|
I know a couple of people have posted a guide/expectations and I am going to start Heavily GMing after Gen Con and I want to clear the air over issues that I have seen as I have been playing PFS at my locale store. I won't take credit for these thoughts but I have systemically put them into a a single sheet which I can pass around to players who sit at my Table when I GM.
I look for maturity in all things and these rules are a to help grow the PFS and our community.
2. Introduction will be first. Your Characters Name, Faction, Level/Class, Brief Description, and Goals, who are you and why are you in PFS. Their needs to be more role-playing and less rolling. No one will be calling each other Bob or Bill. In Character names only.
3. Prestige Points. I do not hand these out like candy, I know a lot of DMs do, I don't. I will work with you on a different alternative skill check within the spectrum but don't expect me to lower the DC or fudge the numbers. If you bring X home broken don't expect to get your candy. A couple of people were shocked and horrified when I said we should only be getting 3/4 of prestige and that was the expectation.
4. Death. It happens, I am not asking you to be mad/disappointed or grieved by a character death, I am not emotionally dismissive and I understand that you put hard work into your character, (I know I have). However, know that if you sit at my table, I will play the monsters ability to its max. If you die, I am sorry, but that is a possibility you must understand and live with. I will not gun for a TPK and try and avoid that but death is near at every combat.
5. Skills. Know what they do *I am looking at you Handle Animal*, this has been brought up multiple times, if your a Ranger and your Cha 7 and you have only a +4 in Handle Animal you will be rolling HA on everything. Flanking, distracting, or anything else outside of the box I will need you to push the animal.
6. Disagreement on "X". I will look at the issue but understand I have the finale saying with ambiguity in rules. I will not spend more then a minute arguing.
7. Dice/Figures. There will be no dice on the board representing figures. If you need a figure I have multiple to choose one. Rolls are in the open. No crazy dice I can't read and don't use dice big enough to smash into the combat mat. Rolls that go off the table are auto re-rolls, as are dice on cracks.
8. Paladins better play Lawful Good. Atonement is in the rules for a reason. I am a stickler about this. Sometimes your going to have to bite the built and refuse your faction mission.
9. 2 Strike rule on Cheating/Meta-gaming. If you have played the scenario, don't talk about it. Play dumb. Don't Metagame, if you do I will call you on it and if you do it again I will ask you to leave the table.
10. Have a lot of fun, these rules are here to give guidance on what to expect, not to be a kill joy. If you have a problem with anything I have here, please ask me about it rather then dismissing it. I want to be firm but fair and I am not doing this to be a jerk but to give you an understanding before any of these issue pop up. I want this to be enjoyable for you and everyone else at the table.
Thoughts would be appreciated.
|
Well, rule 2 is something that would have a good chance to make me walk from your table.
Faction is supposed to be secret.
Some of us are not heavy-duty role-players, and you shouldn't try to force us to live up to your idea of how to play PFS.
Level/Class is not something that can be easily explicitly role-played, by the way. And some of us will tell the GM, but feel that exact details may not be something we want to share with the table.
As to using PC names only, not unless you are willing to supply the name every time yourself. I have always had trouble with people's names, even for just the real name. And not all discussions held at the table would be or even should be in character.
Rule 4: As long as you promise no gratuitous CdGs, as well.
Rule 5: Flanking is not outside the box. If you know how to attack, you also know how to flank. It may not be your AC's first choice as a tactic, but knowing how to attack also means that you know the various ways to attack.
Rule 8: As long as you understand the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. Don't penalize the Paladin because he doesn't run out into "no man's land" on his own to protect the squishy 12 miles back.
|
|
Well, rule 2 is something that would have a good chance to make me walk from your table.
Faction is supposed to be secret.
I might of missed that, but where is that in the PFS Guide? If its in their I will take it out.
Some of us are not heavy-duty role-players, and you shouldn't try to force us to live up to your idea of how to play PFS.
Anyone who has played with me knows I stink at role playing, I don't have an in-character voice and I need to make a sheet that tells me who I am. But that doesn't excuse me from trying
Level/Class is not something that can be easily explicitly role-played, by the way. And some of us will tell the GM, but feel that exact details may not be something we want to share with the table.
That is fine, but give the group your level and a general idea of who you are and what you bring to the table, if you say I am a cleric that is looking to wade into combat with S&B, that gives the idea that they shouldn't consider you a heal bot.
As to using PC names only, not unless you are willing to supply the name every time yourself. I have always had trouble with people's names, even for just the real name. And not all discussions held at the table would be or even should be in character.
I do. Sure their are side conversations, I am not against those but when your playing the game, ask questions in character.
Rule 4: As long as you promise no gratuitous CdGs, as well.
I have yet to kill a character.
Rule 5: Flanking is not outside the box. If you know how to attack, you also know how to flank. It may not be your AC's first choice as a tactic, but knowing how to attack also means that you know the various ways to attack.
Unless he is a paladin's mount who has an Int of 6 he is going to push his animal. It will depend on the situation Context is King ;)
Rule 8: As long as you understand the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. Don't penalize the Paladin because he doesn't run out into "no man's land" on his own to protect the squishy 12 miles back.
Again Context is King. Sometimes Good is stupid...Trust me I have died doing a good but not wise thing. I do have a Wis of 7 though...
|
Unless he is a paladin's mount who has an Int of 6 he is going to push his animal. It will depend on the situation Context is King ;)
Moving so a flank can be set up later is, i agree without you, outside of the scope of animal intelligence. Even then by raw the person can move ahead of their pet and call them over with "come"
But pack predators with an int of 2 take advantage of pre existing flanks as a standard operating procedure all the time. Its not that hard for an animal to notice "hey, where would i rather try to bite that guy with a sword.. on the sword or on that lovely exposed calf...." there's no facing in pathfinder, but flanking is the closest thing to it. Its not hard to notice or take advantage of a turned back.
|
|
I shall reply in order of disagreement.
1, 6, 7, 9, 10: Yeah, cool.
5. Flanking isn't outside the box. But a ranger with a charisma dump stat should definitely be giving his dice a workout when he's trying to finesse animals.
8. As above, sure, but don't expect the paladin to be suicidally stupid. Way too many people think that's what playing a paladin is about. And, y'know, not so much.
