|
I forgot to address this earlier, but you really can't compare enemies and PCs. The enemies are *supposed* to lose in the vast majority of cases. They don't get equal opportunity.No, but that doesn't give heroes a free pass either.
They don't automatically get to win and live just because they are player characters.
Sometimes they lose, and sometimes they die.
Sometimes they might even die in a very anti-climactic way that doesn't befit the heroic and epic story of their life.
Such is the risk of adventuring.
I don't want to be mean about it, but sometimes you just gotta "Deal With It!"
I think that we may just have very different gaming philosophies, and for that reason, we are unlikely to agree.
I am a utilitarianist when it comes to gaming. I believe that games are played for the enjoyment of the players, and I take actions that increase that enjoyment. I advocate for rules changes that I believe will increase that enjoyment. I also do not hold rules in great reverence because they are the vehicle to gaming enjoyment, not the destination.
The crit rule as it currently stands isn't a lot of fun, in my opinion. Neither is dying unceremoniously in an unwinnable situation. As a result, I see no reason to keep things as they are. I certainly don't see any reason for scenarios to be built with that sort of spikiness in mind, especially at Tier 1-2.
You and I don't have a lot of difference in gaming philosophy.
Most of my home games I go out of my way to "NOT" kill characters, because I like to develop storylines within my campaigns that require the characters to live. I like it to be like a novel, where the characters live and become epic.
But I can't advocate that (nor do I wish to) in an organized campaign.
This is not a home game.
Our characters are not one of 5 primaries (unless you are Robert Jordan and then its one of 27) that all become epic.
We are the rank and file of the Pathfinder Society field agents.
Sometimes they die.
And sometimes that death us egregiously unceremonious.
It is more gritty than high heroic home campaigns.
That's the nature of the beast. You either deal with it, or perhaps organized play is not for you.
|
|
I don't want to be mean about it, but sometimes you just gotta "Deal With It!"As a GM, I actually don't have to 'deal with it'. I'm more limited in what power I can exercise in PFS, but I still have the power.
I agree completely. And at times I have, and still plan to, use my GM discretion to negate a critical so that a brand new players character won't die to ridiculous happenstance.
That being said.
Sometimes you just gotta "Deal With It!"
Criticals are a game mechanic, and we can't ignore a game mechanic everytime it arises simply because it might make a person pout, take their dice, and go home.
|
Seems to me one of the simplest ways to minimize the one-shot crit problem is to not use x3 crit weapons in low tier scenarios.
If we are talking about this about a way for 1st level characters to be more survivable, it won't help.
So, let's say we take the barbarian with a greataxe (1d12+6, X3 crit) and replace the axe with a great sword (2d6+6, X2 crit).
The sword is twice as likely to crit, and the crit damage will still kill a character who has dumped CON, 4d6+12 = 26dmg on average. That's even enough to kill a fighter with a 14 CON in one shot (assuming he doesn't have Toughness and put his favored class bonus into a skill). So, it becomes twice as likely to one-shot kill a 1st level character.
Note that the +6 damage isn't even that much for a level 1 barbarian... that's only a base STR of 14, with rage putting him at 18. That's without Power Attack (which would add 6 damage to a crit) as well.
So, if we are trying to eliminate the "lucky" critical killing a character, we are better off staying with the X3 crits. Unless you are going to say any opponent at the tier has to have a Greatclub (or another simple weapon), or that they cannot use two-handed weapons?
The simplest thing to remember here is... Crit happens.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I forgot to address this earlier, but you really can't compare enemies and PCs. The enemies are *supposed* to lose in the vast majority of cases. They don't get equal opportunity.No, but that doesn't give heroes a free pass either.
They don't automatically get to win and live just because they are player characters.
Sometimes they lose, and sometimes they die.
Sometimes they might even die in a very anti-climactic way that doesn't befit the heroic and epic story of their life.
Such is the risk of adventuring.
I don't want to be mean about it, but sometimes you just gotta "Deal With It!"
I think that we may just have very different gaming philosophies, and for that reason, we are unlikely to agree.
