If a bad guy somehow has a way of knowing the PCs casted see invisibility (did he spellcraft a PC casting it?), then he's not going to blindly spend a round casting invisibility to defend against that PC.
It was just an example. The main point was that if the PC's knowingly have a way to negate(maybe not 100%) whatever tactic is in the book then the bad guy should not use it if he somehow knows it won't(very high chance) work.
If a bad guy somehow has a way of knowing the PCs casted see invisibility (did he spellcraft a PC casting it?), then he's not going to blindly spend a round casting invisibility to defend against that PC.
There are various ways. Scrying, raise dead, outright asking the PCs before they know he's the bad guy...
Right - the point is, the GM isn't powerless to not run as written when things start not making sense.
There's some leeway, and the GM's focus should (in a nutshell) be on creating a balance between keeping within the rules and running a good game. Things like the rule of cool still stand.
Just to make sure we are not talking past each other how far into the rule of cool do you think a GM is allowed to go in PFS?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will check the thread. I don't want to add any houserules to PFS because I think its not fair and not what PFS is for. However, if the bad guy knows that the PC's will invalidate his written tactic such them all being able to see invisible creatures then it would make no sense to cast invisibility. Things like that are the types of things that have stopped me from GM'ing a PFS game. Thanks for the link.The PFS forums seem to disagree at least the last time I asked about it. How long have these new changes been in?You're right - it's a very common misconception.
I only know of this because I asked about it in this thread and I've been following the rules for running as written closely when I used to enforce them heavily and then realised many of the guys running PFS advocate "follow the rules, but keep it fun", vs the common mentality of "100% run as written or else you're doing it wrong".
I'd have to look up when the chapters changed that section. I think it was in between seasons 3 and 4.
Well you really can’t use any house rules*, can’t add/subtract/modify opponents, and change rewards in PFS.
But one of the biggest beefs I’ve heard from people is running the tactics as written unless the PC’s actions invalidate them.
As an example: Not too long after I started playing PFS, there was a scenario that said the bad guys would use an area of effect spell on the doorway as soon as he hears or sees the PC’s.
Except what happened is the PC’s were all invisible and under a silence spell. So the first he saw/heard them was when they had surrounded him and were beating the crap out of him.
The GM said well it doesn’t make sense, but the AoE spell on the doorway is still possible therefore it is valid. So he had the caster send an AoE on the doorway. It didn’t touch a single PC. "I have to run the tactics as given."
There have been a few less extreme, but similar examples of the opposition doing something really stupid because it was written and still possible.
The problem is, that is not what ‘invalidate’ means. If a tactic is weak or not optimal, that fits within the definition of invalidate. many people do not seem to know that. So while it was certainly possible to center the spell on the door, it was a very weak tactic. Thus invalidated and the GM would have been right to have the caster do something smarter.
* Note: No house rules are allowed. But if you don’t know what the particular rule actually means (and no one you trust to ask) then take your best guess. But if I’m really not sure, I almost always side with the player. Then I go online and ask in the rules forum for the next time it comes up.
For the "web" scenario I would have tried to stay within the spirit of the intentions and webbed the PC's if I had anchor points. Otherwise try to use battlefield control if the caster had it to herd them into a corner and then web them. :)
...
In your example, the PCs actions made the written tactics pointless and thus invalid. ...
Yes, that was my point.
I have heard many people argue if the tactic is possible, it is valid, thus the PC's did not invalidate the tactic and it must be run as written.They are misunderstanding the meaning of the word invalidate. Invalidate does NOT equal made impossible. But many people seem to think it does.
...
On the flip side, some people have argued that any tactic they perceive as weak is invalid, even if the PCs behave as expected. Essentially throwing out the tactics section and replacing it with whatever they think is optimal.The intent, I assume, is somewhere in between. Start with the written tactics, even if you think there's a better approach, as long as they're not made ineffective by the PCs actions or the course of the fight. Think of them as the NPC's plan. Plans never survive contact with the enemy, but they're still the starting point.
