Revising "Run as Written"

[pH unbalanced]

reevos wrote:

Can we include Increasing DCs or adding ad-hoc negative circumstance modifiers to this?

While the FAQ seems to cover this, it would be helpful to get that part clarified in this portion.

GMs must not:
- Change player-facing armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons, or any other mechanics of player character options

I think it would make sense to lock down changing DCs, but I don't think you should tie the GMs hands regarding circumstance bonuses or penalties. Those are often unique situational decisions by definition.

[Mr. Fred]

BretI wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

umopapisdnupsidedown wrote:

I would also like to see a provision explicitly allowing GM discretion for enemies to retreat or surrender when it makes sense for them to do so. It's written into some scenarios but not others.

This is already explicitly allowed, though it could be clearer. Morale is a part of the tactics section, and tactics are one of the things GMs are already specifically allowed to change if the existing tactics no longer apply due to player actions.

I would like greater clarity on this as it wasn’t clear to me how much leeway a GM had in calling a battle.

Actually you could run those scenario in the time if you switch to a pure mechanical approach (what I refer to the Hero Quest mode, with no connotations), where the game is mainly a tactical board game. some like it, other doesn't and consider the experience as not fun.

I'm planning my games on 5 hours slots (online) and most of the time I don't have to skip battles. This happens
- With adventures containing influence encounter, where players tends to spend lots of time on
- With some adventures like "Ukuja the First Wall" or "Island of the Vibrant death" ... sometimes it is just because players got unlucky and one of the previous battle last too long, or sometimes it is because there were too much encounters (which happens, as someone said above, authors are also humans).

I am sure I have also to improve my time management somehow

As a rule of thumb, outside convention, When I plan a tier 5 or more I organize it on 2 sessions of 4 hours, to ensure we have enough time. Between Rushing a battle with silly monster strategy or take the time to provide (some) tactical challenges to the players who are looking for it at the price of skipping another less important-to-the-story battle ...

We're getting slighting out of scope, but those are the guidelines I fell I am missing in the run as written.

BTW thank you for all your reaction, it's important we don't feel alone against this topic !!

[logsig]

On wanting guidance to define what an obvious error is and/or how to resolve obvious errors: I submit that this probably falls into the category of things that the OP team believes GMs should make a judgment call on. The subtext here is the trust that GMs know (or know how to find out) what an approximately plausible range of numbers is for the level of the scenario, or, perhaps more to the point, are able to correctly sense what an appropriate amount of challenge for the PCs is.

Regarding Pirate Rob's question about what is expected to change at a table level, this depends a lot on the GM (judging from the responses in this thread so far, I suspect that for a significant percentage of GMs, this will change nothing at a practical level, but for some it may make them feel better about doing what they already do). At the very least, though, there should be fewer instances of those GMs who claim that their hands are tied and they have to run something in a less than enjoyable way, or even in a way that defies common sense, simply because the scenario says so.

As I see it, the OP team wants:
(1) to not be badgered for clarifications or fixes to scenarios,
(2) for GMs to accept that they have the power to make adventures fun for their players and that they should fearlessly exercise this power to the fullest in that service,
(3) to make some progress towards ridding Org Play of its reputation for sacrificing creative play on the altar of mythical table uniformity.

[UnforcedError]

As someone who ran her own custom campaigns and custom adventures up until Covid time I absolutely welcome the change to give GMs a bit more freedom to adjust a scenario to their current party of players. I have, however, a few concerns about the new wording.

- I'd still emphasize the fact that society play should strive for a consistent experience, meaning new (and established) GMs should absolutely not feel pressured to make any changes to the scenario (apart from obvious typos and possible clarification of inconsistencies), and maybe first aim to run them as written before adding their own creative bits.

- as someone who enjoys the storytelling aspect of RPGs the most, and with speedruns seemingly becoming more popular these days I'd like to point out that syles like this should not be treated as a norm and should only be allowed if the GM and all the players are in consensus and everyone at the table understands what a speedrun will be omitting ("yeah, we all know what the briefing says, let's get to the fight...")

- I do have concerns about how scenario corrections are handled these days. We're all humans, we all make mistakes, writers, editors, reviewers as well, this is absolutely normal. However, in an optimal case I'd like to see the later changes actually make their way into the scenario with the pdf being republished. Because I think nowadays a GM who doesn't have access to some resources (e.g. someone who didn't buy the VTT modules and is not a VO) will have difficulties collecting relevant official information on the later corrections.

