Roughly two years ago, I served as a GM for about 4 Pathfinder scenarios within a couple months time. Normally I was a player, but we were short on GMs and I decided to volunteer after hearing some off-hand comments about how PFS in my area was not meeting player demand.
At the time, I hadn't GMed before, so it was a mixed experience.
...but after a single year of forsaking PFS entirely, one question lingered.
Before I took the mantle of GM, I was told by the venture lieutenant that as people representing Paizo, we had a duty to not alter the content of the scenarios in any way.
Obviously as far as large changes go, such as entire encounters, that makes perfect sense. But he also clarified that when he said any changes, he meant ANY changes. No changing of stats, no recompiling confusing spell lists, no skill check adjustments, no control over die-rolls at all, etc.
Is this true? Is it a hard-and-fast rule that Pathfinder GMs have no ability to adjust mechanics to ANY degree?
If it is true, I have my own opinions about that(boy do I!), but I am withholding them entirely because I only want to know if it is a real rule or not a real rule, and maybe a few links. I don't want it to become an opinionated debate. I've had too many threads blow up in my face in the past over simple questions when all I wanted is a simple answer. Thank you in advance to the community should they choose to spend their time answering it. I always appreciate it.
P.S.
(It was implied by him that role-playing was still very flexible as long as it remained true to the narrative; even changing characters drastically from how they were written.)
|
Okay, the answers to your question are actually contained in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
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. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. 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.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat. The following sections provide advice on addressing some common table variations you should consider before running a Pathfinder Society game.
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your players might surprise you with a creative solution to an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn’t see coming and that isn’t expressly covered in the scenario. If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they would have gained had they defeated their opponent in combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same rewards. Additionally, if the PCs roleplayed past an NPC who carries a specific potion or scroll that the PCs might be granted access to on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet— instead, allow the PCs to find the item elsewhere as a reward for creatively resolving the encounter without resorting to combat. Pathfinder Society Organized Play never wants to give the impression that the only way to solve a problem is to kill it— rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only make Society games more fun for the players, but it also gives the GM a level of flexibility in ensuring players receive the rewards they are due.
|
ANY changes. No changing of stats,
No. Stats are stuck.
no recompiling confusing spell lists
I suspsect no, but what exactly do you mean by recompile?
no skill check adjustments
That ones a little more table variation. The rules for pathfinder call for the DM to be able to add/subtract 2 with a good reason, possibly higher with a really really good reason.
"Knowledge nature to recognize this track ... Oh, you have one of those for an animal companion +2..."
"This is too easy" would not be a really really good reason.
no control over die-rolls at all, etc.
Thats a no. Although you're supposed to try to not kill the new guy.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I agree with everthing posted so far, but there is still the grey area when players leave the scope of the scenario or invalidate enemy tactics.
This actually doesn't happen all that often, and when it does, you realllly have to try to follow tactics als written in some way.
E.g: When you run an adventure in subtier 1-2, and the party is facing a negative channeling cleric and the tactic as written says that he/she does NOT channel to hurt the PCs.... follow that tactic!
Players can sometimes evade rather big chunks of the adventure, it happens, but you might have to reduce the items on the chronicle sheet, in some rare circumstances.
|
In my opinion it happens rather often that the players invalidate the tactics so that the gm has to improvise. One thing that happens often is "... uses his ranged attacks against the party" but he is in close combat after the first round. But i have to agree that we as GMs should follow the tactics as much as possible and if the tactic states DO NOT USE ABILITY X than you should never use it.
We have the right to give the players small bonuses +-2 to their skillchecks based upon how they roleplay but it is very important to not chnge the actual DCs or statistics becuase the scenario should be the same no matter who GMs it. There are many storys of GMs who have changed the scenario which lead to a tpk or much more ressources used so this is not appreciated.
E.g: When you run an adventure in subtier 1-2, and the party is facing a negative channeling cleric and the tactic as written says that he/she does NOT channel to hurt the PCs.... follow that tactic!
