When do you cancel the table?


GM Discussion

The Exchange 5/5

A spin off from another thread -

Under what circumstances would you as an organizer or as a table judge cancel a table at the last minute? Some possible suggestions would be...

1) Running in a bad environment (a-noise, b-crowding, c-lighting, d-heat, e-smells, etc... Something is just "over the boarder line" into "bad").

2) Running when under a very tight timeline (perhaps the building closes in 3&1/2 hours "...and you WILL BE out").

3) Personality conflict between one or more players and the judge, or between one or more players with each other... (One problem child can be sent away. Two or more persons who have trouble sitting at the same table, but have not problem with others).

4) A 7 player table. (Allowed in the rules, but many people will just walk away reather than run or play one of these...).

5) Running the scenario "cold". (The judge has had little or no prep time, and may have only played the scenario before and not played it).

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

All the above.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

If I don't think it is physically possible to run the game. Of the scenarios listed, call that 2.

One that you didn't list is if I arrive at the game day and realize I have *none* of the things I need to run. (That's happened to me. Fortunately that time the game was 5 minutes from my house, so I could go and get my things but if it had been an hour -- I'd have cancelled.)

Otherwise, I will lay out the circumstances, and I might suggest rescheduling, but if push comes to shove, and there are at least three people willing to give it a go, I am *extremely* unlikely to cancel the game.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

I've never been an organizer except at my own little "events"-- which, granted, makes up more than half of the tables I've run. The only ones I've cancelled myself are when I have fewer than three players. I also try to do that in advance. With meatspace games, I'll cancel if I have fewer than three committed to come the day before (again, this isn't at an event with random people floating around, it's just a private group at my uni that I've put together). With online games, I once had to do it at the last minute, but I try to do it hours in advance.

I've only played with three people a couple of times. I've only played with seven once. Seven is too many; avoid that. It's just a zoo. (Hell, I find that games are more fun, typically, with four people than six people, although of course it depends on who the people are. My home game has recently changed to a four-person group, and things just go much more smoothly and cleanly.)

I've been fortunate never to have a really bad personality conflict at a PFS table. (Some meta conflicts outside of the table, yes, and more than once deciding that I probably didn't want to run or play with a given other person once, but never enough to cancel the table once we were all sitting there.) I've also been fortunate enough never to have to run cold, or with an unreachable deadline looming.

Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha aka downerbeautiful

For my personal events, if I don't have a table before I go to bed, I cancel it. This gives 5-8 hours notice to those who did register, as I probably didn't try to muster with a moment's notice.

I've a similar policy for the store I co-ordinate. My GMs and players are aware of the time deadlines. If there isn't a table 24 hours in advance (some GMs have a more flexible schedule than that), then all registered players and GMs show up at their own discretion. If I know the GM's not going to show, I make sure to notify the players of the cancellation. Thanks Warhorn.

If I GM for a table at a store that's not mine, and the table isn't firing 24 hours in advance, I remove myself from the GM position and watch baseball or play Skyrim or something else that's less hectic and more "me" centered, because I can do that once in a while.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If there is any way for the table to go off, the table goes off. I only cancel if I have absolutely no choice in the matter.

Silver Crusade

FLite wrote:
If there is any way for the table to go off, the table goes off. I only cancel if I have absolutely no choice in the matter.

If I'm scheduled to GM, I agree.

But I'd never be scheduled or volunteer to run cold. (#5 on the list)

As an example of this, at last year's GenCon, I was scheduled to run two adventures that weren't available for me to download and start reading until the previous weekend, so I would have only had about 5 days to prep both of them. Given that I had to work Monday through Wednesday the week leading up the con, plus packing and driving there, I just wouldn't have had nearly enough time to prep both thoroughly, especially since both were fairly complex scenarios.

So I emailed Mike Brock to say I couldn't do it, and he canceled me from one of them. But I also made sure to give him more than a week's notice, so he could find a replacement.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

prop me up behind the game screen if i die

Silver Crusade

If the judge has become rather ill, and would plaguish and speading germs to the players.

