|
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 ideaI 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.
I think you misunderstood me a little bit. I was talking about a case where the DM is not taking their DM chronicle for the game. In the case where they are applying credit, you have more of a leg to stand on for your proposal.
I just strikes me as remarkably imamture for players to insist on punishing the DM for having the audacity to kill their character off. Usually when your character dies you can find out why it happened by looking in the mirror. Or at the scenario writer in some cases.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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 ideaI 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.
Getting the same result as someone else is not necessarily "fair". Getting what you earned is fair. Not everyone at the table earns the same thing.
If a player's stupid actions earn him a PC death but he doesn't get one, that's NOT fair.
If a player's stupid actions earn him a PC death and the GM has to pay for it, that's NOT fair.
Stop equating "PC dies" with "GM did something wrong". 99% of PC deaths are not the GM's fault, and it is NOT his job to prevent them. If a specific GM is being a jerk (whether it involves a PC dying or not), take action against THAT GM. To take action against GMs who aren't doing anything wrong is decidedly NOT fair.
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.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.
It's just as likely that the GM is applying credit to his 7th-level PC when your 3rd-level PC dies as is the opposite. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to get at here.
|
|
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.
This is true, but it is beside the point. For every 4 hours of 'wasted' time a player has put into the dead character, a GM (whether the same one or multiples) has put 7.
I dont like saying this kind of thing, as the point is to encourage people to play ad grow the game, but if you have a serious problem with how PFS works, because the GM isnt accountable (in most situations) for character death, then maybe you shouldnt be playing PFS.
99% of PC deaths are not the GM's fault, and it is NOT his job to prevent them.
I'm sure everyone's experience is different, but my experience is that some GMs (quite a few of them, IMO) are softies and will tend to steer away from PC deaths out of pity (e.g. monsters will suddenly stop attacking aggressively or will forgo the use of a particularly deadly ability). So there are GMs out there who do think it's their job to prevent PC deaths (at least "unfair" ones).
|
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.
Well, you can only get positive credit once, so you should only be penalized once for all the times you run it. Though this would give GMs a free pass to kill off as many characters as they want once they have taken the one negative hit. That would be up to Paizo to balance, but its all kind of moot because they obviously side with RAW, GMS, and huge penalties for dying.
First time scenarios differing from successive playthroughs depends on how you as the Gm play the NPCS. The first time you aren't playing to win or using the most deadly tactics, you are trying to figure out the tactics. The second time around you know how to play the npcs in the deadliest way and most gms do. (Open with the firestorm that hits the entire party, then follow it up with flame strikes, or other nasty things.) What I was sort of hinting at above is that gms don't HAVE to always have the npcs employ the most devastating tactics. Players often don't, because they want to have fun, have gained a new level and don't understand their abilities, are casual players, or might be newbies. While it is within the rights of a Gm to play the npcs in the most deadly way possible, personally I don't feel they always need to for the group to have fun. They can choose to make it a little easier if it means not killing a character and having him sit there with nothing to do for 4 hours.
Remember, this thread asked what I would like to see and this is my perfect pfs world. I know many of you would probably hate it. I do find it interesting that AFAIK only (or mostly) gms have responded. I wonder what experienced non-gm players, or newbie players (with chars under lvl 5) would think of these ideas. How do they feel about all these issues? Did these things (and not just the death thing) make them want to come back for more or did it deter them?
|
|
Currently "they can choose". My preference for change would be "do it or else." My statement is still completely valid. :)
But honestly, if characters don't actually die in an adventure, but may have to sit it out while unconscious due to bad rolls or a boneheaded move, then everyone wins. No deaths equal no huge penalties for gms or players. Gms can play it how they want to, but I still say they should be mindful that getting nuked with no recourse is not fun for a player.
How do GMs die every game Purple?
|
|
Currently "they can choose". My preference for change would be "do it or else."
But honestly, if characters don't actually die in an adventure, but may have to sit it out while unconscious due to bad rolls or a boneheaded move, then everyone wins. No deaths equal no huge penalties for gms or players. Gms can play it how they want to, but I still say they should be mindful that getting nuked with no recourse is not fun for a player.
While it is within the rights of a Gm to play the npcs in the most deadly way possible, personally I don't feel they always need to for the group to have fun. They can choose to make it a little easier if it means not killing a character and having him sit there with nothing to do for 4 hours.
