|
Blakros Matrimony/Hellknight's Feast?
The forerunners of this very scenario?
i don't know about blackross but it was pretty much superfluous in hellknights feast. The benefits from knowing who you were talking to were so small you were much better off attempting to schmooze with diplomacy twice rather than wasting a round with a knowledge check.
|
And suddenly his proud Diplomacy skill of +6 (+1 Cha, +3 favoured class, +1 rank, +1 trait since it wasn't even a class skill) becomes, at best, meh.
Well, lets look at a traditional scenario.
+6 means you can make a DC 16 on a take ten.
So, you can, on average, succeed at: Move someone who is indifferent to friendly, but only if they have no better than 13 charisma.
Remember, diplomacy *does not* scale with level.
Uh, you're talking about the (admittedly quite broken) rules as written in the rule book.
But PFS scenarios pretty regularly ignore those rules and just pick arbitrary DCs for the PCs to match.
A 16 is going to succeed more often than not in Tier 1-2 scenarios.
|
And suddenly his proud Diplomacy skill of +6 (+1 Cha, +3 favoured class, +1 rank, +1 trait since it wasn't even a class skill) becomes, at best, meh.
Well, lets look at a traditional scenario.
+6 means you can make a DC 16 on a take ten.
So, you can, on average, succeed at: Move someone who is indifferent to friendly, but only if they have no better than 13 charisma.
Remember, diplomacy *does not* scale with level.
Uh, you're talking about the (admittedly quite broken) rules as written in the rule book.
But PFS scenarios pretty regularly ignore those rules and just pick arbitrary DCs for the PCs to match.
A 16 is going to succeed more often than not in Tier 1-2 scenarios.
Even the first level version of the character with the +6, when rolling instead of taking-10, succeeds half the time.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario is described as dealing with "delicate politics." I'm surprised that people read the blurb and came to the table without accounting for Knowledge (local, nobility) or Sense Motive.
<Admittedly the following is just the tiny bit hyperbole. But it is the logical consequence of arguments like the above>
Unless you're a bard or the like, how is one supposed to cover the set of recommended skills for a character who is TRYING to be a good PAthfinder
Shmooze - Apparently this now needs Knowledge local, nobility, diplomacy, bluff , intimidate. All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Exploration - Clearly you need Know dungeon, perception, disable device,survival All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Know what you're looking for - Clearly, Appraise, knowledge History, linguistics, knowledge geography. All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Recognize the things that are trying to kill you. Knowledge planes, religion, Arcana,
Staying alive - Things attack you and you need to survive. Swim, Climb, Acrobatics. All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Maybe, just maybe, I'm allowed to have no ranks in Handle Animal and Ride and still be considered a good Pathfinder
|
|
Any time you are time constrained. Gather info takes 1d4 hours, knowledge (X) is a free action.The times when you are both time constrained and the information is crucial is a pretty rare overlap.
And this is one of them. Though, honestly, I think for some of those checks Knowledge (local) should also have been an option. For example:
It is probably a small flaw that Knowledge (nobility) is the only skill for that set of rolls. Everywhere else there's an alternate skill presented or an alternate way to find the information out. Though, while I wouldn't allow a Gather Information check, I would allow in-character questions to be answered if they aren't secret information.
And, actually, with Irith, it's a little bit of poor design, because the Recognize check gives you the same information that Passad gives when he introduces her. So I'm a little unclear why the PCs need to make that check for her, other than making it grants them a bonus.
The scenario isn't perfect. It's a first instance of the (new version of the) Influence mechanic. But the deck is not nearly as stacked against the PCs as it would seem some of the players believed it is.
EDIT:
It turned out the two most important skills were Intimidate and Disguise, requiring multiple rolls of one or the other, and that the scenario can get significantly more difficult if you don't do well with those. Bluff was not a (written) alternative. Of course, I proceeded to roll nothing over a 5 on the die (for a 15 total in tier 3-4) failing most of my checks. I probably should have just asked to take-10. I'm not sure if it was allowed or not, but it would have likely succeeded if it was. For Lem, I consistently rolled 18+ on the die for his untrained Disguise checks. So he was doing much better than the rest of us anyway.
