consideration for their players "fun". Out of 4 tables there was a total party wipe (of lvl 2-3 characters who are permanently dead), my table lost 3 of 5 characters, and each of the other tables lost at least 1 if not 2 players. That is a HUGE ratio of deaths to players, and that is NOT the way to encourage players to play PFS.
I know I certainly will never go back to that venue for a random pickup game, and I would be very hesitant to ever play a pickup game at a local game store again with Gms I don't know. (And I am a very experienced pen & paper gamer). Want to scare everyone off and shrink your player base drastically? Continue to encourage Gms to kill players, or don't look for ways to discourage them from doing so and you will see this happen.
I understand the RAW guys, but it's no fun to have a character die. And I'm sorry, but I see the role of a PFS GM as someone who should be building the player base (a promoter) and making sure that anyone who sits at his table has fun (try your damnedest NOT to kill players). Whether the GM has fun is not really relevant. (And yes, I've been a Gm many times before in many other games). I'd REALLY like to see PFS take an official stance for their GMs to encourage Fun over RAW.
I strongly disagree with this. I'm a GM who's already afraid that I'm going to kill a character. And yet, I force myself to play by RAW. Luckily for me, none of my players' characters have died (yet), but I know that it's going to happen sometime. Setting aside for the moment that I'm worried about how the player will feel (probably more than justified and because I know what it's like to lose a character I've put a lot of effort into making and building up)...
And setting aside for the moment the point made ad nauseum above (death is part of tabletop RPGs)...
What you've said here strikes me as contrary to the spirit of gaming in general. The whole point of sitting down at a table to play a game like Pathfinder RPG, Pathfinder Society, GURPS, Alternity, or what have you, is to have fun. And in my (somewhat limited, compared to folks like Kyle or Mike or Bob) experience with Pathfinder Society, that's what happens. I've had players near death, useless in combats because they're bleeding out at 1hp a round. Two at one of my most recent, in the same combat, too. And at the end of the night, they all agreed that they had a fun time.
I suggest that if you're not having fun in Pathfinder Society, whether it be because you feel the GMs are too unfair when sticking with the RAW or because you feel that it's too easy and you're not being challenged well enough to hold your interest, that Pathfinder Society is not your cup of tea. Not that it's not for you—never that, because (let's be fair about this) the phrase, "not for you," carries an unfortunate, oft-unintended and, moreover, an oft-overlooked strong connotation that implies exclusivity—but rather that you'd prefer something else. While we love having players, yourself included, it's not as fun for us as GMs if we know our players aren't having fun playing the game they're playing. If I have to ask why you're playing the game, I feel like there's something wrong, and that perhaps you'd be much happier being elsewhere and doing elsewhat.
I don't agree with celebrating over a character death. And I will never condone it in the GMs that I will eventually recruit. Certainly, if a player is going to be a good sport about it, or even can see the fun in his character's death I won't stop them from joshing with that player and others at the table and even other GMs. My point here is that I want to see caring GMs who recognize that a player is feeling down about what may honestly feel like a lot of lost time and effort. And if you feel that GMs running the tables at your local venue are going out of their way to TPK so they can brag about it, then you should seriously contact your local VC or Mike Brock about it. However...
However, I will never agree to penalizing GMs for character death when the GM was following Rules-As-Written. I have trouble getting players already, and that's starting to pan out better since I have both the stores in my town advertising for me. But I'm sure that the majority of VCs and VLs will tell you they know just how difficult it can be to recruit a GM, because that's probably a hundred times harder to do. Not just anybody will step up for the position, and quite frankly not just anybody has the right combination of attributes to perform the job even passably. Giving someone a minefield, telling them, "now this might kill some people even if they're good at avoiding mines," followed by, "if anyone dies, you don't get paid," and then, "usher these people who claim to be good at avoiding mines across the minefield," is ALWAYS going to result in a resounding "HELL NO!" That is to say, giving them yet another reason to not do it will turn them off to the idea even more. What this illustrates, obviously, is that I'm really bad with analogies.
While on this path, it's important to note that it is important the GM has fun. If GMing is not fun, it's work, and if it's work, I don't want to do it and nobody else will, either. Especially if there's no benefit in following the rules, because there's definitely no benefit to be had from bending or even breaking them.
