|
This is not my first time running into this , but I hope it's the last time.
is it legal to alter pathfinder modules to make it more fun for the gm to play or more challenging for the players?
Without providing some more benefit for the players?
I think it not regardless of the situation.
Here are my examples that I have actually experienced.
Playing PFS some characters tend to be optimized and some don't.
Optimizations like a
Lvl 5 4th Level , Super-Trip Fighter with reach weapon and 1 level cleric travel and freedom domain, so he can move 30 in heavy armor and use cure wands and break holds, feather step and trip to his hearts delight.
Or a lvl 1 master of the fallen fortress with a lvl 1 condescending, rushing player who wants the game over in 2 hours who is playing a witch with an aoe tricked out sleep hex.
Can really sap the challenge out of game. I can understand that. But those characters are LEGAL. You wanna ruin some monster's day? I'm all for it. That's why we're here.
But is it legal to do the following?
I have played Society sanctioned modules in the past (though I am not revealing which ones to protect the people involved) that have done the following:
1. Doubled the hit points of ALL of the NPC's in the WHOLE MODULE because the player characters were deemed "too good" and the monsters would have been "not enough of a challenge".
If this would have been a home game, I would have been cool. But what about Society? The players can't receive increased reward for the increased threat. And what if one of the players characters would have died because a monster managed a kill or used a spell long after he would have originally and legally been dead?
2. Totally disregard a party wipe. There is a deadly module out there that catches Society characters with their pants down. One game had a proud of himself AC 30-something at lvl 4 - cleric/fighter that was destined to whoop butt and his lackey follower (another player). They stormed into every situation, haughty and daring, bashing this and that. banging their chests along the way. Well the whole adventure they went up against monsters with touch attacks and that was the end of it. The whole party wiped in 3 rounds in the first hour in. Once we all died, I had to go, only to find out later that the party was so hurt from being beat so bad so fast - that everybody without me - agreed to retcon the whole thing "it never happened, we went left instead of right". and even asked for my Society # for credit - I never gave it.
In a recent post I moved to correct a character due to my desire to participate in the spirit of the game. I want to see if I can beat and/or enjoy/survive the game under these parameters. This was just out there. I threw that character out and stopped using him.he died hard. I'm cool with that. Sometime you do. It makes when you don't more awesome.
3. I recently played another module, and in my opinion, due to GM crash/skimming, it resulted in an unbelievable amount of special damage causing attackers to be present for the boss fight.
Not just the boss, his lackey, and the surprise special guest villain.
But 20 additional combatants. You read that right, 20.
We won. unbelievably.
The fight seemed so unreal I went home and read the module to see if that was really supposed to happen.
It wasn't.
The module says to have the boss and the lackey
And up to 20 people as window dressing
And IF THINGS GET TENSE - ADD ONE OR TWO AT A TIME INTO THE FRAY
Not a mob of 20 poisonous/strength draining attackers.
How did we survive that one?
Well EVERYONE IN THE PARTY WENT DOWN AT LEAST 5 times, but two healers kept us alive
And what saved us?
The peaceful cleric had a necklace of fireballs. Slowed down those 24 incoming poisonous attacks per round pretty good.
So in that instance, GM skim almost ruined that whole experience for us.
We all assumed we were dead.
What If our characters would have died?
Death by GM skim.
How Do I avoid this in the future without reading all the modules to see if this kind of stuff is occurring behind the scenes?
Has any of this ever happened to you? What would you do?
|
Yes this has happened to me, the local VC struck the scenario from our record which allowed us to play it for credit again.
If the module is played in PFS mode no changes are allowed what your GM did is illegal in PFS play. If the module can be played in campaign mode then the GM can do whatever the hell he likes but you don't have to apply it to a PFS character.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you find GMs doing this, make them aware that they shouldn't be changing encounters in sanctioned PFS play.
If they don't believe you or don't care, inform your VO.
If your VO is complicit or doesn't care, inform Mike Brock.
Also:
Or a lvl 1 master of the fallen fortress with a lvl 1 condescending, rushing player who wants the game over in 2 hours who is playing a witch with an aoe tricked out sleep hex.
What combination is this PC using to get AoE slumber hexes at 1st level?
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Yeah. We have had death by GM skim. When it has happened, it has been retconned by the VO, and I was asked (as store liazon) to schedule a session so people could replay.
