|
This is a very fighty thread.
We have VL's who like their PFS gritty, and folks with gritty day jobs who want their PFS lighter. That's fine, we want to cater for everyone.
How about, when that unpredictable one-shot-kill critical comes up behind the screen, we just tell the players and ask them how they want it dealt with? If they want to burn a reroll, or ask the GM to use theirs, then fine. If they want their character to bleed out onto the sands of a foreign shore, also fine.
We should be in the business (above all else) of sending folks away from the table happy that they played PFS.
What's that got to do with me or anything I said?Jiggy,
I generally try to avoid fudging and stick to tactical changes if at all possible. In one particular infamous scenario, the one I complained about in my earlier post, that is entirely impossible. Then, your only option is to reduce the crit to a regular hit.
Perhaps he sees you as the representative of the "don't fudge dice" side?
Tim,
They are listed as scenarios, and I find it odd that you care so much that they have a module's structure (Which they don't, as they are 3 separate adventures that are generally played together.)Besides that, though, I think that if anybody is boo-hooing, it is those who are complaining that by fudging 3 or so crits in my 59 games as a GM, I am somehow depriving them of something. That is ridiculous.
As long as we disagree, I'm on the right track.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Perhaps he sees you as the representative of the "don't fudge dice" side?What's that got to do with me or anything I said?Jiggy,
I generally try to avoid fudging and stick to tactical changes if at all possible. In one particular infamous scenario, the one I complained about in my earlier post, that is entirely impossible. Then, your only option is to reduce the crit to a regular hit.
As I read it, Jiggy, you were saying that the passage in the GtOP should be read to encourage tactics over fudging, which I agree with. I was just pointing that out, but that occasionally, tactics alone aren't enough.
Tim,
That's a great position to bring to a collaborative, non-adversarial game. I wish you the best of luck.
Stop agreeing with me. :]
|
|
Player 1: Played by rules. Can't have item A.
Player 2: Didn't play by rules. Has item A.
Which player has the unfair advantage?
I can see the point here. Player 1 can never replay that scenario and get that item. Technically, they played under a GM who interpreted the rules differently to that of player 2, rather than anyone not playing by the rules. I can see how that would aggrieve some people. Personally, I try to view it as a variant of
|
This is a very fighty thread.
We have VL's who like their PFS gritty, and folks with gritty day jobs who want their PFS lighter. That's fine, we want to cater for everyone.
How about, when that unpredictable one-shot-kill critical comes up behind the screen, we just tell the players and ask them how they want it dealt with? If they want to burn a reroll, or ask the GM to use theirs, then fine. If they want their character to bleed out onto the sands of a foreign shore, also fine.
We should be in the business (above all else) of sending folks away from the table happy that they played PFS.
I’m not sure I said that I “like my PFS gritty.”
I don’t just like PFS. I LOVE PFS. This campaign is awesome.
I said, “PFS is gritty compared to a home campaign.”
There is a difference in how those sentiments are put together.
|
|
How about, when that unpredictable one-shot-kill critical comes up behind the screen, we just tell the players and ask them how they want it dealt with?I don't think anyone would agree to that.
Except for Jiggy (and not even in this thread), I haven't seen anyone say they'd actually go for the perma-death if given the choice.
So I think this is a horribly idea.
Sometimes things happen, and death happens, and you just gotta,
"DEAL WITH IT!"
|
|
Except for Jiggy (and not even in this thread), I haven't seen anyone say they'd actually go for the perma-death if given the choice.How about, when that unpredictable one-shot-kill critical comes up behind the screen, we just tell the players and ask them how they want it dealt with?I don't think anyone would agree to that.
Sorry for misquoting you above.
Actually, I've chosen perma-death through character actions before now. Sometimes characters do die. I'm of the opinion that it goes down better when the players were in a position where they could have done something about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I got one shotted in a scenario, I got full attacked in the surprise round after the BBEG got Ddoored right next to me. Full to dead.
Wasn't fun.
Okay, let me ask: why not?
We're telling stories here, folks. And the death of a Pathfinder agent can inspire his comrades or make them keenly aware of their own mortality. It can be a pivot point of both the adventure and the career of the other PCs.
So, when your PC was suddenly killed ("I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.") how did the other PCs react? How did that contribute to the story?
Did your character get raised? How did the experience change him?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I got one shotted in a scenario, I got full attacked in the surprise round after the BBEG got Ddoored right next to me. Full to dead.
Wasn't fun.
Okay, let me ask: why not?
