|
I've been playing PFS from year 0-present ( three full seasons plus ). During this time, i've found the character death rate to be extremely low. As an estimation, at an average of at least 1.5 tables per week our groups have had less than six character deaths over that period of time, or less than six out of at least 1050 character participations. This is less than a character deathrate of .6%. At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die. And, even when they do die, they are relatively easily ressurected. Maybe i'm very old school; but I think there should be more character risk involved, especially the higher level your character attains and the greater the adventure the character is involved in. (By the way, i've never resurrected one of my own characters). What do you think about this? Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
Sit at my table. I see you like Andorans, even better. Are you a follower of Iomedae? They seem to have the worst survival rates of all (both as NPCs in scenarios and players at my table)!
/Evil, maniacal laughter.
//You will survive, though, if the scenario involves Red Mantis Assassins.
///Or an over-the-top puppeteer.
////Grumbles.
|
If your GMs are bending over backwards to mimnnimize PC death, you need to talk with them.
In our area, we have had a lot more deaths than that, including multiple deaths by certain PCs.
Brandy - 3 deaths
Moby - 2-3 deaths
Callarek - 1 death
Lurd - 1-2 deaths
Captain Charm - 1 death
And those are the recent, mid-high level deaths, that come to mind right off the bat.
I almost finalized a new PC during First Steps the other day.
So death is eminantly possible, and happens, at least in our area.
|
I've been playing PFS from year 0-present ( three full seasons plus ). During this time, i've found the character death rate to be extremely low. As an estimation, at an average of at least 1.5 tables per week our groups have had less than six character deaths over that period of time, or less than six out of at least 1050 character participations. This is less than a character deathrate of .6%. At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die. And, even when they do die, they are relatively easily ressurected. Maybe i'm very old school; but I think there should be more character risk involved, especially the higher level your character attains and the greater the adventure the character is involved in. (By the way, i've never resurrected one of my own characters). What do you think about this? Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
That's what you get when you have 20-point buy characters against a CR system built on 15-point buy.
I felt that the Society challenges weren't what I wanted in a campaign, and is one of the reasons I don't run/play Society that often. I still run/play Pathfinder, just with a custom campaign.
-Perry
|
PFS characters are too high-powered (see the point buy issue mentioned above), they are ahead of the money curve by a good margin, and they often outnumber/outaction encounters. These factors combined with the gamer's inherent need to optimize makes for most mods being utter cakewalks.
I've found tables with a minimum number of players (4 or 3+iconic) to be loads more fun and more challenging.
|
|
PFS characters are too high-powered (see the point buy issue mentioned above), they are ahead of the money curve by a good margin, and they often outnumber/outaction encounters. These factors combined with the gamer's inherent need to optimize makes for most mods being utter cakewalks.
I've found tables with a minimum number of players (4 or 3+iconic) to be loads more fun and more challenging.
Both of these are correct. I actually happen to be a GM in Marty's PFS group and I can say that most tables sit 5-6 players. Just on the action economy alone the NPC's dont really stand a chance.
However other times a majority caster or fighter group will have trouble in a chronicle depending on the BBG, so as a GM you have to weigh the consequences of easily killing the party or of making the Chronicle enjoyable for all.
I tend to do this with games of low-level characters, however if you have enough prestige points to raise dead then its pretty much game on.
But also I have seen players not come back after a character death. Or at least they participate in PFS less.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Sit at my table. I see you like Andorans, even better. Are you a follower of Iomedae? They seem to have the worst survival rates of all (both as NPCs in scenarios and players at my table)!
/Evil, maniacal laughter.
//You will survive, though, if the scenario involves Red Mantis Assassins.
///Or an over-the-top puppeteer.
////Grumbles.
You can barely kill a frog.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
I've been playing PFS from year 0-present ( three full seasons plus ). During this time, i've found the character death rate to be extremely low.
Death depends on many things. GM play style, players at the table make up. PC optimization.
