RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have to play a bit of the swindler with the rerolls. Since you want to make sure people have a chance to reroll, and you don't want to give them knowldege of whether or not something is a fail, you have to ask whether they want to reroll passed saves too.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I respectfully disagree with the OP. Not with the point that rerolls slant the game so that it's favorable to the players, but that this is somehow a bad thing.
As a player, I do not enjoy character deaths. (I'm generally not that thrilled with them as a GM, either.) Having a tool available to save my character when luck suddenly turns against him is a good thing. I find this to be the general impression of the majority of players in my area as well. We have a small group of 2 to 3 players in my area who try to play everything on hard mode. They generally have to schedule events specifically for that purpose, because few others seated at the table will agree if the idea of hard mode isn't presented ahead of time. The rest of us seem to want to be the heros of our game without having a huge chance of death. There are still plenty of tense moments at the table, but the reroll acts as a comforting reassurance. By helping to keep characters alive, it promotes fun rather than dragging things down.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I've never seen anyone in my area (or at any of the 3 conventions I attend) treat a reroll as a sure thing or get blase about it. This isn't said to doubt Mike Tuholski's (the OP's) own personal experiences, but rather to highlight that those experiences are not happening everywhere. Instead of encouraging a ruling that would affect PFS play across the globe, I'd recommend Mike T to instead promote an informal agreement that players can opt into and out of as they wish. Call it "The NoRoll Challenge" or something. This would allow players looking for more tension in their games to play what's fun for them while those of us who like our safety net can play what's fun for us.
|
|
I don't see anything particularly problematic with trying to goad players into consuming their rerolls, even when you know their original roll succeeded. But goading them into using the reroll on inconsequential stuff seems a little dirty to me. If they do that on their own that's a different story, I guess.
|
|
I'll have to admit that the GM angst against re-rolls is puzzling to me. I don't get it. How are you, as a GM, inconvenienced by the player avoiding death?
Yeah, this one baffles me. I like the reroll rule. I don't know why they'd change it. I'm not big on killing players (though I've caught some bodies) and don't feel bad if a well timed reroll saves someone from dying, or from being panicked for 15 rounds for the BBEG fight.
|
|
What I don't like is when players use their portfolio/shirt rerolls try to force me reroll stuff when I'm GMing. I don't have the exact text from the guide on hand at the moment but there's some legalese that prevents that (something akin to only being able to reroll dice that you throw). I typically encourage players to use a reroll when it counts. Sometimes when I'm going to nuke someone on a crit, I might use my own reroll to get out of a crit threat.
As kind of a secondary thing, I like it when other players share their portfolio/shirt rerolls with players that don't have one on hand. It makes the atmosphere at the table a little more pleasant and it helps strengthen the community.
|
I too, try to weasel my players out of there rerolls.I really don't know how else I was supposed to read that other than deliberate action on your part.
I already stated my wording was very poor. I whole heartedly agree that my initial post sounds very devious. Yes, I get players to use their rerolls. Sometimes they are necessary sometimes they are not. But isn't the whole purpose of the shirts and folios using them. More often then not they are just used on day jobs.
I try to keep my players on their toes and they seem to enjoy my reroll tactic, because when it comes to tense times, reroll a phantasmal killer, they can't read my poker face.Heh...I wouldn't need to read your face for that one. Being told I just failed a Will save against illusion and then told I need to make a Fortitude save tells me I just got hit with Phantasmal Killer. That or the GM describing the horrifying things I am seeing in my mind.
In this specific scenario, after you roll the will save and before the result of the save (fail or succeed) is determined, I would ask if you are happy with your roll. If I see hesitation, I will ask again.
|
Yes, I get players to use their rerolls. Sometimes they are necessary sometimes they are not. But isn't the whole purpose of the shirts and folios using them. More often then not they are just used on day jobs.
Isn't one of the main rules of PFS that the GM can make changes/improvise things, as long as it doesn't force the players to expend resources?
|
|
My most recent re-roll experience...
My PC moves a little ahead of the party to check out something that just screams TRAP! and what do you know - it's a trap. A Haunt actually....
