RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A question has been addressed obliquely on a couple other threads, and I thought I warranted discussion on its own.
I'll admit to changing up some things on some modules or scenarios I've run. For example, this past weekend, I ran:
Master of the Fallen Fortress
The PCs gather in a bar, and feel a tremor. Shortly after that, two members of the Absalom city guard burst in and call all off-duty guardsmen to their posts, as one of the siege towers has broken open. That's the call to adventure, and it ties in nicely with the ending, where they rescue a Pathfinder agent who vouches for them.
Nevertheless, it's not written anywhere in the module.)
Goblinblood Dead
When the party arrives at the split tree, there are scores of dead bodies and skeletons strung up in the treetops. (Where else have the bad guys been keeping the bodies they've dug up?) The wind blowing through the skeletons makes them clack together like wind chimes. And one of the fresh corpses strongly resembles Kazrin.
It answers some questions and ties some matters together. But it's not written in the scenario.
Cyphermage Dilemma
That explains a lot to me, from where her ship and the rest of her crew are, to why the ship in the cove is only twice the size as a rowboat. But I had to make all that up.
Note, I didn't change the encounters. The Tower is still the Tower. I didn't give the Goblinblood villains different tactics, or the Cyphermage villain any different spells.
Does this square with the kinds of changes you'd think are appropriate? Do you feel it's the GM's right to change the mechanics as well as the background and scenery?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think GMs should slavishly follow the tactics in every situation, personally. The tactics may be the opponent's *preferred* way of handling their foes, but in some cases, their tactics as written may be highly flawed or totally unfeasible.
For example: a caster foe is listed as starting their routine off with a fireball, fine. However, if that same caster sees and identifies the casting of a communal resist energy (fire) before their initiative in round 1, would you have them proceed with the fireball, given that they *know* their enemies are now resistant to fire damage?
That's just one example. Enemies have brains too, and if situations conspire to render their tactics ineffectual, I believe it's the GM's job to adjust those tactics - within reason.
By 'within reason', I mean GMs should take care to avoid the 'omniscient NPC', who somehow has absolute knowledge of all buffs affecting all PCs, what everybody's worst save is, who has the Step Up and Strike feat, and so on. But NPCs (well, NPCs with above animal Int) should be able to adapt to circumstances rather than behave like pre-programmed robots all of the time.
Of course, if it's a golem or something, you should always follow the exact tactics to the letter, becuase those are its instructions and it cannot deviate.
I do agree that changes to spell load-outs, feats, and so on should be absolutely prohibited, unless a spell or feat choice made by the NPC is actually illegal. In that case, I think the GM should do their best to ignore the illegal spell/feat, and if absolutely necessary, swap it out for a legal choice.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope this thread lives up to your intent, Chris. Good luck.
Anyway, I'm not familiar with the stuff in your first two spoilers, so I can't really comment. In the third, it sounds like you created background in order to support what was already in the scenario. Sounds legit to me.
--------------------------
My general rule of thumb is this: Don't contradict. If you're filling in background that wasn't included, that's fine (assuming it doesn't cause a ripple effect which in turn violates this edict). If you're making a call on an unclear rule, that's also fine (in fact, it's part of your job). But when the scenario (or the Core rules, or whatever) says X and you decide to do Y instead, that's what Mike Brock has been telling people to stop doing.
I've sometimes gotten the impression that some GMs see no difference between the three situations I listed, and see the edict against the third as being also against the other two, and feel that all three (which they see as one) are part of being a good GM. I believe that's an error in judgment, and is hurting the campaign.
|
|
Oh, another thing is the Morale section. I think GMs should stick to the listed Morale, but it can lead to odd situations - I recently ran a scenario containing a fight with...I think 4 opponents of the humanoid type.