I have about a 1/10 player death rate at my local hobby shop. I open roll everything so I tend to kill more players with dice rolls. I also believe that all actions have repercussions good or bad so players need to play in some way that doesn't try to get them killed on purpose.
I follow NPC tactics in the modules as much as I can until they no longer make sense.
I find the current module difficulty is fine. Some of the higher level games tends to be more killer than lower level ones but I am fine with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pathfinder Society has grown safer, if you will, from its origins. The first year it debuted, there were a couple of players who had taken some grim satisfaction that they had played in all four premiere adventures, and had died in each one.
The rules revision that re-establishes the negative level penalties for raise dead is perhaps part of the realization that death is more rare these days, and can be made a greater burden.
Character death is something that should be a risk, but it should be a risk more because of the player or players being stupid and not because there are GMs that enjoy trying to kill characters. I will not play at a table with that kind of GM. Also, if a GM gets a group of players with a mix of characters he knows will have a very hard time with the scenario, maybe even resulting in a TPK, then that GM should have the right and the leeway to try and avoid that happening.
|
|
Character death is something that should be a risk, but it should be a risk more because of the player or players being stupid and not because there are GMs that enjoy trying to kill characters. I will not play at a table with that kind of GM. Also, if a GM gets a group of players with a mix of characters he knows will have a very hard time with the scenario, maybe even resulting in a TPK, then that GM should have the right and the leeway to try and avoid that happening.
One thing I've noticed when GMing is that there are not any modifiers on encounters based on how many PCs there are, apart from the "add +1 to CR for 6 players to determine tier."
There's a pretty significant power difference between a 4 player group and a 6 player group. Typically what I've seen in other organized campaigns were encounters balanced for a party of 5, and either add or subtract on additional critter for 4 or 6 player groups. As far as I know, GMs are not allowed to modify encounters in this way. A group of 6 PCs will have a much lower death rate due to this factor.
|
I've often wondered "what do you do differently to get your characters killed?" There have been some scenarios that are quite deadly, I admit. Still I'd wish the scenarios would hold more risk and danger in them.
Finland's death toll is 17 at the moment. A lot of these have happened in a convention environment where tactics and player cooperation doesn't work as well as in a private group where everyone knows each other well enough.
Divided by scenarios:
#0-01 Silent Tide - 1 death (critical hit)
#0-02 Hydra's Fang Incident - 1 death
#0-03 Murder on the Silken Caravan - 1 death
#0-05 Mists of Mwangi - 1 death
#0-07 Among the Living - 3 deaths (2 critical hits)
#0-08 Slave Pits of Absalom - 3 deaths
#0-10 Blood at Dralkard Manor - 1 death (idiotic 5d6 damage on Tier 1-2)
#0-16 To Scale the Dragon - 1 death (BBEG is bad)
#0-18 Trouble with Secrets - 1 death (BBEG is bad and overpowered)
#1-29 TDWK 1, Shipyard Rats - 1 death
#1-37 TDWK 3, Crypt of Fools - 3 deaths (TPK, BBEG is bad)
|
Come on down to my tables, try your luck. I run the NPC's as smart as their tactics allow, I roll in the open, and I don't softball things if they go badly(granted, if the module has something truly nuts in it, for example the 5d6 damage trap at a tier 1-2 module, I just ko the pc, 1 point from dead, and stable). I've personally dropped two PC's, and at my FLGS I know of at least 5-6 other deaths.
|
Disclaimer: This is based on my own design opinions/assumptions. I don't know if those opinions mesh with the PFS designers.
I think there are a few things which contribute to the perception that scenarios are not deadly enough.
Low level scenarios are played more than high level ones. By necessity, low level (especially 1st-level) adventures are usually designed to be more forgiving. Without extra spells, items, and a sufficient hp buffer, bad dice rolls are much more likely to make things go horribly, horribly wrong. And as these adventures are often the gateway for new players to try out PFRPG, it sucks to have things go horribly wrong in too many players' first sessions.