Sometimes, even when you try, you end up with a group that doesn't have the right mix of skills. Sometimes you get unlucky on the die rolls. It happens.
|
|
This is a semi-tangent, but a few people are complaining about what happened when they brought characters with no Knowledge skill investment to the game and I have to wonder why anyone has a PFS character with no ranks in any Knowledge. When you build a character, you build it for the campaign you are playing (you wouldn't build a Ranger with favored enemies Drow, Duergar, and Wayang for the Giantslayer AP, a Paladin for Hell's Vengeance's villainous campaign, or a desert-focused character for Skull & Shackles). PFS is a campaign centered on an organization of Indiana Joneses. That doesn't mean all of our characters must be bards, but every character should have some form of Knowledge-based expertise. If you don't have many skill ranks available to you, pick one Knowledge skill for your character to specialize in. I have a Barbarian with max ranks in K(Arcana) even though I never made it a class skill through traits or multiclassing, because I chose that to be his Knowledge specialty for character reasons (and only a single rank dropped into Nature). I also have a 7 Int fighter with a number of ranks in K(Dungeoneering) equal to about half his level (and none in Engineering, his other Knowledge class skill), because every character needs a Knowledge skill decently invested in.My character has nearly max ranks in diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, sense motive and slight of hand. He has max ranks in perception, stealth, and disable device and K(local). He was useless in this scenario because hitting a DC 25+ was ridiculously hard. Now if I was missing these (anti)social checks by one or two, that's one thing, but when I roll a 15 or 17 (on the die) and miss by 5 to 10 points that's not right.
Funny there is only one DC 25 check in the whole scenario and it's not in the influence section.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario is described as dealing with "delicate politics." I'm surprised that people read the blurb and came to the table without accounting for Knowledge (local, nobility) or Sense Motive.
How long has it been since we've seen either a knowledge nobility check or a local check you couldn't replicate with gather info from the much more useful diplomacy
Knowledge nobility is the go to skill for comparisons to something useless.
All I know is that ever since my social character started using Kn:Nobility for her Day Job, she has found it to be an extremely useful skill. It's been coming up a *lot* in recent scenarios -- anyone still thinking of it as a fluff skill should probably reevaluate.
|
|
All I know is that ever since my social character started using Kn:Nobility for her Day Job, she has found it to be an extremely useful skill. It's been coming up a *lot* in recent scenarios -- anyone still thinking of it as a fluff skill should probably reevaluate.The scenario is described as dealing with "delicate politics." I'm surprised that people read the blurb and came to the table without accounting for Knowledge (local, nobility) or Sense Motive.
How long has it been since we've seen either a knowledge nobility check or a local check you couldn't replicate with gather info from the much more useful diplomacy
Knowledge nobility is the go to skill for comparisons to something useless.
I believe that the perception, at least, is that there are few, if any, places where one could not also use a different skill. A skill that others would claim is a better investment.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
For people trying to math out the skill checks and calculating that 1-5s can't succeed reliably, remember that circumstance bonuses are a thing. That's not the GM cheating or running it non-RAW, as circumstance bonuses to skill checks are a RAW advantage that the GM can delegate to players in particular situations.
When I ran this at PaizoCon the party of non-skill monkey characters did fine. They offered creative solutions, took the game off the rails, and consistently roleplayed their characters in a way that granted them various bonuses throughout the game. Overall it was an enjoyable experience, even for the PCs that were built with combat as their focus.
I'd advise reading through this scenario and running it for players if you're concerned people aren't going to have a good time playing it. Make them have the experience you wish you had and pay it forward.
|
|
To try and set some common ground, the discusion makes it sound like this is a scenario that is really made or broken by the person running it. Assuming that we can agree on that, now what?
Does this scenario rely too much on GMs handing out circumstance bonuses? Is it too easy for a GM to accidentally discourage a valid, if slightly harder, tactic? Does this scenario rely too much on every player being trained in at least one right skill? If so, how reasonable is it to expect that every character has one of these skills? Does this scenario do too much to "punish" not having skills that one has to be trained in, and might not be choices for low skill classes? Hopefully these questions can establish some common ground and keeps us from talking past each other.
|
|
I believe that the perception, at least, is that there are few, if any, places where one could not also use a different skill. A skill that others would claim is a better investment.All I know is that ever since my social character started using Kn:Nobility for her Day Job, she has found it to be an extremely useful skill. It's been coming up a *lot* in recent scenarios -- anyone still thinking of it as a fluff skill should probably reevaluate.The scenario is described as dealing with "delicate politics." I'm surprised that people read the blurb and came to the table without accounting for Knowledge (local, nobility) or Sense Motive.
How long has it been since we've seen either a knowledge nobility check or a local check you couldn't replicate with gather info from the much more useful diplomacy
Knowledge nobility is the go to skill for comparisons to something useless.
I get that, but it's also not a situation where you fail the scenario if you don't have Knowledge (nobility). Having it and succeeding at the rolls gives you some additional information that might be helpful, and in some cases might grant a small bonus. No one should fail the scenario solely because they don't have Knowledge (nobility). If Knowledge (nobility) could always be replaced with a different skill, no one would ever need to take Knowledge (nobility).
