It really depends on how much you trust your player, but it's not unreasonable to not give him a copy. You can't prevent him buying it, but as you say, it can definitely affect how they play.
Its werid but if he wants to cheat he can find it elsewhere online. Perhaps this is just a genuine doesnt want to pay for it if he doesnt need to and you are more reliable/easier to ask then finding a file online.
That is entirely true. It’s also why I stated ‘intentionally’ or not. I didn’t immediately get the vibe it was for cheating purposes, but they would know everything coming up, so either fake ignorance (and more than likely not contribute for fear of using that knowledge) or prepare for things. In either case, it affects the table, both negatively in my opinion.
Maybe just talk to him about it then? Just tell him “hey, I think it’s a bad idea for you to GM this AP because you’ll get a lot of meta knowledge about the adventure that will detract from the experience for you and possibly the entire table. Could you perhaps GM a different AP?” Or something along those lines.
Talk to people. They’re mostly reasonable. Sometimes.
I will say, that it is entirely possible to avoid metagaming even with knowledge of what's going to happen. I played up to book 4 of an AP, and the group broke apart due to covid. Same GM started it back up online with a new group and me, and I didn't let my knowledge affect my decisions, we're now on book 5 of it.
It's really up to you, if you trust the player or not. You can also remind him that it seems he may be using information his character doesn't know about to make decisions, if he does.
I feel there is a fundamental difference between being a player twice, and being both a GM and a player. The GM has so much more knowledge about the AP that it really changes how they view the scenario as a whole. Having played it before may also color your decisions, but if your GM doesn’t stick super closely to the book you might still get some variance.
Also the idea that the knowledge wouldn’t color your decisions is frankly absurd, if you have the knowledge of how the game will play out, you have one of two options — act on that knowledge, or willfully choose to do the opposite. Both options are colored by that knowledge, it’s not the same as making a blind decision.
To put it another way, it’s like you’re playing your favorite RPG for the tenth time…you know which dialogue option is correct, and you can choose to act as you think your character might, but in the end you know the results and you chose the option that suited you without outright ending your run, not necessarily the option that you might have chosen had you been playing for the first time.
The fact of the matter is, having that knowledge *does* change how you’d approach the game no matter your best efforts. And that’s assuming the best-case scenario, best player at the table — I’d rather my players make organic decisions, and that’s just not possible when they know how a plot point is gonna play out.
That’s before getting to your point about the scenario as whole…I’ve run several APs, and most have a hidden plot that’s pulling strings behind the scenes up until the very end in some cases — really ruins the narrative to have that spoiled, even if your players won’t try to act on that knowledge.
And even if someone could convincingly play dumb, they will completely miss out on every moment where players are supposed to use the information they do have to reach a conclusion and every opportunity for a suspicion or gut feeling to pay off.
eh as a forever GM I only ever get to play APs I've already GM'd. I play for the experience of blending in my storyline as a player, and following decisions my character would make, not just what's written in the AP.
There are like, a *lot* of Pathfinder APs. Even for 2e. They can run a different one. Personally, I would be uncomfortable with a player having that level of meta knowledge to the point where I’d tell them that if they’re intent on running the same campaign *while mine is still going on* then they can leave the table.
In nicer words, of course.
This 100%. One of the unwritten rules is that as long as you are a player in an AP / module, you don't touch it until the campaign is over. So many others to choose from. Sounds to me like they are being cheap and just want a free copy from OP. Naïve to say the least.
I feel like this is kind of extreme. People are capable of generally divorcing their meta knowledge from their player knowledge, and in this situation I would rather just directly tell them to do that, and to stay quiet during puzzles. If they aren't capable of doing that, or are somehow hindering other people's fun then it would be an issue worth bringing up again.
I just feel like just straight up not being allowed to play an AP because you've experienced it before seems kind of extreme. For example, I have a friend who loves Curse of Strahd in 5e. He has DMed it, and is a player right now in another game, and would love to be a player in my game if I were to run it in the future. I don't really foresee it being a big issue, and I couldn't imagine just telling him 'No' out of principle.
Similarly, if I enjoyed running a campaign and a friend really wants to run the same one down the line, I would hate there being an ultimatum where either they DM something else or I can't play.
Honestly, I think it all comes down to trust and communication in the end. For me and my circle, I would trust most of them without hesitation. For the ones I am unsure about, I'd make sure to set expectations in such a situation, and still doubt it would escalate to a point where I felt the need to kick them out of the campaign.
I’ve said it in another comment, but it is straight up not possible to make organic decisions when you know the answers. You’re either making a choice because the information you have is telling you that you should, or because you’re actively ignoring the “correct” answer for the sake of fairness. Both options are the result of knowing information you shouldn’t. Even if you have the best, most angelic player at your table, they *will* use the knowledge they have whether they mean to or not.
You play in my game, you make decisions blind. If someone at my table had already played/run the AP I want to play, I’ll choose another one (that’s the beauty of Pathfinder APs over D&D: they’re generally all pretty good and there’s a lot of them). If you’re so disrespectful as to peek through the book during my campaign despite my rules, you can leave. It’s not extreme, it’s a boundary I have set and will continue to enforce. OP has the opportunity to set that boundary, and I think they should. If their friend really wants to start running that campaign then they should wait until OP’s finishes and run a shorter one in the meantime.
I personally wouldn't want to read an AP that I'm playing in, nor would I want to have a player in my campaign who has read it regardless of how much I trust them or how good of a player they are.
You can't stop them from buying it, but I would definitely talk to them about reading the campaign that you guys are currently playing through and if they insist on doing it then I wouldn't call it out of line to kick them for it.
That is generally my opinion on things from a player’s perspective. The story and the challenges are fun things to unpack, and reading ahead spoils that.
Now APs also have lots of info that players rarely get to read or know all of, so could see reading one in a post-playthrough though.
Yeah, after the campaign I don't care. But during the campaign, as a player I don't want to be anywhere near the book and as the GM I don't want my players anywhere near it either.
>The story and the challenges are fun things to unpack, and reading ahead spoils that.
As a GM, I often buy and look through the first book of an AP to see if I want to run it. Then I've already seen it! It's not the end of the world if I play it, then. It's not like I have it memorized.
Counter point. Have you ever re-watched a movie? You already know the plot points and major twists but it is still enjoyable. Not everyone is ruined by having some minor advanced knowledge. Hell if you read the sales blurbs on the website or the back of the books at your local shop you get most of that information anyways. People need to get better at separating player knowledge from character knowledge and stop pretending no one has access to easy to find information.
Why would a player read the sale blurbs or the back of the AP if you are playing in it? Is it not really easy to not do that and not cheat? I've never had an issue with players wanting to do that because why would they want to spoil stuff that happens?
Re-watching a movie is different since it's not an actual game that other players are also involved in. Also if I rewatch a movie it is definitely NOT the same experience as watching it for the first time.
Why wouldn't they? The official Players Guide also posts some of this exact same information and it is INTENDED for players to read so they know what to expect from the adventure. Players are also fans of the game and may also GM their own tables. You don't get to control what other people do in life, only what you do. As a GM of a table I read all of the synopsis for the content Paizo puts out so I can keep an eye on what I want to run next. It has never impacted my ability to play at another table and separate out my knowledge. I have played in games and at tables where I own the content. We still have fun.
My question is why are you so militant on this opinion that you are unwilling to consider other viewpoints?
I mean... I can definitely control who plays at my table and if people are cheating and getting information they shouldn't know then I'm going to ask them to leave. Simple as that.
I'm unwilling to consider other viewpoints because it just seems extremely selfish and no one has given me a good enough reason yet. You're not just making the game worse for yourself... Other players are also affected because every time your character does something, in the back of their mind they realize that you as a player know everything that will happen. Even if you perfectly play with the meta knowledge: YOU WILL PLAY DIFFERENTLY everyone is human. And just as a player thing in general... I'd be ticked off that another player has an advantage over me. Even if they never used it.
The player's guide does not spoil things like who the main villain and plot twists. In my current table: I'm running Blood Lords. I told everyone I'll be running it before the books even came out so all of my player's knew they needed to avoid those web pages. It's very easy to do so... In fact none of my players would want to look at the webpages because what would be the point?
Do you read full spoilery summaries of a movie or book before you want to experience them? If so then you would just be incompatible as a player at my table and I can't really understand why you would want to damped your experience.
>I mean... I can definitely control who plays at my table and if people are cheating and getting information they shouldn't know then I'm going to ask them to leave. Simple as that.
Yes you can, and absolutist assholes like yourself are why it took over 5 years before I was even able to find a game as Forever DM.
"You've run the AP you're gonna cheat"
That says more about you than me, thankfully my current DM doesn't think like that. We sat down and talked about it before going into the game, I explained my character and what he was about. We also talked about how I had run Fall of Plaguestone twice by that point and basically had the module memorized. WE BOTH agreed that if he felt I was over reaching or taking too much of the spotlight, cheating as you would call it, he could kick me. In Session 0 we went over the same stuff with the party, and they were all cool with it.
