|
I am simply showing that by extending the proposition that it is valid to allow players to propose their own solutions to tasks, they will come up with ways to game the system.
Of COURSE players are going to try and come up with ways to take advantage of their strengths in order to solve the problems placed in front of them. What you call "gaming the system" I call "intelligent roleplay".
It is the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate those attempts. Sometimes the proposed scheme really should just work, sometimes it may or may not work (ie, a skill check will be required) sometimes it will not work.
Reacting to player creativity is a significant portion of the enjoyment that I get from GMing. Its FUN to be challenged, to have to make up things on the fly. That does NOT mean that creativity always succeeds nor does it mean that any half assed suggestion is "creative"
Quite frankly, if (as a GM) I have to become a robot who must shut down any and all creative solutions that logically would (or may) work then I'll probably just stop GMing. Or actively "cheat" and reward creativity until such time as I'm caught and told to stop GMing :-).
As a player. I'd be similarly cheesed off if a GM regularly shot down any and all creative solutions. If it became the rule that in PFS creativity wasn't ever allowed then I'd be very cheesed off. Quite possibly to the point of quitting.
Again, I'm not saying that I expect all "creativity" to be rewarded. Sometimes people can disagree. Sometimes I know that I am pushing the envelope.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The difference is there are clear cut rules for squeezing into a small space. The goal is getting the item. Creating some secondary task - like using diplomacy to convince an unstatted NPC to do it - is completely avoiding the task.
Making ridiculously convoluted tasks becomes increasingly difficult for authors. I try to make faction missions where PCs are more or less on their own, but it starts to feel contrived. I'll just start requiring confidentiality for the ones which are easy to cooperate on. It seems kind of lame to me, but apparently thats the only way to make them work as designed.
|
|
The difference is there are clear cut rules for squeezing into a small space. The goal is getting the item. Creating some secondary task - like using diplomacy to convince an unstatted NPC to do it - is completely avoiding the task.
Well, if you give players a log and a room where the spiked walls are closing in on them , they are naturally going to use the log to brace the walls. If you hand players a small hole with something on the other side and a small gnome they are of course going to shove one down the other.
I agree with the task having to get done: just lying about it shouldn't work against a faction head. (most factions will be upset that you lied. Others will just be upset that you lied badly)
Making ridiculously convoluted tasks becomes increasingly difficult for authors. I try to make faction missions where PCs are more or less on their own, but it starts to feel contrived. I'll just start requiring confidentiality for the ones which are easy to cooperate on. It seems kind of lame to me, but apparently thats the only way to make them work as designed.
I may have a small sample size, but I've seen a general in table rebellion against the secret faction mission. People will leave the room when asked to so something can be done in secret, and my characters (who usually wind up being the ones looting chests, being lowered into privies, and finding things) as per pathfinder society rules not to interfere unless being cooperative, will hand over any items or documents found as soon as someone says 'dibs'.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The difference is there are clear cut rules for squeezing into a small space. The goal is getting the item. Creating some secondary task - like using diplomacy to convince an unstatted NPC to do it - is completely avoiding the task.Well, if you give players a log and a room where the spiked walls are closing in on them , they are naturally going to use the log to brace the walls. If you hand players a small hole with something on the other side and a small gnome they are of course going to shove one down the other.
Since you didn't really answer my point... I can't reply without repeating myself.
I may have a small sample size, but I've seen a general in table rebellion against the secret faction mission. People will leave the room when asked to so something can be done in secret, and my characters (who usually wind up being the ones looting chests, being lowered into privies, and finding things) as per pathfinder society rules not to interfere unless being cooperative, will hand over any items or documents found as soon as someone says 'dibs'.
The goal for faction missions is a 50% success ratio. If GMs are allowing ridiculous 'creative' solutions to them (for example someone suggested using unstatted NPCs in a nearby town), it completely defeats that intent. If you don't like the concept of secret missions then maybe you shouldn't be pushing for allowing something which more or less forces that as a solution.