Correct. I don't have the exact working in front of me. But it is something close to:
If the PC's actions invalidate the written tactics...If you as GM think they are weak tactics no matter what the PC's do, tough beanies. Maybe the creature is insane, overconfident, just plain stupid, whatever...
If what the PC's do makes them even more weak than assumed (if the PC's actions invalidate the tactics), then you can work out something else that fits the personality/spirit/intent of what is written.
Agreed.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm just saying that GMs break the intent in both directions: Using tactics if possible, even if the PC have done something to make them useless and not using the tactics even in the default situation, because the GM has thought of something better.
As wraithstrike suggested, I'd not treat it as a binary either: try to follow the spirit of the tactics, rather hoping the tactics get invalidated and going to Killer GM level as soon as you can justify it.
I agree with you on this, however my problem in Society Play comes from GMs who feel like their duty is to be your opponent, not your storyteller/fair rules judge.
There aren't many of them out there, but they do exist - I've had an organized play judge (in LG) sit down with "kill stickers" on his GM screen and the very first thing he did was point them out with both pride in himself and contempt for the players. That was my first time experiencing that kind of GM, and he continually twisted rules to give all the NPCs an advantage. We ended up with 3 of 6 dead. The second time I encountered a GM like that the very first thing I did was get up and walk away from the table. I work in IT - I get enough a-holes at work - I don't need them at the Pathfinder table.
I have zero qualms getting up and walking away from a table when the GM is clearly being a jerk and/or fudging things at this point in time. That being said, that's only happened once in Pathfinder Society and it was in the middle of the 2nd combat and 2 other people at the table were in complete agreement with me and left with me. The GM threatened to report the entire party down as dead and I told him he could do whatever he wanted, the Chronicle Sheet is always the higher authority and we all refused to take one from him. He never even reported the adventure.
The majority of the PFS GMs I've had are fun. The worst you're going to get is mixed interpretations on specific rules that are contentious anyway. If your character uses those rules a lot, clear things up with the GM beforehand.
|
|
I agree with you on this, however my problem in Society Play comes from GMs who feel like their duty is to be your opponent, not your storyteller/fair rules judge.To be fair this is not something that happens as a result of Society Play. I knew a homebrew GM that ran a games store in Pompton Lakes, NJ. He took such a delight at killing off characters that his players had already gotten to the point of mimeographing (this was the early 80's) consecutive clones of their characters (he also had the rule that the character's equipment was based on the figures they used) and I could count on seeing one or two die per session. Needless to say, I soon left that den of sado-masochism.
I completely agree, I was just pointing out in Society play you usually end up getting a bunch of different GMs, so you have a higher chance of getting a d-bag one at some point in time (statistically speaking)
I have not played in PFS, but I fid play in 13 sessions of a 4e D&D Encounters season. I was the only person who was at every session, and only a few players showed up for maybe half of them. What i did not like about organized play was:
1) the GM is on a schedule and needs to complete certain parts of the story before running out of time. This can relegate things like exploration and role-playing to low priority parts of the game.
2) with different players every week, I don't get one of my favorite parts of gaming, which is developing a reporte with the other pcs. The chemistry of a group is important and takes time to develop.
3) GM fiat is a great tool to use, as long as its not abused. I understand the purpose of society play's strict adherence to the rules, but much prefer the GM's option of ignoring or altering something that detracts from the game - on a case by case basis of course.
Just to make sure we are not talking past each other how far into the rule of cool do you think a GM is allowed to go in PFS?There's not a perfect black and white answer for this.
As a guideline, if the players are enjoying the game, the GM is probably doing it right.
I am sure that is not what Mike would go by otherwise the other post in that link would not have been questioned like he was. I am sure he runs a fun game, but it was not a PFS legal game.
I understand there is no black and white answer, but an example such as blatantly breaking a rule printed in the CRB or fudging dice to allow someone to live would be good examples to give.
Just to make sure we are not talking past each other how far into the rule of cool do you think a GM is allowed to go in PFS?There's not a perfect black and white answer for this.
As a guideline, if the players are enjoying the game, the GM is probably doing it right.
I am sure that is not what Mike would go by otherwise the other post in that link would not have been questioned like he was. I am sure he runs a fun game, but it was not a PFS legal game.
