6-02 The Silver Mount Collection [Spoilers]


GM Discussion

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 4/5

Damanta wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Undone wrote:
I'm worried about the first and last encounter. They seem extremely likely to TPK. I'm unsure what can reasonably be done to not kill the PC's. Outside of hardcore power gamers it seems likely to TPK in the first and last encounters.

The first fight definitely shouldn't TPK. The robots are trying to kick out intruders. If the PCs leave the building, the robots shouldn't pursue. That makes running away a very easy option.

Heh, the robots closed the door to the street on us, we couldn't get out even if we wanted to without getting hacked to pieces.

Ok, that's just a mean GM. That's not in their tactics. Of course, they don't have tactics listed in the scenario. It would actually help if they did. For instance, do the robots attack as soon as someone enters (which actually makes sense if their programming is to repel intruders), or do they wait until everyone enters (as mentioned in a couple of posts in this thread)?

Dark Archive 4/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
Damanta wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Undone wrote:
I'm worried about the first and last encounter. They seem extremely likely to TPK. I'm unsure what can reasonably be done to not kill the PC's. Outside of hardcore power gamers it seems likely to TPK in the first and last encounters.

The first fight definitely shouldn't TPK. The robots are trying to kick out intruders. If the PCs leave the building, the robots shouldn't pursue. That makes running away a very easy option.

Heh, the robots closed the door to the street on us, we couldn't get out even if we wanted to without getting hacked to pieces.

Ok, that's just a mean GM. That's not in their tactics. Of course, they don't have tactics listed in the scenario. It would actually help if they did. For instance, do the robots attack as soon as someone enters (which actually makes sense if their programming is to repel intruders), or do they wait until everyone enters (as mentioned in a couple of posts in this thread)?

It is in their tactics actually, but it is the scaling for 4 person tables. With a full table, they wait to attack and get a surprise round, with a small table, they warn and attack when you walk through the door.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Ah. We did have a full party, but they spent most of their surprise round just moving to surround us. And then the bloodrager happened.

Sczarni 3/5

Fromper wrote:
Damanta wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Undone wrote:
I'm worried about the first and last encounter. They seem extremely likely to TPK. I'm unsure what can reasonably be done to not kill the PC's. Outside of hardcore power gamers it seems likely to TPK in the first and last encounters.

The first fight definitely shouldn't TPK. The robots are trying to kick out intruders. If the PCs leave the building, the robots shouldn't pursue. That makes running away a very easy option.

Heh, the robots closed the door to the street on us, we couldn't get out even if we wanted to without getting hacked to pieces.

Ok, that's just a mean GM. That's not in their tactics. Of course, they don't have tactics listed in the scenario. It would actually help if they did. For instance, do the robots attack as soon as someone enters (which actually makes sense if their programming is to repel intruders), or do they wait until everyone enters (as mentioned in a couple of posts in this thread)?

Fromper, I must heartily disagree with your last statement. For me as a GM it was a big relief to finally run the monsters my way and I experienced the lack of tactics to be a great improvement on older scenario's. It leaves much more up to the GM's interpretation and experience and as such can be tailored to the group.

It finally felt like I could make autonomous decisions instead of running a script. For example, in my games they only closed the doors to the entrance not because they wanted to 'trap' people, but because I wanted to prevent a bottleneck fight at the entrance and because I felt like they were frantically trying to keep out more intruders than were already on their doorstep.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

In some scenarios the tactics really nerf the NPCs, but intentionally so, so that the writer could use an awesome powerful NPC without guaranteeing a TPK.

Night March of Kalkamedes spoilers:

Should the players release Koth'Vaul, that's a CR 13 demon running around in a level 1-5 adventure. He doesn't even bother killing the PCs though.

Instead, he kills the one thing that could threaten him (the azata) and then teleports out to rampage across Varisia, leaving the PCs to worry when he'll come for them.

The PCs still fail the secondary success condition (rescuing the azata) and miss out on a nice boon. But they don't get slaughtered by something they stand no chance against.

