|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Table VariationWhile the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the f ly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen. As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters, or changes to stats, feats, spells, skills or any other mechanics of the scenario. GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat. The following sections provide advice on addressing some common table variations you should consider before running a Pathfinder Society game.
Above, please find a portion of what the guide has to say about table variation. Only once in the guide is a Play by Post(PBP)/Online game mentioned. It states that Online and home games are an exception to the PFS rule, "Play for no more than 5 hours".
My questions for Campaign Staff:
#1 Is more table variation allowed in PBP because of the very nature of online play? If so could we get a statement to that effect in the next guide.
#2 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a PBP PFS session? If so, which ones and why?
#3 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a face to face PFS session?? If so, which ones and why?
|
|
Some specific examples from a play by post PFS session that spawned this thread.
Once combat has started, I don’t generally do initiative. Players should post their first round actions once combat has been declared. Monsters generally go last. Initiative value does come into play when opposing actions are an issue.
I don’t use combat grids in Pbp. I will list distance to each monster group. Characters are considered to be flanking a monster once two separate characters have attacked a single monster for one round (the converse is true, as well). The 2nd round onwards the monster/player is considered to be flanked until an enemy is killed, blinded, moved, etc. (Think of Flank as a condition).
AoE spells hit enemies randomly based on distance (assuming spell reaches) and whether they are engaged in melee with friendlies. If you are willing to hit your friends with spells, you will generally get more enemies as well. Please look at grid below.
Base chance that additional enemies are in AoE spell
(note: The primary target chosen by the caster is always considered in the AoE, therefore, a 10’r spell cast in melee will still hit one enemy. There’s just a zero chance it will hit other enemies. Eligible enemies must be within range of the AoE to have chance to be covered by spell. A D4 is rolled. A result of 5 or more means that the addition target(s) is covered)
Spell is 10’ or less Radius: +1
Spell is 15-20’ radius: +2
Spell is 25+’ radius: +3
Enemy sub-group engaged in friendly in melee: -1
Enemies outnumber party +1
|
My questions for Campaign Staff:
Because what Mike/Mark say in the forums is often dissected to the nth degree by rules-lawyers, etc., they are not likely to grant approval to or a list of approved deviations from the printed rules & guidelines. Mike has said numerous times that run as written is the rule, without exception.
That being said, we are not automatons and this is not an online computer game. Under certain circumstances, minor deviations and/or GM caveat might be necessary. A few of the important questions are:
- Is the deviation necessary?
- Is the deviation reasonable?
- Does the deviation specifically violate a rule or guideline?
The standard answer to your question is, no deviation is allowed, at all, ever, period. If you observe someone changing rules, then you are encouraged to discuss it with the GM in question and report them if necessary.
|
So I am not going to speak to Online PFS play and PF RPG rules because I have zero experience with it so I cannot speak with any kind knowledge towards it.
That said there are specific FAQ for PFS specific rules I think need to be hammered out that has never been officially done.
Here are some.
1. Does a Character get locked to only the online game while in play?
2. What happens if a player leaves before it is finished?
3. What happens if the GM leaves and or the game dies before it is finished?
4. Is scanned chronicle sheets allowed?
5. What happens if the GM leaves and never gives out chronicle sheets to the players?
Now I am assuming those answers are the exact same as it would be for a table game.
1. Yes
2. Try to give him a Chronicle sheet based on what he completed and report the player as playing either way.
3. GM should give out Chronicle sheets based on what was finished.
4. Non Table relationship, I assume for online play it would be allowed.
5. Contact your local VO or nearest VO to provide you a Chronicle sheet based on what you completed.
I am sure there are a few more PFS specific things that may need to be addressed.
|
|
Questions and Answers
You are correct save for perhaps number 4. As the GM, scanning and emailing the chronicles to the players are fine, but the player should probably make an effort to printing the thing about, just so they have it with them when they go play other games. A GM can also fax, snail mail, or whatever else they can to get the chronicle to the player. As long as it gets there, it's good.