- the wording "run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty" suggests that deliberately decreasing difficulty is fine, was that deliberate and if yes, how would this affect the consistency of game play ?

- does the usage of alternate map only apply to allowing GMs to redraw the map (which has always been the case) or does the earlier wording of "no changes to terrain" not apply anymore either ? Meaning could a GM set a given encounter on a completely different map with completely different terrain features?

I think I could go on with the questions. What I'm trying to point out is: the rules of a campaign should still be rules, it should in an optimal case be obvious what is allowed and what isn't and somehow define the areas where GMs have their creative playgrounds. And people are different. Some do love creative freedom, some feel pressured by it, some others even abuse it. I wouldn't want players or GMs leave society play because the rules aren't clear.

[UnforcedError]

camberme wrote:

Does use "alternate" maps extend to VTT for encounters that don't have maps and can be added?

Enhancing the scenarios with new maps or NPCs adding additional explanations (maybe to new players) was never prohibited. (I would never have run anything if it had been...)

[UnforcedError]

Chris Marsh wrote:

Unrelated... I just now noticed that my stars/sigils/novas don't appear correctly. does that happen to others?

Yes.

[Christopher Waterfield]

Alex, thank you. These changes and acknowledgements are both welcome and long overdue. My personal opinion is that the GM should make each game as fun and engaging for the players as humanly possible, especially when certain parts of the adventure don't seem to facilitate the fun. I will openly acknowledge that I engage in this type of GM behavior already, and I welcome the criticism from the GM Hellknights.

[LeftHandShake]

Petronius wrote:

LeftHandShake wrote:

...assumes that those challenges and systems *actually function* ...presumes that all equipment actually works as intended...

That is one possible assumption.

Another is that fixes to mechanics ought to be one of the things that is consistent across tables--as should dealing with not having those fixes before they exist. Consistency in the uncertainty as well as the certainty.

I'm working from the statements of intent in Alex's original post:

Alex Speidel wrote:

If there is an obvious error, you do not require our permission to fix it. If there is something unclear about an adventure, you do not require our blessing to smooth it over.

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tabletop roleplaying games [...] have a GM at the table, with a brain and full ability and power to make alterations as necessary.

Alex Speidel wrote:

We trust our GMs to run the adventures not as written, but as intended

My understanding is that Alex wants GMs to be able to make the necessary adjustments to the scenario as written so that it plays sensibly and fairly. My point (as well as others' point) is that the proposed language doesn't actually say that. There are situations that feel "broken" that by our understanding of the proposed new language can't be "fixed" within the bounds of PFS rules.

We're saying that there's an incongruity between what Alex says he wants to convey and what's actually conveyed. He says GMs don't need to beg for clarifications, they can just fix it... but the PFS rules say you *can't* fix some things. Notably, that third quote says that the expectation was already that GMs would "run as intended", but the section of the guide in question is called "run as written". I don't think we're wrong to be confused.

logsig wrote:

On wanting guidance to define what an obvious error is and/or how to resolve obvious errors: I submit that this probably falls into the category of things that the OP team believes GMs should make a judgment call on.

The question from Talon Stormwarden was about the resolution of an "obvious error to fix vs a change that increases difficulty, which is prohibited." Everyone here is capable of using our judgment to choose a different number (etc), we get that. The problem is that sometimes that appropriate number *is more difficult than what's written*. For example, if a level 5 (non-ooze) monster is listed with an AC of 12, a GM might reasonably infer that the digits got transposed (an obvious error) and it was supposed to be 21. But that change would "intentionally increase the difficulty" of the encounter, which isn't allowed. Same thing for ignoring the aquatic trait for a "fish-monster out of water": it feels like an obvious error, but making the monsters *not suffocating* at the start of combat (or before) "intentionally increase[s] the difficulty" relative to what's written.

The people asking for more clarity aren't idiots or incapable of making judgment calls, nor are we incapable of recognizing errors. We're carefully parsing the language and noting that it doesn't give as much freedom as the OrgPlay team seems to want/intend it to give.

[PF Coop]

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

I’m similarly unsure what would be an obvious error to fix vs a change that increases difficulty, which is prohibited.

There is a creature in a scenario with +132 to it's attack. (Pretty clearly it was changed from +13 to +12 or vice versa and someone forgot to hit delete / backspace. I guess it is lucky it wasn't on the damage line...)