I have had a few "its not challenging enough GMs" and so far their lack of system mastery has been what has saved us... :) (sniping invisible Ettercaps 60 feet up on the roof whose webs immobilized instead of entangled...)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That last one could have been an honest mistake if the GM wasn't reading carefully.
The TPK retcon could have been an attempt at redeeming an error that caused the TPK (like maybe ran the wrong tier or something).
----------------------
Step 1: Talk to the GM. Maybe there's details you're not aware of, so approach with a (clearly visible) mindset of wanting to understand the situation. If they truly did simply decide to change something, politely inform them that such alterations are not allowed in PFS (they might simply not know).
Step 2: If they stick to their guns, they're now cheating. Report them to the local VC.
Step 3: If that doesn't work, report them to Mike Brock.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player questions my call at any time I show them the part of the mod or rules that I am using right then and there. I also roll my dice right out in the open for everyone to see.
I am very quick to show people complaining there attack misses by circling on the mod what the AC is and showing them.
I have had the misfortune to experience a rather severe case of a GM significantly changing a scenario, not only making it a lot harder and resulting in a failed mission, but making what we played so different from the printed scenario that I felt we didn't really play the printed scenario at all.
The way this was handled ("you didn't die, suck it up, the chronicle stands") has coloured my views of Pathfinder Society ever since.
You stated that? the GM? the VC? or PFS management at the time?
And when did this happen?
|
Can someone please tell me what "GM Skim" means?
It means that the GM skimmed the module instead of reading carefully - resulting in them mis-reading things. (and in this case making the fight MUCH harder) Happens sometimes when a GM is cold-running a module. (of note - before putting out 20 str damaging enemies - he should have done a double-take)
|
Sometimes, an accidental mistake turns out much more entertaining.
Last year at Gen Con, I was playing The Hellknight's Feast. We had an encounter, and I got killed. I didn't think much about it. I had a boon that cut the cost of resurrection in half, paid my PP to have it done, got restored and away I went.
I later found out the GM used the wrong monsters in the encounter. It was totally an accident on his part, and he offered to help me fix it, which was the right thing to do.
However, I had such a great time playing that scenario, and my character's death was so appropriate, that I felt (as a player), I enjoyed the scenario much more as a result of it.
All GMs make mistakes,and this one did and he owned up to it. I know this isn't quite what the OP was talking about, but it happens enough.
|
Can someone please tell me what "GM Skim" means?It means that the GM skimmed the module instead of reading carefully - resulting in them mis-reading things. (and in this case making the fight MUCH harder) Happens sometimes when a GM is cold-running a module. (of note - before putting out 20 str damaging enemies - he should have done a double-take)
This seems like a reasonable definition, and maybe it is correct. But it seems the OP is talking about a GM making intentional changes.
It was the GM's opinion. The VC and PFS management didn't contradict it. It happened late last year.I have had the misfortune to experience a rather severe case of a GM significantly changing a scenario, not only making it a lot harder and resulting in a failed mission, but making what we played so different from the printed scenario that I felt we didn't really play the printed scenario at all.
The way this was handled ("you didn't die, suck it up, the chronicle stands") has coloured my views of Pathfinder Society ever since.
You stated that? the GM? the VC? or PFS management at the time?
And when did this happen?
Did you raise it with the VC and/or Mike?
From what I understand and have seen, they normally do not let incidents like this pass.
|
|
Sometimes, an accidental mistake turns out much more entertaining.
Last year at Gen Con, I was playing The Hellknight's Feast. We had an encounter, and I got killed. I didn't think much about it. I had a boon that cut the cost of resurrection in half, paid my PP to have it done, got restored and away I went.
I later found out the GM used the wrong monsters in the encounter. It was totally an accident on his part, and he offered to help me fix it, which was the right thing to do.
However, I had such a great time playing that scenario, and my character's death was so appropriate, that I felt (as a player), I enjoyed the scenario much more as a result of it.
All GMs make mistakes,and this one did and he owned up to it. I know this isn't quite what the OP was talking about, but it happens enough.
I remember one adventure from another campaign. We were fighting a group of monsters that weren't really that much of a threat. They had a hard time hitting us and didn't do much damage when they did. But we were doing huge amounts of damage to them and they just weren't going down. Finally we asked the DM, "Are you sure that's right?" He double checked the stat block and realized he was using the monster's XP value for HP. They all promptly dropped dead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas I totally understand it's not PFS legal to change anything as written, as a new GM, I do see the breakdown of this inflexibility in certain situations. All too often, mostly as a player and sometimes as a GM, I see the PC's easily overwhelm a scenario and the GM's hands are tied to add any extra challenge to it. Also, I could understand a reason for this inflexibility can easily be explained since how could you just let GM's randomly modify what's written and still have it as legal play.
