Is my Party Incompetent?


Pathfinder Society

The Exchange

I guess I'm fairly new to Society. I've posted a few questions about Society on the Boards before and I've played somewhere between ten and twenty scenarios. So I can't assume I have a complete picture of Society as a whole. But every time I play with my local group I always end up feeling like our party is completely incompetent. We bumble into ambushes from enemies, we search for traps with our Hit Points, and it generally seems like our main skill as a team is being ridiculously resilient. I don't feel like the measure of success for any scenario should be just surviving. That seems like a very reactive approach to the game. Instead, I feel like we should be proactive; setting up ambushes ourselves, using terrain to our advantage, and generally approaching combat in such a manner as is favorable for us instead of betting on surviving the odds. It's difficult for me to come up with specific examples, but I would think this approach would minimize expenditure of resources and maximize our chances of surviving. What I don't know is whether this is how the scenarios are written or if this is just the particular group I play with. I would be interested in hearing some perspectives and opinions from those of you who have played more. As it stands now, I generally feel like an idiot after we finish a Society Scenario.

Grand Lodge 2/5

This generally is how PFS works. The nature of the scenarios and their script rarely provide for PC ingenuity when it comes to scouting ahead and potential ambushes. With minor variation it's set in stone, and the writers will rarely say "the PCs can ambush them here" over "the PCs are ambushed here" because PCs with predation are freakishly formidable. I'm not saying the PCs being prepared can't happen, it's just not all that common.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Im curious as to the makeup of your party. Are you all martial characters? Do you have all of the Knowledge skills covered? Do you have a Rogue (Im guessing no from the trap comment).

Shadow Lodge 4/5

It may a combination of your group and the scenarios.

Finding traps before they are sprung are a regular occurrence with groups I play with/GM because there is usually a high perception type who is Taking 10 on perception while in the lead or Taking 20 when checking a door/chest/etc. There is also often someone with Detect Magic sweeping the aforementioned items as well. Of course, sometimes we'll lack someone with the disable skill and have to use magical means (summoned monster, eidolon, open/close cantrip) to trigger it...or, if we can't circumnavigate it, we'll just suck it up and send the highest save having PC out to trigger it.

Foiling ambushes depends usually on high perceptions to act in the surprise round or scouting. Indoors, Gloves of Reconnaissance are invaluable in looking through a door or wall and getting the lay of the land. Outdoors, it's usually just let's-depend-on-perception unless you have a flying animal companion to give you aerial reconnaissance.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

If you've got 10 to 20 scenarios under your belt, you ought to be ready to GM.

That will give you an opportunity to see how the scenarios are put together. After running a few groups through things, you'll have a better feel for how outside the box thinking can work in a PFS setting -- both for you to encourage in the games you run, and to engage in in the games you play.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

Kiinyan has the gist of it.

The problem is that PFS GMs are not allowed to deviate much from the scenarios as written. No adding monsters, no extra loot drops, etc. That also means that most GMs are incredibly reluctant to make reactive changes as well. If you scout ahead, find a bunch of Aspis thugs, and devise a trap of your own to lure them into (with bait) there are plenty of GMs who will just have the Aspis wait exactly where they are instead of acting as home game NPCs would.

Why? Because the scenario says that the fight takes place in location "X." If you lure them to location "Y" the tactics and morale are by necessity going to be different than what is written in the scenario. And that makes even many-starred GMs nervous. All it takes is one death and it can set off a firestorm of accusations of "not running as written, which is causing grief to players." Then you get a flurry of he-said she-said that will create all kinds of drama. It's much safer (on a personal level) to just run the encounters as written. Which means if the scenario assumes you walk into the next encounter with no warning (and they often do) that's what you have to live with.

Now there are plenty of GMs who will make reactive changes. But usually it's only with a group of people they *know* are going to be OK with the consequences. If you have a regular group, suggest to your GM that s/he read this thread and a few others about acceptable changes.