As a GM we've been told to Run As Written... you're asking us to go against the campaign managment. Doubt that is going to happen. I stand by my statement that death happens.
I think that the writers lately have done a really good job of providing a challenege to the GM (in learning new aspects of the campaign and npc types), as well as, providing a challenge to the player and their character.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
GMs die whenever their minions die -- minions that the PCs slaughter by the boatload. I believe that's what Purple meant.
But I have a question for you. Would you force GM penalties when the players die while playing pregen characters? I ran three tables of We Be Goblins this weekend and killed a total of 8 people. Should I get knocked 8 times or just 1? Even when the end fight is designed to be incredibly tough for a party of 4 goblins
The goblin PCs have an average of 8 hp, and deal around 1d4 to 1d4-2 damage a hit. The animal companion of the final boss does 1d6+4 damage, can grapple at a reach of 15 feet and has 22 hit points with evasion. The boss starts out by dropping a swarm on the PCs that does 1d6 damage a round, with STR poison and chance to nauseate. And then she summons dogs while spider climbing in the ceiling. She has 29 health and 3 potions of CLW and a spell of CLW prepared. Against level 1 PCs.
EDIT: For the record, all of my tables loved the game, even though they were either eaten, exploded, beheaded or charred to a crisp in the last fight. It was enjoyable for all, even the poor sod that got blown up by his own rocket.
|
|
A gm plays anywhere from 6-30+ npcs/monsters over the course of a game, but they are not his characters. he doesn't suffer when one of them is defeated by the party. Is anyone seriously implying that a gm takes an emotional hit or even cares when a swarm he is controlling or a mummy dies?
If a player plays a pregen then their at-home characters can't die and can only get benefits right? (or am I misunderstanding how and when you play pregens?) In that case, if a pregen dies the player's other characters are not being penalized for dying so the gm's other characters shouldn't either. Again, fair is fair. But I'm not making the rules here, that is Paizo's job.
Yes, that goblin adventure was fun! The reason was partially because there was no risk to the player's other characters. You could fully embrace the silliness of being a goblin and taking risks. We played it too and we really liked it. it is precisely this, "Just have fun" attitude that I wish was encourage in all PFS games. If PFS employed a system where there was no huge penalty to death, aside from sitting out for a while, it might lead to a lot more players having more fun and feeling more free to take risks and be heroic.
I still say PFS should be about having fun, not realism or enforcing RAW, especially when those would lead to tedium, penalties, or a lot less fun.
|
I still say PFS should be about having fun, not realism or enforcing RAW, especially when those would lead to tedium, penalties, or a lot less fun.
"Roll to hit!"
"I rolled a one...but its not fun missing. Can I hit anyways?""Ok! Roll damage."
"Only 4 points of damage....wouldn't it be cooler if I did max damage?"
"Cool, you killed him!"
At what point does the system break down into a LARP? It sounds like you would prefer a game that is more of a LARP, letting you tell a fun story without any risk to characters. Pathfinder Society is based on the Pathfinder Core *RULE* Book, not the "Rule of Cool".
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I've never seen a GM in PFS who goes out of their way to kill PCs. If someone had an abnormally high rate of PC death at their tables, you would think their V-C (and/or fellow players) would notice and have a chat with the kill-happy GM.
I take it you've never met Kyle Baird then? ;)
|
|
I've never seen a GM in PFS who goes out of their way to kill PCs. If someone had an abnormally high rate of PC death at their tables, you would think their V-C (and/or fellow players) would notice and have a chat with the kill-happy GM.I take it you've never met Kyle Baird then? ;)
Kyle plays the stat block, he doesn't intentionally kill characters. Now does he have a high kill-rate -- yeppers... is it intentional nope
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Again, fair is fair.
But fair isn't fair. Example.
One PC dies -- that player is penalized by fact of having a dead char. We place some sort of penalization on the GM that would be equivalent (i.e. making him share costs).
What about when two PCs die, what about three? What if they all die? And choose not to rez? Does the GM take four or six or however many PCs there were worth of his character sheets and tear them up?
We are forgetting that GMs aren't (or shouldn't be) out to get PCs. They are judges. They are there to moderate the rules and run the challenges as presented in the scenario. And unless the rules regarding either of those things change (to allow for moderation in CR for table size), penalizing someone for "playing by the rules" is kind of silly.
