Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to try to make it short and sweet (you will get plenty of comments, I suspect, and will have enough long and detailed stuff to wade through after this):
"Run as written" refers to stat blocks, tactics, DCs of traps and skill checks, and the rules in the scenario. The mechanics, as it were.
The flow and delivery of the story and the things you can do with role playing are yours to make your mark on. Have fun making that mark, and you should absolutely play off the things your players provide for you (like rolling a 38 diplomacy check).
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You will rarely please everybody 100% of the time. Live and learn, and so long as the criticism is constructive, make use of it in the future. If he's just being difficult, remember him and what he likes and try something different the next time he goes for that kind of tactic.
Rule 0, by the way, is the fact that your word is law. As the GM, the game is yours to run as you see fit. In the world of OrgPlay, the "Head GM" is Mike Brock (and Mark and John), and THEIR rule is "run as written" for a reason. Doesn't mean your delivery and interpretation is not to be obeyed at the tables you are in charge of.
|
|
Run as written most importantly means don't make things harder, even (especially) if you think that would make them more awesome.
It also means don't make things easier ... unless the players really earn it. If the player gets a 38 diplomacy--and if combat hasn't already started, since diplomacy for all intents and purposes doesn't work in combat no matter how much people whine about that--and it's a combat they're going to smash through anyway ... Well, that gets in to better judgment.
But that's my opinion, and two gets you five people will disagree with me quite vehemently. You really just have to throw stuff at the wall until you see what sticks.
|
Been discussed before, have a read.
Run as written is looser than we think, apparently. There's a few different definitions of a rule of thumb to use in there. Don Walker had one of the best ones in there, if I recall.
And woops, discussed before here and here as well. Looks like it comes up once a year!
|
|
If the mod says no form of dipomacy will prevent the guy from attacking then that is the case. Some opponents you can not have nice words with. Just like in real life. However deception is a different matter.
Run as written means following what is written as best as possible. PCs will often derail that. As long as you act fairly after that all is well.
If PCs think of a creative way to beat a faction mission like hauling the monster along then awesome for them. I tend to be very lenient towards players that make efforts to be creative. I have yet anyone complain about that.
People will cry at things no matter what. I had a PC run up to a monster and I asked are you sure that is a dangerous place. He did it anyway. Then when the monster damaged him below 0 with his first attack he decided to use is samurai ability to keep standing. I stopped the game and explained this is a very bad idea. He gets another attack and he will most likely kill your character outright if you keep standing, and that if you fall he will target someone else. He insisted. The monster hit him and rolled very low damage. I refused him to hold his action for his death saves, because you are not allowed to. Then after the monster died I kept inative order because the team had to heal him before he died. I heard for awhile from him that I was out to kill his character. Despite the fact that I stopped the game to tell him not to do it.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Running a scenario as written is very important, in that you don't add monsters or try to increase the challenge of the adventure.
However, rewarding creative solutions refers to what happens when a player action, not a GM decision, runs the adventure off the rails. At that point, you need to decide what rolls are most appropriate to the situation. I am also a relatively new GM, and I learned a lot about that this weekend. I GMmed at a con, and saw an immense number of solutions that I had never even thought of to various scenarios, and often I was just having to make stuff up as well as I could using the skills that I knew that the players had handy.
What I think that I'm trying to say here is that when the players introduce unforeseen variables, the GM has more leeway. The GM cannot, however, decide to modify an encounter of his own accord. One of these things is creativity and spontaneity, the other leads to nasty GMs on a mission to kill characters.
|
Fanatic Rat - thank you for stepping up to GM games! And welcome to the sometimes confusing, sometimes frustrating, often awesome world behind the screen.
There is lots of great information that has already been posted - I recommend you check the links provided above.
There IS a sweet spot, but its hard to define. And everyone has an opinion. Ultimately, if you are presenting the content faithfully and then RESPONDING to things the players try (like the aforementioned diplomacy), then you are on the right track.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Netopalis makes a good distinction: you're allowed to respond to PC actions, but not to invent your own stuff.