Their Morale was 'if reduced below 10hp, that opponent attempts to flee.' Three of them got blended in the first round, and the 4th was on 12 hp. Having seen his allies sliced and diced with ruthless efficiency, you'd think the poor sod would flee or surrender...but he was 2 hp above his threshold, so a last futile stab it was.
|
|
Hey, never complain about another chance to crit a PC. ;)
I know, I know...but it breaks my immersion a little when a foe who isn't that fanatical chooses to fight on rather than accept surrender because you've not reduced him below some arbitrary threshold. Never mind that you just killed 'Wee Big Mad Jock' - his superior and the best fighter he knows - in a single hit, and there's 6 of you to one of him, and you just offered him terms. Still got 28 hp, surrenders at 8 or less, good to go!
(Above example is hypothetical and not related to any specific scenario..I hope)
|
|
This kinda applies to this thread: I will soon be running a season #0 scenario which is of course written in 3.5 rules and not PF. Would it be ok as a GM to convert them over to PF rules (without changing spells, etc..) or just run it as written? I noticed some enemies have some contradictions (having the Dodge feat with 12 DEX), so just wondering.
I kinda wish the answer was yes, but more than likely it is a no.
|
|
This kinda applies to this thread: I will soon be running a season #0 scenario which is of course written in 3.5 rules and not PF. Would it be ok as a GM to convert them over to PF rules (without changing spells, etc..) or just run it as written? I noticed some enemies have some contradictions (having the Dodge feat with 12 DEX), so just wondering.
I kinda wish the answer was yes, but more than likely it is a no.
Well you really can't run them strictly as written, can you? I mean, envision this:
"Make a Listen check.""We don't have Listen, we have Perception!"
"WELL THEN YOU FAIL."
I knows people like rules. I like them too, that's why I like PFS play so much. But some human judgement is still required.
|
|
I think the converstion line is something like if the Bestiary version and the 3.5 MM version are the same CR, use the PF version, otherwise, use the 3.5 MM version.
Personally, if the bad guy is an enemy with class levels, which we arent supposed to convert, I believe, I generally update the mount of HP they should have to PF hp amounts, if the Hit Die changed between versions (such as with the Ranger).
@ Chris, I dont think there is one solid answer, it's going to be case by case, depending on the scenario, and what kinds of changes you are talking about. With the ones you listed, the only one I think M7M might have an issue with is the Cyphermage change you made, simply because that is mroe involved with the plot than the other changes. Even still, the changes are minimal, and the game is relatively the same.
Having played under you, and heard about the 'changes' you made to one other session (Sewer Dragons), I would imagine you know round-a-bout well enough where the line is that you wouldnt hear too amny complaints, if any.
That may not be the best answer in the world, but it's the truth. ;)
|
|
Hey, never complain about another chance to crit a PC. ;)I know, I know...but it breaks my immersion a little when a foe who isn't that fanatical chooses to fight on rather than accept surrender because you've not reduced him below some arbitrary threshold. Never mind that you just killed 'Wee Big Mad Jock' - his superior and the best fighter he knows - in a single hit, and there's 6 of you to one of him, and you just offered him terms. Still got 28 hp, surrenders at 8 or less, good to go!
(Above example is hypothetical and not related to any specific scenario..I hope)
Yeah.
In one scenario, there's a lot of enemies that have the morale that they think the PCs are "just ordinary smugglers" and thus fight to the death. In one encounter, my PCs ambushed one group of them and killed both of their captains and some of the subordinates before any of them can go. So the PCs are like "wow, these guys are gonna run." Since I knew otherwise, I decided to play up the absurdity for humor rather than frustration. I had the remaining guys turn to each other and say:
PL1: "What should we do?"
PL2: "Eh, these are just ordinary smugglers. What threat could they be. Take them down."
"Just ordinary smugglers" became a bit of a meme for our group for a while.
|
|
Well, my current plan was to punch him in Hero Lab, and use the good'ol conversion rules and move him over.
He is probably missing a whole bunch of HP due to not taking his favored class bonus!