I don't smack players when they roll 20s, or tell them that it didn't count. Nor do I ask my players not to kill the BBEG because it was unfair to gang up five against one. By playing PFS you are agreeing to play a game moderated by rules. And any problem people have with GMs killing PCs is really a problem people have with the rules allowing for that to happen. Rules like when a person reaches -con they die.
--------------
On track: things that I'd be interested to see in scenarios -- unusual fights.
For those that have played the Drow in the Darklands Pyramid, you know what I'm talking about. Fights underwater, on other planes, in the air, stuff like that.
More scenarios like To Scale the Dragon, with new, scenario specific rules for bizarre situations. Think Magtheridon or Lady Vashj for those of you that used to play WoW. Ones where you have to use an item or set of items at the proper time during a battle to turn the tide in your favor.
Anything that takes the "norm" players and GMs have come to expect and tosses it on end.
Also having BBEGs with unusual classes. I have yet to see a gunslinger enemy. I feel like it could destroy a unprepared PC, but I'd like to see one worked in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wolflord, do you generally have an adversarial relationship with your DM? Because all of your posts seem to presuppose that the relationship between the Dm and players is a competition. This is not an attack in any way, I'm just curious if you have ever noticed that.
|
|
I'll toss my two cents in. Things I would like to see:
1) More unique gear: A lot has already been said. Only comment I have is I would especially like to see changes to the subtier 1-2 loot lists. Preferably more than 1 item and things that stand out/fit the flavor of the scenario. I'm not asking for half of what's in the Society's vault at level 1 (not like a 1st level PC could afford it). Maybe give a circumstantial bonus that could help a PC do something they can't normally at low levels? Going way back as an example, I reference Silent Tide.
2) Faction missions that feel like they fit: Again, many have posted similar. The only thing I'll reiterate is balancing out the difficulty of the missions for all factions. As a player/GM I've seen some factions as a whole have missions that are complete tangents to what is going on in the scenario. Slaying all the undead in the place you're going is way easier and "on mission" than trying to hit a DC 20 diplomacy check to sway a group of NPCs to your cause when they are the ones that attacked your group in the first place via ambush.
3) Give Options for the GM: Lemme 'splain (hopefully without kicking up the old RAW vs GM freedom to make changes debate). This example relates heavily to faction missions, since I've read that encounter design/scaling is forthcoming and I want to wait and see how that works. I've noticed sometimes that some faction missions allow multiple opportunities to attempt something, but maybe it's the same skill check. Well again, if I don't have that skill as the PC, I'm kinda hosed. Especially if I'm supposed to be "discreet". What if I get creative and try to do something else? As a GM, if someone at least sells me their idea and hits a particular DC I try to make up on the spot, it's up to the dice gods at that point. But my definition of an "allowable" creative solution may not be the same as the next GM. So my suggestion would be for some cases (not all) give primary, secondary, and tertiary options for success. It would standardize GM's rulings on "successful" missions, hopefully keep the game moving, but still allow some room for creative solutions by PC's (cause lets face it, since when did the party do what you expected to...).
4) Stranger locales/monsters: I think I've read some other posts along these lines. Yes to less human(oid)s, more monsters. For me, I like the Indiana Jones adventure style. Going to a lost tomb/solving riddles/finding artifacts/fighting Nazis... wait scratch that last one. The point being, I like finding something new from something old, unearthing "lost knowledge", and going up against strange creatures. Maybe part of the mission is to actually document sightings of a creature (that gives me an idea for a snipe hunt for some level 1's). Don't know about other players, but that makes me feel like a Pathfinder. I've not played/ran much in the current season nor had opportunity for many higher than level 5 adventures. So maybe I'm just missing out. I will say, the Quest for Perfection series thus far has been very entertaining for our local group.
And now my wall of text is done... whew.
|
|
Kyle plays the stat block, he doesn't intentionally kill characters. Now does he have a high kill-rate -- yeppers... is it intentional nope
I'll admit depending on the group and level of the characters I wont play the NPC's like their lives are at stake....however if I have a group that is Optimized/very experienced then it's game on and I'll play the NPC's like they're fighting for their lives...
This is for two reasons:
1. For new players I'll take it easy on them , since I would like them to keep playing PFS and have a good gaming experienceo
2. For the Optimized guys.. well they're optimized for a reason and they are normally looking for a challenge, so I give it to them. 9 times out of 10 they still make it out alive, but sometimes.... one meets pharasma a little early.:)
|
|
wolflord, do you generally have an adversarial relationship with your DM? Because all of your posts seem to presuppose that the relationship between the Dm and players is a competition. This is not an attack in any way, I'm just curious if you have ever noticed that.