Really, aside from the scanning thing, none of this is significantly different from regular play. Well, the scanning and the amount of time a character is locked into just the one game, anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...My questions for Campaign Staff:
#1 Is more table variation allowed in PBP because of the very nature of online play? If so could we get a statement to that effect in the next guide.
#2 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a PBP PFS session? If so, which ones and why?
#3 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a face to face PFS session?? If so, which ones and why?
1) No it is not.
2) No it is not.
3) No it is not.
|
|
So I am not going to speak to Online PFS play and PF RPG rules because I have zero experience with it so I cannot speak with any kind knowledge towards it.
That said there are specific FAQ for PFS specific rules I think need to be hammered out that has never been officially done.
Here are some.
1. Does a Character get locked to only the online game while in play?
2. What happens if a player leaves before it is finished?
3. What happens if the GM leaves and or the game dies before it is finished?
4. Is scanned chronicle sheets allowed?
5. What happens if the GM leaves and never gives out chronicle sheets to the players?
Now I am assuming those answers are the exact same as it would be for a table game.
1. Yes
2. Try to give him a Chronicle sheet based on what he completed and report the player as playing either way.
3. GM should give out Chronicle sheets based on what was finished.
4. Non Table relationship, I assume for online play it would be allowed.
5. Contact your local VO or nearest VO to provide you a Chronicle sheet based on what you completed.
I am sure there are a few more PFS specific things that may need to be addressed.
1) Yes
2) Then the character is in limbo until they finish and receive a Chronicle sheet.If it is not possible to finish, they receive the Chronicle sheet as per the Guide. They only receive gold for what section they finished. If they didn't finish enough to receive an XP, they receive a Chronicle with 0 XPs and it is assigned to their character. They will not be allowed to play it again for credit.
3) Then we will not punish the players. The GM should be reported to me so I can take further actions. Players should take care to not play under the same GM save for an emergency where the GM couldn't prevent.
4) As long as it is signed by the GM and has the event number recorded on it, and it is entered into the database, then yes, a scanned copy is fine.
5) Again, report the GMs actions to me so I can take further action and I will work with the players to get them their Chronicle sheets,
On a side note, all the above makes me reconsider if on line play is serving the purpose it is supposed to or causing more trouble than it is worth. Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on online, PBP and the like play so I know how the vocal minority here feel about it.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think online play can be a valuable option - in fact in some cases it may be the only viable option. And I suspect that with the forthcoming Paizo VTT there will be more players looking for online or PBP games.
But that's an argument for online gaming itself, not for online gaming as part of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. I'm not sure what PFSOP offers the online gamers. For tabletop PFS players accept the extra limitations of PFS in exchange for the ability to be able to play their character at any game event where they show up.
That's not really an issue with online gaming; it's as easy to show up at a game halfway across the world as it is a game across the street, so where the player is on any given day isn't really important.
There's also a very big difference in the speed of 'virtual telepresence' gaming and play-by-post/play-by-email. A VTT encounter can run at much the same sort of speed as a home (or game-store) tabletop game; a PBP game can run much slower. How long does it take to complete a typical scenario? One or two weeks? That's fine - a lot of table-top players don't play more often than that. One or two months? That's still not an insurmountable drawback - in my earlier tabletop gaming days going up a level once every six months wasn't an impossibly slow pace.
Slower than that, though, begins to run into problems. With the PFS requirement that all characters start at level one it could take a very long time to get up to even moderate character levels. And if the character is locked into a scenario for three months or more at a time there really isn't any portability to other games, so it's not clear to me what benefits would accrue from running this as a PFSOP game rather than as a home game.
But, at the end of the day, I'm only on the sidelines offering an opinion. The people who are affected are the players - they are the ones who decide whether they want to participate in PFS.
|
On a side note, all the above makes me reconsider if on line play is serving the purpose it is supposed to or causing more trouble than it is worth. Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on online, PBS and the like play so I know how the vocal minority here feel about it.