Whatever the players do, you have to respond to it somehow. If it's anticipated in the scenario, go with that. If not, then resolve the PC actions in whatever way makes the most sense based on what you know about the scenario.
But you can't just decide that you want things to be different and change it, even if you think it would make things better.
|
|
You can't please some of the people all of the time...
I get that we're not supposed to radically alter content, but how does that fit in with rewarding improvisation and trying to make the game flow better?
-WHAT the PC's overcome has to be the stuff in the mod: no more no less.
-HOW they overcome it is up to them and you.
The simple answer is that you're never going to please everyone.
I'm not saying this to be dismissive--far from it. I'm saying more that just...you're not going to please everyone. There'll be players, and GMs, who play differently than you, too. Unfortunately, some believe in their style so strongly, and aren't as sure how to handle it socially, that it leads to getting worked up and expressing that in negative ways.
I imagine this is why some GMs can end up a bit "crusty" around the edges, and more inflexible. I've always imagined that "crustiness" to be more defensive than not.
Part of the skill of GMing is setting your guidelines firmly in place--politely, but firmly, and also learning how to address different personalities.
It's a lot like management.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me give you a few examples where I have modified scenarios slightly, either for ease of running or in response to player actions.
Done well, adding fluff and roleplay and smoothhing out some of the mechanics of the scenarios can really make your game shine. Just don't add a bunch of creatures, don't allow it to be PCs vs GM, and don't make a big deal over the fact that you've slightly changed the scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Severing Ties modification
If you want to go further than that, like shutting his eyes, he gets the blinded condition while his eyes are closed and takes all associated penalties vs that creature (or any creature).
It was a creative solution, but you nerfed the encounter by letting him go in-between those two rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Edit: I should clarify here that he was just walking past the creature, not attempting to interact with it in any way. It was just a question of how the player described the action.
|
|
I agree with Neto.
If the player wanted to make sure he did not look at the creature I would not press it. Considering the situation. Plus you can clarify do you wanna go blind past it, or try to avert your gaze. Catching someone with somantics of the game by lack of perfect understanding of game rules is stupid.
|
Creative solutions should never (typically) bypass actual rules, unless there are rules governing the creative solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to get back on track - I only know of 2 of Neto's 4 scenarios - I'm not sure those had much to do with what we're really talking about - running scenarios as written, vs creative solutions.
I don't think anyone really disputes changing a scenario because a player used a creative solution to do something, unless it's something like introducing a skill check where the scenario didn't specifically say they could use it, or it called for a different skill.
Seems to me that the spirit of the rule expects the GM to err on the side of the player when in doubt, allowing creative solutions.
|
|
My understanding of "run as written" is something like the following:
Skelk illusionist, his tactics say something like: He tries to run away as best as he can. He uses his spells and spell-like abilities to blind and stun the PCs to aid his escape. If a PC moves in front of the dragon statute trap, he activates it. If cornered and given the chance to surrender he hands over his loot in exchange for his life.
We'd made friends with the displaced kobolds so they called the skelk out to fight us. He won initiative and opened with color spray (perfectly good for his tactics as written). I and the other character near the front failed our saves. Still no problem here. Next round he proceeds to provoke an attack of opportunity to coup-de-grace my character... his tactics specifically say that he runs away as best as he can using his spells and spell-like abilities to incapacitate players. As I've played and run this mod before, I point this out to the GM, who says something like "Oh, yeah, this is PFS not my home game."
That there is what "run as written" is about.
|
Semi-hijack. As someone who died to the optional encounter last night in "Day of the Demon" (not at all the GM's fault btw), I have serious issues with the concept of an "optional" encounter in scenarios.
If we are all supposed to play the same module for fairness and uniformity and yet some GMs do optional encounters while others don't, how is that running a module as written? It seems the subjectiveness of utilizing or not utilizing the optional encounter runs counter to that principle. I died in an encounter that maybe half the other players who have gone through the scenario never even saw.
