Forbidding players from my PFS table


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Patrick F wrote:


People make so many bias assumptions about others on forums, based on their own personal experiences sitting at someone else's table. Fact of the matter is, GMs have been tweaking tactics in scenarios whether they want to admit it or not to help the players survive a game.

I don't think it was a biased assumption, you told us what you did or liked to tweak and what YOU thought an acceptable interpretation of "invalidated tactics" meant and you were given the advice you consider biasd. (also you assuming that other GMs softball things is itself an assumption, so pot kettle etc).

Patrick F wrote:


What have we talked about that's so offensive in this thread? -- having rain fall if the weather is not described in the scenario, having lighting change if not described in the scenario so the players need to find a light source, changing the positioning of enemies within a combat scenario or having them appear in multiple waves, delaying the players entering a room by finding multiple keys or changing tactics that the enemies utilize?

Eh, yes, exactly that stuff. It can sound as innocuous as you can make it, and I'm not saying they are bad tactics (for a home game i quite like the multi-key thing), but whether they are bad or not what they definitely ARE is against the rules. You can adapt tactics if they are invalidated, or you can utilise the environment if it is described but not already utilised. You can NOT create weather, or create extra keys, this is just flat out against Mikes post.

Michael Brock wrote:

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]

Bolding mine.

Patrick F wrote:


If a player should die during the course of the scenario, what exactly will they complain about? Same content, but the GM added flavor to the scenario as allowed by the 5.0 rules.

I'm pretty sure their (IMO completely valid) complaint would be the GM adding stuff to the scenario IN EXCESS of the 5.0 rules which to me are what the majority of your suggestions are.

I want to be clear here I don't want to ruin your fun, but I also don't want to leave a post like yours unanswered because I genuinely think you are overestimated the GM purview and because some new GM might come in read it and believe it to be the correct approach, I'd at least rather they read both sides of the argument.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The best plans only last till the first arrow is loosed.

after that the archer fires 8 more times and the big bad is dead anyway.

Silver Crusade

CathalFM wrote:
"Eh, yes, exactly that stuff. It can sound as innocuous as you can make it, and I'm not saying they are bad tactics (for a home game i quite like the multi-key thing), but whether they are bad or not what they definitely ARE is against the rules. You can adapt tactics if they are invalidated, or you can utilise the environment if it is described but not already utilised. You can NOT create weather, or create extra keys, this is just flat out against Mikes post."

I've already explained my interpretation on several occasions of the rules. From my perspective, what I stated is valid and the changes can be made.

Weather is a part of the campaign world. If not specifically stated in the scenario, there is nothing wrong with describing what the weather is like, to the GM's discretion. I quoted the *entire* section where the rules are contained in, because its easy to misinterpret a line or two without the context of the entire paragraph.

When you describe a tavern and offer food, does the scenario contain every item available from the tavern or do you improvise what the barkeep offers? Can the players get drunk? Why did you allow the players to get penalties to their attack rolls because they are intoxicated during the scenario? Isn't that breaking the rules, because the players wouldn't have *died* in the first place if those intoxication penalties weren't imposed? Do you prohibited the PCs from drinking alcohol in the tavern because they are part of the Pathfinder Society? Do you break Pathfinder rules and not allow the intoxication penalties to take effect during the bar brawl? See my point?

The scenario is a part of a simulated world. People have multiple keys which they possess in real life. Again, I don't see what the problem is -- because the GM has a right to expand upon the scenario as a part of the roleplaying experience. I've already quoted that too, the GM can utilize different sources for the flavor of the scenario. I can have a snow shoe merchant in Irrisen if I so desire, because it makes logical sense within a roleplaying setting. I don't need permission from a scenario to have a snow shoe merchant, a fisherman on the docks or a beggar on the corner asking for a coin.

Pathfinder is about the roleplaying experience, socialization and storytelling game, which varies from table to table. MMORPGs video games are constants confined to their programming. Are we running a roleplaying game or not?

I want to make sure that GMs are informed as well of both sides of the argument, before making a final decision. Again, you can agree to disagree with my position, but I have yet to find compelling arguments against it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Patrick F wrote:


If not specifically stated in the scenario, there is nothing wrong with describing what the weather is like, to the GM's discretion. I quoted the *entire* section where the rules are contained in, because its easy to misinterpret a line or two without the context of the entire paragraph.

But context doesn't necessarily allow you to ignore a certain portion of the text that doesn't support your interpretation though.

If a certain condition makes sense based on the scenario, then you, as a GM, need to make a ruling.

Like if they are inside a building or underground, and nothing describes the lighting conditions, then you are well within your rights to define those lighting conditions based on what makes sense to you. The fact that they are underground is the fluff text for defining the lighting conditions.

However, just because they are outside, and nothing defines the weather conditions, does not give you the right to define the weather conditions. Rain doesn't make sense just because they are outside.

But darkness does make sense if they are underground and nothing is saying the chamber or cave is lit in any way. But you would be well within your rights to say there are torches or lanterns in the chamber, assuming the creatures currently there don't have darkvision.

But deciding to include weather conditions without any text indicating that the weather is anything but calm, temperate, and fair, is not within the purview of a PFS GM. Mike has even indicated as such up thread.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Patrick F wrote:
When you describe a tavern and offer food, does the scenario contain every item available from the tavern or do you improvise what the barkeep offers?

You can put beer battered ribs on the menu, but when they have a mechanical effect of either poisoning the characters or being so delicious they cast good hope you've altered the scenario in a way you shouldn't have.

Please don't toss the mmorpg ad hom at everyone that disagrees with you. Its as wrong as it is cliche at this point.

Silver Crusade

Part of the fun of roleplaying as a GM is coming up with unexpected mundane encounters in a humorous way.

