|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Careful throwing around the word cheating so lightly. I think you'll find there are a lot of people that would argue what you call "softball" is perfectly legal. The CRB even encourages it.
"Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that’s irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren’t doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it’s no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right."
|
|
I've had characters in the untenable position of being 'too healthy' to drop after a devastating blow, but 'too hurt' to survive another one, and then get walloped again.
It happens, and I don't fault the dice for that. I also don't fault my GMs if they have their entity they are using in combat/whatnot shift focus once a combat threat is down and not an apparent threat.
We don't need every creature the Society encounters going for the CdG, after all...
|
Careful throwing around the word cheating so lightly. I think you'll find there are a lot of people that would argue what you call "softball" is perfectly legal. The CRB even encourages it.
"Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support. Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that’s irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren’t doctored or loaded, of course). Still, it’s no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right."
I don't recall if 9.1 has this still, but most previous guides back to 4.0 has similar language in the Roleplaying Guild Guide.
|
|
Are all GMs now going to be required to wear bodycams at all times, roll all dice in the open, and show the players the creature statblocks? And make nifty notes about awesome things the players did on the chronicle sheets so everyone can remember the awesome play time will be prohibited?
At what level do we micromanage the job to the point that it'd be better done by lousy MMO-logicking processes?
Does this mean that when the GM looks at the clock and GM 101/102s it and goes "This isn't an important fight, we're moving the action along since you've got this" they're 'cheating' to try and provide a better play experience for the players?
Does this also mean that if the player characters completely invalidate the tactics of the opponents but leave few other options, the opponents cannot (for example) surrender if their morale condition allows for it?
I've been in campaigns that have tried to micro-manage GMs. I'm not affiliated with them anymore for those sorts of above reasons (well, except the bodycam -- the tech wasn't there yet).
DO NOT WANT.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are all GMs now going to be required to wear bodycams at all times, roll all dice in the open, and show the players the creature statblocks? And make nifty notes about awesome things the players did on the chronicle sheets so everyone can remember the awesome play time will be prohibited?
At what level do we micromanage the job to the point that it'd be better done by lousy MMO-logicking processes?
Does this mean that when the GM looks at the clock and GM 101/102s it and goes "This isn't an important fight, we're moving the action along since you've got this" they're 'cheating' to try and provide a better play experience for the players?
Does this also mean that if the player characters completely invalidate the tactics of the opponents but leave few other options, the opponents cannot (for example) surrender if their morale condition allows for it?
I've been in campaigns that have tried to micro-manage GMs. I'm not affiliated with them anymore for those sorts of above reasons (well, except the bodycam -- the tech wasn't there yet).
DO NOT WANT.
Agreed. And it pretty quickly becomes obvious when a GM is going over the top with things to "move the game along." This can be both softballing and hardballing to a point where either there is "zero challenge cause friends" and "everytime this guy GMs its a TPK."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it also says this:
Do Not Cheat
Maintain the integrity of the game and do not cheat. This includes, but is not limited to, falsifying rolls, altering Chronicle sheets, using unapproved resources, not owning the sources used by your character, and lying to event coordinators under any circumstances. Participants caught cheating will be barred from Roleplaying Guild events for a span of time commensurate with their offense. Repeat offenders will be banned from Pathfinder Society and Paizo's other organized play programsFalsifying rolls arguably applies equally to GMs as it does to players.
I personally have an issue with GMs who, in certain situations, aren't willing to at least fudge some rolls when they make really horrible decisions.
For example, the start of a particular Special, at Gen Con. My wife and I were playing together, and playing Tier 5-6. She had a Rogue at level 5, a favorite of hers as it was a Kitsune.
So he surrounds my wife with 3 Rogues and shoots her with another, while virtually ignoring everyone else on the table. With a couple criticals and sneak attacks, he'd done like 90 points of damage and then acts all surprised when she says she's dead by like 50 points. GM is like, "What do you mean you are dead?" I'm like, "Dude, she's a level 5 rogue with a 12 Con. You just hit her with 7 sneak attacks, 2 of which were criticals, what did you think would happen?!"
