RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I am not sure if I would be comfortable switching back to dice rolls - I guess I could try it. But that means I'll end up going back to pushing up the Perception again. Just to make up the +9 difference...And what does this tell you?
That his playstyle isn't compatible with some peoples?
IF I make a character that can pull off one or two tricks very well, I want them to work. In real life I'm the person who gets dejected by failure on a team. Not because I've failed personally, but because people depending on me have been let down.
Sir-Grabs-a-lot irritates a lot of GMs because he trivializes a lot of encounters (as opposed to The Perception-Kid). This bothers the heck out of other players. Some players don't mind, because they enjoy just beebopping along, exchanging jokes at the table, and smashing mooks because the BBEG is (literally) all tied up.
Being able to thwart the ambush (seems to) make Nosig feel good. He enjoys playing that aspect.
That's what it tells me.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That no matter how much super-optimization even in a narrow window or field, they can't negate the danger of adventuring 100%. If I want it to be super tough, I can make it so. If I just want him to have a chance at failure, I can make it so.
Seems like a valid preference.
Personally, I would find it far more boring to play in a game like you're describing, than in one where I could reach a point of auto-success (or close to it) in a chosen field.
Your preferred style definitely makes sure there are moments of tension, where players don't know what happens next. There is value in that (the amount depending on an individual's tastes).
Your preferred style also makes sure that the things on my character sheet have little or nothing to do with how easy or difficult something is.
You mentioned before a feeling of "Why am I even here?". I get the same feeling when DCs move with my bonuses. If the odds of success aren't dependent on choices I made, then I feel like I'm not even playing the game. In fact, the thing that makes you feel like you've added "challenge" actually takes away the feeling of challenge from me.
------------------------------------
So! You and I are different human beings. And the PFS community is full of a whole lot more different human beings. And sometimes, that's going to mean that a GM whose fun involves always seeing a chance of failure no matter what that every task includes some dice-based tension (which is a good thing!) is running a table for a player whose fun involves a stark contrast between skills he auto-succeeds and those dependent more on a die roll so that his PC feels like a unique individual instead of Typical Adventurer #12,876,405 (which is also a good thing!).
What do we do about it?
|
In a home game, as a GM, I can always up the trap DC's to make sure that my players have a challenge. That no matter how much super-optimization even in a narrow window or field, they can't negate the danger of adventuring 100%. If I want it to be super tough, I can make it so. If I just want him to have a chance at failure, I can make it so.
In PFS I don't have that luxury. I have to follow the scenarios. As such, is it really fair to the game to make sure you can never fail?
I can understand to want to challenge the player, but not every single part of PFS has to be a challenge. Especially if the players don't find that particular challenge very interesting.
As a GM, I'm more concerned with making sure the players are having fun than my monsters having a fair shot. Granted, normally these two correlate, but you can have one without the other.
(Which is why, incidentally, I find GMing online to be harder than GMing in real life. I can't look around at the players and scan their faces to make sure that they're having fun.)
|
That no matter how much super-optimization even in a narrow window or field, they can't negate the danger of adventuring 100%. If I want it to be super tough, I can make it so. If I just want him to have a chance at failure, I can make it so.Seems like a valid preference.
Personally, I would find it far more boring to play in a game like you're describing, than in one where I could reach a point of auto-success (or close to it) in a chosen field.
Your preferred style definitely makes sure there are moments of tension, where players don't know what happens next. There is value in that (the amount depending on an individual's tastes).
Your preferred style also makes sure that the things on my character sheet have little or nothing to do with how easy or difficult something is.You mentioned before a feeling of "Why am I even here?". I get the same feeling when DCs move with my bonuses. If the odds of success aren't dependent on choices I made, then I feel like I'm not even playing the game. In fact, the thing that makes you feel like you've added "challenge" actually takes away the feeling of challenge from me.
------------------------------------
So! You and I are different human beings. And the PFS community is full of a whole lot more different human beings. And sometimes, that's going to mean that a GM whose fun involves always seeing a chance of failure no matter what that every task includes some dice-based tension (which is a good thing!) is running a table for a player whose fun involves a stark contrast between skills he auto-succeeds and those dependent more on a die roll so that his PC feels like a unique individual instead of Typical Adventurer #12,876,405 (which is also a good thing!).
What do we do about it?
Um, you do realize that the game mechanics are entirely predicated on moving DC’s based on Level vs. CR of Encounter right?
