I still think some escape valves built into future scenarios will help, if a GM is finding his table having too easy or hard a time. Like the ability to add/remove some opponents from a fight, etc, based on certain indicators.
"If nobody in the first fight drops below half health, increase X in the later fights. If more than half the party is at or near death in the first fight, decrease X", and so on.
Part of the issue is the rigid binary difficulty of High/Low, since PFS does not allow a huge amount of deviation from the written encounters. Some GM flexibility, without actual wholescale carte blanche, should be a good thing.
-j
It would have certainly helped 4th season.
Each combat is independent of the others, and usually has a different mechanic (ie fight 1 could be a swarm, fight 2 a golem and fight 3 a group of magus's with keen scimitars and the boss fight could be a dragon).
So a group that does well at fight 1 (a low damage swarm vunerable to AoE abilities) might have a slightly harder time against fight 2 (a Tough single target with DR and strong melee attacks against 1 target), and an even harder time against fight 3 (invisible characters with 15-20 crit range and Xd6+Y damage where X is usually 6 before a crit), and might have an impossible time with the boss if it is buffed due to the easy first battle (a Higher CR dragon for instance has a much more powerful breath weapon, better SLA's higher DC on its fear aura).
Doing well at a specific encounter usually does not mean one will have an easy time with the boss fight or a later encounter.
Bob Jonquet wrote: Quote: The end result is neither side is happy This is being waaay over-emphasized by this thead. PFS is the biggest, and fastest growing OP RPG on the planet. Even the people who yell the loudest here in the messageboards about having a "bad" experience with too easy/hard scenarios, good/bad GMs, blah blah blah keep coming back. I quote this for truth. It's like a drug you just can't quit.
I think most people with interest are reading both threads (too easy, too hard). In case you aren't reading the too easy thread, this post is topical for both threads. The referenced obituary is here.
/blatant self-referencing
About this, I have a question. I'm going to run the game next Saturday. It's a game and stuff, it has three acts, and most everything looks fine. But, the final encounter? The dude has two lightning bolts each at 6d6 and this is a 1st level game? I only have three-four players and I just don't see how they're going to live. This isn't even clever or anything. They're going to enter the encounter and two of them die. It'd that simple. Is this as intended?
It is a 3-7 game, there is no way a level 1 player is going to be in there, and as a level 3 I survived the 6-7 tier just fine, I do think the lightning bolts are mean but for a party of level 3's they should be able to handle it (with a cleric to cover some emergency healing if someone fails their save) Also those lightning bolts do 6d6+6 damage (due to the bloodline of the sorcerer he gets +1 damage per dice)
N N 959 wrote: There is no language for comparison of character efficacy in an RPG. Do me a favor: think of all of the characters that you have encountered in PFS including the pre-gens. Go back even further if you need to.
Tell me that they are all roughly equal simply and entirely based upon the level of the character.
Tell me that the threads complaining about 'over-powered' PCs were baseless as all PCs are roughly the same.
Or understand that some characters cannot handle the same challenges that others can. And I mean this on a general rather than specific level. Not that this particular challenge is overcome by having X, or is weak against Y.. but in general. Some characters thrown at tier Z will struggle, while others will be bored. Occasionally they can defy this on one side or the other, but that will be the general result. The same level of challenges will not be the same for them beyond the specifics of a given challenge. Moreover that some players do not want the same level of challenges as other players.
Now try to make me understand why they should all face the same level of challenges that suit possibly none of them.
N N 959 wrote: I'm glad you used that analogy because the human language lacks the ability to describe the right amount of salt that one should experience when eating ice cream. You can't tell someone ahead of time how much salt is the right amount until they taste the ice cream. Same with a scenario. There is no way to describe the "challenge" so that a person knows they've selected the right amount....until they play it.
You are right. And let me extend the analogy to say 'level of spice in a food'.
I happen to like spicy food. I know this. So when I go to some restaurants I will order things *very* spicy. What does that mean? I can be a bit leery the first time going to a new restaurant by doing so. You are right in an objective stand point 'very spicy' is near meaningless and certainly doesn't define an exact level of spice or even a proper range. But I still like my food very spicy, so I have to work with the restaurant to get to a level that is right for me.
The alternative for the restaurant is to put random amounts of spice in their dishes, or to adjust their dishes irrespective of the diner is not the solution. I would never get the level of spice that I want, while others would get burned and never return. It wouldn't work well. Worse yet if the restaurant becomes inconsistent with this level so that no one ever knows what they are going to get.
Having the dinner be able to say 'mild' or the like is a good start. Once they have eaten at the restaurant a few times, they can reliably expect that when they say 'mild' that it will be at the level that they wish. Meanwhile I might be trying to push the limits further and further to finally get the 'very spicy' that I desire without encountering ghost peppers. I've experimented and learned where I can fit in as far as spice goes. This happens whenever you go to a new restaurant, and you resent changes in cooks that might have the process start anew.
Yet there is no real objective level here. But a key factor is the dinner's ability to include their preference. It gives the process a starting point. The other key factor is responding to the dinners' needs individually.
As far as this game goes.. sure it's not properly quantifiable nor even linear. But the entire premise of the CR ratings, modules and scenarios in general is that a rough estimate can be obtained.
However my point is that this estimate is too rough to be forced upon everyone. There are many players with characters that do not fit this estimate and that number will exist wherever you place this estimate. They should be allowed to adjust themselves to their level of spice so to speak.
You have threads complaining that a large number of scenarios are too easy or too hard for their specific character. Everyone should not be condemned to either bland food or food that will burn out their particular pallet.
Think of this suggestion as a refinement on the current system that mandates that everyone 'have their food spiced all one way' and allows them to experiment with either more or less spice as it suits them.
So what do you object to here?
That scenarios are given a rating for what's appropriate to bring into them? That already happens.
That characters aren't all equal? That's always going to be the case, and not something that you should want to be 'fixed'.
That players can get a choice to improve their experience and fun?
Or just that this choice might not be crystal clear, and take experimentation? Is that any reason to eschew the choice entirely for everyone?
If you don't want the choice, even under my suggested rule you could simply compute the APL of the party and go with that. But if you did want more one way or another, then you could.
What's really wrong with that?
-James
Some thoughts... I apologize in advance for the length and rambling nature of this post.
