|
Hey guys ... I get that you're passionate about your positions, however, this may be something better taken to a private conversation :)
kk thanks.
Actually no Purple. It is exactly in the right place. We're using an example to illustrate both sides of the discussion.
GMs make mistakes sometimes. In the absence of a rules system for guidance we have to wing it. That leaves some players "annoyed". I would prefer there was some kind of guideline that could be redressed in those instances, so my players didn't leave the table unhappy.
Alternatively, I don't want my players leaving the table bored. or leaving it thinking "why do I bother" because some tweaked out optimized character did the whole thing while everyone else just sat there as hero support.
Of course we could just go with your idea of don't mess with it. In that case it's just a matter of not sitting down at the table of a GM you know isn't your type. But, well, isn't the point of PFS to be that games and players are supposed to be interchangeable?
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So, my reading comprehension skills must be at a low point, today. I can't for the life of me figure out what "mistake" you made that you were able to pull yourself out of by going against the idea of "run as written."
What, exactly, happened?
|
|
So, my reading comprehension skills must be at a low point, today. I can't for the life of me figure out what "mistake" you made that you were able to pull yourself out of by going against the idea of "run as written."
What, exactly, happened?
I mistakenly set up the encounter with the tier 4-5 encounter instead of the tier 1-3 encounter. So I dropped the monsters hit points and melee attack modifier to compensate. The tier 4-5 monster had already hit them several times so I couldn't tweak that without being obvious so I left the damage the same.
|
|
I've done that ... and it sucks when you have to adjust .. however, something should have been said to the party --- along the lines of "hey guys, I make a mistake and I'm throwing the higher tier at you... do you want to continue or do you want me to adjust back down? I can't adjust the rest of the scenario if you continue".
that way it's the players choice to make, and you don't have to go against the RAW mindset and make adjustments to the rest of the scenario.
In the times I've done that 1 time have I had the table opt for the appropriate tier, the rest of the time they've wanted the challenge. But they got to make the choice at that point. I didn't arbitrarily make the choice for them.
I get that that breaks the flow of the combat and the game .. but better to break the flow than to have a massive discussion on the boards with a pissed off player
**the reason I made the suggestion of a private conversation is that it sounded like it was going to go super personal and we don't need another thread like that on the boards.
|
Just so everyone is clear: I am not feeling or expressing animus here. I simply disagree with Cole about tweaking scenarios. Since we know each other in person, and since our face-to-face games have examples that are relevant to this discussion, it seemed prudent to include those.
Edit: in any case, I've stated my position and I've given my reasons behind it. I don't think I will have anything more to add.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With multiple stat blocks at multiple tiers, I'd be surprised if any of us had NOT done that, and more than once.
When I realize what I did I will laugh a little, hold up my hand, and say, "Apparently I have had my dyslexic moment of the day and have used the higher tier to put the fear of god into you. Anyone need me to rework the math on what has happened, so far, before I switch to the correct stat block?" If anyone wants me to re-figure damage, I will. Otherwise, I'll apply whatever damage has so far been done to the bad guy to the correct hit point total, and move on. If, for some reason, I went so far as to use multiple creatures instead of the single creature the low tier called for, I'd simply call the fight, depending on how many rounds in we were.
I don't personally see a need to create any sort of GM tweaking rule to account for that situation.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
One thing I would note is that, if as a GM you feel that things are too easy, you should choose more difficult scenarios. There are a number of very difficult 1-5s that can provide some great combat moments. Once you get up into 5-9 and 7-11, you will find that there is a HUGE power increase on the GM side of the table, because death is more easily recovered then. I only recently have started running 5-9s, and out of the 6 that I have ran, 3 of them have had a death in it. One of these sessions was with a very capable party in a season 1 scenario.