While I’ll agree that’s a very obvious error, that really doesn’t address the question.

I agree. I think that the text should include this update:

Quote:

- Run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty, except as dictated by the scenario or to correct obvious errors

[Petronius]

LeftHandShake wrote:

My understanding is that Alex wants GMs to be able to make the necessary adjustments to the scenario as written so that it plays sensibly and fairly. My point (as well as others' point) is that the proposed language doesn't actually say that. There are situations that feel "broken" that by our understanding of the proposed new language can't be "fixed" within the bounds of PFS rules.

We're saying that there's an incongruity between what Alex says he wants to convey and what's actually conveyed. He says GMs don't need to beg for clarifications, they can just fix it... but the PFS rules say you *can't* fix some things. Notably, that third quote says that the expectation was already that GMs would "run as intended", but the section of the guide in question is called "run as written". I don't think we're wrong to be confused.

I don't think anyone said you are wrong to be confused. Certainly not an idea I meant to convey & apologies if it came across that way.

The intent of the draft seems clear to me: open things up some while keeping certain things off-limits for changes. Your position also seems clear: you think there ought to be fewer or no exceptions. I don't think you & I are going to agree, but then we don't need to for Alex to make the final call.

Good point on the section title. Frankly, it probably shouldn't be called anything that has the acronym RAW or RAI, since it is not and was not really saying either as those are typically used.

LeftHandShake wrote:

The people asking for more clarity aren't idiots or incapable of making judgment calls, nor are we incapable of recognizing errors.

If anyone said anything implying any of that here, it must have been moderated before I saw it. Regardless, you seem reasonably on top of it to me! :)

It's always good to hear about places where the seams/edges might be showing. Appreciate you & everyone else for bringing them up. Thanks!

[JollyPumpkin]

Alex Speidel wrote:

Hello Pathfinders and Starfinders,

Today we are asking for public comment on the following revisions to the Guide to Organized Play, specifically the section entitled Run as Written.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Hi Alex,

I think the rule "No banning of legal character options" could use some clarification. Is this saying that the Common/Uncommon/Rare traits must be ignored by GM's?

[TriOmegaZero]

No, pretty sure it means you can’t ban Common options or ignore boons/rules that allows players to use Uncommon or Rare options.

[Lesrek]

JollyPumpkin wrote:

Alex Speidel wrote:

Hello Pathfinders and Starfinders,

Today we are asking for public comment on the following revisions to the Guide to Organized Play, specifically the section entitled Run as Written.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Hi Alex,

I think the rule "No banning of legal character options" could use some clarification. Is this saying that the Common/Uncommon/Rare traits must be ignored by GM's?

This is saying that anything that is legal (and a character has earned, like through a boon as an example) must be allowed by the GM. The GM can't say "no gnomes at this table" but they can still audit character options to make sure a player has earned those choices.

[Alex Speidel]

JollyPumpkin wrote:

Alex Speidel wrote:

Hello Pathfinders and Starfinders,

Today we are asking for public comment on the following revisions to the Guide to Organized Play, specifically the section entitled Run as Written.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Hi Alex,

I think the rule "No banning of legal character options" could use some clarification. Is this saying that the Common/Uncommon/Rare traits must be ignored by GM's?

No; this sentence is to prevent a GM from saying "I think clerics are dumb, so no clerics at my table."

(I know there were other overnight discussions here but I haven't eaten my breakfast yet. This one was easy to respond to.)

[Jason S]

The changes look good to me.

[Tomppa]

"As a reward, the NPC gifts players [an uncommon weapon] at the end of the scenario."
However, chronicle sheet does not list said weapon.
To me, this seems like an obvious error: There is no point in handing the players a weapon, then taking it away immediately, and not giving access to it on the chronicle sheet. However, messing with the chronicle sheet seems extremely dubious.

Would this be considered an obvious error that a GM would be free to correct, adding it to the chronicle sheet's list of items unlocked?

example, 6-03:

Bloodletting Kukri (uncommon, lvl 5, GMC) is given to the PCs a moment before the end of the scenario, yet isn't on the chronicle sheet. It's accessible through other scenarios, so it clearly isn't a case of "we don't want players to get access to this weapon".

To emphasise, I don't really care about this specific example (despite having asked it elsewhere too) specifically - I just think it's an excellent example of a situation where 'an obvious error' might not actually be one.