And yes, I'm still ticked that I died (particularly to an optional encounter) but I think the issue is valid. My two coppers are that optional encounters should be removed to create true uniformity of experience and remove all GM decision to include/exclude ad hoc. That way all players experience the module as written. I'll hang up and listen.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Blacktourn and Fromper have very good points.
What was designed as a tool to allow a scenario to "flex" from four hours to five hours (or back) has, in the case of Day of the Demon at least, become a tool for GMs to introduce "more challenge" to the scenario. Some do. Some don't. What is the rationale behind the decision other than, "I want to scare my players," and why is that any better than making changes to the scenario otherwise?
|
|
Optional encounters are there to give GM's something to remove if time constraints would mean the final encounter is never realized. Without optional encounters your options are:
1) GM's get to remove whatever encounter they want to meet time constraints.
2) No Optional Encounters, so if you don't finish the scenario due to time constraints, tough cookies.
But I do agree, making the optional encounter the toughest encounter in a scenario is not a great idea (i.e. Rats of Round Mountain Part I, and Day of the Demon).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without optional encounters your options are:
1) GM's get to remove whatever encounter they want to meet time constraints.
2) No Optional Encounters, so if you don't finish the scenario due to time constraints, tough cookies.
3) Remove optional encounters not by removing the "optional-ness" of them, but by removing those encounters altogether.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Without optional encounters your options are:
1) GM's get to remove whatever encounter they want to meet time constraints.
2) No Optional Encounters, so if you don't finish the scenario due to time constraints, tough cookies.3) Remove optional encounters not by removing the "optional-ness" of them, but by removing those encounters altogether.
That would have the effect of making the scenarios 4 hours long, as written. There was a reason Paizo switched over to 5 hours as the standard length. I don't know that I, personally, agree that any scenario should have a 5 hour standard, but I understand why they did it. Getting them to change that standard seems unlikely.
PS - Keep in mind the fact that the 5 hour standard doesn't work for a lot of us, either. Convention slots in the US are (usually) 4 hours, and most stores don't stay open until 11:00 or midnight.
|
|
Without optional encounters your options are:
1) GM's get to remove whatever encounter they want to meet time constraints.
2) No Optional Encounters, so if you don't finish the scenario due to time constraints, tough cookies.3) Remove optional encounters not by removing the "optional-ness" of them, but by removing those encounters altogether.
That would have the effect of making the scenarios 4 hours long, as written. There was a reason Paizo switched over to 5 hours as the standard length. I don't know that I, personally, agree that any scenario should have a 5 hour standard, but I understand why they did it. Getting them to change that standard seems unlikely.
PS - Keep in mind the fact that the 5 hour standard doesn't work for a lot of us, either. Convention slots in the US are (usually) 4 hours, and most stores don't stay open until 11:00 or midnight.
Getting WAY off topic here, but you said you understand why they changed to a 5 hour standard length. Could you explain it to me, because I really don't get it.
Personally, I've played close to 100 PFS tables and GMed exactly 40 so far, and I've seen exactly two time limits on games: 4 hours or untimed. That's it. There have been quite a few 4 hour slots that have a little bit of flexibility about their end times, but never anything actually scheduled for more than that.
I've heard that there's something known as the 5 hour convention slot, but I've never actually seen one of these mythical beasts for myself, so I'm starting to doubt that they actually exist. Rumor has it I'll get to actually witness them with my own eyes when I attend my first GenCon in two months. I'm also hoping to see a unicorn there, since I figure those are almost as common in the real world.
|
|
I've heard that there's something known as the 5 hour convention slot, but I've never actually seen one of these mythical beasts for myself, so I'm starting to doubt that they actually exist. Rumor has it I'll get to actually witness them with my own eyes when I attend my first GenCon in two months. I'm also hoping to see a unicorn there, since I figure those are almost as common in the real world.
