PDA

View Full Version : Masterwork tools in PFS



Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 04:44
EDIT BY MODERATOR: The following posts were moved from a game discussion thread to create this thread specific to using masterwork tools in PFS.

Ah yes, the clasp. Sorry it's just the abbreviated version on this sheet, it's a tool I've used on all of my characters.

To explain:
The Cloak Clasp is made of silver (catches the eye) and it is of two hands coming together in a symbol of "friendship" and "cooperation" (hence Diplomacy). Jamal will often adjust it casually as he is talking which draws attention to it. I've called this a "masterwork tool" as it is a psychologial (Diplomacy) prompting device and it beats having shiny gold teeth hahaha.

Hope that explains it :)

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 05:00
My gut feeling is that Paizo intended this for items like thieves tools rather than items to give bonuses to social actions. If you can find me something that says otherwise I will reconsider it though

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 05:09
I'm at work at the moment so can't go through my stuff but the masterwork tool is for any skill. Yes it is easier to justify some skills, hence why they have specific things (like masterwork thieves tools for "disable device" and masterwork instruments for "perform" but they can be used for any skill as long as you can justify it (which I think I have).

As I said this is a tool I've had on all of my characters, as diplomacy is so damn useful haha. There is also a prestige thing you can buy which I think is a merchant caravan from memory that adds to your diplomacy.

On another character I have silver knuckle dusters that i use for my "Intimiate" masterwork tool.
"Are you sure you don't want to cooperate...?" *slips on silver knuckle dusters* "REALLY sure?"

Oh, just noticed on the sheet that day job was not included. I rolled a 17 (+ whatever my profession skill is, I think maybe 5).

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 05:41
I'm at work at the moment so can't go through my stuff but the masterwork tool is for any skill. Yes it is easier to justify some skills, hence why they have specific things (like masterwork thieves tools for "disable device" and masterwork instruments for "perform" but they can be used for any skill as long as you can justify it (which I think I have).

As I said this is a tool I've had on all of my characters, as diplomacy is so damn useful haha. There is also a prestige thing you can buy which I think is a merchant caravan from memory that adds to your diplomacy.

On another character I have silver knuckle dusters that i use for my "Intimiate" masterwork tool.
"Are you sure you don't want to cooperate...?" *slips on silver knuckle dusters* "REALLY sure?"
This has been discussed on the Paizo messageboards here: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz0oqa?Masterwork-Tool-not-appropriate-for-every-skill#0

There are 2 posts by Jason Bulmahn (lead designer of Pathfinder if you didn't know) that basically say he is happy with this. Although he does elude to more of the situational/soft skills (he uses Bluff as an example) being highly dependant on the situation.


For me, the tool should give a bonus to the job it is intended for, I am not convinced that masterwork tool should give bonuses to other skills. I am willing to stand corrected though, if you can show me something that says otherwise
In the end, PFS GMs shouldn't limit a player from buying mundane items because they disagree with how they may be used in a future game which they may or may not be running. Allowing use of the masterwork tool in a future game is entirely up to the GM running that session.

What I would say though Bloodlust, is that whenever you are using the +2 bonus on a roll for said masterwork tool/s, you inform the GM of how you get the bonus and leave it up to them to decide if it is applicable at that point in time.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 05:53
Sounds reasonable.

You may have noticed that when taking with NPCs I always refer to them as "friend". The clasp is a subtle emphasising tool that he will often adjust as he says the word "friend".

Yes I kow it is not as blatently obvious as a high quality lock pick, but only few skills are so cut and dry.

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 06:02
Thanks Trenloe

I stand corrected :D Using masterwork tools in this way isn't something I like personally, but if it is pfs legal then I am down with it. I suppose it makes sense that the softer skills are situational. I suppose this would also mean that you could potentially use it for other softer skills rather than just diplomacy depending on the situation

Bloodlust, I have updated your chronicle and signed you off.
Sorry, at least we got that sorted

See you in Sanos Forest on Sunday

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 06:27
I stand corrected :D Using masterwork tools in this way isn't something I like personally, but if it is pfs legal then I am down with it. I suppose it makes sense that the softer skills are situational. I suppose this would also mean that you could potentially use it for other softer skills rather than just diplomacy depending on the situation
Yeah, I think the courtier's clothing is a good example here:

Courtier's Outfit: This outfit includes fancy, tailored clothes in whatever fashion happens to be the current style in the courts of the nobles. Anyone trying to influence nobles or courtiers while wearing street dress will have a hard time of it (–2 penalty on Charisma-based skill checks to influence such individuals). If you wear this outfit without jewelry (costing an additional 50 gp), you look like an out-of-place commoner.
This is a standard purchase from the equipment list and gives a very specific situational bonus - only influencing nobles or courtiers.

So, to take Bloodlust's silver friendship brooch as an example - it would allow a +2 bonus on diplomacy only in certain situations: perhaps when dealing with people who appreciate silver jewellery and other refinements; whereas it is unlikely to influence a member of the thieves guild who is more likely to try to steal it.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Skellan... :)

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 06:35
That's fine Trenloe, I am grateful of your help.
That makes sense to me :)

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 07:58
That thread Trenloe is quoting is one from early on in PF development... I'm not sure how it applies to PFS play where the rules are more specific than in standard PF.
...and honestly, I would never allow the use of a generic 'masterwork tool' in a situation where a standard tool applies. For example masterwork thieves tools cost 100gp... not 50... therefore you couldn't get a generic tool that does the same thing.
BUT.. Trenloe is right.. he can buy what he wants .. and as GMs .. we just don't have to let him use it if it seems like an abuse.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 08:18
Masterwork tools were FAQ'ed that they couldn't be use din place of another tool that did the same job.

So using the example of the theives tools, you have to use the 100gp version, not a 50gp one.

I have the silver cloak clasp because it is part of my trait thingy.

With regard to a thief, yeah he might feel more inclided to help you because he sees you are a person with money who likes to splash it around. So therefore some of it could come his way in a variety of forms such as: getting work with you, taking bribes from you or just outright getting in your good books so you won't notice when he tries to steal from you.

The tool I have chosen is for its psyhological value, as opposed to monetary - but then again Dimplomacy is a psychological skill. It is all about psychologically manipulting someone into a way of thinking that makes them friendlier towards you and therefore more likely to do what you want.