5/5

We run 7-player tables when it is a new player, but otherwise don't.

Grand Lodge

The only time that I'll accept a 7th player is if one of my fellow GMs needs a seat, or if a new player walks in the door.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

I turned a 7th player away from an online table last night, and felt like a prat for so doing.... However, the truth is, six people were already too many for this Season 1 scenario.

Shadow Lodge

For online games, I'll usually put down a 6 player limit on tables (I'd argue 6 is already too many, except for the difficulty of scenarios recently), and if I don't have enough players 8-24 hours games before the session is due to start, I'll cancel and/or postpone it until people are actually ready to play.

Occasionally if I know a player or two "doesn't care if they play or not", I'll consider that player not-signed-on for the purposes of cancelling the game. So if it only has 3 players signed on and 1 doesn't care, that's considered "not enough to play". That might get balanced out if another player is supercrazykeen to play that particular scenario ASAP, but I've never had that happen.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
We run 7-player tables when it is a new player, but otherwise don't.

I have reconsidered, and will run 7 player tables, if necessary, for Season 4 and up, the scenarios written for 6 players, since they shouldn't have much trouble with a 7th player.

For earlier seapon scenarios, and modules, I prefer 4 to 5 players.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We will hardly ever cancel a game for 5). Most of our judges can handle a scenario cold if they have to, although we try to at least have had them played it before. While it's something we try to avoid, it's going to happen every now and then.


As an organizer, my personal philosophy is that if people have driven all the way to the shop and have otherwise committed the time to be there, then I try to have something for them to do. At my location we encourage GMs to have backup scenarios reviewed enough that they could run with little to no notice. Should we have a time constraint, or too many people, or a GM show up under prepped (this happened to me last Friday- I forgot I was scheduled to run until 2 hours before session start, and the scheduled game involved intrigue and heavy roleplay), then that GM (or another willing volunteer) pulls the backup scenario (usually 1-5 or 1-7) and runs it.

If it's a time constraint, then I'd find a copy of We Be Goblins or a Quest and run it. I feel the quests can be run cold, and many of my GM's have done We Be Goblins before so it would be more like running luke warm. (Heck, two of us have done WBG enough that we could probably create a decent home-game run of it without even seeing the PDF.)

nosig wrote:
1) Running in a bad environment (a-noise, b-crowding, c-lighting, d-heat, e-smells, etc... Something is just "over the boarder line" into "bad").

This (and possibly the table conflict, depending on attendence) is probably the single given example where I'd heavily consider canceling. I would very likely ask the table if they were comfortable gaming that night and go from there.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is one nobody has mentioned yet:

Cancel if the GM feels the group isn't up to it and it is a sure TPK and as such will be neither fun for the GM nor the players

I've done it once myself - albeit preferred to run a different scenario instead. I've also seen it being done once by a different GM who just wasn't comfortable running with the players (characters) signed up.

Edit: Thinking about it - this might only happen high tier

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thod wrote:

Here is one nobody has mentioned yet:

Cancel if the GM feels the group isn't up to it and it is a sure TPK and as such will be neither fun for the GM nor the players

I've done it once myself - albeit preferred to run a different scenario instead. I've also seen it being done once by a different GM who just wasn't comfortable running with the players (characters) signed up.

Edit: Thinking about it - this might only happen high tier

I MIGHT discourage a group from running a scenario in such a situation, but if they wish to go through with it, I won't stop them. I've seen enough examples of improbable groups succeeding and sure fire success going down for the count that I won't contravene a players right to risk their characters. "Risk" as one noted leader said "is our business."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I'm with Rachel: If I don't have enough players to make a table the night before I'll cancel that night. Though this is theoretical, I've never actually run into that situation.

Also I'll try to cancel the night before if I'm sick and I'm the only GM scheduled, and if fewer than 3 people show up I'll cancel for lack of a legal table (though I'd probably run Ambush Under Absalom or something like that.)

