|
It's a lot easier to learn how to handle a table when you are not simultaneously learning all the rules. There's a reason you learn things in pieces: because that's how people learn best.
Hmm. You're never exposed to all the new rules in GMing a Standard game - just the ones those PCs bring. I think it's better to learn from the players than to have your first exposure be from NPCs in a scenario you're trying to run, where the consequences of getting it wrong are more serious.
I find people learn more easily in pieces, but the they learn it better when tossed into the deep end. Of course, the presentation and teaching methods can have an effect as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a lot easier to learn how to handle a table when you are not simultaneously learning all the rules. There's a reason you learn things in pieces: because that's how people learn best.Hmm. You're never exposed to all the new rules in GMing a Standard game - just the ones those PCs bring. I think it's better to learn from the players than to have your first exposure be from NPCs in a scenario you're trying to run, where the consequences of getting it wrong are more serious.
So I have a single character that is a Brawler/Holy Tactician Paladin/Daring Champion Cavalier/Duettist Bard, who learns teamwork feats on the fly and passes them out to the rest of her party, and she can pass out two teamwork feats simultaneously. Her partner is a Brawler/Mouser Swashbuckler, who has the unique ability to make allies count as both adjacent and flanking simultaneously.
These two alone are at least a 20-minute rules intro to new GMs, assuming they have a background to the ACG.
This is never a problem in Core.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Allow a limit type of replay, thus allowing veteran players (and GMs!) who may not have been able to play or GM anything else for credit to play/GM for credit.Replay was not a primary intent of Core, just a side effect. And as one of those players who's played almost everything, I wish it wasn't used as an excuse to not consider any replay options in Standard.
From the first moment they started discussing the Core campaign, replay was always part of the point. I don't know where you got the idea that it was a side effect.
|
|
From the first moment they started discussing the Core campaign, replay was always part of the point. I don't know where you got the idea that it was a side effect.
Argh, had to dig through that announcement thread. Turns out I misread the post I was thinking about.
The point stands that tying replay to Core is in no way necessary.
|
|
So I have a single character that is a Brawler/Holy Tactician Paladin/Daring Champion Cavalier/Duettist Bard, who learns teamwork feats on the fly and passes them out to the rest of her party, and she can pass out two teamwork feats simultaneously. Her partner is a Brawler/Mouser Swashbuckler, who has the unique ability to make allies count as both adjacent and flanking simultaneously.
These two alone are at least a 20-minute rules intro to new GMs, assuming they have a background to the ACG.
This is never a problem in Core.
The two sentences above are plenty of explanation to GM by unless something very strange happens. 20 minutes?
|
The two sentences above are plenty of explanation to GM by unless something very strange happens. 20 minutes?So I have a single character that is a Brawler/Holy Tactician Paladin/Daring Champion Cavalier/Duettist Bard, who learns teamwork feats on the fly and passes them out to the rest of her party, and she can pass out two teamwork feats simultaneously. Her partner is a Brawler/Mouser Swashbuckler, who has the unique ability to make allies count as both adjacent and flanking simultaneously.
These two alone are at least a 20-minute rules intro to new GMs, assuming they have a background to the ACG.
This is never a problem in Core.
Not really. As a GM, I would want to make sure I understood the basics of both PCs, and have an overview, at least, of the teamwork tricks most likely to get passed out.
Seriously, you do realize that this is also going to be a pair of PCs who have multiple cards in front of them for the other players to reference so they can figure out what their actual numbers for use during the game will be.
And, in my experience, some players still have trouble just keeping track of Bless and Haste and Bard Song, without adding Blessing of Fervor, or the PC who specializes in Intimidate during combat.
Heh. Even in Core, it can be a mess of notes to figure out what a PC's or NPC's current statistics are, given tanglefoot bags, shaken, sickened, grappled, blinded or deafened, yada yada yada.
Add in the additional stuff available in Standard, and it gets truly confusing, even for experienced GMs.
Most of that can be made easy with various play aids, such as tokens that represent active bonuses and penalties. If you get alot of those during encounters, make a card with squares labeled for the different types of rolls. In each square put a die with the current bonus/penalty. You can color code sources. The GM has a list of active bonuses and their limits, each round, she reduces the time limit of each bonus (if it has limited duration), and checks for range or applicable limitions of that sort. Then everyone adjusts their bonus tokens as needed.
