Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
In your humble opinion, what are the weaker non-retired modules, particularly from season 1?
My nomination:
Beggar's Pearl
Kerney,
As the author of Beggar's Pearl, let me suggest that you submit a review of the scenario. While I don't enjoy having my adventure "beat down" by someone who didn't like it, a detailed critique can help others avoid an unpleasant time. I'd particularly appreciate any suggestions you have for presenting the mod, so others can benefit from your experience.
Sniper in the Deep is my least favourite module from Season 1, although I dislike underwater adventures in general because of all of the annoying penalties the PCs have to deal with. I found the
|
I find my enjoyment of a mod comes 90% from who is running it and 10% what is written down.
That said I didn't particularly enjoy Beggar's Peal but that's because I didn't like the way the GM presented:
I think the biggest things to prep when running this mod are: Do something fun/interesting to make the final encounter memorable and read that central room several times. I found the description a little confusing when I read it and felt some sympathy for the GM who had ran it for me
|
I think Perils of the Pirate Pact needs to be retired for sheer boredom. My character thought it was the biggest waste of Pathfinder resources to even be sent on this mission because literally nothing happens. And it's not fun to run as a GM because there is not much backstory or depth to work with to flesh out the NPC motivations.
|
Sniper in the Deep is my least favourite module from Season 1, although I dislike underwater adventures in general because of all of the annoying penalties the PCs have to deal with. I found the ** spoiler omitted ** to be particularly unfun.
Just got done playing Sniper in the Deep at Tier 5-6 and had fun. We had a well balanced party and found the fights to be interesting but not all that tough.
I am not sure I have run across a "Bad PFS mod". I agree with AxeMurder0 that most of the fun comes from how well the GM presents. I will tack on to that the other players have to be engaged and having fun as well or things can just drag.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I thought Beggar's Pearl was fun. My character didn't (I rolled a lot of 1's that day...), but I thought the module was well laid out and had an amusing end-game. Of course, I had one of the best GMs in the area running it for me.
I've heard a lot of bad things about Perils of the Pirate Pact, but it seems like everything would be solved if a conversion to PFRPG rules would just be done for it. Plus, I gather the scaling for sub-tier 3-4 left a little to be desired. Again, solved if conversion is done.
At any rate, I think someone else mentioned something that is accurate: a good GM can make or break a module's experience. As well, I think a good group of players at your table can make or break a module's experience. Most of the modules left on the lists are good, so long as the GM is prepared and can inject amusing characters into the game and figure out how to impart the story. Some of the modules are awesome under the same circumstances. Some are very challenging for GMs to turn into a good experience.
Sounds like life, in general.
Sniper in the Deep is my least favourite module from Season 1, although I dislike underwater adventures in general because of all of the annoying penalties the PCs have to deal with. I found the ** spoiler omitted ** to be particularly unfun.Just got done playing Sniper in the Deep at Tier 5-6 and had fun. We had a well balanced party and found the fights to be interesting but not all that tough.
I believe you, although I think it's wildly party dependent (which I think is a bad thing for a PFS module). For instance, our party had a lot of weak spellcasters who couldn't consistently make Swim checks, which meant they often couldn't move, didn't have a Dex bonus to AC, etc. Likewise, we had only one melee fighter and his primary weapon didn't do piercing damage so he was forced to use a fairly crappy backup weapon. So it was a hard module, but not in an interesting way -- just in a frustrating way.
Does tier 5-6 have you fight
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does tier 5-6 have you fight ** spoiler omitted **? Because that was practically a TPK for us.
We had casters that spammed movement spells.
As for the [redacted]:
I think the lesson is when you get past 7th level or so you should be prepared for lots of DR, incorporeal, and energy resistance.
|
|
As for the [redacted]:** spoiler omitted **
That harkens back to a post 6 months ago by some yahoo:
I think the commentary and discussion is interesting (especially as I've gotten to know some of them better over the last 6 months).
This post confirms for me that what makes or breaks a mod is rarely the mod itself. Like Drogon mentioned above, there are many factors, each with their own weight that will determine how fun/successful the mod might be.
Those factors may or may not include:
1) Your judge
2) Your fellow players
3) The character make up of your party
4) The APL/power level of your party vs. the Subtier you play
5) Time of day/slot of con: First slot of con is usually the highest energy...the last slot on Sunday has people burnt and ready to go home, etc.
