|
Is there away to GM organized play without all the paper work, using modules and/or adventure paths?
I don't like pre-gen modules or adventures. I only like GMing on the fly.
I don't want to do paper work or keep track of id#'s.
Don't like point buy systems. I only like real dice rolling up of characters.
Some friends of mine I have been GMing official PFS at local game store have encouraged me to get involved more into this.
However, with all this paper work and modules and point buy and online character generators my fun of GMing has dropped to zero.
I'm an old school pencil and paper and real dice and real books GM. Been GMing for 35+ years.
I really like Pathfinder 3.5 RPG as a game system.
Perhaps you could talk to people and try to start a non-PFS home game of Pathfinder, since that sounds more in line with how you want to GM.
Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.
I think that, from here is the closest you will get as part of PFS play.
|
Organized Play is not for everyone.
Much of this admin and point buy is to keep everyone on a level playing field.
I encourage you to play/use PFRPG and the Adventure Paths and play your own homebrew games with your house rules. You can then apply PFS credit when you play a sanctioned AP even as a home game to your or your players characters.
While not an optimal solution it does present a good compromise.
The "play an AP for PFS credit" rules are only important if the players are actually interested in PFS. There's no reason to bother with the paperwork otherwise.
|
|
I think that, from here is the closest you will get as part of PFS play.
Thanks. That blog you listed read like bunch of lawyers' contracts. I guess I'll just have to tell the store and guys if they want official PFS sessions, have to count me out.
To bad Paizo just doesn't let us have fun with it and still get credit for it.
|
|
I don't like pre-gen modules or adventures. I only like GMing on the fly.
I don't want to do paper work or keep track of id#'s.
Don't like point buy systems. I only like real dice rolling up of characters.
You seem to dislike the things that differentiate organized play from regular play.
There is a very straightforward solution to this.
What parts of organized play do you like?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To bad Paizo just doesn't let us have fun with it and still get credit for it.
It's the nature of organized play on an international scale. How can you ensure that everyone is having a fair and balanced play experience if you don't use point buy, and track what they've played, and what their current wealth and items are?
Without all this paperwork you decry, there would be no sense to calling it a campaign -- I understand your desire for a campaign where you play by whatever rules you want, but no organized play campaign has ever allowed this, since the very first one: Living City.
The are variations in the rules and tracking methods, but not in the grand scale. Some campaigns used log sheets with multiple adventures on one, others use a single sheet per adventure. Some used paper certificates to represent each item in the campaign, others just require you to track what you purchase with the gold you acquire.
As stated previously stated, organized play is not for everyone. But blaming Paizo for continuing in the decades-old tradition of organized play, of offering that as an option... well, when I put it that way? Yeah, I'll blame them. Good thing, too, because some of us love organized play and being able to take our characters across the country to sit down at a table of complete strangers and still be playing by the same rules, in the same world.
|
|
I don't like pre-gen modules or adventures. I only like GMing on the fly.
I don't want to do paper work or keep track of id#'s.
Don't like point buy systems. I only like real dice rolling up of characters.
You seem to dislike the things that differentiate organized play from regular play.
There is a very straightforward solution to this.
Yes, don't GM organized play. But, some of the players I am GMing with Official PFS modules now want the points and such.
|
|
Yes, don't GM organized play. But, some of the players I am GMing with Official PFS modules now want the points and such.
Well, then, you have a choice.
Of course, you could follow the suggestion listed earlier, which allows you to do whatever you want with very minimal paperwork and still get your players credit. But then, you complained that the post explaining it "read like a bunch of lawyer's contracts." If you want to do absolutely no paperwork whatsoever, you're just plain old out of luck when it comes to Organized Play, where the key word is "Organized."
|
|
1st thanks all for their comments and suggestions.
2nd I apologize if I have offended anyone. That's was not my intent. Sorry.
The number one issue I have is pre-gen modules or adventures. There's little or no room to deviate from the set plot. When I am GMing an official PFS session, I feel very confined in what I can do as a GM. I am basically just reading a story to the players. Yes, I spice it up here and there. Use 3d terrain I have made or maps. Make the battles last a little longer or shorter depending on how the party is doing. Add in an interesting side NPC in their travels and such.
My imagination is going wild when I do this. Wish I could do this here or attack with this monster or it would be great if this happened now. Official play doesn't allow it.
If I had the leeway to do that, the other stuff I could do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2nd I apologize if I have offended anyone. That's was not my intent. Sorry.
