RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
ooOOOOoooo I can only dream of being like you!!! I'll never crack the top 90% ;)
Well, to give credit where credit's due, I never would have come so far had it not been for sozin inspiring me to be better than everyone else and claim my inheritance as an exception to any regulation I deem unworthy of my superiority. I owe my success to him! ;)
|
To be fair, while I agree that Sozin seemed to come off as a bit pompous in his opinion of his own GM prowess and the list of accomplishments (that presumably he fulfills) to be able to change a scenario, let’s not jump so far down his throat that we drive him away from the game.
The validity of his point is, that a good GM who is very familiar with his players, the group dynamic, and the characters, is fully capable of good judgment as far as making changes to an adventure.
However, he is wrong in that he should actually be doing so.
Aside from the chops you’ve already busted for his hubris, let’s lay off now eh?
EDIT: Ninja'd by Mike.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The validity of his point is, that a good GM who is very familiar with his players, the group dynamic, and the characters, is fully capable of good judgment as far as making changes to an adventure.
However, he is wrong in that he should actually be doing so.
Pretty much this.
Hopefully some of the "itch to adjust" will be alleviated with the new Season 4 encounter structure (I'm personally pretty optimistic about it).
In the meantime, yes, there are some GMs out there who could do a fantastic job of tailoring encounters to their players. However, the more a given GM thinks he's among their ranks, the more likely it is he's wrong.* So let's all discuss rules we don't like instead of just tossing them out the window, alright?
|
The validity of his point is, that a good GM who is very familiar with his players, the group dynamic, and the characters, is fully capable of good judgment as far as making changes to an adventure.
However, he is wrong in that he should actually be doing so.
Pretty much this.
Hopefully some of the "itch to adjust" will be alleviated with the new Season 4 encounter structure (I'm personally pretty optimistic about it).
In the meantime, yes, there are some GMs out there who could do a fantastic job of tailoring encounters to their players. However, the more a given GM thinks he's among their ranks, the more likely it is he's wrong.* So let's all discuss rules we don't like instead of just tossing them out the window, alright?
** spoiler omitted **
|
|
There are a couple different problems going on and it can be hard to see the big picture.
1: There are competing priorities between GMs and the campaign coordinator.
GMs want their table to be the best it can be. Due to variation in players/characters/dice luck/etc. an individual table might have a better time if the challenge is raised or lower. While Brock wants accurate feedback even if it means an individual experience is less than optimal, so that he can best make the society as a whole the best he can.
2: Not all GMs are created equal.
90% of GMs are crap 90% of everything is crap. If we do allow GMs to adjust encounters we have this problem that the good GMs will make their tables better, while the bad GMs will make them worse. Organized Play brings us all a little bit closer to the middle. This does mean a great GM isn't running at their full potential, but it's a small price to pay for the consistency and portability of PFS.
Personal note and confession: 99% of the time I run as written. Running Eyes of the Ten at KublaCon I made a significant change to the final encounter to better suit it to the PCs at my table. Would the society be better served to get exact feedback on why the final epic encounter for 6 of my friends was a let down?
I have mixed feelings about what I did, since I'm normally so stringent.
After the conclusion, I let the players know the change I made to the encounter. I thought it only fair.
Here are some questions my actions bring up though:
What if I had messed up though? What if they badguys started critting people and splatting them? What if a host of other things had gone wrong.
Also what is better for the society in this case, providing an awesome experience for 6 dedicated players and GMs or providing campaign consistency?
Relating to this, just because I managed to pull it off this time doesn't mean if I made changes in the future that they would be awesome, doesn't mean anybody else's changes would be awesome either.
How do we write a rule that help maintain both consistency and awesomeness?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How do we write a rule that help maintain both consistency and awesomeness?
You start writing scenarios with two different versions of encounters: one for 6 PCs and one for 4 PCs.
;)
To get a little more serious, you hit on the crux of the issue:
Some GMs see their highest responsibility being to their own table, while others see it being to the thousands of players all over the world.
If you value the fun of everyone over the fun of the handful of players in front of you, you run encounters as written (and encourage players to give feedback).
If you value the fun of your own table over the fun of everyone else in the campaign, then you modify things.