Even worse would be to give GMs the edict to let all their players' characters live, even if those players make poor choices or if the dice do what they're supposed to do and roll badly sometimes. The dice are one of the things that are most decidedly not a guideline, and if a player makes a choice, there are definitely either positive or negative consequences of the actions she chooses for her character. If there's no real risk, there's no game. Pathfinder, like D&D before it, is about that risk. It's about delving into secret dungeons and sifting through the ruins of ancient, collapsed fortresses, and exploring a strange and wondrous world filled with traps, treasure and things that would like nothing better than to destroy you. And if you take the danger out of that, you may as well be frolicking through gardens of butterflies, in a world where it never rains and yet a rainbow hanging perpetually in the sky. (PROTIP: If you ever, while playing Pathfinder or D&D, end up in a place like the one described above, be very scared.)
But, after all that, let's return to the original topic: If you were in my region, at my table, and your character died in a scenario, I would not laugh unless you were laughing, too, and then I would be laughing with you. And then I would ask you if you'd like help creating a new character for next time. For my players, I'll do anything within my power as a GM—power that's limited by the RAW. If you ask me about something I will tell you what I know of it and go home and research if I don't. If you email me or call me and tell me you are sick or that you have another engagement and won't be able to make it this week, I will tell you I look forward to seeing you next week. If you want to argue that the rules are unfair I will either agree with your or disagree, but I'll be honest about it and I will continue to follow those rules. As a GM, I am your best friend and I will be honest with you Every. Single. Time. And as your best friend, I won't change the rules for you or lower the hurdles because however hard the world your character lives in wants him to fail, I want him to succeed all the way, just like everyone else who's gotten over those hurdles all over the world. As a GM, I don't try to kill characters. I let the NPCs and monsters do that for themselves, and it's definitely not my job to stop them from doing it. My job, as a Pathfinder Society GM, is to tell the story. My job as a promoter of Pathfinder Society is to interest players who are willing to give their time to the game, to their character, in exchange for having fun and trying to keep their character alive throughout that story. And I do all of that and more, every week.
well i made a thread and no one answered it, then i saw this thread and another one. this not what its for?? if not im sorry.I think you're fine. If you think that adding Bestiary 3 familiars would help PFS. Then this is the place for that comment, or at least one of the places.
i would defiantly like for the familiars in book 3 to be legal. since i didnt see it on the legal list i assume its not. unless its an accidental over-site. i just want a Faerie Dragon as a familiar. if not Pesudodragon is fine. lol
|
|
i would defiantly like for the familiars in book 3 to be legal. since i didnt see it on the legal list i assume its not. unless its an accidental over-site. i just want a Faerie Dragon as a familiar. if not Pesudodragon is fine. lolwell i made a thread and no one answered it, then i saw this thread and another one. this not what its for?? if not im sorry.I think you're fine. If you think that adding Bestiary 3 familiars would help PFS. Then this is the place for that comment, or at least one of the places.
I'm guessing that as the B3 was just recently released that the legal list hasn't been updated yet with the information. I would give Paizo a bit more time to update if you're willing to be patient and wait for the familar that you really want
I'm guessing that as the B3 was just recently released that the legal list hasn't been updated yet with the information. I would give Paizo a bit more time to update if you're willing to be patient and wait for the familar that you really wanti would defiantly like for the familiars in book 3 to be legal. since i didnt see it on the legal list i assume its not. unless its an accidental over-site. i just want a Faerie Dragon as a familiar. if not Pesudodragon is fine. lolwell i made a thread and no one answered it, then i saw this thread and another one. this not what its for?? if not im sorry.I think you're fine. If you think that adding Bestiary 3 familiars would help PFS. Then this is the place for that comment, or at least one of the places.
makes sense. i forgot that that book hasn't been out very long. thank u
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I'm a little staggered at the suggestion to penalize the people that make the fairly huge investment of time and resources to GM because PCs die at their table. If the suggestion is that we should penalize those GM's that cheat in order to kill PCs, I agree. Cheaters should be punished. But crippling those that are running the RAW, simply because the rolls haven't been in the players favor is ridiculous IMO.
If a GM is overly gloating, or making players uncomfortable, then you have an issue that's not related to the death of a PC. That's just someone being a tool.
We shouldn't make any sort of hard and fast rule that penalizes the people that essentially make PFS happen. Because even if the intent is pure, I guarantee that we'd loose a lot of your part time GMs. I hear it already: "Why should I ever GM if there's a chance that I could get less than I would from playing?" And really, why would they.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little staggered at the suggestion to penalize the people that make the fairly huge investment of time and resources to GM because PCs die at their table. If the suggestion is that we should penalize those GM's that cheat in order to kill PCs, I agree. Cheaters should be punished. But crippling those that are running the RAW, simply because the rolls haven't been in the players favor is ridiculous IMO.