There was an interesting point brought up earlier about players not fully knowing the strength of their characters and about the players not knowing what is going to happen in the forthcoming encounter. Isn't facing the unknown what adventurers do? Isn't trusting in your own abilities to overcome the unknown, sallying forth despite your fear, a cornerstone of heroism? :-)
Now, if the game ends up being tweaked and tuned so that only the "cream" of builds can survive it- that is another story. If you are playing a monk, but aren't playing a Zen Archer with the prescribed recipe of feats/traits/etc., should you punished by a scenario that requires every player to play build X or Y to survive? (<-- I really do not think this is what Season 4 has done, btw... I think it is tougher, but not *that* tough.)
I am not saying that players shouldn't be encouraged to learn their characters- have studied their classes and built wisely towards a goal. I just don't want to see PFS start to look like Magic: the Gathering tournaments were back when I was involved with it a decade ago... players would only be playing decks A, B, or C because they were the most effective builds.
With season four, sure I think it has raised the bar a bit, but I don't think it is anything that a decent group, properly equipped with players who know the game can handle- having equipment to deal with special circumstances has always been an issue for PFS (incorporeal, swarms, invisible, deeper darkness, etc.) and I don't see that changing. Sometimes people learn the hard way they have to deal with these things... that's building experience as a player.
There seems to be three groups of players out there- the clueless (or casual RPGer) who just may not build characters very well, the power-gamer who follows build X because "it is simply the most powerful", and the last group being people in between (either by choice or experience). Yes, yes, I hear the "just because I chose to use build X doesn't mean my character doesn't have back-story and I can RP with the best of them!" argument... and I don't doubt there are players like that out there. I am just pointing out there are different types of players out there and you can't please all of them- if it were up to me, I would target the middle ground.
The reason I bring up builds is because of an idea I had last night after reading the forum here: maybe the evolution of the game- more sourcebooks, options, and thus possible combinations of feats/traits/equip has created stronger character builds over time... and people playing these builds in scenarios which were written back when there was only a Core book and maybe the APG to draw from may feel under-challenged. Maybe season four is a response to that phenomena? Just an idea- I don't have specific builds/features of the newest sourcebooks to quote and point at- just an idea that occurred to me.
Its gotta be a tough job every time a new sourcebook is released to try to realize how these new additions could be abu... er, used by players.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Season 4's big change was twofold.
First, letting the writers have the newer content past CRB/Bestiary 1 without burning wordcount. This has increased their flexibility in encounter design a lot and introduced a lot of crunchier bad guys.
Second, the default CR was increased to reflect the average reported size of parties. The earlier seasons' scenarios prior to about 3-10 WERE too easy every time you sat down with more than 4 players.
It is my firm belief that we are now at the difficulty the campaign should have been aiming for all along.
TetsujinOni wrote: It is my firm belief that we are now at the difficulty the campaign should have been aiming for all along. I basically feel that way too. I really like the way scenarios now adjust for different table sizes.
Whiskey Jack wrote: TetsujinOni wrote: It is my firm belief that we are now at the difficulty the campaign should have been aiming for all along. I basically feel that way too. I really like the way scenarios now adjust for different table sizes. So let me recap..
Where the campaign was before was not where the difficulty should have been for you, but now it is. Right?
Now for the OP, season four is not where the difficulty should be for him and before was preferable to this.
For yet others that have posted on this thread, season four hasn't gone far enough.
Can you have one size fit all? No.
Should the campaign favor you over someone else? That's a loaded question, but my answer is no and that you should always think in the shoes of the person that is not favored regardless of whether or not that is you.
Could there be a way for the campaign to embrace more people rather than just alter the people they currently embrace?
This last question is the real issue for me.
In my mind, you can accommodate more people by allowing them to play out of their assigned tier that is based solely on their character's level in order to allow them to play in tier that is based on their character's ability.
Whether or not the current season is just right for you, an improvement, or a cause to greatly complain should not be the focus, or the concern. It should simply help you to realize that the campaign might not choose to aim towards you.
My suggestion is for the campaign to look at ways to widen their aim, and allowing people to self-select can help accomplish this.
-James
james maissen wrote: As it stands, you hear 'tier X' and that doesn't mean really anything in terms of the challenge. Compare the easiest season zero with the toughest season four and you can see how much of a moving target it is. However you rate scenarios, it will always be a moving target, even using your system. As more books are released, there is some power creep. The only way to avoid it is to re-rate scenarios every once in a while.
james maissen wrote: If a group of people want to get to level X without being challenged, but have fun doing so is it wrong?
That’s a good question. If you’re playing on easy mode, do you deserve the same rewards? From what I’ve seen, the gaming community (ANY gaming community) would overwhelmingly respond ‘NO’.
If PFS was a closed system (6 players only that don’t affect anyone else), I’d say yes. But PFS is not a closed system. If players want to play in extreme easy mode, they can play in home campaigns that cater to this kind of play, PFS isn't for them.
There are a lot of players who feel that getting to level 12 is an accomplishment. If you let PCs basically “walk” from level 1 to 12 using this method, that accomplishment means nothing.
I’ve seen this kind of thing happen in MMOs. There is will be players that will want extreme easy mode. And because that’s possible, it will be a major turnoff for hardcore players, and you’ll lose a lot of those players. And the problem with that is those players are the main consumers of Paizo product, as well as your GMs. So Paizo can’t let that happen.
james maissen wrote: Yes, you can game the system.. but why even have the system? The goal is to deliver the right amount of challenge to the table. Let the table decide that... different people want different amounts of challenge, and different tables can handle different amounts as well.
The system, whether it’s the current system or your system, does rate the scenarios. The only difference is I’m assuming that your system would go back and re-rate scenarios.
Again, I think it’s about the accomplishment factor. As a player/GM base (and as PFS coordinators), we are deciding what the “right amount” of challenge is. And if players/PCs aren’t up to the challenge, then they won’t make it to level 12.
james maissen wrote: If you are trying to rate based on a moving scale, then you are certainly right.. it is futile. Even if you hit just right.. you're a broken clock, and aren't right immediately afterwards for the same scenario.
I’m not sure I understand and I’d need an example of how you’d rate some real scenarios.
james maissen wrote: However, if you have a set default (say the pre-gens together as a party) then you can rate what they can handle in terms of a proper level for them.
When you sit down at a table, you know how well your character stands up in comparison to the pre-gen in the same role. You then look at the rest of the table. You then make a much better guess than simply calculating the APL. If you don't feel you could make a better guess, then you use that.