That being said, remember that there are two halves to the game. Challenge can be generated in a number of ways. One way that many scenarios attempt to challenge the players is through roleplay. Many scenarios, like the Blakros Matrimony, Murder on the Throaty Mermaid, the Immortal Conundrum and the Disappeared feature roleplay situations that can feel dicey and difficult. To many players, myself included, finding the solution to a social encounter is just as rewarding as finishing a tough combat, if not more rewarding.
|
|
Well it seems the consensus is against me. So run as is... *sigh* and the Bard in me dies a little :(
A don't take it personal... we've all been there -- mistakes happen and they suck, but we learn from them and move on. Yep it seems like you're getting picked on in this thread and I'm sorry; but your example was a perfect argument for RAW and why we as GMs need to have limitations on how much we can play with and deviate from a scenario.
B you can still tell a story ... just within the way it was written -- We all do it and so can you :) I have faith :)
|
|
Well it seems the consensus is against me. So run as is... *sigh* and the Bard in me dies a little :(
My friend, this is PFS. We aren't bards, we're scribes. Or secretaries. Or accountants? Or ... I dunno, paid storytellers at the local library (not that libraries have money to pay storytellers).
Um ... I'm trying to come up with some kind of corporate storytelling machine metaphor and I've got nothing.
The point is we aren't waxing lyrical and embellishing tales. We're all supposed to be telling the same stories. Because our players need to be able to switch back and forth between GMs (with other players, no less) and still have a consistent idea of what stories were told.
|
|
I have a question that might also fit here.
In first steps, there is a scene where characters need to pass one of two doors, for which 3 possibilities are provided in the text.
One is to disable device one door.
Now one of the characters decided to chomp down this door with his axe.
The door is described as heavy wooden door, which doesn´t exist this way in the CRB. The CRB speaks of simple, good and strong wooden doors.
Am i free to let that pass and rule the door as a strong wooden door which they can pass after destroying it?
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Something that does need some clarification is the difference between 3.5 undead and the Pathfinder Undead.
Those in 3.5 have d12 hit die while Pathfinder are d8's. In my mind, I would have the Bestiary trump the stats in the scenario of Season 0. How would I adjust for the Undead who had to use Templates?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, I would have the Bestiary trump the stats in the scenario of Season 0
Actually, the Guide instructs you to only use the Pathfinder version of the monster if the CR is the same between v3.5 and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter if they are undead or not. If the CR are different, you are to run the monster using the v3.5 stats. They are available for free online.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Something that does need some clarification is the difference between 3.5 undead and the Pathfinder Undead.
Those in 3.5 have d12 hit die while Pathfinder are d8's. In my mind, I would have the Bestiary trump the stats in the scenario of Season 0. How would I adjust for the Undead who had to use Templates?
For Season 0, you generally run the 3.5 version, unless there is an equivalent CR Pathfinder creature with the same name.
|
|
I adjusted it to throw the correct number of undead at the players for the number of guards that join them after their leader falls. If I had run it as written a good 5 to 6 rounds would have passed before any of the undead started showing up, however because the players 'took care' of what was supposed to happen in those 5 to 6 rounds in a single turn I made adjustments.
Assuming that one-shotting didn't occur after massive damage was dealt to the party, that seems legit. I mean, if they'd needed that time to heal, you should have given it to them, but I doubt it. So instead of making them wait while their buffs ticked down, you just brought in what was going to happen next. I don't see a problem there.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've asked this before, but for you GMs who think beefing up encounters will increase your players' fun, how do you know? Did your players say so? Or are you just assuming?
Because in the two years I've been in the game, I have not once been asked (or seen/overheard anyone else get asked) whether letting GMs fudge encounters around would increase my or anyone else's fun. Yet over and over, I see GMs here on the boards (and occasionally overhear them in person) insisting that being able to beef up encounters on the fly is a necessity for their players to have fun.
So are all of our PFS GMs psychic, or what?
Well, since no one's asking, I'm going to go ahead and throw myself into the "data pool" on player fun:
What's fun for me is things like when my party determined that we needed to get by a statue that only animated if someone got close, so my wife's archer put up all her buffs and shot it to death from across the room while we all waited behind her. (True story.)
