|
tl;dr: Dying sucks, and even small risks add up over time, so how many players (4, 5, or 6) should I allow on a PFS scenario? How dangerous should PFS scenarios be?
I had a question - or two related questions - about how dangerous a PFS scenario should be since, although you can't mess with the "mechanics" of a scenario, you can decide how many players/characters to allow on the scenario (at least in online play).
Having one expectation, I was running six characters through a scenario that another PFS GM had limited to four characters. As I was discussing with this GM, one really odd part about PFS play is that while there is a hard and fast rule against changing "mechanics" in the PFS scenarios, the same Tier 1-2 scenario would be presented in most cases to 4 brand-new level 1 characters with character-driven builds who's players just sat down with each other for the first time and to 6 (or even 7) almost-third level characters with optimized builds who know all of each other’s tactics and were even designed from step 1 to be a team. (I guess at some point in the development of the scenarios they decided to modify things a bit for bigger or smaller parties, at least. I'm not sure at what point that was since I haven't run that many scenarios.)
On one hand, the most memorable encounters for me as a player were ones where it seemed that everyone was going to die (but no one actually did). On the other hand, death in PFS is especially harsh given that it (or a similar remove-from-play fate) means starting over at 1st, while in most home games I would guess you would come in with a new character at or just below the group level. (That would seem a good change for PFS: When a character dies, you get to make a new character 1 or 2 levels below, starting with some slightly below average amount of gold.)
Doing a little math (feel free to correct me on it), having even a 5% chance that a character dies permanently per encounter means about 16% of characters will make it to level 4. (I think the math - given 4 combats per scenario, three scenarios per level, and 3 levels - would be .95^36). Reducing the chance of death to 2% per encounter brings the survival to 4th level up to about 48%. (Making it to 6th level would be about 5% and 30%, respectively.)
(I was picking 4th level since that is about the first time would seem to have enough Prestige Points to get a Raise Dead, if essentially all of their scenarios earned them two points. Additionally, though, Raise Dead may not work because of the cause of death or time since death, may cost more in PFS if the death wasn’t in or near a substantial city, and will cause lot of lingering damage and expenses with its ‘permanent’ negative levels.)
So, from a character risk-of-death standpoint, are scenarios best run with 4, 5, or 6 characters?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything from four to six is considered ideal at a table, I believe. The objective is to be as inclusive as possible, and if that happens to make a scenario get trounced horribly, s'just how it goes. Ideally you aren't supposed to turn people away from a table unless it will cause you to exceed your maximum number of players, or at least that's how I was taught to handle PFS games. More often than not, six players will have a much easier time than four anyway. It might become an issue if having six players would force them to play up for whatever reason, but otherwise I wouldn't worry about it. The risk of death is something all of our characters face each time we use them. Luckily, most of the scenarios too low level for you to get a rez are pretty merciful. ... There are some exceptions.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
You are assuming a lot of things.
First of all, you assume that each encounter has a purely random chance of character death. While there is a random element to player mortality, in that sometime the big bad just gets lucky, and puts the frontline fighter down to -con in one hit, it is extremely rare. (and a good frontliner is built to make it even rarer.)
Also, not all encounters have the same difficulty or chance of death. I would say in any given game, only 2 encounters have a meaningful chance of perm death, the others are resource wasters, and may be able to reduce a party member to unconsiousness, but can only kill characters who dumped con, or characters who noone tries to heal.
So you are looking at something more like:
(0.999)^18*(0.99)^9*(0.95)^9 And I think that 0.95 should be more like 0.98-0.97 in reality out side of some specificly lethal scenarios.
So that says that about 1 in 3 PC should have died at least once by level 4. Raise Dead costs ~5K gold, typically by tier 3-4/4-5, where you are more likely to die, the scenario rewards are ~1K per party member, which means that if you have 5pp for a body recovery, you can afford the raise dead, though you may have to wait till next game to get the restoration.
(This assumes that the party feels guilty for letting you die.)
|
|
The Beard - Yeah, maximizing playing opportunities is one reason I always go for six players, in addition to not wanting to be as likely to kill characters.
I've even been tempted to run 7 characters for that reason, but I wasn't sure whether that would make the scenarios too easy for the players and too cumbersome otherwise.
(It would be better still to run two of the same, but I haven't had the time if I still want to play and not have my own characters get too far behind.)
FLite - Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions, which I don't really have enough data or experience to avoid. That is a good point about the different types of encounters in a scenario, which could potentially reduce the per scenario death toll.
BigNorseWolf - Also a good point about running, although much of my experience so far deals with Color Spray taking out much of the party. (I disdain using coup de grace or it would be much worse, I am sure. Even the AoO doesn't mean much when there is no one nearby left standing to try it.)
|
It goes against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from a table because you only want four PCs.