Scarab Sages 4/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Also, look at PFS scenarios at a story-level:

We are constantly investigating strange locations with little to no information. That means we're already going in somewhat blind (and that's why they're sending in 3-7 adventurers, instead of one scholar).

And because you are the "aggressor" - entering some location and attacking or invading - the other guy gets to be the defender (and have traps and ambushes).

If we were defending a pathfinder outpost against attack from outside agents, then we'd get to be setting traps and ambushes more often.

Alas, we're often the lone agents at the far end of a logistical and information chain - we have the hard job of surviving ambushes, traps, surprises, etc. We are often given information that is woefully inaccurate or incomplete (or just plain wrong) about where we're going - and have to adapt in the field to what dangers are thrown our way. Such is the life of a Pathfinder!

As you become more experienced (and more paranoid) as a character/player - you'll want to have allies that are good at Perception, dealing with traps, identifying strange creatures and objects - and are generally more knowledgable about what we're doing (than our bosses). If you can use magic or stealth to scout ahead and learn more, or Diplomacy to get help from others - so much the better!

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of this comes from the scenario itself. If the enemy is scripted to ambush you, or if you are scripted to bumble your way into key events, etc. This is no different than playing in a home game when the GM tries to surprise you. Regardless, there's always room for growth as a player.

As other's have said, party make up is key. Trying to ensure a balanced group that covers all the bases of adventure (combat, environment, social, situational, etc) makes everyone's lives easier. It also makes everyone feel more unique and important to the group.

Another snag might be that you're playing with some folks that have less experience than yourself. This would be the perfect opportunity to help them grow as players. Explain how to search for traps or what combat tricks (flanking, combat maneuvers, withdraw, etc) are available to them. Often time new people want to know how to do cool stuff like that, but are stifled by embarrassment or what have you.

In short: yes, there are some situations in PFS that are designed catch you off guard. However, with good teamwork and smart playing you shouldn't feel like you just "survived." You should feel like you won.

4/5

Belafon wrote:
Now there are plenty of GMs who will make reactive changes. But usually it's only with a group of people they *know* are going to be OK with the consequences.

Pretty much this. After nearly 3 years on the scene, I have seen several people blow up, get their hand on a scenario, and take their issue to campaign management. One of my regular gms, whose very good, has multiple complaints on him, nearly all of which are stupid. That's why we usually don't go far from as written, or we make sure it's with people we know won't complain, which means in a public setting pretty much not at all.

Granted, I let people do smart tactics (such as ambushes) and encourage it, but many gms don't at all. If players come up with plans I always try to encourage them.

And there is a pretty good chance your party is incompetent as well. Pick up a few online games and you'll notice a world of difference in gameplay. At flgs I'm often fighting for my lifeand carrying/saving the entire party. That very rarely happens on online games.

The Exchange 5/5

Sorry, but I do not think we have enough information to make an informed observation.

The "problem" is most likely one of the following...

1) party mix?
2) scenario?
3) play style?
4) judgeing style?
5) some or all of the above?
6) something else we don't know?

Which one (or more) is it? I have no way to tell, not enough data to make an observation...

Silver Crusade 2/5

Here is a concept that I've seen many new PFS groups make: NEVER undervalue CON in your PC build. CON is universally important and I even sacrifice my main casting stat somewhat for CON.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Some of what you're describing is a little hard to do when you're stuck on the rails of the pfs plot.

Searching for traps is largely more amatter of "hacking" the dm than making the perception check. You have to get on the exact same page as them of how to look for traps and stuff

If you don't have a regular group it can be hard to set up tactics. You have say, 2 players with no strategy at all, and one fighter thats used to flanking around for his rogue moving behind things and one rogue thats used to flanking around for his fighter, with ech thinking the other doesn't know what they're doing.