Basically if you are 6th level, you aren’t fighting CR 1 encounters anymore. That means that no matter what you invest in whatever… the encounters are going to get harder.
Additionally, if you build your character to “never fail” at something, and you expect a home GM to just “let you always succeed”… I guess I’ve just never seen that ever happen in real life I suppose.
But the way I run my home games, especially the campaigns I create myself, I want the characters to be heroes. I use the 25 point buy for abilities. So they will succeed at amazing feats and what not. But I can’t put a group of 6th level characters against an CR 13 Trap just so they have a chance at actually getting caught in the trap. I’ll make a CR 7 or 8 trap, and probably devise it so that there is a 10 to 15% chance of failure that they don’t find it (unless it’s the main trap guarding the treasure horde.)
But what’s the point of me even taking the time to devise a trap at all for my players, if I know they are going to automatically beat it? That seems like a waste of time… doesn’t it to you?
|
|
You mentioned before a feeling of "Why am I even here?". I get the same feeling when DCs move with my bonuses. If the odds of success aren't dependent on choices I made, then I feel like I'm not even playing the game. In fact, the thing that makes you feel like you've added "challenge" actually takes away the feeling of challenge from me.That really nails it for me. One of the major reason I quit playing Home Brew games was exactly because of the shifting goal posts. I'm in one last home game now and this is going on and I have frequently contemplated pulling a Leroy Jenkins.
With the obvious exception of monsters or encounters suited to my general level, I want the world to be independent of my character choices. One more thing I enjoy about PFS.
Lets look at specifically traps.
Why would I, as a home GM, take the time to create a trap for a dungeon you were going into, if I knew you'd automatically succeed at finding and disabling it?
It seems pointless to me, to even bother creating a trap at all, a waste of time even, if it presents no danger.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
ASIDE
A truism of gaming: allocating resources towards a branch of the gameplay indicates that you want to spend time in that aspect. (This comes from some stuff Erick Wujcik wrote about Amber RPG.)
Spend class levels, feats, and all on magic, and that's a vote that magic should play a part in the campaign. Spend gold to buy a ship and skill ransk on sailing and swimming: that's a vote that you want nautical adventure to play a part in the campaign.
One sad aspect of organizd play at conventions is that, in the specific, your votes don't count.
If I spend a ton of resources on getting past invisible creatures (glitterdust, Blind-fighting) and traps (Disable Device, find traps) I'm going to want the campaign to spend some time with super-cool invisible foes and fun-to-encounter traps.
If I do that in PFS, I will be disappointed. Instead, I'll be moving myself out of the areas that I find most interesting. My AC is 45; instead of running into a lot of encounters where my high armor class is important, I find that an AC 30 would have been just fine, and my "votes" for playing the "can't hit me" game have removed me from the game itself.
APOLOGIES FOR THE TANGENT
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would I, as a home GM, take the time to create a trap for a dungeon you were going into, if I knew you'd automatically succeed at finding and disabling it?
So the trap guy can feel awesome when he saves the party?
So you can distract the party from the real danger that's lurking?
So you can use the nature of the trap to provide clues about the villains that put it there?
So the party tank isn't always in front when they come across the monsters?
So you can herd the players into the traps with other hazards, so they won't have time to deal with them "properly"?
|
|
Um, you do realize that the game mechanics are entirely predicated on moving DC’s based on Level vs. CR of Encounter right?
Basically if you are 6th level, you aren’t fighting CR 1 encounters anymore. That means that no matter what you invest in whatever… the encounters are going to get harder.
Additionally, if you build your character to “never fail” at something, and you expect a home GM to just “let you always succeed”… I guess I’ve just never seen that ever happen in real life I suppose.
But the way I run my home games, especially the campaigns I create myself, I want the characters to be heroes. I use the 25 point buy for abilities. So they will succeed at amazing feats and what not. But I can’t put a group of 6th level characters against an CR 13 Trap just so they have a chance at actually getting caught in the trap. I’ll make a CR 7 or 8 trap, and probably devise it so that there is a 10 to 15% chance of failure that they don’t find it (unless it’s the main trap guarding the treasure horde.)
But what’s the point of me even taking the time to devise a trap at all for my players, if I know they are going to automatically beat it? That seems like a waste of time… doesn’t it to you?
Sure, everything gets harder as you go up in level. That's different from, I'm focusing on this particular thing and no matter what I do, I'm still no better at it than if I only stuck the standard skill point/level in it. What am I getting for my trait, feats, magic items, etc?