Considering that:
1) PbP can be the best pure roleplaying format that PFS can provide;2) PbP and Online play has a huge potential for growth;
3) PbP and Online play will expand the connections that we PFSers make as a community, allowing global play and social connections;
4) PbP and Online play might be significantly enhanced by the Pathfinder VTT/Gamespace;
It would seem incredibly foolish to limit or otherwise inhibit PbP and online play.
In fact, it might be wise to get ahead of the curve and move away from the failed RAW mandate and towards a more community-focused and collaborative paradigm that allows reasonable PbP and Online accommodations at the same time preserving the heart of PFS.
Online play is here to stay...and the structure of it is not perfectly adapted for PFS RAW play (which is, of course also true of non-Online play) and, in the end, reality wins. It's just figuring out how PFS will come to terms with RAW vs. reality. I prefer getting ahead of the curve.
I think PFS would be better off without players coming to the table expecting RAW...since it has never happened across the Society and no amount of threads like this is ever going to change that...and instead expected some table variation and understood that they would need to work with players and GMs on local or online solutions.
-Pain
|
|
I don't think PFS should tell people where/how to play.
If they want to play in a Van or at a game store or in a house or at a Con or over Skype or some PbP or virtual tabletop. The rules shouldn't stop them.
What I think would help is to have a VC (or VL) for online play. That way there's somebody who can help online players work through any issues that come across as well as communicate any issues/concerns to you in a civilized manner etc.
|
|
I don't think PFS should tell people where/how to play.
If they want to play in a Van or at a game store or in a house or at a Con or over Skype or some PbP or virtual tabletop. The rules shouldn't stop them.
What I think would help is to have a VC (or VL) for online play. That way there's somebody who can help online players work through any issues that come across as well as communicate any issues/concerns to you in a civilized manner etc.
I want people to play wherever they want, as long as they follow the rules set forth in the Guide, FAQ, and Additional Resources. I was simply asking for feedback.
While an online play VC or VL sounds good on the surface, there are several reasons it won't work. No, I won't go into specific details. I've explored it and it simply won't work for numerous reasons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the simple fact is without PBP, the only Pathfinder Society I would participate in would be Gencon and a local convention.
I play with the same group that I have for 18 years now (a few members changed over the years, but the same group). We get together every Sunday (outside holidays), and often enough at least one other day a week. Most of the group doesn't enjoy Organized Play, regardless of which one it has been over the years.
The next option, the FLGS, is mostly devoted to Magic. The one day it's open at a time when I could try to setup a PFS event can't be done for this reason. The next nearest venue is about an hour away, which often falls on weekends I work, requiring me to rearrange my work schedule if I were to choose to attend (not easily done).
So at this point, I can choose to play non-PFS games without traveling to another city, with people I already know I'll enjoy hanging out with, without having to rearrange my work schedule, once or twice a week. Or I can choose to make things difficult, with the only real difference between how I play now being that my character might be a few levels higher at the times I do play now.
Discovering PBP PFS was a godsend for me. A way where I could play Society games (which I do enjoy) without forcing my friends to endure something they don't want to do and without rearranging a work schedule. If it were to now be removed as a medium, that would put me back to once or twice a year.
As far as problems go, the only real issue I've seen thus far is a couple incidents where a person tried to play in two games at once, one of which I resolved with PMs with the person (not really sure how the other ended up, so can't comment on it). Most of the issues brought up upthread have similar enough comparisons in tabletop. GM disappear vs GM not showing up; GM not giving out chronicles vs GM not having chronicles on hand; player leaving during play vs player leaving during play (I've seen that one TWICE at Gencon).
So aside from a paragraph saying "Only one game at once", my own experience says it's fine as is. This is my own opinion and experience though.
I started out playing PFS online (Myth-Weavers) which I really enjoy. The relative short duration of adventures and the rewardsystem seem to make more stable PBPs. Lately I've played in two live games (different character) which is fun too, yet different. I'd like to keep doing both with PbP being the preferred medium. (I'd rather play an AP / homebrew campaign in real-life but PFS is the only option for now).