As a result we can also work backwards: see whether or not a given GM makes changes, and know whose fun is most important to them.
|
|
I personally only have credit for 46 tables of play. Of those 46, 12 credits are from 6 modules (We Be Goblins!, The Godsmouth Heresy, Mask of a Living God, Feast of Ravenmoor, The City of Golden Death, and The Ruby Phoenix Tournament) and 5 credits are from First Steps Part 1, 6 from First Steps Part 2. What this means is I’ve only run 25 unique to me scenarios, the majority of which are tier 1-5 or 1-7. I’ve run only two at 5-9 and none at 7-11 to date.
So take what I’m going to say with whatever credibility you wish.
I believe that, by and large, you can run a scenario as written, and make it fun with a little extra work for the scenarios that fall short of expectations, even if it is a push-over.
If you are a tactical GM, and mostly run tactically minded players, then yeah, some of the scenarios are going to be push-overs and you won’t have fun.
But, if as a GM, you take a little bit of time to bring the scenario to life, and spend the time to thoroughly look over the bad guys, their abilities, and tactics that would otherwise relate to environment, and then come up with personalities for the NPCs and such, you can provide an exceptional time for your players without the scenarios themselves doing the work for you.
Realistically, it is unfair to the authors and developers, to think they can provide a template to make it enjoyable for all types of players and/or GMs. So the onus is on the GMs to quickly gauge the prevailing style of the table, be very well prepared, and then do their best to bring the adventure to life.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Very well said, Andy. Especially this:
I believe that, by and large, you can run a scenario as written, and make it fun with a little extra work for the scenarios that fall short of expectations, even if it is a push-over.
Seems like most of the time when GMs try to claim a right to make adjustments, they're citing difficulty issues (usually too low). So apparently, some GMs believe their players can only derive fun from tactical challenge, and feel the need to do whatever it takes to produce that challenge level.
I recently ran
So when a GM comes along and makes like they can't provide fun without being able to alter encounters, well, it rings a bit hollow to me.
For me the number one rule for all Pathfinder play - home, PFS, or otherwise - is that the table is having as much fun as as possible. I believe this rule supersedes PFS consistency.
For me the consistency is a large part of what makes PFS fun and introducing changes to 'enhance my enjoyment' will actually detract from it instead. Everybody is different.
I've also noticed that my local group have adapted to the challenges presented in seasons 0-2. Whilst our first characters were all solid and classical builds who made it to retirement without too much difficulty, we've switched to a bunch of oddballs now instead. They're not incompetent, but they're not as 'focused' as the first lot. For GMs thinking of changing a scenario: how do you determine whether we're playing our uber PCs, or the oddballs, before making those changes?
|
|
For me the number one rule for all Pathfinder play - home, PFS, or otherwise - is that the table is having as much fun as as possible. I believe this rule supersedes PFS consistency.For me the consistency is a large part of what makes PFS fun and introducing changes to 'enhance my enjoyment' will actually detract from it instead. Everybody is different.
I've also noticed that my local group have adapted to the challenges presented in seasons 0-2. Whilst our first characters were all solid and classical builds who made it to retirement without too much difficulty, we've switched to a bunch of oddballs now instead. They're not incompetent, but they're not as 'focused' as the first lot. For GMs thinking of changing a scenario: how do you determine whether we're playing our uber PCs, or the oddballs, before making those changes?
That's just it, as a GM I don't know your characters and I don't know what your capable of or incapable of.
I make a real effort as a GM to keep as much as possible to RAW, yes there have been times where minor flavor things have been changed, and once ONCE at the behest of the entire table did I change things with the monsters. Those are the major exceptions... No matter what your qualifications are as a GM, the rules simply state not to change things and we shouldn't be.
|
|
Ok, so in hindsight I can see how my 90% comment was pompous/smacking of hubris. I apologize for that, and you guys are within your rights to bust my chops for it :-) . I wasn't trying to cast myself as some sort of uber GM (or player) upon whom no rules shall apply. I certainly don't meet all the non-exclusive qualifications listed in my partial list of potential experienced GM attributes. I do feel myself completely qualified to judge if adding an additional monster(s) to the fray moves the difficulty from Easy to Average or from Average to Challenging, and to assess whether or not a party of players that I am very familiar with could cope with this difficulty change. That list that I threw out was simply meant to be a brainstorming list of some attributes that experienced GMs could have, not must have.