6) Your personal mood and energy
7) Just random chance...we call them dice. They be fickle.
And probably many more that I forget.
I think the biggest influences on the fun/success of a mod are the judge and players...they tend to feed off each other. I love it when a judge comes in feelin' good and ready to have a fun mod...as a player, it gets me going.
My 2 coppers.
-Pain
|
|
In your humble opinion, what are the weaker non-retired modules, particularly from season 1?
My nomination:
Beggar's Pearl
Kerney,
As the author of Beggar's Pearl, let me suggest that you submit a review of the scenario. While I don't enjoy having my adventure "beat down" by someone who didn't like it, a detailed critique can help others avoid an unpleasant time. I'd particularly appreciate any suggestions you have for presenting the mod, so others can benefit from your experience.
I will do. One thing.
The reason why I ran it was because it was the Pathfinder scenario that I hadn't seen played in my area (and we have enough Pathfinder that you can play 1-3 games a week). I looked at scenarios that weren't offered often and ran it.
To my knowledge, no one else has run it either.
As for the [redacted]:
** spoiler omitted **
The other Season 1 module I didn't care much for was Shipyard Rats, although that was mostly for the one particular encounter that seemed poorly thought out.
|
|
For me, Anything by Tim Hitchcock, without a second writer to clean it up.
Case in point. To Scale the Dragon. Four, yes FOUR pages of special rules before you even get to encounter #1.
I must reluctantly agree. I'm getting ready to run Decline of Glory and was disappointed to See Iadon/Iodon/Iodan's name spelled so inconsistently. I also found the layout of various elements somewhat scattered.
My group weren't big fans of Among the Living. Without spoiling anything, the story felt weak, and the first combat encounter somewhat awkwardly designed.
|
|
I must reluctantly agree. I'm getting ready to run Decline of Glory and was disappointed to See Iadon/Iodon/Iodan's name spelled so inconsistently. I also found the layout of various elements somewhat scattered.
My group weren't big fans of Among the Living. Without spoiling anything, the story felt weak, and the first combat encounter somewhat awkwardly designed.
It's amazing how different these same mods can be for both people to play in and to run.
For me, I loved my experience of Among the Living and I sure as piddlespot love running it. I even wrote a post about one of the encounters.
And I really love Decline of Glory, also in the post.
Again, I just think there are too many factors that go into a module that make it good or bad that you need to either play it several times or run it repeatedly to get a feel for the truly good or bad ones.
-Pain
|
I can understand Among the Living would be awesome if your group was into the B-movie zombie apocalypse feel. Mine just ... wasn't.
That said, awesome depiction of Taldor and Oppara.
I often find a scenario runs better the second time you run it. The first time you run a scenario, it's enough to get your mind across the mechanics of each encounter. The second time, you know how it plays, you have more room to explore other aspects of running the encounters, such as mood, pace, roleplay, etc. This is why I always playtest new-release scenarios with my homegroup before GMing them at public events (though if you're GMing for your homegroup, unfortunately they don't benefit from the luxury of hindsight).
This is how Among the Living was for me anyway. First time I ran it ...
Second time though ...
That's what makes these "dud" or retired modules threads so difficult for me. Most can be turned around with the benefit of hindsight, every player has a different experience, and even a good scenario can fall flat if a GM faces a seven-player table with little prepartion late in the evening on day three of a con.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
Pathfinder Society 4-Star GM
Venture-Captain, Australia
|
|
As for the [redacted]:** spoiler omitted **Those factors may or may not include:
1) Your judge
2) Your fellow players
3) The character make up of your party
4) The APL/power level of your party vs. the Subtier you play
5) Time of day/slot of con: First slot of con is usually the highest energy...the last slot on Sunday has people burnt and ready to go home, etc.
6) Your personal mood and energy
7) Just random chance...we call them dice. They be fickle.-Pain
Agreed. But when I ran Stay of Execution I and several other GMs all felt we needed to 'fill out' the module and to make more effort as a judge to make it fun.
On the other hand there are modules that that are 'golden'. For example, when I played Black Waters the GMing (I fact this GM is a byword in our community for bad GMing) was very poor. Still, I could see the 'bones' of the module and think, 'this is very cool'.
I guess that is my standard is how much does quality 'shine through'.
I can understand Among the Living would be awesome if your group was into the B-movie zombie apocalypse feel. Mine just ... wasn't.