For instance, your party has just ordered food and drink at the local tavern, as they are supposed to meet a liaison to gather information about a known villain for a sum of gold. You casually ask the dwarf warrior what his Combat Maneuver Defense is. The player panics and asks if they can make a perception check, etc. You inform them sadly that you were taken by surprise...

...only to find out that the whippet dog curled up next to the fire described earlier leaped in mid-air and snatched the mutton leg from the dwarf's hand and darted out the open door of the tavern. The barmaid can always bring another mutton leg to the dwarf at no charge... but...

The PCs are now actively alert and their attention is focused at the front door, where the liaison and his goons were about to ambush the party as a double crossing measure. The party is underpowered, so the encounter is a little less deadly as the surprise round is automatically spoiled.

Plus, the whippet gets to make cameo appearances now and again. So, you know what this means right? Whippet. Whippet good!

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Patrick F wrote:
The PCs are now actively alert and their attention is focused at the front door, where the liaison and his goons were about to ambush the party as a double crossing measure. The party is underpowered, so the encounter is a little less deadly as the surprise round is automatically spoiled.

So rather than using the rules for determining surprise, you just handwave away the surprise round? And you feel the guide supports this?

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

Patrick, you keep talking about making things more challenging for the enjoyment of the game.

It's been my experience that players who build over-clocked combat monsters like to dominate combat. They like to win, and they like to win fast. People who want a challenging combats play weaker classes, take non-combat roles, or spread out their attributes and skill points to focus on other elements of the game.

If you look at a table of druids, summoners, barbarians, zen archers and tricked out Aasimar wizards with a level of wild-blooded sorcerer, and figure that they're all combat-heavy, how do you determine that ratcheting up the difficulty of the combats is what they want?

That is what I want. I want a DM to challenge me and the best builds I can make with the help of my friends and tablemates.

Some peopel do want this, but I think it is best to communicate it first

As a side note at gen con when I played bone keep 1. The DM cheated(will not used changed because he gave them extra actions, immunities, and changed rules for them) wrecking the expereince that I craved.

So you 'want a DM to challenge you and the best builds you can make', yet you complain when a GM makes the combats harder? Even though a GM isn't ABLE to challenge 'the best builds' (without 'cheating'), due to being constrained by the scenario?

I don't see how you can have it both ways - unless you intend to encourage even more power creep in PFS...

Silver Crusade 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

However, just because they are outside, and nothing defines the weather conditions, does not give you the right to define the weather conditions. Rain doesn't make sense just because they are outside.
.

I agree with everything else that you said but I disagree with this.

Recently a druid wanted to know what the weather was so that he could decide how good a tactic Call Lightning was. Scenario didn't say so I rolled dice to decide.

There are LOTS of times GMs HAVE to make judgment calls like this. Entangle is another example spell that depends on environment.

I think Patrick is taking things far past what is allowed but let's not overreact by saying that no GM discretion is allowed. We fill in details of the setting all the time. Partly because we have to, partly just for fun. I liked his dog example until he turned it into an excuse to stop even the possibility of a surprise round.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

However, just because they are outside, and nothing defines the weather conditions, does not give you the right to define the weather conditions. Rain doesn't make sense just because they are outside.
.

I agree with everything else that you said but I disagree with this.

Recently a druid wanted to know what the weather was so that he could decide how good a tactic Call Lightning was. Scenario didn't say so I rolled dice to decide.

There are LOTS of times GMs HAVE to make judgment calls like this. Entangle is another example spell that depends on environment.

I think Patrick is taking things far past what is allowed but let's not overreact by saying that no GM discretion is allowed. We fill in details of the setting all the time. Partly because we have to, partly just for fun. I liked his dog example until he turned it into an excuse to stop even the possibility of a surprise round.

You treated things fairly. I didn't mention this situation, because it probably doesn't come up very often (as expressed by my wife who really likes call lightning). I would roll randomly as well if asked (especially if having inclement weather would be helpful to a player.

But arbitrarily deciding what the weather is, as a GM, without any text telling you what it is, is beyond the scope of what the Guide says you can do.


Andrew Christian wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

However, just because they are outside, and nothing defines the weather conditions, does not give you the right to define the weather conditions. Rain doesn't make sense just because they are outside.
.

I agree with everything else that you said but I disagree with this.

Recently a druid wanted to know what the weather was so that he could decide how good a tactic Call Lightning was. Scenario didn't say so I rolled dice to decide.

There are LOTS of times GMs HAVE to make judgment calls like this. Entangle is another example spell that depends on environment.

I think Patrick is taking things far past what is allowed but let's not overreact by saying that no GM discretion is allowed. We fill in details of the setting all the time. Partly because we have to, partly just for fun. I liked his dog example until he turned it into an excuse to stop even the possibility of a surprise round.

You treated things fairly. I didn't mention this situation, because it probably doesn't come up very often (as expressed by my wife who really likes call lightning). I would roll randomly as well if asked (especially if having inclement weather would be helpful to a player.

But arbitrarily deciding what the weather is, as a GM, without any text telling you what it is, is beyond the scope of what the Guide says you can do.

Especially if you're deliberately doing so to change the challenge of the scenario.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

However, just because they are outside, and nothing defines the weather conditions, does not give you the right to define the weather conditions. Rain doesn't make sense just because they are outside.
.

I agree with everything else that you said but I disagree with this.

Recently a druid wanted to know what the weather was so that he could decide how good a tactic Call Lightning was. Scenario didn't say so I rolled dice to decide.

There are LOTS of times GMs HAVE to make judgment calls like this. Entangle is another example spell that depends on environment.

I think Patrick is taking things far past what is allowed but let's not overreact by saying that no GM discretion is allowed. We fill in details of the setting all the time. Partly because we have to, partly just for fun. I liked his dog example until he turned it into an excuse to stop even the possibility of a surprise round.

