|
There's a discrepancy in the PFS rules that relates to this:
And we all know GMs - every GM - makes at least one mistake in almost every game. That's just the nature of it.
GMs are expected to be trusted to run as written, and if they screw over a player (either intentionally or by accident), there's seemingly no way to enforce it.
The OP here has tried to get some advice, and a bunch of people are coming down on him.
He's in a lose-lose situation here - sorry, but that's not fair. Let's just tell him what he's asking for.
Edit: Actually, apparently I'm off course and the PFS rules have changed a bit.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat.
So actually, the OP was following the rules.
|
|
Sorry, I was just mad about the response of some people. I'll delete that part.You had me, then you lost me. Telling people they're wrong is one thing; telling them they're wrong and should feel bad about it will almost invariably result in people disregarding your input.
Word. I'd delete my post, but obviously I'm a little past the deadline. ;)
|
|
So actually, the OP was following the rules.
No.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat.
Repeatedly is the key word here. There's no indication that this is a reoccurring problem with this GM. If it was, why both playing with them?
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.
It's happened several times with a single character. All that needs to be done is ask, "really?" and if the GM comes back with an affirmative, move on the with the game.
So what if we don't get all the loot or spend extra resources or *gasp* a PC dies? First, it's a game! Did you have fun playing it? Then it doesn't matter if someone made a mistake. Seriously... it doesn't matter if you had to cross an extra charge off your wand. It's no different than any other game. Did the ref blow the call in your church league softball game? You can get all pissy, throw your glove, kick some dirt or call the rec league office and complain. OR you can live with the blown call and figure out a way to win despite it.
Second, if the mistake the GM results in something as bad as a TPK or an unrecoverable death, then consult the scenario and the reference books and make sure there wasn't a mistake. You can always go back and fix it, even weeks or months later.
If you want people to "trust the GM", these are the kinds of mistakes they can not make.
This statement falls within the top 10 of worst posts on these boards ever. I can't believe people favorited it.
Let me get this straight; In order for players to trust GM's, they need to not make mistakes? If this is really true for anyone out there, I pity you. There isn't a single GM out there who's ever run a mistake free game. Yes, even I've made mistakes. If you're going to come to my table and tell me that you can't trust me to run the game for you unless I run it mistake free, I'm going to tell you to find another table.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat.Repeatedly is the key word here. There's no indication that this is a reoccurring problem with this GM. If it was, why both playing with them?
Kyle, I believe that the OP, and others, were looking at the second part (I added additional bolding), where it doesn't require for the error to be repeated.
While I agree that it is a game, people invest time, effort and likely some money in their characters. To have a TPK because the GM is missing something (that appears to be critical in the survival of the group) that is in the stat block of the creature, is not something that should be encouraged.
I am not saying that the GM should be hammered, but an error that is/may wrongfully lead to a TPK is something that should be corrected.
I am curious about your statement that you can always go back and fix an error, even a TPK, weeks or months later. How does one go about doing that?
|
|
I am curious about your statement that you can always go back and fix an error, even a TPK, weeks or months later. How does one go about doing that?
Depends on your role, but if you contact a VC, they can fix it.
If you're the GM and realize you made a mistake later, you can contact the players. If you don't know the players, you know their PFS ID# and a VC or Campaign Management can contact those players.
If you're a player, you can contact your GM and discuss what happened and go from there. If you don't know the GM, you have their # on your chronicle and the session ID # as well and a VC or campaign management can go from there.
I am curious about your statement that you can always go back and fix an error, even a TPK, weeks or months later. How does one go about doing that?Depends on your role, but if you contact a VC, they can fix it.
If you're the GM and realize you made a mistake later, you can contact the players. If you don't know the players, you know their PFS ID# and a VC or Campaign Management can contact those players.
If you're a player, you can contact your GM and discuss what happened and go from there. If you don't know the GM, you have their # on your chronicle and the session ID # as well and a VC or campaign management can go from there.
Thanks for those explanations. That is good to know.
But what significant problem? They hadn't even faced the Yeti yet, they were just planning tactics. It's quite possible and likely that they still would have been victorious w/o coming to the messageboards.
I may have read the original post a bit differently than you. I was under the impression that the fight was ongoing. As most do not learn which creatures are there until they see them when the fight starts.
And for me, the significant problem was the OP appeared to be of the impression that the error was going to lead to a TPK that likely would not happen if the stat block had been correctly looked at.