It keeps tracking all that stuff fairly easy, even after the table takes a break.
This sort of stuff should also be taught to new GMs, cause it won't be found in the rules, but it makes a major impact on play experience.
|
The fact is that (putting it very simply) there are four categories of player that a GM will have to deal with:
1) Players with simple PCs who understand the rules well
2) Players with complex PCs who understand the rules well
3) Players with simple PCs who don't understand the rules well
4) Players with complex PCs who don't understand the rules well
(Assuming that a complex PC is one that uses non-core classes, archetypes, feats, equipment etc.)
Type 1 doesn't cause any problems.
Type 2 doesn't cause many problems, although some GMs will feel less comfortable GMing for PCs they don't understand themselves (including their interactions with NPCs/foes).
Type 3 can be managed by a GM who has a good understanding of the core rules.
Type 4 cause the biggest problems: delays on figuring out rules, abilities used incorrectly, potential audit problems, etc.
Core games really only cater to types 1 & 3. Excluding types 2 & 4 significantly reduces the challenge and discomfort for a new GM who wants to create an enjoyable game for the players.
I'm glad that when I started running PFS games I already had a lot of experience GMing v.3.5, and the rulebook line releases had only got as far as the APG.
|
|
The two sentences above are plenty of explanation to GM by unless something very strange happens. 20 minutes?So I have a single character that is a Brawler/Holy Tactician Paladin/Daring Champion Cavalier/Duettist Bard, who learns teamwork feats on the fly and passes them out to the rest of her party, and she can pass out two teamwork feats simultaneously. Her partner is a Brawler/Mouser Swashbuckler, who has the unique ability to make allies count as both adjacent and flanking simultaneously.
These two alone are at least a 20-minute rules intro to new GMs, assuming they have a background to the ACG.
This is never a problem in Core.
I have one set of teamwork feats from the Daring Champion, which take a standard action to activate and last for three rounds.
I have a teamwork feat from Holy Tactician that takes a standard action to activate and has no duration: now, do you make me activate that for each combat or is it active all the time? (Several threads discuss this--let's get the GM's ruling in advance, so there's several minutes on pros and cons of each side.)
I can learn any combat teamwork feat as a move action. Let's go over the list of the four-five that are my favorite. Oh, and here are about 8 more that clearly affect your combat ability, but don't have the "combat" tag on them: which of these will you allow?
I can pass out two teamwork feats simultaneously and change one of them as a swift action, which leads to the big "shenanigans" discussion:
Since my partner is a Mouser, when he gets into the bad guy's square, we can actually get Paired Opportunists and Outflank working at the same time. So if anyone scores a critical hit, it provokes an AoO from everyone threatening the bad guy, whether they are flanking or not. Best of all, if the bad guy takes a five foot step out of the Mouser's square, it provokes an AoO from everyone threatening him. Do you want to walk through the rules and see how that works, because it seems like it shouldn't...
...
Oh, BTW, I'm not a standard paladin: my "smite" ability actually affects the party members, too, and here's how. And just to be fair, I am not immune to fear or disease and I don't have an aura of courage. (Of course, I still look like a paladin, so you'll have to decide whether any of the bad guys would change their tactics, assuming they know what a normal paladin can do...)
Then there's the +20 bonus to diplomacy and the fact that I can shift people's attitudes three steps per check instead of two: do you need me to break that down for you, or do you trust me?
And then there's my partner, the Mouser we mentioned briefly. I'll go get a drink while he explains his "get tiny but still threaten" shenanigans...
Yes. 20 minutes.
Dorothy, that breaks my "must make sense within the narrative" rule so horribly, it isn't even funny.
If you did make it in my game however, I wouldn't change the enemy tactics based on what you look like classwise anyway. Either your opponent is smart enough to mot judge you by looks, or stupid enough to do so in which case your race and gender or possibly religion are the aspects such an idiot would judge. This isn't an mmo, people don't judge others by their armor silhouette.
More so, all I need is the basic concept of those abilities, not the specifics. I'll adjust difficulty based on how easily you dispatch enemies, not based on your level or abilities.
