|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run the scenarios cold.Maps and minis are just add-ons, and not essential to play - some of my best games have been on blank battlemaps with pens and M&M minis. Running scenarios cold, though, is something to be avoided in my experience. It's often fine (or at least good enough) for hack and slash, but there is a lot of lore, NPC details, and plot that is hard to pick up on the first read-through.
I humbly suggest that some prep time reading the scenario is well worth the effort, not just for your own enjoyment but for those of your players.
I assumed he was being sarcastic :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yikes!
I was not expecting this to get out of hand, consequences of posting under your real name I guess. I would not discourage anyone from GMing, I was horrible when I started. My wife and I talked it over and we are both more than willing to GM if there is a need for more GMs in the area. We were both having a bad day that day due to things unrelated to PFS, and we both got frustrated and angry with a new GM. I knew it was uncool at the time and I had to leave to avoid behaving badly.
I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I did read the adventure yesterday and I can point out 2 major mistakes that resulted in my character death. I don't want to undermine the authority of a GM, and I don't want the character back. I do hope that it was explained to the GM exactly what was done wrong.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gregory, on these messageboards you will find that if there's a way that something can be blown out of proportion, we will find it :) The campaign leadership understands this, so don't worry about anyone getting in trouble.
Your feelings are valid. The best way to make sure that this GM doesn't make the same mistakes over again is to first talk to them after the slot is over. That's not a time that we are always at our best. At that point we are frustrated and want to be anywhere else. The next best way is to contact the organizer of the event. If you still are not satisfied, then contact the local Venture-Officers.
Bringing a negative experience to these messageboards has unintended consequences, as you have seen. You can't turn back time though. I hope you play again. If you keep at it you will meet some pretty awesome people that you'd never run into in a home group.
|
Gregory, it is great that you and your wife have decided to GM. Many players will appreciate it. But the two of you will also want to play, maybe even together. For that you need other GMs. This new guy might become a great GM in time. You have the opportunity to help that become a reality.
It is okay to point out to GMs when they are making mistakes. I've been GMing RPGs for almost 30 years and I make my quota of mistakes per game. If you see a mistake being made while playing, bring it up immediately, preferably with the rules source open and ready to show the GM. If you find the mistake later, just bring it up the next time you see that GM. If you come at it with the view of teaching, it will be appreciated.
The good news for you in this particular case is twofold:
(1) You only had 1 XP on that character before he died. That's just about the best time to lose a character. You can even build a clone of him.
(2) This particular scenario is repeatable. You can play it again for credit. If you are up for it, you can even ask the same guy to GM for you and offer to help him with the particulars. Help him prep the scenario. Show him what you do to prepare. If you have some great map drawing tips you've discovered, show those as well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading the vague-ish posts about what happened, I'm not sure of the details, but I can offer that new GM this one piece of advice that will help with one issue I did specifically see:
Never let them see you bleed.
What I mean by that is, he brought monsters back from the dead because of a mistake with calculation of hp. If you rule them dead, leave them that way. Bringing them back will undermine yourself as the GM, and shows the players unnecessarily that you made a mistake, or "let's them see you bleed." Also monsters that suddenly resurrect are irritating for players, too.
|
|
The big issue was one I couldn't have known without reading the scenario.
|
|
The big issue was one I couldn't have known without reading the scenario.
** spoiler omitted **
Yes that is a mistake. It is also common and forgivable. Many people struggle with the distinction between "more than" and "at least".
If we required mathematical literacy, the dearth of GMs would be much more severe than it already is.
Edit to add: Actually this mistake may have well saved a character's life. If your character had not been the trigger, then the next one would have. Then there would be three PCs at risk instead of two.
|
|
The reality is that only a tiny minority of GM mistakes need to be called out on the spot. Those that radically change the outcome of scenarios of PC fates.
Here are some mistakes I have called out in real time in past games:
None of those radically change the fate of PCs, but they are significant enough to discuss. They also take only 1 minute to correct.
