|
OK, I have been reading thread postings on this site for a bit, heck even posted a few which is very unusual for me. I got to say my initial reaction to this forum was one of general hostility toward GMs which I find confusing since without GMs you have no players. Please note this initial reaction was generated before I posted my first post. The thread on min/max was kind of a test post.
The first response I got on that thread was exactly as expected instant hostility towards a potential GM asking a question, but the followup posts were much more modulated even the ones that disagreed with the subject. Overall I found the thread an interesting read and hopefully others did as well.
Personally I think the focus on the “run as written” that keeps getting quoted all over this forum should be toned down. Generally, most GMs especially ones that mainly run home games are not used to someone telling them what they can or can not do.
Instead I think trying to emphasize the positives would be a better tract, after all people respond better to carrots than sticks. Positives as I see it:
It should be pointed out that the PFS has a range of scenarios and modules available that seem to range the gambit between more easier or harder combat. This would allow a GM that only likes nail biting fights to just run those modules. It also allows players to pick scenarios or modules that may or may not be combat heavy. After all not everyone wants really tough fights, some people gasp just want to role-play and have casual fun.
I see this as no different then in a home game were you do not want every fight or adventure path you take the party on to be super hard or deadly. All hard fights get boring, all easy fights are the same way.
I will say that I find it very odd that modules/scenarios don't have at least simple adjustments built into them to handle number of players. As I see it that is about the only real adjustment that would be a nice to have as number of players really affects difficulty level.
But I digress, not having to worry about adjusting the modules difficulty lets you focus on the game and the players actions more. This should allow the development of the NPC better and heck even focus more on making the combat more descriptively interesting vs worrying about some adjustment you made that may or may not be working out.
It also provides a more consistent game play which is nice, of course this it is a little hampered with the massive amount of rules Pathfinder has. No one person can be expected to know each and every rule and how it interacts. Not to mention it is easy to miss something in a scenario you have prepared or forget something, but in general should be closer to a hopefully a good logical story.
Anyone else have any positives they would like to add?
|
Just one point: Season 0 to 3 scenarios were written for 4 PCs, and have no adjustments, other than the APL to sub-tier rules; Season 4+ scenarios are written for 6 PCs, and include both the APL to sub-tier adjustments, but include sidebars on how to adjust most of the encounters for 4 players. Sometimes those sidebars are on a later page, which is just one more reason to give each scenario a good read-over during prep...
|
The first response I got on that thread was exactly as expected instant hostility towards a potential GM asking a question, but the followup posts were much more modulated even the ones that disagreed with the subject. Overall I found the thread an interesting read and hopefully others did as well.
GRAAAARRRRRRG!!!! Is much easier to type than something that may require you to double check a few facts and look up references.
|
|
Just one point: Season 0 to 3 scenarios were written for 4 PCs, and have no adjustments, other than the APL to sub-tier rules; Season 4+ scenarios are written for 6 PCs, and include both the APL to sub-tier adjustments, but include sidebars on how to adjust most of the encounters for 4 players. Sometimes those sidebars are on a later page, which is just one more reason to give each scenario a good read-over during prep...
That is very helpful so far for whatever reason I have only seen season 3 modules and/or the free products.
|
|
The problem is what happens when a DM decides "oh sure they can take 7 of these..." and then a character dies. It doesn't take more than 2-3 deaths to seriously cut into a characters wealthy by level and make them.. if not exactly unplayable, then at least rather likely to hit the death spiral. (You sell off your equipment, you go into the dungeon naked, you're more likely to die, so you sell your equipment so...)
|
|
GRAAAARRRRRRG!!!! Is much easier to type than something that may require you to double check a few facts and look up references.
This is a good example of what I would consider negative reaction to a question and statement - I 100% agree that the question might be one that has been asked over and over again on the forums. But if someones instant answer is to attack the person asking the question - maybe they should not respond?