Quite honestly, I always preferred gang up bonuses rather than flanking anyway, so having such an ability is fine.
I'm not a rules lawyer, no need to convince me of how this or that works because technicality. As mentioned above, I just need two questions answered, "does it make sense within the game world" and "can I keep this person from pushing the other players out of the game?" That's it. Answer yes to both, and it will be okay by me in general, then I can take a short break from normal thinking to check for rules legal. Of course, if you get a no on my two questions, no amount of rules legal will save you.
|
|
Dorothy, that breaks my "must make sense within the narrative" rule so horribly, it isn't even funny.
If you did make it in my game however, I wouldn't change the enemy tactics based on what you look like classwise anyway. Either your opponent is smart enough to mot judge you by looks, or stupid enough to do so in which case your race and gender or possibly religion are the aspects such an idiot would judge. This isn't an mmo, people don't judge others by their armor silhouette.
More so, all I need is the basic concept of those abilities, not the specifics. I'll adjust difficulty based on how easily you dispatch enemies, not based on your level or abilities.
Quite honestly, I always preferred gang up bonuses rather than flanking anyway, so having such an ability is fine.
I'm not a rules lawyer, no need to convince me of how this or that works because technicality. As mentioned above, I just need two questions answered, "does it make sense within the game world" and "can I keep this person from pushing the other players out of the game?" That's it. Answer yes to both, and it will be okay by me in general, then I can take a short break from normal thinking to check for rules legal. Of course, if you get a no on my two questions, no amount of rules legal will save you.
So many things wrong with this post.
This is in the PFS forums, so that needs to be taken into account.
Given an enemy's basic tactics, what the PCs are wearing or how they appear can affect whom the enemy decides to target.
And, as a PFS/PFC situation, then, yes, if it is rules legal, and allowed by the PFS Additional Resources document, you have to allow it into your PFS game.
I did say idiots would judge appearance, just not the sort of "you're that class" kind of appearance. The characters in that world don't know what classes are first of all, and second, the garb isn't exactly distinctive enough to judge by. How is one supposed to know the difference between a paladin and a particularly devout fighter? There is no narrative reason for that to be discernable until they actually see what powers the guy in armor actually uses, and having one power doesn't explicity determine the other powers. No reason what so ever for class or garb to be any significant thing to judge. Broad judgements maybe, a guy carrying lots of weapons and armor is probably dangerous, but not much more specific info can be determined.
Most prejudice won't be based on that anyway. What prejudice there is will be based on the same sort of things as in the real world, race, gender, religion, weight, age, wealth. None of those factors tell you class, and prejudice can be irritatingly incorrect. My fellows in basic knew I was pathetic, right up till I won every single unarmed match. Why did they think I was pathetic, because I was 127 lbs and looked like youngest and had a rather exuberant attitude that many have called downright childish. That is what they judged me on, not my "class" which they couldn't tell anyway, nor my clothes (of course I wore the same ones everyone else did.).
I had the same issues in school since like the second grade. Prejudice isn't intellectual, it is instinctial and thus when that instinct is active, it us based on instinctually discernable factors, not intellectual factors.
As for rules, Guess I won't be running PFS then, because quite simply, if it doesn't make sense in the narrative, it does not happen in my game, period the end.
But that is beside the entire point anyway, the point being that rules are secondary to the game itself. The specific rules and their technicalities are not the game, they don't make the game fun, nor do anything else of that sort. Rules are simply an interface to make things easier, and perhaps provide some inspiration. Nothing more, nothing less. Communication, description, and chance.
So even limiting oneself to rules, we still need GMs to understand the difference between simply following rules and knowing how and when to use them properly or to apply them to unforseen circumstances, regardless of how those circumstances came about, or whether they would have been forseen with greater knowledge of of the rules and characters.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for rules, Guess I won't be running PFS then, because quite simply, if it doesn't make sense in the narrative, it does not happen in my game, period the end.
So if you don't run PFS and don't plan to run for PFS, why are you commenting on a thread comparing the rulesets in two different PFS campaigns?
I was commenting on teaching and supporting new GMs, for which a strict rules environment is a very limited realm of roleplaying. I was simply trying to support the idea of teaching new GMs to be good GMs in total, not just good at pfs alone.
