|
Your DM incorrectly handled the situation. I would contact a Venture officer and have them correct it.
I can understand leaving if you have had bad GMs like this. Because if they difficult on rules they are wrong about; well they will be difficult in other areas too.
You had a poor gm find, or be a good one.
|
You had a poor gm find, or be a good one.
The GM makes a mistake and you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are a poor GM?
That language about creative solutions wasn't always in the guide.
Also, there are cases where the rules for found items aren't clear. I've crossed off consumables from a chronicle when an NPC used them during an encounter. Some GMs do not cross them out.
The rules in the guide are clear that if you find a consumable and use it during the scenario, you can still buy it after the scenario. But it's not clear that if the NPC uses a consumable during an encounter that it is considered discovered by the PCs.
|
|
You had a poor gm find, or be a good one.The GM makes a mistake and you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are a poor GM?
That language about creative solutions wasn't always in the guide.
Also, there are cases where the rules for found items aren't clear. I've crossed off consumables from a chronicle when an NPC used them during an encounter. Some GMs do not cross them out.
The rules in the guide are clear that if you find a consumable and use it during the scenario, you can still buy it after the scenario. But it's not clear that if the NPC uses a consumable during an encounter that it is considered discovered by the PCs.
A gm that chases a player away for 2 years is a good one?
That creative solution has been in there for many years.
If you are not sure why rule against the players?
In fact I would not play at your table if you make up rules because they do not mentiont he opposite. It never says to cross of items that are used.
Cross out any treasure items the party didn’t find
in the scenario and mark any special boons the players
did or did not earn (U); additionally, if you’re running the
lower subtier, always cross out all of the items listed for the
higher subtier. Return the Chronicle sheet to the player.
|
|
It was a very nice item, I got bored, and didn't play again for 2 years.
Not finding an item doesn't make you bored. Disappointed or angry, I can see, but bored? The scenario might be boring or the GM may not portray the story well. Those are problems, but the good thing about PFS is that you often have different GMs, so your next GM might be very good and the scenario more to your liking.
But honestly, one bad experience drove you away for 2 years? If that were the norm most players would have quit by now. Maybe you didn't have fun that one time, but maybe you also overreacted a bit.
|
I got bored, and didn't play again for 2 years.
I was using a pregen and hadn't even made a character yet...
This sounds like it was your first PFS session. It's not unheard of for brand new players to feel out of place while they're learning the nuances of Organized Play. An unorganized group or GM can be off-putting as well. But give us a couple more tries. Speaking as someone whose first session involved a GM who I didn't care for, and whose second session my friends didn't care for, I actually didn't start having fun until my third game. I recognized that bad days happen and that the potential for something great was there. Hopefully you'll have the same luck =).
Then I realized I could NEVER AGAIN attempt that scenario to get that item.
That was two years ago... if not more.
Whoever told you this was incorrect as well. You've always been able to receive credit for a game at least twice (once as a player, and once as a GM). Two years ago the Campaign introduced limited replay for people that GM often enough, gaining one replay for each Star before their forum name. Later that was expanded to one replay per Season per Star (after acquiring a special, but easily available Boon). Then, last year, the ability to replay (and reGM) was increased by introducing the CORE Campaign (described in the newest Guide).
So, you have potentially four more chances to obtain that item for a different character.
I also think it's wrong to punish a character for being good
I'd hesitate to say "punish". The Pathfinder Society isn't a good-aligned organization. Sometimes crusading-type or well minded characters have their morals tested. Not killing a memorable NPC can be rewarding in itself. If you had engaged the NPC in combat, it's possible you could have suffered from a condition (including death) that later would have required gold to remove, in which case your character would actually suffer from a monetary setback. Possibly one that even offsets an item being found.
On top of all that, there are something like 200ish scenarios, and many modules, Adventure Paths, and replayables. I guarantee you'll find something interesting and useful again. People don't always succeed in every scenario. It just sounds like it happened to be your first.
Hope you give us another chance =)
|
Unless it was a unique item, you can just buy it when your prestige is high enough. Even if the item was not crossed off, you would have to spend the gold to purchase the item. Again, unless it was a special item, all crossing it off your chronicle sheet would do is delay the acquisition of them item.
|
|
Agree with June, but also to address the "Imbalance": I'm not entirely certain what you mean by imbalance - perhaps you mean overall being nice vs. murderhobo). But if you meant the lack of that particular item might hinder you, have no fear. To my knowledge, there is not a single item on a chronicle sheet that is required for the success of any future scenario, even in the case of 'quest' items in multi-part scenarios. The nature of organized play when anyone might start at any point prevents it.
If you want to spoiler the scenario in question, more specifics can be provided.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a fine line between the creative solution text and flat out not finding an item. Coming into contact with an encounter (at least insomuch as realizing a challenge exists) and finding a creative way around the challenge should still net you the rewards as though you defeated the encounter.
But the line becomes increasingly thin the more characters start completely bypassing encounters they don't even know exist by doing things like carving thier own tunnel with an adamantine pick.
That really isn't the intent of the creative solutions text. Encounters are meant to at least be presented before creative solutions still net the rewards.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It was pointed out to me recently also that you only have to *find* the item. (By a member of paizo staff)
So in the case where you locate the item, and then decide it would be inappropriate to take it (such as not looting a grave) you still get the full reward.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Found the quote: (Stripped of spoilers)
Have I missed something or are the players actually supposed to literally grave rob people they are trying to work with in order to receive their full rewards?
The PCs don’t have to take the items to receive full rewards. It’s unclear to me if your question is about earning full gold, or about getting full Chronicle sheet access for items, so I’ll answer your question from both perspectives.
If you're talking about gold earned, the PCs don't have to take the items to receive full rewards. The rewards section of the encounter describes the circumstances under which the PCs should not receive full gold for area B.
Rewards section:
"If the PCs did not [redacted], or if they [redacted], reduce each PC’s gold earned by the following amount."If you're talking about whether the PCs lose Chronicle sheet access, keep in mind that per the section on filling out Chronicle sheets in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, the PCs only need to find an item to gain access to it.
Only under rare circumstances that are specified in the text of the scenario do the PCs actually need to take an item. To clarify, a few scenarios have something like “The PCs do not receive any money for the rubies in this chamber if they do not first pry them out of the wall,” and those are the only cases when actually taking the item instead of just finding it matters.
|
|
You don't cross off used consumables or destroyed(sundered) items from the chronicle sheet at the end of the game.
Here is the actual text in the guide.
"If gear you have found but not yet purchased is sundered
or lost during a scenario, you may still acquire it when
purchasing items at the end of a scenario. Found expendable
items such as potions or scrolls may be used during the
course of a scenario at no cost, but must be purchased if you
wish to carry that item with you into future scenarios."
But there is not definition that I can find what constitutes a "found" item. It's clear that if you loot a potion off an NPC you found it and even if you use that potion during the adventure, you can buy it later.
It's also clear that if you use a creative non-combat means of overcoming an encounter, you are considered to have found the items as well. That's explicitly stated in the guide.
But it is NOT clear that if you fight an NPC and he drinks his potion before you disable him that you "found" it. There is no language in the guide that I can find that say this, and that does not fit the commonplace definition of found as you found and empty vial, not a potion.
It may very well be a good idea, but I'm not seeing that in the guide. If that's what's intended and that's what the campaign leadership wants it to be, that's what I'll go with. But I think that language needs to be made more clear in the guide.
|
|
You don't cross off used consumables or destroyed(sundered) items from the chronicle sheet at the end of the game.Here is the actual text in the guide.
"If gear you have found but not yet purchased is sundered
or lost during a scenario, you may still acquire it when
purchasing items at the end of a scenario. Found expendable
items such as potions or scrolls may be used during the
course of a scenario at no cost, but must be purchased if you
wish to carry that item with you into future scenarios."But there is not definition that I can find what constitutes a "found" item. It's clear that if you loot a potion off an NPC you found it and even if you use that potion during the adventure, you can buy it later.
It's also clear that if you use a creative non-combat means of overcoming an encounter, you are considered to have found the items as well. That's explicitly stated in the guide.
But it is NOT clear that if you fight an NPC and he drinks his potion before you disable him that you "found" it. There is no language in the guide that I can find that say this, and that does not fit the commonplace definition of found as you found and empty vial, not a potion.
It may very well be a good idea, but I'm not seeing that in the guide. If that's what's intended and that's what the campaign leadership wants it to be, that's what I'll go with. But I think that language needs to be made more clear in the guide.
Michael,
The language might need to be improved, but it is easy to see what is meant by actually examining a few scenarios and the items listed on the chronicles for them.
I have seen chronicles where, say, potions of Invisibility are unlocked, but the only instance of the potion in the scenario is in an encounter where the NPC's first action is to use said potion. With your approach, said potion would never need to be added to the chronicle, since the PCs will never be able to "find" it.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: "it's better to murderhobo" -
There are a few odd scenarios where you actually need to do nasty stuff to get the whole reward. This was mostly in season 0-1 and has since become very rare, probably because those scenarios got bad reviews because of it. But now and then it does happen.
[b]Far more often[b] there are extra rewards in scenarios for being nicer than you absolutely need to be; rescued NPCs may offer rewards for example, or some of your reward is based on avoiding collateral damage. Half the time the secondary prestige in a scenario is based on doing something that long-term gets the Pathfinder Society more allies.
In the long run, you'll be better off being moderately heroic and nice.
|
|
You don't cross off used consumables or destroyed(sundered) items from the chronicle sheet at the end of the game.Here is the actual text in the guide.
"If gear you have found but not yet purchased is sundered
or lost during a scenario, you may still acquire it when
purchasing items at the end of a scenario. Found expendable
items such as potions or scrolls may be used during the
course of a scenario at no cost, but must be purchased if you
wish to carry that item with you into future scenarios."But there is not definition that I can find what constitutes a "found" item. It's clear that if you loot a potion off an NPC you found it and even if you use that potion during the adventure, you can buy it later.
It's also clear that if you use a creative non-combat means of overcoming an encounter, you are considered to have found the items as well. That's explicitly stated in the guide.
But it is NOT clear that if you fight an NPC and he drinks his potion before you disable him that you "found" it. There is no language in the guide that I can find that say this, and that does not fit the commonplace definition of found as you found and empty vial, not a potion.
It may very well be a good idea, but I'm not seeing that in the guide. If that's what's intended and that's what the campaign leadership wants it to be, that's what I'll go with. But I think that language needs to be made more clear in the guide.
Question?
Do you point out to people that run scenario's for you to cross out the consumable's used so your character's don't get access to them?
If you don't make sure that your characters get those items crossed off them you are being a hypocrite.
And if you did this to me when I played at your table, I would go straight to the person running the game day, then to the VO's and get your rulings reversed.
|
|
Do you point out to people that run scenario's for you to cross out the consumable's used so your character's don't get access to them?
Why would I necessarily know that? How do I know if someone attacked me invisibly used a potion before the encounter rather than a spell or other ability? I don't keep track of the consumables the NPCs use when I'm a player. That's the GMs job.
Honestly, I think it has mattered once in the games I've run. Most of the time the NPC never gets to use the consumable or has multiple of the same (usually in the case of healing potions).
|
|
I have seen chronicles where, say, potions of Invisibility are unlocked, but the only instance of the potion in the scenario is in an encounter where the NPC's first action is to use said potion. With your approach, said potion would never need to be added to the chronicle, since the PCs will never be able to "find" it.
I've only run about 20 tables. I can't say I've ever come across that scenario.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Do you point out to people that run scenario's for you to cross out the consumable's used so your character's don't get access to them?Why would I necessarily know that? How do I know if someone attacked me invisibly used a potion before the encounter rather than a spell or other ability? I don't keep track of the consumables the NPCs use when I'm a player. That's the GMs job.
Honestly, I think it has mattered once in the games I've run. Most of the time the NPC never gets to use the consumable or has multiple of the same (usually in the case of healing potions).
Well, did you find a potion on them? If you haven't found a potion of invisibility in the course of the adventure, and then you see it on the chronicle sheet, you should point out that you never found it.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It was pointed out to me recently also that you only have to *find* the item. (By a member of paizo staff)
... why is this being pointed out by paizo staff to a single player and not tattooed on the GM's foreheads and listed on a pamphlet handed out that reads 'your first game'. :/
Actually, an 'after your first game' pamphlet would be a great idea.
Because it was pointed out to me in a thread in the public forum? As a clarification of a specific and rare situation?
There actually is a 'after your first game (or even before)' pamphlet. Here is what it has to say on the matter.
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.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
By the way, here is what the guide says about nuking them all from orbit and sifting the ashes.
Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was pointed out to me recently also that you only have to *find* the item. (By a member of paizo staff)
... why is this being pointed out by paizo staff to a single player and not tattooed on the GM's foreheads and listed on a pamphlet handed out that reads 'your first game'. :/
Actually, an 'after your first game' pamphlet would be a great idea.
Chronicle Sheet #0 on PFS Prep
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Actual situation from an actual scenario.
The players run into a patrol coming to investigate a place the PCs have just left a dead body. If the PCs are visibly carrying anything that they looted from the dead body, the patrol assumes they are the murderers. If the party convinces to patrol that they are innocent, and they share a common foe, the patrol gives them directions and (IIRC) a cure light wounds wand. If they kill the patrol they do not receive the wand. (Presumably the patrol sends someone to fetch it if they are friendly)
|
|
Well, did you find a potion on them? If you haven't found a potion of invisibility in the course of the adventure, and then you see it on the chronicle sheet, you should point out that you never found it.
I most likely would not remember. I generally don't write down what we find during the adventure. When I play, I sort of focus on playing and worry about the bookkeeping at the end. If we find something my PC would find useful, I write it down, but I don't keep track of everything.
Even if I did notice, how do I know that we didn't get it because we used a creative solution to overcome the encounter without fighting? I've had that happen and not necessarily had the GM give us the item during the adventure, but it showed up on on the chronicle. Usually I don't have the time to sit there and talk about the stuff on the chronicle right after the adventure. Sometimes I don't even read through the chronicle until a while after the session.
I think I did notice point it out once and I think the GM shrugged and said it was his understanding that the players got the items. So I just let it go because it hardly seems like something to spend time arguing about. But just because one GM does something one way doesn't mean I have to start doing it that way. Especially if I don't agree with their interpretation of the rules. I've had plenty of times where I don't agree with the way a GM interprets the rules. But I let it slide because that's the nature of organized play.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of sounding unsympathetic this is nothing but a troll thread...
First, let's be clear, PFS does not, nor has it ever guaranteed the same experience for everyone. It does however, attempt to provide a consistently similar experience that is greatly affected by the human interactions involved.
Because an organized play campaign takes place in a shared-world environment, a few additional rules are required to ensure that all players at all tables share a similar experience, no matter who is running the game.
Decisions have consequences and sometimes the PCs do not recover all the loot, or earn all the Fame/Prestige, or kill all the bad guys, or save all the princess (or prince). The players are presented with the same opportunities from table to table. It is the decisions they make that determine how successful they are or what they may/not get as rewards. IMO, to say everyone gets all the loot and rewards regardless of what happens during gameplay is what would make PFS into a video-game with pre-decided outcomes and "it doesn't matter what you do, this happens."
I am always troubled when a player comes into the forums and blasts a GM based on a game they just played. And in this case, we are talking about a game that happened two plus years ago!?! My experience in investigating experiences like this has revealed a few things:
* no one person's side of the story is completely accurate. Not to say they are intentionally lying or anything. Just that people tend to have selective memories, especially when they feel they were wronged
* more often than not there were tactics and/or legitimate reasons why what happened happened that were unknown to the player. The GM is not obligated to explain why they made the decisions they did and players rarely ask them after the game
* it is challenging to investigate a situation to see if any action needs to be taken. Even moreso when the event occurred two years ago
* sometimes, the GM is just wrong (made a mistake) but if we redacted every time a GM made a mistake, many GMs would stop running because their table authority is constantly being questioned and changed
* sometimes a player is just being unreasonable simply because the results of their actions did not produce the desired results
I find the purpose of this thread to be highly dubious. Someone played one session and based the quality of that singular experience focused on a single aspect, that being the availability of a "found" item found the campaign to be "boring" and didn't play again. Then decided to passionately complain about it more than two years later by accusing the campaign of being "imbalanced" and all about "scorched Earth." Could it be that the GM made a poor choice? Maybe. Could it be the player made a bad decision or just not like the results? Maybe.
We also need to be aware that any OP campaign, including PFS may not appeal to everyone. Play styles are different. Expectations are different. For some players/GMs, PFS is just not suited for them and that's okay. No game can appeal to everyone.
...so while I am in favor of constructive criticism IMO this thread serves no purpose other than at best be a forum to complain about a singular play experience from two years ago by someone who doesn't even play the campaign and at worst simply a claim that PFS is "BadWrongFun." I am flagging it to be closed as unproductive
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your DM incorrectly handled the situation. I would contact a Venture officer and have them correct it.
I can understand leaving if you have had bad GMs like this. Because if they difficult on rules they are wrong about; well they will be difficult in other areas too.
You had a poor gm find, or be a good one.
1. As a former VC, if this was up to me, I wouldn't 'correct' the situation. Two years is a long time. If you were dissatisfied with the results of the table, it could have been brought up then.
So, sorry, but no.
2. Finlander, your jump to saying that the GM was 'bad' and then reassertion that someone who runs off a player for 2 years is preposterous. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes. Are you insinuating that you've never made a rules mistake in all your 60+ tables of running PFS games? Cause if you have, then by your own comments, youre a bad GM.
The GM in question didn't run MathNerd off. MathNerd chose not to continue playing after he?/she? didn't like how a table came out. I'm not saying MathNerd did anything to deserve less loot than full cause I don't know the details of the table cause I wasn't there, but innocence on the part of the player doesn't automatically mean the GM is 'bad'.
|
|
Similar situation on Tier rewards
My personal experience with GMs has varied as widely as anyone's.
Not in this campaign, thankfully, but in another on-going massive campaign there was one GM that attempted to control my character and dictate what my character would do, with no note, sign, or any indication of why this behaviour was happening.
In this campaign I HAVE had GMs erroneously mark off things that the party 'encountered' (that weren't even expended in said encounter) and much like the link above I've pointed it out to the GM (when I've caught it) and gotten it corrected.
That being said, some GMs (who will remain nameless) ride that RAW straight through the eye of the needle with their camel and caravan in tow, and at larger conventions it can be next to impossible to track that all down and get it sorted.
My personal philosophy extends the 'Don't be a jerk' to the logical conclusion of 'benefit of the doubt' to the players. If they had their hands on the item(s) in question, or were talking to the person that had them rather than murdering them, that would be a positive experience and should be rewarded.
There DOES need to be a more explicit description of the interaction of Fame/Prestige/Cash, though. It got cleaned up some for the Season 7 Guide, which was a plus, but it is still a bit clunky. Word counts are an issue, but it's still left somewhat ephemeral and someone who is reading the Guide out of context may not understand it.
|
|
Do you point out to people that run scenario's for you to cross out the consumable's used so your character's don't get access to them?Why would I necessarily know that? How do I know if someone attacked me invisibly used a potion before the encounter rather than a spell or other ability? I don't keep track of the consumables the NPCs use when I'm a player. That's the GMs job.
Honestly, I think it has mattered once in the games I've run. Most of the time the NPC never gets to use the consumable or has multiple of the same (usually in the case of healing potions).
Because, most other relatively reasonable gm's don't try to #%^##*^% over characters because of some obtuse reading of the rules.
But since you do it to players, you should really man up and tell the GM your interpretation so he can apply your reading of the rules to your character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because, most other relatively reasonable gm's don't try to #%^##*^% over characters because of some obtuse reading of the rules.
But since you do it to players, you should really man up and tell the GM your interpretation so he can apply your reading of the rules to your character.
There is noting obtuse in my reading of the rules. Having to make up a new definition of the word found that is not explicitly mentioned as an exeption is.
Also, your character is not screwed over because you didn't get access to the potion of invisibility or the like at level 1. Were you really about to spend 60% of the take for the adventure on a single one-shot item? At the point where you are ready to spend 300 gp on a single-use item, you probably have the 5 fame where chronicle access doesn't matter any longer. I think you are being a bit melodramatic.