You can run a legal table with 3-7 PCs (3+1 NPC, and 7 PCs maximum). Yes, some scenarios will get totally trounced with 7 PCs, and GMing and trying to keep 7 people engaged is very difficult, but if that's the way it works, that's the way it works.
Unless you're running a game at home, using PFS rules, then fine, tell your friends they can't play, whatever. But if you're running a public event at a game store or other such venue, then no. You let the people that show up play. If they don't have a valid character, they can play a pregen, even if this is a Level 7 pregen at a Tier 5-6 table.
If you get 7 PCs, you can ask one of them if they'd like to split off and run a second table, but unless they happend to have shown up with their GM supplies this is unlikely to be a done. Running scenarios blind can often make for a bad time for everyone.
Alternatively, if you know you're going to have 7 PCs, then perhaps choose a scenario that's known to be challenging or that scales well to that number of players. Murder on the Silken Caravan was one I played not too long ago as one of 7 PCs at Tier 1-2 and it handles 7 pretty well.
|
I haven't done all that many on either side of the screen.
Having said that, with a few notable exceptions, PFS is fairly low threat. The only times I have died or seen an extreme serious risk of dying are when the group did something stupid.
Played up when really weren't very optimal.
Split up and hit separate encounters at the same time.
Very disparate levels (levels 1 and 5 in the same group) and playing up.
Etc...
Now we have many times been at serious risk of not completing our mission, but not actually dying.
The early ones will probably be very easy for a group of 6 because they were written for a group of 4.
Some of season 4 is extremely deadly. I think they tried to make them harder due to complaints about it being too easy. They might have gone a bit far.
The later ones now have adjustments for large and small groups in addition to high and low tier.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
It goes against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from a table because you only want four PCs.
I agree with you, but I think we can take this even further.
It goes against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from a table.
It doesn't matter if there are 3 players or 7, they should all get a chance to play. What are the reasons why someone would be turned away?
Is it that the GM is a little green and can't handle 7 players?
Sure, an experienced GM will have less difficulty providing a rewarding experience for a table of 7, but it can still be done. And for those that have less time logged behind the screen, any skilled players can help during the game. They can field questions, help with combat tactics, track initiative -- there's a lot you can delegate out as a GM if you're new to it.
Maybe we're afraid that the game will be too easy?
If that's a worry, then engage the players in more roleplaying, or encourage the players to relax a bit in combat, to give everyone a chance to enjoy it. Even if the scenario only has one or two NPCs fully fleshed out, that doesn't mean you can't improvise and turn that weapon's merchant into a personality that everyone at the table will remember and enjoy.
There's a limited time slot, and 7 players will make the game take too long.
This hinges on just having everyone at the table focus during the right moments. Have players prepare their actions ahead of time. Either by pre-rolling multiple attacks, or even just thinking of what they want to do. Looking up spells ahead of time can shorten lots of high level combats. You can outsource combat tasks to other people at the table, either have them roll one of the fireballs or count up the dice while we move on to the next person's turn. Most scenarios also have optional encounters. I think sometimes we forget they can be optional, as I often see GMs running them even when time is short.
There might be other reasons too, but I think that regardless of what they are, the cost of rejecting a hopeful player is just too high. If having large tables is a problem at your area, perhaps it's time for another GM to step up. That means that whoever has been GMing will need to help them learn the ropes, either by playing at their table and giving them pointers, or letting them shadow a session or two -- just to see how everything works.
I think it goes against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from a table.
Unless, of course, they're a jerk.
|
|
It's certainly possible that I am overestimating player death, perhaps because of the scenarios I've run. The First Steps I and II, for example, had some good possibilities of player death, even TPKs according to some threads. Fortunately, the players have gotten lucky where they needed to be (or, not too unlucky) and the situation that could have been a TPK had a written-in out that kept one part from going too badly.
Walter Sheppard - I think I would also agree that it is against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from the table if at all possible, but I was also working from my experiences as an online-only PFS GM. In that regard, every single game I GMed or played 'should' have been 7 players since there are always 7+ players willing to play. Heck, I say "For full disclosure, I'm relatively new to Pathfinder, to Play-by-Post play, to the Pathfinder Society, and to GMing" and I still get too many players hoping to play! Interestingly, the online game day had 6 players per table, with the 7th player showing up as wait-listed, IIRC.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I feel it's especially inappropriate to label a GM a jerk because they honestly believe it's in everyone's best interests to turn a player away rather than go beyond what they can handle.
If this was directed to me, I feel the need to clarify that I was referring to players, not GMs, when I brought "jerk" into this.