I like the glabrezu: the look on players' faces when you set down the miniature and they go "whoa... that's not the right mini is it? oh crap..."

But fair enough, in some other scenarios the NPCs' tactics are so bad they're suicidal.

4/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

But fair enough, in some other scenarios the NPCs' tactics are so bad they're suicidal.

The worst are when it's a single caster and the tactics are like "He spends the first three rounds casting shield, mage armor, and bull's strength before moving in to melee." As if any lone caster is going to survive 3 rounds.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Yeah, at some point I'm going to say "the PCs have now gotten so close that my three-round buffing strategy has been invalidated".

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More modern scenarios have really penalized groups with terrible stealth checks by listing pre-buffs the NPCs perform if they detect the PCs.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

See, that kind of info is actually helpful to the GM.

Dark Archive 4/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Except when they put a debilitating trap right outside her door with an effect that takes just a few minutes to wear off. Add in the fact that her tactics call out that she casts her rd/lvl buffs on hearing the PCs outside her door, so everything is gone by the time the PCs actually go in. The fight is much easier if they don't bypass the trap...

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

She should come out and fight, as the PCs have invalidated her tactics.

Silver Crusade 1/5

Carla the Profane wrote:

Fromper, I must heartily disagree with your last statement. For me as a GM it was a big relief to finally run the monsters my way and I experienced the lack of tactics to be a great improvement on older scenario's. It leaves much more up to the GM's interpretation and experience and as such can be tailored to the group.

It finally felt like I could make autonomous decisions instead of running a script. For example, in my games they only closed the doors to the entrance not because they wanted to 'trap' people, but because I wanted to prevent a bottleneck fight at the entrance and because I felt like they were frantically trying to keep out more intruders than were already on their doorstep.

Carla,

While I agree with you in principle, the fact is when you leave so much up for GM interpretation, you get a chance to have jerk GMs (looking to kill players to support their dumb godplex) TPK parties based on a worst case scenario mentality. They aren't common but they do exist. GMs that always rule against the players even if it doesn't quite make sense. This is killer for society play since you don't really get to choose your GM in advance unless of course you know that person and/or their reputation.

I think the tight hand holding by scenarios tries to alleviate this issue a bit. Its unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin the whole trusting the GM from Paizo. It makes legit GMs have less chance to change a few things here and there to make it ultimately more fun for the group at the table.

Dark Archive 4/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:

She should come out and fight, as the PCs have invalidated her tactics.

Her tactics specifically state that she waits for them to come in. Scenario in question is

Spoiler:
Rivalry's End - The fight with the spider in the center of her lair.
I figured she would be more likely to stay put given how she is described. I expect you may be right though, especially as they would likely be taken by surprise and still be down a party member.
Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Spoiler:
As a spontaneous caster, she can refresh her greater invisibility.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What the tactics specifically state don't matter if the PCs straight up invalidate them.

Dark Archive 4/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

TriOmegaZero - It was lower tier,

Spoiler:
so she had a potion rather than casting it herself.
I think the PCs actually tried the door and then stopped and said hold on, maybe we should wait.

David, I agree, I should have run the fight differently. I'm still learning how this GM stuff works - I'm relatively new to it, though I've been playing since AD&D.

In any case, back to your regularly scheduled robot combat discussion. Hardness ftw!

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

CigarPete wrote:
TriOmegaZero - It was lower tier,

Then I think the PCs were rewarded for a smart tactic. Waiting out short term buffs is an underused idea.

Sczarni 3/5

Yeebin wrote:
Carla the Profane wrote:

Fromper, I must heartily disagree with your last statement. For me as a GM it was a big relief to finally run the monsters my way and I experienced the lack of tactics to be a great improvement on older scenario's. It leaves much more up to the GM's interpretation and experience and as such can be tailored to the group.

It finally felt like I could make autonomous decisions instead of running a script. For example, in my games they only closed the doors to the entrance not because they wanted to 'trap' people, but because I wanted to prevent a bottleneck fight at the entrance and because I felt like they were frantically trying to keep out more intruders than were already on their doorstep.