As opposed to bluff where you are just outright lying to them (hard to find a tool or that, but let me think on it) or Intimidate where you want them to do what you want or you "iz gonna hurtz dem". Hence the "knuckle dusters" style of negotiation ;)

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 08:57
That thread Trenloe is quoting is one from early on in PF development... I'm not sure how it applies to PFS play where the rules are more specific than in standard PF.
Yes, the thread is from the early days of Pathfinder - which was when the designers were much more actively involved in the messageboards and gave their opinions on a lot of subjects - I included it as responses from Jason Bulmahn are generally accepted as FAQ/clarifications on how the rules are used.

Yes, it is not specific to PFS play, I included it for clarification on the use of such an item.

So, the question is: "Is such an item legal for PFS play?" From the additional player resources (http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/about/additionalResources):

While most of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is legal for play (with some feat and spell exceptions)...
These feat and spell exceptions are listed in the guide to PFS organized play. The list of always available items (pages 24-25 of the 4.2 guide to orgnized play):

All basic armor, gear, items, and weapons from Chapter 6 of the Core Rulebook, including Small and Large-sized items. This does not include equipment made from dragonhide, but it does include equipment made from the other special materials, such as alchemical silver and cold iron (see the Special Materials section on page 154 of the Core Rulebook). All mundane (completely nonmagical) weapons, armor, equipment, and alchemical gear found in any other source that is legal for play are considered always available.
So, in PFS you're allowed to purchase a masterwork tool as this is in the core rulebook equipment chapter. And, we have the clarification in the old Paizo messageboard thread that it is the GMs call to allow the bonus in certain circumstances.

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 09:09
Additionally, the "Masterwork Tool" entry in the Ultimate Equipment book (the section of which is listed as legal for PFS play) expands on the use of such a tool:

This tool is perfect for its intended job. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on a related skill check (if any). The bonuses provided by multiple masterwork items do not stack.

Several common items already count as masterwork tools for particular skills. These are the alchemistís lab, climberís kit, disguise kit, healerís kit, masterwork musical instrument, and masterwork thievesí tools. Therefore, there is no masterwork climberís kit, masterwork healerís kit, and so onóthose items are already the best available for general checks with the relevant skill.

Some skills have no appropriate tool or masterwork tooló no nonmagical item exists that grants a bonus for all uses of that skill. For example, just because a certain perfume is favored by local nobles (granting a +2 circumstance bonus on Diplomacy checks to influence them) doesnít mean that perfume has the same effect on a member of the thievesí guild, a foreign berserker, or a medusa. Likewise, just because a fake beard woven by dwarves out of the beards of famous dwarves may grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Use Magic Device checks to emulate the dwarven race doesnít mean the beard has any effect on using that skill to activate elven items or paladin items, or to decipher a written spell.

Individual GMs may want to allow masterwork tools for other skills at the listed cost. The circumstance bonus for such a tool should never be more than +2. The tool should either have a limited number of uses (such as the disguise and healerís kits) or only apply to certain aspects of the skill (such as the balancing poleís bonus on Acrobatics checks to traverse a narrow surface or the magnifying glassís bonus on Appraise checks for detailed items).
I think this is pretty clear regarding use only applying to certain aspects of the skill (the limited circumstances we have been discussing in earlier posts) or have a limited number of uses.

As we play in PFS and we will be playing with different GMs it is likely that some GMs will allow a lot of use of masterwork tools, while others will only allow limited use. As players, if we wish to use such items, we should communicate with the GM that we have these masterwork tool and how we intend to use them - it is then the GM who will decide if to allow the +2 circumstance bonus or not. Please do not argue or get upset if the GM refuses to allow the bonus. Also, please do not add the +2 without the GMs approval!

As there is the best summary of the masterwork tool in the Ultimate Equipment guide, you can refer the GM to that entry for clarification. The PFS additional resources states:

Since the core assumption for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products listed below. As such, it's up to players to bring these items in order to familiarize their Game Masters with the rules.
Obviously, we can't present a copy of the Ultimate Equipment guide to the GM while playing online, so it will have to be a case of quoting the above text if needed. Above all, adhere to the GMs decision and don't delay the game. Additional clarification and discussions should be reserved for these forums after the game has finished.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 11:38
Masterwork tool is in the core rulebook (originally).

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 12:06
I'm not really sure I agree with that assessment. Jason Bulman, Lead Designer, has given a very clear ruling on this subject (case closed as far as I'm concerned).

To quote:

***
Hey there all,

I think that you can come up with a masterwork tool for every skill, if you give it some thought. Here are some examples I came up with on the fly...

Spellcraft - A tome containing a myriad of sample spell effects and guides for identifying them.
Diplomacy - A pleasant perfume or situationally appropriate attire.
Bluff - Bribes or an appropriate distraction. This one is actually pretty tough and highly dependent on the situation.
Use Magic Device - A guide of common magic phrases and activation techniques.

So.. I am not really in favor of limiting this option, but I think that a GM is well within his right to limit abuses of this particular rule.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

***

He then went on to say:

***
>hogarth wrote:

>For the perfume and bribes, that sounds much more like a "kit" with a number of uses, sort of like the healer's kit or disguise kit.

Although true, no where does it say that a tool has to last forever. You would not expect a masterwork chisel to last forever. I admit, its a bit of a stretch, but that is what this particular rule is about, using one general rule to prevent the book from having to cover 35 individual masterwork tools. I am not sure that allowing a simple +2 bonus on a skill is really so broken that we need to reel in what is a relatively simple rule...

That said.. I may be wrong. I am open to suggestions, but I am not sure this is the problem it is made out to be.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
***

In no post since then has he contradicted that.

I think then the only thing that needs to be discussed then is what is considered "abuse" of the rule. Some examples given were a "lucky rabbit's foot" for Use Magic Device. Yeah, that makes no sense.

As far as I'm concerned, and the above ruling seems to agree with that is, as long as a player can give a reasonable account of what their masterwork tool is and how it works - it works.

I have Masterwork Spectacles on another character of mine that adds to their Perception - that being said, I don't add that bonus when it is to detect sounds or smells, etc. So in that case they are situational.

The whole point of Pathfinder is to have one set of rules that are used worldwide by all Pathfinder judges/GMs. There are no "house rules" or "interpretations". Clear abuse of rules though is of course "within a GMs right", so we need to be clear about what constitutes a "clear abuse" of the rule.

Perhaps someone trying to use 10 Masterwork Tools at the same time? I've had one GM say that you can use one per turn, which I think is perfectly reasonable.