You treated things fairly. I didn't mention this situation, because it probably doesn't come up very often (as expressed by my wife who really likes call lightning). I would roll randomly as well if asked (especially if having inclement weather would be helpful to a player.

But arbitrarily deciding what the weather is, as a GM, without any text telling you what it is, is beyond the scope of what the Guide says you can do.

Especially if you're deliberately doing so to change the challenge of the scenario.

up or down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F wrote:
I've already explained my interpretation on several occasions of the rules. From my perspective, what I stated is valid and the changes can be made.

I haven't read every response, but I don't think that anyone agrees with it. Does that automatically make you wrong? No, but it should be a red flag.

Quote:
Weather is a part of the campaign world. If not specifically stated in the scenario, there is nothing wrong with describing what the weather is like, to the GM's discretion. I quoted the *entire* section where the rules are contained in, because its easy to misinterpret a line or two without the context of the entire paragraph.

I think you're missing the point of the guide. The issue isn't that you've decided the weather, the issue is whether your making a change that alters the difficulty of the mission. Changing the whether to bias the outcome is exactly what you cannot do...in PFS.

Quote:
Can the players get drunk? Why did you allow the players to get penalties to their attack rolls because they are intoxicated during the scenario? Isn't that breaking the rules...

No it's not. There's a fundamental difference between your imposing a condition on a player and a player choosing to impose a condition on themselves. A player choosing to get drunk at a tavern is no different than a player deciding to jump of a roof and start an encounter with less HPs. The player is making a choice for which she has constructive notice of the outcome. Anyone can look up the rules for intoxication and foresee what happens if they get drunk.

Quote:
The scenario is a part of a simulated world.

That's not really accurate. It isn't simulated, it's imaginary. There's a big difference.

Quote:
[because the GM has a right to expand upon the scenario as a part of the roleplaying experience.

Within limits and with restrictions that are in black and white. 1. You can't break the rules when the situation is clear an there is essentially no ambiguity about what rules apply; 2) You must "run as written." The guide specifically states that the GMs right to make the situation "fun" does not supersede those two rules. People with your perspective routinely think the "fun" mandate is equivalent to Rule Zero in PFS. It is not. Rule Zero has been taken out of PFS. The GM does not get to change the rules as he or she sees fit as it normally the case in non-PFS.

Quote:
I can have a snow shoe merchant in Irrisen if I so desire, because it makes logical sense within a roleplaying setting. I don't need permission from a scenario to have a snow shoe merchant, a fisherman on the docks or a beggar on the corner asking for a coin.

So long as these changes have no impact on the mechanics of the scenario (altering die roll by +1 is a substantive impact). If you want to describe the snow as light or heavy, that's your choice, but if the scenario does not include snow, then there can be no modifiers for fighting in any encounter with your GM-introduced-snow. None of your merchant encounters can lead to combat encounters that are not indicated. And there's a reason this is the rule.

Quote:
Pathfinder is about the roleplaying experience, socialization and storytelling game, which varies from table to table. MMORPGs video games are constants confined to their programming. Are we running a roleplaying game or not?

I'm glad you asked this question because it addresses the core issue which you are not acknowledging.

PFS has to be fair. This is the first and most fundamental requirement of organized play. Without a commitment to fairness, organized play doesn't work. What if one GM allowed some players to use 25pt builds and some only 18pt? Such a change would certainly alter the perception of "fun" for the players, wouldn't it? But ask yourself what kind of havoc that would reek when those players went to another table? The requirement for fairness means that PFS scenario-play must be closer to an MMORPG than normal home campaigns.

PFS wasn't always "run-as-written". If you go back and read old threads on GMs altering scenarios, you'll see posts from an exasperated Mike Brock. Why was he exasperated? Because his inbox was being flooded with players whose characters were being killed when GMs started altering encounters to make it things "fun". So the change that was made is proof-positive that on a population level, GMs are not capable of walking that line that so many GMs think they can. It's an unambiguous statement that PFS values uniformity of experience for the players over freedom for the GM. Mike Brock and Mark Moreland have both stated in no uncertain terms that if you cannot abide by these restrictions, then PFS scenario play may not be for you. The good news is that you can run Adventure Paths in "home mode" and do exactly what you're doing.

The by-laws aside, I'm going to let you ponder another thought. When I sit down at a table with a random GM, I'm not interested in their personalized version of the scenario. I want to play the scenario as it was written. Yes, I'm eager to experience a GMs fluff and roleplay, but I'm not playing PFS because I think Random GM has some insight into giving the encounter the right amount of challenge. In fact, I play PFS specifically because the GMs are not allowed to alter the difficulty. On a personal level, what you're advocating isn't making PFS better, it's making it worse. If I know, a priori, that a GM is going to do what you're suggesting, I will not sit at that table.


If the scenario doesn't call cloud cover or how full the moon is, I usually roll a percentile. The moon is 1d100 ⇒ 44 percent full tonight.


N N 959 wrote:
In fact, [b]I play PFS specifically because the GMs are not allowed to later the difficulty.[b]

That's a bit naive. The GM is the biggest factor in regards to scenario difficulty. The players cooperation and experience is number two. Beyond that is scenario encounter design, PC builds, caffeine levels, and campaign leadership.

If you want your game to be at a consistent difficulty level, then play a home game with the same GM every time and the same party.


Kyle Baird wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
In fact, [b]I play PFS specifically because the GMs are not allowed to later the difficulty.[b]

That's a bit naive. The GM is the biggest factor in regards to scenario difficulty. The players cooperation and experience is number two. Beyond that is scenario encounter design, PC builds, caffeine levels, and campaign leadership.

If you want your game to be at a consistent difficulty level, then play a home game with the same GM every time and the same party.

You're misinterpreting the statement.

You're confusing a GM's choice on altering the scenario with the natural difference in how GMs play tactical encounters. The first is not allowed, the second is a feature.