This happens right now.
james maissen wrote: It is simply about letting a wider range of players enjoy the characters that they want to play without the campaign forcing them to play at an inappropriate tier for them. Well, if Paizo continues with level based rewards (a mistake imo), powerful PCs WILL be able to face tougher challenges with the same rewards, as you’re suggesting. In practice, how often will this choice be used? Hardly ever. A choice that is never used might as well not exist. But… we’ll see.
And if you’re talking about players choosing easy mode, we’ve already discussed that. I’m not sure the (majority of the) community wants players to enjoy easy mode and gain the same rewards.
Besides, in practice, if a player really wanted easy mode, he would just request and play scenarios in seasons 0-2, and hand pick from other seasons.
Jason S wrote: However you rate scenarios, it will always be a moving target, even using your system. As more books are released, there is some power creep. The only way to avoid it is to re-rate scenarios every once in a while. Incorrect.
But that's what you're looking at now. That or forcing scenarios to retire after awhile as they can't compete anymore.
I would propose that there be a fixed party of pregens that would be used to rate the scenarios. This fixed group would be fixed. They would be the meter stick.
As new material comes out, whether it is a power creep or not.. the pregens would not change. Thus the ratings on the scenarios would not need to change.
In essence, the campaign would refuse to get into an arms race with the players. For a large number of us that have witnessed this occur in many organized campaigns, this arms race is something to avoid.
The sense of accomplishment would be individual, and up to the individual rather than mandating one size fits all that will certainly ill fit many.
I do fundamentally disagree with you in terms of 'earning'. I disagree with a feeling that being level X makes you somehow elite. It doesn't. What you can do with that character can make you elite. That's different. How you roleplay your character can make you special, not the fact that your character has this or that.
Witness your own desires for the level of challenge in PFS. Then read the OPs and others. These all greatly vary. Who should 'win' and who should 'lose'?
-James
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
After giving it some thought, please allow me to revise my previous statements.
Season 4 is not too difficult on the whole, but it does have a higher number of outlier scenarios than previous seasons did.
Every season past has had at least one uber difficult/deady scenario compared to the others. (0: Murder on the Silken Caravan, King Xeros of Old Azlant, 1: Darkest Vengeance, 2: Dalsine Affair, 3: Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment.) Season 4 has multiple ones that depart from the norm. (Severing Ties, My Enemy's Enemy, King of the Storval Stairs, Fortress of the Nail, In Wrath's Shadow) Meanwhile, the average scenarios in the season (The Disappeared, Veteran's Vault, Rise of the Goblin Guild) have gotten more difficult in a more reasonable way. I believe that the difficulty level should be pegged to the easier Season 4 scenarios, with a focus on greater consistency than previous seasons have had.
james maissen wrote: Could there be a way for the campaign to embrace more people rather than just alter the people they currently embrace?
This last question is the real issue for me.
Ok, that's more clear to me now. Hm. I have been a True Dungeon DM for a few years and in True Dungeon they try to accomplish this by having four different settings you pick from when starting off on your adventure: Non-lethal, Normal, Hard-core and Nightmare.
I am not sure how such a system would work within the context of PFS though... in TD, when you run the dungeon on Hard-core or Nightmare, you receive greater compensation (in XP) for it. Would you see something similar in PFS or does that simply open another whole can of worms?
james maissen wrote:
Do me a favor: ***
Tell me that they are all roughly equal simply and entirely based upon the level of the character.
Tell me that the threads complaining about 'over-powered' PCs were baseless as all PCs are roughly the same.
They are all roughly equal and simply and entirely based upon the level of the character.
The threads complainging about 'over-powered' PCs are baseless as all PCs are roughly the same.
Now you owe me a favor. ;)
Quote: Or understand that some characters cannot handle the same challenges that others can. And I mean this on a general rather than specific level. Not that this particular challenge is overcome by having X, or is weak against Y.. but in general. Some characters thrown at tier Z will struggle, while others will be bored. So now I think you are conflating issues and raising concerns whose origins are based on tangential facts. What I have been talking about is why a rating system categorically is a bad idea and will lead to bad decision making by the players. Your response above ignores that, but steps on another landmine.
Stating that there is a character that will struggle no matter what mission they are in, does not provide any insight. This is an obvious consequence of the character build process and the difference in skill that humans exhibit. So let's cut through the rhetoric and let's remove the distinction between character and player because you are really talking about the player, not the character.
Yes, there are some players that aren't going to bring the same efficacy to succeeding at the mission. For the sake of argument, we'll say this is by choice. So we'll agree there are a group of players that want to play at challenge tantamount to Character Level X-Y. Well, they can do that now. They can find missions that allow them to play down a tier, correct?
But I'm betting that for those who want to dial down the difficulty, they aren't playing down a tier when given the option. Why? Because it requires that they take less treasure. So what we are talking about is catering to a group of people who really want a challenge at Level X-Y, but receive rewards at Level X. As Jason S suggest, that's not going to happen. One of the fundamental tenants of RPG's and MMO's is Risk=Reward. If players take less risk, they must receive less reward. If players take more risk they must have the option of receiving more reward.
Quote: Now try to make me understand why they should all face the same level of challenges that suit possibly none of them. Your question ignores the most fundamental thing I'm trying to convey: There is no such thing as the "same level of challenge."
This is going to seem like semantics, but understanding why it is not is the crucial element of our exchange. A "challenge," in our discussion is a test of a PC's abilities/skills/resources. As such, the perception of what is a challenge is completely and wholly subjective. Not only that, but the subjective experience is incredibly interdependent on the players+characters+GM that make up the experience.
I can play FS-1 with the same character and depending on who I play it with (which includes the GM), it can be a TPK or a snooze fest. Telling me that FS-1 is a 7 out of 10 on challenge rating could amount to misinformation. I may spend all my gold on potions, stillgut, antitoxin, etc. only to have the Wizard cast Sleep and trivialize the encounter.
What is fair, is subjecting every party to the same encounter, to the same obstacle. Why? Because this is organized play. Jason S nails this. It's important that every level 3 character who plays Sanos Abduction with a party of 4, had to overcome the same obstacle.