There are only so many constraints you can put on a task, you can make it location based (it must be done at location XX which the PCs will only visit once), timing based (it must be done immediately after event XX), or secret... Authors are going to assume the task is completed within the context of the adventure and using the resources the party can bring to bear. What I see here is that those assumed constraints are largely ignored which leaves...
|
The difference is there are clear cut rules for squeezing into a small space. The goal is getting the item. Creating some secondary task - like using diplomacy to convince an unstatted NPC to do it - is completely avoiding the task.Well, if you give players a log and a room where the spiked walls are closing in on them , they are naturally going to use the log to brace the walls. If you hand players a small hole with something on the other side and a small gnome they are of course going to shove one down the other.Since you didn't really answer my point... I can't reply without repeating myself.
I may have a small sample size, but I've seen a general in table rebellion against the secret faction mission. People will leave the room when asked to so something can be done in secret, and my characters (who usually wind up being the ones looting chests, being lowered into privies, and finding things) as per pathfinder society rules not to interfere unless being cooperative, will hand over any items or documents found as soon as someone says 'dibs'.The goal for faction missions is a 50% success ratio. If GMs are allowing ridiculous 'creative' solutions to them (for example someone suggested using unstatted NPCs in a nearby town), it completely defeats that intent. If you don't like the concept of secret missions then maybe you shouldn't be pushing for allowing something which more or less forces that as a solution.
There are only so many constraints you can put on a task, you can make it location based (it must be done at location XX which the PCs will only visit once), timing based (it must be done immediately after event XX), or secret... Authors are going to assume the task is completed within the context of the adventure and using the resources the party can bring to bear. What I see here is that those assumed constraints are largely ignored which leaves...
Dennis,
Thanks for adding the words of an actual scenario (and faction mission) author to this discussion. It brings a weight of behind the scenes knowledge of the intent behind faction missions, that I obviously couldn't bring to bear.
|
|
Since you didn't really answer my point... I can't reply without repeating myself.
I'm not sure what your point is. Getting an NPC to get the item for you still means you show up back at the base with the item. The job still got done.
The goal for faction missions is a 50% success ratio. If GMs are allowing ridiculous 'creative' solutions to them (for example someone suggested using unstatted NPCs in a nearby town)
There is a lot of disagreement as to what constitutes a genuine creative solution that would work and what isn't. If you need something translated from tien to common and you're in tien talking to someone in common, why on earth is "Hey, whats this rubbing I made of those statues back there say" somehow an unreasonable action for the PC's to take?
it completely defeats that intent.
The other options by and large break verisimilitude.
If you don't like the concept of secret missions then maybe you shouldn't be pushing for allowing something which more or less forces that as a solution.
There are other alternatives, not the least of which is accepting a higher success ratio. "hey, everyone put on these blind folds and form a human pyramid" would not be out of the question for some groups.
There are only so many constraints you can put on a task, you can make it location based (it must be done at location XX which the PCs will only visit once), timing based (it must be done immediately after event XX), or secret... Authors are going to assume the task is completed within the context of the adventure and using the resources the party can bring to bear. What I see here is that those assumed constraints are largely ignored which leaves...
Spelling said assumptions out explicitly and in a way that logically makes sense. This is going to be harder if not impossible for level 11 characters with obscene resources who can pop back to absolom from the dungeon for tea, crumpets, and some library research.
I think a good example is your use of homophones in the GMG Lantern Lodge mission. Translating the tien characters with comprehend languages, or just buying the painting and carrying it to Tien Town for a quickie translation, won't work. You have to actually understand the language to get the pun.
|
|
The difference is there are clear cut rules for squeezing into a small space. The goal is getting the item. Creating some secondary task - like using diplomacy to convince an unstatted NPC to do it - is completely avoiding the task.
As you yourself say, the goal is to get the item. The Escape Artist check is just one possible means of solving the goal. The fact that the player thought of a method that you didn't is NOT avoiding the task. The task is to get the item by whatever means the character manages.