I for one have not been on this forum for 4-5 years playing PFS and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
That or you could do what I have done in the past for my job which is to provide a link sending the user to find the information themselves.
|
|
Unfortunately, any GM jumping in at this point has an extra level of vigilance to adhere to... each of the seasons (as pointed out before) has it's own characteristics. And, as time marches on, PFS scenarios have changed to suit player demand. Keep in mind that the later seasons reflect the the opinions of seasoned players who are vocal on the forum... earlier seasons were still gauging players' reactions to PFS, in general.
If your players are not playing optimised* characters, you can pick scenarios from earlier seasons for them to play until they learn the ins-and-outs of PFS organised play. Try not to take everything said by other players/GMs on the forums as law.... there is a big difference between a new player (or GM) to PFS and those who have several seasons under their belts as well. Mind you, PFS rules *are* technically law... so don't be surprised for the "run as written" to be what you see- uniformity can trump playability, at least in organised play... it is part of the beast inherent in running public events.
That all said, try to take it in stride. There is opportunity to run PFS for your home group but it does require a lot of organisation (fore-thought) by the organiser to make it happen in a way that is digestible based on their experience level. (See paragraph one...)
Hang in there, WJ
*by optimised, I mean not only knowing how to build a character strongly by the core rules, but also exploiting some feat/ability to make the character exceptionally strong. It takes a relatively strong grasp of not only the rules of the game, but also the exceptions of those rules to make a character that many would consider optimised**.
**mind you, I prefer to play a character with foibles as I find it more interesting.
|
|
"run as written" to be what you see- uniformity can trump playability, at least in organised play... it is part of the beast inherent in running public events.
I honestly have no concerns about "run as written" back in the days I probably ran 40-50 LFR modules and ran them every time exactly as written. To be honest I did not even think about it. Adjustments never entered my mind.
But like most human beings you tell them explicitly that they can not do something you almost invariable have those that rebel.
|
|
GRAAAARRRRRRG!!!! Is much easier to type than something that may require you to double check a few facts and look up references.This is a good example of what I would consider negative reaction to a question and statement - I 100% agree that the question might be one that has been asked over and over again on the forums. But if someones instant answer is to attack the person asking the question - maybe they should not respond?
Just my 2 cents... In general BNW (Big Norse Wolf) is dead on with good opinions for newer players/GMs... not sure what sparked the reaction... but it is true that over time people who are mainstays to any public forum online tend to be less tolerant of questions asked many times before....
...but that said, Paizo forum users, imho, are generally better than that. I think that our mutual love of PFS somehow overcomes that dynamic I mentioned before. But... YMMV....
|
|
The problem is what happens when a DM decides "oh sure they can take 7 of these..." and then a character dies. It doesn't take more than 2-3 deaths to seriously cut into a characters wealthy by level and make them.. if not exactly unplayable, then at least rather likely to hit the death spiral. (You sell off your equipment, you go into the dungeon naked, you're more likely to die, so you sell your equipment so...)
Yes I will agree with that it does appear the penalty for death in this social play games is pretty crushing. Has it ever been discussed maybe toning down the penalty for death ?
We are supposedly part of an organization after all - where is the Union Rep when you need them?
Just to be clear if not I'm talking about your character's faction
|
Commander G
I have a response to your thoughts about the hostility. I'm going to spoiler it because it's not really the subject of this thread and I don't want to turn it into a "he said, she said, but he really meant that she meant..." mess.
Now I'm going to turn the light the other way. You threw some fuel on the fire with the following comments (in various posts in that thread):
- You hit on one of my issues with this – others have mentioned that the whole point is for the players to have fun, but the GM is a player – not in the traditional PC sense to be sure, but if the GM is not having fun I can more or less guarantee that the players are not.
The one veteran PFS player, one game under his belt, is the one with the channel character build.
...
Cleric dazed some monsters, they recovered got enraged and just focused on him as being the biggest threat, after one critical charge the cleric was on the ground. Next round the same monster finished him.
For most PFS GMs this is a HUGE no-no. When the table is mostly new players (where "new" can vary but usually means less than 10-15 games played), punches get pulled all the time. Once someone is down you move on to the next person, you don't finish them off. Even if it means stopping in the middle of a full-attack. The reason has nothing to do with running as written. It's that when you perma-kill a character someone has invested all their initial effort in they often don't come back. It's for the good of PFS as a whole for new players to not be driven off by a bad experience.
