|
Sir are you aware that you aren't drinking regular coffee but Colombian Decaffeinated crystals?
What?
I said you are drinking Colombian Decaffeinated Crystals.
*looks down in horror and anger*
Why you son of a &*(*&! You no good son of a &&#&$!
*begins rampage*
You lied to me! You lied to me!
*throws pies at elderly couple*
*begins breaking plates*
As God as my witness I'll get you!
that is only a valid response where coffee is concerned. although i commend you on your mild reaction to such a horrific offense. i would have been much more violent.
|
|
Sir are you aware that you aren't drinking regular coffee but Colombian Decaffeinated crystals?
What?
I said you are drinking Colombian Decaffeinated Crystals.
*looks down in horror and anger*
Why you son of a &*(*&! You no good son of a &&#&$!
*begins rampage*
You lied to me! You lied to me!
*throws pies at elderly couple*
*begins breaking plates*
As God as my witness I'll get you!
Oh please like you'd have the energy after drinking decaf
|
Admittedly I am also annoyed by the existence of optional encounters. For basically the exact same reason. Some people just have one less encounter in their adventures (and there for use fewer resources) because they as a group play slower.
I agree with your frustration with optional encounters! As player I want to play the optional encounters because, hopefully, they add to the challenge (although this hasn't been my experience) or at least add an opportunity to role-play (this HAS been my experience). As a DM I want to run the optional encounters because it gives me another opportunity to challenge my players and gives me another opportunity to give them a memorable and fun experience.
I feel that when the optional encounters are removed as a player I've been cheated... particularly if there has been considerable time wasted due to players showing up late/starting late/unprepared players/wasting lots of time looking up rules/out of character conversations about other gaming systems.
As a GM i've managed to include the optional encounters in 3is of the 4ish scenarios I've run.
|
|
My position is similar to you being invited to a friend's house for some burgers on the grill. You know him to be a good grillmaster and the food is excellent as usual. However, afterwards, he notifies you the meat was not beef as you assumed, it was an all-vegetable, meat-like substitute. Perhaps you had even poked fun at such a food product in the past.
Now, the fact that you enjoyed the meal should not be lessened by the revelation that he had deviated from the "script," that being beef burgers. Prior to the knowledge, you enjoyed it just the same, so what's the problem? Of course, this is a hypothetical so all things must be equal, meaning no food allergies or other unrelated, outside issues that would make the "deception" a health hazard.
Sorry but I imagined the hilarity of a reverse scenario where the "excellent hamburgers" were advertized as all-vegetable patties... everyone (yes even the carnivores) enjoyed them. Then the vegetarian was mislead into thinking the grillmaster had lied and they were actually beef. The vegetarian goes off on the previously mentioned coffee related rampage only to be told afterwards that it was a joke and they were _in fact_ veggie burgers.
|
Admittedly I am also annoyed by the existence of optional encounters. For basically the exact same reason. Some people just have one less encounter in their adventures (and there for use fewer resources) because they as a group play slower.
I agree with your frustration with optional encounters! As player I want to play the optional encounters because, hopefully, they add to the challenge (although this hasn't been my experience) or at least add an opportunity to role-play (this HAS been my experience). As a DM I want to run the optional encounters because it gives me another opportunity to challenge my players and gives me another opportunity to give them a memorable and fun experience.
I feel that when the optional encounters are removed as a player I've been cheated... particularly if there has been considerable time wasted due to players showing up late/starting late/unprepared players/wasting lots of time looking up rules/out of character conversations about other gaming systems.
As a GM i've managed to include the optional encounters in 3is of the 4ish scenarios I've run.
Sorry, I know of at least one scenario where, whenever possible, I prefer to skip the optional encounter. It ain't fun, it doesn't encourage much, if any, RP, all it does is waste already scant PC resources.
That optional encounter is just ... ugh.
Roll X Acrobatics checks.
Roll Y Reflex saves, one for each of the Acrobatics checks you missed.
Roll Z Fortitude saves, one for each of the Reflex saves you missed.
GM rolls Y percentile rolles.
GM rolls approximately Y/2 d3s, and talls you how much stat damage you take, and lets you know that you are diseased, If (when?) you miss any one of the Z Fortitude saves.
And, at the end of the scenario, you, and each of the other players, spends 1 of your few PP and hopes that 1d20+5 roll beats the save DC of the disease, or spends another PP or some of the already scant gold to try again.