Note, I'm most definitely NOT saying that the author did anything wrong. They wrote a mission and statted out the one or two most obvious ways to achieve that mission. There is no way in Hades that you could be expected to think of all possibilities. That is why the scenarios are run by an actual GM as opposed to a robot.
Making ridiculously convoluted tasks becomes increasingly difficult for authors. I try to make faction missions where PCs are more or less on their own, but it starts to feel contrived. I'll just start requiring confidentiality for the ones which are easy to cooperate on. It seems kind of lame to me, but apparently thats the only way to make them work as designed.
I don't know what the solution is. I'm not at all sure why getting down to a 50% success rate is even desireable.
But I'm absolutely sure that the solution is NOT to insist that the only allowable solution is the one written into the scenario and to disallow characters to cooperate.
Secret faction missions rarely make much sense to me. EVERYBODY in the Pathfinder society pretty much HAS to know that EVERYBODY is always on a mission for their faction :-). When player A does something weird its all but guaranteed that they're on a Faction Mission and it is usually obvious how to help (or hinder) that person.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't know what the solution is. I'm not at all sure why getting down to a 50% success rate is even desireable.
*shrug* The 50% success rate is based on maintaining character wealth. It is part of the design assumptions of PFS. I suppose they could reduce the value of PA which would accomplish the same thing.
But I'm absolutely sure that the solution is NOT to insist that the only allowable solution is the one written into the scenario and to disallow characters to cooperate.
Secret faction missions rarely make much sense to me. EVERYBODY in the Pathfinder society pretty much HAS to know that EVERYBODY is always on a mission for their faction :-). When player A does something weird its all but guaranteed that they're on a Faction Mission and it is usually obvious how to help (or hinder) that person.
Secrecy was part of the original concept of factions and as far as I know it's still written into the guide. It's not a rule, but its strongly recommended. So your suggestion that everybody is meant to cooperate doesn't hold water. Chelaxians helping Andorans free slaves was never the intent.
|
|
Secrecy was part of the original concept of factions and as far as I know it's still written into the guide.
I don't see it anywhere. I know at least one other author assumed it was known that the missions were supposed to be secret. At least one faction gives you early access to a pretty nifty magical item (the shining wayfinder) cheap, and showing it is pretty much putting a sign on your head that says "Silver Crusade".
It's not a rule, but its strongly recommended. So your suggestion that everybody is meant to cooperate doesn't hold water. Chelaxians helping Andorans free slaves was never the intent.
Everyone helping everyone doesn't always make sense, but most of the time either the missions aren't directly harming anyone else or the chelaxians have the better bluff check about what they're actually doing. For collecting plants, translating text, picking up non magical doo dads, or hiding the embarrassing panties of the taldans I don't see any reason not to help (as its being a good player and making the people I'm gaming with happy) and as I generally play good hero types its usually in character as well.
I think it has to be that way because of the no PVP rule (which ALSO has to be that way) You can't have the chelaxians enslaving people and not expect the Andorrans to do something about it. (knowing andorrans, usually something violent)
|
|
Secrecy was part of the original concept of factions and as far as I know it's still written into the guide. It's not a rule, but its strongly recommended. So your suggestion that everybody is meant to cooperate doesn't hold water. Chelaxians helping Andorans free slaves was never the intent.
That may be the theory. The reality is otherwise.
I just played in a Scenario where the Faction Mission for the Lantern Lodge was to impress the other characters with how useful the Lantern Lodge was. The absolute antithesis of secrecy.
In terms of versimilitude it really doesn't matter at all what the guide says. Any member of the PFS who hasn't seriously dumped at least 1 of intelligence or wisdom with more than a couple of missions under their belt IS going to realize that EVERYBODY is part of one faction or other, that EVERY mission has side faction missions and can pretty much automatically notice when the other characters are pursuing their faction missions. And will very often (in character) have a really good idea what factions other characters belong to.