On a side note, all the above makes me reconsider if on line play is serving the purpose it is supposed to or causing more trouble than it is worth. Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on online, PBP and the like play so I know how the vocal minority here feel about it.So I am not going to speak to Online PFS play and PF RPG rules because I have zero experience with it so I cannot speak with any kind knowledge towards it.
That said there are specific FAQ for PFS specific rules I think need to be hammered out that has never been officially done.
Here are some...
As the opposite of Dragnmoon, these forums are the only place that I play Pathfinder. Dasiji Lekaya is one of my favorite characters, and I've been very happy to have the chance to play him, albeit vvvvveeeeerrrrryyyyy ssssslllllooooowwwwwlllllyyyyy. I just need to print out the chronicle sheet for First Steps Part II that was emailed to me -- and work out my part of it -- and then I'll be ready for the next time that someone wants to run Part III.
Don't try to fix what ain't broke.
|
With our local group (Finland) we've successfully managed to set up and finish a total of 3 PbP games in 6 months (one ended up in a TPK but still).
And the trend is booming. Since they are so rich in flavor and pure roleplaying, they gather a lot of attention and get full quickly. At the moment there are two PbP games active, and at least one more on the horizon.
Initially we began using a standard messageboard as the medium, but one player/GM figured to use a wiki site to hold the game. Those who have not played Delirium's Tangle, you can check it here. Do note that it was entirely in Finnish, so this is just a crude google translate site. Still, there are maps and grids and all the normal stuff that you see in a table top game.
In my experience a PbP game works marvelously as long as the players and the GM are committed, and inform other of possible obstacles or delays.
|
|
Q: Does a Character get locked to only the online game while in play?
A: Yes
Does this also apply when playing pre-gens, e.g. on We Be Goblins?
For example:
10 Jan: Start PBP game of We Be Goblins!
15 Jan: Play 'Silent Tide' in person with new character (chronicle 1)
20 Jan: Play 'Mists of Mwangi' in person with same character (chronicle 2)
25 Jan: Finish PBP game of We Be Goblins; apply chronicle sheet to same character (chronicle 3)
Is this valid?
|
|
Here is an interesting one:
Special holiday boons
These tend to be restricted to a short period - normally 3 weeks.
Are you allowed to award a boon if:
a) the start of the scenario falls into the 3 week period
b) the scenario spanned the whole 3 week period
c) the scenario ends inside the 3 week period
I was having the dilemma that I was playing a scenario for approx. 4 weeks as GM but could foresee due to personal commitments and a lack of posting for 3 days would end it 2 days late.
I could have rushed it - but instead felt I added the boon into the scenario as a roleplay opportunity - while well inside the 3 week time.
So I can show all my players actually participated during the right period for the boon. It was the Archerfeast and I added a short stop in a village with a temple to Erastil and a feast. The players had lots of fun.
It was triggered by one player asking about the boon - and me looking for a way to integrate it.
So effectively I replaced the storm that leads to the delay to sail out and rescue the scholar in time with the Archerfeast - leading to a drunken crew that the group had hired that was terribly sorry but just incapable of sailing next day and arriving too late this way.
But yes - what do you do with a PFS scenario that takes 9 month and spans multiple holiday boons.
|
|
I do not think there needs to be special permissions granted to pbp play for PFS, but that said, pbp is an entirely different animal from regular play, and certain allowances shouldnt be a big deal as long as all of the players and GM agree how to do it and are willing to follow those rules during the game.
Playes go first then bad guys
Map/no map
Post by certain time or your turn is skipped
Etc
All that stuff is fine, as long as everyone is ok with it. If that is how the GM wants to do the game, then let them be as long as the players are having fun.
|
|
...My questions for Campaign Staff:
#1 Is more table variation allowed in PBP because of the very nature of online play? If so could we get a statement to that effect in the next guide.
#2 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a PBP PFS session? If so, which ones and why?
#3 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a face to face PFS session?? If so, which ones and why?
1) No it is not.
2) No it is not.
3) No it is not.
Thank you for your response.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I do not think there needs to be special permissions granted to pbp play for PFS, but that said, pbp is an entirely different animal from regular play, and certain allowances shouldnt be a big deal
No special permissions, but certain allowances are okay?