Fun? Yeah, right.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
If I got a reward for doing something well, for playing the best that I could, for having spent hours of my hobby life investing in building a PC up to be "just great" - I think it would spoil it a bit for me if I found that this other GM just gave out the same reward for no effort to his entire table.I don't have a comment on the wrong or right of what Lou did (though I would be pissed if a GM did that and I died). But, I want to chime in here. There is no question that for me, knowing that there are GM's soft-balling encounters undermines the game for me. It's a subtle thing, but it's palpable It is the aspect of organized play that makes me want to play Pathfinder. The idea that I am taking on the same challenge as thousands or maybe tens of thousands of other players has value.
I could not agree with Jiggy more when he states that GMs in organized play need to look beyond their tables and understand their impact on PFS as a whole. Paizo put the work into PF to make it fun. PFS does not need GMs trying to second guess the rules and scenarios because think they know best. The game is already fun.
And we're back to this again.
NN, over the last few months, I've grown to realize that the problem isn't so much the difficulty of the scenarios as it is the spikiness of some of the scenarios. This is most visible in Tier 1-7 games that were designed for levels 3-7 and had a Tier 1-2 tacked on. For a level 1 table, an X4 crit or a magus crit is unreasonable. Why? Because it has the potential to bring a character from full HP to dead on a single hit, even if the player did nothing wrong. That's not fun. Actions should have consequences in RPGs, and your choices should matter above and beyond the roll of the dice.
Now, that being said, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any fudging or any softballing after level 5. Why? Because at that point, the PCs can survive a crit, and they can take much more than they can at low levels. If a PC death at low levels is due to their own incompetence, that's another issue.
The key thing to remember is that, at the end of the day, this is a game. Games should be fun. We're not dealing with laws here, we're dealing with entertainment. If a game is not fun, if a game is not enjoyable, then it is simply not worth playing.
Where I have played a few sessions in earlier seasons, most of my experience has been in seasons 3 and 4. I’ve learned not to play up as it can be very deadly.
In a recent scenario, we went against a
Edit: I take that back, we couldn’t even overcome the high damage if the DM played the creature to it’s fullest. He chose not to
So with newer seasons, I will echo other people’s sentiments in it’s better to play down.
|
|
If I got a reward for doing something well, for playing the best that I could, for having spent hours of my hobby life investing in building a PC up to be "just great" - I think it would spoil it a bit for me if I found that this other GM just gave out the same reward for no effort to his entire table.I don't have a comment on the wrong or right of what Lou did (though I would be pissed if a GM did that and I died). But, I want to chime in here. There is no question that for me, knowing that there are GM's soft-balling encounters undermines the game for me. It's a subtle thing, but it's palpable It is the aspect of organized play that makes me want to play Pathfinder. The idea that I am taking on the same challenge as thousands or maybe tens of thousands of other players has value.
I could not agree with Jiggy more when he states that GMs in organized play need to look beyond their tables and understand their impact on PFS as a whole. Paizo put the work into PF to make it fun. PFS does not need GMs trying to second guess the rules and scenarios because think they know best. The game is already fun.
And we're back to this again.
NN, over the last few months, I've grown to realize that the problem isn't so much the difficulty of the scenarios as it is the spikiness of some of the scenarios. This is most visible in Tier 1-7 games that were designed for levels 3-7 and had a Tier 1-2 tacked on. For a level 1 table, an X4 crit or a magus crit is unreasonable. Why? Because it has the potential to bring a character from full HP to dead on a single hit, even if the player did nothing wrong. That's not fun. Actions should have consequences in RPGs, and your choices should matter above and beyond the roll of the dice.
I agree with you, but if it's in the scenario, MJM need to know that this is bad, and they won't find out just how much the scenario is ridiculous if some of the GMs hide the problems from them by fudging for the more fun result.
Sometimes, very not-fun things happen--last Saturday, we were playing Accursed Halls at my home group, trying to get some low level characters up high enough to participate in Way of the Kirin and Rivalry's End. Well, we had some "fun" there--
And it wouldn't just have been her, either--it would have been a TPK if not for four facts--
1) We had a 6 player table, and Thornkeep is the same for any table size.
2) The summoner and the fighter were level 2
3) The wight, which was going to attack and possibly instakill me, got a 1 on initiative
4) In terms of the summoner coming back as spawn, I had heard of how ridiculous Thornkeep was and brought a ridiculous sorcerer character along (the idea was to rebuild into something less cheesy after Thornkeep, but at least I could protect people), using only cantrips to let the party shine unless we were fighting something insane (wound up spending all my slots on the two shadows). Afterwards the GM thanked me.