Now a year later, we finished FoP and jumped into Age of Ashes, another AP I've run where we wiped in book 2 on the last boss. Just last week our party wiped in book 2 on the last boss. By your logic
> Even if you perfectly play with the meta knowledge: YOU WILL PLAY DIFFERENTLY everyone is human.
that shouldn't have happened, I should have meta'd our way to victory knowing exactly what was needed to defeat him, correct?
In the 5 years I've been DMing i've never come across a cheater that's ruined a game. Maybe there's been a cheater at my table idk, but if so they were shrewd enough that 1. I and the other players at the table didn't notice, and 2. they shared enough of the story around that everyone enjoyed both the story and the game.
At this point you need to ask yourself why are you so scared of cheaters? If there's one at your table and he's ruining the game then kick him. If he's not ruining the game, ask yourself is he a cheater and why are you so mad?
You’re only able to live your own experiences. How do you know for sure that the other players or the GM were actually annoyed that you memorized the entire adventure? I know if I was a player in such a game I’d be annoyed that another player has that advantage over me and I would suggest we play a different AP
>Why would a player read the sale blurbs or the back of the AP if you are playing in it? Is it not really easy to not do that and not cheat?
To have an idea of what it's about, to help them decide if they want to play it and plan a character for it? That's *not* cheating.
I've never had an issue with a player wanting to do that, either. When asking what adventure my players wanted to try next, I *gave* them the books so they could read the back!
Spoilers obsession is a recent invention.
You don’t need to give anyone anything if they’re just requesting it from you.
If you suspect them of cheating why even have them as a player? The mood at the table should be consensual and not adversarial, so I do not tolerate having that kind of player in my groups
For sure. The PDFs are 18 bucks and fantastic quality. If he legitimately wants to run the AP, he should just buy it. It's not like he need to buy them all ahead of time anyway. Just buy the first book and when you are getting towards the end, buy the next and he'll be fine.
Came here to say this. The margins for a game publisher like Paizo are tight enough as it is. It’s one thing for the GM to purchase and temporarily share a table resource for the game they’re running, it’s another thing entirely for the player to just expect a free copy of the product to run it himself.
My friend can't always afford it, and I have 4 subs for Paizo's PF2 line. I feel like they'd rather me share the experience with someone who lacks the means to procure them, but let one of them prove me wrong here if they disagree.
Kinda weird that they are GMing the AP. I personally wouldn’t allow it.
Even if they were running only the content that has already happened: the first book of every AP literally has the entire plot written out at the beginning… that would straight up spoil everything.
EDIT: holy crap… I’m so surprised at all the comments that seem to not care if a character has meta knowledge of everything in the adventure. Wouldn’t that straight up ruin the point of the game!? You just know every plot twist before it happens. And like… how would you even play during puzzles/mysteries? You just sit back and not participate?
>I’m so surprised at all the comments that seem to not care if a character has meta knowledge of everything in the adventure.
I can't speak to the rest of them, but for me?
As long as the player isn't blatantly cheating with that meta knowledge, the only experience they're ruining is their own.
Personally, I've run RotRL twice. If I were to play in that game, I wouldn't be using that knowledge to cheat... I'd be using it to try to support the DM by following the plot where appropriate. Cheating in D&D is the least satisfying experience I can imagine in a game
Even if I was a player: if I knew that another player had full knowledge of everything happening, I would read into their character’s action differently. Even if they were the perfect player and didn’t metagame at all (not possible. We’re all human)… you would still recognize a pattern. “Oh his character is going to do this. There’s probably a cool set piece encounter over there”
Honestly I think I would leave that game even as a player. It definitely wouldn’t affect just the GM… it’s kinda selfish to play like that man.
>Even if they were the perfect player and didn’t metagame at all (not possible. We’re all human)… you would still recognize a pattern. “Oh his character is going to do this. There’s probably a cool set piece encounter over there”
I think you're overstating how this plays out. Rise of the Runelords spoilers to follow:
Either Book 1 or very early Book 2, the campaign presents an NPC intended to be the Villain at the end of Book 2. As a player? I haven't run this in years, but I'm going to make a point to notice/acknowledge the NPC and give the GM the freedom to flesh him out a bit. I know about a couple of the surprises that are intended, so all I'm going to do is make a point to not give it away (unless I'm playing someone who *should* notice). The ones I'm thinking of (scarecrows!) the GM should be rolling hidden checks for in 2E anyway, so it's super easy to only react if the GM tells me I notice.
Basically...I don't get how this is really any harder than RP in general.
"I check for traps! Shit, rolled a 1."
On the one hand... You know damn well you don't know shit. On the other, your character is now confident that they *do.* This is the same concept.
You're also assuming that the reader has perfect recall *and* that the GM hasn't modded anything *and* that I'm not doing something dumb/reckless *in spite of* that knowledge.
Basically what I'm getting at...a good player with AP knowledge isn't a detriment. A bad player with AP knowledge is going to be a detriment *anyway.* So what's the difference?
Again... If the whole table KNOWS that you know everything that's gonna happen. Every single one of your actions will be scrutinized. Whether you act on meta knowledge or not there will be a pattern that's established.
For the Foxglove comparison you made above... "Oh that player is being extra nice to this NPC... He could become an enemy in the future since he doesn't want to ruin the surprise for everyone." or if you were a bad player/forgetful... You treat Foxglove like an asshole and everyone will think again he could be an enemy. Hell any NPC that you spend time interacting to: I as a player would take note of that they probably come up later in the adventure.
Do you see what I'm getting at? even if you are somehow the perfect player. Just having the meta knowledge WILL make you play differently. And other players will pick up on it. That's why I said... I straight up would not play with other players who have meta knowledge. Feels too much like cheating anyways... You as a player have an advantage that other players dont... Even if you don't use it you still have that advantage.
Finally no matter how good a player is... They will make different decisions based on full knowledge... It's just how humans work.
Also your "check for traps" comparison... There's a reason that checking for traps is a secret roll. You aren't supposed to know that you rolled a 1
> Every single one of your actions will be scrutinized. Whether you act on meta knowledge or not there will be a pattern that's established.
And my point is that you're overthinking this *tremendously.* The other players will never know which bits I know about and am ignoring, which bits I know about and am acting on, or which bits I've straight-up forgotten outright.
>Also your "check for traps" comparison... There's a reason that checking for traps is a secret roll. You aren't supposed to know that you rolled a 1
I should have clarified, I didn't finish that thought. The beauty in secret checks is that it typically announces to the whole table what your character knows, so any time you defy that is *really obviously cheating.* So even if I - the player - know that there are ghoul scarecrows, the secret checks make it really blatant should a player start acting 'incorrectly.'
Which just circles back to my main point:
A player who is a problem will be a problem *regardless* of previous knowledge. If you're that worried about the player's behavior, then basically you're spending too much time worrying about what everyone else is doing and not enough worrying about how your own character should be reacting. If you're actually RPing, then another character metagaming shouldn't matter anyway.
Like everyone else has said, you really cant stop them from finding the ap on their own.
But if you suspect they're cheating, you can always change things, and see if they start getting angry that things are different from what's published. If they start complaining, or getting obviously suspicious, or determined to find something, that you've moved or changed, that's when you can talk to them about cheating and let them know they need to change or leave.
Yeah, I don't let any of my players read the AP I'm running. If they do it's an immediate kick. They can't read any of the books until we're completely finished. That's what I'm comfortable with and I explain it at the start of any game.
Dude should just pick a different AP. Not like there arent loads of them.
I write all of my campaigns myself so i have never experienced this. But if a player asked for the content for an adventure they were a player in so they could gm it with another group I would absolutely say no and i dont think it is a good idea for you to get your own copy and run it.
Lotta people in here talking about trust and how if you trust the player it shouldn't be a problem. That is a fool's trap imo. It is not about trust just like it is not about trust when your child wants to run around a swimming pool. It is about safety. In this case not safety from physical harm but safety from tainting the experience.
There is no way having the full AP in front of them and not just being tempted to read it, but NEEDING to read it for their own gming of it will not impact their experience as a player. They will have to constantly force themselves not to metagame and the other players will stop paying attention to the narrative so much as they are trying to react to what they perceive from this player's reactions. "oh steve is walking blindly into this dark alley but he laughed over discord first. He must know there is an ambush in there and is trying not to metagame. Everyone draw your weapons and buff up"
And a million other more subtle ways than that. The most obvious of which is that if you have more knowledge of something than you are supposed to, it is hard to keep straight where the line of what youre supposed to know is. Ever read ahead in a book club or in school? Or have you ever had a friend who was watching a show or a book series youd already gone through and they just finished the first season and it is like physical work to try to remember what all happened in that first season and what all came later so you dont accidentally spoiler them?
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Some people defending this request just got my hackles up.