If a GM is overly gloating, or making players uncomfortable, then you have an issue that's not related to the death of a PC. That's just someone being a tool.
We shouldn't make any sort of hard and fast rule that penalizes the people that essentially make PFS happen. Because even if the intent is pure, I guarantee that we'd loose a lot of your part time GMs. I hear it already: "Why should I ever GM if there's a chance that I could get less than I would from playing?" And really, why would they.
What the original point of the post that started this (i.e Wolflord)is that a GM should share the burden of PC deaths. I will go out on a limb, unlike so many of you, and agree fully with that concept. Walter points out, like others, that why should a GM, who puts such "time and effort" into an adventure be punished... are you kidding me. I am both a GM and a player and have seen how much "time" goes into these adventures and it is nothing... yes Nothing... when compared to the time a player puts into a character with sheer playing time. Let me illustrate my point. Lets say a player to a table with a 4th level character can join a game and that DM kills the entire party. RAW says only the players are required to pay the penalty of death. One player who dies this way looses what at least 36 hours (if they cannot afford a res and assuming 4 hour sessions) compared to the DMs what 3 hours for prep... Even if they can afford a res, they loose 16 PA (taking 8 games or 32 hours of play) to make up PER Character. Your argument is flimsy at best and completely DM centric. We as DMs should be embracing the fun of the game, not "realism". If you want realism, then get off the computer and go running or something. This is a fantasy game... I am much more interested in looking out for the newer players and making sure they had fun than i am about looking out for DMs. PFS is supposed to be RAW and i'm not recommending that be changed at all, but rather that DMs should also live by that sword and share the burden. Currently, there is no penalty to a GM for a player death, and as has been said before MOST (99%) of games do not even have character deaths. For those games the penalty is not an issue. But, for that small percentage that does, I believe strongly that a real penalty be given to DMs. One can easily justify it as the danger that the DMs character is in (the one who receives credit). Examples of penalties might include making DMs pay for a 6th of the cost in PA -or- gold that would be incurred by players raising their party or make them pay the difference in PA/gold for the minimum res if they (the player) cannot afford it (taken from a character in the DMs stable that has the PA/gold to spare), AND/OR if you have a party wipe, then the DMs character has also died and must pay the same cost as all players. If it is so "dangerous" questing as some of you have so astutely pointed out, then why should the GM get a pass with THEIR characters. This kind of rule will not normally affect most games, but will strongly affect those that are more interested in killing players. If they get upset at this and want to leave the game then i happily say "goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out". I have personally seen DMs who do get kicks on some level by killing players. I think some do hide behind the rules and set out to exert power over others. I personally will not play with ANY DM who has a "player kill tally" because i believe YOU fall into the above category. I hope that Paizo is keeping tabs on DMs with high kill rate cause i would be willing to bet that there are some out there that the numbers would speak for themselves. Before you all speculate that i have lost a character or three, think again. I have not died yet in PFS. I just think that we DMs should share the penalties with the group.
|
This kind of rule will not normally affect most games, but will strongly affect those that are more interested in killing players. If they get upset at this and want to leave the game then i happily say "goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out". I have personally seen DMs who do get kicks on some level by killing players. I think some do hide behind the rules and set out to exert power over others. I personally will not play with ANY DM who has a "player kill tally" because i believe YOU fall into the above category. I hope that Paizo is keeping tabs on DMs with high kill rate cause i would be willing to bet that there are some out there that the numbers would speak for themselves.
If you've personally seen a PFS GM going out of their way to kill PCs, then get their PFS number and report them to your local Venture-Captain, or to Mike Brock. There's no need to introduce new rules; bullying and being a jerk are already prohibited in the Guide.
I had the first death of a PC in a PFS game I was GMing last night; a 2nd level character stood next to a monster that did 1d4+6+1d6 damage on a hit, and gave it the chance to make a full attack. Both attacks hit, I rolled high on damage, the PC went down to -12 (Con 13) and bled out at the end of the round. I felt bad about it, but the player took it well. I'm not sure why you think I deserve punishment for this.