I was saying: "I think it goes against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from a table. Unless, of course, that person is a jerk."
So perhaps I should have been more clear.
I disagree that GMs should be expected to take on more players than they are comfortable with. The GM should be able to have a good time too and they shouldn't feel pressured to run for 7 players if 5 is the most they can handle. I believe that almost every 7 player table I have run would have been noticeably better if I had limited it to 6 players.
There may be a cost to telling someone to come back next time rather than cram them into a table, but there's also a cost to putting too many people at one table. I firmly believe that every player needs to take the initiative to be responsible for themselves. If there are options to sign up ahead of time and the player chooses to just show up then that is their own fault - not the GM's and not the organizer's.
I also agree that GMs shouldn't be expected to take on more players than they are comfortable with. My hope though, is that those players aren't turned away, but rather another solution is found such that everyone that wants to can participate in PFS play. If the GM isn't able to handle that many players, than they should encourage another participant to step up and run a second table.
I agree that overstuffed tables can be to the detriment of all the players. However, I don't think it serves us to have GMs turn down players that follow whatever protocol that area has in place for signing up. If the person is showing up late, or chooses to ignore such protocols and arrives expecting to be accommodated, then yes, I wouldn't want to force anyone over capacity to allow for them. Entitlement doesn't go over well with me in general. However, again, I would try to include them if possible. Be that running a table of 7, or splitting those 8 people into two tables of 3 players each.
I realize that this isn't always possible, but I feel that striving to achieve inclusiveness will ultimately lead to a more rewarding experience for everyone involved. If we breed a culture where the last one to show up is left out, we're missing everything that person might have offered to the campaign.
|
|
If it is a public venue (especially a Con) and for whatever reason "real tickets" were oversold, and so you have more than 6 people per table with real tickets... someone is going to have to suck it up.
A Convention will often not give you the option to turn a 7th player away if they have a real ticket.
And if you use an RSVP system and left an opening for a 7th RSVP, then its your own fault, suck it up.
That's my opinion on it. To be fair though, I don't have a problem running 7 players, and I think I do a pretty good job of it when I've had to do so.
I understand that some folks really don't feel comfortable with it, and that's ok. Just make sure that if you have control over the RSVP system, that you set it up so that you won't get 7 RSVPs. If you don't have control over it, make sure you let your coordinator know when you volunteer to GM, that you won't do more than 6. That way there are no surprises last minute.
If it is a private game day, you can invite as many or few players as you want.
I also agree that GMs shouldn't be expected to take on more players than they are comfortable with. My hope though, is that those players aren't turned away, but rather another solution is found such that everyone that wants to can participate in PFS play. If the GM isn't able to handle that many players, than they should encourage another participant to step up and run a second table.
I agree that overstuffed tables can be to the detriment of all the players. However, I don't think it serves us to have GMs turn down players that follow whatever protocol that area has in place for signing up. If the person is showing up late, or chooses to ignore such protocols and arrives...
Surely there must be a line somewhere. If the Guide did not place a hard cap at 7 players, would it be in the best interest of the experience to run tables of 8 or more?
I don't doubt that as long as table top games have existed, tables have been run with massive parties to the enjoyment of all concerned, but those succeed when all players agree to the terms ahead of time, and the experience is designed for the specific party.
In PFS, where the GM has comparatively minimal ability to shape scenarios for his particular group, there must be a point at which the adddition a new player, by complicating logistics, dividing focus, and increasing group power, would impose greater collective harm on the experience of the other players than would be caused were that player turned away.
As a PFS GM, I am a complete novice, and this is not to argue that GMs should arbitrarily deny players that have devoted time and energy to show up to the store or con. But it seems reasonable to assume that a given configuration of GM, players, party, and scenario has an ideal size or range of sizes that is not always 4-7, and that to go above (or below) that would be doing everyone a disservice.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I was saying: "I think it goes against the spirit of PFS to turn people away from a table. Unless, of course, that person is a jerk."Simple misunderstanding. :)
Perhaps I'm just extending my own preferences to a general approach, but as a player I would rather the organizer tell me "sorry, we're all full up this slot" then have a less-than-stellar experience. That could be either someone stepping up to GM that isn't fully prepared or being the one-too-many player at the table (whether that's the seventh or fifth). There will always be more game days and conventions after all.
I think the key is to explain the reasoning to the player, so that they know you're not just being a curmudgeon but rather are trying to maintain the highest quality of gaming you can.
It's all good -- communication errors aren't one sided. I should have been clearer.