When I get to play (not often), I don't interrupt the game flow for small errors on the GM's part (I will often talk to them afterwards to ensure that either my mistaken interpretation is correct, or that theirs is). But, if it becomes a life or death situation for a party, then I will have the rule at hand, present it and my argument for the GM to make a ruling.
I may be a bit more optimistic and/or trusting that you Kyle, as I have GMed more for home campaigns than for PFS, so I have had less interactions will as many types of folk as you have, so have most dealt with folk that I know and who know me.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
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.It's happened several times with a single character. All that needs to be done is ask, "really?" and if the GM comes back with an affirmative, move on the with the game.
So what if we don't get all the loot or spend extra resources or *gasp* a PC dies? First, it's a game! Did you have fun playing it? Then it doesn't matter if someone made a mistake. Seriously... it doesn't matter if you had to cross an extra charge off your wand. It's no different than any other game. Did the ref blow the call in your church league softball game? You can get all pissy, throw your glove, kick some dirt or call the rec league office and complain. OR you can live with the blown call and figure out a way to win despite it.
Second, if the mistake the GM results in something as bad as a TPK or an unrecoverable death, then consult the scenario and the reference books and make sure there wasn't a mistake. You can always go back and fix it, even weeks or months later.
Like I said, your ability to compartmentalize this is to be commended. I'm honestly impressed with anyone who can simply shrug when faced with obvious errors and move on with the (yes, you're correct) GAME.
I only disagree with the idea that, due to the nature of it being a game, we are not allowed to question each other.
As you have pointed out, GMs are human, too. And, frankly, this particular game we play is a cooperative game. Thus, I feel GMs are allowed to be questioned. They are also allowed to compromise with players on things. I see that as a fundamental part of my own game-play as a GM, and feel it enhances the spirit of the games I run.
|
@Kyle
Notice I said "these kinds of mistakes". You know, the kind that cause needless TPKs because they don't want to bother to check something out. I didn't say "no mistakes at all".
I also make mistakes all the time. The *difference* in my approach is I ask for input from my table and ask that they let me know when I make a mistake. I've had PCs tell me when I was accidentally short changing one of the NPCs even. I'd rather catch the mistake right then and there than have to go retcon a disaster.
These are the kinds of tables I want to play at/run at. Not "the GM is god". Not "gameflow is all-important, even at the cost of a TPK".
Lastly, trust must be earned. You don't automatically get trust because volunteer to run one of these scenarios. I've run into GMs that lack reading comprehension to the detriment of the table. I've run into GMs that can't do arithmetic. I've run into GMs that mangle important mechanics like lighting or grappling. Why do GMs get an automatic pass again?
I find your flippant attitude towards blatant GM errors rather unacceptable. I don't know any players that want to have to go back days or weeks later to sort out a preventable mess.
I also find it rather sad that you jump straight to, "I will not be questioned. Don't play at my table." I don't think you have to worry about that with me. I will happily go play with a reasonable person.
|
|
And even with highly trained doctors, people seek second opinions.
Do you get on your phone while talking with the doctor and call another doctor for that opinion, or do you have some respect for that doctor and make that phone call after your appointment? I haven't once said, "don't ask questions, don't seek a second opinion, don't question your GM." What I have said is have some respect, show a little class and trust your GM to show you a good time.
I only disagree with the idea that, due to the nature of it being a game, we are not allowed to question each other.
I believe I said, "ask, really?" My point was that if you ask someone, "are you sure?" and they say yes, why does it need to go any farther than that right then? Why can't we go with it until it becomes an actual issue?
Lastly, trust must be earned. You don't automatically get trust because volunteer to run one of these scenarios. I've run into GMs that lack reading comprehension to the detriment of the table. I've run into GMs that can't do arithmetic. I've run into GMs that mangle important mechanics like lighting or grappling. Why do GMs get an automatic pass again?
So funny, really. David, is a GM going to be able to earn your trust in a 4 hour slot? Probably not. If you can't trust your GM, why play at all?
I find your flippant attitude towards blatant GM errors rather unacceptable. I don't know any players that want to have to go back days or weeks later to sort out a preventable mess.
How is telling a PC that something that normally has fire vulnerability doesn't in this case obvious? Maybe it has a template, maybe it's not what you think it is despite your knowledge check ("For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more.") And your statement about not wanting to go back days or weeks later to sort it out is quite obvious, which is why it could easily be settled at the table.