Currently, there is no penalty to a GM for a player death
If a GM causes a player death, contact local law enforcement...
|
|
For those games the penalty is not an issue. But, for that small percentage that does, I believe strongly that a real penalty be given to DMs. One can easily justify it as the danger that the DMs character is in (the one who receives credit). Examples of penalties might include making DMs pay for a 6th of the cost in PA -or- gold that would be incurred by players raising their party or make them pay the difference in PA/gold for the minimum res if they (the player) cannot afford it (taken from a character in the DMs stable that has the PA/gold to spare), AND/OR if you have a party wipe, then the DMs character has also died and must pay the same cost as all players. If it is so "dangerous" questing as some of you have so astutely pointed out, then why should the GM get a pass with THEIR characters. This kind of rule will not normally affect most games, but will strongly affect those that are more interested in killing players. If they get upset at this and want to leave the game then i happily say "goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out". I have personally seen DMs who do get kicks on some level by killing players. I think some do hide behind the rules and set out to exert power over others. I personally will not play with ANY DM who has a "player kill tally" because i believe YOU fall into the above category. I hope that Paizo is keeping tabs on DMs with high kill rate cause i would be willing to bet that there are some out there that the numbers would speak for themselves. Before you all speculate that i have lost a character or three, think again. I have not died yet in PFS. I just think that we DMs should share the penalties with the group.
This is an absolutely terrible idea on just about every level. Why are you vilifying the DM for characters dying, even though you couch it in rhetorical terms of certain DM's killing characters for kicks. Anything that can possibly penalize the DM for doing their job and running a scenario is a terrible thing for the society and for the game in general.
In your proposal, what happens if a DM who has already taken their DM credit for a scenario has a player death while running a game. Are you seriously proposing that one of that DM's characters who has nothing to do with the adventure will suddenly get gold/PA taken from it? Not a good idea.
Personally, I like the wide variation of difficulty based on the varied factors. Groups that "know" how difficult a scenario would always be become complacent, and thus IMO boring. I like that there are easier scenarios, and harder ones that keep you on your toes.The situation with people who always want to play up is just a symptom of the real issue: some scenarios are easy and some scenarios are hard and it's impossible to tell which is which just by reading the title. If my fighter goes from level 5 to level 6, that doesn't magically turn a hard module into an easy module, so it's disingenuous to pretend that the only problem is with people playing up.
That's why having a wide variation in difficulty level is a bad thing.
But once you're expecting hard scenarios in the mix, then you have characters geared up to tackle hard scenarios who are randomly faced with creampuff scenarios as well. That's, like, the opposite of keeping you on your toes.
|
|
What the original point of the post that started this (i.e Wolflord)is that a GM should share the burden of PC deaths. I will go out on a limb, unlike so many of you, and agree fully with that concept. Walter points out, like others, that why should a GM, who puts such "time and effort" into an adventure be punished... are you kidding me.
I am both a GM and a player and have seen how much "time" goes into these adventures and it is nothing... yes Nothing... when compared to the time a player puts into a character with sheer playing time. Let me illustrate my point. Lets say a player to a table with a 4th level character can join a game and that DM kills the entire party. RAW says only the players are required to pay the penalty of death.
Is my time not just as valuable as the players? Personally I spend probably 3-4 hours prepping a scenario -- between printing, reading, drawing maps (hand-drawn, colored etc).
GMs already take a hit in not getting boons on chronicles (yes they can be weak, but still..), why are you further advocating penalizing GMs? You say you're a GM, I find it hard pressed to fathom why someone who GMs would advocate this.
As for sharing the burden. Players go into a scenario knowing that death is a possibility, that death or not-death depends on several variables; the players actions with the character, specifics within the scenario, and the randomness of the dice.
As the GM I am not responsible for the players actions; as long as I'm running by RAW I am not responsible for the specifics of the scenario, and I certainly cannot control the randomness of the dice. Why am I suddenly required to share responsibility for things out of my control?
No matter what you say, you will never get me to agree to share responsibility and penalize one of my own barely played characters for another characters death.
...but rather that DMs should also live by that sword and share the burden. Currently, there is no penalty to a GM for a player death, and as has been said before MOST (99%) of games do not even have character deaths. For those games the penalty is not an issue. But, for that small percentage that does, I believe strongly that a real penalty be given to DMs. One can easily justify it as the danger that the DMs character is in (the one who receives credit). Examples of penalties might include making DMs pay for a 6th of the cost in PA -or- gold that would be incurred by players raising their party or make them pay the difference in PA/gold for the minimum res if they (the player) cannot afford it (taken from a character in the DMs stable that has the PA/gold to spare), AND/OR if you have a party wipe, then the DMs character has also died and must pay the same cost as all players. If it is so "dangerous" questing as some of you have so astutely pointed out, then why should the GM get a pass with THEIR characters...