Challenge varies widely based on optimization, both of the group and the individual characters. A home game of experienced players who know each other, and have created a cohesive party, is going to have a much easier time with an encounter than a random group of strangers at a convention, some of whom may be inexperienced, or less able character designers (or "flavour" designers). The writer has to account for both extremes, and try to challenge the one group without having a TPK for the other.
Challenge varies widely between a group of 4 (or 3 and a pre-gen) and a group of 6 (or even 7). As above.
The higher level scenarios tend to be more relatively challenging, but characters/parties tend to be better equipped, better built, and better tactically.
Many of the writers tougher scenarios have received poor reviews and/or been raked over the coals on the boards.
Just some rambling scribbles
Character death in a system which uses tiers causes a lot of complications. You may feel lucky getting to high tier in one piece but with fewer compatriots achieving the same thing your opportunities for playing that character will be more limited.
Likewise, having a high level character die at the beginning of a Convention can be a real PITA. I think the difficulty level is about right as it is, especially some of the newer mods. My local group have high, mid and low level characters, but I'm running Dalsine Affair for the mid levels shortly and as most of them have an AC of 14 and/or a Con of 10 I expect to TPK them without trying. They may get very lucky of course... That's one mod that doesn't need boosting.
I follow tactics as written and a certain fire oracle would have dealt a serious blow to their high level characters too, but the listed tactic for round 1 meant she also died in round 1, so they survived relatively unscathed. Had I used my own tactics she would have (accidentally) had total concealment from the improved invisible hasted rapid shotting rogue and could have laid down a lot more hurt. Another mod that doesn't need boosting (normally). I'm just annoyed I didn't see that combo coming and thought I'd get another action with her. :-)
It's really hard to gauge difficulty as my cleric nearly got toasted by that oracle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a pretty significant power difference between a 4 player group and a 6 player group. Typically what I've seen in other organized campaigns were encounters balanced for a party of 5, and either add or subtract on additional critter for 4 or 6 player groups. As far as I know, GMs are not allowed to modify encounters in this way. A group of 6 PCs will have a much lower death rate due to this factor.
Totally true about larger parties being stronger, but having little room for the GM to maneuvre.
There maybe needs to be more leeway written into the mods to add some more numbers to the encounters for large groups of PCs, rather than upping the Tier. Changing the Tier may not always be the best option, as it introduces enemies with new powers that the PCs may not be able to handle, and vs which their increased numbers are meaningless.
(Eg, going from Tier 1-2 to 3-4 changes the BBEG's scorching ray to a fireball; instead of dropping one PC into negatives before being taken down, he now blasts the entire party in one shot.)
|
|
That's what you get when you have 20-point buy characters against a CR system built on 15-point buy.
Another issue is that Pathfinder characters are flat out more powerful than 3.5 characters, so the year 0 modules, which may have been a challenge originaly are way underpowered versus the current PCs. The changes to make sneak attack work on undead and many other types is an example of this type of change. With the power creep in UC, it's only going to get worse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even as a DM I want my player's characters to survive.
I'm of the opinion that death should be the punishment for stupid. So long as my players play smart they deserve to live.
Noone wants their characters to die, and most GMs don't like it when they kill one. But if death is irrelevant, the game loses a lot of it's fun. In this case, challenge = fun (which is the case for me). It's probably the #1 reason I left LFR.
|
|
I agree that most low-level PFS scenarios are too easy for my liking. I can't point to one reason for this. I hold the authors accountable for using poor tactics. I hold the campaign accountable for making equipment, classes and spells to easily obtainable. I hold the players accountable for min/maxing and power-gaming.
I try and compensate by only playing at tables with five or less players. Four-player tables are my favorite. I try not to play with min/maxers or power-gamers. I'd rather play with people who have some restraint. Finally, I use less-than-optimum tactics to sometimes give the badguys more opportunities to harm my character. I have a lot more fun at the table that way. I died last night in fact (thanks Kyle!), and I had a really good time.
|
|
I find this an odd post... Should I be killing more characters?You have the open invitation to do your worst on any of my characrters should I get sat at your table. Perhaps at Origins next year. :)
Having been on the receiving end of Kyle's red-hot dice at PaizoCon this year, be careful what you wish for. :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Finally, I use less-than-optimum tactics to sometimes give the badguys more opportunities to harm my character. I have a lot more fun at the table that way.