And do you work it the other way? If nobody puts points in a skill, do you still keep escalating with CR until no one can make the rolls? What's the difference?
I'm going based off memory here, but I think a CR 1 trap is typically DC 20 to perceive. At 1st level, that gives you roughly a 50/50 shot if you really work to be decent (although I did start with a 14 Swim with a character in my Skull's and Shackle's campaign). At 2nd level, you could be a bit better. At 3rd level, even better. But CR 3 traps are typically DC 25 or worse.
If you invest like Nosig did, with a +27 at level 6 (using consumables) he notices a CR trap 100% of the time. But has a 15% chance to fail at a CR 6 trap. Which is about right, because an equal CR encounter should only use about 15% of your resources.
But an APL +4 trap would be CR 10, and have a DC of 34. That means he fails 35% of the time.
By the way, I'm pulling these DC's right out of the Core Rule Book from the sample traps.
But there are still some CR 10 traps that have a DC of 25. I'm not going to use the trap I know he will auto succeed on if it is supposed to use up nearly 100% of a parties resources to overcome. APL +4 is supposed to do just that.
But using the magical CR 15 trap just to provide a challenge isn't fair either, because if they fail, it will likely TPK them. And that isn't fair as a GM to do an APL +11 encounter.
So as a GM, I can create obstacles that make it harder to actually detect the DC 25 (the room is full of mist and vapor reducing your visibility to 5', and you still get a -4 to perception at 5'.
But yes, your investing in a skill will matter. It will be easier for you to detect the magical CR 10 trap.
And if you don't invest in a skill, you may not be able to detect the CR 10 trap at all.
The point is, the entire way the game mechanics of the game is designed, is that the more powerful you become, the more dangerous foes and challenges you can defeat. And if you mitigate that core game mechanic, then you really aren't playing Pathfinder.
If you build your character to be uber-good at something, I will make sure to design my encounters to take that into account. You will still likely be the star of the encounter.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Chris - Doesn't that make it all the more important that when you *do* encounter those things, that you get to finally feel the fruits of your investments?
@Andy - It's not about scaling with level, as that's an expected part of the game. It's about scaling with other variables. If I take Skill Focus (Perception) on my trapfinder, and you respond by putting in the next higher CR of trap, then things have actually gotten worse because I still fail on the same d20 threshold but now it's a nastier consequence that I and my party suffer when that low roll comes along. If I'd stayed mediocre for my level, the lower-CR traps I'd encounter would be just as easy to find but have less severe effects because hey, they're lower CR.
A whole different axis of variables also gets added when you play more than one campaign ("That was a fun AP, what should we play next?") and want your next PC to feel different from your previous one. If I'm used to playing casters but last time I branched out and played a gish, then decided I liked the martial aspects and decided to try a full-on fighter this time, the fighter had better be getting hit less and putting on more (non-magical) hurt than the gish, and by a large enough margin that I can feel it regularly. If instead everything is adjusted to the same danger threshold, then what's the point? Now I've just played the same PC twice.
And that's every bit as valid as your preference, and sometimes those differing preferences are going to be at the same table. As I asked in my last post, what do we (the PFS community) do when that happens?
@Chris - Doesn't that make it all the more important that when you *do* encounter those things, that you get to finally feel the fruits of your investments?
@Andy - It's not about scaling with level, as that's an expected part of the game. It's about scaling with other variables. If I take Skill Focus (Perception) on my trapfinder, and you respond by putting in the next higher CR of trap, then things have actually gotten worse because I still fail on the same d20 threshold but now it's a nastier consequence that I and my party suffer when that low roll comes along. If I'd stayed mediocre for my level, the lower-CR traps I'd encounter would be just as easy to find but have less severe effects because hey, they're lower CR.
I believe you slightly misread him.
I think he's saying that if you increase your perception, he'll add obstacles to negate that perception in the encounters he wants you to face at your old success rate, without substantially affecting the consequences of said encounter (keeping the CR the same). The encounters he doesn't mind you facing with better odds of success, he won't add in extra obstacles.
IMHO it's still not a great situation, and I'd be real tempted (wouldn't do it) to do something hostile like toss my sheets and tell the GM to just build the character he wants me to play, but it's not as bad as your interpretation, I think.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Sometimes those differing preferences are going to be at the same table. As I asked in my last post, what do we (the PFS community) do when that happens?