Games with new players can be unfun for the GM at times. But the best way to make the games fun for everyone is to nudge the players in ways that make them better players, not just better at beating monsters. Your posts came off as (slightly) promoting a "me vs. them" mentality. Not saying that was your intention, but it read that way. The next wave of hostility came from the perception that you might have cost PFS at least one player. Many of the posters are extremely dedicated to growing and promoting PFS.
Anyway, hopefully that gave some insight into the social dynamics at play on the message boards.
|
|
Yes I will agree with that it does appear the penalty for death in this social play games is pretty crushing. Has it ever been discussed maybe toning down the penalty for death ?
We are supposedly part of an organization after all - where is the Union Rep when you need them?
It has been discussed quite a few times. The sticking point is that if the cost to come back to life is lowered it becomes trivial quite quickly. And death is supposed to be serious, even in a fantasy world like this one. If you play an insane 7 Con berserker wizard who rushes into melee you are meant to pay the price, not just grab the next one of your six-pack. (See Paranoia for how players act when death isn't that important.) The only way to prevent triviality would be a change in the core rules to a sliding scale of cost based on level. And the designers don't want to go that way. In general the ability to come back from the dead shouldn't be available to every moderately successful turnip merchant.
So in order to make Golarion function death is an extremely serious situation for low-level players. But it is toned down in PFS where Prestige can be used for raise dead. (Though even that is out of reach until level 5 or so.)
|
|
Commander G
I have a response to your thoughts about the hostility. I'm going to spoiler it because it's not really the subject of this thread and I don't want to turn it into a "he said, she said, but he really meant that she meant..." mess.
** spoiler omitted **...
Three response to this:
1. First my opinion of hostility on this forum was before I even had posted a message. At least one other person in my group had the same opinion on these boards after just a casual preview.2. Yes I did throw fire on that and it was a mistake - in a following post I recanted that statement cause it never happened. It was a inside joke that I did not mark clearly as such - the person asking the question that I responded to was one of the players in the game.
3. Overall I found the response to that thread interesting and positive - only the first post I considered a hostile answer.
|
Commander, welcome to the boards and to the campaign, and thank you for posting.
There are a few of points I want to make in response to your post.
First, I think many of us agree that there exists hostility on these boards regarding some topics. Your thread, as you already know, pushed hot buttons on one of those topics.
However, this hostility is not a general hostility toward GMs. You will see that many of the hostile posters (and I include myself in this camp, knowing that I've let posts get under my skin before and have replied when I probably should have waited a bit first*) have multiple stars next to their names. That means that they themselves have devoted a large number of hours GMing, often running games for the pleasure of strangers.
Moreover, there is also a general willingness to help fellow GMs run their games better. Look through the GM forum, and the vast majority of posts are polite and helpful.
As you now know, one of the hot button issues around here is the notion that unless encounters are hard, the game is no fun. This is something that is definitely true for some players and GMs while equally untrue for others. What really raises hackles is when someone inserts any language that suggests an attitude of competition between player and GM. If you reread your post, I think you can find such language therein.
This is not to excuse the hostility. We, especially those of us who have been here for a while, should endeavor to make this a welcoming place to share ideas and our mutual love of this silly pastime. One way you can help is to be aware of when you are bringing up hot-button issues, and only do so delicately and gracefully.
* I actually read your original post in this thread shortly after you posted it. I was annoyed by it and almost responded immediately. Instead, I waited until I had a night's sleep, and I find myself much more agreeable this morning.
|
|
One way you can help is to be aware of when you are bringing up hot-button issues, and only do so delicately and gracefully.
Really I have no basis to understand what is a hot topic issue and what is not. Maybe this forum needs a FAQ sticky to the top explaining hot issues or just common answers to questions that you guys have seen over and over again?
Just to once again state that my opinion of hostility above was reached BEFORE I had posted anything - it had nothing to do with any forum postings of mine or response therein.