I thought the combat encounters were a little dull and repetitive, but I prefer that to dull and frustrating.
That said, awesome depiction of Taldor and Oppara.
Yeah, the non-combat part of that adventure was fairly entertaining.
|
I enjoyed the Perils of the Pirate's Pact. The Faction mission made the Module. My Paldin got to save the dawrf Alchemist from the rest of my blood thirsty party. He still completed his faction mission RE the Dwarf alchemist. The other faction mission fro Taldore is highly inapporiate for Paladins and should be changed IMO as it involves aiding in an assisination.
The rest of the mod was great fun.
|
|
I enjoyed the Perils of the Pirate's Pact. The Faction mission made the Module. My Paldin got to save the dawrf Alchemist from the rest of my blood thirsty party. He still completed his faction mission RE the Dwarf alchemist. The other faction mission fro Taldore is highly inapporiate for Paladins and should be changed IMO as it involves aiding in an assisination.
The rest of the mod was great fun.
I don't think you're talking about Perils of the Pirate Pact. You do have to save a pirate if you're a certain faction, but Taldor doesn't have an assassination mission in this one. Me thinks you have it mixed up with some other one.
|
I think a large part of the scenarios seen as 'duds' has to do with the judge running the game and the players. A couple of mods described as underwhelming in this thread have been some of my favorites, Perils of the Pirate Pact and Among the Living to name a couple.
That said, some scenarios do require a little more DM intervention to be memorable and fun.
|
|
I've heard a lot of bad things about Perils of the Pirate Pact, but it seems like everything would be solved if a conversion to PFRPG rules would just be done for it. Plus, I gather the scaling for sub-tier 3-4 left a little to be desired. Again, solved if conversion is done.
We just played it in my area, with a group of 3rd & 4th level characters, and the GM had to use the 6-7 sub-tier just to have a little bit of challenge to the party. Even then, most of the damage taken and resources used were because most of us couldn't make a DC 25 skill check.
Against the BBEG, my own character massively broke the module, badly enough that, given how this character is built and has broken other modules in the past, the GM was not having any fun.
|
I think a large part of the scenarios seen as 'duds' has to do with the judge running the game and the players. A couple of mods described as underwhelming in this thread have been some of my favorites, Perils of the Pirate Pact and Among the Living to name a couple.
That said, some scenarios do require a little more DM intervention to be memorable and fun.
+1
I sat at Painlord's table at Bashcon when he ran Perils of the Pirate Pact. The story was great and the encounters were quite challenging.
I liked Painlord's portrayal of the NPC's personality and their tactics quite a bit. I was also playing with a couple of friends, so the shared experience made it more enjoyable too.
As for the [redacted]:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
The other Season 1 module I didn't care much for was Shipyard Rats, although that was mostly for the one particular encounter that seemed poorly thought out.
Didn't like Shipyard Rats at all either. Seemed a chaotic mess...but that could have just been the DM or the players at the table.
I think a large part of the scenarios seen as 'duds' has to do with the judge running the game and the players.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I find the implication -- that there aren't any bad modules, just bad players and GMs -- to be a bit insulting to the fine GMs and players I've gamed with.
|
|
played it in my area, with a group of 3rd & 4th level characters, and the GM had to use the 6-7 sub-tier just to have a little bit of challenge to the party.Please tell me that you still only got the tier 3-4 loot.
Yeah, sure, you betcha. "We still only got the tier 3-4 loot."
Of course, if we had played it, at the same difficulty (sub-tier 6-7) with 3 6th or 7th level PCs and a 4th level PC, the 4th level PC would have gotten the sub-tier 6-7 loot, yes? Or even 2 4th level PCs and 2 7th level PCs, since the APL would have been 5.5...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a large part of the scenarios seen as 'duds' has to do with the judge running the game and the players.I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I find the implication -- that there aren't any bad modules, just bad players and GMs -- to be a bit insulting to the fine GMs and players I've gamed with.
It may seem to be insulting, but in my past GM and player experience with Living campaigns, I actually have to agree with the sentiment.
If you are at a table and you don't know anyone, and everyone else at the table knows each other, you can feel very left out (some of these groups have been extremely inclusive and fun, however).
Additionally, some players tend to whine and complain no matter what happens. If you sit at a table of whiners and complainers, it tends to make the table a dud.
Some GM's don't prepare, and those tables can absolutely suck.