I also find it rather sad that you jump straight to, "I will not be questioned. Don't play at my table." I don't think you have to worry about that with me. I will happily go play with a reasonable person.Is that some sort of direct quote from somewhere?
If you're going to come to my table and tell me that you can't trust me to run the game for you unless I run it mistake free, I'm going to tell you to find another table.
Not exactly what you said, but feel free to interpret that way and avoid my table.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Another trust discussion? I bet if we talked out the trust issues, we could really get somewhere. :)
|
|
"So funny, really. David, is a GM going to be able to earn your trust in a 4 hour slot? Probably not. If you can't trust your GM, why play at all?"
Actually, most GMs earn my trust after one or two encounters. Especially if there is a PC in the group using combat maneuvers and the GM seems very familiar with them. They earn my trust after the first unclear issue in the game. It's as simple as the GM going "I don't remember X, someone look it up for me, and then we'll fix it in real time."
I find it interesting that you are completely avoiding addressing my alternate GM style. What exactly about taking input from the players is so threatening or odious? I've never had a table end with someone feeling like they were confused as to what happened or confused as to why their PC died (if they did).
It's trivial to call out which relevant feats NPCs use as they use them to avoid that confusion. If there's a templated critter that doesn't follow the normal rules, I'll say something like "Well, your knowledge check tells you the normal info, but you notice features on this particular one that might make it special." Boom. Done. I have simultaneously acknowledged to the player that I know how the regular critter works and that this critter is not quite the same and that *I am aware of it*. The PCs still don't know which special properties they need to exploit/avoid. They just know *something* is up.
And let's be honest, here, there's not that many special critters in PFS. At least not in tiers 1-5, 3-7, 5-9. And that's most of the game. At the same time, I expect my players not to meta game. However, if a PC has put the effort in to skill ranks, they should be justly rewarded, not indirectly punished because the GM lacks reading comprehension.
As for my quote, I shouldn't have used quotes. I was actually paraphrasing. You definitely give the vibe of not wanting to be questioned.
At the end of the day, you'll GM the way you want and I'll do it the way I want. Both appear to fall within PFS guidelines, so there is no official way to resolve this. But I can tell you that my players never leave feeling confused, jobbed, or cheated, regardless of the result of the scenario.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Drogon, for what it's worth, if I was playing this scenario, after the scenario, I'd be the first person asking, "did those Yetis have some sort of template or something that took away their fire vulnerability?" Then I would hope that the GM and I could go over the stat block together.
I know.
And, for what it's worth, if the current situation wasn't really an issue, I would likewise bring it up at the end of the scenario.
I think our only difference is this: I wouldn't want it to become a different issue that had to be resolved later on. Even an after-the-fact "oops, shouldn't have killed you because it died two rounds earlier" doesn't give back the time to the guy who sat there twiddling his thumbs for an hour because he was "dead." I would question it (and want to BE questioned) before it got to that point, is all. I do not think that is unreasonable, and don't want players thinking they shouldn't do so.
|
|
Drogon, for what it's worth, if I was playing this scenario, after the scenario, I'd be the first person asking, "did those Yetis have some sort of template or something that took away their fire vulnerability?" Then I would hope that the GM and I could go over the stat block together.I know.
And, for what it's worth, if the current situation wasn't really an issue, I would likewise bring it up at the end of the scenario.
I think our only difference is this: I wouldn't want it to become a different issue that had to be resolved later on. Even an after-the-fact "oops, shouldn't have killed you because it died two rounds earlier" doesn't give back the time to the guy who sat there twiddling his thumbs for an hour because he was "dead." I would question it (and want to BE questioned) before it got to that point, is all. I do not think that is unreasonable, and don't want players thinking they shouldn't do so.
This; exactly. If a player dies at my table, I make damn sure it's by their mistake, outlier dice rolling, or a heinous scenario. Not because I missed an NPCs weak spot and the PCs should have legally survived. I can be a bit of tricky tactician, or at least as much as the written scenario allows, and so PCs don't need anything else against them. I don't play with kid gloves, especially when PCs play up, but I reciprocate by making sure to the best of my ability that dangerous situations are properly handled, and not adhoced.
|
|
I find it interesting that you are completely avoiding addressing my alternate GM style.
Avoiding? I don't find your 'style' to be an alternate at all and certainly not dramatically different enough from what the average GM does.