I actually thought the responses to that thread was helpful overall in understanding how PFS expects GMs to deal with stuff.
|
|
Yeah, I thought about starting a list in this thread. But I realized we don't need to. Thinking about it more, most of the hostility is really directed at...hostility.
The part of your min/max post that bothered people was not you asking about the build, but asking "What do I do about it?" Now that might not seem overly hostile on your part, but there is an implied aggression there. You don't need to do anything about someone's legal build. If the rest of the players are having less fun because of one player, for whatever reason, you talk to that player.
If you look through these boards, you will see lots of posts from people on both sides of the screen that ask hostile questions, then are surprised when they get hostile responses. Hostile questions are things like "My GM wouldn't let me do this. Can you help me break his game?" Or "I think this particular class is broken. Can you help me think of ways to kill all PCs of that class who play at my tables?" (Those are paraphrases of two actual PFS topics that I remember from this past year).
We have sort of a knee-jerk reaction to such things here. We probably shouldn't, but we do.
So my general advice when posting new threads is to ask yourself if you are projecting hostility with your post.
|
|
Yeah, I thought about starting a list in this thread. But I realized we don't need to. Thinking about it more, most of the hostility is really directed at...hostility.
I must admit it would be interesting to see if I could locate the specific threads and forums that lead me down to the conclusion of hostility and see how many of them where what are questions or responses to such "hot topics".
But overall my impressions of this board have improved with the general interaction of the postings - which I consider a good thing.
One of my biggest concerns on thou shalt not make modifications was party size - which according to kinevon was nice enough clarify that was only in seasons 0-3. Which given my limited insight into the scenarios offered, I had not encountered, something a FAQ would have provided me with some knowledge on.
As to me being a GM vs player that was not the intent of that thread personally I think you might be reading more into it or maybe it is just cause English is not my native language since I only speak bad English. I have been running successful games sessions both as a player and as a GM for several decades at this point now. I can ensure you I did not reach the number of games and game systems, not to mention recurring players, by randomly or mercilessly killing people off - that is no fun for anyone. For these games the number one goal was to have fun everything has always been secondary.
|
|
Commander G
I have a response to your thoughts about the hostility. I'm going to spoiler it because it's not really the subject of this thread and I don't want to turn it into a "he said, she said, but he really meant that she meant..." mess.
** spoiler omitted **...
Belafon, one last comment on this - I did not put it on the other thread since as far as I'm concerned it is dead, but I would like to just mention that I liked your response the best.
Two options:
1) Know that they are going to lock down every encounter. Live with it as it lies. Play up the social encounters all you can. Put as much emphasis on describing how creatures act while you can. Make the (pushover) fight come to life as much as possible.
2) Know that they are going to lock down every encounter. Let it happen. Don't put any emotion into it. Let the players say to each other "that's the third encounter in a row where we haven't felt remotely challenged. This really isn't much fun."
I heartily recommend 1. The only time I would do 2 is if the players are likely to all be playing together for a lot of scenarios together (a game in someone's home for example) and it's clear that the channeler is going to keep anyone else from having a chance to shine.
Even then, I probably wouldn't do it until I've had a chance to talk to the player after the game and say "you're very effective, but you're cutting into other players fun." Every time a local player shows up at a game day with a "lock-down" combo, both GMs and players are generally good about saying something. 95% of the time the "offending" player will take a step back and only pull out the nuke once per scenario (or when needed for survival).
|
|
OK hopefully my last comment on that min/max thread. One of the quoted reference above for why I received negative criticism was a basically a response to one of your 5 star GM posters
As a GM, I don't find it much fun if EVERY fight turns into:Player X: Channels
Badguys: Can't GO
Everyone Else: Kills BadguysKinda boring.
That was what the comment I made about if the GM is not having fun the players probably are not.
Rereading that thread I got to say with the exception of the first response I either found the responses:
1. helpful
2. interesting
3. funny
4. informative
I really appreciated Walter Sheppard suggestion and David_Bross postings. That thread by the end had improved my opinion of this forum by quite a lot. Otherwise I would not have bothered to post this thread.