I am a utilitarianist when it comes to gaming. I believe that games are played for the enjoyment of the players, and I take actions that increase that enjoyment. I advocate for rules changes that I believe will increase that enjoyment. I also do not hold rules in great reverence because they are the vehicle to gaming enjoyment, not the destination.
The crit rule as it currently stands isn't a lot of fun, in my opinion. Neither is dying unceremoniously in an unwinnable situation. As a result, I see no reason to keep things as they are. I certainly don't see any reason for scenarios to be built with that sort of spikiness in mind, especially at Tier 1-2.
You and I don't have a lot of difference in gaming philosophy.
Most of my home games I go out of my way to "NOT" kill characters, because I like to develop storylines within my campaigns that require the characters to live. I like it to be like a novel, where the characters live and become epic.
But I can't advocate that (nor do I wish to) in an organized campaign.
This is not a home game.
Our characters are not one of 5 primaries (unless you are Robert Jordan and then its one of 27) that all become epic.
We are the rank...
I really wish we'd stop pulling that card. That's no way to grow a campaign. I've GMmed 59 games since November, when I rolled up my first-ever pen and paper RPG character. Were it not for PFS, I would have no involvement in the roleplaying game community. I'd like to think that I've helped my local region out by GMming, inviting other players to play and helping new players learn. Do I fudge sometimes? Absolutely. Do I think that some of the missions that PFS characters go on should be of less importance than the missions in an AP? By their nature as 4-hour scenarios, absolutely. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat every player's desires with reverence and respect.
I've fudged for the players before. I've fudged for experienced and inexperienced players alike when they were getting ready to die to a particularly stupid death. I've tried to help teach players how to improve. PFS should *not* be grittier than a home game because, in a home game, a GM has options for bringing players back within the storyline, options that are unavailable to a PFS GM.
Yes, adventurer deaths do happen. I am firmly of the opinion that they shouldn't happen that often at early levels to PCs. Why? Because those sorts of stories are no fun for anybody. If they're not fun for anybody, then there's no point in going through it.
I have yet to hear any complaints from a player in this regard. However, if necessary, I suppose that I could cancel my 7 slots for Origins, 8 slots for Gencon, the 12 sessions I've signed up to GM locally before September and the roughly 12 sessions I'll GM online in that period.
|
Look, here's what it comes down to.
If you're playing in Pathfinder, or any PnP game, you have to accept that "permadeath" is a thing. It can come in some of the most unlikely spots (I once had a kobold barbarian, while raging, crit a level 1 PC for more than enough to kill him). One-shots happen. If you expect that because you have a name and the NPC doesn't that you have certain advantages and immunities, you're mistaken. No GM worth his salt is going to neuter his NPCs just so you don't die. That is not our job. We are not there to be the way your character levels, with little to no danger to his health. We are there to tell the story, and if that story involves your character taking my Ax of Capitalism right in your face, then so be it. You get one-shot. Sucks, we've all been there (including me).
It seems many people want GMs to neuter characters so they can keep their character. Here's the thing, though: we don't have to tell you anything. We don't haveto show you our rolls, tell you what the NPC's AC is, or what his plus-hit to attack is. I know many GMs do this to help out some players, but I know that I will generally tell you to figure it out yourself (when it comes to the AC, mind you). When an NPC crits, he crits. Sorry, that's just how it is.
People don't want us to do our jobs. I see that more and more in posts on these forums. We are supposed to tell the story, and that story better not involve the death of characters. Even at level 1! I'm sorry, but this is due to the WoW mentality, as was mentioned earlier. It's a generalization I will make and stand behind, because that mentality is what ruins games.
It is slowly ruining World of Warcraft (1.2 million subscriptions lost in three months, with Blizzard admitting there is no foreseeable slowing of these figures in the near future).
It is slowly killing EvE Online (high security space slowly becoming untenable as a hub for PvP aside from suicide ganking).
It is slowly ruining SWTOR (though the shoddy game might be the bigger factor in this).