A character that I had that went through the First Steps scenarios was very impressed with 3 Factions (she wanted to join all 3). Although she is only legally allowed to be a member of one faction she has (in her back story and in her mind) good relations with 2 other factions. When I asked here on the boards if there was any legal way to play her (ideally, I'd have had her be a member of multiple factions) I was told to have her cooperate with other Factions missions. While an imperfect solution it seemed a good approximation.
If I was using the Pathfinder Society as a backdrop in a home campaign I'd absolutely allow characters to have relationships with more than one faction. While I understand why this isn't possible in PFS play it makes a huge amount more sense. In reality AND in literature people constantly have multiple relationships with a great deal of dramatic tension in literature coming from times where those relationships conflict.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the concerns raised in this thread (on both sides of the issue) will be largely moot when Season 4 kicks off and players' creativity in coming up with their own faction missions and methods of forwarding their factions' goals are built into the system. I talked about it a bit in the blog back in April, and we'll have more info about it in the forthcoming update to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play and in-play when Season 4's first scenarios come out at Gen Con.
|
|
I think a lot of the concerns raised in this thread (on both sides of the issue) will be largely moot when Season 4 kicks off and players' creativity in coming up with their own faction missions and methods of forwarding their factions' goals are built into the system. I talked about it a bit in the blog back in April, and we'll have more info about it in the forthcoming update to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play and in-play when Season 4's first scenarios come out at Gen Con.
I know that I should just wait a couple of weeks, but ...
Can you give us any insight into how this will affect Season 0-3 scenarios? While what you're planning for Season 4 looks really, really interesting it will only affect a portion of what I run and play.
|
|
Guess I don't count as being actual?Dennis,
Thanks for adding the words of an actual scenario (and faction mission) author to this discussion.
Sorry Kyle, I figured everyone would take what you had to say as the super killer GM, instead of the awesome author of Rats of Round Mountain, Part I: The Sundered Path.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Can you give us any insight into how this will affect Season 0-3 scenarios? While what you're planning for Season 4 looks really, really interesting it will only affect a portion of what I run and play.
It won't. It's only going to affect scenarios beginning with Season 4. Faction missions from previous seasons' scenarios will be run as written.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We simply don't have the resources to go back and retrofit an improvement to the system onto 100+ scenarios. If you feel that faction missions were too restrictive before, I think you'll be happy with the changes coming next month, and I urge you to play or run scenarios from the Year of the Risen Rune instead of older scenarios that contain missions decided by a single skill check.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I suspect that a lot of the round-n-round in this thread might be the result of people talking past each other due to thinking their "opponents" are taking more offensive stances than they are, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and attempt a reboot/clarification.
Consider the following statement:
If a player comes up with an alternate means of completing a faction mission (knowingly or not) and it is a legitimate solution, the GM can/should allow the plan to be carried out, potentially resulting in earning the associated Prestige Point. If the player-proposed solution is instead merely a cop-out to attempt to cheaply evade their PC's weaknesses, the GM can/should put the kibosh on it. It is up to the GM to differentiate between these two situations.
--------------------
Does anyone disagree with that summary? If so, please detail your position. Do not reference anyone else's position (as you're probably wrong about them) and please be precise in your wording.
Thanks.
|
|
I suspect that a lot of the round-n-round in this thread might be the result of people talking past each other due to thinking their "opponents" are taking more offensive stances than they are, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and attempt a reboot/clarification.
Consider the following statement:
If a player comes up with an alternate means of completing a faction mission (knowingly or not) and it is a legitimate solution, the GM can/should allow the plan to be carried out, potentially resulting in earning the associated Prestige Point. If the player-proposed solution is instead merely a cop-out to attempt to cheaply evade their PC's weaknesses, the GM can/should put the kibosh on it. It is up to the GM to differentiate between these two situations.--------------------
Does anyone disagree with that summary? If so, please detail your position. Do not reference anyone else's position (as you're probably wrong about them) and please be precise in your wording.
Thanks.