And as to that negative first post that really was a knee-jerk post cause the rest of that individual's posting I liked. I feel like I'm picking him out specifically and I don't want to continue that.
In closing I would like to take the opportunity to apologize especially to FLite & Wraith235 since my joke about killing the cleric was in bad taste. Rereading that post from me I should have put in "Cause the player was wearing a red shirt" or some other obvious joke reference.
|
|
I'm sorry Commander. I don't mean to say that you are a "me vs them" GM. I certainly don't think you are. I'm saying that when people here detect even a hint of that, they pounce on it. RAGELANCEPOUNCE on it, actually. And I used your min/max post as an example of one that has such a hint, even if we now know that isn't how you feel. But if you look at other posts by different posters that have had such hostile responses, most stem from a variation on that aggressive theme.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about Walter Sheppard's responses on these boards. Walter is a shining example of friendliness and helpfulness.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Fox, I think I must be getting a little defensive.
Oh and I'm also wondering if maybe my name was a bad pick - it was also a joke. Commander - yeah right, I live in a house with 3 woman (wife + 2 kids), I'm not in charge of anything around here.
I'm lucky if I can keep them from stealing my computer.
|
|
CommanderG: It sounds like you mnay have missed a couple of the important documents for players & GMs for PFS.
One is the free Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which is where I pulled the information from, paraphrased, about the scenario APL sub-tier/players information from. It has a bunch of useful information, although it can be a tad long.
The other important document is the Additional Resources page, which shows what items from the various Paizo Pathfinder books, modules, APs, and Tales are legal for play in PFS.
|
|
Yeah I have seen both resources, but really between the length of them, the intricate nature of pathfinder game system - which is really large and is so close to 3rd edition DnD except when it is not - there is a lot to get up to speed on. To make matters worse in this regard my 3rd edition knowledge was not very good since my local gaming group stayed on the 2E rules and/or other non DnD based game systems.
My primary focus right now has been to come up to speed on the combat system within Pathfinder. I have been rereading that section every week or so to try and make sense out of it. In general one of the problems I'm having is that I'm old and I just don't pickup things the way I used to.
The only reason I'm tackling PFS is because two individuals in my local group want PFS legal characters to take to DragonCon 2014. Otherwise I would not have jumped in feet first into this.
|
|
missed a couple of the important documents
Speaking of documents - is there a listing somewhere of scenarios in PFS that I can find that ranks modules on difficulty level?
I ask cause without this board I would have ran my 1st time players of PFS though "Society Scenario 3-21 The Temple Of Empyreal Enlightenment", which I have been told has a "bad" reputation as being hard.
After prepping it I can tell why - some of the encounters, fights, and challenges look downright impossible to me for a group of 1st level characters with no special equipment.
Is it normal for all pathfinder guys to be running around with silver and cold weapons ? Is this some unwritten rule like everyone will acquire a wand of cure light wounds.
In general it is an order of magnitude more difficult than say "Intro First Steps Part In Service To Lore" which we ran last weekend.
Next just in case people have suggestions, we are going to be running:
Master of the Fallen Fortress followed by Confirmation
To be clear - I want to avoid something like 3-21 scenario - I'm not even sure I'm going to run it.
|
|
Don't miss out on a great opportunity, that scenario is one of my favorites to run or to play in, especially with the creepiness factor of it.
As far as pathfinders having cold iron and silver weapons, that's part of being prepared for anything. There are countless topics on this forum about the best ways to prepare for various tiers and how to be prepared for anything. Its assumed that at some point in their careers the Pathfinders will fight something that has certain resistances or immunities and that should spur them on to purchase that equipment and be better prepared next time.
|
|
What you can do is start suggesting things to your players through the means of Venture Captains (just pick ones that might actually care about the PCs) suggesting "I've fought zombies before, realized soon after that only my sword was doing something vs my buddies Morningstar and bow" or even pointing them to search the forums for guides through tiers and guides through level play. Or run them through The Confirmation and have Janira tell them everything, gotta make sure their prepared.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall I found the response to that thread interesting and positive - only the first post I considered a hostile answer.