...You lost me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean we dont need to set a specific set of rules for it. Yes you must use a map or no, you cannot use a map.
We should just leave it alone. As long as the players are having fun with the game, does it really matter if they arent using a map or rolling initiative?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think when you are talking about online play you really need to split it into two camps.
1) Online Virtual Tabletop Games - No problems what so ever. I have played in many games and they flow just a well as in person table games. These games utilize all the rules and are very good representations of what you get when playing in person. Games usually fit into the same time slot constraints unless there are technical issues not related to the gaming itself. Chronicle sheets are either digitally signed or hand signed/scanned and emailed or they are snail mailed.
2) Play by Post - These games are a completely different style of their own. The game is not played live and the GM is having to balance multiple players that are checking the posts at varying intervals. I can see GM's altering the game play style to allow for more streamlined play (as others have referenced) and thinking that it is ok because PbP is sooo different in style than other options. Gm's should make every effort to provide the same experience that you would get at a table. I have played in PbP where GM's kept a digital battle grid that they updated at the top of each round that allowed players to reference when making decisions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until recently, PBP is my only option for PFS. If you look at my main character, you will see he started at PaizoCon 2010. I am now, two PaizoCons later, third level (just to give you an idea of the time thing :) I dinnae mind the slowness as it will be that many months before I get to a table. (...Like next PaizoCon :)
I will run a PBP PFS soon, and will give priority when recruiting to players similarly distanced from games (ZIP code needed :)
Initiative in combat, placement in combat, players disappearing can be complicated but are surmountable with the conventions PBP has developed*
Shirt & portfolio rerolls are imho nigh impossible to check, and is the only rule I would leave out. Then again it is an option few players exercise in the games I have seen (granted that is not many). I suppose if someone sent a pic of themselves in their shirt, I could make it work. But they would have to do so pre-game. And the pic should be of them in a very public place. Like the Washington Monument, Carnegie Hall, SeaWorld or Mount Rushmore. On second thought it is doable. :)
GM disappearing is the hardest thing to deal with. I can only recommend that experienced PBP GMs should run a sanctioned PBP. Get experience in a non-organized play format first.
I dinnae like being locked into an adventure that can take so long, but that is the rule so it must be observed. (I think being locked into a LEVEL makes sense, but that is not relevant to Mike's request for feedback. :) If I get an opportunity to run a game I would like to use my, instead of a pre-gen.
*EDIT: I was going to add conventions for each of the above but I am not sure it matters to Mike as long as the rules are being followed. And that he knows it is important to those of us who want to be in PFS, but live in tiny population centers, or have enough RL going for a first/second game a week.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mike,
I am relatively new to PFS, though not to Pathfinder. I must say that the PBP format has opened up a new world of possibilities for me. I have two little ones at home, and a wife that likes to see me too. I am able to get in an in-person PFS game about once a month if I am lucky, even though I live in an area with a thriving community. I am now reaching the end of GMing my 3rd PFS PBP, and I am currently playing in two others. PBPs have allowed an outlet for my creativity and desire to role-play that my real life does not allow otherwise. I have greatly enjoyed the experiences.
In addition, I have made a couple of new friends through the PBP format. One of them is actually a member of my local chapter and the relationship built through the PBP has served to draw me into my local PFS community. It directly led to me GMing a game for them in person.
The PBP format can and has enhanced the PFS community for the players it serves. It poses some unique challenges, but the benefits are there and worth the effort.
|
Contributor
|
I would just like to mention that playing PFS Online in a chat-room type setting shouldn't require any alteration or tweaking of PFS rules, since games can be done in real-time (allowing for a little bit for players to type), as I'm hoping to demonstrate once I get a formal "IRC Playtest" game together (timing problems with getting players from all over together - my first playtest with local players in a LAN-party type setup wasn't much of a playtest of doing things online since we were all in the same room...)