Judge (knowing I go in the surprise round due to 1 level of Foresight wizard): "roll Init"
Me: (roll) "9, yeah I rolled a 3 +6 = 9" my worst Init roll so far in that game...
Judge describes powerful visions from the Haunt and then says: "Make a will save"
Me: rolling a "Nat 1". sigh, "there is a reason I always take 10 on things... Wait, I bet this is a D$%# Haunt isn't it - I hate those things... Can I use my shirt re-roll?"
Judge: "yeah," looking down and thinking before he adds, "maybe you should"
Me: Another "Nat 1". My dice are BIG, everyone at the table can see the two Natural 1s face up in front of me.
Judge: "wow... "
Me: Shrug - "Yeah, it's my karma - I never roll better with re-rolls - It's a haunt isn't it? you know I have holy water in a spring wrist sheath just for these stupid things...."
2nd player handing me another BIG die (his): "here, try with this one, just to see..."
Me: "oh, I can do it with this one too." roll another Nat 1. "See?"
Everyone can see the three d20s in front of me all reading "1"
I pick up my "special dice" and roll it too, while everyone hold thier breath and watches it roll to... Yeah, "Natural 1" for the fourth time in a row. All four dice in a little cluster on the middle of the table top in front of me.
Judge gets up from the table to walk around the shop a second and then asks "are you some type of warlock or something?"
Me: "Nah, my dice just hate me..."Really - there is a reason I try to always take 10. It's 10 times as much as a "1"....
Yer no Warlock. Yer a Wizard 'Arry!
In all seriousness, do you know the astronomical odds of doing this on 4 different dice one after the other? I'd probably ask you something similar...
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I'll have to admit that the GM angst against re-rolls is puzzling to me. I don't get it. How are you, as a GM, inconvenienced by the player avoiding death?Yeah, this one baffles me. I like the reroll rule. I don't know why they'd change it. I'm not big on killing players (though I've caught some bodies) and don't feel bad if a well timed reroll saves someone from dying, or from being panicked for 15 rounds for the BBEG fight.
Oh, I get it just fine. Basically, good GMs realize it is their job to provide a heroic experience for their players and in order to do that you need to give them heroic challenges. Based on experience, most GMs have some set bar in their head of what level of challenge/deadliness is needed to give the optimum heroic experience. And if a GM fails to meet that bar when GMing then he/she may perceive that as failing to do a good job.
This is completely understandable. But it gets a lot more complicated in PFS. In a home game, players and GMs frequently know each other and have an idea of the GM's expected difficulty level and if a player doesn't like the difficultly level the GM has set in his head, then the player can simply not participate in the home game. So the GM isn't really required to do much mental adjustment and can modify difficulty by modifying encounters if they think they aren't challenging enough. They assume the players are player under them as GMs because they enjoy that GM's particular difficulty level. This is not the case in PFS where GMs cannot modify encounters and where everyone at the table doesn't necessarily know each other or the GM's difficulty level. In PFS, thing get much trickier for GMs, especially if they are used to running home games, because they have to change the way they think about that difficulty bar, and that can be a difficult thing to do. This is especially true of self realizing that just because you didn't meet the expected difficulty bar in your head, it doesn't mean you didn't give the players the challenge they wanted.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
In this specific scenario, after you roll the will save and before the result of the save (fail or succeed) is determined, I would ask if you are happy with your roll. If I see hesitation, I will ask again.
I was specifically meaning that after you told me I failed my Will save against an illusion and then told me to make a Fort save, I would know what the result of failing that Fort save was likely going to be and have a good idea of whether or not I wanted to reroll the Fort save without you even asking.
|
|
Yes, I get players to use their rerolls. Sometimes they are necessary sometimes they are not. But isn't the whole purpose of the shirts and folios using them. More often then not they are just used on day jobs.Isn't one of the main rules of PFS that the GM can make changes/improvise things, as long as it doesn't force the players to expend resources?
^that is stated no where. However, the guide does say this.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience.
I make my tables fun. Do I find it enjoyable if someone rerolls an already succeeded save and now they fail, yes. Does that make me a horrible GM, no. Players enjoy me as a GM. I do my upmost best to make sure players have a good time. I try to make scenarios I don't particularly like, the best ones ever written.