Otherwise, if the conditions are bad, I'll ask for a table consensus on whether or not to go on. GMs scheduled for other tables would have the option to cancel if they chose, but otherwise I would suggest coming to a consensus for their tables as well. I'd probably suggest rescheduling the whole gameday, but we've got a great store to work with so scheduling is trivially easy.

Of course, this is all theoretical. I've combined two tables into one on a very rare occasion, but never actually cancelled a table that left people without a chance to play or cancelled an entire event before.


There are times when I would prefer to cancel when a certain few players show up at my table with uber optimized broken characters...I would just prefer to go home and watch reruns of Gilligan's Island than watch them waffle stomp everything and waste 4-5 hours of my time.
Either that or hand them the Chronicle sheet and tell them to walk away.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Unklbuck wrote:

There are times when I would prefer to cancel when a certain few players show up at my table with uber optimized broken characters...I would just prefer to go home and watch reruns of Gilligan's Island than watch them waffle stomp everything and waste 4-5 hours of my time.

Either that or hand them the Chronicle sheet and tell them to walk away.

What if their idea of fun is waffle stomping a scenario?

Silver Crusade

Bonekeep with 3 players.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
Bonekeep with 3 players.

I would give the players an option to run with a preen while noting that this an advanced scenario. If they choose to risk it, I'll allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We had tornadoes touching down all around us last night, but we finished Year of the Shadow Lodge. Everyone's phone alerted at the exact same time warning us. But we were only halfway through. Nobody left. YMMV.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Bonekeep with 3 players.
I would give the players an option to run with a preen while noting that this an advanced scenario. If they choose to risk it, I'll allow it.

I think we were considering Harsk as our 4th.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Bonekeep with 3 players.
I would give the players an option to run with a preen while noting that this an advanced scenario. If they choose to risk it, I'll allow it.
I think we were considering Harsk as our 4th.

I would not have a problem with this. The players in such a situation get to choose the pregen. And I'd run with it. And I'd run as written. And if the players do wipe, I'll do my best to help them enjoy the experience.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Fromper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Bonekeep with 3 players.
I would give the players an option to run with a preen while noting that this an advanced scenario. If they choose to risk it, I'll allow it.
I think we were considering Harsk as our 4th.

So you wanted to run bonekeep on harder mode?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fromper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Bonekeep with 3 players.
I would give the players an option to run with a preen while noting that this an advanced scenario. If they choose to risk it, I'll allow it.
I think we were considering Harsk as our 4th.
So you wanted to run bonekeep on harder mode?

I know players who enjoy doing so. And besides, it really depends on the three. And while Harsk may fail the standards of the optimizers he's hardly useless.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

LazarX wrote:


I know players who enjoy doing so. And besides, it really depends on the three. And while Harsk may fail the standards of the optimizers he's hardly useless.

He does less damage than a well optimized familiar.

The Exchange 5/5

Well, I guess I should have listened more to the advice above.

I just finished running a game that I likely should have just canceled... while I think everyone had fun, it was very much less than it should/could have been.

"Under what circumstances would you as ... a table judge cancel a table at the last minute? Some possible suggestions would be...

1) Running in a bad environment (a-noise, b-crowding, ...).

2) Running when under a very tight timeline..."

Too many people crowded into to small a space, with a tight timeline to run. I had to shout the entire scenario...

I even had one player bail at the start - it looked like I was going to have a 7 person table (something I would have canceled over), but one kind player backed out. So I had a 6 play table in a season 0... in a crowded shop, packed in among several other (full) tables...

If I had canceled, I'm sure another judge would have stepped forward and been handed the table (that's the way we do things in my home town - the game must go on! likely he would have run something else...) and there would have maybe been one or two players drop and head home (or maybe not, but I like to think some of the players were there to play with me)... so I stuck with it and tried to give a good game... but I don't think I'm going to do it again any time soon. It was very much a lesser game experience... Less than it could have been. Most likely I am going to give up running games at the local shop. And think real hard about judging at CONs...