Unless I've misunderstood which thread you're talking about, the post in question was mine.
As such, I'd like to apologize for the sarcasm used to deliver my thoughts. There was no need for me to be like that. I'm sorry.
A better way of communicating that post's thoughts might be this:
"A build like this doesn't need to be 'handled'. There are some builds which end encounters all on their own, leaving their teammates in the dust. Even those builds are not universally disliked (despite what some will claim), but a build like this actually invites the other players into the fun by relying on them to do their own thing. This build doesn't take the glory for itself; it is a fantastic example of being social in one's optimization. It is an example that other optimizers should be encouraged to emulate, not a problem that needs to be addressed."
Sorry again for the original sarcasm.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Is it normal for all pathfinder guys to be running around with silver and cold weapons ? Is this some unwritten rule like everyone will acquire a wand of cure light wounds.
Pretty much. At least for most front line fighters. I mean, the difference between a cold iron dagger and a dagger is 1 gp, so everyone should at least have that. An alchemical silver mace is dirt cheap and gives you a backup weapon that does bashing for all those skeletons you run into at low levels. So pretty much every melee build should have cold iron and silver.
Frankly, PFS adventures are written for every Pathfinder to be part Indiana Jones, part Batman. (Know a little bit about everything, a lot about your specialty, have a tool for every occasion, etc...)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is it normal for all pathfinder guys to be running around with silver and cold weapons ? Is this some unwritten rule like everyone will acquire a wand of cure light wounds.
Pretty much. At least for most front line fighters. I mean, the difference between a cold iron dagger and a dagger is 1 gp, so everyone should at least have that. An alchemical silver mace is dirt cheap and gives you a backup weapon that does bashing for all those skeletons you run into at low levels. So pretty much every melee build should have cold iron and silver.
Frankly, PFS adventures are written for every Pathfinder to be part Indiana Jones, part Batman. (Know a little bit about everything, a lot about your specialty, have a tool for every occasion, etc...)
To expand on this, the premise of the campaign is that every PC either graduated from years of training or received a field commission due to already being awesome. Persons of either background would be hard to justify NOT knowing why the local weapons shop has aisles for cold iron and silver.
|
|
I'm not aware of a list that ranks PFS scenarios by difficulty, but in general, Season 0 scenarios are the easiest (since they were written under the 3.5 rules). Season 1 scenarios are usually easier than later seasons. Actually, in general the earlier the scenario the less dangerous.
This is a result of the inevitable power creep in any living system. New powers and options are published that allow more powerful combinations and stronger builds so scenarios need to be powered up to meet them.
Beyond Season 2 there are some scenarios (such as 3-23 The Goblinblood Dead) that are still good for new players. But there are also scenarios from earlier seasons that can be challenging.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
If you'd like some easier scenarios that are good for newbies who enjoy roleplay, here are a few:
The Night March of Kalkamedes
Library of the Lion
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid
The Disappeared
The Stolen Heir
The Frostfur Captives (Note the GM thread on this one, as there's a complication to the deadliest encounter that most GMs don't realize)
City of Strangers I-II
If you think that they can take a bit more, combat-wise, the following low-level scenarios offer great roleplay opportunities at the cost of more deadly encounters:
Severing Ties
The Gods' Market Gamble
The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment
Once they hit some higher levels, they might enjoy these scenarios:
3-7:
The Blakros Matrimony
Sewer Dragons of Absalom
The Wardstone Patrol
5-9:
The Hellknight's Feast (Warning: Rather difficult)
The Immortal Conundrum
The Jester's Fraud
The Golden Serpent (Also rather hard)
Our Lady of Silver
Port Godless
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I'm not aware of a list that ranks PFS scenarios by difficulty, but in general, Season 0 scenarios are the easiest (since they were written under the 3.5 rules). Season 1 scenarios are usually easier than later seasons. Actually, in general the earlier the scenario the less dangerous.