PnP is not immune to this. You see in organized play that GMs are not trusted. Brock has stated as much (and in some instances, that's understandable. Some GMs cannot do that). Hell, look at the reactions I received in this thread when I stated simply that I broke some rules so others could play as well (I broke the table numbers, and people complained about that because I "should have made two tables", even though I stated in the post NO ONE ELSE WANTED TO GM THAT DAY). Eventually, when DnD Next comes out Paizo has to make the decision: keep the game like it is, or give the GMs more autonomy, allow them to go a bit off-script with scenarios (not overboard) to keep things interesting. Either will lose players, but I believe keeping the status quo will lead to more and more people leaving Pathfinder, because the people who have played for years will feel no love for the game. People are going to stop GMing games because they hate being unable to properly expand on the scenario.
The best thing in the game is the GM when he's competent. The worst thing is when the GM has no idea what he's doing and can't make decisions based on common sense and simple math. If it doesn't change to give GMs a bit more leeway in the scenarios, you'll have a lot more of the latter, and a lot less of the former.
|
|
Criticals are a game mechanic, and we can't ignore a game mechanic everytime it arises simply because it might make a person pout, take their dice, and go home.Agreed, although I am more looking to avoid a player having to sit there for the next three hours because his character is dead.
I don't disagree. But sometimes that can't be avoided. You shouldn't not crit and kill the character at the 2nd encounter just because that player might have nothing else to do for 3 hours, but then go ahead and kill a character in the final combat of a different player. How is that fair to the 2nd player?
Why should his luck get him a charge of 16PP (or even Permadeath) while the 1st character had the luck to be early in the scenario, so you wouldn't kill them?
|
|
I really wish we'd stop pulling that card. That's no way to grow a campaign. I've GMmed 59 games since November, when I rolled up my first-ever pen and paper RPG character. Were it not for PFS, I would have no involvement in the roleplaying game community. I'd like to think that I've helped my local region out by GMming, inviting other players to play and helping new players learn. Do I fudge sometimes? Absolutely. Do I think that some of the missions that PFS characters go on should be of less importance than the missions in an AP? By their nature as 4-hour scenarios, absolutely. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat every player's desires with reverence and respect.
I've fudged for the players before. I've fudged for experienced and inexperienced players alike when they were getting ready to die to a particularly stupid death. I've tried to help teach players how to improve. PFS should *not* be grittier than a home game because, in a home game, a GM has options for bringing players back within the storyline, options that are unavailable to a PFS GM.
Yes, adventurer deaths do happen. I am firmly of the opinion that they shouldn't happen that often at early levels to PCs. Why? Because those sorts of stories are no fun for anybody. If they're not fun for anybody, then there's no point in going through it.
I have yet to hear any complaints from a player in this regard. However, if necessary, I suppose that I could cancel my 7 slots for Origins, 8 slots for Gencon, the 12 sessions I've signed up to GM locally before September and the roughly 12 sessions I'll GM online in that period.
You really don't have to be this melodramatic about it you realize.
You have your style of GM'ing. I have mine.
If your players are enjoying your tables, and mine are enjoying mine, and neither of us is breaking any rules, then game on!
I'm not telling you that you are wrong in the way that you GM.
I'm doing my best to set the stage that sometimes bad things happen to adventurers, and in PFS, as GMs, we have less we can do about it than in a non-organized play environment.
And sometimes, you just gotta "DEAL WITH IT!"
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Well, for the record, I'm a fairly lethal GM at higher tiers. I generally roll in the open if the APL is above 5. I'm fully expecting that my 10-11 table this Sunday (My third star!) will be a TPK of some of the most experienced players in our region; the scenario is just that brutal, and I'm fully prepared to bring the heat. I just think that there's little value in the randomness that is a critical hit at level 1.
Then again, I'm the sort of person who hates random numbers anyway. This is probably because I'm a lawyer, and I feel that major decisions should be justified by something other than a random number. You can't really argue with a random number. :P
|
|
Maybe so. Haven't yet.Actually, at some point, as a player, you just might.No, I don't.Look, here's what it comes down to.
If you're playing in Pathfinder, or any PnP game, you have to accept that "permadeath" is a thing.