We follow the guidelines that Mike Brock has given. In this particular case, we go with the DCs specified in the encounter, and the rules on skill tests, no matter how much we think we could 'improve' the fun at the table for this particular combination of scenario and players.
If there's a DC given, then that's what it takes to overcome the challenge; there really isn't all that much wiggle room.
If the player breezing through the challenges is acting selfishly, without paying any heed to the wishes of the other players, then the 'DBAJ' rule applies. But if the rest of the players are happy with the way things are running, I as a DM don't get to impose my idea of how they should be having fun.
|
|
Sometimes those differing preferences are going to be at the same table. As I asked in my last post, what do we (the PFS community) do when that happens?We follow the guidelines that Mike Brock has given. In this particular case, we go with the DCs specified in the encounter, and the rules on skill tests, no matter how much we think we could 'improve' the fun at the table for this particular combination of scenario and players.
If there's a DC given, then that's what it takes to overcome the challenge; there really isn't all that much wiggle room.
If the player breezing through the challenges is acting selfishly, without paying any heed to the wishes of the other players, then the 'DBAJ' rule applies. But if the rest of the players are happy with the way things are running, I as a DM don't get to impose my idea of how they should be having fun.
You misread me. I dont impose anything. I typically dont even mention it to the players at all. The boards can be a fantastic place to have this kind of discussion until a bunch of folks start making assumptions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure we (judges) could have a wonderful discussion and perhaps everyone would alter thier play style a little.
Really off subject
I got nothing much really to add to this thread, but I will say this bolded word still makes me cringe every time I see it.
Nosig If we ever meet in person Remind me to Get you a T-Shirt to replace your T10 Shirt that states I am a Game Master!!! ;)
This should help get the point across...
Number of time Judge is used as a title in the PFS Guide = 0
Number of time Game Master/GM is used as a title in the PFS Guide = 97
Number of time Judge is used as a title in the Core Book = 0
Number of time Game Master/GM is used as a title in the Core Book = 126
In Fact Judge is mentioned under Game Master in the Core book, but as one of the many roles a GM fulfills to include Storyteller, Entertainer, Inventor and Player.
By calling us Judges IMO (notice the opinion part please, it is neither a statement of fact or a statement saying those that do not agree with me are wrong) you actually reduce the roll we play in running game in PFS.
I know your reason for using the term, but I still don't think it fits. I think the current terms that are actually used, GMs for everyone who runs the game and Pathfinder Society Campaign Manager For Mike much more accurately describes our roles. I hope one day I will see the end of the use of the Term Judge for PFS GMs.
That said please continue with the thread... ;)
Edit: Also under my Profile it says this... Pathfinder Society GM, not Pathfinder Society Judge... ;)
It's funny how these terms take on different connotations in different era's of gaming though. Remember how Judges Guild used that term for the DM and it just seemed to conjure the notion of striving for impartiallity?
|
|
I did not say it offends me, I said it makes me cringe.. ;)
It is like someone using a term from a different type of game like a MMO for a Character, "Toon" and using that same term for a Table Top Game. Oh wait you do that too... ;)
When I am running World Of Darkness I am a Storteller
When I am running Shadowrun I am a Gamemaster
When I am running D&D I am a Dungeon Master
When I am running Pathfinder I am a Game Master
When I am running Star Wars d20 I am a Gamemaster
When I am running Call of Cthulhu I am the Keeper
When I am running A Song of Ice and Fire I am the Narrator
and I can continue..
I just like using the proper terms for the proper games.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sometimes those differing preferences are going to be at the same table. As I asked in my last post, what do we (the PFS community) do when that happens?We follow the guidelines that Mike Brock has given. In this particular case, we go with the DCs specified in the encounter, and the rules on skill tests, no matter how much we think we could 'improve' the fun at the table for this particular combination of scenario and players.
If there's a DC given, then that's what it takes to overcome the challenge; there really isn't all that much wiggle room.
Okay, how about long term? Anything GMs and/or players can do to help themselves and/or each other have a less un-fun time when conflicting preferences are sharing a table?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a much longer answer almost ready to post, but basically it boiled down to this:
When you're the GM, remember you're the only communication channel. If a player does something significant (bypass a trap or encounter that could chance the outcome of the whole scenario, say) let them know it.