I, as a GM, take a different approach to low tier scenarios (softball)than I do high tier scenarios (Big Leagues). Why, because characters can afforded to be raised. Does this make me a bad GM, no. It me being realistic.
|
|
I don't see anything particularly problematic with trying to goad players into consuming their rerolls, even when you know their original roll succeeded. But goading them into using the reroll on inconsequential stuff seems a little dirty to me. If they do that on their own that's a different story, I guess.This is my opinion. It's fine to ask about rerolls for everything, or for instances where it might 'matter' (defined as some gain, although not necessarily crucial gain) and is close one way or another. It's another thing to pick and choose to ask about rerolls mostly for rolls you know will have no benefit/penalty either way.
Chris Mortika is rather good at handling this, in my opinion. Then again, he's also good at making useless (or perhaps, more correctly, spurious) rolls be worth something anyhow (or seem to be).
In the end, it comes down to a single principle: this is a cooperative game, not a competitive one... and that applies to GM/Player interactions as much as Player/Player interactions. If your goal as a GM is to kill and screw over your PCs, you shouldn't be GMing. On the other hand, if your goal as GM is to challenge your PCs, make them think and work hard, scare them and build tension, and then ultimately have them succeed in a much more rewarding manner than they would have had everything just been easy peasy... then you are a GM I'd love to play with and get to know better.
I too have played under Chris Mortika and even till this day, his table of Haunting of Hinojai that I played 2 1/2 years ago was the best PFS experience I ever played or GMd. I try to make all of my tables that amazing. Every single of us was sitting in the edge of our chairs in suspense they entire time. Why, because we're in a haunted house and he's a great story teller. A lot of scenarios do not have to type of suspense. So I at least try to incorporate it in rerolls.
Cooperation, is the sole reason I play roleplaying games. I am not a fan of competitive games. So I do everything I possibly can to make the scenarios I run not be GM vs players. I know I do not like that as a player.
|
|
I was specifically meaning that after you told me I failed my Will save against an illusion and then told me to make a Fort save, I would know what the result of failing that Fort save was likely going to be and have a good idea of whether or not I wanted to reroll the Fort save without you even asking.In this specific scenario, after you roll the will save and before the result of the save (fail or succeed) is determined, I would ask if you are happy with your roll. If I see hesitation, I will ask again.
This kind of metagaming comes close to eliminating the 'before' in 'before the result is known' for me, but as I do a lot of PbP I ask for when you might use a reroll (10-15 on fort saves, any traps allowing a reflex, confirm a critical with my x4 scythe) and the like.
I mostly use my rerolls for day job checks (but then my first character is a jeweler first, dwarf second, & a pathfinder third.) The next highest portion of rerolls go to new players--sometimes for their dayjob check. I did use it a couple of weeks ago, on a save that kept my wizard in the fight longer. But as the only 5th level at the table, they (mostly new players) needed me to stay in the fight. I do mean in the fight, taking blows and AoOs, not just up and kicking (a wizard's favorite role :).
|
|
I was specifically meaning that after you told me I failed my Will save against an illusion and then told me to make a Fort save, I would know what the result of failing that Fort save was likely going to be and have a good idea of whether or not I wanted to reroll the Fort save without you even asking.In this specific scenario, after you roll the will save and before the result of the save (fail or succeed) is determined, I would ask if you are happy with your roll. If I see hesitation, I will ask again.
After, the result of the first save is revealed and there is a request of course you know what to expect if the result is failed. Players will still give hesitation on whether they want to use the rolls if the save is close (low 20s). Typically, if something is casting the save-or-suck or save-or-die spells they have more then one. So if the save is close they still might want to save it.
This kinda situation happened to me just the other day. I dropped a 5 (for a 15) on a will save. My character made the spellcraft check to determine baleful polymorph had just been cast. Of course I used my reroll. My GM didn't need to ask. Of course the 15 failed and when I rerolled it was a 30. So this is pretty darn similar to the scenario the OP posted. I had a 10 will save I would not have elected to roll the way he suggested, I would have just banked on the +10 that the character had and failed and would have been turned into a rabbit.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@OP: I notice that when a fighter rerolled into a successful save, you describe it as he "shrugged off" your big impressive spell. What would you have called it if he'd made the save the first time around? If you'd still call it "shrugged off" (or some other expression that implies the same level of triviality), then your issue is not with rerolls; it's with the nature of save-or-lose effects.