If the GM had fudged the one horrible moment in the Spoiler block, then due to extreme initiative luck and hit point parity (like the fighter getting knocked to exactly 1 hp), we would have gotten out with everyone alive, and we wouldn't have really been able to give as good of an indication of how ridiculous that floor is (should have been a 1-3, no question).
As it is, the summoner's player will probably have to play Way of the Kirin and Rivalry's End with a pregen instead of her own character, unless we manage to sneak in a First Steps marathon.
|
|
Edit: I take that back, we couldn’t even overcome the high damage if the DM played the creature to it’s fullest. He chose not to ** spoiler omitted **Many here know of which scenario you speak. As an FYI, your GM is not suppose to play the creature to its fullest. In fact, there are specific tactics written about what it will do when. But yes, if GMs were given free hand in using all of that creature's abilities, there would be many more TPK's. That's why it's so important for GMs to follow the rules as written.
It depends--they may have triggered its clause to use full power (certainly possible--my group did), and the GM may have decided to just hold back anyway. I threw full power at my guys when the tactics said I should--they had Kyra and a Kyraesque cleric, so they had no problem, but I'm certain they would have TPKed if they had no way to area heal.
|
|
*reads above, decides to ignore debate in favor of the original question*
Last weekend our other tables were full (or so I remember). I had a first level cleric with me; the rest of our party were mostly level 4s, a 3, and a 5 if I recall aright. So I had no choice in whether or not I played up if I wanted to do anything at all that night. Thankfully it was first season, not fourth season (PFS0-06, Black Waters). Moreover, I was the only one in the party who could heal, use Detect Magic, etc.; and a whip (CG cleric of Calistria) is a wonderful thing for trips against mid-range beasties. But I shudder to think of how quickly I would have died in the season 4s I've played.
Had the module been Season 4, I am not sure if I would have gone home or not. I am glad that we have decent numbers of players locally; I can envision smaller groups failing to make tables when faced with such dilemmas (there are people who walk instead of playing pre-gens; I know several such).
I want risk. And I don't mind dying again and again in a shooter on a console. But I have no great desire to bring my PFS characters to certain death just because the luck of the draw and the table makeup has me playing up. :)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I agree with you, but if it's in the scenario, MJM need to know that this is bad, and they won't find out just how much the scenario is ridiculous if some of the GMs hide the problems...If I got a reward for doing something well, for playing the best that I could, for having spent hours of my hobby life investing in building a PC up to be "just great" - I think it would spoil it a bit for me if I found that this other GM just gave out the same reward for no effort to his entire table.I don't have a comment on the wrong or right of what Lou did (though I would be pissed if a GM did that and I died). But, I want to chime in here. There is no question that for me, knowing that there are GM's soft-balling encounters undermines the game for me. It's a subtle thing, but it's palpable It is the aspect of organized play that makes me want to play Pathfinder. The idea that I am taking on the same challenge as thousands or maybe tens of thousands of other players has value.
I could not agree with Jiggy more when he states that GMs in organized play need to look beyond their tables and understand their impact on PFS as a whole. Paizo put the work into PF to make it fun. PFS does not need GMs trying to second guess the rules and scenarios because think they know best. The game is already fun.
And we're back to this again.
NN, over the last few months, I've grown to realize that the problem isn't so much the difficulty of the scenarios as it is the spikiness of some of the scenarios. This is most visible in Tier 1-7 games that were designed for levels 3-7 and had a Tier 1-2 tacked on. For a level 1 table, an X4 crit or a magus crit is unreasonable. Why? Because it has the potential to bring a character from full HP to dead on a single hit, even if the player did nothing wrong. That's not fun. Actions should have consequences in RPGs, and your choices should matter above and beyond the roll of the dice.
Respectfully, the developers KNOW that these scenarios are problematic. It's always the same list, over and over again - Dalsine Affair and First Steps 1 being the most obvious examples. If the devs need to know whether something is too lethal or not, the best source for that information is the reviews, which is why I attempt to review every single scenario that I run. I'm a bit behind, though.
NN959: As I have stated in other threads, die fudging is explicitly allowed by the rules. The GtOP states that the campaign does not advocate it. By RAW, that means that it's allowed, but that they don't recommend using it if other, less obtrusive means are available.
Again, I find the urge to jump to "Play something other than PFS!" to be rather troubling. That's not the way to grow a campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The key thing to remember is that, at the end of the day, this is a game. Games should be fun. We're not dealing with laws here, we're dealing with entertainment. If a game is not fun, if a game is not enjoyable, then it is simply not worth playing.