It would be neat if Paizo could come up with some sort of system/way to allow the tweaking of the challenge levels in a consistent manner, especially for older seasons to ramp up the challenge level a bit. Not all scenarios need this.
I realize this is pie-in-the-sky. The alternative is simply to only play GM post-third season stuff (which I've still seen scenarios that haven't exactly challenged the party).
The more books that Paizo comes out with to do even more power tweaks to PC's (traits, magic items, feats) presents ever more overwhelming party potential.
Some players think it's fun to overwhelm ("break") a scenario. When that happens with me, I find it dissatisfying and even a bit turned off.
I get that players (even me!) like to optimize their characters to the hilt. With that ever increasing power, there should be some flexible system, if necessary (and agreeable to all?) for the GM to mitigate that type of party power dynamic in a scenario.
|
Those familiar with older Shadowrun Missions will remember a thing called "Table Rating."
It was a quick slider to adjust difficulty of a mission by adding the rating (0-4) to the number of dice the GM got to roll for every NPC action or roll in the scenario. This could result in a significant increase in the difficulty of the mission. The table rating was agreed to by the party before the mission started, and could effect the reward in the mission.
In Pathfinder Society, I could see a similar system in play for the players who explicitly want more challenge, but don't get anything but bragging rights out of it (read: Hard Mode Waking Rune.)
Maybe do a smaller scale, say up to Table Rating 3, and everything the scenario has is now +3 to die roll totals. It would make things significantly more dangerous (Think of those little creatures with lots of attacks.. and it stacks up) with early season scenarios and low level scenarios especially.
I don't think a higher table rating should earn more loot, though. I really enjoyed the big game hunting aspect of Hard Mode Waking Rune. It made us think, and work very closely together as a team.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas I totally understand it's not PFS legal to change anything as written, as a new GM, I do see the breakdown of this inflexibility in certain situations. All too often, mostly as a player and sometimes as a GM, I see the PC's easily overwhelm a scenario and the GM's hands are tied to add any extra challenge to it. Also, I could understand a reason for this inflexibility can easily be explained since how could you just let GM's randomly modify what's written and still have it as legal play.
It would be neat if Paizo could come up with some sort of system/way to allow the tweaking of the challenge levels in a consistent manner, especially for older seasons to ramp up the challenge level a bit. Not all scenarios need this.
I realize this is pie-in-the-sky. The alternative is simply to only play GM post-third season stuff (which I've still seen scenarios that haven't exactly challenged the party).
The more books that Paizo comes out with to do even more power tweaks to PC's (traits, magic items, feats) presents ever more overwhelming party potential.
Some players think it's fun to overwhelm ("break") a scenario. When that happens with me, I find it dissatisfying and even a bit turned off.
I get that players (even me!) like to optimize their characters to the hilt. With that ever increasing power, there should be some flexible system, if necessary (and agreeable to all?) for the GM to mitigate that type of party power dynamic in a scenario.
One of the things you can do, especially if you know or realize in advance, that the combats will be mostly walk-overs or not a challenge, is ramp up on the RP aspect of the scenario.
Figure out who and how you are going to utilize for it, but you can use RP to give out more of the "Background" section of the scenario than the PCs normally get.
One of the things I liked about Part 2 of Destiny of the Sands was how much of the background could be gotten through the play of the scenario. IIRC, we tromped most of the combats, partly through lucky/unlucky rolls, but the time we saved in the combats was well-spent in the RP arena.
|
|
Can a GM make a Module more difficult?
Scenarios, no.
Modules played in PFS mode, no.
Modules in campaign mode, yes. Campaign mode is basically a home game with as much variation as you want. Want to play a class/race not allowed in PFS but still want PFS credit? Play campaign mode. Want to be able to adjust encounters on the fly to ramp up difficulty for your players? Run campaign mode.
Please note, however, that campaign mode is limited to APs and specific modules only. And if you are wanting to ramp up difficulty as a GM be sure your players are aware of your desire to do so.
|
|
Can a GM make a Module more difficult?
Scenarios, no.