I like you're attitude in the example you provide. I know that you'd step down if needed to make the experience better for the other players -- I've done the same thing myself. What I was imagining was a situation where we had 7 new players. In that case, there might not be that next game day or slot at a convention -- this might be the only chance we have to bring them into the PFS experience. In that example, or one similar to it where we have mostly new faces, telling a player no might be akin to extinguishing their flame of interest.
That's what I fear might happen if people are turned away. It might very well be unfounded. Even after just reading this thread, I'm confident that such a situation wouldn't happen with anyone here. Anyone that's shown enough initiative to discuss how to bring the best possible experience to their players isn't going to leave their charmander in the rain.
Surely there must be a line somewhere. If the Guide did not place a hard cap at 7 players, would it be in the best interest of the experience to run tables of 8 or more?
No, I think that 7 is pushing it. I would encourage GMs that are uncomfortable with 7 to consider splitting into two tables of 3 players each before turning player #7 away.
As a PFS GM, I am a complete novice, and this is not to argue that GMs should arbitrarily deny players that have devoted time and energy to show up to the store or con. But it seems reasonable to assume that a given configuration of GM, players, party, and scenario has an ideal size or range of sizes that is not always 4-7, and that to go above (or below) that would be doing everyone a disservice.
That is very reasonable to assume, and I'd concur. However, that assumes that we GM in a vacuum, that every event unfolds identically on repeated runs of any given scenario. And we know that not to be the case. GM variance enables a scenario to be run countless times with new players and each of those tables can still have a unique experience.
Again though, if a GM is uncomfortable with 7 players, then they should consider alternatives. I'd just like turning that last player away to be the last thing they consider, because I would rather everyone gets a chance to enjoy PFS.
...they should encourage another participant to step up and run a second table.
I think that's a little dangerous and over-presumptuous, too. I am usually happy to GM with at least six hours notice, but I also play; I most certainly expect to play at a table whenever I sign up to play at a table. When for whatever reason insufficient tables are scheduled, as a player who can GM, I don't want to find myself in the situation where I'm being guilted into running so that we don't have to turn away new players or people who didn't register for one of the six available seats. When I play, I shouldn't attend the event crossing my fingers and holding my breath that I get to play instead of GM. I think that kind of tacit expectation for players to be able to suddenly GM will end up scaring away new GMs, casual GMs, or GMs from ever registering to play. (Heck, my boyfriend and I don't even take GM related material with us when we go to play - no maps, no computers, no certs, no modules, no scenarios, et cetera - so that we can't be emergency GMs.)
There's no real benefit to stepping up to GM, especially to GM when you anticipated playing, and there are even mechanical drawbacks, which makes hoping your GM players are willing to take one for the team highly unlikely and very bold.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Well, at some point, more PCs just mean more PCs sitting in the corridor sucking their thumbs. Last game we had a fight that took place in the BB workroom. by the middle of the fight, we had 6 PCs in the room, and the 7th PC was out in the hall twiddling his thumbs.
One of these days I am going to get to run a PFS adventure were the BBG is in his 10' x 10' room with his minion, and the room is at the side of a 5' corridor, and the PC's have to figure out how to get him out of there when only one or two of them can get into melee at a given time.
|
When for whatever reason insufficient tables are scheduled, as a player who can GM, I don't want to find myself in the situation where I'm being guilted into running so that we don't have to turn away new players or people who didn't register for one of the six available seats.
The long and short of it is that this isn't really a valid concern because you always have the right to decline to GM and anybody who criticizes you for it is being a jerk.
Being guilted into doing something only works so long as you feel guilty about not doing it. All it takes is to realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with declining to GM. I do so regularly on days where I am not in the mood. In fact, I would go as far as to say that allowing yourself to be guilted into GMing would be a disservice to the players because you're likely (at least I would) to be somewhat irritated and bitter about having to GM.
So, basically, if you don't want to do it don't do it. But asking for emergency GM volunteers is something that will inevitably happen on the occasion. No problem in asking last minute volunteers to step up.
There's no real benefit to stepping up to GM, especially to GM when you anticipated playing, and there are even mechanical drawbacks, which makes hoping your GM players are willing to take one for the team highly unlikely and very bold.
I can think of a few mechanical benefits:
1. You have 0 risk of dying.
2. You get all of the rewards on the sheet for your tier even if the players did not encounter it.
3. You get full prestige for the scenario automatically.
4. You get boons on the chronicle sheet.
5. You can hold onto your sheet until a character you would like to apply it to is available (within reason).
These are several perks put in place specifically to encourage people to GM. So yes, by design, there are large advantages to GMing over playing a scenario.
I can think of a few mechanical benefits:
1. You have 0 risk of dying.
2. You get all of the rewards on the sheet for your tier even if the players did not encounter it.
3. You get boons.
That's only if you've never run the scenario before. I have a feeling that if someone player suddenly steps up to GM with an entire fifteen minutes notice, he's run the scenario before and applied the credit then.