I'm often amazed, when I come to prepare to GM a scenario, just how much information there is which the players very rarely get to hear about. Typically there's half a page or more of background information and the like right at the beginning, before the scenario precis. I generally try to get as much of this information as possible into the hands of the players by the end of the mission (if not earlier).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am soo glad I had the epiphany that I hope all GM's eventually have. My fun is based on the fun my players have. It is why I spend soo much time building 3D terrain, draw maps, paint minis or buy multiple, sometimes expensive minis, read reviews, study stat blocks, etc. It's all so I can give the players the best experience possible. My fun does not derive from challenging players or killing PC's, that is the job of the authors and the developers. If your favorite PC dies, its not my fault, I merely provide a world for you to interact with and sometimes, it will be deadly.
If you want to take 10 or build your uber-optimized super min/max ape riding barbarian/rogue/witch/gunslinger, go ahead. I'll treat you the same as an under-developed melee wizard with a dagger and no armor. If you curb-stomp all the encounters and the game is over in an hour, congratulations, you win! If that makes you happy, then I am happy and did my job.
Just remember, there are players out there that will not enjoy that experience and may not want to play with you again. If you have a small local community, it could become problematic to find games in the future. This works the same for GM's who "cheat" their players. Other players tend to go elsewhere and who can blame them.
So in response to Nosig's original query, its all about table variation and not some over-encompassing conspiracy to ambush PCs or marginalize your character builds. People are what they are and will make mistakes. Or maybe they just have a different philosophical perspective on the game and do not understand how/why you enjoy the game you do. No worries. You are already ahead of the game as you are aware of these issues and can therefore be perceptive of them . You can adjust to the style of GM's who won't adapt to you. My hope is that more will allow you to do what you want than won't.
One thing I will say is, please "lose" the t-shirt. Pointing out the rules in the core rulebook and having a quick conversation about your understanding of take 10/20 is fine, but going to the extent of a t-shirt is obnoxious. TBH, personally, I could care less. If it bothers me, I'll just ignore it, but a good number of GM's I have spoken to who have had the pleasure of you at their table were, well, offended is a bit strong a word but it gets the point across. Of course if you can petition Brock to add it to the additional resources, I might think differently. :-)
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
Bob,
In general I agree with you. I became a better GM and Player when I started doing organized play stuff (specifically the coordination of Living Dragonstar). I've noticed players in the Twin City region becoming better players after having GM'd a few sessions (they finally get it what is like on that side of the table).
In most cases, I derive my fun, as a GM, by making sure the players at the table have fun.
But part of my epiphany when I burnt out on organized play after Fantasy Flight Games discontinued support for Living Dragonstar at Origins 2004 and then discontinued their Dragonstar line at Gen Con 2004, was that as a GM, I deserved to have fun as well. And there are certain play styles (or character builds) that are not fun for me as a GM, no matter how much fun the player(s) seem to be having.
|
|
Why would I, as a home GM, take the time to create a trap for a dungeon you were going into, if I knew you'd automatically succeed at finding and disabling it?So the trap guy can feel awesome when he saves the party?
So you can distract the party from the real danger that's lurking?
So you can use the nature of the trap to provide clues about the villains that put it there?
So the party tank isn't always in front when they come across the monsters?
So you can herd the players into the traps with other hazards, so they won't have time to deal with them "properly"?
But these aren't really traps then are they? They are then just part of the environment or a tool to impart some theme, feel or information.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've done that plenty of times in a home game.
I also use environmental or combat conditions to disguise traps (and PFS has done so at least in two scenarios I can remember).
But the problem with creating the trap-finding guru, in an organized play environment, is that the GM doesn't have the luxury to switch up how he presents the traps.
He can't relegate traps to a ("you participated and defeated this obstacle" certificate) and he can't make them more difficult by adding environmental conditions. He also cannot change the nature of the trap, so that it really is more of window dressing to the dungeon or some form of clue, foreshadowing, or red herring.
So in PFS, if you choose to make the guy who never fails at finding and disabling traps, you are essentially saying that you don't want to participate in that portion of the scenario. If you do so at such a level of expertise, that even the APL +4 encounter has zero challenge, then you are breaking the scenario.
The way experience and the CR system works in a home game, is that a CR +4 encounter should take 100% of the parties resources to overcome. Now in general, an average 6th level rogue can make a non-magical CR 10 trap seem inconsequential, so the CR system doesn't necessarily work well with traps after a certain level.
And as a GM, if the players aren't challenged at all (as in zero chance of failure) they can withhold the XP of that challenge.