The complaint seems to come across as "Knowledge (nobility) is useless, so how can they make a situation where you need to use it?" The cause and effect are reversed. Because there have not been many situations where you need Knowledge (nobility) the perception is that it is useless. This scenario (and others) should be changing that perception.
|
|
The complaint seems to come across as "Knowledge (nobility) is useless, so how can they make a situation where you need to use it?" The cause and effect are reversed. Because there have not been many situations where you need Knowledge (nobility) the perception is that it is useless. This scenario (and others) should be changing that perception.
but because that's a shift in perception its problematic on its own, then it gets worse if the mechanics don't make sense, like not being able to ask who runs the place
"Who runs this place?
"King Ablaratha.
"Oh you mean the guy I just met?
"Sorry, without a DC 15 knowledge nobility check you have no idea who he is...
"But i just me...
"NO IDEA!
|
|
The complaint seems to come across as "Knowledge (nobility) is useless, so how can they make a situation where you need to use it?" The cause and effect are reversed. Because there have not been many situations where you need Knowledge (nobility) the perception is that it is useless. This scenario (and others) should be changing that perception.but because that's a shift in perception its problematic on its own, then it gets worse if the mechanics don't make sense, like not being able to ask who runs the place
"Who runs this place?
"King Ablaratha.
"Oh you mean the guy I just met?
"Sorry, without a DC 15 knowledge nobility check you have no idea who he is...
"But i just me...
"NO IDEA!
I agree (as I noted a couple of messages up about the equivalent situation in the scenario). Again, this scenario isn't perfect. But a small issue like that shouldn't ruin the scenario for everyone, and it doesn't prevent success. Hopefully the developers will learn from this one and things like that won't happen next time. Hopefully players will also learn that sometimes having that obscure skill is the only/best way to get the information it provides. That one poor choice about the information you can gain by using the skill stands out, but in the other opportunities, I think the scenario is much closer to the mark.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
The complaint seems to come across as "Knowledge (nobility) is useless, so how can they make a situation where you need to use it?" The cause and effect are reversed. Because there have not been many situations where you need Knowledge (nobility) the perception is that it is useless. This scenario (and others) should be changing that perception.but because that's a shift in perception its problematic on its own, then it gets worse if the mechanics don't make sense, like not being able to ask who runs the place
"Who runs this place?
"King Ablaratha.
"Oh you mean the guy I just met?
"Sorry, without a DC 15 knowledge nobility check you have no idea who he is...
"But i just me...
"NO IDEA!
Reminds me of another thread I started. About not knowing things you have fought in the past. Because with out rolling the dice, you do not know anything.
|
|
To try and set some common ground, the discusion makes it sound like this is a scenario that is really made or broken by the person running it. Assuming that we can agree on that, now what?
Does this scenario rely too much on GMs handing out circumstance bonuses? Is it too easy for a GM to accidentally discourage a valid, if slightly harder, tactic? Does this scenario rely too much on every player being trained in at least one right skill? If so, how reasonable is it to expect that every character has one of these skills? Does this scenario do too much to "punish" not having skills that one has to be trained in, and might not be choices for low skill classes? Hopefully these questions can establish some common ground and keeps us from talking past each other.
I think we should *all* be able to agree that this scenario is made or broken by the GM to a larger extent than usual. But I also want to emphasize that I don't intend to disparage any GM who may have had a hard time running this.
One of the things introduced in the UI rules is the Social Encounter stat block for each PC to be influenced. There is a lot of information packed into it, and it includes all kinds of examples of circumstance bonuses and penalties appropriate for the NPC.
The thing is, this is the first time we have seen info organized in this fashion. Do you remember the first time you tried to read a combat stat block and how hard it was to find the info you needed on the fly? That's exactly how this is. It's a very dense, new way of presenting information, and it is going to take practice before GMs get good at reading it.
I think it is fair to say that standardizing the format like this *can* give the impression that skills outside of the ones presented won't work to a greater extent than previous presentations. IMHO the standardization is going to be worth that risk, though.
There is only one check I can think of where all of the relevant skills were trained only, and it was a check to get an ongoing bonus, not a check to influence.
And again, when I ran this we had one character whose best influence check modifier was +0. She was still well able to contribute to the party's success. (Via discovery and capitalizing on circumstance modifiers listed in the scenario.)
|
To try and set some common ground, the discusion makes it sound like this is a scenario that is really made or broken by the person running it. Assuming that we can agree on that, now what?
Does this scenario rely too much on GMs handing out circumstance bonuses?
Not at all. The DCs are level appropriate.
When I ran it, there were a couple of successes made by circumstance bonuses, but mostly because the players' dice were cold that night. Most of the skill checks could have been made by the characters in die rolls of 8 or better. That includes the characters that weren't traditional "skill monkeys". Can't help it when the very knowledgeable alchemist cannot roll over a 4!
Is it too easy for a GM to accidentally discourage a valid, if slightly harder, tactic?