3. Mmm. Wellllllll ... meh. On the one hand, okay, there's some validity there. On the other hand, if a faction mission requires one skill check with a result of 15 or higher and there's only one person in the party and they have a zero modifier in that skill, they're basically screwed. I wouldn't necessarily sacrifice character progress for verisimilitude. If they made a concerted effort but have impossible rolls, I'm inclined to work with them. If they blow it off or fail miserably or something, that's different.
4. Great theory, sucks in practice. Last night, in fact, I should have offed a character. I chose not to. I'm comfortable with it.
2. LOL, no. First, it sounds like you're conflating "willingness to describe your character's personality" with "roleplaying." I have an extensive background for my primary character. Misery, love lost, eventual redemption, the works. I even know when and where he was born. I would love a chance to start getting in to that in roleplay. But I'm not gonna stand up and give that away like I'm reporting on what I did over my summer vacation. Further, unless these characters have worked together in the past, they're not going to know these things about each other, so having them declare it all is foolish. It almost seems like you're trying to do some kind of "do you have a character background" check, but that's not really in your job description.
Finally, I'll stick to character names exclusively the minute you can promise me they'll contain less than 13 vowels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think your guidelines are valid good points if you are going to be *that* ironclad you should avoid teaching new players. New players are going to make all of these mistakes. So being quite inflexible to mistakes may turn new players away. If these are your standards and you are unwilling to be patient and understanding to your players perhaps you need to consider why you are GMing versus your mission to improve our socitey's maturity and/or standards.
RPG's are meant to be fun not intimidating. And handing this sheet out to new players would definately do that.
|
|
Finally, I'll stick to character names exclusively the minute you can promise me they'll contain less than 13 vowels.So, "Alexander Damocles, the Holy Librarian of Abadar" is a bit too long? ;)
As my half-orc would point out, there's only one vowel in "Al."
I like to use minis and have extras ready, please use them and not dice as it can get very confusing when PCs are picked up and rolled.
FTW.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As my half-orc would point out, there's only one vowel in "Al."
Tsadok: Um, what's a 'vowel', Drogheda?
Drogheda: It's a language thing. Um, you know all the sounds that the elves make, when you strangle them, or twist their arms off?Tsadok: Like "Aaah!" or "Eeee!" or "Akkkkk!' or "Ooooow!" Those?
Drogheda: Right. Those are vowels.
Tsadok: Thanks.
|
Might just be me but in you come as rather severe and someone I wouldn't want to play under
Its not just you.
While I have no idea how he really is at the table, IMK is coming across to me as a control freak who would make an utterly awful PFS GM.
His entire tone is very confrontational and authoritarian.
And some of his points absolutely make me cringe. A paladin must be played according to his interpretation of LG. The players are expected to know how HE interprets skills like Handle Animal (there are recent threads that make it very clear that people disagree about what an Animal Companion should be able to do). Use of what he considers "Meta Knowledge" is verboten and will get you kicked from his table (Reasonable people constantly disagree about what constitutes Meta Knowledge)
You have it exactly right when you rephrase his points. Similar points to IMKs but a massively different tone. And tone matters.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
some of the more fun characters I have played with have not told the pary their class. They give a basic desicription IE half elf with daggers slung from many places on their body and a bow on their back. When asked what they bring to the party, they reply damage. Are they a rogue? ranger? warrior?
|
|
You know what I think is a better way to encourage better gameplay?
This guide: Painlord's Guide To Better PFS Players
And this guide might help as well: PFS Roleplaying At Conventions
And for the judge.. I'm not saying you are a bad GM, I'm saying, that you gotta find that happy balance between authoritarian and gamekeeper. You don't want the reputation as "that jerkface GM, that crushes PFS players for the sake of keeping order." but at the same time it is important that your players understand that you are in charge and you are not afraid to use the GM card if needed.
If you are in doubt of what our main missions in PFS are, you should refresh yourself with this guide: Painlord's Core Tenets for PFS
May these tidbits of wisdom help you find that nice healthy balance.
|
|
Hey Guys,
Thanks for the feed back I really appreciate it. Just so you know I am not a robot, nor an Ironclad Tyrant, I just want to be honest about some of the standards I have. You guys are right with the tone it might come across to harsh but for me I prefer clear understanding of what my GM expects of me. I understand that everyone is not like me and thus it is a good idea to retune the rules.
I know I should of put this in my original post but here is my ultimate Guide Line
Context is King.
Some thoughts
3. Mmm. Wellllllll ... meh. On the one hand, okay, there's some validity there. On the other hand, if a faction mission requires one skill check with a result of 15 or higher and there's only one person in the party and they have a zero modifier in that skill, they're basically screwed. I wouldn't necessarily sacrifice character progress for verisimilitude. If they made a concerted effort but have impossible rolls, I'm inclined to work with them. If they blow it off or fail miserably or something, that's different.
I believe I covered this with the idea of Spectrum of skills, I don't think I said anything different. But I will change the wording on it to sound better. Thanks!
While I think your guidelines are valid good points if you are going to be *that* ironclad you should avoid teaching new players. New players are going to make all of these mistakes. So being quite inflexible to mistakes may turn new players away. If these are your standards and you are unwilling to be patient and understanding to your players perhaps you need to consider why you are GMing versus your mission to improve our socitey's maturity and/or standards.
Your right, this would be totally wrong to hand to new players. Which is why I would never do that. New players need shepherding, care, patience, and encouragement. I brought 2 people from level 1 to 5 who had no understanding of this game. New players are different ball of wax then who I would hand this set of rules to. Thank you for pointing this out I will add the header of above 3rd level.
re in game out of game:
if you need to borrow a scroll of Spider climb, you ask Leafytree.
if you need someone to pass the mountain dew, you ask bob.
You totally got what I was trying to sum up. Thanks!
If your going to insist on Character names only, I would expect you to have something that can be used as a tent ready. Also agree with Kinevon, not everyone is big into roleplay aspect and personally it can take me a bit to figure out my character, also as my one dwarf will state "My diplomacy is shutting my mouth."
Thanks, That is a good idea, I should bring extra Table Tents for anyone who doesn't have one, so it is easy to talk to other players in character.