A fine GM, who prepares, but isn't overly creative in his GM style, can get a bad module, and it comes off as a dud. No fault of the GM, as they are a fine GM.
But a truly dynamic GM, can take a terrible scenario, and turn it into an extremely interesting and fun table.
That's really the reality of the situation.
I know that Paizo tries their best to make sure there are no "dud" modules. But having experience as developer and editor for a living campaign, I can tell you that with deadlines (especially if the contracted author of the module gets their manuscript in last minute), you don't have an option to re-contract or do a total rewrite of a module. You just put out the best product you can based on the production schedule and other elements you cannot control. I guarantee that authors who left me in the lurch like this, though, didn't get an invite to write another module for me.
|
|
played it in my area, with a group of 3rd & 4th level characters, and the GM had to use the 6-7 sub-tier just to have a little bit of challenge to the party.Please tell me that you still only got the tier 3-4 loot.Yeah, sure, you betcha. "We still only got the tier 3-4 loot."
Of course, if we had played it, at the same difficulty (sub-tier 6-7) with 3 6th or 7th level PCs and a 4th level PC, the 4th level PC would have gotten the sub-tier 6-7 loot, yes? Or even 2 4th level PCs and 2 7th level PCs, since the APL would have been 5.5...
If you're going to break rules, why stop there?
|
|
It may seem to be insulting, but in my past GM and player experience with Living campaigns, I actually have to agree with the sentiment.If you are at a table and you don't know anyone, and everyone else at the table knows each other, you can feel very left out (some of these groups have been extremely inclusive and fun, however).
Additionally, some players tend to whine and complain no matter what happens. If you sit at a table of whiners and complainers, it tends to make the table a dud.
Some GM's don't prepare, and those tables can absolutely suck.
A fine GM, who prepares, but isn't overly creative in his GM style, can get a bad module, and it comes off as a dud. No fault of the GM, as they are a fine GM.
But a truly dynamic GM, can take a terrible scenario, and turn it into an extremely interesting and fun table.
That's really the reality of the situation.
I know that Paizo tries their best to make sure there are no "dud" modules. But having experience as developer and editor for a living campaign, I can tell you that with deadlines (especially if the contracted author of the module gets their manuscript in last minute), you don't have an option to re-contract or do a total rewrite of a module. You just put out the best product you can based on the production schedule and other elements you cannot control. I guarantee that authors who left me in the lurch like this, though, didn't get an invite to write another module for me.
What he said.
What he said.
It may seem to be insulting, but in my past GM and player experience with Living campaigns, I actually have to agree with the sentiment.
Wait -- so you're both deliberately trying to be insulting? If so, can you please stop posting on this thread?
|
|
Wait -- so you're both deliberately trying to be insulting? If so, can you please stop posting on this thread?What he said.
It may seem to be insulting, but in my past GM and player experience with Living campaigns, I actually have to agree with the sentiment.
No, you are deliberately being overly sensitive to something that is not insulting, but reality.
Besides, I don't get it. If none of the above applies to the people you've played with, the GM's who've run your tables, or the people you've run tables for... how are we insulting them when there are people who fit those descriptions?
While it's true that a truly gifted GM can work with any inspiration to run a great game for players, even the trite joke off the side of a Dixie Cup, it is perhaps demeaning to suggest that if someone finds a problem with an adventure, the problem is their absence of genius acumen.
That's setting a standard that makes daring to find a criticism in these written works a revelation of skill frailty, and creates an obstruction to a conversation about each adventure's relative value to GMs.
Either some adventures are better and worse than others for each individual GM or all are equal, right? Thumbs up and down is in the wrist of the beholder.
For instance, I have a fleet of different guitars, and one of them is just kindling posing as an instrument. Someone gave it to me. But I know some great guitar players, and where a player of my skill level reveals the inherent hard-to-work-with-ness of the thing and its terribly flawed tone, they can somehow make it sound passable by employing extraordinary technique. So when I say "This guitar sucks" and they play it decently, no one, as of yet, has said, "The guitar's fine... you suck." ;)
Personally, I haven't read a dud adventure yet in Pathfinder. But that's just like... my opinion, man.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
Guys: Do we really disagree here?
Some scenarios are more ambitious or complex than others, and others are just confusing. Sometimes important information is omitted or a scene doesn't play out as expected. New rules or unforeseen options can dramatically alter encounters, short-circuiting the plot or "nerfing" encounters.