Neither have I, although I've come very, very close. If it weren't for a GM taking mercy. Although I told him after the fact that I'd accept things if he wanted to do what the NPCs really would have done.
But then I'm an extremely experienced roleplayer and GM. So it would have been sad to lose that personality (that character), I would not have thrown a tantrum about it.
|
|
Really? Because I did a quick double-check, comparing my posts with screenshots just to be safe.
Lookit that, all my posts remain, unedited. Don't you feel silly now?
Accept permadeath or stop playing. That is what is part of the game, like it or not.
Wow, you do screenshots? That's diligent. I'm in too many threads to spend that much effort. I must be thinking of another moderated thread.
I don't have to accept permadeath as part of the game, because the game is modular enough for that to be removed if the players desire.
It's a part of your game, not a part of mine. Please stop telling people who play differently than you that they are wrong and should stop playing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I broke the table numbers, and people complained about that because I "should have made two tables", even though I stated in the post NO ONE ELSE WANTED TO GM THAT DAY
You choice to capitalize that last part for emphasis seems to imply that we didn't grasp that that was the case. We did. It is okay to turn people away due to being over capacity with no one else to GM. In fact, doing so is preferable to running illegal tables. The fact that you prioritized accommodating others' preferences over everything else just showed everyone that they can continue to refuse to give back and suffer none of the consequences of that decision, and is probably a big reason why you're still the only GM.
|
|
Really? Because I did a quick double-check, comparing my posts with screenshots just to be safe.
Lookit that, all my posts remain, unedited. Don't you feel silly now?
Accept permadeath or stop playing. That is what is part of the game, like it or not.
Wow, you do screenshots? That's diligent. I'm in too many threads to spend that much effort.
I don't have to accept permadeath as part of the game, because the game is modular enough for that to be removed if the players desire.
It's a part of your game, not a part of mine. Please stop telling people who play differently than you that they are wrong and should stop playing.
And the minute the "players" decide on that is the minute Pathfinder Society fails. Players come into PnP understanding the risks. You grow attached to characters, certainly. I'm partial to my own Gunslinger and Ranger. That sdoes not mean, however, that they should not rick permanent death because of my feelings on the subject.
You claim that it is modular. It is, I agree. But the fact f the matter remains that the people who have played these games for years--decades, even--are part of the core group that keeps stuff like this going. We make characters, understanding we may not even make it through one scenario. Oh well, roll up another!
Do I think that permadeath will be removed? No. The solid players, the ones who enjoy Pathfinder and DnD for what it is and accept the risks that come with the character creation won't allow it, and in the end Paizo and Wizards will [i]have[i/i] to listen (hell, it's why Wizards stopped 4.0 so quickly...the players who cared and had clout said it was bad!), or they die. Simple as that.
|
|
And the minute the "players" decide on that is the minute Pathfinder Society fails.I'm not talking about Society play. You said "If you're playing in Pathfinder, or any PnP game, you have to accept that "permadeath" is a thing." I'm telling you that statement is false.
And I would like to see the group that is going to continuously spend their gold and resources to keep bringing someone back to life. Eventually, permadeath becomes a thing.
|
|
I broke the table numbers, and people complained about that because I "should have made two tables", even though I stated in the post NO ONE ELSE WANTED TO GM THAT DAYYou choice to capitalize that last part for emphasis seems to imply that we didn't grasp that that was the case. We did. It is okay to turn people away due to being over capacity with no one else to GM. In fact, doing so is preferable to running illegal tables. The fact that you prioritized accommodating others' preferences over everything else just showed everyone that they can continue to refuse to give back and suffer none of the consequences of that decision, and is probably a big reason why you're still the only GM.
Agreed.
This is why it is important to have an RSVP system, (or at least a first come first serve system) where whoever RSVP’s first (or shows up first) gets a seat at the table.
If you show up too late, or don’t RSVP soon enough, and nobody else is willing to GM, then you turn people away.