The full rules for adapting season 0 scenarios is fully laid out in the GtPFSOP v4.1 on page 26, under Adapting Seasons 0-2. Basically you don't change anything except to add CMB/CMD scores and using the appropriate PFRPG skills - such as using perception instead of listen, spot or search. The only time you can swap out Monster Manual creatures for the Bestiary equivalent is when the CR match exactly.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm glad we were able to help, CRobledo.
Back to more recent seasons, what is current practice?
Someone pointed out, on another thread, that there are folks with stars and titles after their names who've made the case that good GMs alter the written material to make the experience better for the players. (In one case, to avoid having a traplike thing kill lots of PCs.)
I don't want to argue the shoulds or shouldn'ts of rewriting the encounters. But I'm curious about common practice. If I sit down to play at your table, and then later buy the scenario and read it, what might I find that's different?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I sit down to play at your table, and then later buy the scenario and read it, what might I find that's different?
Well, I'll start us off (being the "someone" you mentioned, I'd better put my money where my mouth is).
I can't think of a single time I've intentionally changed ANYTHING from a scenario.
Made mistakes? Sure.
Made an on-the-fly ruling on something I wasn't sure on? Yep.
Accidentally used an old printing of something, missing very relevant errata? Yeah. (Stupid dretches.)
Adjudicated unclear rules? Absolutely.
I've even reversed PC deaths after the fact due to learning more about a poorly-written curse.
But intentionally changed something? Not once.
|
While it is pretty clear that game mechanics, specific rules, stat blocks, etc should not be changed, I do not believe that adding fluff to make the game more immersive would fall under the same restrictions assuming said fluff does not invalidate printed background info or NPC motivations/actions. This is especially true of modules which are not specifically written for PFS so the GM has to invent a back-story and interaction with the Venture Captain, per normal scenario format. Or you can just hand waive it and get to the killing...NPC's or PC's, your choice :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Someone is gonna have seen the module played or already read the module and start screaming the moment the monster they are fighting is alive despite the fact it has taken 30 damage and they know that it only has 29 hp's.
But if its you and your good friends who you game with every week. They might not care so much if you spice things up a little.
Changing a monster's stats (including adding extra HP) is not "spicing things up a little". It is precisely the type of alterations that Mike Brock has asked GMs to stop doing.
If you have any appreciation for the work Mike puts into trying to make this campaign better, then show a little respect for his authority and do as he asks.
|
Someone is gonna have seen the module played or already read the module and start screaming the moment the monster they are fighting is alive despite the fact it has taken 30 damage and they know that it only has 29 hp's.
But if its you and your good friends who you game with every week. They might not care so much if you spice things up a little.
Changing a monster's stats (including adding extra HP) is not "spicing things up a little". It is precisely the type of alterations that Mike Brock has asked GMs to stop doing.
If you have any appreciation for the work Mike puts into trying to make this campaign better, then show a little respect for his authority and do as he asks.
Jiggy,
Edward has GM'd at my events and and he did a fantastic job promoting Pathfinder Society and encouraging growth. It is an erroneous assumption on your part that he doesn't appreciate the efforts of the campaign coordinators and completely disrespects their authority.
Your assumption of Edward's feelings are disrespectful in what is supposed to be an open discussion. I request that you apologize.
-Perry
|
|
Edward has GM'd at my events and and he did a fantastic job promoting Pathfinder Society and encouraging growth. It is an erroneous assumption on your part that he doesn't appreciate the efforts of the campaign coordinators and completely disrespects their authority.
Your assumption of Edward's feelings are disrespectful in what is supposed to be an open discussion. I request that you apologize.
Uh, dude, responding directly to a statement that indicates a willingness to change hit points is not an assumption of any kind. Unless its an assumption that the person was telling the truth, I guess.