Quote: You are right. And let me extend the analogy to say 'level of spice in a food'.*** So when I go to some restaurants I will order things *very* spicy. What does that mean?...*sniped for convenience* Unfortunately, every analogy limps if you push it too hard. PFS Scenarios are not like ordering spicy food at a restaurant. Why? If we use your analogy, it would be like going to the same resturant, but gettting a different menu, with recipes made by different chefs, cooked by different chefs, with food from different markets. So week to week, order Pad Thai with four stars would result in a completely different level of spice. Ordering "mild"...would get you an even greater range of outcomes. Ultimately, even given you the option of would be detrimental because your satisfaction (fun) is dependent upon your expectations. If you were expecting mild and you got hot, you're going to be more dissatisfied than if you could not specify the spice level and had to take the dish as is.
When you give people choices and cannot meet their expectation, you end up with a customer that is more dissatisfied than if you did not give them a choice to begin with. That's basic marketing.
james maissen wrote: Incorrect.
But that's what you're looking at now. That or forcing scenarios to retire after awhile as they can't compete anymore.
I would propose that there be a fixed party of pregens that would be used to rate the scenarios. This fixed group would be fixed. They would be the meter stick.
Rating each scenario based on the same pregens *would* be a way of keeping it consistent.
It would truly be a unique rating system and only loosely based on level. As challenge levels increase, I wonder if that rating system would break down at some point? If the CR system is used , theoretically should be fine.
It could work though, although this would be a major change for PFS.
james maissen wrote: In essence, the campaign would refuse to get into an arms race with the players. For a large number of us that have witnessed this occur in many organized campaigns, this arms race is something to avoid. There is still an arms race (perhaps), but PFS would ignore it.
I could see that Paizo would sell less books though, since building a good PC is irrelevant.
james maissen wrote: I do fundamentally disagree with you in terms of 'earning'. I disagree with a feeling that being level X makes you somehow elite. It doesn't. What you can do with that character can make you elite. That's different. How you roleplay your character can make you special, not the fact that your character has this or that. You are definitely in the minority. I could be wrong, but I believe players feel a sense of accomplishment from a high level PC. If you made leveling a meaningless time sink, it would impact their fun.
Also, you have to consider how a GM would feel if a level 10 PC steps into the equivalent of a subtier 1-2 scenario. GMs didn't like replay, I don't think GMs would like that either. So although you are OK with easy mode, you have to consider the GMs who are the backbone of the entire organization.
^^^ I know that would annoy me. You might as well just hand out the chronicles instead of playing.
james maissen wrote: Witness your own desires for the level of challenge in PFS. Then read the OPs and others. These all greatly vary. Who should 'win' and who should 'lose'? Paizo and the community decides right now. And like I said, I'm not so sure that everyone wants players who want super easy mode to "win". And Paizo wouldn't want that for $$$ reasons. I think you're in the minority.
A lot of people feel like things you get need to be earned. Dumbing the game down too much will just take away all sense of accomplishment. Yeah, there are casuals that probably can't handle more difficult scenarios, but that's the beauty of it. They don't have to play the hard ones. They can just choose not to.
The Beard wrote: A lot of people feel like things you get need to be earned. Dumbing the game down too much will just take away all sense of accomplishment. Yeah, there are casuals that probably can't handle more difficult scenarios, but that's the beauty of it. They don't have to play the hard ones. They can just choose not to. ... They don't have to play the easy ones. They can just choose not to....
just felt the need to have that said
I can still remember the only TPK I have run at a PFS table... It was in a season zero scenario...
Though I did come close to TPKing a table last night. (First Steps II)
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
james maissen wrote: Whiskey Jack wrote: TetsujinOni wrote: It is my firm belief that we are now at the difficulty the campaign should have been aiming for all along. I basically feel that way too. I really like the way scenarios now adjust for different table sizes. So let me recap..
Where the campaign was before was not where the difficulty should have been for you, but now it is. Right?
Wrong. I'm using pure CRB mechanical assessment of level appropriate challenges. Earlier seasons did not contain sufficient CR to award 1/3 of a level's XP per session with 6 players on the table. That is the metric I am using and the only one I find relevant.
'james maissen' wrote:
Can you have one size fit all? No.
Yes, we can - that's where OrgPlay excels. One size fits all is "one size fits most" in all real world applications, and PFS certainly seems to be aimed firmly at the 'one size fits most' PFRPG campaign in the default PFRPG setting.
I think the campaign should be designed according to the CRB recommended challenge ratings (CR) per level, especially with the extra abstraction we've loaded on of 1/3 level per adventure.
james maissen wrote:
Should the campaign favor you over someone else? That's a loaded question, but my answer is no and that you should always think in the shoes of the person that is not favored regardless of whether or not that is you.
I'm not expecting the campaign to favor me. I am expecting the campaign to design and be run according to the core mechanics as published. You're asking for it to be run farther from the core mechanics as published.
james maissen wrote:
Could there be a way for the campaign to embrace more people rather than just alter the people they currently embrace?
This last question is the real issue for me.
It could, but only if it violated the core mechanics farther, rather than moving closer to them.
james maissen wrote:
In my mind, you can accommodate more people by allowing them to play out of their assigned tier that is based solely on their character's level in order to allow them to play in tier that is based on their character's ability.
I believe that this will cause even more inappropriate and complaint-causing table mustering than we already can see with the current tiering system, and that it would be a net detriment to the campaign as characters over or under estimate their effectiveness and ruin tables by domination or get killed by facing CR-appropriate challenges (because the CR system would still be the governing mechanics for how you construct encounters on the writing side...). With no arbiter of what 'effectiveness' means (like, say.... character level), you would have no way to manage this possibility before player misbehavior made it obvious that there was a problem.... rather than being able to prevent the problems at muster time by having hard limits on what can and cannot enter a given scenario.
james maissen wrote:
Whether or not the current season is just right for you, an improvement, or a cause to greatly complain should not be the focus, or the concern. It should simply help you to realize that the campaign might not choose to aim towards you.
You keep asserting that I'm talking about what's right for me. I'm after what keeps the campaign in line with the core mechanics as published, which is a stated goal of the campaign staff. (The fact that my preference is that the core mechanics of PFRPG be followed could be argued to make this about me, but I think that's misstating the case badly).
I'm using absolute measurements which are actually absolute. You're trying to abandon them because you think they're bad measurements. We're just not going to see eye to eye on goals, here.... though it's clear we see eye to eye on wanting PFS to be the best campaign that it can be, we have different definitions of 'best'.
james maissen wrote:
My suggestion is for the campaign to look at ways to widen their aim, and allowing people to self-select can help accomplish this.