Modules played in PFS mode, no.
The hell you say. :) I can make a scenario more difficult just by not paying attention to what I'm doing.
Of course, this usually has the tendency to make things EASIER on the players rather than harder.
But seriously, GM experience and application thereof is the biggest factor in a scenario's difficulty. Even with listed tactics there are places with wiggle room.
My recent run had a creature with a +22 disarm bonus. The fight would have been MUCH shorter had I not disarmed the magus and zen archer instead of full-attacking against their ridiculous ACs.
|
|
Also, yes, there is wiggle room within tactics and utilizing weather and terrain if it is mentioned in the fluff of the scenario, but not with adjusting HP, # of opponents, etc.
If the PCs actions make the listed tactics moot or invalid, then you better believe the opponent will act according to the situation, especially if it is an intelligent opponent. ;)
|
|
Whereas I totally understand it's not PFS legal to change anything as written, as a new GM, I do see the breakdown of this inflexibility in certain situations. All too often, mostly as a player and sometimes as a GM, I see the PC's easily overwhelm a scenario and the GM's hands are tied to add any extra challenge to it. Also, I could understand a reason for this inflexibility can easily be explained since how could you just let GM's randomly modify what's written and still have it as legal play.
It would be neat if Paizo could come up with some sort of system/way to allow the tweaking of the challenge levels in a consistent manner, especially for older seasons to ramp up the challenge level a bit. Not all scenarios need this.
I realize this is pie-in-the-sky. The alternative is simply to only play GM post-third season stuff (which I've still seen scenarios that haven't exactly challenged the party).
The more books that Paizo comes out with to do even more power tweaks to PC's (traits, magic items, feats) presents ever more overwhelming party potential.
Some players think it's fun to overwhelm ("break") a scenario. When that happens with me, I find it dissatisfying and even a bit turned off.
I get that players (even me!) like to optimize their characters to the hilt. With that ever increasing power, there should be some flexible system, if necessary (and agreeable to all?) for the GM to mitigate that type of party power dynamic in a scenario.
They did include some leeway to make specific adjustments in the Guide to Organized Play, version 5.0 (page 32):
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.
This came up in another discussion, and almost half of the GMs present didn't realize this text was in the Guide.
|
|
Can a GM make a Module more difficult?
...
Modules in campaign mode, yes. Campaign mode is basically a home game with as much variation as you want. Want to play a class/race not allowed in PFS but still want PFS credit? Play campaign mode. Want to be able to adjust encounters on the fly to ramp up difficulty for your players? Run campaign mode.
Please note, however, that campaign mode is limited to APs and specific modules only. And if you are wanting to ramp up difficulty as a GM be sure your players are aware of your desire to do so.
Is there a list somewhere of which modules can be played in campaign mode? The only one I know about is The Dragon's Demand. (I had hoped Thornkeep was one but, alas, no.)
|
|
Gm's can make games harder without changing stat blocks. You don't need to increase anything if you want to make it tougher for certain players (aka powercreep and power gamers) or for that matter easier for newbies and one off players.
For instance, a goblin has a standard AC collection of 16/13/14, by making sure the goblin sticks with thrown weapons and utilizes cover, I can make that AC increase 2-8 points. Or I can make that idiot goblin walk within a reach weapons field if the player is a little confused about things.
A GM shouldn't finagle stats because she doesn't like the cut of your jib.
I tend to disregard party wipes, or find ways that they don't happen like a Deus ex machina, usually because I as a GM may have misread the party's understanding of the game. But I would only do that with player permission. I've had total wipes where the wipe makes a lot of sense (1st level players attacked the town guard, which by the way weren't statted because who attacks the town guard?) and I will walk away shaking my head and others where the scenario really requires characters to be at the top of their game and maybe the cleric decides he is more interested in his phone than playing. When that happens you as a GM have to be able to modulate the enemy responses, and you can do that without stat changes. But if the party is still wiped and you know it's because someone decided to farm on facebook instead of paying attention to the game, sometimes I'll personally seek permission to do the retcon. Retcons though should be last resorts. there are other in scenario ways to prevent party wipes.