What's fun for me is when the BBEG is wielding a legendary weapon that was the focus of the scenario and they lose it on round 1 to a grease or a disarm-focused PC and we get to watch the fear in her eyes as her delusions of invincibility crumble in an instant. (I almost had this experience, but the GM decided we'd all have more fun if the cleric could pick up the weapon as a swift action that didn't provoke after I disarmed her, and if the grease all burned off of the flaming weapon before her next turn after the wizard disarmed her again.)
What's fun for me is when an otherwise very difficult puzzle that's attached to a lightning trap gets auto-bypassed by a trap-focused rogue or a guy who just happened to be carrying merchant's scales for his whole career. (Both have actually happened.)
What's fun for me is dropping a really nasty baddie into a pit, taking a few rounds to heal up and cast some buffs, and then laughing as said baddie's fire blast washes harmlessly across the entire party's communal resist energy. (Another true story.)
What's fun for me is when the fact that my character specializes in X instead of Y (or that the party includes X but not Y) actually makes a difference in how things go down, instead of having any sort of tactical, non-damage-related efforts be shot down "because fights should last more than one round".
What's fun for me is when my character's narrative shows him to be strong and capable because he goes out and takes care of business, and only truly struggles every once in a while. If every single mission he goes on includes multiple combats that he just barely survives, you've turned my hero into an incompetent baffoon. That does not increase my fun.
What's fun for me is being able to apply tactics other than "Damage: Deal It or Heal It". Deal-or-Heal combats aren't all that interesting in most cases, and drawing them out by c**k-blocking any alternative tactics or buffing the HP or number of baddies does not alter that fact. If a fight was already going to naturally be a Deal-or-Heal and there's legitimately no way out of it, the most fun thing for me is if it ends early from my teammate's 100-point crit from a dwarven waraxe. (Another true story.)
What's fun for me is when, in the case of an over-optimized PC hogging the spotlight, the GM either deals with them directly (such as with a "rein it in or leave the table" discussion) or at least lets me benefit from the reduced risk. Beefing things up so that I feel like I should have built a PC like that in order to not get slaughtered does not increase my fun.
Naturally this is not an exhaustive list; sometimes a hard fight is fun, sometimes the things I listed as fun aren't, etc. But in general, what I find fun and what some GMs around these boards seem to *think* I find fun are miles apart.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
In my mind, I would have the Bestiary trump the stats in the scenario of Season 0Actually, the Guide instructs you to only use the Pathfinder version of the monster if the CR is the same between v3.5 and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter if they are undead or not. If the CR are different, you are to run the monster using the v3.5 stats. They are available for free online.
Most of the Undead are the same CR, the only problem I would have is if there is a difference when the Template is added. (Like, for example, a Bugbear Zombie)
My overall question is the HP difference. 3.5 has more.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've asked this before, but for you GMs who think beefing up encounters will increase your players' fun, how do you know? Did your players say so? Or are you just assuming?
Because in the two years I've been in the game, I have not once been asked (or seen/overheard anyone else get asked) whether letting GMs fudge encounters around would increase my or anyone else's fun. Yet over and over, I see GMs here on the boards (and occasionally overhear them in person) insisting that being able to beef up encounters on the fly is a necessity for their players to have fun.
Since you asked, here is my story of when a GM increased difficulty.
A long time ago, I played in a PFS game where the GM asked us if it was alright for him to beef up the difficulty.
It was before our area had a VO and before we had really expanded PFS outside our initial group, and we were all playing at my house while drinking on a Friday night. It was the 10-11 subtier of a 7-8, and we were playing up. It was your standard delve and we had been tearing through it thusfar with no difficulty. So when the question was raised by the GM -- "do you want to play up" -- we said sure.
He had asked because a certain fight was supposed to involve "an endless amount of _____s," essentially, wave after wave after wave until X rounds had passed, and that was your success condition. We had something like 12 attacks a round between us, and had been one-shotting all the ____s we had encountered so far. As written, the fight would have been something like 1d8 ____ a turn. So, without question, not a challenge, hiccup, or speedbump at all.
So he increased the number to something like 20-30 of them a round. My bard kept track of the kills as he sang a song of battle, and after 8 glorious rounds of combat, we had killed 326 ____s. I have the number drunkenly scribbled down on my chronicle sheet as a major accomplishment in that character's life.