Carla,

While I agree with you in principle, the fact is when you leave so much up for GM interpretation, you get a chance to have jerk GMs (looking to kill players to support their dumb godplex) TPK parties based on a worst case scenario mentality. They aren't common but they do exist. GMs that always rule against the players even if it doesn't quite make sense. This is killer for society play since you don't really get to choose your GM in advance unless of course you know that person and/or their reputation.

I think the tight hand holding by scenarios tries to alleviate this issue a bit. Its unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin the whole trusting the GM from Paizo. It makes legit GMs have less chance to change a few things here and there to make it ultimately more fun for the group at the table.

In the area where I'm from (Netherlands) I've yet to experience a 'jerk' GM. And at the same time I've seen 'legit' GM's perform creative and fun tactical decision-making with tactics-less enemies / NPC's.

for example:
In Frostfur Captives, the way my GM ran the Goblin NPC's was pure hilarity; making at least two acrobatics checks in a turn.

Likewise, I think giving monsters no tactics or only simple tactics that reflect the monster's intentions give more leeway for lenient GM's to help unexperienced players.

For example, in the first encounter in the lobby of this this scenario it actually helped the PC's of the second time I ran it that they tried to close the doors, because a CMD 25+ warpriest was standing in the way and they were spending all their actions trying to close the doors.

(EDIT: It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that I believe that there are better ways to handle 'jerk' GM's than railroading entire scenario's because I do believe this game is about creative decision-making.)

Silver Crusade 2/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
CigarPete wrote:
TriOmegaZero - It was lower tier,
Then I think the PCs were rewarded for a smart tactic. Waiting out short term buffs is an underused idea.

In scenarios where PCs can perceive the buffs, its used constantly in my area. Too much of the time, though, we just don't know.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

David Bowles wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
CigarPete wrote:
TriOmegaZero - It was lower tier,
Then I think the PCs were rewarded for a smart tactic. Waiting out short term buffs is an underused idea.
In scenarios where PCs can perceive the buffs, its used constantly in my area. Too much of the time, though, we just don't know.

Most of the time the players forming the party lack the amount of tactical teamworking skill to do this anyway. However, when you do, is when you find out of the GM can "handle it", or if they'll contrive excuses to extend the short-term buffs/summons.

Given the kind of bottlenecks you sometimes run into at the entrance to an encounter, even just making noise to wake the BBEG, then moving back so that it's the BBEG and his minions in the bottleneck instead of you, might not be a bad tactic now and then. Something like:

- identify likely BBEG final room
- make intentional noise (Ghost Sound)
- withdraw to a good tactical location
- wait for a couple of minutes. Either BBEG comes out and you fight him on ground of your choosing, or his round/level buffs and summons run out.
- after 5-10 minutes, come closer again, check for traps, and go in. Even minute/level buffs will have run out.

A lot of this is wishful thinking though; most of the time there's at least a couple of impatient players and you're not going to get the kind of in-party coordination needed to pull it off.

2/5

I don't like the wait 'em out tactic as a player because it relies on assuming the bad guy won't just escape. And by that I mean it relies on the players knowing the scenarios never call for the enemies to escape.

Grand Lodge

Just ran this at 3-4. Took them 5 tries to get the cyber slime out of the kid with the cure disease wand. If the archer hadn't 1-shotted the gearsman there would have been some pain. Technically they didn't identify the wands but I figured the museum employees they rescues who knew the secret location of the cache would know what was in it.

Had there not been a level 5 PC shooting adamantine arrows like a cannon this thing would have gone south fast.

Silver Crusade 1/5

I know there was some brief discussion about power attack but I cant imagine that the author expects the constructs in encounter 1 to use their spears 2 handed and power attacking. At high tier that literally +10 1d8+19 + 1d6. min damage 21 max damage 33. times 4 constructs? Even if your average party of about 3 melee pcs has adamantine weps, its still going to take several rounds to kill all 4 of these and enough time for them to easily kill a pc or 2 doing that much damage....especially if they are intelligent and go for flanks and charges. Whew.