What if nothing else is working. This is where I have a disconnect, lets say this cleric can't move away from the barbarian and rogue that have him flanked, can't hit either of them reliably, and doesn't have any spells to help rectify the situation. I understand that his tactics say he doesn't be at the same time doesn't it hurt verisimilitude to have him just sit and take a beating without using everything at his disposal. I mean i get if there is a reason like he is saving his channels to activate a item or door. But if he just isn't using them it seems odd to me.
|
|
Then the players have earned a well played win. Look at the clerics tactics. If he fights to the death then you roll for 20s and have the cleric fight back in vain. If it says he flees then you the cleric can make a run for it. If it doesn't say anything then you have options....have him surrender.
However do not destroy a table of players by using a tactic that is called out as a NO GO just because they have you beat.
EDIT: It is tier 1-2. This is the part of society in which we hold your hand. Our job as GMs is not to kill your character. It's to give you a fun experience so that you come back and play over and over and over again. When you get to a higher tier, then we take off the gloves and kill your character.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
To summarize the guide, you can't change the mechanics or the rules. However, you can make judgments on corner cases and improvise in ways that do not alter the logistics of the scenario. In other words, you can't add more treasure, add more monsters, or change DCs or stat blocks. However, you can adjust tactics, change starting positions, and award an encounter's treasure in an alternate way if the PCs find a clever way to win it without killing the enemies they would have looted the treasure off of.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if nothing else is working. This is where I have a disconnect, lets say this cleric can't move away from the barbarian and rogue that have him flanked, can't hit either of them reliably, and doesn't have any spells to help rectify the situation. I understand that his tactics say he doesn't be at the same time doesn't it hurt verisimilitude to have him just sit and take a beating without using everything at his disposal. I mean i get if there is a reason like he is saving his channels to activate a item or door. But if he just isn't using them it seems odd to me.E.g: When you run an adventure in subtier 1-2, and the party is facing a negative channeling cleric and the tactic as written says that he/she does NOT channel to hurt the PCs.... follow that tactic!
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.
|
|
Before I took the mantle of GM, I was told by the venture lieutenant that as people representing Paizo, we had a duty to not alter the content of the scenarios in any way.
Everyone else has done an excellent job explaining the rule, so I want to look the explanation he gave you:
Not altering the content has nothing to do with "representing Paizo".
It has to do with being fair to the players. If I decide that a scenario isn't tough enough and add two more monsters or up all the DCs by 5, that is not fair to the players at my table: my players get the same rewards for the scenario as the players at the next GM's table, but my players had to work harder, use more consumables, etc. That's the same reason we don't get to home rule and try to stick to RAW as much as possible: because it's unfair to the players if we don't.
PFS GMs do not represent Paizo in any official capacity. Now, if you're altering a scenario to make it offensive, that will certainly reflect badly on PFS as a whole, which might possibly cause trouble for Paizo. But most of the time, it will get your local group kicked out of the venue long before it causes any issues for Paizo. So don't do offensive stuff in PFS games--not because "you're representing Paizo", but because you're only hurting yourself and your players.
What if nothing else is working. This is where I have a disconnect, lets say this cleric can't move away from the barbarian and rogue that have him flanked, can't hit either of them reliably, and doesn't have any spells to help rectify the situation. I understand that his tactics say he doesn't be at the same time doesn't it hurt verisimilitude to have him just sit and take a beating without using everything at his disposal. I mean i get if there is a reason like he is saving his channels to activate a item or door. But if he just isn't using them it seems odd to me.E.g: When you run an adventure in subtier 1-2, and the party is facing a negative channeling cleric and the tactic as written says that he/she does NOT channel to hurt the PCs.... follow that tactic!
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.
So if it seems like the players are bored of the face roll dropping a single channel (looking over their hp first of course) to spice it up might not be a world ender.
|
|
I personally hope to see less neg channel clerics in sub 1-2. As a GM I can understand the frustration players have with them, esp. ones whose tactics require them to stand back and channel. This leads to no fun with characters who generally will have a 50/50 at best to save, and no hp pool to let them survive.
|
|
As a GM, one thing to keep in mind is that you're trying to provide a consistent experience for your players. Once they've played a scenario there are only a few avenues to experience that content again (such as GM-star replays and Core.) Additionally, Player resources are finite, so modifying an encounter beyond the written stats can be an unnecessary drain on consumables.
There WILL always be table variation, especially when player actions invalidate tactics (some pretty good examples were given above), but I try to stick to the tactics when they apply. Even if the Negative Energy channeler *really* would be tactically better off spamming that rather than attacking with a weapon they're not proficient with or attempting trip attempts.