3. Depends on your behavior with faction missions I have come across some that are obtuse in trying to interpret. So I would hope that if someone asks for clarification that you would provide some, otherwise I would again probably just leave.
Again the spectrum issue, but I agree. I need to be more clear
6. Five minute rule to prove wrong or right, over than. I've played in a group that would get together 1/month and spend hours arguing over stuff so complete understanding, but 1 minute would be getting out the book and finding the page.
Your right, 1 minute seems to short, the overall point is I don't want to get bogged down.
Again I agree with Kinevon, don't force someone to have to do something stupid just cause there lawful good.
I would never force anyone to do anything, but If your good and it effects your class. Self preservation is not your main focus, being good is. This is sticky and it is a case by case basis Context is King.
Be careful about what your labeling as metagaming I've seen some nasty arguments over that. I don't know if you saw the thread about a knowledge check on Vrocks that were dancing up in the sky, but there was arguement about how trying to get away would be metagaming even though they didn't know what the Vrocks were up to, this is what I mean about needing to be careful about metagaming, If we couldn't stop what they were doing I would've wanted to flee cause it probably ain't good for my PC.
No I have not seen the thread, I am talking about knowing where the bad guy is in the Dalsine Affiar, or whipping out out fire spells the first time you have seen a ropper. Sure I am not going to question if you your 8th level and you know cold iron works on demons, by that level it is a given that you some of that stuff. The dancing issue is tricky if he said "dude their dancing and their gona shoot destructive lightning bolts we need to get the heck out of here." yeah that is metagaming. This is a context issue and I'll call it when I see it.
|
|
Let me introduce, Ill_Made_Knight's Improved 10 Guidlines
Know that Context is King with all these guidelines
2. I like to know your character's strength and weakness before we play. If your going to make changes to your spell list just please let me know. If I am not familiar with a spell or ability please bring the book and have the description in hand. I know it would be easier to just tell me but I want to know for the future what it does so I don't have to ask it of another player. Also sometime their is an errata, please bring it with you because I am not up on everything but I will try to be.
3. Please introduce yourselves and your characters. A brief introduction of Characters Name, Faction, Level/Class, Physical Description, and Goals, who are you and why are you in PFS. Some of us are not inclined to role play, I know, I stink at it too but lets try to get and emerge ourself in Pathfinder's world. Please use Character names when were playing, if you don't have a table tent, just ask I have one for you!
4. Prestige Points are a sticky issue. I will work with you if the mission is unclear or if your confused but please don't feel entitled to getting Prestige Points, sometimes we roll poorly or we don't have skills that we need, your free to let the party help in certain circumstances. However were not suppose to get it every time.
5. Alignment is important to your character, please keep it in mind or be ready to offer reason for acting outside of it.
6. Please know your characters abilities and skills and how to use them to speed game play and reduce sticking points. Please have an idea of what you're going to do before your turn.
Obviously the battle can change quite a bit over the course of a round, but paying attention and having some idea of your response, including the full text of what spells you're considering, is better than side-talking to your friends. Don't get me wrong, it's still friend-time, but understand that your not the only one at the table and we often have a time crunch.
7. I like to use minis and have extras ready, please use them and not dice as it can get very confusing when PCs are picked up and rolled. Please Roll in the open. Please No crazy dice I can't read and please don't use dice big enough to smash into the combat mat. Rolls that go off the table are auto re-rolls, as are dice on cracks.
8. Sometimes there are gray areas in PFS, I try and keep up with all the rulings but some things are just not clarified well. If a dispute comes up we are limited to only 4 minutes, after that my ruling is final. Please understand that I am just trying to get the game moving along and not being a rule lawyer.
9. Cheating is not fun for anyone, so just deal. If you've played the scenario don't ruin it for others or abuse that knowledge. Please don't yell out creatures unless your appropriate level (at level 1 you know what a Goblin is, at 5th level you know what is a lycanthrope is, at 10 level you have an idea about devils and demons). Again Context is King here
10. Death. It happens, I am not asking you to NOT be mad/disappointed or grieved by a character death, I am not emotionally dismissive and I understand that you put hard work into your character, (I know I have). However, know that if you sit at my table, I will play the monsters ability to its max. If you die, I am sorry, but that is a possibility you must understand and live with. I will not gun for a TPK and try and avoid that but death is near at every combat. I am not Kyle Baird...
Thoughts to better improve is appreciated.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
I get the impression that you've been 'burned' by players with questionable practices. While I sympathize with the frustration such people cause, I would like to suggest more subtle ways of leading players away from the "dark side".
In my experience, it isn't often necessary to establish such firm boundaries. If you focus on the positive, you can sway their behavior without laying down the law.
Some of the behaviors that your rules address are signs of nervous, immature, or inexperienced roleplayers. You can empower them at the same time that you discourage inappropriate play: Make sure that you comment positively when players' behavior is exemplary. Sometimes players don't have a very solid conception of their characters' alignments but get a feel for them during play. Unless they're running a paladin, it does little harm to let them fumble around a bit. Build consensus with your players by letting them decide whether their actions really reflect the alignment they've chosen. "Are you sure that Lawful Good really fits you? Torching the inn to drive out the bandits inside was a bit harsh."
I agree that table tents can be a real plus. If you give the players tents with space to write something about their characters, that helps give the other players something to play off of when roleplaying. I haven't pushed this before, but I'd like to suggest that players put down something about their character's appearance, something about their attitude, and something about their behavior.
|
|
I do think the improved guidelines is way better than the first draft. Society scenarios should be fun. I have seen my fair share of strict rule lawyers and GMs straight out of the Spanish inquisition, not fun. Don't be that "guy/gal".
My advice, error on the side of the players..set rules but be pliable. I'm not saying you can't drop the hammer, just use it sparingly with good judgment. IMHO you're providing a service..a good playing experience for current and new society members. I do think a positive gaming session will bring in new blood and help expand our ranks within Pathfinder Society.
Don't forget to smile, be friendly, and courteous. Venture Captains/ Lieutenants are your friends and are great sources of information and advice.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Rule 5: Flanking is not outside the box. If you know how to attack, you also know how to flank. It may not be your AC's first choice as a tactic, but knowing how to attack also means that you know the various ways to attack.Unless he is a paladin's mount who has an Int of 6 he is going to push his animal. It will depend on the situation Context is King ;)
You're inconsistent here.