If instead you reserve labels of triviality only for when the reroll makes it and not when the original roll makes it, then what's the difference? Why would a successful save carry a different experiential meaning based on whether it's a reroll or an original roll?
|
|
As to the people pointing out that the reroll mechanic is only applicable before the determination:
Were the rerolls handled incorrectly in the example? Apparently so.
Is this mostly due to the nature of PbP? Definitely.
In PbP, you have to keep your scenario moving otherwise it can take months. Posting "Roll a Will Save", then waiting for "Roll=15", then waiting for "Failure - Roll a Fort Save", then waiting for "Roll = 21", then waiting for "Success", then waiting for "This is my character actions." Can take ages and is immensely boring for everyone else. Almost as tedious as reading that sentence. When people post once a day average, then that would take nearly a week to resolve a single spell.
As to the people who aren't thrilled with character death or don't want the chance of death by a single roll, then I ask if you have ever made a Witch with Slumber or a Caster with SoD spells or a Fighter with Improved Critical and a Falchion. All of these characters can end lives in a single roll. If the enemies can't do the same, then what's the point in playing a game where you pubstomp the enemies and get the "Thingy" (TM). Without death, the game becomes boring. There are no epic saves where the rogue got creamed and needs to make his stabilization check and barely makes it to avoid death. Or the fighter has 2 HP left and the dragon is about to eat him and he crits his attack killing the beast. If the monsters can't kill you, then what's the point?
|
|
@OP: I notice that when a fighter rerolled into a successful save, you describe it as he "shrugged off" your big impressive spell. What would you have called it if he'd made the save the first time around? If you'd still call it "shrugged off" (or some other expression that implies the same level of triviality), then your issue is not with rerolls; it's with the nature of save-or-lose effects.
If instead you reserve labels of triviality only for when the reroll makes it and not when the original roll makes it, then what's the difference? Why would a successful save carry a different experiential meaning based on whether it's a reroll or an original roll?
I think shrugged off would be applied in both situations. I mean there is a teamwork feat named "Shake It Off" and it is for saves. Making your save against a spell is even referenced as "shaking it off" in the game. "Shrugging it off" seems pretty close. Also, shrugging something off means that you don't let it effect you as much or at all as it could. Death versus 3d6 damage seems like a shrug it off moment.
Either way, the issue with the reroll isn't about the volatile nature of SoD spells (thus making it trivial if you save), but on how the reroll slants the volatility in favor of the player heavily, especially with GM stars. If SoDs or SoSs were more common, this might not be a bad thing, but since they are once a scenario at most anyway, then it really makes those spells useless.
|
|
I was specifically meaning that after you told me I failed my Will save against an illusion and then told me to make a Fort save, I would know what the result of failing that Fort save was likely going to be and have a good idea of whether or not I wanted to reroll the Fort save without you even asking.In this specific scenario, after you roll the will save and before the result of the save (fail or succeed) is determined, I would ask if you are happy with your roll. If I see hesitation, I will ask again.
As the target of the specific casting of Phantasmal Killer in question, let me break down for you how this exchange went.
Seth: I *do something*
Kristen: Give me a Will save.
Seth: *rolls* 21 if it was for a spell.
Kristen: It was. Are you satisfied with that roll?
Seth: I guess.
Kristen: Make me a Fort save.
Table: OH SHI...
Seth: *rolls* 22 since its a spell. Dont tell me if I made it or not yet, I might want to reroll.
*Seth is unsure for about 5 minutes while people laugh at me trying not to die*
Kristen: So do you want to reroll?
Seth: No? *physically shying away from her and wincing at my coming death*
Kristen: Ok, you made it.
