PFS Play by Post...without a battlemat?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

JCServant wrote:
Indeed. But is it your place or my place to say definatively what those are?

It's our place as GMs to invite feedback.

If a hundred other GMs tell you to play closer to the book on X or looser with Y, you don't have to oblige; but you do have a responsibility to consider those opinions carefully and either adjust your practices accordingly or else have a very good reason to believe that a hundred other people are wrong (perhaps they're all carrying over a 3.5 rule or whatever).

As a GM, if someone tells me to do X, my response should never be "Does he have the right to say that?", but rather, "Is he correct, and how can I verify one way or the other?"

Those who focus on whether a criticism could be true are trying to become better GMs, even when it hurts. Those who focus on whether the critic has any right to say something have other priorities besides being a great GM.

2/5

Thefurmonger ....but do you also feel that it's your place to correct all the GM's in PFS who do NOT do that? If you try to correct them, and they don't get on board with all the rules the way you are on top of them, does that/should that mean that their sessions are no longer 'legal' and therefore should not count / be a part of PFS?

Grand Lodge 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thefurmonger wrote:
I know this does not add a lot (if anything) but Jcservant, for a guy that does not have time to run a game useing a map you sure have a lot of time to post and argue with people.

Let me give this a more serious response.

You're right.... I am putting a lot of time into this...and I'll tell you why.

When I saw the posts regarding my Pbp thing, I was shocked. A conversation about a table I was currently running was happening. Mike even got involved. And I wasn't even invited. Do you know how that feels? To say it surprised me and made me feel angry and frustrated is an understatement.

If I wasn't already as involved as I am in PFS, and a huge supporter of Paizo, I may have left PFS (or even PF play) right then and there.

First, I don't want that to happen to anyone else. It really, really hurts, and it sucks. Second, in case you all haven't noticed, we have a shortage of dedicated GM's and organizers, especially on Pbp. Things like this really doesn't help that at all.

I could have just stayed silent. After all, the worst that could happen is that someone at Paizo write me and tells me that the Chronicle sheets we do for this is somehow invalid. I could have let the sleeping dog lie.

But a part of me hoped that by coming on here, asking for help, and engaging in open & frank converstaion about the whole thing that perhaps a few GMs/Organizers would see what I see...that our current approach which resulted my game being dissected and my approaching being critiqued in a public forum (that I was never told about) is not one that is healthy to PFS' growth. I also hoped that we could agree that, through mutual respect and a degree of tolerance that PFS might find new growth through diversity despite a structure founded by rules and regulations. Perhaps I hoped for too much, as some leopards will never change their spots. But, because of my passion for the game and the organization, I felt that I not only had to try, but I had to give it my best shot.

Grand Lodge 2/5

"It's our place as GMs to invite feedback. " Hey, I agree with that. I invite it myself (though I notice people get REAL upset if I consider it, but do not do it for whatever reason)

But is it our place to make sure that GM's invite feedback or kick them out if they don't? Do we kick out all 'stubborn' GMs from PFS who's playstyle doesn't quite measure up to all the aspects of RAW/RAI that we feel are important? Does that halp PFS to grow and flourish? Do we have better GM's waiting in the wing to replace the ones we kick out?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

JCServant wrote:
Thefurmonger ....but do you also feel that it's your place to correct all the GM's in PFS who do NOT do that? If you try to correct them, and they don't get on board with all the rules the way you are on top of them, does that/should that mean that their sessions are no longer 'legal' and therefore should not count / be a part of PFS?

To be fair, I think there was only one person suggesting that response to a GM not listening to others' feedback.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

GM-JCServant wrote:

"It's our place as GMs to invite feedback. " Hey, I agree with that. I invite it myself (though I notice people get REAL upset if I consider it, but do not do it for whatever reason)

But is it our place to make sure that GM's invite feedback or kick them out if they don't? Do we kick out all 'stubborn' GMs from PFS who's playstyle doesn't quite measure up to all the aspects of RAW/RAI that we feel are important? Does that halp PFS to grow and flourish? Do we have better GM's waiting in the wing to replace the ones we kick out?

Heh, see my above post. Only one person (unless I missed something) is trying to say "Didn't agree with me? Your games are invalid!"