Yeah, that's about right.
|
|
Consider the following statement:
If a player comes up with an alternate means of completing a faction mission (knowingly or not) and it is a legitimate solution, the GM can/should allow the plan to be carried out, potentially resulting in earning the associated Prestige Point. If the player-proposed solution is instead merely a cop-out to attempt to cheaply evade their PC's weaknesses, the GM can/should put the kibosh on it. It is up to the GM to differentiate between these two situations.--------------------
Does anyone disagree with that summary? If so, please detail your position. Do not reference anyone else's position (as you're probably wrong about them) and please be precise in your wording.
Thanks.
I believe that the responsibility does not lie solely with the GM. I believe it is first up to the player to not "merely use a cop-out to attempt to cheaply evade their PC's weaknesses."
Sure the GM is the final arbitrator, but players shouldn't be trying to exploit their GM's unwillingness to say no, niceness, hurry to finish a slot, etc. by trying to sidestep challenges in ways that don't make sense.
Now different people will put the line between creative and cop-out in different places, but that's okay, that's what the GM is for, but the system works best when everybody acts in good faith.
(My point is repeated several times, but I thought it best to be clear)
|
|
Well, is fishing for the scales 20 or so times a solution?
If it slows down the scenario, no. If the action can’t be completed normally during the allotted time for the scenario, then as a GM I won’t sit there and let them roll repeatedly until they succeed.
Now please stop trying to catch me in some contradiction. It smacks of you trying to slam on a Venture-Officer for no real reason.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, is fishing for the scales 20 or so times a solution?
Which side of the line a specific example falls on is a separate topic; specifics should probably wait until we're at least all on the same page on the general idea.
Sure the GM is the final arbitrator, but players shouldn't be trying to exploit their GM's unwillingness to say no, niceness, hurry to finish a slot, etc. by trying to sidestep challenges in ways that don't make sense.
The need for players to not be dicks is true, but is parallel to the topic at hand.
|
|
Sure the GM is the final arbitrator, but players shouldn't be trying to exploit their GM's unwillingness to say no, niceness, hurry to finish a slot, etc. by trying to sidestep challenges in ways that don't make sense.The need for players to not be dicks is true, but is parallel to the topic at hand.
My point is I disagree with your statement that it's the GMs job to police creative solution abuse. The players have a responsibility to not abuse creative solutions as well.
|
|
Well, is fishing for the scales 20 or so times a solution?If it slows down the scenario, no. If the action can’t be completed normally during the allotted time for the scenario, then as a GM I won’t sit there and let them roll repeatedly until they succeed.
Now please stop trying to catch me in some contradiction. It smacks of you trying to slam on a Venture-Officer for no real reason.I'm not catching you in a contradiction, I'm pointing one out. If you don't want me to do that then make your reasoning more consistent. You being a venture officer has nothing to do with this.
And its far from pointless. People do watch these conversations and decide how they're going to run things from that, and occsionally there is official clarification. (which so far stands at you are NOT locked into making the DC skill check as written)
You said you agreed with legitimate solutions, but your desire to have a higher failure rate and to put the faction missions in the hands of the dice gods (polyhedral be their name) is conflicting with that. Fishing 20 times when there's no consequences of failure is precisely what the take 20 mechanic is for, or at the very least someone could dump 10 20's from their dicebag on the table if you're actually worried about the time it takes.
Which side of the line a specific example falls on is a separate topic; specifics should probably wait until we're at least all on the same page on the general idea.Showing the specifics demonstrates that while people may agree with the words we're still lightyears apart on the idea
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My point is I disagree with your statement that it's the GMs job to police creative solution abuse. The players have a responsibility to not abuse creative solutions as well.
Sure the GM is the final arbitrator, but players shouldn't be trying to exploit their GM's unwillingness to say no, niceness, hurry to finish a slot, etc. by trying to sidestep challenges in ways that don't make sense.The need for players to not be dicks is true, but is parallel to the topic at hand.
Acknowledged.