I understand there is no black and white answer, but an example such as blatantly breaking a rule printed in the CRB or fudging dice to allow someone to live would be good examples to give.
I would say those are pretty clearly not allowed. Personally I really don't like that even in a home game.
What would be acceptable examples to me are things that were simply not covered.
In a level 1 scenario the party didn't have anyone with a rope. And they pretty much needed one for the particular plan they had. So the GM let them make some craft checks to try and weave a rope from vines. There is nothing in the scenario to cover this. not even any indication that they are in the type of local that would have sturdy vines. (Contrary to the movies, they aren't everywhere.) They did take some falling damage when it broke the first time. But the Gm let them use it to bypass an encounter.
A mid level scenario. Very dangerous hungry vicious monster. Clearly expected the party to fight it. Group from inside of invisibility conjured cattle (bison?), speak with animals to tell the cattle to run, hasted the cattle so they could keep away for awhile, and slipped past while the creature was chasing it's 'meal'. Nothing in the scenario about whether something like this could work. But it didn't have high mental stats and the scenario did say it was starving. Obviously meant to keep the party from just making friends to get by, but he thought it seemed reasonable that it would chase food animals.
A low level scenario. BBEG is placed in the middle of the room and unsuspecting. He is involved with something so it is expected that the party has a chance to sneak up on him or at least get to the door with out alerting him. However, the group had just used a barrage of fireworks and thunderstones. The GM decided BBEG picked up his weapon and came to investigate.
I don't think too many people would have heartburn with any of those. But it wasn't written down. The players all had fun. Several of us were standing around watching the groups amused.
I've never played in PFS myself, but I used to go to organised gaming events at comic book shops as a kid and it was great.It pleases me to think that PFS may be providing that for youth who may be interested in the game.
I use far to many house rules myself to ever want to run there,but hopefully it's churning out new gamers that perhap's I can one day play with.
I prefer home gaming but I think that PFS is needed for the health of the game and it facilitates gamers so that they can learn to play on their own.
I don't think it's just for noobs or anything...but it sticks too close to RAW for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A mid level scenario. Very dangerous hungry vicious monster. Clearly expected the party to fight it. Group from inside of invisibility conjured cattle (bison?), speak with animals to tell the cattle to run, hasted the cattle so they could keep away for awhile, and slipped past while the creature was chasing it's 'meal'. Nothing in the scenario about whether something like this could work. But it didn't have high mental stats and the scenario did say it was starving. Obviously meant to keep the party from just making friends to get by, but he thought it seemed reasonable that it would chase food animals.
This is the only one where I might be raising my eyebrow if I were in Mike's position. How did they get inside of the conjured cattle, and can bison even be summoned?
Don't answer the question about cattle being summoned. It is really not nearly as important as to how they got inside.
A mid level scenario. Very dangerous hungry vicious monster. Clearly expected the party to fight it. Group from inside of invisibility conjured cattle (bison?), speak with animals to tell the cattle to run, hasted the cattle so they could keep away for awhile, and slipped past while the creature was chasing it's 'meal'. Nothing in the scenario about whether something like this could work. But it didn't have high mental stats and the scenario did say it was starving. Obviously meant to keep the party from just making friends to get by, but he thought it seemed reasonable that it would chase food animals.This is the only one where I might be raising my eyebrow if I were in Mike's position. How did they get inside of the conjured cattle, and can bison even be summoned?
Don't answer the question about cattle being summoned. It is really not nearly as important as to how they got inside.
Hahaha! I needed a comma and a bit more detail in there. We didn't sneak out in the belly of the cattle.
The group was hiding within an Invisibility Sphere inside a cave the creature couldn't fit into.
While invisible one of them used Summon Monster which does not break invisibility.
Summon Monster IV has bison on the list. But it might have been the Aurochs on the Summon Monster III list.
I'm trying to remember, we might have put an illusion of someone riding the cattle or tied a body to one of them in case the creature heard us discussing plans in the cave.
I can't remember the details for sure. It was over a year ago.
Always use commas when needed!