Gregory, on these messageboards you will find that if there's a way that something can be blown out of proportion, we will find it :) The campaign leadership understands this, so don't worry about anyone getting in trouble.
Your feelings are valid. The best way to make sure that this GM doesn't make the same mistakes over again is to first talk to them after the slot is over. That's not a time that we are always at our best. At that point we are frustrated and want to be anywhere else. The next best way is to contact the organizer of the event. If you still are not satisfied, then contact the local Venture-Officers.
Bringing a negative experience to these messageboards has unintended consequences, as you have seen. You can't turn back time though. I hope you play again. If you keep at it you will meet some pretty awesome people that you'd never run into in a home group.
Casting enlarge, all the time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that, if and when the GM makes a mistake, he should chalk it up to experience, rather than "retconning" adversaries back to life. If retroactive adjustments are made, they should always be made in the player's favor (IMO). The goal is to challenge the players, not kill their characters.
The big issue was one I couldn't have known without reading the scenario.
** spoiler omitted **
Yes that is a mistake. It is also common and forgivable. Many people struggle with the distinction between "more than" and "at least".
If we required mathematical literacy, the dearth of GMs would be much more severe than it already is.
Edit to add: Actually this mistake may have well saved a character's life. If your character had not been the trigger, then the next one would have. Then there would be three PCs at risk instead of two.
Well there is an issue here, of a dm making an alteration they didn't even read about, and players calling it out because they already know the adventure. Such second-guessing chicanery of a dm is not good for a game.
If the dm made it fall early, isn't that their prerogative? Can changes never be made? Is something new or novel or the changing of a trap in a dungeon wrong in PS?
I come from a short line of mediocre dms that do not approve of players reading up and then lecturing a dm on what should be in square seven by two, or using their out of game knowledge to complain if something isn't the way it is written, in something they shouldn't have even been reading!
The deeper issue is a character died, but they shouldn't be reading the adventure and telling the dm how it is. I have seen such a player before though, getting angry at a dm because they read it until they could memorise the dialogue, and expressing annoyance when new things were added. The dm made it clear, they are running the books with their own additions, alterations, some streamlining and the like - and that the player should not be reading the adventure or telling the dm what is where at what time. Now are any changes of an adventure illegal according to PS rules? Or can players read up, know everything coming, prepare and make decisions based on cheating accordingly, and have cause to complain if anything is changed?
|
|
Scenarios are not to be changed in PFS by GM fiat. So, yeah, if a GM made a blatant error that cost the PCs resources and I knew the proper way it was to be run, I'd say something.
That being said, players are not supposed to read scenarios ahead of time, but they can also go back and check what was SUPPOSED to have happened at any time after the fact.
Also, in my case, I have run some scenarios I haven't played in. I will of course know how those are to be run.
|
|
Well there is an issue here, of a dm making an alteration they didn't even read about, and players calling it out because they already know the adventure. Such second-guessing chicanery of a dm is not good for a game.
If the dm made it fall early, isn't that their prerogative? Can changes never be made? Is something new or novel or the changing of a trap in a dungeon wrong in PS?
I come from a short line of mediocre dms that do not approve of players reading up and then lecturing a dm on what should be in square seven by two, or using their out of game knowledge to complain if something isn't the way it is written, in something they shouldn't have even been reading!
The deeper issue is a character died, but they shouldn't be reading the adventure and telling the dm how it is. I have seen such a player before though, getting angry at a dm because they read it until they could memorise the dialogue, and expressing annoyance when new things were added. The dm made it clear, they are running the books with their own additions, alterations, some streamlining and the like - and that the player should not be reading the adventure or telling the dm what is where at what time. Now are any changes of an adventure illegal according to PS rules? Or can players read up, know everything coming, prepare and make decisions based on cheating accordingly, and have cause to complain if anything is changed?
Those are some ugly accusations.
Reading a thread before accusing people is good form.
