RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In another thread,
I want to see added to the guide a little paragraph that explains that in the rare instance where a piece of equipment that a player brings into a scenario is lost/stolen/sundered during the course of the scenario, that item is returned to the player at the conclusion of the scenario. “This system, while not necessarily realistic, ensures that all players have a fair and equitable chance” at maintaining “the items that best suit their characters’ specific needs.”
While I understand the reasoning behind this position, it would lead to many more TPKs.
Right now, let's say a gang of street toughs ambushes the low-level party, looking for coin. If the toughs win, they're left standing while the party is unconscious and at their mercy. So they steal the PCs' equipment and leave them to wake up, days later, thirsty and aching, in the alleys of Absalom. From a GM/player perspective, that's a suitable penalty.
If the party gets all of its equipment restored, then "the NPCs steal your stuff" isn't an effective penalty any more. Imagine you're in a party, fighting criminals. You're down to your last cure serious wounds potion, and your last couple of hit points. If you consume the potion, you might win the fight. But if you just throw the fight, you'll wake up with all your loot in place, including the expensive potion. So, there's a disincentive for winning those fights. That's not going to sit well with most GMs, so the thugs will be killing parties instead.
|
The current PFS stance seems to be death is preferable to losing loot; until there's a change killing the PCs does seem to be the answer.
Even if I was feeling merciful, if one of the players had a game of chicken with me saying "I'm not going to spend money on this fight, because I know the GM won't do anything harmful to my character", you can bet that I would be suppressing mercy for that particular game.
Right now, let's say a gang of street toughs ambushes the low-level party, looking for coin. If the toughs win, they're left standing while the party is unconscious and at their mercy. So they steal the PCs' equipment and leave them to wake up, days later, thirsty and aching, in the alleys of Absalom. From a GM/player perspective, that's a suitable penalty.If the party gets all of its equipment restored, then "the NPCs steal your stuff" isn't an effective penalty any more. Imagine you're in a party, fighting criminals. You're down to your last healing potion, and your last couple of hit points. If you take the cure serious wounds potion, you might win the fight. But if you just throw the fight, you'll wake up with all your loot in place, including the expensive potion. So, there's a disincentive for winning those fights. That's not going to sit well with most GMs, so the thugs will be killing parties instead.
Something like this came up in another thread a while back and my stance on it is still the same. If the tactics block for the thugs or criminals or whatever does not specifically say that they loot the bodies of unconscious or dead PCs, then those PCs do not lose any of their gear. If a GM decides to do it "just because" that is what would happen in a home game, then they are violating the current rules of not modifying a scenario.
|
Personally, I think that presuming that an NPC can take no other action besides what is called out in the text is pure folly. If an adventure had to specifically state every action an NPC may take they'd be huge books.
A GM is well within the rules as written to adjudicate NPC actions, including stealing PC gear. I don't think that it should happen often, and care should be taken when making a choice like that, and it shouldn't be "just because", it should be because there are sometimes dire consequences for PCs.
I once (in another OP game) had my fellow players rush in headlong into an ambush, and my paladin using diplomacy was the only reason the bandits let them go. They escaped with their life, but not their gear. The DM put "Life" in the "items purchased" line, and totaled my gold to zero. I thought it was appropriate, and fun. I saved the party and had a great story to tell afterwards.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Something like this came up in another thread a while back and my stance on it is still the same. If the tactics block for the thugs or criminals or whatever does not specifically say that they loot the bodies of unconscious or dead PCs, then those PCs do not lose any of their gear. If a GM decides to do it "just because" that is what would happen in a home game, then they are violating the current rules of not modifying a scenario.
Right now, let's say a gang of street toughs ambushes the low-level party, looking for coin. If the toughs win, they're left standing while the party is unconscious and at their mercy. So they steal the PCs' equipment and leave them to wake up, days later, thirsty and aching, in the alleys of Absalom. From a GM/player perspective, that's a suitable penalty.If the party gets all of its equipment restored, then "the NPCs steal your stuff" isn't an effective penalty any more. Imagine you're in a party, fighting criminals. You're down to your last healing potion, and your last couple of hit points. If you take the cure serious wounds potion, you might win the fight. But if you just throw the fight, you'll wake up with all your loot in place, including the expensive potion. So, there's a disincentive for winning those fights. That's not going to sit well with most GMs, so the thugs will be killing parties instead.