Wow. I can't hardly think how to respond except:
No... just no...
|
|
I am both a GM and a player and have seen how much "time" goes into these adventures and it is nothing... yes Nothing... when compared to the time a player puts into a character with sheer playing time. Let me illustrate my point. Lets say a player to a table with a 4th level character can join a game and that DM kills the entire party. RAW says only the players are required to pay the penalty of death. One player who dies this way looses what at least 36 hours (if they cannot afford a res and assuming 4 hour sessions) compared to the DMs what 3 hours for prep... Even if they can afford a res, they loose 16 PA (taking 8 games or 32 hours of play) to make up PER Character.
Who do you suppose ran all these scenarios for this ficticious 4th level party? Probably a GM. Let's go with your numbers. 3 hours of prep, though I find that kind of low, per scenario and that's before the game even starts.
So really, here is the math:
Level 4 character: 9 scenarios x 4 hours game time= 36 hours of time invested.
GM: 9 scenarios x (3 hours of prep + 4 hours game time)= 63 hours of time invested.
The GM puts in a lot more time than the player does. The GM is never allowed to play up to get more gold for the PC the chronicle will go to. They dont get the boon from the chronicle. They dont get the pleasure of playing that character through that scenario, since they are busy running it for you.
Are you really suggesting penalizing them further?
|
|
In my experience, the vast majority of character deaths are because of tactical errors and unfavorable dice. All of my character deaths have been due to the former. Things like charging a glabrezu, a tactic I do not recommend BTW. The latter is just, well, random.
I would guess that most situations where a GM has an usually high kill rate is either because he runs a lot of mid/high-tier season 2/3 scenarios or because he is operating outside the GM tenets whether that be changing the scenarios or just being a douche. I don't see a need to penalize the whole of the GM community because of a few jerks. We already have a rule that covers them and a system to report their actions.
Historically, GM's have been revered for their time investment, willingness to give up playing, spending extra money other players do not incur, etc. It's a little concerning that there is this much vitriol. I just hope the attitude is limited to a very small minority of vocal forumites. If I thought my efforts as a GM were not appreciated and players wanted to punish me, I would seriously consider finding a new hobby.
and the tone in here is getting a bit edgy...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've killed one PC: it was a crit with a heavy crossbow against a level 1 PC, with a high damage roll. Full HP to dead in one shot.
I almost killed another: the PCs had contracted a potentially fatal disease, and one of them wasn't very lucky with his saves. He eventually made it to a large enough town to buy remove disease, and on his third one got cured, being only about 3 points of CON damage away from death. Higher damage rolls on his failed saves and he'd have been permanently dead.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
As this debate between GM/player penalties starts up (or peters out) we also need to remember that GMs are players too. They have characters, spend some time on the other side of the table, and even, yes, have their PCs die.
I remember my first character death was the first weekend in a while (at least 10 games since I'd gotten to play) with a character that I had never played. For the record, being four levels lower than that giant you want to dance with doesn't work out very well. But that's what happens when you play up :D. I didn't argue with the GM, I took my licks and my team scraped together the gold for my rez.
The point I'm driving at is we're all in it together. PCs = GMs if given enough time, and vis-versa. And players should realize, after GMing for a while, that it really is a lot of work on their end -- a lot more than being a player in my mind (and that's a debate I won't do here, if you want to PM me, we can have it there) -- and realizing that, I doubt that players would be on board with crippling the people that make their games happen.
If someone is being overly vindictive, rude, or otherwise callous towards others at the table -- be they GM or PC -- then I agree action should be taken. But to make blanket decisions for the actions of a few is always unadvised.
And for the record, it was my girlfriend that killed that character of mine (meaning I died twice >.<). It was her second time GMing, after playing Pathfinder for under a year. If we slapped her on the wrist for doing what she *should have done* I doubt she would be volunteering to GM in the future. And PFS needs its GMs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am both a GM and a player and have seen how much "time" goes into these adventures and it is nothing... yes Nothing... when compared to the time a player puts into a character with sheer playing time.
If this is how you feel, I would like to humbly suggest that you do not GM like I GM.
I won't go so far as to say you're doing it wrong, but I'm really, really biting my tongue here.
...
Also, if your character dies, the players at your table aren't under any obligation to help pay for your Raise Dead. Should they? Debatable - it seems like a lot do. But they don't have to. Why should the GM?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to kill a PC to be bad GM.
