|
I was the GM in the case of the OP's first ninja death. A crit on a 10 CON ninja is an understandable death. However, I killed the oracle with a single, normal hit. The amazon woman in question did 2d6+10 damage with *both* hands each round. I had to pause and make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. That's a lot of damage for a tier 3-4 scenario. I concede that the party composition wasn't optimal. The two surviving members ran, but came back and made easy work of the rest of the scenario, thanks to the alchemist's See Invisibility and Create Pit.
This was actually the first time I killed PCs, and still feel a little guilty about it! D=
It's awkward that the eidolon was built incorrectly. With only two arms, she only gets one slam.
|
It's awkward that the eidolon was built incorrectly. With only two arms, she only gets one slam.I was the GM in the case of the OP's first ninja death. A crit on a 10 CON ninja is an understandable death. However, I killed the oracle with a single, normal hit. The amazon woman in question did 2d6+10 damage with *both* hands each round. I had to pause and make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. That's a lot of damage for a tier 3-4 scenario. I concede that the party composition wasn't optimal. The two surviving members ran, but came back and made easy work of the rest of the scenario, thanks to the alchemist's See Invisibility and Create Pit.
This was actually the first time I killed PCs, and still feel a little guilty about it! D=
The eidolon is legal. She has two limbs evolutions (arms and legs), which affords her the ability to get two slams.
|
Why shouldn't they be able to? We allow PCs to one-shot NPCs all the time if they roll high enough, so why can't a monster/NPC do the same?
As for "using only the tactics described in the scenario, otherwise you do a disservice to the writers and players" BS, no. I have lost count of how often I run into the scenario where someone at the table looks at the title and goes, "Oh, I remember this" and then explicitly screws me over by informing everyone of what actions to take to minimize the chance of failing. In essence, metagaming. Now, as a GM I can kick him fro mthe group for ruining the scenario, but I choose not to.
The tactics given, as far as I am concerned, are base tactics. We constantly tell the fighter with 13 INT that he should be well-versed enough in tactics to know how and when to flank, when to block etc. Why can't NPCs be the same way? Plus I love the look of the rogue who has been screwing me over for a few weeks because he knows the scenario when he gets bullrushed by the Orc Barbarian and flung out a third-story window, then complains about it.
Don't f!+@ with my fun, I don't f@+# with yours.
|
Why shouldn't they be able to? We allow PCs to one-shot NPCs all the time if they roll high enough, so why can't a monster/NPC do the same?
Because NPCs don't quit the game because their characters keep getting killed. We are trying to grow the hobby, not create some arbitrary sense of fairness that creates a competence bar most newbs can't reach.
We recently had to ban one of our DMs from DMing at our local organized play group because his kill ratio was so high that we kept losing newbs and even the veterans would avoid his table if they could. And one of the things he tended to do that got people killed was use his own highly experienced skill level to change the tactics of the monster from what was written to far more efficient ones. I hated to do it as he has done a lot of volunteering to help out the local group but he just can't seem to help himself and the complaints were far to much to ignore.
|
|
Why shouldn't they be able to? We allow PCs to one-shot NPCs all the time if they roll high enough, so why can't a monster/NPC do the same?
As for "using only the tactics described in the scenario, otherwise you do a disservice to the writers and players" BS, no. I have lost count of how often I run into the scenario where someone at the table looks at the title and goes, "Oh, I remember this" and then explicitly screws me over by informing everyone of what actions to take to minimize the chance of failing. In essence, metagaming. Now, as a GM I can kick him fro mthe group for ruining the scenario, but I choose not to.
The tactics given, as far as I am concerned, are base tactics. We constantly tell the fighter with 13 INT that he should be well-versed enough in tactics to know how and when to flank, when to block etc. Why can't NPCs be the same way? Plus I love the look of the rogue who has been screwing me over for a few weeks because he knows the scenario when he gets bullrushed by the Orc Barbarian and flung out a third-story window, then complains about it.
Don't f@&* with my fun, I don't f*%# with yours.
So a player violated the rules at your table and rather than eject him from your table(you had every right to), you chose to violate the rules yourself to get even with him?