The validity of his point is, that a good GM who is very familiar with his players, the group dynamic, and the characters, is fully capable of good judgment as far as making changes to an adventure.
However, he is wrong in that he should actually be doing so.
Thanks for recognizing what I feel was my main point (Brock as well). I, too, am very optimistic that the scaled encounter design in season 4 will address my primary concern here.
|
|
What *exactly* is a "very experienced" GM?Hard to say. If I were forced to quantify, I'd say a very experienced GM is one that has done some combination of the following:
- GM'd more than three complete adventure path.
- GM'd more than 75 PFS scenarios.
- GM'd more than two editions of "D&D".
- Has logged more than 5,000 hours of focused practice in GM'ing and playing.
- Regularly studies the art of GM'ing (gnomestew, kobold quarterly, Game Mastery guide, etc)
I understand what Sozin is getting at, but here's another data point (to go along with Mike's respsonse)
1) No
2) Yes
3) No (if 3.x & PFRPG are considered the same)
4) No
5) No
I'm a 5-star GM. I've written scenarios. However, by your standards I don't qualify as experienced enough to adjust encounters.
|
|
Hopefully some of the "itch to adjust" will be alleviated with the new Season 4 encounter structure (I'm personally pretty optimistic about it).
Race for the Runecarved Key actually has two adjustment mechanics. One for tables of 4 and one for ultra high APL tables. It's a first step, so don't expect it to be perfect.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so in hindsight I can see how my 90% comment was pompous/smacking of hubris. I apologize for that, and you guys are within your rights to bust my chops for it :-) . I wasn't trying to cast myself as some sort of uber GM (or player) upon whom no rules shall apply. I certainly don't meet all the non-exclusive qualifications listed in my partial list of potential experienced GM attributes. I do feel myself completely qualified to judge if adding an additional monster(s) to the fray moves the difficulty from Easy to Average or from Average to Challenging, and to assess whether or not a party of players that I am very familiar with could cope with this difficulty change. That list that I threw out was simply meant to be a brainstorming list of some attributes that experienced GMs could have, not must have.
Thanks for recognizing what I feel was my main point (Brock as well). I, too, am very optimistic that the scaled encounter design in season 4 will address my primary concern here.The validity of his point is, that a good GM who is very familiar with his players, the group dynamic, and the characters, is fully capable of good judgment as far as making changes to an adventure.
However, he is wrong in that he should actually be doing so.
I like this post a lot. Thanks for putting it up here.
One more thing I'd like to add (separate from the above post), is that not all scenarios should be challenging from a combative stand point. There's been a dozen threads about the swinginess (yes, that's now a word) of PFS scenarios. Some are killer. Some are calk walks. So what? Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Some are designed to flex your brain, some your muscles.
One thing I learned GMing a home campaign in 3.5 was that not every encounter should be challenging. Sometimes players just like to monkey stomp all over some monsters and feel like gods. As a GM, we need to realize that and let it happen when it does. It all goes back to this:
This game is about fun. It doesn't matter if the encounters are too easy or too hard as long as the players at your table are entertained.
|
|
I'm a 5-star GM. I've written scenarios. However, by your standards I don't qualify as experienced enough to adjust encounters.
Hmm, I guess I should have been more clear with this statement: "I'd say a very experienced GM is one that has done some combination of the following". By "some combination" I mean "one or more of the following items", not "all of these items".
So, yes, a 5 star GM like yourself certainly qualifies as someone I'd be super comfortable with making a improvisational change to a scenario.
|
|
I believe it can be hard for a GM to deliberately give a table a sub-optimal experience, even if doing so is good for the campaign as a whole. And in some cases, that can be what sticking to the scenario as written will deliver. In the past, before the "never change anything mechanical, ever" guidance came down, I made minor adjustments, and I absolutely believe those adjustments made for a better experience all around.
That said, I will never make any mechanical adjustments as long as the they are prohibited. Those are the rules, and I will follow them -- but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they're truly for the best.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That said, I will never make any mechanical adjustments as long as the they are prohibited. Those are the rules, and I will follow them -- but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they're truly for the best.
Your willingness to abide by a rule with which you don't agree is a sign of maturity, bugleyman. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion reminds me of the classic Law vs Chaos debate. Law is blah. Lawful character follows law, neutral follows law unless cornered and feels there is no better option. Chaos ignores law because it's "pointless" in their opinion or doesn't apply to them in their opinion.