This means he get an entire +1 table to his roster of GM credits and maybe then he missed out on part 2 or 3 of an adventure, which can mess up continuity or theme.
|
|
Sorry, I ninja edited my post.
We run scenarios cold almost every game day at our store so I suppose we have a large group of people who are used to running scenarios unprepared.
So really
I have a feeling that if someone player suddenly steps up to GM with an entire fifteen minutes notice, he's run the scenario before and applied the credit then.
Is not true depending on your groups culture.
Also,
That's only if you've never run the scenario before.
This is true, however you still get credit towards your GM stars. Which is awesome because it lets you replay more scenarios!
And
and maybe then he missed out on part 2 or 3 of an adventure, which can mess up continuity or theme.
This would be a situation in which someone should consider declining to GM. In PFS, people don't get voluntold to GM. They volunteer.
Sorry, I ninja edited my post. We run scenarios cold almost every game day at our store so I suppose we have a large group of people who are used to running scenarios unprepared.
Is not true depending on your groups culture.
Then why not just schedule more tables if this is that regular agenda? I've never walked away from a table that was run cold and thought it was a good time. More often than not it's been frustrating, and I've sat miserable, debating whether I should just walk away from the table, burning the experience. Running cold is sub-optimal, especially when you're trying to provide an emmersive RP experience for new players. Marketing PFS as a shiny-fun time is a great way to entice new players, but if their fist table fails to deliver than experience because the GM ran something unprepared, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
This is true, however you still get credit towards your GM stars. Which is awesome because it lets you replay more scenarios!
By more you mean an absolute maximum of five? That's hardly a bargaining chip. Most people who GM frequently will only get four replays. A few will get five. The casual GM probably doesn't even GM enough to make the jumps between two and three and three and four something that can be accomplished in a timely manner. By the time they get there, replay and star rules will probably have changed. Honestly, a case of soda, a beer, dinner, some cookies, a splat book, or the night off are all far more rewarding than one more table toward another star. I'll have star two by, holy crap!, the end of the week, but number three won't be for another nine months, at the best? One more table out of thirty, forty, fifty, is nothing to write home about.
This would be a situation in which someone should consider declining to GM. In PFS, people don't get voluntold to GM. They volunteer.
You may not get "volunteered" but "Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE we REALLY REALLY REALLY need someone to run another table and YOU'RE the only one who can," has been something I've heard more than once before. The last guy was essentially guilt-tripped into running, ending his time through Echoes of the Everwar.
|
|
So I don't mean to diminish your argument. But nearly all of it can be responded to with "if you don't want to GM then don't." In my mind it's pretty simple. And if someone is pressuring you into it, you should probably tell them to back off because it's pretty crappy.
But I think we're having a bit of a miscommunication here.
1. You stated that there were mechanical drawbacks to GMing. I argue that there are few, if any. The one mechanical drawback you pointed out is that you do not get credit for GMing a second time, but I would like to counter that with the same applies to playing a scenario for a second time. In fact, replaying a scenario for no credit is worse than re-GMing a scenario for no credit, because you get absolutely nothing for replaying whereas you get table credit for GMing. Eventually, assuming you play a lot, you will wind up playing for no credit more often than you play for credit (I have like 10 scenarios I can play for credit right now and have exhausted my replays). So over time, you'll probably wind up having to GM if you want to get credit anyway.
2. There seems to be a subtle misunderstanding with why we run scenarios cold. We do not plan in advance what scenarios will be run on a given day. When people show up, there is a sign in sheet for what is available (usually 6 scenarios or so), and people sign up for what they can or want to play, and also what they can or want to GM (if anything). We then organize tables based on that information, and usually wind up with 3 tables. As such, if you sign up to GM often you won't have prior knowledge of what you are going to run unless you specifically planned it in advance. But that is risky because of our player base which is somewhat inconsistent on a week to week basis. As far as I can tell, it is done this way because we do not have a way to predict who will show up and who can play what in advance. So basically, what you suggested is almost what we do in practice. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting we schedule them far in advance, which would not work for us.
I'm sorry that your experience with GMs running scenarios cold was poor, but I assure you we've had a good amount of success with it and we have a very strong player base.
Edit: sorry, another couple of edits to clarify my post.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I've been told GMing isn't for everyone by lots of folks. While I'll assume this to be true for the time being, part of me still believes everyone has something to gain from running a game or two. Both mechanically (GM credit, mastery of the system, etc) and in ways that don't apply to pathfinder at all. GMing makes you more confident, better at public speaking, resolving conflict, organizing, planning, and responsible. It's just plain good for you, as far as I'm concerned. But I'll agree doing it cold is certainly a different experience.