Because of the restraints on scenario writers, mainly regarding length, I think that assuming "because it explicitly doesn't state X, means you can't do X" is pretty flawed. If a monster is "hungry, and fights for a meal" I am licensed as a GM to have it beat a PC into submission, and then retreat with the body when it gets wounded. It is hungry, and was only fighting for a meal. Following the same logic, petty thugs and criminals would almost always loot PCs. They have more wealth than these NPCs have ever experienced in their lives, why would they leave it to rot in the alley?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Something like this came up in another thread a while back and my stance on it is still the same. If the tactics block for the thugs or criminals or whatever does not specifically say that they loot the bodies of unconscious or dead PCs, then those PCs do not lose any of their gear. If a GM decides to do it "just because" that is what would happen in a home game, then they are violating the current rules of not modifying a scenario.
Enevhar, we'll have to disagree. The NPCs should act according to their motivations, as outlined in the scenario. Rarely, those motivations might be reflected in the tactics block, but it's not typical for out-of-combat directives to be included there.
Aspis Consortium slavers who capture Pathfinders should act differently from street thugs who beat up a party, or a pair of otyughs who succeed in killing invaders, or a devil who brings down a party that almost killed it. And in each of those cases, the reactions of the victorious NPCs might differ depending on how powerful they thought the PCs were, or how pre-combat interactions went.
Now, the scenario writers assume that the party comes out of every fight victorious, so a lot of those situations don't get written down, and it falls to the table GM to decide what the NPCs would do. Put another way, by losing the fight, the PCs have already modified the scenario.
Yeah, and it has been stated over and over by various heads of the PFS that an Organized Play campaign is supposed to provide as equal an experience as possible for all players. So if one GM screws over a party and robs them of everything, while another GM does not, how is that an equal experience? And while it may seem petty, a GM that does this is one I would avoid in the future. The GM is there to provide a fun experience for everyone, not to "win" the scenario.
|
|
If the PC's lose, then they're not getting "screwed over" by the GM who has to decide an NPC's overall goal/intention. As Chris mentioned, it's going to depend a lot on motivation.
Taking Chris' examples, the Aspis would love to better themselves and see Pathfinders in misery, and if you lost to them at my table they would probably steal your items and sell you into slavery. The otyugh would just eat you, and your items would be mixed in with the various scat for possible retrieval by Pathfinder squads. The devil would torture you to death, and take your items back to Hell if he had the chance. I don't think it's something that can realistically be added to each encounter in a short little scenario due to word count, and you can never really encompass all that a party may actually do to irritate or appease an NPC that may affect consequences. It's a GM's call to try and create a realistic finish to such a situation.
Losing sucks, that's why PC's usually try so hard to win. I also don't see it as a GM "winning" a scenario. I've been in the situation where it wasn't a flat out TPK, but everyone was down and dying. What happens next? I didn't "win". I had to make a tough call to try and be fair to everyone out there who might have actually been killed in the same situation, or lost out due to poor rolls. I did what I felt was the most realistic outcome based on what short bit of NPC info I had for the encounter.
|
Yeah, and it has been stated over and over by various heads of the PFS that an Organized Play campaign is supposed to provide as equal an experience as possible for all players. So if one GM screws over a party and robs them of everything, while another GM does not, how is that an equal experience? And while it may seem petty, a GM that does this is one I would avoid in the future. The GM is there to provide a fun experience for everyone, not to "win" the scenario.
I don't see it as the GM screwing anyone over. It's the GM abjudicate the scenario to the best of their ability and make sure the NPC's follow their motivation as best as they can with the provided material. I would say it's not OK to inject "new" motivations, but normally motivations are already there whether it's a stereotype or clearly drawn out.
It's impossible to give a perfectly even experience to every player, but I trust Chris, and anyone I personally know that GM's to do their best to meet that goal. There will be miss steps, but we are human, not robots. If you feel a GM is "screwing" you or anyone over, bring a non-hypothetical situation to my attention, your VC's attention, or Mike's attention. I find the connotation that a GM is intentionally screwing someone over insulting to every GM out there.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yeah, and it has been stated over and over by various heads of the PFS that an Organized Play campaign is supposed to provide as equal an experience as possible for all players.
"As equal as possible." Not "equal".