[Shane M.]

Alex Speidel wrote:

Hello Pathfinders and Starfinders,

Today we are asking for public comment on the following revisions to the Guide to Organized Play, specifically the section entitled Run as Written.

Looks great to me.

[eddv]

PF Coop wrote:

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

I’m similarly unsure what would be an obvious error to fix vs a change that increases difficulty, which is prohibited.

There is a creature in a scenario with +132 to it's attack. (Pretty clearly it was changed from +13 to +12 or vice versa and someone forgot to hit delete / backspace. I guess it is lucky it wasn't on the damage line...)

While I’ll agree that’s a very obvious error, that really doesn’t address the question.

I agree. I think that the text should include this update:

Quote:

- Run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty, except as dictated by the scenario or to correct obvious errors

Great note, thatd address it nicely.

[Alex Speidel]

thistledown wrote:

Reskinning enemies to avoid phobias I get. I've had to deal with a giant spider issue at a table I ran. But reskin for personal preference? I don't want to hear a conversation where one table fought tigers and another fought wolves.

As long as the mechanics don't change, does it matter if you fought wolves or tigers? I agree that GMs should not change the Deadly Robot of Death into the Ooze of Cuddles, even if the Ooze of Cuddles still has a laser weapon. Tigers vs wolves in what is likely a random encounter seems like an unimportant difference to me.

[Alex Speidel]

Pirate Rob wrote:

My second question is a little more specific:

Could you give a couple examples of changes that you think the campaign would be improved if GMs made, that are currently discouraged/not allowed under the current rules, that you think the update would allow/encourage?

To be quite frank, I don't expect these changes to change a lot at the tables. What I am trying to combat here is not that the current rules are too restrictive, but that people believe they are.

The first draft of this post started with the title "Run as Written is Fake and Made Up." Tragically, the section of the Guide is actually called "Run as Written," so that didn't work.

As I said in the opening post, there is a vocal group of players & GMs who believe no improvisation is approved, no corrections are allowed, and if you use a different map for a combat I will come to your house and eat your dice. What I'm trying to do here is say "that's never been true, and to prove it, I've made the rules explicitly say that."

[TOZ]

Dice are delicious though.

[Alex Speidel]

reevos wrote:

Can we include Increasing DCs or adding ad-hoc negative circumstance modifiers to this?

While the FAQ seems to cover this, it would be helpful to get that part clarified in this portion.

GMs must not:
- Change player-facing armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons, or any other mechanics of player character options

Can you give me an example of what you're referring to here?

[Alex Speidel]

avagdu wrote:

Now, if something has a skill or saving throw value of over 100, that's obviously an error, but if the number is "+112", should we assume that it's supposed to be "+11" or "+12"? Saying that GMs should fix obvious typos or errors is a great start, but there needs to be some sort of guideline for folks to refer to.

:AskYourGM:

sorry emoji don't work here

Serious answer: use your best judgement. If this is an attack bonus, I'm gonna look at what the monster is supposed to do. If they're a big bruiser, I'm giving them +12; a rogue or a spellcaster is getting a +11. I don't think I can give guidelines for how to correct obvious typos without going mad down an infinite spiral of possibility.

[Alex Speidel]

UnforcedError wrote:

- I'd still emphasize the fact that society play should strive for a consistent experience, meaning new (and established) GMs should absolutely not feel pressured to make any changes to the scenario (apart from obvious typos and possible clarification of inconsistencies), and maybe first aim to run them as written before adding their own creative bits.

- as someone who enjoys the storytelling aspect of RPGs the most, and with speedruns seemingly becoming more popular these days I'd like to point out that syles like this should not be treated as a norm and should only be allowed if the GM and all the players are in consensus and everyone at the table understands what a speedrun will be omitting ("yeah, we all know what the briefing says, let's get to the fight...")

I completely agree with both points; as logsig mentioned above you, the goal here is to empower the GMs who are already doing a lot of this, not devalue new people coming in who want to run exactly what the book says. I am also very interested in keeping an eye on making sure these new guidelines do not lead to an uptick in scenario speedruns, as that is not the goal of the program.

UnforcedError wrote:

- does the usage of alternate map only apply to allowing GMs to redraw the map (which has always been the case) or does the earlier wording of "no changes to terrain" not apply anymore either ? Meaning could a GM set a given...