Not any worse than any other scenario.
PC1: knowledge check on skeleton.
GM1: Don't use piercing or slashing weapons on them. It is way too difficult to hurt the skeletons with them. Bludgeoning is the only way to to.
PC1: Aw, man! I can't hurt them with my greataxe and 18 Strength. Might as well run away.
GM2: They are resistant to piercing and slashing damage. It can still hurt them, but this resistance doesn't apply to bludgeoning weapons.
PC2: But I can still hurt them with my greataxe if I hit them hard enough? Well, I forgot to get a mace, so I'll go with what i have.
See the subtle difference?
Does this scenario rely too much on every player being trained in at least one right skill?
No. There are many skills that can be used untrained (including sense motive and diplomacy).
As a personal anecdote, my character (at 4-5) had kn:local +4, but her skills were mostly focused on nature, handle animal, ride, etc. She still did well, and through creative use of Profession: Cop, I was actually able to garner some successes (as well as kn:geography at one point, even though it wasn't called out).
If so, how reasonable is it to expect that every character has one of these skills?
See above
Does this scenario do too much to "punish" not having skills that one has to be trained in, and might not be choices for low skill classes?
I don't think it "punishes" a character for not having the skills. However, there are a large number of skills that can be used, and players can be creative in using others (typically I would give them the 'hard' DC, but that's better than no chance).
It does reward the player for good roleplay, and for being creative.
|
|
To try and set some common ground, the discusion makes it sound like this is a scenario that is really made or broken by the person running it. Assuming that we can agree on that, now what?
Does this scenario rely too much on GMs handing out circumstance bonuses? Is it too easy for a GM to accidentally discourage a valid, if slightly harder, tactic? Does this scenario rely too much on every player being trained in at least one right skill? If so, how reasonable is it to expect that every character has one of these skills? Does this scenario do too much to "punish" not having skills that one has to be trained in, and might not be choices for low skill classes? Hopefully these questions can establish some common ground and keeps us from talking past each other.
I think we should *all* be able to agree that this scenario is made or broken by the GM to a larger extent than usual. But I also want to emphasize that I don't intend to disparage any GM who may have had a hard time running this.
One of the things introduced in the UI rules is the Social Encounter stat block for each PC to be influenced. There is a lot of information packed into it, and it includes all kinds of examples of circumstance bonuses and penalties appropriate for the NPC.
The thing is, this is the first time we have seen info organized in this fashion. Do you remember the first time you tried to read a combat stat block and how hard it was to find the info you needed on the fly? That's exactly how this is. It's a very dense, new way of presenting information, and it is going to take practice before GMs get good at reading it.
I think it is fair to say that standardizing the format like this *can* give the impression that skills outside of the ones presented won't work to a greater extent than previous presentations. IMHO the standardization is going to be worth that risk, though.
There is only one check I can think of where all of the relevant skills were trained only, and it was a check...
It is true that the amount of info that is in the influence blocks is a little much. I made a spreadsheet of the different players and all the checks needed to discover, influence, etc. Helped me tons to be able to pull all that info into one place.
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario is described as dealing with "delicate politics." I'm surprised that people read the blurb and came to the table without accounting for Knowledge (local, nobility) or Sense Motive.
How long has it been since we've seen either a knowledge nobility check or a local check you couldn't replicate with gather info from the much more useful diplomacy
Knowledge nobility is the go to skill for comparisons to something useless.
For me it's interesting that whenever an author, Linda, or I include a skill that's commonly perceived as useless (e.g. Appraise and Knowledge [nobility]), there's an outcry that we required a skill that nobody takes. By including an alternative skill, in some ways we only perpetuate the view that the former skills are useless. It's an amusing balancing act.
|
Over here, it seems like every single monk has full ranks in Sense Motive and Perception (and Acrobatics, natch) and absolutely no other skills whatsoever.
I know this is far too past this post to still be relevant, but my level 7 monk has these skills.
Skill - Total (Ranks)
Acrobatics - 11 (7)
Climb - 10 (3)
Escape Artist - 5 (1)
Intimidate 10 - (7)
Knowledge Arcana, History, Religion - 5 (1) (each)
Perception - 13 (7)
Sense Motive - 10 (4)
Spellcraft - 5 (1)
Stealth - 5 (1)
Survival - 10 (4)
Swim - 10 (3)
(in case a couple of those look off as not class skills, he has one level of bloodrager and 6 levels of monk)
I'm getting 6 skill points per level (4 + 1 int + 1 FCB).
More on topic, I'm totally on board with this topic. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for allowing for niche skills to be useful. But when a scenario's success depends on someone having Profession : Barrister then I'm not happy (extreme example, obviously).
