Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You need to open a Bar at your store..;)Solution to everything: Add alcohol, it makes all scenarios fun. ;)Genius!
Now it just needs to be made official...
Workin' on it.
My first concept was to do the coffee bar. It has gone well. Location number two will feature a full bar, I hope, along with a full restaurant. We'll see what the SBA is willing to give me.
|
|
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change. There also is the added consideration that if a GM increases the difficulty of a scenario, you are also burning up more resources of the PCs that other players didn't have to, thus causing the PCs at your adjusted scenario table to spend more gold than they should have had to. It opens a Pandora's Box that just doesn't need to be opened. GM the scenarios as written please.
The more I think about this, the more I disagree with the details. (hence my prolific posting, I suppose).
So, for example, is the standard to be that a NPC can never ever use a coup-de-grace unless explicitly mentioned as a part of the tactics? (or that they can only never use them if the tactics text says they won't use them?)
What about sunders?
What about attacking AC/Mounts? (those are resources, after all)
We're just throwing out that an NPC of moderate intelligence (highly intelligent ones would use metagame info and realize the inefficiency of such tactics ;) are incapable of heightening the excitement of a player by highlighting their own player's aspects?
Everyone who's read at least a couple PFS OP mods know that the tactics description of a NPC are EXTREMELY sparse, if existant at all. So is it really Michael's intent to give the players the tool of interrupting a game and questioning the GM's legality if a NPC performs any sort of combat maneuver?
Setting aside the ways that this violates the PFS OP ruleset, it seems to also violate its own very intent.. A player can only ever experience a module once (for credit, anyway. And once again, behind the GM screen since I'm bringing split hairs into this..) Anyway, we all want the best possible experience for that limited exposure a player will have to the mod.. and putting this on GMs is causing at LEAST as many problems as it might solve, and thus isn't such a good move.
|
On occasion, I've been asked by a GM who has read a thread on the boards that such-and-such a scenario is reviewed as being unchallenging, should he beef up the mooks? Occasionally I've realised a GM has done this after I've played and read the scenario.
a) as a gameday/convention GM and VC, I can't accurately assess scenario difficulty if GMs modify them when I play them;
b) beefing up encounters drags out play-time - recently we heard afterwards a player had plans for an anniversary dinner, and was upset when she discovered the game ran overtime due to beefing up the encounters - there are many reasons not to beef up encounters, they're not always challenge related, there may be timing or other reasons to stick to the script.
I've categorically said "NO" to GMs beefing up encounters - always run encounter stats as written.
On occasion, I've encouraged GMs to read a thread on the boards where GM/player feedback on a scenario enhances the game, eg City of Strangers, Frostfur Captive goblins etc, and told them to go crazy!
1) Definitely enhance the flavour for fun;
2) Use tactics appropriate to the situation (pull back for a weak group, no-holds-barred for a strong group);
3) Run encounter stats as written.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
Pathfinder Society 4-Star GM
Venture-Captain, Australia
|
My players are my bosses. I'm responsible to *them* as a collective. They can vote me off the island...or just not come back to game with me. They are my bottom line. And I believe I can run better PFS scenarios for *them* within the framework...
I think Painlord has hit upon an important point in this debate. It's the difference between regional thinking and Society-wide thinking. Painlord is concerned about keeping his local players happy - I know Paizo is too. But if the players "vote him off the island" - realistically they would do that by leaving PFS play. Some people play OP *because* they know the rules in advance and don't have to deal with arcane rules or power creep or GMs who like to kill players. We can't just do what we think is best locally and wait to see if people quit PFS or not.
I think the key to moving forward is in Painlord's last line above, though: "...run better PFS scenarios ... within the framework." The framework is set, there's some wiggle room, but PFS has a framework that needs to be respected. We can work to better define that in future, but for now it's what we have.
|
|
For a long time now, on many threads, I have strongly advised sticking to whatever script exists. There is still a lot of room for GM interpretation: most tactics are only written for the first couple of actions, for example.
Mike clearly expressed my usual concern about changing things in Organized Play - everyone should have an equitable experience. 2 similarly built groups should not face different risks, or expend different resources, because of GM intervention.
What really hit home to me are the 2 TPK's I'm aware of that were caused by GMs altering tactics (only tactics) in Rescue at Azlant Ridge. In both cases it was with experienced groups, in neither was it during the final climactic battle. In both cases the TPK caused players to leave Pathfinder Society and not return.
Are some scenarios going to be easier than others? Of course! Especially when party composition can vary so widely.
But what is wrong with a group of Pathfinders occasionally having an easier time with a mission they are ideally suited for? That same mission could be deadly for a less ideal group.
On another note, as I mentioned above, my experience with deadliness by season is different from many others. Here are the number of character deaths I recall in sessions I have played or GMed:
We Be Goblins! - 4
Master of the Fallen Fortress - 2
#4 - 6
#6 - 1
#15 (ret) - 2
#29 - 2
#33 - 2
#55 - 1 (my character, curse you Miles!)
#2-23 - 1
Almost all of those were from single sessions, except MotFF and #33.
|
|
For a long time now, on many threads, I have strongly advised sticking to whatever script exists. There is still a lot of room for GM interpretation: most tactics are only written for the first couple of actions, for example.
Mike clearly expressed my usual concern about changing things in Organized Play - everyone should have an equitable experience. 2 similarly built groups should not face different risks, or expend different resources, because of GM intervention....
I'll be that guy who 'just can never be pleased' I guess, but I'm not trying to cause a stink.. I'm really looking for answers here.
Coup-de-grace: It was a specific thing mentioned by Michael as a big no no unless allowed. What counts as allowed? Tactics block saying the NPC will do it, or the absence of text saying the NPC will not do it?
Sunders: If coup-de-grace'ing isn't allowed, what about sunders? If you don't want a PC to burn an extra potion or 1/50th the cost of a wand because of a tweak to an encounter, surely you don't want to see a weapon (or other item) with a cost in the thousands of GP end up destroyed? To me it seems like an awful (awful awful awful) precedent to let the players know that their toys can't be broken/taken by the GM, but then again maybe so is knowing that there's no rush to bandage up unconsious, bleeding buddy guy since they know NPCs 'aren't allowed to coup-de-grace'.
