Dual-Cursed Oracle's Misfortune (Ex) and showing GM's dice rolls.


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

David Bowles wrote:
I don't plan on having "fun" as the GM, because the vast majority of scenarios still just get crushed. However, I do strive to adjudicate error-free.

Then why do you do it?

I GM because I find it fun. I also especially have more fun when I know I'm providing a fun time for the players.

But if I wasn't having fun GM'ing, I'd stop. I simply wouldn't do it anymore.

Silver Crusade

Andrew Christian wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I don't plan on having "fun" as the GM, because the vast majority of scenarios still just get crushed. However, I do strive to adjudicate error-free.

Then why do you do it?

I GM because I find it fun. I also especially have more fun when I know I'm providing a fun time for the players.

But if I wasn't having fun GM'ing, I'd stop. I simply wouldn't do it anymore.

Because it's a more a challenge to me. I consider it more satisfying than "fun". I also am more prone to do it when I'm not in the mood to risk running into a GM I'll butt heads with.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I don't plan on having "fun" as the GM, because the vast majority of scenarios still just get crushed. However, I do strive to adjudicate error-free.

Personally, when I GM, my "fun" is not measured by how badly my villains get crushed or how well they crush the players. My fun is measured by providing all players and characters a fair and universal rules environment, portraying the NPCs as accurately to their character as possible, and making sure that the players have as much fun as possible without coddling them.

While I do my very best to make each combat encounter as challenging as their stat blocks, level of preparation, and intelligence/personalities allow for, I have zero attachment to them and do mind at all if they are completely rocked before the 1st round even ends. (a common occurrence with my static PFS group)


Chalk Microbe wrote:

Bottom line that PC has a really annoying class power. No one can deny that.

You know what's a really annoying class power? Hitting something hard with a sword and making it die. That definitely trumps misfortune every time.

Lately, there's a very, very strong "anti-player" theme occurring in Pathfinder Society; it's actually pretty easy to understand - it's a reflexive counter to the (considerable) power creep which has entered the game.

I know I CAN get annoyed as a GM when I've spent an hour prepping a complex fight, only to have it reduced to ashes in a round or two; certainly, it can even be tempting to have some key NPCs suddenly have evasion, or twice the hit points. Certainly, there have been many threads lately on aspects of "GM cheating" in the guise of "making the game fun".

It doesn't, especially for those who've built effective (overly-effective, perhaps) characters.

It's actually on the verge of becoming a fairly serious problem, this squaring-off of GM versus player.

Frankly, this is probably a pretty good indicator that it's time for a new Pathfinder edition; barring that, it probably needs to be codified in the Organized Play rules that the GM is *strictly* forbidden from running scenarios other than as-written, that all rolls be conducted in the open, and that "Rule Zero" is suspended. That is, the GM becomes a facilitator of play, not a judge. Personally, I don't like such an approach.

(It's amusing to see concerns about *player* cheating in this thread, when it's *GM* cheating that's becoming a serious problem).

Another possibility is to concede that PFS has grown to a point where consolidating the player base and working for better campaign quality (which we've seen in scenarios in years 4 & 5) rather than continuing to recklessly *grow* the campaign, and to begin having some real policing of judges. Certainly, there should be selection criteria beyond "I'll GM!"; I know I've had more than one stunningly awful PFS experience (usually at cons, where it's most expensive) because of a terrible and/or incompetent judge.

And of course the third option is a rules v2.0, though that just sets the stage for power creep v2.0 in 3-4 years.

BUT - in the near term - GMs need to stop being worried about winning; it's just not going to happen in current PFS.


David Haller wrote:
Lately, there's a very, very strong "anti-player" theme occurring in Pathfinder Society

Is that reference to these boards or actual game play?

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

David Bowles wrote:
Because it's a more a challenge to me ... [GMing]

Yea I think you are getting the wrong thing out of it. The best thing a DM can do is try to make sure the players have fun. It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!


Kyle Baird wrote:
David Haller wrote:
Lately, there's a very, very strong "anti-player" theme occurring in Pathfinder Society
Is that reference to these boards or actual game play?