I think I've said this above, but just to be clear: if a scenario calls for Flip-Mat: Warehouse but you only have Flip-Mat: Big Building, you're fine to use that. If you only have a map you drew in the approximate shape, or you use an entirely different map you got on Patreon, that's fine within reason (don't use a Space Station where we put a cavern or something like that, I dunno).

[Alex Speidel]

Tomppa wrote:

"As a reward, the NPC gifts players [an uncommon weapon] at the end of the scenario."

However, chronicle sheet does not list said weapon.
To me, this seems like an obvious error: There is no point in handing the players a weapon, then taking it away immediately, and not giving access to it on the chronicle sheet. However, messing with the chronicle sheet seems extremely dubious.

Would this be considered an obvious error that a GM would be free to correct, adding it to the chronicle sheet's list of items unlocked?

** spoiler omitted **

To emphasise, I don't really care about this specific example (despite having asked it elsewhere too) specifically - I just think it's an excellent example of a situation where 'an obvious error' might not actually be one.

GMs absolutely should not be altering Chronicle Sheets (aside from filling in the parts of the sheet they're supposed to fill in).

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

I now want to write an Organized Play scenario with an Ooze of Cuddles that eats dice by removing one of your dice of damage from your biggest attack for a round if it successfully cuddles you.

[reevos]

Alex Speidel wrote:

reevos wrote:

Can we include Increasing DCs or adding ad-hoc negative circumstance modifiers to this?

While the FAQ seems to cover this, it would be helpful to get that part clarified in this portion.

GMs must not:
- Change player-facing armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons, or any other mechanics of player character options

Can you give me an example of what you're referring to here?

Sure, I've heard of recently, that some gms would say oh that's a bad role play to aid so it's still dc15, but now you get a -2 circumstances bonus to your roll. Also, I've heard of skill checks being run where they add a negative circumstance modifier because the gm thought the skill didn't make as much sense because a feat was being used such as impressive performance instead of diplomacy.

[Pirate Rob]

Alex Speidel wrote:

To be quite frank, I don't expect these changes to change a lot at the tables. What I am trying to combat here is not that the current rules are too restrictive, but that people believe they are.
"

Thanks for answering. I was trying to figure out what I should be doing differently with these changes and was having trouble figuring it out.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

Back to the Topic:

What Alex is proposing to add to the rules is common sense stuff that many of us have been doing already as we GM, and I approve it heartily.

[Athos710]

I'll too chime in and say I wholeheartedly support this change.
Any instances that come up of bad actors using it to be... uhhh, bad actors, we can still deal with within the normal volunteer structure.

[umopapisdnupsidedown]

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

There is a creature in a scenario with +132 to its attack. (Pretty clearly it was changed from +13 to +12 or vice versa and someone forgot to hit delete / backspace. I guess it is lucky it wasn't on the damage line...)

While I’ll agree that’s a very obvious error, that really doesn’t address the question.

I honestly don't think it matters whether a GM calls it +13 or +12. I don't think guidance around fixing obvious typos is a huge deal.

However, one of the reasons I like Org Play is the relative consistency of the experience across tables and time. I can play scenarios from year one (long before I ever started PFS) and have the common experience of "whew, that was tough!"

On some level I hope to preserve that.

[Neginea]

The issue I wrangle the most with is uses of skills not explicitly called for by the scenario when it calls for a skill check. By temperament and in the spirit of fostering creative solutions and enabling my players' fun, I am always looking for ways I might be able to accommodate players' requests. Some scenarios explicitly allow for skill checks not explicitly called for, though not consistently. I don't know to what extent that might be considered an oversight. I wish there was just a consistent OrgPlay rule for enabling this.

Yet adding an additional allowable skill for a skill check does change the mechanics of the adventure, even if only in a minor way. Adding such a skill check with a higher DC, which is the way I'd prefer to deal with some of these, could be construed as increasing the difficulty of the adventure, which we have now clarified is not allowable.

Yet the proposed text does not go so far as to explicitly forbid the addition of skills to existing checks. So I'm still not sure what the right thing to do is. I want to support creativity, but I feel even more out over my skis here just writing this down. :-P

[Ascalaphus]

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

I'm on board with your intent, but I worry that the way you wrote it required a bit too much reading between the lines.