-James
The campaign should not violate the core mechanics in an effort to cater to more players - it should showcase the core mechanics of the game it is a marketing effort for, including using CR appropriate encounters. More should be done to ensure that the 4-player scaling is sufficient to ensure the encounters are appropriate to the 4-player versions of scenarios (some of them have lacked scaling I felt was appropriate....)
The Beard wrote: They don't have to play the hard ones. They can just choose not to. Two thoughts, then:
1) If that's the approach, then the campaign needs some way (other than "good GMs will know") for the player (and the less experienced GM) to understand which are the "hard ones", and which are the "easy ones". Thus, a player who wants to avoid the "hard ones" can do so when selecting a game to play (such as when signing up for a convention), rather than only learning this when sitting down at the table (or, worse, after an unenjoyable play experience).
2) What's the right balance of "hard ones" and "not hard ones", to appeal to both those seeking a high level of challenge, and those who aren't?
Choosing which scenarios to play according to difficulty is not something a player can do at some points, as there is no forewarning sometimes. The casual player may only hear about the scenarios from the blurbs, to which only Bonekeep is warned about it's difficulty. There are also those that are newly released that few have seen.
Sure, Dalsine Affair is well known as a TPK scenario, but I have a feeling that when it first came out, it just seemed an interesting blurb to the player.
Research all you want, a group may end up playing one that might surprise both the GM and the Player.
I still feel that 4th season ramped up the difficulty significantly. I hope it is tempered down in 5th season. I have posted this before.
nosig wrote: Though I did come close to TPKing a table last night. (First Steps II) I have never actually gotten to play First Steps II. But I, like you, came very close to a TPK when running it for a group. Admittedly that was partially their own fault. Anywho, season zero has some pretty nasty ones. Nothing like Season 4, but you'll find challenge if you look for it.
The other posters above me, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see the harm in providing some sort of system of forewarning that does not give spoilers. That way people can decide for themselves if they want a real slobberknocker.
Jason S wrote: It could work though, although this would be a major change for PFS. But it would not be a difficult change for PFS.
It would solve:
1. Problems in keeping/predicting PC wealth when compared by level.
2. The high variance in difficulty in published scenarios.
3. Pressuring players to build 'appropriate' characters in terms of power.
I do agree with you that it would not solve:
A. Making achieving a level X character something that only a few can do.
B. Options for characters to become more powerful than their neighbors by choice of scenario/tier played.
C. Players who actively wish to be jerks.
Now from what I can see of PFS is that it does not solve 1-3, and also fails to solve A. It has the same issues of relying upon society to solve C. But does allow for B.
As far as 'easy mode', its wherever you personally draw the line. You can reasonably say that PFS has been predominately on 'easy mode' for its entirety. It may or may not be fully out from it and the scenarios need to get harder.
If you want a level 11 PC to be really a thing of accomplishment, then you are going to need to increase the chance that players lose their characters along the way. Permanently lose them. It doesn't matter the degree of challenge if that's not an increasing probability. The illusion of this might appeal to people, but certainly not the reality.
Let us face the truth:
This game of ours embraces multiple ways to play, and different people playing it.
We can either exclude sections of this player base, or we can try to include them.
-James
PS: Building a good PC, vs building an interesting PC, etc.. is always going to appeal to one person over another depending upon taste. The lethality of PFS is not going to impact this, only potentially conflict with it as it has already.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
james maissen wrote: Jason S wrote: It could work though, although this would be a major change for PFS. But it would not be a difficult change for PFS.
It would solve:
1. Problems in keeping/predicting PC wealth when compared by level.
2. The high variance in difficulty in published scenarios.
3. Pressuring players to build 'appropriate' characters in terms of power.
What you describe as "high variance" seems to me to match the prescriptive advice on how to vary encounter difficulty for APL in the CRB, so 2 is not a bug, but a feature.
I'm not sure of the extent of the reality of 1 as a problem; anecdotal evidence from our region doesn't suggest that it is a problem that should prompt campaign changes.
I have seen far more characters who are problematic and not-fun because they were built to fit a character concept that is challenging to find a niche for in the campaign, not so much problems with "weak" characters.
I'm curious, james.... how much unreported play and run time do you have to provide you with more than theoretical assertions? I'm presuming it's a non-zero amount because you're speaking with a fair degree of surety and I've seen you posting this theory about turning the campaign design on its head for a while...
Edit: typed the wrong name....
Here's the interesting thing to me.
Our local lodge uses meetup to schedule events. On the comments sections players and GMs have been giving plenty of advice about the lethality of certain scenarios (such as "don't bring a character you care about to Darkest Vengeance").
Everyone is good to avoid spoilers, but no one balks about warning about difficult scenarios... and they have covered all seasons.
In fact, many of the more popular ones ARE the more lethal ones!!! At least two of the local GMs call Temple of Empyrial Enlightenment their favorite, for example. These are GMs that I respect, and players that I respect. This, however, has never caused me to back down from an adventure!!
I agree, fully, that good tactics beats good builds. Of course, bad luck can beat everything, but that is another story! I think one of the things that I have liked best about PFS is that as the seasons have progressed, it seems that the outcomes are less based on killing everything in sight, but thoughtfully keeping certain people alive. To me, the hardest scenarios have been the ones that have required the most thought. Murder on the Throaty Mermaid, Temple of Empyrical Enlightenment, My Enemy's Enemy, The Disappeared, and God's Market Gambit are all among my favorites!
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
You and me have some similar tastes my friend. :)
TriOmegaZero wrote: You and me have some similar tastes my friend. :) I knew I liked how you think!
Mike Mistele wrote:
1) If that's the approach, then the campaign needs some way (other than "good GMs will know") for the player (and the less experienced GM) to understand which are the "hard ones", and which are the "easy ones".
If the issue is a game is too hard because there are too many character deaths vs. too hard because the game is difficult to succeed in - just put a box on the reporting form for deaths that the GM writes in. A running tally can be kept and reported for each game. It would represent the aggragate of many GMs with those that are most deadly having a higher number. It could be expressed as average deaths per game, or just as a total, and would be a measure of how much deadliness there is.