If he died I hope he reported it to the event organizer/VO to get his character restored.
|
|
The eidolon is legal. She has two limbs evolutions (arms and legs), which affords her the ability to get two slams.It's awkward that the eidolon was built incorrectly. With only two arms, she only gets one slam.I was the GM in the case of the OP's first ninja death. A crit on a 10 CON ninja is an understandable death. However, I killed the oracle with a single, normal hit. The amazon woman in question did 2d6+10 damage with *both* hands each round. I had to pause and make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. That's a lot of damage for a tier 3-4 scenario. I concede that the party composition wasn't optimal. The two surviving members ran, but came back and made easy work of the rest of the scenario, thanks to the alchemist's See Invisibility and Create Pit.
This was actually the first time I killed PCs, and still feel a little guilty about it! D=
An eidolon can deliver a devastating slam attack. This attack is a primary attack. The slam deals 1d8 points of damage (2d6 if Large, 2d8 if Huge). The eidolon must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take this evolution. Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with this slam attack (this still costs 1 evolution point). This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution.
No. Unless you're planning on lawyering your way out of it, of course.
|
|
I have killed allot of characters. I may fudge the dice for new level 1's, I can't remeber when or if I did. I have never had a TPK, I have ran a couple scenarios in which only one person lived. I run allot of high tier games.
It is great to hear a player telling there tale to other players of some of my deadlier games. The most recent I heard was a recount of a season 4 scenario. Sorceror up, rest of the party in the negatives, firing 0 level spells at the "Boss" for 3 rounds. The "Boss" firing 0 level spells back. At the end the player hit with and the Party cheered.
Hero's do die.
I almost had a tpk on the first battle in the City of Strangers part I. 3 party members down 2 players up. At the time I was thinking this is insane. The 2 oracles rallied and saved their party.
|
|
I'm pretty much on board the "crit happens" train. If the scenario calls for that particular encounter to deal that much damage and you wind up being the victim of it? Guess you better hope you've got enough PP. If not, better reroll. S'just part of the game, a part of it I particularly enjoy. As a player that is. As a DM I'm finding myself not one shotting people frequently, but I do tend to roll crits when they're already at low health. ... Which is equally bad for them.
|
|
I still say that if you don't feel like combat is to be afraid of, you're denying yourself a great deal of the experience of playing this game.
If you want to play pathfinder, and don't want to die? Find some people to do a home game, but keep your chars out of society play.
While I personally agree this is coming from an experienced player who understands and accepts this mortality. It can come as a shock to a lot of newbs who don't understand it yet and that lack of understanding often leads to leaving the game.
The PFS guide doesn't advocate dice fudging but I have to wonder how can you not when you want to keep newbs around long enough to give them that understanding.
|
|
<snip>
One thing a GM can do is play the opponents as more or less hard-core. I approve of the GM who had the barbarian hit a PC rogue, who drops from the blow, and then switch target to a fresh bag of hit points. (A rogue and a ninja, both? This was the all-Stealth party?)
<snip>
Another thing to do is (if the printed "tactics" allow it) to play the opponent as less smart or distracted. For instance "choosing" to attack the fully armored [strike]meat shield[/strike] melee PC rather than the lightly armored (and less hit-pointy) arcane caster. Or spreading out its multiple attacks over multiple PCs rather than concentrating on killing a single PC.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I recall a recent fight that my Paladin / Hellknight found himself in, on another plane. I put on my Big Boy armor and was expecting to die on my feet against an infernal beast. He had another paladin at his side, and a really dangerous monk, and a barbarian
And then I became aware that the GM was doing everything in his power to keep us all lightly damaged. Rather than take five or six attacks against dangerous opponents, it would move ten feet and make a single swipe against somebody who'd just plinked it. Why yes, I guess we'll take our attacks of opportunity.
At one point, the GM said, under his breath, "What can I do, to not kill these guys?" It was like a Disney Haunted Mansion: scary looking but not really dangerous.
Now, I can understand his attitude, and I probably would have done something similar, if the party was significantly less powerful than the scenario expects, and particularly if it looked like the players were giving off a vibe suggesting that paying 24 PP would wreck their day. (Put another way, NWOrpheus, the tactics-as-listed are a default start, but they are subject to change due to PC actions, as well as player reaction.)
|
|
I recall a recent fight that my Paladin / Hellknight found himself in, on another plane. I put on my Big Boy armor and was expecting to die on my feet against an infernal beast. He had another paladin at his side, and a really dangerous monk, and a barbarian
And then I became aware that the GM was doing everything in his power to keep us all lightly damaged. Rather than take five or six attacks against dangerous opponents, it would move ten feet and make a single swipe against somebody who'd just plinked it. Why yes, I guess we'll take our attacks of opportunity.