You’ll find people offering to GM pretty quickly after that.
|
|
I will say that if "fudging the dice" isn't legal to save a character, it also should not be to kill one. I have had several PFS GMs admit to me that they do this. If this is indeed not an encouraged practice, get rid of the screen all together and have a GM mat. Maybe when your GM is rolling out in the open, you'll have less crits. Integrity goes both ways.I totally agree with this, and I'm on the Crits Happen side of the fence.
GM's should abide by the rules above all others. The only time that GM rolls should be hidden, in my opinion, are for perception or search based checks, and possibly stealth checks. MAYBE knowledge checks, if the GM wants to potentially spread disinformation.
The only reason to roll attacks or saving throws, etc, behind a screen is so the GM can fudge them, which they absolutely should not be doing. In either direction.
I generally roll mind behind a screen because if the players see the roll and then hear, "What's your AC? ...it hits." they can generally make out information they should have no access to. It's kind of like in Magic: the Gathering. You are fishing for information that you should have no access to, and the rules clearly state this (for instance, cards in hand, the library, the sideboard).
If you feel that your GM should not use a screen, that means you don't trust the GM to abide by the rules. That probably means you should stop playing with him if you believe he has no integrity.
|
|
It seems we've drifted away from discussing one-shot kill to general risk of death. These are two different concepts.
I've got no problem with adventuring being risky and there being a chance of death. But give me a chance.
I am not a fan of:
Roll for initiative.
Monster/villian goes first.
You are instantly dead.
What's heroic or fun in that?
|
|
And I would like to see the group that is going to continuously spend their gold and resources to keep bringing someone back to life. Eventually, permadeath becomes a thing.And the minute the "players" decide on that is the minute Pathfinder Society fails.I'm not talking about Society play. You said "If you're playing in Pathfinder, or any PnP game, you have to accept that "permadeath" is a thing." I'm telling you that statement is false.
Depends on if they even have to spend resources on it.
|
|
They generally do. This isn't an issue of "everybody gets one". If a PFS GM allows you to randomly come back, that's on them, and I can see them no longer being allowed the GM. In home games, hey, do whatever you want. But I view games like that, where there is no risk of permanent death to be drab and unimaginative. After all, if my Fighter doesn't have to worry about death, then screw it I suppose, we're going to pretty much run into the middle of the fight and have everyone nuke him. Because he's coming back in a bit.
No one's a "spawn b##~!" (to use the HALO term in CO-OP mode) in Pathfinder or any PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
You can't use what is in place currently to justify what should be. We are arguing the direction in which the campaign should go. You are arguing the way things are right now.This is why your posts got deleted. You may want to rethink how you approach discussion with people you disagree with.Then go back to Hello Kitty Island Adventure.No, I don't.Look, here's what it comes down to.
If you're playing in Pathfinder, or any PnP game, you have to accept that "permadeath" is a thing.
Really? Because I did a quick double-check, comparing my posts with screenshots just to be safe.
Lookit that, all my posts remain, unedited. Don't you feel silly now?
Accept permadeath or stop playing. That is what is part of the game, like it or not.
Please choose a different thread to argue about whether you want new rules for criticals in organized play. This thread isn’t about that.
The original question was whether there is a rule that GM’s can’t one shot characters.
There isn’t.
And to be honest, I think its incredibly namby pamby to want risk of death removed from the game. Seriously.
I don't want the risk of death removed from the game. I want the risk of unavoidable death removed from the game and death to be somewhat recoverable at low levels. Again, I am a rather lethal GM at high levels.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Let's take a look at a particularly deadly Level 1 scenario. There is an invisible thing in it that, when it crits, can do about 60 damage to a level 1 character. In order to prepare for it given skills available at level 1, you would need a perception score of around +25, and even then, it's a pretty low chance. That's just not satisfying in the least.That would be zero fun to play, even if your character wasn't the one randomly doomed just by attempting to play that scenario.
It makes me wish that the rule actually read:
"When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, they will die at the end of their next turn unless healed.There should always be the chance for the players to actually do something.
The player CAN do something. They can make another character.
One of the major arguments against crits vs players is that scenarios can't be replayed, and that level 1 characters blah blah whine whine.