Grand Lodge

Yeebin wrote:
I know there was some brief discussion about power attack but I cant imagine that the author expects the constructs in encounter 1 to use their spears 2 handed and power attacking. At high tier that literally +10 1d8+19 + 1d6. min damage 21 max damage 33. times 4 constructs? Even if your average party of about 3 melee pcs has adamantine weps, its still going to take several rounds to kill all 4 of these and enough time for them to easily kill a pc or 2 doing that much damage....especially if they are intelligent and go for flanks and charges. Whew.

Yeah, I figure you just use the attack stats as printed in the stat block. So no power attack or 2-handing. Makes these things slightly less deadly, but a crit with one of those spears will still hurt.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

There's plenty of creative ways to save the kid, actually. We had a table that easily shocked the cyberplasm out of him and then realized we had about a 8 or so flasks of alchemist's fire as our only splash weapons. However, we did have a wizard who made a very good knowledge check and found out that it takes half damage when the host is attacked. Solution? "Hey, Mr. Wizard. Go stand in that goo. Pay no attention to the viking and bloodrager right behind you. There's a cleric 20 feet away."

So if you are the GM and your players succeed on a knowledge check, I do recommend that as one very handy bit of information.

Of course, it was a table of very experienced (and prepared) players. When the first encounter happened everyone including the cleric AND THE WIZARD! pulled out their adamantine weapons. "Oh. It's going to be one of those parties." said the GM.

4/5

Belafon wrote:
So if you are the GM and your players succeed on a knowledge check, I do recommend that as one very handy bit of information.

Most players won't have the Technologist feat so they won't be able to make the knowledge check and get that info. You can use description to give them that information after the first hit, though.

Grand Lodge 4/5

runslikeawelshman wrote:
Belafon wrote:
So if you are the GM and your players succeed on a knowledge check, I do recommend that as one very handy bit of information.
Most players won't have the Technologist feat so they won't be able to make the knowledge check and get that info. You can use description to give them that information after the first hit, though.

The boss isn't a Robot, so it doesn't require the Technologist feat. In fact, it also uses K: Arcana, not K: Engineering.

4/5

Technologist feat wrote:

Benefit: You are considered to be trained in any skill used against a technology-based subject. If the skill in question requires training to use even against non-technological subjects, you must still have ranks in that skill in order to gain the benefit of Technologist.

Normal: You treat all skill checks made against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.

The Technologist feat doesn't apply specifically to robots, it applies to all "technology-based subjects", which the cyberplasm certainly is. You are correct that the relevant skill would be Knowledge (Arcana) since it is a construct without the Robot subtype, but a character would still need the Technologist feat to know anything about it.

Grand Lodge 4/5

runslikeawelshman wrote:
Technologist feat wrote:

Benefit: You are considered to be trained in any skill used against a technology-based subject. If the skill in question requires training to use even against non-technological subjects, you must still have ranks in that skill in order to gain the benefit of Technologist.

Normal: You treat all skill checks made against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.
The Technologist feat doesn't apply specifically to robots, it applies to all "technology-based subjects", which the cyberplasm certainly is. You are correct that the relevant skill would be Knowledge (Arcana) since it is a construct without the Robot subtype, but a character would still need the Technologist feat to know anything about it.

From this thread:

John Compton wrote:
Identifying the gearsmen is difficult without the Technologist feat, but one can still use Knowledge (arcana) to identify the cyberplasm and learn of ways that it might be separated from its host.

4/5

Hmmm, so the relatively common (in Numeria, anyway) Gearsmen are completely unidentifiable by most characters, but the unique alien sentient techno-swarm is identifiable by anyone with ranks in the most common Knowledge skill? My head hurts.

Oh well, I've already played and GMed this scenario, neither allowing nor being allowed a Knowledge check. The secondary success condition was achieved in both cases through attention to detail and experimentation and I never have to worry about it again!