Nor did I say I wanted my scenarios to be a consistent difficulty level. That statement isn't anywhere in my post. In fact, the scenarios are not written at a consistent difficulty level, so why would I expect that?

Don't put words in my mouth, Kyle.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

So, as an example of changing tactics after invalidation...

Yesterday with a monk BBEG, he was supposed to use ki to get an extra attack until he had taken a certain number of hp in damage, . However, one of the teams summoners cast Grease under him, and h miraculously failed the save. So, instead, faced with being swarmed by six pcs and two eidolons, he decided he needed to stand up. So, attack the samurai (from prone) with stunning fist (got lucky with the hit and the failed save), then stand up. Because of that, he had already put a ki point into AC (assuming he would be getting an AoP when he stood up). At that time, an extra attack would have been a waste. He then did switch to flurries after that (but was soon under the hp limit, and switched to AC again).

This was much different than the badness I could have done, like threatening the hostages, etc. THe combat was challenging, and worked within the scope of what made sense.

Oh, and unfortunately, no eidolons perished this adventure... But it was close.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane aka YogoZuno

Quote:
If you want to describe the snow as light or heavy, that's your choice, but if the scenario does not include snow, then there can be no modifiers for fighting in any encounter with your GM-introduced-snow.

I apparently have to disagree with this one...we recently had a GM run a scenario for our group. The GM had played a game, within the last week, with one of the campaign heads, and had been given the go-ahead (as I understand it) to add weather conditions to the scenario in order to better challenge our group.

I don't know if the weather was mentioned in the original scenario or not, but I am fairly certain the effects weren't.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

Page 32 of the OP guide:

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.

Silver Crusade

Threads kind of like beating an undead horse. Again, you can agree to disagree with me. Reiterating your *interpretation* of the rules and quoting the rules in their full context and explaining are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ways to handle a disagreement.

I interpret the terrain and environmental conditions (weather, lighting) as a changeable condition to the GM's discretion, if not expressly written in the scenario. I also interpret invalidated tactics and starting locations, akin to an invalidated argument and can be modified to the GM's discretion. Again, its clear that such modifications were meant to have a fair and fun experience at the table and create a more enjoyable play experience.

If the GM determines that the surprise round could be lethal to a party centered around roleplaying, adjusting the tactics of the encounter might be in order to make the fight more fair and fun. Likewise, if the party is overpowered and can handle combat in less than one round, then having the minions appear in waves, flanking or other tactical strategies and starting locations of minions may be in order to increase the enjoyment of the scenario.

I quote again:

Table Variation

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not
mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in
this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
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. GMs are always encouraged
to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the
reactions of NPCs or the outcome of in-game encounters.
GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor
to the scenario
, but may not change the mechanics of
encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are
the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the
encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks
for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill
check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the
listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the
mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter
already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or
hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered
mechanics
that may not be altered.

The definition of the *mechanics of the encounter* are clearly defined, i.e. the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter.

If the scenario *already includes* mechanical effects of terrain, weather or hazards, they are also considered mechanics of the encounter that may not be altered. However, if the terrain and environmental conditions aren't described in the first place, they *can* be added as 'flavor to the scenario' to the GM's discretion.

Why? Because the *mechanics of the encounters* were already defined *specifically* in the previous two sentences in the same paragraph. The final sentence is a conditional one which only applies if the terrain, weather or hazards are written in the scenario. In such cases, they are considered mechanics of the encounter. If there are specific mechanics included in the scenario for terrain and environmental conditions, you must run them as indicated. If there are not specific mechanics included in the scenario for terrain and environmental conditions, you *may* or may not include the mechanical effects accordingly. (One of the few instances where Pathfinder Society Organized Play allows you to alter the rules. Technically, you should be running terrain and environmental effects as printed in the scenario regardless of whether or not the mechanics are listed).

Environmental Conditions are found inside the Core Rulebook of Pathfinder, which is considered another Pathfinder RPG Source in order to add flavor to the scenario to the GM discretion. The opening sentence of the paragraph describes terrain and environmental conditions as flavor of the scenario. Weather conditions are a valid option to be added by the GM, if not specifically defined otherwise in the scenario; within the context of prior paragraph for table variations, which encompasses a fair and fun experience at the table and create a more enjoyable play experience.

If Mike Brock and Mark Moreland are concerned, than the language needs to be clear exactly what the 'flavor of the scenario' is defined as and how other source material can be utilized for table variations.

Nothing says you *have* to change anything from the scenario. However, this thread was about power gamers overtaking a table as quickly and lopsidedly as possible and strategies outside of speaking with players that may help as a GM. The goal is to reduce GM frustration so they don't quit the society and decrease the visibility of the roleplaying genre.

With that said, if you have any positive suggestions outside of the 'suck it up GM, that's how the Pathfinder Organized Play Society rolls' attitude, please feel free to share accordingly. I'd like to hear how others handle power gamers, so I can add to my learning experiences and provide an even greater roleplaying experience at the table.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane aka YogoZuno

In my specific case, the GM added night, a storm and rain effects to a scenario that I don't believe included any of these things in the original text. I believe part of the scenario may have mentioned some effects of previous precipitation. So, adding the storm itself during play added a good deal more difficulty to parts of the scenario. And, again as I understand it, this was with the blessing of at least part of campaign leadership. Again, I could well be wrong, as I have not actually read the scenario.

Looking at the quoted section of the guide, it seems to be saying that a GM can add the effects of weather or environment, even if they weren't catered for by the writer. Even that is very open to interpretation - any sort of clue to environmental factors in the text could be expanded into just about any sort of difficulty the GM would like to use, given a bit of creativity. (Oh, you're in Osirion? Sandstorms happen there.)


Patrick F wrote:
With that said, if you have any positive suggestions outside of the 'suck it up GM, that's how the Pathfinder Organized Play Society rolls' attitude, please feel free to share accordingly. I'd like to hear how others handle power gamers, so I can add to my learning experiences and provide an even greater roleplaying experience at the table.