At one point, the GM said, under his breath, "What can I do, to not kill these guys?" It was like a Disney Haunted Mansion: scary looking but not really dangerous.
Now, I can understand his attitude, and I probably would have done something similar, if the party was significantly less powerful than the scenario expects, and particularly if it looked like the players were giving off a vibe suggesting that paying 24 PP would wreck their day. (Put another way, NWOrpheus, the tactics-as-listed are a default start, but they are subject to change due to PC actions, as well as player reaction.)
I can honestly say that I probably wouldn't play under that GM after I caught them doing that. People building their characters in such a way that they're incapable of handling things at the appropriate tier is no reason to fudge rolls or dumb down the printed tactics. Characters die all the time. It's just part of the game. That being said, I know it can be a pain if you just keep losing them, but there's nothing anybody an do besides adjust their own tactics to avoid being the guy that eats six or seven attacks in a round.
|
|
First off, this is why you ask people, explicitly, "Have you run this scenario before?"
If yes: "Can you keep your mouth shut on encounters?"
If no: "You can't play."
Easy peasy. As stated just a moment ago, Mike Brock has said "Do not change the tactics. They're written that way for a reason."
You were in the wrong by not kicking him from the table. Period.
Link to Brock's post on this. Now.
The moment I see it is the moment I fold up my Pathfinder books, my GM screen, and tuck away the characters. We expect GMs to simply read the book itself and make things "fun" for the party, and with this we sacrifice our own fun to do it. We may as well sit there and Ben Stein that s**%, because there is no point anymore to giving them personalities other than to appease the players.
I have not played in an instance in over four months because I am the only person who will GM. Literally, if I stop GMing, ten people in two groups stop playing. None of them wants to take the time to set up the scenario. I took a two-month hiatus at one point because of the aforementioned anecdotal person, as well as getting tired of every NPC I had being intimidated, warranted or not. It just became boring for me. So I stop buying scenarios (which I am not compensated for by the store or the players, because the store owner will not allow me to). The group has no GM, because they don't have someone to buy the scenarios, read up on them and put together a fun game for the players. And the entire group goes to Shadowrun, or Legend of the Five Rings, or The Dresden Files.
|
|
The post people keep referring to is Here
I am sorry you don't find GMing as fun as I do. I am, however, a little offended at your attempt at intimidation by threatening to ruin the game for multiple people if you can't run it your way.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
You are not allowed to modify the feats, skills, HP, level, or quantity of NPCs in PFS. You are expected to follow the tactics for as long as they make sense, once it moves past that point, have the NPCs do what you imagine they would, following their specific motivations, etc.
For example, if tactics say a group of NPC archers shoot down flying PCs first with their bows, but no PCs are flying -- have them shoot at any PC with their bow.
|
|
Tactics are the bedrock from which you GM. I try to follow tactics as best I can and if things get derailed I improvise some. However, this improve is never aimed at making the players at my table pay. GMing should be fun for all. The game is confrontational enough, there is no need for the GM to add to it.
Hate to see you go but PFS is not for everyone.
|
|
The post people keep referring to is Here
I am sorry you don't find GMing as fun as I do. I am, however, a little offended at your attempt at intimidation by threatening to ruin the game for multiple people if you can't run it your way.
You're kidding right?
I have asked, time and again, to have one of the other players GM some scenarios, or set up a rotating schedule because I'd like to play the characters I give my credits to. Each time no one steps up. One time I actually said, 'You guys want to play this week, find someone else to GM because I'm not." No one showed to that session.
This is not intimidation. This is the fact that the sole reason I kept going as long as I did was because I could have some fun and give my players a challenge in scenarios that, quite frankly, are not challenging. If my group wants to play, they need a new GM. I'll be heading over to Eclipse Phase.
|
|
Quendishir is perhaps arguing his point a little bluntly, but I agree with his underlying point. The point of having a GM is to react to all the weird little nuances that show up in a role-playing game. If the players try something that the mod doesn't account for, the game can handle it because there is a GM. If the players are trying to game the system (like the guy who knew the module) the game can handle it because there is a GM.