Not at all. I have been a gm myself many times. For the most part the GMs I have played with in PFS have all been really great guys who know their stuff. I guess the major issues I have are:
1. I feel the penalties for death and perma-death are too strong for an organized system that is trying to attract and keep players and encourage them to put a lot of time and book-keeping into their characters. If your higher level characters keep dying then eventually you have nobody left but lvl 1 characters due to attrition.
2. I feel that GMS should be allowed and encouraged to bend the rules in the interest of players having fun (adjusting harder or easier, or giving players a lucky break or last chance action). Players and GMS alike can use common sense to know when something is not going to be fun or tedious and make changes accordingly. Forcing them to play RAW when they know it will turn a fun gaming session into a not fun experience overall is a bad idea.
In my original example, I had a blast playing and meeting new players/gms until I was insta-killed along with another character by a lvl 11 oracle's firestorm that hit the whole group with nowhere to escape to. (I know I was playing up, but sitting there for the next 4 hours dead was not fun and ruined the whole evening). To someone's comment earlier, I'm not sure that I could have done anything to prepare for that event and I certainly don't feel that the group did anything wrong to make it happen. It's presumably how the scenario was written. The Gm never told me that I could play an appropriate level pregen rather than my character who was 2-3 levels below tier. He never warned me that this was a notoriously difficult adventure, even playing at tier, much less below it. He never warned me that a potential thing an enemy would do would kill me with no chance of survival. It wasn't his responsibility to do so, but it would have been nice, and I probably would have played the pregen and had a great time (even if I died), without my pfs character getting screwed. For the record I am not mad at the Gm. He did things RAW (to the extremes or inducing tediousness in some situations IMHO) which is how PFS tells their GMS to do things. I just wish PFS would allow a bit more wiggle room for the GM to make a call in the interest of everyone having fun.
3. I feel that GMs who gloat, take pleasure in, or encourage player death should have major penalties or lose their gm status.
|
|
In my original example, I had a blast playing and meeting new players/gms until I was insta-killed along with another character by a lvl 11 oracle's firestorm that hit the whole group with nowhere to escape to. (I know I was playing up, but sitting there for the next 4 hours dead was not fun and ruined the whole evening).
So, you played up and died. If, in a home game, a player with a 3rd level fighter said "I charge the Erinyes Devil", would you let hims survive? Thats a level 3 going after a CR 8 monster. You played out of tier and got burned. Pathfinder incorporates Risk vs Reward. I have played up (level 5 in a tier 8-9) and survived, and had a blast. I also earned about 4 times the gold I had earned previously. Should every character earn 4x gold?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I feel the penalties for death and perma-death are too strong for an organized system that is trying to attract and keep players and encourage them to put a lot of time and book-keeping into their characters. If your higher level characters keep dying then eventually you have nobody left but lvl 1 characters due to attrition.
Quite simply, this isn't happening. Therefore, the concern is invalid. PFS is growing fast, characters are reaching high levels, etc. If your experience is a constant stream of death and starting over, then you need to address it at THAT level (i.e., your own experience) rather than at the PFS Policy level. Either one or more local GMs need to be investigated and potentially removed from the campaign, or you just aren't as good at surviving as you could be. But neither of those warrants a campaign-wide policy change.
2. I feel that GMS should be allowed and encouraged to bend the rules in the interest of players having fun (adjusting harder or easier, or giving players a lucky break or last chance action). Players and GMS alike can use common sense to know when something is not going to be fun or tedious and make changes accordingly. Forcing them to play RAW when they know it will turn a fun gaming session into a not fun experience overall is a bad idea.
There have been looooooong discussions about "RAW vs GM fiat", and campaign management (aka Mike and Mark) have made it quite clear that scenarios are to be run as written. Even so, that still leaves the GM with lots of wiggle-room WITHIN the rules. Again, if a local GM is especially lethal, look into that, not into changing campaign rules.
In my original example, I had a blast playing and meeting new players/gms until I was insta-killed along with another character by a lvl 11 oracle's firestorm that hit the whole group with nowhere to escape to. (I know I was playing up, but sitting there for the next 4 hours dead was not fun and ruined the whole evening). To someone's comment earlier, I'm not sure that I could have done anything to prepare for that event and I certainly don't feel that the group did anything wrong to make it happen.