But you CAN repeat any Tier 1 scenario. Unlimited times, in fact. Which means that in the particular scenario that everyone is complaining about, where a level 1 character is getting geeked? Nothing irreplaceable is lost, except, at most, 3 gaming sessions.
Someone call the waaaambulance.
Make a new character. Do it better. Yes, you're expected to be able to 'optimize' your character so that it doesn't die. If you're not good at this? Find someone to help you. People are usually more than willing to spout their knowledge of tactics and etc at people who don't know.
If you're a level 1 ninja who is getting targeted and insta-killed? You aren't being stealthy enough. You're a LEVEL 1 NINJA. Not a level 3 fighter. Know your role.
There is so much wrong with this post...
1) Tier 1-5 scenarios can't be replayed. There are exceptions for First Steps (which is being retired) and level 1 modules (Master of the Fallen Fortress, Murderer's Mark and Crypt of the Everflame). There's not that much content that can be replayed, and running out of 1-5 scenarios is a very realistic thing. I'm running pretty low on ones to GM, and I've only been at it since November.
2) There is a *lot* being lost that has nothing to do with mechanics. I'm referring here to a PC's personality and backstory. It's widely considered to be cheap and silly to make another character that uses the same personality. Therefore, if that PC is killed, you are killing that players' ability to play that character concept. Forever. That's a pretty big loss.
3) No amount of optimization will prevent 60 damage from killing a level 1 PC. A lot of these fights that I'm referring to in this thread are surprise fights, in which the PCs do not have the opportunity to group up and put the people who can take hits in the front.
|
|
It seems we've drifted away from discussing one-shot kill to general risk of death. These are two different concepts.
I've got no problem with adventuring being risky and there being a chance of death. But give me a chance.
I am not a fan of:
Roll for initiative.
Monster/villian goes first.
You are instantly dead.What's heroic or fun in that?
I’m not a fan of it either. I don’t know anyone who is. It blows wild monkey chunks to get sucker-punched to insta-perma-death.
However, it is part of the game mechanics. Sometimes it will happen.
Hopefully that “sometimes” is extremely rare.
|
|
I don't want the risk of death removed from the game. I want the risk of unavoidable death removed from the game and death to be somewhat recoverable at low levels. Again, I am a rather lethal GM at high levels.
And to be honest, I think its incredibly namby pamby to want risk of death removed from the game. Seriously.
I think that is utterly impossible and completely inappropriate for a creative game.
Silbeg has pointed out a huge reason why. You remove all the x 4 crit weapons and you get the x 3. You remove all the x 3 crit weapons, and you get the x 2 that are 19-20 or even 18-20.
So then you have a small subset of weapons that can be given to NPCs, making it incredibly hard for authors to write imaginative scenarios that have actual people as the badguys.
So then you have all the monsters that have stat blocks, with weapons in them. So you have to get rid of all the monsters that use weapons with high crit multipliers and high crit ranges.
But then you have monsters that have poison, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities that can all end an encounter immediately in perma-insta-death. Even at low levels.
To completely remove the risk of unavoidable death at low levels, you basically are going to have cookie-cutter vanilla encounters with no differentiation or creativity. Is that what you really want?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I forgot to address this earlier, but you really can't compare enemies and PCs. The enemies are *supposed* to lose in the vast majority of cases. They don't get equal opportunity.No, but that doesn't give heroes a free pass either.
They don't automatically get to win and live just because they are player characters.
Sometimes they lose, and sometimes they die.
Sometimes they might even die in a very anti-climactic way that doesn't befit the heroic and epic story of their life.
Such is the risk of adventuring.
I don't want to be mean about it, but sometimes you just gotta "Deal With It!"
I think that we may just have very different gaming philosophies, and for that reason, we are unlikely to agree.
I am a utilitarianist when it comes to gaming. I believe that games are played for the enjoyment of the players, and I take actions that increase that enjoyment. I advocate for rules changes that I believe will increase that enjoyment. I also do not hold rules in great reverence because they are the vehicle to gaming enjoyment, not the destination.
