|
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.
Unless the rule is, that GM’s “MUST” ignore the one-shot kill, I’m going to guess than most won’t. I could be completely speaking out of school, but in my experience, it really takes a judge who’s given up on bringing ego to the table to be able to not have a GM vs. Player attitude. Additionally, with all the power building going on that tends to neuter encounters, some human beings have a tendency to overcompensate when they actually get a chance to get the upper hand.
I guess what I’m saying is, is that I want to trust and believe that most GM’s would use discretion to the better part of character valor every time were they given the most leeway to do so, but I don’t believe that the to be true. Quite the opposite. Given the option to be nice, I think that most GM’s would choose to get the kill in all but the most extreme (it’s a newby or a child) situations. Just my opinion.
Why? Because we are having this conversation, and the rules are already quite explicitly in the guide to give GM’s the leeway to be nice in these situations.
So the only way to solve it, would be to mandate it as a rule. And that would drive more GM’s from the game than what is currently driving away players, and that would be a bad, bad thing.
|
That's where you're wrong. Society isn't YOUR game, or MY game. It's OUR game, and we all need to abide by the same rules. It's -not- modular. Modular means that you're not intermingling.
Those characters that you've GM'd for? None of them are valid for PFS, because you cheated. Welcome to reality.
I was talking about "Pathfinder and PnP in general". Please try to keep up with the discussion. I know it's hard, even I got turned around.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Andrew,
Perhaps I am in the minority, then. I've always considered my job to be more of a narrator and less as a player. Yes, it is sometimes disappointing when an encounter doesn't go anywhere, but it's not the end of the world. I derive much more fun from playing mind games with my players, making them *think* that they are on the knife's edge. Horror movies are written with long periods of tension building because the tension is more enjoyable than the climax. I take the same approach to my games.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Did my quote say Tier 1-5? No. It said 'Tier 1'. Soooo, you're wrong again.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.
Your post said that a PC is losing "nothing" as a result of dying at level 1 because all of those scenarios could be replayed. The list of replayable tier 1 scenarios is limited to three: The First Steps Series. That means that the vast majority of scenarios that people play will not be replayable.
|
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?
This is pretty much how I feel, too. Though, it bothers me less at higher levels. I remember a certain tier 8-9 that I played up into with a level 5 Sorcerer (waltero, you know which one I mean). There was a Save and Die situation in that one (50 points of damage if you made the save, 100 if you failed. Either would have killed me). Fortunately, it was avoidable, and I avoided it. I would have been surprised had I been hit with it, but I'd have been ok with it, because I was playing up, and because it at least offered a chance to avoid it. As is, it served as a wake-up call that maybe I shouldn't be playing up so much. For the record, a failed save would have killed most of the characters that were in-tier, too.
The First Steps problem is the biggest offender, but will, hopefully, go away when the scenario is retired, although that one is sticking around longer than others. I think what bothers me so much about it is that the rest of the scenario is extremely non-lethal. Then, you get to that fight, and generally if someone is going to drop, it's right at the start of the fight. For a new player who doesn't know pathfinder, it's a very rude introduction to the crit rules and the game in general.
Otherwise, yeah, crit happens. My point in my brief earlier rant was lost a little bit, though. It wasn't a complaint about being one-shot by a crit. It was an observation that the crit rules in Pathfinder make it more difficult to balance encounters, on both sides of the coin. If you put an enemy in with enough hitpoints to survive a couple of rounds against a crit based character, then they are going to be overpowered for the group that has no such character. If you balance them for a group without a crit focus, then there's the chance the enemy will be dropped in a round, which is also generally not fun. If you give the enemy a crit focused build, they'll challenge an optimized party, but there's a good chance they'll outright kill someone in a less than optimized party. If you don't build crit focused enemies, then you're taking something out of the enemies' arsenal that the players have available. So that was the point I was trying to make. The rules are what they are, but it makes it more difficult to have a properly balanced scenario (as do many, many other things).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
If a person was ONLY to play a Tier 1 adventure when they were at level 1, organizing game days would be an absolute, unmitigated nightmare. Every gameday would need to feature one of about 10 adventures. That's not a lot of fun for GMs or for players.
Further, the fact that my tables are very slightly less lethal than the norm does not in any way affect your benefits from a particular scenario.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Yeeeah, actually it does. Because if I die, I don't get those benefits. Where the player at your table who SHOULD have died, if you hadn't fudged the roll, does get them. How is that not affecting me?
Further, the fact that my tables are very slightly less lethal than the norm does not in any way affect your benefits from a particular scenario.