Let's look at that again:
(I know I was playing up, but sitting there for the next 4 hours dead was not fun and ruined the whole evening). To someone's comment earlier, I'm not sure that I could have done anything to prepare for that event and I certainly don't feel that the group did anything wrong to make it happen.
If someone was bullying/pressuring you into playing up, address THAT.
If playing up was the only way you'd play that day, that was still your decision and therefore your fault for taking the risk and getting burned.Either way, it's not the fault of Organized Play rules that you chose to play up and got yourself killed. Take responsibility and quit passing the buck.
The Gm never told me that I could play an appropriate level pregen rather than my character who was 2-3 levels below tier. He never warned me that this was a notoriously difficult adventure, even playing at tier, much less below it. He never warned me that a potential thing an enemy would do would kill me with no chance of survival.
Then take that up with that GM. This has nothing to do with campaign rules.
3. I feel that GMs who gloat, take pleasure in, or encourage player death should have major penalties or lose their gm status.
This sentiment has been AGREED WITH by nearly everyone who's replied to you. Every time someone reacted to your idea of penalties to all GMs of dead PCs, they included a line about bloodthirsty GMs being a problem. Yet you keep insisting that every GM should face penalties when a PC dies, rather than just the ones who are out to get you. That's what people are so strongly against.
Can you not tell the difference between GMs who TRY to kill PCs and GMs whose PCs just happen to die?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wolflord, do you generally have an adversarial relationship with your DM? Because all of your posts seem to presuppose that the relationship between the Dm and players is a competition. This is not an attack in any way, I'm just curious if you have ever noticed that.Not at all. I have been a gm myself many times. For the most part the GMs I have played with in PFS have all been really great guys who know their stuff. I guess the major issues I have are:
1. I feel the penalties for death and perma-death are too strong for an organized system that is trying to attract and keep players and encourage them to put a lot of time and book-keeping into their characters. If your higher level characters keep dying then eventually you have nobody left but lvl 1 characters due to attrition.
I seriously doubt that all PFS is going to have left is lvl 1 characters. The statement has been made that death happens. You have to be prepared for it in real life and in game life. It's an unforunate side effect of both; but we life life knowing that that is the eventual outcome, it just comes earlier for some than for others. To penalize the GM is not the way alleviate this, because what will happen is you'll have a bunch of eager players and no GMs and then you truely have no game.
2. I feel that GMS should be allowed and encouraged to bend the rules in the interest of players having fun (adjusting harder or easier, or giving players a lucky break or last chance action). Players and GMS alike can use common sense to know when something is not going to be fun or tedious and make changes accordingly. Forcing them to play RAW when they know it will turn a fun gaming session into a not fun experience overall is a bad idea.
There are times where not even experience can turn a session around, it's just going to be a bad session. However, any GM can try to turn a mediochre session into a good session with out they act, not necessarily changing the scenario.
Part of being involved in organized play is that to an extent we all have the same play experience with scenarios. Now there are flavor things a GM can do (such as giving the "playable" NPCs in frost fur captives personalities) that do not detract away from the standard RAW that Paiso has published for how they see the scenario being run. Changing anything outher than a bit of flavor -- such as being the rules, changing mooks, changing the CR etc., are expressily against how Paiso wants their GMs to run the scenarios. RAW and RAI are hotly debated topics around here and I'm sure you can read the threads for yourself.
In my original example, I had a blast playing and meeting new players/gms until I was insta-killed along with another character by a lvl 11 oracle's firestorm that hit the whole group with nowhere to escape to. (I know I was playing up, but sitting there for the next 4 hours dead was not fun and ruined the whole evening). To someone's comment earlier, I'm not sure that I could have done anything to prepare for that event and I certainly don't feel that the group did anything wrong to make it happen. It's presumably how the scenario was written. The Gm never told me that I could play an appropriate level pregen rather than my character who was 2-3 levels below tier. He never warned me that this was a notoriously difficult adventure, even playing at tier, much less below it. He never warned me that a potential thing an enemy would do would kill me with no chance of survival. It wasn't his responsibility to do so, but it would have been nice, and I probably would have played the pregen and had a great time (even if I died), without my pfs character getting screwed. For the record I am not mad at the Gm. He did things RAW (to the extremes or inducing tediousness in some situations IMHO) which is how PFS tells their GMS to do things. I just wish PFS would allow a bit more wiggle room for the GM to make a call in the interest of everyone having fun.
