Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I don't know that I really agree with this method of back-checking, but neither do I agree with a GM getting something wrong and killing everyone due to that error. So, against my better judgement (and based on you saying you made your knowledge check) here you go:
|
|
I don't know that I really agree with this method of back-checking, but neither do I agree with a GM getting something wrong and killing everyone due to that error. So, against my better judgement (and based on you saying you made your knowledge check) here you go:
** spoiler omitted **
They made *a* knowledge check. Who's to say what DC they hit and what other information they already received.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Not sure if there's a good reason to not trust them, Kyle. If he's lying its pretty ballsy to come on here and show that fact to the world.
And, Swampting, there's no reason to refer him to the thread. Refer him to the stat block and the universal monster rules. What we say doesn't trump him. He needs to see the rule himself. And you need to abide by whatever he rules.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if there's a good reason to not trust them, Kyle. If he's lying its pretty ballsy to come on here and show that fact to the world.
*confused*
He made a knowledge check.
GM says, no not vulnerable to fire.
"a player" then proceeds to look the monster up on the PRD.
How is that not mistrust?
I have a bard/oracle of lore that can hit mid-60's on knowledge checks. If I ask something and the GM tells me something that doesn't mesh with what my player knows, I shrug and say, crap, this guy's special and move on. Even if the GM is mistaken and it results in a TPK, I still trust that we can get it right after the fact. There's no reason to question everything that match up with metagame knowledge.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if a GM tells you that while flanking a construct bad guy with your rogue the fact that you scored a hit does not allow you to use sneak attack you will shrug and move on? If so, you're a stronger man than I, and I commend you for that.
If he made a 25 knowledge check he should be given the name and creature type. I realize that player knowledge kicks in at that point, but the 25 gives him an excuse to present an argument, at the very least. So long as he then lives with whatever his GM rules, at least everyone had their say.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Why not finish the adventure, and discuss once you are done?
Having the entire Internet looking over the judge's shoulder sets a terrible precedent, and we'll run out of judges quickly that way.
Because if they're dead the discussion is moot.
I fully agree with the looking over the shoulder part though. He needs to have a better way of presenting his points than "they said so in the thread I started."
|
Kyle, I was going to check it anyway after the game to see if I should report it as an error in the stat-block that needed correction.
But affirming it this way saves me the need to find a remedy AFTER a TPK is declared - I'm not even sure what remedies there are, but they wouldn't be easy to implement since this is an online pbp that's taking much longer to complete than it should - we already had a player drop out 'cos it was dragging on for so long.
I wouldn't normally do this, but the circumstances I think warranted it:
1. I had a good reason to suspect an error
2. the GM said it was so after being asked to double check
3. it was threatening a TPK
4. if it was an error it would have been very hard or taken excessively long to remedy
5. this was the only way to do it pre-TPK without reading the scenario for myself.
|
|
Kyle, I was going to check it anyway after the game to see if I should report it as an error in the stat-block that needed correction.
But affirming it this way saves me the need to find a remedy AFTER a TPK is declared - I'm not even sure what remedies there are, but they wouldn't be easy to implement since this is an online pbp that's taking much longer to complete than it should - we already had a player drop out 'cos it was dragging on for so long.
I wouldn't normally do this, but the circumstances I think warranted it:
1. I had a good reason to suspect an error
2. the GM said it was so after being asked to double check
3. it was threatening a TPK
4. if it was an error it would have been very hard or taken excessively long to remedy
5. this was the only way to do it pre-TPK without reading the scenario for myself.
I'm the type of GM who likes to be corrected, but not everyone is like that. My unsolicited advice for how to handle this in the future:
If you're pretty sure you're right, frame it as innocently, but specifically as possible:
"No vulnerability to fire? I could have sworn these had the Cold Subtype. Okay, then."
"Oh, it does have the Cold subtype. It didn't list any vulnerabilities in the stat block, but those traits should apply."*
"You can't Sneak Attack constructs? I thought that was one of the big changes from 3.5."