Prestige/Fame: A GM isn't the only one who can imbalance resources. What about players who ignore faction secrecy & cooperate on all faction missions to ensure noone ever misses a point? That's gotta be banned too, right? Or else those who roleplay 'as intended' are being cheated by those who don't? What's the value in making sure a GM doesn't stiff a player out of a couple hundred gold for an extra potion drunk during a 'tweaked' encounter when he's only getting 75% as much prestige as those players 'doing it outside the spirit of the rules' at the other table?
|
Coup-de-grace: It was a specific thing mentioned by Michael as a big no no unless allowed. What counts as allowed? Tactics block saying the NPC will do it, or the absence of text saying the NPC will not do it?
Allowed would be a tactics block saying it is something the NPC will do. Remember that animals probably won't CdG if there are moving targets that can interrupt their meal; and the more civilized opponents will tend to want to arrest the PCs doing something they see as illegal (See Shades of Ice for that idea)
Sunders: If coup-de-grace'ing isn't allowed, what about sunders? If you don't want a PC to burn an extra potion or 1/50th the cost of a wand because of a tweak to an encounter, surely you don't want to see a weapon (or other item) with a cost in the thousands of GP end up destroyed? To me it seems like an awful (awful awful awful) precedent to let the players know that their toys can't be broken/taken by the GM, but then again maybe so is knowing that there's no rush to bandage up unconsious, bleeding buddy guy since they know NPCs 'aren't allowed to coup-de-grace'.
Sunders are going to be rare. I would suspect that sundering for NPCs will be fairly well limited, just like for PCs, to those who have taken the feat track that allows them to sunder without provoking.
Prestige/Fame: A GM isn't the only one who can imbalance resources. What about players who ignore faction secrecy & cooperate on all faction missions to ensure noone ever misses a point? That's gotta be banned too, right? Or else those who roleplay 'as intended' are being cheated by those who don't? What's the value in making sure a GM doesn't stiff a player out of a couple hundred gold for an extra potion drunk during a 'tweaked' encounter when he's only getting 75% as much prestige as those players 'doing it outside the spirit of the rules' at the other table?
Faction secrcecy is recommended, not compulsory. The only time that working with others, one way or another, would not get the PP, if successful, is those faction missions that explicitly say "without anyone seeing you do this." type missions.
And there have been discussions on the board about tricking members of other facyions into helping you complete a faction mission, too. The Paladin tricked into using poison for a faction mission for another group of PCs, etc.
Remember that one of the prime tenets of the Pathfinder Society is Cooperate, too. Some of those faction missions can be fairly innocuous, so asking the party face top help you negotiate to purchase item X is not obviously a faction mission.
Although, even with cooperation, some faction missions will be impossible. A faction mission to convince someone who despises Elves and Half-Elves to help your faction, when all the party members in said faction on the mission are Elves and Half-Elves... By the way, that really happened in a game I played....
|
|
Faction secrcecy is recommended, not compulsory. The only time that working with others, one way or...
According to the PFS OP rules, it was also merely recommended against and not prohibited for GMs to tweak encounters.
Since M&M have said that they're changing that based on inequities in expenses incurred between tweaked and untweaked encounters, and their stated view (or fear) that most GMs over-estimate their ability to tweak fairly.
Since that box has been opened, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of saving a penny (a potion or scroll or charge of a wand) when whole dollars are going to waste (Faction point inequity).
If M&M can't trust GMs to run a module as intended, why do they trust players to play it as intended? Why override the PFS OP rules on GM perogative but not on Player roleplaying?
Not to mention the whole video-gaming-down of a RPG in taking away a GM's ability to put touches on an adventure... If I wanted to play WoW or some other video game mis-labelled as a RPG I can do that without going through the bother of attending a table.. why lower Pathfinder to that standard?
|
|
Actually, this has been the official stance of organizers since Nic & Josh.According to the PFS OP rules, it was also merely recommended against and not prohibited for GMs to tweak encounters.
Since M&M have said that they're changing that ...
I don't see it in my copy of the PFS OP Rulset 4.0 O.o As a matter of fact it seems the sections under Table Variation and Dealing with Death directly contradict this stance.
(Edited for a less confrontational tone :)
|
|
Deusvult
I think the problem you have is that you want the impossible been spelt out here.
First try to look at it from M&M perspective. Allowing changes by GMs will lead to chaos and a diminished play experience. You have seen enough examples here - like TPK caused by changes - that you should agree on their stance.
Now we look at it from a GM perspective. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense or causes a bad outcome if you stick to what is written and you need changes.
Here is the paradox:
There is no way that changes openly can be allowed. It would make the play experience worse.
As a GM you are sometimes aware you are in a grey or undefined area and you have to improvise - aka you change the game as it is the only possibility.
There will never be a rules solution that can cater to both. This is the difference between table top RPG and a computer game. The GM is there to adjucate situations and make rulings. As such he always alters the script - no matter how minor. At the same time he should be as close to written as possible.
The rule describes an Utopia that doesn't exist. But it prevents an Anarchy. It's the best we can hope for.
|
|
I don't see it in my copy of the PFS OP Rulset 4.0 O.o As a matter of fact it seems the sections under Table Variation and Dealing with Death directly contradict this stance.
(Edited for a less confrontational tone :)
No problem :) Sorry if my answers seem short (as in temper, not short-winded), not my intention.
The "Dealing with Death" section has been in there in some form the whole time. It doesn't refer to the types of changes M&M posted on... it's just an insurance policy to make sure a scenario doesn't get derailed by a key piece of information getting destroyed (similar to how the "Reward Creative Solutions" ensures players don't get less treasure because they roleplay instead of fighting).
The "Table Variation" is new to the Guide in this version, IIRC. It codifies the right of a GM to make rulings at his table for things not covered under the rules.
However, neither of those sections says anything about altering scenarios, encounters, tactics, or stat blocks. Those are the kind of changes I disagree with, and that I believe Mark & Mike are talking about.
I also think people should examine their expectations about what kind of ruling will come from the organizers. In an Organized Play campaign, I don't think it surprising that the official stance is always going to be "play by the rules, and run things as presented." If the answer was along the lines of "only modify scenarios if you are sure you know what you are doing", then the number of GM changes would multiply greatly, along with the problems that misguided changes cause.