As for my quote, I shouldn't have used quotes. I was actually paraphrasing. You definitely give the vibe of not wanting to be questioned.
Vibe from the internet, that's never caused a problem before. I haven't commented on my own GMing, but I'll do so here. If someone has a question about what I'm doing, I'll certainly answer it the best I can. If need be, I'll recheck my scenario, notes, rulebook, whatever (I'll usually put the burden on a player to look something up if it's going to take a lot of time). If that player wants to keep questioning me after I've provided an answer, I'll either try to answer it again in a different way, or ask the player to hold onto the question until we take a break or finish the scenario. If they're unwilling to do that and want to continue to disrupt the table over the issue, I would likely ask them to leave. This has never happened.
But I can tell you that my players never leave feeling confused, jobbed, or cheated, regardless of the result of the scenario.
Such certainty can be its own problem.
|
|
Drogon, for what it's worth, if I was playing this scenario, after the scenario, I'd be the first person asking, "did those Yetis have some sort of template or something that took away their fire vulnerability?" Then I would hope that the GM and I could go over the stat block together.I think our only difference is this: I wouldn't want it to become a different issue that had to be resolved later on. Even an after-the-fact "oops, shouldn't have killed you because it died two rounds earlier" doesn't give back the time to the guy who sat there twiddling his thumbs for an hour because he was "dead." I would question it (and want to BE questioned) before it got to that point, is all. I do not think that is unreasonable, and don't want players thinking they shouldn't do so.
If the issue here is time, what about the time of the other 5 players at the table who are twiddling their thumbs while the 6th player constantly stops the game to check a book or asking a VC or post on the forums for a response? All I'm arguing for is having a little respect for the person running your table, the rest of the players at your table and accept that your player knowledge of the situation may not adequate for what you're seeing on the table. Question it? Sure, but stop the game every time the GM's answer isn't satisfactory?
|
|
Intersections of combats dire enough to warrant such a protest as you describe and unclear rules are fairly rare, but they are more common in Season 4 and the number of dire combats has increased.
However, there are things like lighting level that need to be established before anyone starts swinging. Due to devils and demons penchant for throwing darkness effects, this can be a non-trivial issue as the PCs start throwing their own effects in the course of the battle. I have seen numerous mistakes in this arena that has cost players hundreds of gold in expendables. For all the hand-wringing over WBL in other threads, YMMV rules can have a pretty big effect on WBL as well. Yet, mysteriously, this is not demonized like "playing up".
Just because you'll recheck notes and scenarios doesn't mean other GMs will. That's why I'm skeptical of the blanket "trust the GM" attitude. By default, I know nothing about any given GM a priori, and so I don't know whether to avoid them or not.
I'm just curious, what's the potential problem with transparency in PFS GMing? This isn't homebrew. People can go look up after the fact as to whether a GM hosed them or not.
|
|
This; exactly. If a player dies at my table, I make damn sure it's by their mistake, outlier dice rolling, or a heinous scenario. Not because I missed an NPCs weak spot and the PCs should have legally survived. I can be a bit of tricky tactician, or at least as much as the written scenario allows, and so PCs don't need anything else against them. I don't play with kid gloves, especially when PCs play up, but I reciprocate by making sure to the best of my ability that dangerous situations are properly handled, and not adhoced.
So what you're saying is that you'd NEVER run a Yeti, have a player ask if it's vulnerable to fire, look down at the stat block and miss the vulnerable fire text? What then if the player pulls out his Bestiary during the combat and starts looking the creature up? I'm sure you're totally cool with that too because this is the internet and that's the appropriate counterargument.
|
|
I'm just curious, what's the potential problem with transparency in PFS GMing? This isn't homebrew. People can go look up after the fact as to whether a GM hosed them or not.
Just to add to this, there are concrete, regulated consequences to dying and other things in PFS. In home games, it's whatever everyone agrees on.
|
|
If the issue here is time, what about the time of the other 5 players at the table who are twiddling their thumbs while the 6th player constantly stops the game to check a book or asking a VC or post on the forums for a response? All I'm arguing for is having a little respect for the person running your table, the rest of the players at your table and accept that your player knowledge of the situation may not adequate for what you're seeing on the table. Question it? Sure, but stop the game every time the GM's answer isn't satisfactory?Drogon, for what it's worth, if I was playing this scenario, after the scenario, I'd be the first person asking, "did those Yetis have some sort of template or something that took away their fire vulnerability?" Then I would hope that the GM and I could go over the stat block together.I think our only difference is this: I wouldn't want it to become a different issue that had to be resolved later on. Even an after-the-fact "oops, shouldn't have killed you because it died two rounds earlier" doesn't give back the time to the guy who sat there twiddling his thumbs for an hour because he was "dead." I would question it (and want to BE questioned) before it got to that point, is all. I do not think that is unreasonable, and don't want players thinking they shouldn't do so.
