|
I am GM for PFS occasionally. Not real often but sometimes when there aren't enough and I have had a chance to prep something (usually low level). So I want to make sure I get this correct.
I don't want to spoil anything so I will try to keep this general.
Few weeks ago, I was a player at a level 7-9 table. The final fight was almost the easiest one in the whole scenario. We were at least a little bummed about it. There was no real challenge.
We see what we're up against and start making plans to deal with it. And... What? It's dead already?
I didn't read the write-up, but the GM went through a list of all the spells, abilities, powers, etc... that it had. It should have been a really tough fight. But the write-up said "It will do this..."
So this very intelligent magical creature that knew we were coming and had lots of time did not buff at all and used just about the worst tactics possible.
The GM said for PFS, he has no choice but to follow the listed tactics even if they make no sense for the creature / situation.
Is that true? If the scenario states tactics I as GM have to follow them even if silly to the point of idiotic?
|
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.
Since the BBEG has a perception score give them a chance to notice the coming end and do their buffs to prepare beforehand.
|
Since the BBEG has a perception score give them a chance to notice the coming end and do their buffs to prepare beforehand.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.
The tactics section normally tells you if the NPC/Monster has cast any sort of spell before-hand.
|
|
Since the BBEG has a perception score give them a chance to notice the coming end and do their buffs to prepare beforehand.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.
That is what I was thinking of. The GM said even though we were loud and obvious, he had to follow the tactics listed.
..
Was he running the creature at the low tier while you were playing the high tier?
Low and Low
..
just a general thing, but man OP, to get the best possible help with your question, be as specific as possible
if you are afraid of spoilering things, then use the spoiler tag:
...
I didn't because I was trying to determine for my future use. Not that worried about the scenario he ran. But I guess I will give the details.
We were (for various reasons including a Sir-Clanks-A lot-Paladin) not at all sneaky heading to the dragon at the end.
I believe the dragon had no buffs up.
Used breath weapon once catching only 1 guy when 3 others were in a line. (GM said the write-up specified random.)
The flying dragon didn't use any of its spells or other abilities.
The flying dragon closed to full attack smite range of the heavily armored guy with the greatsword who had just identified himself as a paladin. Even though that let it be surrounded on the ground. GM said the write-up specified closing to melee the biggest threat.
One full attack by the smiting paladin and dead. Granted there was a crit in there. But I don't think it would have survived the rest of the party anyway.
|
|
That is what I was thinking of. The GM said even though we were loud and obvious, he had to follow the tactics listed.
Yeah, we've got a "Sorry, I've left the stove on." story about that being exploited, because the BBEG buffed so the PCs said they left the stove on and left to come back 10 minutes later when the buffs wore off, because it wasn't a written tactic that he'd follow them. The story gets more boring everytime I hear it, and I imagine the tactic while funny the first time, is boring every other time.
|
|
That particular BBEG is supposed to have a dialog with the party first.
Did that happen?
Yes.
** spoiler omitted **...It sounds like either your GM ignored the RP of the scene that was supposed to happen or your party murder-hobo'd the NPC.
Without getting too into the specific scenario the OP played, I'd like to try to answer what I see as the question that applies more broadly:
If the scenario states tactics, [do] I as GM have to follow them even if [they are] silly to the point of idiotic?
The tactics are designed into inform strategy.
By this, I mean:
Strategy - the overall style/behavior (paranoid dungeoneer)
Tactics - the things I do to further my strategy (poke everything with 10' poles, summon monsters to walk down hallways first, throw powder everywhere looking for invisible creatures)
The tactics as written are designed to keep the GM from using all the knowledge she's gained as a GM and applying it to stupid villains while still giving a fair challenge.
(Would you want somebody like Kyle Baird his well-developed TPK skills to choose tactics for a cruddy goblin shaman..?)
If the tactics demonstrate an NPC who sticks to smart strategy, plan the BBEG's moves with cunning and have him work methodically through the party.
If the tactics show somebody who monologues and acts more in like with a B-movie villain, they might act like the Monarch from the Venture Brothers. (He goes for high value targets, has silly and elaborate but ineffective moves, etc.)
If players do things that make the tactics ineffective, think about how that BBEG would adapt and take actions that are still in line with the overall strategy that the tactics suggest.
|
Used breath weapon once catching only 1 guy when 3 others were in a line. (GM said the write-up specified random.)
...
GM said the write-up specified closing to melee the biggest threat.
I see nothing about 'random', just 'immediately uses breath weapon'. So it should have hit those three in a line.
As for close to melee, it says 'in later rounds'. I think the tactics for Xiangnuer are actually some of the most open to GM adjustment I've seen in a scenario. At the very least, an opponent announcing himself to be a paladin should be cause for adjustment.
|
|
...
I'd like to try to answer what I see as the question that applies more broadly:If the scenario states tactics, [do] I as GM have to follow them even if [they are] silly to the point of idiotic?
The tactics are designed into inform strategy.
...
If the tactics demonstrate an NPC who sticks to smart strategy, plan the BBEG's moves with cunning and have him work methodically through the party.If the tactics show somebody who monologues and acts more in like with a B-movie villain, they might act like the Monarch from the Venture Brothers. (He goes for high value targets, has silly and elaborate but ineffective moves, etc.)
If players do things that make the tactics ineffective, think about how that BBEG would adapt and take actions that are still in line with the overall strategy that the tactics suggest.
That is perfect. I can completely agree with this.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
That means that for her, "wade into melee" involves landing 15 feet (Size large + lunge) away from the paladin and smacking him into next week, and denying him his full attack. Then AoO him when he trys to close.