The entire experience depends entirely on the GM. The GM makes or breaks the game, not the rules, especially for new players who will walk away forever if their first GM can't hold their interest, or worse, makes the session unfun.
My point is to teach GMs to GM well first. Then build up the secondary stuff and system mastery needed for special cases like PFS.
In fact, I wouldn't even show PFS to new player until they have some experience with several sessions under their belt and a firm understanding of thr basics and how rules can make good support, but also an understanding of how the rules are just a tool and not the game itself.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was commenting on teaching and supporting new GMs, for which a strict rules environment is a very limited realm of roleplaying. I was simply trying to support the idea of teaching new GMs to be good GMs in total, not just good at pfs alone.
The entire experience depends entirely on the GM. The GM makes or breaks the game, not the rules, especially for new players who will walk away forever if their first GM can't hold their interest, or worse, makes the session unfun.
My point is to teach GMs to GM well first. Then build up the secondary stuff and system mastery needed for special cases like PFS.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear:
What do you gain from reading a thread that is only discussing the nuanced differences between the two different PFS campaigns? Why would that even be of interest to you? This is on a PFS-specific forum that focuses solely on the Core campaign (that uses only the core Rulebook): I'm kind of curious why you started reading a thread that doesn't seem to hold any interest to you whatsoever.
Since this is a PFS-specific forum and thread, everything we say is strictly in relation to PFS. For this conversation, PFS is not a "special case": it is the entire context, and anything outside of PFS is irrelevant.
And please don't assume that we don't know that GMs need more than rule mastery in PFS. We focused on that because the topic was the different scope of rules in the two campaigns, and the overall point was that the Core campaign with its simpler ruleset provided a way for brand new GMs to learn the other parts of GMing with a limited set of rules.
But since all PFS GMs have to follow the same set of defined campaign guidelines, there is no way to completely isolate new GMs from knowing the rules.
You keep treating the rules as the supreme core, as though knowing and following the rules is step one of GMing. My point is that the rules are secondary to actual GMing, and in fact even in a PFS game being super perfect with the rules during play, while desirable, is not that important. Nothing in PFS gets carried from one game to the next that depends on perfectly following the rules (save character generation/advancement which occurs outside the game when plenty of time can be taken to do research.).
My point is thus, it is not simply needing more than system mastery, it is that system mastery is a secondary thing, not a primary thing (I'd say outside of PFS, system mastery would not rank even that high). Yet everyone places so much importance on the rules, as though the rules were handed down by god and were more important than anything else. I think this attitude towards the rules makes for subpar GMs, and subpar games.
It isn't just whether there is more than the rules, it is the attitude towards the rules. The rules should not be enshrined as the sacred core of a game, not even PFS (where they are indeed a bit more important than other games).
Once you get past that, you'll find rules mastery to be less than necessary.
As for why I read the forum, it is one of several that showed up on my focus list for unknown reasons. I looked out of curiousity trying to figure out if I looked at it long ago and forgot or something.
|
|
I don't think anyone is disputing your point, Alicorn. But the fact of the matter is that, if you played PFS, you would know that rules are much, MUCH more important than in a home game. I've ran both. I didn't know the rules very well when I started, but I still had fun in my first home brew where I barely knew what I was doing, and so did the party I GMed for.
But the fact of the matter is that rules are much more emphasized in PFS, and you can't use the excuse "I don't like that rule, it's not allowed" in PFS. You can dispute the rule or make your own ruling (that needs to have other rules backing, not just "I don't like it"), but you cannot tell a player he/she can't use a class ability. Again, rules are still not everything, but much more emphasized and important in PFS, and GMs do not have the power to veto what they want like in a home game. Period.
That is what we are trying to say. As a result of players having every option available from every book, it makes Core easier to GM because you don't have to worry about players having anything outside of that. In a home game, not only can you limit the amount of books, you also know each person's character right then and there because it is typically the same character every time. In PFS, it is possible every single player has used some rule that you have never heard of before. With home games, it doesn't matter how complex the characters are because you have infinite time to learn them. This is not the case at all in PFS.
When you know the scenario you are GMing, you have time to prepare to learn those rules. Not so with PCs.
That is missing my point. I already agreed that rules are more important in PFS than at home, that is why I upgraded it to a secondary thing.
My point is that I could GM a PFS game despite my lack of super perfect recall of every rule in every resource, or even just in core. Players bring characters, I should see everything I need to know on those sheets. Some player goes "I can give this feat temporarily to allies," I go "What crazy person allowed that" and then I just know not to bob them over the head for it in the game. I don't need to know that option existed prior to play. If a player tries to use some rule I don't know about, I have two options, make a ruling for now and look it up at the next break, or take a break now and look it up.
Either way I handle, the PFS history of those players won't be impacted in the long run, though I'm sure the rules sticklers prefer option two.
However, a new GM needs to know how to do that, how handle situations where they don't know how to handle something, whether that is due to ignorance of the rules, ambiguous rules, or a lack of rules. This ability to handle the unknown is a key skill for any GM, far more important than knowing the specific rules. This ability is what allows GMs to handle situations such as below,
Player wants to hold an orc as a body shield against some archers. Nothing in the rules handles this nor denies this. I could still handle this easy with this solution, require a grapple and pin to hold the orc as desired, then treat the orc as giving the same bonuses as a tower shield, though still grappling. This is taking what I know and makes sense and applying it to a situation without clearly defined precedents.
Far too many GMs I know either can't handle that, or are uncomfortable with it and avoid it. This is a bad thing for GMs to be unable to handle. But how do you teach someone to handle this? You teach them to handle this by teaching them to see the rules as tools and not straightjackets, because when rules are straightjackets, you can't use them to resolve unknown situations, or at least not easily.
PFS just has an additional goal of trying to provide a fairly uniform experience (folly if you ask me, but a commendable thing to seek anyway), something you can still work towards when seeing the rules as tools.
|
|
Having GM'd in a different on-going campaign for a few years, and having my decisions at the table overturned post-mortem three to six months after the fact because someone decided to politic and get a 'campaign rule' changed, then my table-ruling undone, I'm much more comfortable with PFS thus far.
Granted, I've only run one table, but there's this feeling that as long as I stay within the rules as indicated, I won't have backstabbing upset players trying to undo my rulings, as they are fair, within the context of a ruleset, and it takes a great deal of stress *out* of the equation.
Trust me when I say that 'doing neat things for your players' in a setting can end up with them turning your 'neat thing' into a club against you. Or against another GM.
This being said, I'd have a *harder* time running CORE than Standard for the following reason: I'd have to go through everyone's sheets prior to every game and verify that they only had CORE equipment, CORE (or allowed) traits and feats, CORE spells, etc.
I'd much rather get into running or playing myself, rather than worry that Brenda has a cestus which is a no-no in CORE with no chronicle sheet to support it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This being said, I'd have a *harder* time running CORE than Standard for the following reason: I'd have to go through everyone's sheets prior to every game and verify that they only had CORE equipment, CORE (or allowed) traits and feats, CORE spells, etc.
You can do that, but it's not really necessary. I have found that people have been pretty good about following the CORE rules on this, and usually it will be another player that points out if someone has something that doesn't comply. You can always do the audit if you wish, but I don't think you need to.
At a standard table, would you go through every character's sheet, looking at each item, trait, feat, etc., to make sure they didn't have something that was banned or otherwise restricted? If the answer is "no", then you shouldn't do so for the CORE table, either.
I go through every sheet, more to familiarize myself with their capabilities, but still, I go through the sheets. Helps to know what I can expect from them and what I can expect them handle and perhaps some insight into how they are likely to deal with the various things I present to them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I go through every sheet, more to familiarize myself with their capabilities, but still, I go through the sheets. Helps to know what I can expect from them and what I can expect them handle and perhaps some insight into how they are likely to deal with the various things I present to them.
Again, you don't GM PFS, so you haven't done this in a PFS game, which is a completely different environment than a home game (Unless you are doing a "PFS home group") and also has an entire scenario you have to do in the amount of time as opposed to a home game where it doesn't matter where you leave off because you can just pick up next time.
Experience matters in this case. Several people with PFS GM experience are disagreeing with you on a topic that solely relates to GMing in PFS, which should amount to something.
My last post was just a comment on the checking everyone's sheet thing that was brought up, rather than a continuance of the earlier issue. Probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but I was tired. I tend to talk more freely when tired.
###
So far, many have said they disagree with me, but their evidence or reasons are not directed at the points I was trying to make, meaning that most likely, they either didn't see a difference between two concepts that I do distinguish between (not sure how that could apply here though), or they believe I'm talking about something other than what I actually am talking about. Forest for the trees and all that.
I fully understand that PFS has rules that need to followed more strictly than home games plus a few other considerations. None of that makes the least bit of difference on the issue I was trying to point out. (Though, secondarily I do think perhaps some are perhap too strict about perfection, but that is also beside the point I was trying to get across, though it may have colored a few comments more than desired)
|
|
I mean, I keep telling them that if they just threw the ball forward, they'd be far more successful at moving the ball. But all of those rugby posters just disagree with me, and present no evidence that contradicts my arguments that throwing the ball is the optimum way to make it travel further. I have presented exhaustive examples from football demonstrating that this is the case but they seem to completely misunderstand. Forest for the trees and all that.
This type of post really isn't at all helpful.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Core seems to have lost interest in the local area. Shame really.
While it is a draw for the new player (who isn't going to be overwhelmed by options) it is also a challenge for me.
As a player: Making basic characters who don't have my normal utility belt of countermeasures.
As a GM: Remembering what the PCs shouldn't have. ;-)
We had one scenario where it would have been a TPK, except for ray of sickening which none of us caught was non-core, and another where the monster was just too mean for four non-optimized core PCs (a large Earth Elemental vs a group of 3s and 4s with no meat shield is a tough fight). So those little things make CORE more dangerous but more rewarding in a way.
Duiker, it is more like watching the coaches teach about different positions and zones, and completely forget about the fact that the most important goal of the game is to get the ball into the goal/hoop/whatever rugby has.
I'm just saying that the rules about when a ball is out of bounds are nice things to know, but not at the expense of knowing that the ball needs to reach the goal/hoop/whatever. A game without the foul lines is still a game, a game without a goal/hoop/whatever, is not much of a game. Thus, even with foal lines, the goal/hoop/whatever is clearly not something to be left by the wayside.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We still host lots of Core games. We have 1 venue that holds the vast majority of them, as it suits those players best, myself included. I love the challenge of Core INSOFAR as the limited resources I have at my disposal. My favourite items from UE not allowed, but some Core items that can do something close enough to get out of a jam. Never have Feather Token Tree been so useful. Or a wand of Hold Portal, that prevented TPK.
Regardless, GMing in general, is something nobody is good at the first time they do it. So when the first time they GM for PFS, they will (most likely) feel intimidated. I GMed and played 3.5 and Pathfinder for years before I joined PFS, and I felt.....not intimidated, but hesitant might be a better word. If in my home game a royally screwed up, I could cover for my mistakes, with at worst, Deus Ex Machina. I can't do that in PFS. The gravity of my errors became clear.
When I first joined PFS back in 2012, I felt similar to yourself, Alicorn. GMing is GMing. What's the big deal? I would read the forums where people would make claims that PFS is different, and you just have to trust me because I've GMed a hundred games, I dismissed out of hand. I was an experienced GM. I've run my own campaigns and played in numerous others though various systems (I still love Runequest). I knew that they were wrong.
It was an eye opener. Sometimes, once the evidence is laid before you in terms of experience, it is humbling. GMing in PFS is different.
Regardless, the game needs more good GMs and GMs who can teach other GMs. Experience is best shared as a group. If you haven't been involved in PFS much, perhaps you might consider joining up in your local area. There's amazing stories being told, tons of fun and great new people to meet. And perhaps you can help that newbie GM though their first scenario, regardless of campaign.
Closer, but try this,
Traditional games, MMO style (any computer game really, and nearly all board/card games), players can not do anything except what is explicity allowed.
Gygaxian games (my term for them), Tabletop style is reverse, players can do anything except what is explicitly denied.
This difference is subtle, but makes profound changes in the scope of what is possible, and vast changes in possible creative expression. PFS just has a larger set of what is explicitly denied.
Traditional games allow creativity in a "lego" style, by trying new ways of putting parts together in various ways. Gygaxian games can do that, but they can do hundreds of times more, like allowing more creativity in terms of how parts are used.
What can be done in Traditional games is miniscule compared to Gygaxian games. This shift requires a massive change in how one thinks about the game. But those familiar only with traditional style, is like being familiar with only bland steamed rice. When it is all you know, it doesn't seem like there could ever be anything more or better, until waffles are tasted, and pasta, steak, bacon, and more, when one suddenly realizes the limited scope of their idea about dinner possibilities.
At first, this seems like I'm talking about freedom of rules, but it isn't, the rules, however limiting or expansive, are just an interface to the creative space that is the game, like lines on a paper. Traditional games only allow options that are on the lines, while Gygaxian games allow any option within a polygon made by those lines. It is like the difference between 1d (one dimensional) and 2d (two dimensional).
Thus my point is that regardless of the rules, and how limited or expansive they are, GMs should be taught to handle 2d rather than 1d. Not only to show the expensive possibilities, but also because GMing a 2d player requires a vastly different way of thinking to keep things enjoyable, avoid butting heads with that player, and encourage memorable moments, even in following the rules precisely.
|
Closer, but try this,
I'm really not getting your point any more.
Of course there is a lot more to GMing than just knowing the rules. Every single PFS session I've run somebody will come up with something not covered by the rules. Duh.
In PFS you lose a significant amount of flexibility (NOT all) in interpreting what the Rules say. That isn't for everybody.
Ultimately PFS GMs will end up knowing the rules quite well since they'll have made so many rulings on edge cases AND have been corrected so many times when they were wrong. But that is more of a side effect than anything. Most PFS GMs start with a reasonable but vey incomplete understanding of the rules and do just fine.
A fairly minor part of the job of a PFS GM is to try and make sure that the players aren't making mistakes with their characters. Experienced PFS GMs do that better than inexperienced ones. This is one thing that Core makes much easier.
The other thing that Core does is to substantially reduce the PC power level. This makes it far easier to present a challenge to the players, especially for new GMs.
I've found that once a player stops treating it like an mmo, then player balance is illusory, with a player's power level more dependant on their creative use of their abilities rather than what abilities they have.
|
|
A fairly minor part of the job of a PFS GM is to try and make sure that the players aren't making mistakes with their characters. Experienced PFS GMs do that better than inexperienced ones. This is one thing that Core makes much easier.
Making "a fairly minor part" of GMing easier is in no way worth the strife and disruption Core causes. And really anyone can help a player make sure their character is right - it doesn't have to be the GM of any particular table and shouldn't be done at the table anyway.
The other thing that Core does is to substantially reduce the PC power level. This makes it far easier to present a challenge to the players, especially for new GMs.
Incorrect. Flat wrong. The power levels available in Core cover 100% of the range from weak to strong available in Standard.
|
|
Incorrect. Flat wrong. The power levels available in Core cover 100% of the range from weak to strong available in Standard.
I'd say about half wrong, depending on how you look at it.
The expanded game only increases the power levels over the maximum a little bit The dwarf druid that turns into a pouncing velociraptor and his pouncing velociraptor, the battlefield controling wizard, the two handed weapon using barbarian etc. do some power up.
But what the expanded game does is make a lot of bad options (dex fighter, two weapon fighting, rogue) go from bad to pretty badass, so instead of 2 competent people in a fight 3/4 or even your entire party can dish out some punishment. The expanded game makes bad options viable, so it vastly reduces the number of bad characters.
A party can almost double their damage going from fighter wizard healbot skill guy to fighter wizard unchained rogue Smashy cleric, and for social encounters they can mop the floor with it moving from skill guy to Fighter with skills, wizard with int to diplomacy, cleric with skillpoints and unchained rogue.
I really am wary of options being called "bad."
I have had several characters that others called weak or complained that I would not be able to help the group, only to prove them wrong during the game.
One time during a DnD game day (3.5 a little bit before pathfinder), I took the pregen kobald wizard and not only was I the only surviving party member of my group (they betrayed me actually), but I got more kills with my spear than the fighter got in total. Further, I was one of only three groups who had the kobald survive, out of 37 tables, and the other two had no one die. So if I can take what everyone else sees as the weak option and be last man standing, then it wasn't a weak option, just not a very forgiving of traditional playstyle.