There's "oh the GM gave that goblin and extra 5ft of movement on accident" unsatisfactory and then there's "our main damage source is fire and we are counting this to defeat enemies that should be legally vunlerable to fire, but they mysteriously aren't" unsatisfactory.
If I can't arbitrarily add NPCs to compensate for druid pets, then other GMs can't arbitrarily a) remove NPCs weaknesses b) add NPC defenses c) use listed NPC abilities in illegal manners, all of which I have witnessed. Not all were honest mistakes, either.
|
|
This; exactly. If a player dies at my table, I make damn sure it's by their mistake, outlier dice rolling, or a heinous scenario. Not because I missed an NPCs weak spot and the PCs should have legally survived. I can be a bit of tricky tactician, or at least as much as the written scenario allows, and so PCs don't need anything else against them. I don't play with kid gloves, especially when PCs play up, but I reciprocate by making sure to the best of my ability that dangerous situations are properly handled, and not adhoced.So what you're saying is that you'd NEVER run a Yeti, have a player ask if it's vulnerable to fire, look down at the stat block and miss the vulnerable fire text? What then if the player pulls out his Bestiary during the combat and starts looking the creature up? I'm sure you're totally cool with that too because this is the internet and that's the appropriate counterargument.
No, because I'd look it up myself for sure or ask to have it looked up. Because I'm a thinking person, and many cold based critters have vulnerability to fire. It would be worth 2 minutes of investigation to confirm that, since it's a non-trivial detail. Actually, I'd ask the table if anyone knew it definitively off the top of their head first.
My methodology prevents the player from having to investigate it on their own in a confrontational manner.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If the issue here is time, what about the time of the other 5 players at the table who are twiddling their thumbs while the 6th player constantly stops the game to check a book or asking a VC or post on the forums for a response? All I'm arguing for is having a little respect for the person running your table, the rest of the players at your table and accept that your player knowledge of the situation may not adequate for what you're seeing on the table. Question it? Sure, but stop the game every time the GM's answer isn't satisfactory?Drogon, for what it's worth, if I was playing this scenario, after the scenario, I'd be the first person asking, "did those Yetis have some sort of template or something that took away their fire vulnerability?" Then I would hope that the GM and I could go over the stat block together.I think our only difference is this: I wouldn't want it to become a different issue that had to be resolved later on. Even an after-the-fact "oops, shouldn't have killed you because it died two rounds earlier" doesn't give back the time to the guy who sat there twiddling his thumbs for an hour because he was "dead." I would question it (and want to BE questioned) before it got to that point, is all. I do not think that is unreasonable, and don't want players thinking they shouldn't do so.
Two things:
1 - In all the games I've played (with both good GMs and lousy GMs) I can only think of a couple tables where I would have questioned the GM more than once. In other words, I can't envision a situation where I'd stop a GM over and over (nor would I).
2 - If a GM has been questioned several times (thus halting the game several times), you can believe that even as a player I would step in on the person asking the questions and say, "Look, let's just get this game done and have these conversations at the end of the session. He's not 'out to get us' and none of this is going to break the game. It can wait." Especially if the GM has been right every time the player has brought up questions (which has actually happened with me as the GM - that was a hoot).
Anyway, I think we can both happily say that, under reasonable circumstances, we would both behave the way we'd want and things would be fine.
|
|
Just because you'll recheck notes and scenarios doesn't mean other GMs will. That's why I'm skeptical of the blanket "trust the GM" attitude. By default, I know nothing about any given GM a priori, and so I don't know whether to avoid them or not.
I'm just curious, what's the potential problem with transparency in PFS GMing? This isn't homebrew. People can go look up after the fact as to whether a GM hosed them or not.
You're correct, you don't know the GM a priori (ooh, do I sound extra smart now too?). No one is advocating blind trust. No one is saying don't question the GM. Stop avoiding the parts of a position just to make your own argument.
You want transparency with PFS GMing? Why bother having a GM? Just lay the stat blocks down on the table and have the players run the NPCs. Wheee, full transparency!
Believe it or not, there are some people like a little mystery and intrigue in their game.
Story time!
I remember when Step Up was a new thing. There was an encounter featuring a couple of creatures with that feat. One got base to base with the party's archer who calmed stepped back.
"As you quickly step back to take your shot, the [redacted] follows you."
The player was like, "Whaaaaa?"
I said something to the effect of, "It seems his years of savage training has allowed him to stay toe-to-toe with foes wishing to escape." "Do you still want to shoot?"
After the encounter was I over, I told the guy they had a feat called Step Up and he looked it up in the CRB.
Your alternative is to say, "The creature use his Step Up feat to keep up with you."
I would prefer to keep the mystery and the player thinking "what more can this thing do that I don't know about?" rather than just explain it all away with game mechanics.
|
|
I'd have to say my experience is the same as Drogon. There have been plenty of times where I *wanted* to stop the GM multiple times, but it was either a) absolutely not worth it or b) the GM had made it clear they were not open to input from the players.
Of course, there are GMs with whom I won't sit at tables they are running, so I guess take that into account as well.
|
|
Just because you'll recheck notes and scenarios doesn't mean other GMs will. That's why I'm skeptical of the blanket "trust the GM" attitude. By default, I know nothing about any given GM a priori, and so I don't know whether to avoid them or not.
I'm just curious, what's the potential problem with transparency in PFS GMing? This isn't homebrew. People can go look up after the fact as to whether a GM hosed them or not.
You're correct, you don't know the GM a priori[/] (ooh, do I sound extra smart now too?). No one is advocating blind trust. No one is saying don't question the GM. Stop avoiding the parts of a position just to make your own argument.
You want transparency with PFS GMing? Why bother having a GM? Just lay the stat blocks down on the table and have the players run the NPCs. Wheee, full transparency!
Believe it or not, there are some people like a little mystery and intrigue in their game.
Story time!
I remember when Step Up was a new thing. There was an encounter featuring a couple of creatures with that feat. One got base to base with the party's archer who calmed stepped back.
"As you quickly step back to take your shot, the [redacted] follows you."
The player was like, "Whaaaaa?"
I said something to the effect of, "It seems his years of savage training has allowed him to stay toe-to-toe with foes wishing to escape." "Do you still want to shoot?"
After the encounter was I over, I told the guy they had a feat called Step Up and he looked it up in the CRB.
Your alternative is to say, "The creature use his Step Up feat to keep up with you."
I would prefer to keep the mystery and the player thinking "what more can this thing do that I don't know about?" rather than just explain it all away with game mechanics.
You could have named off the feat and the PC *still* wouldn't know what else the NPC could do. And the player would have learned about that new feat, as well.
I think you are just venturing into the jerk zone here. There would be tremendous moral hazard to have the PCs run the NPCs. The GM is still there to operate NPCs in a manner that is as realistic as possible. The PCs still have to coax info out of reluctant witnesses, etc. That's where the mystery and intrigue comes in.
Mystery and intrigue on combat time, in my experience, just leads to costly mistakes and adds very little. What's wrong with "It seems his years of savage training has allowed him to stay toe-to-toe with foes wishing to escape using his step up feat" ? You act like this is a bimodal situation when it is not.
And I used a priori to save key strokes. Your little comment was unnecessary despite your disagreement with my position.
|
|
He's not 'out to get us' and none of this is going to break the game.Doesn't that require trust? Or for David, perhaps trust a priori?
Доверяй, но проверяй (doveryai, no proveryai): Trust but verify. Just don't be a jerk about it.
"Out to get us" GMs can usually be detected through their actions and attitude. "Mistakes" that always miraculously favor the NPCs is a tell tale sign. Honest mistakes will be distributed both in favor and against the NPCs.
|
|
He's not 'out to get us' and none of this is going to break the game.Doesn't that require trust? Or for David, perhaps trust a priori?
Доверяй, но проверяй (doveryai, no proveryai): Trust but verify. Just don't be a jerk about it.
"Jerk" is very subjective. You still have to play the game of thin-skinned vs thick-skinned GMs.
|
|
Also, for your answer, I don't care what players look up at the table. As long as they don't meta game with whatever they look up. It's really no different than someone having a stat block or whatever memorized.
Sometimes I jello-head stuff in a scenario. This is a given. How is a player looking it up any different than looking it up myself?