Which is kind of funny, because I like running for new players (or even just "new" to me players). And I like to think I do a good job of it. But if I'm having to cut out all the RP because we can't hear the guy beside us unless he shouts? This is much worse then running cold or 7 player tables or a tight timeline and maybe even worse than having a personality conflicts between people at the table.

sorry for the rant, I just needed to voice that to someone...


LazarX wrote:
We will hardly ever cancel a game for 5). Most of our judges can handle a scenario cold if they have to, although we try to at least have had them played it before. While it's something we try to avoid, it's going to happen every now and then.

As a player I'd really really like to plead with GMs everywhere who do this: please tell us. If you are running a module cold, I have found that 100% of the time, without fail, the game sucks. And while I'm in no position to stop you, I am desperate to flee tables that do this. It would a HUGE favor if you just said, "I'm running this cold, never had a chance to review the module text" or something like that, at the start. Then I can pack up and go play a video game or have a nice meal with a friend or do anything better.

Please? I mean, you can run cold all you want, just give me a chance to escape first.

The Exchange 5/5

outshyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
We will hardly ever cancel a game for 5). Most of our judges can handle a scenario cold if they have to, although we try to at least have had them played it before. While it's something we try to avoid, it's going to happen every now and then.

As a player I'd really really like to plead with GMs everywhere who do this: please tell us. If you are running a module cold, I have found that 100% of the time, without fail, the game sucks. And while I'm in no position to stop you, I am desperate to flee tables that do this. It would a HUGE favor if you just said, "I'm running this cold, never had a chance to review the module text" or something like that, at the start. Then I can pack up and go play a video game or have a nice meal with a friend or do anything better.

Please? I mean, you can run cold all you want, just give me a chance to escape first.

sure - I always do.

Though I have been told before that my game run "cold" was the best some players have had at that CON.

Silver Crusade

Lots of early season stuff runs cold just fine.

Grand Lodge

For full disclosure, I normally play at the same venue as nosig. I often play at his house even. I've probably only been to the game store maybe once this month... for many of the reasons he outlined above.

However, I have been running mostly online lately and let me tell you, I dont have any of the issues he outlined above.

I schedule to run what I want to run and when. People magically come out of the woodwork to sign up to play (usually too many people). I had one game that I ran last week that had 22 people sign up for on my warhorn. Luckily we were able to come up with 2 other GMs to accommodate the demand. I still had to tell some folks that they couldn't play (it filled me with sadness).

1) Running in a bad environment (a-noise, b-crowding, c-lighting, d-heat, e-smells, etc... Something is just "over the boarder line" into "bad").

Nope. I'm sitting comfortably at home in my reclining office chair.

2) Running when under a very tight timeline (perhaps the building closes in 3&1/2 hours "...and you WILL BE out").

Nope. I schedule games to start when I want them to start and people for the most part show up on time. If they dont, I start without them. There is no concern over my house closing down and kicking me out. My wife on the other hand... :)

3) Personality conflict between one or more players and the judge, or between one or more players with each other... (One problem child can be sent away. Two or more persons who have trouble sitting at the same table, but have not problem with others).

Nope. Nobody is sitting at the same table (I suppose it is theoretically possible but highly unlikely).

4) A 7 player table. (Allowed in the rules, but many people will just walk away reather than run or play one of these...).

I just dont allow this. I use warhorn. The top 6 get seats.

5) Running the scenario "cold". (The judge has had little or no prep time, and may have only played the scenario before and not played it).

Nope. I schedule what I want to run. I know in advance what I'm going to run. Never a problem.

The Exchange 5/5

Comments about playing on line...please take them in the friendly way they were intended...

I play RPGs to interact with a real breathing person, in the same room with me.

I think that at it's core PFS is a face to face social game; no matter how involved the internet may be in the game, it will (for me at least) never replace sitting down with people that I consider "fellow gamers" and rolling dice. I think I could have fun in an online game (I have before in other kinds of games), but it seems like there would be a diminished level of involvement for me as I'm not as totally immersed in playing with my friends as I would be in person.

And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way...

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:

Comments about playing on line...please take them in the friendly way they were intended...