If this is meant for me, I'll note that I'm not at all offended, I'm just trying to communicate that you're asking for organized play without all that pesky organization, which seems quite strange.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The number one issue I have is pre-gen modules or adventures. There's little or no room to deviate from the set plot. When I am GMing an official PFS session, I feel very confined in what I can do as a GM. I am basically just reading a story to the players. Yes, I spice it up here and there. Use 3d terrain I have made or maps. Make the battles last a little longer or shorter depending on how the party is doing. Add in an interesting side NPC in their travels and such.My imagination is going wild when I do this. Wish I could do this here or attack with this monster or it would be great if this happened now. Official play doesn't allow it.
If I had the leeway to do that, the other stuff I could do.
That is something I think all PFS GMs have had issues with, unfortunately.
The realization I came to is that in the realm of OP, we as GMs have to stick to the script so to speak. This is so that a player from Iowa and a player from Australia could get together and discuss scenarios and have generally the same play experience .. which brings all players w/in PFS together under a common umbrella.
That common umbrella is what OP is all about imo.
|
Organized play isn't for everyone, players and GMs alike. As both a player and GM I have some problems with it, mainly from a RP and continuity perspective, but I enjoy the tactical side and the social nature of the gatherings as well and my experience generally balances in favor of PFS.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with playing outside of PFS in your own campaign, no extra paperwork or any additional hassles for your or your players, and I'd say the majority of Pathfinder play that way. I was playing Pathfinder since right after the CRB was published, but didn't start playing PFS until last summer.
The number one issue I have is pre-gen modules or adventures. There's little or no room to deviate from the set plot. When I am GMing an official PFS session, I feel very confined in what I can do as a GM. I am basically just reading a story to the players. Yes, I spice it up here and there. Use 3d terrain I have made or maps. Make the battles last a little longer or shorter depending on how the party is doing. Add in an interesting side NPC in their travels and such.
My imagination is going wild when I do this. Wish I could do this here or attack with this monster or it would be great if this happened now. Official play doesn't allow it.
This here is the big one. In order to maintain a fair environment for all players, all players have to have the same experience, more or less. Play as written. If a group of level 4-5 character encounter monster X which attempt to do [action], then it's not appropriate for a different group of level 4-5 character to encounter monster Y or have monster X do something different. Not of those players are able to break up, mix groups, and play other scenarios.
A possible option to express yourself in the way you seem to describe is to write and submit your own scenarios to Paizo and hope they get published, then run them.
|
Dear Hohenstadt,
I know I am echoing the crowd here, but Sanctioned Society Play is not for everyone. There's no hard feelings if it's not for you and your creativity and we hope you have none towards us as well.
Now if bookkeeping is not your gig, I have to be the polite reminder and say that all campaigns have bookkeeping involved. You have to write the story, the encounters, the XP rewards, the treasure, the general dos and don'ts for players, build restrictions.. There's always going to be bookkeeping. PFS just did a lot of the work for us, but as a result we have a bigger paper trail. Not a bad or good thing, but a small food for thought.
Now you can use the society adventures since they do have CR ratings and XP payout so you can drop them into a campaign of your own making. But unfortunately, besides the little fun flavor, there's not much we can do to change the campaign. So if it's cramping your gaming style, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't game just cause it's the only game in town. There are many opportunities to still utilize Pathfinder as a game system and have a good time.
Also, Dust Raven did mention, that perhaps you should consider writing original adventures that allow you to have the creativity you desire as well. There are quite a lot of 3rd Party groups that have a lot of non-Society play adventures. Also, you can always host a Pathfinder game for those who may want to take a break from Society Play as well. I know a lot of players who mix it up between Society and non-Society and would like a GM who is open to both.
Regardless, the choice is yours, and we are happy to have you GM. But if it's not for you, then it is what it is. It's not the end of the world, and we know we are not going to win everyone, but at least you gave us a chance. I, as well as many of us appreciate you giving PFS a chance before making a personal judgement for yourself. So long as you are having fun, it's all good.
May Sarenrae's blessings be upon you,
Lady Ophelia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ironic part about exorcising your creativity to write your own PFS scenarios is that every other GM will have to run them exactly as you've written them. :)
The really ironic part is that if you exorcise your creativity you'll have no choice but to run things exactly as they are written.
|
|
Dear Hohenstadt,
Now if bookkeeping is not your gig, I have to be the polite reminder and say that all campaigns have bookkeeping involved. You have to write the story, the encounters, the XP rewards, the treasure, the general dos and don'ts for players, build restrictions.. There's always going to be bookkeeping. PFS just did a lot of the work for us, but as a result we have a bigger paper trail. Not a bad or good thing, but a small food for thought.