In PFS, you don't have that luxury.
So you have a player who essentially gets XP and gold, without really earning it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew, I think the "find and disable all the traps!" character is less broken than the "find all the monsters!" build.
For reference, this is a typical example of a CR 10 trap. Perception DC 34 to find, Disable Device DC 34 to negate, about 35 points of damage to everyone in a small area, automatic reset.
Many 6th-level characters have a Perception score of +16, so many characters, checking for traps with a Take 20, will notice it. (The trap is a proximity trigger -- using Perception won't set it off, but getting close enough to avoid range modifiers to Perception will.)
I don't know of any 6th-level characters with a +24 Disable Device, plus whatever situational modifier the GM sees fit to impose, from working 10 feet away from the trap. So I don't know a lot of people who can Take 10 to make the area safe. (On the other hand, I'm not certain that this trap takes all of a 6th-level party's expendable resources, either.)
But if somebody did get up to a +24 Disable Device, that requires some investment of gold and training, yes? It's not "something for nothing".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So in PFS, if you choose to make the guy who never fails at finding and disabling traps, you are essentially saying that you don't want to participate in that portion of the scenario.
Okay, I'm confused here. How does wanting consistent success equate to not wanting to participate? If someone didn't want to participate in a given element (traps, diplomacy, whatever) then wouldn't they be the 3-5 PCs who are standing in the back doing nothing while the specialist uses whatever skill? How is that (standing in the back and waiting) less of an "I don't want to participate" situation than the guy who makes sure he succeeds?
If you do so at such a level of expertise, that even the APL +4 encounter has zero challenge, then you are breaking the scenario.
How does that "break the scenario"? I understand how it doesn't appeal to your preference for a moment of tension/risk when the roll is made, but "breaking the scenario" is a lot different than "not how I'd prefer to play". What exactly is broken? Does the scenario not function if the PC is successful? If the obstacles are there to be overcome, then how does a change in the success rate "break the scenario"?
The way experience and the CR system works in a home game, is that a CR +4 encounter should take 100% of the parties resources to overcome.
You mentioned this once before and I meant to ask then, but forgot: where are you getting this? Is this in the GMG somewhere? I was aware of the easy/average/challenging/hard/epic baseline for APL-1 through APL+3, but I wasn't aware of any kind of resource consumption guideline. Can you point me to that? I have a side interest in game design and theory, so I'm curious to read up on that. Thanks!
|
|
Jiggy, reread my part about how a home game GM can change the XP to nothing if there is Zero challenge, but in PFS they can't because the XP system is so drastically different.
If there is ZERO chance of failure, then no XP should be gained. But in PFS, that trap is part of the total CR bank that an author has to build their scenario. As such, it HAS to give XP regardless of how challenging it is.
As such, this breaks the scenario, because you are giving out XP that haven't been earned.
NOTE: If expending consumables and using resources, like spells or daily limits of Bardic Inspire Competence, is what gets you to the ZERO chance of failure, then I'm not worried about it, because you are expending resources for your success. I'm only concerned about someone who has ZERO chance of failure because their score before any spells or consumables are used gives them auto-success.
|
|
Andrew, I think the "find and disable all the traps!" character is less broken than the "find all the monsters!" build.
For reference, this is a typical example of a CR 10 trap. Perception DC 34 to find, Disable Device DC 34 to negate, about 35 points of damage to everyone in a small area, automatic reset.
Many 6th-level characters have a Perception score of +16, so many characters, checking for traps with a Take 20, will notice it. (The trap is a proximity trigger -- using Perception won't set it off, but getting close enough to avoid range modifiers to Perception will.)
I don't know of any 6th-level characters with a +24 Disable Device, plus whatever situational modifier the GM sees fit to impose, from working 10 feet away from the trap. So I don't know a lot of people who can Take 10 to make the area safe. (On the other hand, I'm not certain that this trap takes all of a 6th-level party's expendable resources, either.)
But if somebody did get up to a +24 Disable Device, that requires some investment of gold and training, yes? It's not "something for nothing".
That's a magical trap, there is also a mechanical CR 10 trap that is DC 25 to find and 25 to disable.
And generally I agree that auto-trap finding is not as broken as other things, but it is the easiest one to discuss for the purposes of this philosophical discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If there is ZERO chance of failure, then no XP should be gained.
(Second bolding mine.)