Now here's a fun thought exercise: imagine you're someone else in this thread, trying to tell someone they shouldn't be doing X. Now imagine that person keeps responding as though you saying not only "don't do X", but "don't do X and if you do it anyway we'll kick you out". How do you suppose you'd feel about those responses?

JC, you've got a handful of people telling you not to do something, and one of those people saying/implying/whatever that your games don't count if you do it anyway. Keep that in mind when responding to people's critiques, alright? :)

2/5

Well, comments like "well-meaning but inappropriate for PFS," "PFS game does require a map", "I think that's an impossible assumption to make ((assume that playing PFS without a grid is legal )) - campaign management have made it pretty clear that this would require too many changes to the rules. "

yeah...you're right...none of the above have said, "Your game doesn't count." But when one makes statements such as the above, it kinda comes across that way, especially in context of the ealier remarkes and what's happened on other threads. If people said, "Well, I don't think that's RAW, but I wouldn't knock someone who did it," I would probably be a wee bit less defensive.

Hopefully my post a few up puts some context to any oversensativity and over-protectiveness I'm exhibiting, and for that I apologize. For those who are staying that they just don't think what I'm dong with Pbp is not RAW, but they are OK with it being a part of the PFS family, I apologize. As I said, I am open to suggestions in how to make it closer to RAW/RAI but cannot use a battlemat. I don't know how many session y'all have run where a flock of GM's critiqued what you did afterwards, but it can make one a little...edgy.

I'm making those comments, however, to show how we, as a group, can really come across judgemental. Even if we don't realize it.

*

Tamago wrote:

Let's see if we can make some forward progress here:

A few points I can think of:

  • Detailed descriptions:
  • Images may be helpful.
  • Player/GM trust:
  • Easy-to-use increments:

Any other productive ideas?

Don't let negativity get you down. Remember, the most important thing is to enjoy yourselves. The only way to lose is to fail to have fun!

Good luck and happy gaming!

That was a needed post. Bring me solutions, not problems. As far as assumption, chases do not happen on a battle grid, nor do most RP scenerios and I have yet to see the PFS assignment rooms on a battle map where EVERY PFS scenerio starts. (correct me if I am wrong :)

As far as other ideas, though these will follow a lot on Tamogo's. ('productive' is yet tbd :)
  • The GM should have a map/or a chessboard or something in PBP just because it takes long enough to do a combat that things will get confused. It does not need to be a physical map, Curaigh moves from BQ3 to BQ4. (this is what the discussion threads of PBP started for).
  • Ask players what tactical strategies their players need.
    (Rogue Curaigh will always go for a flank and sneak attack, Barbarian Curaigh will always charge on round one, Sorcerer Curaigh wants to hit more than three enemies and no friendly fire with a fireball, etc.)
  • GMs must include in the description what conditions can be met by these 'standardized strategies' (The room is too small for a non-friendly fireball, debris prevents charging, Curaigh has no line of site to cheiftan, but does to the other goblins)*
  • Assume characters will play their level. (level 1 wizard may not avoid flanking, level 3 fighter always avoids flanking. So when a character says I run up to the goblin, the GM can decide where that is. This does not even have to assumed, ask the characters to state this sort of things when posting. (Curaigh will move adjacent to the goblin but away from a flanking position.)
  • Create a standardized move and let the players know at the beginning encounters what that is. Use that same formula for the beginning of each round. (Four goblins stand up from bushes and fire arrows, the party can reach them in two double-moves.) (precedent from chase card where one tile is a move action. In general a move is 30', but a party of monks or a party of halflings might change this. )
  • If/then statements are a must, (IF Curaigh Barbarian is out of the way, THEN Curaigh Sorcerer uses fireball. IF not THEN magic missile the cheiftan.
  • or at the least a quick (one hour?) question response time.or Player: Is Curaigh Barbarian within twenty of the cheifton.tick.tock.tick GM: Yes. tick.tock. Sorcerer Curaigh casts magic missiles at the cheiftan)
  • ascii is your friend, but keep it to smaller areas. Lines do not always match up in typing and posting and vary from browser to broswer. Frex the below is perfectly lined up as I type it. Is it for you?
    ......
    ..Bg..
    ....R.
    .S....
  • Do not over-do the descriptions. (Curaigh leaves his position of cover from the blue flower with white dots and dashes around the fermenting clutter of compost and around the goblin with the longspear with a skull attached to end next to the white flower with blue dots as long so it does not affect his piercing azure eyes from targeting the goblin with the longspear without a skull attached. )

