Larger Tables

[Jiggy]

JohnF wrote:

Daniel Luckett wrote:

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.

** spoiler omitted **

What's that got to do with Daniel's question? You gave an example of making an alteration that was fun. He wasn't asking about that. He was asking how you could know for sure that not making that change couldn't also be fun. You don't know what would have happened if you hadn't made that change. For all you know, missing out on that would have gotten him to learn all about initiative and the things you can do with it, and make a creative new build that he would squee about for all twelve levels.

------+------

It seems like people are coming into this discussion thinking they already know what one side is always going to say, and reply to that instead of to what people are actually saying.

So far we've had people say:
1. "Rules and fun aren't mutually exclusive"
2. "He didn't say X"
3. "You can't know how X would pan out if you don't do X"

But from the replies to those statements, you'd think they were:
1. "Making changes never causes fun"
2. "Making changes never causes fun"
3. "Making changes never causes fun"

This is getting ridiculous.

[Andrew Christian]

”First Steps Part I”:

The rats are described as sleeping and then get irritated as the PCs search around the place and plan to get the crate from the hole. Then they squeeze through the crates and attack the PCs as they surround the hole. There is a lot of room for a GM to figure out exactly how this happens. If as a GM, you interpret this, that the rats attack as soon as the PCs get over to the crate area, yeah, it’s gonna be a boring and short fight. I decided to interpret this, that the PCs would be well on their way to recovering the crate (typically they have used the crane arm and some rope to lower a PC to the box, who attaches the rope to the box, and as they raise the box up with the PC still dangling as well, the rats attack). But regardless, the rats always pick the moment the PCs are at their most vulnerable to attack. Not only does this allow for the encounter to be challenging, but hilarity also ensues as the guy holding the rope has to decide whether to drop the PC and box into the water, or get chewed on by a rat.

You have ways, within the way the scenario is written, that don’t require any changes to the scenario.

”First Steps Part II”:

When Maurat Zergo leaps down in front of the PCs and does her monologue, I keep hearing about how the PCs all just attack and kill her before anything else can happen. The scenario doesn’t dictate WHERE Maurat jumps down. She’s on a 20 foot cliff. To jump down directly in front of the PCs she would need to take at least 10 feet of falling damage. Seems kinda silly. Yeah, she’s a ghoul, but she’s not idiotic. So she jumps down right in front of the door, which is up rubble that requires a DC 10 climb check (no charging up to her), and is only a 5 foot drop for her. Makes sense. It also typically (unless the PCs are all archers and ranged spell casters) allows her to get her second monologue (attempt at diplomacy) off. And then the real fun starts. Then the players have a moral quandary. And if they allow her to go free, or even show them the back entrance, she will find an excuse (heard food this way) to leave the PCs and then follow them and attack at their most vulnerable. Almost had a TPK when it was a Maurat and Blindheim battle.

But these aren’t modifying the scenario. These are just interpretations that fall well within the way the scenario is written. That if as a GM you take a little time to look at the encounter, and study the environment the encounter is in, you can create an enjoyable and difficult encounter without actually changing anything.

[Dan Luckett]

My thought to letting the 2nd player make the kill, you denied the first attacker who legitimately killed it his "moment of glory". I see what you were getting at, but I personally don't see one person's fun more valuable than anothers regardless of their experience with PFS.

I've gotten the alternate situation to happen 3/7 times now. Normally if it doesn't happen it's due to a Knowledge: Religion success, because if they fail that check, I describe her as looking ill.

[Andrew Christian]

Yeah, I've run Part II 6 times, and 5 of 6 times the alternate has happened. Albeit one of those times many wanted to attack, but were eventually convinced otherwise by one or two bleeding hearts.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Yeah, I've run Part II 6 times, and 5 of 6 times the alternate has happened. Albeit one of those times many wanted to attack, but were eventually convinced otherwise by one or two bleeding hearts.

Man, you're bringing back memories about my "detect undead etc" spamming from when you ran that scenario for me. ;)

[Andrew Christian]

hehe

[Dan Luckett]

How do you spam "Detect Undead"?

[Jiggy]

Daniel Luckett wrote:

How do you spam "Detect Undead"?

Actually, I was spamming "Spirit Sense", a class feature from the Menhir Savant druid archetype.

Spirit Sense wrote:

At 1st level, a menhir savant can detect the presence of undead; fey; outsiders; and astral, ethereal, or incorporeal creatures. This ability functions like detect undead, and the druid detects all of these creatures rather than trying to detect one kind. This ability replaces nature sense and wild empathy.

First Steps Part 2:

Detected the skeleton and the wizard one-shotted it (via disrupt undead) while it was still in the bone pile. Detected the ghoul coming up behind us; still had to fight her, but at least she didn't surprise us. Detected the haunt before even opening the door, but didn't realize it was a haunt so it didn't help too much. :P

[bugleyman]

Jiggy wrote:

This is getting ridiculous.