<--Lawful: my players complain "Why did we have to get the Lawful Good VC"
|
|
You know, I was just feeling like a chaotic neutral rogue in a party of paladins :-)
Keep in mind,if you are changing the experience just for your players, you are giving them a great experience but you are hurting the Society overall because we have no metric to know what was good, bad or indifferent. We get good feedback from players, then we keep things the same. We receive poor feedback from players, then we can make changes so all GMs across the globe will have a better scenario in hand.
I thought about this thread some more, and here's my decision: until the end of season four, I'll put my minor mechanic fudging ways behind me and stick by the PFS RAW. I'll submit play test reports of the games I run and play in, noting where I think changes could have occurred that would have made for a better gaming experience. If my notes are corroborated by other player feedback (as per Brock's quote above), and positive change is effected, then I'll be a convinced and reformed.
I did a search through my inbox ("from:paizo society 'We have updated'") and, of the 25 "We have updated" emails I've received from Paizo, there are at least three or four examples of changes being made to modules, presumably based on playtesting feedback, so it looks like the mechanism is greased.
|
|
That said, I will never make any mechanical adjustments as long as the they are prohibited. Those are the rules, and I will follow them -- but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they're truly for the best.Your willingness to abide by a rule with which you don't agree is a sign of maturity, bugleyman. :)
That is nice of you to say, but the wife would disagree about the maturity part. ;)
|
|
This discussion reminds me of the classic Law vs Chaos debate. Law is blah. Lawful character follows law, neutral follows law unless cornered and feels there is no better option. Chaos ignores law because it's "pointless" in their opinion or doesn't apply to them in their opinion.
<--Lawful: my players complain "Why did we have to get the Lawful Good VC"
Funny, I've always considered myself N...I follow the law unless there is a good reason to do otherwise...in this case, my doubts do not qualify. :)
|
This discussion reminds me of the classic Law vs Chaos debate. Law is blah. Lawful character follows law, neutral follows law unless cornered and feels there is no better option. Chaos ignores law because it's "pointless" in their opinion or doesn't apply to them in their opinion.
<--Lawful: my players complain "Why did we have to get the Lawful Good VC"
I was thinking about the Law vs Chaos thing as well and I have to admit to being Lawful Good as much as it pains me.
@Sozin - I apologize for my participation in the chop-busting earlier (it wasn't meant to be mean but it was unnecessary) and I admire the fact that you admit to sounding mebbe a teensy-weensy bit over the top. :)
I am very interested to hear your feedback on running scenarios as written (and the changes to Season 4 in general) and using allowable GM tools to keep things interesting and fun for your players. I respect your opinion and doubly respect your willingness to challenge your own beliefs, even if you eventually decide that you were right all along.
|
|
Ok, so in hindsight I can see how my 90% comment was pompous/smacking of hubris. I apologize for that, and you guys are within your rights to bust my chops for it :-) . I wasn't trying to cast myself as some sort of uber GM (or player) upon whom no rules shall apply. I certainly don't meet all the non-exclusive qualifications listed in my partial list of potential experienced GM attributes. I do feel myself completely qualified to judge if adding an additional monster(s) to the fray moves the difficulty from Easy to Average or from Average to Challenging, and to assess whether or not a party of players that I am very familiar with could cope with this difficulty change. That list that I threw out was simply meant to be a brainstorming list of some attributes that experienced GMs could have, not must have.
Thanks for recognizing what I feel was my main point (Brock as well). I, too, am very optimistic that the scaled encounter design in season 4 will address my primary concern here.The validity of his point is, that a good GM who is very familiar with his players, the group dynamic, and the characters, is fully capable of good judgment as far as making changes to an adventure.
However, he is wrong in that he should actually be doing so.
I like this post a lot. Thanks for putting it up here.
One more thing I'd like to add (separate from the above post), is that not all scenarios should be challenging from a combative stand point. There's been a dozen threads about the swinginess (yes, that's now a word) of PFS scenarios. Some are killer. Some are calk walks. So what? Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Some are designed to flex your brain, some your muscles.