I play RPGs to interact with a real breathing person, in the same room with me.

I think that at it's core PFS is a face to face social game; no matter how involved the internet may be in the game, it will (for me at least) never replace sitting down with people that I consider "fellow gamers" and rolling dice. I think I could have fun in an online game (I have before in other kinds of games), but it seems like there would be a diminished level of involvement for me as I'm not as totally immersed in playing with my friends as I would be in person.

And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way...

You're definitely not the only one who feels that way. The entire reason I got back into RPGs as a hobby instead of just playing video games on the internet is that I wanted the social interaction of getting together in a room with other gamers.

The Exchange 5/5

Fromper wrote:
nosig wrote:

Comments about playing on line...please take them in the friendly way they were intended...

I play RPGs to interact with a real breathing person, in the same room with me.

I think that at it's core PFS is a face to face social game; no matter how involved the internet may be in the game, it will (for me at least) never replace sitting down with people that I consider "fellow gamers" and rolling dice. I think I could have fun in an online game (I have before in other kinds of games), but it seems like there would be a diminished level of involvement for me as I'm not as totally immersed in playing with my friends as I would be in person.

And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way...

You're definitely not the only one who feels that way. The entire reason I got back into RPGs as a hobby instead of just playing video games on the internet is that I wanted the social interaction of getting together in a room with other gamers.

lol! yeah, just maybe not 35 of them all in the same 15'x15' room at one time!

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
Fromper wrote:
nosig wrote:

Comments about playing on line...please take them in the friendly way they were intended...

I play RPGs to interact with a real breathing person, in the same room with me.

I think that at it's core PFS is a face to face social game; no matter how involved the internet may be in the game, it will (for me at least) never replace sitting down with people that I consider "fellow gamers" and rolling dice. I think I could have fun in an online game (I have before in other kinds of games), but it seems like there would be a diminished level of involvement for me as I'm not as totally immersed in playing with my friends as I would be in person.

And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way...

You're definitely not the only one who feels that way. The entire reason I got back into RPGs as a hobby instead of just playing video games on the internet is that I wanted the social interaction of getting together in a room with other gamers.
lol! yeah, just maybe not 35 of them all in the same 15'x15' room at one time!

LOL Sounds like you're describing the store where I play. But we're a little bigger than that - maybe 15x25 or so. Same number of people, though.

The Exchange 5/5

Fromper wrote:
nosig wrote:
Fromper wrote:
nosig wrote:

Comments about playing on line...please take them in the friendly way they were intended...

I play RPGs to interact with a real breathing person, in the same room with me.

I think that at it's core PFS is a face to face social game; no matter how involved the internet may be in the game, it will (for me at least) never replace sitting down with people that I consider "fellow gamers" and rolling dice. I think I could have fun in an online game (I have before in other kinds of games), but it seems like there would be a diminished level of involvement for me as I'm not as totally immersed in playing with my friends as I would be in person.

And I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way...

You're definitely not the only one who feels that way. The entire reason I got back into RPGs as a hobby instead of just playing video games on the internet is that I wanted the social interaction of getting together in a room with other gamers.
lol! yeah, just maybe not 35 of them all in the same 15'x15' room at one time!
LOL Sounds like you're describing the store where I play. But we're a little bigger than that - maybe 15x25 or so. Same number of people, though.

ok, maybe the play area is a little bigger - but then there are all the OTHER gamers (the terrain tables and the Warhammer/Warmachine/Wargamer crowd) in there too... but normally they aren't as loud as us.

Grand Lodge

I would not recommend cancelling a game unless it was simply not possible to run in a way that might still be enjoyable. In some cases, I think that finding ways to overcome some of these challenges can help make you learn ways to be an even better GM.

nosig wrote:


1) Running in a bad environment (a-noise, b-crowding, c-lighting, d-heat, e-smells, etc... Something is just "over the boarder line" into "bad").