We're telling stories here, folks. And the death of a Pathfinder agent can inspire his comrades or make them keenly aware of their own mortality. It can be a pivot point of both the adventure and the career of the other PCs.
So, when your PC was suddenly killed ("I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.") how did the other PCs react? How did that contribute to the story?
Did your character get raised? How did the experience change him?
Ideally, perhaps. At most tables, it's more of a "Sorry. Moving on..." type deal.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
The only response I can give about this whole thing...
It has been done to players already... Therefore to be fair it should continue to happen... If you really really feel bad about... Blue portal another character in or something but that guy is toast!
You can't bring in another PC in PFS. It's not allowed.
|
|
Okay, let me ask: why not?I got one shotted in a scenario, I got full attacked in the surprise round after the BBEG got Ddoored right next to me. Full to dead.
Wasn't fun.
Imagine this movie. A soldier steps off an airplane clutching the well worn photograph of a young girl. There's a loud bang. The end.
Not much of a story, vs, that same soldier fighting through two gun wielding mooks, gritting his teeth and struggling on through the pain as he's shot, rushing past one of the mooks to grab the big bad and tackle him into the intake of a jet engine.
Same result (dead character) Much more story, much more fun, much better memmory and something that you'll take about for "remember when" stories a lot more than the ignoble death of a max damage crit.
|
So, in the situation that people are mostly talking about -- a potential PC-killing crit on a newbie or lowbie, what i have seen happen is someone using their reroll to make the GM reroll the hit that threatened the critical.
Sometimes this has been done by one of the other players. When no one had a remaining reroll, it was done by GM using the reroll from his shirt. (This is also the only circumstance where I have seen a GM use a reroll.)
And what was the result? Every new player at the table went 'Oh!' and made sure they had bought a Player Folio before the next game. Seemed like a win-win-win to me. The characters didn't die, the danger lesson was learned -- and Paizo sold more stuff.
I accept that sometimes character death happens. It's not my favorite part of the game by any means, but I accept that it happens.
My problem is when it happens without a reasonable opportunity for the player to do anything.
Let's take a look at a particularly deadly Level 1 scenario. There is an invisible thing in it that, when it crits, can do about 60 damage to a level 1 character. In order to prepare for it given skills available at level 1, you would need a perception score of around +25, and even then, it's a pretty low chance. That's just not satisfying in the least.
This is made even worse when you realize that the enemy in particular is practically built to crit.
I have zero problem with difficult scenarios. I have a huge problem with scenarios that don't make you feel satisfied about your gaming experience. That particular creature is a glass cannon - he goes down almost immediately after killing a PC - the rest of the fight is zero challenge.
Finally, I am personally an advocate for the idea that more scenarios should have a higher chance of mission failure rather than character death. The party dying is not the only way to add challenge. What if the characters failed to prevent an assassination in time, or trusted the wrong PCs? There are a wide variety of ways to add challenge to the game without increasing the rate of character death, and I feel that this is an option that is rarely used.
There is always a reasonable way to not die, even if the player can't access it because of a poor roll or a poor decision.
You die because you rolled low on initiative, well them's the breaks. No, I am not a killer GM, but dice rolls are a part of the game, and PFS protects players a lot by not allowing GM's to use more lethal tactics. At some point the results just have to be accepted.
I forgot to address this earlier, but you really can't compare enemies and PCs. The enemies are *supposed* to lose in the vast majority of cases. They don't get equal opportunity.
Yes we can compare them. The NPC's are intended to lose, and the game giving the PC's good stats, and better equipment tips the balance in their favor, but after you get past that everyone uses the same rules. I might not even say the PC's are "supposed" to lose. I would just say winning is heavily in their favor, and barring bad luck and/or poor tactics they will win.
I am a utilitarianist when it comes to gaming. I believe that games are played for the enjoyment of the players, and I take actions that increase that enjoyment. I advocate for rules changes that I believe will increase that enjoyment. I also do not hold rules in great reverence because they are the vehicle to gaming enjoyment, not the destination.
What someone enjoys will always vary. Making the game even easier will make some happy, but for others it won't. As the game is now, both playstyles can be enforced. Now what could be done is for each GM to present how likely he is to be nice and spare a PC, but often times players think they want to earn it, but they don't. After a few sessions under a GM that does not help them out they can decide if that is really how they like to play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to post, but there is just too much vitriol and anger in this thread. I advise everyone to step back and breathe, to come back to this thread after letting it cool off. Flaring tempers do no favors to anyone. At the end of the day, we are all Pathfinders. Try to not forget that.