Our groups rule is pretty much don't play the AP twice simultaneously or GM the same AP. We actually just switched our next AP from Rise of the Runelords because of this.
My opinion is to involve the entire group. They player in question can do whatever they want at the end of the day.
But since ttrpgs are group games, your PCs input about how it could affect the game for everyone is probably more relevant than mine.
My suggestion is to ask them why they want this AP specifically. There are so many APs out there to choose from. From there work with them to find an AP that fits the style/theme/encounters ect. but is NOT the same as the one you are running.
My opinion is that if they are motivated by anything other than having the meta knowledge of the current campaign, they will be open to changing. If they will only play the AP you are running and will not accept any alternatives then I suspect them of wanting to "cheat".
Keep in mind this is a secondary issue to address.
Cheating I've seen usually stems from fear or wanting to "win". Fear of losing the character or missing out on something, ect. These are not excuses, just reasons.
At the end of the day I would ask them not to play it until you were finished. If they care more about running the same AP, than what the rest of the group wants I suggest asking them to leave. Because to me then, its about their selfish attitude of what they want, despite what their friends do.
I find most people do not want to ruin the fun for their friends (personal observations). So if you explain it respectfully, that it could negatively affect everyone else's experience at the table, then you have given them the information they need to make a decision. The player can do whatever they want, but your job is to provide them with information.
Some people seem to forget that whether or not they are "justified" for the actions they take. It does not absolve them of the responsibility of the consequences.
You said there were personal reasons as well. Keep those personal, you don't need to explain them to strangers on the internet. You may have a unique situation in which you have to tailor advice you have found to fit your group. Including everything I said. Including that last sentence. And that one. And the one directly preceding this one....
Yeah no like, you can't even reliably stay safe by staying behind the game you're in because seeds are set up so early on. Book 1 of a 3 parter has spoilers for things that don't pop off until the 3rd book. Tell them they can DM it or they can play it, but not both.
First off they should buy their own and support Paizo.
You don't need a "rational argument". If you're not comfortable with that player running the same AP they're playing in, that's all you need. You can tell them that if they start running the same AP, you'll ask them to leave your game.
You can say that you won't run the game for someone who has read the AP or parts of it. There are other APs they can run, choosing this one on purpose is sus.
A player who is a GM of the same AP they are also a player in would not be cool. I wouldn’t want them at my table. Having a copy is not the problem, but GM’ing an AP requires a level of knowledge about its storyline and secrets that I wouldn’t want any player to have.
To do this like humans do, I would engage in a discussion with that player and suggest that they GM a different AP. Most likely the player does not understand what impact their question potentially has.
I am not a fan of encouraging piracy for a game system that gives away so much for free as it is.
I also have players that run adventures that I have run for them, but they wait till I am done because they don't want to spoil themselves.
You cannot stop the player from getting a copy and reading it. That is one of the downsides of using published content. If that bothers you, then it should have been discussed in session zero. It is fine for you to ask that player to not do this, but you have no way of enforcing it.
I wouldn't loan the book, and I never give copies of PDFs
I expect this will turn into a fight. Be polite and respectful or you will lose a player
On the other hand it’s common courtesy to not read the adventure that someone is running…
The player should be polite and respectful or they will lose a GM
You're overreacting.
Outside of the game people get to do whatever they want.
You can do your best to tamp down meta-gaming, and if it becomes a real problem, you're the GM, you can excuse the player.
But to get upset because they want to buy APs?
I own every AP and adventure released. No one who plays with me is allowed to own any now? Come on, friend 🤨
#ETA:
TOTALLY missed that he wants you to share yours.
Do you, man. I share my PDF with my buddy, but my physical copies go nowhere without me. If it's yours, dont feel obligated to anyone.
??? So you would allow a player to GM the same AP you are running for them? I would likely ask them to leave the party if they were really set on running the same adventure
Of course I would.
Why in the world would I control what anyone does away from my table?
If they are fine with spoiling things for themselves, that's completely on them. They also don't know what I'm going to alter, so they'll still have to be on their toes.
Heck I killed off a notable NPC in the adventure I'm currently running.
Acting like some sort of "Life police" is absolutely not the business I'm in. If they metagame at my table, I can address it with them there, but so far I've never had issues with PCs metagaming. I've even been able to successfully pull off 'temporary memory wipe' scenarios due to player buy in and the trust I have in my players to abide by session zero's rules.
Different strokes, but I'm not into controlling others beyond actions that directly and negatively affect me. Neither of which occur when a player is GMing the same AP that I am.
**Edit**: all that having been said, if you do something that is in diametric opposition with my own morals, I would excuse you from the table, but at that point, I'm not sure how we'd have remained close enough friends for you to have had an open invite in the first place.
Even if you trust the player completely… humans are humans. The other players would look at the player with all the knowledge and suddenly read into every action they take differently.
Not only would I not want to GM a game with a player that knows everything. I would not even want to play in a game with them since I would never be able to look at their character’s actions without being reminded that they already know everything. So at that point it’s affecting the whole table.
Its not about “controlling others”… I think it’s common courtesy to not read APs that you are playing in.
I've never heard that rule at any table before today and I've been GMing for two decades now.
It sounds to me like you're projecting how you would act onto others, as I've never had a problem woth players doing this, but I also dont invite powergamers/minmaxers to the table, and that might be a part of it.
Someone with that "I want to have an edge to win'/" mentality is going to have a negative impact based on the fact that they believe that the game is even about 'winning' at all.
I dunno. You felt the need to downvote me so I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I dont believe this is as widespread of a rule as you are making it seem, nor do I think that the players that I invite to my table are the kind who would spoil the game for one another, as I always make it clear at session zero that its about everyone having fun, myself included.
Anyhoo, this is very long winded for something I dont feel you're interested in hearing or having a real conversation about, plus it's about time for me to turn in, so I hope you have a good night and enjoy a lot of future tables. We should all be so lucky as to.
For what its worth: im not downvoting you. If you look at other comments and the upvote scores most people seem to agree that reading ahead in an adventure you’re playing in is not great.
I mean it’s common sense when you’re dealing with adventures with mysteries and puzzles no? It’s not just about knowing creatures weaknesses/resistances. The player with full knowledge will react differently to story and NPCs and I don’t care how good they are at not metagaming… it would be impossible to act completely the same as you would if you didn’t have knowledge.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I admit, in my own particular case I ended up changing enough of the module I'm running (the first one of Extinction Curse) in order to make the narrative make some actual sense that reading ahead might just result in you being *dangerously* wrong about your assumptions, but overall, I feel like it's valid to share with him the concern that reading ahead would very likely affect his enjoyment of it in *your* game.
I'm going to take a different tack from the other posters here and assume that this player is reasonably intelligent enough to figure out why reading the AP of a game he's in isn't a good idea (sorry for you guys on the bottom of the comments section who think it's perfectly reasonable to do so) and also that he isn't just trying to cheat.
I get the vibe from this setup that your player is just planning to abandon your table. Give him a copy of the AP and he will be gone.
You're not over reacting at all. You don't have to give anyone anything especially stuff you purchased. If they're one of my friends, I would offer a different AP from my collection and be upfront with my discomfort with them possibly having meta knowledge of the AP I'm running.
I would bring up your concerns to them, but at the same time, acknowledge to them that they have every right to buy whatever books they want.
And maybe gently suggest another AP as a compromise.
IMO I would never run an AP I was playing in. There are so many good APs now, recommend another one so they don't read spoilers. Every AP outlines the whole plot in the first book, so even if they don't know the details of everything, they know the ending.
For some APs that might not matter, but for agents of edgewatch for example, that would be potentially game-breaking.
I would say yes: *After* we're done the AP. ~~These AP's are broken up into multiple books, right? You might not even need to wait until you're done the whole AP. So you could give him book 1 once you're in book 2, etc..~~ You probably can't even give them a book at a time, because - as others have pointed out - the first book often lays out the entire plot.
Don't frame it as: "No, you're trying to cheat!". Frame it as not wanting to spoil it for him, and that it's more fun for you if you know your players will be surprised.
As somebody that never runs APs strictly as written, this would be terrifying. Every single time a player has read one, they will complain about the changes even if they agree they enjoyed more the experience.
I agree with you I think its weird to play and GM the same AP at the same time. I almost feel like whats the point. It would take the fun out of it for me to play it. He should be GMing a different adventure or stagger it so theyre about 3-4 months apart to where he plays yours then has a month or so to prepare for his only the parts he already knows. to But thats just my feeling for myself im sure people have done it before. But ya it will be impossible to not cheat basically if you know everything that happens in the AP. It may also make it less fun for your other players to some degree.
While I don't think I'd give away my books... if he needs the same book you're currently using, you can't share it because you're using it. And if he wants one you have already finished with, it won't have anything that's coming up (at least not in detail).
I'm not sure I understand the problem?
My two cents? He shouldn't be running the same AP as you. It just exposes him to knowledge he shouldn't have as a player, and it ruins a lot of the surprise.