Another "abuse" that was discussed was when people were trying to use Masterwork Tools to replace more expensive tools that already exist. eg. using a "Masterwork Lockpick" (50gp) instead of "Masterwork Thieves Tools" (100gp). Then again I'd even allow this if I was running a game as it is clearly a "lockpick". That won't help you when trying to disarm those traps (half the job of what Thieves Tools are used for).

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 12:13
Masterwork tool is in the core rulebook (originally).
Yes, I know, that's why in my previous but one post (#11) I was referring to the equipment section of the core rulebook, it was after posting that I discovered the entry in Ultimate Equipment. There is no expanded clarification in the core rulebook regarding the +2 circumstance bonus like there is in Ultimate Equipment - that's why I included the reference to Ultimate Equipment and suggested that players who want to make use of a masterwork tool in a "non-tool" type of situation should perhaps have the details from Ultimate Equipment available to support their use. As you've seen already - there are some GMs whose initial reaction is not to allow the +2 circumstance bonus for certain skills/situations.

FYI (if you already knew this, sorry for going over stuff you already knew) Ultimate Equipment is a collection of equipment across all previously published Paizo Pathfinder material, with updates/clarifications included. It is not just a new equipment sourcebook - it is meant to be the one-stop-shop for equipment (at this point in time of course). Hence it has the Masterwork Tool entry (which is in the core rulebook), but it is not just a duplication of that entry, there is a lot more information about applying it in play than there is in the core rulebook. Hence my suggestion to use this entry for explanation of applying the +2 circumstance bonus to skill checks.

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 12:16
I'm not really sure I agree with that assessment. Jason Bulman, Lead Designer, has given a very clear ruling on this subject (case closed as far as I'm concerned).
Which assessment? :)

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 12:33
>As players, if we wish to use such items, we should communicate with the GM that we have these masterwork tool and how we intend to use them - it is then the GM who will decide if to allow the +2 circumstance bonus or not. Please do not argue or get upset if the GM refuses to allow the bonus. Also, please do not add the +2 without the GMs approval!


As per my post above, according to Jason Bulman, "I think that a GM is well within his right to limit abuses of this particular rule".

NOT, they can choose to ignore or disallow it if they don't like it.

Hence why I was discussing what could/should be considered abuses.

The entry in "Ulimate Equipment" refers mostly to home games where the single GM has total control over his game and the rules he wants to use. In PFS, there is one set of rules and if an item has been purchased and approved by a GM, then it is now in the "PFS World".

If a GM believes that something on someone's sheet is an "abuse of a rule" then they should be encouraged to contact that player's home Venture Captain/Lt. and discuss this item either pre-game when collecting sheets or post-game if it proved to be a problem or really gets under your skin.

A PFS GM does not have a right to flat out DENY anything that is approved and on a character sheet. That power only comes with home games.

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 12:51
The entry in "Ulimate Equipment" refers mostly to home games where the single GM has total control over his game and the rules he wants to use.
Err, where do you get this assumption from? The Ultimate Equipment guide is part of the Pathfinder rulebooks and is approved for PFS play - items that aren't are listed in the additional resources section of the PFS website and the item we are discussing is not listed as an exception. So this is completely relevant to PFS play.

In PFS, there is one set of rules and if an item has been purchased and approved by a GM, then it is now in the "PFS World".

If a GM believes that something on someone's sheet is an "abuse of a rule" then they should be encouraged to contact that player's home Venture Captain/Lt. and discuss this item either pre-game when collecting sheets or post-game if it proved to be a problem or really gets under your skin.

A PFS GM does not have a right to flat out DENY anything that is approved and on a character sheet. That power only comes with home games.
I'm sorry, but where are you actually getting this information from? A GM does not have cart blanche over allowing purchases on one chronicle at the end of a game they have ran and then all GMs who run games for that PC after the fact have to apply that ruling.

This actually means that if a GM is not fully aware of the PFS rules/guidelines they could make a mistake and everyone has to abide by their mistake.

The GM has the right to deny anything that is on a character sheet or a non-Paizo chronicle sheet item/boon (i.e. an entry that is not a printed item from the sheet, but is a hand written addition) that does not adhere to the current set of rules and guidelines.

For the specific issue we are talking about, are you actually saying that if a GM has signed off a mundane item purchase of "Masterwork silver brooch +2 to diplomacy" for 50gp then all GMs that run games for that PC afterwards have to allow a +2 to *all* diplomacy rolls no matter what? Despite the fact that there are clarifications to the contrary in both a Paizo rules messageboard and a recently (and PFS approved) rulebook.

EDIT: Because, what Blackfoot and I are saying is that it is up to the GM to decide if the masterwork tool can be used in a certain situation - like your spectacles not helping you hear better, or your silver brooch not applying to someone who it wouldn't impress. I am not saying that a GM could ban the +2 circumstance bonus outright, I am saying that they have the right to decide if the bonus is appropriate in the current situation. It is that circumstantial adjudication that I was referring to and asking players to not argue if the GM does not allow the bonus for that particular circumstance. Sorry if I didn't phrase the sentence properly and it came across as being able to ban the +2 bonus outright.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 13:13
If a GM has made a mistake in approving something then that is why I say that the Gm about to run the game should contact their local venture captain and let them know that. For the game that is about to run the GM can point to why it is illegal and not allow it in his game. No problem with that at all.

As for the two items I've listed (the clasp and the spectacles). The spectacles we seem to be in agreement over - so cool :) The Clasp - when you say "people who won't be impressed by it" I think you're missing what I've said earlier about the symbolic/semiotic nature of the shape and how it is being used. The silver is simply to "catch the eye" (an added thing).

"Despite the fact that there are clarifications to the contrary in both a Paizo rules messageboard" Could you please post that clarification? I've posted Jason's full posts and don't see it.

It's great to discuss these things outside of games so that when they do come up we've already hashed it out :)

Thanks :)

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 13:20
Umm.. the GM of a given game always has the final call. Whether it is a 'home game' or a PFS game. You have the right to present your case, as long as you can do it without excessive argument and discussion, and then he gets the final call on any issue.
If you do not like their interpretation of the rules, you are welcome to leave the game, but not to disrupt it.

From where I'm standing, your 'brooch' sounds like a magic item, rather than a masterwork one... but honestly, I'd probably have less issue with it if it were just called a 'masterwork diplomacy tool'... so there's really not much point in arguing it if you put a magical sounding face on it.

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 13:35
"Despite the fact that there are clarifications to the contrary in both a Paizo rules messageboard" Could you please post that clarification? I've posted Jason's full posts and don't see it.


Bluff - Bribes or an appropriate distraction. This one is actually pretty tough and highly dependent on the situation.
This brings in the concept of a situational bonus.

but I think that a GM is well within his right to limit abuses of this particular rule.
I read "abuse" as a player trying to use a mundane item to give a bonus that it is not (in the GMs view) entitled to give. That is, if the GM rules that he feels that item does not apply to a specific situation.

But, obviously we are reading that differently, so I'll direct your attention to the very clear statement in a Paizo rulebook published this year (Ultimate Equipment - that *is* approved for PFS play) that is very clear on the subject of the situational modifier. I'll quote the relevant section again:

Some skills have no appropriate tool or masterwork tooló no nonmagical item exists that grants a bonus for all uses of that skill. For example, just because a certain perfume is favored by local nobles (granting a +2 circumstance bonus on Diplomacy checks to influence them) doesnít mean that perfume has the same effect on a member of the thievesí guild, a foreign berserker, or a medusa. Likewise, just because a fake beard woven by dwarves out of the beards of famous dwarves may grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Use Magic Device checks to emulate the dwarven race doesnít mean the beard has any effect on using that skill to activate elven items or paladin items, or to decipher a written spell.

Individual GMs may want to allow masterwork tools for other skills at the listed cost. The circumstance bonus for such a tool should never be more than +2. The tool should either have a limited number of uses (such as the disguise and healerís kits) or only apply to certain aspects of the skill (such as the balancing poleís bonus on Acrobatics checks to traverse a narrow surface or the magnifying glassís bonus on Appraise checks for detailed items).

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 13:41
"no nonmagical item exists that grants a bonus for all uses of that skill." You did not bold the first part of that sentence which relates to limited uses (and therefore across all uses of the skill).

Thieves' Tools, Masterwork: This kit contains extra tools and tools of better make, which grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Disable Device checks.

Clearly a contradiction :)

Every Disable Device check for whatever the "device" (lock, trap, drop-away floor, etc.) you get to use the +2 bonus.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 13:41
Originally Posted by Ultimate Equipment page 78
Some skills have no appropriate tool or masterwork tool— no nonmagical item exists that grants a bonus for all uses of that skill. For example, just because a certain perfume is favored by local nobles (granting a +2 circumstance bonus on Diplomacy checks to influence them) doesn’t mean that perfume has the same effect on a member of the thieves’ guild, a foreign berserker, or a medusa. Likewise, just because a fake beard woven by dwarves out of the beards of famous dwarves may grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Use Magic Device checks to emulate the dwarven race doesn’t mean the beard has any effect on using that skill to activate elven items or paladin items, or to decipher a written spell.

Individual GMs may want to allow masterwork tools for other skills at the listed cost. The circumstance bonus for such a tool should never be more than +2. The tool should either have a limited number of uses (such as the disguise and healer’s kits) or only apply to certain aspects of the skill (such as the balancing pole’s bonus on Acrobatics checks to traverse a narrow surface or the magnifying glass’s bonus on Appraise checks for detailed items).
Hmm.. based on what THOSE rules say, I'd think that something like that would be very situational. You spend 50 gold for an item that helps with diplomacy with a SPECIFIC group of people. Like a masonic lodge pin for diplomacy with the masonic lodge... or a fezz. Basically an item that is appropriate to dealing with that particular group. Now that sounds much more reasonable as a mundane item.

It would make sense that your 'friendship pin' would be helpful when dealing with a specific group who use that as an identifier. Heck, even a masterwork Pathfinder Pin. Gives you a plus on diplomacy with other pathfinders. That totally makes sense.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 13:47
I, like Jason ("I am not sure this is the problem it is made out to be"), do not see what the big problem here is.

Why do people get worried about a +2 to a skill check? Do GMs WANT their players to fail checks? Why make it hard?

Taking the Clasp as an example - it does not work with all uses of Diplomacy. The two major uses of the skill is to bring NPCs around to being friendlier (mostly to accomplish faction missions - some of those are insane enough as it is, but that's another topic)

OR

To "Gather Information". I do not see how the clasp could be used in the second instance and I would not call for the use of it. That is more "asking around" and the intended use I have for that item requires individual attention and conversation/broader reasoning and friendly debate.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 13:49
Well.. it is the goal to make sure that all PCs burn and die a fiery death due to failed Diplomacy rolls ... isn't it?

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 13:53
Well.. it is the goal to make sure that all PCs burn and die a fiery death due to failed Diplomacy rolls ... isn't it?

LOL - perhaps.

Honestly though, locally the GMs here have started taking pride in TPKs and knocking off PCs. Like it is a badge of honour that they gloat about.

One of the reason I prefer to play online these days :) Local player numbers are dwindling but I doubt the clique will acknowledge that.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 14:02
I saw my first player death in a PFS game the other day and I have to say it was very demoralizing to everyone, both players and GM. Nasty crit and he died. The goal of a good GM is to give players that feeling of risk without actually killing anyone... gives everyone a feeling of excitement and tension without the unfortunate second guessing and general grasping at straws that comes in when a PC gets killed... nobody enjoys that. Of course, a good heroic death can be awesome... but those are hard to come by.
The best games, IMO, come when the party gets really trashed but nobody dies. Everyone feels like they were at risk at one point or another and nobody is walking away scoffing "that was a cake walk"... disappointed that there was no risk to it.
This is of course entirely off topic... as Diplomacy rolls really only occasionally lead you to a burning, fiery death.

EDIT: BTW.. don't in ANY WAY think I'm saying that the GM did something 'wrong' here, or wasn't a 'good GM' by letting the player die... it was bad luck on the dice. Sometimes those things happen, and it's no fun for anyone.. including the GM... that was my point.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 14:07
I think we are in 100% agreement on that mate. Seriously - 100%.

That is not the sentiment displayed at local games. Hence why you could probably understand my hesitation to play locally.

I actually had a character die (due to gross GM rules blunder, which I appealed to the VL and was basically ignored).

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 14:23
In the end, as Blackfoot and I have mentioned - it is up to the GM to make calls on things like this - whether the "circumstances" of a particular situation apply to allow a +2 "circumstance" bonus on a skill roll.

What we should take away from this is:

Recent rulebooks show that the generic "masterwork tool" that is not limited use should not give a circumstance bonus across all uses of the skill, with the GM being the final decision maker on whether the situation and the player use of the item warrant the bonus or not.
Items "allowed" by a previous GM on a chronicle sheet are not necessarily fixed in stone and a later GM is within their right to adjudicate differently - especially if they have the relevant PFS legal documentation to back them up.
PFS games should not be delayed by discussions over rules - the GM makes a ruling and all players should abide by it. Discussions can, and should, occur outside of game time.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 14:32
Trenloe has really summed it up nicely.