She takes one attack. Next round, he is in range of all her attacks. She full attacks. If you are mean, she can sunder with her claws
Personally, I would preface all that with a spike stone
|
|
I'm really not interested very much in whether or not the GM followed the tactics as written correctly. We had fun, we still have the 2nd part to go, and I am looking forward to it.
My question was to his statements after the combat. The tactics were awful for the situation (whether he was correct or not is beside the point), but he had to follow them anyway.
What I wanted to know, as Robert Duncan realized, was:
If at some time I am GM for some unknown scenario and the printed tactics are a poor choice, do I still have to follow them?
If Robert Duncan's suggestion is correct, I have no more issues.
If the tactics written show someone who is trying to be careful and methodical, I can do that for the situation as presented.
If the tactics written show someone who is straight forward thuggish brute, I can do that for the situation as presented.
|
|
Do what the Guide says:
"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."
The key word there is 'invalidate.' very few things the party could do would make the tactics invalid. But it is entirely possible they could become a rather poor/silly choice.
|
The key word there is 'invalidate.' very few things the party could do would make the tactics invalid. But it is entirely possible they could become a rather poor/silly choice.Do what the Guide says:
"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."
That's why this clause gives far less leeway than how many GMs (ab)use it. The NPC must also be AWARE that he's invalidated, which they often find this out the round the Tetori grapples them. Oops, too late!
|
|
That's why this clause gives far less leeway than how many GMs (ab)use it. The NPC must also be AWARE that he's invalidated, which they often find this out the round the Tetori grapples them. Oops, too late!The key word there is 'invalidate.' very few things the party could do would make the tactics invalid. But it is entirely possible they could become a rather poor/silly choice.Do what the Guide says:
"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."
So you are saying Robert Duncan is wrong. If the tactics listed are physically possible, that is what I as GM must follow even if in-character it would be a stupid choice.
|
|
Not necessarily physically possible. If the NPC has a logical reason (using in-game knowledge) to believe that "plan A" is invalidated, then change it up. For example, there is a scenario where an NPC cleric is supposed to something on the "main fighter". But the party was all casters and ranged. That invalidates that tactic, so I had them use obscuring mist instead to save themselves from all the shooting.
But what you shouldn't do is use your magic GM knowledge to metagame the NPC if a PC has a high AC or some such other trait that's not been observed. So the GM might know that ACT III is going to be punked out, but if the NPCs don't know, they have to take it in the face. Basically, the NPCs don't KNOW something is stupid without in-game data. That's the problem for them a lot.
The problem with this whole system is that nearly every encounter is a one-off. Practically none of the NPCs have good a priori knowledge of the PCs in a legitimate in-game sense. This is where homebrew antagonists completely blow PFS out of the water. PCs have a killer ranger? Deploy mooks with scroll of wind wall.
I personally think that PFS encounters should be stepped up 1 CR to compensate for them needing to be able to address many possible PC schemes. Even still, authors will still likely neglect competent NPC spell casters nor give the NPCs appropriate counter measures for standard, typical PC tactics.
|
|
To echo what everyone else said, you run as written unless the NPC knows better.
Example scenario I GM'd:
BBEG had specific tactics for final battle. However, throughout the scenario, he had telepathic communication with some of his minions, could scry on others and also had an Arcane Eye up later in another area. As the PCs easily stomped their way through the dungeon, he legitimately learned their abilities and tactics and changed his preparations to counter them. If he didn't have any foreknowledge, I would have run the encounter as written until the PCs invalidated his tactics.
|
|
Not necessarily physically possible. If the NPC has a logical reason (using in-game knowledge) to believe that "plan A" is invalidated, then change it up. ...
To echo what everyone else said, you run as written unless the NPC knows better. ...
You again used the word 'invalidated.' If a course of action is still physically possible, then it is still a valid course of action. I think that is what was confusing.
Yes, I am completely aware the actions and/or plans obviously can only be guided by what in-character knowledge the NPC had at the time. I would never advocate using my out-of-character knowledge to hammer the party.
If the party clanked up in heavy armor; the opposition would have several rounds to anticipate, plan, and do stuff. That is completely in character to use that time for an intelligent opponent. But I can't say that doing no prep is invalid. It is obviously something that can be done.
If the heavily armed and armored burly muscled guy in front announces that he is a paladin; I think it is completely in-character for the smite-able enemy to realize that closing to full attack melee range would be a poor choice. However, it is a perfectly valid (though short lived) plan of action.
It sounds like we really mean "no longer makes sense given in-character knowledge" rather than "invalid."
That I can live with. It makes sense to me.
Edit: Sorry I was still typing while you guys were replying.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Also, running the tactics doesn't mean going through the motions without thought. The tactics put constraints on the NPC's actions. They are not (with a few exceptions) a check list (NPC does this, then they do that, and they don't do anything else in the round.)
Run the opponents as intelligently as their scores dictate. (Unless the tactics block says something like "So and so is overconfident in the powers granted by the crystal of thus and such, and doesn't bother defending themself." )
|
|
The issues arise when GMs get frustrated by well-built PCs. Against optimized PCs, there is very little PFS GMs can do. That's just the way it is. I have made peace with this.
That is absolutely not what I'm talking about. I am perfectly aware that players with good system mastery can often stomp through a scenario without really being challenged.
In fact I would say we were not terribly optimized.
Yes, in a home game I need to find a way to challenge the PC's. But that is not the case in PFS.
What I'm talking about is I've saw this GM (and a few others I've seen) have the otherwise intelligent opponent not do completely logical (based on in-game knowledge) things or do completely illogical (based on in-game knowledge) things because it was written in the tactics section.
I wanted to find if that was really required (they clearly thought it was). Based on what you folks have said in these last few posts, I have to say it is not. If in-game knowledge and in-character personality lead to a change in tactics, it is ok.