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
i don't know about blackross but it was pretty much superfluous in hellknights feast. The benefits from knowing who you were talking to were so small you were much better off attempting to schmooze with diplomacy twice rather than wasting a round with a knowledge check.Blakros Matrimony/Hellknight's Feast?
The forerunners of this very scenario?
Hellknights Feast is designed with making negative progress if you don't actually spend a round with a Discovery check. You can get lucky but its a gamble. The only problem with the Hellknights is that Sense Motive should have been a valid check to discovery in some cases but its not technically listed in the scenario.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
The scenario is described as dealing with "delicate politics." I'm surprised that people read the blurb and came to the table without accounting for Knowledge (local, nobility) or Sense Motive.
How long has it been since we've seen either a knowledge nobility check or a local check you couldn't replicate with gather info from the much more useful diplomacy
That does not excuse having neither Know(local) nor Sense Motive in a party. You can get by without one or two of the political* skills, but going in without any of them is a self-handicap.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I don't see a mechanic for that in the scenario. The discovery was just a small bonus that was not worth a turn.
Hellknights Feast is designed with making negative progress if you don't actually spend a round with a Discovery check.
Ok not negative progress but you can just spin your wheels in that scenario if you don't actually make the Discovery Check. Mechanically, your missing the fact that the Discovery Check in Hellknights Feast does two things depending on the NPC. Admittedly, when I ran it I also realized that Sense Motive should have been a thing with how the scenario is written.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does not excuse having neither Know(local) nor Sense Motive in a party. You can get by without one or two of the political* skills, but going in without any of them is a self-handicap.
If its not coming up then of course people will skimp on it. There's dozens of other skills that come up more often, and you can only keep so many at a reasonable level of proficiency.
** spoiler omitted **
Pathfinders are true politicians then.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who feel the DCs were too high:
** spoiler omitted **...
Here's the problem that some people don't seem to understand, while we were a somewhat diplomatic table the highest diplomacy at the table was maybe +10. We did not have any super diplomats at the table. But we could not do any of the discoveries because we didn't have and of the right knowledge skills or profession skills. We were told that you needed multiple success (2 or more) to influence the 5 people and with the Diplomacy DC's being 25+ (as near as I could tell this was what we needed for every roll) only two of us could have even made those on our own so the others were stuck assisting. On average, we succeeded one out of every 2 or three checks or so. We completely failed this because of dice rolls and lack of Knowledge/profession skills. That is NOT a "fun" way to loose and scenarios should NOT be written to require specific skills to "win".
Like others have said, the discrepancy in skills between classes is vast and needs to be taken into account when writing scenarios like this.
It appears as though you just aren't listening to folk. A +10 diplomacy at low tier makes the check every time (100% of the time) if you take 10.
It's commendable that you trust your GM so much that you are ignoring all the good info people are giving you. And I'm sorry you had a bad experience.
But it's likely that your experience was bad due to a underprepared GM.
I didn't play this at "low tier". I was at the 4-5 tier and checks of 17 to 20 were failing. Checks of 25+ were succeeding.
And it is the scenario and scenario writer's fault that this was a poor event. The writer was the one who made this such a convoluted mess that it was and if a scenario that takes ~4 hours to play takes 8 hours, 10 hours, or more to prep that is poor scenario design. Especially if you then have to spring a new set of rules on the players that make the Core social skills useless to use in favor of knowledge checks and profession skills. That's not fun, creative, or in anyway good.I'm glad you managed to have the right characters to make this fun for you, but if PFS is going to start requiring specific character builds to succeed, it will mean the death of PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who feel the DCs were too high:
** spoiler omitted **...
Here's the problem that some people don't seem to understand, while we were a somewhat diplomatic table the highest diplomacy at the table was maybe +10. We did not have any super diplomats at the table. But we could not do any of the discoveries because we didn't have and of the right knowledge skills or profession skills. We were told that you needed multiple success (2 or more) to influence the 5 people and with the Diplomacy DC's being 25+ (as near as I could tell this was what we needed for every roll) only two of us could have even made those on our own so the others were stuck assisting. On average, we succeeded one out of every 2 or three checks or so. We completely failed this because of dice rolls and lack of Knowledge/profession skills. That is NOT a "fun" way to loose and scenarios should NOT be written to require specific skills to "win".
Like others have said, the discrepancy in skills between classes is vast and needs to be taken into account when writing scenarios like this.
It appears as though you just aren't listening to folk. A +10 diplomacy at low tier makes the check every time (100% of the time) if you take 10.
It's commendable that you trust your GM so much that you are ignoring all the good info people are giving you. And I'm sorry you had a bad experience.
But it's likely that your experience was bad due to a underprepared GM.
I didn't play this at "low tier". I was at the 4-5 tier and checks of 17 to 20 were failing. Checks of 25+ were succeeding.