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

The alien isn't technological in nature. :)

4/5

The Silver Mount Collection, page 3 wrote:
...cyberplasm, a slurry of organic material and nanites...

So they're magical nanites?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Alien nanites. (Disclaimer: I do not have access to the scenario and am only going off of what I saw at table.)

4/5

When I said "alien" I meant it as an adjective (i.e. foreign, strange, not understood, etc.). You seem like you mean it's an "extra-terrestrial creature". The scenario doesn't say whether the cyberplasm is terrestrial or not, although as I understand it, much of the technology from Numeria was extra-terrestrial in origin. However, that doesn't make it any less technological in nature. Alien technology is still technology, and if the cyberplasm is an "alien" then so are the Gearsmen, the hazard crate, and all the other bits of tech the PCs might encounter.

In fact, if the cyberplasm has come directly from another planet (meaning its type has never before been encountered on Golarion), shouldn't it be even harder to identify than the rest?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

No harder to identify than migo and other things from the Dark Tapestry.

runslikeawelshman wrote:
(meaning its type has never before been encountered on Golarion)

Where are you basing this assumption?

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

True. I guess there should be a Lovecraftologist feat, too.

That still doesn't explain why the cyberplasm isn't covered by the Technologist feat while the lesser, more common technological creatures are.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Subtypes are funny like that.

4/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
runslikeawelshman wrote:
(meaning its type has never before been encountered on Golarion)
Where are you basing this assumption?

On your use of the word "alien". I was trying to interpret the various possible meanings you might have intended.

It seemed like you were implying that it's "alien" nature somehow meant it was more easily identifiable than the rest of the Numerian tech, which is counter-intuitive. As I said, it is my understanding (although I haven't read the Numeria source book so I could be way off) that all the Numerian tech was extra-terrestrial in origin and therefor the cyberplasm's alien nature would certainly not make it more recognizable than any of the rest.

So I was searching for a different meaning from your response and thought you might mean that it was a recent arrival on Golarion whereas the rest of the Numerian tech had been on-world for a long time. Even so, that would not make the cyberplasm more easily identifiable than the gearsmen, etc., for obvious reasons.

4/5

It`s obvious that this isn't really going anywhere since a developer has apparently already ruled on it, I'm just frustrated by the flip-flopping and inconsistency. I was against the Technologist feat requirement in the first place until I played 6-01. My party and I realized it was kind of cool to be faced with strange, unidentifiable enemies and to have to use different methods to overcome encounters. I GMed and played 6-02 and, despite my misgivings about PCs being able to attain the secondary success condition without being able to make a Knowledge check (see the beginning of this thread), it was achieved both times through innovation and experimentation. Now, to find out that the most bizarre and unique creature presented so far in season 6 can be identified and overcome pretty easily by any character with ranks in the most common Knowledge skill feels like a let-down. It's unnecessary and discourages creativity. It also goes directly against the RAW.

I'm very glad I played and GMed the scenario before I found out about that ruling and now don't have to worry about it ever again.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

There is another scenario involving stitched together creatures that no one has ever seen. However, they used base creatures like golems for the stats, which can be identified.

I described the knowledge PCs gained as being their educated guesses based on what they saw and likened it to other things they were more familiar with. When my alchemist rolled his Knowledge Arcana for the thing, I imagine it was a similar process. (Thankfully, he had the required feat to allow it to happen.)

4/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I described the knowledge PCs gained as being their educated guesses based on what they saw and likened it to other things they were more familiar with.

This is probably what they should've done with technology in the first place - allow characters to roll Knowledge checks to liken robots, etc., to things they already know about. The "is it actually required?" nature of the Technologist feat just creates more hassle than it's worth, especially when they turn around and say "well, you don't need it for this creature because...reasons."

Tech creatures should just have an additional subtype that includes a trait which boosts Knowledge check DCs by 10 or so to represent their "alien" nature. The Technologist feat could give you a +10 on all checks to identify tech creatures and items. Or something like that. Too late now, though.

