|
And it's my fault.
I admire Chris for taking responsibility for what happened. It is not easy to acknowledge a mistake, but Chris wasn't afraid to own up to it. Yes, Chris made an error and as a result that player is not going to come back to the table any time soon. I've made lots of errors myself, so Chris isn't alone. It seems after every convention I am writing people apologies. So in the spirit of the Jade Regent and the Lantern Lodge, I demand to act as kaishakunin as Chris commits seppuku here.
The reason he's in a position to make such a mistake is because he volunteers to be a GM. If you do it enough you are going to make mistakes. Many Society members don't ever volunteer, especially for conventions where they are needed the most.
In the old argument between "Follow the tactics as written" and "Freelance, cause the GM knows best" it's good to remember that if players aren't returning to the table because of the way encounters are written, then there's not much of a point to playing the game.
|
And it's my fault.The reason he's in a position to make such a mistake is because he volunteers to be a GM. If you do it enough you are going to make mistakes. Many Society members don't ever volunteer, especially for conventions where they are needed the most.
Exactly.
Not only did Chris volunteer for the con in the first place, but he was constantly available to take extra sessions and help out in any way needed.Chris, you may have come up with a better way to handle things in hindsight, but your "error" was compounded with a challenging encounter, an inexperienced player, and end-of-an-overly-busy-con weariness.
|
|
As an aside, which probably doesn't affect the discussion, the player was new to Pathfinder, but had long experience with D&D 3.5. He was a great player, role-playing a Chelaxian wizard like he was born to the role.
Any kind of gaming experience shows you that as the squishy you don't run up and attack as though you are a front line fighter -- so just being new to pathfinder doesn't excuse the players actions as not knowing what to do.
The tactics of the NPC were played accurately per the stat block in the mod.
Could it have been softballed? Sure, but there are a lot of variables to take into consideration but we weren't at the table and don't have exact conversations and in hindsight we can all say that things should have been done differently.
I second Neil's defense of Chris, it was a long weekend for all the judges and Chris did step up when he was needed. It's commendable that Chris is stepping up and apologizing and taking full blame for what happened, but the blame doesn't solely rest on him in my opinion as he wasn't responsible for the way the player decided to play the character.
|
that first attack from invisible is almost automatically going to be against one of the more fragile characters, not against a front-liner.That is a GM problem.How is that a GM problem? I'm not even a killer GM, but I'm going play an intelligent opponent... as an intelligent opponent. In my home game, if I played an intelligent NPC stupidly, they'd just laugh and think it was lame, and I'd have to agree.
It's a GM problem at a con, because you potentially have first time players who are trying the game to see if they like it. You kill someone's character in their first adventure - even if it's a pregen - and it's possibly their last adventure. That same mod that's been tossed around did exactly that to the guy playing his first (and likely last) PFS game. If the GM had instead attacked my 4th level witch (we had NO tank - only five spellchuckers, me being the highest) and done the same damage, I would have been on 1 hp at Tier 1-2. The pregen wizard would have got to do something before anyone died and the player wouldn't have left feeling frustrated and angry.
It's different in your regular group, where everyone knows everyone. You can play intelligent opponents, but you can also make sure the new player has a good time|
|
No it's the player's fault. One cardinal rule of playing a 1st level wizard. You don't set yourself up as the first thing the melee target can get to. The player was so anxious to get an attack in the first round, he forgot basic caution and tactics. Pathfinder had nothing to do with it. I know the encounter in question and encounters just as challenging were the meat and potatoes of Living Greyhawk. I do tend to softball damage a bit for first comer newbies, but in that case he still would have gotten enough damage to give him the hint the first time around. Soft-balling isn't a requirement though. It's a discretionary choice.I ran this at Origins, with a low-level all-caster party (two 2nd-level bards, a brand-new 1st-level wizard played by someone new to Pathfinder, a 3rd-level druid, and a 4th-level witch);the animal companion and summoned creatures were the party's hand-to-hand fighters.
Like clockwork, the wizard and one of the bards lined up right in front of Dalsine to cast close-range spells at the image. He stepped up, killed the wizard (the 23-point shocking grasp itself would have killed him) and dropped the bard.
The wizard's player was disgusted that I would attack the character like that, using an attack that was virtually guaranteed to hit, and virtually guaranteed to kill such a character. This was his first and last encounter with the Pathfinder game system. He left the table immediately, before the rest of the party could talk about pooling funds and selling equipment in order to buy a raise dead for him.
He was right.
I should have soft-balled that encounter. Dalsine might have toyed with them, or perhaps he shouldn't have been invisible. Maybe he should have just attacked with a rapier, instead of using his Magus abilities.