Certainly it applies to the boards, as well as the PFS facebook group (where there is a 60-reply thread discussing whether a GM is free to ban archetypes he doesn't like from his table - I say NO! (duh), but many support the idea.)

I've encountered it a LOT in-play, playing a fey-bloodline sorcerer who indulges in a good bit of planar binding (two hated things in one PC). I can't even count the complaints and criticism which begin as soon as I sit at a table (often cloaked in "good nature"), the willful ignoring of failed saves ("you make the game un-fun"), and deliberate misinterpretation of planar binding: nerfing at every turn.

Certainly, it tempts one to just roll a vanilla fighter and kill things "honestly".

Of course, there's always been an asymmetric dislike for control over striking (friends who play witches have actually had GMs ask them not to use the sleep hex), while no one ever asks the barbarian to please don't power attack).

It does seem to be worsening as a function of power creep, however.


David Haller wrote:
I know I CAN get annoyed as a GM when I've spent an hour prepping a complex fight, only to have it reduced to ashes in a round or two; certainly, it can even be tempting to have some key NPCs suddenly have evasion, or twice the hit points. Certainly, there have been many threads lately on aspects of "GM cheating" in the guise of "making the game fun".

There's two different versions of this for me.

If the players work together and get creative or if the dice conspire against me*, I usually laugh, congratulate the players and generally feel happy that the PCs tore through my BBEG.

If a certain player or two are using known cheese or extremely effective but uninspired tactics it's hard for me not to get upset. Yep, I admit that I'm at least partially human. To clarify, I'm not getting mad that "I lost," I'm upset for the other players at the table who didn't get to shine. Of course, I can be in the wrong here as some players would prefer not to have to do anything to "win" at Pathfinder (totally fine, btw) and I also usually forget in the moment that the other PCs may have already had a shining moment in the scenario. The best I can do in these situations is smile, pull out chronicles and pass them out.

*Last time I ran EotT, the very average powered druid threw a hail-mary and cast a relatively low DC baleful polymorph twice throughout series. Both times I needed a natural one to fail. Both times I rolled a natural one. For reference it was versus a big red thing in part one and the BBEG of the entire series. DAMN YOU STUPID DICE! RAWR!


I think part of it, as well, is the advent of the sort of implied "TPK Badge" - the "dangerous" GMs are accorded a certain respect (especially on the forums, but I see it in gaming communities as well). It creates a pressure to be a "challenging GM" right at the same time PCs are getting stronger relative to reasonable scenario challenges: it generates a certain anti-player response.

I'll certainly admit to having a "killer GM" reputation, so I'm not exclusively demonizing PFS "GM culture"; I just see a worrisome trend which I feel should be addressed!

("Addressed" means "in the guide")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Haller wrote:

I think part of it, as well, is the advent of the sort of implied "TPK Badge" - the "dangerous" GMs are accorded a certain respect (especially on the forums, but I see it in gaming communities as well). It creates a pressure to be a "challenging GM" right at the same time PCs are getting stronger relative to reasonable scenario challenges: it generates a certain anti-player response.

I'll certainly admit to having a "killer GM" reputation, so I'm not exclusively demonizing PFS "GM culture"; I just see a worrisome trend which I feel should be addressed!

("Addressed" means "in the guide")

No advent here. That's been around since OD&D and certainly in previous living campaigns.


Kyle Baird wrote:

If the players work together and get creative or if the dice conspire against me*, I usually laugh, congratulate the players and generally feel happy that the PCs tore through my BBEG.

If a certain player or two are using known cheese or extremely effective but uninspired tactics it's hard for me not to get upset. Yep, I admit that I'm at least partially human.

I agree with this, and I think any "good" GM will as well... the problem is that as availability of "cheese" grows, there's more and more of the latter issue.

So either GMs need to re-imagine their role ("I'm facilitating access to chronicles') - in which case it needs to be "a rule" - OR... something else needs to happen.

(For the record, I'd LOVE it if PFS could trust its GMs enough to provide them leeway to adapt a table more to greater or lesser challenges - not on the fly (cheating), but at least in advance when one knows who's playing. Yes, it's hard at cons, but it could work for local game days and the like.)

Really, it just feels like late-phase Living Greyhawk to me (after all the crazy 3.5 splatbooks). My CRB is worn out enough as it is... I'm ready for the next one :P

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, West Virginia—Charleston aka Netopalis

I have seen that more on the forums than in real life. You have to realize that there is a huge split between what goes on here vs. our regular play sessions. Due to my posts about going easy on lower-leveled characters, many would characterize me as a softball GM. I've killed around 7 PCs, though, which is about par for my star level. Others categorize themselves as killer in hopes of providing a better table experience - combat-oriented PCs want higher challenge, and look forward to GMs who will provide that challenge.

In the end, one thing that I have realized recently while running Dragon's Demand is that "challenge" is a measure of perception, not a measure of how difficult something actually is. In a recent dungeon in Dragon's Demand, my party faced two monsters. One they dispatched fairly easily in my opinion, but the other one actually killed somebody. Speaking to one of my players later, they said that they felt that the first was far, far more challenging.


Kyle Baird wrote:
David Haller wrote:

I think part of it, as well, is the advent of the sort of implied "TPK Badge" - the "dangerous" GMs are accorded a certain respect (especially on the forums, but I see it in gaming communities as well). It creates a pressure to be a "challenging GM" right at the same time PCs are getting stronger relative to reasonable scenario challenges: it generates a certain anti-player response.

I'll certainly admit to having a "killer GM" reputation, so I'm not exclusively demonizing PFS "GM culture"; I just see a worrisome trend which I feel should be addressed!

("Addressed" means "in the guide")

No advent here. That's been around since OD&D and certainly in previous living campaigns.

Yes, that's true...

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

David Haller wrote:
(It's amusing to see concerns about *player* cheating in this thread, when it's *GM* cheating that's becoming a serious problem).

I think we all agree that cheating is lame.

I don't think the problem is as serious as you mention here, though. Aside from occasional cases and well recanted stories here on the boards, cheating doesn't really occur.

Personally, I've ran 180 tables and have seen a total of two players cheat. Both were talked to during and after the game about table etiquette, and neither play PFS in my area anymore because they didn't like playing by the rules.

I think we give cheating too much credit on the forums. We all know what it looks like and that it is bad. Enough said.

We should see it, report it, and move on.


I think as long as PFS continues to focus most of its resources on attracting new players instead of catering to the existing crowd, the effects of power creep will be limited. Are there crazy builds out there? yep. Do they show up "a lot?" That's relative.

IMNSHO, any problems with power creep are problems with the players, not the game. "Don't hate the game, hate the player!" :-)

I think Mergy has the famous quote around here to the effect of, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it."

Shadow Lodge

Walter Sheppard wrote:
I think we all agree that cheating is lame.

Pfft. I cheat all the time.

Dark Archive

Kyle Baird wrote:
I think Mergy has the famous quote around here to the effect of, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it."

That Mergy is a smart guy! ;)

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, West Virginia—Charleston aka Netopalis

One thing that I am going to be doing with my gunslinger is choosing to make some sub-optimal choices, so long as the party is not in mortal danger. I played him for the first time in a few months, and after receiving some GM credit, and was somewhat embarrassed by the amount of damage that he was doing. I mainly chose a gunslinger for the flavor, since I wanted to make a film noir detective. Now, if the party is really struggling, I can still take all of my shots...

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Care Baird wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I think we all agree that cheating is lame.
Pfft. I cheat all the time.

But only to win, which is totally fine bro.


One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.

Lantern Lodge

Kyle Baird wrote:
*Last time I ran EotT, the very average powered druid threw a hail-mary and cast a relatively low DC baleful polymorph twice throughout series. Both times I needed a natural one to fail. Both times I rolled a natural one. For reference it was versus a big red thing in part one and the BBEG of the entire series. DAMN YOU STUPID DICE! RAWR!

Heh, I know how that goes. The last round of EotT I ran had a heavans oracle with a 29 cha, greater spell focus, two staves of the master (purchased the 2nd part way through the series), and persistent spell. It was ugly, ugly, ugly for the bad guys.


Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.

That's what I call "good gaming citizenship".

The other aspect of good gaming citizenship is the converse: actually being able to do something to help the party when it's needed!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.

Perhaps another might be when a "powerful" character is powerful in ways that enable the rest of the party to more effectively do what they already wanted to do.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Because it's a more a challenge to me ... [GMing]
Yea I think you are getting the wrong thing out of it. The best thing a DM can do is try to make sure the players have fun. It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!

I mean challenge to run error-free. I'm not being competitive at all.


Jiggy wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.
Perhaps another might be when a "powerful" character is powerful in ways that enable the rest of the party to more effectively do what they already wanted to do.

I think that's more specific than what I was getting at. A powerful support character as you describe can inadvertently trivialize situations and thus ruin the plans of the character's he's helping.

An example might be a character who provides a great attack and/or damage bonus to a melee character who then takes out the NPC in one round when perhaps they enjoy slugging it out and would have had more fun with an AC boost instead.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, West Virginia—Charleston aka Netopalis

David Bowles wrote:
James Risner wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Because it's a more a challenge to me ... [GMing]
Yea I think you are getting the wrong thing out of it. The best thing a DM can do is try to make sure the players have fun. It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!
I mean challenge to run error-free. I'm not being competitive at all.

Running completely error-free is impossible. You will always make a little bit of a mistake here or there, because the rules are not definite. Personally, to me, that's sort of the charm of these games - they are not absolutely definite, and have a human element. If you want to try to make something work, you can make something work. If you're going to run it in an absolutely mechanical way, we might as well just all be playing computer games.


James Risner wrote:
It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!

Unless Risner's running the PC!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.
Perhaps another might be when a "powerful" character is powerful in ways that enable the rest of the party to more effectively do what they already wanted to do.

I think that's more specific than what I was getting at. A powerful support character as you describe can inadvertently trivialize situations and thus ruin the plans of the character's he's helping.

An example might be a character who provides a great attack and/or damage bonus to a melee character who then takes out the NPC in one round when perhaps they enjoy slugging it out and would have had more fun with an AC boost instead.

Fair point, hadn't thought of that.

Silver Crusade

Netopalis wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
James Risner wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Because it's a more a challenge to me ... [GMing]
Yea I think you are getting the wrong thing out of it. The best thing a DM can do is try to make sure the players have fun. It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!
I mean challenge to run error-free. I'm not being competitive at all.
Running completely error-free is impossible. You will always make a little bit of a mistake here or there, because the rules are not definite. Personally, to me, that's sort of the charm of these games - they are not absolutely definite, and have a human element. If you want to try to make something work, you can make something work. If you're going to run it in an absolutely mechanical way, we might as well just all be playing computer games.

As close as a I can, at any rate.

I've seen the "human element" go against the interests of the players one too many times to be random mistakes. I think there are still GMs adding in a little of their own spice to try to make things harder than what is written in the scenarios.

Silver Crusade

Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.

Expecting that consistently from gamers is hoping for a bit too much. Or, at least, it's asking too much in Ohio. I got color sprayed twice by a heaven's oracle in my group who just wanted to end every battle with color spray. So I just stopped getting in his way and let him color spray everything. And legally, I'm pretty sure there wasn't much the GM could do about it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Bowles wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.
Expecting that consistently from gamers is hoping for a bit too much. Or, at least, it's asking too much in Ohio. I got color sprayed twice by a heaven's oracle in my group who just wanted to end every battle with color spray. So I just stopped getting in his way and let him color spray everything. And legally, I'm pretty sure there wasn't much the GM could do about it.

Is there a reason that catching a PC in an AoE without their consent wouldn't count as PvP?