And if that's not your cup of tea, then don't do it. Tell your organizer it makes you uncomfortable or, like you said, don't even make it an option. But don't discount it as an option for others.
Acedio is a GM in my area, and he and a few others can run a multitude of games cold because they're familiar with them (played/ran before) and have a solid mastery of the system. They also know how to run a fun table, which helps. We also have several GMs that prep and run in standard fashion, but it helps to have people we can go to when we need to split that table. I'm not saying what happens in my area is universal, but it is an alternative to showing #7 the door.
I certainly wouldn't stick someone not ready to GM in that spot, but I would ask people that fall into Acedio's position to consider running a game if it means we can get that new person to play. Because hopefully, before too long, that new person becomes a new GM, and then that GM can become another of my "go to" guys.
Also, Acedio is slightly mistaken in that we do have a handful of GMs that prep and run (myself, Bobby, Steve, David, etc). The games that are on the sign up are planned in advance as well, players just sign up where they want to on the day of the game. But in times when those games don't go off, those GMs that are capable of doing so are aware of the possibility of running something else cold.
|
|
part of me still believes everyone has something to gain from running a game or two. Both mechanically (GM credit, mastery of the system, etc) and in ways that don't apply to pathfinder at all. GMing makes you more confident, better at public speaking, resolving conflict, organizing, planning, and responsible. It's just plain good for you, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd argue that someone who GM's for the wrong reasons shouldn't run a game. Those reasons are definitely debatable, but an example in my opinion would be something like, "to get back at other players/GMs."
|
|
Hey Zoog,
I've often kicked around the same question myself. The fact is we online GM's do have more flexibility in this regard than others.
Still, I like to give people a chance to play, because too often GM's are in short supply. I try to keep my games at 5 or 6 players. Sometimes they just cream the bad guys, other times it's a bit tougher for them.
I'm cool either way. For some reason, this is harder for me to grasp with a live game. Maybe it's because the live game attracts different players, or because I get to see more of their "warts", but there are a few whose PC's I wouldn't mind killing.
I find myself rooting for the PC's in the online games I run, but I'm pretty neutral in the live games. Oh well...
|
|
Most GMs where I game are good about things and I don't think that they ever go out of their way to cause deaths, let alone TPKs.
But I have heard of a lot of local deaths and TPKs recently and I don't think they are due to nasty crits or silly actions at the tables. I think a lot of year 4 games are still being played now, which is the reason for some of it (some are deadly). Also, groups of 1st level newbs tend to struggle to get to 2nd or 3rd level.
I love Pathfinder and PFS, but I see that deaths (and TPKs) impact both on the players and the GMs, especially new players and new GMs. We need to always be mindful of the hardness of the game for new players.
As for player numbers, I definitely prefer 4 or 5 at the table and for private games this is what I try to plan for. At public gaming 6 is sometimes what you get. I tend to find games with 7 are very trying, both for the players and the GM.
|
|
Hey Derek, I don't have the live game GMing experience, but it did seem that, from a player's perspective in non-PFS games, there was often a much more adversarial relationship with the GMs. I'm not really sure why that would be.
Golariofun - Yeah, that's the situation I'm in: New GM with a lot of new players, although I'm with the fourth scenario now with some. I'd hate to have everyone's efforts so far - months of PbP to get to second level - vanish in a TPK because I chose the wrong scenario. I still really like FS I, though. Maybe if they do actually come up with a set of replacement FS, introductory scenarios they will be less prone to player death, especially death by critical hit.
|
|
... I would rather the organizer tell me "sorry, we're all full up this slot" then have a less-than-stellar experience. That could be either someone stepping up to GM that isn't fully prepared ...
I have seen this a few times and it really bugged me. I mean I appreciate that they guy was willing to give it a go so we could play, that was good of him.
But really I'd rather not play than sit there while he reads, flips pages back and forth, gets rules or monsters wrong, doesn't understand the success conditions, etc...
A couple of times the organizer has asked me to do that. "Can you run this? I've got the scenario printed out but we have a bunch of walk-ins (or Jimmy-Joe-Bob is running late)." I won't do that. I think it kinda bugged him, but I am not comfortable running something blind like that.
Now several times I have willingly given up my spot to someone new to the game that wants to try it out (yes, even if I signed up weeks in advance). I have no problem helping to expand the player base.
I think I've found something of a middle ground. I intend to completely prep maybe 2 of the older scenarios that haven't been run at our local in a while. I'll make up maps, print out the monsters, any crib notes I need, etc... Then I will just leave them in the trunk of my car.