I realize that a living campaign like PFS has to be more "by the book" than a home campaign, but if you completely tie the hands of the GMs and don't give them any ability to interpret how the characters and monsters in a mod react to unusual situations and opportunities, then you are taking away one of the strengths of the game. If we didn't have that, we should all go play Settlers of Cataan, where everyone must follow the rules exactly as written.
And before anyone gets all defensive about Settlers, I happen to like the game but it does not have the same characterful story-driven aspect that I expect to find in a role-playing game.
|
|
The post people keep referring to is Here
I am sorry you don't find GMing as fun as I do. I am, however, a little offended at your attempt at intimidation by threatening to ruin the game for multiple people if you can't run it your way.
You're kidding right?
I have asked, time and again, to have one of the other players GM some scenarios, or set up a rotating schedule because I'd like to play the characters I give my credits to. Each time no one steps up. One time I actually said, 'You guys want to play this week, find someone else to GM because I'm not." No one showed to that session.
This is not intimidation. This is the fact that the sole reason I kept going as long as I did was because I could have some fun and give my players a challenge in scenarios that, quite frankly, are not challenging. If my group wants to play, they need a new GM. I'll be heading over to Eclipse Phase.
There are two things that help:
1) Create a friendly and supportive environment where players feel comfortable trying to GM, asking questions before and during a game, and inevitably making some mistakes.2) Asking before you start playing that evening, "Who is DMing next week?" and then waiting for someone to step forward.
In my experience, if you do both of these things, people tend to step up. For example, I starting GMing around 1 month after I started playing PFS. I know several other GMs who did so by their 3rd month as well.
|
|
I realize that a living campaign like PFS has to be more "by the book" than a home campaign, but if you completely tie the hands of the GMs and don't give them any ability to interpret how the characters and monsters in a mod react to unusual situations and opportunities, then you are taking away one of the strengths of the game. If we didn't have that, we should all go play Settlers of Cataan, where everyone must follow the rules exactly as written.
And we do have that. But the tactics section of the character stats is a part of their character. The GM is supposed to play his NPCs in-character, and making adjustments to make things "more challenging" is changing their character.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The point of having a GM is to react to all the weird little nuances that show up in a role-playing game. If the players try something that the mod doesn't account for, the game can handle it because there is a GM. If the players are trying to game the system (like the guy who knew the module) the game can handle it because there is a GM.
I realize that a living campaign like PFS has to be more "by the book" than a home campaign, but if you completely tie the hands of the GMs and don't give them any ability to interpret how the characters and monsters in a mod react to unusual situations and opportunities, then you are taking away one of the strengths of the game.
Then it's a good thing no one's trying to argue otherwise.
Unfortunately, a great many people can't tell the difference between "responding appropriately to unanticipated player actions" and "changing things just because you like it better that way" and when someone warns against the latter, people start trying to defend the former (which was never being challenged in the first place).
(Not saying that's you, GeoffA, just saying that's the general format when these topics come up.)
|
|
There are two things that help:
1) Create a friendly and supportive environment where players feel comfortable trying to GM, asking questions before and during a game, and inevitably making some mistakes.2) Asking before you start playing that evening, "Who is DMing next week?" and then waiting for someone to step forward.
In my experience, if you do both of these things, people tend to step up. For example, I starting GMing around 1 month after I started playing PFS. I know several other GMs who did so by their 3rd month as well.
The issue isn't creating the environment: I've done that, along with another man who was GMing before I took over (he moved out-of-state). We keep it fun, we keep it well-run. People are encouraged to ask questions, even to the simplest things (it keeps the players honest and knowledgeable on the rules).
However, what ends up happening is fatigue. When a person is running scenarios twice a week for months now, then it's natural that he feels a bit bored with the entire thing. After all, the GM has to read through the scenario, ensure NPCs are properly accounted for, ensure proper planning prior to the playtime, and a myriad of things. That is what I do. Hell, I bring my tablet with me to keep track of NPC statistics, HP, etc. People--new and old--don't seem to enjoy that. They don't want to work. In many instances it's very much an issue of people just not caring about the other people. And while someone is probably going to read this and go, "Well, your threat says you don't care, either!", I will point out that I have not played in four-ish months. I have done nothing but GM games. I don't get time to myself to play, because I have no way to get to other games going on. In the end, what happens is I am the one doing the work, making it a second (third, for me) job so other people can have fun.
