Legal to offer Character Advice?

[Nevarre]

I'm sure others have had the situation at PFS table:
You're just getting started and players are deciding which characters to bring. Inevitably there are discussions about APL and class makeups.

I recently ran a scenario which definitely benefited from having a certain type of character (click Spoiler for the name of the scenario)

Spoiler:

Scars of the Last Crusade.
It's definitely one for diplomats and more subtle characters, as well as providing potential benefit to the Silver Crusade faction members.

During the initial 'which character should I bring?' discussion I outright said that this is a roleplay focused scenario requiring fast tongues over fast blades.
The players considered this and some changed their choice of character
The result was that all all the PCs were engaged with the plot and it was clear that everyone enjoyed the adventure. I should add that one player said that he didn't have a character 'like that' (he had a straight fighter), but he played the game anyway and roleplayed his less that subtle approach to things brilliantly; his altercation with the name NPC was great and both of us obviously enjoying the verbal posturing involved. It's fair to say though that he knew by then that the situation would be better fought with words rather than with weapons...

In my opinion, my decision to 'warn' the players of the style of the scenario added to their enjoyment, but others might suggest that I gave them an 'unfair advantage'. My counter would be that reading the scenario introduction, which is typically part of the con sign-up (and obviously available on the relevant page on this site), would provide a similar hint to the kind of adventure ahead. I also don't consider PFS 'competitive' in any way, and make my style of GMing clear in my introduction at the begining ("...I want us all to create an exciting story together and have fun!")

My question is, strictly speaking is it legal to suggest or offer advice on the types of characters that someone should play in a game?

Or should I just have let them bring potentially wholly inappropriate PCs without any of the skills needed? To be clear, I'm not suggesting telling them to bring a certain class, items, etc.

Thoughts?

[Peter N Brown]

I could be wrong, but to my knowledge there is nothing in the guide that says you can't offer a bit of vague advice like that, especially in a low tier scenario like that.

Personally I would rather err on the side of a more enjoyable experience for the party. If the scenario allows for a non-diplomatic solution I wouldn't offer the warning though. I have not run, read or played Scars so I couldn't say if I would have given that warning or not, but from what I've heard of it your warning sounded fair to me.

[GinoA]

Your warning seems perfectly fair. In contrast, I've bit my tongue and not suggested

Spoiler:

a good aligned PC or three be brought along for Weapon in the Rift.

[Sammy T]

As GM, you are a caretaker for the player's experience. If a scenario skews heavily towards one extreme or the other (skills or combat), I think a general heads up is warranted so the party can make the appropriate adjustment (and usually during the pre-game players often volunteer what characters they can play and I can say, "I think your "x" would really like this adventure").

As most scenarios fall along the spectrum, I only give the heads up when a particular is outside the norm.

[Ascalaphus]

@OP: I think you made the right call. Some scenarios give a pretty clear hint what you'll be expected to do in the "backflip blurb", sometimes it's worth giving just a little bit more.

The scenario you ran is just a little bit vague on what's expected from the players. I've played it with a not particularly socially adept (though not horribly dumped either) tiefling alchemist, and afterwards I did understand that a different character would've just plain made more sense.

[Woran]

Player enjoyment goes above all. I have given advice before on what characters to bring, and I will do so again.
Most people I know have characters of both the talking and the physical mutilation type, and it helps everyone at the table if they bring the right one.

Like you said Nevarre, there is no competative element. What matters most to me is that everyone at the table has a good time. And sometimes you have to give a little bit more of a heads up then the scenario blurb to make sure.

Dont see a problem with that.

[FranKc]

I think it's fair to give a good hint if players are wondering about their character's suitability in said scenario.

I've actually wondered if it is ok to swap character in the middle of mission briefing? "My cavalier will be utterly useless in that dungeon, can I change for the rogue?" I have said no when asked, but I'm not sure if it actually would be allowed...

[Gwen Smith]

For the scenario in question, I ran it when it first came out at Paizo Con. Because that scenario is very different from your average scenario and depends on a new mechanic throughout, I advised the table that this new scenario was different and that there was an investigation involved. I gave the players the option to change characters or even choose to leave the table and I'd help them find a different place. (Nobody did.)

I would make the same warning about Library of the Lion, Assault on the Wound, or any other scenario that deviates drastically from normal expectations or relies primarily on a new mechanic. (By which I mean that the new mechanic comprises more than 1 scene or more than half of the scenario. So it's not "Oh, there's a chase mechanic in this one", but more like "75% of this scenario uses the chase mechanic.")

As for the more general types of hints, like "this is mostly role play" or something, I figure anything that can be inferred from the scenario blurb is clearly fair game: most players don't read the blurbs, but the information is available, and I have no problem passing it along to player. I would never give out any hints that couldn't be gleaned in the intro or briefing.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

I've usually done a similar warning/suggestion/blurb for scenarios when I run them. I figure if the players pick characters that fit the scenario better, it makes for better in game sense as to why the VCs picked those pathfinders for the mission. There's been many times I've wondered why when there's a diplomatic mission that I have a bunch of uncharismatic thugs sent along.

[pauljathome]

FranKc wrote:

I've actually wondered if it is ok to swap character in the middle of mission briefing? "My cavalier will be utterly useless in that dungeon, can I change for the rogue?" I have said no when asked, but I'm not sure if it actually would be allowed...

I've allowed this. I see no reason not to as long as it doesn't delay the game (I'm not going to let more people then renegotiate what they'll play to get the optimal balance). I'd change my mind if people abused it but I've only ever seen people want to change when it is a big deal to the player

[Iammars]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

I've usually done a similar warning/suggestion/blurb for scenarios when I run them. I figure if the players pick characters that fit the scenario better, it makes for better in game sense as to why the VCs picked those pathfinders for the mission.

This is the biggest reason why I will warn players right before a mission if its weird and they would know from the outset.

[Snorter]

If you think about it, why would the NPC Venture-Captain pick a bunch of unsuitable agents, who haven't a hope of completing the mission?

So, it can be justified, in-character.

[G'darm Youn]

Good question! Why G'Darm sent to temple in rug? Not even turkey at magic table!

[Nevarre]

Thanks for your responses everyone! :)

[grandpoobah]

Most would agree what you did was fine - it contributed to the fun of all. Others might disagree and say that you provided an unfair advantage.

Another way to go about it is to share the scenario blurb on the website (that is free for all players to read). These blurbs often provide subtle hints as to what skillsets might be critical during an adventure (outdoors skills, knowledge, face skills, stealth and subterfuge, trapfinding, or lots of brute force). Plus, no one can complain about you re-reading the blurb (it's information the players are allowed to have).

These blurbs are often included in the Warhorn.net summary for the adventure, and also (in season 5+) will tell you what factions should be extra-interested in the adventure.

Example for the adventure in question:

your adventure:

The fiery inquisitions that raged through Mendev during the Third Mendevian Crusade may have been damped but never truly extinguished. Fanatics have reignited the witch-hunts in eastern Mendev, and in doing so they have captured and accused allies of the Pathfinder Society. Unless the PCs intercede and put a stop to this mob justice, their allies' deaths will spark a new wave of internecine executions throughout the crusader nation.

Content in “Scars of the Third Crusade” also contributes directly to the ongoing storyline of the Silver Crusade faction.

It's certainly not explicit in the blurb to bring a face character, but it strongly suggests that diplomacy is going to be important.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Well at least the description from the scenario page on this website should be available to players, so giving some vague hints seems fair game.
Far better than 4 hours with a party, that is utterly unsuited to the adventure.