I'd like to echo this. With pack 3 this game has really matured. I've played through three of the scenarios so far and it felt like much more of a challenge (and more rewarding because of it).
Part of me still thinks the villains don't scale very well to 6-character games (since you normally have many more blessings/add-ons available) but the game as a whole is definitely more intense and scenarios like Black Magga remove this villain scaling problem in a novel way.
Philosophically:
If I had it to do over again (and in some ways, I do), I might look closely at the difficulty of set 1. What I predicted was that people would play the basic scenarios once and then dive into Burnt Offerings. A lot of players instead pounded the basic scenarios many times over, loading up on awesome stuff, and then blitzed adventure 1. We're going to look hard at that behavior in Skull & Shackles playtests.
Its probably important to be careful not to over-do it in S&S ;) If you set the difficulty high for the beginning stuff, the later chapters will either feel too flat or be too hard to beat.
I personally like it when the game feels winnable but still requires the player to make smart decisions, particularly in a game that involves this much randomness.
To put it another way, games like Elder Sign/Epidemic/Arcam Horror have their place, but I prefer RotR to all of them ;)
Even playing through the Basic set only once, our Merisiel and Kyra burned through AP1 without difficulty, and pretty much had no problems with AP2. The first two scenarios of AP3 have been more challenging, and I've really enjoyed the increase in complexity for the villains/henchmen. I said it in the Merisiel thread, but if I didn't know you guys built these all at the same time, I'd say you really upped your game on this one.
|
The only time I was in a group where we replayed any of the intro scenarios was when we either a) failed, because we were just learning the game, or b) replayed to get someone else to "catch up" to us when we added them to our group. If people want to get their friends in on a campaign, the rules as-written require them to start over from the beginning to get all the feats...this of course has some characters "pounding" the intro scenarios, likely improving their deck as they do so.
I never felt a need to do anything like that... I was able to get generally the cards I wanted just by playing through the scenarios once (except perhaps for armors, but meh). "Farming" a scenario is still something that could be done with any scenario though, so I don't think trying to design the game in a way that would make farming difficult is the most important concern.
I mean, at least the farmers are playing by the rules... I'm sure plenty of people would just stack the location decks with the cards they want (or just outright build their decks with those cards and skip the acquiring part all together).
I suppose it's also worth pointing out that making scenarios harder actually increases farming as well... but it does so in a way that might turn players off. If a player fails a scenario, they still acquire things in it, but to go on they are much more likely to actually repeat the scenario than if they succeed at it.
I think the design shouldn't worry about farming.
First, it is still a percentage "game" in terms of getting the gear you want. You could farm a scenario 20 times and never find Holy Candle.
Second, people that want to "maximize" their characters will just do it anyway. If you make a rule against it, that doesn't mean people will follow the rule. They are probably the same people that if they fail a roll to acquire something, they'll re-roll it. Or they'll just go into the box.
Third, part of the fun of the game is the challenge. Of course, each person could have a different level of challenge that makes if fun for them. So if the person farming the early scenarios is having fun (and not complaining that the game is too easy and therefore no fun), then to some extent what does it matter? Its a non-competitive game. And I think that doesn't just apply to the game but to our results. We don't need to compete for the most powerful character or brag about best results.
So I say, don't sweat it. If that is what people need to do to make the game fun, then if I'm not playing with them it doesn't bother me. The game (as far as I can tell) is a runaway success. So why trifle over something so trivial. Let the farmers farm if that is what they want to do. And the non-farmers can play the game "straight up". Everyone is happy. Everyone wins.
I appreciate that feedback. I also have to keep in mind the players who say "This game's too easy!" after playing the base set several dozen times with the same characters. Deck filtration is a strong reason for that, so we have to look at it as a potential issue. Not sure what, if anything, is the solution to that issue.
I dunno how viable it'd be, but using the game's already-built-in trait system, along with the 'you can only have this many cards of a type,' maybe it'll be possible to set a limitation that before the third (or whatever adventure) you can only have X number of non-basic cards?
That way, even if people repeatedly hammer earlier scenarios to find the 'awesome lewts,' they're still somewhat limited on how much of that awesomeness they can actually carry through, so they don't become artificially overpowered too early? This might end up helping with the 'the game is too easy' people, and would make it easier to balance the adventures so there's not a steep difficulty ramp that ends up with people claiming 'the game is too hard.'
Currently this can happen with intentional farming or it can be an unintentional side effect of helping deceased and recreated characters through earlier scenarios to help them get up to par. Either way, it can happen, and having this limitation would keep both the intentional and unintentional from happening early on.
It's already in the rules that new characters have to create with Basic until a certain adventure, so it's not a big jump to limit current characters by how 'awesome' they can be purely based on luck (or in the case of repeated playthroughs of easier scenarios, not luck but just farming).
I dunno how well it'd go over, but if it ends up making the game more enjoyable for the masses, I'm all for it.
Philosophically:
If I had it to do over again (and in some ways, I do), I might look closely at the difficulty of set 1. What I predicted was that people would play the basic scenarios once and then dive into Burnt Offerings. A lot of players instead pounded the basic scenarios many times over, loading up on awesome stuff, and then blitzed adventure 1. We're going to look hard at that behavior in Skull & Shackles playtests.
Some of us have only played each scenario once (except for two, where we lost) and only played fan-made scenarios while waiting for Adventure pack 2. Still found the difficulty far too easy.
So far, our three heroes haven't even been close to dying. Bruised and battered yes, but nothing a few days at the inn couldn't cure.So the difficulty level is too easy even for us who are not replaying again and again.