I had no idea what adventure I was playing. It was linked in this thread after I made my initial complaint. Seeing as how I had already played it for credit, I saw no reason not to read through it. I saw two benefits to doing so. First I could run this adventure for others at a later date for free. Second I could comfort myself with the knowledge that there really was a 6d6 death drop hazard. After reading through the adventure I was not comforted. I was upset all over again because not only did he ignore at least 3 people telling him that you can't cast Summon Swarm as a standard action and bring a dead enemy back to life, he totally had an illegal kill.
|
After reading through the adventure I was not comforted. I was upset all over again because not only did he ignore at least 3 people telling him that you can't cast Summon Swarm as a standard action and bring a dead enemy back to life, he totally had an illegal kill.
Are you saying you would be happier with the possibility of more "legal" PC deaths than you are with one "illegal" PC death? If that's what you're saying, I agree with you. Running as written includes not changing things to help the players (mitigating circumstances like newbies aside). As a player, I would rather my group succeed or fail on our own merits than have it handed to us. Except for puzzles. F— puzzles. :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through the adventure I was not comforted. I was upset all over again because not only did he ignore at least 3 people telling him that you can't cast Summon Swarm as a standard action and bring a dead enemy back to life, he totally had an illegal kill.Are you saying you would be happier with the possibility of more "legal" PC deaths than you are with one "illegal" PC death? If that's what you're saying, I agree with you. Running as written includes not changing things to help the players (mitigating circumstances like newbies aside). As a player, I would rather my group succeed or fail on our own merits than have it handed to us. Except for puzzles. F— puzzles. :P
This.
I have had lots of fun in games where characters died horrible deaths. I have had a blast in TPKs. I can only enjoy games that run according to the rules of the game though.
|
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.
Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and environmental conditions when those effects have been written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have not been added to the encounters. GMs are always encouraged to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the reactions of NPCs or the outcome of in-game encounters.
GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered mechanics that may not be altered.
So, yeah, the event that occurs has a very specific set of DCs for noticing, setting it off, and avoiding the effects. There is a sidebar that a GM can use to allow an attempt to mitigate the damage, but that is the only flexibility for that.
The notice part should be an automatic check, for the Perception DC, as it should be noticeable as an issue with the floor.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Spell-like abilities still use the casting time of the spell. You can't use the rules for spell-like abilities in the Bestiary...
Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity.
...while simultaneously ignoring that the Core Rules do indeed note otherwise:
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I played Bonekeep 3 and even there the GM made a slight error regarding the limits of an NPCs class ability (something was an immediate action rather than a free action), I didn't call him out on it, since everybody can make mistakes and the NPC might have some obscure ability.
But the fact, that a GM who could run Bonekeep, made a mistake should illustrate that mistakes happen to everybody.
And to keep things positive a quote from some obscure document:
First and foremost, Pathfinder is about roleplaying and not dice
rolls. It’s about playing a character and interacting with other
players and the world. As a GM, really get into the game and
engage your players to get the most out of the experience.
Don’t be afraid to push yourself and make mistakes; your
players will appreciate your efforts to make the world come
alive. Most of all, have fun.
|
|
A GM being qualified to run Bonekeep doesn't really mean much to me. A high star GM could just have easily made the same mistake 100 times rather than actually learning anything. Some GMs just are more concerned about running the games accurately than others. That's just the bottom line.
And mistakes that cost players 16 PP are not appreciated. Despite the claims of GM 101.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM being qualified to run Bonekeep doesn't really mean much to me. A high star GM could just have easily made the same mistake 100 times rather than actually learning anything. Some GMs just are more concerned about running the games accurately than others. That's just the bottom line.
And mistakes that cost players 16 PP are not appreciated. Despite the claims of GM 101.
In my experience higher star GMS are more difficult to deal with for mistakes. They confuse experience with infalliabilty.
I like to quote my father, "The smarter I get the more stupid I realize I am."
I am very quick to point out rule issues, because the the times I have not have cost the party greatly.