And then I don't think we are playing the same Organized Play campaign at all, just buying the same adventures to play with.
EDIT: Or, what Thod said :)
|
|
You know Thod, I think I agree with every word you said.
What I've been getting at is what a big mistake it is for M&M (or apparently N&J before them) to put their foot in this mess at all.
We have it spelled out in the PFS OP rules. Saying something OTHER than what is printed there just ends up setting a course that can never end well.
If they're perceiving a problem about tweaks becoming too common/severe (perhaps as 7 man tables are) and they have a need to address it, my point is their posting here in a public forum thread is exactly the wrong way to do it.
Put a thoughtful 'reclarification' in PFS OP 4.1 or maybe a FAQ (and a sticky to announce it) If it's perceived to be such an emergency that it can't wait, put word out to the VCs who can assess the situation on the ground in their areas and THEY be the ones to crack down as needed. It should have been an approach of minimum disruption.
There's a chain of command for a reason. The guy at the top (when leading correctly) is supposed to appear infallable and never a bad guy (military officer steroytypes notwithstanding) and let your middle managers be the 'bad guys'. (stereotypical sergeants are on the other hand stereotyped for a good reason here! :)
Not to diss M&M but when they put their feet in their mouths, THAT isn't good for the game. If a mistake is to be made, let it be made on whatever Coordinator & VC private forum the rest of us are not privy to.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Not to diss M&M but when they put their feet in their mouths, THAT isn't good for the game. If a mistake is to be made, let it be made on whatever Coordinator & VC private forum the rest of us are not privy to.
I'm curious about what in this discussion has been Mike or I putting our feet in our mouths. We aren't going to stop posting on the boards and participating in discussions regarding the campaign. In fact, I think the campaign would suffer if suddenly anyone who participated in the campaign couldn't come on and ask Mike or I a question, the same way it would be bad for the RPG if Jason and the rest of the design staff didn't clarify things and participate in rules debates and inquiries. So since we're not going anywhere, I'd like to know what we did wrong in this case, so we can learn from the apparent mistake.
|
I really think that the original point is being lost here.
The thing of it is, that there's absolutely no sense in tying the storyteller's hands here. There's too many times when the outcome of a fight is "called" just a couple or few rounds into battle because it's painfully obvious what is going to happen. The opponents in the game should be as varied and mutable in tactics as they would be in real life.
The reason that tactics are there is to give DMs who aren't good at these things some help. The tactics are not (or, in my opinion shouldn't be) written as an end-all, be-all guide to the specific rules that the NPCs are allowed to *only* do such and such.
Combat should never be predictable. To either the DM, or the PCs. If you're limiting the DM by telling him that he can't use certain rules to play the game, then why don't you try applying that same thing to PCs? Would it be ludicrous to tell a PC that he can't Sunder, or Trip or us a Coup de Grace? Of course it would. Villains aren't supposed to be subject to any rules that the PCs aren't ... it's only fair.
I am not trying to say that entire encounters should be altered, or the DM keep adding more HP until he *feels* like letting an NPC died because he finally got enough hits in on the PC. Nor am I talking about a DM altering stats to give an additional +5 to hit ... but, there's no point whatsoever in convincing the PCs that they are impervious to any particular attack form. They should worry about their magic items being sundered by a demon. They should have to worry about going down in combat because of a Coup de Grace.
All this rhetoric about not wanting to have a rule to let DMs change the rules is a.) obviously a bunch of pointles rhetoric, and b.) completely outside the spirit of the game.
Really? You're parsing phrasing about to what extent a DM can change a mod, when you've got players with characters out there that are so incredibly min/maxed that they deal 10x normal amounts of damage in a 1st or 2nd level mod? Seriously? You're cracking down on a Sunder attempt? In all the years I have played PFS mods, I haven't ever seen a single PC - not even once - die permanently. That to me just isn't much of a challenge. ... and when there's no threat of potential character loss, suddenly it becomes a game of nothing more than min/maxing to see who can get the highest stats ...
Oh, wait. I forgot that's what Conventions and Organized Play are to begin with. ... NVM. Feel free to ignore everything that I just said. I'll just stick with a home game.
Playing up is frequently suicidal. I can think of at least one mod where 3-4 puts a single target in danger, but playing up to 6-7 gets the entire party hit by a 9th level empowered fireball in the surprise round.Fourth, why not have seven players play the next tier up?This kind of seems the solution that is already waiting to be used... But it seems reasonable to CODIFY it, i.e. require it.
The current system cares about Average Party Level, but doesn`t care about Party Size... i.e. ignores half of the CR vs. APL equation. Why not institutionalize the other half of that equation?
Well, OK, but that is just STANDARD PATHFINDER RULES.
People apparently want the right to play with 7 player tables...And honestly, I don`t see what is stopping 8 or 9 player tables if 7 is allowed. Fine.
But BY STANDARD PATHFINDER RULES, if you have a party that big, you should expect higher CR monster groups in opposition, otherwise APL+4 will just be dead easy. CAN application of NORMAL rules for party size * level vs. CR result in challenges that overly deadly to SINGLE characters? Sure...
But I`d rather have that dynamic in place and essentially allow A NATURAL LIMIT to large size parties, in place of IGNORING NORMAL RULES and allowing huge parties whose over-all power-level stream-rolls any opposition (if you only use APL and ignore party size). Maybe it`s good to ALLOW people to play with big groups when they really need to. But realizing that the challenge is scaled accordingly may motivate people to NOT play in such large groups if they realize that the sweet-spot REALLY IS at 4 players, as is stated and designed around.
|
|
Not to diss M&M but when they put their feet in their mouths, THAT isn't good for the game. If a mistake is to be made, let it be made on whatever Coordinator & VC private forum the rest of us are not privy to.I'm curious about what in this discussion has been Mike or I putting our feet in our mouths. We aren't going to stop posting on the boards and participating in discussions regarding the campaign. In fact, I think the campaign would suffer if suddenly anyone who participated in the campaign couldn't come on and ask Mike or I a question, the same way it would be bad for the RPG if Jason and the rest of the design staff didn't clarify things and participate in rules debates and inquiries. So since we're not going anywhere, I'd like to know what we did wrong in this case, so we can learn from the apparent mistake.