It would not measure how hard the game is complete - but if the issue is that year 4 is too deadly (which I agree to a great degree, especially for 5 person parties) then one would have an objective measure X deaths per game playe [.02 per game played, vs 1.1 per game played, would tell you quite a lot about which game to run for less deadliness.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This may have been mentioned earlier, but the players have some responsibility in determining how tough the scenarios are. When I started playing my local group wasn't sure what to expect so we created a well rounded group of optimised adventurers and played tactically. When it became obvious we were walking through every encounter our second and third PCs ended up as weird and wonderful 'characters' instead, with some decent capabilities but nowhere near the same level of optimisation. The game became a little more difficult as a result. The only player who went up in power had been playing the least effective character in the first group. In other words we adjusted to suit the game, or our experience of it.
The problem I have now is if season 4 is as hard as everyone says then all my weird and wonderful characters are playing the wrong game, because my expectations are wrong. With both the players and Paizo adapting at the same time there's little chance of us finding an equilibrium. So I'd suggest that Paizo find a certain difficulty level, with some variance to mix it up, and then stick with it. Let the players work to that level according to taste. I don't mind what the difficulty is, I just want a rough idea of what to aim at before designing my characters.
Stormfriend wrote: When it became obvious we were walking through every encounter our second and third PCs ended up as weird and wonderful 'characters' instead Amusingly, as I was reading your post, I was listening to Elton John's "Bennie and the Jets", which does, in fact, contain the line, "Oh, but they're weird and they're wonderful.." :-)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
james maissen wrote: 1. Problems in keeping/predicting PC wealth when compared by level.
2. The high variance in difficulty in published scenarios.
3. Pressuring players to build 'appropriate' characters in terms of power.
1) I don't see this as a major problem although Paizo does. You say "Does it really hurt if players play easy mode?". You can ask the same question with regards to wealth: "In rare cases where someone has more wealth, does it really hurt?"
If the concern is that more wealth makes the game too easy (and that's a goal we want to avoid), then we'd want to avoid that in general.
At least when playing up you've somewhat earned your "easy mode" (although more gear doesn't exactly makes things "easy" necessarily. Easier, not easy).
2) There isn't a high variance. I think you actually have to play the campaign before making comments like this. Within season 4, the variance isn't that high. That's why the thread is about season 4 being too hard, not about scenario XYZ being too hard.
3) You never addressed my concerns about extreme easy mode would have on players and GMs.
Players: If a level 10 walks into a subtier 1-2 scenario to help his buddy, I'm glad they're having fun (you wanted to be inclusionary right?), but if I was a player, I'd definitely not be having fun. I would walk from the table.
GM: As a GM I'd also feel it would be a waste of my time.
Sometimes, you just can't please everyone. And personally, I don't want to even try to please the players that want extreme easy mode. I don't want play with them and I don't think the community wants that either.
Summary: Letting people play easy mode is not something that is desirable from either a player or GM perspective. There has to be some middle ground, however elusive that might be.
Stormfriend wrote: This may have been mentioned earlier, but the players have some responsibility in determining how tough the scenarios are. When I started playing my local group wasn't sure what to expect so we created a well rounded group of optimised adventurers and played tactically. When it became obvious we were walking through every encounter our second and third PCs ended up as weird and wonderful 'characters' instead, with some decent capabilities but nowhere near the same level of optimisation. The game became a little more difficult as a result. The only player who went up in power had been playing the least effective character in the first group. In other words we adjusted to suit the game, or our experience of it.
The problem I have now is if season 4 is as hard as everyone says then all my weird and wonderful characters are playing the wrong game, because my expectations are wrong. With both the players and Paizo adapting at the same time there's little chance of us finding an equilibrium. So I'd suggest that Paizo find a certain difficulty level, with some variance to mix it up, and then stick with it. Let the players work to that level according to taste. I don't mind what the difficulty is, I just want a rough idea of what to aim at before designing my characters.
I think this post hits the nail on the head, so to speak.
One of the most overlooked aspects of D&D, from the very beginning, is that the "role" in D&D was really about the functional role of each member, not the dramatic role. D&D was built around the functional role of fighter, caster, healer, thief. Everything in the game evolved from that expectation. All the monsters, all the mechanics, all of it is based on a party being able to fill these four basic functional roles. PF subscribes to the same paradigm. However, as the game evolved and these companies needed to make money by releasing more books, they expanded the players' options in fulfilling these functional roles.
Once the idea of "building" a character took hold and the restrictions on multi-classing were lifted, there was a fundamental change in the game. That fundamental change was that the characters themselves could be built in a manner that they could not reasonably meet the functional roles required. But D&D had a built in auto-compensater: The DM. The DM in normal play can make any ridiculous set of player choices viable by altering the campaign. In Organized Play, you can't use that mechanic. In organized play, you cannot allow the DM to auto-adjust the scenario so a group in which the Barbarian with UMD is acting as the primary caster and the Wizard with Armor Proficiency Light is acting as the tank, can have fun.
Storm and his friends realized that previously, PFS supported a wide margin of efficacy. The belief, that we'll take as veraties, is that Season 4 has narrowed that margin. And as Storm has recognized, the problem is one of expectations. Characters that could just tread water in previous seasons are finding the weight of their choices leaves them below the surface.
So PFS has to take all their knowledge about their player base and decide where to set the bar. Support a broad range of builds by making the average difficulty low. Or ramp up the difficulty and cater to a smaller subset of options. Both will attract and discourage different groups of people. You will never make the extremes happy on either end.
What PFS cannot do is give the same reward for playing Easy vs Hard. The problem with providing an Easy Mode is that once a character starts slumming it, they'll fall behind the WBL curve to such an extent that they will be a liability to groups playing Normal. If you go from Level 7 to Level 8 earning 500gp a mission doing Tier 1's, you're going dig yourself into a hole. And this excludes the negative impact you'll have being a level 7 in a level 1 party Reducing the XP so that it takes more scenarios to level up if you play lower tiers, would be a bookkeeping nightmare.
So yeah, the bar has to be set somewhere. The higher it is set, the less latitude players will have in succeeding with deviant builds. If it's set too low, some players will get board and look for a game that expects their A game. PFS does not have an easy task and this is where they earn their money as experts when they get it right.
Jason S wrote: 3) You never addressed my concerns about extreme easy mode would have on players and GMs.
Players: If a level 10 walks into a subtier 1-2 scenario to help his buddy, I'm glad they're having fun (you wanted to be inclusionary right?), but if I was a player, I'd definitely not be having fun. I would walk from the table.