One party's well balanced and has five 6th-level and 7th-level characters, playing down in a Tier 5-9 scenario. Another has four 5th-level fighters. How is that equal?
One party has played up repeatedly, and has three times the resources of another party that has had to pay to bring two PCs back from the Boneyard. How is that equal?
One party cannot roll above a 12 on a d20 for an entire fight, and dies. Another party gets four critical hits in the first round.
Now, after all that, you're concerned that -- the adventure having already gone off the rails (the PCs aren't supposed to get captured) -- GMs use judgement in how the NPCs behave? Or do you expect the authors and campaign staff to include specifics for every intelligent foe: "if the party loses this fight, then the NPCs will steal their loot if they were Indifferent before the battle. They will sell the PCs into slavery in the Shackles if they were Unfriendly, and they will kill all the PCs who landed effective blows during the fight, if they were Hostile."
How many PFS scenarios have you been in, where the PCs lose a fight? What did your GMs do? (Have you ever run a PFS fight where the party lost? What were the specifics of the situation, Enevhar? What informed your decision about the results?)
|
|
Before the Dawn part 1 has a contingency that involves the PCs losing and being captured. I don't think it would be difficult to add a few lines to each scenario just saying "if the PCs lose a fight against x group, this happens". In fact, if the coordinators came up with a few common situations such as "captured and tortured for information - lose one constitution" and "robbed of one easy-to-grab magical item each", these could be put in the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play, and the scenarios could simply say "Loss conditions: refer to loss condition 'C' in the PFS Guide to Organized Play."
|
Yeah, and it has been stated over and over by various heads of the PFS that an Organized Play campaign is supposed to provide as equal an experience as possible for all players. So if one GM screws over a party and robs them of everything, while another GM does not, how is that an equal experience? And while it may seem petty, a GM that does this is one I would avoid in the future. The GM is there to provide a fun experience for everyone, not to "win" the scenario.
Having the NPCs act logically is instantly DM vs. Players? I don't get it.
Honestly, if a GM had the NPCs steal all my characters gear, but not cost my character his life, I'd be happy.
It would also be completely within the GM's right to coup de grace my character if all other characters are down and unconscious or dead.
Some NPCs might just run away, but if they are direct adversaries of the pathfinders or the society itself, then chances are death is the dish they will serve.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the tactics block for the thugs or criminals or whatever does not specifically say that they loot the bodies of unconscious or dead PCs, then those PCs do not lose any of their gear. If a GM decides to do it "just because" that is what would happen in a home game, then they are violating the current rules of not modifying a scenario.
Would you say this applies to any action not spec'd out in the tactics?
IMO, the GM should be permitted to use any rule mechanic that is available to the players. The tactics are a basic guideline and should be followed if it makes sense. As we've said before, if the BBEG's tactics say he attacks the biggest melee threat and doesn't move on until that one is dead, then what happens if the PC is dropped 2-3 times and healed back up by the party cleric? An intelligent BBEG will realize that the cleric has become the primary threat and needs to re-focus his attention.
I also think that since PC's use all of the combat maneuvers, they should be available to the GM as well. One tactic I use a lot is tripping with a reach creature when a PC charges. Stops 'em dead, and possibly provides an AoO when they act on their next turn. It is an obvious and effective action, but I've never seen it listed in a tactics block. Does that mean I am being "unfair" or cheating somehow? I think not. YMMV.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I also think that since PC's use all of the combat maneuvers, they should be available to the GM as well. One tactic I use a lot is tripping with a reach creature when a PC charges. Stops 'em dead, and possibly provides an AoO when they act on their next turn. It is an obvious and effective action, but I've never seen it listed in a tactics block. Does that mean I am being "unfair" or cheating somehow? I think not. YMMV.
Bob, you'll enjoy
The pseudo BBEG there is designed for just that.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I wouldn't have the NPCs strip them of armour, but yeah, that shiny ring on your finger?
"That's to pay for the scar you gave me, you lout!"
That's about how I'd run it, too. If there is still a threat, a quick pat-down seems eminently reasonable, but there's a good chance that not everything would be stolen (although if the PCs get left down an alley in the less reputable parts of Absalom, they may lose more stuff before they wake up).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm brand spanking new to D20 and Pathfinder/PFS. I'm a complete outsider. Before I played two scenarios of PFS the other day, I had never even seen a game of D20.
