I've noticed now, upon getting ready to run another PFS event, that there seem to be a whole lot of encounters these days. When I was first running these, it seemed like I was running into about four encounters, with some RP elements in between, and if everything went well, that worked well.

Now, I'm seeing scenarios that have five, and sometime six, encounters in the scenario, with exploration elements that can easily eat up time.

Personally, I would much rather have three or four encounters with a clearly called out optional encounter than having a "standard" of about five encounters. I've been having a harder and harder time running these to time, and I've been having to trim on the fly to get everything to wrap up on time, when I used to have no problem running these with an hour to spare or so (i.e. about three hours instead of 3.5 hours).

Is anyone else having this problem? Its not so much that I'm not happy with the scenarios, per se, but its really hard to time these things lately (my most recent two that I've been looking at are the first two scenarios for Season One, for example).

I think the number of encounters is pretty standard (five + zero or one optional). Then again, you seem to be using the term encounter to describe a combat encounter, whereas a more accurate description would be "scene". I think you are correct, however in that the trend in recent modules seems to be five scenes with combat. I agree with you in that this is way, WAY too much combat for any module, much less one you are supposed to be able to fit into a four hour time slot. I'd also prefer modules with less emphasis on combat and more emphasis on exploration, social interaction, investigation, and such.

I heard the reason Josh puts so much combat into modules is "some group in Finland is walking all over the modules without breaking a sweat". This is true. Most of the modules are cake-walks for us. The answer to this, however, most definitely isn't "more combats". Its more along the lines of "more challenges", meaning less straight up combat encounters, more wiggle room for innovative problem solution, a wider variety of challenges, and maybe as little as two or three well thought-out combat encounters per module. You can't just boost the amount of fighting. It'll only degenerate into an arms race.

I know its a fine balance, but if the goal is to make things more challenging, I'd rather see three or four more difficult encounters than to try and run a couple extra "grinders" to wear down a party, but again, that's just my preference.

I know its a fine balance, but if the goal is to make things more challenging, I'd rather see three or four more difficult encounters than to try and run a couple extra "grinders" to wear down a party, but again, that's just my preference.

Are these kinds of misinterpretations the reason I (too) have heard rumors the amount of combats is due to "the Finns"? Sure, seeing more challenges in place of combats would be nice. I might consider giving an example at some point.

My instructions to the authors are five encounters plus one optional encounter in case the scenario is running short.

An encounter can be:

Combat
Puzzle
Trap
Treasure
Roleplay
etc

I've been actively encouraging the Season 1 authors to add more puzzle, trap, treasure, roleplay, etc encounters and scale back on the combat. I think in the coming season you'll start to see less battle-heavy scenarios and more mixed battle/RP/puzzle/investigation-type scenarios.

As for the "Finnish Problem" I've never said I added more combat because the Finns are breezing through the scenarios, I said I needed to add more "encounters" because the Finns are breezing through the scenarios. (See above for my description of encounter.) You guys are my base assumption for our Hardcore Players(TM) (I watch other groups for my base assumption of Convention Goers and Casual Home Players), and I make adjustments based on yours and everyone's feedback. :-)

I have had several games that have a hard time fitting into the four hour slot because if you have one combat go long then you sometimes cannot get the last one in. If it could be taken to four fights it may help break this trend I've seen.

I have had several games that have a hard time fitting into the four hour slot because if you have one combat go long then you sometimes cannot get the last one in. If it could be taken to four fights it may help break this trend I've seen.

Russell Akred wrote:

I have had several games that have a hard time fitting into the four hour slot because if you have one combat go long then you sometimes cannot get the last one in. If it could be taken to four fights it may help break this trend I've seen.

For this, I think the solution would be to do something similar to PSS-01, to have one encounter that can be dropped if time's running short. My suggestion is minimum of five encounters, plus one optional that can be added if needed, and one of the five marked as able to be dropped should the module be running long.

Intriguing. This makes me wonder what kind of characters other people have elsewhere. If the majority plays "subpar" (I dislike to use the term in this matter) characters, our characters might be on the opposite end of the scale.

It might as well be a relic from the days of Living Greyhawk. It slowly became an arms race as many can confirm. This might have affected the way we (Finns) generally build our characters. The sole idea to survive.

There are some problems that cannot be fixed with scenarios. For example a summoner (not the upcoming class, but the archetype) can pretty much summon up an equilevant to an equal-level fighter. Especially with all kinds of small bits and pieces, like traits and feats, they gain more power. For example there is a feat that allows summons to be cast in a standard action. This radically boosts the character.

Truthfully, the scenarios can be deadly/challenging. Personally I consider Tim Hitchcock and Craig Shackleton to be the best persons to balance encounters so that they are challenging enough, but aren't downright lethal.

Personally I consider Tim Hitchcock and Craig Shackleton to be the best persons to balance encounters so that they are challenging enough, but aren't downright lethal.

When I played #23, our group of 5 (1 newbie playing a pregen) finished the adventure in about 2 hours, and I don't remember ever feeling threatened.

When I GM'd #23 for a group of SEVEN players, it took them 3 1/2 hours, several nearly died, and most were rightfully scared at some point by the time we reached the end.

Very interesting.

I'm running a home game using PFS scenarios, the reason being that I wanted to be able to wrap up a scenario in one sitting. So I have the same time concerns.