Not trying to derail the conversation, but just wanting to put a line between PbP and Online play :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another note, well two,
Every PFS PBP I have seen in the last three months has filled up within 24 hours of the initial recruitment post, or the GM has ended up running two tables instead of one and he still has to turn people away. Characters post interest even after recruitment is closed hoping someone backs out at the last minute. The demand for these games is high.
Also, from a revenue standpoint, I have purchased multiple scenarios because of my PBPs. I even had a player purchase one for me in hopes that I would run it! This medium is good for business.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the start of this year I have participated in (or am currently participating in) over a dozen PbP games for the Pathfinder Society. Of which all but one has been an incredibly positive experience. Oddly enough...my only negative experience has the game that Sveden references in the original post....which is currently running on Paizo's forums.
Like Xzaral, without PbP games I would barely be able to play PFS (if at all), and as a direct result would not be purchasing Paizo product. So for me the notion of PbP is, for the most part, working as intended.
There are always going to be renegade GMs and players who believe things like the CRB and the Organized Play Guide don't apply to them; but this is not limited to PbP. From home games, to in store games and perhaps occasionally even in convention play there are people out there who regularly break the rules; and the only way to completely eliminate this would be to discontinue Organized Play entirely.
And that would be a mistake.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that i have PbP for years and have seen all sorts of things happen. Player burnout, as well as GMs, real life intruding and such. One thing I can say for my gaming habit, without PbP a LOT of my military career would have been without gaming. And even more of some of my gamers in games I GM'd would have missed out.
I think some concrete rules or statement on PbP might be needed but please don't bring the banhammer for a some folks only way to play PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, all the above makes me reconsider if on line play is serving the purpose it is supposed to or causing more trouble than it is worth. Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on online, PBP and the like play so I know how the vocal minority here feel about it.
I think you've already heard the vocal minority in the original post. I enjoy having PbP as an option, even though most of my games have been in person.
The biggest problem with PbP is maintaining the flow of the game during combat. Imagine someone who takes 5 minutes to take their turn at the table, and then translate that into a one post a day online game. That is why many GMs adjust the initiative system, usually allowing the combat sequence to follow the order of the posts with the GM posting once per interval. Skipping someone's turn in PbP is roughly equivalent to skipping someone's turn because they were away from the table during combat.
One advantage with PbP in particular is that there's time to look up the rules of whatever it is you're trying to do. So even though some rules are bent because of the format, in general the rules are followed more closely, without the on-the-fly calls a GM sometimes has to make at the table.
|
|
I have only run two PFS PbP games; but each of them took less than a month to complete. (well technically one game is still going on but we should be done this week.) The only adjustment I make to initiative is to have players post in any order with the understanding that I will resolve their actions in initiative order.
Of the PFS PbP games I've participated in as a player...most finish in 4 to 5 weeks. Only two have taken extraordinarily long times....but even those are at least moving forward.
If you're going to get involved with PbP I think it's important to have patience and to play in more than one game at a time...that way if one game is in a lull chances are the others might be active. Just try to keep your characters straight...lest you attempt to channel with your Barbarian!
|
|
On a side note, all the above makes me reconsider if on line play is serving the purpose it is supposed to or causing more trouble than it is worth. Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on online, PBP and the like play so I know how the vocal minority here feel about it.I think you've already heard the vocal minority in the original post. I enjoy having PbP as an option, even though most of my games have been in person.
The biggest problem with PbP is maintaining the flow of the game during combat. Imagine someone who takes 5 minutes to take their turn at the table, and then translate that into a one post a day online game. That is why many GMs adjust the initiative system, usually allowing the combat sequence to follow the order of the posts with the GM posting once per interval. Skipping someone's turn in PbP is roughly equivalent to skipping someone's turn because they were away from the table during combat.
One advantage with PbP in particular is that there's time to look up the rules of whatever it is you're trying to do. So even though some rules are bent because of the format, in general the rules are followed more closely, without the on-the-fly calls a GM sometimes has to make at the table.
Wow...I just stumbled across this thread. Those rules above the sparked this OP are mine.