"They changed construct traits from 3.5? Okay, let's look it up."*
Gives the chance for the GM to correct the mistake himself, potentially saving face (if that's important to him), and making you look like less of a backseat GM.**
*YMMV
**I am a super-annoying backseat GM, so this advice is as much for me as it is for you.
|
I'm the type of GM who likes to be corrected, but not everyone is like that.
Yeah...you know what, so do I. If I mess up, let me know...especially if there is a PC's life on the line. There are ways to get a badly run death revoked, but that is NOT EASY. I don't wanna get grilled by a VO and the player I am sure would rather avoid that too. So...how about we take a moment, get the call right before moving along? That seems like the logical thing to me anyways.
|
|
Not sure if there's a good reason to not trust them, Kyle. If he's lying its pretty ballsy to come on here and show that fact to the world.*confused*
He made a knowledge check.
GM says, no not vulnerable to fire.
"a player" then proceeds to look the monster up on the PRD.How is that not mistrust?
I have a bard/oracle of lore that can hit mid-60's on knowledge checks. If I ask something and the GM tells me something that doesn't mesh with what my player knows, I shrug and say, crap, this guy's special and move on. Even if the GM is mistaken and it results in a TPK, I still trust that we can get it right after the fact. There's no reason to question everything that match up with metagame knowledge.
Because GMs mess up sometimes? Seriously? This isn't even remotely a question for you? I know for a fact that I messed up many MANY times and I expect I will mess up in the future as well. If there are PC lives on the line, a moment to make sure isn't a bad idea...not even remotely.
|
Isn't one of the benefits of online play (specifically play-by-post) the fact you have time to look up all these fiddly bits? I don't agree with dragging the GM through the mud on the boards (not happening here, just stating my feelings on the matter), but there's no reason a private forum message or a quick conversation in the OOC thread shouldn't be able to handle this.
"They're not fire vulnerable."
Are you sure?
"Yep."
But they have the (cold) subtype, right?
"Yep."
Well, then they're fire vulnerable.
"Well these aren't. They're special."
Oh, cool. Sorry to be a pain, just wanted to make sure.
"No problem"/"If you ever question me again, I'll feed you your sheet."/[other reasonable response]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to bring up a point that hasn't been mentioned, it is possible that the creature in the scenario is statted differently than in the Bestiary. I'm not saying that is the case here but it does happen sometimes that the writer built a creature that had different stats than the usual version of said creature in the Beastiary.
|
curious as to why the yeti ruled to not be vulnerable to fire would ruin the parties ability to avoid being tpk'd.
So you don't do extra dam. but at least do normal fire damage. Also what if the party had no fire casting spells to begin with. Would you all just lie down and die?
yeti only immune to cold. Not melee ranged or other none cold spells.
I would be more concerned with failing will saves to becoming parylized for a rd.
|
curious as to why the yeti ruled to not be vulnerable to fire would ruin the parties ability to avoid being tpk'd.
So you don't do extra dam. but at least do normal fire damage. Also what if the party had no fire casting spells to begin with. Would you all just lie down and die?
yeti only immune to cold. Not melee ranged or other none cold spells.
I would be more concerned with failing will saves to becoming parylized for a rd.
The OP said it right there in the post..he HAD a fire mage.
I know when I did it.. it was a knock down, nasty dirty fight. NO ONE didn't drop at one point in the fight. The party rogue dropped 3 times, the fighter FIVE times, both the cleric, wizard (my wizard) and ranger dropped once. Only the use of a spontaneous immolation AND burning hands helped soften him up (and distracted him) long enough for the fighter (who had the WORSE luck with his weapon of choice I've ever seen) to switch to a bow and plink in 3 good solid hits.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Folks, if you can go back into your posts, please use spoilers or make your text vague.
To answer a few comments:
According to my downloads date I downloaded the scenario the day it came out (as I do with every scenario). Also according to that list it has not since been modified by Paizo. Every one of the discussed bad guy stat blocks in the copy I have has (*redacted*) - the discussed sub-type - in their creature sub-type.