Thank you for your kind words and blessing.
In my home games. I do not write any story or any adventure or any encounters. It is all made up in my head as I go. No notes or writing of anything. I give what ever XP per session I deem appropriate. I rarely have any build restrictions at all. I make up treasure as I go also. The dos and don'ts I tell the players. I have zero bookkeeping. I do not plan anything ahead of time on paper, all in my head. I have run as many as 4 different RPGs a week keeping track of all of them without notes. The only item I have ever draw out ahead of time is several maps on graph paper. But, now I have so many drawn out over the years, I really don't need to do that now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason the folks behind the screen in PFS are called Judges instead of GMs. When you run an OP game, you give up a lot of control and flexibility. You have to run the mod as written, using the RAW, along with any clarifications or changes made by the actual GMs--the campaign coordinators.
It's certainly not for everyone. But there's still room for creativity. The mods are generally quite explicit on mechanics, as that's the only way to ensure that a given combat encounter remains roughly equivalent for any adventuring party. But the RP is usually quite open-ended, in many cases requiring a lot of preparation and/or improvisation on the part of the Judge.
I quite like it, but I don't begrudge anyone who finds it too restrictive.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
There's a reason the folks behind the screen in PFS are called Judges instead of GMs. When you run an OP game, you give up a lot of control and flexibility. You have to run the mod as written, using the RAW, along with any clarifications or changes made by the actual GMs--the campaign coordinators.
It's certainly not for everyone. But there's still room for creativity. The mods are generally quite explicit on mechanics, as that's the only way to ensure that a given combat encounter remains roughly equivalent for any adventuring party. But the RP is usually quite open-ended, in many cases requiring a lot of preparation and/or improvisation on the part of the Judge.
I quite like it, but I don't begrudge anyone who finds it too restrictive.
Actually, the Guide to Organized Play refers to them as Game Masters, as do all official documents. Judges are a forum term, as best as I can tell. Generally, the term is used to hammer home the point that scenarios should be ran strictly as written, a theme which occurs far less often in the official documents than it appears on these forums.
|
|
Actually, the Guide to Organized Play refers to them as Game Masters, as do all official documents. Judges are a forum term, as best as I can tell. Generally, the term is used to hammer home the point that scenarios should be ran strictly as written, a theme which occurs far less often in the official documents than it appears on these forums.There's a reason the folks behind the screen in PFS are called Judges instead of GMs. When you run an OP game, you give up a lot of control and flexibility. You have to run the mod as written, using the RAW, along with any clarifications or changes made by the actual GMs--the campaign coordinators.
It's certainly not for everyone. But there's still room for creativity. The mods are generally quite explicit on mechanics, as that's the only way to ensure that a given combat encounter remains roughly equivalent for any adventuring party. But the RP is usually quite open-ended, in many cases requiring a lot of preparation and/or improvisation on the part of the Judge.
I quite like it, but I don't begrudge anyone who finds it too restrictive.
Learn something new every day.
|
I'd have to say, given what you've already mentioned, that the whole organized play thing (it would apply equally to things like 4th Edition's Living Forgotten Realms or LPJ's Neo-Exodus Legacies, not just PFS) might not be a good fit for you; even if you had the support of your entire playerbase, you'd still have to have chronicle sheets printed out and filled for them- and that's not even getting to the part about "reporting" the results online (technically, it'd be simply inputting your playerbase's character numbers to an assigned database that you would have to create, if you're also acting as an organizer for those games). You might have a better result if you asked your PFS player members to handle the organizing/GMing/running stuff instead.
|
|
Yes, don't GM organized play. But, some of the players I am GMing with Official PFS modules now want the points and such.
Is this the only reason you want to participate in organized play?
Have them GM. Presuming you can enjoy playing in the campaign, which naturally takes away much of the issues you have, your players can earn their points (even the GM via GM credit) while you don't have to chafe under the organized rules. If the paperwork is still too much you can just play pregen characters and never worry about tracking your gear and gold.
|
|
Intriguingly I felt exactly the same as Hohenstadt during the last days of Living Greyhawk, when people asked me to run games. The written modules feel heavy, uninspiring, and are hard to get a grasp on. I always felt like I missed something crucial, the players had a bad time, or the story was bland. I actually experience one of those often when I run written scenarios.