Table: *laughter*
Disregarding the fact that she is my wife, she is one of the best GMs I have ever sat under. She does not go out of her way to kill PCs. She just wants to make you work for your victory, which is something all GMs should do.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the people who aren't thrilled with character death or don't want the chance of death by a single roll, then I ask if you have ever made a Witch with Slumber or a Caster with SoD spells or a Fighter with Improved Critical and a Falchion. All of these characters can end lives in a single roll.
1) Well, all of them except the fighter, whose "save or die" impersonation actually requires two rolls, the first of which only has a 1-in-4 success rate no matter how well you build your character; and even when it works you're at the level where it's not an instant death except against mooks. But I guess that's beside the point. ;)
2) When a PC uses a SoD, the GM doesn't have to go home/twiddle his thumbs for the rest of the night. It's okay to dislike a gameplay experience that's produced by something which doesn't produce the same issue when it's pointed the other direction. This is not the hypocrisy you're painting it as to try to shame people into not complaining.
If the enemies can't do the same, then what's the point in playing a game where you pubstomp the enemies and get the "Thingy" (TM).
Socializing? Telling a fun story? Feeling powerful? Having an experience against which That One Time I Almost Died can be contrasted and thereby carry more dramatic weight?
Without death, the game becomes boring.
To you. But you're not the Fun Police. My wife gets stressed if it looks like someone might die. She has more fun when everybody's okay. You don't get to decide that means she likes boring games.
And besides that, for many people (such as myself), the game gets even more boring if death is a constant threat. For (I'd wager) very many people, getting creamed by Krune is a lot less awesome if you're killed or nearly killed on a regular basis. The exciting moments for many of us are when a deadly situation STANDS OUT because it was so much closer than usual.
There are no epic saves where the rogue got creamed and needs to make his stabilization check and barely makes it to avoid death.
Waitwaitwait, a second ago you said "without death, the game becomes boring", then you describe an instance of how exciting not-death can be? Are you actually choosing to say these things or was this a speech in a can?
Or the fighter has 2 HP left and the dragon is about to eat him and he crits his attack killing the beast.
There you go again with the not-what-you-said examples.
If the monsters can't kill you, then what's the point?
See above.
|
|
I just wanted to jump back in to correct what may have been some hasty assumptions from a few posters:
I am not the type of GM who enjoys killing characters. This is not a plea to let me kill more characters. I wouldn't say I have "GM angst" over the issue or over my players having a slight advantage in avoiding death via the reroll.
Maybe this was just my general dislike for 'reroll mechanics' coming to the surface. Maybe my proposal wouldn't change anything or make any sort of improvement; honestly, my preference would be to get rid of rerolls entirely but I didn't think that was even remotely plausible.
I guess I just prefer to leave the dice where they fall. I thought that rolling two at once might be an improvement because with the system as it is instituted now most people use their reroll when they roll lower than a 5. Despite people's anecdotes to the contrary (there is probably some confirmation bias and selective memory going on here), there is a greater chance that you will roll better on that reroll (especially when GM stars are factored in).
However, when rolling two dice at once you have the distinct disadvantage of potentially wasting that ability when it is not needed. Both dice could come up 17 and you're fine. Both dice could come up 2 and you're not fine. You might say but the chances of you being fine after using the reroll ability are increased compared to how rerolls work now. But I think you're failing to consider that the player has to decide to use the ability before they roll anything, which changes things a lot.
I guess I just have less of a problem with that system than the current system but that's just my opinion. It actually gives the players a greater chance of success but doesn't allow them (necessarily) to get rid of that natural 1 exactly when they want to. I enjoy chance and luck in the game (that's why we use dice, after all). Whether that is a better system or not is up for debate and honestly I'm not wedded to my proposal so I'm enjoying the back-and-forth.
|
|
As to the people who aren't thrilled with character death or don't want the chance of death by a single roll, then I ask if you have ever made a Witch with Slumber or a Caster with SoD spells or a Fighter with Improved Critical and a Falchion. All of these characters can end lives in a single roll.
I don't play characters like that, for exactly the reasons that you give. I built one once and found out just how un-fun it was. The experience taught me that characters who can one-shot encounters are much more fun in theory than in reality.