Although this may seem a bit heavy-handed, the alternative is a LARGE amount of table variation based on the GM running the game. In other Organized Play RPGs I've seen the effects of GMs that would wring out every tactical advantage for any encounter that greatly ratcheted up the difficulty. This would turn an otherwise moderately challenging fight into a grueling slog... which would be fine in a home game, but for an un-optimized pickup group often turned lethal.
|
|
I've got to disagree with this. The overwhelming majority of PFS scenarios that I've played and run were so ridiculously easy that if I had bought them to run as part of a home game all of the encounters would have been made noticeably harder. Not because I want to kill characters but because it is boring to roflstomp everything and that is what most competent PFS parties do to most PFS scenarios.
I would agree with you for seasons 1-3. Season 4 scenarios started to get challenging and some of the season 5-6 scenarios I've played in have been deadly. Of course, it all depends on the group; PFS scenarios can't make assumptions that home game material would. Of course, I tended to tweak the encounters in the APs I've run, too.
That's part of the difference between a home game and PFS, though: in a home game you have a much better feel on your party's composition and what it takes to make a challenging experience for them.
|
|
BNW, I wasn't stating that I changed their tatics, but that I would like to see less of them (particuarlly lvl 3 channelers) as the boss for 1-2 tier, as the higher level is hard to offset. Channeling doesn't provoke, has 2d6 at that level, requires a save that most people aren't really good at at that level and is hard to counter heal unless your cleric is also 3rd level. I have nearly tpk'ed 3 times with them, and it isn't fun or really fair.
|
|
So don't build optimzied characters, then.Have you ever played a suboptimum character in a party of optimum characters?
The fun thing about organized play is you quickly realize who the power gamers are. And the handiness of Warhorn and other organization tools is, you can stop playing with those characters. Which makes it very easy to find a group of suboptimum characters to adventure with, as long as your player base is large enough. I've seen it happen in Phoenix, I've seen it happen on the Online Collective.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
While we are on the topic of allowed changes, there is one change you are allowed to make that is *not* in the guide. If the PCs go completely off script in a murder hobo fashion, you are allowed to call in local law enforcement
|
|
I've got to disagree with this. The overwhelming majority of PFS scenarios that I've played and run were so ridiculously easy that if I had bought them to run as part of a home game all of the encounters would have been made noticeably harder. Not because I want to kill characters but because it is boring to roflstomp everything and that is what most competent PFS parties do to most PFS scenarios.Before I took the mantle of GM, I was told by the venture lieutenant that as people representing Paizo, we had a duty to not alter the content of the scenarios in any way.Everyone else has done an excellent job explaining the rule, so I want to look the explanation he gave you:
Not altering the content has nothing to do with "representing Paizo".
It has to do with being fair to the players. If I decide that a scenario isn't tough enough and add two more monsters or up all the DCs by 5, that is not fair to the players at my table: my players get the same rewards for the scenario as the players at the next GM's table, but my players had to work harder, use more consumables, etc. That's the same reason we don't get to home rule and try to stick to RAW as much as possible: because it's unfair to the players if we don't.
[...]
That doesn't change the fact that me changing up the scenario for my table is not fair. It doesn't matter if the players can handle it, it doesn't matter if I'm doing to because I think they are bored, it doesn't even matter if they beg me to do it.
If one table plays a scenario using different encounters or different DCs than the table next to them, by definition, it is not fair.
Fair = "everybody plays by the same rules"
Fair =/= "go easy on your players"
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Well that's great for you. I'm lucky if I have a choice of 2 tables a week here and rarely is there any chance of not playing with optimized characters unless I want to play core which, since locally they're scheduling season 0 and 1 stuff and getting 6 player tables, is easy mode even with core characters. And to be blunt I hate playing online. I'm glad you enjoy it but the absolute last thing I want to do after working at a keyboard all day is spend yet more time at one after work.The fun thing about organized play is you quickly realize who the power gamers are. And the handiness of Warhorn and other organization tools is, you can stop playing with those characters. Which makes it very easy to find a group of suboptimum characters to adventure with, as long as your player base is large enough. I've seen it happen in Phoenix, I've seen it happen on the Online Collective.So don't build optimzied characters, then.Have you ever played a suboptimum character in a party of optimum characters?