The same way that you would handle the player that's played the scenario before and replays it to help his buddy. If he's crossing the line into being a jerk, then you have to deal with it. No different.
We are all assuming (and I'd hope rightfully) that the level 10 cannot possibly be so inept as to be properly challenged by the level 1-2 scenario. With that understood to be the case, then you disallow them just as you would disallow someone replaying a scenario from ruining it for everyone else.
Jason S wrote:
GM: As a GM I'd also feel it would be a waste of my time.
Sometimes, you just can't please everyone. And personally, I don't want to even try to please the players that want extreme easy mode. I don't want play with them and I don't think the community wants that either.
I know that you'd like to exclude some players from the campaign. I disagree with you on that. I think that's wrong. It's one thing if they are actively destroying the game for others. However, I do think that there is room for more latitude.
How did you feel about the scenarios from prior seasons that were way too easy?
How did you feel when people on the boards called out people playing effective characters as jerks for 'ruining the challenge' of those scenarios?
Only in that case it was just because you (and others) didn't want to play self-gimped characters. I can understand that, and personally enjoy the challenge of building a strong PC and then challenging them further by the situations they try to overcome. In those threads I cried foul, in that it should not be the players that should have to adjust that way to the scenarios.
If I recall correctly, you also cried foul there. (I could be wrong, it's been awhile)
Personally I see the freedom to choose as allowing for more latitude for both kinds of players to get along. I'm guessing that you are seeing it as latitude for jerks to act out. My response would be that the rules shouldn't punish the innocent for the already guilty. Rather remove the guilty and give the innocent their freedom.
-James
N N 959 wrote: What PFS cannot do is give the same reward for playing Easy vs Hard. They certainly could elect to do so. It would be quite simple to do in fact.
With that 'impossibility' dismissed, so falls the rest of your argument on this matter.
But you do make good points against characters getting different rewards by choice of scenario. They fall behind or race ahead of where they normally should be.
If this were not a problem, then PFS would allow crafting. It only alters expected wealth for those investing feats into it.
However, if the rewards were simply based upon level, then these concerns of yours go away.
The question is, why would you oppose it? Do you want the option to get more stuff than the guy next to you? To be way off the expected wealth chart. Why's that?
-James
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
james maissen wrote: Jason S wrote: 3) You never addressed my concerns about extreme easy mode would have on players and GMs.
Players: If a level 10 walks into a subtier 1-2 scenario to help his buddy, I'm glad they're having fun (you wanted to be inclusionary right?), but if I was a player, I'd definitely not be having fun. I would walk from the table.
The same way that you would handle the player that's played the scenario before and replays it to help his buddy. If he's crossing the line into being a jerk, then you have to deal with it. No different. So in your vision, a player could sit down with their 6th level PC in a Tier 1-5 Suggested scenario, and until they demonstrated they were being a jerk, there would be no recourse for the group of level 1s that wanted to play it on hard mode but now have a 6th level bending the shape of encounters around their vastly different resources? (hp, consumables, gear, class abilities even if they've cherrypicked 6 classes that don't work together)...
How is this an improvement over "A party of 6 characters of APL X gets 15 CRX encounters, or a bit fewer with a few with CRX+2 and maybe one X+3 or X+4 epic encounter per level", which has the advantage of, y'know, being the published system?
PFS is not too hard. No way. Too easy is my opinin.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
I have not read all 400+ posts so just call this a +1 if someone has already suggested this. Perhaps we just need a rating system of some kind. I remember past "living" campaigns (arcanis comes to mind) gave a general type to some mods. For example "this is a combat heavy dungeon crawl" or this mod "focuses on diplomacy and problem solving". That gave you a general idea of what to expect and helped you decide what to play. Want combat do for the dungeon crawl and be prepared! Not really a combat optimized character? Go for the mystery solving!
Something like this could help players be prepared and less surprised when super optimized combat BBG jumps them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
james maissen wrote: N N 959 wrote: What PFS cannot do is give the same reward for playing Easy vs Hard. They certainly could elect to do so. It would be quite simple to do in fact. And PFS could elect to give away all their product for free. Let's not play a game of semantics.
There is no way in an Organized Play format you can give the same reward for intentionally choosing less risk. MMO's know this, so does PFS. It's not going to happen.
So that improbability is not dismissed and the rest of my argument remains intact.
Quote: If this were not a problem, then PFS would allow crafting. It only alters expected wealth for those investing feats into it. I think you're oversimplifying the problem with crafting. I'll touch on those, but I don't want to turn this into a discussion on crafting. The most glaring and obvious problem with crafting is there is no risk. Using a feat to craft is irrelevant. Character use feats to fight more effectively, but it doesn't guarantee the outcome. In normal campaign, the DM can control the environment and restrict the access or opportunity to craft.
Quote: However, if the rewards were simply based upon level, then these concerns of yours go away. If you mean the level of the character, then you've removed motivation to play-up. Nay, you've penalized characters for playing up. If I'm a level 2 at a table with a bunch of Level 4's and I am exposed to the same risks commensurate with Level 4 rewards, then you're penalizing me for playing up when you give me level 2 rewards.
The only way this works is if the risk is normalized for playing up. In other words, you effectively raise the level 2 player to a level 4 player for just that scenario. This is something you can do with software, but not via PnP/PbP.
Quote: Do you want the option to get more stuff than the guy next to you? To be way off the expected wealth chart. Why's that? What I want is irrelevant. It's what PFS thinks is better for their game. Giving players the option of playing up addresses a very real desire in a subset of players. It also addresses the circumstances associated with needed to fill a table as I've described above.
While it can be argued that players exceeding the WBL curve is a problem, the counterargument is that this is offset by the increased risk. I hear there are TON of deaths from entire parties playing UP in season 4. In addition, playing up burns more resources. Tier 3-4 vs Tier 2 could mean two or three more Barkskin/Neutralize Poison/etc potions you burn through, just about negating the 700 gp difference. I imagine Fortress of the Nail has depleted more than a few coffers when it comes to resurrections.
If we were to look at the stats and see the deaths were not happening, I'd imagine it has more to do with friendly GMing rather than lack of inherent commensurate risk.
N N 959 wrote: There is no way in an Organized Play format you can give the same reward for intentionally choosing less risk. Yes, there really is and it's simple to do.
Heck, if I play an easy season 1 scenario vs a hard season 4 I've done just that without even changing the tier.