You can challenge the logic--that a willingness to do that is inherently disrespectful--but white knighting on the grounds that applying that logic to someone who blatantly stated their stance is inappropriate is ... Well, it's kind of absurd. It's definitely not conducive to the ongoing dialogue you are purporting to enjoy.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
Edward has GM'd at my events and and he did a fantastic job promoting Pathfinder Society and encouraging growth. It is an erroneous assumption on your part that he doesn't appreciate the efforts of the campaign coordinators and completely disrespects their authority.
Your assumption of Edward's feelings are disrespectful in what is supposed to be an open discussion. I request that you apologize.
-Perry
Let me be clear:
I am in no way making any judgments as to his overall GMing ability or respectfulness or anything else. The specific action to which I replied is, in fact, disrespectful to campaign leadership. This doesn't mean he's not the bee's knees in every other way.
If someone in authority asks me to do X, Y and Z, and I go above and beyond with X and Y, but refuse to do Z; then my refusal to do Z disrespects that authority figure. Overall, things are still just fine and said superior is probably still very interested in keeping me around. Doing a great job of X and Y is great. Not doing Z is disrespectful. Both statements are true, and neither invalidates the other.
So when I mention disrespect, I am referring ONLY to the act of disregarding one specific imperative given by our leader. I maintain the assertion that said act is disrespectful, but I also do NOT wish to purport that it is in any way representative of his net contribution to PFS.
Clearer?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I appreciate the fact that the topic will generate disagreements among us. If I thought we were all on the same page, I wouldn't have broached the subject.
I appreciate that nobody has used heated language nor insulted anyone else, despite offering conflicting attitudes.
I'll ask that we all give everybody else in the room the benefit of the doubt, and begin with an assumption of good will. We're all on the same side here.
--+--+--
I'll offer an issue from last summer. I was running Dalsine Affair
... and the low-level party included a 1st level witch, a 1st-level wizard, a 4th-level druid, and a 1st-level magus. The wizard -- run by an experienced D&D player playing his very first game of PFS --positioned himself right in the kill zone.
So, I ran the scenario as written, won initiative, killed the wizard outright, and stepped over his still-warm corpse towards the rest of the party. The player was angry; so far as I can tell he has never come back to Pathfinder Society, nor spoken a kind word about his experience.
In another case, I've run a scenario for a group including one player with a morbid fear of spiders. The scenario had a minor encounter in the sewers with an oversized spider.
In the latter situation, I replaced the spider with a goblin dog of the same CR. I did this because I could tell that the player was just not going to have any fun if he ran into a giant spider. In the first case, I should have changed the tableau or done something else differently, because I should have been able to tell that a new player isn't going to enjoy having his character snuffed out without recourse.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Chris:
In the first of your stories, I think you did the right thing by running it as written. If you wanted to take considerations of the player's newness, appropriate forms for that to take would have been to warn him before starting that the scenario had a reputation as a killer. After the fact, you could suggest to him that he write a review of the scenario. But remember two things: one, it's okay if he decides he doesn't like PFS; two, if he's leaving with hard feelings ("ragequitting"), then he needs to deal with his own issues. Neither of these indicate you should have done something differently.
As for arachniphobia guy... Yikes. I'm inclined to say that real-world issues should trump in-game rules. I would personally try to do my best to accommodate such a condition while simultaneously keeping to the scenario, as much as possible. For instance, I might start by asking him whether his fear was inclusive of make-believe (maybe only actual, moving spiders bother him). If so, then I'd ask if replacing the mini with a pog labeled "Monster 1" would help. If not, I might see if there's a table open with a different scenario. But if all else fails and it comes down to either changing that encounter or having him go home, I think a real-life condition should win out.
|
|
Jiggy,
Edward has GM'd at my events and and he did a fantastic job promoting Pathfinder Society and encouraging growth. It is an erroneous assumption on your part that he doesn't appreciate the efforts of the campaign coordinators and completely disrespects their authority.
Your assumption of Edward's feelings are disrespectful in what is supposed to be an open discussion. I request that you apologize.