It's funny, this is very often used (not quite sure whether *you* are using it this way, so don't take this as an accusation) as a way to set up a "choice" between rules and fun, suggesting that following the rules too consistently inhibits fun and is indicative of the rule-follower having forgotten that it's a game that we play for fun.
Which usually leaves me wondering whether the writer of such a sentiment has ever played a non-RPG game with strangers in an organized type of setting.
I'm not even trying to compare to professional or collegiate sports, where there could be money or other things on the line. I'm talking little-league tee-ball, student-run chess clubs, stuff like that. No money on the line, no scholarships to think about, just an organized system used for people who love a game to meet and play with other people who also love the same game so they can have fun together in a shared experience.
You know, kind of like PFS.
If I was letting a chess player take back moves or invent new ones during an "official" match because it made that newbie player's experience "more fun"; or if I made lenient calls or fudged the score of a less experienced tee-ball team (or even let goofy not-relevant-to-outcome illegalities go) because it enhanced the fun of folks in that particular game/match? People (even people not involved in that game!) would be upset about the liberties I was taking.
And if I responded with a statement like "The key thing to remember is that, at the end of the day, this is a game. Games should be fun. We're not dealing with laws here, we're dealing with entertainment. If a game is not fun, if a game is not enjoyable, then it is simply not worth playing."?
At best I'd be a laughingstock; more likely I'd never be allowed a position of any authority again, and quite possibly expelled from that organized play environment.
A parent throwing a ball around with their kid in the back yard doesn't need to follow *any* rules. Heck, just getting some buddies together for some ball in the park is going to be baseball-esque, but still has room for playful screwing around for fun. But as soon as that same parent steps into the umpire position in a league/other organized game, they've got to switch gears and call things fair and by the book. Anyone who can't make that switch is going to be gone, and fast.
All the usual retorts ("games are for fun", "not an MMO/have a human for a reason", "my own players' fun trumps rules", etc) could just as easily apply to other organized gaming/sports, but would never fly.
So why do people seem to think RPGs are so different?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
The key thing to remember is that, at the end of the day, this is a game. Games should be fun. We're not dealing with laws here, we're dealing with entertainment. If a game is not fun, if a game is not enjoyable, then it is simply not worth playing.It's funny, this is very often used (not quite sure whether *you* are using it this way, so don't take this as an accusation) as a way to set up a "choice" between rules and fun, suggesting that following the rules too consistently inhibits fun and is indicative of the rule-follower having forgotten that it's a game that we play for fun.
Which usually leaves me wondering whether the writer of such a sentiment has ever played a non-RPG game with strangers in an organized type of setting.
I'm not even trying to compare to professional or collegiate sports, where there could be money or other things on the line. I'm talking little-league tee-ball, student-run chess clubs, stuff like that. No money on the line, no scholarships to think about, just an organized system used for people who love a game to meet and play with other people who also love the same game so they can have fun together in a shared experience.
You know, kind of like PFS.
If I was letting a chess player take back moves or invent new ones during an "official" match because it made that newbie player's experience "more fun"; or if I made lenient calls or fudged the score of a less experienced tee-ball team (or even let goofy not-relevant-to-outcome illegalities go) because it enhanced the fun of folks in that particular game/match? People (even people not involved in that game!) would be upset about the liberties I was taking.
And if I responded with a statement like "The key thing to remember is that, at the end of the day, this is a game. Games should be fun. We're not dealing with laws here, we're dealing with entertainment. If a game is not fun, if a game is not enjoyable, then it is simply not worth playing."?
At best I'd be a...
There are some differences between what you're suggesting and what I'm saying. FIrst, fudging dice rolls, softballing tactics, etc, are explicitly allowed and contemplated in the rules. The CRB also features the First Rule, which is to not get so tied up in rules that you lose the fun of it all.
There are two primary differences between the situations that you describe and the one that I am advocating. First of all, the games that you are describing are competitive, zero-sum games. Somebody wins, somebody loses. These tournaments are tests of one players' skill versus another's. RPGs aren't like that. If this were one of those games like the early D&D tournament games where you were challenged to see who could get the furthest in a dungeon, then the comparison would be apt, but this is not that sort of a situation. Second, the games that you mention generally feature a low amount of randomness. Tournament games involving games with high levels of randomness rarely happen, because the winner is generally somebody lucky, not somebody skilled. Likewise, PFS can be swingy. We want to encourage solid, tactical play, not reliance on hot or cold dice. For that reason, I'm perfectly willing to kill off a PC who has made a mistake, but I am unwilling to one-shot a level 1 who has made no conscious decision that led to such a death.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
NN959: As I have stated in other threads, die fudging is explicitly allowed by the rules. The GtOP states that the campaign does not advocate it. By RAW, that means that it's allowed, but that they don't recommend using it if other, less obtrusive means are available.