Aside from a footnote about the onus of responsibility, do you agree or disagree with the rest of the summary?
|
Is there some other dead horse we can beat on the rest of summer?
I admire Jiggy's attempt at painting a broad statement to encompass what is really an individual, case by case, situational development. I really do. I just think it is ultimately misguided. Every table and every situation is going to be different and every GM will handle these events according to their own biases, whims, interpretations, lack of sleep, state of hungover-ness, etc. I just do not think one can codify this part of the guide.
And, Andy, the reason BNW and others can continue to bring up example after example is because by trying to narrowly interpret the rules, you set up an arbitrary court of opinion whereby you determine for everyone else what is allowable and what isn't. So please forgive me this, but what if this past Sunday I was not playing my fighter with maxed out intimidate with a trait bonus and instead was playing my bard (level 1) who does not have any ranks in diplomacy, intimidate, or sleight of hand. The DC is the same in both tiers. Since I needed to convince someone to give me something, if I made my perform check to cast innocence on myself to "convince" him, using bluff, that my female bard is so much better at whatever Zarta Dralneen can do for him, would you have given me a Bluff roll to succeed on the Chelaxian faction mission? The scenario explicitly states the three skills listed above so this falls under creative solutions. Is this a lack of design on my part, or a means of side-stepping a skill roll? Is it evading my PC's weakness? At second level I can substitute a perform skill check for bluff and diplomacy so there is no reason for me to put skill ranks into those two skills
|
|
Well, is fishing for the scales 20 or so times a solution?If it slows down the scenario, no. If the action can’t be completed normally during the allotted time for the scenario, then as a GM I won’t sit there and let them roll repeatedly until they succeed.
Now please stop trying to catch me in some contradiction. It smacks of you trying to slam on a Venture-Officer for no real reason.I'm not catching you in a contradiction, I'm pointing one out. If you don't want me to do that then make your reasoning more consistent. You being a venture officer has nothing to do with this.
And its far from pointless. People do watch these conversations and decide how they're going to run things from that, and occsionally there is official clarification. (which so far stands at you are NOT locked into making the DC skill check as written)
You said you agreed with legitimate solutions, but your desire to have a higher failure rate and to put the faction missions in the hands of the dice gods (polyhedral be their name) is conflicting with that. Fishing 20 times when there's no consequences of failure is precisely what the take 20 mechanic is for, or at the very least someone could dump 10 20's from their dicebag on the table if you're actually worried about the time it takes.
Which side of the line a specific example falls on is a separate topic; specifics should probably wait until we're at least all on the same page on the general idea.Showing the specifics demonstrates that while people may agree with the words we're still lightyears apart on the idea
Please don't put words in my mouth. And you can't take 20 on an attack roll.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@BNW and Leg o Lamb:
I think you missed the intent of my post. There had, at various points in this thread, been people yelling at each other for either allowing any alternative a player could think of or else never allowing anything but the prescribed skill check regardless of the situation.
I suspect that neither such position is actually held by anyone, and therefore the vehement defenses against them are pointless.
Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable solutions? I agree with BNW that specifics demonstrate that people can be worlds apart on that, and I agree with Leg o Lamb that trying to codify the location of that line is probably pointless. I was just trying to assert that maybe we all agree that a line *exists*, rather than anyone thinking it's all-or-nothing like some people seemed to be defending against.
Could we get THAT settled, so at least the arguments can be restricted to things that people *actually* disagree on?
|
|
I think Mark Moreland said it above best. Creative solutions are fine, but please don’t arbitrarily change DC’s.
If you came up with something creative, and roleplayed it, then I’d probably allow you to make an attempt. As it was, you made the dude really angry at you with roleplay, so your attempt to roleplay to even get a slight of hand check failed without a roll, but you were able to intimidate him, with good roleplay, into giving you the item.
If as a Bard, you have the ability to use perform in place of bluff or diplomacy, then the mechanics of your character’s abilities would of course allow you to make a perform check.