As to the specifics of your 'pin'.. it still kinda sounds like a 'magic item' to me. You might want to reskin it a bit in a way that seems more likely to work... although.. I guess a pin that was recognized as 'friendship'... might be effective when dealing with nice people... not so nice people probably would be offended by it and it could.. in theory.. have a negative effect.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 14:40
1. I agree that GMs should review circumstances to see if the circumstance bonus is warranted on unlimited use tools.

2. Definately agree - if a mistake has been made - address it :)

3. What about if the GM is later proven wrong? Case in point, that instance where one of my characters died due to a gross rules error by the GM. What then? No player should have to suffer (on any level) because a GM made a mistake and I think GMs need to be big enough to admit those mistakes and seek to correct them (ammended chronicle sheet for example).

So, looking at the items I have used in the past:

Spectacles (Perception): People seem to be cool with these on the obvious provisio that they only work for visual perception checks (noticing hidden things, spotting traps, etc. but certainly not hearing sounds or smelling soemthing odd.

Knuckle Dusters (Intimidation): Intimidation only really has one use so this is a difficult one. What do people suggest? it's clearly a very relevant tool, but how do we fit it in with the rules?

"Clasping Hands" Cloak Clasp (Diplomacy): Only useful for non "gather information" diplomacy checks. Also not really useable on a ranger's wild empathy (diplomacy for animals) as animals do not have the same semiotic/symbolic meaning structures that we do. One of the suggestions on that forum was, "For a masterwork diplomacy kit, it has some basic jewelry, grooming devices, and so on with a broad applicability." This could be a 10 use item (like all of the other kits) that is usable across all uses. Perhaps each use would give you a day's bonus (if similar cricumstances, such as dealing with people from the same town, or dealing with guards all day long etc.) I'd be cool for it to be either (thought I'd prefer the "non gather information version") :)

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 14:43
Trenloe has really summed it up nicely.

As to the specifics of your 'pin'.. it still kinda sounds like a 'magic item' to me. You might want to reskin it a bit in a way that seems more likely to work... although.. I guess a pin that was recognized as 'friendship'... might be effective when dealing with nice people... not so nice people probably would be offended by it and it could.. in theory.. have a negative effect.

Yes, that makes sense. Anyone who is at least indifferent to you - you get a bonus. Someone who is unfriendly (possibly) or hostile (definately) will just see it as preachy.

You could have it as:

Helpful +2
Friendly +1
Indifferent - no bonus
Unfriendly -1
Hostile -2

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 14:50
3. What about if the GM is later proven wrong? Case in point, that instance where one of my characters died due to a gross rules error by the GM. What then? No player should have to suffer (on any level) because a GM made a mistake and I think GMs need to be big enough to admit those mistakes and seek to correct them (ammended chronicle sheet for example).On this point.. the GM has ultimate control at the time of the game. He has to, in order for the game to run. He makes a decision and right or wrong.. that's what all the players HAVE to live with. It is unfortunate if someone dies or loses some goal because of it.. but that has to be the way it is, otherwise they cannot keep the game moving forward if at any time their judgement can be called into question and revoked. I'm sorry if you don't like this.. but that really HAS to be how it is in order to keep games moving.
If you don't like a decision a GM made... you are welcome to talk to him about it AFTER the game.. perhaps change his view about it for NEXT TIME... but for whatever reason.. if he calls it that the sky is green.. well.. golly.. the sky is green today.

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 14:50
I saw my first player death in a PFS game the other day and I have to say it was very demoralizing to everyone, both players and GM. Nasty crit and he died. The goal of a good GM is to give players that feeling of risk without actually killing anyone... gives everyone a feeling of excitement and tension without the unfortunate second guessing and general grasping at straws that comes in when a PC gets killed... nobody enjoys that. Of course, a good heroic death can be awesome... but those are hard to come by.
The best games, IMO, come when the party gets really trashed but nobody dies. Everyone feels like they were at risk at one point or another and nobody is walking away scoffing "that was a cake walk"... disappointed that there was no risk to it.
This is of course entirely off topic... as Diplomacy rolls really only occasionally lead you to a burning, fiery death.

Yeah, I agree it wasn't fun to have a player death and it really soured the session. I GM to have fun and give everyone a good time so this wasn't good.
I know how much goes into developing characters and it is not good to see them die, especially as it was just due to a sucky crit. If it has been 'my game' and not pfs, I would probably have fudged the roll, as really players should only die if they do something daft. As it is PFS though, I don't want to fudge the rolls as I feel that one of the most important things I should do is to make sure that it is fair for everyone. If I had fudged the roll then I am setting a precedent where I would have to do it for the next person who died as I have done it before for someone else.
So I aim to run the scenarios to the letter etc. That encounter is nasty and I won't run that scenario again. If I had written it for a home game, I would have felt really mean.
I hope Slyp takes up my offer to run something especially for him to help boost him back to where he was.

As far as the masterwork tool goes, I should perhaps explained myself better (it was like 3am or something). I looked at it in the core rules and wasn't sure it was legal to use masterwork tools in this way. Turns out I was wrong though hehe. I have ordered a copy of Ultimate Equipment as if I had used this there wouldn't have been an issue as it explains it in there :)

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 14:55
Actually Skellan, I'm pretty sure you ARE allowed to fudge rolls in PFS play... once again.. the GM is responsible for the game... and his decisions are final. .. BUT.. you probably would have had to do that by rolling the damage 'behind the screen' or something... otherwise everyone knows you fudged it blatantly... and well... that cheapens the game somewhat too. Those situations are really hard and unfortunate.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 14:59
On this point.. the GM has ultimate control at the time of the game. He has to, in order for the game to run. He makes a decision and right or wrong.. that's what all the players HAVE to live with. It is unfortunate if someone dies or loses some goal because of it.. but that has to be the way it is, otherwise they cannot keep the game moving forward if at any time their judgement can be called into question and revoked. I'm sorry if you don't like this.. but that really HAS to be how it is in order to keep games moving.
If you don't like a decision a GM made... you are welcome to talk to him about it AFTER the game.. perhaps change his view about it for NEXT TIME... but for whatever reason.. if he calls it that the sky is green.. well.. golly.. the sky is green today.