You don't have to be a bad GM to kill a PC.
To think that killing a PC is sufficient cause to enact disciplinary measures against the GM shows a lack of understanding of how the game should and does work.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
I don't want to be a thread cop...
...or stifle conversation...
...but maybe this needs to be its own thread? If it needs to be discussed any further at all?
Here's why I think that: 'How Can We Help?' was the original topic.
That sort of meant Developers, Authors, and even VC's and VL's, listening to and helping the community by making the experience better. Its a loose topic without any many limits, and I certainly don't mind it wandering around a little. By casual conversation we're coming up with all kinds of good insights.
But we authors can't really change the way people GM. Its not within the scope of our authority. Its not really our place. We're not always out in the field; and if I was a GM I wouldn't want some dude second-guessing the volunteer work I was doing for fun.
Granted, this is the business of Mike and Mark I suppose. But perhaps this should be its own thread; unless of course it has already played out?
|
Are you seriously proposing that one of that DM's characters who has nothing to do with the adventure will suddenly get gold/PA taken from it? Not a good idea
I see nothing wrong with this. Aren't you going to give one of those characters session credit even thought they had nothing to do with the adventure? if you get positive credit, you should be able to take negative penalties. Fair is fair.
Who do you suppose ran all these scenarios for this ficticious 4th level party? Probably a GM. Let's go with your numbers. 3 hours of prep, though I find that kind of low, per scenario and that's before the game even starts.
So really, here is the math:
Level 4 character: 9 scenarios x 4 hours game time= 36 hours of time invested.
GM: 9 scenarios x (3 hours of prep + 4 hours game time)= 63 hours of time invested.
You are assuming here that the GM who killed the character was the same guy who was there running all the adventures while he was leveling up. What Arctic is saying is that it often isn't the case, especially in pickup games. You could level your characters all over the world and show up to a pickup game and the Gm could kill you off.
I still see NO reason why there is permadeath in PFS. It is not like the world is going to get too full of lvl 12 adventurers. Who cares if everyone can play a character up to lvl 12? They'd have fun doing it and can still make new characters any time they want. Our characters do not really show up in the fiction so overpopulation would never happen. I'd be fine with "killing" a character if it was not permanent and didn't have such huge hits on money and prestige. (And I know some of you think that is the whole point of prestige). I'd like to see a character who "dies" merely be knocked unconscious for the adventure. (Perhaps unhealable or not, if you want the group to have fun bringing him back). After the adventure he pays for curing/removing/healing/negative levels or whatever, but there is no need for raise dead or perma-death as he never really died. He'd still be out for the scenario if the dice went badly, but the player would not have to worry about him being perm-killed. Perma-death and all the normal penalties for raise dead and negative levels is a HUGE deterrant to playing pickup games. I mean, does anyone ever have a character killed or perma-killed and then honestly think it was fun to have that character slain? If you think so, you might be kidding yourself.
I know many of you disagree, and I respect that, but when I adventure and gain loot it is so that I can buy more cool loot and items. As it stands now, it seems like that money will have to be saved up as Death insurance, which is not very fun. Seriously, does anyone really like paying for insurance of any kind? It's kind of a scam and everyone knows it. Playing just to have insurance is not all that exciting and kinda breaks the draw of D&D, which has always been adventure, awesome baddies, loot, and treasure.
Also, one-shot-kills or deaths where the pc has no chance to even react are not fun and should be avoided at all costs IMHO. Those crits that kill 1st lvl characters or spells that insta-kill pcs should not happen. Put them at -9 and have them be stable and out of the fight, but don't kill them. This goes back to RAW vs fun and you all know which side of that I fall under. I honestly do not understand WHY they need to die in an organized play adventure where you are trying to attract new players and encourage existing players to take their characters worldwide for pickup games.
|
|
I see nothing wrong with this. Aren't you going to give one of those characters session credit even thought they had nothing to do with the adventure? if you get positive credit, you should be able to take negative penalties. Fair is fair.
So what happens if I have already taken GM credit and running the scenario for the 2+ time? Do you expect the GM to offer up one of their characters then?
I rarely see character deaths the first time I run a scenario. That is largely due to my unfamiliarity to how their tactics should really work (despite advance prep). After a run or two, I am more comfortable with the BBEG/mook's skills, abilities, tactics and how they complement each other. Very similar to how a player is familiar with their own character's abilities after playing them for dozens of hours. It is at this time that poor decisions by the players and unfavorable die rolls are less forgivable. YMMV.