The Exchange

I'm at work right now, I posted the original message over lunch. The game I play in is at a comic store. Players show up when they're available and play whatever character they have and is of appropriate level. I, personally, don't like to be stereotyped based on my character class, so when someone asks me for it I will instead explain what roles I feel my character fills effectively. As such I don't generally ask other people their build unless it's really interesting and I can't figure it out myself. In regards to Walter Sheppard's comment, I get the impression from many of the other players that they may view surviving as a satisfying win. It's not like we leave every evening tired and drained and glad we got by. I'm saying that just surviving is not something I personally view as a win while I feel the rest of the party may. I'll try to post more information after work. Thanks for the responses!

Dark Archive

PFS Scenarios are very scripted. They tend to be railroady and very linear. Most of the time, this comes from a necessity to meet a timetable and to tell a coherent story, and make things go smoothly. Don't get me wrong, I love PFS, but being on the tracks is more or less the price of admission. Being crafty with spells or using a dedicated scout may help you quite a bit, though. In fact, being that character may open up a lot of possibilities even if you are at a random table.

If you want more of a flexible way of dealing with encounters, play Shadowrun. It lends itself more to team planning and setting up encounters like that.


You should try to view surviving as a win. In real life, taking risks and narrowly surviving is a bad idea. In a game, it's fun.

3/5

Some of it may by GM style.

Personally, I like my games to end with the PC's just barely surviving, having expended all their resources and endurance. I like the feeling that they've been challenged as far as possible and persevered. This is the Die Hard theory. Bruce Willis always wins, but ends up bloody, battered, and limping.

The alternative is making the PC's look and feel like bad-asses. This is more the Superman school of heroism. Superman gives a righteous beat down to the bad guys, with confidence and moral clarity and he looks good doing it.

The two options are mutually exclusive and differing tastes will result in some people being happier or not with a given game/GM. My advice would be to bring it up with the GM and see what he/she thinks. In my experience people are receptive to feedback if you use tact.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Some of it may by GM style.

Personally, I like my games to end with the PC's just barely surviving, having expended all their resources and endurance. I like the feeling that they've been challenged as far as possible and persevered. This is the Die Hard theory. Bruce Willis always wins, but ends up bloody, battered, and limping.

The alternative is making the PC's look and feel like bad-asses. This is more the Superman school of heroism. Superman gives a righteous beat down to the bad guys, with confidence and moral clarity and he looks good doing it.

The two options are mutually exclusive and differing tastes will result in some people being happier or not with a given game/GM. My advice would be to bring it up with the GM and see what he/she thinks. In my experience people are receptive to feedback if you use tact.

This is more determined by scenario author, not the GM.

3/5

Hmm... what might not be a bad idea, for groups who are having trouble with mixed tables of some wanting Superman and others wanting John McClane...

Perhaps a coordinator can ask the players if they want Superman or Die Hard, and muster the tables and seed the GMs accordingly? That way everyone gets to have a good time, instead of just the Superman players having a good time?

-Matt

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

1 person marked this as a favorite.
grandpoobah wrote:

And because you are the "aggressor" - entering some location and attacking or invading - the other guy gets to be the defender (and have traps and ambushes).

If we were defending a pathfinder outpost against attack from outside agents, then we'd get to be setting traps and ambushes more often

This so needs to become a scenario! Mike, John, take notes!

Grand Lodge 4/5

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
grandpoobah wrote:

And because you are the "aggressor" - entering some location and attacking or invading - the other guy gets to be the defender (and have traps and ambushes).

If we were defending a pathfinder outpost against attack from outside agents, then we'd get to be setting traps and ambushes more often

This so needs to become a scenario! Mike, John, take notes!

Isn't this part of at least one scenario?

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
grandpoobah wrote:

And because you are the "aggressor" - entering some location and attacking or invading - the other guy gets to be the defender (and have traps and ambushes).

If we were defending a pathfinder outpost against attack from outside agents, then we'd get to be setting traps and ambushes more often

This so needs to become a scenario! Mike, John, take notes!
Isn't this part of at least one scenario?

There's at least 4 I can think of (and 2 where it's the main plot of the scenario).