This is not a zero sum game. Your rewards haven't been touched by anybody. I couldn't touch your rewards if I wanted to.
NWOrpheus, please check your email. As I said, there are appropriate places to deal with issues with individuals in PFS. This thread isn't one of them.
|
|
This is pretty much how I feel, too. Though, it bothers me less at higher levels. I remember a certain tier 8-9 that I played up into with a level 5 Sorcerer (waltero, you know which one I mean). There was a Save and Die situation in that one (50 points of damage if you made the save, 100 if you failed. Either would have killed me). Fortunately, it was avoidable, and I avoided it. I would have been surprised had I been hit with it, but I'd have been ok with it, because I was playing up, and because it at least offered a chance to avoid it. As is, it served as a wake-up call that maybe I shouldn't be playing up so much. For the record, a failed save would have killed most of the characters that were in-tier, too.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?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Netopalis, I think he's interpreting your statements of how you think things should be, as statements that you alter things in order to make the game that way. That is, interpreting "You shouldn't die to a random crit at level 1" as "I won't let crits happen at level 1".
I could be mistaken, though.
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game.
I don't see "Thou shalt not fudge die rolls" in there. It's more like "We're willing to turn a blind eye to it on the very rare occasion where it means the difference between a new player staying with or leaving Org Play".
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
If this were a competitive game, I'd agree with you. It's not. It's a cooperative game. In fact, my decisions are helping you, if anything, because there are more higher-level PCs in existence. The number of PCs that I could have killed had I allowed a crit is probably about 3, so the effect is really a miniscule one.
|
From the Core Rulebook:
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and
while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support.
I think the key here is "Impartial and Fair".
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
RE, that's a commonly-misread scenario, and I really, really think that it should be updated to reflect that fact more clearly. I've corrected 3 different GMs on that point.
Jiggy, you may be correct. I do sometimes allow crits against PCs, just not crits that I know that they can't survive in surprise rounds. When you have a PC facing a magus or a creature with a heavy pick, their chances of surviving the crit are low, so I don't usually follow up. If it's a goblin with a dogslicer? Crits away.
|
|
RE, that's a commonly-misread scenario, and I really, really think that it should be updated to reflect that fact more clearly. I've corrected 3 different GMs on that point.
Jiggy, you may be correct. I do sometimes allow crits against PCs, just not crits that I know that they can't survive in surprise rounds. When you have a PC facing a magus or a creature with a heavy pick, their chances of surviving the crit are low, so I don't usually follow up. If it's a goblin with a dogslicer? Crits away.
Yep, it's so common that I recognized it immediately, even though Ferious didn't call out which one it was. I've had to point it out a few times as well, and it really bears a big warning tag.
|
|
This thread is rapidly approaching lock territory, but I'll just throw this out here:
We're in the Pathfinder Society section. It's probably best to keep the discussion focused on that setting. With that in mind:
Under no circumstance should a table ever have eight or more players.
This is not in dispute. It's a rule for sanctioned play. Anyone is free to run home games with as many people as they like. If you feel this is restrictive and should be changed, feel free to start a new thread lobbying for a change. Mike listens, and if you have a good argument you may be able to enact some kind of change.
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game. Most players whose first experience in a campaign results in a character death do not return to the campaign.
So don't fudge rolls. But do soften tactics if necessary.
The other thing you can do as a GM to help your players survive? Help them survive. Suggest that maybe they should avoid putting themselves in a position to get hit with a Full Attack. Point out a route that will avoid them getting AoOs. Suggest they should maybe cast defensively. Remind them that one of the bad guys already has a significant amount of damage and could be finished off with focused fire.
I always try to do this in low-level games. If they make the same mistake twice, I let the dice decide.
|
|
Andrew,
Perhaps I am in the minority, then. I've always considered my job to be more of a narrator and less as a player. Yes, it is sometimes disappointing when an encounter doesn't go anywhere, but it's not the end of the world. I derive much more fun from playing mind games with my players, making them *think* that they are on the knife's edge. Horror movies are written with long periods of tension building because the tension is more enjoyable than the climax. I take the same approach to my games.
As do I.
But in horror films some of our favorite characters still get gacked, in surprise ambushes by the badguy, in one shot, for perma-death.
Our opinions aren’t that different.
But frankly this is not the game system that can easily support your request.
If you want a game system that can support unlimited creativity to create badguys and storylines as you will, with no chance of unavoidable random death, then Pathfinder is probably not the system for you. White Wolf has a great system that lets you do this, as you don’t have to really play with dice and stats if you don’t want to, and you can still use the system.