The crit rule as it currently stands isn't a lot of fun, in my opinion. Neither is dying unceremoniously in an unwinnable situation. As a result, I see no reason to keep things as they are. I certainly don't see any reason for scenarios to be built with that sort of spikiness in mind, especially at Tier 1-2.
See the part in bold? That's YOUR opinion. You can voice your opinion, but you are expected to play within the boundaries of the rules as they exist. If you change things to suit YOUR opinion, you are cheating.
If enough people voice that opinion, than maybe the staff at Paizo will change things. Unless and until they do? Suck it up.
Frankly? You should hang up your GM hat. You've admitted to cheating repeatedly. You do a disservice to every other player in PFS by doing so. You've been given reasons WHY it's cheating,...
First of all, I take offense to your use of the term cheating for two reasons. Cheating is defined as breaking the rules for personal gain. I have nothing to gain from this, so it is not cheating. More importantly, the rules themselves contemplate fudging as an acceptable response to these things happening. Don't believe me? Look at the first few pages of the CRB. The rules are not supposed to get in the way of the players' fun. Perhaps my players' fun is different than your players' idea of fun. Perhaps it isn't. I'm certainly not going to give my players a less enjoyable experience to please some arbitrary force on an internet messageboard.
Second, it is patently ridiculous to say that I am doing my players or anybody else a disservice. I beg you, show me an example of *why* I am doing *anybody* a disservice. I am helping new players learn the game, giving people a fun time. What is wrong with that? Just because it doesn't conform to your grimdark view of the world doesn't mean that it's wrong.
Third, if it weren't for my players, I probably wouldn't be doing Society. As it stands, Society is extremely convenient for me - I get to play at cons, I have a regular player base, and the sessions work well with my work schedule. I like the idea of an organized play campaign. I like the camaraderie and the portability. I like being able to compare and contrast notes with other GMs and players. I like the continuing storyline. In fact, the only thing that I don't like about it is how hard-nosed some people can be regarding these things.
The first rule of any game, the first rule stated in the Core Rulebook and the entire premise of Gary Gygax's Role Playing Game Mastery is that games are supposed to be fun. That is it. If it's not fun, there's no reason to play it. I don't consider undeserved, random and impossible to avoid death at level 1 to be fun. Maybe you do. If you do, then more power to you.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Baron, my point was that the vast majority of 1-5s can't be replayed - there exists a very small subset that can. The post that I quoted assumed that all of them can be replayed.
Andrew, I think that PFS needs to simply be more accepting of allowing for the occasional fudging of really, really bad luck at early levels due to the far-reaching implications, or that it should provide options for low-level Raise Dead. That's all. The weapons don't need to be changed, GMs just need to be expressly given the power to ignore a threatened critical if the need strikes.
|
Maybe this should go in another thread, feel free to slap me if so...
It wasn't a one shot kill but this past weekend at a PFS event, the GM seemed to pick on one player and even had the NPC attacking the player after he dropped below 0.
It was the final fight in Defenders of Nesting Swallow, we were all level 1 characters and the victim was a monk. I just felt bad for the kid (he was 12) and question the need to kick a character when he's down.
Believe me, I'm all for character death... the possibility is what should drive your actions - but blatant out-of-the-way efforts to kill a character isn't cool. Left a bad taste in my mouth and it wasn't my character :(
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
The players, of course, don't know about it.
You have yet to show how I have committed a disservice to any of my players. Further, under the rules set out in the Core Rulebook, the Game Mastery Guide and the Rules for Organized Play, I feel that I am justified in my decision. It's honestly something I've only done a handful of times - luckily, it hasn't come up that much. When it does happen, though, I am prepared to make that decision.
Conversely, I recently GMmed a table of The Infernal Vault. It was going very poorly for the table at Tier 1-2, and I was fully prepared to TPK the party. Why? Because the fight lasted for several rounds, there were no crits and bad luck was not involved. The party should have ran, but they didn't. In the end, it was a single sorceress standing against a skeleton, and the sorceress rolled just high enough to keep the skeleton from dropping her.
That was a satisfying victory for my players. Had they died, it would have felt like a satisfying defeat. Everybody had an opportunity to act and to make choices, as poor as some of them were.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |