|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing. If they want hard mode so badly that they would rather not play at a table if they don't get their way, thry need to organize their own table not during a regularly scheduled event. Especially when a person dropping at the last minute can and has caused tables not to fire.
You should still give them the chance to drop out. Scheduling is never so cut and dry. (If there are only three players, you shouldn't even be discussing Hard Mode.)
|
Per the rules on hard mode the vote has to be unanimous, everyone has to vote for hard mode, it is not just a straight-up majority vote. One "no" means no hard mode.
I had a favorite on this for this part alone, and the previous post because it seemed like the least invasive yet fair method of handling hard mode.
And then I started thinking of my own GM style, and how sometimes things I might say might actually *encourage* folks to do it (however unwittingly or unintentional on my part).
Prohibiting politicking for potential party pride is a good thing. Unfortunately, by removing even the option of discussion there's now a problem with the following below...
At the end of the session, I let players know whether they played on hard mode or normal mode. The people that voted "no" will already know, but I still make the announcement at the end because those that voted "yes" won't know, and it just makes it kind of exciting. Especially when you play something like Sealed Gate, fight tooth and nail to get to the end, only to discover "that was normal mode?"
In this example there are now players who were deliberately misled on the difficulty of the scenario, whether by commission or omission. That's not a very good standard to have as a GM.
The perception would then become 'If something like hard mode is being lied about, what *other* things is the GM lying about? How can I trust them to be fair and impartial? How do I know they didn't cross things off my chronicle because they were having a bad day or didn't understand how consumables run? How do I know that the 'crit' that killed my character was actually a 'crit' and not just some random ol' number? How do I know that the GM isn't using wrong tactics or a weighted die or or or or...'
That string of thought isn't a pretty one, but not being honest with one's players as a GM with a mechanical feature leads to second-guessing, even if it is unwarranted and the initial effort is to preclude peer pressure and make for a fun play environment.
|
The secrecy is also not worth killing a player's character on hard mode when she didn't want to play hard mode.
Except if that player didn't vote for hard mode, then they 100% know that they will not be playing in hard mode. Like previously mentioned voting has to be unanimous for hard mode. Everybody has to vote for it, if one person says no, it defaults to normal.
With this, I'm bowing out of this conversation. My local players haven't had an issue with the way I've handled it, and in the end I'm more worried about them than voices on the internet. If I run something with hard mode at a con, out of courtesy I'll let people know the vote result beforehand. I'll still quash discusdion of it because it can cause people to feel pressured to vote a certain direction.
|
|
That's the thing. If they want hard mode so badly that they would rather not play at a table if they don't get their way, thry need to organize their own table not during a regularly scheduled event. Especially when a person dropping at the last minute can and has caused tables not to fire.You should still give them the chance to drop out. Scheduling is never so cut and dry. (If there are only three players, you shouldn't even be discussing Hard Mode.)
One person dropping can cause others to drop. I've seen it before.
|
|
One person dropping can cause others to drop. I've seen it before.Then so be it. Personally I know I wouldn't be willing to play with a GM who wasn't willing to be open with their players.
And if you play at my table, and bring that concern up with me, I'll listen to it. Like I said, I care much less about what talking heads on the forums think than what people at my table think. If a player has an issue, I can change things up. I think it's important to be flexible as a GM.
This isn't a hard and fast rule for me. I don't have hard and fast rules. This is just how I've handled it in the past, and will handle it until one of my players has an issue with it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad it's worked you for UM, and if it continues to work I think you should keep doing it. Under the weird thought that my opinion is important I thought I'd share it with you:
The thought of not knowing if I'm playing hard or not would totally drive me nuts here's why:
1)Appropriate behavior in hard mode:
I activate my one time +10 initiative boon and open with a quickened ill omen. My familiar also uses his wand of ill omen on the other threatening target and I follow up with a dazing persistent firewall via my Staff of the Master Necromancer.
In a normal scenario that's probably overkill and doesn't make for a fun table for anybody else who wants to take meaningful actions in combat.
2)Which character I'm playing.
I only have a couple characters that I play hard mode on, ones that are optimized beyond what I normally find appropriate for PFS.
3) Table Comp.
If we're playing hard mode, I care about the party composition, are we well balanced, are we an appropriate set of levels. Normally I don't care if we have 5 players and are APL 7.6 in a 5-9 (One of the hardest adjustments just because of how the scaling works.) I'm not going to play hard mode under the same circumstance though.
|
|
Yeah, that came off harsher than I'd intended. I do care about the opinions of people here, hearing other opinions, even if they don't line up with one's own, is important and contributes to being a better GM and person. In the end, however, I'm going to do what I think is best for my players.*
*Unless it goes against the rules.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rob articulated a lot of good points about more mechanical and meta-mechanical reasons why I wouldn't want to be in the dark about what mode we're playing. But apart from that, there's also an element of interpersonal trust that I think is better served by the GM being upfront about it.
That said, I do agree with anonymous voting unless the game was specifically advertised/set up as a hard mode game.
I'd be rather surprised if players actually left a game when the result wasn't hard mode because someone voted against it. I feel that if you sign up to a game that you know may not be going hard mode, you shouldn't act out if it actually turns out not to swing that way.
|
|
Rob articulated a lot of good points about more mechanical and meta-mechanical reasons why I wouldn't want to be in the dark about what mode we're playing. But apart from that, there's also an element of interpersonal trust that I think is better served by the GM being upfront about it.
That said, I do agree with anonymous voting unless the game was specifically advertised/set up as a hard mode game.
I'd be rather surprised if players actually left a game when the result wasn't hard mode because someone voted against it. I feel that if you sign up to a game that you know may not be going hard mode, you shouldn't act out if it actually turns out not to swing that way.
I see the point on trust, it's a good point that I guess hadn't really occurred to me since we're a pretty tight-knit group in Omaha, it seems like an alien concept to me to not be able to trust the GM.
I absolutely agree that if a table is being specifically set-up for hard mode then everything should be on the level.
|
|
Choosing not to lose your one chance to play a game in your preferred way is not acting out.
Edit: I guess my issue is, if someone knows a scenario has a hard mode option and proceeds to sign up for a public game, they should do so with the knowledge that the table might go either way. If they don't know the scenario has a hard mode, then I fail to see why it should matter one way or the other. But, I will say that this is from my point of view, and I won't say that those who feel otherwise are wrong. There's more than one right way to play this game. But, from my POV it's kind of a crappy thing to do to the other players at a table to drop just because the vote doesn't go your way.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Choosing not to lose your one chance to play a game in your preferred way is not acting out.
If you absolutely must play that scenario at hard mode, why sign up for it if it's advertised as "we'll hold a poll to see if people want hard more"? You accepted the risk by signing up for it.
|
|
Just a random observation: I think a lot of the disagreement may also involve how different areas handle sign-ups and mustering for PFS in their area. In our area, for instance, hard mode tables are generally advertised and sign-up for as hard-mode or organized privately, even if being played at an open venue as an extra table.
In areas where all mustering is regularly done on-site (which still boggles my mind, but I get that it works in some areas) or at conventions where pre-mustered tables are an exception rather than a rule, this becomes more problematic.
|
|
Core is a bit different, as it is a 'younger sibling' to the 'standard campaign'.
There's a *lot* of *omission* for Core campaign, makes it easier for 'entry level' play.
'Hard Mode' falls apart at the idea of 'democracy at the table' when there have been far too many experiences of 'peer pressure' forcing one direction or the other.
Alternatively, there have been people who have sat at a table where the GM prepared 'Hard Mode' (or their own personal variant) 'because this would be cool' and tables have had markedly *poor* experiences from it, but didn't know that it was 'Hard Mode' until after the scenario and reading through it.
And then there are those of us who look at the 'optimization' angle of 'ULTIMATE POWAH COMBOS' and recoil internally at the logic chains that require the 'PERFECT POWER CHORDS'... for NO mechanical benefit
I've stated before, if there was some *benefit* to Hard Mode, I suspect more people would be 'on board' for it.
As far as 'completely voluntary'? A different thread about the 'completely voluntary' repayment of character resources has exploded in pretty much the same direction, so it's not just 'Hard Mode'.
People are reasonably concerned about 'mission creep' and 'societal (read: peer) pressure' in both situations.