Silver Crusade

I thought AoE effects were immune to the PvP rule, since my PC was not directly targeted. Hence, the danger behind fireball.

In any event, people don't roll heavens oracles to NOT spam color spray. I think the number of "great" players is just kind of low.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jiggy wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.
Expecting that consistently from gamers is hoping for a bit too much. Or, at least, it's asking too much in Ohio. I got color sprayed twice by a heaven's oracle in my group who just wanted to end every battle with color spray. So I just stopped getting in his way and let him color spray everything. And legally, I'm pretty sure there wasn't much the GM could do about it.
Is there a reason that catching a PC in an AoE without their consent wouldn't count as PvP?

I know many players, GM's, and V-O's all consider this PvP and...

players would refuse to accept it
GM's would deny the player the right unless other players accepted it

But this is not PFS-wide and not all GM's run their table that way, not all players expect it, and not all V-O's enforce it...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

David Bowles wrote:
I thought AoE effects were immune to the PvP rule, since my PC was not directly targeted. Hence, the danger behind fireball.

Not according to a liberal definition of what constitutes PvP.

Some V-O's definitely say anything that can damage or put a character at a disadvantage could be considered PvP and won't allow it as GMs.

Silver Crusade

Andrew Christian wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I thought AoE effects were immune to the PvP rule, since my PC was not directly targeted. Hence, the danger behind fireball.

Not according to a liberal definition of what constitutes PvP.

Some V-O's definitely say anything that can damage or put a character at a disadvantage could be considered PvP and won't allow it as GMs.

Don't you think maybe this should be codified, as to eliminate regional variance? Also, there never seems to be a VO around when my PC is getting hosed.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Kyle Baird wrote:
James Risner wrote:
It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!
Unless Risner's running the PC!

GRRR ;-)

David Bowles wrote:
never seems to be a VO around when my PC is getting hosed.

I don't have the GtPFS 5.0 handy, but I thought it said "no killing" other players. This discussion comes up every time someone wants to Fireball a bad guy and can only do so by catching a good guy. It seems like every time we look it up it only covers actively killing another PC and not harming them in a not-quite-dead way.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Bowles wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I thought AoE effects were immune to the PvP rule, since my PC was not directly targeted. Hence, the danger behind fireball.

Not according to a liberal definition of what constitutes PvP.

Some V-O's definitely say anything that can damage or put a character at a disadvantage could be considered PvP and won't allow it as GMs.

Don't you think maybe this should be codified, as to eliminate regional variance? Also, there never seems to be a VO around when my PC is getting hosed.

You mean it should be codified that the complete absence of any "AoE's are immune to the No PvP rule" clause in the Guide means that "AoE's are immune to the No PvP rule" is not part of the rules?

The fact that stuff a GM makes up does not count as a rule is not something to be codified; it is something to be reported to a VO.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
James Risner wrote:
It shouldn't be about NPC vs PC!
Unless Risner's running the PC!

GRRR ;-)

David Bowles wrote:
never seems to be a VO around when my PC is getting hosed.
I don't have the GtPFS 5.0 handy, but I thought it said "no killing" other players. This discussion comes up every time someone wants to Fireball a bad guy and can only do so by catching a good guy. It seems like every time we look it up it only covers actively killing another PC and not harming them in a not-quite-dead way.

Maybe I was subconsciously thinking of that entry when this happened. Thankfully, none of the NPCs made their saves either, and so there was nothing to coup-de-grace my PC. I just sat back and collected my chronicle sheet after that. Nothing else to really do.

That leads me to one other "pet peeve" of GMs: if you have players at the table playing games on their phones or something, look at the table for a player like our heaven's oracle here. I spent the rest of the session in question thinking of how I would have written the scenario to not be WTF owned by a level 1 spell.


Kyle Baird wrote:
One sign of a great player is when they make a really "powerful" character but choose to only exercise that power when the party needs it most.