Well first of all, as I mentioned in Jiggy's 'victory lap' sister thread, I welcome that you and Micheal are being responsive to us. It's not a mistake to 'come down from the corporate ivory tower' to talk to us plebeans.. it makes us feel valued and that's a smart thing for you to do. So let's not have that appreciation fall into the shadow of what I was saying.
My objection in this thread is based off what I described as 'foot-in-mouth' syndrome. I'm happy to elaborate. I presume that the reason you two entered into this thread in the first place is that the direction of the thread was talking about whether/how a GM should scale encounters. I presume that you simply meant to repeat the 'party line' and not annouce a new stance. Again, not complaining about this in the least.
Here's where I accused you (two) of causing more trouble than you were solving. If you wanted to simply put an end to speculation about whether/how GMs can scale an adventure, you had three options. (well, four, including doing nothing at all, but again not saying that's what you should have done.)
Option 1: Reiterate the party line verbatim. Can't go wrong here. If, in your view, that the party line isn't clear enough to prevent people from abusing or misinterpreting it, consider changing the party line.. but thats an option that doesn't take place in this thread.
Option 2: Attempt to clarify the party line by over-simplyfing. (run the script as written)
Option 3: Attempt to clarify the party line by bringing up details that aren't even in the party line. (such as no coup-de-grace, etc)
The foot-in-mouth accusation was that if you chose option 2 or 3, you enter into what is ultimately a no-win situation... you're removing what little GM perogative is left in PFS OP and reserving it ALL for yourselves. They're both no-win because you move away from a basis of trust and you have to legislate everything. And when you legislate, you ultimately have to legislate down to the lowest common denominator. And speaking with 30+ years of experience gaming/GMing in more than 10 different cities (not counting cons), the lowest common denominator is very, very low indeed. And hey, even if I'm being pessimistic about the population of gamers in general, there's real-world proof on every McDonald's coffee cup that warns its contents are HOT and at every canyon where there's signs warning people not to fall in.
To illustrate the inevitable no-win situations each option sets course for:
Option 2: Run scenarios as written. Well, excepting A, not excepting B, excepting C, etc
Option 3: We don't want X. So a couple egregious ways to cause X, I'll say you can't do. Well, all those other things that can cause X, I'll neglect to address.
Anyway I'll wrap it up with an expression of appreciation. I can only imagine the guff you guys deal with from a population as large as PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Option 3: Attempt to clarify the party line by bringing up details that aren't even in the party line. (such as no coup-de-grace, etc)
Okay, enough people have reacted to the CdG thing that I've just got to call it out:
No one said to ban Coup de Grace from what an NPC can do.
The topic of CdG was introduce here when Michael Brock said:
I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change.
Let's zoom in a little closer:
or a coup de grace not written in the tactics
He was not saying that NPCs can't utilize CdG (or sunder, for whoever it was who brought that one up). He was listing things GMs might insert in order to ramp up the difficulty.
He was not saying that players shouldn't have to worry about CdG or sunder or whatnot because NPCs can't do it. He was saying that a GM shouldn't decide to forego reasonable tactics (like defending yourself from people who are still fighting) and instead CdG someone just to make it harder.
Please, authors-of-about-half-a-dozen-posts-so-far, stop taking "don't go out of your way to do X" to mean "don't ever ever do X for any reason".
|
|
I don't own every PFS OP mod there is, but going by what I have seen from the ones I have read I'd be surprised if Coup de Grace is explicitly mentioned in more than only one or two of them. Which would then mean that in all the rest, it would indeed be 'dont do it for any reason'.
Anyway, this nitty gritty is exactly the sort of thing that illustrates the no-win nature of moving from trusting GMs to legislating what they can and can't do.
Please, authors-of-about-half-a-dozen-posts-so-far, stop taking "don't go out of your way to do X" to mean "don't ever ever do X for any reason".
I`m pretty sure that Jiggy is accurately channelling what the ghost of Michael Brock would say :-)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This post contains mild spoilers for a Season 1 scenario.
On the subject of NPCS using Coup de Grace, I've got a history.
Over a year ago, I was running an adventure set in Kaer Maga, where the villain was determined to kill the PCs; not turn them over to anybody else, not escape from them. He wanted the party dead, dead, dead. He was able to summon critters, and command them in combat. One critter downed a 1st-level PC, and during its next turn, there were no other PCs it could see (the party had gotten split up in a large encounter space).
I decided the villain would command his summoned critter to coup de grace the PC.
Now, a year later, I'm pretty sure I would just have the critter attack the downed PC, which might well have killed him. But moving on and hunting for other targets didn't seem consistent with the NPC's goals. Having said that, the term "coup de grace" never appeared in his list of tactics. So I'm not sure how badly I was going off-book.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This post contains mild spoilers for a Season 1 scenario.
On the subject of NPCS using Coup de Grace, I've got a history.
Over a year ago, I was running an adventure set in Kaer Maga, where the villain was determined to kill the PCs; not turn them over to anybody else, not escape from them. He wanted the party dead, dead, dead. He was able to summon critters, and command them in combat. One critter downed a 1st-level PC, and during its next turn, there were no other PCs it could see (the party had gotten split up in a large encounter space).
I decided the villain would command his summoned critter to coup de grace the PC.
Now, a year later, I'm pretty sure I would just have the critter attack the downed PC, which might well have killed him. But moving on and hunting for other targets didn't seem consistent with the NPC's goals. Having said that, the term "coup de grace" never appeared in his list of tactics. So I'm not sure how badly I was going off-book.
This sounds (without my having read the scenario) like an example of an in-bounds CdG. The NPC's goal was to kill, and there wasn't a better tactical option. Similarly, if an intelligent foe kept seeing the party revive their most dangerous PC every time he fell, it wouldn't take long to see that he needed to kill that PC.
The only thing that I think MBrock (that's what I'm calling him from now on) was trying to say is that GMs shouldn't be shoe-horning nonsensical CdG's into situations that don't make sense because they want the fight to be harder (allegedly in the name of "fun").