It's easy to think "well, he wrote not increasing, he didn't mention decreasing, but he probably meant that as well". You can see in this thread that quite a few people weren't sure how to interpret it.

---

I think it might be helpfully to describe the things that are good about having consistency in an organized play campaign, so that people understand the big guiding ideas behind the actual rules. (Also, "Run as Intended" does have a nice ring to it.)

Portable characters
You can go on a business trip and join some strangers for a game, or go to a convention and take a seat at a high level table. And you don't have to worry that the GM there doesn't like your class and on a whim doesn't let you play it. The organized play team has carefully considered which options are (un)suitable for the campaign.

No accidents with difficulty spikes
We've all had times as GMs when we thought a fight was going to be cool and spicy, and the players just steamrolled it. There's the temptation to add some extra spice. But there's a danger of overdoing it, and ruining someone else's fun. And that other person might be someone you don't really know, and you don't how far it's okay to go. So GM it safe, don't increase difficulty.

Let people have stories to share & compare
One of the cool things about organized play is swapping war stories with other people who played the same scenarios as you did. How did you do at the museum in that scenario? This works because when you play a scenario, you're really getting that story, the GM isn't going to drastically edit it.

[Kate Baker]

Neginea wrote:

Adding such a skill check with a higher DC, which is the way I'd prefer to deal with some of these, could be construed as increasing the difficulty of the adventure, which we have now clarified is not allowable.

I’m not campaign leadership here, but my perspective is that allowing an additional option at a higher DC is overall lowering the difficulty of the scenario, not increasing it.

If there is only one skill allowed for an obstacle, that’s pretty tough! PCs either have it trained or not. If there are two skills, even if one is tougher, then more PCs can attempt the check, so the obstacle is now easier. Each additional skill allows another group of PCs to succeed.

I will say as an author that it’s basically impossible to guess everything that the PCs might be capable of. They might have “this exact thing Lore” or a feat that seems like they could use X skill instead of Y skill for this purpose or a spell that seems super relevant. I think this is exactly where that level of GM discretion comes in handy. You should be able to say, “yeah, that seems like a good way to approach this problem. Go ahead and roll!”

[SpykeMH]

I actually have a question in regards to this. We don't want to increase difficulty, and I understand that. But how about repairing difficulty? Such as in the event of older scenarios that have monsters with grab, but no athletics score? These creatures are fundamentally broken now thanks to remaster, as more often than not you want to avoid using the ability or they just make themselves go prone. Would we be allowed to run them with the old grab rules, or give them a reasonable athletics score? Or at the very least if remaster provides an updated statblock for a more common monster, use that instead of whats in the scenario?

[The.Vortex]

I like the new language for the most part, and also think that most seasoned GMs will already have used many of the new rules like fixing obvious errors all along.

Nevertheless I still think that we need a place where those and even more importantly less obvious errors and their fixes are listed. As has been mentioned many times in this thread: It isn't always clear, what really is intended and what is a mistake in the adventure. So getting some clarity on that is what I would much prefer to losening the rules and losing the consistency of the adventures.

[Mistress Alicia Corlleon]

I like and support the flexibility. Thank you!

[Flutter]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I now want to write an Organized Play scenario with an Ooze of Cuddles that eats dice by removing one of your dice of damage from your biggest attack for a round if it successfully cuddles you.

Dives into the ooze wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Petronius]

Ascalaphus wrote:

It's easy to think "well, he wrote not increasing, he didn't mention decreasing, but he probably meant that as well". You can see in this thread that quite a few people weren't sure how to interpret it.

I defer to your greater experience, but I think folks should approach this much like my preferred way of running: assume what’s written is intended, and only make a change when it is obvious one is needed.

(Reasonable people can disagree about what’s “obvious,” of course. Any rule we make will be and can only be imprecise.)

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think it might be helpfully to describe the things that are good about having consistency in an organized play campaign, so that people understand the big guiding ideas behind the actual rules. (Also, "Run as Intended" does have a nice ring to it.)

I’ll just say again that I plan to push hard not to use a heading that can be abbreviated RAW or RAI, because this really isn’t either as those abbreviations are typically used. (And these rules are similar enough that I think it’s best not to muddy the waters by using one of those abbreviations.)

[Petronius]

I’ll add that creative uses of skills have been allowed since long before this draft language, though maybe not quite as explicitly as some might like.