Yes, the sub-tier 1-2 version of the BBEG was modified (to make it a non-automatic party wipe, frankly, but still be able to use the very flavorful and fun creature we're discussing for that encounter). That version has the sub-type, as well. He also has weaknesses and vulnerabilities listed at each sub-tier.
There is a single stat block involving these creatures that does not list anything beyond the creature name, and that is because it refers back to the lower sub-tier's stat block (where, once again, everything is listed correctly).
The GM obviously missed what he was looking for. It happens.
Some of us disagree about the methodology of this "check up" on said GM. That happens, too.
Considering all the above, this is obviously something that this play group needs to handle. How about, at this point, we let them sort it out and we un-involve ourselves?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you people are being too cynical, disrespectful, and down right hypocritical to the OP.
You say it should be "by the book, 100% as written," but the instant someone comes online asking whether the GM was right, you turn on them for meta gaming. I'm sorry, but is the OP wrong? No... So what's the big deal here?
Is it that they should trust their GM. Sorry, but I correct GMs all the time when they are about to TPK me if I believe that I may be correct. After I found out a particular GM cheated twice in one scenario to kill me in two separate battles, even when we told him that what he was doing was wrong, I make sure it runs just as it should (and no, I don't read the scenario, but I do apply my prior experience).
If you say things should go 100% as written, you should then stick by your word.
That being said, yes, it probably was a simple mistake by the GM. In most cases that's true. But does that mean that in PFS that you shouldn't correct the GM ever? He didn't even read the scenario...he's just trying to find out if what the GM said was correct.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Ah, well. I tried, I suppose...
But does that mean that in PFS that you shouldn't correct the GM ever? He didn't even read the scenario...he's just trying to find out if what the GM said was correct.
What people are taking exception to is the distrust that this particular method implies. I get that.
So, let's remove the internet and put forth the following scenario:
You're at GenCon. Random guy you've never met is your GM. You have a knowledge monkey as a PC. You run into a wizard that summons a monster into the fight. You make your knowledge check on your turn (let's call it a 30).
GM: It's a Babau. Chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar Medium Outsider.
You: Nothing special?
GM: Nope.
You: Do I get any more questions due to the number I rolled?
GM: Sure, fire away.
After you run down the standard list and get told the standard stuff, combat proceeds. Later in the same round the rogue, who is flanking it, hits it with a cold iron short sword, doing 10 damage, then goes to roll his sneak attack. The GM says, "No damage goes through from your main strike, so you don't get sneak attack damage."
The Table: Say what?
GM: Babau's have DR 10/cold iron AND good, so seeing as the rogue couldn't do any damage with the sword he doesn't get sneak attack.
Needless to say, I think, arguing ensues. GM won't budge. So, you ask if you can call in a ruling from one of the VCs and/or staff at the command center.
Would that be a problem, Chris? Seeing as they didn't go to the internet with their doubts would this be kosher? Or is it still a problem and the GM should just be "trusted" to get this right?
Edited: I had to make the "situation" more argument-worthy, with a couple different points of error. (-:
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Drogon,
It's not the Internet, per se. If the player excused himself, went to "the restroom", and polled a bunch of his friends in real time, behind the GM's back, I'd have mild problems with that.
If the player instead asked: "As a GM, I've run Babao before, and if this is a normal Babao, then I think there's something about Ralph's short sword that allows him to get through its DR. Do you mind if we call that handsome red-shirted gentleman over there over to double-check?" that seems completely reasonable to me.
There was a thread similar to this a little while ago. The GM has the stat block in front of him, the player doesn't. The GM is aware of any special attributes that distinguish this monster from others that look similar. (There are demons that (a) can disguise themselves as Babao and (b) don't take damage from cold iron weapons that aren't good-aligned.)
Or is it still a problem and the GM should just be "trusted" to get this right?
I don't understand the use of scare-quotes. Yes, the players should trust the GM.
|
|
I get it that GMing can be tough sometimes and it sucks to have your player running the game instead of the judge, but when it comes to deaths or potential deaths in PFS I think it is a bit more expected.