However, I've been game mastering GURPS and several other systems since I was in the seventh grade some 18 years ago. I began playing AD&D right before 2nd Edition.
From an outsider's perspective, I can't see how in the world the PC's gear is magically restored at the end of the session. I'd never heard this.
The second session we played was The Frostfur Captives. In it, I used my rope to tie up the goblins. Well, they chewed through it.
You mean to tell me I get that rope back now, whole and sturdy again?
No way. That's not right. I wouldn't take it if I were allowed.
If I were burned by a PFS GM, I'd not play under him again and I'd let everyone know he was worthless, just like I've already mentioned that my GM, deusvult, was a good one.
Is there some sort of rating system where players and GMs can rate performance? That's one way to handle this situation, in my opinion.
|
|
I also think that since PC's use all of the combat maneuvers, they should be available to the GM as well. One tactic I use a lot is tripping with a reach creature when a PC charges. Stops 'em dead, and possibly provides an AoO when they act on their next turn. It is an obvious and effective action, but I've never seen it listed in a tactics block. Does that mean I am being "unfair" or cheating somehow? I think not. YMMV.Bob, you'll enjoy
** spoiler omitted **
Ah, that one. One of my PCs used his adamantine falchion to sunder the chick's weapon. She doesn't have a backup. >_<
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Ah, that one. One of my PCs used his adamantine falchion to sunder the chick's weapon. She doesn't have a backup. >_<
I also think that since PC's use all of the combat maneuvers, they should be available to the GM as well. One tactic I use a lot is tripping with a reach creature when a PC charges. Stops 'em dead, and possibly provides an AoO when they act on their next turn. It is an obvious and effective action, but I've never seen it listed in a tactics block. Does that mean I am being "unfair" or cheating somehow? I think not. YMMV.Bob, you'll enjoy
** spoiler omitted **
|
|
My original suggestion was meant to exclude consumables. I’m not talking about your potion, or your piece of rope. I’m talking about the major items on a character that they have spent whole levels investing in. You could add a gold value threshold for ease of understanding if you like, market value of 1000 gold or something.
As far as making sense, I specifically stated that this was somewhat unrealistic. That’s not the point. It’s unrealistic to say that players obtain a cool new toy in a scenario but then must buy it afterward in order to keep it, or that a consumable is available whether it is used up during the session or not. As already implied in the guide, the economy rules for PFS are not meant to be realistic, they are meant to provide a fun and fair game for all players. My suggestion furthers that aim. Having a higher level Fighter armed with only a Club, or a Wizard without a spellbook is no fun for anyone.
There are plenty of significant setbacks to players that fail a scenario. No gold or PP earned for the scenario is a significant penalty, and should be sufficient motivation to succeed. That and being a Pathfinder Society member in the first place. The Guide speaks to the idea that Pathfinders should do everything in their power to resurrect a fallen ally. Economic ruin kills a PC just as surely as death. Thus we should also do what we can to prevent that.
|
|
I have to agree with Chris, Walter, and the other reasonable arguments.
Removing the threat of "loss of toys" irrationally limits the scope of the campaign. Should such a consideration ever be considered, and I very much hope that it never is, the fatality rate of the campaign will increase as Mr. Mortika predicts.
I'm a 12 year veteran of various Organized Play campaigns, and I've never seen this sort of mechanic entertained.
Generally if players end up getting robbed/looted/pillaged/sold into slavery it is because they screwed-up wildly. By ill-action they have taken the game play so far off the rails that there is no reasonable way the GM can right it. I've seen this done many, many times: everything from a habitual party-splitter (who I believe just wanted more attention from everyone at the table), to attacking wanton and unprovoked attacks on the Town Guard, to failing the mission so spectacularly that the only option available to the foe was to condemn the party to a year in a copper mine. In most of these campaigns economic hardship was preferable to death. Maybe this not the case in PFS...
CJ
WA VC
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if it's a shiny sword or not.
I've been playing with a weapon from the Campaign Setting that is grandfathered in, but if I ever lose it I can't buy another one. If something like this happened to me, I would *expect* the DM to snag it. It's a rare item that a thief would appraise as such. Frankly, I'd be kind of PO'd if he didn't take it just so that he didn't hurt a olayer's feelings.