Context is King is an excellent maxim. And if that's the case, what you would allow for an INT 2 companion and an unskilled handler should be different from what you should allow if you're faced with a character who has "speak with animals", has invested in his companion to give it INT 3 (which is all you need to understand a language - INT 6 is a ridiculous requirement), and whose companion animal has taken one or more combat feats that take advantage of flanking.
Sure, you don't want players to abuse the hell out of the system by having an unsupervised dumb critter automatically run into a position that will allow a PC to come along some time later later and set up a flank. But that doesn't mean you have to disallow anything that doesn't fit into a very narrow and rigid interpretation of what's appropriate. If it isn't going to break the game (and, let's face it, giving a companion animal +2 to hit isn't going to really make that much difference) you probably should err on the side of allowing the player to have fun, rather than slapping him down.
The second set of rules was a *huge* improvement over the first. :-) I'd have walked away from the original point 1 thinking the GM was a control freak with serious trust issues. The second set of rules sounds like you care and would actually encourage me to join your table. Perception is everything!
Nitpicks:
The overall list is a bit wordy and players may not bother to read it.
Point 9 will depend very much on PC backgrounds and what they've encountered before. Imps are relatively common at low levels, and I've encountered wererats early on as well (although that may have been playing LG/LFR), so I wouldn't be too prescriptive here.
Point 10 has a double negative and is a bit hard to read.
|
|
I'm not going to lie. You come off as very harsh, and the sort of GM that I wouldn't want to play under. Sorry.
Let me go through your 10 points:
1. Before we Start I want to see Spell List and Abilities, and I will do a quick audit. I Have seen to often people changing their spells in the middle of a game. If I am not familiar with a spell or ability you need to have the book and description in hand, I will always ask "show me". If their is an errata, bring it with you because I am not up on everything but I will try to be.
Okay. Not so bad, though already, I'm feeling a really gruff tone here. Also, I would point out to Prepared Casters generally have a bit of leeway in when they have to prepare spells (and the Wizard can even prepare only parts of their spell slots throughout a day). Additionally, I find I prefer to wait to hear what the scenario objectives are first, before preparing spells. If you're the sort who's going to tell me to blindly guess what I need, and then only after I show you all my spells prepared, you read what the mission is, then I simply won't play at your table.
2. Introduction will be first. Your Characters Name, Faction, Level/Class, Brief Description, and Goals, who are you and why are you in PFS. Their needs to be more role-playing and less rolling. No one will be calling each other Bob or Bill. In Character names only.
Whoa there cowboy. While I agree that players should ideally call each other by in-character names and more roleplaying should occur at the table, sometimes people just slip, and some groups frankly just like to go on a normal-name basis. I understand it irks some people (and I remember it used to irk me when I was a new GM trying to get my friends to play in character), but really, being a stickler right at the front about this sort of thing will not help people RP. The better thing to do is to create an environment which is conducive to roleplaying, where players feel comfortable enough to be themselves, to the point where they don't mind pretending they're a half-elf. And being gruff isn't the way to go about it.
Also, faction goals are, by default, secret. So you're just wrong here.
3. Prestige Points. I do not hand these out like candy, I know a lot of DMs do, I don't. I will work with you on a different alternative skill check within the spectrum but don't expect me to lower the DC or fudge the numbers. If you bring X home broken don't expect to get your candy. A couple of people were shocked and horrified when I said we should only be getting 3/4 of prestige and that was the expectation.
Eh. I understand you're in the right here, and honestly, I hate PFS's prestige point system, and especially when someone's running old scenarios where it's possible to get 0 Prestige Points, someone being a stickler about this sort of thing can really hurt. Generally, if a person makes a legitimately good-faith effort to accomplish their mission, I say give them the points. Seriously. If a person really needs to get a certain tea set and spends 15 minutes trying to get it and failing a Sleight of Hand check and you say "well, the dice say no" then honestly, no one is going to have a good time. But that's not your fault. Really, it's this whole nonsense about faction points being tied to material benefits being tied to strict DC checks that bothers me. Not your fault, but still. Bleh.
4. Death. It happens, I am not asking you to be mad/disappointed or grieved by a character death, I am not emotionally dismissive and I understand that you put hard work into your character, (I know I have). However, know that if you sit at my table, I will play the monsters ability to its max. If you die, I am sorry, but that is a possibility you must understand and live with. I will not gun for a TPK and try and avoid that but death is near at every combat
Yes, the threat of death itself is a real threat to members of the Pathfinder Society, but I don't think enough is said about this topic, so let me put it this way.
Death is an asymmetrical thing in Pathfinder. When you're at low levels, death is scary when enforced strictly with a big "Go back to Level 1" sign posted in the road. But then suddenly, characters gain the power to purchase or cast Raise Dead, and now death is no longer so much as a permanent stop as much as it is a huge nuisance. A really huge nuisance, but it becomes a far cry from what facing death is like when you're level 3 with only about 3000 GP to your name, and thus cannot purchase a resurrection. If this hypothetical character is killed in an encounter because the GM decided to play the mid-boss "optimally" and choose to target the unconscious player and kill that player for good (which is often an "optimal" tactic that most decent GMs choose to not exercise, but reading your post, I can imagine you attempting to do so with the tone of your post of playing enemies 'optimally'), then that player would be asked to go back to making a Level 1 character while all his friends progress on to Level 4. Bye bye Pathfinder Society. I'm not doing this anymore.
I make no assertions that I play bad guys 'optimally'. I don't. If I did, I'd have dead players everywhere.
Am I saying you should never kill players? No. Death should be a real threat. But at the same time, you should be mindful of:
A. Newbie players who have never played PFS or Pathfinder or RPGs in general before. Seriously, if you kill a new player in their first scenario and they choose to never play RPGs again afterwards because of that, you've failed forever as a GM, and in the effort to expand our tiny community of RP Gamers.
B. Low level characters who are unable to purchase resurrection spells. Seriously. Some people only play every other week, and if after 4 months of playing, you one day die because some baddie crit and you were just unfortunate and your group was short 1000 GP for the resurrection spell, you seriously just undid all those months of work for that player who'd been coming into the shop every other week for that long period of time.