Where are you getting your information? If what you really mean is that you would personally prefer it to be this way, then please say so. But if you're making a claim of how things really are supposed to work, cite your sources. Is there something in the GMG or elsewhere that says a task that can't be failed isn't supposed to grant XP? If not, then please refrain from framing your personal preferences as facts or standards of what people should or shouldn't do.
As such, this breaks the scenario, because you are giving out XP that haven't been earned.
But someone who fails on a 5 but rolls a 6 has earned it? So the guy who actually invested less in the skill is more deserving of the XP it generates?
Again, "I prefer a chance of failure so there's excitement in the roll" is fine. Using one's own preferences as a measuring stick to determine what other people deserve is not.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What about resources that provide static bonuses, like permanent magic items?That is not included in the "expenditure" of resources calculation.
The calculation only includes resources that you can then not use in the next encounter (e.g. spells, consumables, daily uses of class abilities, etc.)
1. Again, where are you getting this calculation? If I could read up on it, it would probably make it much easier to understand where you're coming from, especially on all the "should" stuff.
2. So if a guy buys a +1 sword and then uses a consumable to auto-beat the trap, that's fine, but if he buys his amulet of trapstomping and therefore has to rely on oils of magic weapon until he saves up some more gold, then he doesn't deserve his XP? Or does having a +1 weapon deserve less XP from combat than someone using oils of magic weapon?
|
|
Jiggy, reread my part about how a home game GM can change the XP to nothing if there is Zero challenge, but in PFS they can't because the XP system is so drastically different.
If there is ZERO chance of failure, then no XP should be gained. But in PFS, that trap is part of the total CR bank that an author has to build their scenario. As such, it HAS to give XP regardless of how challenging it is.
As such, this breaks the scenario, because you are giving out XP that haven't been earned.
NOTE: If expending consumables and using resources, like spells or daily limits of Bardic Inspire Competence, is what gets you to the ZERO chance of failure, then I'm not worried about it, because you are expending resources for your success. I'm only concerned about someone who has ZERO chance of failure because their score before any spells or consumables are used gives them auto-success.
Even if they're not using up consumables, haven't they used up scarce character design resources: feats, magic items, etc, to reach that point? Doesn't that leave them weaker in other areas overall?
This doesn't matter that they've spent non-consumable resources on static bonuses. While the CR chart does calculate for the assumed Wealth by Level of a character, and assumes they will be at a particular power level based on all of their class, feat, skill, and gold expenditure choices, the amount of expendable resources assumed based on the CR challenge compared to the APL does not take into account all of the permanent and static choices.
You can't expend resources that are static. Thus you don't use the APL +4 expends X% of party resources calculation to include anything but expendable resources.
@ Jiggy, this particular chart may be an old 3.5 generalization. But I do know that I've seen SKR post something similar on the message boards. I believe that the Pathfinder chart is different from the old 3.5 chart, and that actually APL +4 is more 90% and APL +5 is 100% while the old 3.5 chart had APL+4 at 100%.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@ Jiggy, this particular chart may be an old 3.5 generalization. But I do know that I've seen SKR post something similar on the message boards. I believe that the Pathfinder chart is different from the old 3.5 chart, and that actually APL +4 is more 90% and APL +5 is 100% while the old 3.5 chart had APL+4 at 100%.
I went looking and couldn't find "the Pathfinder chart". Or do you mean that SKR said they have an unpublished chart that they use in-house and he divulged the numbers?
|
|
If there is ZERO chance of failure, then no XP should be gained.(Second bolding mine.)
Where are you getting your information? If what you really mean is that you would personally prefer it to be this way, then please say so. But if you're making a claim of how things really are supposed to work, cite your sources. Is there something in the GMG or elsewhere that says a task that can't be failed isn't supposed to grant XP? If not, then please refrain from framing your personal preferences as facts or standards of what people should or shouldn't do.
As such, this breaks the scenario, because you are giving out XP that haven't been earned.But someone who fails on a 5 but rolls a 6 has earned it? So the guy who actually invested less in the skill is more deserving of the XP it generates?
Again, "I prefer a chance of failure so there's excitement in the roll" is fine. Using one's own preferences as a measuring stick to determine what other people deserve is not.
Its in the Core Rulebook, but I can't find it right now. If you face a challenge that is significantly lower than your APL, you receive no XP for it. The justification written into the book for this, is that it presents no challenge. Therefore, extrapolating this, if you face a challenge that presents no challenge, you should not receive XP for it.