There is a tremendous amount of leeway a GM has within the scenario tactics. Considering that as GM you are able to control all the NPCs as a single unit, you have a tactical advantage.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Patrick F wrote:
The PCs are now actively alert and their attention is focused at the front door, where the liaison and his goons were about to ambush the party as a double crossing measure. The party is underpowered, so the encounter is a little less deadly as the surprise round is automatically spoiled.
So rather than using the rules for determining surprise, you just handwave away the surprise round? And you feel the guide supports this?

As a tactical modification, only in the best interest of the party if underpowered (maybe only three or four showed up to the table during a harder scenario, including one new player to roleplaying). Directing their attention to the door where the liaison and his goons have their swords drawn is pretty obvious to observe. The enemy still needs to be fought with the same feats, equipment, skills and so forth, but enemy isn't getting the surprise round in.

It's no more spoiling than having a party member hiding in front of the shadows of the tavern keeping watch, to see the liaison issue a command to his goons to kill the party members just outside the front door. The player yells and gives a signal to alert the party.

I'm telling you up front, GMs modify tactics all the time in the best interest of the party. There was one big boss I had with Death Knell memorized, which basically allows you the chance to kill off a bleeding player who has -1 or fewer hit points for some added hit points and strength bonus. Now, that will be the *last* spell I'd cast as the GM controlling the enemy at a fallen party member, only after all other spells are exhausted.

Is it evil? Yes. Is it a valid tactical maneuver? Yes. Is it effective against a fallen hero? Yes.

Is it a mean-spirited spell? Of course -- just like instead of targeting a new player with an enemy as GM, you continue to stomp on the one that already fallen and bleeding to death, to make sure they die. Taking away the hope the comrades will come save them. Making them pack up early for the night.

Death will inevitably happen at the game table. The GM doesn't have to actively encourage it -- the critical hits, bleed outs, nasty traps, the failed saving throw, etc. will come on their own.

I like seeing a challenging scenario fold out and the heroes shine. Things were getting rough, but the party managed to work together and pull through it all, amidst roleplaying fun and *occasional* harmless shenanigans.

Harmless shenanigans -- that's right, when the players are not focused on the adventure and they are supposed to go through the magic portal... as they were all talking about the new X-men movie out of character. So, the portal starts to slowly close... everyone roll for initiative! The last person's cape gets stuck in the portal, which turns into a tug of war match.

Even if the cape is lost or torn, the player ends up getting a new cape for free, but they have to fill out a reimbursement form at the Grand Lodge of Absalom (in triplicate) and explain how the cape was lost to the venture-captain in game. The venture-captain in game asks why didn't the character move more quickly through the portal...

Literally, you hand the player a piece of paper and tell them to write the request three times in triplicate! By that time, its close of game and you can expand upon the silliness of it all while you are filling out Chronicle Sheets, how the tailor brings out a cape that is too short comes down to the rump, the next cape drags along the floor, the next one smells like cheese wheels, the next one is big red cape with a big yellow 'S' (superman) on the back of it...

That's why its important for GMs to share their experiences, vent and come up with ways to deal with problem situations. Bringing hate/anger/revenge to the table as a GM makes for a bad roleplaying game. Quitting GMing is just as bad, unless you truly dislike running adventures. Everyone having fun is what its all about!

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Was that a yes or no to my questions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Was that a yes or no to my questions?

I think it might have been.


Lets just let this particular "discussion" die shall we? Its obvious some of us feel strongly that the like of Patrick are running things with TOO much GM fiat, and that Patrick feels the rest of us are trying to curtail his GM prerogative to improvise.

At the end of the day either:
A)-Mike Brock will weigh in with a clarification (unlikely due to murky waters)
B)-everyone will keep playing the way they play (and GM) and hopefully everyone will have a good time
C)-Someone will have a problem with the free reign their GM takes and reports it
D)-Something else (included due to my lack of infallibility) :D

So for now lets just drop it, because it has gotten to that (most fun of) point where BOTH sides are quoting the rules and yet both sides are reading the exact same text completely differently.

But lets look on the brightside aye? Anyone reading this now or in future will have a nice long back and forth so they can make an informed decision :)


CathalFM wrote:


C)-Someone will have a problem with the free reign their GM takes and reports it

TBH, some problems can never be probably addressed until there's been an explosion to prove the circuit really *was* faulty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
CathalFM wrote:


C)-Someone will have a problem with the free reign their GM takes and reports it
TBH, some problems can never be probably addressed until there's been an explosion to prove the circuit really *was* faulty.

Yarp, that was why I recommended letting it die. At this stage it looks like thats what it will take to conclusively rule this one way or the other.

Also shame on you, surely you mean:

"TBH, some problems can never be probably addressed until there's been an explosion to prove the rune really *was* explosive."

;)

Dark Archive

I believe it is time for you to step away from GMing organized play. If you think it is less fun to run for optimized players, you should indeed step down, you are not cut out for GMing PFS.

You should be expressing your creativity in your own games, not hijacking PFS players to your own homebrew.

You seem to be disillusioned to think this game's are meant to be challenging. They are nit. They ate meant to be easy enough that the players win and come back for more. Not everyone us a 10 yeR old who has to play thaw sane hard Nintendo game over and over because they have no money to buy another. The adults who play this game have the funds to go play elsewhere when they don't feel they are getting anywhere. For every fan if the challenge if a hard game, there are at least ad many, if not way mire people who want the game on easy mode with 30 lives instead if just 3.

When you run a game for players who signed up to curb stomp the bad guys neck, no, you are not running a role playing game, they did not sign up to chat up the bar maids for an hour to satisfy your character acting requirement to have fun yourself.