To the OP, I think your mistake, if you want to call it such, is giving too much information to lead others to think you are badgering your GM. If you had phrased it in the following way, I doubt you would have had any problems:
You probably would have got answers like "You knob, it is right in the stat block and they have the cold subtype." because it is the internet and all. But no one would have accused you of bad play.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Drogon,
It's not the Internet, per se. If the player excused himself, went to "the restroom", and polled a bunch of his friends in real time, behind the GM's back, I'd have mild problems with that.
If the player instead asked: "As a GM, I've run Babao before, and if this is a normal Babao, then I think there's something about Ralph's short sword that allows him to get through its DR. Do you mind if we call that handsome red-shirted gentleman over there over to double-check?" that seems completely reasonable to me.
So it's the up-front part that makes it okay, and questioning it isn't a problem? Very well. If the game is being played on the internet (as the one in the OP was) what recourse do the players have?
There was a thread similar to this a little while ago. The GM has the stat block in front of him, the player doesn't. The GM is aware of any special attributes that distinguish this monster from others that look similar. (There are demons that (a) can disguise themselves as Babao and (b) don't take damage from cold iron weapons that aren't good-aligned.)
You know, I don't think there is anything, ever, that cannot be corner-cased. So I'm just not even going to try to debate this with you. But I do have to question you about something.
Or is it still a problem and the GM should just be "trusted" to get this right?I don't understand the use of scare-quotes. Yes, the players should trust the GM.
I think my understanding of how quotes are used is different than yours. Sorry it bothered you.
Yes, the players should trust the GM. Yes, players should abide by what their GM tells them. And, yes, a player's approach to a dispute should always be handled with respect. I said all of this in my posts last night.
But, as a GM, I'd rather get rules correct than be written off as incompetent or unyielding.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've suffered the worst-case-scenario clearly-wrong DM rules call from a DM at Gencon before. It sucks. In addition, it's expensive.
I DM quite a bit myself and I consider myself very well versed in Pathfinder rules/mechanics. Even so, I get stuff wrong and encourage people to call me out if they believe me to be wrong. A world where the DM is above reproach is much worse than one where DM's have to live in fear of internet judgement.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the players should trust the GM. Yes, players should abide by what their GM tells them. And, yes, a player's approach to a dispute should always be handled with respect. I said all of this in my posts last night.
But, as a GM, I'd rather get rules correct than be written off as incompetent or unyielding.
Fair enough.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
There was a thread similar to this a little while ago. The GM has the stat block in front of him, the player doesn't. The GM is aware of any special attributes that distinguish this monster from others that look similar. (There are demons that (a) can disguise themselves as Babao and (b) don't take damage from cold iron weapons that aren't good-aligned.)
I can't help it. I have to ask:
Everything that was wrong in that example, and you go with, "Sometimes a Babau isn't a Babau."
I appreciate that you think a GM's position is as the final arbiter. But, seriously, you wouldn't have a problem with ANY of what happened in that example?
|
I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this thread and I think I've figured it out.
It's that this was posted in the middle of the game. Interrupting the flow of a tabletop game by whipping out an electronic device and making a forum post is something that would really irritate me. Both as a GM and as a player.
That said, SwampTing, is this an online game? Etiquette for an online or PBP game would be a bit different I imagine.
|
|
I see it this way, what's worse:
A) The DM is confirmed as wrong mid-way through the game via a definitive third party. Possible awkwardness follows.
B) The group TPKs. Later, the DM is confirmed as wrong and either tells the players to live with their wrongful deaths or retcons the deaths and gives the players full credit for a scenario they didn't actually get a chance to finish.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this thread and I think I've figured it out.
It's that this was posted in the middle of the game. Interrupting the flow of a tabletop game by whipping out an electronic device and making a forum post is something that would really irritate me. Both as a GM and as a player.
That said, SwampTing, is this an online game? Etiquette for an online or PBP game would be a bit different I imagine.
Yes, it was a play-by-post.