Whilst I'm cool to let things go during the game (for the sake of flow as you say), if it is later proven that you are wrong - you MUST correct this. To not do is grossly unfair to the player who has lost their character or missed out on something due to GM error.

No one is saying that GMs should be infallable, but if AFTER the game it is proven that in that one case you were wrong, you need to correct it. To do any less is arrogant and frankly mean-spirited.

"Oh yeah, I was wrong. Sorry about that mate. Thanks for not arguing it at the time. Pass me your chronicle sheet and I'll fix that up for you. Thanks for pointing it out :)"

As opposed to:

"Oh yeah, I was wrong. Oh well, tough."

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 15:01
You are mistaken. You MUST live with their decision at the time of the game... or not play in the game. Period.
IF you find that there is some rule that is different.. sure present it to them and they can take it into account in their NEXT GAME... but whatever happened as a result of their ruling .. happened in the past... it is over.

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 15:05
I actually welcome players querying rules. It may be hard to believe, but under this superhuman exterior lies a mere mortal :)
In saying that, I can't let it turn into an extended rules argument that stops the game

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 15:07
These games are all about die rolls and random chances. In all cases the rules are only a simulation of 'real actions' .. the game is filled with 'magical' things that happen. If a GM wants to fudge a rule so a player lives.. they are welcome to... if they make a ruling that unfortunately causes a player to die.. that happens too... BUT.. you can't change it later because you can't make a reasonable argument for it at the time that happens.

This isn't to say, and honestly... I have not encountered this with ANY of our PFS GMs... that a GM should be all tough on rules where a player is going to die. Hell.. as I said.. GMs really don't enjoy it when folks die either.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:18
Disagree entirely. If a GM did that to me I'd appeal the decision.

This is PFS, not a local game. There are strict rules in place that ALL GMs MUST follow.

To quote from the "Guide to Society Play":

P.31 "What is a Game Master?"
"A GM's duty is to provide a FAIR and fun game". How can it be fair if you make a mistake and someone else has to live with it instead of taking responsibility for it yourself? I find that the antipathy of "fair".

I completely agree that this discussion should take place AFTER the game however GMs must be responsible for their actions and innocent people should not have to suffer for their mistakes. That would be irresponsibilty at its height.

I am 100% certain that the designers of this game would be in complete and utter agreement on this.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:23
I actually welcome players querying rules. It may be hard to believe, but under this superhuman exterior lies a mere mortal :)
In saying that, I can't let it turn into an extended rules argument that stops the game

I agree completely. Extended rules arguements are no fun and turn the game sour. I think the whole point of the, "discuss it after the game" idea first came along was so that games could keep moving and things could get sorted (if needs be) at the end.

Surely though if you'd played something entirely wrong and this was pointed out to you at the end of the game, you'd rectify it wouldn't you?

I can't honestly see anyone but the nastiest person saying, "Oops yeah, my bad, oh well suck it up". People like that shouldn't be allowed to GM.

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 15:30
Whilst I'm cool to let things go during the game (for the sake of flow as you say), if it is later proven that you are wrong - you MUST correct this. To not do is grossly unfair to the player who has lost their character or missed out on something due to GM error.

No one is saying that GMs should be infallable, but if AFTER the game it is proven that in that one case you were wrong, you need to correct it. To do any less is arrogant and frankly mean-spirited.

"Oh yeah, I was wrong. Sorry about that mate. Thanks for not arguing it at the time. Pass me your chronicle sheet and I'll fix that up for you. Thanks for pointing it out :)"

As opposed to:

"Oh yeah, I was wrong. Oh well, tough."
I think going down a route where it is allowed to question a GMs ruling after the game and get the results changed is a very dangerous one to go down. GMs are under enough pressure when running games and we struggle to attract and keep GMs that the last thing I want them to have to consider is someone analysing everything they did and then demand an ammended chronicle sheet after.

We all make mistakes - be us players or GMs. As an example, what would happen if we did all analyse the game and try to retro change the outcome and hence the chronicle sheet after the game - when is the cutoff? Or, what if a player made a mistake and perhaps used a feat or item of equipment they shouldn't have - what if that mistake saved the party or a PC from the hands of the BBEG and a potential kill? Does the GM retroactively say "Well, the feat you used coudn't be applied in that situation and you didn't tell me you were using it - so, your critical on the BBEG wouldn't have saved they day and, err,you all died!" I know this is an extreme example, but if the route of querying GMs and getting changes made after the game is followed then why not query players and do the same?

I'll re-iterate what I said earlier - we all make mistakes and they have to be dealt with at the time or not at all. We need to keep GMs in the society and attract more - some of whom will be new to GMing, the last thing we want is to put them off by retro analysing their decisions. I also want to avoid GMs being pressured into changing what happened in the game. Plus, if we do this for GM mistakes, we should really do it for players too - and that is just one huge Pandora's box!

I know it's frustrating sometimes - especially if an honest mistake leads to a character death. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to live with these unfortunate events to avoid a lot of untenable situations.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 15:31
You are assuming you can change the past. Once the game is over.. it is over. How do you propose someone 'rectify' it? Give you extra gold and a magic fairy wand? The game is over.. the discussion is moot... except for the purposes of 'the next game'.

As to 'death' questions... well.. I am certain that GMs are exploring ANY loophole they can find to keep a player from dying at the time that it happens... I know that I certainly am.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:37
You say it must be dealt with, "at the time" but the usual motto is "deal with stuff after the game". So which is it to be?

I disagree entirely that a player should have to lose their character to a GM error. This is not a harsh judgement. No one is saying, "You bad man, you made a mistake, you suck". Just that a mistake was made and needs to be corrected. Perhaps a minimum could be "only in the case of PC death" but that MUST be a minimum to maintain a "Fair" game as the "Guide to Society Play" requires.

Preserving Gm's feelings I'm sorry comes a VERY far second to that. Making a mistake during the game which leads to a PC death and then when the facts are clearly presented and the case is most definately decided that a mistake was made and you STILL hold to that PC death (on what possible reasonable grounds can you do this?!?) then I class that the same as "cheating" and would report it as such.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:42
In the game where this happened to me, given time I could have shown exactly where in the RULES that the mistake was being made. However GMs all say, "Don't argue it now, talk about it later". Well you can't have it both ways.

If you are NOT willing to retroactively change things to resolve your error then you need to give the person AT THE TIME the chance to PROVE you wrong.