If the VL needs another GM, "Well I'm not ready to run anything that was scheduled, but I can run either X or Y with no trouble."
|
IMNSHO, a PFS scenario should be as hard as it needs to be to force average characters' players to think about their actions.
While I like this statement, it leads me to ponder (in a good way) what different people might consider to be an "average" PC. In your mind, how does such a character generally look? Are we talking pregen level, a cut above, something else entirely?
|
|
I'm quite glad that I read to the end of the thread, as Msr. De'Morcaine's post offers some useful suggestions of actions players/GMs individually can take to deal with unexpected player numbers:
Now several times I have willingly given up my spot to someone new to the game that wants to try it out (yes, even if I signed up weeks in advance). I have no problem helping to expand the player base.
I'd do this if we were scheduled to playing a 'general' scenario. If we were scheduled to play a very specific scenario (way of the Kyrin) or part of a multi-day module / scenario series, however, I confess I'd be unlikely to offer step aside (unless I was the last one to the table, in which case fair enough and serves me right for being slow. First come, first served and all that).
I think I've found something of a middle ground. I intend to completely prep maybe 2 of the older scenarios that haven't been run at our local in a while. I'll make up maps, print out the monsters, any crib notes I need, etc... Then I will just leave them in the trunk of my car. If the VL needs another GM, "Well I'm not ready to run anything that was scheduled, but I can run either X or Y with no trouble."
This is an excellent suggestion. If most of the regular players prepared one or two 'fall-back' scenarios, then the burden of unexpectedly GMing could be shared amongst the group (and on any given day the odds of finding a player who wouldn't mind stepping up rather than playing would increase).
I personally recommend "First Steps, Part I" as one option, particularly for newer GMs: it's the perfect introduction for brand new players, doesn't have too many components to worry about, is free, is likely a scenario that a 'surprise GM' will have both previously played and will remember details from, and is likely to be playable (even with complete newbies) in whatever time is left when the decision is made to split the table.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I generally don't make difficulty (of any level) a goal when I GM. I look for ways to use more or less brutal tactics based on what the players respond to, but I never have a goal of "I want to achieve at least X threat level" or "I want to take the challenge at least this far". If the PCs completely roflstomp the combats, who cares? That just means this episode wasn't the finale. A show where every episode tries to be the climax is going to get old fast.
|
|
I generally don't make difficulty (of any level) a goal when I GM. I look for ways to use more or less brutal tactics based on what the players respond to, but I never have a goal of "I want to achieve at least X threat level" or "I want to take the challenge at least this far". If the PCs completely roflstomp the combats, who cares? That just means this episode wasn't the finale. A show where every episode tries to be the climax is going to get old fast.
This is the attitude I'm trying to develop. As I said, it's very easy for me with my online groups for some reason.
In live games I get the feeling that the players are trying to "beat" me. It's just the attitude they take sometimes. They act arrogant, annoyed, or cocky about various things.
Can't players just take their actions and be cool about it? It's too often something like "I move here and who cares if it provokes becuase they'll never hit me anyway".
It's often hard becasue in live games I find more players playing a Tier higher or lowr than their characte level. For instance I just ran a 3-4 with a level 6 monk/fighter and a level 5 paladin. Of course I couldn't make things hard for them! I shouldn't care, but when they act like they're some kind of special snowflake because they're dominating soemthing relatively wimpy it ticks me off. It's like when a clearly superior sports team runs up the score agasint a poor one. It's bad sportsmanship.
One day those characters SHOULD run into something that hands their a@@ to them on a platter. At higher levels, maybe they will.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In live games I get the feeling that the players are trying to "beat" me. It's just the attitude they take sometimes. They act arrogant, annoyed, or cocky about various things.
Do they? Or do they take the attitude of trying to beat the enemies presented in the scenario and you're (erroneously) taking it personally?
Can't players just take their actions and be cool about it? It's too often something like "I move here and who cares if it provokes becuase they'll never hit me anyway".
When you start wishing your players wouldn't mention the things their PCs are good at, it's time to look inward.
...when they act like they're some kind of special snowflake because they're dominating soemthing relatively wimpy it ticks me off.
Why? What's wrong with them taking the opportunity to feel like a badass for a while?
It's like when a clearly superior sports team runs up the score agasint a poor one. It's bad sportsmanship.
Or it would be bad sportsmanship, if the ones being beaten were actual people. But they're not. They're monsters/NPCs in a scenario. If you put yourself in the fictional losers' shoes, that's not the players' fault.
One day those characters SHOULD run into something that hands their a@@ to them on a platter. At higher levels, maybe they will.
Wishing for people to lose should be another red flag about your own attitude, not about the players.
|
|
Jiggy pretty well hit the nail on the head.