-Perry
Let me be clear:
I am in no way making any judgments as to his overall GMing ability or respectfulness or anything else. The specific action to which I replied is, in fact, disrespectful to campaign leadership. This doesn't mean he's not the bee's knees in every other way.
If someone in authority asks me to do X, Y and Z, and I go above and beyond with X and Y, but refuse to do Z; then my refusal to do Z disrespects that authority figure. Overall, things are still just fine and said superior is probably still very interested in keeping me around. Doing a great job of X and Y is great. Not doing Z is disrespectful. Both statements are true, and neither invalidates the other.
So when I mention disrespect, I am referring ONLY to the act of disregarding one specific imperative given by our leader. I maintain the assertion that said act is disrespectful, but I also do NOT wish to purport that it is in any way representative of his net contribution to PFS.
Clearer?
Jiggy,
Not really.
You implied that Edward does not appreciate the work Mike Brock puts into the campaign. THAT's the assumption YOU made without knowing anything about him or his efforts in the PFS community.
I don't see "not doing Z" as being disrespectful. I don't even understand your definition. To show a "little respect", a person needs to follow "X, Y, Z". Then anything less is "disrespect". I can't imagine what it takes to get to "respect".
Bottom line, YOU made erroneous assumptions. The least you can do is apologize instead of "clarifying".
-Perry
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jiggy,
I think there's a distinction between major and minor encounters. If I were running Scenario #17, I would run spiders as spiders, warning him in advance and letting him decide what he wanted to do. But this was Scenario #2-21, and nobody even remembers the spider encounter. Changing it to a comparable monster seemed to be the simplest, quietest solution.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
I think there's a distinction between major and minor encounters. If I were running Scenario #17, I would run spiders as spiders, warning him in advance and letting him decide what he wanted to do. But this was Scenario #2-21, and nobody even remembers the spider encounter. Changing it to a comparable monster seemed to be the simplest, quietest solution.
To be honest, the issue of phobias had never occurred to me before in regards to PFS. Everything I said on that topic is pretty much just off the top of my head, so take what you like and leave the rest. :/
|
I think it also depends on who you are playing with. If your running a game at GenCon I would suggest not changing things. Someone is gonna have seen the module played or already read the module and start screaming the moment the monster they are fighting is alive despite the fact it has taken 30 damage and they know that it only has 29 hp's.
And they have every right to. It is completely inappropriate to make these kinds of changes on the fly. Doing so deliberately has been defined as "cheating" by the campaign management. I don't care if you have a table of players who have never seen the module, you just don't do this.
To be clear - adjudication of the rules may be needed in edge cases - GMs are not robots and should be expected to work on the fly if needed. On the other hand, this is not an edge case, altering hit points is against the rules.
But if its you and your good friends who you game with every week. They might not care so much if you spice things up a little.
Here too I disagree. If you want to run a home game, run a home game. If you want to play PFS, follow PFS rules. Adding hit points is not appropriate, and in both the spirit, and the law of how PFS was put together; this is not permitted per the rules.
If you want to improve PFS, work within the rules. Changing things up like this, which may result in "this scenario was too hard" reviews and posts does nothing to improve the PFS experience. I agree with Jiggy, please respect the requests the campaign coordinator has put into place.
|
|
For cases like the phobia, I doubt you would get any grief from anyone (with a heart anyway) if you decided to change spiders to ants, centipedes, beetles, or something else as long as you keep using the same stats.
Changing it for no reason may be one thing, but something like that, I feel, is completely different. Not to say that you couldnt or shouldnt do some of Jiggy's other suggestions (the token thing, or seeing if the player wanted to go to a different table), but there is no use in making someone unnecessarily uncomfortable just to stick to the story's preferred creepy-crawly.
As for scenario 02-21...I havent read it in awhile, but do the tactics specifically call for the bad guy to target the first person to move into that general area?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fair enough, but that's one end of a continuum. Different people don't like different things. I have a variety of reactions to them.
There are some people who just don't like to lose at RPGs. To them: buck up; sometimes things are tough.