If the enemies can't do the same, then what's the point in playing a game where you pubstomp the enemies and get the "Thingy" (TM). Without death, the game becomes boring. There are no epic saves where the rogue got creamed and needs to make his stabilization check and barely makes it to avoid death. Or the fighter has 2 HP left and the dragon is about to eat him and he crits his attack killing the beast. If the monsters can't kill you, then what's the point?
People have fun in different ways. For some of us, we only want a low threat of death in our games. It lets us focus more on being the hero and looking awesome. I'm not saying that it's all fluffy bunny land where even the NPC's understand that it's impossible for anyone to die. There's still the chance of death. In fact, rerolls help to maintain the illusion of greater threat. If Joe the Fighter almost dies to a fireball, but rerolls and makes his reflex save after all, it's a thrill inducing scare. Joe didn't die, but everyone around the table understands that he almost did. For some of us, that's enough of a thrill.
I once played in an AP (Carrion Crown) where we had a particularly rough session. Every single fight our party went into in that session carried a significant chance of death. It was one hair-raising, skin of the teeth battle after another. Another player would have thought it was glorious. I thought it was awful. I almost quit the group just from that single session. Those 5 hours weren't fun for me- they were incredibly stressful. Sessions like that are most definitely not how I choose to spend my leisure time.
EDIT: I'm not trying to say that the above example is what you (or the OP, or even the ever-thrilling Kyle Baird) are trying to turn the game into. It was intended to be an example what is and isn't fun for me. I say this more for Michael Brock's sake than yours, as it is my hope that Mr. Brock will consider my play experiences to be as equally valid as yours. :)
|
In all seriousness, do you know the astronomical odds of doing this on 4 different dice one after the other? I'd probably ask you something similar...
<StatTeacher>
Not astronomical at all. (1/20) x (1/20) x (1/20) x (1/20) = 1/40000.Also, important point: once the three nat 1's were on the table, when the fourth die was rolled, the chance of rolling another was simply 1/20. Completed events do not affect future events. :-)
</StatTeacher>
I'm willing to bet nosig has rolled 40000 times in his career. It was bound to happen.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of metagaming comes close to eliminating the 'before' in 'before the result is known' for me,
Agreed, but then again, the entire Reroll thing is a Metagame Mechanic. Whether or not you choose to make the reroll is entirely based on Metagmae knowledge since your character has no idea what roll he 'potentially' made. Besides, it's kind of hard to unremember how Phantasmal Killer works.
|
|
.. it's not an instant death except against mooks. But I guess that's beside the point. ;)
I have seen many creatures die to the 2H Fighter or Paladin dropping a crit on the BBEG on the first round.
2) When a PC uses a SoD, the GM doesn't have to go home/twiddle his thumbs for the rest of the night. It's okay to dislike a gameplay experience that's produced by something which doesn't produce the same issue when it's pointed the other direction. This is not the hypocrisy you're painting it as to try to shame people into not complaining.
It's fine to dislike death, but death is a part of the game. Under your logic, GMs should try to refrain from killing people because then they won't have players leaving to go "twiddle their thumbs" or watching other players play. Also, it's not hypocrisy that I am trying to portray it as and I'm not trying to shame people into anything.
Socializing? Telling a fun story? Feeling powerful? Having an experience against which That One Time I Almost Died can be contrasted and thereby carry more dramatic weight? ...
To you. But you're not the Fun Police. My wife gets stressed if it looks like someone might die. She has more fun when everybody's okay. You don't get to decide that means she likes boring games. And besides that, for many people (such as myself), the game gets even more boring if death is a constant threat. For (I'd wager) very many people, getting creamed by Krune is a lot less awesome if you're killed or nearly killed on a regular basis. The exciting moments for many of us are when a deadly situation STANDS OUT because it was so much closer than usual.
You are extrapolating an awful lot here. Removing a single session reroll so the occassional SoD isn't preempted, doesn't mean that "death is constant threat". It just means that when it does come up, it isn't "Ok, now I get to roll two dice to make sure I'm ok." instead of what the spell was designed for.