Now I am not perfect, but this is what I strive for.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
Jiggy, I would argue that having the BBEG fall to a save or suck on the very first round before his initiative would be unfun for quite a few players. I will allow myself the possibility for fudging, depending on the situation.
Funnily enough, in the just under 2 years I've been playing, not once has a GM asked me (during the game or not) whether or not such a fudge would increase my fun. Makes it really hard to believe that a "make the BBEG not fall too fast" fudge has anything to do with making sure the players have fun.
It is not about changing dice results or not, but I find depressing how you have decided to dismiss the GM fun and pleasure at playing as something that don't matter.
Diego, I didn't dismiss the GM's fun. Look at the post I was replying to (right there in your quote: Adam Mogryodi's comment). He made a specific comment about "quite a few players". I was replying to that comment, in that context. Replying to someone in-context is not the same as being dismissive of whatever's outside that context. I'd thank you to read more carefully before making accusations.

I see you have cut out the second half of my post:

Diego Rossi wrote:


The GM is a player, even if one in a special position, and he should have fun playing. He is not paid to make you happy, he is there to share a good time with other players.

What I find depressing is that you have classed the GM as a non-player.

You even got and stressed "players" putting it in italics.
Your post was all about "players having fun" and "GM not being a player", so I say with my comment. You are perpetrating a players/GM dichotomy and adversarial position that has no need to exist.


Re: AoE and PvP

I understood that casting detrimental AoE(s) on another player's character with that player's permission was fine, and that deliberately catching an (unwilling) player's character in an AoE when it was possible to avoid them was a clear violation of "Don't be a Jerk!"

Should I really expect table variation on either of those?

The only place it seems to me my blaster wizard should worry about table variation is when the only way to catch the Bad Guy(s) with my burning hands or fireball is to also get either the tank or the sneak attacker.

Silver Crusade

"Don't be a jerk!", to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, is really more of a guideline in my experience.

Whether it be heaven's oracles spamming, deeper darkness shenaningans, small zoos of pets doing their thing, summoning spam, or what have you, most players who build power builds build them to use them.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

David Bowles wrote:

"Don't be a jerk!", to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, is really more of a guideline in my experience.

Whether it be heaven's oracles spamming, deeper darkness shenaningans, small zoos of pets doing their thing, summoning spam, or what have you, most players who build power builds build them to use them.

I prefer Wheaton's Law.


David Bowles wrote:
there never seems to be a VO around when my PC is getting hosed.

I'm not a VO, but give me a call and I'll show up via my police call box.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
deeper darkness

...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Diego, you're reading things into my post that aren't there.

Shadow Lodge

just my take on this and I know Im late to the party here ...

if a PC tells me they have this at the table then I feel it is my duty to Roll in the open - at least untill they use the ability

IMHO to Not humor the PC in question is the very definition of being a Jerk - and as far as I am aware we as GM's are tasked to be examples of "Not being a Jerk" especially VO's

the GM's have enough to remember without having to remember to re-roll a threat or whatever ...

so yes ... if there is a dual Cursed at the table ... I believe that the GM's SHOULD comply with the players request for "Dice in the Open"

sure that may be an unpopular opinion ... but thats the great thing about opinions ... everyone has one


Hey if you can find a way for that ability to work without rolling the open, that is awesome.

I think it is cheating to limit the ability with a play style that completely prevent a player from using the ability.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, West Virginia—Charleston aka Netopalis

I would probably roll in the open if that were in play, but I could alternately ask the player for a threshhold number beyond which the GM offers the option to reroll.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Diego, you're reading things into my post that aren't there.

Maybe, but my impression is that I am reading it as a good percentage of the readers will.

Probably that wasn't what you intended to put there, but it is a way to read what you wrote.

I deleted my first reply to your post (#227) as I realized that most people would have read it as an endorsement of cheating to "win" against the players. Even now I am not completely happy of how that post is worded.
Readying your post in contest enforce the players vs GM impression, as plenty of posts in this thread put emphasis on that vision of the game.
Maybe in another thread I wouldn't have read it that way.

251 to 300 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Dual-Cursed Oracle's Misfortune (Ex) and showing GM's dice rolls. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.