The "increased difficulty" continued into the final fight, where the buffed melee-death-wagon that was our barbarian did over 150 damage in a single blow. This would have instagibbed the boss as written. Again, we were asked if we wanted "hard mode." We agreed.
It was a much harder fight, and the HP of the baddie was increased to over 1000. We came out bloodied and victorious. I personally lost over 3k gold in various consumables we used to survive. But it was worth it. Without a doubt, it was one of the best times I have ever had a table, and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.
-------------------------------------------------
That story was from before we started playing PFS with other people.
And I realize now that is the major difference between homebrew and a living campaign. In a homebrew, you have license to increase the difficulty of your adventure path or module -- your group of 4-7 people determines what is and isn't "fair." If you made characters with a 45 point buy then yeah, you should probably ramp up the difficulty or people are going to get bored!
But in a living campaign, the decision of what is "fair" is left up to the developers, like Mike, Mark, and now John.
Not everyone you get sat with at a PFS table wants the same kind of game you want. Not everyone wants to play a game where they are pushed to their limit and survive through sheer determination and teamwork (for the record, those are the games I enjoy the most). And that's fine. That's the beauty of PFS: everyone who plays or runs games for it is held to the same standard.
That standard can and does change based off of what the community wants (increased difficulty in season 4, etc), but it has to go through the people in charge. GMs, on the fly, cannot make those changes. In order to accommodate this massive group of people, there has to be a set standard that everyone follows. If people are breaking the rules, the system falls apart.
The story from above happened almost two years ago. Since then, our area has developed quite a bit and I became a VL then a VC. And as a VO now, I can't endorse things like what happened in my story above, but I know why it happened. With the six of us there, it was basically a homebrew setting. We were the only people involved, and PFS was being used to fill the gap left by our last homebrew. But that is not what a living campaign is -- it is not a homebrew. If I see changes like what I described above happening, or hear of that happening, I will not be happy. If any of my GMs do something like that, there will be repercussions.
But it's not all bad news. If that sort of thing is what you want more of, there are options. Bonekeep is coming out, which I hear is absurdly difficult, and playing up is always available (if you find some like-minded folks). But really, what you need to quench that kind of thirst is homebrew.
Get some other daredevil players and find a GM that just loves beating up small puppies and start a home game. Grab a sanctioned adventure path so you can still get credit for your PFS characters, even if your AP isn't run RAW. Get all your adrenaline-pumping crazy out of your system in those games, then come play PFS once a week with us.
Play PFS to enjoy and experience the largest game of Pathfinder you ever will, and play it to go to conventions and game days so you can meet and play with new people. It's still an awesome experience. But it isn't a homebrew.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played in one of Drogon's tables for Day of the Demon. He did a stellar job and I had a great time. I read the scenario later so I could run it and all he did was help make the story a little clearer, which I appreciated. Due to his ninja GM skills, he can really take a boring scenario and make it incredible through role play and better descriptions, etc. By far, one of my very favorite GM's in the WORLD!
There, I defended my GM and feel better.
The difficulty with not following RAW is that less experienced GM's may make mistakes. I have seen novice GM's make error's that cost PC's 16 PA to return to life and in some cases they made changes to tactic's and spells for the bad guys. This is the no-no that we all should avoid (Drogon does not change these). Sometimes the tactic's suck and the spell selection is questionable, but that is the way it goes. Make the best of it as a GM and make a memorable game experience for the players.
As a player, I could care less if an experienced GM changes something to make it more fun, even if I croak. It is just a game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some more data points from a convention:
I witnessed a huge variation in GM quality, from rules, to tactics, to RPing, to scene setting, to physical props, to everything else I might have missed.
One did not know a triggered ready action changed your initiative. Another GM did not use flank to get the extra sneak damage when he was a player. Some others made errors where I'd look at another player across the table and we'd just shrug at each other because it was a minor point in an easy game. One even passed out the wrong faction missions, though we fixed that before starting.