This is a result of the inevitable power creep in any living system. New powers and options are published that allow more powerful combinations and stronger builds so scenarios need to be powered up to meet them.
Beyond Season 2 there are some scenarios (such as 3-23 The Goblinblood Dead) that are still good for new players. But there are also scenarios from earlier seasons that can be challenging.
I'd have to disagree with this a bit. Season 0 is a mixed bag, difficulty-wise. Black Waters and Among the Living can be fairly challenging to a fresh party. Season 1 has Voice in the Void, which is rather unforgiving. We all know about Season 2's Dalsine Affair. Conversely, Season 4 features Night March of Kalkamedes and The Disappeared, both of which are fairly easy.
|
|
I'd have to disagree with this a bit. Season 0 is a mixed bag, difficulty-wise. Black Waters and Among the Living can be fairly challenging to a fresh party. Season 1 has Voice in the Void, which is rather unforgiving. We all know about Season 2's Dalsine Affair. Conversely, Season 4 features Night March of Kalkamedes and The Disappeared, both of which are fairly easy.
For a given definition of "easy." Easy fights or easy to avoid fights? I very much enjoy both of those scenarios but for players who aren't accustomed to role-playing games or who don't enjoy puzzles/lateral thinking they can be very challenging. I ran The Disappeared last weekend and the party failed pretty much due to a newish player who kept "looking for the next thing to fight" instead of playing along within the strictures of the scenario.
(And yes - warnings were given, re-explanation of the mission, etc.)
The bottom line is that it's going to depend on the group. Especially in non-public game days the expectations are going to be set by the group. Some are not going to be satisfied by anything less than Bonekeep-level challenging dungeon crawls. Others will spend an hour role-playing with the museum curator in the beginning of Voices in the Void.
I personally think season 1 scenarios are the best to just pick up and go with for brand new CRB players (and new GMs). They are written with Pathfinder mechanics, don't have a lot of overly complicated encounters, and provide a good deal of information about the setting for GMs to fill in the role-playing parts without requiring players to know a lot of the backstory of the Shadow Lodge, exploration of Thassalonian runes, etc.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I'd have to disagree with this a bit. Season 0 is a mixed bag, difficulty-wise. Black Waters and Among the Living can be fairly challenging to a fresh party. Season 1 has Voice in the Void, which is rather unforgiving. We all know about Season 2's Dalsine Affair. Conversely, Season 4 features Night March of Kalkamedes and The Disappeared, both of which are fairly easy.I'm not aware of a list that ranks PFS scenarios by difficulty, but in general, Season 0 scenarios are the easiest (since they were written under the 3.5 rules). Season 1 scenarios are usually easier than later seasons. Actually, in general the earlier the scenario the less dangerous.
This is a result of the inevitable power creep in any living system. New powers and options are published that allow more powerful combinations and stronger builds so scenarios need to be powered up to meet them.
Beyond Season 2 there are some scenarios (such as 3-23 The Goblinblood Dead) that are still good for new players. But there are also scenarios from earlier seasons that can be challenging.
For that matter the whole "The Devil We Know" series (season 1) is full of
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
To expand on this, the premise of the campaign is that every PC either graduated from years of training or received a field commission due to already being awesome. Persons of either background would be hard to justify NOT knowing why the local weapons shop has aisles for cold iron and silver.
Is it normal for all pathfinder guys to be running around with silver and cold weapons ? Is this some unwritten rule like everyone will acquire a wand of cure light wounds.
Pretty much. At least for most front line fighters. I mean, the difference between a cold iron dagger and a dagger is 1 gp, so everyone should at least have that. An alchemical silver mace is dirt cheap and gives you a backup weapon that does bashing for all those skeletons you run into at low levels. So pretty much every melee build should have cold iron and silver.
Frankly, PFS adventures are written for every Pathfinder to be part Indiana Jones, part Batman. (Know a little bit about everything, a lot about your specialty, have a tool for every occasion, etc...)
In fact the confirmation (level 1-2 adventure) is designed to be your graduation mission. The first thing the do is ask if everyone has basic supplies. (got rope, got alch fire?)