It's one way or another people. Anything less is unfair, cruel and frankly reeks of elitism and abuse of power.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:46
I've made mistakes whilst playing myself. In fact I just yesterday noticed that I had something on my sheet that was wrong (honest mistake). I did some research and then immediately contacted the GM outlining the situation and possible ways to rectify it. He was grateful that I had and was cool with it being fixed up whichever way I liked.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:49
Please excuse my tone here guys but I am a VERY honest person who has a very high sense of justice of what is right and wrong. I am angered to boiling point by corruption and abuses of power.

My comments are not directed at anyone in particular, they are directed at the ISSUE.

Trenloe
October 23rd, 2012, 15:50
Yeah, on second thoughts I'm inclinded to agree that PC deaths can be reviewed if the player has clear indication/evidence of a rules error on the GMs behalf.

As you say Bloodlust, most reasonable people will admit their error and be willing to change the outcome.

I would like to point out that this must all be done amicably and it is still up to the GM as to whether the original outcome (and chronicle) stand or is changed. Also, the error should be raised directly with the GM and in good time after the event - please do not post direct complaints in the public forums.

EDIT: If you have a valid PC death complaint and you get no respose from the GM in question (allow them enough time to investigate and respond) then please raise this directly with me (again, not in the forums). As an active PFS Venture-Lieutenant I am willing to handle escalations of no response from GMs. If you are unhappy with any adjudication I make, let me know (again off forum) and I will provide you with an alternative PFS Venture Officer contact details to get a second opinion.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 15:54
Also, the error should be raised directly with the GM and in good time after the event - please do not post direct complaints in the public forums.

Most definately agree on that point. The first person you go to should be the GM and indeed it should be "discussed" not demanded rudely. That's not the way to do it at all and if you do, then yeah you deserve what you get.

I hope you guys can see that to do otherwise utterly undermines the faith people will have in GMs. It will be horrifically damaging to the whole gaming community and devolve into an "us versus them" culture.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 16:12
Bloodlust, you are obviously holding a grudge about this 'death' that happened to your character. Obviously, these things are upsetting... and if the GM was an ***.. sure.. notify the VC about it.. but don't expect to get his decisions overturned. I would be very disappointed in anyone who did so.

As for 2 sets of rules.. well... to some extent there are:
There in a 'death' situation... a GM should be looking up the specifics of a rule if it is called into question in an instance where someone is going to die... Like I said.. exploring any avenue to keep the players from kicking the bucket.
Otherwise... he needs to make a decision and move on.. in order to keep the game moving.

That being said.. the GMs final decision is just that. Final. If you can convince him after the game NOT to tick the 'dead' box on the paizo site and list 'DEAD' as a condition on your chronicle sheet.. more power to you... but the VC, VL or President of Paizo shouldn't overturn the GM's decision.

'Death' situations are extremely rare. You believe you have a loophole for it but need to find the rule... tell him so. He 'SHOULD' give you the opportunity to look it up (ideally without slowing down the game too much or at all)... if he doesn't, well, I really can't see that happening.. but then I wouldn't play with that GM again if I were you.. and if he decides your interpretation is 'wrong' .. you have to live with it.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 16:17
I hope you guys can see that to do otherwise utterly undermines the faith people will have in GMs. It will be horrifically damaging to the whole gaming community and devolve into an "us versus them" culture.You do realize that 'US' and 'THEM' are the same folks here... since all the GMs play as well as run games.

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 16:20
Oh.. and I don't really think this has anything to do with masterwork tools anymore. :)

Unless you are using your diplomacy brooch to save you from death.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 16:26
Oh.. and I don't really think this has anything to do with masterwork tools anymore. :)

Unless you are using your diplomacy brooch to save you from death.

Yeah lol, I suggested to Trenloe that we might want to move this thread haha.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 16:43
Back on topic....

A great one for any Knowledge skill is a "Pathfinder Chronicle" from the "Inner Sea World Guide". 50gp, gives you a +2 bonus to any one knowledge skill. You can have multiple of them (only 1lb per book) and each one does a different skill :)

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 17:10
How about we make a list of what we here, at least on Fantasy Grounds, consider reasonable?

Skills:
Acrobatics: ?
Appraise: Jewellers lens (Bloodlust).
Bluff: ?
Climb: Already a climbing kit (Core)
Craft: Already masterwork artisan's tool (Core)
Diplomacy: ?
Disable Device: Already masterwork thieves tools (Core)
Disguise: Already disguise kit (Core)
Escape Artist: ?
Fly: ? (frequent flier miles? ;) )
Handle Animal: Masterwork Animal Whistle (Bloodlust), bit and bridle if horses (Blackfoot)
Heal: Already healer's kit (Core)
Intimidate: ?
Knowledge (any): Pathfinder Chronicles (Inner Sea World Guide)
Linguistics: Perhaps some sort of common phrase book? (Bloodlust)
Perception: Spectacles (visual only) (Bloodlust)
Perform: Already masterwork instruments (Core) though if dance I'd agree with masterwork dance shoes - ask any dancer! (Bloodlust)
Profession: Depends on what it is. Sailor - compass, Bounty Hunter - licence, etc. (Bloodlust)
Ride: Masterwork saddle/stirrups? (Bloodlust)
Sense Motive: I once thought a book entitled, "Understanding body language and reactions". (Bloodlust)
Sleight of Hand: Coat with secret pockets (Skellan)
Spellcraft: Inquisitor's handbook? (Bloodlust)
Stealth: Masterwork cloak/boots (Bloodlust)
Survival: Depends on region, perhaps an almanac would be useful? (Bloodlust)
Swim: Masterwork floaties? (joke)
Use Magic Device: Book detailing common command words/phrases/activations (give 'em all a go till one works)? (Bloodlust)

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 17:18
If a GM wants to fudge a rule so a player lives.. they are welcome to...

True, though this is something I am not going to do. If I did I would feel like I would be making choices about who lives or dies and ultimately I don't think that it is fair on players. If I play things by the book I know I am treating everyone fairly.

Also, Paizo need accurate feedback, and if everyone fudged things to keep players alive the scenarios are going to get dead hard hehe. I imagine they would expect a certain percentage of deaths reported for each scenario and if the death count is artificially really low, they will think they are too easy.

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 17:18
Back on topic....

A great one for any Knowledge skill is a "Pathfinder Chronicle" from the "Inner Sea World Guide". 50gp, gives you a +2 bonus to any one knowledge skill. You can have multiple of them (only 1lb per book) and each one does a different skill :)

And sold!

I want one (or two :)

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 17:21
I suppose this would be useful but I kind of like the idea of players coming up with unique stuff.
Sleight of hand has to be a coat with secret pockets or something tho :P



How about we make a list of what we here, at least on Fantasy Grounds, consider reasonable?