I want those GMs to stick to RAW because it gives me a minimum quality to expect, an accountability of sorts. I don't want them making advanced adjustments when they haven't yet mastered the basics. I don't want them tweaking rules they hardly know, perhaps in situations they don't fully comprehend.
That said, I had fun for the most part, and wouldn't want to report them either. They had good spirits, which is the best foundation.
So, yeah, I can see all the arguments from the experienced GM's POV, but PFS incorporates a lot of inexperienced GMs too. And a lot of those people above were pretty experienced, believe it or not.
If adjustments were allowed, it'd just make things more difficult for them to run.
Went through one scenario where we blew through everything...until the BBEG who nearly PPK'd us. Any adjustment there would have destroyed us, yet our previous victories would've suggested adjusting it up.
I don't want a sub-optimal GM making that call. And it's not our place to start calling GMs sub-optimal. We're all learning.
Cheers, JMK
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
To be clear. I am not trying to make it more difficult. (If anything, using the updated Undead will make it easier) I am trying to use Pathfinder stats, which is allowed as long (as point out above) as the monster/NPC is the same CR.
So. Any have some suggestions on how to adjust the HP for Zombie templated monsters?
That is really my only question.
Really, the Clerics wearing heavy armor and Sorcerers getting Bloodlines isn't earthshattering changes to adjust, but the undead can have almost double HP in 3.5, prolonging the battle needlessly.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
They also have to be printed; templating monsters doesn't work, I'm afraid.
???
I use Hero Lab, so I can print the stats out, or are you saying that a specific printed stat block needs to be used as done in the scenario?
Or that the Bestiary needs a printed page to represent the updated stats and that can't be done with a template?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
They also have to be printed; templating monsters doesn't work, I'm afraid.???
I use Hero Lab, so I can print the stats out, or are you saying that a specific printed stat block needs to be used as done in the scenario?
Or that the Bestiary needs a printed page to represent the updated stats and that can't be done with a template?
Ah, sorry, I was being unclear. I thought you were referring to Season 0 scenarios, one of which contains a lot of zombies that were specifically statted in the 3.5 bestiary, but not in the Pathfinder bestiary [templates fill the gap]. For those, it's generally considered to be best to run the 3.5 edition version.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
*Shiver*
I see why some 0 season scenario's were retired. Wasn't there something about them being updated at one point?
There's been talk of it for a few years, but nothing has come of it. For most scenarios, it's not a huge deal; the stat blocks are easily available online, and there aren't *that* many bestiary enemies. In one particular scenario that I'm thinking of, though, a substantial portion of the enemies are only in the Monster Manual. I'd still recommend the first few scenarios of Season 0 as decent [but not as good as seasons 3-4].
|
|
meh...
No artistic license = no fun.
I run a PFS game at my house and everyone (including Fox) enjoys themselves. I really wish you guys hadn't taken the wind out of my sails. I thought I was doing a good job, creating a dramatic in depth experiance for my players. Now, I'm kinda dreading it for fear of screwing up RAW.
Whatever happened to "Story Trumps Rules"? I mean really, that's the whole reason I've played this game for almost 20 years.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever happened to "Story Trumps Rules"? I mean really, that's the whole reason I've played this game for almost 20 years.
The campaign coordinator started receiving emails every week advising a GM had added stuff to a scenario to make it "more challenging", and it had turned into between 1-6 character deaths. Since the GM had run something that was not in the scenario, the players wanted a free raise dead. After several months and a hundred emails or so, enough was enough. If you want artistic license, play a home campaign. I can't stress this enough. You've advised the same thing several times and it is time to move on. It isn't going to change,
PFS has a stricter set of guidelines. I have a weekly home game I GM and we don't use PFS. I like to use creative license to give my home players a challenge and experience. I don't use that same creative license in PFS. It isn't fair to players and other GMs.
|
|
This scenarios are written and reviewed to have story and fun. People coming into PFS should understand RAW is law. Catching them off guard with a challenge can easily get out of hand. You are cheating those players that come to your game and are caught off guard and unaware you make things harder. Keep in mind the extra cost hurts the player in the future so they are weaker at later levels.