Five hour slots aren't all that uncommon anymore. For example, this weekend is MSR, which has all five hour slots.
|
|
I've heard that there's something known as the 5 hour convention slot, but I've never actually seen one of these mythical beasts for myself, so I'm starting to doubt that they actually exist. Rumor has it I'll get to actually witness them with my own eyes when I attend my first GenCon in two months. I'm also hoping to see a unicorn there, since I figure those are almost as common in the real world.
We have 6 hour convention slots at Con of the North here in Minnesota.
Would that be akin to the Alicorn?
|
|
If you work with your convention, and you are pulling in 40 or 60 or more tables of players for the convention, that will affect their bottom line.
If it comes to it, and they are obstinate and completely unwilling to work with you on slot size, then at some point your option is to pull out and say, no thank you, I won't support your convention. That will also affect their bottom line.
But lately, I've seen more and more conventions that specifically cater to gaming, willing to work with slot times.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Generally speaking, I run the vast majority of the optional encounters. That being said, I do find it difficult when the optional encounter appears early in the scenario ("If the players have less than 3 1/2 hours remaining, skip this encounter!") or when the optional encounter is significantly more difficult than the other encounters in the scenario (Day of the Demon and Jester's Fraud). I also find it frustrating when the most interesting encounter of the scenario is listed as an optional, but more boring encounters are listed as mandatory (Gods' Market Gamble, Wonders in the Weave II), or when absolutely pointless fights that often don't make sense are thrown in because the scenario is supposed to have an optional encounter (Dalsine Affair, Beggar's Pearl, Night March of Kalkamedes [How do those even get in there?])
In the end, I've never been really excited about an optional encounter. I've either wished that it wasn't an optional encounter, or I've felt that it was entirely unnecessary and would have preferred it be omitted altogether in exchange for more plot.
|
|
the optional encounter in Night March of Kalkamedes makes sense if you think about it.
But generally, I agree, there are a ton of "toss in" encounters that make no sense to the plot or theme of the scenario. And the scenarios would be better off if those encounters were removed entirely.
But then there are some scenarios where the optional encounter has some major plot points, and removing it removes some verisimilitude from the session.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
the optional encounter in Night March of Kalkamedes makes sense if you think about it.
But generally, I agree, there are a ton of "toss in" encounters that make no sense to the plot or theme of the scenario. And the scenarios would be better off if those encounters were removed entirely.
But then there are some scenarios where the optional encounter has some major plot points, and removing it removes some verisimilitude from the session.
Alright, I'll bite...
|
|
the optional encounter in Night March of Kalkamedes makes sense if you think about it.
But generally, I agree, there are a ton of "toss in" encounters that make no sense to the plot or theme of the scenario. And the scenarios would be better off if those encounters were removed entirely.
But then there are some scenarios where the optional encounter has some major plot points, and removing it removes some verisimilitude from the session.
Alright, I'll bite...
** spoiler omitted **
Simple, the giant skunks wandered inside and decided it would make a good home.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
the optional encounter in Night March of Kalkamedes makes sense if you think about it.
But generally, I agree, there are a ton of "toss in" encounters that make no sense to the plot or theme of the scenario. And the scenarios would be better off if those encounters were removed entirely.
But then there are some scenarios where the optional encounter has some major plot points, and removing it removes some verisimilitude from the session.
Alright, I'll bite...
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Ah, I guess that does make sense.
|
|
Oh, THAT was the optional encounter in Night March of Kalkamedes??? I didn't know that one was optional.
Thinking back, it was pretty pointless. But so were all the rest of the encounters until the final one, so it fit the theme. And it was the source of many jokes at our table, so we enjoyed that optional encounter.
|
|
@Fromper: You guys blew past all the obstacles easily and stomped all the encounters until that point so we were ahead on time ;)
And after we start it...the store announces they're closing an hour earlier lol
If I had known the LGS would have chosen THAT night to close an hour earlier, I would have skipped it entirely :)