5. Skills. Know what they do *I am looking at you Handle Animal*, this has been brought up multiple times, if your a Ranger and your Cha 7 and you have only a +4 in Handle Animal you will be rolling HA on everything. Flanking, distracting, or anything else outside of the box I will need you to push the animal.
First off, again, some new players haven't read the entire section on Skills and learned all the nuances of how each Skill works. Is it really so bad if you have to explain to players that in order to participate in the surprise round, you need to pass a Perception check to notice the surprise assault?
Also, we once again run into one of those issues where it may not entirely be your fault, but the rules themselves, when followed to the letter, lead to some undesirable outcomes. While yes, as strictly written, an Animal Companion requires DC 10 checks to perform Tricks, and DC 25 checks to be "Pushed", keep in mind that a Ranger or Druid can "handle" their animal and instruct it to perform a trick as a Free Action, and given that the game doesn't put an in-built restriction on Free Actions other than what the GM says is "within reason", it does seem a bit silly if a player has their Druid or Ranger animal companion with Trick Slots in Attacking, Attacking Unusual Creatures, Defending, and Coming that they can't have their Wolf get behind the goblin and flank with the Fighter without first rolling. Seriously. The reality is that not many players will build their characters with the thought in mind that their next GM might actually decide to start strictly enforcing the Handle Animal rules on their class feature (I would, by the way, but other people may not), and it really sucks if one day, they bring their Ranger to the table, only to find that their Wolf doesn't work today, because this GM said so, even though in the last two sessions, it did work. Really, having a sense of courtesy to people's imaginations with their characters is, I think, the mark of a good GM.
6. Disagreement on "X". I will look at the issue but understand I have the finale saying with ambiguity in rules. I will not spend more then a minute arguing.
Uhh, hmm. How do I put this?
An decent GM realizes their own power to arbitrate the rules of their table, and understands that spending more than a minute on arguing about rules is undesirable.
A great GM has enough comfortableness with the system and rules and dealing with people that they generally will know what the consensus "right" answer is to ambiguous rules questions, and will be able to arbitrate fair decisions when there is no such consensus.
A fantastic GM knows the rules well enough, and can visualize the situation in their minds, and see the hopes and expectations of the players, and craft a solution on the fly that makes the table happy, and still follows within the confines of RAW.
In improvisational acting, there's a rule that says "Never say no." The reason for this is that doing so stifles the flow of the narrative and story. When a player says "Can I have my barbarian punch through this door?" Don't simply give them a snide look and say "no", instead, tell them "Okay, give me a DC 25 Strength Check". The fact of the matter is that players will often try to do weird things that should probably fail according to what the scenario calls for or what our expectations are, but unless that player is making a serious grave mechanical error ("I'll have my Level 2 Fighter swing his sword twice! Can I get a little leeway on that?" or "I cast Silent Image and create a huge dragon that blows illusory fire and blinds my opponents!"), you should almost always side with the players when it comes to the rules, and what's allowable. Generally, you're there to be a fair judge of the rules, but you're also there to provide an enjoyable experience to players, who are taking time out of their days to indulge in some fantastical and exciting make-believe story. They came all the way from their homes just to play this game. Bending a rule or two here or there to keep things moving and enjoyable (especially in the realm of stuff like Skill checks with strict DCs or monsters that have had 5 HP for 2 rounds after 6 rounds of combat and a bunch of missed attack rolls) does a lot more good than it does bad.
7. Dice/Figures. There will be no dice on the board representing figures. If you need a figure I have multiple to choose one. Rolls are in the open. No crazy dice I can't read and don't use dice big enough to smash into the combat mat. Rolls that go off the table are auto re-rolls, as are dice on cracks.
I agree with most of this (it's practically become a reflex of mine to say 're-roll that' after someone drops a dice off the table), but I'd point out that I don't have the money to own a bunch of miniatures. In fact, for my school club, all 4 of our tables use dice as figures for battle. It's saved us a lot of money and really helped everyone feel like Pathfinder isn't a game where you need to go and spend a hundred dollars just to get the little figures to play with. So I'd be careful of saying this. I tell new players who are trying to figure out what to buy to play Pathfinder "Just invest in a ton of dice. Trust me, they're not only necessary for rolling checks and damage, but they also double as great minis!" So yes, for those lucky enough to have minis, sure, telling people to use the minis is fine. In fact, I love playing with minis, and would use one over a dice any day, if I had the opportunity to. But our school tables use dice as figures for battle, because that's what we can afford.
8. Paladins better play Lawful Good. Atonement is in the rules for a reason. I am a stickler about this. Sometimes your going to have to bite the built and refuse your faction mission.
Ugh. I couldn't disagree more.
Look, I understand there are rules for alignment, and if a player grossly violates them, they should be punished. Clerics, and infinitely more so, Paladins, have a code of conduct to uphold that when they disobey, they lose their powers. Sure.
But the Pathfinder Society, if you haven't figured out, is sort of a band of misfits and scoundrels (or of nobles and gentry, it really depends on how they're feeling that day) more often than not. Sometimes, the players have to resort to questionable methods to accomplish their missions.
Generally, someone put it to me this way:
If a Paladin decides to go and brutally kill an innocent Commoner, then sure, take away their powers.
But if the party decides to trick the Lich King into attacking a band of Chaotic Evil Ogres so that they kill each other and save the town, and you tell the Paladin he loses his powers because of it, you're just being a jerk.
Let me put this another way. I understand that Paladins, in their design, are actually supposed to be first and foremost Lawful, and then secondarily Good. This is evidenced by the fact that in D&D Next, they plan to allow the Paladin to be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil. The original intention of the Paladin was indeed to be a Warrior of Order and Justice, and underhanded tricks (such as using poison) are beneath him.
But again, this is a huge organized campaign where you'll get all sorts, and sometimes, people come up with crazy character build ideas in their head that may seem absurd to you, but then again, consider that this world is full of absurd people who have absurd beliefs.
A person might choose to make a Paladin of Sarenrae who follows the tenants of Andoran's love of freedom, and maybe sometimes the Andorans will demand that you assassinate some ambassador of an enemy state or interrogate or harm them because they stand in the way of FREEDOM!
And you know what? If that's the player's idea of how their Paladin should act, then let them. You should feel fine asking a Paladin "Do you think this action follows your Paladin Code of Conduct, to be lawful and to be good and to follow the orders of your superiors and of the law?" And if they think that yes, that is what their code would call them to do, then that's fine. To put it another way, Paladins are also Paladins of the Pathfinder Society, and Paladins of their Factions as well. They are bound by their honor and their commitments to obey the orders of those above them, and that would especially include Faction Leaders and the Pathfinder Society. I personally would not punish a Paladin who was strictly trying to accomplish the Party Mission or his or her Faction Mission. I would punish a Paladin who chooses to attack a person, unprovoked, after I told them out of character that that would violate their code. Generally, if a player is about to do something that would cause them to lose their powers, you are obligated as GM to tell them of this, so they can at least avoid it. And remember that they have Lawful Commitments and Obligations to the Society and to their Faction as well, so punishing them for following these orders seems like a bad idea.
And also remember the stuff I said about interpreting rules, trying to err on the side of players, and avoiding saying "no" to players.
9. 2 Strike rule on Cheating/Meta-gaming. If you have played the scenario, don't talk about it. Play dumb. Don't Metagame, if you do I will call you on it and if you do it again I will ask you to leave the table.
Careful.
You're trying to handle a problem that requires gentle admonishing with an even worse version of an already terrible law.
I agree that part of your job as GM is to help players to learn not to metagame, but getting upset and going so far as to kick them from the table isn't the way to solve this problem. Again. When I was a young and new GM, I thought the right way to handle bad RPing and metagaming was to argue with my players or tell them to just get out and leave. I've since learned better (this isn't to say I haven't kicked people out of groups before - some people are real problem players/GMs, but this is generally a last resort, not something you do immediately, and is definitely more the exception than the rule).
I find that if you're having this issue, there are a few things I would suggest:
First, hide information you don't want players to use. If you want to keep a dice roll secret, then roll it behind the screen. (And yes, if a player tries to look over and peak, then yes, they're overstepping their bounds and you should tell them to stop. Loudly.) If you want to make an enemy Invisible after she used a spell or ability that lets her do so, then remove that miniature from the table. Don't get upset at your players every time they try and step in and attack the "invisible" mini on the table. It's your own damn fault for leaving it there. Not removing it creates headaches and leads to weird game states where the players ask "Okay GM. What are we allowed to roleplay, then?" And when your players are asking questions like that, you know you've screwed up, big time. If you're uncomfortable with players who have played a scenario, playing again, then tell them not to play. Really, they have no right to demand it if they've done it once before.
Second, I find metagaming players to be more of an opportunity than a hindrance, in my years of being a GM. Do players expect that X or Y is going to happen next in the plot, or that someone is following them? Then start rolling behind the screen, or asking players for their character sheets. Nothing big. Just innocuous stuff that has no rules impact. Maybe even ask them to make a Will save when they approach some mundane thing. Suddenly players will think it's an illusion because they're cheating metagamers, rather than following the rules and separating these thoughts from their mind. The trick to being a good GM is getting into the minds of players. It's gotten to the point that when I speak, run or write stuff, or lead scenarios, I factor in what sorts of visual and verbal cues and inferences players will make, out of character and metagame-wise, when doing these things. Players will use all knowledge given to them, and you have a monopoly on that knowledge. Use that to your advantage. Metagamers are actually more susceptible, not less, to being tricked than non-metagamers are. Once you derail the usefulness of metagaming in your sessions, players will figure it's just better to try and roleplay the character than to try and gain an unfair edge or advantage on the party or the plot by trying to rely on tropes or metagame knowledge.
10. Have a lot of fun, these rules are here to give guidance on what to expect, not to be a kill joy. If you have a problem with anything I have here, please ask me about it rather then dismissing it. I want to be firm but fair and I am not doing this to be a jerk but to give you an understanding before any of these issue pop up. I want this to be enjoyable for you and everyone else at the table.
HAVE FUN. Indeed. This is very true. I'd also advise you to take this to heart, and remember that the purpose of playing RPGs is to have fun. The moment all the stuff you're doing is resulting in Not Fun, then you're doing something seriously wrong. As far as I can tell, Fun is the most important part of playing RPGs, and is the primary cause and driver of why we come out to play these things. Don't let anything, not the rules or metagamers or the society itself, get in the way of having a fun time.
|
7. Dice/Figures. There will be no dice on the board representing figures. If you need a figure I have multiple to choose one. Rolls are in the open. No crazy dice I can't read and don't use dice big enough to smash into the combat mat. Rolls that go off the table are auto re-rolls, as are dice on cracks.
On this point specifically.
It took me literally 5 minutes to create a paper mini for my character in Power Point. Another 30 minutes and I had a full set of templates where I could swap images out at will.
It is a great idea for people on a budget to get a figure that exactly matches their character.
|
|
Let me introduce, Ill_Made_Knight's Improved 10 Guidlines
** spoiler omitted **...
These are a much better set of guidelines. Something like this is better to be handed out to all. New players if they have any questions can ask.
I recommend, that you add an additional clause of some sort like this below:
11) If you are new to PFS and/or new to RPG's in general, I don't expect you to understand everything overnight, but please know that if you do have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me either at the table or if you need some time before or after game, let me know so that we can better address your needs and become a better player. I am committed to your growth as a player.
I like Rule #10. The rest, I could take or leave.
|
|
This is evidenced by the fact that in D&D Next, they plan to allow the Paladin to be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil.Uhh, I for one do not consider this to be evidence to any fact. By now we are very different in terms of rules and direction even.
Seconded. We're talking about Pathfinder here.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The second set of guidelines is definitely an improvement over the first set.
Here's something to keep in mind, along the same lines as tone: sometimes, there are certain rules/standards that are actually better to NOT mention than to mention, because it's impossible (or nearly so) to bring them up ahead of time WITHOUT sounding combative.
For example, paladins are famous for two things: players who use them as an excuse to c**kblock other players' fun, and GMs who take pride in forcing a fall. So if, as a GM, someone announces ahead of time that paladins had better play their code, guess what every single person at the table is going to assume?
I noticed in your revised rules, you basically just said "let's pay attention to alignment" with no specific mention of paladins. If you'd kept the exact same wording but just added the word "paladin" in there, I guarantee it would have kept everyone on-edge anyway.
A similar principle applies to announcing your stance on cheating ahead of time. Most people assume cheating is bad. Cheaters assume they can get away with it. Announce your anti-cheating stance before the game, and IF there's a cheater there he just does it more carefully or takes a day off, but more importantly the 4-6 honest people are suddenly thinking you're LOOKING for possible illegitimate behavior and they're afraid to make honest mistakes for fear of being accused of cheating and booted from the table.
Not because you did anything wrong, just because you announced your policy up front. It's not like someone can cry foul if you boot them for cheating without announcing ahead of time that you don't allow cheating at your table, so forewarning does nothing but make honest players nervous.
So I guess what I'm saying is that a rule can be simultaneously good to have but bad to announce, so keep that in mind for future iterations of what you tell/give your players when they sit down.
|
|
Let me introduce, Ill_Made_Knight's Improved 10 Guidlines
These are far better but I still have one major issue with them.
There are lots and lots of places where reasonable people can disagree. Meta Knowledge is one such. What constitutes reasonable play for an alignment is another such. Exactly how the rules should be interpreted is another such.
As GM you have the responsibility to adjudicate the rules. But you also have the responsibility to be flexible and to NOT try to ram your opinion down the players throats.
Lets take alignment as an example, especially a LG Paladin. There is a HUGE grey area where people will differ as to what is acceptable. To take an actual example from last weeks session, what would a character do with unarmed prisoners when turning them over to the authorities is NOT an option?
Except under the most egregious circumstances, the most that I'd do as a GM would be to question the player "Are you SURE that your LG Paladin would do that?". Maybe I'm lucky but at the table I've NEVER seen behaviour so bad that I'd tell the player "If you do that, you're no longer LG or no longer a Paladin".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A similar principle applies to announcing your stance on cheating ahead of time. Most people assume cheating is bad. Cheaters assume they can get away with it. Announce your anti-cheating stance before the game, and IF there's a cheater there he just does it more carefully or takes a day off, but more importantly the 4-6 honest people are suddenly thinking you're LOOKING for possible illegitimate behavior and they're afraid to make honest mistakes for fear of being accused of cheating and booted from the table.
I've seen this handled well.
"At this table, please don't roll ahead of time, and please roll out in the open to give us a chance to witness the result. This isn't because I'm assuming people cheat -- actually, I'm pretty comfortable presuming that all of you are above the board here -- but because I want to avoid even the suspicion of cheating. And I'll be rolling in the open during combat as well.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've seen this handled well.
"At this table, please don't roll ahead of time, and please roll out in the open to give us a chance to witness the result. This isn't because I'm assuming people cheat -- actually, I'm pretty comfortable presuming that all of you are above the board here -- but because I want to avoid even the suspicion of cheating. And I'll be rolling in the open during combat as well.
+1. I normally roll in the open, in my dice tray (and encourage others to use it as well.
Heck, when you fall into a 40' pit at 1st/2nd level, I'll even let you roll the damage from the fall yourself. :-)
|
|
Let me introduce, Ill_Made_Knight's Improved 10 Guidlines
[...]
Please introduce yourselves and your characters. A brief introduction of Characters Name, Faction, Level/Class, Physical Description, and Goals, who are you and why are you in PFS. Some of us are not inclined to role play, I know, I stink at it too but lets try to get and emerge ourself in Pathfinder's world. Please use Character names when were playing, if you don't have a table tent, just ask I have one for you!
Same problem. You can ask for name, level, class, and faction before the scenario starts, but since level and class aren't character knowledge, they aren't part of roleplaying. Furthermore, characters don't admit their faction in a crowded room, and stuff like goals and why we're in PFS are (1) not necessarily things to be shared casually and (2) not things the other characters will instantly know upon meeting us.
Introductions should involve names, physical descriptions, and anything obvious about how they operate, and that's it, because that's all you're going to know about other characters you've just met awkwardly standing in front of a venture captain's desk. I've seen casters whose entire concept involves masquerading as another character type to avoid being taken out early, and the reveal on that in PFS play is 90% of the fun. You as the GM can know that, but to declare it at the outset is lame.
Finally, I'll reiterate, a background check is not your job description. It is not mandatory that people come up with back stories. I'd like to think it's implied--I'd really hope that everyone comes up with something--but that's just not in the rules anywhere, and it's not up to you to add it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Ill_Made_Knight
Another issue I see with the 'name/rank/serial number' bit is that it can *hamper* role playing.
Mayim is a bard, Taldor faction. She's of Kelish descent, and her affiliation to Taldor is because she was freed by a Taldan pathfinder. That said, she relies on looking like a 'typical Qadarian' When she dresses 'off duty' she dresses like a priestess of Calistria (And it will get worse when she gets glamoured armor). To do the AA meeting "Hi, I'm Mayim." "Hi Mayim!" "And I'm a Taldoran." While she won't sabatoge a faction mission (no PvP) part of the character's concept is the 'girl inside'.
That's just factions. What about the person who introduces themselves as a 'combat cleric' and doesn't pack CLW spells or wands? Or the Wizard who specializes in spells w/o being a specialist? Rey just hit 4th level as a sorcerer, but if you're expecting scortching ray*, you're going to be disappointed.
Now I've no problem saying "I'm brining a bard." Or "I'm playing a sorcerer" since that's what I'm bringing. If asked I can expound on what the character can do. But if the barbarian wants to introduce himself 'in game' as a meat shield, or the rogue wants to call himself a swashbuckler, so be it.
*
|
|
Maturity in RPGs? Hmmmm...
A lot of responses before, so this is probably repeat, but here we go anyway...
Although I share some of your rules, when a GM hands out a list of rules, for the player it's kind of scary. Either you're really organized or you're a real hardass / "other words I can't say here or I'll get edited". Your game is your game, but just keep in mind that you could scare players away from your table where they otherwise would have been ok.
Rule 1: Not a bad idea, but could detract from startup. If a spellcaster can't produce a timely list to you, it's basically an indication the player shouldn't be playing one, but what then?
Rule 2: Good idea, but it's better to say "introduce yourself", and leave the details up to the player. Roleplayers will roleplay, other will just give stats/whatever.
Rule 3: I work like you, I'm not going to automatically grant full PA, but this rule could scare people away from the table.
Rule 4: When a GM writes something like this, he's usually overly tough (otherwise, nothing needs to be said). This line would make me leery as a player, because the GM has obviously had issues in the past.
Rule 5: I gotta disagree a little. As GM, I have to know what the skills do (better than anyone else), since I'm the one setting the DC of the skill check most of the time. Also, part of my job is to teach the game, especially if I have new players.
Rule 6: Yes, but I usually wait for it to happen, because most of the time it doesn't.
Rule 7: Super pet peeve of mine. I really dislike unreadable dice as well. Truth is I don't have eyes of the eagle and if a player wants to cheat, they're going to cheat. The only way I'm going to find out is if another player tells me or if I make players keep their dice on the table and do a mini-audit. Most of the time that isn't even possible. I've seen people throw dice that too small to be readable, dice that had symbols only (that only the player could interpret), and players throw dice which are meaningless (I asked). Yup, pet peeve.
Rule 8: Sounds like you could be overly strict (which may or may not be the case), if I was playing a Paladin I would strongly consider playing another PC or moving tables. Having alignment debates during a session is not my idea of a good time.
Rule 9: Two strikes? One strike. As for cheating, I'm going boot from my table and report it as well. Having said that, the players that have read the scenario before (GMs mostly) have all been extremely understanding, so there's no need to have a rule about this imo.
Rule 10: This is an order, have fun or else! Hehehehe. I don't think you need a rule about this.
I think someone else said it, it's probably better if you don't codify your wishes. Yes, your intent is more clear but it can also seem combative.
|
|
Hey guys,
Thanks for the post again, I appreciate the insight that you have given me, and will respond to your concerns and thoughts. Thanks for challenging me and giving me different perspectives on rules and issues.
A thing that has come up and no one said where in the guide does it say "Keep your faction a secret from everyone"
Rule 5: Flanking is not outside the box. If you know how to attack, you also know how to flank. It may not be your AC's first choice as a tactic, but knowing how to attack also means that you know the various ways to attack.Unless he is a paladin's mount who has an Int of 6 he is going to push his animal. It will depend on the situation Context is King ;)You're inconsistent here.
Context is King is an excellent maxim. And if that's the case, what you would allow for an INT 2 companion and an unskilled handler should be different from what you should allow if you're faced with a character who has "speak with animals", has invested in his companion to give it INT 3 (which is all you need to understand a language - INT 6 is a ridiculous requirement), and whose companion animal has taken one or more combat feats that take advantage of flanking.
Sure, you don't want players to abuse the hell out of the system by having an unsupervised dumb critter automatically run into a position that will allow a PC to come along some time later later and set up a flank. But that doesn't mean you have to disallow anything that doesn't fit into a very narrow and rigid interpretation of what's appropriate. If it isn't going to break the game (and, let's face it, giving a companion animal +2 to hit isn't going to really make that much difference) you probably should err on the side of allowing the player to have fun, rather than slapping him down.
John F, I would totally agree with you, spending the int point and feats would definitely change the situation, which I would allow the person to just have the DC 10 vs the 25.
Point 9 will depend very much on PC backgrounds and what they've encountered before. Imps are relatively common at low levels, and I've encountered wererats early on as well (although that may have been playing LG/LFR), so I wouldn't be too prescriptive here.
Point 10 has a double negative and is a bit hard to read.
Thanks for the encouragement, I am trying to have a living document so your input is well taken. For both 9 I think I am pretty flexiable, I would ask where you got the knowledge. If the person could say "Oh we fought them in the Midnight Mauler or something along those lines.
Yeah, your right about 10 having a double negative I will edit that.Zean, thanks for that thoughtful post, most of the stuff you said has been addressed with the improved guide lines
11) If you are new to PFS and/or new to RPG's in general, I don't expect you to understand everything overnight, but please know that if you do have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me either at the table or if you need some time before or after game, let me know so that we can better address your needs and become a better player. I am committed to your growth as a player.
That is a great additional rule, thank you for the good suggestion
Jiggy, you brought up a great point, I don't want players to be afraid of being wrong, failure creates growth, I don't want a table scared to do anything.
"At this table, please don't roll ahead of time, and please roll out in the open to give us a chance to witness the result. This isn't because I'm assuming people cheat -- actually, I'm pretty comfortable presuming that all of you are above the board here -- but because I want to avoid even the suspicion of cheating. And I'll be rolling in the open during combat as well.
I like this a lot, I will change up the cheating section. Thanks Chris
|
|
A thing that has come up and no one said where in the guide does it say "Keep your faction a secret from everyone"
I have no idea if it is listed in the guide or not, but the idea of factions is that they are in a "Shadow War" for control of Absalom...'shadow' in this case means 'secret'.
In general you can handle the situation how you want since you are the GM, but dont be surprised if you get more than a few players who will not voluntarily reveal the faction their character is in. The other players have no need to know it, and you can just as eaily read it on the sign-in sheet as anything else.
|
|
A thing that has come up and no one said where in the guide does it say "Keep your faction a secret from everyone"
I don't think that it does...but nowhere does it say, "your faction allegiance is known to your fellow Pathfinders", either.
And, frankly, this is going to vary a great deal by faction, and by player. Members of some factions, such as the Silver Crusade (and perhaps Grand Lodge) are likely to be pretty open about their allegiance, while others (Sczarni comes immediately to mind, but Cheliax is another which may be looked down on or distrusted) may have very good reason to be secretive about it.
Even within a more "open" faction, some characters may well have good reasons for keeping their allegiance secret. You may have a Chelaxian citizen who is a member of the Silver Crusade, fighting to free his country from the yoke of the devils (but if his allegiance were ever to be learned, it could doom him).
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
No one said where in the guide does it say "Keep your faction a secret from everyone"
It's not exactly a hard-and-fast rule, but there is always this section:
most loyal faction members keep their alliances to themselves, sharing faction-related missions and information only with other members of their faction.
|
While it is true that Factions, and Faction missions can be kept seceret of your fellow Pathfinders, it is not required, it is up to the individual Character.
For inof in the Guide, it does allow helping other members of other factions if you wish.
Pathfinder agents, no matter which of the 10 factions they belong to, are expected to respect one another's claims and stay out of each other's affairs unless offering a helping hand.