Cold readings of modules do cause problems for GM's and players. It happens. Sometimes the way the module is written is impossible to fully understand on a cold reading. I had a game one time where the group attacked ogres in a warehouse, the cold reading I made it was a simple up and down battle, it wasn't until I was finishing the scenario did I realize that the entire room was filled with volatile liquids. I ran it again for a different group with all the liquids (and flammable barrels) and suddenly the way they fought in that scenario totally changed. Especially at a convention, cold readings can be very difficult for a GM. And sometimes it can make the scenario nealry impossible. When that happens, ask for a time and talk to the GM, they may not be aware of the issue.
As a player if you are worried the GM is reading the module wrong, you have the right to ask them as an aside (obviously not in front of players because that can put them to the defensive). tell them you feel it's too tough or too easy and ask them if maybe there is somethign missing in the module.
Like the XPHP mistake as a GM I've made the mistake to use the wrong dice for a sword (d10 for a d6), given concealment when it should have been cover, or cover when it should be concealment, misunderstood where an NPC began an encounter (on top of a tower is totally different than next to the tower), and yes even added extra NPC's because I've read a number wrong or has happened a few times there were typos. GM's are human after all. But if you disagree with a GM then please go to the Pathfinder Hiearchy to correct the situation
|
|
"For instance, a goblin has a standard AC collection of 16/13/14, by making sure the goblin sticks with thrown weapons and utilizes cover, I can make that AC increase 2-8 points. Or I can make that idiot goblin walk within a reach weapons field if the player is a little confused about things."
That doesn't help the goblin's offense. Which is more frequently the problem with NPCs: not enough offense to threaten the PCs. The most dangerous NPCs often have cheap gimmicks like harpies.
|
|
And, as has been reiterated again and again here: If the scenario's tactics say "attacks with his sword", you can't have him stick to cover and use thrown weapons, unless he actually can't reach the PCs."For instance, a goblin has a standard AC collection of 16/13/14, by making sure the goblin sticks with thrown weapons and utilizes cover, I can make that AC increase 2-8 points. Or I can make that idiot goblin walk within a reach weapons field if the player is a little confused about things."
That doesn't help the goblin's offense. Which is more frequently the problem with NPCs: not enough offense to threaten the PCs. The most dangerous NPCs often have cheap gimmicks like harpies.
Right, unless the PCs actions invalidate those tactics. An creature or NPC slightly smarter than a goblin would likely look at a pair of phalanx fighters with polearms and decide that it's probably not best to charge them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Right, unless the PCs actions invalidate those tactics. An creature or NPC slightly smarter than a goblin would likely look at a pair of phalanx fighters with polearms and decide that it's probably not best to charge them."
I'm not 100% certain that counts as invalidation. As I have pointed out quite often, NPCs quite often discover they've been invalidated the hard way. And then its too late for them. The NPCs don't know that they are phalanx fighters, just that they have polearms.
I still think the author sets the difficultly more than the GM. There is only so much you can do when the NPCs are badly mathematically outclassed. For example just running King of Storval Stairs stock is really brutal, no fancy GMing necessary. On the other hand, I don't see how you make something like Penumbral Accords difficult because of math.
I'm willing to agree that there are MANY scenarios where the GM is the biggest factor, but I can't agree that the GM is the biggest factor overall, since they are bound to the printed word of the scenario.
|
|
On the other hand, I don't see how you make something like Penumbral Accords difficult because of math.
And yet this is one of only two true scenarios where I had a TPK's...and nearly a second one on my next running of it...
GM's can make a big difference in any scenario...
That said, my 7-11 experience has been the opposite in terms of lethality in comparison to 1-5 and 3-7.
|
|
"Indeed, many of those scenarios make the GM the biggest factor simply by not binding him to a printed word. ;)"
But you're still stuck with the stat blocks. If the NPCs can't hit, then they can't pose a challenge. That's my point. Maybe I run for power gamers more than I realize. When I ran Penumbral Accords, they rofl stomped every room.
I still contest that the GM can make a big difference in any scenario, or even most. Hitting PCs on "20"s can't be fixed by GM wiggling.
|
|
Oh yes. Well, as I said, there are many scenarios that are absolutely brutal looking at the stat blocks. The scenarios that give the GM more to work with in the first place are by far the most dangerous. But this still means the difficulty originates from the author, not the GM. The GM is just enabled by the author.
In fact, if the author gives very specific tactics to be followed, this, in effect, neuters GM creativity and impact. Conversely, the very generic tactics you speak of that allow a lot of table variation are still a result of decisions on the part of authors to not include specific tactics. So even in those cases, the difficultly is still set by the author by opening the door for GMs.