GM Discretion currently says GMs can allow:

PFS Guide wrote:

Alternate or creative skills used to bypass or overcome traps and skill checks.

But naturally, in the next line it immediately runs into the issue you mentioned about alternative skills potentially being at a higher DC:

PFS Guide wrote:

DCs and results of a check are part of the mechanics and cannot be changed.

So we may need to clarify that a bit. But alternative skills are for sure allowed.

[bugleyman]

So. Much. Better.

If I'm reading this correctly, it should let GMs work around obvious editing problems and other errors without wondering whether they're running afoul of "run as written."

It also adds some flexibility. For example, the new mention of maps would not only allow GMs to use similar flip mat if they have a great thematic match that just isn't exactly the one specified, it should also allow subbing in better alternatives for some of the earlier maps that were made using flip tiles (which in some cases were quite poorly done).

I think this change, if enacted, would make for better player experiences at the table, and let GMs facilitate those experiences without having to worry about whether they're bending the rules. In the end, I believe that is precisely the sort of changes we want to be making.

Edit: Random, but I wonder why I show as a one star 1E GM on the OP board. I have four (as I said) if I click on my profile. I blame TOZ.

[FLite]

UnforcedError wrote:

- the wording "run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty" suggests that deliberately decreasing difficulty is fine, was that deliberate and if yes, how would this affect the consistency of game play ?

I think Alex was very clear.

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

Alex Speidel wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Reskinning enemies to avoid phobias I get. I've had to deal with a giant spider issue at a table I ran. But reskin for personal preference? I don't want to hear a conversation where one table fought tigers and another fought wolves.

As long as the mechanics don't change, does it matter if you fought wolves or tigers? I agree that GMs should not change the Deadly Robot of Death into the Ooze of Cuddles, even if the Ooze of Cuddles still has a laser weapon. Tigers vs wolves in what is likely a random encounter seems like an unimportant difference to me.

I reskinned the entire Lions of Katapesh scenario to turn all the antagonists into characters from the Lion King, including replacing the sphinx on the map with pride rock...

[Naal]

Regarding "obvious typos" and "change/increase/lower" difficulty issue, I have an example.

Scenario 2-15 first combat encounter:

We had six player characters around level 3 encountering Iverri and three blighted fungus leshys. The short version is that we were first blasted with area damage, to which we responded with area damage of our own. Most of the combatants were injured when the first leshys exploded. At which point we found out there is no save. Unavoidable damage, persistent damage, and difficult terrain compounded. I believe three characters died, two stabilized on their own, and one was beyond the detonation radius, having escaped to tend to their persistent damage. We called the game.

Sometimes you fail. No risk, no excitement. Though unavoidable 4d6 area damage, twice, at level 3 was rather surprising.

Now, let's say first table calls this an obvious error, decides a basic Reflex save is missing, and adds it. Second table does not. This one basic save might be the differences between a surprising and challenging encounter and a party wipe. If you introduce a save, you make the encounter easier and more survivable, which likely makes people succeed more and give the scenario better reviews. The tables that run it without a save will probably not be as generous.

In short, the scenario experience and reviews will not be based on the same data.

Would adding a save be within the mandate of the table GM here? Or ever?

Difficulty:

I'm wondering about the the same thing as Tomppa.
- Run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty, except as dictated by the scenario

If "deliberately increasing difficulty" does not refer to ignoring or breaking challenge point calculations, what does it refer to? Has this been a problem somewhere? And why is it worded in a way that seems to leave room to do the opposite, and what would it even look like to make a combat encounter easier without similarly breaking challenge point calculations?

[BigNorseWolf]

I don't see why the lack of a basic save would have grounds for being a typo. Lots of things don't have saves.

[UnforcedError]

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

Well, I think the majority of the scenarios are a stroll in the park for the average group, and I definitely do agree that GMs should not be aiming at deliberately TPKing a party (and all the GMs I have played with over the years weren't so I don't think that's a general problem). However, if the wording is deliberate I'd just like to point out that the above line allows an interpretation like "if things turn sour the GM is actually expected to make changes so that the party doesn't TPK... (/ flee / lose rep or treasure bundles)", which I can't agree with.

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

I reskinned the entire Lions of Katapesh scenario to turn all the antagonists into characters from the Lion King, including replacing the sphinx on the map with pride rock...

I think this and similar non-mechanical changes are a great way to enhance a scenario, especially one that the players probably know anyway...