Several people have completely missed that distinction, and harrassed MBrock (and MMoreland, and PFS in general) for it.
I`m pretty sure that Jiggy is accurately channelling what the ghost of Michael Brock would say :-)
ZOMG QUANDARY KILLED MBROCK!!!11!1!one1!
`eye-witnesses` are notoriously un-reliable.
some people couldn`t tell a coup-de-grace from a chocolate cake if their life depended on it ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
some people couldn`t tell a coup-de-grace from a chocolate cake if their life depended on it ;-)
Now I suddenly want to see the situation in which someone's life depends on their ability to distinguish between a CdG and a chocolate cake.
Time to write a scenario for the open call...
|
|
Okay folks----a scenario or module of any kind is a set of challenges.
The DM should care to select the module or scenario appropriate for the group.
I cannot comment on Pathfinder Society games, but please allow me to contribute a few thoughts:
> There doesn't need to be a survival statistic nor expectation of 80% with 20% death. There isn't any historical evidence of this kind of "death ratio" for modules.
> Players complain when modules are too tough, players complain when modules are too easy.
> Its the GM's job to run her games in a compelling way, that creates the feel, drama, and reality of the challenges before them.
> Its the GM's job to select a level appropriate scenario/module for the particular group that's playing.
Examples:
> I give my players higher array of starting attributes at L1, so I account for this in the CR ratings of encounters and overall. I make sure the APL functions at APL+1 for determining what makes an average, hard, or challenging scenario. Once I started doing this to account for the actual party power, the threat balance (as well as the challenge perceived by the players) was restored. I was, just as a GM, making my encounters too easy.
> Pathfinder Society scenarios have a recommended level. While I cannot say if that is a mandate of the organization to play within those ranges, surely a range always exists. A module saying "for Levels 1-3" can be played with L1 characters. If the organization doesn't mandate adherance to this, then select a module that is "for Levels 2-4" for the L1 party, and the situation should be solved.
> I've experienced players, over time, saying they want a challenge, and yet when the GM starts to present some tough challenges they yell, "we said we wanted a challenge, but NOT every week!!!" lol Imho, this is a very natural occurence, and this type of thing happens in every group's dynamic a time or two. The GM usually course corrects by "kicking thier butts a few times" and the universe is put right again. The players have the thrill of big challenges, and are contented to keep playing for a few more years until this becomes again, the cyclical issue that it is, that is, before the issue rears its ugly head again, and highly obvious big challenges scratch thier itch, then it subsides. It is possible that because Pathfinder Scenarios don't have the necessary luxury of keeping the same folks at the table year after year, that this phenomenon will still occur, except without the "memory" of that time the GM kicked their butts to silence thier desire for it.
Look, whether or not the actual modules are easy, or hard, I suspect they are well designed and appropriate for the levels recommended. That said, in today's bizzare gaming world, players will min/max, optimize, munchkin, every last bit of everything to make themselves more powerful. This happens rather quickly by the way, and can cause things to seem not-that-hard or quite easy. Fact is, players cannot have it both ways without the GM putting on the thinking cap, and making good contextual decisions based on the actual players at the table. Since this might not be possible with rotating players in a gaming society, or RPGA-like atmostphere, chances are the modules will forever remain at an "appropriately easy to normal" challenge level. Because designers don't design for corner cases and exceptions, they design for the lowest common denominator - like a straight character of the given level with the basics, but not all the money, power, and loot most folks have. Its up to the GM to adjust accordingly.
|
Several people have completely missed that distinction, and harrassed MBrock (and MMoreland, and PFS in general) for it.
The vagueness of certain areas are what people are talking about. This post is one of several on this main theme.
As a GM I am supposed to reward people for creative solutions, but what if the scenario has no rules for that solution? Wouldn't allowing this be effectivly a rewrite? And what are the guidlines for this?
As a GM I am supposed to play the scenarios as written, what about possible misprints
As a GM I am supposed to enforce a no pvp rule, but somehow encourage a secret faction war?
These are several examples of why many GMs are frustrated with the current dogma.
|
|
The only thing that I think MBrock (that's what I'm calling him from now on) was trying to say is that GMs shouldn't be shoe-horning nonsensical CdG's into situations that don't make sense because they want the fight to be harder (allegedly in the name of "fun").Several people have completely missed that distinction, and harrassed MBrock (and MMoreland, and PFS in general) for it.
First of all, I didn't mean to get your chakras in a twist. Sorry to you or anyone else who's taken offense.
I do completely see the distinction between a Coup de Grace performed in accoradnce with the intent of a scenario and one performed for sour grapes or for twisted satisfaction. I think virtually every person can see the difference.
I suspect you don't see mine. Since 'everyone' can see the difference, why even make a stand on it? We both agree that the recent example is about as reasonable a context that a CdG would be administered as could reasonably imagined, it was omitted from the tactics block. So because Michael brought it up, and because of who he is, it's now under question. (ridiculously so, that's my point)
MBrock wrote:
or a coup de grace not written in the tactics
Emphasis yours, dude. Either we're trusting GMs or we're not. If we're trusting them (and I hope that's ultimately what M&M want) giving absolutes without context is incompatable with that trust. And giving absolutes with every context imaginable is impossible.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The vagueness of certain areas are what people are talking about. This post is one of several on this main theme.
Several people have completely missed that distinction, and harrassed MBrock (and MMoreland, and PFS in general) for it.
To be clear, I have no problem with people not liking vagueness. But MBrock's statement about CdG's was not really that vague - he said not to jack up the difficulty, and listed several random ways one might do so, including an unwarranted CdG. A few people replied as though he had just banned every NPC from ever using CdG, which is not really something you can get from reading MBrock's statement. That's all I was talking about.
As a GM I am supposed to reward people for creative solutions, but what if the scenario has no rules for that solution? Wouldn't allowing this be effectivly a rewrite? And what are the guidlines for this?
I can understand this being one of the issues of vagueness you were referring to. And yes, it's vague. Probably something you just have to get a "feel" for.
As a GM I am supposed to play the scenarios as written, what about possible misprints** spoiler omitted **
As a GM I am supposed to enforce a no pvp rule, but somehow encourage a secret faction war?