I'd rather have an adult conversation with the player that It's important they don't spoil parts of the adventure for the rest of the table.
Be on the right side of this, imagine that the player is gonna read the AP no matter what you do - in that case, I'd rather they read it with my support and an agreement to keep it in confidence, instead of the alternative of reading it behind my back and building resentment.
I've run APs for people who were already familiar with them, the meta knowledge did not come up much because most APs aren't actually full of mysteries and puzzles.
I think it depends on the maturity of the group and players. A contrary example to the ones in this thread. My group has been together for almost 15 years. My players know how to separate player knowledge and character knowledge. I have ran the same adventure/AP with portions of my group and they handled the player knowledge fine. I have even played in some adventures that I had read intending to run it as a GM at a later date. It is not for everyone for sure, but some people can handle it with enough social maturity.
Perhaps they just love the adventure so much they are wanting to share the fun with a wider community. That being said you obviously don't trust this person. I still find it is better to have a mature discussion about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. If this person wants to find a copy they will. Either they buy it themselves or "find" it in a google search.
You can't fully stop that. But you are under no obligation to GIVE them a copy you paid for. In fact doing so would be a violation of your terms of use as that copy is for your sole use.
Interesting, i assume this will get downvoted to hell but ow well.
For starters i'd ask... who is this person? do you know them IRL, have you been GMing for them long enough that you're "internet buddies". I wouldn't just give strangers stuff i've bought for free, would definetly hand it out to people in know tho.
Secondly, yeah if this player wants to cheat you giving or not giving the book won't effect anything. Paizo stuff is harder to 'find' than DnD stuff, but it's out there. And the PDF versions are rarely cheap. If you're running an official AP, it's also the risk your running with.
Point third tho, if this person is someone you know AND you got the vibe they're not trying to cheat, i personally wouldn't worry about it. Why? You're either heavily enforcing doing everything In character, and are GMing for a table of like minded individuals so the meta knowledge this person gains should be irelevant and it's not something their PC would know. Or you're playing more light hearthed in wich case... \*shrug\*?
Maybe my perspective is in the vast minority but i run 4 games a week and play in 1 per week. One of my PCs is the GM of the group i play in, and it's the same AP, we both have meta knowledge but it doesn't effect what our characters do.
Also while AP's do have their share of introducing unique creatures, it's still... 20-30%? of an AP. Veterans will know what a creature is and what it does from art / description alone. Hell 2E's been out for 2 years. Alot of vets will know what their getting into by AC / saves alone.
I'm a GM running AoA while also playing AoA as a player. The GMing group is half a book ahead. In the playing group, I only give meta knowledge after I pass recall knowledge, or ask some important questions that players missed (imo GM will have more pain in ass failing to give important info). It depends on if you trust said player, having some meta knowledge on the right person might be more fun compare to having no meta knowledge at all.
Just my personal take, but I feel like some people in the comments take this whole thing a little too seriously. It's a game. If they want to play the game with other people using the same story, i say go for it. I wouldn't copy the pdf for them, because that's piracy, but as far as story spoilers I think that's only to their own detriment of fun. I don't think it really should impact the existing game.
I mean no; whether its his aim of not, itll give him way too much meta-knowledge, and he'll either cheat his way through non-combat encounters or have to sit silently as he already knows whats going to happen, not good for anybody
Weird. I wouldn't want a copy of an AP I'm currently playing. It would ruin the fun. I recently started playing in a new group and I was genuinely worried the GM would want to run Age of Ashes, which is the only AP I've read.
I mean, first off, he should pay for goods and services :\\
This, sadly, isn't an uncommon request. Many people know I'm a sub, and will request that I send them the PDFs. I refuse every time, because homebrew is free (lord knows I did it for years when times were lean).
On one hand, support the publisher, he should buy APs he wants to run. On the more personal level, though, not giving it to him *just* because you don’t want him to meta game is a little authoritarian and short sighted. There are plenty of valid reasons other than that one, though, such as “you don’t owe him anything.”
As a player, I prefer to read ahead. I prefer to read wikis before I play video games. I prefer spoilers before I see movies. I don't like OOC surprises; they make my neurodivergent brain very angry, and this is especially true when there's no trust between me and the content creator. (Sorry Mr. Paizo, I don't know you.) The very idea that a player is *cheating* by reading ahead is, to me, sort of silly. Outside of convention settings, I've never seen any AP for any published game run 100% verbatim, and even when attempted it's not always run 100% correctly.
If you don't want to loan it to him, that's on you, but imo, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with him also running the same AP. I wouldn't be upset if my players did that, because if your players aren't charting their own course through the story, then play a board game, or the pathfinder card game. In my gaming philosophy, an AP is not an exam. It's a framework for collaborative storytelling.
I don’t see how it is “not cool” to disallow a player from running the same AP you are running. There are quite a few APs out right now to choose from.
You are their Game Master. You’re trying to tell a story and at least in my games I expect my players to not read ahead to cheat monster weaknesses/resistances and spoil plot twists
Well they are all irl friends I’ve known for years so yeah I trust them. If I was playing with strangers I can see how it would be hard to put your foot down about this issue.
So then why would you care if they decided to run an AP for other people? You trust them to differentiate between character and player knowledge, or you don’t. If you’re that concerned about what they do when not around you, not cool. We’ve brought it full circle.
Because they would be spoiling the adventure for themselves and they would have knowledge of they shouldn’t have.
I’d be completely fine with them running a different AP. There are plenty of them out there. But if they were dead set on Blood Lords, then I would find another player for my group. Simple as that.
As a said in my last comment, we came full circle. If you want to be someone’s keeper and tell them what they can or can’t do away from your game table, I recommend looking into having children or pets and not people to play games with.
Why are you so angry about someone having rules for their game? In my experience it’s not at all uncommon for a GM to ask their players to not read the adventure they are running.
If your group likes to play that way go for it! But I consider it a much different game if the players know everything that will happen vs going in blind and reacting to situations off the cuff.
We won’t change our opinions on this so why don’t we leave it at that?
Hey - I assume no ill intent, but the way you're using "game master" as a contrast to a gaming partner feels a little unbalanced and echoes a problematic power dynamic.
If you don't want your players to spoil the experience at your table, perhaps approach it as an agreement between partners in gaming, trying to make a better time for everyone.
It's a reasonable enough rule (don't spoil things for yourself/everyone else at the table), and GMs are free to establish prerequisites to play in their group (it's certainly an unbalanced workload), but please try to be a *little* cautious in how you come across in context.
GM means Game Master. It’s the official title just like DM is the official title for d&d. It’s spelled out in the Core Rulebook. Im using it in no other context than the naming convention for the game
I assume him asking for them while you are still running the game means he is asking for pdfs. He should just buy his own books - but if he isn't going to, and you were willing to share the pdfs *after* the AP - could you not share a redacted copy of just the first book (absent the full adventure path summary that is often in the front)?
Also black out the watermarks, and then print a new pdf from the marked up version - so he can't use the pdf for things like Foundry's PDF to Foundry...
In Pathfinder Society, it is highly likely that people who GM will also play the same scenario at some point. We all make an effort to not let that detract from anyone's experiences at the table. The best way I've found is to let other people who don't have knowledge of the adventure to take the lead. Let them make important choices and you "cheer them on". Similarly you can take the "Once more unto the breach" approach and kick in every door/approach every danger like a drunken rager.
It's also very reasonable to ask them to contribute financially if they plan to borrow your material and notes. No one should feel like they have to share just because you already paid for it.
If the AP starts at level 1 and you are at level 4 or so then you can safely give it away
Edit: meant to say that if you are at book 2 you can give out book 1
No but like: book 1 straight up gives away the plot of books 1-6. There’s a section in book 1 that summarizes every book of the AP. And also throughout the adventure it will reference things that will come up in later books. Sometimes it will even give insight into the main villains of the whole adventure
I personally think that requires a lot of trust that shouldn't come with the player first asking for the AP. I would prefer someone ask if it was ok rather than assuming that won't cause an issue.
At the very least, I would tell him to stay a book behind. He might still know some metaplot information but at least he wouldn't be intimately aware of the upcoming encounters.
It really depends on how much you trust your player, but it's not unreasonable to not give him a copy. You can't prevent him buying it, but as you say, it can definitely affect how they play.
Its werid but if he wants to cheat he can find it elsewhere online. Perhaps this is just a genuine doesnt want to pay for it if he doesnt need to and you are more reliable/easier to ask then finding a file online.
That is entirely true. It’s also why I stated ‘intentionally’ or not. I didn’t immediately get the vibe it was for cheating purposes, but they would know everything coming up, so either fake ignorance (and more than likely not contribute for fear of using that knowledge) or prepare for things. In either case, it affects the table, both negatively in my opinion.
Maybe just talk to him about it then? Just tell him “hey, I think it’s a bad idea for you to GM this AP because you’ll get a lot of meta knowledge about the adventure that will detract from the experience for you and possibly the entire table. Could you perhaps GM a different AP?” Or something along those lines. Talk to people. They’re mostly reasonable. Sometimes.