But lets put this to rest a bit. On the boards, I advocate for a narrow definition, because publicly I choose to err on the side of following the intent of what faction missions are supposed to be. The reason the definition has to be somewhat narrow, is because every circumstance is different. You have to leave yourself room to make circumstantial judgment calls.
I will often err on the side of creativity if I feel the player is honestly roleplaying their character and the skills and stats of said character, AND, a big and here, the alternate option makes sense within the context of PFS, the faction, the mission, and circumstances of the scenario as a whole.
But I’m done giving examples of when I might allow or disallow, because obviously I’m not explaining why those deserved or did not deserve consideration, or I don’t have the time to expound on the entire set of circumstances (or simply don’t remember the exact set of circumstances).
So lets leave it at, Table Variance will happen, It depends wholly on the circumstances surrounding such a decision, and every GM has the right to make whatever call they feel is appropriate in that given circumstance.
|
|
Is there some other dead horse we can beat on the rest of summer?I'm sure when 4.2 comes out, there will be plenty of horse to beat.
For those not enjoying the repeative debate here, there's always the option to hide the thread from view (thanks PMG!).
I have never shied away from train wrecks. I follow this thread because the topic is one I think should be used as often as possible. To me this thread was derailing into a "Uh Huh!" "Nuh unh!" debate. And these I find unproductive.
I will continue to read and sigh with every new post. Including my own.
|
|
@BNW and Leg o' Lamb:
I think you missed the intent of my post. There had, at various points in this thread, been people yelling at each other for either allowing any alternative a player could think of or else never allowing anything but the prescribed skill check regardless of the situation.
I suspect that neither such position is actually held by anyone, and therefore the vehement defenses against them are pointless.
Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable solutions? I agree with BNW that specifics demonstrate that people can be worlds apart on that, and I agree with Leg o Lamb that trying to codify the location of that line is probably pointless. I was just trying to assert that maybe we all agree that a line *exists*, rather than anyone thinking it's all-or-nothing like some people seemed to be defending against.
Could we get THAT settled, so at least the arguments can be restricted to things that people *actually* disagree on?
Yes, neither position exists. The line you refer to does exist and it resides within each GM's head. I think Pirate Rob is best when s/he says it is a table consensus where each player observes the most important rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, neither position exists. The line you refer to does exist and it resides within each GM's head.
That's all I wanted to confirm. I'm fine with people disagreeing on things, I just hate it when people argue over things they actually agree on. Seems like some people are so trigger-happy that if you reply to their post without the phrase "I agree", they just assume your position is the exact opposite of theirs and the fight is on. I kid you not, I've seen multi-star GMs/VOs vehemently defend themselves against the imagined dissention of someone who was actually trying to support them by re-phrasing the same position.
|
|
People seem to be getting angry and walking away, so I'll leave off the specifics and give a big summation.
The question for faction missions should only be
1) What is the goal
2) Would what the character is doing meet that goal?
Anything else to me horribly breaks verisimilitude and puts what is supposed to be the creative endeavor of role playing games onto rails better left to computer games. While I enjoy an imaginary thunk of a greatsword biting through an orcs head as much as the next gamer, what i really love are interesting challenges that I, the player, can overcome by thinking rather than just building more +'s to add to a d20.
Whatever the designers intents were, the situations and goals of the faction missions were easier than expected. People saw the kinds of missions they were being given and adjusted their builds accordingly, got creative, often took unexpected third options, and above all COOPERATED together and functioned as parties. That's a GOOD thing. Its something to be celebrated, not alarmed about, and definitely not something that needs to be met with an allegedly rule based solution of 'no you can't do that' that flies in the face of the sort of world pathfinders find themselves in.
If a player has an auto success plan for a faction mission involving a greased pig and a whoopie cushion not only do want to see that plan, not only do I want to see what else they'll come up with, I want to see whatever else they'll encourage the other players to come up with. Skill checks are even easier to boil down to math than combat is. Math isn't fun, creativity is.
|
|
People seem to be getting angry and walking away, so I'll leave off the specifics and give a big summation.