It is not the GMs responsibility to tell you about the scenario -- presumably you could be a responsible player and read up on the sceanrio before hand and realize that playing up in a given scenario (I'm assuming Rebal's Ransom) is a bad thing. If I've guessed the scenario correctly than I know there are tons of threads and review talking about the severity of the scenario. It's stated time and time again that playing up is bad. However, all that being said, you chose to play up. That is not the GMs fault.
It is also not the GMs responsiblity to tell you that you can play a pregen ... or anything else that you listed. The GMs responsiblity is to provide as fun a game as possible within the boundaries that they are given. Again, the statement Death happens is valid. It certainly does happen when you're playing out of tier and in a known-to-be deadly scenario.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but suggesting that all GMs be penalized for you dieing due to choices that you made (not researching, expecting to be told everything, playing up and out of tier), is not a valid arguement and you'll be hard pressed to find any of the more prolific GMs that post on these forums to agree with you.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can only get positive credit once, so you should only be penalized once for all the times you run it. Though this would give GMs a free pass to kill off as many characters as they want once they have taken the one negative hit. That would be up to Paizo to balance, but its all kind of moot because they obviously side with RAW, GMS, and huge penalties for dying.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.
I feel that you have some strong issues with GMs in general, wolflord. You've repeatedly ignored the assertion—one that has been presented on numerous occasions within this thread—Player Character death is most often caused by inadvisable decisions made by players or by the random results of dice rolls.
Again, I must assert that neither of these are things that are within the scope of a GM's arsenal to adjust. ; a GM cannot change them. Where the die falls, it stays, with certain exceptions which are well within the rules and documented in the T-Shirt Reroll rule, class features, feats and traits. If I wanted to edit my players' decisions so that they were "safer," I'd be playing Pathfinder Society at home, by myself. It is cheating for a GM to specifically suggest the safest course of action for a character, although he may suggest that there are alternatives and let the players puzzle out what those alternatives are. It's definitely cheating if the GM specifically outlines the traps before they're sprung, or the tactics of the baddies, or anything else that the character should not be able to act on because she isn't meant to know about them before encountering them.
First time scenarios differing from successive playthroughs depends on how you as the Gm play the NPCS. The first time you aren't playing to win or using the most deadly tactics, you are trying to figure out the tactics. The second time around you know how to play the npcs in the deadliest way and most gms do. (Open with the firestorm that hits the entire party, then follow it up with flame strikes, or other nasty things.)
GMS are not playing to "win." As I've mentioned above, the GM's job is to tell the story. Remember that the GM also has to play the parts of any NPCs allied with the party and the parts of any NPCs who are indifferent to the party, whether they are allied with or at odds with the NPCs who are antagonistic to the party.
And a GM who is using the most deadly tactics is probably playing well outside the Rules-As-Written.
What I was sort of hinting at above is that gms don't HAVE to always have the npcs employ the most devastating tactics. Players often don't, because they want to have fun, have gained a new level and don't understand their abilities, are casual players, or might be newbies. While it is within the rights of a Gm to play the npcs in the most deadly way possible, personally I don't feel they always need to for the group to have fun. They can choose to make it a little easier if it means not killing a character and having him sit there with nothing to do for 4 hours.
Further, you're using as example your personal experience with a scenario you played up, which you announced that you yourself opted into even though it was two levels above your character's abilities. As it has been stated above, you made this choice, knowing that Pathfinder, like D&D before it, involves some risk. The risk to your character was great, and in spite of this great risk, you opted to play. This is an example of a player making a poor choice.
You also, at great inconvenience to yourself, chose to sit at that table for the remaining five hours rather than find something more productive and interesting to do.
Remember, this thread asked what I would like to see and this is my perfect pfs world. I know many of you would probably hate it. I do find it interesting that AFAIK only (or mostly) gms have responded. I wonder what experienced non-gm players, or newbie players (with chars under lvl 5) would think of these ideas. How do they feel about all these issues? Did these things (and not just the death thing) make them want to come back for more or did it deter them?
I do not see anywhere in the original post where it asks you what would make PFS a perfect world for you, and while, despite that, I still appreciate your candor, I honestly believe that your suggestions would cripple Pathfinder Society Organized Play by further deterring people from becoming GMs and causing existing ones to walk, not to mention by completely throwing off balance mechanics that are meant to keep Pathfinder Society Scenarios fair for all players.