Some people don't like "adult-themed" material in their games. Pathfinder Socoeity scenarios (and the sanctioned modules, to a lesser extent) are pretty mild and steer clear of a lot of hot-button gaming content, faction missions excepted.
But some times you'll get somebody who really doesn't like something, or somebody who was traumatized by something, or somesuch. The spiders are like that. I'm not going to report to Mike and Mark that, you know, spiders are scary. But I was aware that a spider encounter was going to keep my friend from enjoying the scenario. And that's a special case where I think we should take a player's enjoyment into consideration.
After all, if that doesn't factor in to PFS at all, what are we doing this for?
The Dalsine issue is different. If it were only a tough encounter, then, you know, buck up. But if it gets to be an unfair encounter, and that element is going to ruin somebody's experience, is there a place for a GM to change the bad guy's weapon to a sap, or his tactics, or the space?
The same question arose about that haunt on a different thread. Not whether it's tough, but whether it's unfair. And whether justice demands the GM do something. (I have less sympathy for the haunt than for the Dalsine encounter. Activating the haunt isn't done by happenstance; the person triggering the haunt has to be looking for trouble of one sort or another.)
I don't have an answer here.
I don't have a clear answer on this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A question has been addressed obliquely on a couple other threads, and I thought I warranted discussion on its own.
I'll admit to changing up some things on some modules or scenarios I've run. For example, this past weekend, I ran:
Master of the Fallen Fortress
** spoiler omitted **Goblinblood Dead
** spoiler omitted **Cyphermage Dilemma
** spoiler omitted **...
Honestly, a GM has carta blance on just about everything that you run. You know your players like no one else does. I change everything I run sometimes just a little sometimes you may not even recognize it as the same module. Who cares! If the module helped you if just to spark your creative juices then it did what it was supposed to do. I thought everyone makes everything 'their own' don't they?
|
|
I change everything I run sometimes just a little sometimes you may not even recognize it as the same module. Who cares! If the module helped you if just to spark your creative juices then it did what it was supposed to do. I thought everyone makes everything 'their own' don't they?
PJ - do you play PFS? This is a PFS discussion and while this kind of thinking is valid (and even awesome) in a home campaign, it flies completely in the face of the structure of Organized Play.
|
|
In another case, I've run a scenario for a group including one player with a morbid fear of spiders. The scenario had a minor encounter in the sewers with an oversized spider.
There was a player in my home game who had this issue. We were playing an AP where this comes up a lot with an NPC (you know the one) and asked if it would help if we referred to the spiders as kittens instead. Apparently this just lead to her having nightmares about kittens instead.
On the other hand, she acknowledges that spiders, giant or otherwise, are standard issue in fantasy worlds. I'm not big on the crawly things my own self, but I respect that they're part of the hobby.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dalsine issue is different. If it were only a tough encounter, then, you know, buck up. But if it gets to be an unfair encounter, and that element is going to ruin somebody's experience, is there a place for a GM to change the bad guy's weapon to a sap, or his tactics, or the space?
The same question arose about that haunt on a different thread. Not whether it's tough, but whether it's unfair. And whether justice demands the GM do something. (I have less sympathy for the haunt than for the Dalsine encounter. Activating the haunt isn't done by happenstance; the person triggering the haunt has to be looking for trouble of one sort or another.)
I'll respond to your earlier anecdote with one of my own:
I found out afterwards that the GM left out the Empower Spell that was supposed to be applied to the hit that dropped me. Would've killed me outright. He thought that was dumb, so he left it out.
I wish he hadn't. I already have one character I don't play anymore because he feels hollow, due in large part to an accumulation of events like that (the first being the GM moving my unconscious PC after realizing I was in the line of an upcoming lightning bolt).
Now the character I played in Dalsine Affair has his first taint. Hopefully it'll be the last, and I can play him to 12th (or to his death) with satisfaction.