One of my first scenarios, we had nine people at the table. I didn't want to kick people out, so I asked someone else to GM. He said no, he was playing. Everyone stayed. I fudged the numbers a bit, added a few more NPCs to encounters, and everything went smoothly. No hiccups, one person almost died (and that is why CON is not a dump stat, children!), but overall I got nothing but great reviews for my handling of the problem. I broke pretty much every rule I could find in order to make sure people had fun, even though from a logistical standpoint it was the worst thing I had done.
The GM is there to make something fluid. It is not supposed to be as rigid as people want it to be--even Mike. I have ti take into account numerous things, and quite frankly I treat my NPCs like PCs most of the time. Once again, a veteran warrior NPC should have the common sense to use tactics beyond what is written down. It's not like the fighter suddenly has Magic Missile, but he knows when to flank, he becomes a kamikaze if he's that much of a fanatic. To prevent us from being able to act a bit and have fun is to tell GMs you don't trust us.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
While its fine to have seasoned foes, like the NPC warrior in your example, take actions like flanking, readying to interrupt spells, etc. It's not OK to have them do things outside the scope of their tactics.
Tactics say they attack spellcasters first -- they attack them first.
They don't attack the rogues, knock them out, and the CDG them first.
Those are the kind of tactics they aren't permitted to make. If you read through the thread those links are from, there's a vibrant discussion on the topic.
So bad guys can react to bizarre tactics the PCs take, or act intelligently if they are intelligent, but they can't act outside the scope of who they are.
I think that a crux of this current discussion between Q and the rest of us might be that we're talking past each other. I don't believe he/she is increasing the CR or anything like that. I think he/she is just trying to make his fights more enjoyable for his players. And to do that, you can have them make wise tactical decisions whilst still following their tactics (moving acrobatically, getting cover, 5-ft. stepping, etc).
|
|
To prevent us from being able to act a bit and have fun is to tell GMs you don't trust us.
Previous GMs have broken the rules in order to challenge parties, where their idea of 'challenge' is to cause as many PC deaths as possible. We're not preventing you from being able to have fun, unless your fun is outside the guidelines set by the campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't want to work. In many instances it's very much an issue of people just not caring about the other people. ...I have not played in four-ish months. I have done nothing but GM games. I don't get time to myself to play, because I have no way to get to other games going on. In the end, what happens is I am the one doing the work, making it a second (third, for me) job so other people can have fun.
One of my first scenarios, we had nine people at the table. I didn't want to kick people out, so I asked someone else to GM. He said no, he was playing. Everyone stayed.
You do something selfless to benefit others. Seems good, right? Except that you keep doing it even when you're burned out. And you're so dedicated that you eventually resent the time commitment. Even when it becomes a "third job", you still keep at it, so that other people can have fun. It becomes clear that others don't care enough to put in any work, but they don't have to because they know you will. They even now have proof that you'll do whatever it takes, up to and including running illegal tables, in order to accommodate them rather than letting them face the consequences of their own actions (or lack thereof). When you're beyond your limits and ask for help, people can say no and just let you handle more than your share anyway rather than having to do anything themselves (or even face the consequences of not doing it themselves), and now they know they can get away with it too.
When there were too many people and those who could have stepped up said no, they should have then been faced with the reality of limited space: having to either explain why someone else had to go home, or go home themselves. Instead, they were rescued from their decision.
This is called codependency. It's when someone can't establish proper boundaries and serves others at all costs. Not only does it produce the burnout that you're experiencing, it also enables selfish behavior in others. Nothing that the Organized Play campaign can do will change any of this. It won't get better until you can establish personal boundaries and be okay with people suffering the consequences of their own choices (such as choosing not to GM).
If people get pissed because you wouldn't break the rules to accommodate their lazy asses, that is not your fault, and neither is it your responsibility. Let them be pissed. That's their problem, not yours.
|
While its fine to have seasoned foes, like the NPC warrior in your example, take actions like flanking, readying to interrupt spells, etc. It's not OK to have them do things outside the scope of their tactics.
Tactics say they attack spellcasters first -- they attack them first.
They don't attack the rogues, knock them out, and the CDG them first.Those are the kind of tactics they aren't permitted to make. If you read through the thread those links are from, there's a vibrant discussion on the topic.
So bad guys can react to bizarre tactics the PCs take, or act intelligently if they are intelligent, but they can't act outside the scope of who they are.