I recalled reading in either the Core Rulebook or GM guide (when I first joined PF) that this game was experienced a variety of different ways. While I don't have the quote handy, I remember reading something about playing the game without combat grids. It struck me as an interesting point because, as a young AD&D gamer back in the day, I used to play that way all of the time. We simply didn't have the resources for anything more complicated.
In reading the book on PFS and post about Pbp, I got the impression that a degree of flexability, given the very nature of Pbp, was allowed. I do not have the ability, for example, to access and implement the use of VTT software when playing Pbp. So, I created a list of guidelines to run a PFS Scenario while accomodating the nature of Pbp and my own limitations. I posted these guidelines clearly, ahead of time, so everyone knew how things would work. In the middle of the scenario, a player expressed concerns, which I addressed and compromised on. He was not happy with my solution, but stuck in the game, I believe so he could eventually earn PFS credit.
For the most part, the players like it. In fact, this morning (Before I knew this thread existed), I asked who wanted to do another, and 4 of the 6 quickly affirmed they would like to.
However, in seeing your response, Mike, it is clear I may have overstepped my bounds.
If you wish, I shall cease to advertise or play PFS Pbp in this manner, as clearly what I'm doing does change some mechanics of combat, since I cannot use a grid. Also, please advise me if I should not record our current scenario we are working on as credit as we did not follow some of the RAW in execution of said scenario.
One last thing.... I know for a fact that the vast majority of the players (and myself) has had a lot of fun playing this way. I understand the need for uniformity, but there's also, clearly, exceptions to certain guidelines to support the 'play, play, play' mentality (Such as allowing a GM to play a PC in the party to make a table legal). I know that balancing those exceptions (to avoid a pandora's box scenario) vs the fun factor is a hard job, and I'll go in the direction that Mike suggests. (In this case, I would have to stop playing PFS via Pbp because I simply can not use VTT/Grid with my Pbp). However, as someone mentioned above, it is my opinion that in our group, the issue that sparked the question is one of a vocal minorty (One only has to read the Pbp forum/thread to see that).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got home and found my core rule book PDF.
"Combat in the Pathfinder RPG can be resolved in one of two ways: you can describe the situation to the characters and allow them to interact based on the description you provide, or you can draw the situation on a piece of paper or a specially made battle mat and allow the characters to move their miniatures around to more accurately represent their position during the battle."
Would this not allow a Pbp to play without a combat mat right here? I believe it does. Obviously, as implied, this type of play doesn't allow for the exact positioning of a battle mat, but it is allowed by RAW. (And to think of it, I don't event use a battle mat for every encounter at the table.)
I think this opens up a new line of thinking in PFS, specifically Pbp. Without the requirement to somehow represent and maintain battle grids and call out precise movements, running a Pbp because easier and smoother. Obviously, certain aspects of the game such as flanking, AoE attacks and the such have to be addressed (which is something my Pbp guidelines attempt to do.) I think this deserves its own thread! I'm going to make one right now!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The guidelines you posted, Sveden, weren't my chaging the rules, par se. (At least it was not my intent) It was my first pass/attempt to "try to set some standards beforehand to avoid any confusion of the logistics regarding combat by description." (as one of my players put it better than I). I wanted to do my best to make guidelines to objectify those things that aren't as clear in "combat by description" so that, when someone does something rather tactical, such as casting a precise AoE, the result I announce doesn't seem subjective (or totally arbitrary).
The fruit of this first attempt of mine was far from perfect, and it has clearly upset one player...but, as I mention above, the vast majority are having fun (all but that one want to do another). I am using his feedback, as well as other's ideas, to better fine tune this approach. Please feel free to join the discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
...My questions for Campaign Staff:
#1 Is more table variation allowed in PBP because of the very nature of online play? If so could we get a statement to that effect in the next guide.
#2 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a PBP PFS session? If so, which ones and why?
#3 Is it permissible to remove rules from the Pathfinder RPG when running a face to face PFS session?? If so, which ones and why?
1) No it is not.
2) No it is not.
3) No it is not.
What is the best way to report these non-compliant games to campaign staff?