I hear people on the boards reference this every now and then, but so far I've never actually encountered a pair of faction missions that would lead to PvP.
These are several examples of why many GMs are frustrated with the current dogma.
Labeling it as "dogma" doesn't do much to inspire confidence in your willingness to seek common ground and come to a mutually-acceptable solution.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
As a GM I am supposed to play the scenarios as written, what about possible misprints** spoiler omitted **
In this instance, it's not a misprint.
Check out the soulbound doll's alignment variation special ability on the PRD. A neutral evil soulbound doll gets inflict serious wounds.
Much of what I've tried to say above (perhaps ineffectively) is that my job is to balance the encounters and provide options within the scenario for GMs to have a bit of leeway in terms of what they can do while still sticking to the script. In the case of this specific scenario, if people keep changing it, I don't get the feedback I need so I can make things clearer and more fun for everyone down the line.
The reason this is such an issue for people is that it's the core of what being a GM is. A GM has to be able to adapt things while running the game because the players don't have a script. We trust our GMs to do so while still running things as written. Crafting a rule to define when a GM can and can't make necessary alterations within the confines of a presented encounter would be nearly impossible, as we can't anticipate every different situation. But that doesn't mean we'll change the rule from what it's been since day 1 and say, "just do whatever you want and if it's different than the printed scenario, oh well."
If GMs can't work with what the scenario gives them, provide feedback of what specifically you feel you need and I'll apply that feedback as best I can to future scenarios. But when I get emails from people or see product reviews that are referencing things that weren't in the scenario to begin with, I can't use that feedback at all. Very rarely is such feedback praising an adventure for including something a GM added; in nearly every case it's a complaint about a balance issue or a timing issue or a specific creature's tactics that the GM made up.
So those asking for free rein or a point-by-point list of what exactly, specifically you can and can't do are working against us in terms of finding a balance for GMs to have the freedom to make a scenario their own and provide a good time to all players and all parties while still providing consistency within what is, when it comes down to it, a single campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
stuff
...Are you approaching all this with the idea that "CdG not in the tactics" means "the tactics don't reference the Coup de Grace mechanic by name"? That would explain a lot.
Aside from pre-fight buffing and sometimes the first round, the tactics don't tell you what spells/abilities/mechanics to use - if anything, they mostly just point out if the NPC has a specific goal (kill lots of PCs, escape, etc).
I'm pretty confident that what MBrock meant by "not in the tactics" is if the tactics don't warrant a CdG. I think seeing it instead as a decree that CdG is banned unless called out by name is reading something into MBrock's post that isn't there.
|
|
So it is not a misprint! Ha, that instance makes anything I would do to a campaign pale in comparison, that is an instant killer. I did mention this on two seperate Threads asking for offical clearification, both started by someone else.I think one was Jason something. So do not say I didn't provide feedback.
And honestly, I don`t see what is stopping 8 or 9 player tables if 7 is allowed.
The obvious natural limit is the number of people who can comfortably sit around a table, reach the battlemat and hear the GM. That's about six people, depending on venue and table, and there's only so much squeezing you can do. The noisier the venue is, the fewer people you can realistically get away with as the players need to be closer to the GM to hear.
Another natural limit is how long players can maintain interest when not contributing. That's affected as much by people who aren't prepared, don't know their character, or have to look stuff up as the number of people. Seven players who all know the rules, trust each other and are ready to respond when their turn comes up are far easier to manage than five people who don't know the rules and have OOC discussions which distract everyone else.
Your idea of increasing the CR based on the number of players would run as follows:
GM: "We have five players, welcome to PFS"
Player 6: "I make six, thanks for having me"
GM: "This is going to be a tough mod."
Player 7: "Sorry I'm late"
GM: "Okay, I'll TPK you all in encounter 2, so there's no point running the mod. Mark your characters as dead and go shopping or something".
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I'd just like to throw in my 2¢ and say that I think the difficulty of the modules is generally fine. I don't think the goal of Society scenarios should be to kill PCs. Granted, we want things to be exciting, but both as a GM and a player, I find that the most exciting games are the ones where the PCs *almost* lose, but then manage to pull through at the end.
PC death is (usually) not much fun, particularly for new players and particularly for those of us who are very attached to our characters. And at low levels (when we don't have the gold or prestige to buy a resurrection), it's a big deal.
As others have said, I think that the real problem with easy encounters has to do with number of players. If the modules are written assuming a 4 or 5 player table, and 6 or 7 people show up, then things will be much easier, plain and simple. I've played in some 6 and 7-player games that were very easy, and some 3 player games that were nail-bitingly hard, but the only example of the reverse I can think of is a game where I ended up seated as a first-level character with a 7-player group playing a Tier 4-5 module. That one was hard for my character to survive, but the fact that he did meant that I had more fun with the game.
I think it is important to remember, however, that the point of the game is to have fun. One thing that I *really* like about the Pathfinder Society games I've played is the willingness of GMs to recognize when a group doesn't just want a tactical slugfest, but rather wants to have fun with characterization and exploring the world. Other groups want to have a more combat-focused, strategic game. That's fine. That's not badwrongfun. I think it's important for a GM to find out what will be fun for his players and give them that.
|
|
I'm pretty confident that what MBrock meant by "not in the tactics" is if the tactics don't warrant a CdG. I think seeing it instead as a decree that CdG is banned unless called out by name is reading something into MBrock's post that isn't there.
You and I are more or less on the same page. For example, we both agree that you have the liberty to interpret 'not written in the tactics' and as to mean 'used inappropriately'. I'd take it the same way, myself.
I've been causing a stink not because I say 'not written in the tactics' means 'not explicitly mentioned by name', but because I'm thinking about how do I respond to a hypothetical situation where a player, freshly hot about his PC just having died to a CdG, threatens to 'tell on me' to my VC or to Mark/Michael because he says it does mean not at all not never not unless tactics block includes the name Coup-de-Grace. (maybe I've gamed with an abnormally high number of such rules-lawyers)
It's one thing to say 'go right ahead. I'm sure they agree with me.'