But doesn't "only risky because I metagamed in that direction" feel just as hollow as "no risk"?
|
|
Noone wants their characters to die, and most GMs don't like it when they kill one. But if death is irrelevant, the game loses a lot of it's fun. In this case, challenge = fun (which is the case for me). It's probably the #1 reason I left LFR.Even as a DM I want my player's characters to survive.
I'm of the opinion that death should be the punishment for stupid. So long as my players play smart they deserve to live.
The threat of character death isn't the only way to provide a challenge. This is especially true when your players have things they care about besides their character being simply alive or dead. This includes things like attachment to the story, setting, and npcs.
|
|
The threat of character death isn't the only way to provide a challenge. This is especially true when your players have things they care about besides their character being simply alive or dead. This includes things like attachment to the story, setting, and npcs.Noone wants their characters to die, and most GMs don't like it when they kill one. But if death is irrelevant, the game loses a lot of it's fun. In this case, challenge = fun (which is the case for me). It's probably the #1 reason I left LFR.Even as a DM I want my player's characters to survive.
I'm of the opinion that death should be the punishment for stupid. So long as my players play smart they deserve to live.
It's a combination of all those things. The loss of those things is what makes you try to play smarter. When you cannot lose those things (because your character will truly never die) why have combats at all. I'm all for story time, but one of the major aspects of the Pathfinder system is battle. When battle becomes irrelevant (because I cannot die), lets just skip all combats completely, and in that case there are far better systems out there for that kind of play.
|
|
Most PFS scenarios are easy, and then there are the rare scenarios that contain wicked death traps.
I don't think the desired goal is to kill PCs, that deters play. Kill count is an undesirable statistic imo (unless you're Kyle). Our job isn't to deal out death, our job is to deal out fun.
I think the goal is to offer a challenge, with at least enough challenge so that the PCs don't walk over everything. For me, many scenarios aren't achieving that goal (without modification!), and I'm not entirely sure why balance is so hard to achieve. It's like the authors have these amazing minds for creating great original stories (which is an amazing and admirable skill), but they don't know how to balance encounters (or perhaps lack proper playtesting).
Suggestion: Have a volunteer group of GMs that playtest scenarios. These GMs should be "critical thinkers" and not fan boys / girls who approve of everything. For each scenario, pick 2-3 GMs (out of the pool of GMs) for overall feedback. The GM with the best feedback gets the final product for free. Maybe a star (or achievement) system could be implemented for this as well.
At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die.
Well, I think this is the main problem. You can increase the challenge level all you like, but if GMs are unwilling to lower the BOOM, no one's going to die. An even greater problem is created if you increase the challenge level, increase the rewards, and then have GMs unwilling to mangle a PC when needed.
Lots of GMs are guilty of softballing PC death, but how should you stop it? I don't have the answer to this. It's a habit for most GMs.
Btw, I have no problems softballing and making it easy for level 1-2 characters. Although PF veterans can't relate, killing the PC of someone new to PF is the best way to have them never try PF again.
This is just an observation, but have you ever noticed how ruthless and brutal most GMs are when it comes to killing pregens? I find lots of pregens die compared to PCs, and it's not only because they're not optimal or because of the players. With GMs, it's like the kids gloves come off with the pregens, and/or they're specifically targeted for the "really nasty" stuff. Anyway, it's kind of funny.
Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
Well, there's always the option of playing up (although apparently it's scorned if it's planned), and that's where I've seen the majority of PC deaths. Even then, I've seen GMs save PCs from dying, and those were the "obvious" saves. I'm sure there were less obvious ones I missed.