The one time I recall it happening was a tier 1-2 with an 1100 gp one-shot consumable. That was over 200% of the gold earned. At the point where that is disposable cash, you probably have the 9 fame to not worry about.
I would be happy if the rule was clarified so that the PCs still got access in this case, but I don't see that from the rules as written. It may be rule ad intended, but not as written.
|
|
Your DM incorrectly handled the situation. I would contact a Venture officer and have them correct it.
I can understand leaving if you have had bad GMs like this. Because if they difficult on rules they are wrong about; well they will be difficult in other areas too.
You had a poor gm find, or be a good one.
1. As a former VC, if this was up to me, I wouldn't 'correct' the situation. Two years is a long time. If you were dissatisfied with the results of the table, it could have been brought up then.
So, sorry, but no.
2. Finlander, your jump to saying that the GM was 'bad' and then reassertion that someone who runs off a player for 2 years is preposterous. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes. Are you insinuating that you've never made a rules mistake in all your 60+ tables of running PFS games? Cause if you have, then by your own comments, youre a bad GM.
The GM in question didn't run MathNerd off. MathNerd chose not to continue playing after he?/she? didn't like how a table came out. I'm not saying MathNerd did anything to deserve less loot than full cause I don't know the details of the table cause I wasn't there, but innocence on the part of the player doesn't automatically mean the GM is 'bad'.
I agree with this here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One.
I've had one BAD Game Master.
I've had plenty who made mistakes, who've skipped entire sections, run the wrong tier, or made decisions I didn't agree with regarding loot. At least one of those situations I thought "if I was a new player I probably wouldn't come back. That wasn't fun at all."
But all those are GMs who just need seasoning. Maybe some more dedication and spend more time prepping. Mistakes are mistakes and everyone makes them.
|
|
Because, most other relatively reasonable gm's don't try to #%^##*^% over characters because of some obtuse reading of the rules.
But since you do it to players, you should really man up and tell the GM your interpretation so he can apply your reading of the rules to your character.
There is noting obtuse in my reading of the rules. Having to make up a new definition of the word found that is not explicitly mentioned as an exeption is.
Also, your character is not screwed over because you didn't get access to the potion of invisibility or the like at level 1. Were you really about to spend 60% of the take for the adventure on a single one-shot item? At the point where you are ready to spend 300 gp on a single-use item, you probably have the 5 fame where chronicle access doesn't matter any longer. I think you are being a bit melodramatic.
The one time I recall it happening was a tier 1-2 with an 1100 gp one-shot consumable. That was over 200% of the gold earned. At the point where that is disposable cash, you probably have the 9 fame to not worry about.
I would be happy if the rule was clarified so that the PCs still got access in this case, but I don't see that from the rules as written. It may be rule ad intended, but not as written.
Just because you think a person shouldn't or wouldn't buy the item doesn't justify you making up a rule that most responses have told you is the minority opinion
I am constantly amazed at all the gm's on here who constantly try to make the worst possible rulings for the players. Being a GM isn't about winning, it's about making sure all your players enjoy themselves.
|
|
I am constantly amazed at all the gm's on here who constantly try to make the worst possible rulings for the players. Being a GM isn't about winning, it's about making sure allyour playersat the table enjoy themselves.
I see the "GM's job is to make the players happy" sentiment a lot and it rubs me the wrong way. GMs are playing the game too, and it's not worth their time if they aren't enjoying themselves. Have fun WITH the players, but not at the expense of the players. And vice versa for GMs. We're all in it together.
|
|
I am constantly amazed at all the gm's on here who constantly try to make the worst possible rulings for the players. Being a GM isn't about winning, it's about making sure allI see the "GM's job is to make the players happy" sentiment a lot and it rubs me the wrong way. GMs are playing the game too, and it's not worth their time if they aren't enjoying themselves. Have fun WITH the players, but not at the expense of the players. And vice versa for GMs. We're all in it together.your playersat the table enjoy themselves.
I never said make the players happy in the sense of caving to what they say or want. It is my job as a gm to give the players a good experience. I want them to come back, and maybe even gm for me once in a while.