One thing I learned GMing a home campaign in 3.5 was that not every encounter should be challenging. Sometimes players just like to monkey stomp all over some monsters and feel like gods. As a GM, we need to realize that and let it happen when it does. It all goes...
And to add to this: Mooks, Traps, BBEG's are written into a scenario to be beaten. Not necessarily killed, but beaten. It is the GM's job to portray that humiliation in the most enjoyable light for the PCs.
|
AND, those that made alterations would make them all differently - some add more of bad guy A, while others more of bad guy B and still others just slapped an Advanced template onto some monsters. The changes themselves aren't necessarily bad or poorly thought out, but they are made according to personal tastes and beliefs about how the game should be played. The GM who is used to running for power gaming min/maxers is probably going to make different changes than the one who is used to flavorful, one trick pony roleplayers, even if both are making fair and balanced changes in their own mind.
You say that like its a bad thing! Isn't that part of the reason we have GMs rather than play computer based RPGs? I for one would prefer it that way. I know I was very disappointed as a player when I found out that GMs aren't allowed to adjust scenarios. I now feel my characters achievements are much less meaningful such that I have considered just playing pre-gens.
Not aimed at anyone in particular, just a general life lesson for me: The "jam tomorrow" argument is a straw man. I am old enough to have seen far too many of those, from highly capable and the best intentioned of people, come to nothing or worse. Only short term or specific, targeted changes, generally come to fruition in any meaningful way.
Besides folks present it like it is an exclusive choice. I don't see it. You can learn from the past without putting ideological restrictions on the present.
I am tryign to be proactive and have taken to reviewing every scenario I run in the hope it will make some difference, and as I have pointed out you wont have to do much to exceed my expectations ;-)
Yeah, and I consider myself Neutral too ;-) Laws are a blunt instrument, often supporting a particular ideology, that can get in the way of doing the right thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that part of the reason we have GMs rather than play computer based RPGs?
This gets really old after a while. I know you meant nothing mean by your statement, but I feel you really need to understand what it is you're really saying here.
Every time someone says "please follow the rules", inevitably one or more persons will come out and imply that anyone not willing to break the rules according to their own sole discretion is reducing themselves to a robot and/or reducing the game to an MMO. You might not mean to, but you're essentially putting yourself above everyone who does follow the rules: you equate a willingness to break them to "the whole point of having a GM", which therefore means that when someone is not willing to break them, then there's no "point in having [that] GM".
Saying that "doing what I do is the whole point of having a GM" implies that any GM who does differently is not worth having.
I'm sure you didn't realize you were saying that, but you were.
Much like the classic "isn't the whole point to have fun?" defense (you weren't saying this, I know, but it's similar enough to be worth mentioning). Every time "please follow the rules" comes up, there will be someone who says "I break the rules to ensure fun, and isn't that the whole point?" They tend to heavily imply that breaking the rule in question is the only way to ensure "fun", which means anyone advocating NOT breaking that rule is putting something else above "fun". I've actually seen some people say it outright that you have to choose between fun and rules (can't have both) and claim the moral high ground by choosing fun, daring anyone to try and advocate rules and get themselves labeled as anti-fun. Not everyone is so intentional about it - most aren't even aware that they're creating a false dichotomy, probably because it's so deeply ingrained in their minds.
-------+-------
I guess the point of all this rambling is this: please, everyone, try not to paint your activities as being the only way to go. If you find yourself contrasting yourself with computer games or asking "aren't I supposed to be making it fun?", then you've almost certainly created a division that doesn't really exist, and you need to reevaluate your impression of the rule being discussed.
|
|
As Jiggy said, following the rules and ensuring fun are not mutually exclusive, in any situation or context.
The only things that would mitigate fun, is the petulance or entitlement expectations of the person not having fun.
I should probably leave this alone, but: In ANY situation or context?
The problem with absolutes is that it takes just one counterexample to refute them. Whether you believe it or not, I have personally witnessed situations in which, for that particular group, in that particular moment, adjusting encounters made for a better experience all around. So while I completely understand why adjustments have been disallowed, and have already stated that I will abide by the rules, your position is weakened, not strengthened, by ill-considered declarations like "any situation or context."
In other words, you've won the argument -- don't overplay your hand.
|
|
As Jiggy said, following the rules and ensuring fun are not mutually exclusive, in any situation or context.