Spoiler:
It's the main plot of Quest for Perfection 3 and Way of the Kirin, and I remember that there's encounters like that in Prince of Augustana and Before the Dawn 2

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
grandpoobah wrote:

And because you are the "aggressor" - entering some location and attacking or invading - the other guy gets to be the defender (and have traps and ambushes).

If we were defending a pathfinder outpost against attack from outside agents, then we'd get to be setting traps and ambushes more often

This so needs to become a scenario! Mike, John, take notes!
Isn't this part of at least one scenario?

I can think of a couple.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
grandpoobah wrote:

And because you are the "aggressor" - entering some location and attacking or invading - the other guy gets to be the defender (and have traps and ambushes).

If we were defending a pathfinder outpost against attack from outside agents, then we'd get to be setting traps and ambushes more often

This so needs to become a scenario! Mike, John, take notes!
Isn't this part of at least one scenario?

Ok, I'll give you there are some that are close, but none that take an actual PF outpost/lodge and force the characters to protect it/beef up security. Maybe a mid-high level scenario (3-7 or 5-9) and give the players low ranking PF Agents to boss around.

Spoiler:
You could also add King of the Storval Stairs to the list of "close"

Grand Lodge 5/5

You could do the same type of thing with Severing Ties. Sort of. :/

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Part of this is a PFS issue and I don't mean because of the box text nature of encounters. I am referring to the typical 4 hour time limit. Scouting, planning and setting up an ambush may be more effective then simply stumbling into the encounter, but they take a heck of a lot more time at the game table. If the scenario doesn't require such tactics to survive(and often in PFS they do not) then just stumbling into the encounter helps make sure the table finishes on time.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS should have 5 or 5.5 hr slots, not 4. At least in my opinion.


ProfessorBizarre wrote:
it generally seems like our main skill as a team is being ridiculously resilient

Ha! Being ridiculously resilient is my specialty! I find my characters are more safety conscious than I am...

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Professor Bizarre wrote:
The game I play in is at a comic store. Players show up when they're available and play whatever character they have and is of appropriate level.

This is how most PFS games are done. We try to have GMs post the scenarios they want to run and do sign-ups in advance online, but we adjust things as necessary before we start. About 10% of the time, we end up having to sacrifice the plan toe the gods of chaos and start with "OK, who has what scenarios with them?"

Professor Bizarre wrote:
I, personally, don't like to be stereotyped based on my character class, so when someone asks me for it I will instead explain what roles I feel my character fills effectively.

That's the best way to go about it, I think. You also get a chance to see if there are any gaping holes in the party's capabilities. The two most common holes I find are knowledge skills and trapfinding. (There are a lot of scenarios with no traps at all, so actual trapspotters are rare in my area.)

Professor Bizarre wrote:
In regards to Walter Sheppard's comment, I get the impression from many of the other players that they may view surviving as a satisfying win. It's not like we leave every evening tired and drained and glad we got by. I'm saying that just surviving is not something I personally view as a win while I feel the rest of the party may. I'll try to post more information after work. Thanks for the responses!

That's going to vary by scenario, too. Some scenarios are nothing but wave after wave of combat, and some scenarios can be completed without actually drawing a weapon. Most are in between.

If there's a particular type of scenario you want to play, ask your GM. Whatever you prefer--strategizing, socializing, studying, sneaking, slashing--there's at least one scenario out there that emphasizes that.

2/5

David Bowles wrote:
PFS should have 5 or 5.5 hr slots, not 4. At least in my opinion.

Playing D&D and AD&D 1st ed. back in the late 1970s my buddies and I learned very quickly: D&D always took an hour more than we planned. Didn't matter if we were trying to squeeze in a weeknight game between dinner and studying for finals or if we blocked the whole dang weekend.

From what I've seen, every PFS session is in part a fight between the GM and this Law of Nature. It's amazing how often the GMs win.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Is my Party Incompetent? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society