This one is as close as I have come, but the olfactory offender and air conditioning both left/improved over time in the example I can think of. Since PFS is a leisure activity, I would cancel if too many players would be exposed to any health- and/or wellbeing-affecting stimuli to possibly enjoy playing. As a player, I have endured some things I might cancel a game for, though. Gall bladder attacks and color spray do not mix!

nosig wrote:


2) Running when under a very tight timeline (perhaps the building closes in 3&1/2 hours "...and you WILL BE out").

This one is a bit difficult, and could depend on whether or not the players are alright with expeditive exposition - i.e. I will decide which direction characters go in the ruins because it will save time, then take marching order/spacing and perceptions, if need be and send the players directly into another situation. This is much harder with roleplay-heavy scenarios, though.

Additionally, from time-to-time in recurring games, I have run regular scenarios as multi-session games and disallowed players the opportunity to play the character between sessions, much like the multi-session module and play-by-post rules. I only consider this if I know a player will return, though.

nosig wrote:


3) Personality conflict between one or more players and the judge, or between one or more players with each other... (One problem child can be sent away. Two or more persons who have trouble sitting at the same table, but have not problem with others).

Knowing how to play with people you have a difficult time with can be a good learning experience. I have trouble with rules lawyers and backseat GMs who are critical instead of helpful. I also have trouble with players who have to constantly be the center of attention and who must do all the things, taking all the glory and the fun. Maybe I'm just lucky, but in forcing myself to continue on with players like this, I have better learned how to deal with them. They have taught me how to more quickly settle rules questions and how to decide when they are important enough to stop the game. They have taught me when and how to put my foot down on a decision in a game. They have taught me how to shut down the attention seeker when I am given the tools in a scenario. I think I am far better for sticking with it.

However, interpersonal problems between other people are something I have recognized I cannot control. I suggest taking the time to talk to the different parties involved and making them agree to try working together. If they can not or will not, I will eject both parties if I need to. As the adjudicator of the game, we can only suggest solutions. However, recognizing that a player refuses to listen to you when you are trying to be fair is plenty of reason to remove them from a table. I have had to postpone a private game for this before, but it was better the second time because the problems from the original session were gone, and the players understood.

nosig wrote:


4) A 7 player table. (Allowed in the rules, but many people will just walk away reather than run or play one of these...).

This Gen Con was the first year I have not run a 7-top at the Con. These are tricky, but recognizing that it is essentially the same situation as having a short time limit is important to GMing this well. I like to make sure that my players understand that roleplay and characterization may have to take a backseat some of the time before we start, but then have them introduce their characters and find someone to talk to in-character, so that they feel they are heard. Maintaining eye contact and reading a player's face is important, too - I try not to leave a player behind if they feel there are more ideas to contribute.

nosig wrote:


5) Running the scenario "cold". (The judge has had little or no prep time, and may have only played the scenario before and not read it).

I have never had a Gen Con where I have run PFS that I have not run a scenario entirely cold. Never. I let my players know and try to inspire them to roleplay with one another a bit more while I read ahead.

I do the best I can to read the summary and check out stat blocks and tactics at the beginning. I skim what I can for the next encounter right after I run the one before it. I'm starting to think that running blind might be an art form, but I think that it is the best tool for improving your game as a GM. Running blind helps you get creative, find corners that can be cut without sacrificing the intent of rules or scenarios, and learn how to have fun seeing events unfold in the same way your players are seeing them unfold.

These last two years, it has become fun instead of purely stressful. This year I ran Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread in the high tier and received compliments from every player. I highly recommend learning how to do this if you have the option to run a table blind versus disbanding a game - so long as your players know. Play, play, play!

Of course, I recommend prepping the scenario if you can. Don't misunderstand me - blind games can be fun, but well-prepared games are more likely to be more fun for your players and less stress for you.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 ⦵⦵

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Given the tight timing between 'finishing' the GenCon Special and PaizoCon, I have had to run it on minimal prep... (Last to PaizoCons)

My tables did seem to really enjoy the Special... And that includes a group this year, that, though stubbornness and caution, spent an hour(real time) in a room with a book...

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / When do you cancel the table? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in GM Discussion