Waitwaitwait, a second ago you said "without death, the game becomes boring", then you describe an instance of how exciting not-death can be? Are you actually choosing to say these things or was this a speech in a can?
Again, you are being a bit personal here. First, I am misrepresenting hypocrisy. Second, I am trying to shame people and now I am not able to write arguments without them being canned. Fantastic.
The point of those examples was to show that if everyone is hunky dory all the time, then the threat of death or actual death loses its value and any epic save is just meh because you weren't in any real danger. If it is too rare, then the game is just sitting around being Superman. I personally don't find that fun, but I am finding that everyone else seems to like this. If it is too common, then you are playing Rappan Atthuk or Age of Worms. Weird thing is. I know a lot of people who love those APs despite the constant threat of death.
|
|
This kind of metagaming comes close to eliminating the 'before' in 'before the result is known' for me,Agreed, but then again, the entire Reroll thing is a Metagame Mechanic. Whether or not you choose to make the reroll is entirely based on Metagmae knowledge since your character has no idea what roll he 'potentially' made. Besides, it's kind of hard to unremember how Phantasmal Killer works.
Fair point on both. :)
Personally I say something to the effect of 'I will likely use my reroll on this Fort save' before I roll it.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will not ask to remove the reroll rule, but alter it to make it less game-changing.
At this point, I have GM'd every single PFS scenario out there including quite a few modules. I also have GM experience with several APs. That amounts to GM credit for just shy of 200 games at this point.
And in that time I can not begin to count how often a reroll has completely changed the course of a game. In my opinion, it is game-breaking. In my (campaign-mode/homebrewed) APs I do not allow rerolls unless they are gained through a feat or class feature and save-or-die/suck spells are tense moments at the table. In PFS I hesitate to even use such spells because almost every single time that the player fails the save they pull out their reroll, save their character, and move on. Save-or-die/suck spells go from being tense moments to *shrugs* from my players.
Examples? Here are two in a row from a game I'm currently running:
fighter shrugs off phantasmal killer
one round later the alchemist follows suit How differently that fight would have been if they hadn't been able to reroll those failed saves. And as a GM I have nothing at my disposal to help my poor save-or-die/suck caster.
----
Now I know that rerolls bring in some money for Paizo by selling shirts and portfolios. I've been around enough to know that quite a few (the majority?) of people buy those things simply for the PFS reroll. So I'm not proposing getting rid of the rule entirely but simply altering it:
Rather than using your shirt or portfolio to gain an immediate reroll, I think the effect on the system would be far less conspicuous if instead those items gave you the ability to roll two dice and take the better.
The advantage of this system is that the player doesn't have the chance to say, Oh crap, I...
So far I've only read this post in this thread. So this may be stated by someone else later.
Also, I am not familiar with the general etiquette in play by post games, so keep that in mind.
Why are you telling them what DC to make? Just tell them to make a Fort Save. Don't tell them what the DC is.
You aren't supposed to know the result of the save prior to using your reroll. But if you tell them the DC they need to make prior to them rolling, they will always know (and either technically can't use their reroll, or you are putting yourself in the position you dislike).
|
|
The issue here is that you are deliberately trying to trick the players into wasting their precious reroll. I really don't know any players that enjoy being punked by the GM.I'm imagining a player who dies/fails due to a low roll, and then finds out that the thing they used up their reroll on earlier in the scenario was something you "made up" (your words). I'm trying to envision a situation where this happens and your actions as GM aren't reprimand-worthy, but I'm coming up blank. Perhaps some clarification from you would help?I too, try to weasel my players out of there rerolls. There have been times I have gotten players to use them on made up skill just that it absolutely makes no difference whether they save or fail. I just constantly remind my players "are you happy with that roll." I try my very best to get my players to reroll checks they make.
My players know I do this so when it comes to a serious roll, there's a very good chance they have already spent their reroll on something else.
OP, just keep in mind, the reroll has to be used before the first result is determined. Most GMs don't care when it's used, but that is one way to get players to cash them in.
Absolutely, my wording was poor there and I meant nothing malicious by it.
Example: when a player goes off book and I have to make a NPC up on the fly and the want to talk to them. The information I would give them wouldn't be anything they didn't already know, but just worded differently. If they get at 10 on a diplo check I would ask them if they are happy with that roll. Sometimes people reroll, sometimes they don't.