I was going to post, but there is just too much vitriol and anger in this thread. I advise everyone to step back and breathe, to come back to this thread after letting it cool off. Flaring tempers do no favors to anyone. At the end of the day, we are all Pathfinders. Try to not forget that.
Everyone seems calm to me. I don't see any insults being thrown.
|
|
There will always be table variation.
There are just too many small ambiguities in the rules, varying states of tactical and rules acumen amongst GMs, and the same for the other players as well. Then you also have the varying level, class, and build acumen issue.
There will never be 100% exactness. And this issue just isn't common enough to require a house rule to ensure 100% sameness.
Part of the fun of this game is the human factor. And requiring scenarios be run as written and the rules be followed is enough of providing a similar experience.
Frankly if you want 100% sameness play a computer game.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I remember going to GenCon one year back when Living Greyhawk was around (WotC's 3.5 organized play campaign). They were offering a brand new 3-part start up adventure designed for brand new characters. It looked cool so I bought tickets for it and rolled up a Kobold Sorcerer. After some initial RP in town looking for some clues we headed out to the dungeon. We ran into some bandits. First round of combat, I throw a spell at a war dog and one of the bandits desides I am dangerous enough to target with his Longbow. He crits my 4 hp Kobold for 22 points of damage thanks to x3 crits.
I just sat there and thought, "I flew 1300 miles, paid for admission, hotel and food, not to mention the $8.00 it cost me just to sign up for this game so I could get randomly one-shotted 20 minutes into the 4 hour slot?"
There were a lot of things I could say 4E got wrong, but nerfing crits wasn't one of them. The price you pay for death in organized play can be a lot different from what you pay in a home game.
I remember going to GenCon one year back when Living Greyhawk was around (WotC's 3.5 organized play campaign). They were offering a brand new 3-part start up adventure designed for brand new characters. It looked cool so I bought tickets for it and rolled up a Kobold Sorcerer. After some initial RP in town looking for some clues we headed out to the dungeon. We ran into some bandits. First round of combat, I throw a spell at a war dog and one of the bandits desides I am dangerous enough to target with his Longbow. He crits my 4 hp Kobold for 22 points of damage thanks to x3 crits.
I just sat there and thought, "I flew 1300 miles, paid for admission, hotel and food, not to mention the $8.00 it cost me just to sign up for this game so I could get randomly one-shotted 20 minutes into the 4 hour slot?"
There were a lot of things I could say 4E got wrong, but nerfing crits wasn't one of them. The price you pay for death in organized play can be a lot different from what you pay in a home game.
With 4 hit points I don't think a crit was the problem.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
With 4 hit points I don't think a crit was the problem.I remember going to GenCon one year back when Living Greyhawk was around (WotC's 3.5 organized play campaign). They were offering a brand new 3-part start up adventure designed for brand new characters. It looked cool so I bought tickets for it and rolled up a Kobold Sorcerer. After some initial RP in town looking for some clues we headed out to the dungeon. We ran into some bandits. First round of combat, I throw a spell at a war dog and one of the bandits desides I am dangerous enough to target with his Longbow. He crits my 4 hp Kobold for 22 points of damage thanks to x3 crits.
I just sat there and thought, "I flew 1300 miles, paid for admission, hotel and food, not to mention the $8.00 it cost me just to sign up for this game so I could get randomly one-shotted 20 minutes into the 4 hour slot?"
There were a lot of things I could say 4E got wrong, but nerfing crits wasn't one of them. The price you pay for death in organized play can be a lot different from what you pay in a home game.
Sorcerers only got d4s in 3.5 and you died at -10 regardless of Con. Even if I had an 18 Con and Toughness I still would have been dead. I looked at everyone else's character sheet at the table. Only the 16 Con Ranger would have lived through that shot.
|
|
I got one shotted in a scenario, I got full attacked in the surprise round after the BBEG got Ddoored right next to me. Full to dead.
Wasn't fun.
Okay, let me ask: why not?
We're telling stories here, folks. And the death of a Pathfinder agent can inspire his comrades or make them keenly aware of their own mortality. It can be a pivot point of both the adventure and the career of the other PCs.
So, when your PC was suddenly killed ("I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.") how did the other PCs react? How did that contribute to the story?
Did your character get raised? How did the experience change him?
My first pfs character died in scenario 4 I believe as part of an all but tpk. It was not fun. I debated strongly about finding another campaign to play. The other players were strangers and didn't care. All but one character died and the guy who lived thought it was sort of funny.