We lost a player, and all his friends who he'll steer away from Pathfinder. And it's my fault.
OK, I wasn't going to name Chris, but since he stepped up...
The 4th level Witch was me. None of us approached the stairs, we were more or less lined up (in close to perfect lightning bolt formation). It just happened the guy with the pregen was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like I already posted, if the BBEG had gone after me, I'd have still been up, everyone would have got a turn, and things might have been different. That said, Chris had warned us before we started that the PC death toll for that mod was high, and we should not consider playing up. He didn't doing anything wrong, imo.Could it have been handled better - yes, but that doesn't make Chris wrong.
In hindsight, should one of the other players at the table taken a pregen tank instead of their "real" PC - yes.
Will that player come back to PFS - probably not. Although, at least one of his friends was playing at another table and seemed to be having a good time. Perhaps when the anger cools, the player will give it another shot.
I don't blame Chris for what happened. This sits squarely with the person or persons who put that Magus in there with those tactics at low tier. And with whoever made the pregens without a decent CON. There seems to be consensus that PCs should have 14 CON or better. Surely that should be applied to pregens, whose primary raison d'etre is for first time players to get a feel for the game. Poor character build, poor party composition (the curse of the last session of a con), and an encounter designed to show off the class, all combined to make this happen.
|
|
As an aside, which probably doesn't affect the discussion, the player was new to Pathfinder, but had long experience with D&D 3.5. He was a great player, role-playing a Chelaxian wizard like he was born to the role.Any kind of gaming experience shows you that as the squishy you don't run up and attack as though you are a front line fighter -- so just being new to pathfinder doesn't excuse the players actions as not knowing what to do.
The tactics of the NPC were played accurately per the stat block in the mod.
Could it have been softballed? Sure, but there are a lot of variables to take into consideration but we weren't at the table and don't have exact conversations and in hindsight we can all say that things should have been done differently.
I second Neil's defense of Chris, it was a long weekend for all the judges and Chris did step up when he was needed. It's commendable that Chris is stepping up and apologizing and taking full blame for what happened, but the blame doesn't solely rest on him in my opinion as he wasn't responsible for the way the player decided to play the character.
Thea,
Please, take a look at that particular encounter and take a moment to realize:
Playing your non-melee character perfectly is the most likely way to get finalized in that encounter.
The game I was playing, we had 4 PCs. One at 2nd level, 3 at 4th. That put us solidly into playing the module at 3-4. My character, who was the second level PC, wasd NOT a front liner, and I was not playing him like a front liner.
So, my character is well within a single move, if not a 5' step, of where the module has the invisible opponent hanging out. Bang, boom.
As a matter of fact, my PC only survived because the GM missed one of the Magus' tactics, which meant he didn't Empower the spell against my chainmail wearing 2nd level Gunslinger, so he was only at -7, instead of well into instantly dead. That, and missing the critical confirmation roll, which took a 1 on the die.
|
No, it's not your fault. You were doing what you are supposed to do -- run intelligent foes intelligently.
The element of danger is a necessary function of the game system, because if there's no threat of loss, there's no elation from success. Any player who's going to take his dice and go home due to the death of a 1st-level PC just may not be cut out for the hobby.
This is one circumstance -- admittedly rare, but still present -- where the player doesn't appear to fit the game.
I hear this argument a lot. I used to agree with it, but as I get to know a lot of other players, I begin to understand all the different motivators for why people game. I'll say this, character death is a demotivator for a lot of players. The hardcore players poo-poo these players insisting they're "playing wrong", but in reality, it's just as valid a way to want to play the game. Death does happen, but when a player dies by no real fault of their own except for playing, it's not fun for a lot of those players.
Some like it gritty and hardcore, some want it goal-oriented, some want to just experience a story. All are legitimate methods of playing. Turning a player away because he/she doesn't agree with your particular preference for how the game is played is going to shrink the player base mighty quickly though.
Thing is, in Pathfinder Society in particular, a large array of gamers is represented. Some of those gamers do not feel the way you do, I know several of them. To them experiencing the story is more important
I had to sleep on this, since my initial reaction was a harsh one, and was perhaps unwarranted.
I don't think I was telling anyone they were playing wrong, because I honestly don't believe that's a judgment I can make about anyone else.
I said I didn't think it was Chris' fault, and I stand by that.
I said a threat of loss is a necessary part of the game. I stand by that too.
I also was critical of that single player's reaction -- one I view as petulant -- to the encounter, and said the RPG hobby isn't for everyone. I stand by that as well.