Another thing is I try to bring up some of the faction missions (items), just for flavor. I have never had someone use a reroll on this, but I could see it happening. I don't include faction missions unless I think it adds to the story.
I'm not a big fan of asking them if they want to re-roll for any other reason than if I know they've failed. Especially with low level characters and/or newby players. The higher the level being played and the more experienced the players, the more likely I am to not ask at all.
I feel its unethical to ask them if they want to reroll if I know they've made the save. Kinda a jerk move, if you will.
I know those who do this are well-meaning. I personally don't like it, and would be rather upset if I found out at a convention that this happened to me and something bad happened to my character later on because I "wasted" my re-roll.
|
|
Yes, I get players to use their rerolls. Sometimes they are necessary sometimes they are not. But isn't the whole purpose of the shirts and folios using them. More often then not they are just used on day jobs.Isn't one of the main rules of PFS that the GM can make changes/improvise things, as long as it doesn't force the players to expend resources?
Not really.
If players go "off the rails" and you have to improvise (or they decide to do things like attack the town guards and there's nothing in the scenario about the guards) you can certainly make up things that cost them resources.
|
I'm happy about my reroll..the last time I saw the party Magus go near a shabbling thingie and froze in place. I walked in, same thing happened to me (will save), I rolled a 4, asked for reroll, 16 on dice. Else that would possibly been our entire frontline down, and probably lots of cdgs after.
As it is, I made my save, raged, powerattacked, and turned said mummy into ittle bitty bits.
|
As one of Jason's Hard Mode players, I'll throw in my two cents here.
Player: The reroll is an interesting resource. When to use it comes down to being a tough decision of is this roll critical, do I have a chance of making it if I reroll and would it be better to save it for later. That being said, I find I most often use it for my day job check.
GM: I pretty much ignore their existence. I do give time for them to be announced, but otherwise leave it up to the players as to when or if they want to use them. That being said, unfortunately, I tend to see rerolls amount to still a failed roll.
Overall: I find that at a tense moment rerolls can add a nice edge to the atmosphere. When a roll is critical and everyone is sure it was a bad roll, the reroll becomes a very intense moment.
I don't think there is to much off balancing about them due to it still being a matter of luck, the fact that you have to choose when to use it (based on the criteria the rules give us) and the fact that there are many other ways that the mechanics themselves can introduce rerolling.
|
|
I will not ask to remove the reroll rule, but alter it to make it less game-changing.
Most of this comes down to the rules for PFS not fully working in a PbP environment. Things that would allow for rerolls to work 'properly' in PbP make the game go too slow. The proposed solution doesn't work because it requires committing the reroll in advance, which seriously robs it of its life-saving potential.
It's one die roll in a game, the ability to slightly round out the randomness inherrant in dice rolls. Not worth changing IMO.
|
I have never seen a reroll drastically alter the course of a scenario. Most of the time, the outcome of a scenario is not dependent on a single roll, and the reroll just serves to save the players a little bit of grief. In this way, I support them, because every time the players are happy the scenario tends to turn out better overall.
Where I can see them altering the course of a scenario is in a hard scenario with an optimized party. There, individual rolls can alter the fate of the party, and so I can see potential for the scenario to be shut down by a reroll. However, I do not believe that this is all that common, and have only ever seen it happen once in my area, and so I do not think it is worth the trouble to try and fix.
|
|
I have never seen a reroll drastically alter the course of a scenario. Most of the time, the outcome of a scenario is not dependent on a single roll, and the reroll just serves to save the players a little bit of grief. In this way, I support them, because every time the players are happy the scenario tends to turn out better overall.
I have not died once because of a reroll. I have not ran in fear or been out for an entire encounter a few times as well.
Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Asheville
|
I have not died once because of a reroll. I have not ran in fear or been out for an entire encounter a few times as well.
Agreed. My hard-to-hit paladin dodged a Color Spray last night thanks to a reroll.
Of course, my fighter panicked and nearly lost an adamantine weapon, even with a reroll.