It's another to do it without first having made SURE they agree with me. Not to mention, my being sure they do means I can instead say 'knock it off, they agree with me. you'll just look like an ass if you go bug them'.
I've already done all the looking like an ass and gotten it out of the way :)
P.S. Mark, thank you very much for the explanation about how GMs over-using 'tweaking' has negatively impacted feedback. Its something I completely missed up to this point and helps immesurably in re-reading your posts :)
P.P.S I don't agree that feedback about a positive 'tweak' is useless.. not only goes to show trust in GMs can be vindicated (to compare against the more common bad tweaks) but it also shows what you shoulda/woulda/coulda had for next time :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If GMs can't work with what the scenario gives them, provide feedback of what specifically you feel you need and I'll apply that feedback as best I can to future scenarios. But when I get emails from people or see product reviews that are referencing things that weren't in the scenario to begin with, I can't use that feedback at all. Very rarely is such feedback praising an adventure for including something a GM added; in nearly every case it's a complaint about a balance issue or a timing issue or a specific creature's tactics that the GM made up.
Hi, Mark. I think I understand pretty well where you're coming from here.
My thoughts are:
1a) People write more extensive negative reviews than positive reviews. This is even more true in terms of particulars. "I hated that the scenario had a savage fire troll who killed half the party" is easier to articulate than "I was really excited to finally see a fire troll in action."
1b) People write more extensive reviews about hard encounters than easy ones. IF a GM softballs a Magus encounter and doesn't kill a PC or two, the players probably won't put that in a review.
2a) Nevertheless, there are GMs out here who will make dramatic changes in a senario, and some of them are ham-fisted about it, and those don't often end well.
2b) And that might turn off a lot of new players, who will never write a review of the scenario.
3) But I've also had very experienced GMs for PFS who have either announced that they were making some changes, or who obviously went off-book. In all cases, this was because of party composition, size, or tactics. And these turned out to be pretty fun.
Perhaps one of the reasons that you're worried about GM changes is that they're often handled badly, to the detriment of the scenario storyline and to the enjoyment of the players. Perhaps one of the reasons that GMs mess up with this is that they have little experience or training in making those changes.
So you've got choices: either
- a reinforement of the "don't anybody make any changes under any circumstances" edict, or
- a workshop in what kind of changes might work, versus what kind don't, perhaps including
- a guideline providing GMs of a certain star-ranking more leeway than novice GMs, as a direct result of their experience with PFS scenarios and how they work. This isn't an arbitrary "rewards cookie" for 3- or 4-star GMs; it's an acknowledgement that after 60 or 100 runs, they know how these things work. You might even request that they send you a note regarding the changes they made, their reasons, and how things turned out.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't make that first choice. But I think there's room to make the other choices, if you decided to do so.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm pretty confident that what MBrock meant by "not in the tactics" is if the tactics don't warrant a CdG. I think seeing it instead as a decree that CdG is banned unless called out by name is reading something into MBrock's post that isn't there.You and I are more or less on the same page. For example, we both agree that you have the liberty to interpret 'not written in the tactics' and as to mean 'not used inappropriately'. I'd take it the same way, myself.
I've been causing a stink
Well, to clarify, I wasn't bringing up the CdG thing specifically in response to you or your "stink" - yours was just the last in a series of posts from various posters who were protesting (or apparently in your case, appearing to protest) the alleged banning of CdG (and somehow also sunder?) from NPC actions. I was responding to that continuing line of misinformed responses.
It's one thing to say 'go right ahead. I'm sure they agree with me.'
But, I need to feel them out to make SURE they agree with me before I do such a thing. Not to mention, being sure they do means I can instead say 'knock it off, they agree with me. you'll just look like an ass if you go bug them'.
So basically covering your bases in the future? Understandable. I would offer this opinion, though: players should not be discouraged from talking to their VC about a GM they had an issue with, even if the GM was actually in the right (just like a GM should not be discouraged from talking to/about a player they had an issue with, but I digress). So if you're reasonably confident that you and your VC are on the same page, just be secure in that knowledge and let players talk to VCs if they want to. Better to have a disgruntled player get some Diplomacizing from the VC than to give the impression that players who report issues are looked down upon.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Stuff
If I could venture an observation about your post, it looks like you're replying to MMoreland as though he was saying negative feedback isn't that helpful, yes? (If not, then disregard this entire post.)
I think it's more that feedback is only helpful if it's feedback on the actual scenario, versus feedback on someone's modified version of said scenario. I.e., "encounter 2 had X mooks, which was way too many" isn't very helpful when the scenario as written only had X-2 mooks in that encounter.
Thus, in order to get feedback on the actual scenario, people need to play the actual scenario. When GMs modify things, players don't actually play the scenario and are therefore incapable of providing accurate feedback (except on the rare occasion that they might say a certain modified thing was "just right", but even then, if they don't give enough details as to what the modification was, the feedback will come across as saying the unmodified item was "just right", so it's still not helpful).
|
|
or apparently in your case, appearing to protest) the alleged banning of CdG (and somehow also sunder?) from NPC actions.
Well in all honesty only some of my indignation was from the position of having to figure out how to deal (within the limited GM perogative of the PFS OP ruleset) with the worst possible behavior I can imagine from the player's side of the screen.
I was truly curious about a couple things.. such as sundering (I was the one who brought it up, equating it to a CdG as being a specific tactic and causes potentially permanent damage) and fudging a BBEG's hit point total so that he lives long enough that the players get to experience the flavor of the encounter should they get lucky dice and kill him 'too quick'.
I'm not bringing these up to ask them again, as I do believe I have my answer. So long as my tweaks don't turn up in feedback, what Mark doesn't know doesn't hurt him!
No, for seriously. :D So long as whatever I do doesn't alter the difficulty and enhances the fun of the players and doesn't alter the fundamental experience of the adventure, I'm good to go.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So long as whatever I do doesn't alter the difficulty and enhances the fun of the players and doesn't alter the fundamental experience of the adventure, I'm good to go.
And honestly, I think even when sticking to the scenario as written, you have a lot more room for creativity to do the above than certain parties in this thread seem to realize.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If I could venture an observation about your post, it looks like you're replying to MMoreland as though he was saying negative feedback isn't that helpful, yes? (If not, then disregard this entire post.) I think it's more that feedback is only helpful if it's feedback on the actual scenario, versus feedback on someone's modified version of said scenario. I.e., "encounter 2 had X mooks, which was way too many" isn't very helpful when the scenario as written only had X-2 mooks in that encounter.