There was no good story. It was a train wreck from beginning to end.
|
** spoiler omitted **This is pretty much how I feel, too. Though, it bothers me less at higher levels. I remember a certain tier 8-9 that I played up into with a level 5 Sorcerer (waltero, you know which one I mean). There was a Save and Die situation in that one (50 points of damage if you made the save, 100 if you failed. Either would have killed me). Fortunately, it was avoidable, and I avoided it. I would have been surprised had I been hit with it, but I'd have been ok with it, because I was playing up, and because it at least offered a chance to avoid it. As is, it served as a wake-up call that maybe I shouldn't be playing up so much. For the record, a failed save would have killed most of the characters that were in-tier, too.It seems we've drifted away from discussing one-shot kill to general risk of death. These are two different concepts.
I've got no problem with adventuring being risky and there being a chance of death. But give me a chance.
I am not a fan of:
Roll for initiative.
Monster/villian goes first.
You are instantly dead.What's heroic or fun in that?
Didn't know that. Good to know.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **This is pretty much how I feel, too. Though, it bothers me less at higher levels. I remember a certain tier 8-9 that I played up into with a level 5 Sorcerer (waltero, you know which one I mean). There was a Save and Die situation in that one (50 points of damage if you made the save, 100 if you failed. Either would have killed me). Fortunately, it was avoidable, and I avoided it. I would have been surprised had I been hit with it, but I'd have been ok with it, because I was playing up, and because it at least offered a chance to avoid it. As is, it served as a wake-up call that maybe I shouldn't be playing up so much. For the record, a failed save would have killed most of the characters that were in-tier, too.It seems we've drifted away from discussing one-shot kill to general risk of death. These are two different concepts.
I've got no problem with adventuring being risky and there being a chance of death. But give me a chance.
I am not a fan of:
Roll for initiative.
Monster/villian goes first.
You are instantly dead.What's heroic or fun in that?
Didn't know that. Good to know.
** spoiler omitted **
If that is the scenario I think it is, that situation would not have killed anyone, even if they failed the save. Actually, it is more likely to kill someone at the 5-6 sub-tier than the 8-9, if the GM understands the situation correctly.
Main thing it would be is a resource pit, since healing a party that all have Negative Energy Affinity requires non-standard resources than a normal party.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **This is pretty much how I feel, too. Though, it bothers me less at higher levels. I remember a certain tier 8-9 that I played up into with a level 5 Sorcerer (waltero, you know which one I mean). There was a Save and Die situation in that one (50 points of damage if you made the save, 100 if you failed. Either would have killed me). Fortunately, it was avoidable, and I avoided it. I would have been surprised had I been hit with it, but I'd have been ok with it, because I was playing up, and because it at least offered a chance to avoid it. As is, it served as a wake-up call that maybe I shouldn't be playing up so much. For the record, a failed save would have killed most of the characters that were in-tier, too.It seems we've drifted away from discussing one-shot kill to general risk of death. These are two different concepts.
I've got no problem with adventuring being risky and there being a chance of death. But give me a chance.
I am not a fan of:
Roll for initiative.
Monster/villian goes first.
You are instantly dead.What's heroic or fun in that?
Didn't know that. Good to know.
** spoiler omitted **
If that is the scenario I think it is, that situation would not have killed anyone, even if they failed the save. Actually, it is more likely to kill someone at the 5-6 sub-tier than the 8-9, if the GM understands the situation correctly.
** spoiler omitted **
Kinevon... the contents of your spoiler were the contents of Rogue Eidolon's spoiler, which was omitted for being a spoiler from the quote in my response. My spoiler was a response to his spoiler. Now... let's stop the spoiler madness!
But yes, also, thank you. That is good information to have. At the time, I felt sufficiently afraid, which worked just fine for the scenario. I won't feel as bad now about running that scenario at some point in the future knowing that I won't be murdering a bunch of (mostly) innocent pathfinders.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I have yet to hear any real benefit to anybody from encouraging random crit deaths at low levels. I've heard lots of rhetoric about the importance of rules, but nothing that makes me think, "Gosh, it would be better for my players if I killed off their low level characters."
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed additional posts with back and forth bashing. You've already been put on notice by several other employees. If it happens again,I'm locking this thread.More like one employee, several times, but I take your point. I really should just stop reading it. It seems others have.
Jessica Price and Chris Lambertz would equal two. I am three. And now the thread is locked and you have received a PM.