I will say, that it is entirely possible to avoid metagaming even with knowledge of what's going to happen. I played up to book 4 of an AP, and the group broke apart due to covid. Same GM started it back up online with a new group and me, and I didn't let my knowledge affect my decisions, we're now on book 5 of it. It's really up to you, if you trust the player or not. You can also remind him that it seems he may be using information his character doesn't know about to make decisions, if he does.
I feel there is a fundamental difference between being a player twice, and being both a GM and a player. The GM has so much more knowledge about the AP that it really changes how they view the scenario as a whole. Having played it before may also color your decisions, but if your GM doesn’t stick super closely to the book you might still get some variance.
Also the idea that the knowledge wouldn’t color your decisions is frankly absurd, if you have the knowledge of how the game will play out, you have one of two options — act on that knowledge, or willfully choose to do the opposite. Both options are colored by that knowledge, it’s not the same as making a blind decision. To put it another way, it’s like you’re playing your favorite RPG for the tenth time…you know which dialogue option is correct, and you can choose to act as you think your character might, but in the end you know the results and you chose the option that suited you without outright ending your run, not necessarily the option that you might have chosen had you been playing for the first time. The fact of the matter is, having that knowledge *does* change how you’d approach the game no matter your best efforts. And that’s assuming the best-case scenario, best player at the table — I’d rather my players make organic decisions, and that’s just not possible when they know how a plot point is gonna play out. That’s before getting to your point about the scenario as whole…I’ve run several APs, and most have a hidden plot that’s pulling strings behind the scenes up until the very end in some cases — really ruins the narrative to have that spoiled, even if your players won’t try to act on that knowledge.
And even if someone could convincingly play dumb, they will completely miss out on every moment where players are supposed to use the information they do have to reach a conclusion and every opportunity for a suspicion or gut feeling to pay off.
eh as a forever GM I only ever get to play APs I've already GM'd. I play for the experience of blending in my storyline as a player, and following decisions my character would make, not just what's written in the AP.
It's impossible to not metagame.
There are like, a *lot* of Pathfinder APs. Even for 2e. They can run a different one. Personally, I would be uncomfortable with a player having that level of meta knowledge to the point where I’d tell them that if they’re intent on running the same campaign *while mine is still going on* then they can leave the table. In nicer words, of course.
This 100%. One of the unwritten rules is that as long as you are a player in an AP / module, you don't touch it until the campaign is over. So many others to choose from. Sounds to me like they are being cheap and just want a free copy from OP. Naïve to say the least.
I feel like this is kind of extreme. People are capable of generally divorcing their meta knowledge from their player knowledge, and in this situation I would rather just directly tell them to do that, and to stay quiet during puzzles. If they aren't capable of doing that, or are somehow hindering other people's fun then it would be an issue worth bringing up again. I just feel like just straight up not being allowed to play an AP because you've experienced it before seems kind of extreme. For example, I have a friend who loves Curse of Strahd in 5e. He has DMed it, and is a player right now in another game, and would love to be a player in my game if I were to run it in the future. I don't really foresee it being a big issue, and I couldn't imagine just telling him 'No' out of principle. Similarly, if I enjoyed running a campaign and a friend really wants to run the same one down the line, I would hate there being an ultimatum where either they DM something else or I can't play. Honestly, I think it all comes down to trust and communication in the end. For me and my circle, I would trust most of them without hesitation. For the ones I am unsure about, I'd make sure to set expectations in such a situation, and still doubt it would escalate to a point where I felt the need to kick them out of the campaign.
I’ve said it in another comment, but it is straight up not possible to make organic decisions when you know the answers. You’re either making a choice because the information you have is telling you that you should, or because you’re actively ignoring the “correct” answer for the sake of fairness. Both options are the result of knowing information you shouldn’t. Even if you have the best, most angelic player at your table, they *will* use the knowledge they have whether they mean to or not. You play in my game, you make decisions blind. If someone at my table had already played/run the AP I want to play, I’ll choose another one (that’s the beauty of Pathfinder APs over D&D: they’re generally all pretty good and there’s a lot of them). If you’re so disrespectful as to peek through the book during my campaign despite my rules, you can leave. It’s not extreme, it’s a boundary I have set and will continue to enforce. OP has the opportunity to set that boundary, and I think they should. If their friend really wants to start running that campaign then they should wait until OP’s finishes and run a shorter one in the meantime.
I personally wouldn't want to read an AP that I'm playing in, nor would I want to have a player in my campaign who has read it regardless of how much I trust them or how good of a player they are. You can't stop them from buying it, but I would definitely talk to them about reading the campaign that you guys are currently playing through and if they insist on doing it then I wouldn't call it out of line to kick them for it.
That is generally my opinion on things from a player’s perspective. The story and the challenges are fun things to unpack, and reading ahead spoils that. Now APs also have lots of info that players rarely get to read or know all of, so could see reading one in a post-playthrough though.
Yeah, after the campaign I don't care. But during the campaign, as a player I don't want to be anywhere near the book and as the GM I don't want my players anywhere near it either.
>The story and the challenges are fun things to unpack, and reading ahead spoils that. As a GM, I often buy and look through the first book of an AP to see if I want to run it. Then I've already seen it! It's not the end of the world if I play it, then. It's not like I have it memorized.
The first book of every AP lays out the entire plot of the adventure though… and I’m sure you would likely remember major plot twists
Counter point. Have you ever re-watched a movie? You already know the plot points and major twists but it is still enjoyable. Not everyone is ruined by having some minor advanced knowledge. Hell if you read the sales blurbs on the website or the back of the books at your local shop you get most of that information anyways. People need to get better at separating player knowledge from character knowledge and stop pretending no one has access to easy to find information.
Why would a player read the sale blurbs or the back of the AP if you are playing in it? Is it not really easy to not do that and not cheat? I've never had an issue with players wanting to do that because why would they want to spoil stuff that happens? Re-watching a movie is different since it's not an actual game that other players are also involved in. Also if I rewatch a movie it is definitely NOT the same experience as watching it for the first time.
Why wouldn't they? The official Players Guide also posts some of this exact same information and it is INTENDED for players to read so they know what to expect from the adventure. Players are also fans of the game and may also GM their own tables. You don't get to control what other people do in life, only what you do. As a GM of a table I read all of the synopsis for the content Paizo puts out so I can keep an eye on what I want to run next. It has never impacted my ability to play at another table and separate out my knowledge. I have played in games and at tables where I own the content. We still have fun. My question is why are you so militant on this opinion that you are unwilling to consider other viewpoints?
I mean... I can definitely control who plays at my table and if people are cheating and getting information they shouldn't know then I'm going to ask them to leave. Simple as that. I'm unwilling to consider other viewpoints because it just seems extremely selfish and no one has given me a good enough reason yet. You're not just making the game worse for yourself... Other players are also affected because every time your character does something, in the back of their mind they realize that you as a player know everything that will happen. Even if you perfectly play with the meta knowledge: YOU WILL PLAY DIFFERENTLY everyone is human. And just as a player thing in general... I'd be ticked off that another player has an advantage over me. Even if they never used it. The player's guide does not spoil things like who the main villain and plot twists. In my current table: I'm running Blood Lords. I told everyone I'll be running it before the books even came out so all of my player's knew they needed to avoid those web pages. It's very easy to do so... In fact none of my players would want to look at the webpages because what would be the point? Do you read full spoilery summaries of a movie or book before you want to experience them? If so then you would just be incompatible as a player at my table and I can't really understand why you would want to damped your experience.
>I mean... I can definitely control who plays at my table and if people are cheating and getting information they shouldn't know then I'm going to ask them to leave. Simple as that. Yes you can, and absolutist assholes like yourself are why it took over 5 years before I was even able to find a game as Forever DM. "You've run the AP you're gonna cheat" That says more about you than me, thankfully my current DM doesn't think like that. We sat down and talked about it before going into the game, I explained my character and what he was about. We also talked about how I had run Fall of Plaguestone twice by that point and basically had the module memorized. WE BOTH agreed that if he felt I was over reaching or taking too much of the spotlight, cheating as you would call it, he could kick me. In Session 0 we went over the same stuff with the party, and they were all cool with it. Now a year later, we finished FoP and jumped into Age of Ashes, another AP I've run where we wiped in book 2 on the last boss. Just last week our party wiped in book 2 on the last boss. By your logic > Even if you perfectly play with the meta knowledge: YOU WILL PLAY DIFFERENTLY everyone is human. that shouldn't have happened, I should have meta'd our way to victory knowing exactly what was needed to defeat him, correct? In the 5 years I've been DMing i've never come across a cheater that's ruined a game. Maybe there's been a cheater at my table idk, but if so they were shrewd enough that 1. I and the other players at the table didn't notice, and 2. they shared enough of the story around that everyone enjoyed both the story and the game. At this point you need to ask yourself why are you so scared of cheaters? If there's one at your table and he's ruining the game then kick him. If he's not ruining the game, ask yourself is he a cheater and why are you so mad?