Dark Archive 5/5 *

I would say that the robots and cyberplasm would be a dc 15 + cr to identify but if pc rolling is from numeria I would give that pc a dc 10 + cr to identify.

Silver Crusade 1/5

We played this last night. Party was:

My level 6 aasimar life oracle
Level 6 tiefling Chelish diva bard
Level 5 bard 4/cross-blooded sorc 1
Level 6 bones oracle
Level 5 halfling cavalier
Level 3 paladin

We played up with the 4 player adjustment. The bard/sorc had the Impossible bloodline as one of his bloodlines and immediately charmed one of the robots in the entrance room. Our cavalier managed to get a charge off on the other and did considerable damage, and we managed to finish it off with few problems.

Overall, the only rough encounter was with the 4 oozes and that's because the cavalier was having trouble getting charging lanes. Even so, only 2 people got diseased and we had barely took any damage. I think I had to channel twice the whole scenario, but I did drop all of my 2nd-level spell slots dropping flaming spheres on stuff.

Silver Crusade 4/5

joe kirner wrote:

I would say that the robots and cyberplasm would be a dc 15 + cr to identify but if pc rolling is from numeria I would give that pc a dc 10 + cr to identify.

Because of the Technologist feat, I'll disagree. Anyone with that feat should probably get 10 + CR, otherwise they can't roll.

However, I'm thinking that for the gearsmen, I'll probably let people roll Knowledge (Arcana) and tell them that these things seem similar to golems, but aren't like any golem they've ever heard of. Then, I can give them generic golem information that applies to all golems (ie adamantine is usually useful, energy damage usually isn't, because of hardness). I'll stress that this is just generic golem info, and they aren't even sure if these things are really golems, and let them run with that.

Which doesn't help on the final boss, but John Compton's ruling that you don't need the Technologist feat for that makes that one easier to deal with. I'd still make that one 15 + CR, because it's so unusual, even by Numerian standards.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Yeah, I had burned my reroll to get 30+ on the Arcana check to ID the thing, so I think the GM was being nice. :)

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

Okay, the more I fiddle with it, the more annoyed I am by the map redo. Conceptually, it is awesome. Practically, it is a pita.

Setting aside all the stairway to nowhere issues addressed above, and the copy / paste black problems, I really wish the scenario addressedhow the outside related to the inside. First of all, the interior is effectively a demiplane, with no windows to the outside, so why is there exterior landscaping and roofing etc? I mean you can't really go there, if you punch through the wall you are back outside the museum, right? If it is supposed to be the existing landscaping, why the heck is it aligned with the interior, not the exterior?

Also, in the south east edge of the museum, you have three curves on three floors, and not one of them lines up with the other. The stair case barely lines up. I grant it is a demiplane, so nigel can do whatever he wants with the geometry, but this just makes him look sloppy.

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

<<_>>_<< But he is sloppy. Why else would he need the Pathfinder Society to come bail his ass out so often?

I mean, really, he is a spellcaster, IIRC, but he fails an easy Will save the first time we meet him. And things seem to go downhill from there. He loses one of his employer's, later spouse's, family members in the museum. He doesn't keep an eye on an arcane researcher in the museum. And he is bypassed entirely when the Blackros's want to get out of a longterm commitment...

At least half the Pathfinder Society members want to destroy his place of employment. Most of the rest haven't joined that bandwagon, mainly because they have never been there on one of Nigel's bad days...

And then there is this fiasco. "Let's dump all the potentially bad stuff into a single container, so if something goes wrong, it can go really wrong." All your eggs in one basket? Seriously?

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Captain, Netherlands

Most of our PFS community signed a petition we made to have Nigel fired.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Yeah, but I'm no longer so sure that was the right thing to do.

I guess it depends a lot on GM portrayal. Some GMs portray him as a dangerous fool that needs to be put away for his own and everyone else's good. Others make him out to be a nice if somewhat absent-minded guy.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Captain, Netherlands

I have always seen him as a coward that refuses to be held accountable for his own mistakes.

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / 6-02 The Silver Mount Collection [Spoilers] All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.