Under ideal conditions, gamemasters rise to this challenge, interpreting (and occasionally modifying) the adventure to ensure the players enjoy themselves. Unfortunately, circumstances aren't always ideal. The gamemaster may not have time to prepare or may just run out of steam after a few game sessions. He may be enthusiastic, but not understand the rules as well as he'd like. The players or the dice may surprise him, producing odd and unexpected outcomes.
None of these things are unusual, nor is it an insult to notice them. All we can do is give our all and hope for the best.
Well said, Sir Wulf.
|
|
Stay of Execution is a good example of a scenario that can be fun for an experienced GM and difficult for a new GM.
I liked the idea, but expanded on the story and the backgrounds of the prisoners. It turned into a series of fun roleplay encounters sprinkled with a few difficult combats. There was a fun twist at the end that freaked them out. All in all, none of the bad guys stats were changed, all of the faction missions were fine, and the overall goal was completed, but the fluff was expanded and even altered on the fly to involve specific characters at the table.
Some scenario's are spicy and some are not as spicy. As a GM, I make sure I put enough effort into the prep to keep it spicy and fun. We all have our favorites that we played in and the common theme is an awesome GM and excellent players.
I really enjoyed running the Jester's Fraud. But before I ran it, I got to play it with Sir_Wulf (the author) GMing and we played "The Director's Cut" which took a couple hours longer but was by far one of my very favorite gaming experiences to date. Hats off to you Mr. Wolf! Well Done!
|
|
Stay of Execution is a good example of a scenario that can be fun for an experienced GM and difficult for a new GM.
I agree with Dave. I hated Stay of Execution as written, but after I relaxed I had some fun with it. I let the players tell me how they were going to get in and get out. Many tables never even used the book. What I didn't enjoy was the first few times I ran it and nothing made sense because I was trying to RAW it. Only after derailing the train into the sandbox did the scenario begin to blossom.
The bottom line of this thread is "You can't please everyone". One man's trash is another man's treasure.
|
|
I think some of you are missing the point. Some scenarios suck and some scenarios are awesome.
It's completely besides the point whether an awesome GM can make a bad scenario good or whether a bad GM made an average scenario bad. The good GM still had to put in a lot of work to fix the bad scenario and everything the bad GM touches is crap anyway, so that's besides the point.
This thread is meant to get everyone's opinions on which ones aren't very good for the majority of GMs.
My input is that I haven't really had any scenarios that were "terrible". Some were dull, too simple, or not executed how I would have done it, but nothing "terrible". But maybe that's because I read reviews before buying scenarios.
If you really want to get people's opinions on scenarios, all you have to do is browse through their ratings and read people's reviews... do the work basically. That's what I would recommend.
|
|
I would wager that many scenarios are run less well by judges because they feel too constrained about making changes.
I will admit that I run better modules when I'm enthusiastic about them and feel empowered to make changes to make it more fun for the party.
I am unapologetic about this. I want my players to have fun and enjoy every scenario that I run. And sometimes, that means making adjustments to the scenario, including, but not limited to: the story, the maps, the difficulty of the encounters, and the motivations of the NPCs.
If you're asked to judge a scenario that you feel is a 'dud', talk to the local coordinator about adjusting it for play.
As I said above, there are a lot of factors that go into making a good table; as a player, you can control very few. As a judge, you control a lot more. I hope that some false need to "run it as is" doesn't make someone run a scenario badly.
-Pain
|
|
I would wager that many scenarios are run less well by judges because they feel too constrained about making changes.
I will admit that I run better modules when I'm enthusiastic about them and feel empowered to make changes to make it more fun for the party.
I am unapologetic about this. I want my players to have fun and enjoy every scenario that I run. And sometimes, that means making adjustments to the scenario, including, but not limited to: the story, the maps, the difficulty of the encounters, and the motivations of the NPCs.
If you're asked to judge a scenario that you feel is a 'dud', talk to the local coordinator about adjusting it for play.
As I said above, there are a lot of factors that go into making a good table; as a player, you can control very few. As a judge, you control a lot more. I hope that some false need to "run it as is" doesn't make someone run a scenario badly.
-Pain
Painlord has the right of it.
Along those lines if you are modifying a scenario in anyway to improve the experience for your players do not tell them. Let them enjoy the mod and leave the magic behind the scenes. Asking players, 'Do you mind if I beef up the encounters to make things challenging' kind of puts the players on the spot.