Yes, I wish there were some scenarios that are supposed to be more difficult that offered *slightly* better rewards. And hopefully they'd be labeled "hardcore", so that players would know what they were getting themselves into.
|
|
I enjoy playing scenarios more when there is a real potential for death. It gets my adrenaline up more than a cake walk. I disagree that death should only result from bad decisions - sometime death happens to smart people too. Otherwise, where's the sense of accomplishment. Some of it is the problem of large groups of PC being able to swamp bad guys, and some of it is poor tactics on the part of the NPCs'/writers, and some of it is underprepared or non-tactical GMs, but I agree that mods aren't deadly enough. It may drive off some new players, but it may also be that OP isn't for everyone, or at least mid-to-high level OP. Where's the pride in "I cake-walked to 12th level"? I generally play 3-4 mods at a con, and I usually have a couple of interesting ones with a good encounter or two, and one that really had me going, wasn't sure if I was going to make it or not, damn that was close. That's what I'd ideally like to see in every mod.
|
|
I cannot even begin to fathom which modules people are talking about at high tiers that are "safe". A lot of the ones in 5-9 and 7-11 especially I've experienced as not only challenging but fairly brutal.
-Matt
|
|
I cannot even begin to fathom which modules people are talking about at high tiers that are "safe". A lot of the ones in 5-9 and 7-11 especially I've experienced as not only challenging but fairly brutal.** spoiler omitted **
-Matt
The only game a character of mine ever died in was the first one you listed.
|
|
I've been playing PFS from year 0-present ( three full seasons plus ). During this time, i've found the character death rate to be extremely low. As an estimation, at an average of at least 1.5 tables per week our groups have had less than six character deaths over that period of time, or less than six out of at least 1050 character participations. This is less than a character deathrate of .6%. At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die. And, even when they do die, they are relatively easily ressurected. Maybe i'm very old school; but I think there should be more character risk involved, especially the higher level your character attains and the greater the adventure the character is involved in. (By the way, i've never resurrected one of my own characters). What do you think about this? Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
In our society, there isn't a lot of deaths. We have brought MANY a characters into submission, but so far we've only had a few deaths. And even then, the deaths were results of the players making stupid moves and it resolving in said death.
But I always have a motto, if it's not dangerous, then you're not playing Pathfinder. So if it's not dangerous, it's time to find some GM's who will make it so.
|
|
Without getting into the discussion of whether PFS is too safe or not, I believe there should be more tools at the GM's disposal to deal with parties who are making the module easy enough to sleep through.
I agree with this, I have had players complain about certain adventures not being challenging (although others are potentially deadly). Even an option to add one or two extra goblin minions, bumping the BBEG's HP up by 10, etc for groups of 6 players would be helpful.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
-Matt
It's all on the GM and the players. If the players are min/maxing powergamers, it's almost impossible to provide a "challenge" that most of them don't actually want anyway.
I guarantee that Mantis's Prey is not "safe." If I had been running your table of it instead of Bruce, it would have gone down much different, especially at the end.
Part 3 of the Everwar can be very deadly in the 10-11 subtier, ask Thea. :-)
|
|
This. vvv
I think an OP campaign that strives for a relatively high level of player character death will quickly drive off the casual players.If we expect people to invest time, money and effort into supporting a campaign, deaths should be rare. I agree with death being the reward for stupidity, but I also don't want to remove the "death from huge BBEG crit" -- they happen.
It is when they are designed to happen (and written into the event for the purpose OF killing PCs in one-shots) that it is a blatant disregard for player fun in lieu of "look how clever I, as your author, can be!"
And forgive the generalization, but people on this board are not the casual gamers. People who spend more time optimizing/learning rules will find the games less of a challenge.
I don't think easy events are the problem as much as the vast disparity between one event and another. If a new player plays 4 "normal" (read: easy) events in a row, then one of the more difficult ones right after that, with no explanation or warning prior? Frustration.
I agree. We don't want the Greyhawk level difficulties where if you weren't using the newest cheese you were behind the curve.