You have stated this repeatedly, that's true. I have no doubt that this is your position.
I think you're stretching the wording beyond what it says. "I don't advocate you doing that" means, in plain language, I don't want you to do that.
If you think it "explicitly allows" dice fudging, I don't think explicitly means what you think it means. If you think the rules-as-written allow it, I don't think the "rules as written" mean what you think they mean.
You think the rules implicitly allow dice fudging, that the campaign developers intend GM to change the rolls as they see fit, to provide a better, more exciting game for the players. I disagree with that position, but there's an argument wirth addressing there.
(Your best reference is in the GM 101 document, by the way, not the Guide. To the extent that the GM 101 document is official advice from the campaign leadership, it supports your position.)
But if you think that the Guide spells out, explicitly, "go ahead and ignore the dice whenever you want." If you think the written game rules approve of that, you're overstating your position, and I consider you simply wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Netopalis: "Explicit" is when something actually states X, not when it technically fails to contradict X.
PFS fails to outright state "don't fudge dice", but also fails to outright state "fudging dice is okay". To take that symmetrical fact and say that the latter is explicit is no different than saying that the former is explicit - either claim is untrue.
When the Guide's *only* statement about dice-fudging is that they don't advocate it, that is NOT explicitly allowing it. You can look at the lack of an explicit ban and interpret that it's legal, but it's not explicit.
The important differences are that:
1) You have to own your interpretation; your stance is yours, not the Guide's.
2) You therefore could be wrong.
3) Other people could interpret the same passage differently.
4) Those people could be right.
Don't hide behind the Guide by claiming it says things it doesn't say. Man up and own the conclusions you've decided to make. Don't pretend someone else said it so that you don't have to face disagreement from others.
|
@Netopalis: "Explicit" is when something actually states X, not when it technically fails to contradict X.
PFS fails to outright state "don't fudge dice", but also fails to outright state "fudging dice is okay". To take that symmetrical fact and say that the latter is explicit is no different than saying that the former is explicit - either claim is untrue.
When the Guide's *only* statement about dice-fudging is that they don't advocate it, that is NOT explicitly allowing it. You can look at the lack of an explicit ban and interpret that it's legal, but it's not explicit.
The important differences are that:
1) You have to own your interpretation; your stance is yours, not the Guide's.
2) You therefore could be wrong.
3) Other people could interpret the same passage differently.
4) Those people could be right.Don't hide behind the Guide by claiming it says things it doesn't say. Man up and own the conclusions you've decided to make. Don't pretend someone else said it so that you don't have to face disagreement from others.
We <3 you Jiggy. That doesn't get said to you enough!
To cement his logic, I will add that the guide also doesn't say "One player may not take another player's character sheet and chew off each corner with their teeth." Rules are written to accommodate common sense - not to override it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I should clarify. The CRB explicitly allows fudging, which is a position not contradicted by the GtOP. When a CRB rule is not contradicted by the GtOP, then it is a valid rule, and should be run as written. Ergo, fudging dice rolls is acceptable under RAW. I don't think it says to go ahead and ignore the dice whenever you want, but I do think it authorizes a GM to not crit if it would increase the table's enjoyment and if the player hasn't done anything wrong thus far. I just don't see any logical way that an enemy should be able to deal 60 damage to a level 1 character when that level 1 character has no opportunity to respond and react. That can't be what's intended.
As for the word advocate, it just means suggest, support or encourage. The GtOP doesn't encourage you to fudge dice rolls. That's fine. You can still do it. I don't encourage you to go play in traffic while downing three bottles of laxative, but you are free to do it.
Finally, in regards to NN959, I'm sorry, but you're never going to find a quantifiable definition of fun. It's just not going to happen. This also has nothing to do with me imposing my will; I am simply speaking out for a position which is widely supported but not often advocated on these boards, in part for fear of reactions like the ones that I am currently receiving. It's also not just me that thinks that the occasional fudge is necessary for fun - Gary Gygax contemplated it in "Role Playing Game Mastery", it is suggested as a GM action in the Core Rulebook, James Jacobs has personally told me that he feels that it is acceptable at low levels and most Venture Officers and 5-star GMs that I have spoken to in person say that it is acceptable. These people all have far, far more experience with RPGs and PFS than you or I will ever have. I take their experience without requiring scientific proof, in large part because this is art, not science.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
@Netopalis: "Explicit" is when something actually states X, not when it technically fails to contradict X.