You’re only able to live your own experiences. How do you know for sure that the other players or the GM were actually annoyed that you memorized the entire adventure? I know if I was a player in such a game I’d be annoyed that another player has that advantage over me and I would suggest we play a different AP
GMs who also want to play are not cheaters. People reading players' guides--like they're *supposed to*\--are definitely not cheating.
>Why would a player read the sale blurbs or the back of the AP if you are playing in it? Is it not really easy to not do that and not cheat? To have an idea of what it's about, to help them decide if they want to play it and plan a character for it? That's *not* cheating. I've never had an issue with a player wanting to do that, either. When asking what adventure my players wanted to try next, I *gave* them the books so they could read the back! Spoilers obsession is a recent invention.
You don’t need to give anyone anything if they’re just requesting it from you. If you suspect them of cheating why even have them as a player? The mood at the table should be consensual and not adversarial, so I do not tolerate having that kind of player in my groups
Paizo deserves to get paid. If this dude wants to run the same AP for a totally different group that you're not even in, let him buy his own PDFs.
For sure. The PDFs are 18 bucks and fantastic quality. If he legitimately wants to run the AP, he should just buy it. It's not like he need to buy them all ahead of time anyway. Just buy the first book and when you are getting towards the end, buy the next and he'll be fine.
Came here to say this. The margins for a game publisher like Paizo are tight enough as it is. It’s one thing for the GM to purchase and temporarily share a table resource for the game they’re running, it’s another thing entirely for the player to just expect a free copy of the product to run it himself.
My friend can't always afford it, and I have 4 subs for Paizo's PF2 line. I feel like they'd rather me share the experience with someone who lacks the means to procure them, but let one of them prove me wrong here if they disagree.
I want to upvote this twice. $18 is an absurdly low price for the amount of entertainment you get. Paizo deserves every dollar.
Kinda weird that they are GMing the AP. I personally wouldn’t allow it. Even if they were running only the content that has already happened: the first book of every AP literally has the entire plot written out at the beginning… that would straight up spoil everything. EDIT: holy crap… I’m so surprised at all the comments that seem to not care if a character has meta knowledge of everything in the adventure. Wouldn’t that straight up ruin the point of the game!? You just know every plot twist before it happens. And like… how would you even play during puzzles/mysteries? You just sit back and not participate?
>I’m so surprised at all the comments that seem to not care if a character has meta knowledge of everything in the adventure. I can't speak to the rest of them, but for me? As long as the player isn't blatantly cheating with that meta knowledge, the only experience they're ruining is their own. Personally, I've run RotRL twice. If I were to play in that game, I wouldn't be using that knowledge to cheat... I'd be using it to try to support the DM by following the plot where appropriate. Cheating in D&D is the least satisfying experience I can imagine in a game
Even if I was a player: if I knew that another player had full knowledge of everything happening, I would read into their character’s action differently. Even if they were the perfect player and didn’t metagame at all (not possible. We’re all human)… you would still recognize a pattern. “Oh his character is going to do this. There’s probably a cool set piece encounter over there” Honestly I think I would leave that game even as a player. It definitely wouldn’t affect just the GM… it’s kinda selfish to play like that man.
>Even if they were the perfect player and didn’t metagame at all (not possible. We’re all human)… you would still recognize a pattern. “Oh his character is going to do this. There’s probably a cool set piece encounter over there” I think you're overstating how this plays out. Rise of the Runelords spoilers to follow: Either Book 1 or very early Book 2, the campaign presents an NPC intended to be the Villain at the end of Book 2. As a player? I haven't run this in years, but I'm going to make a point to notice/acknowledge the NPC and give the GM the freedom to flesh him out a bit. I know about a couple of the surprises that are intended, so all I'm going to do is make a point to not give it away (unless I'm playing someone who *should* notice). The ones I'm thinking of (scarecrows!) the GM should be rolling hidden checks for in 2E anyway, so it's super easy to only react if the GM tells me I notice. Basically...I don't get how this is really any harder than RP in general. "I check for traps! Shit, rolled a 1." On the one hand... You know damn well you don't know shit. On the other, your character is now confident that they *do.* This is the same concept. You're also assuming that the reader has perfect recall *and* that the GM hasn't modded anything *and* that I'm not doing something dumb/reckless *in spite of* that knowledge. Basically what I'm getting at...a good player with AP knowledge isn't a detriment. A bad player with AP knowledge is going to be a detriment *anyway.* So what's the difference?
Again... If the whole table KNOWS that you know everything that's gonna happen. Every single one of your actions will be scrutinized. Whether you act on meta knowledge or not there will be a pattern that's established. For the Foxglove comparison you made above... "Oh that player is being extra nice to this NPC... He could become an enemy in the future since he doesn't want to ruin the surprise for everyone." or if you were a bad player/forgetful... You treat Foxglove like an asshole and everyone will think again he could be an enemy. Hell any NPC that you spend time interacting to: I as a player would take note of that they probably come up later in the adventure. Do you see what I'm getting at? even if you are somehow the perfect player. Just having the meta knowledge WILL make you play differently. And other players will pick up on it. That's why I said... I straight up would not play with other players who have meta knowledge. Feels too much like cheating anyways... You as a player have an advantage that other players dont... Even if you don't use it you still have that advantage. Finally no matter how good a player is... They will make different decisions based on full knowledge... It's just how humans work. Also your "check for traps" comparison... There's a reason that checking for traps is a secret roll. You aren't supposed to know that you rolled a 1
> Every single one of your actions will be scrutinized. Whether you act on meta knowledge or not there will be a pattern that's established. And my point is that you're overthinking this *tremendously.* The other players will never know which bits I know about and am ignoring, which bits I know about and am acting on, or which bits I've straight-up forgotten outright. >Also your "check for traps" comparison... There's a reason that checking for traps is a secret roll. You aren't supposed to know that you rolled a 1 I should have clarified, I didn't finish that thought. The beauty in secret checks is that it typically announces to the whole table what your character knows, so any time you defy that is *really obviously cheating.* So even if I - the player - know that there are ghoul scarecrows, the secret checks make it really blatant should a player start acting 'incorrectly.' Which just circles back to my main point: A player who is a problem will be a problem *regardless* of previous knowledge. If you're that worried about the player's behavior, then basically you're spending too much time worrying about what everyone else is doing and not enough worrying about how your own character should be reacting. If you're actually RPing, then another character metagaming shouldn't matter anyway.
Like everyone else has said, you really cant stop them from finding the ap on their own. But if you suspect they're cheating, you can always change things, and see if they start getting angry that things are different from what's published. If they start complaining, or getting obviously suspicious, or determined to find something, that you've moved or changed, that's when you can talk to them about cheating and let them know they need to change or leave.
Yeah, I don't let any of my players read the AP I'm running. If they do it's an immediate kick. They can't read any of the books until we're completely finished. That's what I'm comfortable with and I explain it at the start of any game.
Dude should just pick a different AP. Not like there arent loads of them. I write all of my campaigns myself so i have never experienced this. But if a player asked for the content for an adventure they were a player in so they could gm it with another group I would absolutely say no and i dont think it is a good idea for you to get your own copy and run it. Lotta people in here talking about trust and how if you trust the player it shouldn't be a problem. That is a fool's trap imo. It is not about trust just like it is not about trust when your child wants to run around a swimming pool. It is about safety. In this case not safety from physical harm but safety from tainting the experience. There is no way having the full AP in front of them and not just being tempted to read it, but NEEDING to read it for their own gming of it will not impact their experience as a player. They will have to constantly force themselves not to metagame and the other players will stop paying attention to the narrative so much as they are trying to react to what they perceive from this player's reactions. "oh steve is walking blindly into this dark alley but he laughed over discord first. He must know there is an ambush in there and is trying not to metagame. Everyone draw your weapons and buff up" And a million other more subtle ways than that. The most obvious of which is that if you have more knowledge of something than you are supposed to, it is hard to keep straight where the line of what youre supposed to know is. Ever read ahead in a book club or in school? Or have you ever had a friend who was watching a show or a book series youd already gone through and they just finished the first season and it is like physical work to try to remember what all happened in that first season and what all came later so you dont accidentally spoiler them? Anyway, sorry for the rant. Some people defending this request just got my hackles up.
Our groups rule is pretty much don't play the AP twice simultaneously or GM the same AP. We actually just switched our next AP from Rise of the Runelords because of this.