A bunch of folks, particularly those with now dead kobald wizards. You know my group laughed at me for taking the kobald intentionally and willingly. Every group I know of there, the kobald was the character no one wanted to play and everyone wanted to know what [rude descriptor of choice] person thought including it was a good idea.
At most of those tables, the kobald was the only death.
Think about it, 37 tables, only two TPKs, and only 3 surviving kobalds. Well, 33 tables, four of them were a player short and didn't have the kobald.
|
|
A fairly minor part of the job of a PFS GM is to try and make sure that the players aren't making mistakes with their characters. Experienced PFS GMs do that better than inexperienced ones. This is one thing that Core makes much easier.Making "a fairly minor part" of GMing easier is in no way worth the strife and disruption Core causes. And really anyone can help a player make sure their character is right - it doesn't have to be the GM of any particular table and shouldn't be done at the table anyway.
The other thing that Core does is to substantially reduce the PC power level. This makes it far easier to present a challenge to the players, especially for new GMs.Incorrect. Flat wrong. The power levels available in Core cover 100% of the range from weak to strong available in Standard.
"Strife and disruption" must be localized, because it didn't happen here. There was no splitting if the player base.
YMMV.
|
|
The other thing that Core does is to substantially reduce the PC power level. This makes it far easier to present a challenge to the players, especially for new GMs.Incorrect. Flat wrong. The power levels available in Core cover 100% of the range from weak to strong available in Standard.
Your position is very obviously and provably false. Take whatever Core character you want and I can make it clearly stronger in non Core by swapping SOMETHING that makes it better (feat, race, item, etc).
You can argue that for a small number of characters that difference may be quite small (I disagree but the argument can be made) but you cannot reasonably argue that the difference is 0.
If you disagree, post a Core character that you think cannot be mechanically improved in non Core. Any class, any level.
|
|
Incorrect. Flat wrong. The power levels available in Core cover 100% of the range from weak to strong available in Standard.I'd say about half wrong, depending on how you look at it.
The expanded game only increases the power levels over the maximum a little bit The dwarf druid that turns into a pouncing velociraptor and his pouncing velociraptor, the battlefield controling wizard, the two handed weapon using barbarian etc. do some power up.
But what the expanded game does is make a lot of bad options (dex fighter, two weapon fighting, rogue) go from bad to pretty badass, so instead of 2 competent people in a fight 3/4 or even your entire party can dish out some punishment. The expanded game makes bad options viable, so it vastly reduces the number of bad characters.
A party can almost double their damage going from fighter wizard healbot skill guy to fighter wizard unchained rogue Smashy cleric, and for social encounters they can mop the floor with it moving from skill guy to Fighter with skills, wizard with int to diplomacy, cleric with skillpoints and unchained rogue.
I agree that the expanded game helps some characters far more than others and that the strongest characters are helped far less.
But I think even the very best Core characters are significantly helped as well. The extra spells, the good archetypes, the feats, the magic items, etc significantly help even the [insert whatever class you think is most powerful].
I agree that a highly optimized Core team can still easily defeat all but a few scenarios. But how often does that sit down at the table? And even that highly optimized team would win quicker with less charges of CLW used if they were Regular characters
|
|
But I think even the very best Core characters are significantly helped as well. The extra spells, the good archetypes, the feats, the magic items, etc significantly help even the [insert whatever class you think is most powerful].
I agree that a highly optimized Core team can still easily defeat all but a few scenarios. But how often does that sit down at the table? And even that highly optimized team would win quicker with less charges of CLW used if they were Regular characters
I thought the point of CORE was that players didn't have access to extra spells, archetypes, anything outside of the CORE rules?
If that's a Gross Conceptual Error, please correct me?
|
|
I thought the point of CORE was that players didn't have access to extra spells, archetypes, anything outside of the CORE rules?If that's a Gross Conceptual Error, please correct me?
They have access to any item which appears on a chronicle sheet (other than race boons.) So, if a chronicle sheets grants access to a non-CORE spell or item or whatever, they then have access to it.