It isn't just my preference, its the way the game designers designed the game.
And yes, if someone has a chance of failure, they receive experience for overcoming the obstacle.
If someone has no chance of failure before expending resources (i.e. spells, daily use abilities, and consumables), then the obstacle presents no challenge. No XP.
It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but think about it for a second.
A CR 10 encounter gives 9,600 experience.
A 6th level character in a campaign with medium advancement track, needs to go from 23,000 xp to 35,000 xp to get to 7th level (or 12,000XP to level). Assuming a party of 4, as the Core Rulebook assumes, a CR 10 encounter is APL+4 and would grant each character 2,400 XP or 20% of a level.
As a GM, do you really want to grant someone 20% of a level when there is ZERO chance, before expending resources, that they would be challenged?
I don't know about you, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.
Its also fairly ridiculous sounding to me, that they'd be able to defeat an APL+4 encounter with ZERO chance of failure, but the game designers designed a mechanical CR 10 trap with a DC 25 Perception and Disable Device where the average 6th level rogue could Take 10 and auto succeed. So it can happen quite easily.
So as a GM, when designing encounters, it is paramount to design encounters that are challenging. If this means I don't give them the chance to notice that mechanical trap outside of combat, or have some other environmental factors messing with them, that's what you have to do to ensure that the XP is actually earned.
Saying that past investment in feats, skills, abilities and gold is "earning it" doesn't fly. Because they are trying to get better by gaining another level. You don't get better without a challenge.
The trap that is a plot point, that I allow to "not be a challenge" doesn't grant XP outside of potential Story XP.
|
|
@ Jiggy, this particular chart may be an old 3.5 generalization. But I do know that I've seen SKR post something similar on the message boards. I believe that the Pathfinder chart is different from the old 3.5 chart, and that actually APL +4 is more 90% and APL +5 is 100% while the old 3.5 chart had APL+4 at 100%.I went looking and couldn't find "the Pathfinder chart". Or do you mean that SKR said they have an unpublished chart that they use in-house and he divulged the numbers?
Yes, the % chart may be unpublished, as I can't find it right now. But sometimes when trying to find this type of stuff in the PRD, it is incredibly difficult.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Its in the Core Rulebook, but I can't find it right now. If you face a challenge that is significantly lower than your APL, you receive no XP for it.
I checked the Gamemastering chapter; it says this:
"...you should never bother awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more lower than the APL."The justification written into the book for this, is that it presents no challenge. Therefore, extrapolating this, if you face a challenge that presents no challenge, you should not receive XP for it.
It isn't just my preference, its the way the game designers designed the game.
Except it doesn't say that. There is no such justification given; the line I quoted is literally all it says about not giving XP. Heck, it even still calls it a "challenge". So your extrapolation is in fact based on false information, and therefore invalid.
Also, I think there's a huge difference between having an auto-pass skill check and having a CR of APL-10. Since there are no negative CRs, you'd have to be 10th level (if you round down fractional CRs) before that rule even kicks in. I think equating an auto-pass skill check with having an APL that's ten levels above the CR is a pretty silly comparison.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is what I'm using as precedent for zero challenge equals zero XP....regardless of the level of the party in
relation to the challenge, although you should never bother
awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more
lower than the APL.
Heh, you ninja'd me; I found that line as well. And as I explain above, it (1) doesn't say what you claimed it said and what you built your extrapolation from; and (2) it's way beyond the bounds of reason to compare "skill check can't fail" with "the entire party is ten levels above the CR".
|
|
Trying not to sound harsh, though I admit it's hard to say that something doesn't pass the "common sense" test (as opposed to pointing out an objective fact) without it potentially sounding more "charged" than it's meant to be.
Go up and read my example above and tell me that zero challenge before expending resources is equal to 20% of a level.
If you say that's common sense, then our conversation is over, seriously.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Trying not to sound harsh, though I admit it's hard to say that something doesn't pass the "common sense" test (as opposed to pointing out an objective fact) without it potentially sounding more "charged" than it's meant to be.Go up and read my example above and tell me that zero challenge before expending resources is equal to 20% of a level.
If you say that's common sense, then our conversation is over, seriously.
I agree that "zero challenge" is not worth 20% of a level.
I disagree that pumping up a skill mod creates the "zero challenge" circumstance in the first place.
I also disagree that gold is not a resource that gets expended.*