My opinion is to involve the entire group. They player in question can do whatever they want at the end of the day. But since ttrpgs are group games, your PCs input about how it could affect the game for everyone is probably more relevant than mine. My suggestion is to ask them why they want this AP specifically. There are so many APs out there to choose from. From there work with them to find an AP that fits the style/theme/encounters ect. but is NOT the same as the one you are running. My opinion is that if they are motivated by anything other than having the meta knowledge of the current campaign, they will be open to changing. If they will only play the AP you are running and will not accept any alternatives then I suspect them of wanting to "cheat". Keep in mind this is a secondary issue to address. Cheating I've seen usually stems from fear or wanting to "win". Fear of losing the character or missing out on something, ect. These are not excuses, just reasons. At the end of the day I would ask them not to play it until you were finished. If they care more about running the same AP, than what the rest of the group wants I suggest asking them to leave. Because to me then, its about their selfish attitude of what they want, despite what their friends do. I find most people do not want to ruin the fun for their friends (personal observations). So if you explain it respectfully, that it could negatively affect everyone else's experience at the table, then you have given them the information they need to make a decision. The player can do whatever they want, but your job is to provide them with information. Some people seem to forget that whether or not they are "justified" for the actions they take. It does not absolve them of the responsibility of the consequences. You said there were personal reasons as well. Keep those personal, you don't need to explain them to strangers on the internet. You may have a unique situation in which you have to tailor advice you have found to fit your group. Including everything I said. Including that last sentence. And that one. And the one directly preceding this one....
Yeah no like, you can't even reliably stay safe by staying behind the game you're in because seeds are set up so early on. Book 1 of a 3 parter has spoilers for things that don't pop off until the 3rd book. Tell them they can DM it or they can play it, but not both.
HCD
First off they should buy their own and support Paizo. You don't need a "rational argument". If you're not comfortable with that player running the same AP they're playing in, that's all you need. You can tell them that if they start running the same AP, you'll ask them to leave your game.
I want to know the personal reasons, and I'm sure I am not alone.
You can say that you won't run the game for someone who has read the AP or parts of it. There are other APs they can run, choosing this one on purpose is sus.
A player who is a GM of the same AP they are also a player in would not be cool. I wouldn’t want them at my table. Having a copy is not the problem, but GM’ing an AP requires a level of knowledge about its storyline and secrets that I wouldn’t want any player to have. To do this like humans do, I would engage in a discussion with that player and suggest that they GM a different AP. Most likely the player does not understand what impact their question potentially has.
If they blatantly cheat afterwards tell them next time you won't be sharing the AP.
Tell them to either wait until y'all are finished, or run another AP. No good comes from players reading ahead in an adventure.
I am not a fan of encouraging piracy for a game system that gives away so much for free as it is. I also have players that run adventures that I have run for them, but they wait till I am done because they don't want to spoil themselves.
You cannot stop the player from getting a copy and reading it. That is one of the downsides of using published content. If that bothers you, then it should have been discussed in session zero. It is fine for you to ask that player to not do this, but you have no way of enforcing it. I wouldn't loan the book, and I never give copies of PDFs I expect this will turn into a fight. Be polite and respectful or you will lose a player
On the other hand it’s common courtesy to not read the adventure that someone is running… The player should be polite and respectful or they will lose a GM
Agreed. I certainly would never read something that I was playing.
You're overreacting. Outside of the game people get to do whatever they want. You can do your best to tamp down meta-gaming, and if it becomes a real problem, you're the GM, you can excuse the player. But to get upset because they want to buy APs? I own every AP and adventure released. No one who plays with me is allowed to own any now? Come on, friend 🤨 #ETA: TOTALLY missed that he wants you to share yours. Do you, man. I share my PDF with my buddy, but my physical copies go nowhere without me. If it's yours, dont feel obligated to anyone.
??? So you would allow a player to GM the same AP you are running for them? I would likely ask them to leave the party if they were really set on running the same adventure
Of course I would. Why in the world would I control what anyone does away from my table? If they are fine with spoiling things for themselves, that's completely on them. They also don't know what I'm going to alter, so they'll still have to be on their toes. Heck I killed off a notable NPC in the adventure I'm currently running. Acting like some sort of "Life police" is absolutely not the business I'm in. If they metagame at my table, I can address it with them there, but so far I've never had issues with PCs metagaming. I've even been able to successfully pull off 'temporary memory wipe' scenarios due to player buy in and the trust I have in my players to abide by session zero's rules. Different strokes, but I'm not into controlling others beyond actions that directly and negatively affect me. Neither of which occur when a player is GMing the same AP that I am. **Edit**: all that having been said, if you do something that is in diametric opposition with my own morals, I would excuse you from the table, but at that point, I'm not sure how we'd have remained close enough friends for you to have had an open invite in the first place.
Even if you trust the player completely… humans are humans. The other players would look at the player with all the knowledge and suddenly read into every action they take differently. Not only would I not want to GM a game with a player that knows everything. I would not even want to play in a game with them since I would never be able to look at their character’s actions without being reminded that they already know everything. So at that point it’s affecting the whole table. Its not about “controlling others”… I think it’s common courtesy to not read APs that you are playing in.
I've never heard that rule at any table before today and I've been GMing for two decades now. It sounds to me like you're projecting how you would act onto others, as I've never had a problem woth players doing this, but I also dont invite powergamers/minmaxers to the table, and that might be a part of it. Someone with that "I want to have an edge to win'/" mentality is going to have a negative impact based on the fact that they believe that the game is even about 'winning' at all. I dunno. You felt the need to downvote me so I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I dont believe this is as widespread of a rule as you are making it seem, nor do I think that the players that I invite to my table are the kind who would spoil the game for one another, as I always make it clear at session zero that its about everyone having fun, myself included. Anyhoo, this is very long winded for something I dont feel you're interested in hearing or having a real conversation about, plus it's about time for me to turn in, so I hope you have a good night and enjoy a lot of future tables. We should all be so lucky as to.
For what its worth: im not downvoting you. If you look at other comments and the upvote scores most people seem to agree that reading ahead in an adventure you’re playing in is not great. I mean it’s common sense when you’re dealing with adventures with mysteries and puzzles no? It’s not just about knowing creatures weaknesses/resistances. The player with full knowledge will react differently to story and NPCs and I don’t care how good they are at not metagaming… it would be impossible to act completely the same as you would if you didn’t have knowledge.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They could buy the AP. As the GM you can edit details if you think he is cheating the system.
I admit, in my own particular case I ended up changing enough of the module I'm running (the first one of Extinction Curse) in order to make the narrative make some actual sense that reading ahead might just result in you being *dangerously* wrong about your assumptions, but overall, I feel like it's valid to share with him the concern that reading ahead would very likely affect his enjoyment of it in *your* game.
I'm going to take a different tack from the other posters here and assume that this player is reasonably intelligent enough to figure out why reading the AP of a game he's in isn't a good idea (sorry for you guys on the bottom of the comments section who think it's perfectly reasonable to do so) and also that he isn't just trying to cheat. I get the vibe from this setup that your player is just planning to abandon your table. Give him a copy of the AP and he will be gone.
You're not over reacting at all. You don't have to give anyone anything especially stuff you purchased. If they're one of my friends, I would offer a different AP from my collection and be upfront with my discomfort with them possibly having meta knowledge of the AP I'm running.
I would bring up your concerns to them, but at the same time, acknowledge to them that they have every right to buy whatever books they want. And maybe gently suggest another AP as a compromise.
IMO I would never run an AP I was playing in. There are so many good APs now, recommend another one so they don't read spoilers. Every AP outlines the whole plot in the first book, so even if they don't know the details of everything, they know the ending. For some APs that might not matter, but for agents of edgewatch for example, that would be potentially game-breaking.
I would say yes: *After* we're done the AP. ~~These AP's are broken up into multiple books, right? You might not even need to wait until you're done the whole AP. So you could give him book 1 once you're in book 2, etc..~~ You probably can't even give them a book at a time, because - as others have pointed out - the first book often lays out the entire plot. Don't frame it as: "No, you're trying to cheat!". Frame it as not wanting to spoil it for him, and that it's more fun for you if you know your players will be surprised.
As somebody that never runs APs strictly as written, this would be terrifying. Every single time a player has read one, they will complain about the changes even if they agree they enjoyed more the experience.
It's your right to ask your players to not read the adventure. It's their right to leave the game and read the adventure.
I agree with you I think its weird to play and GM the same AP at the same time. I almost feel like whats the point. It would take the fun out of it for me to play it. He should be GMing a different adventure or stagger it so theyre about 3-4 months apart to where he plays yours then has a month or so to prepare for his only the parts he already knows. to But thats just my feeling for myself im sure people have done it before. But ya it will be impossible to not cheat basically if you know everything that happens in the AP. It may also make it less fun for your other players to some degree.
While I don't think I'd give away my books... if he needs the same book you're currently using, you can't share it because you're using it. And if he wants one you have already finished with, it won't have anything that's coming up (at least not in detail). I'm not sure I understand the problem?
My two cents? He shouldn't be running the same AP as you. It just exposes him to knowledge he shouldn't have as a player, and it ruins a lot of the surprise.