I think that a crux of this current discussion between Q and the rest of us might be that we're talking past each other. I don't believe he/she is increasing the CR or anything like that. I think he/she is just trying to make his fights more enjoyable for his players. And to do that, you can have them make wise tactical decisions whilst still following their tactics (moving acrobatically, getting cover, 5-ft. stepping, etc).
To give a more concrete example
So, an example of something that would be ok is, if, after the first round, Halli hits a character with Acidic Ray, then realizes that character has resistance to Acid, she could switch to magic missile or maybe even color spray if people are in range, or just switch targets.
An example of what is not ok is for the GM to look at those tactics, think to themselves, "Well, that's silly," and instead have her run up in the first round of combat and color spray the entire party, because that's the more effective tactic. It's also a lot more likely to lead to a TPK or failed mission, and the tactics were likely written with that in mind.
The tactics in that last fight being run incorrectly (forgetting about the Obscuring Mist, which hurts the enemy almost more than the PCS, or having Halli be more proactive with her area effect spells, etc.) lead to almost as many problems as the occasional crit from Ledford.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think that a crux of this current discussion between Q and the rest of us might be that we're talking past each other. I don't believe he/she is increasing the CR or anything like that. I think he/she is just trying to make his fights more enjoyable for his players. And to do that, you can have them make wise tactical decisions whilst still following their tactics (moving acrobatically, getting cover, 5-ft. stepping, etc).
One of my first scenarios, we had nine people at the table. ... Everyone stayed. I fudged the numbers a bit, added a few more NPCs to encounters... I broke pretty much every rule I could find in order to make sure people had fun
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
While its fine to have seasoned foes, like the NPC warrior in your example, take actions like flanking, readying to interrupt spells, etc. It's not OK to have them do things outside the scope of their tactics.
Tactics say they attack spellcasters first -- they attack them first.
They don't attack the rogues, knock them out, and the CDG them first.Those are the kind of tactics they aren't permitted to make. If you read through the thread those links are from, there's a vibrant discussion on the topic.
But on the other hand, if the rogues are flanking him, should the seasoned warrior provoke two sneak attacks to run over and swing at the caster, or take a 5-foot step out of flanking and take a swing at one rogue? I think that's the kind of change of tactics that's perfectly acceptable, because the original plan became suicidal.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think that a crux of this current discussion between Q and the rest of us might be that we're talking past each other. I don't believe he/she is increasing the CR or anything like that. I think he/she is just trying to make his fights more enjoyable for his players. And to do that, you can have them make wise tactical decisions whilst still following their tactics (moving acrobatically, getting cover, 5-ft. stepping, etc).One of my first scenarios, we had nine people at the table. ... Everyone stayed. I fudged the numbers a bit, added a few more NPCs to encounters... I broke pretty much every rule I could find in order to make sure people had fun
Well that's not right. Don't do that.
That should have been two tables. Or one table with a max of 7 players.
Never add more baddies to a fight or do any changes like that.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
But on the other hand, if the rogues are flanking him, should the seasoned warrior provoke two sneak attacks to run over and swing at the caster, or take a 5-foot step out of flanking and take a swing at one rogue? I think that's the kind of change of tactics that's perfectly acceptable, because the original plan became suicidal.While its fine to have seasoned foes, like the NPC warrior in your example, take actions like flanking, readying to interrupt spells, etc. It's not OK to have them do things outside the scope of their tactics.
Tactics say they attack spellcasters first -- they attack them first.
They don't attack the rogues, knock them out, and the CDG them first.Those are the kind of tactics they aren't permitted to make. If you read through the thread those links are from, there's a vibrant discussion on the topic.
Perhaps. Difficult to say since we're both speaking in hypothetical situations in order to bolster our perspectives :P
|
|
Your VC should be helping you muster tables as well. I have heard that Mike Brock will even help people with preparation, scenario acquisition, and whatever people need to make game days happen. Look up your VC and drop him a line if it is becoming too much to handle.
How did you get a level 6 character and a level 3 character while not reaching any GM stars? I find it hard to believe those characters are built off GM credit when you have no stars. 10 games = 1st star.
|
|
I'm sure it's been said already, but...
If PCs expect to be able to one-shot or one-round an NPC/Monster, they should also expect said creature to be able to one-shot/round them as well.
I do my best to prep encounters from the bad guys' perspectives. Is it driven by hunger? Would it want some/all of the PCs alive? Does it have some advanced tactical training?