PFS fails to outright state "don't fudge dice", but also fails to outright state "fudging dice is okay". To take that symmetrical fact and say that the latter is explicit is no different than saying that the former is explicit - either claim is untrue.
When the Guide's *only* statement about dice-fudging is that they don't advocate it, that is NOT explicitly allowing it. You can look at the lack of an explicit ban and interpret that it's legal, but it's not explicit.
The important differences are that:
1) You have to own your interpretation; your stance is yours, not the Guide's.
2) You therefore could be wrong.
3) Other people could interpret the same passage differently.
4) Those people could be right.Don't hide behind the Guide by claiming it says things it doesn't say. Man up and own the conclusions you've decided to make. Don't pretend someone else said it so that you don't have to face disagreement from others.
We <3 you Jiggy. That doesn't get said to you enough!
To cement his logic, I will add that the guide also doesn't say "One player may not take another player's character sheet and chew off each corner with their teeth." Rules are written to accommodate common sense - not to override it.
I agree, rules should be interpreted through the lens of common sense. So, let me give you a situation. You have a new player at the table who has never played RPGs before. That being said, they are really getting into their character and are thoroughly enjoying voice acting them, reacting to game world events, etc. You are rolling behind a screen. A magus rolls an 18 on the die, while invisible, which makes the opponent flatfooted. A successful crit will kill the PC by dealing about 30-50 damage. You have three options: 1) Confirm the crit [and a die roll of anything higher than about 5 will confirm], 2) Say that you are rolling to confirm then say that it doesn't confirm, even if it does, or 3) Just say that the attack hits without commenting on whether it's a crit or not. What does common sense dictate here? Nobody will ever know your choice. Nobody other than you.
|
"Never play up" is horrible advice. There are many circumstances where playing up is the right thing to do.
If your APL is 5.1 and you don't have a quality front line guy, yeah, I'd avoid playing up. But if your APL is 5.85 and you have solid characters in critical party roles, you are probably just fine. We played Way of the Kirin up with an APL of 5.85 and did just fine. To make this call, though, you have to have a certain level of system mastery and understand what everyone else is bringing to the table.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Netopalis - Now you're saying "I came to this conclusion because of evidence X, Y and Z". Much better. :)
EDIT: Ninja'd. Netopalis, I'm not going to answer your question about that crit, or in any way tell you whether or not I feel that dice fudging is appropriate or allowed. I'm not interested in getting people to adopt my view of the legality/illegality of dice fudging; I'm interested in people considering their views carefully, objectively and with intellectual honesty/emotional ownership. And that process usually stops as soon as everyone can be categorized as being for or against a given topic.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
One point that I would like to make is that there is a significant difference between altering a stat block and fudging. A stat block's modifier is something you apply every time, while a fudge is something that might happen once every four games. One of them changes the character of an encounter, the other is just a mild break given by the GM when something ridiculous happens.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I'll let fudging die rolls slide all day long in exchange for consistent application of lighting rules, skill effects, and spell effects. The table variation of say, stealth skill, is nuts. Some tables, its practically invisibility, other tables its almost useless.
Agreed. If we're going to make a push for RAW, this is the area where it needs to happen, and an area where I think we could all stand to brush up on our skills. Myself and some other GMs at Origins had a long discussion on how Stealth interacts with Sneak Attack, and we came to the conclusion that, although the strictest interpretation of the rules results in one reading, tradition, scenario tactics, skill descriptions, etc, clearly show a different result. The lighting document on these forums helps, but some sort of unofficial document available in PDF form that could be a quick and dirty guide for PFS GMs would go a long way to improving things all around.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Finally, in regards to NN959, I'm sorry, but you're never going to find a quantifiable definition of fun. It's just not going to happen.That's 100% correct. Which is why the constant justification by GMs for setting aside the rule in the interest of "fun" is so problematic. I don't need a GM to decide which rules are fun and which ones aren't. I need a GM to play the rules as written. I am playing PFS because I think the rules as written are fun.
It's also not just me that thinks that the occasional fudge is necessary for fun - Gary Gygax contemplated it in "Role Playing Game Mastery"Was Gary Gygax talking about Organized Play?