In organized play, with the pathfinder system, what you are asking for is not possible without making the game unenjoyable because there is no dynamic of differentiation at the lower levels.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t have interesting, dynamic, and creative, while at the same time removing all vestiges of potential unavoidable death.
It is a thing in this game system. And sometimes, (hopefully rarely at lower levels and for newbies—hopefully GM’s are being extra “nice” to newbies), it will happen.
You just gotta, “DEAL WITH IT!”
The list of replayable tier 1 scenarios is limited to three: The First Steps Series.
Incorrect.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game.I don't see "Thou shalt not fudge die rolls" in there. It's more like "We're willing to turn a blind eye to it on the very rare occasion where it means the difference between a new player staying with or leaving Org Play".
No, it says that instead of fudging, here are some different tools for easing up on the newbies.
It's amazing how often people read "We don't advocate X, but consider whether Y might be a good idea instead" and think it says "We don't advocate X, but you can do it anyway sometimes".
The list of replayable tier 1 scenarios is limited to three: The First Steps Series.Incorrect.
Name the others. Perhaps you are thinking of the replayable modules: Master of the Fallen Fortress (Tier 1), and four Tier 1-2s. Their existence doesn't negate the fact that most scenarios that a level 1 character plays are ones that cannot be replayed if he dies.
|
|
If this were a competitive game, I'd agree with you. It's not. It's a cooperative game. In fact, my decisions are helping you, if anything, because there are more higher-level PCs in existence. The number of PCs that I could have killed had I allowed a crit is probably about 3, so the effect is really a miniscule one.Player 1: Played by rules. Can't have item A.
Player 2: Didn't play by rules. Has item A.
Which player has the unfair advantage?
Player 1: Played by the rules. Is level 5.
Player 2: Played by the rules. Is level 4.
Which player has the unfair advantage?
Not to mention, advantage over what?
|
|
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game.I don't see "Thou shalt not fudge die rolls" in there. It's more like "We're willing to turn a blind eye to it on the very rare occasion where it means the difference between a new player staying with or leaving Org Play".No, it says that instead of fudging, here are some different tools for easing up on the newbies.
It's amazing how often people read "We don't advocate X, but consider whether Y might be a good idea instead" and think it says "We don't advocate X, but you can do it anyway sometimes".
It also doesn’t explicitly disallow fudging, and the Core Rule Book (see above someone else quoted it) specifically talks about when a GM should fudge.
Mike says we should follow the rules of the campaign first, game second (because the campaign does have a couple house rules).
Fudging is breaking neither.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game.I don't see "Thou shalt not fudge die rolls" in there. It's more like "We're willing to turn a blind eye to it on the very rare occasion where it means the difference between a new player staying with or leaving Org Play".No, it says that instead of fudging, here are some different tools for easing up on the newbies.
It's amazing how often people read "We don't advocate X, but consider whether Y might be a good idea instead" and think it says "We don't advocate X, but you can do it anyway sometimes".
Advocate means that they don't recommend or suggest it. They don't want to include a stronger statement for fear of more GMs fudging against the players.
|
|
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game.I don't see "Thou shalt not fudge die rolls" in there. It's more like "We're willing to turn a blind eye to it on the very rare occasion where it means the difference between a new player staying with or leaving Org Play".No, it says that instead of fudging, here are some different tools for easing up on the newbies.
It's amazing how often people read "We don't advocate X, but consider whether Y might be a good idea instead" and think it says "We don't advocate X, but you can do it anyway sometimes".
I am one of those people :) When I read it I understand that they don't want fudging to be a regular occurrence but in the interest of (new) player experience, there is some leeway.
I'm really not trying to stir the pot, I actually would love for an official take on this as I am starting to GM PFS events and want to do it within the rules.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Andrew,
Perhaps I am in the minority, then. I've always considered my job to be more of a narrator and less as a player. Yes, it is sometimes disappointing when an encounter doesn't go anywhere, but it's not the end of the world. I derive much more fun from playing mind games with my players, making them *think* that they are on the knife's edge. Horror movies are written with long periods of tension building because the tension is more enjoyable than the climax. I take the same approach to my games.
As do I.
But in horror films some of our favorite characters still get gacked, in surprise ambushes by the badguy, in one shot, for perma-death.
Our opinions aren’t that different.
But frankly this is not the game system that can easily support your request.
If you want a game system that can support unlimited creativity to create badguys and storylines as you will, with no chance of unavoidable random death, then Pathfinder is probably not the system for you. White Wolf has a great system that lets you do this, as you don’t have to really play with dice and stats if you don’t want to, and you can still use the system.