Whenever I run a home campaign, I do not make any notes. I improvise on the go. That also gives room for the players to do practically anything they like, since I have no set line they need to walk on.
Eventually I grew to it, albeit slowly. A game once in a while, and then a long pause. Now it seems I'm the most active GM in Finland (at least by games run).
In fact, we did have a few campaigns that used a certain organized play set up, with a changing GM but episodic one-shot scenarios with some story driving the main plot forward. This is against what Paizonians would say, but creating your 'own' organized world with a loose set of rules can be very much fun. Pick a proper city for this campaign and have others involve as well, as GMs and so. One such campaign centered around Falcon'S Hollow in Golarion, the other in a non-canon city (Eagle's Ravine) in Lhazaar Principalities, Eberron.
|
|
Actually, the Guide to Organized Play refers to them as Game Masters, as do all official documents. Judges are a forum term, as best as I can tell. Generally, the term is used to hammer home the point that scenarios should be ran strictly as written, a theme which occurs far less often in the official documents than it appears on these forums.
This HOLY COW this. Thank you so much I thought I was the only one noticing that. A quote from the Offical Guide:
Depending on how you play with your home group, you may take your time playing through a scenario and allow PCs to follow up on interesting sideline details or personal goals of their characters as you see fit. However, the PCs never gain additional Prestige Points, experience, or gold beyond the limitations of the scenario’s Chronicle
sheet or the basic Pathfinder Society Organized Play rules.
Read "sideline details or personal goals". You can absolutely add stuff to an offical PFS scenario in home games, and personalize it. I truely believe the forum posters are more concened with following the letter of every rule than the Paizo staff is.
|
|
You're the GM. If you don't want to run a certain game, don't run it. I really think it's as simple as that.
I don't see any reason for the players to force you into a certain role for something they want. Yes, as a GM it's also your (partly) job to make sure everyone's having fun, but you need to have fun doing it as well.
Sanctioned APs are probably the best way, as you can run the Adventure Path however you want and people can get PFS credit. Pretty much the only thing you would ever have to fill out is chronicle sheets (and just get someone in your group to write down the PFS #'s and report the game, you don't have to deal with that at all really if you have a regular group).
|
|
I'm looking at this from another perspective, because it's such a strange question.
Hohenstadt, if it was up to you and you could set this up however you wanted, how would you do it?
A good compromise for me would be:
The modules of OP would just give a basic outline of the setting and the missions. Suggested NPCs and Monsters but not required to be used. The story and plot on how to accomplish the missions would be up to the GM. Prestige Point goals suggestions for factions.
I would still have the ability to GM on the fly a lot more than now.
Also, it was mentioned earlier that OP gives all players the same experience across the world. Why is that necessary? To me, that's like saying all of us have to have the exact same life experiences across the world. I look at each adventure or session should be an unique experience to the party at hand. As long as the XP and PP is all the same for each OP module, why should it matter if all do the exact same module as it is strictly written?
My thoughts on the matter. Hope I am explaining myself well enough.
|
|
Also, it was mentioned earlier that OP gives all players the same experience across the world. Why is that necessary? To me, that's like saying all of us have to have the exact same life experiences across the world. I look at each adventure or session should be an unique experience to the party at hand. As long as the XP and PP is all the same for each OP module, why should it matter if all do the exact same module as it is strictly written?
The short answer to "why is this necessary?" is this: you are, undoubtedly, out at one far end of the bell curve, as far as GMing experience, knowledge, creativity, and talent.
Most people who GM for PFS have not been doing it for nearly as long as you have, and a lot of them wind up GMing an adventure having not had much time to prepare it. Even if they were capable of extemporizing an adventure based on some guidelines, odds are high that most of them would stink at it.
Many GMs simply don't know or understand the rules particularly well. You'd have some GMs running utter cake-walk adventures, while other GMs would (intentionally or not) TPK every table they ray. You'd have GMs who would drastically change the storylines of the adventures -- something that would be just fine if they were running a home game, but not in an OP campaign, where the individual table GMs are *not* the ones in charge of those storyline decisions for the campaign.
|
|
Also, it was mentioned earlier that OP gives all players the same experience across the world. Why is that necessary? To me, that's like saying all of us have to have the exact same life experiences across the world. I look at each adventure or session should be an unique experience to the party at hand. As long as the XP and PP is all the same for each OP module, why should it matter if all do the exact same module as it is strictly written?
Because it is a shared world, and you will have players talking to other players about their experiences in it. Each session is unique to the players, but similar to others.
If one person says 'man, how did your team get past that gargoyle?' and the other players says 'You mean the golem?' while another is like 'What golem, we got trashed by demons' when talking about the same scenario, it no longer feels shared.
No one has the same experience seeing the Statue of Liberty despite it being the same for every person that visits. You don't need to change it to the Eiffel Tower just to make sure it's unique for the next person, which is what I view your suggestion as.
Edit: There is also the fact that each scenario is a piece of a larger story. If you are reading Lord of the Rings and suddenly find a chapter of Beowulf in the middle of it, no matter how good a chapter it might be you will still be confused.
|
|
Also, it was mentioned earlier that OP gives all players the same experience across the world. Why is that necessary? To me, that's like saying all of us have to have the exact same life experiences across the world. I look at each adventure or session should be an unique experience to the party at hand. As long as the XP and PP is all the same for each OP module, why should it matter if all do the exact same module as it is strictly written?Because it is a shared world, and you will have players talking to other players about their experiences in it. Each session is unique to the players, but similar to others.
If one person says 'man, how did your team get past that gargoyle?' and the other players says 'You mean the golem?' while another is like 'What golem, we got trashed by demons' when talking about the same scenario, it no longer feels shared.
No one has the same experience seeing the Statue of Liberty despite it being the same for every person that visits. You don't need to change it to the Eiffel Tower just to make sure it's unique for the next person, which is what I view your suggestion as.
Edit: This is also the fact that each scenario is a piece of a larger story. If you are reading Lord of the Rings and suddenly find a chapter of Beowulf in the middle of it, no matter how good a chapter it might be you will still be confused.
It's more than just that. It's a treasure balance issue as well. In organized play, everyone needs to get the same sheet so that someone doesn't show up with the +5 Holy Demon Bane Sword in a level 5 module. You laugh, but things like that COULD happen if there's no control over the rewards people receive.
I spent many years in a shared LARP universe that was world wide. There was NO standards for items, etc, and still aren't. Any discussions sounded like the current gun control fights I hear. But people would show up to other people's games with things that would totally ruin the game for everyone else.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
.
.
.
.
.
• You can tweak non-mechanical details to tailor the experience.
• You can (or rather, "should") have NPCs/monsters react to PC actions as befits their intelligence (or lack thereof) and motivation.
• You can adjudicate unclear rules or "corner cases".
On the other hand, you CANNOT:
• Alter stats
• Change which/how many enemies are in an encounter
• Modify ANYTHING in the rewards, except rarely reducing payout due to failing an encounter
• Knowingly change the rules of how something works (i.e., you can't decide that sneak attack should go back to the 3.5 version, or that Take 10 shouldn't be in the game, or that TWF shouldn't require a full-attack to use, etc.)
• Modify the DC of a skill check/save/whatever
• Change an enemy caster's spell list
• Add/remove/modify treasure found during the scenario
-----------------------
Think of it this way: campaign leadership reads the reviews people leave on scenarios' product pages, and uses that feedback to make even better scenarios in the future. If some of those reviews are based on your imagination instead of what was actually in the scenario, the feedback is useless - or worse: what if a scenario is pretty hard, but you softened it up for your group, and your players wrote reviews saying that it was either too easy or "just right"? What if a few more groups did the same? Now Paizo thinks scenarios need to get harder, and people are going to lose PCs.
Not everything will be that drastic, but hopefully you get the idea. :)
|
|
I don't recall ever seeing anyone on the PFS boards say (or imply) you couldn't spend extra time roleplaying when you're running the scenario without a time limit (such as at home).
I never said they did say or imply that.
Okay, let me approach this another way.
Would someone please tell me is there any room at all for any deviation or creativity on the GM part with Official Organized Play modules? If so, is it written some where? If there is room, how far? More treasure? Anything?
Yes, there is room for creativity, especially in the modules in a home game. You cannot change what's on a chronicle sheet (treasure, and XP) but what happens up until they get the sheet is largely up to you. If you want your players to follow up a side quest that has them killing 4 dragons, go for it. The only stipulations are that the success conditions in the module/scenario have to be met, and again, you can't change what's on the chronicle sheet. As far as where it says that, read my quote from the rules above.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I never said they did say or imply that.
I don't recall ever seeing anyone on the PFS boards say (or imply) you couldn't spend extra time roleplaying when you're running the scenario without a time limit (such as at home).
Guess I must've misunderstood you, then. :)
If you want your players to follow up a side quest that has them killing 4 dragons, go for it.
So you think the line in the Guide referring to "sideline details" includes adding extra encounters?
And I'm totally telling Smaug that you consider dragons to be "sideline details".
|
|
Yes, there is room for creativity, especially in the modules in a home game. You cannot change what's on a chronicle sheet (treasure, and XP) but what happens up until they get the sheet is largely up to you. If you want your players to follow up a side quest that has them killing 4 dragons, go for it. The only stipulations are that the success conditions in the module/scenario have to be met, and again, you can't change what's on the chronicle sheet. As far as where it says that, read my quote from the rules above.
emphasis is mine on this ... while I feel you are partially correct, I think you are doing this thread a gross disservice by implying that as PFS GMs we can randomly throw in a quest ... that is incorrect.
Jiggy had the right response as to where we have leeway and where we don't.
|
|
So you think the line in the Guide referring to "sideline details" includes adding extra encounters?
And I'm totally telling Smaug that you consider dragons to be "sideline details".
I do. I think as long as you don't change what's there, or what I call your success conditions (trap DC, Skill check DC's, enemy stat blocks, etc) you have a lot of room to move about. I would be less likely to do it with a scenario, but with a module, if the players get off on what was supposed to be a small distraction, and really get into it, I'd run with it. Heck an PFS sanctioned AP you need to be able to do things like this as it's typically in a much more open world. You have no idea how the players are going to react to the situation.
This is really what I was talking about before, not just minor forays into extended role-play but something like this.
And Smaug was a sideline detail, one shot from a longbow and it was "Side Quest" over.
EDIT: And to answer Fluffy, I may have taken my exaggeration too far with the 4 dragons, but it specifically says Personal Goals. This may sometimes mean adding encounters. Maybe not to the extent that I've implied, but I am talking about a home game, not a public one, as long as all players come in with eyes open...
|
|
So you think the line in the Guide referring to "sideline details" includes adding extra encounters?I do.Then you're wrong.
Mike Brock has made it abundantly clear that altering or adding monsters (among other things) is completely forbidden in PFS.
Are you sure?
I adjust encounters for my home group on the fly because I know what they can handle, and what I can add or take away to make an encounter a challenge.
And just to reiterate, I did say Home Game.
|
|
Mike was talking about a home campaign, not a home PFS session.
He was illustrating his reasoning for banning scenario alterations, not saying he adjusts scenario encounters on the fly.
He was also talking about scenarios where as I'm mostly talking about modules, he was also talking about a table of strangers and I'm talking about a home game... and that brings us back to my original premise.
|
|
He was also talking about scenarios where as I'm mostly talking about modules, he was also talking about a table of strangers and I'm talking about a home game... and that brings us back to my original premise.Mike was talking about a home campaign, not a home PFS session.
He was illustrating his reasoning for banning scenario alterations, not saying he adjusts scenario encounters on the fly.
If you're talking about modeules for home play that's one thing ... making the blanket statement and referencing PFS GMing that's another thing..
GMing for society play and credit has different requirements than a home game not for society credit ... it's as simple as that. Once cannot be construed a legal for another.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
He was also talking about scenarios where as I'm mostly talking about modules, he was also talking about a table of strangers and I'm talking about a home game... and that brings us back to my original premise.Mike was talking about a home campaign, not a home PFS session.
He was illustrating his reasoning for banning scenario alterations, not saying he adjusts scenario encounters on the fly.
The point you missed is that the home game Mike Brock was discussing, where he is adjusting encounters, is not being run for PFS credit.
If you are running a PFS scenario (or sanctioned module) for PFS credit then you run it basically as written as far as mechanics and monsters go.
|
|
Hi all and thank you for all your comments, suggestions and help. All have been informative and kind to an old school, crusty GM. Making characters on stone tablets was a real pain.
After 3 more or so sessions of PFS OP GMing, I'm gonna get someone else to do it. If not, I'll just switch over to my style of GMing and give up on OP. It is just not for me. I will still use the Pathfinder 3.5 books and products, as I like the system.
I have about 800+ rpg books that I have read and used and draw from. To limit me to just a very narrow module goes against my nature.
Thanks all..............