I did not, however, give any indication that I was a "hardcore" player (I'm not) who expects every player at my table to be optimized (my PCs certainly aren't) and had no interest in the story.
I don't blame Chris for what happened. This sits squarely with the person or persons who put that Magus in there with those tactics at low tier.
+1. If a PFS module says "rocks fall, everyone dies (unless you have an anti-rock talisman)" and the GM follows that, then that's clearly the module's fault.
|
That said, Chris had warned us before we started that the PC death toll for that mod was high, and we should not consider playing up. He didn't doing anything wrong, imo.
Guess I missed the part where the table was playing up. Granted, the magus can still one-shot at the low sub-tier, but this is just another example of players having an issue with the power-creep of the BBEG when they VOLUNTEER to have a tougher one thrown at them.
The players hold some responsibility in this as well. If they knew there was a new player at the table, they should not have pushed the table up a sub tier. They can also help the GM give a new player a good experience by not stealing the thunder. I (and a few others I've observed) tend to step back and let the n00b shine at that kind of table. Maybe not use that monster-killer ability, or delay it a round or two, so the n00b can do something. Too often, I see a n00b sit in the background because the experience players steal all the glory.
Perhaps these actions would not have changed the end result, but maybe he would have had enough fun that the single occurrence would not have left a bad taste. I just don't like the GM taking the full brunt of the responsibility that was a cooperative effort between the author, players, and GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sorry, Bob. To make things clearer: Wes originally wanted to play a 6th-level character, which would have pushed the party into the mid-tier. I strongly recommended against that, and Wes built a 4th-level Witch more-or-less from scratch as the table was assembling. (Ah, blessed GM credit.)
So, they were playing at Subtier 1-2.
If a PFS module says "rocks fall, everyone dies (unless you have an anti-rock talisman)" and the GM follows that, then that's clearly the module's fault.
The player in question understood that the scenario spelled out Dalsine's hidden position, powers, and tactics; he still felt that it was my decision to follow through Module-as-Written and kill his character, and he laid the blame at my feet.
Again, I think he's right. There was bad luck involved. (The wizard failed his Perception check to notice the invisible character. And 29 points is high damage for 5d6+1; below average damage wouldn't have killed the wizard outright.) But the attack was still very likely to result in a fatality, and the buck stops at the table GM. "I was only following orders" shouldn't be the reason a GM wrecks a player's first exposure to PFS.
"I was only following orders" shouldn't be the reason a GM wrecks a player's first exposure to PFS.
I agree, but the bad order is more to blame than the bad-order-follower, IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I can throw out an example here in what's become a Following Tactics As Written vs. GM Discretion, to at least make a point removed from PFS play... (This is a bit long; go to the end to see the point of it all)
I'm a big fan of following encounter tactics as written, if only because they often factor in to the intended difficulty of the encounter. There was a module I ran in Living Greyhawk during the 3.0 days in which an encounter began with the enemies, as part of an ambush in a small enclosed space, throwing Dust of Sneezing and Choking at the PCs. Now, as written in the rules and for lack of appropriate errata at the time this meant the PCs were stunned for a significant amount of rounds without any save or recourse (I don't recall the exact amount in 3.0, but it was several d4s). And then attacked by were-rat rogues. I actually had to get up and double check that this was in fact the intent of this encounter with the coordinator to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the module.
It was almost a guaranteed PC-killer if they failed their Spot/Listen checks to notice the oncoming attack or weren't very spread out. It was possible to play this encounter with characters as low as level 3, and I was running it for a group ranging from 3-5.
I am not going to lie: I felt this was a poorly written encounter whose only intent was to kill PCs. Had we been talking higher level characters, who often have so many tricks up their sleeves a truly challenging encounter needs to be this special brand of ruthless, I wouldn't have felt that bad about it. In my gut, I wanted to nix the Dust entirely, but that's a serious modification I didn't feel I had to authority to make.
So I built in a reflex save to at least see a burst of bag of something being thrown at the party and trying to get out of dodge. Why? Because it gave them a chance where honestly, none existed, without seriously changing the tactics. People were still upset with the encounter, and rightly so: one still died, and the others came dangerously close (one was saved only by his high, armor based AC as he sat at the were-rats' mercy for a good 8 rounds).
Part of GMing is knowing when to walk that line of RAW/discretion with consideration for what is 'fun' for the players. While I've avoided the details/spoilers in this thread, my guess is Chris tried his best to walk it. I made a judgment call here. In hindsight, maybe it wasn't the right one. I would lay it to rest on the module, but I also know that organized play brings out people with absolutely wicked concepts that steamroll lower tier encounters. I imagine the intent of the writer was to challenge characters; it sounds like they swung too far in one direction for the Dalsine Affair. I knew this to be the case in Greyhawk, especially in my region (Bandit Kingdoms), and could see where attempts to create a challenging module had gone too far in the above described module (the other encounters were similarly horrible).
I know GMs who laid the blame at the feet of unprepared players in what was already known to be a challenging region to play in. I know players who blamed GMs, the writer/campaign coordinators, or all of the above. Suffice to say, I know the general feedback given on this module was not positive and I don't recall seeing tactics quite that horrific ever again. Players, GMs, and writers/triad learned from the experience things that could be done differently; part of this came from giving feedback
The Point: Trying to assign blame to one party in what is a cooperative exercise between player, game master, and writers/developers doesn't really go anywhere. Even in a situation where one of these parties may have made a clear mistake, there is usually a logic to their error that stems from experiences with one of the other parties involved. I see this thread doing a lot of finger pointing and not really going very far. So instead, a better question might be:
What can all of the involved parties learn from this, how can they work to make things better/different/more fun the next time, and how can this process/change be used to improve the Pathfinder Society experience.
Some people have pointed out things that could be changed ('tougher' pregens, not making tactics quite so harsh at tier 1-2, how they might do things different tactically from now on, how to respond differently as a GM). Those are the things I find helpful in a discussion like this; not trying to lay blame at someone's feet or even shouldering responsibility for the whole thing.
|
|
I know we have covered this extensively before, but I think that this is one of those occasions where GM caveat can really make a positive impact on the player's enjoyment.
We all seem to agree that it is not a case of "fault" for the GM (in this case Chris) to follow the tactics as written. Some would say, if he deviated, it does not hold with consistency and OP rules. However, if he free-lanced the encounter, the new player may not have had a bad experience. With all the variations on party mix and character builds, it just seems to be more apparent that the GM needs to have a little bit of discretion to ensure the game remains a challenge without killing PC's without them having any chance to avoid it.
Of course, we all know the official position is run as written
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sits squarely with the person or persons who put that Magus in there with those tactics at low tier. And with whoever made the pregens without a decent CON. There seems to be consensus that PCs should have 14 CON or better. Surely that should be applied to pregens, whose primary raison d'etre is for first time players to get a feel for the game. Poor character build, poor party composition (the curse of the last session of a con), and an encounter designed to show off the class, all combined to make this happen.
The author is pretty much the last person you should be blaming.
Blame the Magus and the people responsible for its creation.
No it's the player's fault. One cardinal rule of playing a 1st level wizard. You don't set yourself up as the first thing the melee target can get to. The player was so anxious to get an attack in the first round, he forgot basic caution and tactics. Pathfinder had nothing to do with it. I know the encounter in question and encounters just as challenging were the meat and potatoes of Living Greyhawk. I do tend to softball damage a bit for first comer newbies, but in that case he still would have gotten enough damage to give him the hint the first time around. Soft-balling isn't a requirement though. It's a discretionary choice.It was not the player's fault because as you may not know or are forgetting, mages can stand back and still be the primary target in that particular encounter because the caster is invisible and on the ground floor. A mage may think that they're in the most protected position on the map, in a corner on the main floor away from allies and potential area of effect spells, and never realize that they are about to become very dead. Or maybe they moved in to let off a close range spell like color spray, which when it hits is virtually guaranteed to end the fight in favor of the caster. There are lots of nuances and details that could have made their mage's actions the absolute best option under normal circumstances.
I'm with Chris on this one. The Dalsine affair is a very fun module, but the tactics as written are for experienced players only - forcing a brand new player up against that kind of encounter is not going to endear them to the system.
I always go easy on new players, but I also tell them how I tend to run my games, and when running a squishy character I tell them to stay where it is safe if possible. I have never ran a PFS game, so I don't know how well that would go over with a bunch of people I may not know if I ease up on one guy because he is new. I also have never ran such a party with characters that far apart in levels either.
PS:I am mostly writing as I am thinking and realizing the hardships of GM'ing a scenario because you are more limited that you are in a home game since I can't just bump everyone to level 4.
I also think new people should be told(warned of possible difficulty)* what they are up against(no spoilers), if they are playing at the edge of their tiers.
*Not as a rule, but a GM courtesy issue kind of like the warning labels that say don't drink Clorox.
|
|
One shoot kills are bad for a character - but sometimes a close shave can remind them that a game has dangers.
I nearly one- shooted a new gamer with a crit in his second game. Alchemist with a bomb, I roll a 20 and confirm, to make it worse - I rolled damage together in the open - coming up with 6,6.
Quick question to the player - what's your con. I had to roll 6 or less with my second 2d6 roll and never felt that awkward. Luckily it came up as 5 and I admit I rolled these not in the open.
Last game I had a tier 3-4 - critical times 3 - 3d6 + 8. This was the big end fight. I did roll 6,6,5. I quickly added it up and let it sink in that I just did 72 damage in a single hit. The summoned earth elemental crumbled to dust and the group suddenly had a lot more respect.
I admit I fudged here slightly by not re-rolling the extra 6d6 - something I tend always to do. It wouldn't have mattered and that way it was just more spectacular.
I didn't manage any damage after that hit - but the players will remember that it luckily hit the summoned creature and none of them. Actually one player stayed on the floor for the rest of the fight playing dead after that hit. He didn't dare to chance it and stand up.
unfortunately as GM dice sometimes don't fall the way to have an epic escape but rather someone dies instead. But I think it is rather rare.
|
|
Thod, I don't think anyone is referencing the die rolls as the issue. We all seem to understand that an unforeseen crit could occur. Heck, a skeleton with a composite longbow at level one could do 3d8+6 damage and would easily kill most 1st and some 2nd level PC's.
The issue is that the magus, as built, using the listed tactics, will slay any 1st level PC with its surprise attack, most 2nd levels, and some 3rds. And that's just with an average hit. Add a crit and the PC has no chance. With his invisibility bonus and a point of arcane pool, he will hit at least 80% of the time (fuzzy math) and will do 6d6+2 vs. a level 1-2 PC.
And after that, he boasts an AC of 23. That's rough for a 1st level group.
The magus' stat block is not the issue, but the tactics are. The scenario is cool, IMO, but the GM needs to be weary of her audience and consider adjusting the tactics if necessary.
|
|
I think this scenario should have been saved for Season 3 when they go back to the original Tier break-down of 3-7 (3-4 or 6-7) instead of 1-7. 1st level PCs have no hope of winning unless they get very lucky.
Something I haven't seen, but does Season 3 spell the end of the 1-7. I wouldn't be sad to see that permanantly become a 3-7 as originally intended. Don't think I've seen anything official on this yet.
*People who know me will know why*
I didn't see anyone say "Play, Play, Play"...
;-)
|
I got taken to negs by this BBEG in the surprise round and spent the rest of the fight coagulating wildly.
I think that story about the first level cleric ripping up the session sheet is hilarious. I would laugh heartily at that kind of a tantrum, especially for a 1st level character. Do we really want that kind of a player? :/
In my experience, this fight wasn't horribly overpowered. A GM has the complete say on Chalfon's abilities and when he wishes to use them. Intelligent use doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to burn all his abilities in one fight unless he's losing. The evil NPC still needs to escape the arm of the law after he's done dealing with the Pathfinders. Would he really "go nova" if the PCs aren't effectively dealing with him in early rounds?
|
|
Technically, the GM is expected to run the tactics as listed in the mod. And yes, Chalfon is scripted to go "nova."
However, I am not in favor of a "no win" encounter for PC's in organized play. It fosters bad feelings and could lead to players quitting.
I have never shied away from admitting that I make minor adjustments to monster tactics when they either (1) don't make sense based on the actions of the players, or (2) they will result in a PC death (or even a TPK) without the players being able to do a damn thing about it.
IMO, the "Kobayashi Maru" is poor adventure design. YMMV.
|
|
I agree with a lot of points that Bob has made on the thread. I think difficulty in PFS is a very complex issue, doubly so when you are at a con with completely foreign players. Adjusting encounters is something that GMs must do frequently. I think the heart of the issue is to try and have fun with your table, adjusting within the rules framework of PFS. I run games very differently for a 1st level party like my home group (complete with detailed twink knowledge from the latest books and varied tactical contingencies) than I do for a group of bright eyed bushy tailed newcomers who just came to have fun. That being said, I think the increase in optimization since season 2 is desirable. Scenarios should not be cakewalks, and I absolutely agree with others that risk of death is what makes the reward an accomplishment. If there was no risk of anything, we might as well hand out chronicle sheets and say goodbye to our players.
I am honestly a proponent of softballimg for players who are completely new to the game for the sake of encouraging them to stick with the game. However, I am also a firm supporter of a little tough love, and of teaching tactics by example, so that by the time players hit 5th, they shouldn't need the kid gloves anymore. All too often I see players at very high levels still using tactics that are only appropriate for lower tiers. Players should expect a challenge and expect to meet it admirably at higher tiers. (I have in fact died to Kyle Baird's favorite oracle. Proudly, and heroically I might add).
That being said, Dalsine Affair is unusually tough. When I played it right before Gencon, (tier 3-4) the GM made a fudge in order to not one-shot the TANK. Granted there was an empowered shocking grasp crit in there. I probably would have also fudged. But I don't think it is time to wholesale condemn the class or the writer or the GM or the player. I actually think the mod has a wonderful storyline, with an amazing first encounter. I just think it's a case where GMs need to make those judgement calls
|
|
I do not lay the blame at Chris's feet either.
--- Good Stuff ---
I agree with almost everything you've said, except that I want the BBEG to have a chance to win the day on more occations that the GM rolling 20 after 20 after 20. It needs to be close to even; especially for high level adventures.
I think what causes the problem sometimes is that they design 1 BBEG against 4-7 heroes. Maybe a slightly down powered (from the Dalsine BBEG) with a lieutenant and others to help him.|
|
But appeasing the powergamer crowd? It is a fruitless venture. How about we concern ourselves with bringing in and retaining the new and younger players instead? And one shot kills are not the way to do that.
Amen.
With my home group, I'm still going to play this mod, but I have a lot more control than what you get in a con. With that control, I'm ensuring they're at subtier 6-7 (which hopefully makes it more survivable), at level 7, 6 players, and even then I'll have to check their HPs with statistics to make sure it's fair.
I'd say scenarios like this are a little bit of everyone's responsibility:
1) The team that made the broken class / archetype etc. (I'm not saying Magus is broken btw, but it can go nova better than most classes though)
2) The scenario author who added that NPC into his scenario, could have at least reduced his level if he's going to use great tactics.
3) The GM for running the scenario straight, when he KNOWS (statistically) that this sequence of events is guaranteed to kill at least one PC.
I also have to shake my head when scenario writers make "underpowered" classes like sorcs and clerics, and then give them super bad spells and/or tactics. When you roll through a final encounter in 1 round and/or take 2 hp of damage, this is also unsatisfying as well. We should (collectively) try to find a happy medium.
|
|
The issue here is not the mod, it's the enemy in the mod, specifically the magus.
I-told-ya-so.
The general clamor in this thread is not the fault of the DM that ran it, the player of the one-shotted character, or the mod author. The blame rests solely on Paizo and the designers of the magus. A full attack + a free attack + plus a free quickened spell all using the weapon's crit range is a recipe for disaster.
Alex wrote us a great mod - possibly one of the best mods in PFS thus far. Quit shooting the messenger.
The issue here is not the mod, it's the enemy in the mod, specifically the magus.
If you're saying that a 4th level wizard (or other spellcaster) with 6 (!) rounds of preparation couldn't make a deadly encounter for a party of 1st level characters, I'm going to have to call "shenanigans" on that claim.
|
|
I will also reference the author's post here that he specifically referenced his target audience as being powergamers. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that is not how writing should be approached.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for modules to be designed for powergamers. PFS has had specials and battle interactives which were aimed at the hardcore gamers. However, the module blurb should make this Crystal Clear to the reader. If someone orders it for a game day without reading the blurb, it's on him if the players have a bad time.
There are enough cupcake modules out there which couldn't kill anyone if the party went through them naked that the other point of view deserves an occassional module.
|
I will also reference the author's post here that he specifically referenced his target audience as being powergamers. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that is not how writing should be approached.I think it's perfectly reasonable for modules to be designed for powergamers. PFS has had specials and battle interactives which were aimed at the hardcore gamers. However, the module blurb should make this Crystal Clear to the reader. If someone orders it for a game day without reading the blurb, it's on him if the players have a bad time.
There are enough cupcake modules out there which couldn't kill anyone if the party went through them naked that the other point of view deserves an occassional module.
The problem is this: if a power gamers plays a non optimized mod, they have an easy run through but can keep playing. If a player who doesn't optimize (be it for roleplay, subpar class choice, or not having the latest books) plays an optimized module, their character dies and cannot continue the campaign. Thus, its better to err on the side of non optimization. Additionally, powergamers are a smaller portion of the playerbase than casual gamers. My solution? If you powergame, play up for no extra reward.
|
|
I think it's perfectly reasonable for modules to be designed for powergamers. PFS has had specials and battle interactives which were aimed at the hardcore gamers. However, the module blurb should make this Crystal Clear to the reader. If someone orders it for a game day without reading the blurb, it's on him if the players have a bad time.
There are enough cupcake modules out there which couldn't kill anyone if the party went through them naked that the other point of view deserves an occassional module.
Actually, I disagree. Modules should not be cakewalks, nor should they be designed to only be survivable only by fully optimized characters. They should be designed for the average player/PC. Hardcore players with optimized PCs will, naturally, have an easier time. New and/or more casual players will, naturally, have a harder time. You can't please all of the people all of the time, so shoot for the median values (power-wise).
This has benefits for both the high and low end of the PC power spectrum, as everyone will know what to expect, challenge-wise, out of the modules.
I'm not advocating that every encounter in a module be exactly the same challenge, but rather that the "spectrum" of encounter difficulties be narrow and consistent between modules.
|
|
The problem is this: if a power gamers plays a non optimized mod, they have an easy run through but can keep playing. If a player who doesn't optimize (be it for roleplay, subpar class choice, or not having the latest books) plays an optimized module, their character dies and cannot continue the campaign. Thus, its better to err on the side of non optimization. Additionally, powergamers are a smaller portion of the playerbase than casual gamers. My solution? If you powergame, play up for no extra reward.
However, your most active players will be the powergamers. They're going to play every module including the intros and be demanding more games to play. The "casual" player can choose to skip optimized modules because they aren't going to run out of legal games, they're not that active.
|
|
This has benefits for both the high and low end of the PC power spectrum, as everyone will know what to expect, challenge-wise, out of the modules.
I'm not advocating that every encounter in a module be exactly the same challenge, but rather that the "spectrum" of encounter difficulties be narrow and consistent between modules.
PFS has a problem with consistency of challenge and there is no way to correct it. The year 0 modules presented a reasonable challenge to D&D 3.5 characters. The year 0 modules are cakewalks for Pathfinder characters. Paizo has announced that the remaining year 0 modules will be converted, which will address the issue for new players.
However, the power creep in UM, UC and to a lesser extent APG is making the year 1 and many year 2 modules too weak for current characters. I have no expectation of changes to those modules and Paizo has shown a tendency to allow anything in the PFS campaign.
So the difficulty of the module will depend on when you play it. Most modules will be easier the later you play them, although the rewrites will impact that effect. I also think the wide variety of character choices in PF, make it easier to have an unbalanced table. Including archetypes, there are probably 3x as many different level 1 characters to bring to the table (relative to 3.5).
|
|
The problem is that, especially with certain events, writers, editors and GMs need to remember that, except against specialty builds, most monsters, especially the BBEG, are going to be hitting the PCs more often than not.
Unless your PC spends most of their money on their AC, AC does not keep up with the "appropriate" CR monsters' to hits.
My 9th level PC, with a reasonable 25 AC, wound up playing DOWN, at sub-tier 5-6 in a module. The BBEG could only miss my AC on a 1-4. On the other side of the coin, however, was the miniscule damage output of that same BBEG, 1d4.
The problem is that some of the situations being setup are looking at the BBEG as though he could possibly miss, which he seldom can except against full tank builds, and then setting up his DPR for knocking someone out of the fight on the rare hit.
To hit needs to be reasonable.
Damage needs to be reasonable.
Hit points need to be reasonable.
Defense needs to be reasonable.
The situation needs to be crystal clear.
To hit should be a 50% chance against a normal AC for the level/sub-tier. To be honest, using an old LG rule of thumb seems not totally unreasonable, AC should be about equal to sub-tier + 20. This should be a bit lower at lower level, as AC won't get to that level until the PCs have had a chance to accumulate some money.
Damage should be possible, on either a crit or a high damage roll, to take out a PC, but normal damage should be about 33% of the "average" hit points of a PC of that level. Assume d8, Con 12, and you probably will be fairly close.
Hit points of the monster need to be high enough that they are not a glass cannon, dropping in a single average damage roll or one round of combat, but they should not be so high that the combat becomes a grind or slog.
Defense should not be an obscene AC, WITH an additional penalty on the PCs' to hit rolls. Had one in a scenario we played today, sub-tier 3-4, AC 23, and a situation here the PCs are forced to squeeze, taking an additional -4 to hit. The AC on its own would be "Meh.", difficult but not insuperable, but add in that situational, FORCED, modifier, and it becomes a bad experience. Especially since the bad guy did NOT suffer the same penalty. :(
The entire situation needs to be crystal clear, and clearly spelled out to the PCs. Having the final encounter in a room crowded, literally overflowing, with enemies, and not making it clear, in some fashion, that not only will the audience of enemies stay out of it, but so will the so-called guards. If they are guards, it is normally considered that they will be involved in, I don't know, GUARDing their employer, not just standing there in the middle of the combat zone looking pretty.
[spoiler]And I will not, absolutely NOT, make any comment about the person that the party needs to kill, in this same module, having DR10/Adamantine at sub-tier 3-4. Okay, I'll make one comment. Absurd.
Really, this is adding up, with other issues, as things that may make me take a break, possibly permanent, from PFSOP.
|
|
PFS has had specials and battle interactives which were aimed at the hardcore gamers.
I completely disagree, Bloood Under Absalom was not designed for power gamers. lol. I played Blood this year and one of my complaints was that it was so dam easy, even for an unoptimized group. Blood was the ultimate softball imo. Aimed at hardcore gamers... PLEASE. Did anyone fail it or TPK? I highly doubt it.
I'm pretty sure they softballed it on purpose, although it would have been infinitely more interesting if some tables got kicked out in the middle.
However, your most active players will be the powergamers. They're going to play every module including the intros and be demanding more games to play. The "casual" player can choose to skip optimized modules because they aren't going to run out of legal games, they're not that active.
If HC gamers aren't challenged or want to play in something much more deadly, they can play up whenever they can, like I did for 6 slots during Gen Con. And HC players will pretty much know which scenarios they can do this for.
Casual gamers won't know the deadly scenarios. And most GMs will also not know when a scenario is deadly or how it should be handled. So a casual gamer will just walk into a (deadly) tier appropriate scenario and get clobbered, which isn't right.
However, the power creep in UM, UC and to a lesser extent APG is making the year 1 and many year 2 modules too weak for current characters.
This is definitely true and it's also a problem. Having a weak final encounter in a scenario is also extremely disappointing.
But this is what we're saying, there has to be a happy medium. Within a few minutes of skimming a scenario, I can tell if it's going to be a cakewalk or not. The editors should be able to know as well.
But perhaps this only applies to scenarios in the range of level 1-7. It seems that high level scenarios suddenly ramp up in challenge, which I'm sure is equally shocking to PFS players.
|
|
character deaths are reported as part of session reporting,
should be fairly easy to produce a pages showing number of playthroughs vs pc kills.
then people can choose what mods they play,
Con organisers can avoid the deadlier mods when they can know a party is being thrown together.
Some one running a game at home can warn their players to bring over powered characters and a good party mix for the deadly ones.
|
|
character deaths are reported as part of session reporting,
should be fairly easy to produce a pages showing number of playthroughs vs pc kills.then people can choose what mods they play,
Con organisers can avoid the deadlier mods when they can know a party is being thrown together.
Some one running a game at home can warn their players to bring over powered characters and a good party mix for the deadly ones.
Try again.
That Character Died checkbox is only for use when the PC dies, and is NOT getting raised. In other words, only for permanent deaths.
There is no way, other than through reviews and comments, that a scenario can be marked as promoting character deaths or TPKs.
This is also affected by waaaay too many variables.
Party size. 4 PC tables will suffer deaths and TPKs more often than 7 player tables.
Party makeup. 4 Sorcerors are gonna die as a party a lot more often than a mixed party including melee, ranged, healing and area of effect.
Character builds. An optimized-for-combat build will probably die less often than a totally non-optimized (anti-optimized?) build, depending on party.
Sometimes, a single character build, even only mid-optimized, can totally destroy a mod's balance. I have a semi-optimized tripping build, and it can totally ruin a module with primarily anthropomorphic enemies. On the other hand, in a module with few or no anthropomorphic enemies, his presence is little more than target.
|
|
Sometimes, a single character build, even only mid-optimized, can totally destroy a mod's balance. I have a semi-optimized tripping build, and it can totally ruin a module with primarily anthropomorphic enemies. On the other hand, in a module with few or no anthropomorphic enemies, his presence is little more than target.
My Oracle of the Heavens has significantly reduced the danger of a few encounters which were terrain dependent through the use of moonlight bridge. No reason to fight your way up the stars through the minions when you can go directly to the boss.
|
|
Stuff
With regards to reported deaths, also consider that many GMs will fudge or let the player live (despite the fact he should have died). Or changed the tactics, or played the NPC dumb (on purpose).
How many of these "cheated deaths" don't even get reported in reviews. A lot I think. Having said that, reviews and player/GM feedback is probably the most accurate way of determining a scenarios lethality.
|
|
I'm still a bit surprised that the GM is meant to follow the suggested tactics word for word? Aren't these NPCs meant to act intelligently and reactively to what the PCs are doing?
If we give the GM the trust to play the enemies appropriately, we can remove a lot of this risk of enemies "going nova" on underpowered PCs and going suitably, brutally nova on a party full of optimised PCs.