In any event, I'm not going to get into the dice fudging discussion. I chimed in to agree with Jiggy and nosig that when I hear about games where GMs gave out free passes or my GM screwed me over, it undermines my enjoyment of the game. Organized Play is a zero sum game. Not on the same level as PvP or team sports, but a lack of consistency in things that should be consistent undermines the value of organized play games.
Uh, in no way are RPGs or OP a zero sum game. A zero sum game is a game like Poker, where one player winning something means that it is taken from another player. A zero sum game is defined by the fact that somebody will win, somebody will lose, and that not all players will have the ability to receive the same reward. That is not the case in PFS. My characters winning ~500 gp in Severing Ties in West Virginia does not decrease the ~500 gp that your party will receive in another state. Likewise, if I GM a TPK and nobody gets any gold, your players' income is not increased.
|
|
I was at a table at Origins where a GM was allowing NPCs to stealth in rooms with no cover of any kind.
I observed a table at Origins where a GM made a judgment call in direct contradiction of the rules FAQ concerning acrobatics.
I was at a table at Origins where a GM completely misplayed how daylight interacts with darkness
I was at a table at Origins where a GM completely misplayed a pattern spell versus a blindfolded PC.
I observed a table at Origins where a GM was adding a critter's defensive ability damage onto all of its attacks as well. That adjusts the effective CR of the encounter up a non-trivial amount.
So, yeah, I'm not going to worry about fudging die rolls until this other stuff is no longer a problem. I posted in another thread that when I GM, I prefer to be stopped as soon as I make a mistake, but this does not seem to be the preferred method in general for PFS. So I just bit my tongue on the above issues, even though one resulted in a PC death.
I'm not aware of the stealth interacting with sneaking attack issue, but I'm sure that one will come up as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, let me give you a situation. You have a new player at the table who has never played RPGs before. That being said, they are really getting into their character and are thoroughly enjoying voice acting them, reacting to game world events, etc. You are rolling behind a screen. A magus rolls an 18 on the die, while invisible, which makes the opponent flatfooted. A successful crit will kill the PC by dealing about 30-50 damage. You have three options: 1) Confirm the crit [and a die roll of anything higher than about 5 will confirm], 2) Say that you are rolling to confirm then say that it doesn't confirm, even if it does, or 3) Just say that the attack hits without commenting on whether it's a crit or not. What does common sense dictate here? Nobody will ever know your choice. Nobody other than you.
Well, what would your answer be if
(a) I was the guy with a 1st-level character, my 9th in PFS?(b) the player did not seem to be having quite enough fun so far?
(c) you roll in the open?
If you say that the rapier has a crit threat range of 18-20 for me, but somehow can't even threeaten a critical against him, I don't think that's cool.
To my viewpoint, there's a difference between an organized play scenario and a demo.
For this particular encounter, I've found it effective to play up that every NPC considers Dalsine to be a serious threat. The PCs need to walk into that mansion knowing that he's dangerous and that he 'doesn't fight fair'.
The problem with that encounter isn't just that he has a dangerous first-round attack. It's that --without anybody warning them -- the party has no reason to be on Red Alert. It's a sucker punch.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
A) Depending on the situation, I would be open to not critting.
B) It depends on why he's not having fun. I have seen some PCs that frankly needed to die because they were past the rebuild level and were horridly flawed. If that was the case, I would probably pull the trigger. In most cases, I probably wouldn't.
C) If I were rolling in the open, obviously I wouldn't fudge. This is why, on all tables with APL 5 or higher, I roll in the open unless there is some effect in the game that requires a screen.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
This is a derail that I'm just not going to get into. The long and short of it is that you wouldn't know that I saved a PC from crit death without me telling you, and that it really, really shouldn't affect you that much given that you may never play at one of my tables or with someone who has played at one of my tables.
It depends--they may have triggered its clause to use full power (certainly possible--my group did), and the GM may have decided to just hold back anyway. I threw full power at my guys when the tactics said I should--they had Kyra and a Kyraesque cleric, so they had no problem, but I'm certain they would have TPKed if they had no way to area heal.Edit: I take that back, we couldn’t even overcome the high damage if the DM played the creature to it’s fullest. He chose not to ** spoiler omitted **Many here know of which scenario you speak. As an FYI, your GM is not suppose to play the creature to its fullest. In fact, there are specific tactics written about what it will do when. But yes, if GMs were given free hand in using all of that creature's abilities, there would be many more TPK's. That's why it's so important for GMs to follow the rules as written.