Your qualm, as has also been mentioned before, is with specific GMs and the tactics and attitudes of those GMs—tactics and attitudes it has been suggested again and again that you should report. But the rules you're suggesting are across-the-board changes that would apply to all GMs. It is not a GM's duty, nor should it be, nor would it benefit Pathfinder Society Organized Play as a whole, to soft-ball encounters, and it has already been indicated in other topics that GMs may not employ tactics that go beyond the scope of RAW to outright maliciously kill characters.
Your character has died. I'm empathetic on the subject. But characters die and penalizing GMs for it or mandating that GMs are to "go easy" on players when the dice roll in favor of the baddies or the environment or when the players make inadvisable decisions for their characters is not the answer.
Let me turn this around, however. You spent so many hours getting your character up to level 6. The only way this can be a waste of time is if you toss aside Pathfinder Society Organized Play and never play again. And if it also causes your friends to avoid playing the game, all theirs will, too.
Instead, as the GM I told you I am, and as your best friend as I told you I am, I challenge you to do better. A dead character is not a dead stop. It's just a dip in the road or a speed bump. So I challenge you to make a more resilient character, to choose better tactics, and to realize when it's just a bad idea to play up. I challenge you to not let those hours of learning the nuances and rules go to waste. And I challenge you to fairly report when you feel GMs are outright bending or breaking the rules to march PCs to their deaths. And to fairly report when you see GMs bragging about their kill counts when—and only when—they are doing it at the expense of their players' feelings. And not when it's meant in honest, good-hearted fun.
Moreover, I challenge you to GM for Pathfinder Society, , following as closely to the tactics delineated within the Scenarios you run as you can and deviate only as far from those tactics as would befit the NPC's or monster's outlook. Not only so that you can learn that it is indeed possible for a player to have a good time even when his or her character dies fairly, even when it is his or her own decisions that led to that death.
Please don't let your bad experiences turn into a hate fest. Turn your negative emotions into dedicated, devoted, caring determination so that all of Pathfinder Society benefits.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that goblin adventure was fun! The reason was partially because there was no risk to the player's other characters. You could fully embrace the silliness of being a goblin and taking risks. We played it too and we really liked it. it is precisely this, "Just have fun" attitude that I wish was encourage in all PFS games. If PFS employed a system where there was no huge penalty to death, aside from sitting out for a while, it might lead to a lot more players having more fun and feeling more free to take risks and be heroic.
I see what you mean, I wish the penalty for death was much less as well. I generally find that players have more fun when there's a penalty for death, but it's not too severe.
With a relatively low penalty of death (We Be Goblins for example), I find players take more chances and risks and the game is overall more fun. Also, GMs aren't afraid to kill players, and players don't take it as badly. With a strong penalty for death, everything is reversed, on average the game is more serious, there's more min-maxing, GMs are afraid of killing PCs, and players take death harder.
Non-severe penalties for death appeal to casual players. Hardcore players (like the people on this forum) usually prefer strong penalties for death. For that reason Wolflord, you'll find very little agreement from people on the forums on this.
Regarding the penalty for death, I would have preferred if Raise Dead also included the Restoration spells, like it did in the past. In other words, if you died it cost 16 PP in the past, it now effectively costs 24 PP. That crosses the line into the severe territory imo, it takes a long time to accummulate 24 PP.
And btw, it depends on the GM, but some of us put a LOT of work into sessions. Maybe I'm above average, but I put at least 10 hours of preparation work into each session, and at least $20-30 out of my pocket. My players just show up. It's not even comparable. You should try GMing sometime to understand things better on the other side of the screen.
Ummm... hopefully this thread gets back on track, although penalties for death are definitely relevant.
|
|
Stop equating "PC dies" with "GM did something wrong". 99% of PC deaths are not the GM's fault
Yeah! It ain't my fault!
To the OP: Without the possibility of death, there's no thrill to success. Remove one and you remove the other.
It bears repeating again: Some people like easy mode. Some people like hard mode. You can't please everyone.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Death is part of the organized play experience and if it were removed the game would be less appealing overall. If you were playing up and got trounced... well that's more or less by design. Playing up *should* be dangerous and avoided. Sometimes that isn't the case and that inconsistency is ultimately the problem that needs to be addressed because it sends mixed signals to players. A scenario that is challenging for the appropriate tier is going to be brutal or even deadly with lower level characters.
Death is part of the organized play experience and if it were removed the game would be less appealing overall.