And it is the scenario and scenario writer's fault that this was a poor event. The writer was the one who made this such a convoluted mess that it was and if a scenario that takes ~4 hours to play takes 8 hours, 10 hours, or more to prep that is poor scenario design. Especially if you then have to spring a new set of rules on the players that make the Core...
Now you are just purposely digging in your heels. I didn't mention what our party composition was. I know I made all my diplomacy checks as a level 1 Cleric.
And there is no reason this should take 8 hours to prep. That's hyperbole.
Sincerelyrics, if you haven't read the thing, you have no business declaring that the author or the scenario are at fault for your poor time on this one.
|
|
Unfortunately, unless the powers that be do something to either increase skill points, or create material, such as archetypes and feats, that encourage people to take "useless" I fear that making them required, or something close, in a scenario will always feel like a gotcha situation.
That may be so. But nothing was required to succeed here.
|
|
Unfortunately, unless the powers that be do something to either increase skill points, or create material, such as archetypes and feats, that encourage people to take "useless" I fear that making them required, or something close, in a scenario will always feel like a gotcha situation.
The secondary skills from ultimate intrigue go a long way for that...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it is the scenario and scenario writer's fault that this was a poor event. The writer was the one who made this such a convoluted mess that it was and if a scenario that takes ~4 hours to play takes 8 hours, 10 hours, or more to prep that is poor scenario design. Especially if you then have to spring a new set of rules on the players that make the Core...
"complicated mess" is extremely unfair. Yes, it is complex. However, I honestly can't imagine ever running a scenario that I spent *less* than 4-6 hours preparing, and I happily spend 10 or more if that is what it takes. I *want* my scenarios to require some work for the GM. That work then shows in the resulting game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, that's simply not true. There were several skills required to succeed, at least three knowledge skills (not K(local) that didn't ever really come up) and one profession skill. We had knowledge local and it only came up once and never again. We had sense motive and that never helped us. We failed more than a few diplomacy checks even when we hit DC 20. This was an extremely poorly done scenario and a gotcha scenario since you were penalized for using diplomacy, bluff or intimidate.
Also, while I haven't read it, the number of people who say that you need to have a GM who has spent a lot of time prepping this scenario to run it right lead me to believe that it's poorly written, organized and executed. If it wasn't then the time it takes to prep it shouldn't be longer than it takes to run it.
Now if you're claiming that all of my problems were completely on the GM then maybe, just maybe, this scenario should have been reserved to only be run by 5 star GM's or at PaizoCon/GenCon/etc because of how complex it was. Obviously I'm not the only one who's had problems with this scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it is the scenario and scenario writer's fault that this was a poor event. The writer was the one who made this such a convoluted mess that it was and if a scenario that takes ~4 hours to play takes 8 hours, 10 hours, or more to prep that is poor scenario design. Especially if you then have to spring a new set of rules on the players that make the Core..."complicated mess" is extremely unfair. Yes, it is complex. However, I honestly can't imagine ever running a scenario that I spent *less* than 4-6 hours preparing, and I happily spend 10 or more if that is what it takes. I *want* my scenarios to require some work for the GM. That work then shows in the resulting game.
No, it's not. It's completely FAIR. This scenario was a mess. Penalizing social skills because you want to shoehorn in new rule that not everyone even knows about is ridiculous. From top to bottom this scenario a waste of time, not worth playing and horribly written and conceived, at least from my perspective, and again, since I'm only going off of my experience (because I can't experience this any other way) my calling this a mess is how I feel.
But please, continue to ignore my criticisms and tell me that my perception of my experience playing this disaster show of a scenario is wrong and unfair.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Mechanically, your missing the fact that the Discovery Check in Hellknights Feast does two things depending on the NPC.No. I'm not.
"i schmooze. 28 diplomacy. works just fine.
Yeah you are your forgetting
To me at least, the best way to determine if there was a true loss would be the chronicle sheet. If no one in the party had an untrained skill, is do you miss out on a benefit or gain a negative boon? if not, then I understand your frustration, but there was no real lose, IMO.
On top of that too its not like you can score up your weaknesses unless you are an entire party of martial characters. A scenario that takes place over multiple days and you kind of know off the bat what you are dealing with. Time to go shopping. Hell I've done similar things in other scenarios where the requirements were far more ridiculous than missing a skill to uncover information (ie. Need a druid/bard in a party).
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were several skills required to succeed, at least three knowledge skills (not K(local) that didn't ever really come up) and one profession skill. We had knowledge local and it only came up once and never again. We had sense motive and that never helped us. We failed more than a few diplomacy checks even when we hit DC 20. This was an extremely poorly done scenario and a gotcha scenario since you were penalized for using diplomacy, bluff or intimidate.