Plus it is very hard to judge how to make things "just hard enough".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The campaign coordinator started receiving emails every week advising a GM had added stuff to a scenario to make it "more challenging", and it had turned into between 1-6 character deaths. Since the GM had run something that was not in the scenario, the players wanted a free raise dead. After several months and a hundred emails or so, enough was enough.
Man, there was someone a while back who didn't believe me when I said Mike keeps getting emails like that, thinking there was just the occasional isolated incident (or something like that). Wish I could remember who it was so I could answer their inquiry by referring them to this post. Ah, well. Maybe they'll see this post on their own and their curiosity will be satisfied.
|
|
I was recently told a story (yes, that makes it hearsay) from a friend who played a scenario wherein the GM had removed some encounters and had completely replaced the second part of the scenario with a weird melange of modified versions of the combats in a completely different place.
After he played the scenario, he read it in anticipation of GMing it at an upcoming game day... and found that he had been *bamboozled*! His experience of the scenario was not what other Pathfinder players would experience and so he was robbed of that shared experience we have when comparing notes as players about previously experienced scenarios.
"What?!? There were no flying monkeys in that combat! Not when I played it."
This is a really good reason for not fudging the modules- one GM might fudge it a tiny bit, others will completely re-write the darn thing.
Exactly. The moment you allow a modicum of "artistic interpretation" into organized play, you allow for the possibility of something like this happening. It might seem unfortunate, but it's the only way to really preserve the integrity of the adventure that authors have spent many, many hours pouring their hearts into.
Having a level of creativity and improvisation is still incredibly useful for organized play. It's why every NPC's dialog isn't scripted out word-for-word, because that person may react to the party a little differently based on how the group approaches them. But, just because you don't like a particular monster doesn't give you permission to throw it out for something else. If that's the experience you want, then a home game is perfect for you.
|
|
Whatever happened to "Story Trumps Rules"?
Well lets look at (what i think is) the origin for that quote in the gamers.
The DM nerfed one of the characters powers badly without adjusting the already very hard encounter.
The DM keeps forgetting that one of the characters is not a tanky fighter anymore, and keeps targeting him, repeatedly killing him.
The DM is avoiding targeting the fighter with 45 hit points.
The DM has the party set against a monsters whos CR is so wildly inappropriate that the monk needs a natural 20 on his will save just to be able to walk up to him without being dominated.
The final fight is only remotely close because outside interference moved all the miniatures around.
Most groups would not have found this fun.
|
|
Whatever happened to "Story Trumps Rules"? I mean really, that's the whole reason I've played this game for almost 20 years.
The campaign coordinator started receiving emails every week advising a GM had added stuff to a scenario to make it "more challenging", and it had turned into between 1-6 character deaths. Since the GM had run something that was not in the scenario, the players wanted a free raise dead. After several months and a hundred emails or so, enough was enough. If you want artistic license, play a home campaign. I can't stress this enough. You've advised the same thing several times and it is time to move on. It isn't going to change,
PFS has a stricter set of guidelines. I have a weekly home game I GM and we don't use PFS. I like to use creative license to give my home players a challenge and experience. I don't use that same creative license in PFS. It isn't fair to players and other GMs.
OK since we're moving on. What's the point of having a discussion on *Run As Written* if someone (I assume with authority) is going to come in put his foot down and say "moving on!"
Why don't you just delete the thread then. If there is no counter point to a discussion there is no discussion. Or do you just prefer we all sit around and agree with each other (and you)?
Your not looking for ideas or solutions. Your just saying "That's it, My Way!"
I kinda see that everyone disagrees with me. I'm not trying to win the debate, I'm trying to present the way people may feel. Maybe get a system in place to allow a GM a little wiggle room. But no. We're going to "move on" and not even allow for discussion. Curious, since this is the "Run As Written" thread, where exactly are we moving on to? Since the discussion is now over.
|
|
OK since we're moving on. What's the point of having a discussion on *Run As Written* if someone (I assume with authority) is going to come in put his foot down and say "moving on!"
Why don't you just delete the thread then. If there is no counter point to a discussion there is no discussion. Or do you just prefer we all sit around and agree with each other (and you)?