In organized play, with the pathfinder system, what you are asking for is not possible without making the game unenjoyable because there is no dynamic of differentiation at the lower levels.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t have interesting, dynamic, and creative, while at the same time removing all vestiges of potential unavoidable death.
It is a thing in this game system. And sometimes, (hopefully rarely at lower levels and for newbies—hopefully GM’s are being extra “nice” to newbies), it will happen.
You just gotta, “DEAL WITH IT!”
I'm not interested in creating my own storylines or deviating from the scenarios. I just think that sometimes games are a bit too random, and I like to provide satisfaction for my players.
I may be talking a bit too much about myself here, but I'm a lawyer who works with criminal and family law. I see ruined lives every day and spend most of my time dealing with dark, depressing matters. I enjoy sometimes being able to put a smile on somebody's face. I love selling off Cayden Cailean's Lost Loincloth in the Gods' Market or having Alexander Bedard discuss the finer points of democracy and communism with a politically-minded PC. I don't feel like anybody enjoys randomly taking out PCs for no apparent reason, so I try to avoid that happening. Usually, it involves tactics and such, but on a very, very small number of occasions, it has involved fudging.
|
|
You're arguing apples and oranges, again, TriOmegaZero.
In your example, Player 2 still has the capability of achieving what player 1 has. In my example, Player 1 can not obtain what Player 2 has. Therefor, Player 2 has an unfair advantage over the capabilities of Player 1, purely because Player 1 followed the rules. Or more accurately, because Player 1's GM did.
How is it unfair? Because Player 1 can't get those specific rewards? What does it matter that Player 2 has those rewards and Player 1 goes and plays a different scenario and gets different rewards? They are not in direct competition. Player 2 will never use those rewards to 'beat' Player 1.
First Steps are technically modules as well.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
First Steps are technically modules as well.
No, First Steps is comprised of scenarios, not modules. Modules are non-PFS specific, but sanctioned for PFS play. Most of them are worth 3 XP and are longer than scenarios. Scenarios are written with PFS in mind and are worth 1 XP. Together, parts 1-3 of First Steps looks Module-ish, but they are not technically modules, they are scenarios.
|
|
First Steps are technically modules as well.
A Pathfinder Society Scenario for Tier 1
bolded for emphasis
They're scenarios. They're listed as scenarios. They call themselves scenarios.
Modules for PFS play are listed completely separately on the website and call themselves modules on their covers.
In general, they are 2 totally separate beasts in terms of how they're handled.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Advocate means that they don't recommend or suggest it. They don't want to include a stronger statement for fear of more GMs fudging against the players.While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game.I don't see "Thou shalt not fudge die rolls" in there. It's more like "We're willing to turn a blind eye to it on the very rare occasion where it means the difference between a new player staying with or leaving Org Play".No, it says that instead of fudging, here are some different tools for easing up on the newbies.
It's amazing how often people read "We don't advocate X, but consider whether Y might be a good idea instead" and think it says "We don't advocate X, but you can do it anyway sometimes".
(Also to everyone else who jumped on my post...)
I was not making a statement on the legality/illegality of fudging, only on the fact that people keep citing "consider using less lethal tactics" as meaning "consider fudging dice". Whether fudging dice is technically legal or not is something I'm not even commenting on; I'm just saying that the above-referenced passage of the Guide does not say what people act like it says. Whatever we each decide about fudging, let's at least be honest/accurate about the foundations of our stances.
What's more important is their structure. First Steps are modules. Plain and simple. But that's not the point.
The point is Netpplis boo-hooing someone dying in a RPG and no longer being able to play that adventure again. When player death is VERY uncommon in PFS.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Jiggy,
I generally try to avoid fudging and stick to tactical changes if at all possible. In one particular infamous scenario, the one I complained about in my earlier post, that is entirely impossible. Then, your only option is to reduce the crit to a regular hit.
Tim,
They are listed as scenarios, and I find it odd that you care so much that they have a module's structure (Which they don't, as they are 3 separate adventures that are generally played together.)
Besides that, though, I think that if anybody is boo-hooing, it is those who are complaining that by fudging 3 or so crits in my 59 games as a GM, I am somehow depriving them of something. That is ridiculous.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
I generally try to avoid fudging and stick to tactical changes if at all possible. In one particular infamous scenario, the one I complained about in my earlier post, that is entirely impossible. Then, your only option is to reduce the crit to a regular hit.
What's that got to do with me or anything I said?