Maybe you need to recognize that the role playing game title does not exclude war gamers with less interest in character acting. Not anymore than it would exclude people who only want to character act and than defuse to make.an attack roll because their PC does nit believe in violence. I think you need it pointed out to you that a game with this many combat rules is just as much, If not more so, a war game as much as a character acting game.

Players have every right to make PCs who can wipe the matt with the bad guys if they want. You are not anymore entitled than the players to decide your way us the right way. Nor are you any mire entitled to say their way is the wrong way. If you do not like that, either campaign to get what you consider overpowered rules banned from the campaign, and/or accept that it is time for you to suck it up, or quite aggravating yourself running games you do not like.

Who the heck are you to determine that your shenanigans you consider to be fun is fun for all. I would be rather ticked off that you take away someone's equipment like a cloak of resistance for the duration of the adventure until they get back to the grand lodge to fill out your form in triplicate, making the game harder without the equipment . I also have no interest in the time you spend describing a cloak that is too long, another smelling like cheese, and the superman cloak. What you should have dine is blatantly tell players they should save their movie talk for after the game or during a break in the action like when you need time to draw a map.

You have no more right to make the game easier for non optimized players, than you have to make it harder for optimized players.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

Raymond: you may want to clarify exactly who your comments are directed to.

Silver Crusade

"With that said, if you have any positive suggestions outside of the 'suck it up GM, that's how the Pathfinder Organized Play Society rolls' attitude, please feel free to share accordingly. I'd like to hear how others handle power gamers, so I can add to my learning experiences and provide an even greater roleplaying experience at the table."

The NPCs dies to power gamers. There's nothing you can do against flying Tetoris with huge saves that can squeeze out Glabrezus in 2 rounds with a CMB so high the Glabrezu can't get out. I feel like you are reaching for things that don't exist in PFS.

If you haven't noticed, PC groups with pets have an even larger aggregate hp total and even greater action economy than regular PC groups, not yet a single provision is made for them. That right there should tell you something. Some days as a GM, you just take it in the face. Over. And over. And over. And over. And some days, its snowball the druid cat making you take it in the face. And there's nothing you can do.


Raymond Lambert wrote:
I believe it is time for you to step away from GMing organized play. If you think it is less fun to run for optimized players, you should indeed step down, you are not cut out for GMing PFS.

You know, he could just GM for players he enjoys GMing for, and not GM for players he doesn't enjoy GMing for. The call to step down is really not necessary. I have to say, Patrick R's desire to leverage creativity to make the game fun, his unwillingness to be shackled by the very-strictest interpretations of the rules, and his desire to put the players first are all good things for GMs to do.

I have also noticed several posters bring up the point of an Easy Mode table wanting Easy Mode... but have not mentioned the tables which include one or two Easy Mode players and one-or-more others who don't enjoy Easy Mode. What happens then? Does the Easy Mode player get to have his fun and run the show, and leave the rest sad? Are the GM's hands tied?

-Matt


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:
Raymond Lambert wrote:
I believe it is time for you to step away from GMing organized play. If you think it is less fun to run for optimized players, you should indeed step down, you are not cut out for GMing PFS.

You know, he could just GM for players he enjoys GMing for, and not GM for players he doesn't enjoy GMing for. The call to step down is really not necessary.

I have also noticed several posters bring up the point of an Easy Mode table wanting Easy Mode... but have not mentioned the tables which include one or two Easy Mode players and one-or-more others who don't enjoy Easy Mode. What happens then? Does the Easy Mode player get to have his fun and run the show, and leave the rest sad? Are the GM's hands tied?

Yes, the GM's hands are tied.

Because it's not about "Easy Mode" or "Hard Mode". It's about providing a consistent experience. It's about following the PFS guidelines. People have spoken just as strongly about changing things to make it easier for the PCs as about changing them for more challenge.

If he's running PFS for essentially a home group, where he's in control of who he plays with and they enjoy his style, he's never likely to be called on it. If he's running open games at a store or wherever, then he doesn't get to choose his players. It's whoever shows up.


thejeff wrote:
Yes, the GM's hands are tied.

So the players who don't enjoy Easy Mode, are they out of luck? Are they doomed to merely watching the Easy Mode players play? Is their willingness to not play overpowered characters a terrible idea? Has the campaign really reached a point where enjoyment has converged towards the overpowered?

-Matt


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yes, the GM's hands are tied.

So are the people who don't enjoy Easy Mode SOL?

-Matt

In terms of desiring a hard-core balls to the walls gaming experience .. yes, yes you are.

sorry.

The powers that be cannot please everyone and have to try and come up with a good happy medium that hits the majority of the player base instead of catering to one specific group. The middle covers the majority of the easy mode plays and the majority of the hard core players .. giving those that desire hard core .. hard mode on some of the scenarios.

But what both sides have to realize and accept, is that the game is not going to be catered to them.

in the example of the 1 easy mode guy with a table of hard core .. he has the option of getting up and walking away .. just as it would be true if the scenario was reversed.


Mattastrophic wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yes, the GM's hands are tied.
So the players who don't enjoy Easy Mode, are they out of luck? Are they doomed to merely watching the Easy Mode players play? Is their willingness to not play overpowered characters a terrible idea? Has the campaign really reached a point where enjoyment has converged towards the overpowered?

I'm not even sure what you mean by Easy Mode now? Sounds like you're talking about players who avoid overpowered characters so they still have some challenge?

I'm not sure what a GM can do to handle a combination of overpowered characters who want to romp through without challenge and weaker characters who want to be challenged. Making things harder just kills off the weak characters and challenges the uber-ones, leaving no one happy.

But yes. If that's what you're facing, then yes, they're out of luck.

Lantern Lodge

Mattastrophic wrote:

You know, he could just GM for players he enjoys GMing for, and not GM for players he doesn't enjoy GMing for. The call to step down is really not necessary. I have to say, Patrick R's desire to leverage creativity to make the game fun, his unwillingness to be shackled by the very-strictest interpretations of the rules, and his desire to put the players first are all good things for GMs to do.