The only things that would mitigate fun, is the petulance or entitlement expectations of the person not having fun.
I should probably leave this alone, but: In ANY situation or context?
The problem with absolutes is that it takes just one counterexample to refute them. Whether you believe it or not, I have personally witnessed situations in which, for that particular group, in that particular moment, adjusting encounters made for a better experience all around. So while I completely understand why adjustments have been disallowed, and have already stated that I will abide by the rules, your position is weakened, not strengthened, by ill-considered declarations like "any situation or context."
In other words, you've won the argument -- don't overplay your hand.
I'm not trying to "win" anything. I'm stating my opinion.
And in my opinion, a GM has many tools (as many as they need) to ensure a fun experience without having to modify anything.
You can give as many examples as you want, where a GM changed something, and the players had fun.
That doesn't support your argument or refute mine, though. It just means that the GM is good at giving players a fun time.
|
|
I'm not trying to "win" anything. I'm stating my opinion.And in my opinion, a GM has many tools (as many as they need) to ensure a fun experience without having to modify anything.
You can give as many examples as you want, where a GM changed something, and the players had fun.
That doesn't support your argument or refute mine, though. It just means that the GM is good at giving players a fun time.
So...your argument is that the rules always maximize fun, in every possible case and situation, and those who disagree are just "entitled" and "petulant."
You have a funny way of not trying to win.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As Jiggy said, following the rules and ensuring fun are not mutually exclusive, in any situation or context.
The only things that would mitigate fun, is the petulance or entitlement expectations of the person not having fun.
I should probably leave this alone, but: In ANY situation or context?
...I have personally witnessed situations in which, for that particular group, in that particular moment, adjusting encounters made for a better experience all around.
Your argument only stands if you can show that there was no other method of providing that level of fun.
The statement you're challenging is that you can follow the rules and still provide fun. Showing a situation where breaking the rules can also provide fun doesn't refute that statement. (If the statement had been that breaking the rules reduces/never increases fun, your example would refute that, but that's not what the statement was.)
|
|
The statement you're challenging is that you can follow the rules and still provide fun. Showing a situation where breaking the rules can also provide fun doesn't refute that statement. (If the statement had been that breaking the rules reduces/never increases fun, your example would refute that, but that's not what the statement was.)
So you're really trying to argue that there is never a case in which a skilled DM adjusting encounters on the fly results in a better experience?
NEVER?
As I've said, I understand why the rule exists. It makes sense, because in a huge campaign, some level of consistency is needed, and there is just no way you can be sure of the judgment of any particular GM. I get it. But to say that the rules NEVER, EVER get in the way of fun is just a silly assertion (and one that completely unnecessary to make the case for the rule, btw, so I really don't get why people the apparently feel the need to defend it).
But carry on stamping out the infidels. :)
|
|
I'm not trying to "win" anything. I'm stating my opinion.And in my opinion, a GM has many tools (as many as they need) to ensure a fun experience without having to modify anything.
You can give as many examples as you want, where a GM changed something, and the players had fun.
That doesn't support your argument or refute mine, though. It just means that the GM is good at giving players a fun time.
So...your argument is that the rules always maximize fun, in every possible case and situation, and those who disagree are just "entitled" and "petulant."
You have a funny way of not trying to win.
Nope, that's not what I said.
I've said that GM's can provide fun, within the rules, without changing them. They have all the tools to do so.
A very vivid campaign world of Golarion with tons of material to bring areas and cities to life. Perhaps even throw in an NPC from a setting book when the characters are wandering around town when the scenario doesn't detail specific NPCs but assumes they go information gathering.
Enough leeway within scenarios to work with, that they aren't constrained as much as you might think.
If a GM spends their prep time studying the stat blocks, abilities of creatures and NPCs, and studying the terrain of the maps, and then come up with colorful personalities for the mooks. They can make an otherwise bland and easy encounter, into a very enjoyable encounter (even if it is still easy).
And I wasn't going to say this before, because everytime I say something that might put any GM in a bad light, I get a nasty note from a purple catbunnygnome, but here you go:
GM's who feel their only recourse to make a scenario fun, is to simply add a mook or two, or change something mechanical within the scenario, are actually taking the lazy way out. It may be harder to prep a sub-par scenario to make it fun, if running as written, but our job as GM is to both make it fun, and run as written.