*The descriptions here are short, and in PBP they needn't be. The more image the GM can create the more likely the players will know their situations. the more they know that, the less they need a battle grid. Consider a battle in a novel by Jim Butcher as compared to one by RA Salvatore.
We could probably start a whole thread on what items MUST be in a description. Oh wait, that is creative writing 101 :)


JCServant wrote:
Thefurmonger ....but do you also feel that it's your place to correct all the GM's in PFS who do NOT do that? If you try to correct them, and they don't get on board with all the rules the way you are on top of them, does that/should that mean that their sessions are no longer 'legal' and therefore should not count / be a part of PFS?

Ok, time to become less popular.....

If I am in a game where things are done wrong then yes I do mention it to the GM after the game.

Anything from "Just so you know, that gnome had a 5 strength and was carrying a ton of crap around"

to reading the scenerio after playing it and asking a question of the GM by e-mail "Hey XXXXXX, I was the magus in your last running of ZZZZZZ on Mon, I may be running this in the future, in reading it over I had questions on Act 2, when you ran it you did X, but it looks like Y is what gets called out, I was hopeing you could give me some pointers"

If a GM replies with "Yeah I don't track weight" or "Meh, I don't care how many arrows get used" or "Rolling perception is for squares, I hid little paper cutouts around the room that represent the monsters, if you noticed them you got to act in the suprise round" (yes the last one was out there, but all 3 are deviations from the rules)

Then yes.

I would mention it to the local VC or VL.

If they don't care, then fair enough.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

JCServant wrote:

Well, comments like "well-meaning but inappropriate for PFS," "PFS game does require a map", "I think that's an impossible assumption to make ((assume that playing PFS without a grid is legal )) - campaign management have made it pretty clear that this would require too many changes to the rules. "

yeah...you're right...none of the above have said, "Your game doesn't count." But when one makes statements such as the above, it kinda comes across that way

Any given GM could be doing something wrong and still be an asset to the community.

Let me be abundantly clear:
Just because someone's doing something that's inappropriate for PFS doesn't mean they're not an asset to PFS, and just because someone's a great asset to PFS doesn't mean everything they're doing is appropriate or even legal. Being a good/valuable GM and including inappropriate practices in one's GMing are not mutually-exclusive.

If you take every critique of an individual practice to be a condemnation of your entire GM-hood, you're going to get offended a lot.

Quote:
I don't know how many session y'all have run where a flock of GM's critiqued what you did afterwards, but it can make one a little...edgy.

I've overturned PC deaths after the affected players challenged my ruling after the game, with no hard feelings. Take from that what you will.

2/5

Oh, I've GM'd for a long time, and I've had issues with deaths, players tear into me because of GM style, etc.

There's just one huge difference...they're a part of my group. And, to an extent, I know them.

But to see your every move dissected and discussed in a forum that you weren't invited to be part of the converstaion and find it afterwards? It's a pretty negative experience. My friend saw it, and said that he didn't want to play PFS anymore if that we were (as a group) going to critiqued by the community as a whole.

1/5

Thefurmonger wrote:

Now when I say "Map" I am not saying a battle grid. It can be a piece of graph paper with letters and numbers so that each player can keep track of where they are.

"I move from A8 to E17, being sure to go around the gnolls threat, that takes 25' if I go by way of C12"

"I fireball the juncture where A3 and B4 come together, the DC is 16"

Things like that.

It sounds like the OP doesn't *always* lack computer-based access to the Internet. When you're doing your adventure prep, is it possible to prep maps like this, and then make them "public" for your players (via Google Docs, or whatever) as each encounter occurs? There's likely some way that you can have an image of the maps on your phone, and you can refer back to it as you DM.

Personal opinion: too many features of PF combat are too grid-oriented for the game for the more free-form style to work well. Yes, house rules can be worked in, but then you're no longer playing "straight" PF, whcih is what PFS assumes you're doing. Some players may love what you're doing, but unless your players are all heartily in acceptance, you owe it to them (and to trying to run PFS adventures as-written) to figure out a way to incorporate a grid.

Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Painlord wrote:
JohnF wrote:

I also know I'm more of a purist than a lot of the GMs around here. I've talked over a couple of cases where I disagreed with the GM in question (often after I come to run the same scenario myself, and find out that what's written in the description doesn't quite match my recollection of what we encountered).

Fortunately I've never encountered anything at the table that I felt was serious enough to be escalated to the event organiser, let alone to my venture officers or to Paizo.

Speaking for the conventions that I run for our community, JohnF, I don't think there is much to worry about.

While you might be more on the RAW side, we have many GMs who tend more towards RAI (like myself), and the goal for me as an organizer isn't to enforce RAW (it doesn't exist) or allow RAI but to encourage our community to work together to create fun PFS games.

Whether you are RAW or RAI-focused, I want you to have a place in PFS. We won't grow our community if we divide and exclude GMs or players based on artificial distinctions. Instead, we need to focus on having good fun games.

-Pain

Amen, brother! :-)

2/5

Quote:
"It sounds like the OP doesn't *always* lack computer-based access to the Internet. When you're doing your adventure prep, is it possible to prep maps like this, and then make them "public" for your players (via Google Docs, or whatever) as each encounter occurs? There's likely some way that you can have an image of the maps on your phone, and you can refer back to it as you DM. "

I do sometimes have access to computer...but given my limited access, and the fact that my time on the computer IS tied up, I really don't have the time to make something like that work consistantly. That's what I get for running so many other things. LOL.

Quote:
"Some players may love what you're doing, but unless your players are all heartily in acceptance, you owe it to them (and to trying to run PFS adventures as-written) to figure out a way to incorporate a grid."

I owe it to them? You may not know this in my situations, but I set up the table and did recruitment with everything pretty clearly set up. I don't really like the idea that I'm upfront about everything, people start playing, and then a player can demand I change how I run the game because I somehow 'owe' it to them. (Ironically, that nearly happened). If I wasn't upfront at the beginning, I could totally understaned. It's a perfectly normal to expect, without anything being said, that combat will be resolved through some grid based solution since the *vast* majority of games are run that way...but when the GM states that during recruitment?

Quote:
"too many features of PF combat are too grid-oriented for the game for the more free-form style to work well"

This is the clear challenge that CbD presents. Just like there are challenges for observing other rules without proper tools (Like a calculator/herolabs for encumberance). We can come up with suggestions for those people (estimate just the larger pieces of equipment, add and round up) that isn't RAW at all, but gets them closer than not doing anything. I believe we can do the same for CbD and Pbp.

1/5

JCServant wrote:

I owe it to them? You may not know this in my situations, but I set up the table and did recruitment with everything pretty clearly set up. I don't really like the idea that I'm upfront about everything, people start playing, and then a player can demand I change how I run the game because I somehow 'owe' it to them. (Ironically, that nearly happened). If I wasn't upfront at the beginning, I could totally understaned. It's a perfectly normal to expect, without anything being said, that combat will be resolved through some grid based solution since the *vast* majority of games are run that way...but when the GM states that during recruitment?

Please re-read what I said. If you have players who really are on-board with your variant system, I, personally, wouldn't have a big issue with it. I'd also say that it probably does stretch the bounds of what's acceptable in PFS play, but I'm not as vehement about this as some. (I also, personally, think that PbP and OP don't make for a great marriage, but that's another topic entirely.)

It sounds like you thought you had that agreement, but it turned out otherwise. I did *not* say "if, halfway downstream, a player decides he really needs a map, you 'owe' it to him". I obviously don't know the specifics of what happened there, so I'm not going to speculate, but it does suggest to me that perhaps that player did not really register with what you felt was very clearly stated upfront.

And, please, take this last bit of advice with the kind intent which I'm intending...you might want to step back from this thread for a bit, and take a few breaths.

2/5

LOL. Don't worry...I'm pretty good. I know you did *NOT* say that. You also did not say "if you didn't tell them ahead of time." Glass half empty/full type thing, I suppose. I'm reading some of this in the context of the overall conversation and things that were said in other threads....so take what I say with a grain of salt and my apologies for any offense. I was not offended by your post nor was I trying to convey that I was offended...I was simply saying, "If I did tell them, do you still feel that...?" Anyway, there were other, more impotant points.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

GM-JCServant wrote:
When I saw the posts regarding my Pbp thing, I was shocked. A conversation about a table I was currently running was happening. Mike even got involved. And I wasn't even invited. Do you know how that feels? To say it surprised me and made me feel angry and frustrated is an understatement.