Skills:
Acrobatics: ?
Appraise: Jewellers lens (that thing they stick in their eye to check fine detail).
Bluff: ?
Climb: Already a climbing kit
Craft: Already masterwork artisan's tool
Diplomacy: ?
Disable Device: Already masterwork thieves tools
Disguise: Already disguise kit
Escape Artist: ?
Fly: ? (frequent flier miles? ;) )
Handle Animal: Masterwork Animal Whistle (used to train the animals tricks)
Heal: Already healer's kit
Intimidate: ?
Knowledge (any): Pathfinder Chronicles (Inner Sea World Guide)
Linguistics: Perhaps some sort of common phrase book?
Perception: Spectacles (visual only)
Perform: Already masterwork instruments though if dance I'd agree with masterwork dance shoes - ask any dancer!
Profession: Depends on what it is. Sailor - compass, Bounty Hunter - licence, etc.
Ride: Masterwork saddle/stirrups?
Sense Motive: I once thought a book entitled, "Understanding body language and reactions".
Sleight of Hand: ?
Spellcraft: Inquisitor's handbook (lol)?
Stealth: Masterwork cloak/boots
Survival: Depends on region, perhaps an almanac would be useful?
Swim: Masterwork floaties?
Use Magic Device: Book detailing common command words/phrases/activations (give 'em all a go till one works)?

Blackfoot
October 23rd, 2012, 17:25
Here's a perfect example of a 'conditional' bonus... a 'whistle' wouldn't be much use when training horses... better off with a masterwork bit and bridle in that case.
The bottom line on this is you are quite likely to need to buy multiple 'masterwork tools' to satisfy different situations.

Bloodlust
October 23rd, 2012, 17:43
Here's a perfect example of a 'conditional' bonus... a 'whistle' wouldn't be much use when training horses... better off with a masterwork bit and bridle in that case.
The bottom line on this is you are quite likely to need to buy multiple 'masterwork tools' to satisfy different situations.

Yes, that makes sense, especially by the new rules.

I have a wolf animal companion (Ranger) and that's why I thought of a masterwork dog whistle. This would be the very whistle I used to train this wolf from a young pup so he would respond well to it. A whistle is great for dogs and animals that can hear ultrasonic, but as you say, not so good for a horse.

Skellan
October 23rd, 2012, 18:00
Lol - masterwork floaties - that's funny

Bloodlust
October 24th, 2012, 01:59
You need to "thrash about and scream" to get the full bonus ;)

Bidmaron
October 24th, 2012, 03:48
Actually Skellan, I'm pretty sure you ARE allowed to fudge rolls in PFS play... once again.. the GM is responsible for the game... and his decisions are final. .. BUT.. you probably would have had to do that by rolling the damage 'behind the screen' or something... otherwise everyone knows you fudged it blatantly... and well... that cheapens the game somewhat too. Those situations are really hard and unfortunate.
Blackfoot, I respected how, on your weekend game with the fight in the tavern at the end, you did not fudge the roll where the guy got away with the relic. I know it must have been tempting, but you held the line on it. A shame that the players didn't get a chance to role play the loss of the relic with the PF venture captain....

Skellan
October 24th, 2012, 06:34
Yeah, I think some gms do fudge and others dont. I am not going to knock any gm who does, but I am not going to do it in pfs. I think if I did it once to save a character I would have to make everryone immortal or pick who to kill by not fudging a crit or whatever. I am not comfortable with that. I think being open with dice rolls helps to build trust with players too, as they know I am not favouring a player when it comes to dice rolls. This is particularly important if there is player at the table that I am not getting on with, which could be the case in a pfs environment. (Not that there is, you are all cool :p)

There are good arguments for both ways of doing it.I suppose what you get not fudging dice rolls is the chance of unlucky death but the reassurance that whoever you are, the dice results are fair.
Anyway, that's how I run my games. I guess players can choose if they want to play in the scenarios I run or not :)

Blackfoot
October 24th, 2012, 15:00
I rarely if ever fudge things... but the point I was trying to make yesterday with regards to that is that gaming is about storytelling... more than anything else. What 'rules' or 'dice' do is help us to facilitate some of the random aspects of the story... give us some 'unknown'... The GMs responsibility is to make sure that folks have a good time. Sometimes... that means killing one of the players... or letting them fail... it is unfortunately true... but it should never be the GMs goal to 'defeat the players' or 'kill the players'... in fact they should.. at the heart of things be working for just the opposite. (in a really weird convoluted way)

Skellan
October 24th, 2012, 15:12
I am just keeping rolls open, this means I am being fair to everyone, it has nothing to do with trying to kill players. I think you are a bit out of order suggesting that I am trying to kill players just because I won't fudge the dice. As I said earlier, player deaths are unpleasant and no one wants to see them happen.

Bloodlust
October 24th, 2012, 15:14
I agree with what you're saying there Blackfoot. I think most PC deaths should only come about because the PCs did something downright stupid or ignored obvious dangers.

First and foremost should be the "story", I agree 100%.

In my last game I came away from it happy that even though we had to beat some people up, I felt like the NPCs really came over to our side and we did some "good" that day.

When Pathfinders are not highly regarded by local authorities and you're able to work with those guys and really show them what Pathfinders can do, I don't know - maybe it's just me but I feel that our PCs walked away from that scenario after making some NPC friends and would be waved to if in that area again.

Am I senile or does anyone else get my drift? Especially anyone at that last game.

Of course dealing out 51 points of damage to the end bad guy from a single shot was just complete awesomeness ;)

Skellan
October 24th, 2012, 15:49
Glad you had fun on Friday. You did really well with the npc's and improved the reputation of the Pathfinders. It was nice that the boon reflected this too!

And yes, your crit was indeed awesome!

Blackfoot
October 24th, 2012, 19:21
Whoa... Skellan, I apologize COMPLETELY if I came off sounding like I was in ANY WAY blaming you for the other day.. that was not my point at all. You handled the situation in a completely appropriate manner.. and really I was citing your game as an example of a difficult situation being handled properly.
I'm sorry if it came across differently.

Blackfoot
October 24th, 2012, 19:30
Of course dealing out 51 points of damage to the end bad guy from a single shot was just complete awesomeness ;)You probably wouldn't have been too happy if he'd done that to you.

Skellan
October 24th, 2012, 19:42
Hehe - don't worry Blackfoot. Sorry, I am being touchy about it