We're mainly just arguing personal preferences here. I find the level of deaths=PCs to be far below what I would consider the average. I know Kyle has seen a higher rate than me.
|
|
During this time, I’ve found the character death rate to be extremely low.
I would say that your experience is far different than mine. I have been to a ton of events and run a lot of tables and I see characters die all the time and I've seen TPK more than once.
I don't disagree that the scenarios are designed to give players a 'winning' experience. As they should be. I have found that in most cases if the GM is running the bad guys as described in the scenario, nine times out of ten, the players are pretty safe. But in many cases, due to lots of reasons, characters do die. There have been plenty of times that I realized I could wipe out a party if I played the bad guy to their full potential. My advice to you, if you seek more dangerous level of play is this:
When you sit at the table, tell the GM that you want him to 'take the safety’s off the bad guys' and run them to their full potential. If all the other players at the table agree and the GM is cool with that option, I guarantee you will have a much different experience.
Is it too easy to resurrect a character? For those who have lost characters they spent lots of time building up, I would guess they would say no, its not too easy.
|
|
I cannot even begin to fathom which modules people are talking about at high tiers that are "safe". A lot of the ones in 5-9 and 7-11 especially I've experienced as not only challenging but fairly brutal.** spoiler omitted **
-Matt
The second one was easy for us because we
|
|
The second one was easy for us because we ** spoiler omitted **
I'll admit, since there's some side-discussion over my list, that I'm drawing mainly from play memories, which are only at a single subtier.
Part 1: Making the entirely of the module's fights being barbarians, two-thirds of which are skeletal barbarians which cannot actually utilize rage, as well as a single sorcerer at the end (whose highest-level spell is blight, is not a recipe for an adventure that's more than a cakewalk.
Part 2: Thirty-two CR 2 morlocks, faced in waves, is not an effective challenge for level 10-11 PCs. It's just a waste of time.
Part 3: When the final encounter at Subtier 10-11 consists of a mook monster from Encounter 1 plus ten things with +5 to hit, that is not an effective challenge for level 10-11 PCs. It's also just a waste of time.
Part 4: Just increasing the number of monsters encountered between Subtier 7-8 and Subtier 10-11 in order to increase the EL by merely one creates yet another cakewalk for level 10-11 PCs.
-Matt
|
|
No PFS Scenario has ever been a "cake walk" for me.
Even We be Goblins can be deadly...
Every scenario was challenging? Can you list some of them?
Yes, 'We Be Goblins' is deadly (especially if played non-intelligently), but you're playing Pregens so there's no risk of losing your PC. WBG is an exception, not the rule.
The energy at the table starts with the GM; if we are having fun then they will...
Fun and challenge are separate topics. Yes you can have fun while walking over all encounters, and yes there can be a lack of fun by walking over all of the encounters (it's cumulative). It's always better if the PCs don't crush everything.
I don't think it's a matter of making scenarios deadly, it's a matter of giving everyone something to do and making sure the BBG doesn't die in 1-2 rounds while doing 10 or less damage.
|
|
Last year I lived for seven months in the Durham area. Luckily I got to play PFS at Game Theory, an excellent gaming store. They have a good group of players and GMs there.
One of my characters, a mystic theurge was beaten to death by a vampire. While GMing, I remember accidently killing one the players at my table in a bar fight. ( there may have been other deaths, but I don’t remember).
I also had the luxury of Playing PFS with the New York City group. One of the GMs, a friend of at least 10 years, runs a good fair game. I think I saw three characters get killed in separate games that he ran. One of my characters got a whipping, but I realize with my string of 1s my character got off lightly.
I have been running a weekly PFS game at my local gaming store in south eastern New Hampshire for the last six months. I have killed two of my players characters, ( the ones that have shown up for every game). One died because he was attacked by two ulfen guards with axes. The other died because he was torn apart by an angry hungry troll.
So while I don’t think character death happens every day, It does happen.