First module: Slave Pits of Absalom. Now this was the first scenario, so it took some time getting started (wrapping up char gen and all that). I had to remove the barroom brawl (it became an interrogation scene) and the attack by the Puddlejumpers. I placed a couple of halflings on the boat, though. We spent 4 hours on this module, even with the cuts. They did spend a lot of time role-playing though.

Second module: Frozen Fingers of Midnight: Didn't remove anything, finished in 3 hours 45 minutes, still with a lot roleplaying.

Third module: Murder on the Silken Caravan (haven't played yet, but I am considering removing both the fight with the lepers and the assault on the caravan)...

I think the important thing to remember is that it's the GM's responsibility to be able to improvise on the fly. Be aware of the time, and be prepared to cut a scene or change it so that it doesn't take up time. Do not remove scenes that prevent faction members from completing their task. Not every scene in an adventure is relevant to the story or the outcome, it's just there to grind hit points. It's better to remove an irrelevant scene in the middle of the adventure, then remove the final scene (or even to fastplay it).

While I respect players who take pride in maximizing their characters, there is also important to cater to groups who don't create optimal characters, either because they're not capable of creating them, or because they feel that the most interesting and fun characters are actually those who aren't optimal (a statement I find difficult to refute). It's always easier for a DM to increase the difficulty of a module, then do decrease it.

I think the important thing to remember is that it's the GM's responsibility to be able to improvise on the fly. Be aware of the time, and be prepared to cut a scene or change it so that it doesn't take up time. Do not remove scenes that prevent faction members from completing their task. Not every scene in an adventure is relevant to the story or the outcome, it's just there to grind hit points. It's better to remove an irrelevant scene in the middle of the adventure, then remove the final scene (or even to fastplay it).

While I respect players who take pride in maximizing their characters, there is also important to cater to groups who don't create optimal characters, either because they're not capable of creating them, or because they feel that the most interesting and fun characters are actually those who aren't optimal (a statement I find difficult to refute). It's always easier for a DM to increase the difficulty of a module, then do decrease it.

The good news is that the Season 1 adventures provide more flexibility by design. One encounter is written as optional (to be used if there is at least 2 hours remaining). Because each faction has two goals, every scene (except the optional one) has at least one faction goal associated.

I find that it's often up the GM to make an encounter challenging. There are so many variables that come into play with an encounter, if the NPCs/Creatures aren't played well, bad things can happen no matter how well it's balanced on paper.

When I played #23, our group of 5 (1 newbie playing a pregen) finished the adventure in about 2 hours, and I don't remember ever feeling threatened.

When I GM'd #23 for a group of SEVEN players, it took them 3 1/2 hours, several nearly died, and most were rightfully scared at some point by the time we reached the end.

Most of the variables are die rolls. You can't control them. This can, as you said, make huge, arbitrary differences. It's better to play by the averages to achieve a certain 'balance'.

For example one ogre against a Tier 1-2 group can be either very lethal or incredibly easy. The problem with this kind of an encounter is that it's either "one shot, one kill" or the enemy is vanquished in one round. I personally would always avoid combats against just one foe, as they all possess this problem.

a) The pathfinders win the initiative. In this case the foe is most likely to experience a gruesome death with no chance of vengeance. Said ogre would be greased, sneak attacked, mashed, and finally succumbed to nothingness.

b) The ogre wins the initiative. With its mighty +8 attack and 2d8+7 damage, the average is 16 points of damage. If this attack would hit, one player would instantly be taken out of the action either temporarily or permanently.

What I'd consider a 'balanced' encounter is a mixture of different monsters, not just planting the same NPC/monster times 8. For example a goblin ambush party would have one boss (CR equal to Tier (2 in 1-2, 4 in 3-4, etc.)), 2 bodyguards (about 1 CR less than the boss) and 4 mooks (about 2-3 CR less than the boss). Of course I'm not saying every combat should be like this. In the woods getting attacked by two or three wolves (Tier 1-2) would be an okay encounter.

Very interesting.

I'm running a home game using PFS scenarios, the reason being that I wanted to be able to wrap up a scenario in one sitting. So I have the same time concerns.

If you're running this as a personal game just to enjoy the scenarios, then that's totally cool. I just want to make sure everything is on the level. :-)

Are you running this as an unofficial (not reported) personal game or as an official (reported with chronicle sheets) home game? The term "home game" in Pathfinder Society specifically means that you're running it with chronicle sheets and reporting your sessions which also means you can't change the scenarios or use critical hit/fumble decks.

If you're running this as a personal game just to enjoy the scenarios, then that's totally cool. I just want to make sure everything is on the level. :-)

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Are you running this as an unofficial (not reported) personal game or as an official (reported with chronicle sheets) home game? The term "home game" in Pathfinder Society specifically means that you're running it with chronicle sheets and reporting your sessions which also means you can't change the scenarios or use critical hit/fumble decks.

If you're running this as a personal game just to enjoy the scenarios, then that's totally cool. I just want to make sure everything is on the level. :-)

Oh, sorry. Yes, I'm running the scenarios as a personal game. I'll stop using the term home game :)

I suggest calling it Private game instead.

This is great advice for a home game using PFS scenarios. GM's running scenarios at cons, game stores, and for organized play characters are expected to stick to the script.

So what is the suggestion for con games, then? If the players have one more scene to go and the next slot is knocking at their doors demanding that they leave?