N N 959 wrote: If you mean the level of the character, then you've removed motivation to play-up People can choose to play up (in my suggestion) in order to find the right degree of challenge for them. Scenarios are more fun that way for a lot of people.
Do you play season 4 scenarios just because you've run out of easier scenarios? If that's the case, then why should they be making harder scenarios in the first place?
-James
TetsujinOni wrote: So in your vision, a player could sit down with their 6th level PC in a Tier 1-5 Suggested scenario, and until they demonstrated they were being a jerk The same way that a player could replay a scenario until they demonstrated that they were being a jerk. The same way any jerk can try to purposefully wreck a game.
If people are looking to wreck others' experiences, then the solution is outside how the tiering is accomplished.
TetsujinOni wrote: there would be no recourse for the group of level 1s that wanted to play it on hard mode but now have a 6th level bending the shape of encounters around their vastly different resources? (hp, consumables, gear, class abilities even if they've cherrypicked 6 classes that don't work together)... Not sure what you're trying to say here, beyond 'a jerk can ruin a game'. Change the jerk to 5th level, and he's still a jerk trying to ruin the game and just as able to do so in the current system. Even the strawmen you are putting up have holes.
TetsujinOni wrote: How is this an improvement over "A party of 6 characters of APL X gets 15 CRX encounters, or a bit fewer with a few with CRX+2 and maybe one X+3 or X+4 epic encounter per level", which has the advantage of, y'know, being the published system? Because characters are not just a function of their levels? What will slaughter one group of 6 that is APL X will not be a blip to another group with the same numbers and APL. Some of this can swing with a given situation, but a lot of it can be known by the table when everyone sits down.
Again, I fully think that the scenarios should use the CR system and be balanced against a fixed party of pre-gens. Thus if the scenario says that this tier is appropriate for level 5 PCs, then not only are the encounter CRs based off of level 5, but the fixed pre-gen party of level 5s is properly challenged by it.
But those that know that their table is significantly divergent from that party of pre-gens at their APL, might want to consider playing at a different level.
It's an improvement in that it allows for the demonstrated spectrum of players in this campaign to all get to play where they desire to play.
-James
james maissen wrote: Yes, there really is and it's simple to do.
Heck, if I play an easy season 1 scenario vs a hard season 4 I've done just that without even changing the tier.
1. Assuming your assertion were true, there wasn't an intent on the part of PFS to make easy vs hard scenarios. It amounts to an unintended consequence. What you're advocating is an intent to give same rewards for different risk. PFS has exhibited no such intent and I'm highly confident they never will.
2. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if PFS believes that Season 1 is substantially easier, they will start retiring Season 1 scenarios provided they want to go with a higher bar.
Quote: People can choose to play up (in my suggestion) in order to find the right degree of challenge for them. Scenarios are more fun that way for a lot of people. If you're telling someone that if they play a level 4 scenario and they'll only get level 2 rewards, you're not solving the problem. If you're advocating increased rewards for playing up, how is that different from what we have now?
Quote: Do you play season 4 scenarios just because you've run out of easier scenarios? I play the scenarios that DM's are offering. There are some I avoid if I think my character is not suited for the setting e.g. my Barbarian who doesn't speak is not going to do the Blakros Matrimony.
The fact is, Season four has a uptick in difficulty than the previous seasons, this was also true for season 3 compared to seasons before it.
The problem that I have is that the challenge in a good number of season four scenarios is more than what the tier could handle, excepting for some parties that compliment each other or an optimized character with support.
Have a party of Bards, for example, and most of 4th season will be hard for that party to succeed in.
I am not sure if anything we post here is going to make a difference, but my ferverant hope is that the 5th season isn't ramped up in the same uptick as 4th season was from the previous. I maintain... 5th season need to temper down the difficulty curve.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: james maissen wrote: Quote: People can choose to play up (in my suggestion) in order to find the right degree of challenge for them. If you're telling someone that if they play a level 4 scenario and they'll only get level 2 rewards, you're not solving the problem.
Actually that will solve the problem of 'this scenario is too easy for us at the assigned tier'.
It lets them play a tougher scenario so that it won't be too easy for them. Done.
What problem are you referring, if not to that one?
-James
Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
All this debate and one important fact has been overlooked.
I've seen what should be a very difficult scenario be a cakewalk because the GM couldn't roll above a 9. ( I'd be the Gm in that one)
I've also seen easy scenarios almost kill parties when their dice goes cold, and the GM's dice are rolling 15+ every roll.
thaX wrote:
Have a party of Bards, for example, and most of 4th season will be hard for that party to succeed in.
You obviously do not know how to build bards right then. Bards can be made to be pretty dang powerful. So can any class. The difficulty of the PFS scenario isn't hard enough where there isn't a class that can't be made to succeed in the combat potion (even entire parties of them). Even the monk can be made the work. Now the question is how hard do you have to work for it is key. If you NEED to do stuff like the poisoner glove skinsend alchemist to succeed...we may have gone a bit too far.
Yeah.. Enchanting and fascinating the enemy doesn't count. I do think they are better than the "Jack of all trades, master of none" ilk from 2nd edition. (even if one of my favorite character was a bard from then)
My point is that a party in a middle of effectiveness fairs a bit worse in the 4th season scenarios than the previous outings. There are a few season 3 scenarios out there that gives it a run for the money, though I would count Cypher Mage as a 4th season preview.
I have a bard that is a celebrity, from the puddles, and the best thing he can do is be diplomatic and know stuff.
james maissen wrote: Actually that will solve the problem of 'this scenario is too easy for us at the assigned tier'.
It lets them play a tougher scenario so that it won't be too easy for them. Done.
That statement evinces a failure to grasp even basic psychology of what people who want a challenge are operating under. People don't want it to be simply harder. Anybody can self-nerf by fighting with less armor or mundane weapons. Nobody who's looking for a challenge does that.
There has to be a commensurate reward for it being harder. What you're proposing is simply nonsense. No designer subscribes to that theory and no significant number of people are going to exercise such an option. More to the point, no random group of people would ever subject themselves to such a situation. Ergo, you haven't solved the problem of allowing people to challenge themselves. You've simply punished people who want to challenge themselves which completely contradicts your stated goal of accommodating more play-styles.
If you don't believe me, next time you play at a Con ask every single table if they would play up without getting the rewards of playing up.
|