There's an important question here that's being overlooked. The normal way things like this get resolved is by the player with a problem taking it to the GM, and it all getting resolved quietly and privately. Why didn't this happen here?

Have you talked the whole issue over with your local Venture Officers? After all, by coming to a public forum and trying to engage in "frank and open conversation about the whole thing" you're doing exactly what the original poster did, which you feel was inappropriate.

Grand Lodge 4/5

JohnF wrote:
GM-JCServant wrote:
When I saw the posts regarding my Pbp thing, I was shocked. A conversation about a table I was currently running was happening. Mike even got involved. And I wasn't even invited. Do you know how that feels? To say it surprised me and made me feel angry and frustrated is an understatement.

There's an important question here that's being overlooked. The normal way things like this get resolved is by the player with a problem taking it to the GM, and it all getting resolved quietly and privately. Why didn't this happen here?

Have you talked the whole issue over with your local Venture Officers? After all, by coming to a public forum and trying to engage in "frank and open conversation about the whole thing" you're doing exactly what the original poster did, which you feel was inappropriate.

There is no VC of Online Play. Mike has said that he doesn't foresee there being one either.

2/5

To: John... Well, to his credit, the player did do that (try to work things out)...via our discussion forum. That's another thing that's pretty much out in the open for everyone to read over, yah? Long story short, I compromised on some of the concerns, most players are happy. Other(s) posted public threads/posts I didn't know anything about. *Shrugs* To be honest, I don't think any of that makes him/her a bad person. I was a bit hurt that there wasn't more effort to communicate first, but I'm a big boy ...I'll survive. Maybe I would have done the same...who knows. I was a bit more shocked at the community response and how that might impact others like myself (see post above).

There's no 'internet venture captain.' Anyway, what would I do now, three weeks after the fact? Complain that I felt everything I said above? A venture captain...and even Mike, really aren't board police. That's beyond the scope of what they do.

On your last line, that may be true. I said before I did this to address a concern to the community as a whole for the reasons I listed. (See above post). Because it was precipitated by those earlier threads, I cannot escepe the fact that this does point back in that direction and possibly put unwanted attention on that individual.

However, I have also written a personal, heartfelt message regarding this directly to that individual with my concerns as well as an invitation for a phone call to work things out. With that being said, my main drive for doing this is still the same, and I do not apologize for it. I am much more concerned with addressing the issue with the community and the response as a whole, and how it can impact PFSOP, than I care about defending my honor, grinding an axe or anything like that. I made that clear above. However, I recognize that I have no way to prove that, and the other individual could claim something similar. I have offered my hand to him, formally, in apology and in the spirit of reconciliation. I can't really do much more.

The Exchange 4/5

JCServant wrote:

To: John... Well, to his credit, the player did do that (try to work things out)...via our discussion forum. That's another thing that's pretty much out in the open for everyone to read over, yah? Long story short, I compromised on some of the concerns, most players are happy. Other(s) posted public threads/posts I didn't know anything about. *Shrugs* To be honest, I don't think any of that makes him/her a bad person. I was a bit hurt that there wasn't more effort to communicate first, but I'm a big boy ...I'll survive. Maybe I would have done the same...who knows. I was a bit more shocked at the community response and how that might impact others like myself (see post above).

There's no 'internet venture captain.' Anyway, what would I do now, three weeks after the fact? Complain that I felt everything I said above? A venture captain...and even Mike, really aren't board police. That's beyond the scope of what they do.

On your last line, that may be true. I said before I did this to address a concern to the community as a whole for the reasons I listed. (See above post). Because it was precipitated by those earlier threads, I cannot escepe the fact that this does point back in that direction and possibly put unwanted attention on that indidual.

However, I have also written a personal, heartfelt message regarding this directly to that individual with my concerns as well as an invitation for a phone call to work things out. With that being said, my main drive for doing this is still the same, and I do not apologize for it. I am much more concerned with addressing the issue with the community and the response as a whole, and how it can impact PFSOP, than I care about defending my honor, grinding an axe or anything like that. I made that clear above. However, I recognize that I have no way to prove that, and the other individual could claim something similar. I have offered my hand to him, formally, in apology and in the spirit of reconciliation. I can't really do much more.