It can be done, it just takes more work sometimes.
|
|
So you're really trying to argue that there is never a case in which a skilled DM adjusting encounters on the fly results in a better experience?
NEVER?
No, I'm sure many players have had fun when a GM changed things.
What I am saying is, that a GM doesn't NEED to change things to ensure a fun experience.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So you're really trying to argue that there is never a case in which a skilled DM adjusting encounters on the fly results in a better experience?
I said no such thing. All I was saying, in fact, was that Andrew also said no such thing.
Why do you think I was trying to argue that an adjusted encounter can't increase fun?
|
|
So you're really trying to argue that there is never a case in which a skilled DM adjusting encounters on the fly results in a better experience?
NEVER?
No, I'm sure many players have had fun when a GM changed things.
What I am saying is, that a GM doesn't NEED to change things to ensure a fun experience.
And what I'm saying is that just once in the universe, doing so led to a better experience than if he hadn't, all the while acknowledging that fact doesn't justify changing the rules against GM alterations.
Look, I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who staked out an absolute position to defend.
|
|
Why do you think I was trying to argue that an adjusted encounter can't increase fun?
Maybe because:
"As Jiggy said, following the rules and ensuring fun are not mutually exclusive, in any situation or context."
Please remember, I'm on your side defending the darn rules. Please stop making it harder.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And what I'm saying is that just once in the universe, doing so led to a better experience than if he hadn't, all the while acknowledging that fact doesn't justify changing the rules against GM alterations.
No one's challenging any of this. I don't think we're on the same page here; I suspect you've made some assumptions about what I and/or Andy meant, but that's just a theory.
|
|
A thought: How would you know if by changing a scenario that your players would not have had fun or less fun with a scenario as written if you never ran it as written? Assumedly it would be a new situation to them, and they could have had fun, or perhaps more fun but we'll never know now.
My thought is if you predetermine a result without actually letting the events unfold naturally, that you're actually preventing the potential result from happening which is naturally designed to create fun.
<---Getting deep(ish)
|
|
And what I'm saying is that just once in the universe, doing so led to a better experience than if he hadn't, all the while acknowledging that fact doesn't justify changing the rules against GM alterations.No one's challenging any of this. I don't think we're on the same page here; I suspect you've made some assumptions about what I and/or Andy meant, but that's just a theory.
I'm sure he's thinking that I'm saying that GMs who change things aren't providing fun for players.
He's also saying that some circumstances require a GM to change things for the players to have more fun.
What I am saying is, that while GM's changing things may provide the players with more fun in that circumstance, it was the GM's fault for not prepping differently, and the GM would be considered petulant for not being willing to do said extra work within the rules, or entitled for thinking they were good enough to have the right to make said changes.
I'm also saying that a GM doesn't NEED to change things to help the players have more fun. It just requires more work.
But it seems we are just talking past one another at this point.
|
|
A thought: How would you know if by changing a scenario that your players would not have had fun or less fun with a scenario as written if you never ran it as written? Assumedly it would be a new situation to them, and they could have had fun, or perhaps more fun but we'll never know now.
My thought is if you predetermine a result without actually letting the events unfold naturally, that you're actually preventing the potential result from happening which is naturally designed to create fun.
<---Getting deep(ish)
<blink> <!> This!
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
A thought: How would you know if by changing a scenario that your players would not have had fun or less fun with a scenario as written if you never ran it as written? Assumedly it would be a new situation to them, and they could have had fun, or perhaps more fun but we'll never know now.
Oh, that's an easy one.
In the warehouse, my players (split into two groups) didn't have much trouble with the rats. In fact one rat - the one that attacked the subgroup with the first-time player - was actually killed by the first blow, before the first-timer even had a chance to make an attack. I couldn't add an extra rat, or even add a few hit points to the rat. But the new guy was eagerly waiting for his initiative to take a swing. So I chose to treat the rat as disabled, and let the player take a swing at it, rather than missing his chance to contribute to the combat (the other group had already dealt with their rats).
He hit, and so instead of feeling left out of the action he scored his first kill. Had he missed the rat would have been the next to act, and would have run away (a strenuous activity).
Not strictly legal - as written, the rat was dying, not disabled. But I ended up with a more involved player by tweaking the storyline slightly.