I have also noticed several posters bring up the point of an Easy Mode table wanting Easy Mode... but have not mentioned the tables which include one or two Easy Mode players and one-or-more others who don't enjoy Easy Mode. What happens then? Does the Easy Mode player get to have his fun and run the show, and leave the rest sad? Are the GM's hands tied?

-Matt

I believe that, ideally, a GM can sit down to run an adventure for a group of friends, all of whom have generally the same play style and preferences.

I think we all know that that is a rare occurrence in a public gaming scenario like PFS, though. Before I run any game, I always ask two questions to new faces:

1). What is your preferred level of deep immersion role-play to "just get me to the action"? In my experience, almost everyone answers this around 50/50, but there have been exceptions.

2). Do you prefer that I run your game in easy mode, standard mode, or ruthless mode? For the most part, this question clarifies questions to myself, such as "Do I focus fire PCs?", "Do I make maximum use of niche mechanics such as aid another to have a chance to hit otherwise too high AC PC's?", "Do I give them a break by taking it a little easy on them tactically if the dice have been against them all night?", ect. when I am not otherwise bound by printed tactics (i.e, if they become invalidated or have already occurred).

If I sat down to GM a group that consisted off...

1). Player A, the powergamer who min-maxes ferociously, but loves a good challenge.

2). Player B, the powergamer who min-maxes ferociously, but only to steamroll the universe with ease.

3). Player C, a deep immersion role-player who does not enjoy combat and has a fairly ineffective character.

and 4). Player D, the average player who has an effective character, and wants both fun role-playing and some action.

...I would recognize that I cannot give that entire crowd what each individual player hopes to experience with one running style, so I would do my best to give each player as much as I could without making the others miserable. This can be fairly easy to accomplish if you have reasonable players. If you have immature players in such a situation, then they are going to impact each other's experience far more than you are.

Sometimes with preference lopsided tables all you can do is your best to provide a fair and fun game. If they do not want to cooperate with you and each other to have that experience, there isn't a lot you can do about it unless it's a single problem player.


heliodorus04 wrote:

I expect the answer to be "no, you can't" but please respect my need to earnestly ask the question.

I have GM'd about 4 or 5 games, I guess now. I enjoy it.

But I've consistently run across a couple players in my area who rob the game of fun for me because they don't seem to be there to HAVE fun. They are there to beat every encounter as fast and lopsidedly as possible. One in particular never smiles, laughs, interacts with other players, and has treated me in a way I feel is disrespectful (he has 30 years experience, I've been playing PFS since August but RPing for 30 years as well) so he likes to roll his eyes at me a lot.

I play in my free time to have fun. I have PTSD, and I don't need to try to compete with one player to make it fun for the other 5 and for myself. The only solution I see is to give up trying to run PFS in my area.

What are my options?

Make the encounters lamer and lamer until they leave, and those who are having fun, make it more of a Role Playing Game that they have to solve puzzles and answer questions that makes it so that those who would have fun, now must be the dominate ones at the table. I personally like to attack the party of OP junkies with a little of Domestic cats. See what your big tanks and casters do with them.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F said wrote:


Harmless shenanigans -- that's right, when the players are not focused on the adventure and they are supposed to go through the magic portal... as they were all talking about the new X-men movie out of character. So, the portal starts to slowly close... everyone roll for initiative! The last person's cape gets stuck in the portal, which turns into a tug of war match.

Even if the cape is lost or torn, the player ends up getting a new cape for free, but they have to fill out a reimbursement form at the Grand Lodge of Absalom (in triplicate) and explain how the cape was lost to the venture-captain in game. The venture-captain in game asks why didn't the character move more quickly through the portal...

Literally, you hand the player a piece of paper and tell them to write the request three times in triplicate! By that time, its close of game and you can expand upon the silliness of it all while you are filling out Chronicle Sheets, how the tailor brings out a cape that is too short comes down to the rump, the next cape drags along the floor, the next one smells like cheese wheels, the next one is big red cape with a big yellow 'S' (superman) on the back of it...

Indiscriminately taking or destroying a character's gear when such is not supported by the rules goes well beyond "harmless shenanigans." It is that time of GM Fiat that, I think, people are responding negatively toward, and I think it goes well beyond the latitude that the Guide to Organized Play gives to GMs.

I do sympathize with Patrick in terms of players not paying attention, and I support his efforts, in general, about trying to make the game more immersive for players by way of descriptions, role-playing, etc. However, I can't support what he is suggesting here about depriving a character of his or her gear, even temporarily, as a means to motivate players. I don't think that's appropriate. If the scenario supports it, fine, but as it's written here, it seems arbitrary to me and not within the scenario.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

redleo1972 wrote:
Make the encounters lamer and lamer until they leave, and those who are having fun, make it more of a Role Playing Game that they have to solve puzzles and answer questions that makes it so that those who would have fun, now must be the dominate ones at the table. I personally like to attack the party of OP junkies with a little of Domestic cats. See what your big tanks and casters do with them.

If these power gamers just want to kill things, and don't like role-playing, you could always select scenarios where role-playing has a great part or impact in the scenario. That's always an option.

What we should not do is punish players who make a character (even if they are power-gamers and the character's are highly optimized.) If the character is legal, it gets to play. As GMs, we must accept that immutable fact.

And, when running, if you have players that are sort of pushed into silence because the power gamers are taking over the game, be sure to try to draw out those non-power gamers in any of the role-playing aspect the scenario allows.

But, in all candor, I don't think there is a legitimate way to ban power gamers (the fact that there isn't an agreed-upon definition of "power gamer" is probably the first, and largest, hurdle.)