I believe that PFS should be exactly as dangerous as the players seated at your table would like it to be. Sometimes this mark is easier to hit than others, but judge fairly, play by the same rules as everyone else, and do you best to prepare and run the story well and you should all come out with a fun experience at the end.
On the subject of difficulty itself, some players/PCs are going to be easier to challenge than others. Some you will not be able to scratch with the tools you have at your disposal. That is just the way the cookie crumbles. I believe focusing on that aspect of things is not the best area to fixate on, however.
|
|
I generally don't make difficulty (of any level) a goal when I GM. I look for ways to use more or less brutal tactics based on what the players respond to, but I never have a goal of "I want to achieve at least X threat level" or "I want to take the challenge at least this far". If the PCs completely roflstomp the combats, who cares? That just means this episode wasn't the finale. A show where every episode tries to be the climax is going to get old fast.This is the attitude I'm trying to develop. As I said, it's very easy for me with my online groups for some reason.
In live games I get the feeling that the players are trying to "beat" me. It's just the attitude they take sometimes. They act arrogant, annoyed, or cocky about various things.
Can't players just take their actions and be cool about it? It's too often something like "I move here and who cares if it provokes becuase they'll never hit me anyway".
It's often hard becasue in live games I find more players playing a Tier higher or lowr than their characte level. For instance I just ran a 3-4 with a level 6 monk/fighter and a level 5 paladin. Of course I couldn't make things hard for them! I shouldn't care, but when they act like they're some kind of special snowflake because they're dominating soemthing relatively wimpy it ticks me off. It's like when a clearly superior sports team runs up the score agasint a poor one. It's bad sportsmanship.
One day those characters SHOULD run into something that hands their a@@ to them on a platter. At higher levels, maybe they will.
I'm going to date myself with this statement, but I think what you're encountering with self-aggrandizing(sp?) players may be part of a recent, millenials-generation culture shift. The 'woo-hoo, look at how great I am!' crowd has really increased. Trash talking is no longer considered rude by many.
That said, if you have particularly pompous players, you might try asking this question that was asked to me about 'elite' players in an MMO I was playing by a friend whose a professor in comp sci specializing in game-design, "What? They're bragging about being good at a game that's DESIGNED for them to succeed?!!"
EDIT: for missing word
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm going to date myself with this statement, but I think what you're encountering with self-aggrandizing(sp?) players may be part of a recent, millenials-generation culture shift. The 'woo-hoo, look at how great I am!' crowd has really increased. Trash talking is no longer considered rude by many.
That's not new. I had a college professor back in the day who commented that (at least where he came from), trash talk was a normal part of baseball. To quote said professor, "You haven't had a baseball game unless you've insulted half the other team's mothers."
Trash-talking as part of recreation is nothing new. If you're only (relatively) recently starting to see it, I imagine there's something else responsible for the change in your experience.
|
|
Jiggy,
Let me say that I realize my "problem" could be completely mine. It could be entirely in my perspective. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but it isn't.
What do I do to fix it?
More importantly, why should I want to?
I run a fair game and never turn down help when I don't know the rules. I don't run anything in a way that I'm out to get anyone, even if I might feel like it inside.
My tables have consistently been overbooked.
I don't know that I'm actually doing anything wrong, just hurting my own experience.
Maybe GMing just isn't for me. I am willing to do it occasionally to help out, but once you volunteer that first time, it's like everyone looks to your first the next time.
We have PLENTY of people in our local group with better system mastery, who own more books, and who seem to have more free time than me, yet they never GM. Maybe that's what really bothers me.
As for agreeing to certain things about being a PFS "judge" let me make my opinions clear:
Yes, we should try to follow the guide with respect to inclusiveness, but guess what? We're not Paizo employees. We aren't even credentialled. Until Paizo decides that GM's need some sort of offical regulation, variation is part of the game. No GM is obligated to run anything at any time if they are not comfortable.
I don't have an answer to this, but is it better to have someone running regular games with 4 or 5 players than having no game instead?
I realize that my attitude is not the best right now. I'm a bit sore on a few points that have come up recently, so take my opinions with a large grain of salt.
|
|
...We have PLENTY of people in our local group with better system mastery, who own more books, and who seem to have more free time than me, yet they never GM. Maybe that's what really bothers me...
That has also been happening a bit the last few months at our local.
The VL had to cancel some events or at least several tables because no one was willing to GM.
It does bug me that people who have never GM'd a single session will whine and gripe about the event being canceled.
I intend to try and GM about 1/3 of the time. My schedule does not always allow me to predict things well enough to do that though. But if a few of these guys would even just GM a low level easy scenario once in a while it would really help out the situation.