I understand that you had a poor experience. It happens. Sometimes you just don't have what it takes to succeed. (I've failed a scenario before; it sucks). But, what you are describing doesn't correspond to the scenario as it is written. It is clear that you have had an extremely atypical experience. I am not trying to dismiss your experience, but to offer an alternate explanation.
There is an influence rules summary up on pfsprep. Was any of that communicated to you as a player?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Penalizing social skills because you want to shoehorn in new rule that not everyone even knows about is ridiculous.
They aren't penalized. The DC given is the normal, ordinary, level 1-5 diplomacy DC for someone who is indifferent to you. Your GM seems to have artificially inflated it.
|
|
Andrew, that's simply not true. There were several skills required to succeed, at least three knowledge skills (not K(local) that didn't ever really come up) and one profession skill. We had knowledge local and it only came up once and never again. We had sense motive and that never helped us. We failed more than a few diplomacy checks even when we hit DC 20. This was an extremely poorly done scenario and a gotcha scenario since you were penalized for using diplomacy, bluff or intimidate.
Also, while I haven't read it, the number of people who say that you need to have a GM who has spent a lot of time prepping this scenario to run it right lead me to believe that it's poorly written, organized and executed. If it wasn't then the time it takes to prep it shouldn't be longer than it takes to run it.
Now if you're claiming that all of my problems were completely on the GM then maybe, just maybe, this scenario should have been reserved to only be run by 5 star GM's or at PaizoCon/GenCon/etc because of how complex it was. Obviously I'm not the only one who's had problems with this scenario.
This is simply not true. You can succeed at the scenario entirely with Diplomacy.
But its obvious that nobody is going to convince you that this scenario wasn't horrible. So I'm going to stop trying.
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it is the scenario and scenario writer's fault that this was a poor event. The writer was the one who made this such a convoluted mess that it was and if a scenario that takes ~4 hours to play takes 8 hours, 10 hours, or more to prep that is poor scenario design. Especially if you then have to spring a new set of rules on the players that make the Core..."complicated mess" is extremely unfair. Yes, it is complex. However, I honestly can't imagine ever running a scenario that I spent *less* than 4-6 hours preparing, and I happily spend 10 or more if that is what it takes. I *want* my scenarios to require some work for the GM. That work then shows in the resulting game.No, it's not. It's completely FAIR. This scenario was a mess. Penalizing social skills because you want to shoehorn in new rule that not everyone even knows about is ridiculous. From top to bottom this scenario a waste of time, not worth playing and horribly written and conceived, at least from my perspective, and again, since I'm only going off of my experience (because I can't experience this any other way) my calling this a mess is how I feel.
But please, continue to ignore my criticisms and tell me that my perception of my experience playing this disaster show of a scenario is wrong and unfair.
I don't think people are ignoring your criticisms—at least I'm not. They are (to generalize) saying "Hey, our positive experiences don't align with your negative one, so we're uncomfortable with your insistence that this adventure was a 'horribly written and conceived...disaster show of a scenario.'" Just as you don't want your perceptions to be dismissed by them, they don't want their perceptions to be dismissed out of hand by you.
Like most things published for and critiqued by the organized play campaign, my take-aways for this adventure are nuanced. After all, there are some people who have strongly disliked this adventure but also some who have utterly adored it. What that says to me is that there are many elements in this scenario that the campaign should explore again in the future while also revisiting how they're incorporated and how accessible they are to the typical character. It might also mean adjusting what information appears where in the adventure, the transparency of how the mechanics work, and how the scenes of an extended non-combat event are staggered. Might these adventures benefit from noting in the blurb that they use a recently-published mechanic? Perhaps—it bears consideration.
Put another way, the nuance I'm taking from this discussion and the adventure's reviews (both on paizo.com and in person at PaizoCon) is that we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, there's room to adapt, grow, and change the recipe to make each social adventure a great experience for as many people as possible. Regrettably, your experience with this adventure didn't go well for a variety of reasons—some of which developers and authors can control. I'm not here to deny how you feel; it's clear to me that you're upset. At the same time, that doesn't invalidate others' experiences, which is why there's so much back-and-forth about whether the adventure was "a convoluted mess." I'm here to learn what I can for improving future adventures, and that means weighing feedback from a variety of sources.
Just as there are many adventures that heavily emphasize combat, there are some stories that are going to be combat-lite. I know from working on this campaign that a substantial number of players and GMs alike look forward to the rare social/skill-heavy scenario (I aim to have about one per season). I also know that some players don't enjoy these at all, even as we adapt, evolve, and formalize the mechanics (i.e. publication in Ultimate Intrigue). That's a significant reason for not doing social adventures more frequently—they're also pretty tough to write!