Translation: I don't like easy mode.
Threats are a fundamental assumption of any game of this style, regardless of medium. I think one would be hard-pressed to argue the opposite.
Translation: I don't like easy mode.
|
|
Death is part of the organized play experience and if it were removed the game would be less appealing overall.Translation: I don't like easy mode.
Threats are a fundamental assumption of any game of this style, regardless of medium. I think one would be hard-pressed to argue the opposite.Translation: I don't like easy mode.
Please don't put words in the mouths of others. It would be easy to say about your post "Translation: I don't like rational arguments." but that isn't fair to you. Easy mode still implies some level of risk. If there was no risk, why not just hand out a chronicle sheet and be done? It is fair to argue how hard a scenario should be, but we still assume there to be *some* risk.
Please don't put words in the mouths of others. It would be easy to say about your post "Translation: I don't like rational arguments." but that isn't fair to you.
I don't know what to tell you. It's impossible (in my experience) to rationally argue someone into disliking something that they like, and vice versa.
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?
Folks They are looking for things these guys can do.
If the whole 'GM penalty' thing is that big an issue, it should go on a separate thread (with Mike and Mark invited to the debate).
What are other positive ideas that the writers and developers can incorporate in the scenarios?
One thing that I heard one of the GM's mention was the maps.
He said he had to split up the file into a bunch of different files so he could print them full size on 8.5x11 and tape together to use with the mini's. He said it would have been alot easier if it had already been split up.
To be honest I'm not sure exactly what he meant because I've never looked at the files they receive to run a session. But I figured you'd have a clue what he was talking about.
|
|
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?
Folks They are looking for things these guys can do.
If the whole 'GM penalty' thing is that big an issue, it should go on a separate thread (with Mike and Mark invited to the debate).
What are other positive ideas that the writers and developers can incorporate in the scenarios?
If you've read the posts, the topic has basically died. It was discussed here becuase it was brought up here. There doesn't need to specifically be a specail thread for it as it's a non-issue at this point
|
|
As a GM the more things that I can print out once and easily use at the table the better.
A few things that would be fantastic:
1) Paper minis I could purchase to supplement a scenario (for a $1-2 more?) with the key NPC's and monsters (and perhaps room elements?)
This one I have to agree with .. I use generic tiles for all my npc, tho I'm looking for something else that will work with my need for ease of travel with my minatures
2) to scale printable flipmaps OR specific call outs to flipmaps or other gamemastery mappacks with which work with the given scenario (and perhaps as usefully a way to filter/sort available scenarios via the maps I already own... so they get maximal usage)
They have them for sale in pdf format (not sure of the price) but they aren't going to include the printiable versions for free in the scenarios and I'd hate to see them raise the price on scenarios to include them; as it was become more expensive for those of us that already have the flip-maps.
3) More scenarios with handouts for the players beyond just their faction missions. The maps of the Blakros museum for one common example were really great as a player (and as a GM) towards setting the tone and stage for those scenarios.
As for handouts- thats part of GM prep; not every GM needs them and as it would only add to the development cost and time I'd rather they do something else. I can do the hand-outs myself and learn more of the scenario information. Tho I agree that something like the blackrose museum things were nice.
|
|
I used to LARP for many years. I was an ST and a global coord for the organization. Many role players get very attached to their characters. I have seen some amazingly inappropriate behavior when PC's die, both in LARP and in pen and paper games. While we invest time into building a character, it's worth remembering that ultimately it is just a piece of paper, and new character can be created.
Generally, no one likes dying, but it's a hazard of playing. Part of the fun of playing is flirting with danger. You lose out on fun if death isn't ever a real possibility.
Just my two CP.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
Hey Folks!
Some feedback about maps. Again, I'm pulling aside the curtain so you can understand what happens 'back stage'.
We're limited on original maps (subject to change, and I'm sure some special scenarios might bend the rules). We can have one 8.5' x 11" original map, or two half-page original maps. In addition to that, we can also reference Map-Packs and other Paizo Map Products; and encouraged to use our original map allowance on cooler parts of the scenario rather than waste them on forest trails, campsites, and taverns. Quarter size maps are now forbidden.
If we go with a single page original map, the problem is solved. But if we go with two half page maps, the layout team might put them on different pages. I can't tell them to put them on the same page, but if Mike and Mark are reading, they can certainly take that as feedback for discussing it with the in-house employees.
***********
Handouts are beloved! Check!