Thus, my follow up question to Chris a couple posts back: if it's okay to involve outside help in a rules dispute, what recourse do online players have?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I see it this way, what's worse:
A) The DM is confirmed as wrong mid-way through the game via a definitive third party. Possible awkwardness follows.
Better to get things right at the time. Avoids the possible akwardness of "Okay, maybe I got that wrong, but you guys would still have been dead because of X."
|
|
I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this thread and I think I've figured it out.
It's that this was posted in the middle of the game. Interrupting the flow of a tabletop game by whipping out an electronic device and making a forum post is something that would really irritate me. Both as a GM and as a player.
That said, SwampTing, is this an online game? Etiquette for an online or PBP game would be a bit different I imagine.
Yes, it was a play-by-post.
Thus, my follow up question to Chris a couple posts back: if it's okay to involve outside help in a rules dispute, what recourse do online players have?
I saw that, but never saw a mention of the format by the OP.
Given that it's a PBP, then I feel better about it. In regards to your question (if it's open to others), I think it's all about good judgement.
As a player at a table, if a GM has us encounter a creature, and is neglecting a key feature of it, I'll make a mention. "Hey GM, just so you know, that thing has grab -- so it might want to grapple while it makes those attacks." If I need outside resources to help -- "hey GM, I don't think X works that way" -- I would likely try to bring it up before I take it to an online squabble.
I would shoot the GM a message if we were playing PBP.
"Hey GM, are you sure about that? I think yeti's are vulnerable to fire. Here are a couple helpful links."
There has to be a level of acceptance by a GM that they could be making mistakes. And a level of trust by players that the GM isn't going to screw them over. Tabletop RPGs are like those trust-fall exercises. If the people around you aren't going to catch you, you probably don't want to play with them.
That said, in an online format, it might be hard to figure out if people you play with can be trusted. My only experience with PBP was years ago with 3.5, and a majority of the people I played with were fun and honest, and we had a good time. I doubt the culture has changed enough that an average GM would be opposed to the messaging solution I suggested above.
I think that if everyone wants a fair and fun table, then if everyone is just mature and up front about questions, posts like this won't happen.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I saw that, but never saw a mention of the format by the OP.I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this thread and I think I've figured it out.
It's that this was posted in the middle of the game. Interrupting the flow of a tabletop game by whipping out an electronic device and making a forum post is something that would really irritate me. Both as a GM and as a player.
That said, SwampTing, is this an online game? Etiquette for an online or PBP game would be a bit different I imagine.
Yes, it was a play-by-post.
Thus, my follow up question to Chris a couple posts back: if it's okay to involve outside help in a rules dispute, what recourse do online players have?
It's in this post. That post was made under an alias (I'm assuming the character he uses for the PBP game).
Given that it's a PBP, then I feel better about it. In regards to your question (if it's open to others), I think it's all about good judgement.
As a player at a table, if a GM has us encounter a creature, and is neglecting a key feature of it, I'll make a mention. "Hey GM, just so you know, that thing has grab -- so it might want to grapple while it makes those attacks." If I need outside resources to help -- "hey GM, I don't think X works that way" -- I would likely try to bring it up before I take it to an online squabble.
I would shoot the GM a message if we were playing PBP.
"Hey GM, are you sure about that? I think yeti's are vulnerable to fire. Here are a couple helpful links."
There has to be a level of acceptance by a GM that they could be making mistakes. And a level of trust by players that the GM isn't going to screw them over. Tabletop RPGs are like those trust-fall exercises. If the people around you aren't going to catch you, you probably don't want to play with them.
That said, in an online format, it might be hard to figure out if people you play with can be trusted. My only experience with PBP was years ago with 3.5, and a majority of the people I played with were fun and honest, and we had a good time. I doubt the culture has changed enough that an average GM would be opposed to the messaging solution I suggested above.
I think that if everyone wants a fair and fun table, then if everyone is just mature and up front about questions, posts like this won't happen.
Agreed. I do wish the OP had gone a different route than this thread, but I don't feel he should be pilloried for questioning his GM as he did.