[BigNorseWolf]

Alex Speidel wrote:

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

This is one of the more common ways rules are written to lead to gray areas.

If an inn has a sign that says "no red dragons"* Can a green dragon book a room?Conversationally The answer should be yes. There is no reason to specify red dragon specifically except to allow other dragons. Logically the answer is "unknown" because the exclusion of a red dragon doesn't automatically allow a green one. (Denying the antecedent would be the fancy name for it if I've had enough coffee to read wiki right...)

If the intent is allow the DM to decrease the difficulty of the encounters to account for taste, newguy not losing their first character, or dice being cursed it should be specified under the DM may. Otherwise the implication of increasing vs. changing the difficulty has to be weighed against the lack of such a rule where it should be and different dms will read those two things very differently.

*honestly one snore and there goes the roof

[GM Lamplighter]

This concept is something I have wanted to see for a decade or more, so thanks Alex and everyone who worked on it.

I think the "intent" section is the most important to wordsmith, tbh.

Many people don't even read the whole Guide before GMing (sorry, Guide folks, but it's true). What matters is, what does a new GM get told by their organizer in the 30 seconds between arriving at their event table and starting a scenario designed for 5 hours in a 3-hour slot.

"You can fix errors and reskin things now" may be what the majority of (5-star, VO, highly-engaged) GMs posting here might already do and be able to handle. Giving that to a new GM without some limitations is not a good idea. So, we should make the 10-word version of the rule convey the intent without opening the barn door.

Historical anecdote:

We used to have the "play play play" rule in the distant past - do whatever you needed to make the table fire. It was too permissive to less experienced folks, because they never read the details in the Guide and took it to mean they can do whatever they want to make the game "fun". We finally got rid of it.

[BretI]

Alex Speidel wrote:

avagdu wrote:

Now, if something has a skill or saving throw value of over 100, that's obviously an error, but if the number is "+112", should we assume that it's supposed to be "+11" or "+12"? Saying that GMs should fix obvious typos or errors is a great start, but there needs to be some sort of guideline for folks to refer to.

:AskYourGM:

sorry emoji don't work here

Serious answer: use your best judgement. If this is an attack bonus, I'm gonna look at what the monster is supposed to do. If they're a big bruiser, I'm giving them +12; a rogue or a spellcaster is getting a +11. I don't think I can give guidelines for how to correct obvious typos without going mad down an infinite spiral of possibility.

Perhaps the correcting errors could start with something being outside the expected values given in the GM Core.

You have a whole chapter of GM Core on Building Hazards and Building Creatures. If the Attack is listed as +132 for a creature, look at the Strike Attack Bonus table keeping in mind the Base Road Maps sidebar and figure out what the attack bonus should be.

You have an expected difficulty listed for encounters, you have challenge ratings. Using the information in the GM Core should help you not only figure out if the values are reasonable, but give an idea what the correct values should be.

People could also take guidance from the other tiers encounters to double check that the value is out of bounds.

This would also hopefully allow GMs to correct errors in either direction, where something is way easier than it should be. A Will save of +1 where you expect it to be double digits, especially if it is double digits in the low tier but +1 in the high tier.

[Scott Young]

I'm generally in favor of the proposed changes to give GMs more permission to run their games for their players. Fixing errors, allowing alternate maps, and letting the GMs run the scenario using their judgement etc. all helps the game run better at the table and should translate into a better experience for everyone.

Reskinning is fundamentally different from those things.

(For context, I've written a scenario where GMs are specifically encouraged to "reskin" the main target of the mission to be one of their own PCs, and designed rules to make that work. So, I don't hate the concept. It just needs to be done carefully.)

Without more guidelines, reskinning turns the work of the OP leadership, writer, developers, editors, and artists over to any GM who has to run the scenario "cold". Lions versus wolves *do* matter, if the wolves are being specifically used to foreshadow the vampire or werewolves later in the scenario, or we have a bunch of cool art featuring the wolves, or the map is a temple of the wolf goddess.

It also matters that content that would never make it through all those people to be published can now be introduced at the GM level with no oversight. If the elf archers are "reskinned" into robot lions with lasers on their heads because the GM really prefers Starfinder, is that acceptable? What about when a GM reskins queer characters into straight ones, or reskins all bad guys to racial stereotypes?

If reskinning is permitted, it needs to go into its own section, and have some specific details of what is ok and what is not.