A bit embarrassed, cause he'd killed my wife's favorite character in the first round of the special by making a really poor decision, he retconned it so she could play the rest of the special. But it left a really sour taste in my mouth for the rest of the night.
Which is more egregious, retconning a really horrible decision like that? Fudging some rolls in the moment when you realize just how horrible a decision you'd made?
Or would it be better for him to say, "Oh, so sorry, too bad. Hope you had fun for 10 minutes!"
This is not a zero sum game, and GMs NEED to have leeway to make appropriate decisions in the moment based on the present circumstances.
And yes, I know, you are going to say something like, "Who gets to decide what's appropriate?" Frankly, the community the person GM's for does. If the GM continually makes inappropriate choices, the community will weed them out by a) not wanting to play at his table, b) complaining to leadership and getting them to stop letting the person GM, or c) making tables fail because they just don't show up (or leave) a table that person is GMing.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
GM is like, "What do you mean you are dead?" I'm like, "Dude, she's a level 5 rogue with a 12 Con. You just hit her with 7 sneak attacks, 2 of which were criticals, what did you think would happen?!"
Sort of beside the point, but I am curious if she had traded out uncanny dodge.
|
|
GM is like, "What do you mean you are dead?" I'm like, "Dude, she's a level 5 rogue with a 12 Con. You just hit her with 7 sneak attacks, 2 of which were criticals, what did you think would happen?!"Sort of beside the point, but I am curious if she had traded out uncanny dodge.
I think she had the swashbuckler archetype, and I don't recall what it trades out (although I think it does trade out trapfinding.) And uncanny dodge at 5th level doesn't preclude being flanked, only being flatfooted. So the crossbow attack was probably not a sneak attack at the time. Its been since Gen Con 2014, so ALL the specific details are fuzzy. But I know she took a couple crits and a couple sneak attacks and was negative 30 or worse before she got to participate in the scenario at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is more egregious, retconning a really horrible decision like that? Fudging some rolls in the moment when you realize just how horrible a decision you'd made?
Or would it be better for him to say, "Oh, so sorry, too bad. Hope you had fun for 10 minutes!"
Perhaps people missed me saying it would "annoy the crap" out of me if done in favor of the PCs, while it would be the "biggest BS a GM could pull" if turned against them.
Also, I'm not talking about a GM walking back bad decision; I'm talking about the mentioned "tactic" of rolling all of a creature's attacks at once and then determining order of each roll after to maximize effect; presumably, this would also include determining targets. Oh, this attack roll wouldn't hit the fighter, so I'll have it go to the rogue that it will be able to hit. To me, that's way worse than just fudging a roll or two.
A closer analogy would be if your wife's situation had been reversed: the GM spread out the attacks, wasn't satisfied, and instead redirected them all to be able to kill her.
You used the cheat word above, and so I kinda missed some of the context of what you were saying. But suffice it to say, to help expedite play, I've used a version of nosig's die rolling tactic. But I never fudge in my own favor as a GM.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not going to itemize what I think is okay and what would be "cheating" by the GM. I trust the GM to do the right thing for the table until s/he proves otherwise. If they fudge dice or alter tactics or use terrain, whatever, at the end of the game as long as we had fun and felt like they followed the spirit of the adventure and the Society (both in game and meta), I don't really care. One of the first lessons I learned as a GM came from Gary Gygax decades ago when he said, "don't let the dice ruin the story" [paraphrased]. Sticking to that philosophy has served me well ever since and its part of any mentoring I do with other GMs. YMMV
|
|
I am not going to itemize what I think is okay and what would be "cheating" by the GM. I trust the GM to do the right thing for the table until s/he proves otherwise. If they fudge dice or alter tactics or use terrain, whatever, at the end of the game as long as we had fun and felt like they followed the spirit of the adventure and the Society (both in game and meta), I don't really care. One of the first lessons I learned as a GM came from Gary Gygax decades ago when he said, "don't let the dice ruin the story" [paraphrased]. Sticking to that philosophy has served me well ever since and its part of any mentoring I do with other GMs. YMMV
I agree with this. But in some cases, some GM's don't know how to modify tactics to create more fun. You see this in many instances of complaints of overly deadly scenarios or encounters. When digging deeper, it becomes clear that the only reason there was a TPK (or near TPK) was because the GM did not use the written tactics and used their own, objectively better tactics.
|
|
True, but I tend to blame that on either inexperienced decision making or poor mentoring. Either way, I don't consider it cheating unless the GM is stubborn and does not learn from their mistakes or refuses advice from those who know better. I think it all stems from a fundamental trust in the GM. If you trust GMs to do the right thing until they prove otherwise, its rarely "cheating" when something goes wrong. Its more a learning opportunity. If, however, you generally distrust GMs then when something goes wrong, the jump to intentional cheating is a quicker, easier response.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but I tend to blame that on either inexperienced decision making or poor mentoring. Either way, I don't consider it cheating unless the GM is stubborn and does not learn from their mistakes or refuses advice from those who know better. I think it all stems from a fundamental trust in the GM. If you trust GMs to do the right thing until they prove otherwise, its rarely "cheating" when something goes wrong. Its more a learning opportunity. If, however, you generally distrust GMs then when something goes wrong, the jump to intentional cheating is a quicker, easier response.
Agreed. I just think its necessary for GMs in general to be careful and thoughtful about anything they may change, and to make sure they aren't doing so for the wrong reasons.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Deciding how to stick to tactics isn't always straightforward.
- The strictness of "run as written" gradually increased after the first seasons, so it doesn't make sense in all scenarios.
- Some writers think of their tactics as a suggestion to GMs on what the enemy might do. Others have a specific plan.
- Sometimes tactics are intentionally bad, to be able to use a hefty enemy without overwhelming the PCs trough optimal use.
- Some tactics are based on rules mistakes by the author so are invalidated from the beginning, unless you apply flawed rules.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Deciding how to stick to tactics isn't always straightforward.
- The strictness of "run as written" gradually increased after the first seasons, so it doesn't make sense in all scenarios.
- Some writers think of their tactics as a suggestion to GMs on what the enemy might do. Others have a specific plan.
- Sometimes tactics are intentionally bad, to be able to use a hefty enemy without overwhelming the PCs trough optimal use.
- Some tactics are based on rules mistakes by the author so are invalidated from the beginning, unless you apply flawed rules.
In my experience, some scenarios and tactics service the contacts with the players and others are invalidated before the NPC can act once.
At some point as the GM trying to stay true to the authors intent, can be a bit challenging (and benefits from good mentoring and experience as player and GM).
Considering option 4, what should we do in those situations? I'm in the middle of running a scenario (PbP) and part of the tactics aren't possible due to the spells selected for the character (author error).
|
|
If a tactic is invalid, its invalid. The source of the invalidity is not really important. Using what is available to the monster/NPC make the decision that is best for the game. Without knowing the exact parameters no one can tell you what that is. As long as you are fair and strive to put on a fun game, 99% of the time, you'll be fine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a harder experience just ask your GM.
If you want an easier experience just ask your GM.
Sometimes the answer might be I don't think this scenario has any challenging encounters but I'll do my best to make them a threat.
Or, This scenario has some difficult encounters, if the likelyhood of death for you is unacceptable this might be a bad adventure.
There's a ton of flexibility on how deadly an adventure is based on GM choices. Don't be afraid of telling your GM what you want, I've never seen a GM respond negatively to expressed preferences, although I have seen new GMs respond something like "I'm concerned enough with just running this as written, I don't think I have the judgement to appropriately make legal adjustments"
No problem with that answer, knowing your limits is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a tactic is invalid, its invalid. The source of the invalidity is not really important. Using what is available to the monster/NPC make the decision that is best for the game. Without knowing the exact parameters no one can tell you what that is. As long as you are fair and strive to put on a fun game, 99% of the time, you'll be fine.
I was more just looking for the general guidelines for what to do, which you have provided :) Thanks!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
If the exact tactics no longer work, look at what the scenario says the NPC wants to accomplish and how he's willing to go about it. Is he merciless? Cruel? A reckless risk-taker? Is he more interested in making out in good shape, or inflicting maximum harm before he gets cut down?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest way to ratchet difficulty is information control. There are a number of scenarios with esoteric lore on how to overcome a challenge, without which it becomes very hard to succeed. Even simply not knowing a creatures DR can up the difficulty as the party tries to work out how to overcome it. (Massive damage is of course the main option, but casually optimized PCs don't tend to get the high DPR of fully engaged buildcraft.)
As for shifting rolls around after seeing the results, I have been tempted. But I generally will not do something that I would not let a player do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest way to ratchet difficulty is information control.So long as you're not withholding information that players should have.
And everything I spoke of referred to that which players have no way of knowing. As a GM, I tend to describe extra details not called out in adventures. The more details I give the party, the better understanding of what is going on they receive. The GM is a powerful shaper of the players perceptions, so much so that a misunderstood or miscommunicated word can bring widely varied interpretations of a character. (A certain grandmaster and a vew VCs being the prime example.) I have watched GMs make scenarios so very much harder simply by NOT giving that extra level of detail, for both good and ill.
|
In my experience my tactics as GM make very little difference in the party's life or death. Running at cons I will sometimes vary my approach to certain combats just to keep things interesting for myself while running 5 of the same game in a weekend and am sometimes surprised at how the written tactics can be more effective than what I thought to be 'superior' tactics for the situation.
What plays a far large role is player tactics, player skills, and dice, in that order. Bad dice happens and is a fact of life.
But bad tactics are far more devastating because you can make it so your dice can't even save you. And the surest way to approach a fight with bad tactics is to just have no idea what's even happening in front of you.
Here is a short listing of my most memorable TPKs:
The party led off by getting fireballed and having the barbarian fail a will save vs confusion before the party could really get into melee. The party casters (sorcerer and kineticist) led off with tons of fire damage spells because 3 or 4 separate times through the adventure they failed to realize they were in the lair of a Red Dragon.
Party's Oracle got fried by shield othering the Fighter who got SHREDDED with a vicious full attack after two rounds of getting 5x life linked.
Fighter eventually dies with some help from the confused barbarian. Party sorcerer turns tail and runs. Kineticist has no way to reliably damage something with this much fire resistance and also runs.
Barbarian puts up reasonably strong display but ends up losing. Party loses 4/6 members in this wipe due primarily to bad information and bad tactics, and in the case of the barbarian, a really badly timed natural 2 having wasted her reroll the fight prior.
Party foolishly chooses not to confront the ghouls eating from the giant fleshball and goes directly to confront the ghast king. They get done introducing themselves around the time that the scenario says the ghouls will stop eating and turn to see the party is there.
I suppose I could have had the ghoul king wait for them to stop fighting the other ghouls and finish their diplomacy but the whole thing is written in to be a ruse in the first place so they end up fighting both fights at once. I did feel a little bad about this one.
5/5 die all owing to some poor decision making.
The only time I have EVER seen a party struggle with the first encounter this badly, the only methods they had for hurting swarms were fire and this swarm was resistant to fire among other things. The party loses 3 members and the rest run for their lives.
This one was mostly caused by poor player tactics back in the character building phase, but there were WAYS to handle this fight, some small failsafes built in plus ways to deal with swarms that don't involved necessarily having to kill them. The party just didn't think to use them.