I don't know if we triggered the full power of the creature or not, but we were pretty much doomed from the start, although of course I did not know this at the time. We had 5 players which consisted of a Barbarian 3, Fighter 4, Rogue 4, Ranger 3 (me) and Wizard 3. So no healer (except a couple of CLW wands) and both the Wizard and Barbarian were young players. And where I have no issues with that, they were inexperienced as well, especially the Wizard.
It got to a point in the combat where all of us but the Wizard were dead or dying and the only reason the Wizard was able to survive is he
In the end, I think the GM really was being generous as the creature
All of us were now stabilized, except the Fighter, who had died. We ended up receiving no XP and most of us no PA, as well.
But that is the breaks sometimes and why I have rarely played up. And as I said, we didn't even play up this time.
|
|
It depends--they may have triggered its clause to use full power (certainly possible--my group did), and the GM may have decided to just hold back anyway. I threw full power at my guys when the tactics said I should--they had Kyra and a Kyraesque cleric, so they had no problem, but I'm certain they would have TPKed if they had no way to area heal.Edit: I take that back, we couldn’t even overcome the high damage if the DM played the creature to it’s fullest. He chose not to ** spoiler omitted **Many here know of which scenario you speak. As an FYI, your GM is not suppose to play the creature to its fullest. In fact, there are specific tactics written about what it will do when. But yes, if GMs were given free hand in using all of that creature's abilities, there would be many more TPK's. That's why it's so important for GMs to follow the rules as written.I don't know if we triggered the full power of the creature or not, but we were pretty much doomed from the start, although of course I did not know this at the time. We had 5 players which consisted of a Barbarian 3, Fighter 4, Rogue 4, Ranger 3 (me) and Wizard 3. So no healer (except a couple of CLW wands) and both the Wizard and Barbarian were young players. And where I have no issues with that, they were inexperienced as well, especially the Wizard.
It got to a point in the combat where all of us but the Wizard were dead or dying and the only reason the Wizard was able to survive is he ** spoiler omitted **.
In the end, I think the GM really was being generous as the creature ** spoiler omitted ** And where I don't know as I haven't read the scenario, I am guessing that option isn't in there.
All of us were now stabilized, except the Fighter, who had died. We ended up receiving no XP...
You're right, the GM was being as nice as possible
This particular cleric sacrificed his entire congregation and finally himself, believing it to be ordained by Yamasoth himself. And maybe it was--Yamasoth definitely sends visions to further his own goals. Anyway, there's no way the guy wouldn't have eviscerated the wizard. The GM was being super nice to have him not just walk into the side tunnel of his room, so that the wizard would have to get in charging range to even see him to target him with the missile.
But that's the cool thing about PFS--it's totally within the GM's purview to be super-nice in this way, if she feels it will make for a better experience. It's hard enough to find out these cool knowledge facts I mentioned without PCs with super-high knowledge.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
This is a derail that I'm just not going to get into. The long and short of it is that you wouldn't know that I saved a PC from crit death without me telling you, and that it really, really shouldn't affect you that much given that you may never play at one of my tables or with someone who has played at one of my tables.Nor am I talking about your specific decision. Like Jiggy and nosig, I'm talking about the impact of a population of GMs who think running PFS like homebrew campaigns has no downside if everyone at the table says that was "fun."
Well, for the record, I don't think anybody's actually advocating that here. Personally, I run the scenario as written, with exceptions made for fudging in Tier 1-5 scenarios and for allowing freedom of PC action. (Example: I once described some food from a terrible, terrible inn as being nauseatingly rotten. The party pocketed some of it and later force-fed it to an enemy. I treated it basically like a very minor poison.) I don't add or remove monsters, I don't reduce DCs, and I fail people on their faction missions. In all honesty, I don't really think that's so much of a change as to equate PFS to a homebrew campaign.
You're right, the GM was being as nice as possible
** spoiler omitted **...
The GM that ran our game is actually the coordinator for the store. Nicest guy you can meet.
But after running under him again since the almost TPK, he is not a pushover by any means, either, he tries to stick the rules as much as possible. I think one of the biggest reasons he was more lenient that one time was because the only person left standing was a 9 yr old boy and pretty inexperienced. So he gave him a lot of leeway and a way out. We even played it up that he 'saved' all of us. :) Well, at least most of us.
And I can understand what you mean by not having that high knowledge skill, or even the required knowledge skill at all. There was one time I was not able to get a PA (for my faction) since I did not have Knowledge: Engineering. It was the only skill I could use to make the roll. I wasn’t too happy about that.