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

You know, we just had a similar discussion in parts about a home game.
There are several players on very different system mastery levels.
Some even can´t speak english and only have access to limited translated resources.
Now, if i build a character,it looks really powerful and optimized to a lot of people. I may have different views on that though.
Example Oracle of heavens. A Strong option right from the start, but it is mind-affecting and many things are immune to that. If you now take one level crossblooded sorcerer serpentine/undead, you just widened the circle of things you can mind-affect and therefore stun away by a lot.
This would be considered powergaming by many people, but for many others it´s just one way of having fun.
And where is the frontier or difference between that and a two-handed barbarian who just cleaves away everything?
Or a pouncing eidolon?

It´s like with any other hobby, you spend a lot of time you get good at it, or some aspects of it. Good GM´s know how to counter something like that even with the limited tactic possibilities of PFS scenarios. Especially in season 4 and 5 there is enough difficlty and material to work with. But a good GM is also someone who can tell a good story and let people have fun. Even if their fun doesn´t seem like your fun upfront, you can still have fun because they have fun.

Silver Crusade

I see quite a few Pathfinder scenarios run in Worldwound. Again, GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario -- I've talked about this before how weather is defined as flavor of the scenario.

On Page 27 of the Worldwound Campaign Setting, there is a table dedicated to weather conditions in the region -- which is different than the one located on page 439 of the Core Rulebook for random weather.

So, I keep hearing you can't add weather to the scenario? Then are you saying that you should go against the Core Rules and disallow weather in its entirety.

If the weather is listed in the scenario, the weather is played as written. If not, you have options per the rules of the game. Who the heck makes it sunny all the time in Worldwound anyways? What about the Ashstorms, the Heat Waves, the Supernatural Precipitation?

A GM is always prepared to handle unexpected situations. The weather can die down as quickly as it starts into the region if necessary. The player who exclaims, damn, my cloak of resistance is caught in the portal gets the cloak back unharmed obviously...

At least the players at your table are now focused on the adventure. Useful sometimes if you have a teenager or two at your event. I love when fellow GMs sit at my table -- even more fun to weave a story of adventure.

Try reading some of the pathfinder novels to find unique ways to have fun in a campaign setting. You know you can get free benefits for your character if you have a copy of most of the novels. True! True!

GMs have a bit of fun for a change if you like... or run it dry! The controversy continues -- Holy +1 Sword Batman!

P.S. Each time a fellow Pathfinder in this thread tells me to quit PFS, a hungry whippet dog steals a mutton leg from a dwarf...

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Patrick F wrote:
So, I keep hearing you can't add weather to the scenario? Then are you saying that you should go against the Core Rules and disallow weather in its entirety.

Apparently, yes.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

It isn't going against the Core Rules, Patrick. Rather, it is that PFS Organized Play has a different rule which takes precedence.

I mean, is it going against the Core Rules that a wizard cannot Scribe Scrolls in PFS? No. Rather, the campaign has a specific rule that prohibits magic item creation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick F wrote:

P.S. Each time a fellow Pathfinder in this thread tells me to quit PFS, a hungry whippet dog steals a mutton leg from a dwarf...

Basically, my response to this is: to be a GM in an organized play setting means acknowledging and accepting that there are going to be limitations to what you as a GM can do.

You have to acknowledge that you aren't the ultimate GM in this instance, instead Mike and John are the ultimate GMs and we are simply allowed to play in their "home" game.

As the ultimate GMs, Mike and John have set for rules for their "home" game .. these are the rules for PFS ..

If you want to GM in their "home" game you have to abide by the rules. If you cannot, then you are better off not GMing PFS as much as I hate to tell ANY GM not to run PFS .. that is sometimes the better option for people.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

How does one not add weather or disallow it? Sunny with comfortable temperatures is as much a weather condition as a blizzard is.


Patrick F wrote:

I see quite a few Pathfinder scenarios run in Worldwound. Again, GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario -- I've talked about this before how weather is defined as flavor of the scenario.

On Page 27 of the Worldwound Campaign Setting, there is a table dedicated to weather conditions in the region -- which is different than the one located on page 439 of the Core Rulebook for random weather.

So, I keep hearing you can't add weather to the scenario? Then are you saying that you should go against the Core Rules and disallow weather in its entirety.

If the weather is listed in the scenario, the weather is played as written. If not, you have options per the rules of the game. Who the heck makes it sunny all the time in Worldwound anyways? What about the Ashstorms, the Heat Waves, the Supernatural Precipitation?

A GM is always prepared to handle unexpected situations. The weather can die down as quickly as it starts into the region if necessary. The player who exclaims, damn, my cloak of resistance is caught in the portal gets the cloak back unharmed obviously...

And if he misses a save and dies because he doesn't have that Cloak at a critical moment? To something that wasn't supposed to be part of the scenario?

The guideline specifically says you can apply modifiers due to weather described in the flavor text, but not figured in. It does not say "Make up some weather and use those modifiers."

Again, I don't think you should quit GMing. I do think you should talk to your VO or contact Mike Brock about your understanding of the rules. If you're right and it's confirmed, then everyone will realize they can do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
How does one not add weather or disallow it? Sunny with comfortable temperatures is as much a weather condition as a blizzard is.

If no weather is described in the scenario, don't apply any modifiers. If weather is described, but no modifiers are applied, you may apply them if you see fit. If weather is described and modifiers are applied in the scenario, use them.

It's really very simple.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

thejeff wrote:
trollbill wrote:
How does one not add weather or disallow it? Sunny with comfortable temperatures is as much a weather condition as a blizzard is.

If no weather is described in the scenario, don't apply any modifiers. If weather is described, but no modifiers are applied, you may apply them if you see fit. If weather is described and modifiers are applied in the scenario, use them.

It's really very simple.

My point is that there is no such thing as "no weather."

201 to 250 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Forbidding players from my PFS table All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.