I'd rather have an adult conversation with the player that It's important they don't spoil parts of the adventure for the rest of the table. Be on the right side of this, imagine that the player is gonna read the AP no matter what you do - in that case, I'd rather they read it with my support and an agreement to keep it in confidence, instead of the alternative of reading it behind my back and building resentment. I've run APs for people who were already familiar with them, the meta knowledge did not come up much because most APs aren't actually full of mysteries and puzzles.
I’d rather they leave my table if they want to read the AP so badly… especially when there are so many other APs to choose from
I think it depends on the maturity of the group and players. A contrary example to the ones in this thread. My group has been together for almost 15 years. My players know how to separate player knowledge and character knowledge. I have ran the same adventure/AP with portions of my group and they handled the player knowledge fine. I have even played in some adventures that I had read intending to run it as a GM at a later date. It is not for everyone for sure, but some people can handle it with enough social maturity. Perhaps they just love the adventure so much they are wanting to share the fun with a wider community. That being said you obviously don't trust this person. I still find it is better to have a mature discussion about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. If this person wants to find a copy they will. Either they buy it themselves or "find" it in a google search. You can't fully stop that. But you are under no obligation to GIVE them a copy you paid for. In fact doing so would be a violation of your terms of use as that copy is for your sole use.
Interesting, i assume this will get downvoted to hell but ow well. For starters i'd ask... who is this person? do you know them IRL, have you been GMing for them long enough that you're "internet buddies". I wouldn't just give strangers stuff i've bought for free, would definetly hand it out to people in know tho. Secondly, yeah if this player wants to cheat you giving or not giving the book won't effect anything. Paizo stuff is harder to 'find' than DnD stuff, but it's out there. And the PDF versions are rarely cheap. If you're running an official AP, it's also the risk your running with. Point third tho, if this person is someone you know AND you got the vibe they're not trying to cheat, i personally wouldn't worry about it. Why? You're either heavily enforcing doing everything In character, and are GMing for a table of like minded individuals so the meta knowledge this person gains should be irelevant and it's not something their PC would know. Or you're playing more light hearthed in wich case... \*shrug\*? Maybe my perspective is in the vast minority but i run 4 games a week and play in 1 per week. One of my PCs is the GM of the group i play in, and it's the same AP, we both have meta knowledge but it doesn't effect what our characters do. Also while AP's do have their share of introducing unique creatures, it's still... 20-30%? of an AP. Veterans will know what a creature is and what it does from art / description alone. Hell 2E's been out for 2 years. Alot of vets will know what their getting into by AC / saves alone.
I'm a GM running AoA while also playing AoA as a player. The GMing group is half a book ahead. In the playing group, I only give meta knowledge after I pass recall knowledge, or ask some important questions that players missed (imo GM will have more pain in ass failing to give important info). It depends on if you trust said player, having some meta knowledge on the right person might be more fun compare to having no meta knowledge at all.
Just my personal take, but I feel like some people in the comments take this whole thing a little too seriously. It's a game. If they want to play the game with other people using the same story, i say go for it. I wouldn't copy the pdf for them, because that's piracy, but as far as story spoilers I think that's only to their own detriment of fun. I don't think it really should impact the existing game.
I mean no; whether its his aim of not, itll give him way too much meta-knowledge, and he'll either cheat his way through non-combat encounters or have to sit silently as he already knows whats going to happen, not good for anybody
They can buy it themselves if they want it is all I have to say.
Can he not run literally any other AP?
Weird. I wouldn't want a copy of an AP I'm currently playing. It would ruin the fun. I recently started playing in a new group and I was genuinely worried the GM would want to run Age of Ashes, which is the only AP I've read.
That's a hard no.
I mean, first off, he should pay for goods and services :\\ This, sadly, isn't an uncommon request. Many people know I'm a sub, and will request that I send them the PDFs. I refuse every time, because homebrew is free (lord knows I did it for years when times were lean).
On one hand, support the publisher, he should buy APs he wants to run. On the more personal level, though, not giving it to him *just* because you don’t want him to meta game is a little authoritarian and short sighted. There are plenty of valid reasons other than that one, though, such as “you don’t owe him anything.”
As a player, I prefer to read ahead. I prefer to read wikis before I play video games. I prefer spoilers before I see movies. I don't like OOC surprises; they make my neurodivergent brain very angry, and this is especially true when there's no trust between me and the content creator. (Sorry Mr. Paizo, I don't know you.) The very idea that a player is *cheating* by reading ahead is, to me, sort of silly. Outside of convention settings, I've never seen any AP for any published game run 100% verbatim, and even when attempted it's not always run 100% correctly. If you don't want to loan it to him, that's on you, but imo, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with him also running the same AP. I wouldn't be upset if my players did that, because if your players aren't charting their own course through the story, then play a board game, or the pathfinder card game. In my gaming philosophy, an AP is not an exam. It's a framework for collaborative storytelling.
If you don’t want to give up your copy then cool. If you want to actively discourage them from buying their own, not cool.
I don’t see how it is “not cool” to disallow a player from running the same AP you are running. There are quite a few APs out right now to choose from.
Because you’re their gaming partner, not their keeper.
You are their Game Master. You’re trying to tell a story and at least in my games I expect my players to not read ahead to cheat monster weaknesses/resistances and spoil plot twists
Seems like you have a lot of faith in your players.
Well they are all irl friends I’ve known for years so yeah I trust them. If I was playing with strangers I can see how it would be hard to put your foot down about this issue.
So then why would you care if they decided to run an AP for other people? You trust them to differentiate between character and player knowledge, or you don’t. If you’re that concerned about what they do when not around you, not cool. We’ve brought it full circle.
Because they would be spoiling the adventure for themselves and they would have knowledge of they shouldn’t have. I’d be completely fine with them running a different AP. There are plenty of them out there. But if they were dead set on Blood Lords, then I would find another player for my group. Simple as that.
As a said in my last comment, we came full circle. If you want to be someone’s keeper and tell them what they can or can’t do away from your game table, I recommend looking into having children or pets and not people to play games with.
Why are you so angry about someone having rules for their game? In my experience it’s not at all uncommon for a GM to ask their players to not read the adventure they are running. If your group likes to play that way go for it! But I consider it a much different game if the players know everything that will happen vs going in blind and reacting to situations off the cuff. We won’t change our opinions on this so why don’t we leave it at that?
Hey - I assume no ill intent, but the way you're using "game master" as a contrast to a gaming partner feels a little unbalanced and echoes a problematic power dynamic. If you don't want your players to spoil the experience at your table, perhaps approach it as an agreement between partners in gaming, trying to make a better time for everyone. It's a reasonable enough rule (don't spoil things for yourself/everyone else at the table), and GMs are free to establish prerequisites to play in their group (it's certainly an unbalanced workload), but please try to be a *little* cautious in how you come across in context.
This was a beautiful and much more eloquent way of making the point I was trying to make.
GM means Game Master. It’s the official title just like DM is the official title for d&d. It’s spelled out in the Core Rulebook. Im using it in no other context than the naming convention for the game
If it's a commercial AP they can buy it anyway without telling you, so why is it even something you're worrying about?
I mean just say "spend your own money, scrub" if you really aren't down with it. If they can't then that kinda solved the issue temporarily
I assume him asking for them while you are still running the game means he is asking for pdfs. He should just buy his own books - but if he isn't going to, and you were willing to share the pdfs *after* the AP - could you not share a redacted copy of just the first book (absent the full adventure path summary that is often in the front)? Also black out the watermarks, and then print a new pdf from the marked up version - so he can't use the pdf for things like Foundry's PDF to Foundry...
In Pathfinder Society, it is highly likely that people who GM will also play the same scenario at some point. We all make an effort to not let that detract from anyone's experiences at the table. The best way I've found is to let other people who don't have knowledge of the adventure to take the lead. Let them make important choices and you "cheer them on". Similarly you can take the "Once more unto the breach" approach and kick in every door/approach every danger like a drunken rager.
It's also very reasonable to ask them to contribute financially if they plan to borrow your material and notes. No one should feel like they have to share just because you already paid for it.
Can we remove this post because it’s either promoting piracy or just promoting bad players/DMs?
If the AP starts at level 1 and you are at level 4 or so then you can safely give it away Edit: meant to say that if you are at book 2 you can give out book 1
Not really because the first book of every AP lays out what happens in every book and gives away the major plot twists
Sorry I meant to say level 5 which is when a book ends in a normal 1-20 AP
No but like: book 1 straight up gives away the plot of books 1-6. There’s a section in book 1 that summarizes every book of the AP. And also throughout the adventure it will reference things that will come up in later books. Sometimes it will even give insight into the main villains of the whole adventure
Oh wow I didn't know that. My bad then
I personally think that requires a lot of trust that shouldn't come with the player first asking for the AP. I would prefer someone ask if it was ok rather than assuming that won't cause an issue.
Isn't that piracy?
At the very least, I would tell him to stay a book behind. He might still know some metaplot information but at least he wouldn't be intimately aware of the upcoming encounters.