From my very limited experience with season one, it doesn't really take much "powergaming" to roflstomp some scenarios. If would prefer not to run those for more than 4 players, but without knowing the local circumstances I can't really comment.
EDIT: If you have a problem with "powergames" who, intentionally or not, break scenarios and marginalize other characters .. talk to the players.
Your GMs have pretty much the same option, but if it doesn't work they only recourse they have is to stop offering a public sessions.
I have heard stories of players, who take great pride in their ability to destroy scenarios, but frankly, thus far I have managed to avoid them (and I try to explain to new players, that some options might cause negative reactions).
If this (talking to people) doesn't work, ask your GM/VL VC if they have the option to offer scenarios for you and similarly minded players. They might be able to accommodate your wishes.
|
|
I also can only recomend the talking to you players part -> While i am quite a powergamer myself the constant talk with my players and GMs led to the question of my wizard: "Do you want support or summoning" (He is purely build for conjuration but I will swich focus to support when we have 6+ players or I know I have competent players on my table) The most memorable Situation was as my VC told me in my fist game under him "I know you will play a slumberwitch but please consider you are the one Lv 6 playing down to tier 3-4 it would help the enjoiment of everyone at the table if you tone down a bit."
My Problem with suboptimal characters is that i learned the hard way in my first scenarios what happens if noone on the table is able to carry his weight in combat or able to make the Diplomacychacks in the scenario. That is the reason why I have no hesitation to build very competent characters who have easyly the option to make many necessary skillchecks (mostly one of the social skills Diplo/Bluff/Intimidate) and are able to dominate a combat if necessary. But if I am asked to tone down the characters are able to (other spells/not using the ugliest combos).
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is a master of this game and everyone can stand to learn something new about it.
Even players with optimized characters that invalidate encounters can learn that there's more to the game than their PC. And players that have weaker PCs can learn tricks from the optimizers on how to improve. And GMs that find the rules of PFS too restrictive can come up with creative ways to spice up an otherwise banal table experience.
Here are some suggestions I have.
- Be animated to keep your players excited. I try to GM without sitting down whenever possible, to keep me pumped about the game.
- Be in character to keep your players in character. This is big for major NPCs, but even random dorks can be brought to life and get your players into the game.
- Describe combat vividly to prevent it from boiling down into dice and numbers
- Ad lib liberally. They want to buy a new wand of CLW? Invent a unique NPC and get them roleplaying from the start.
While your players might roflstomp all over combat, you can make the rest of the aspects of the game enjoyable enough that everyone still has a good time.
I recently ran a table for some locals that I'd lovingly label as powergamers. The way I made the scenario fun was to follow all the points I listed above. I also mocked their characters (in an entirely non-serious fashion) throughout the game, but only because we've all been gaming for the last year or more together and it was a looser environment than a typical game day. In the end, despite the fact that they steamrolled a majority of the encounters, we still had a blast.
|
|
While we are on the topic of allowed changes, there is one change you are allowed to make that is *not* in the guide. If the PCs go completely off script in a murder hobo fashion, you are allowed to call in local law enforcement
Right. You have to stay on script when you murderhbo!
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
While we are on the topic of allowed changes, there is one change you are allowed to make that is *not* in the guide. If the PCs go completely off script in a murder hobo fashion, you are allowed to call in local law enforcementRight. You have to stay on script when you murderhbo!
There was actually a scenario recently, where we confirmed that yes, our instructions really were "go through that door, and kill everything you find, no, we don't want prisoners"
Thankfully it wound up being one of those nights where all I really wanted was to go in kill a lot of stuff, and the rest of the table was in sort of the same head space.
So, basically what I am saying is yes, you are correct.
|
|
Quite often sub-optimal enemy tactics are intentional and part of the challenge rating of the encounter - tough enemies are added, but with tactics that intentionally reduce their effectiveness. Take First Steps 1 - your party fights an enemy party for one of the fights. If played optimally, this is an almost assured TPK (and when I ran it, the GM didn't follow the tactics and completely stomped us before we even got to move), but it has intentionally flawed tactics to represent the fact that the enemy party is also pretty new to all of this and to make the encounter tough but fair.