Your not looking for ideas or solutions. Your just saying "That's it, My Way!"
I kinda see that everyone disagrees with me. I'm not trying to win the debate, I'm trying to present the way people may feel. Maybe get a system in place to allow a GM a little wiggle room. But no. We're going to "move on" and not even allow for discussion. Curious, since this is the "Run As Written" thread, where exactly are we moving on to? Since the discussion is now over.
Organized play isn't for everyone. If you don't feel comfortable (or feel that your creativity is stifled) running as written, then running games in organized play isn't for you. That's not necessarily a bad thing, Pathfinder needs GMs that will run adventure paths or home games too. In fact, might I suggest you run one of the adventure paths in the home game mode? Then you can apply credit to a character, as can your players, but you can adjust the campaign as you see fit.
|
|
Organized play isn't for everyone. If you don't feel comfortable (or feel that your creativity is stifled) running as written, then running games in organized play isn't for you. That's not necessarily a bad thing, Pathfinder needs GMs that will run adventure paths or home games too. In fact, might I suggest you run one of the adventure paths in the home game mode? Then you can apply credit to a character, as can your players, but you can adjust the campaign as you see fit.
Yay logic.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Curious, since this is the "Run As Written" thread, where exactly are we moving on to? Since the discussion is now over.
We are moving on to other issues in PFS. This topic has been debated the last four years ad nauseum. People have not offered a solution that is workable around the world, with both GMs who have 20 years of experience and GMs running their very first game. If you are going to have rules in place for "wiggle" room for GMs to make adjustments on the fly to make the game "more fun," then it has to be applicable to all GMs across the board for Organized Play. Since you think that is a workable option, what are your suggestions since you have posted no suggestions here, and only argued the debate with no solutions to how to fix this problem in this entire thread?
Are you willing to allow a first or second time GM some wiggle room, to run your characters in an adventure, when that character may not have enough for a raise dead and be removed from play permanently? If your character was removed from play permanently because the GM decided to "make the game more fun," are you ok with that decision and consequence without any complaining to me, a VC, or anyone else? You are just going to take it in stride? What if it happens three times in a row, and three different characters are removed from play because of permanent death, all due to GM fiat to make the game "more fun and interesting"? Something tells me the answers to all of those are probably not. I know it wasn't for one player who sent me a series of four emails over three weeks 15 months ago.
And guess what? When you allow just "a little wiggle room" for GMs to make things "more interesting and fun", it drives players away from the game. It doesn't bring them into it. I have proof of this. I have emails from players in 11 different countries. What proof do you have to offer that allowing GM fiat is going to help bolster the number of players? If GM fiat would help bolster numbers more than double in a year as things currently growing, I certainly would consider it. But your "plan" (amd again nothing has really been presented by you yet), would almost certainly make the player base decrease, not increase.
P.S. please don't read any kind of tone into anything typed above. When I challenge people's ideas, a good deal of the time they feel it is a personal attack. All the above was typed in a matter-of-fact tone with no animosity at all.
|
As has been stated by many before, the problem with allowing GMs some wiggle room is the times when some GMs make a poor decision with their wiggle room. And that has and will continue to happen already, as Mr. Brock has pointed out many times, even while it isn't sanctioned.
Let's not make the situation any messier please. Instead, let's either get or allow some of our scenario writers to design some truly difficult scenarios here and there. Only folks looking for extreme challenge would play them, as they are entirely optional, and everyone wins.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
My overall confusion in all this concerns what can be done in converting the various stats to be Pathfinder compliant.
Aside from the various Undead that have different Hit Die, there is also Clerics using heavy armor and sorcerers that have no bloodlines.
To my mind, these things really can't be "run as written" as they are incomplete.
Thank you for your explanation, Mr Brock. My own feelings is that my own games may tend to go the other way, being to kind to the player. I can see the overall headaches all this gives the Society play as a whole, not just the annoyance of multiple Emails and such to the higher ups, but for those that try to GM and find exasperation at things that are mentioned as the result of this issue.
|
|
Here is where I break run as written. I love theme, and I feel sometimes the modules do not have enough theme and emotion in them. So I add fluff items into the module to try to involve the players more.