You appeared to take some exception to my last post; I honestly didn't intend to be attacking you in anyway. When I said I felt you could do it better, that is because I believe you to be an intelligent human being whom is quite capable of staying within the PFS ruleset and still running your game. I even gave an example that I believe would function.

I don't think the game your ran is invalid or a negative thing, in fact I think your set of house rules are well thought out. I also don't think using them in PFS play in the future should continue.

PFS benefits from uniformity; if my character is good in the campaign setting they should function (based on scenario of course) as they do in other times.

My biggest issue with your houserules, is that say, fireball, simply doesn't do the same thing; It is a different spell in your game and if I were playing a sorcerer I would be stuck with it.

This isn't a problem in a home campaign where the entire game will be played with the same ruleset throughout, since people can make those choices with the rules in mind.

This issue is where house rules become a problem. If players are cheating they are cheating. If GMs are knowingly letting players cheat, they are cheating.

Encumbrance is a rule, not following it is cheating. A GM shouldn't HAVE to check; because the players not following it are being cheaters. Which is a strong word, but also accurate.

PFS uses encumbrance, if a GM simply said "oh don't worry about those encumbrance penalties" I would say "that's not how this game works, in PFS the rules are supposed to be followed, my 7 str witch doesn't have rope because she can't carry it, it's unfair to me that his 7 str witch is carrying 60lbs of gear and making stealth/acrobatics checks..

There are a lot of ways to cheat in PFS; the easiest (I actually asked on the forums because it seemed odd that there were no measures against it) is not actually consuming consumables. There is a spot for gold spent, but nothing for scrolls used, potions used, or even a "starting equipment chronicle 0 sheet". All of which I think should exist, because I have spent too many years judging CCGs to believe that people don't cheat. If you play with the same GM they might notice, if you play at a con... yeah never getting checked.

Lots of times it's accidental; I cheated in my first PFS game on accident. I had Summon Monster cards made up from a while back, and I didn't know that "Riding dog" had been errata'd off SM1 and replaced with "DOG" soo... oops? I fixed it as soon as I discovered it.

I don't think you should lose your GM credit, nor should any of the players lose their credit. I think you can and should find a way to play that is slightly more in line with the PFS rules in order to run PBP PFS games.

I think it is awesome that you run PFS PBP, I would to see more of it run.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Just out of curiosity: there are a lot of PFS games where the party beats up on NPCs and the loot is the bad guys' masterwork armor and weapons. Maybe a dozen sets of it. How many GMs calculate that weight into the PCs' encumbrance for the rest of the adventure?

(If you say, "Well, they leave that there, and come back to it afterwards," do you mark that treasure off their Chronicles if they end up going home another way?)

I speak for myself when I say that I assume that all NPC armor and weapons collapse into weightless nuggets as soon as the party defeats them. I share this assumption with most of the GMs I've played under. By rights, we're cheating.

5/5 *

Chris Mortika wrote:

Just out of curiosity: there are a lot of PFS games where the party beats up on NPCs and the loot is the bad guys' masterwork armor and weapons. Maybe a dozen sets of it. How many GMs calculate that weight into the PCs' encumbrance for the rest of the adventure?

(If you say, "Well, they leave that there, and come back to it afterwards," do you mark that treasure off their Chronicles if they end up going home another way?)

I speak for myself when I say that I assume that all NPC armor and weapons collapse into weightless nuggets as soon as the party defeats them. I share this assumption with most of the GMs I've played under. By rights, we're cheating.

Actually, funny you should mention that Chris... Just today I found this in the Guide to Organized Play, while looking something else up. You are not cheating:

Page 23 PFGtOP wrote:
At the completion of each encounter during a scenario, your GM will award each player a set amount of gold that reflects that player’s share of the potential loot (though not all encounters will have treasure rewards). This gold piece total can fluctuate depending on what you accomplished and how you accomplished it. We assume that you have enough bags, backpacks, or muscle to haul around the loot you find or, in the case of an urban scenario, immediate access to markets and bazaars where you can sell your goods.

:)

The Exchange 4/5

CRobledo wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

Just out of curiosity: there are a lot of PFS games where the party beats up on NPCs and the loot is the bad guys' masterwork armor and weapons. Maybe a dozen sets of it. How many GMs calculate that weight into the PCs' encumbrance for the rest of the adventure?