On that we can agree. :)

[kinevon]

Jiggy wrote:

Daniel Luckett wrote:

How do you spam "Detect Undead"?

Actually, I was spamming "Spirit Sense", a class feature from the Menhir Savant druid archetype.

Spirit Sense wrote:

At 1st level, a menhir savant can detect the presence of undead; fey; outsiders; and astral, ethereal, or incorporeal creatures. This ability functions like detect undead, and the druid detects all of these creatures rather than trying to detect one kind. This ability replaces nature sense and wild empathy.

** spoiler omitted **

First Steps, Part 2:

Last time I played this was with my Dhampir Undead Lord Cleric. I stood back while the party talked with the ghoul, other than wistfully wishing I were higher level for Control Undead's sake, I was able to convince the GM that it would only make sense for someone who had Detect Undead to use it on a big pile of bones. Wound up taking control of that skeleton, and losing it in the next room against the amoeba, along with my undead companion. The party, though, was overall happy to have the damage sinks along at that point. ;)

[Eric Brittain]

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

In San Diego we have codified the things that make a good game as follows:

1. Your attitude going into the game. This more than anything else will impact how much fun you have. No matter what type of time you go into a game expecting the chances are you will have exactly that type of game.

2. The other players at the table. The people you play with will make a huge difference on what story you communally tell.

3. The judge. Who ever tells the story is also a strong contributor the experience of the scenario.

4. The printed scenario. This is the least likely to control the type of experience you can have in a scenario.

Or to rephrase a bad scenario can be brought to glorious life by a good judge. A less than stellar judge can be made less relevant by having a good table and a bad table can be overcome by having a good attitude.

[Painlord]

Eric Brittain wrote:

In San Diego we have codified the things that make a good game as follows:

1. Your attitude going into the game. This more than anything else will impact how much fun you have. No matter what type of time you go into a game expecting the chances are you will have exactly that type of game.

2. The other players at the table. The people you play with will make a huge difference on what story you communally tell.

3. The judge. Who ever tells the story is also a strong contributor the experience of the scenario.

4. The printed scenario. This is the least likely to control the type of experience you can have in a scenario.

Or to rephrase a bad scenario can be brought to glorious life by a good judge. A less than stellar judge can be made less relevant by having a good table and a bad table can be overcome by having a good attitude.

Oh hecks yes. +1

The better players in this silly game aren't the ones who know the rules by heart or can get the extra +1 or +2 damage with every swing, but those that manage 1 and 2 above. This game isn't about RAW rules or mechanics of a build, it's social game wherein the better players will know ways to increase the fun at the table for all.

-Pain

[Kyle Baird]

Painlord wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

In San Diego we have codified the things that make a good game as follows:

1. Your attitude going into the game. This more than anything else will impact how much fun you have. No matter what type of time you go into a game expecting the chances are you will have exactly that type of game.

2. The other players at the table. The people you play with will make a huge difference on what story you communally tell.

3. The judge. Who ever tells the story is also a strong contributor the experience of the scenario.

4. The printed scenario. This is the least likely to control the type of experience you can have in a scenario.

Or to rephrase a bad scenario can be brought to glorious life by a good judge. A less than stellar judge can be made less relevant by having a good table and a bad table can be overcome by having a good attitude.

Oh hecks yes. +1

The better players in this silly game aren't the ones who know the rules by heart or can get the extra +1 or +2 damage with every swing, but those that manage 1 and 2 above. This game isn't about RAW rules or mechanics of a build, it's social game wherein the better players will know ways to increase the fun at the table for all.

-Pain

*relives fond memories of PaizoCon last year*

Hey Dragnmoon, I think you skipped my initiative again!

[Dragnmoon]

Kyle Baird wrote:

*relives fond memories of PaizoCon last year*

Hey Dragnmoon, I think you skipped my initiative again!

Screw you! You go when I tell you to go!!!!

[Painlord]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

*relives fond memories of PaizoCon last year*

Hey Dragnmoon, I think you skipped my initiative again!

Screw you! You go when I tell you to go!!!!

Yep. That's a direct quote from last year's table, I believe.

[MisterSlanky]

Painlord wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

*relives fond memories of PaizoCon last year*

Hey Dragnmoon, I think you skipped my initiative again!

Screw you! You go when I tell you to go!!!!

Yep. That's a direct quote from last year's table, I believe.

You know...Ethan has 3 scenarios to 12. Two are already with a number of you guys, we could get the band together.

[Dragnmoon]

Ryan Bolduan wrote:

You know...Ethan has 3 scenarios to 12. Two are already with a number of you guys, we could get the band together.

I thought that was what this. was for? But it did not end up being that way.