I agree with you; I apologize for being unclear.
|
|
I'm conflicted, having been on the losing end of both approaches.
In one game, during the first encounter, I move my dude in. I engage the bad guys and make a few attacks. Midway through the second round the DM says, 'Oh, my mistake' they all have combat reflexes'. As a result I'm grappled every round from then on. I never make another attack. I guess the DM thought we were having too easy of a time. Unfortunately, her 'adjustment' only hurt me and not the person making the encounters so trivial. This was frustrating and unfun. Later I ran this mod myself and I learned that these monsters don't have combat reflexes.
On the other hand I've suffered as a result of a DM being unwilling to make adjustments.
I spent over a year trying to get into part four of Echoes of the Everwar and it was going to be my character's retirement mod. I finally make it happen and I sit down to the game. We make it to the final encounter and I'm last in initiative. The bad guys bottleneck us and I can't get in range to fight. The rogue refuses to give up his full attack to make room for me. The wizard decides to throw his Dazing Fireball. All the bad guys fail their saves. The DM says, 'Well they're all stunned for three rounds so I'm calling it'.
In this case I feel like the DM should have adjusted things. Either by artificially bumping the saves or just giving them immunity to daze. As a result of selfish players I didn't get to play in the mod that I spent over a year setting up for. This was also a horrible experience.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So long as whatever I do doesn't alter the difficulty and enhances the fun of the players and doesn't alter the fundamental experience of the adventure, I'm good to go.And honestly, I think even when sticking to the scenario as written, you have a lot more room for creativity to do the above than certain parties in this thread seem to realize.
This. And if there are ways we can put out scenarios that enable GMs to more easily realize the potential of this leeway, I wanna know what those ways are. One of the benefits of doing two adventures a month is that there is a lot of room for experimentation. I'm not one to shy away from pushing envelopes, and I hope that when we do, folks understand that we have the campaign's interests in mind and help work with instead of against us in learning from those experiments so we can go in with better expectations for the next one.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This. And if there are ways we can put out scenarios that enable GMs to more easily realize the potential of this leeway, I wanna know what those ways are. One of the benefits of doing two adventures a month is that there is a lot of room for experimentation. I'm not one to shy away from pushing envelopes, and I hope that when we do, folks understand that we have the campaign's interests in mind and help work with instead of against us in learning from those experiments so we can go in with better expectations for the next one.So long as whatever I do doesn't alter the difficulty and enhances the fun of the players and doesn't alter the fundamental experience of the adventure, I'm good to go.And honestly, I think even when sticking to the scenario as written, you have a lot more room for creativity to do the above than certain parties in this thread seem to realize.
What if every Tactics box for intelligent enemies included the line "[NPC] uses the terrain to his advantage"? I've heard a few people point out that sometimes GMs inadvertantly softball encounters because they fail to make use of terrain. I don't know how common that is, but perhaps a little reminder in the tactics would help?
Aside: I think that's the first time I got This'd by a Paizo employee.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As a result of selfish players I didn't get to play in the mod that I spent over a year setting up for.
If the issue is selfish players, then why is this an example of where the GM should've fudged things?
Or if it's not an issue of selfish players, then why would you have preferred that the GM take away the wizard's (possibly long-awaited) "OMG MY DAZING FIREBALL HIT EVERYBODY!!!" moment?
It sucks that you had a bad experience, but it sounds more like the result of chance and/or the "selfish players" (mainly the rogue, in my opinion). Conversely, if the GM had artificially extended the fight to give you more room to shine, it would be at the expense of the wizard player, who may have been looking forward to his big moment just as long as you were.
As a matter of opinion: I would much rather be let down by chance than by the GM trying not to let someone else down.
|
|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty confident that what MBrock meant by "not in the tactics" is if the tactics don't warrant a CdG. I think seeing it instead as a decree that CdG is banned unless called out by name is reading something into MBrock's post that isn't there.
It is this. Thanks for clarifying what I initially should have typed.
|
|
It sucks that you had a bad experience, but it sounds more like the result of chance and/or the "selfish players" (mainly the rogue, in my opinion). Conversely, if the GM had artificially extended the fight to give you more room to shine, it would be at the expense of the wizard player, who may have been looking forward to his big moment just as long as you were.
As a matter of opinion: I would much rather be let down by chance than by the GM trying not to let someone else down.
Well using that logic why should the rogue give up his full attack so that I can play?
Your 'big moment' should never be one-shotting the climactic final encounter of a four part series.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Your 'big moment' should never be one-shotting the climactic final encounter of a four part series.
Regardless, it sounds like this was an issue of player choices and not the GM's. If anything the GM could have not called the fight and played out those three rounds of being stunned, but I don't know how you were on time before the end of the slot and such, so I can't judge from afar whether this was the right call or not.
|
|
I think PFS is going about GM creativity the wrong way right now.
I would like to see the following reforms:
-No 'forced (suggested) tactics'. GMs know the rules, they know the spells, let them be flexible to respond to the party's tactics intelligently. This also gives players different stories of how the mod went down. There's also issue about whether the suggested tactics are suggested or forced tactics.
-Include paragraphs in the actual modules about how to beef up fights for larger, higher level, and possibly all-optimised parties. These rules must be within the individual modules. We must not have vague rules that apply to all of PFS on GM ramping up difficulty. These rules should include the following details:
Maximum amount of enemies allowable. Pre-buffed spells in effect when combat begins (both pcs and npcs have single use magic resources they should be using). Terrain features that can give an advantage to the enemies. Allowable resources held by BBEGs that will save em from one 'save or suck' spell failure.
I am well aware that these rules would mean that challenging GMs would siphon more resources from their players. But in my experience, optimizers optimise their resources. They buy permanent magic items that will never fizz out. They get their day job rolls maxed early on. I'm not concerned about this as much as I am concerned about seeing 6 sturdy, world-changing adventurers beating the snot out of a kobold 1st level druid growing turnips.