(If you say, "Well, they leave that there, and come back to it afterwards," do you mark that treasure off their Chronicles if they end up going home another way?)

I speak for myself when I say that I assume that all NPC armor and weapons collapse into weightless nuggets as soon as the party defeats them. I share this assumption with most of the GMs I've played under. By rights, we're cheating.

Actually, funny you should mention that Chris... Just today I found this in the Guide to Organized Play, while looking something else up:

Quote:
At the completion of each encounter during a scenario, your GM will award each player a set amount of gold that reflects that player’s share of the potential loot (though not all encounters will have treasure rewards). This gold piece total can fluctuate depending on what you accomplished and how you accomplished it. We assume that you have enough bags, backpacks, or muscle to haul around the loot you find or, in the case of an urban scenario, immediate access to markets and bazaars where you can sell your goods.
:)

Good to know :D

2/5

Quote:

My biggest issue with your houserules, is that say, fireball, simply doesn't do the same thing; It is a different spell in your game and if I were playing a sorcerer I would be stuck with it.

This isn't a problem in a home campaign where the entire game will be played with the same ruleset throughout, since people can make those choices with the rules in mind.

I'm not a big fan of the language..."Stuck" with it (I'm not offended, but I'm going to explain why I don't think it's the right word here). First, I spell everything out ahead of time...you don't have to join knowing this is how I work stuff. Second, I allow players to leave the table with no penalty if they wish. Third, it's PFS. You can take your character and play at any other table you can find (Finding them on Pbp..well, that's the hard part). Fourth, and most important, if you are one of my players, and you have a better idea, you are welcome to suggest it.

Now, since we're focusing on fireball, let's describe how it should work by RAW using the legal CbD method with no battlemat.

GM: You enter a large 50x50 room. There are 4 Goblins, one a big chief, in the room. Rogue, it's your turn.

Rogue: I rush up and attack the first one. (Rolls)

GM: You stab the little guy, but he's a fiesty one. He's wounded by still in fighting shape. Sorcerer, it's your turn.

Sorcerer: I want to use fireball to clear this room of goblins. Are they clumped together? Can I get a lot of them while avoiding my rogue pal who just rushed forward?

At this point, the GM has to use his mind's eye to picture the scene and make ruling to answer the sorcerer's question above based on the number of goblins, their relative positioning in his minds eye, and the size of fireball. Since precise positioning isn't at play here, he figures three would be clumped together enough, but with a friend in the way, she could probably only get two without hitting the rogue. Does those two or three the sorcerer hit include the wounded and/or the chief? It's all about what is in the GM's mind's eye. He would answer those questions by description usually off the top of his head.

What I described above is perfectly allowed by the Core Rulebook. People can agree to disagree with me on that, but the Core Rulebook does allow for Play by Description. I've even used it at the table for those "Party vs 1 creature" deals where precise positioning is rarely important and I'm running low on time.

Now, there is a challenge. When the GM answer the question of which monsters the fireball hits, it can seem awefully subjective and sometimes arbatrary to the players. Basically, for feats requiring precise positioning, flanking, AoE's, etc, the player rely completely on the GM providing a description and answering questions such as the above.

The method I created provides an objective method to know that, in any given siutation, what are the chances each monster withing range of your spell are close enough to your primary target to be included in the AoE area.

I'm not making a new set of rules. I'm simply spelling out some objective, reasonable guidelines to address the logistical challenges of playing a CbD, and making those clear to the players. The above is similar to, let's say, a GM who rolls a dice to randomly determine which hero a monster will attack when several targets, in the GM's eye, look equally viable to the mob.

These guidlines apply to both bad guys and good guys, so that overall, there is not an advantage to one over the other. This isn't a house rule like, "Mages can now cast spontaniously between the spells they memorize at the beginning of the day" (That's one I use in my non-PFS games).

Mind you, in CbD, I could have done the percentage mechanics above on the side, not explained them at all to my players and simply used those, rather than my imagination, to answer the player's question without him/her ever knowing that's what I did. And, no one would ever question it. (I use both approaches in determining monster targets when there are equal targets).

So is using my imagination or my dice to assign everything a chance to be in AoE less RAW than, let's say, using a grid? Sure. But, I believe that it's pretty close to RAI in coming up with a solution to adjucate CbD.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Phillip Willis wrote:

The method I created....