Now when a new player signs up for a killer scenario, how do you know he'll be upset if his PC dies? How do you know he won't be disappointed by coddling? And if you don't know, then how can you decide to change something?
|
|
I'll respond to your earlier anecdote with one of my own:
** spoiler omitted **
Do you know what I find particularly interesting about this. I believe the GM in question is another of our resident rules lawyers that wants games played as written. It just goes to show you that even the most die-hard feel differently on occasion.
|
If I sit down to play at your table, and then later buy the scenario and read it, what might I find that's different?
I make all the changes Jiggy describes above.
I'll change tactics when the situation as perceived by the opponents calls for it (for example, characters will NOT willingly charge into an entangle/web if they have an alternative).
I'll add personality and colour to NPCs where appropriate.
I'll admit that I've been known to violate the morale rules where it is insanely obvious that the fight has been lost and its now completely boring.
On a similar vein when we're running low on time I've sometimes just declared that a fight is over when a fight has obviously been lost. Not sure if that is legal but basically SOMETHING is going toI get missed so I consciously chose to lose some boring stuff. I've sometimes completely skipped non optional but boring encounters in order to have time for the more interesting ones.
When a NPC's tactics are insanely stupid AND the encounter is going to be a cakewalk if they use them then I'll have them use more intelligent tactics.
I've actively fudged when a new player is about to have their non pregen character die in their first or second session through sheer bad luck.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
nosig
I appreciate the problem. It's like Dalsine, but maybe with this difference.
If it's the Season 3 sscenario I think it is, the party should have a pretty good idea that the bad guy in question has a hatred for Target Class. If a Target Class PC goes looking for her in Target Class costume, then he or she bears some responsibility for walking into peril with eyes open.
If the party dressed the barbarian like a Target Class character, would the barbarian have survived?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll offer an issue from last summer. I was running Dalsine Affair
** spoiler omitted **
... and the low-level party included a 1st level witch, a 1st-level wizard, a 4th-level druid, and a 1st-level magus. The wizard -- run by an experienced D&D player playing his very first game of PFS --positioned himself right in the kill zone.So, I ran the scenario as written,
When I ran that scenario with a similar character mix I admit that I fudged things and had the bad guy attack the higher level character.
Still rolled everything openly but I got the result I hoped for. That character went down but was still alive.
I think that particular encounter is badly done. As written, its pretty close to automatic death. I find that seriously unfun and wrong (both as a player and as a GM). So, yeah, I violated the rules on that one. Depending on the players involved I would probably do so again.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think feedback is always helpful, whether it's given to a GM, a fellow player, an author, or Mike and me.Mark, your beard is not bushy or "Grizzly Adams" enough. I think you should grow it out. Is this helpful feedback?
This is an issue I'm aware of and I've been working on it for several weeks already. This is actually one thing that's easier to make progress on during the Gen Con crunch than other tasks. Much to my wife's chagrin.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I sit down to play at your table, and then later buy the scenario and read it, what might I find that's different?
I'll respond to your earlier anecdote with one of my own:
Dalsine Affair: **spoiler omitted**
What if it's just mistakes, guys? I ran a scenario the other day and completely spaced out on one particular special ability that likely would have changed the combat a great deal. It was semi-difficult the way that I was playing it. If I had remembered the cool ability I was forgetting, I could have drawn it out a bit and potentially taken someone out. The kicker to this is: the only reason I didn't do this is because I missed it during the heat of the moment.
I.E. - Jiggy, he may have just forgotten. Chris, if you buy it and read it, and find differences, who's to say it's not merely mistakes? Are we going to apply all these "bad things" labels to people who simply screw up, as well?
I think we're being a little extreme, here.
Don't: change the number of bad guys, add to/subtract from hit point totals, alter spell selection or weapons or feats, and please don't cheat.
Do: relax when mistakes are made, give people the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing, accept what happens during games, and be willing to offer feedback to improve on the experience for everyone (whether players or GMs).
[Edited to clarify a statement]