|
I know this is an old/dead/sore subject and I don't really mean to rekindle any arguments about whether or not GM's should be allowed to change scenarios on the fly- Brock has made it fairly clear that it is unacceptable.
However, there seems to exist a consensus that some of the older scenarios needed to have some parts altered either because of outright mistakes or as a tool to clarify a mechanic or story element. There was an expectation or hope that someday there would be errata to those scenarios from official sources. To my knowledge this has never really happened.
While we do not have "official" errata every scenario has its own GM thread, and in many of the older scenarios GM's offered small tweaks (sometimes larger tweaks) that improved game play at their tables.
My question is- are we allowed to use those suggestions from the community threads and essentially consider it sanctioned community Errata? Obviously this isn't talking about season 3+ scenarios that are 6 player appropriate and generally more balances. But the older season 0, 1, and 2 scenarios.
Often you'll see 5 star GM's offering creative tweaks that make the scenario more balanced/fun/compelling.
In no way am I talking about adding Beholders to the end boss scene because its "more challenging". I'm talking about small thematic tweaks already written down for the community to consider.
Is this within a PFS gm's prerogative (or even duty)?
Or, conversely is there some official errata page that I'm unaware of?
|
|
This post was prompted by my prep for #1-47: The Darkest Vengeance (1-5) that I'll be running this weekend.
There were some good suggestions in the GM thread from Jason S about tweaking the final encounter to be slightly less deadly and more cinematic.
I'm just curious if we can use suggestions like that?
|
I don't think many here are going to come on this thread and tell you that 'tweaking' or altering a scenario is OK. The whole reason you hear the 'Run As Written' mantra is due to the subjectivity of what a safe/fun 'tweak' is. Saying it is acceptable is opening up Pandora's Box. The campaign leadership doesn't want to touch this. I will say that if you do it right, everyone has fun. If you do it wrong, the players will turn on you like rabid dogs. It's kind of how the CIA used to be before the internet. The successful operations you never hear about, but the scandals make the headlines. Officially, tweakers are disavowed. But I think sometimes they are a necessary evil.
Edit: Some here may remember when a new GM switched some 3.5 giant centipedes with PRPG centipedes out of an Adventure Path(?). Same size, but I think the CR was one higher. This was pretty early in the campaign, Season 1 or 2. A PC was critted and killed in the encounter, too low level to get raised. The player went home, bought the scenario, looked up the encounter, did the math and realized what had happened. He came on the boards and threw a fit. Crits happen, but maybe that character wouldn't be dead-dead if the centipede had done Xhp less damage as the 3.5 version would. So that kind of thing is a hazard when 'tweaking'.
|
I posted about this a long time ago.
"Run as written" has since been removed from the PFS guide (possibly even at the time I posted it, though I hadn't realised it at the time - it's a strange thing to omit).
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
There is some stuff about the differences between the undead from 3.5 and PF that necessitates some changes for the season 0's, and doing up the old clerics was interesting as they no longer are able to wear heavy armor. (and most from a particular scenario were wielding x4 crit weapons that was favored by their god)
|
|
I'm not sure where you get that "run as written" was written out of the guide.
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience.
Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and
environmental conditions when those effects have been
written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that
are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have
not been added to the encounters.
|
I posted about this a long time ago.
"Run as written" has since been removed from the PFS guide (possibly even at the time I posted it, though I hadn't realised it at the time - it's a strange thing to omit).
No it is still in there under the "Table Variation" subsection of the "Game Masters" section:
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience.
dang it got ninja'd by Andrew.
|
|
Note, the passage that both Jacob and I posted from the guide above, indicates what is and is not acceptable variation.
It specifically discusses that tactics may no longer be viable based on player actions, and NPC are not expected to commit suicide just because the tactics are written in such a way that player character actions would cause it to be so.
It also talks about using the environmental descriptions of an encounter to create extra hazards even if the mechanics aren't specifically written into the scenario.
I'm a huge proponent on sometimes the best way to make an encounter more difficult, is add environmental effects.
Difficult Terrain is often a very simple equalizer. Visibility conditions can also cause issues. Weather can often provide both of those things along with its own set of issues. Strong winds or stronger make it difficult to use ranged attacks (yes, even firearms).
The key is, you should always really think hard before changing anything within the rules.
And you should never change anything if you are breaking the rules to do so.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I think that there are two types of modification that GMs could make to an adventure. The first is technical tweaks, like adding monsters or removing them. That's clearly not allowed.
The second, however, is roleplay tweaks. Here is where we get into more permissive territory. I posted recently about what I did with Among the Living. In that scenario, I added a number of social encounters with various NPCs to make the events following those encounters make a bit more sense. Under the rules, I feel that I'm perfectly justified in doing that. However, this does not give a GM license to completely rewrite a scenario - the core storyline should still be the same.
This creates problems in scenarios like The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch, though. In that scenario, the PCs are basically given no diplomatic options in most of the encounters, and offering a diplomatic option would be breaking Rules as Written.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the best change for older scenarios is to add more flavor and roleplaying. Dig around a little bit in the Inner Sea World Guide and find interesting set pieces to add to adventures.