The question for faction missions should only be
1) What is the goal
2) Would what the character is doing meet that goal?Anything else to me horribly breaks verisimilitude and puts what is supposed to be the creative endeavor of role playing games onto rails better left to computer games. While I enjoy an imaginary thunk of a greatsword biting through an orcs head as much as the next gamer, what i really love are interesting challenges that I, the player, can overcome by thinking rather than just building more +'s to add to a d20.
Whatever the designers intents were, the situations and goals of the faction missions were easier than expected. People saw the kinds of missions they were being given and adjusted their builds accordingly, got creative, often took unexpected third options, and above all COOPERATED together and functioned as parties. That's a GOOD thing. Its something to be celebrated, not alarmed about, and definitely not something that needs to be met with an allegedly rule based solution of 'no you can't do that' that flies in the face of the sort of world pathfinders find themselves in.
If a player has an auto success plan for a faction mission involving a greased pig and a whoopie cushion not only do want to see that plan, not only do I want to see what else they'll come up with, I want to see whatever else they'll encourage the other players to come up with. Skill checks are even easier to boil down to math than combat is. Math isn't fun, creativity is.
I don't disagree with you on the intent and generic idea of what you are saying.
However, allowance of creativity must be tempered by good judgement.
In my mind four things aren't a creative option that should be allowed under the auspices of creativity, because they directly fly in the face of the intent behind the challenge:
1) Getting (an)NPC(s) in town to do your work for you.
2) Lying to your Faction Head
3) Entirely sidestepping the challenge by demanding that something work in a way in which it obviously isn't intended to work (this is often up to GM discretion, but it usually is quite obvious when a player is desperately trying to find a way to solve the problem and doesn't really have an avenue--some challenges just can't be overcome).
4) Slowing down the game, hogging spotlight, or taking up a GM's personal time (over the allotted time set up for the game day session) to excess just to keep making different (or the same repetitively) attempts.
|
|
1) Getting (an)NPC(s) in town to do your work for you.
See, here's why this breaks verisimilitude for me.
The party is in absolom.
Party Fighter "Oh my god, we need to get this thing translated from TENGU? Who the hell speaks that?!?"
Party druid "in this town?"
2) Lying to your Faction Head
This one shouldn't work.
3) Entirely sidestepping the challenge by demanding that something work in a way in which it obviously isn't intended to work (this is often up to GM discretion, but it usually is quite obvious when a player is desperately trying to find a way to solve the problem and doesn't really have an avenue--some challenges just can't be overcome).
Its very, VERY rare that there isn't a way once the challange is in front of you and has been identified as such.
4) Slowing down the game, hogging spotlight, or taking up a GM's personal time (over the allotted time set up for the game day session) to excess just to keep making different (or the same repetitively) attempts.
It doesn't have to take up any more time than you want it to. Once you have established that something can work you have established that it will work given enough time. Appeals to not having enough time for multiple dice rolls that can be done in less time than a single players combat turn strike me as a back door method of artificially imposing the difficulty of a single roll of the dice over what can easily be done over a length of time.
It also takes DM control over a character, essentially saying "no, your character stops trying and gives up"
|
|
And I believe that the intent of the faction missions, is that you are showing your faction heads that you can get things done on your own. Additionally, I don't think your faction heads would look too kindly on random NPC translator knowing faction business.
That's my interpretation. You of course are allowed to interpret things your way at the tables that you GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And I believe that the intent of the faction missions, is that you are showing your faction heads that you can get things done on your own.
This kind of breaks down for me. If I get someone to mend an urn that Amenophus wants as a relic, why would he be upset that I did what was necessary to get the job done? Maybe in certain circumstances your idea would make sense, but not in most "get the macguffin" missions.
Additionally, I don't think your faction heads would look too kindly on random NPC translator knowing faction business.
True, but other times there's no secret at all.
I think that rule of yours should be more of a sometimes-possibility than a general rule.