I'm not making a new set of rules.

*scratches head*

Grand Lodge 2/5

You're cute. Really. :P I suppose any GM who rolls to see what PC a monster goes after (When there are multiple valid targets) is making new rules since that method isn't spelled out in the book.... and he is using that as a guideline to adjucate the table? If your answer to that is "Yes", then by your viewpoint, I would say, yes it's new rules....LOL. I call it addressing a logistical concern objectively.

Grand Lodge 2/5

I'll let this all go at this point. I pretty much did yesterday...however, I just wanted to explain the AoE deal as a specific example of how I'm trying to get Pbp and CbD to work as close to RAW as close and objectively as possible.

Quote:
I think it is awesome that you run PFS PBP, I would to see more of it run.

I have got to meet a lot of people in the last couple of days in reading the discussions and participating. I know there are some in the community who echo your sentiment. There are others who, perhaps, also feel this way, but their concern for enforcing complete RAW and full combat logistics would put a burden on potential Pbp GMs. I will tell you straight up...I'm dedicated to PFS. I organize games and entire events as a volunteer. But, if I had to do everything the way some of you spell out on here, with a grid, etc...I would have to quit. And that's one less GM in a very small pool of PFS Pbp GMs.

My final thought....We need to work together to address the inherent chunkiness and challenges of Pbp, and the lack of logistics that CbD brings to the table. And that's going to mean thinking about rules and PFS guidelines in a different light. We need to be able to bend without breaking and have an open mind to different styles and approaches that have a healthy respect and sincere effort to implement as much of the RAW as the GM style and medium provides. This will encourage a new generation of Pbp GMs to help grow our favorite organized RPG to grow even further.

Dark Archive 4/5

The problem becomes that CbD is fine for some encounters in PFS, adequate for others, and useless for a certain subset (such as the last encounter in storming the diamond gate for example).

At a certain point for your players to experience the scenario in its fullest extent you will need to provide them with something so they can visualise whats going on around them and thus make a decision on what to do with the right information.

PbP is an extremely versitile system, the problem becomes sadly there are GM's that cause some of us to look poorly on PbP as a whole due to poor experiences, a lack of effort on the GM's behalf to at least try and give the players the best experience possible.

I mean I considered joining PbP myself a few times but then threads like the ones mentioned earlier crop up and I find out that PbP apparently hasnt changed in the last 5 years and thus apparently will still give me an inferior experience to playing in person.

Now this might not be true of every PbP game, hell your games might give a way better player experience than you imply by the way you post, but having ignored everyones advice on ways to incorperate visual aids into your games and the fact you just seem to be looking for people to approve of your methods I doubt it.

I am sure there are many PbP GM's who provide a very good experience to their players, but anytime I hear people complaining about how hard it is to give their players the best experience I wonder why they volunteered in the first place to judge, by doing so you imply you seek to provide your players the best experience you can, maybe its not perfect but you should seek to improve it every time, not look for ways to reduce the player experience.

If you want validation for the way you are doing things you came to the wrong place, if you want suggestions for ways to incorperate simple visual aids that can improve the way you present your games feel free to ask people, there are many people who are quite willing to help out with this sort of thing.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Phillip Willis wrote:
You're cute. Really. :P I suppose any GM who rolls to see what PC a monster goes after (When there are multiple valid targets) is making new rules since that method isn't spelled out in the book.... and he is using that as a guideline to adjucate the table? If your answer to that is "Yes", then by your viewpoint, I would say, yes it's new rules....LOL. I call it addressing a logistical concern objectively.

Once again, we are not talking about other people's rules. We are not talking hypotheticals, we are talking about your table and your rules.

Your continued attempts to focus the conversation away from that fact does not help your case.

Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

sveden wrote:
Your continued attempts to focus the conversation away from that fact does not help your case.

Actually, I think it's great that some of us are trying to focus the conversation away from an argument about whether doing something like this is a good idea or not, and into a constructive effort to address how *best* to make Combat by Description work in a PFS environment.

Let's try to focus on the positive here, people! :-)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Xzaral wrote:
I'm not certain I understand why it's easier and smoother without a battlemat?

"pbp" == "Play By Post"

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holy necro, Batman!

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PFS Play by Post...without a battlemat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society