So the difficulty level is too easy even for us who are not replaying again and again.
If you have only played each scenario once then I would hesitate to say it was too easy. The dice may have been extraordinarily kind to you. You may have only run across the lowest difficulty monsters.
When I hear people complaining the game is "too easy" or "too hard" I can't help but ask, "compared to what?" This game is, in some ways, the first of its kind, so direct comparisons can't really be made. That being said, its basic structure is that of an RPG, so there we can make comparisons...
If I compare the RotR game to pretty much any of the video-game based RPGs I've played (and that's a lot of them!) I don't find the game to be any more or less difficult than them in general... though it is obviously simpler. With a lot of video game RPGs you have a "save" option in case you screw up too much and that sort of exists in RotR as well (scenario restarting). I don't recall many instances where my character came close to dying in other RPGs either, so I wouldn't say that makes any of the games too easy. Similarly, nothing in RotR has felt nearly impossible to overcome. I would therefor conclude that the game's difficulty is perfectly appropriate. It even has plenty of built in way to up the difficulty for those so inclined (many have been discussed on these forums). I personally think its better to design a game to be easier with options of upping the difficulty rather than designing a game to be what some would call "too hard" as its generally more difficult to make things easier without feeling like you're cheating, and high difficulty can turn people off to the game, whereas the people shouting "too easy" are clearly still happy to play it.
I agree. Farming the scenarios for better cards and then complaining the game is too easy is like Lebron James joining the Harlem Globetrotters and complaining their schedule it too weak. You made the decision to play the way you played, don't complain about the game because you intentionally stacked the deck (quite literally) in your favor.
Keep the repeat option in. It helps those of us (and I do include myself in here) that struggled to pick it up and made bad decisions about what cards to keep because you didn't understand them.
And it also makes it fun for me to convince someone else to join in playing with me. I can replay with them to bring them up to speed. Quite honestly, with this being a new game, it sometimes takes some convincing to get people to try it. I have to say, "Its sort of like a role-playing game, but its also not. Its really not like anything you've played before." I have a part with Calthaer that started as 3, grew to 4, now is 5 and we are trying to bring a 6th player on board. Calthaer or I will probably re-run Perils of the Lost Coast with the 6th guy since he'll just be learning the game. He doesn't own it so he can't do it on his own time (and neither of us could bear to part with it!). And I swear if we find Holy Candle, we are keeping it!
I think that situation will play out more than just with our group. And I think you want it to happen. After all, you want more people introduced to the game. So let it happen. Its not big deal. And honestly, if the rules were changed, unless on the the designers could give me a really compelling reason not to, I'd just house rule repeating the scenarios the way you can now. And I imagine others would to.
Again, its a cooperative game. Its not a competition. And even with out farming the game has a considerable amount of random chance built in. You don't need to feel bad about your character if someone else posts that their Harsk has Deathbane Light Crossbow, 2 Frost Longbows, Return Throwing Axe + 1, Shock Longbow, Crown of Charisma, Holy Candle, and all the loot cards. It doesn't make your Harsk any less fun.
And lastly, farming is still no guarantee. Our group (or portions of it) have played the 3 Perils of the Lost Coasts scenarios 6 times due to failure or bringing up a new player. And we still don't have Holy Candle!!!! If you are really going to farm to get the "best possible deck" then odds are it will take some major time commitment. I for one don't have that kind of time. And with next year's release schedule as Bidmaron said, I think fewer people will have that kind of time. I have to believe that at some point farming gets boring and you'd rather open up that pretty box of cards and do a new scenario.
There's no way we're removing the repeat option. There is some question as to what the difficulty of adventure 1 should be in Skull & Shackles. That's all.
There's no way we're removing the repeat option. There is some question as to what the difficulty of adventure 1 should be in Skull & Shackles. That's all.
Excellent. I can handle some more difficulty, especially if new players will still have 1 or 2 scenarios to learn the ropes.
Did I miss something? I keep seeing something about a different release schedule but I can find anything other than it's different. What is changing? I think that a release every two months works great. Thanks in advance.
|
Did I miss something? I keep seeing something about a different release schedule but I can find anything other than it's different. What is changing? I think that a release every two months works great. Thanks in advance.
In the Skull & Shackles announcement theyt said they're moving to Monthly releases, with the third set starting Feburary 15 or so.
Did I miss something? I keep seeing something about a different release schedule but I can find anything other than it's different. What is changing? I think that a release every two months works great. Thanks in advance.
Starting with the next Adventure Path Card Game, they will be releasing the expansion packs monthly.
Check out the Paizo Blog and scroll down till you see Shiver Me Timbers and read that post.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog
|
|
As to the fellow who remarked it's too easy because no one dies, please ignore him. Death should be utterly rare in a well-played game. Losing the game should happen now and then (and for me, who plays strictly by the rules [at least as I'm smart enough to know based upon the FAQ and watching the boards], it happens plenty often enough.
Maybe these guys complaining about it being too easy want to have some old-school Gygaxian dungeon experience where every flagstone is made of plaster opening to a pit of spikes, every door handle has a poison needle, and every hallway houses a Gelatinous Cube or some other beast, and characters are lucky to survive even one session of the DM's meat-grinder. It almost sounds like those who want the level of difficulty of those old-school NES games where you have to memorize the pattern of every level in order to get through it on three lives.
That sort of idea is interesting, but should be optional, because that level of difficulty caters to, IMO, a niche audience.
Well, death is just about impossible if you're counting your remaining cards since you can just wait for the scenario to time out at absolutely no penalty.
I like the variant where you randomly banish a card from your deck for each remaining location that's still open.