Overall, I'm pleased with how Thurston's adventure turned out, how Linda made adjustments during the development process, and how it really brought the Druman Kalistrocracy alive for players. There are lots of important takeaways for us as we look ahead to another great season of Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as there are many adventures that heavily emphasize combat, there are some stories that are going to be combat-lite. I know from working on this campaign that a substantial number of players and GMs alike look forward to the rare social/skill-heavy scenario (I aim to have about one per season). I also know that some players don't enjoy these at all, even as we adapt, evolve, and formalize the mechanics (i.e. publication in Ultimate Intrigue). That's a significant reason for not doing social adventures more frequently—they're also pretty tough to write!
If I might chime in, I think its also a fair statement that some players simply aren't used to their combat abilities mattering less in PFS. There are players who scoff at some of the more flavorful skill options and instead invest only in Perception and the skills that can be used in Combat like Intimidate, Knowledge skills, et all. The contrast between a Season 0, 1, or 2 Scenario is pretty stark compared to Season 7.
Personally, I thought that Season 7's spotlighting on non-combat tactics was wonderfully refreshing; I was worried that I was going to hate playing my investigator in PFS because they're more of a skill-oriented class, and was pleasantly surprised by how much I ended up enjoying him in various Season 7 storylines. (I did all of the Faithless and Forgotten series on him, and am about to complete the Blakros Connection/Abducted in Aether chain.) I hope you'll keep bringing out more games like Faithless and Forgotten and Bid for Alabastine. ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, I honestly can't imagine ever running a scenario that I spent *less* than 4-6 hours preparing, and I happily spend 10 or more if that is what it takes. I *want* my scenarios to require some work for the GM. That work then shows in the resulting game.
Good for you. Very few local GMs (most certainly including myself) are willing to spend over 4 hours on preparation, let alone 10. If scenarios start to require that level of preparation on a regular basis I'll stop running them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it is the scenario and scenario writer's fault that this was a poor event. The writer was the one who made this such a convoluted mess that it was and if a scenario that takes ~4 hours to play takes 8 hours, 10 hours, or more to prep that is poor scenario design. Especially if you then have to spring a new set of rules on the players that make the Core..."complicated mess" is extremely unfair. Yes, it is complex. However, I honestly can't imagine ever running a scenario that I spent *less* than 4-6 hours preparing, and I happily spend 10 or more if that is what it takes. I *want* my scenarios to require some work for the GM. That work then shows in the resulting game.No, it's not. It's completely FAIR. This scenario was a mess. Penalizing social skills because you want to shoehorn in new rule that not everyone even knows about is ridiculous. From top to bottom this scenario a waste of time, not worth playing and horribly written and conceived, at least from my perspective, and again, since I'm only going off of my experience (because I can't experience this any other way) my calling this a mess is how I feel.
But please, continue to ignore my criticisms and tell me that my perception of my experience playing this disaster show of a scenario is wrong and unfair.
I don't think people are ignoring your criticisms—at least I'm not. They are (to generalize) saying "Hey, our positive experiences don't align with your negative one, so we're uncomfortable with your insistence that this adventure was a 'horribly written and conceived...disaster show of a scenario.'" Just as you don't want your perceptions to be dismissed by them, they don't want their perceptions to be dismissed out of hand by you.
Like most things published for and critiqued by the organized play campaign, my take-aways for this adventure are nuanced. After all, there are some people who have strongly disliked this adventure but also...
Despite how I'm sure it comes across, I'm not one of those people who want all combat all the time. One of my biggest complaints with PFS is that I can't tell one scenario apart from another because the story takes a back seat to the combat in far too many scenarios. But that being said, when I read that this is a social scenario and I bring a character that has 4 or 5 ranks in each of diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and sense motive (and knowledge local, not that it's really a social skill) only to find out that those skills are penalized or just have arbitrarily higher DC's because of some new rule that I wasn't told was going to be featured in the scenario that favors using knowledge x,y or z, or craft this and that, or profession whatever in place of social skills, I feel like I got cheated. Now I'm not saying that the character that I played was some super social character but getting penalized for trying to use the core social skills felt like a kick in the gut.
So I stand by my original statement. Something needs to change. I'd LOVE to see the scenario blurbs state what new, not commonly used rule, will be featured in a scenario (like Ultimate Intrigue social rules, Mass Combat, Words of Power, or whatever) so that I can either read up on those rules or chose to avoid those scenarios. Also, if a scenario is so complex to run (like people have been implying) because of the new, special, rule that's being used, I really think that these kinds of scenarios should be limited to Cons that have PFS leadership oversight or are limited to 5 star GM's to run. While I don't normally like the idea of any scenario being limited like that, for the scenarios that use these kinds of rules that require special setup/prep to run and a 30 minute rundown of the rules to the players, I think I'd be okay with these being limited until the rule is either widely adopted throughout the entire campaign or at least used enough that every player is comfortable with the new rule.