I will have people make perception checkswhen going into a village to notice people spying on them through the curtains. I will give life like characteristics to the fog as it lures them towards the dungeon crawl. For players I am famalair with I give villians traits that I know will make the PC hate them.
This is my full artistic paint brush I bring when I DM.
|
|
My first thought in reply to the idea of providing ideas regarding allowing modification was to tie it to the star system. Something like "GMs who have earned four stars can do the following..." I then remembered having recently played in a game with a 4 star GM who was already taking liberties with the movement system (creature moves were approximate rather than counted out on the grid) and who was taking liberties with the initiative system (denying a character the option of coming out of delay after one mook had completed his turn when there were other mooks on the same initiative die). It kinda left me remembering that the star system is primarily one that recognizes longevity rather than ability, with the upper tier observed game requirements being the exception.
Other organized game rating concepts that have been used in other organizations have included differentiated awards for higher tier competition (ACBL) and measuring results in comparison to established results of who else is playing (USCF). However, both of these examples come from competitive games rather than cooperative games and serve merely as brainstorming food for thought.
Essentially, what is needed to comfortably open up games to modification is a system in which a GM becomes certified to modify content based upon demonstrated ability to exercise good judgement in addition to a knowledge base upon which to draw from. It is possible to generate part of that information from the reporting database, but only if sufficient and appropriate data is being collected.
I'm not offering any complete answers, but rather food for thought in how to structure a system that would lead to identifying the necessary confidence and trust in capability.
|
|
Are you willing to allow a first or second time GM some wiggle room, to run your characters in an adventure, when that character may not have enough for a raise dead and be removed from play permanently? If your character was removed from play permanently because the GM decided to "make the game more fun," are you ok with that decision and consequence without any complaining to me, a VC, or anyone else? You are just going to take it in stride? What if it happens three times in a row, and three different characters are removed from play because of permanent death, all due to GM fiat to make the game "more fun and interesting"? Something tells me the answers to all of those are probably not.
If I trust my GM to provide a fun experience for the table, and I lose my character, that's OK. The key word here is "trust."
I have emails from players in 11 different countries.
Something tells me they did not actually trust their GM.
So, if the players all trust their GM, such as by unanimous vote, then there is really no problem at all with letting the GM do what he needs to do to provide the best experience possible. If the players are all okay with it, then change away.
-Matt
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Are you willing to allow a first or second time GM some wiggle room, to run your characters in an adventure, when that character may not have enough for a raise dead and be removed from play permanently? If your character was removed from play permanently because the GM decided to "make the game more fun," are you ok with that decision and consequence without any complaining to me, a VC, or anyone else? You are just going to take it in stride? What if it happens three times in a row, and three different characters are removed from play because of permanent death, all due to GM fiat to make the game "more fun and interesting"? Something tells me the answers to all of those are probably not.If I trust my GM to provide a fun experience for the table, and I lose my character, that's OK. The key word here is "trust."
I have emails from players in 11 different countries.Something tells me they did not actually trust their GM.
So, if the players all trust their GM, such as by unanimous vote, then there is really no problem at all with letting the GM do what he needs to do to provide the best experience possible. If the players are all okay with it, then change away.
-Matt
Sure, but this leads to an uber-uncomfortable version of the already-uncomfortable situation of the contested play up/play down decision. Who wants to outright say that they don't trust the GM?
|
|
Sure, but this leads to an uber-uncomfortable version of the already-uncomfortable situation of the contested play up/play down decision. Who wants to outright say that they don't trust the GM?
It's my understanding that if a GM is truly trustworthy, this shouldn't be a problem, because he'll be cool enough to broadcast what he's up to beforehand, the players who play under him will have a good idea of his style and the circumstances, and will all trust him to provide a good time. This sort of thing, obviously, works better for close-knit groups rather than public gamedays, and a truly-trustworthy GM would probably know that.
It would be nice to be able to adjust things for a table where everyone knows each other pretty well, without losing the sanctioned nature of the session.
-Matt